The M3 Medium Tank: A "Mass Grave for Six"

Knocked out Lend-Lease Soviet M3 tanks. (Author's Collection)

     Following the fall of France in 1940, the U.S. saw that the new M2 Medium Tank that had been ordered for production was woefully inadequate in terms of armament and design when compared to the German PzKpfw III and IV. Thus, on June 5, 1940, it was decided that a new medium tank had to be developed to succeed the M2 even before any metal was cut on the M2 order. The M2 used a M6 37mm gun in its turret and the new design had to have at least a 75mm gun. Since the M2 turret was much too small to house a larger gun, a completely new turret had to be designed that would not be ready quickly. So, a compromise to field a medium tank with a heavier hitting gun resulted in the T5E2. The T5E2 was a modification of the T5 Phase III tank which was the prototype for the M2. A 75mm gun was mounted in a sponson that was fitted in the T5's modified hull and in time, this would evolve into the the M3 medium tank. The M3 is sometimes derided as being an inferior tank but one must keep in mind it was meant as an interim tank until the new, turreted medium tank could be put into service (this would be the M4 Sherman). The M3 was not without faults and it retained the tall profile of the M2, the hull position of the 75mm gun meant the entire tank had to move in order to bring the gun to bear on targets which were outside the limited traverse, and the riveted armor plating was prone to spalling when hit. Still, the firepower was respected by those facing the M3, especially in the North African theater. 

     The same, however, wasn't the case on the Eastern Front. 22% of all the M3 tanks built were sent to Russia under Lend-Lease and of the 1,386 sent, only 969 made it to Russia due to shipping interception by the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe. The main models sent were the M3A3 and M3A5 and they were deployed into combat in 1942, mainly with the 13th. Corps under the 1st. Tank Army. The Soviets had no love for the M3, stating that its armor was inadequate against the more potent anti-tank guns fielded by the Germans, its cross-country performance was poor due to its narrow tracks (in comparison to the wider T-34 tracks), its high profile and hull mounted main gun made going hull down impossible (a tactic to hide the tank's chassis with only the turret exposed), and the need to turn the tank to aim the 75mm gun resulted in longer engagement times. Soviet tankers gave the M3 the grim nickname "Bratskoy Mogiloy na Shesterykh" which meant "Mass Grave for Six". 

     Despite the faults, the Soviets used the M3 to fill gaps in their forces until T-34 production could replace them. The M3 was used in the Battle of Kursk, the largest armor battle of World War 2, and was deployed with three units: the 200th. Tank Brigade (6th. Tank Corps), the 237th. Tank Brigade (31st. Tank Corps) and the 242nd. Tank Brigade (also 31st. Tank Corps). These brigades ran into elements of the II SS Panzer Corps during the opening engagements at Kursk along the Voronezh Front and were decimated as these two tanks attest. The only other user of the M3 was the 120th. Tank Brigade but it was held in reserves until early 1944 when it was deployed in support of the Belorussian Front before being disbanded in June 1944. Those M3 tanks which remained after Kursk were often redeployed to fronts where resistance was expected to be minimal or put into reserves or used for training. Returning to the M2, the original order of 1,000 M2A1 tanks was reduced to 126 and of that, 94 were received by the U.S. Army between November 1940 and August 1941. These tanks were utilized for training and for testing purposes within the U.S. and were never used in combat. 

     As a note, the object on the end of the M3's main gun in the front of the photograph is a counterweight that balanced the M2 75mm gun with its gyro-stabilizer. The longer barreled M3 75mm gun used in later M3 models eliminated the need for the counterweight. Not all of the short barrel guns had the counterweight fitted.

Unteroffizieranwärter: Panzer-Division Hermann Göring

     An interesting studio portrait of a Unteroffizieranwärter (NCO Aspirant) of either a Sturmartillerie (assault artillery) or Sturmgeschütz (assault gun) unit belonging to the Luftwaffe's elite Hermann Göring Division. That he is a NCO candidate is indicated by the single loop of tress around his uniform's shoulderboards (Schulterstücke). That he belongs to either an assault artillery or assault gun unit is based on his uniform which is typical of those worn by such crews. It is a field grey version of the all-black uniform as worn by tank crews. This particular jacket is a pre-1944 version as it retains the white piping around the collars. After 1944, this was left off the uniform to simplify manufacture. A more telling indication of a possible early dating of the photograph is due to the white collartabs. There appears to be no piping around the collartabs and this was indicative of uniform changes after June 1943. Before this time, the collartabs would have had a pink piping. The totenkopf (death's head) pinned through the collartabs are the standard Heer (Army) model as used by Heer panzer troops. Another indicator of a 1943 date is that in January 1944, men were ordered to remove the white collartabs due to their conspicuousness and the totenkopf would be pinned directly to the collars. The shoulderboards were piped in pink in keeping with Waffenfarbe (Corps Colors) standards. The unit's cufftitle (seen on his right sleeve), for enlisted men, was a mid- to dark blue band with block capital letters spelling out HERMANN GÖRING. 

     His only decoration is the Hitler Jugend Leistungsabzeichen (Hitler Youth Proficiency Badge) which was awarded to a Hitler Youth member who excelled in physical fitness/sports as well as ideological proficiency all of which was measured by means of numerous tests. He appears to be wearing a white service shirt with a black tie. It is likely this choice was done for his portrait as in the field, the regular blue or field grey colored service shirts were the usual fare for such crews.

Soviet T-35 Heavy Tank: Not Going Down Without a Fight

    Of all the T-35 tanks to be photographed by the Germans, T-35A (Chassis 0200-0) was the most popular. In part, this was due to it being along a major route. The tank was part of the Soviet 68th. Tank Regiment and was one of the few T-35 tanks which actually saw combat. On June 30, 1941, four T-35 tanks (including 0200-0) comprised the main force of an ad-hoc tank group assembled to participate in the Battle of Verba which was the last significant engagement in the larger Battle of Brody which ran from June 23 to June 30, 1941. The group consisted of the four T-35s, one KV-1 heavy tank (from the 34th. Tank Division), two T-26 light tanks (also from the 34th. Tank Division), and two BT-7 fast tanks. Verba Road was a two-lane road with the lanes separated by a ditch. The group split up with two T-35s (including 0200-0), the KV-1, and the T-26 tanks in one unit while the remaining T-35s were paired with the BT-7 tanks and each moved out down one of the lanes towards the German held town of Verba. There, elements of the 16th. Panzer Division and the XXXXVIII Motorized Division were situated to repel the Soviet attack. 

     0200-0 was struck by anti-tank fire which caused it to veer off the road into the ditch. It is believed either track damage or a hit to the driver’s position was the reason for the crash. The tank continued to give battle by means of its 45mm gun armed secondary turret before a German anti-tank round struck the barrel (visible in the picture as a whitish spot on the barrel). This finally rendered the tank silent. Overall, the Soviet attack, devoid of any kind of support, was easily repulsed with every one of the Soviet tanks being put out of action though the Germans suffered the loss of two PzKpfw III tanks and three trucks in the process. 

     0200-0 would be photographed by passing soldiers well into 1942 by which time the tank had completely slid into the ditch. Soviet tanks were usually devoid of extensive markings and the Red Star can just be made out next to the soldier closest to the tank and on the central, main turret can be seen two white lines which denoted the tank belonging to the 68th. Tank Regiment.

Schütze: 32. Infanterie-Division

(Author's Collection)

     A studio portrait of a schütze (private) belonging to the 32. Infanterie-Division. He is wearing the waffenrock (“uniform tunic”) which was a non-combat uniform that was worn for taking part in parades, more formal walking-out dress, and for other military or civil ceremonies and ceremonial duty when formal dress was required. His unit is denoted by the “32” stitched to his schulterklappen (shoulder boards) and what company he was assigned to was given as a number or Roman numeral on the button that secures the shoulder boards to the waffenrock. Unfortunately, this cannot be made out in this photograph. He is wearing the standard enlisted rank schirmmütze (“uniform cap”) which was proscribed for wear in much the same situations as the waffenrock. 

     The 32. Infanterie-Division was formed on October 1, 1936 and took part in the invasion of Poland, France, and Russia. The division was also tasked for the aborted Operation Sea Lion (Unternehmen Seelöwe), the invasion of the United Kingdom. The division was part of the Courland Pocket and ceased to exist on May 10, 1945 when it and other remnants of various German forces trapped in the Courland Pocket surrendered to the Russians.
 

The Republic XF-84H: The USAF's "Mighty Ear Banger"

The first XF-84H prototype in flight. (USAF; Author's Collection)

     In the early 1950s, the U.S. Navy was seeking a fighter that was capable of launching from an aircraft carrier without the assistance of a catapult. Republic Project 3347 was initiated and the Navy asked for three prototypes but the Navy elected to cancel the contract but not after two prototypes were already nearing completion. Not wanting to waste the effort, the two aircraft, designated XF-84H, were used by the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF) Wright Air Development Center to conduct testing on supersonic propellers. Republic derived the XF-84H from their F-84F Thunderstreak which was already in service with the USAF and fitted a 5,850hp Allison XT40-A-1 turboprop engine into the rear of the fuselage and via an extension shaft, drove a 12ft. diameter Aeroproducts propeller. The engine’s exhaust was shunted out through an afterburner in the tail. A novel feature was an extendable ram air turbine which could power both hydraulic and electrical systems in case of engine failure. 

     The propeller, at speed, created tremendous torque and the outer portion of the blades spun at supersonic speeds which produced continuous sonic booms even when the engine was idling. So loud was the aircraft that it could be heard some 25 miles away. This made being around the XF-84H hazardous as the concussion from the shock waves from the sonic booms could literally blow unwary ground crew away and the din not only caused nausea and headaches in personnel (even with ear protection), it also disrupted sensitive components due to vibrations in nearby electronics. So loud was the aircraft that radio communication was impossible and signal lights had to be used by ground crew to talk to the pilot. This earned the XF-84H the name “Thunderscreech” (most commonly associated with the plane) but also the “Mighty Ear Banger.” The USAF never put pilots in the seat of the XF-84H and all test flights were carried out by Republic with the first occurring on July 22, 1955. Besides the noise, in the air, the XF-84H suffered from propeller induced vibrations, blade pitch gear failures, hydraulic failures, engine failures, longitudal instability, and that it took nearly a half hour to get the engine warmed up. So bad was the aircraft that after one flight, Republic test pilot Lin Hendrix was quoted as saying to the project’s lead engineer, "You aren't big enough and there aren't enough of you to get me in that thing again". 

     Ultimately, despite the design’s impressive acceleration, the XF-84H’s numerous problems which could not be easily resolved and the inability for the plane to reach its performance metrics, the USAF canceled the project in September 1956. The second prototype (51-17060 [FS-060]) was scrapped while the first (51-17059 [FS-059]) was mounted on a post at Meadows Field Airport in Bakersfield, California where an electric motor mounted inside the fuselage turned the propeller. In 1992, it became the gate guardian for the Ohio Air National Guard’s 178th. Wing based at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport in Springfield, Ohio. Today, it is now housed in the collection at the National Museum of the United States Air Force near Dayton, Ohio on the grounds of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

     The photograph is of the first prototype and the ram air turbine is not deployed. It is situated just forward of the black marking on the vertical stabilizer. Both prototypes featured the “Stars and Bars” inside the cockpit, behind the pilot’s seat.

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 not 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).

The Vickers-Carden-Lloyd A4E12: An Export Success Story

The A4E12 under test, demonstrating its amphibious capability. (Author's Collection)

     In the 1930s Britain, there was an apathy in the high command towards modernizing and expanding Britain’s tank force. In part, this was a legacy of World War One thinking in which tanks were not seen as being a true, equal component of an armed force and also that it was felt World War One would be the last global conflict. Despite this, there was fairly significant tank development in England and in most cases, it wasn’t to interest the British military but to entice foreign buyers. Numerous nations either did not have the technical ability to build tanks or they did not have the manufacturing infrastructure to produce tanks and so looking elsewhere and using hard currency was a way to obtain tanks and other armored vehicles. One such vehicle was the Vickers-Carden-Lloyd A4E12 light amphibious tank. 

     To achieve buoyancy, the A4E12 sacrificed so much armor protection that it could barely hold the designation of light tank. At the maximum, the A4E12 sported 11mm of armor. Additional buoyancy came from the balsa wood floats which were encased in sheet steel and fitted to the hull sides above the tracks. The A4E12, on water, moved via a propeller fitted to the rear of the tank and a rudder provided steering. Armament consisted of a single Vickers .303in. machine-gun. Export sales, however, were fairly brisk for the A4E12 and China, the Dutch East Indies, Thailand, and the Soviet Union were all buyers of the tank. The Chinese 12th. Army Group would deploy the A4E12 into action against the Japanese in the Second Sino-Japanese War which began on July 7, 1937. In the end, all but one remained in Chinese service (as a training tank) though during the battles, the Japanese captured a few in functional condition and used them against the Chinese. 

     The Soviet Union purchased eight A4E12 tanks for trials and enamored with the A4E12, used it as the basis for the T-37 light amphibious tank. The T-37 was not an outright copy of the British design but the A4E12 did provide the influence for the Soviet tank. The T-37 saw extensive action against the Finnish in the Winter War and against the Germans following the 1941 invasion. However, the severe lack of armor (9mm maximum) saw most of the T-37 tanks destroyed with the few which survived being relegated to the training role. 

     One of the Soviet Union’s purchased A4E12 tanks survives today and is on display at the Kubinka Tank Museum outside Moscow, Russia.

Ordnance BL 15in. Howitzer Mk.I: A Gun The British Military Didn't Want

     In October 1914, the Royal Marines were reorganized in order to create two Royal Marine Artillery brigades. One served as an anti-aircraft artillery brigade while the other became the Royal Marine Howitzer Brigade (RMHB) under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel G. R. Poole. With a strength of around 1,000 men, the RMHB was split into twelve, one gun batteries. Each battery was composed of 60 men. A training facility was arranged for at Fort Cumberland, located in Portsmouth, UK. The guns deployed by the RMHB was the Ordnance Breech Loading (BL) 15in. Howitzer Mk.I and the RMHB would be the only unit to use them. 

     Coventry Ordnance Works, buoyed by their success with the 9.2in. howitzer, designed the BL 15in. gun on their own. However, with no military request for the gun, Coventry Ordnance Works used its influence within the British Admiralty to attempt to get interest in the product. At that time, Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and saw the opportunity to get the Royal Navy involved in the land conflict in France. He authorized the purchase of 12 of the guns and so equipped, the RMHB would be sent to the Western Front in February 1915. The BL 15in. howitzer weighed around 94 tons and required three Foster-Daimler 105hp tractors to move. It could throw a 1,450lb shell out to a maximum range of 6.1 miles. Although effective enough when it came to eliciting destruction on German forces, the range was less than other, more capable guns and the time it took to bring the gun into action and the support required to operate it were detriments to its continued use. 

     Churchill’s support for the RMHB faded away in light of the performance of the howitzers and in time, the guns were forced onto the British Army who did not want them. Still, under Army oversight, RMHB crews served the weapons during the Battle of the Somme (September 1916) and the Third Battle of Ypres (October 1917). The guns were declared obsolete shortly after World War One and all of them were scrapped by 1920.

Char B1 (n° 257) “Bourrasque”: The French Tank Terror

German soldiers pose beside "Bourrasque" after the crew surrendered to elements of Panzer-Abteilung I near Mortiers. (Author's Collection)

     The brief story of the Saint-Chamond constructed Char B1 “Bourrasque” (n° 257) practically steps out of a Hollywood war film. Originally, the tank was delivered to the 508e RCC (Régiment de Chars de Combat) early in 1939 but by September 1939, the tank had been transferred to the 15e BCC (Bataillon de Chars de Combat) and assigned to 1ère Compagnie. In charge of “Bourrasque” was Lieutenant Sauret and his crew consisted of Sergent Seguin (driver), Caporal Gentner (gunner), and Chasseur Mogrédien (radio operator). 

     On May 16, 1940, the day before what would become the Battle of Montcornet, four tanks plus “Bourrasque” were gathered together at a rally point. Each of them had some battle damage, some worse than others but the common problem all the tanks had was a lack of fuel. It was decided that two of the tanks (“Martinique” [n° 207] and “L’Aquitaine” [n° 213]) would have their fuel and ammunition removed and distributed to the other tanks and then the two tanks would be scuttled. “Bourrasque” would tow the remaining two tanks (“Toulon” [n° 235] and “Tempête” [n° 267]) towards the jump-off point in order to preserve as much fuel as possible. On March 17, the attack on Montcornet commenced at 4:14am and as the tanks moved towards the Germans, at around 6am, a German truck laden with infantry blundered into the path of the tanks. The alert French commanders quickly brought the 47mm turret guns into action and destroyed the truck and the surviving German soldiers scattered and fled in the face of the tanks’ machine-gun fire. The tanks continued on but soon “Bourrasque” was nearly empty of fuel and the convoy stopped. It was decided that the fuel tanks of “Toulon” and “Tempête” would be drained and transferred to “Bourrasque” and the tank would travel towards Pargny where it was believed resupply could be had. 

     “Bourrasque” reached Pargny but the hoped for fuel was nowhere to be found and so Lt. Sauret kept driving south in search of any French refueling point. On the way, the tank ran into motorcycle elements (likely Kradschützen-Battalion 1) of Kampfgruppe Nedwig which had been advancing on Mortiers. Lt. Sauret ordered the tank to drive right into and through the motorcycle column, firing every gun the tank had into the panicked German troops who were thrown into complete disarray. Word of a lone French tank reached the 1st. Panzer Division and the unit dispatched a full battalion of anti-tank gun and armor assets from Panzer-Abteilung I to deal with “Bourrasque”. 

     The Germans caught up with “Bourrasque” outside of Mortiers and took it under fire. Repeated hits by PaK 36 37mm guns and even the short barrel 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 guns of Panzer III medium tanks failed to stop “Bourrasque” but both ammunition and fuel finally ran out for the French tank and at 11:15am on May 17, 1940, Lt. Sauret and his crew surrendered to the troops of Panzer-Abteilung I.