Homemade Chinese AFV: Liu Shijie's U.N. 4X4 "Armored" Car

Liu Shijie taking his homemade "armored" car out for a spin in Huaibei, Anhui. (Photograph via Reuters)

      It is a bit difficult to tell what actual armored car(s) inspired farmer Liu Shijie to construct this homemade "armored" car, let alone why he decided to make it in the first place. Likely, he took ideas from several armored cars to design his. Assuming he took some inspiration from Chinese produced armored cars, Shijie's vehicle has a very passing resemblance to the Qingdoa Dawnshine Model VN3 4X4 export armored car.

     In China, it is illegal for citizens to build weapons of any form so I suspect he was paid a visit by government officials to inspect his vehicle just to be sure all was well. Certainly the "armor" is mild steel and neither the cannon or turret machine gun are real or even capable of firing. The greenish paint and the yellow U.N. insignia would not be too accurate. Typical U.N. armored vehicle coloration was all white with black lettering. Also interesting is that the front wheelbase is wider than the back. The vehicle has a weight of 3 tons. Little else is known about the "armored" car concerning what chassis it was built upon or how large it is.

     All told, Shijie spent 30,000 Chinese Yuan, equivalent to a little over 4,600 U.S. dollars, and six months of construction time to create his vehicle. To illustrate his commitment to building his vehicle, the typical Chinese farmer between 2015 to 2019 had between 8,000 to 12,000 Yuan of disposable income (1,234 to 1,852 U.S. dollars) to use after meeting all other financial spending. Thus, to collect the needed funds to build the vehicle, Shijie had to save for several years. Of course, this is not to say others did not contribute to the funding.

Supermarine Walrus: Goodbye from the HMS Liverpool

(Author's Collection)

     A Supermarine Walrus from the Town-class light cruiser HMS Liverpool is lowered into the water. On the back of the photograph is written: “Our plane that never came back. Liverpool.” Research into this lament sounding sentence shows that what one thinks is the obvious turns out not to be. The HMS Liverpool, commissioned in November 1938, carried three Supermarine Walrus aircraft onboard though only one catapult was fitted to the ship. The primary purpose of the Walrus was twofold: carry out aerial patrolling to search for submarines and enemy surface ships and to perform air-sea rescue when called upon. I started my investigation into the loss of the Walrus on the assumption that it was downed during the extensive combat the HMS Liverpool saw while with the 7th. Cruiser Squadron of the British Mediterranean Fleet when it went into action against Italian naval ships in June 1940. During the months long campaign, the HMS Liverpool was torpedoed and bombed by Italian aircraft with one torpedo hit destroying the bow of the ship to the point that it separated from the ship while the Liverpool was under tow. Given the significant action the ship saw and the activity of the Italian air force during the skirmishes, it seemed natural to assume that the Walrus had been shot down while patrolling except that in finding an accounting of the ship’s war record, there is nothing about the loss of one of its Walrus aircraft. Then, an alternate search turned up a lead which explained the hand written caption on the photo as well as explained why no Walrus loss was given on the ship’s combat record. 

     When the HMS Liverpool first entered service, it was deployed to the 5th. Cruiser Squadron which was operating in the Far East Theater in 1939-1940. At the time, Hong Kong was bereft of military assets with much of it having been recalled to England to support British forces in Europe. The RAF had a minuscule presence at Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong, being outfitted with a mere three old Vickers Vildebeest biplane torpedo bombers. The airport did feature a slipway for seaplanes to exit Kowloon Bay. When the HMS Liverpool pulled into Hong Kong in January 1940, two of the three Walrus’ were left with the RAF at Kai Tak with the tail codes L 2259 and L 2819. 

     Although the photograph is blurred significantly, the Walrus seems to be L 2819. What appears to be camouflage on the Walrus is actually shadows of the ship’s crew watching the proceedings from the deck. The note on the back of the picture was more lamenting the fact a part of their ship was being left behind rather than lost in combat and that the Walrus photographed was not lost to enemy action accounts for why it was not recorded in the ship’s war record. Tai Tak Airport, and Hong Kong proper, fell to the Japanese on December 25, 1941. When the Japanese commenced the attack on December 8, Tai Tak was targeted by Japanese bombers and the RAF aircraft were wiped out on the ground save one Vildebeest which was abandoned and the RAF personnel went on to defend the city as foot troops.

The Type 3 Ho-Ni III Tank Destroyer: Last of the Line

Ho-Ni III tank destroyers and Type 3 Chi-Nu medium tanks belonging to the Imperial Japanese Army's 4th. Tank Division after the war. (U.S. Army Signal Corps)

     The tanks of Japan throughout the World War Two years, taken as a whole, showed a more or less obsolescence in comparison to not only German tanks but also many Allied tanks. A factor in this was that the opponents the Japanese faced in the early years of the war either did not have significant anti-tank capability or the tanks that opposed the Japanese were obsolete themselves or deployed in such a manner as to be ineffective. Prior to the war, the Japanese did not pay much heed to heavy tanks though wisely, they had abandoned tankettes which were of limited combat value. There was not the arms race as was seen between Germany and the Allies (namely the British, the U.S., and the Soviet Union). Thus, when the Japanese began to fight against U.S. tanks such as the M4 Sherman and M3 Lee medium tanks, a sizable majority of the Japanese light and medium tanks came up short. To compound matters, by 1943, U.S. bombing raids against Japanese industry started to impact Japanese tank production which in and of itself was suffering from a lack of skilled labor, material shortages, and given a lower priority versus aircraft and naval vessel construction. While the Japanese sought to put forward more powerful tanks to compare favorably against the Allies, it was a race that was already lost. A concept that the Japanese did not put significant effort towards until it was too late was that of the tank destroyer. A simplified definition of a tank destroyer was a combat vehicle whose sole mission was to seek out and destroy enemy tanks. A sizable majority of tank destroyers used in action by both the Axis and the Allies consisted of heavy caliber guns mounted on tank chassis already in production with the guns in limited traverse mountings fitted into turretless superstructures. By using existing tank chassis, this eased logistical concerns (for example, parts supply) while dispensing with turrets simplified production, lowered cost, and permitted larger caliber guns which existing turrets may not have been able to accommodate. Examples of this type of tank destroyer included the German Jagdpanther (which used the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther chassis), the Soviet SU-100 tank destroyer (which used the chassis of the T-34 medium tank), and the British Archer (which used the chassis of the Valentine infantry tank).

     The first tank destroyer the Japanese put into service was the Type 1 Ho-Ni I. It utilized the chassis of the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank and the turret was removed and replaced with a open casemate that provided armor protection from the front and sides only. For a weapon, the Type 90 75mm field gun was utilized which could fire a wide array of ammunition that included high-explosive, armor-piercing, incendiary, smoke, illumination, and anti-personnel (shrapnel) rounds. It also boasted a range of a little over 9 miles which compared well against its contemporaries. The limited traverse mounting provided a gun depression of -5 degrees, a maximum elevation of 25 degrees, and 20 degrees to the left and right. To effect further traverse, the entire Ho-Ni had to move. The casemate provided 51mm of armor on the front and sides though the hull only supported 25mm of armor. No defensive machine-gun was fitted. A total of 54 rounds of ammunition were provided. The prototype Ho-Ni I was completed in June 1941 and after evaluation, production started in 1942. In all, only 26 Ho-Ni I tank destroyers were built and the first of these did not see combat until January 1945 during the Battle of Luzon with the tank destroyers being under the Imperial Japanese Army's 2nd. Tank Division. Their small number, combined with Allied superiority, meant they had little effect on the outcome and those Ho-Ni I vehicles which remained also had little impact on Allied operations.

     In July 1942, a successor was tested and this would become the Type 1 Ho-Ni II. The Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank again provided the chassis but this time, the casemate was slightly modified to include four observation visors (the Ho-Ni I only had two) and a new gun was fitted, the Type 91 105mm howitzer. The gun was capable of firing much the same ammunition types as the Type 90. Following testing, the Ho-Ni II was put into production beginning in 1943 but like its predecessor, production output was very limited with only 54 examples being completed sometime in 1944. The gun's range of motion was much the same as the Ho-Ni I except elevation was limited to 20 degrees. Also, the Ho-Ni II carried less ammunition given the larger, two part shells (projectile and power bag) used by the Type 91. Unlike the Ho-Ni I which was used both in the direct fire, anti-tank role as well as indirect fire, the Ho-Ni II served more as a self-propelled gun, providing indirect fire in the support role rather than engaging enemy tanks. A handful of Ho-Ni II saw combat during the Burma and Philippines campaigns in 1944 and 1945.

     The Ho-Ni II was not to be the last and the final successor, and shown here, was the Type 3 Ho-Ni III. Of the Ho-Ni family, the Ho-Ni III was the most capable. It continued the use of the Type 97 Chi-Ha chassis but utilized a completely redesigned casemate which provided complete protection for the crew by being totally enclosed and was slightly enlarged to allow for more room for the gunners to operate. Two hatches were fitted to the top of the casemate and the entire back portion of the casemate could open up via two hinged panels. However, armor protection was less, being a maximum of 25mm on all sides. This reduction in armor may have been the result of needing weight savings given the casemate redesign. Another change was a rearrangement of observation visors of which one was on each side and two in the rear with four horizontal vision slits cut into the front of the casemate. Underneath the slits and the visors was a vertical slit which were likely to allow the crew inside to utilize small arms to defend the Ho-Ni III in close combat given the vehicle did have any defensive machine-gun. Each of the vertical slits had a shutter on the interior that closed off the slits when not in use. Finally, the potent Type 3 75mm gun was fitted as this gun was also used on the Type 3 Chi-Nu medium tank which was designed to go up against the M4 Sherman on relatively equal terms. At 1,000 meters, the Type 3 gun was capable of penetrating up to 65mm of armor which could go through the frontal armor of a Sherman (which, model depending, was around 50mm). Hitachi Ltd. was tasked with designing the Ho-Ni III and early in 1944, production commenced but due to the late war situation, only a limited number were built with numbers ranging from as few as 21 to as many as 41 (source depending) being finished. Sources also differ on if any Ho-Ni III were deployed into combat but the majority agree that it is very likely most, if not the entire production run of Ho-Ni III tank destroyers were kept within Japan to counter the anticipated invasion by the Allies of the home islands.

The Phalange Africaine: The Afrika Korps' French Volunteer Legion

A captured Phalange Africaine soldier sometime in 1943. The helmet decal, unique to the unit, is described below.

     The Phalange Africaine (“African Phalanx”) was one of the shorter lived units of World War II. The formation of the unit was in response to Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of French North Africa which commenced on November 8, 1942. Invasion forces landed in Morocco and Algeria but originally, Tunis, Tunisia was to have been included as it represented the chance to interdict supply lines that supported the Afrika Korps. However, the relative close proximity of Luftwaffe forces in Sicily and Sardinia saw Tunis stricken from the plans. Instead, the Algeria landings and an overland push on Tunis had to suffice. Returning to the Phalange Africaine, the invasion saw the 6th. Congress of the French People's Party (6e Congrès du Parti Populaire Français) in Paris, France authorize the formation of the Phalange Africaine and a list of officers was drawn up. Originally, 60 officers were listed but it was cut down to only 15. In the end, only 6 officers arrived in Tunis on December 28, 1942. By this time, Tunis was no longer in Vichy French hands. Instead, the Germans, knowing there was little fight in the Vichy French forces, had pumped three German divisions, two Italian infantry divisions, and Luftwaffe assets into Tunis to contest the coming Allied attack on the city.

     The Phalange Africaine was led by Lieutenant-Colonel Pierre Simon Cristofini and with the approval of Heinrich Otto Abetz, the ambassador to Vichy France, Cristofini commenced recruitment. This was done by recruiting those soldiers still loyal to the Vichy cause, impressing Vichy troops from destroyed units, and enlisting French or native men into the unit. However, the unit failed to fill the ranks with men to the point that the majority of the Phalange Africaine was made up of native Tunisians. It is believed Cristofini was the cause of the lackluster recruitment drives and when he was injured in a training accident on January 23, 1943 and sent to Sicily to recover, recruiting improved. The number of recruits vary, source depending. Numbers from 130 men to as many as 450 men have been cited. What is known is that the unit was a mixture of the young, the old, and crippled (but who could still at least fight) as well as a mixture of soldiers and civilians. Most were sympathizers to the Vichy and collaborationist causes. The Germans, however, had other ideas for the Phalange Africaine. They cut the unit down to the size of one company, which would consist of around 200 men, under the command of Captain André Dupuis. The training was conducted under German oversight, the German cadre having all been veterans of combat on the Eastern Front. The Phalange Africaine troops learned to fight the German way, to include anti-tank and anti-aircraft battle techniques. The majority of the heavy weapons, anti-tank guns, and mortars were of French manufacture while German Gewehr k98 rifles made up the majority of the unit's small arms. On April 5, 1943, Generalmajor Friedrich Weber, commander of the 334. Infanteriedivision, felt the Phalange Africaine was ready for combat after observing the unit during training maneuvers. The unit formed a company within the 2.Bataillon, 754.Panzergrenadier Regiment, 334. Infanteriedivision. There, it had the nickname Franzosische Freiwilligen Legion (French Volunteer Legion). 

     The first engagement fought by the Phalange Africaine was against elements of the British 78th. Infantry Division near Medjez-El-Bab from April 8 through May 7, 1943. 170 men were on the front lines, the remainder in the rear to support supply operations. The Phalage Africaine acquitted itself well, with seven soldiers being decorated with the Iron Cross from Generalmajor Weber himself. However, throughout the combat, the Phalange Africaine had been pounded almost daily by British artillery and attacked by Royal Air Force fighters and fighter-bombers to the point that by May 7, 57 men were missing, 7 wounded, and 6 killed. May 7 also spelled the end of the Phalange Africaine's existence. With the inevitable capture of Tunis by the Allies, the Phalange Africaine was dissolved. Some of the men, mainly officers, evacuated to France while others made for Italy or Spain. Those unlucky enough to not have the means to escape the country sought to blend in with the populace but many were exposed and arrested. In all, some 200 former Phalange Africaine men were put on trial beginning in April 1944. Sentences varied depending on many factors. Those who were minors at the time of enlistment were simply sent home or served in work sites. Regular ex-soldiers of the Phalange Africaine were sent to Algerian or Moroccan regiments to serve out tours of duty. Former officers either suffered execution or hard labor. The very last Phalange Africaine soldier left prison in 1953.

     The uniform of the Phalange Africaine was that of the regular French infantry in the area. The only German issued items were helmets, mantel (great coat), and boots. The photograph of what is likely a captured Phalange Africaine soldier (judging by what appears to be a British soldier in the background) shows the helmet to good effect and the unique Phalange Africaine helmet emblem which consisted of the French flag colors of blue, white, and red with the entire border being white. However, the flag colors were reversed on the helmet, matching the original color positions of the French flag before 1794. On the other side of the helmet was a white double-headed ax on a black shield edged in white. Both the flag and the emblem were hand painted on each helmet. Phalange Africaine soldiers also wore a badge on their tunic which was much the same as the helmet badge except the ax and the edging was in yellow. This soldier holds a cheich in his hands, a traditional scarf used by French colonial forces.

 

Oberleutnant Rudi Wolfmüller: A Post-War Fraud?

     Luftwaffe Oberleutnant Rudi Wolfmüller is a man who has been cause for some debate amongst amateur historians. Certainly the images show someone highly decorated and in so doing, some feel he is too decorated and that Wolfmüller was never in the Luftwaffe, let alone World War II and is, in fact, a post-war fraud. Amongst the forums, evidence for and against Wolfmüller have been put forth, to include the sample of his soldbuch showing his decorations and another photograph of Wolfmüller. The latter two have been discredited by some, pointing out that the soldbuch is a forgery as evidenced by the fact the handwriting is identical despite spanning years and that the photograph was retouched. At least one detractor felt he shouldn’t be wearing all of the cuff titles on his sleeves. However, the forum poster was mostly incorrect (see below) as three of the four cuff titles are campaign cuff titles with the fourth being his actual unit cuff title. All in all, it appears that the consensus is that Rudi Wolfmüller is a post-war fraud. You can be your own judge. 

     So, what are all the decorations? Starting with the left breast pocket, the medals are: Frontflugspange (Front Flying Clasp) (possibly for Zerstörer (destroyers)) then another Frontflugspange for Jäger (fighters) with three pennants for missions flown, the African Campaign Medal, Wound Badge in Black, Iron Cross First Class, Pilot’s Badge, and the civil Gliding Proficiency Badge (“A” Achievement). The ribbon bar has the Iron Cross Second Class, what appears like the Austrian Annexation Badge (which would be odd to have crossed swords on it), Sudetenland Medal with plaque, two I am not sure about, and the last being the ribbon for the African Campaign Medal. Moving to the right breast pocket, the medals are: German Cross in Gold, the Spanienkreuz (Spanish Cross), possibly the Luftwaffe long service medal, and two other medals I am not able to make out. The ribbon through his button hole is the Iron Cross Second Class ribbon while around his neck is the Knight’s Cross. The campaign cuff titles are Afrika, Kreta, and Afrika Korps. The Afrika Korps cuff title was not a campaign title per se but was worn by troops who were fighting in the African Theater as a means of unit recognition. Curiously, the Heer (Army) version is being worn here rather than the official Luftwaffe one which only read “Afrika”. Once the fighting ceased in Africa and the DAK (Deutsche Afrika Korps) disbanded, ex-Afrika Korps soldiers continued to wear the cuff title against regulations. To make it official, the Afrika campaign cuff title was created and thus soldiers should have removed the Afrika Korps cuff title. The Kreta cuff title was awarded to those who took part in the Battle of Crete. The unit cuff title reads Geschwader Horst Wessel and was worn by those flying with Fliegergeschwader Dortmund (later Zerstörergeschwader 26).