The Vought F4U: Corsairs in the RNZAF

Men of RNZAF Base Depot Workshop Unit 60 on Espiritu Santo island prepare a newly arrived shipment of Corsairs for disbursement to RNZAF units.

     There are few who would argue against the Vought F4U Corsair being one of the premiere carrier fighters of World War Two. The distinctive gull wings were required to permit clearance for the propeller attached to the powerful 2,000hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-8 radial piston engine which moved the Corsair through the air at a maximum speed of 417mph. Development of the Corsair began at Chance-Vought in June 1938 when the company signed a contract with the U.S. Navy to produce a single-engine fighter based on their specifications. By May 29, 1940, the XF4U-1 prototype had taken its first maiden flight. Impressed with the results, the U.S. Navy issued a purchase order on April 2, 1941 and the first unit to receive the new fighter was VF-12 in October 1942. The first unit to take the Corsair into action was VMF-124 of the U.S. Marine Corps where it provided air support for the battles in Bougainville starting in February 1943. For armament, the Corsair was equipped with six 12.7mm machine-guns, three in each wing. For ground support missions, it could carry 4,000lbs. of bombs and/or eight 5” air-to-ground rockets. In aerial combat, the Corsair was well able to deal with the best of Japanese fighters, such as the Mitsubishi A6M Reisen (better known as the “Zero”). The only time the Reisen could best the Corsair was in low speed dog fighting and so Corsair pilots sought to not engage in such battle since doing so played to the Reisen's strengths. All told, the Corsair racked up an impressive 11 to 1 kill ratio against Japanese aircraft during World War Two. The U.S. was not the only user of the Corsair as both the British Royal Navy Fleet Arm Arm operated some 2,012 Corsairs of various makes, the Royal Netherlands Navy flew 35 Corsairs, and the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) equipped thirteen squadrons with the Corsair.

     The photograph shows a line-up of F4U-1 Corsairs on the island of Espiritu Santo which is part of the nation of Vanuatu which is 1,090 miles east of northern Australia. During World War Two, the island was used by the U.S. Army Air Force and the U.S. Navy as a supply and support base, harbor, and airfield. The Corsairs shown here were shipped from the U.S. on May 14, 1944 aboard the freighter USS Steamer Bay. The ship arrived at Espiritu Santo on June 2, 1944 where RNZAF Base Depot Workshop Unit 60 began the assembly of the aircraft. After assembly, the aircraft were test flown before being dispersed to units. Visible in the photograph is a F4U-1 with the code “50” on the cowling and underneath it is the inscription “Struggle Buggy”. This particular Corsair had the U.S. Navy serial 49960 and the RZNAF code NZ5350 and was initially issued to No.31 Squadron RZNAF on September 3, 1944 though why this was so is unclear given the unit was primarily a torpedo bomber squadron equipped with Grumman TBF Avengers and sometime in August 1944, the unit was deactivated. By December 1944, “Struggle Buggy” was allocated to No.14 Squadron RZNAF for a brief period before it was directed to No.21 Squadron RZNAF on December 18, 1944. At this time, the unit was commanded by Squadron Leader L.R. Bush who led the unit through the Guadalcanal and Bougainville campaigns. In March 1945, the squadron received a new commander, Squadron Leader W.J. MacLeod who remained with the unit until its disbandment in September 1945. Following the war, this Corsair was returned to New Zealand and on March 2, 1948, it was sold to one J. Larson who lived in Palmerston North, New Zealand. It is unknown if this Corsair remains today. 

The 8.8cm Flak 41 (Sf) mit Panther I Bauteile: Drawing Board Flakpanzer

Armin Hage's excellent model of the proposed 8.8cm Flak 41 (Sf) mit Panther I Bauteile.

     If one examines the many German self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAGs) produced or designed during World War Two, two of the production medium tank chassis were utilized for mounting anti-aircraft guns and these were the Panzerkampfwagen PzKpfw IV, and not surprisingly, the PzKpfw V Panther. Of the two, the PzKpfw IV had the only SPAAG variants that saw production and combat use and these included the Möbelwagen (single 3.7cm FlaK 43), Wirbelwind (four barrel 2cm Flakvierling), and the Ostwind (single 3.7cm FlaK 43). Several experimental designs emerged as well, to include the Gerät 556 (Kugelblitz) armed with twin 3cm MK 108 cannons, a variant of the Möbelwagen mounting the same 2cm Flakvierling as the Wirbelwind, the Ostwind II equipped with two 3.7cm FlaK 43 guns, and the Flakpanzer IV (Zerstörer 45) armed with the four barrel 3cm Flakvierling 103/38. All of the experimental PzKpfw IV SPAAG designs made it to at least a single working prototype. The same cannot be said at all for the SPAAG variants of the Panther.

     The image shown here displays a nicely done “what if” model by Armin Hage of the first of what would become several Panther based SPAAG designs. The vehicle had the very long name of 8.8cm Flak 41 (Sf) mit Panther I Bauteile which translated as 8.8cm Flak 41, Self-Propelled, with Panther I Components. The designer was Rheinmetall-Borsig and the first draft of the new SPAAG was completed by October 24, 1943. As the name suggested, the basis of the vehicle was the Panther already in production. Thus, it kept much the same components to include the suspension, drive train, driver controls, AK 7-200 transmission, and the Maybach HL 230 engine. There was one major change and that was a lengthening of the chassis due to the expansion of the wheelbase to 13.2 feet. The standard Panther had a wheelbase of approximately 12.9 feet. The draft drawings showed that the on each side of the hull were two outriggers so that once the SPAAG was in position, all four outriggers would be deployed to provide for the stability of the gun platform. In addition, Rheinmetall-Borsig envisioned that the Flak 41 gun could be removed from the turret and placed onto the ground and utilized in the more traditional manner. This had some precedent as Rheinmetall-Borsig had an experimental design using the PzKpfw IV chassis which was fitted with a 10.5cm leFH 18/40 field gun mounted in a rotating turret in which the gun could be dismounted. In fact, the trailing arms and the wheels for the field gun were carried on the rear of the hull.

     Rheinmetall-Borsig struggled with the turret design and a report dated January 13, 1944 showed they still had not satisfactorily come up with a workable turret. In any case, it was the end of the 8.8cm Flak 41 SPAAG as on that same day, German military planners decided that the idea of mobile heavy anti-aircraft guns accompanying tanks was flawed. The main flaw was that heavy guns like the Flak 41 were designed to combat high flying aircraft, not low flying fighters or fighter-bombers seeking to attack tank columns. Such guns simply did not have the rapid fire capability nor the ability to quickly track fast moving targets. In addition, it was surmised that regular flak batteries would be able to handle the high flying bombers while smaller caliber cannon would be better suited against low flying aircraft. This, then, was the emphasis for the PzKpfw IV SPAAG developments and the Panther chassis was to be the backup if the PzKpfw IV was not viable. As discussed earlier, three models of SPAAGs derived from the PzKpfw IV were put into production and issued to panzer divisions as part of their anti-aircraft unit composition. Various designs were put forward using the Panther chassis, armed with varied turrets and weapon fits as small as the 2cm MG 151/20 autocannon up to the 5.5cm Gerät 58 gun. Only one design, the Gerät 554, better known as the Flakpanzer “Coelian”, advanced to a mock-up stage when the 1:1 scale wooden mock-up of the Flakpanzer 314 turret with twin wooden 3.7cm gun barrels was fitted to a Panther Ausf D chassis. As for the 8.8cm Flak 41 (Sf) mit Panther I Bauteile, all that that we know of it comes from the existence of single wooden model that was constructed by Rheinmetall-Borsig during the design phase.

     There are no known specifications for the 8.8cm Flak 41 (Sf) mit Panther I Bauteile such as dimensions, performance, and the like. Assumptions can be made but they would be merely that, guesswork. We do know the performance of the Flak 41, which, in its towed form, used a horizontal semi-automatic sliding block with rounds being electrically fired. The gun's elevation was 90 degrees with a maximum gun depression of 3 degrees. With a muzzle velocity of 3,281 feet per second, the maximum ceiling was 9.3 miles, an effective ceiling of 6.6 miles, and maximum horizontal range of 12.2 miles.

Virginia E. "Ginny" Kirsch: Justice Still Not Received

     Virginia E. Kirsch, best known by her nickname Ginny, graduated from Brookfield High School in Brookfield Township, Ohio in 1966. That same year, Kirsch enrolled in Miami of Ohio college in Oxford, Ohio where she joined the Alpha Chi Omega sorority and became a cheerleader. A good student, Kirsch graduated in 1970 at the age of 21 but rather than enter into the workforce, she decided to join the American Red Cross (ARC) and chose to serve in the ARC's Supplemental Recreational Activities Overseas (SRAO) program. Women in the SRAO program were known by U.S. troops as Donut Dollies.

     The SRAO program traced its roots back to the ARC's Clubmobile Service which began in late 1942. A clubmobile was a converted bus or GMC truck that contained a doughnut maker and primus stove with the kitchen side of the bus opening outward for serving food and drinks. In the rear of the clubmobile was a lounge with bench seating (that doubled as beds), a Victrola record player, speakers, a record collection, books, snacks (such as candy and gum), and cigarettes. Each clubmobile had a British driver and was manned by three ARC women. By June 1944, some 100 clubmobiles were in the European theater following the invasion and traveled within the rear area of each U.S. Army Corps. Clubmobiles remained in service until 1946. The SRAO program itself began in 1953. While the ARC had clubs within Korea during the war, they were not mobile which meant soldiers in posts outside of divisional and corps areas could not partake of the clubs that troops in those areas enjoyed. Following the armistice in July 1953, the SRAO revived clubmobiles with the first clubmobile arriving in South Korea on October 3, 1953 and commencing operations near Inchon as part of ASCOM (Army Support Command) though the majority of SRAO operations finally wound down by 1960 although some services remained open. In May 1965, the U.S. Army officially called on the ARC to provide recreational support to U.S. forces in Vietnam as, at that time, only two USO clubs were operating (one in Saigon, the other in Danang) and the U.S. Army's Special Services (sports, film exchange, and mobile library) were mainly confined to the Saigon region. By September 1965, the first clubmobile was set up in Danang, a second operating at Bien Hoa by October 1965, and a third clubmobile unit in Nha Trang by December 1965. As more U.S. troops poured into Vietnam, the SRAO stood up more and more clubmobile operations to support them. By the time 1970 came, the women had to contend with poor morale in the men they served and not only did they have to maintain their own cheerfulness in order to help improve the mood of the soldiers they interacted with, but also to keep up their own morale.

     After receiving her training, Kirsch was deployed to Vietnam for her one year hitch, arriving in-country on August 2, 1970. Her clubmobile unit was based at Cu Chi, the home of the 25th. Infantry Division. Cu Chi was sixteen miles to the northwest of Saigon. Kirsch quickly took to her mission and adjusted to the environmental conditions of the region, to include enemy fire. Kirsch and her fellow Donut Dollies often flew in helicopters to firebases and outposts which the clubmobiles couldn't reach, bringing with them refreshments, doughnuts, recreational materials, and their smiling selves to lift up the spirits of the men manning those posts. Except, it wouldn't be enemy fire that took Kirsch's life on August 16, 1970.

     At 1:45am, Kirsch retired to her room. At 3:30am, one of the other women in the billet had been unable to sleep and was washing dishes when she heard a commotion. As she went down a hall to investigate, a man in civilian clothes exited Kirsch's room, ran past her and out the door behind her. The woman looked into Kirsch's room and found Kirsch dead, covered in blood, a knife on the floor near her. Military Police (MP) and U.S. Army medics soon arrived and while the medics fought to save Kirsch's life, she was pronounced dead at the base's hospital, the cause of death being hemorrhage caused by the multiple stab wounds. MPs, had, in fact, seen the man running from the billet at 3:40am but could not catch him. The MPs locked Cu Chi down and the ARC evacuated all of their women personnel from the base. Two suspects were questioned. One was caught with property stolen from one of the ARC women though he denied killing Kirsch. The other suspect claimed that, while under the influence of heroin, he stabbed someone in a dark room and with this confession, the soldier was charged on November 6, 1970 with unpremeditated murder under the USMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and was shipped back to the United States to stand trial. Unfortunately, the case was dismissed in 1971 for insufficient evidence as the man could not be identified in a line-up by one of the eyewitnesses.

     The first suspect was investigated by military authorities for larceny for the stolen property but nothing came of these charges as the man was declared unfit for duty (mental disability) and was discharged from the U.S. Army. Returned to his home state of Wisconsin, the man was charged with murder of another man and while in custody, confessed to having killed Kirsch. The U.S. Army CIC (Criminal Investigation Command) sent an agent to Wisconsin and took a statement from the man on June 22, 1972. However, on September 6, 1972, the authorities holding the man were informed the U.S. Army had already closed the Kirsch case as the man had been discharged. The man was eventually found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity and was committed to a mental institution. To this day, Virginia Kirsch has not received any justice for her murder.

     The photograph shows Kirsch (on the left as you look at the picture) and a fellow Donut Dolly on a M48 Patton main battle tank, likely belonging to the 1st. Battalion, 69th. Armor which was under the 25th. Infantry Division. She is wearing the usual ARC in-country uniform which consisted of a pale blue short-sleeved dress. On her left collar is a red enameled cross while on the right would be a pin with the letters A.R.C. There does seem to be something above the A.R.C. pin but what it is cannot be determined. On the left sleeve of the dress is the round ARC patch which was white with a red border, a centered red cross with American Red Cross in red around it. On Kirsch's right sleeve is the “Tropic Lightning” unit patch of the 25th. Infantry Division. The name plate was standard U.S. Army, being black with the last name in white with a white border. Footwear was typically sneakers, tennis shoes, or in some cases, casual loafers. Kirsch's companion is wearing the ARC boonie hat, also in pale blue to match the uniform. The dress uniform was a pale blue two-pocket, button-down blouse and skirt, black low-heeled pumps, and a pale blue cap.

Oberleutnant der Reserve Karl Buckel: Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 277

     Born on June 12, 1920 in the Mörzheim district of Landau in der Pfalz in the Rhineland, Karl Buckel first entered service with the Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD; Reich Labor Service) in 1939. He was assigned to the 4th. Kompanie, 84th. Bataillon (RAD.-Abteilung 4/84) from the VIII Brandenburg-Ost District and held the rank of Arbeitsmann. His unit was involved in the construction of fortifications along Germany's western borders, known as the Westwall (or the Siegfried Line to the Allies), and for this, he was awarded the Deutsches Schutzwall-Ehrenzeichen (West Wall Medal) on March 15, 1940. Sometime in 1941, Buckel was called up for military duty in the Heer (Army). His first posting was with 2.Bttr./Stu.Gesch.Abt.189 (2. Batterie, Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung 189), the unit having been formed on July 10, 1941 at the Jüterbog Truppenübungsplatz (Jüterbog Military Training Ground) in the south of Berlin. Following training, the unit deployed for the Eastern Front on August 5, 1941 where it was initially part of IX. Armeekorps, 9. Armee, Heeresgruppe Mitte but within five days, it was shifted to XXXX. Armeekorps (mot.), 9. Armee where it remained, seeing combat between August 10 through September 2, 1941. On November 19, 1941, Buckel's unit, 2.Bttr./Stu.Gesch.Abt.189, was ordered to detach and report to XXVII. Armeekorps, where it continued to see action. It was during this time that Buckel, now holding the rank of Unteroffizier (equivalent to Corporal in the U.S. Army), earned the Eisernes Kreuz 2. Klasse (Iron Cross, 2nd. Class) on December 16, 1941. Beginning on January 3, 1942, 2.Bttr./Stu.Gesch.Abt.189 was placed under 9. Armee (Reserve) along with the headquarters unit of Stu.Gesch.Abt.189 and both remained there until Januay 11, 1942 when the entire unit reformed at Olenino, Tver Oblast, Russia. Through January 22, 1942, the unit engaged in operations around the Olenino area but on February 18, 1942, 2.Bttr./Stu.Gesch.Abt.189 was again detached and subordinated to another unit, this time VI. Armeekorps. It was during this period that Buckel was awarded the Allgemeines Sturmabzeichen (General Assault Badge) on January 20, 1942. This decoration was usually awarded to non-infantry units that participated in or supported infantry or mechanized infantry assaults on three different occasions. 2.Bttr./Stu.Gesch.Abt.189 was transferred to the 6. Infanterie-Division, VI. Armeekorps on August 24, 1942 and the rest of the unit soon joined it on August 26, being deployed along the Rzhev Salient. From late August to October 19, 1942, Buckel saw further combat before the unit was shifted to XXVIII. Armeekorps, 9. Armee. It was during these engagements that Buckel earned the Eisernes Kreuz 1. Klasse (Iron Cross 1st. Class), being officially awarded on October 15, 1942. At some point in 1942, Buckel became a Fahnenjunker-Unteroffizier (Officer Candidate) though his rank remained Unteroffizier. 

     Given there is a bit of a gap in Buckel's decorations, it could be surmised that sometime in 1943 he attended officer candidate school (Kriegsschule; Military School) that encompassed eight weeks of intensive training. After his graduation, he then went to one of the Truppenschule (Branch of Service School) for continued training, this time as an assault gun (Sturmgeschütz) unit leader. Perhaps a validation of this was that on December 27, 1943, Buckel was awarded the Ehrenblattspange (Honor Roll Clasp) which was received for further distinguishing acts in combat. At the time of this award, he now held the rank of Leutnant (2nd. Lieutenant). Buckel was assigned to a new unit, Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 277, which had been formed on February 11, 1944. Specifically, Buckel was with the 1st. Battery (1.Bttr). Buckel's ability as a soldier and officer saw him quickly promoted to Oberleutnant der Reserve (1st. Lieutenant of Reserves). The unit was assigned to 6. Armee (Reserve), Heeresgruppe A and spent several months being refitted and crews trained. In June 1944, the unit was sent to the Cholm region of operations on the Eastern Front under 4. Panzerarmee, Heeresgruppe Nordukraine. On March 21, 1944, Buckel received further accolades by being decorated with the Nahkampfspange (Close Combat Bar or Clasp) in Bronze and the Allgemeines Sturmabzeichen III.Stufe (Grade III; meaning, he had engaged in at least 50 assaults with or in support of infantry). On July 2, 1944, he received the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold (German Cross) for repeated acts of bravery or outstanding achievements. Buckel was made the commander of the 3rd. Battery (3.Bttr) and on July 15, 1944, Buckel earned the Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes (Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross) for actions in support of the 212. Infanterie-Division. The division was positioned near Lepel along with Buckel's unit when it came under attack by Soviet forces who broke through near the village of Durilowitschi, the main area of operations for the division. Buckel's 3rd. Battery deployed and succeeded in destroying several Soviet tanks that stalled the Soviet advance. After rallying German forces nearby, Buckel was able to initiate a counterattack which ousted the Soviets from Durilowitschi. Further actions saw Buckel earn the Allgemeines Sturmabzeichen IV.Stufe (for participating in at least 75 assaults total) on October 31, 1944. By this date, the unit was under the XXVI. Armeekorps and in December 1944, the unit was renamed Heeres-Sturmartillerie-Brigade 277. Buckel was also decorated with two Panzervernichtungsabzeichen (Tank Destruction Badge) though the exact dates of when they were earned and how is not known. He was also awarded the Medaille Winterschlacht im Osten 1941/42 (Winter Battle in the East 1941–42 Medal), better known as the Ostmedaille (Eastern Medal), for his service on the Eastern Front. 

     As for Heeres-Sturmartillerie-Brigade 277, it remained with Heeresgruppe Mitte until the end of the war when the general surrender of Heeresgruppe Mitte forces was issued on May 8, 1945. Buckel was taken prisoner by French forces but he would later escape from the POW encampment and was never recaptured. In time, Buckel returned to military service, this time with the West German Bundeswehr which was formed on November 12, 1955. He would retire from the Bundeswehr in 1976, having attained the rank of Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant-Colonel). Buckel passed away on September 2, 1997 at the age of 77.

     The photograph of Buckel shows him with the majority of his awards and it also shows him with the rank of Oberleutnant der Reserve. The ciphers on his schulterstücke (shoulderboards) are difficult to identify but may be the unit number of 277. Given he is wearing the Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes around his throat, the photograph can be dated on or sometime after July 15, 1944. The two tank destruction badges can be seen on his right sleeve, the Deutsches Kreuz is on the upper, right pocket, and through the buttonhole on his feldbluse is the ribbon for the Eisernes Kreuz 2. Klasse and beneath it, the ribbon for the Ostmedaille. Above the left pocket of his feldbluse is the Nahkampfspange and above that can be seen two stitched thread loops, often used to secure a ribbon bar which he is not wearing. Typically, this is where he would have worn the ribbon for the Deutsches Schutzwall-Ehrenzeichen. Beneath the Nahkampfspange is his Eisernes Kreuz 1. Klasse, Allgemeines Sturmabzeichen, and another unidentified medal. Not seen is the Ehrenblattspange which would normally have been pinned through the ribbon for the Eisernes Kreuz 2. Klasse. This was because the actual clasp was not produced until after January 30, 1944. Before that date, it was only a paper award and noted in the soldier's soldbuch. At the time the photograph was taken, Buckel may not have had the opportunity to obtain the clasp.

Char B1 (n° 269) “Tonnerre”: Standing Their Ground in Hannapes

 

     The remains of Char B1 (n° 269) "Tonnerre" lay abandoned along Rue d'Etreux in Hannapes, France. The tank, built by FCM, was delivered to the 508e RCC (Régiment de Chars de Combat) early in 1939. Later, in September 1939, the tank was transferred to the 2e Compagnie, 8e BCC (Bataillon de Chars de Combat). By mid-May 1940, the 14e RCC had been deployed to the Aisne region of France with orders to defend bridges which crossed the Oise River. One of these bridges was along Rue d' Etreux in the Aisne commune Hannapes. It was defended by the 13e RI (Régiment d’Infanterie) and elements of an artillery unit. "Tonnerre" was detached from the 8e BCC and provided to the 14e RCC to bolster the defender's strength in defense of the bridge. On May 18, 1940, elements from the German XIX Army Corps pushed on Hannapes and the situation quickly became untenable due to overwhelming German forces and the French units had no option but to retreat. The crew of "Tonnerre", however, refused to withdraw and stood their ground. "Tonnerre" was quickly surrounded by the Germans and brought under anti-tank gun fire at close range which knocked the tank out for good. However, before succumbing, the crew inflicted significant damage to the Germans who had the misfortune to have run up against the tank. Amazingly, despite the heavy damage to the tank, the crew was able to escape without serious injury and they sought to make their way back to the French lines. This would not happen as the French were unable to hold back the might of the XIX Army Corps and with much of the area quickly occupied by German forces, the crew were ultimately captured on May 23, 1940 in the vicinity of Tupigny.

     The soldier posing with the wreckage of "Tonnerre" holds the position of Hauptwachtmeister which is equivalent to the U.S. Army position of First Sergeant. This can be determined by the two rings of silver tress around his feldbluse's sleeves which had the nickname of "kolbenringe", or "piston rings". Another sign of this position would be the meldetasche (reporting pouch) that would be tucked into the front of the feldbluse. The pouch contained forms, duty rosters, and other documents needed for the position but in this photograph, he is not carrying it in the usual position. The Hauptwachtmeister was better known to troops as the "Spieß" ("Spear") or less commonly as the "Mutter der Kompanie" (Company Mother). This soldier belonged to a cavalry unit as denoted by the spurs on his boots and given the lack of equipment outside of the pistol holster and what could be a map case, this photograph was likely taken sometime after the action. It should be noted that the duty of the Hauptwachtmeister was solely at the squadron level for cavalry and was a position more of administration than combat and so such appointed men were not usually deployed into combat with the squadron.

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.