2
The First World War cast a huge shadow over the interwar period. In the immediate aftermath, there was a determination to prevent a repeat of the death and destruction that for four long years had held the countries of Europe in its thrall. Initially this found its expression in a desire for peace founded on disarmament; swords would be beaten into ploughshares if only to save the economies of Europe from financial meltdown. Preliminary negotiations were instigated and conferences convened, but economic crisis and the rise of political extremism, particularly in Germany, meant that the discussions foundered and many countries, disillusioned by the lack of progress, steadily began to rearm. This rearmament was principally defensive in nature and was aimed at deterring an attack from the country still deemed to pose the greatest threat to European peace –Germany. Although the fledgling democracy had shown no aggressive intent, it was clear that it had taken the first tentative steps towards rearmament. The pace and scale of this build up quickened after Hitler’s accession to power and Germany’s neighbours reacted in kind.
In 1929 France began work on the Maginot Line and over the next seven years a thin line of powerful forts was constructed along France’s north-eastern frontier. At much the same time and often with the aid of French expertise, her allies: Belgium, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and Poland did likewise, so completing Germany’s encirclement.(1) Further east, the Soviet Union fortified her western frontier against her traditional enemies: Poland and Germany.
Paradoxically, the construction of these defensive lines was paralleled by the development of a weapon that was to demonstrate its awesome offensive potential in the Second World War – the tank. The lumbering behemoths of the Somme and Cambrai had been replaced with much quicker, more agile and above all turreted models that were to transform the face of the battlefield. The pace of change was such that many countries were left with a number of obsolete tanks that would have to be scrapped, stored or consigned to museums. Instead three countries: Belgium, France and the Soviet Union, used these tanks as improvised fixed fortifications. France used this expedient to supplement the defences of the Maginot Line and Belgium used them to bolster her border defences and protect her exposed coastline, while the Soviet Union used tank turrets to strengthen both the Stalin and later the Molotov lines, which protected her western border.
The use of tank turrets in this way was undoubtedly a valuable addition to the main fortifications providing extra firepower while at the same time protecting the crew from enemy fire. But although Belgium, France and the Soviet Union clearly recognized the benefits of using turrets in this way it is unclear whether they developed the idea independently – certainly the different designs developed by each country bear little resemblance to each other – or whether there was an exchange of information (either voluntarily or through espionage). What is clear is that by the outbreak of the Second World War, significant numbers of turrets had been installed and were encountered by German forces in 1940 and 1941.
SOVIET UNION
The first country to adopt the idea of using tank turrets as an extemporized fixed fortification was the Soviet Union. Following the November revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks under Lenin seized control of Russia. However, their effective sphere of influence stretched little further than the two great cities of St Petersburg (Leningrad) and Moscow. Elsewhere, control lay with anti-Bolsheviks, or ‘White Russians’ who quickly formed armies with a view to overthrowing the new revolutionary government. They were supported in this aim by Russia’s former allies (principally Britain and France) who were not only keen to prevent a ‘world revolution’ but more importantly they wanted Russia to remain in the war not least to ensure that Russia repaid her debts.
In December 1917 the Bolsheviks agreed an armistice with Austria and Germany and although they initially balked at the peace terms on the table they eventually relented and in March 1918 signed the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Lenin could now concentrate his efforts on the disparate forces ranged against him. Under the leadership of Trotsky, the Red Army, taking advantage of the good communications around its power base and the failure of the counter revolutionary forces to coordinate their attacks, managed to gain the ascendancy and by 1920 the Bolsheviks hold on power had been secured. Although still viewed with suspicion by the international community (and certainly the Western democracies) the new Bolshevik state was under no immediate threat of invasion and the government set about introducing wide-ranging reforms. Principal among these was defence, and soon the Soviet Union began to develop its own tanks and started to build border fortifications.
Fortifications
During the Civil War, ‘The Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army (Robochiy Krestyanskaya Krasnaya Armiya – RKKA)’ or simply the Red Army, in its desperate attempts to safeguard the new revolutionary government, created a series of fortified areas, or ukreplinnyje rajony (UR), which were to be used not only for defence but were also to act as jumping off points for offensive operations. With little in the way of raw materials and no industrial base to build permanent fortifications, these positions were generally little more than field works and were built using the one resource they did have – manpower.
As the threat from the foreign backed ‘White Russians’ diminished and eventually disappeared, plans were drawn up to build a major set of fortifications along the western border. Almost immediately work began at the Engineering Research and Development Institute of the Military Engineering Academy in Moscow to develop a series of reinforced concrete pillboxes. But to construct such shelters all along the border would require huge amounts of material, which the weak Soviet economy could not sustain. When work began in 1926 it was therefore decided to concentrate the defences in the Polotsk and Karelian URs(2) (north and north-west fronts) where the greatest threat of attack was deemed to lie.
Agricultural and industrial reform saw the Soviet economy strengthen and grow and this gathered pace after the introduction of the first Five Year Plan in 1928. This coincided with a decision to extend the defences to include a further eleven fortified regions: Kingisep UR, Pskov UR, Minsk UR, Mozyr UR, Korosten UR, Novograd-Volynski (Zwiahel) UR, Leitchev UR, Mogilov-Yampolsky UR, Rybnitsk UR and Tiraspol UR. One further UR was built around Kiev. In 1938 work on a further eight new URs was begun. The main part of this work was concentrated in the Ukraine with the creation of the Shepetovka, Staro Konstantinov, Ostropol and Kaments-Podolski URs. Three further URs were created to plug perceived gaps in the line. The Ostrov and Sebezh URs closed the gap between the Pskov and Polotsk URs while the Slutsk UR extended the line from the old UR of Minsk to the Pripet Marshes.
In all, the front stretched over 2,000km (1,242 miles) from the Baltic to the Black Sea and consisted of more than 3,000 positions. These included larger forts, sometimes with subterranean facilities, machine gun and anti-tank positions, artillery blocks, and observation and command positions. These tended to be concentrated at key points with field works used to fill the gaps. These more traditional fortifications were supplemented by the addition of emplaced tank turrets or Tankovaya Ognievaya Totshka (TOT). Obsolete T18 and T24 tanks were buried in the ground so that just the turret was visible and old T26 turrets were mounted on specially prepared bunkers and used in the same way.
In the interwar period the Soviets used tank turrets, or Tankovaya Ognievaya Totshka, in the Stalin and Molotov Lines. This T26 armed with a 45mm gun was installed in Minsk Fortified Region (Byelorussian Military District). It clearly shows the concrete shelter that it was mounted on. (Vladimir Kaminski)
The actual work on the defences was coordinated by the Military Labour Directorate which oversaw separate labour directorates, each responsible for a single UR. They assigned engineers and supervised the construction. But despite the highly centralized organization of the work, the results were less than satisfactory. Workers were poorly paid and had to contend with difficult conditions and although Soviet propaganda tried to portray otherwise, the workers were not inspired by the revolutionary zeal of their leaders. More critically, military engineers, many of whom had been the victims of Stalin’s purges, were in short supply, leaving unqualified civilian engineers to oversee the work.
By the time of the outbreak of the Second World War, the defences of the Stalin Line, as it became known, were largely complete. However, after the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland in October 1939 and the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact the threat in the west had seemingly disappeared. The defences were also now too far behind the new Soviet border to be of any use as a potential springboard for an offensive. As a consequence the positions of the Stalin Line were mothballed. Stalin, however, was cautious and took steps to create a new defensive line inside Poland to ensure the integrity of the new Soviet border against any possible volte-face by Hitler.
The new border defences, which came to be known by the name of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Molotov, were to be built in much greater depth than the Stalin Line – up to 10km (7 miles) in places and were to have a much greater preponderance of antitank guns. Equipment was stripped from the Stalin Line and engineers and labourers who had previously worked on the defences were sent west. Winter prevented any serious work beginning before the summer of 1940 and only 25 per cent of the positions had been completed by the time of the German invasion in June 1941 but this did include a number of emplaced T18 turrets.
Tanks
Having defeated the counter-revolutionary forces and foreign armies in the civil war, the Red Army was demobilized and the make-up of the country’s armed forces reappraised. The tank arm had consisted of little more than captured enemy vehicles and a few indigenous examples that were simply copies of foreign vehicles, principally the French Renault FT.
T18 (or MS1 – Malyi Soprovozhdieniya or Small Infantry Support Tank)
With the end of the fighting, attempts were made to design and build a Soviet tank but this proved unsuccessful and in 1924 a Tank Bureau was created to coordinate these efforts. The Bureau proposed the development of a 3-ton (later a 5-ton) tank armed with a 37mm gun. In common with many nations at this time, the design was based on the French Renault FT and was designated the T16. A number of improvements were made to the design and in 1928 the T18 was put into production. The first batch of tanks was delivered to the army in the following year. Production continued on and off until 1931 when the last of the 960 T18s rolled off the production line. In 1938 some 200 vehicles had their main armament replaced with a larger 45mm gun and was renamed the T18M.
The T18 was plagued by engine and transmission failures, which meant that increasing numbers of tanks could not be used. In 1934 in the Leningrad military district some of these tanks were transferred to the Karelian UR to be used as improvised fixed fortifications. In March 1938 the Narkomat (Peoples Commissariat of Defence) ordered that all T18 tanks were to be transferred to the URs. Those tanks that were serviceable were to be employed in their original role and used to defend the fortified regions.(3) A further 450 machines which were not considered battle worthy were prepared for use as strong points.(4) Some retained their main armament, others had their main gun removed and replaced with twin Degtarov machine guns. The turret-mounted machine gun was also removed and the hole sealed with an armoured plate. A number of turrets had their armament removed completely and were used as observation positions. This simple idea had a number of obvious benefits; it provided the crew with protection from enemy fire, it was difficult to hit being so low to the ground and, by comparison with permanent fortifications, was very quick to construct.
Three separate and increasingly complex designs were developed. The first design involved digging a large hole and burying the T18, minus its running gear, so that just the turret protruded. Timber beams and stone/gravel were then used to provide the hull with greater protection. The spoil was then replaced and turfs used to camouflage the structure. A major shortcoming of this design was that the only means of entering the turret was through the top hatch, which in combat made access extremely difficult. As a result a new design was developed. The position was constructed in much the same way as the original, but now an access hole was cut into the base of the hull. This was linked to a revetted tunnel that led to the rear. Finally, an even more elaborate construction was designed. Again the position was constructed in much the same way as the two previous designs, but now the hole in the base of the hull was linked by a vertical ladder to a shelter beneath the tank that acted as a storeroom for the ammunition. A revetted tunnel linked this room to the rear.
A number of T18 turrets had their weapons removed and were simply used as armoured observation posts. (Taken from Denkschrift uber die Russische Landesbefestigungen, courtesy of E. Hitriak)
T18 observation post – original shelter configuration.
T18 with 45mm gun – revised shelter configuration.
Few details can be found on the exact locations of any T18 turrets, not least because most were removed after the war. However, according to a report of March 1941, thirty-six tank turrets (including T18 turrets) were installed in the Osovetz UR (part of the Molotov Line). Another report of 22nd June 1941 stated that a further five turrets were supplied to the Vladimir-Volynsk UR (also part of the Molotov Line) for installation around the railway station at Ustilug. In the spring of 1941, forward positions of the Karelian UR were beefed up by the installation of approximately twenty-four tank turrets which it is believed were taken from obsolete T18s.(5)
T18 with twin Degtarov machine guns – final shelter configuration.
A T18 tank in the process of being buried in the ground so that just the turret is visible. The turret is armed with twin DT machine guns. (Taken from Denkschrift uber die Russische Landesbefestigungen, courtesy of E. Hitriak)
Some 200 T18 tanks were fitted with 45mm guns. Even so the design was not considered a success and many were used in the Stalin Line to provide extra anti-tank fire. (Russian State Archive, courtesy of E. Hitriak)
T18 turrets were used in the Minsk UR, part of the Stalin Line, to protect bridges and ferry crossings. One such turret mounting a 45mm gun was located at Belynichi covering the River Drut. On 23 June 1941, the crew of this turret (Sgt Gvozdev and Pte Lyupov) engaged the enemy for some four hours and together with troops guarding the bridge managed to destroy three German tanks, one half-track, a number of trucks and killed or injured a number of German infantrymen. For their gallantry the crew was awarded the Boyevoe Krasnoye Znamya (Fighting Red Banner).
T18 turrets mounted on specially prepared bunkers were also seemingly used in the Far East to protect the border between Mongolia and Manchuria where the Soviet Union had been involved in skirmishes with the Japanese since 1934.
T24
The T24 was the first Soviet medium tank and was somewhat unusual in having a smaller turret mounted on the main turret. The first prototype was completed in 1931 and permission granted for a pre-production run of twenty-four (with plans ultimately to build 300). These did not prove to be particularly reliable and the tank was relegated to training duties. In 1938, twenty-two T24s (the remainder had already been scrapped) were sent to the fortified regions. No records survive of where these turrets were used, nor are there seemingly any photographs. What is known is that for some reason many of the turrets (and those from T18s) sat in warehouses in the various fortified regions until the German invasion in 1941 by which time it was too late to install them.
T26
Although treated as a pariah state in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the Soviet Union was gradually accepted, albeit grudgingly, into the wider international community. The country’s reintegration was graphically demonstrated when a number of the major world powers entered into negotiations with Stalin’s government about the possible sale of military equipment, especially tanks.
Fifteen British Vickers-Armstrongs 6-ton E tanks were purchased by the Soviets, the first of which was delivered in 1930. This design was to provide the basis for the T26 Light Infantry Tank. Numerous models were built, but the most widely produced was the T26 Model 1933, which was fitted with the 45mm 20K gun. Some 5,500 vehicles were produced prior to the closure of the line in 1936. During its production life several modifications were made including the addition of two extra machine guns and a more fundamental change in the way the turret was constructed. In 1934/35 the Soviet Army was engaged in fighting with the Japanese on the border between Mongolia and Manchuria. Engagements between the Soviet T26 and enemy tanks highlighted an alarming weakness in the riveted construction of the turret. When hit by enemy fire, the rivets had a tendency to ricochet around inside with catastrophic results. As a consequence a new welded turret was introduced and in 1937 the T26 underwent a further redesign with the addition of sloping armour that offered greater protection. The improved vehicle was designated the T26S Model 1937.
The obsolete turrets from the old T26 tanks were used as fixed fortifications. As with the T18 and T24 shelters only the turret was visible above the ground and could be manually rotated through 360 degrees. No major modifications were made to the turret in its new role. Ammunition stowage, for example, was unchanged. Seven shells could be stored on either side of the turret with a further forty shells stored in the turret ammunition bin. Six magazines of ammunition for the machine gun were located on the right wall of the turret. The spent cartridge bag was linked to an extractor fan by a flexible rubber hose.
Although the turret remained largely unchanged, the structure on which it was mounted was very different to what had gone before. One of the major shortcomings of the earlier emplaced tanks (T18 and T24) was that the installation was vulnerable to heavy artillery fire. By 1931 military engineers at the Engineering Academy in Moscow had developed a ferro-concrete shelter to mount a tank turret, but it was only later that it was decided to use the T26. This was named the Type T pillbox (tank pillbox).
One of the T26 turrets installed in the Minsk fortified region. It is missing its main armament and turret hatch. (E. Hitriak)
A close up of the turret ring for the T26 turret which was fixed to the top of the concrete ‘T’ pillbox. (E. Hitriak)
T26 Type ‘T’ pillbox cutaway.
The bunker was divided into three sections. To the rear was the entrance(6) protected by a steel gate. An aperture enabled the radio operator inside to cover the entrance with small arms fire. When not in use the aperture could be covered with a hinged 10mm steel plate. Inside the main entrance was a corridor, which was constructed with a small opening that was designed to vent any shock waves away from the inner casemate door.
The corridor led to what could be loosely translated as ‘the technical room’. The door to this room was constructed from wood with steel sheets for added strength. The technical room housed a switchboard/telephone that enabled communication with neighbouring pillboxes, the external observer and headquarters; messages within the shelter were conveyed by means of pipes. A radio was also installed, the antenna for which was fitted to the roof of the shelter. The ventilator (initially the KP-1 or KP-2 but later the KP-3 or KP-4V) was also located here. It was hand operated and provided fresh air through a system of pipes, although the shelter was not gas-proof.(7) A further door led from the technical room to the fighting compartment directly underneath the turret. This was fitted with a ladder that linked the two and was also used to store extra ammunition.
The machine gun embrasure that was used by the radio operator to protect the entrance to the shelter. The steel flap could be locked in place. (E. Hitriak)
The rooms within the ‘T’ pillbox were secured with wooden doors that were fitted with a steel skin. (E. Hitriak)
One of the speaking tubes that was used to communicate within the shelter. (E. Hitriak)
A German drawing of the antennae that was fitted to the roof of the T26 shelter. (Taken from Denkschrift uber die Russische Landesbefestigungen, courtesy of E. Hitriak)
The internal walls of the pillbox were covered with sheet metal that prevented concrete splinters from injuring the crew when the position was shelled and also helped to reduce the levels of concrete dust.
The entrance to the structure was protected by a small wooden extension, which could be covered with spoil. From here a revetted trench, some 40m (130ft) in length, led to the crew’s living and sleeping quarters and a storage dugout where extra ammunition, provisions and fuel were kept. The position was manned by five or six men – two men occupied the turret (commander and loader), one man was located under the turret to provide ammunition, one man operated the radio/covered the door and another operated the ventilator. Another man acted as observer.
A steel rung ladder led from the pillbox through an access hatch to the turret’s fighting compartment. (E. Hitriak)
T26 Type ‘T’ pillbox showing supporting trenches.
The turreted positions were usually built just behind the main positions of the line and were often supported by other pillboxes. They were extremely well camouflaged to compensate for the fact that it was a stationary target and the turret armour was relatively thin, and only really provided protection against small arms fire.
It is unclear exactly how many T26 turrets were installed. In the Minsk UR, a front of about 140km (87 miles), nine tank turrets were installed and in the Polotsk UR, a front of 60km (37 miles), ten turrets were installed. There were plans to install a further forty turrets in the Stalin Line following a review of the defences in 1938. This had highlighted a number of serious shortcomings, particularly the lack of antitank weapons, but the order was cancelled following the defeat of Poland in 1939 and the subsequent decision to build a new series of defences along the new border. It was later decided that concrete pillboxes with 45mm anti-tank guns offered a better alternative than tank turrets and no further Type T pillboxes were constructed between 1938 and 1940.
This T26 tank appears to have been buried in the ground whole with only the turret visible. The engine deck and louvres can still be seen. (Imperial War Museum)
A Soviet BT5 TOT turret installed in the Stalin Line and captured by the Germans in 1941. (US National Archives, courtesy of S. Zaloga)
BT
At the same time as the T26 was being developed using the British Vickers tank, the first steps were being taken in the design of the BT series of ‘fast’ tanks which were based on the American Christie M1930. Numerous BT prototypes were developed but the most numerous was the BT5 Model 1933 which was armed with a 45mm gun. Approximately 5,000 were produced from 1932 until production stopped in 1935.
The lessons learned in the fighting with the Japanese on the border between Mongolia and Manchuria, which had led to a redesign of the T26, were also applied to the BT5. This led to the development of the BT7 1935. This had a very different hull design and the turret, although nearly identical to the BT5, was almost all welded.
Later, and in parallel with the T26 modernization programme, the BT7 was fitted with a new turret featuring sloping armour to provide greater protection for the crew without adding to the weight. The new model was given the designation BT7 Model 1937. Again, the old vertically configured turrets were used as fixed fortifications, although details are sketchy. One position fitted with a BT5 turret was seemingly mounted on the hull of a T28 medium tank. This example was found in 1998 on top of a hill in the middle of vast swamps in the former Karelian UR. The difficult access probably saved it from being cut up for scrap.
Other Models
After the invasion of the Soviet Union, and in spite of the failure of the Molotov and Stalin Line to stem the German advance, the Red Army still used tank turrets for defence. Many different turrets were now employed including T28, T34, T40, T60 and KV turrets. It is even believed that captured German turrets were used. Such improvised fortifications were used to defend Moscow and Leningrad. Following the blockade of Leningrad in September 1941, the defenders had at their disposal several hundred damaged tanks. Some were simply buried in the ground but others had their turrets removed and were mounted on different shelters.
This TOT is somewhat unusual in that it has the body of a T28 tank but is fitted with a BT5 turret. It was installed in June 1941 in the Karelian UR near Sosnov. The tank body, less its engine and suspension, was mounted on a concrete base. The crew could access the position through the normal hatches and a hole cut in the front of the vehicle. (Sergei Netrebenko)
The front view of a KV1 turret, which was tested as an improvised, fixed fortification. This example is installed at the Red Army test site near Moscow. (Russian Fortification Website)
Test Facility
The Scientific Research Institute of Engineering Technical Equipment of the Red Army(8) was established in 1930 near Moscow and was where the various versions of Soviet pillboxes were tested up until 1950 when the facility was closed. The work undertaken at the Institute included tests on the first specially designed tank turret pillbox, the Type T, developed in 1931. Later in 1941–42 an improved version of the Type T pillbox was developed and tested. This was larger than its predecessor and was fitted with a heating system and an extraction system for the noxious exhaust fumes, although it was still fitted with the original hand-cranked KP-4 ventilation system. By the time the design was accepted the tide of the war had changed and it is not thought that these structures were actually used.1
A somewhat unusual view of a T-28 turret that was used as a fixed fortification. For some reason the standard mantlet has been replaced by a new one. (Sergei Netrebenko)
A T44 turret mounted on a special steel base. Just visible in each corner are the lifting hooks. This example was located at the Red Army test site near Moscow. (Russian Fortification Website)
The hand cranked KP-4 ventilation system that was installed in the shelter beneath the KV1 turret. This shelter is believed to be an example of the larger improved version of the Type ‘T’ pillbox that was developed in 1941–42. (Russian Fortification Website)
As well as tests on the base structures, most if not all of the turrets mentioned above were tested at this facility. In addition to these a number of rarities and unusual adaptations were assessed including the T44(9) and a version of the T70 which had its main armament removed and replaced with a specially constructed welded steel ‘nose’ to house a machine gun.
Postscript
After the war all the fortified regions of the 1930s (with the exception of the Karelian UR) were deemed to be unnecessary and in the 1950s work began to demolish the defences. The majority of the tank turrets were removed for scrap metal, but the concrete bunkers were often left and today it is still possible to find examples. Where tanks had simply been buried in the ground it was found to be extremely difficult to excavate the hull and at least one T18 has since been recovered and is on display at the Polish Army Museum.2 A T18 was also recently discovered in Karelia and this, together with three T18 turrets in the Far East, have been restored and can now be seen in one of a number of museums in the Soviet Union including one at the Central Museum of the History of the Great Patriotic War, Moscow.
This T70 light tank turret has been fitted with a specially constructed welded steel ‘nose’ to house a machine gun. This example is installed at a Red Army test site near Moscow. (Russian Fortification Website)
Armoured Trains
As well as being used on concrete shelters, tank turrets were used on Soviet armoured cars and also to equip armoured trains.(10) The Red Army had a great tradition of using armoured trains which dated back to the Civil War. In the interwar period trains were once again used for mobile artillery and would often be fitted with tank turrets, including old T26 turrets and the multi-turreted T28. During the war more modern KV and T34 turrets were used.(11) Other single coach units mounted with a T26 turret were used to carry a small detachment of troops for reconnaissance and scouting roles.
A Soviet T18 found near Przemysl, Poland. This example was originally installed in the Molotov Line. The chassis was completely buried with only the turret visible. It was recovered from its position and is today on display at the Polish Army Museum, Warsaw, Poland. (S. Zaloga)
BELGIUM
Belgium only became an independent kingdom in 1831 following a revolt against the idea of a union with the Netherlands that was imposed on them after the defeat of Napoleon. The position of the new kingdom was guaranteed under the terms of the Treaty of London in 1839 and was reaffirmed during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. In spite of these guarantees, the government instigated a building programme, under the direction of Gen Brialmont, to fortify the strategically important cities of Antwerp, Liege and Namur.
Fortifications
In the years before the outbreak of the First World War the Belgian government instituted a programme of work to strengthen Brialmont’s defences. It was hoped that this would deter any possible aggression by Germany, but its efforts were in vain. In August 1914 the German Imperial Army launched its Schlieffen Plan; an audacious attempt to wheel around the flank of the main French defences and capture Paris. German troops advanced through Belgium avoiding the fortifications, which were invested by subsequent waves of troops. Despite modernization the fortifications were not sturdy enough to withstand bombardment from modern ordnance and they crumbled under the fearful pounding from the huge German howitzers brought forward for the purpose. The failure of the great forts to withstand the German assault undermined the military’s faith in the value of such defences. However, this was restored later in the war following the battle of Verdun where the forts protecting the ancient city provided the backbone of the French defence.(12)
Determined to avoid a repeat of 1914 the Belgian government in the interwar period embarked on an ambitious building programme to create a series of fortifications that would deter her much larger neighbour from using Belgium as an avenue through which to attack France. Around Liege two main lines of defence were constructed: Position Fortifiée de Liège I and II. The former included the crowning glory of the Belgian defences, Fort Eben Emael, which dominated the Albert Canal. To the south, the city of Naumur was similarly defended and the defences of the port of Antwerp were strengthened. Some small-scale work was also undertaken to protect the exposed coastline, especially around the ports of Oostend and Zeebrugge.
Tanks
At much the same time the Belgian government decided that the army should be modernized. This programme included a plan to motorize the Corps de Cavalerie (Cavalry Corps). The tank chosen was the Renault Auto-Mitrailleuses de Combat (A.M.C) Modèle 1933 Type YR, which was fitted with the APX1 turret with a 25mm gun. An order for twenty-five was placed but was subsequently cancelled after tests in France showed the tank to be unsatisfactory and production was stopped after the first batch of twelve had been completed.
In spite of the cancellation of the original order there was still a requirement for a cavalry tank and an order for twelve Renault AMC Modèle 1935 Type R ACG1s was placed (out of the twenty-five planned). The first of these was delivered in June 1937, but its arrival caused unease in government circles. Belgium had by now adopted a neutral stance and the delivery of tanks, especially from France, seemed to undermine that position. As a result, after the final batch of three was delivered in January 1938, the order was cancelled on the grounds that the French army had decided to procure the Somua 1935 model rather than the Renault ACG1.(13)
Meantime a separate order for twenty-five APX2B turrets was placed with Ateliers de Puteaux in France that were to be delivered in 1936. On delivery, work began to fit the Belgian 47mm 1936 model gun. The Fonderie Royale de Canons (FRC) or Royal Gun Foundry had little difficulty installing the main armament, but the 7.65mm Hotchkiss machine gun could not be fitted without reorganizing the turret. The left lateral periscope was moved towards the rear of the turret to make room for the machine gun and the hole left filled with armour plate. These modifications were made to twenty-three of the twenty-five turrets.(14) The two outstanding unmodified turrets were used to arm two concrete structures built at Sougné-Remouchamps, on the site of a fort that was no longer to be built.(15)
The idea of using tank turrets as improvised fortifications was later adopted for coastal defence. With the cancellation of the order for the ACG1 it was decided to use the modified APX2B turrets in much the same way as those installed at Sougné-Remouchamps and thirteen turrets were mounted along the Belgian coast.(16) The remaining ten turrets were fitted to the tanks, which were purchased from France in 1939.
APX2B Turret
The turret was formed by assembly of a cast body and laminated plates 25mm (1in) thick. On the rear face there was a door, with two halves opening outwards. In the turret roof there was a second hatch that opened towards the front. The turret had two housings to take the main and coaxial gun. A small amount of ammunition was held in the turret itself including six armour piercing and six high explosive shells and five belts of ammunition for the MG. In addition there were five blocks each containing nine flares.
Front view of one of the Belgian APX2B turrets mounted on a concrete shelter at Sougné-Remouchamps. The main and coaxial armaments have been removed. (Courtesy of F. Vernier)
A view of the corridor that linked the access shaft and the chamber below the turret. The steel louvered door led to the integral ladder. (Courtesy of F. Vernier)
The shelters
The two shelters installed at Heid des Gattes near to the caves at Sougné-Remouchamps were classified as CS25 and CS A5 Bis(17) respectively. They were completely built into the rock and were identical in almost every respect. Access to the shelter was through a hatch that concealed a vertical shaft with integral ladder. At the bottom was a slightly offset steel louvered door that led to a corridor that was some 3m (10ft) long and 2m (6½ft) wide. This was home to a hand-operated ventilator, which provided fresh air and vented dangerous gases. At the end of the corridor was an airtight door that led to the chamber below the turret. This was fitted with shelves and was where the ammunition was stored. The ammunition store could hold 96 armoured piercing shells and the same number of high explosive shells as well as 19 belts of MG ammunition and two drums of 24/31 R.Y.G. model 18I flares (120 in total).(18)
APX2B turret at Sougné-Remouchamps.
A ladder led from the store to the fighting compartment. At the very front of the shelter, under the turret, was a void which automatically collected spent cases and which was fitted with a vent to allow gases to escape via an airtight outlet flap. Above the fighting compartment was the turret that could rotate through 360 degrees. This was initially achieved by hand – 200 turns of the wheel were required for a single revolution. Later it was decided to add a motor, which enabled the turret to be rotated completely in less than two minutes. This required a power supply and as a result the shelter was connected to the civilian network. To ensure that the turret could operate independently an iron-nickel battery and a charging panel was fitted.
The tank turret was operated by a crew of five men: in the turret there was an NCO turret commander and gunner plus an assistant gunner, at the lower level there was a soldier preparing the ammunition whilst two men worked the ventilator.
Because the tank turret shelters had no room to accommodate the permanent garrison, it was decided to build two guardrooms. These were constructed just prior to the outbreak of war in August 1939. The guardroom of the CS25 shelter was built into the ground using local stone topped by a reinforced concrete slab. This roof was covered over with earth to provide both added protection and for camouflage. Because the shelter was partially buried, special arrangements were made to prevent the walls from becoming damp. The guardroom had a main area serving as a rest room for the garrison, which was equipped with a table, four chairs and a coal-fired stove. Two further rooms, both accessed externally, were provided one to store coal and the other housing the latrine. The two windows of the building were covered with wire mesh to provide some protection against enemy fire, especially grenades. In total the structure cost 49,703 francs.
The guardroom of the CS A5 Bis shelter was built with sandstone and had a tiled roof in order to match the local building style. Like the CS25 guardroom it had a main living area, coal store and latrine. A tank was installed to hold rainwater. This meant that the drinking water requirement, which was difficult to supply because of the shelter’s hillside position, could be reduced. The shelter cost 44,726 francs to build. Like the main fighting positions, the two guardrooms were supplied with electricity towards the beginning of 1940.
The thirteen turrets mounted on bunkers along the coast were broadly the same as those at Sougné-Remouchamps. Access to the shelter was though at hatch at the rear. This led to a vertical shaft fitted with rungs, which enabled the crew to descend to the munitions store below and to gain access to the fighting compartment directly below the turret. A platform for the crew enabled them to operate the weapons.
The turrets were mounted on a circular base plate that was secured to the main structure with bolts. The bunker was constructed from reinforced concrete, which was often faced with stone or brick to help it merge in with the background. The base structure was set into the sea wall so that only the turret was visible and camouflage paint schemes and other methods of breaking up the outline of the turret were also used to make the position as inconspicuous as possible. The turrets at Sougné-Remouchamps were camouflaged with wire netting covered with strips of raffia.
APX2B turret on Belgian coast.
In Action
The title of this section is something of a misnomer, since none of the turrets that were installed were actually involved in any fighting. At the time of the German invasion in May 1940 the turrets at Sougné-Remouchamps were manned by men of the 3e escadron du 1er Lanciers under Col B. E. M. Deleuze. The turrets were abandoned when the unit was forced to retreat toward Grâce-Berleur. The turrets mounted on the coast had an equally inauspicious service record, designed as they were to protect against a seaborne invasion that never came. They were manned by 11e Batterie du Ier Groupe du 5e Régiment d’Artillerie d’Armée under Maj Chomé and were abandoned on 28 May 1940 without ever having been used.
One of the APX2B turrets that were installed along the Belgian coast. This example has been camouflaged with a brick pattern in keeping with its surroundings. The turret was located at Den Haan, Belgium. (Alain van Geeteruyen)
Another APX2B turret that was positioned to protect the Belgian coast. This example was located at Lombardsijde, and was incorporated in the coastal batterie Ramien. Just visible in the background are barbed wire entanglements which stretch the length of the beach. (Alain van Geeteruyen)
Postscript
There is little evidence of the tank turrets today. Those installed along the coast were removed after the war with one now on display at the Belgium tank museum. At Fort Sougné it is possible to see one of the two APX turrets. However, the main armament and machine gun have been removed.3
FRANCE
In the immediate aftermath of the First World War Germany was impotent and posed no threat to European peace. Her armed forces were reduced or scrapped, the Rhineland was occupied and demilitarized, and the country was saddled with huge reparations. Secure in the knowledge that there was no immediate risk of invasion, France had no plans to fortify the border with her historic enemy. As the years passed, however, the situation changed. A comprehensive disarmament treaty proved elusive and in 1926 Britain removed her troops from the Rhineland.(19) In this new environment France no longer felt quite so assured and in that same year the government sanctioned the construction of a line of fortifications along the border with Germany, work on which began 1929.
Fortifications
This new line of defences was christened the Maginot Line, after the Minister for War, and was to stretch the entire length of the border with Germany.(20) Initially there was some debate about the form that these defences should take, but eventually it was decided to build a thin line of powerful forts. The backbone of the line was formed by the so-called ouvrages. These were large artillery casemates served by a subterranean network of tunnels, some fitted with light railways, and other facilities including generators, ammunition stores, living and sleeping quarters and even hospitals. These ouvrages were reinforced with an array of smaller shelters for troops, anti-tank guns and machine guns. Among these smaller positions were a number of emplaced tank turrets and, on the same lines, a series of specially designed armoured cupolas.
In the late nineteenth century, Grüson of Germany had developed the Fahrpanzer, a light, transportable turret for a rapid-firing 5.3cm gun. This had been adopted by the Imperial Army to supplement the defences of their Feste or fortifications. But Germany was not alone in considering the usefulness of such a weapon. In France, in February 1890, the Comités de l’Artillerie et du Génie(21) considered the production of a transportable cupola, similar to that made by Grüson. Indeed, the foundry at Le Creusot went so far as to undertake a pilot study. At about the same time, a prototype 57mm cannon was produced by Hotchkiss, but tests were inconclusive and it was not adopted. In 1907 the idea was revived with a plan for a transportable cupola for a machine gun. However, in June 1909, the Haute Commission des Places Fortes(22) decided that it no longer considered there to be a requirement and the project was cancelled.
During the First World War a number of Grüson turrets were captured by the French and their usefulness assessed. The upshot of these tests was that in the interwar period the idea of a mobile armoured hood for a machine gun was considered once again. These were intended for the gaps in the Régions Fortifées or Fortified Regions, in particular for the machine-gun companies of the fortress infantry regiments, and for field positions, which were to be constructed when mobilization took place. The studies resulted in the development of the Tourelle Démontable Modèle 1935.
This was constructed in two sections: a fixed part that was intended to be placed in the ground, and a movable part. The structure could be transported manually and was designed to be partially buried, with only the turret appearing above ground. This was capable of withstanding a direct hit from anything up to 25mm in calibre. Access to the shelter was via a hatch in the turret or via a rear door let into the upper section of the fixed part.
The turret was fitted with a pivot mount designed to accommodate a Hotchkiss machine gun. An armoured sheath protected the barrel of the machine gun from enemy fire. Observation was possible by means of a Type K periscope or observation slits. A fairly sophisticated aiming system made it possible to use the weapon at night.
To allow for the differing topography two types of turret were developed, a normal 150mm (6in) dome for flat terrain and a higher 250mm (10in) dome for uneven terrain. Subsequently, a height of 190mm (7in) became standard, regardless of where they were to be located. A few minor improvements were also made to the Modèle 35, with the new improved version known as the Modèle 1937.
During peacetime, the turrets were usually stored in depots belonging to the engineers, but on mobilization they were collected by the units to which they had been allocated. These units provided the weapons, transported them to their destination, and installed them in a hastily dug hole. According to tests carried out at Châlons in 1934, it took three and a half hours for four men to install a turret. This arrangement was not found to be particularly satisfactory and from 1935 standard concrete positions were constructed to accommodate the turrets. Sometimes the turrets were incorporated into a larger structure, or were provided with a shelter for the crew.
A number of turrets were to be permanently positioned. These were to be concealed from the enemy and protected from acts of sabotage inside specially built sheds. However, although a number of turrets were installed before mobilization, especially on the more heavily fortified parts of the line where it was easier to observe them, it does not seem that the sheds were built. In the Nord département, the turrets were not installed until mobilization with some of the concrete structures sealed with a removable concrete cap.
By 26 May 1938, 355 turrets had been built (of which 353 had been delivered to the regions and two retained for study), ninety were being manufactured (for delivery between the end of 1938 and May 1939) and forty were on order, of which thirty were to have a raised dome(23) for the Alps. The technical instruction dated 23rd February 1939 stated that the 1935 model turret was numbered up to 495, and the 1937 model from 496.
Another tourelle démontable, which was installed in the Maginot Line. A revetted trench leads to the entrance of the position. This example formed part of the defences at Schoenenberg and can still be visited today. (Courtesy of Jean-Louis Burtscher at www.Lignemaginot.com)
A tourelle démontable which formed part of the Maginot Line defences and which is still visible today at the small Rohrbach work. Often these turrets were installed in prepared concrete positions, but this one is a simple fieldwork. (Svein Wiiger Olsen)
In 1938 plans were considered for an armoured hood mounting a 25mm anti-tank gun that was proof against 47mm weapons. Drawings were produced in early 1938 and there were plans for a prototype to be built later in the year with a view to producing 300 units, but war intervened before it could be brought into production.4
Tanks
The Renault FT light tank was developed in the First World War and for its time the tank’s configuration was unique, mounting, as it did, a fully traversable turret. This, together with other innovations, earned the FT the distinction of being the first modern tank. Its innovative design and diminutive size meant it was produced in large numbers and exported around the world and also, was widely copied. In the years following the end of the First World War it was employed in numerous smaller conflicts including the Spanish Civil War.
FT17
The FT17’s position as the mainstay of the French tank corps was eventually surrendered to the new generation of tanks including the Renault R35, Hotchkiss H35 and H39 and the Somua S35. A number were still used to equip front line units but most were relegated to second line duties or were placed in stores. The decision to mothball the bulk of the FT17s coincided with the study to assess the value of armoured hoods and as a cost-effective, short-term expedient, it was decided to use surplus FT17 turrets as fixed fortifications.
TSF tank used as observation point (1937)
Allocation of FT tanks to the fortified regions
|
Regions |
TSF tanks |
FT TSF blockhaus |
|
1st RM |
- |
31 |
|
2nd RM |
- |
35 |
|
6th RM |
16 |
20 |
|
20th RM |
6 |
20 |
|
7th RM |
5 |
15 |
|
Totals |
27 |
121 |
Renault FT TSF tank in the Maginot Line.
The Char signal TSF was a radio tank version of the FT17. The ‘turret’ was used by the French as an armoured observation post in the Maginot Line defences. This example is still visible today at Fermont, near Longuyon. (Courtesy of Jean-Louis Burtscher at www. Lignemaginot.com)
Turrets from obsolete FT17 tanks were also used to strengthen the Maginot Line defences. This example is still visible today at the small Rohrbach work. (Author)
As early as August 1934 tanks were being delivered to the different fortified regions for emplacement. Initially these were mainly Renault FT TSF tanks. This was specially designed to mount a radio with the turret replaced by a fixed armoured cab for an observer. The whole of the tank, minus its engine, track system and other non-essential equipment, was buried in the ground so that only the armoured cab was visible. Sometimes the tanks were encased in concrete, but others were simply buried in the ground. Alternatively, the armoured cab of the tank was mounted on a concrete casemate. Positions were also constructed using standard FT17 tanks buried and encased in concrete, which were used either as observation points(24) like the TSF, or as machine-gun posts, the latter being found particularly in the Sarre Defensive Sector. In the Nord département turrets were also installed on small concrete blocks.(25) The use of tank turrets was seen as a cheap, though not as effective, alternative to the specially designed CORF(26) observation points.(27)
Renault FT17 tank in the Maginot Line.
* Three turret types were developed:
1. Cast turret with machine gun.
2. Renault octagonal riveted turret. This was introduced to overcome production difficulties with the original cast turret.
3. Berliet designed a turret based upon the original prototype, but made it in two sections with the top section being cast and the lower section constructed from rounded steel plate. The turret was much heavier than the octagonal turret but it was more heavily armoured and gave much better protection. The turret was fitted with a 37mm gun.
______
(1)Italy also fortified her northern border against the threat posed by the ‘Greater Germany’ following the German Anschluss with Austria in March 1938.
(2)The latter built specifically to defend Leningrad against a possible Finnish attack.
(3)Some estimates predict that as many as 400 tanks were available for use when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.
(4) In the period from 1939 to 1941, 200 or so T-18 tanks were emplaced. B. Perzyk, ‘Karelski Rejon Umocniony –fortyfikacje nieznane’, Nowa Technika Wojskowa (May 2002), pp.27–33.
(5)T18 turrets were also probably used in other parts of the Leningrad Military District – the Kingisep UR and Pskov UR.
(6)It was also possible to gain access to the shelter through the turret hatches.
(7)It was planned to make the pillboxes gas proof, but the work was not completed.
(8)Later called the Special Test Site for Fortified Areas.
(9)Based on the T34/85 – (see Chapter 4 – Post War).
(10)The BA3 armoured car, for example, mounted the T26 turret.
(11) An armoured wagon mounting two T34 76 turrets was developed with one mounted at either end of the unit. They generally formed part of a longer train.
(12)The French forts had also been built by Brialmont, but had been strengthened with reinforced concrete that enabled them to better withstand the German shelling.
(13)Nine of the vehicles delivered were subsequently put in store at Ateliers Carels at Gand. In September 1939 eight of the tanks were restored and six took part in the fighting of May 1940. They did not perform well and only three remained on 28 May 1940.
(14) These modifications were still not found to be satisfactory and the FRC later decided to install Maxim light machine guns.
(15) In 1931 money was released for building the Position Fortifiée de Liege 1 forts and as a result 30 hectares were purchased above the Amblève valley for Fort Sougné. Nothing happened until the middle of January 1935 when a company was contracted to carry out some deep drilling work. However, two weeks later the decision was taken to stop and all work ceased. The Defence Ministry spent the money that had been allocated for the project on mechanizing the cavalry. Belgium’s return to neutrality and the desire of the government to fortify Belgium’s southern border meant that the idea was revisited and a new study was undertaken early in l936. Plans were finally agreed for the construction of Fort Sougné but only the turrets were installed.
(16) The exact locations of all of the turrets is not known, but two were installed at Oostende, and one each at Mariakerke, Middelkerke, Lombardsijde, Bredenen, Den Haan, Zeebrugge, Blanghebergen, Heist and at Knokke.
(17)This prefix reflected the part of the defences where the structures had been built. In this case between Comblain and Sougné so CS.
(18) The shelter also had a Lebel rifle with 300 rounds of ammunition.
(19)France retained a presence until 1930.
(20)And later also included the border with Italy together with works on Corsica.
(21)Artillery and Engineering Committee.
(22) High Commission on Fortresses.
(23)To allow firing in particularly difficult conditions.
(24)These turrets had their machine gun or cannon replaced with an armoured plate with a small aperture.
(25) One of these turrets, recovered at Villecloye, in the Montmédy Fortified Sector, can be seen at the Musée de Fermont.
(26) Commission d’Organization des Régions Fortifées or Commission for the Organization of the Fortified Regions.
(27) Turret mantlets from FT17 tanks were also removed and reused as machine-gun firing slots for casemates.