4

Post War

In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, alliances that had been forged in the fight against a common foe were quickly forgotten as the world descended into a Cold War where the two diametrically opposed ideologies of capitalism and communism vied for dominance. In Europe, despite the availability of nuclear weapons, the two superpowers invested heavily in conventional forces to deter possible aggression by the other. This included fleets of ships and submarines and countless bomber and fighter squadrons that played a dangerous game of cat and mouse in the seas and skies. On the plains of Western Europe, large standing armies were massed which were regularly and menacingly on manoeuvres. To counter the threat posed by these ground forces nations on both sides of the ideological divide, and neutral countries caught in the middle of the sabre rattling, installed tank turrets along their respective borders. This improvisation not only provided a powerful deterrent but was also cost effective in a world where post-war austerity meant that countries had limited funds to devote to their defence budgets and where significant stockpiles of war material were widely available.

Outside of Europe the ideological struggle was played out on a small scale in regional conflicts, as Moscow and Washington sought to gain the upper hand. From the bitter fighting in the Middle East as Arab fought Jew to the Far East where guerrillas sought to throw off the imperial yolk, the involvement of the superpowers was often all too evident. Here too the combatants on both sides saw emplaced tank turrets as a cost effective way of protecting their strategic interests.

In the post-war world then the use of tank turrets as fixed fortifications was if anything more widespread than during the war, with examples found on almost every continent. However, with the collapse of communism and the rise of global terrorism, countries reappraised their defensive strategies and almost without exception the tank turrets that had played a pivotal role in safeguarding the national security of some countries for almost half a century, were either mothballed or removed altogether.

AUSTRIA

In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War Austria was prohibited from having an army. This remained the case until May 1955 when Austrian sovereignty was restored. Still, though restrictions remained in place. Austria was not allowed to have nuclear weapons, submarines or artillery with a range greater than 30km (18 miles). Moreover, the victorious allies retained the right to outlaw any new weapons that they deemed unsuitable.

The new Austrian army was, however, permitted to have tanks, which were all sourced from the country’s former adversaries. From the Soviet Union came the T34/85, from America the M47 and from Great Britain the Charioteer, and later the Centurion.¹ As these tanks were replaced, the turrets were often removed and were mounted on specially built concrete shelters or prefabricated constructions. These varied according to ground conditions and were sometimes installed as individual positions or formed part of larger, interconnecting bunker systems. Many were disguised as barns typical of the area. These could be removed to give the turret a full field of fire.²

Generally these shelters could accommodate eight men, all of them reservists, and were emplaced to cover the main avenues of a possible attack from the Warsaw Pact, principally on the low lying plains to the south and east of Vienna. The turrets provided the focal point of the anti-tank defences and as such were positioned at strategically important locations like the Wurzenpass and at Bruck an der Leitha.⁽¹⁾

With the end of the Cold War the turrets have been gradually deactivated and no longer play a part in the country’s defence plan. One of the turrets has been retained and can be visited, but others have been sold and now serve as garages or wine cellars.³

Charioteer⁽²⁾

After the Charioteer was withdrawn from service by the Austrian army the turrets were mounted on concrete shelters or were installed in casemates. These gave the turret additional protection, but did restrict its field of fire. The Charioteer was initially armed with an 8,34cm gun that had a maximum range of 5,500m although its effective range, depending on the ammunition used, was 1,500–3,000m. The weapon was fitted with an electrical discharge system that would eject the shell case when the gun barrel recuperator opened. Later some Charioteer turrets were rearmed with the 10.5cm Panzerkanone M.68.⁽³⁾

It is not clear exactly how many Charioteer turrets were used in this way, but it was no more than fifty-six, because this was the maximum number that were in service with the Austrian Army. This broadly corresponds with figures quoted in unofficial sources which state that sixty turrets armed with 20 pdr guns were installed.⁴ The Charioteer turrets were still in use up until the late 1980s but appear to have been removed soon thereafter.

T34/85

The T34/85 was originally constructed by the Soviet Union and was instrumental in the defeat of Germany. Its powerful 85mm gun could be fired at six rounds per minute and had a maximum range of 13,600m, although its effective range was in the region 1,000–4,000m depending on the type of ammunition used. It was fitted with either a manual or electrical discharge system that would eject the shell case with the gun recoil. The coaxial machine gun was capable of firing 100–120 rounds per minute but was prone to jamming. The turret could be rotated by hand at 1.5–2 degrees per second but with power traverse this increased to 12 degrees per second.

After the war the Austrians acquired twenty-six of these tanks which served with the army until the early 1960s when they were withdrawn and replaced with the US M47. The obsolete T34s were transferred to the Sperrtruppe, or Barricade Force of the Austrian Army, and a number were used as fixed fortifications along the border with Czechoslovakia. Somewhat unusually the whole of the tank was simply buried in the ground so that just the turret was showing, rather than removing the turret and mounting it on some form of concrete structure.⁵

M47

The American M47 replaced the obsolete T34/85. It was armed with a 90mm gun, which was capable of penetrating 1,500mm (59in) of armour at a range of 1,800m and could fire a high explosive shell more than twice as far. The weapon was fitted with an electromechanical discharge system, which would automatically eject the shell case when the gun barrel recuperator opened.

Eventually the M47 was replaced by the British Centurion and 147 of the turrets were used as fixed fortifications.⁶ One of these was installed near Fort Nauders⁽³⁾ and was fitted with appliqué armour to provide added protection.⁷ By 1998 with the thaw in East–West relations, all of the M47 turrets had been deactivated.⁸

Centurion

During 1953 and 1954 the Dutch Army procured 591 Centurion Mk 3s under the Mutual Defence Assistance Programme.⁽⁴⁾ In 1967/68, 343 of these were rearmed with the L7 105mm gun and reclassified as Mark 5/2. A year later the Dutch decided to buy the new German Leopard I and sold 122 Mk 5 Centurions to a Middle-Eastern country. The Dutch Army considered a proposal from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann of Germany to modernize the remainder, but this option was dropped in favour of an order for Leopard 2 tanks that was signed in 1979. In the mid-1980s the Dutch sold 120 of the remaining Mark 5s to Austria. A further 107 tanks came from Canada (via Kruass-Maffei) when they replaced the Centurion with the Leopard 1.

By this time the Centurion was beginning to show its age and the upkeep of the chassis became increasingly expensive. A modernization programme was considered, but was rejected as impractical and not cost effective, so in the early 1990s a decision was taken to use the turrets as fixed fortifications. The bulk, if not all, of the Centurion turrets were used in this way and protected the Austrian border for a decade until the turn of the millennium when the turrets were taken out of service.⁹

BULGARIA

Having fought with the Axis powers in the Second World War Bulgaria found itself in 1945 in the Soviet sphere of influence. As one of Moscow’s satellite states it was equipped with T34/85 tanks. At its peak the Bulgarian Army fielded nearly 600 of these tanks and as late as 1988 it still had 200 in service. Unconfirmed sources state that a number of the scrapped turrets were installed along the border with Turkey.¹⁰

CUBA

In common with Cuba’s ideological mentor and her main supplier of military materiel, the Soviet Union, Cuba used tanks in a static defence role. In the late 1980s it is reported that some of the 150 T34/85 tanks described as being in store were used in this way as were a number of SU100 self-propelled guns. In addition, fifteen 122mm IS2 tanks were used in fixed emplacements.¹¹

A Centurion tank turret that formed part of the Neu Bruck defences on the Austrian border. It was housed inside a wooden hut to provide camouflage. The turrets have now been withdrawn from service but this example has been retained and can be visited by the public. (Charles Blackwood)

CYPRUS

Following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Yugoslavia supplied the Greek Cypriots with T34/85 tanks. In the 1980s, twenty-four of these tanks were still in service and according to unofficial sources the Republic of Cyprus installed eight of these tanks in a static defence role in the early 1990s.¹²

CZECHOSLOVAKIA⁽⁵⁾

Following the defeat of Germany and the start of the Cold War, Europe was split into two blocs which were later to crystallize into NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Czechoslovakia, which had been annexed by Germany in 1938, now fell under the influence of the Soviet Union and formed one of the buffer states between the powers of the capitalist west and the communist east. As such steps were taken fortify the western border against any possible enemy incursion. These defences included the use of emplaced tank turrets that had been used by the Soviets before, during and after the war.

Panzer IV

Although a Soviet satellite state, Czechoslovakia had after the war acquired some eighty German Panzer IV tanks which the Velitelstv’ tankomechanizovaného vojska (VTMV) or Command of the Mechanised Armoured Corps absorbed into its ranks as the T40/75N and T42/74N which reflected the two different variants acquired.⁽⁶⁾

In 1955 the majority of these (forty-five) were sold to Syria. The remaining tanks (and wear and tear would have reduced the number still further) were deemed to be too few in number to retain as frontline vehicles and so, on the recommendation of Maj Gen Derzicky, the Soviet Advisor to the Czech Engineering Corps (VZV), it was decided to undertake tests to assess their suitability for deployment as fixed defences.⁽⁷⁾ In December 1954 the Chief of the General Staff, Lt Gen Václav Kratochvil ordered that three turrets be made available for tests at the Milovice training centre. However, the training centre was found to be unsuitable so the tests were moved to the anti-tank firing range at Jince-Padrt.

It was planned that the construction of the experimental structure should commence in the middle of March 1955 and was to be finished by May. Thereafter trials were to be undertaken to understand the tactical use of the turret in an anti-tank defence. It was also hoped to get a better understanding of how easy or difficult it was to construct, particularly mounting the turret and baseplate on the bunker, the materials needed, the build-up of carbon monoxide as a result of firing, and crucially the effect of the firing of the weapon on the structure.⁽⁸⁾

Czechoslovak Panzer IV on concrete shelter.

Structure

A revetted trench led to the walled (15cm (6in) thick walls) entrance in front of the main wooden door. Behind the door was a passageway which housed a single Model 37 ventilator that drew in clean air through a gravel filter.⁽⁹⁾ The walls were constructed from concrete 25cm (9in) thick which were capable of withstanding a direct hit from an 82mm mortar.⁽¹⁰⁾ The passageway led to the main fighting compartment which housed the turret basket and above it the turret. Below the turret was a chamber for spent cartridges. The access to this was through a sprung flap that ensured that no fumes could return to the fighting compartment. A flue led from here to the surface to ensure gases were vented safely outside. Under the chamber was a drainage channel for the dispersal of any water. The turret was mounted on the original tank superstructure, which was in turn secured to the bunker by ten 30mm (1in) diameter bolts.⁽¹¹⁾ The front wall was 1m (3ft) thick and the side walls 60cm (2ft). The whole structure was 609cm (239in) long and at its widest was 292cm (115in) across.

Construction

On 21 March, 23 men supervised by four NCOs began excavating the soil that was necessary to install the structure. This work was completed by 26 March and work on the concrete structure began. This was delayed by test firings on the range and the inexperienced workforce. By 8 April the last of the concrete was poured and the shuttering was removed ten days later. To provide added protection a metre-thick belt of hard core was packed around the walls. Meantime the last of the work preparing the turret and base was completed as the superstructure was cut to shape and the holes drilled to take the securing bolts. The superstructure was lifted into place and secured and the whole was turfed over. The work was complete by 30 April.

However, it is not clear whether the tests were completed and, if they were, whether they were successful. The remains of the structure are inaccessible to the public, and the archive records incomplete so it is only possible to surmise as to the outcome. What is clear, however, is that the idea of using tank turrets in this way was not dismissed.¹³

T34/85

Although the tests on the Panzer IV were inconclusive, the Czechoslovak army continued to experiment with other turrets including the Soviet T34/85.⁽¹²⁾ This was mounted on the so-called ‘KZ-3’ shelter that was in many respects markedly different to that for the Panzer IV. One of the main differences being that the base structure was constructed from prefabricated concrete sections.

Structure

At the front of the position was the turret mounting with circular track that sat on top of a concrete shaft. From here a tunnel led to the main entrance door. An inclined drainage channel under the passageway took excess water to a soakaway just beyond the door. The door, constructed from steel, led to a further section of tunnel, which was linked to the ammunition stores that were located around the main entrance shaft. From here a ladder led to the access hatch. The crew’s shelter was located to the rear and was accessible via a trench that was also linked to the main trench system. This was partially covered to afford the crew more protection. Further soakaways in these trenches prevented any flooding.

The fighting compartment itself was rudimentary. No discrete ventilation system was provided other than the turret’s own and as such when the main armament was used the crew was forced to leave the main door open. This also served to enable the ammunition feeder to dispose of spent cartridges. The functional design of the shelter meant that storage was limited and no specific room was set aside for ration packs and water, or for the tools for maintaining the turret and its equipment which all had to be stowed as best as possible.

Construction

Once the location for the turret had been identified⁽¹³⁾ the recess for the turret was excavated. This was dug to a diameter of 340cm (134in) with the centre corresponding to the anticipated central point of rotation of the turret.⁽¹⁴⁾ It was then necessary to establish the main direction of fire because this dictated the location of the shelter which was to be constructed to the rear of the turret. The excavation was to be 660cm (259in) long and 210cm (82in) wide and extended down some 245cm (6.2ft). In total some 28-35m³ (91–114ft³) of earth had to be excavated, depending on the method of excavation. Along the length of the dugout an inclined drainage channel was dug which led to the soakaway. The concrete shelter was then installed which was constructed from prefabricated sections (see Table 1 below for complete list of components).⁽¹⁵⁾

An interior view of the KZ3 concrete shelter that mounted a T34/85 turret. Just visible are the prefabricated concrete sections that formed the corridor and at the end is the shaft leading to the fighting compartment. This position was located at Tri Sekery. (Jan Pavel)

A further interior view looking the other way which shows the interior door and steps leading to the entrance.

Leaning against the wall is the anti-pressure door (Zdv-1). (Jan Pavel)

Directly under the turret, two precast concrete sections (squared or semi-circular) were placed on top of each other to form the shaft leading to the fighting compartment. A further seven prefabricated concrete frames were then positioned in the dugout by a crane. They were loosely joined with wire before eventually being secured together with iron tie rods. These sections formed the tunnel leading to the main door. Further concrete frames were installed after the door and led to the main access chamber, which was fitted with a hatch. Before being buried the concrete, sections were covered with plastic sheeting to waterproof the shelter and then a layer of spoil was applied to a thickness of approximately 80cm (31in). Finally the ground around the turret was levelled off and the turfs replaced. One of the more critical tasks was the installation of the base panel for the turret, which had to be perfectly horizontal. To achieve this the plate was mounted on a thin layer of damp sand. Provided all the materials and a crane were available the structure could be completed in four days.

Czechoslovak T34/85 on KZ-3 shelter.

Table 1 List of materials for KZ-3 shelter

When not in use the turret base plate was covered with a lid that was covered with soil. Similarly, the access hatch was covered with planks and soil. A marker identified where the entrance was. The turret for the structure was held in store and was transported to the site on a Tatra T111 transporter in times of tension and installed with an IT34 crane. The operation could be completed in seventy-five minutes.

Turret

The turret was a standard T34/85 turret⁽¹⁶⁾ with 85mm main armament and 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. The only noticeable difference was the addition of openings in the side of the turret, which served as emergency firing points – the crew was equipped with automatic weapons and grenades for their own protection. The turret had three seats for the commander, gunner and loader and another member of the crew acted as feeder for the ammunition from the shelter.

The turret could be rotated manually or with power traverse.⁽¹⁷⁾ An MB-20V electric motor powered by two batteries (with two further in reserve) provided the power. When these were fitted in the rear of the turret, however, they reduced the space available for ammunition from ten rounds to three rounds. The electric motor also provided power for the MV12 ventilator. This was fitted in such a way that it concentrated the fresh air round the loader who was at most risk from the gun exhaust fumes. Even so, the ventilation system was not considered powerful enough to prevent the build-up of carbon monoxide so the crew was provided with gas masks, which also served to protect them against other agents since the structure was not proof against chemical or biological weapons.

Postscript

Trials of the turret were carried out in 1959 and these seem to have been passed satisfactorily. Construction of positions began along Czechoslovakia’s western border soon after, but numbers built is unclear. In 1978 the Chief of the General Staff ordered their decommissioning.¹⁴

DENMARK

In 1953, as part of the Mutual Defence Aid Programme, Denmark procured 216 Centurion MK III tanks, a number of which had been used in the Korean War. These tanks formed the backbone of the Danish Army until 1976 when the first of an order for 120 Leopard I tanks was delivered. The Centurion was now gradually phased out of service and, in common with other Scandinavian countries, Denmark used 126 of these turrets as fixed fortifications.¹⁵ In 1989 the government ordered a further 110 Leopard Is which were delivered between 1992 and 1994. This would have breached Denmark’s commitment under the CFE Treaty⁽¹⁸⁾ which limited the army to 300 main battle tanks and as a result in the mid 1990s 146 Centurions were scrapped. Of these, ten found a home in museums, or on static display, while another eight were used as range targets. The remainder, including seemingly all the emplaced turrets, were disposed of leaving just seventy Centurions still on active service.

EGYPT

The Egyptians used dug-in T34, T54 and T55 tanks in Gaza during the Six-Day War of June 1967 and in the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 this tactic was used once again. In a pre-emptive strike, the Egyptians caught Israel off-guard, crossed the Suez canal, overwhelmed the unprepared garrison of the ‘Bar Lev Line’,⁽¹⁹⁾ advanced 4km (2½ miles) into the Sinai and dug in. Once the Israelis had recovered from the initial shock they responded with a tank attack. This proved to be an unmitigated disaster. Advancing against the hull-down Egyptian tanks, the Israelis lost practically every tank.

FINLAND

The Finnish Army, which is responsible for the country’s coastal defence, has taken numerous steps to protect its vulnerable coastline including mobile missile units and towed guns. Additionally, turret mounted guns were installed including the Patria Vammas 130mm coastal defence gun which is mounted in a bespoke steel turret.¹⁶ Since the mid-1980s Finland has also used Soviet T54 and T55 (D10T) turrets set in concrete.

The turrets were bought from Russia and originally they were installed without any modifications except for the loading mechanism. Later the turrets were adapted for their new role with the addition of laser rangefinders, a thermal sight, a ballistic computer and were supplied with more modern ammunition.

The turrets were driven to the location on a tank, lifted off and emplaced. The tank hull was then driven away to fetch the next turret. They are extremely well camouflaged which makes them difficult to see and they tend to be located in areas where the public normally cannot visit and certainly not take photographs. In spite of the secrecy it is believed that sixty-one such turrets have been installed.¹⁷

FRANCE (INDO CHINA)

In common with many European powers France had, prior to the war, held significant interests overseas. With the defeat of Germany and Japan the French government sought to re-establish this empire, and in October 1945 French troops arrived in Indo-China (modern day Vietnam). This attempt at restoring French rule was not welcomed by elements of the indigenous population and in December 1946 Vietminh forces attacked French garrisons, and during the ensuing years guerrilla activity increased in the countryside.

Having endured over four years of German occupation France was ill prepared to meet this new threat. French armoured units, for example, were equipped with American Shermans and a mixture of tanks from other nations including a number of captured German Panther tanks and a few ex-British army tanks. They also employed a number of tanks produced in France before the war including the Char B1, the Hotchkiss H39 and Somua S35. Some of these were transported to Indo-China to counter the insurgents⁽²⁰⁾ and it is also possible that a number stationed there prior to the war were still serviceable.

In addition to the use of conventional forces to counter the threat of the Vietminh, France also built a series of fortifications. These included blockhouses fitted with tank turrets, which were designed to protect key communication links like the Hanoi ring road. The turrets were taken from pre-war French tanks including the APX R armed with a 37mm gun and the APX 1 armed with a 47mm gun.⁽²¹⁾ There is also evidence to suggest that turrets from British Cromwell and Crusader tanks were used.¹⁸, ¹⁹, ²⁰ This seems to be borne out by a French report on operations in Indo China published in 1955 after a ceasefire had been agreed. This stated that ‘a tank turret (with 37mm, 47mm or 57mm gun) could be placed above and just to the rear of the forward embrasure [of a pillbox]’.²¹ Certain models of both the Crusader and Cromwell tanks were fitted with 6-pounders, which broadly equates to a 57mm gun.

A Crusader tank turret armed with a 6-pounder gun mounted on top of a concrete position dominating Quang Yen, north of Haiphong. (Francis Jaureguy, courtesy of D O’Hara)

An H39 turret mounted on top of a French blockhouse in Indo China. Of interest is the split hatch, which could indicate that this turret was previously used by the Germans. (ECPA)

Another H39 turret mounted on top of a concrete blockhouse in Indo China. The design of the position is unusual in that there has been no attempt to bury the bunker and it is also had a number of apertures. (ECPA)

GREECE

Britain had always had a close involvement with Greek affairs, not least because of its strategic location, and supported the anti-communist forces in the Civil War that erupted in 1946. The British backed forces prevailed and a constitutional monarchy was restored.⁽²²⁾ The new government aligned itself with the west and although not on the Atlantic, its proximity to the Middle East and the Eastern bloc meant that the United States soon recognized the importance of the Balkan state and in 1951 Greece became a full member of NATO.

Being one of the western nations with a common border with a Soviet bloc country – in this case Yugoslavia – Greece, in a throwback to the interwar years when the Metaxas line had been built, constructed a series of fortifications along the border to deter a possible invasion. These defences included tank turrets used as fixed fortifications. The turrets were taken from old Grant and Sherman tanks and were mounted on concrete shelters. These positions were still in use up until the 1980s and many of the turrets are still in place today and in an excellent state of preservation.

The Sherman turrets were either taken from M4 or M4A1 tanks, a number of which had been left behind when the British forces departed from Greece after the war. The gun and the mantlet of the original turret was removed and replaced with welded steel plates arranged in such a way to leave a small opening at the front to take a machine gun. On the right-hand side of the turret, appliqué armour was welded on to provide extra protection. The turret was painted in a three-tone camouflage scheme; two shades of green and one of sand. The whole turret was additionally covered in chicken wire so that camouflage could be applied. The turret was mounted on a concrete shelter. To the right was an access hatch that led to the fighting compartment beneath. This was some 3m (10ft) deep and could accommodate five to eight men.²²

The Grant tanks were similarly installed on concrete shelters. They were installed on the shore of Lake Doiran, which straddles the border with Greece and the former Yugoslavia, and were constructed during the Colonels’ dictatorship (1967–74).²³

IRAQ

There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that turrets taken from obsolete Soviet tanks that had previously been used to equip the Iraqi army and Republican Guard, have been used as improvised strong points in Baghdad.

One of the Sherman turrets that was installed at Evzoni on the Greek border with the former Yugoslavia. This view clearly shows the stepped concrete shelter on which the turret was mounted. Chicken wire covers the turret and would have been used to attach camouflage. (T. Tsiplakos)

ISRAEL

Following the end of the Second World War in 1945 there was a huge stockpile of military materiel as the victors reduced their armed forces to peacetime levels and the Axis powers were disarmed. The surplus hardware was either scrapped or was sold to newly liberated countries or to states that had secured independence. In this scrabble a number of Sherman tanks, which had formed the mainstay of the American armoured forces during the war, were ‘acquired’ by the Israelis and some were used in the 1948 War of Independence, although most arrived after the hostilities had ended.

Despite this setback Israel’s neighbours were determined to eliminate this Jewish homeland and began to strengthen their armed forces. The Egyptians, for example, from 1953 began to procure Soviet T34/85 tanks and SU100 tank destroyers. These were more than a match for the basic Sherman and although the Israelis were able to purchase a number of AMX13 light tanks form France it was clear that the most logical approach was to upgun the reliable Sherman. It also seemed eminently sensible to use the high velocity long-barelled 75mm gun fitted to the AMX13 (and which had been used so successfully by the Germans in the Panther tank).

The larger breach and length of recoil meant that the turret had to be remodelled and the new tank was christened the M50 and by 1961, one hundred Shermans had been reconfigured. Advances in armour technology, however, meant that the 75mm main gun was no longer powerful enough to penetrate the armour of the tanks now fielded by Israel’s enemies. Plans to mount the French 105mm gun (from the AMX30) were introduced which meant that the turret had to be remodelled again and in 1962 the first of the so-called M51s was delivered. The M50 and M51 served throughout the 1960s and were the mainstay of the Israeli armoured forces in the Six-Day War in 1967. However, by the time of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 the Sherman had been relegated to the reserve, replaced by the more powerful American M48, M60 and British Centurion tanks. Some Shermans were still in use in the 1980s and 1990s but they were gradually withdrawn from service.

The fighting that had raged on and off since the War of Independence, and in which the Sherman had played such an important part, had seen the state of Israel grow significantly in size with land seized from her Arab neighbours. The occupied territories were soon settled, but being so close to Israel’s avowed enemies they were exposed to attack and needed defending. One solution was to use emplaced tank turrets.

1. Rosh Hanikfra (Kibbutz Hanita)

2. Bar’am

3. Kibbutz Yiron (1 × M48 turret)

4. Yiftach

5. Mehola × 2

6. Argaman^*

7. Massau × 2

8. Peza’el × 2 (one at Kibbutz Peza’el)

^*Reported to have two turrets, but no evidence remains

An M50 tank that was used in a static defence role by the Israelis. This view shows the access to the shelter. To give added protection the spoil would have been built up around the sides of the tank so that only the turret was visible. This example was located on the coast at Kibbutz Hanita, just south of the Israel/Lebanon border. (Svein Wiiger Olsen)

As the M50 was withdrawn from service a number were modified and were used in a static role to defend the West Bank⁽²³⁾ and the border with Lebanon and Syria. The tank was emplaced whole and all variants of the Sherman hull (including M4, M4A2 and M4A4 models) were seemingly used. Before installation the more modern HVSS tracks and suspension were removed and replaced by the old VVSS bogies which enabled the tank to be unloaded from the transporter and more easily moved to its final location. The engine deck was sometimes removed and replaced with a flat plate. Access to the position was gained either through an enlarged rear door or by removing the transmission cover at the front.⁽²⁴⁾ A concrete walkway linked the entrance to the tank to a revetted communication trench that often led to further defensive positions. To provide extra protection for the hull, earth and rocks were banked around the tank so that only the turret was visible. Inside the M50, the engine was removed, as were all other fittings save for the turret basket and ammunition stowage.²⁴ The tank retained its 75mm CN 75-50 main gun and coaxial 7.62mm MG. Later turrets from the more modern M48 tank were used with one being emplaced at Kibbutz Yiron.²⁵

The Israeli Defence Force also used obsolete American M48 tank turrets as improvised fixed fortifications. (www.israeliweapons.com)

Many of the tanks fielded by Israel’s neighbours in the six wars that punctuated the second half of the twentieth century were supplied by the Soviet Union or its satellite states. Many of these were captured by the Israelis and were pressed into service by the Israel Defence Forces, some as fixed fortifications. Turrets taken from ex-Soviet BTR 60 Armoured cars were used in the Golan Heights as were T34/85 turrets and there are also unconfirmed reports that IS3 turrets were used in the Bar Lev Line.^26 (25)

Today a number of these turrets can still be seen, but they are no longer in active service. The role of deterrent has now passed to helicopter gunships and ground-attack aircraft that are quickly able to strike at enemy insurgents.

ITALY

Italy’s northern border with the rump of Continental Europe is dominated by the Alpine mountain chain. This natural feature offered the new Italian state⁽²⁶⁾ an excellent opportunity to defend its land border from attack. In the late nineteenth century work began on the first fortifications and these were improved during the First World War. In 1931 work began on the ‘Vallo Alpino’ (or ‘Vallo del Littorio’) which was a system of permanent fortifications designed to block all routes into Italy particularly those leading from France, Austria and Yugoslavia.⁽²⁷⁾

The Israelis also used captured tanks in a static defence role. Here a T34/85 has been installed near the southern edge of the Sea of Galilee. The tank is surrounded by a dirt berm, which originally covered everything but the turret. The position was damaged by fire – the note reads ‘fire inside’ – and now sits inside the fence of a construction company. (Tom Gannon)

The work continued for a decade until it was stopped in 1942 and although incomplete Italy was protected by a large semi-circle of defences stretching from the Ligurian sea to the Adriatic. The defences saw little fighting in the Second World War and after the war many of the fortifications were either destroyed or were taken over by neighbouring states as the peacetime borders were moved. This left Italy’s land border largely undefended and this was particularly evident on the border with the newly formed communist state of Yugoslavia. Here many of the defences had been lost when part of the Venezia Giulia was ceded to Marshall Tito and most of the remainder were destroyed in accordance with the peace treaty which required a 20km (12 miles) wide demilitarized zone.

After the war, Italy aligned itself with the western powers and was one of the original signatories of the NATO alliance in 1949. With the heightened tension of the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s there was a debate about how best to maintain Italian security and in particular the value of fortifications in the nuclear age. In the end it was decided that such defences did have a role to play. Along the border with Austria (a large part of which was occupied by Soviet forces immediately after the war) the structures of the original Vallo Alpino were used, but along the border with Yugoslavia the defences had to be built from scratch. Lacking any strong natural features it was decided to adopt a similar approach to that of the Germans in their strategic withdrawal up the Italian peninsula during the Second World War with the emphasis on small-scale field works⁽²⁸⁾ built in depth rather than large-scale permanent defences.

The new defences stretched from the Piz Lat mountain area to the mouth of the Natisone and as far back as the left bank of the Tagliamento River. Much of the work was financed by NATO through its Mutual Defence Aid Program. The mountain defences included some 200 permanent positions some of which were continuously manned by men of the so-called ‘Arrest units’ while others were simply maintained in a state of readiness. Included in these defences were emplaced tank turrets; the idea being taken from the German example which had been so successful in the defence of Italy in the latter stages of the Second World War. This expedient was used more extensively on the plains below where natural defensive features were largely absent. Here concrete pits were constructed to house unserviceable Sherman and M26 Pershing tanks (with their engines removed).^(29)(30) In peacetime the turrets were concealed in metal or wooden sheds, or in the mountains, trees were planted which would be cut down when the turret was needed to afford the crew a good field of fire.

A Sherman tank turret installed at Dignano, Italy. It was concealed by wooden shuttering, which would have been removed when the position was readied for action. The sign prohibits dumping!

(C. Vermeulen)

M26 Pershing

During the early 1950s the American M47 was selected by the Italian Army to replace the obsolete M26 Pershing, which had until then formed the backbone of the post war Italian Tank Corps. The surplus Pershings were made available for use as fixed fortifications and were employed in a number of ways. Whole tanks with their engines removed were put in specially constructed concrete pits. These positions also included concrete shelters for the crew, munitions and a generator. Other turrets were removed from their hull and mounted on reinforced concrete emplacements. These also included accommodation for the crew and equipment, including a generator, and a facility for disposing of spent cartridges. The turrets retained their original optical equipment, electrical firing equipment and hydraulic traversing gear.²⁷

These fortifications were mainly positioned to cover roads, motorways and bridges. In support of these positions were constructed command and observation posts for fire control, observation positions on higher ground to communicate details of enemy movements and dispositions and also armoured cupolas mounting machine guns to provide protection from infantry assault (generally one for each gun). These included German MG Panzernests left over after the war.²⁸

M26 Pershing hull-down in a concrete pit, Italy.

M26 Pershing turret on specially designed shelter, Italy.

M26 Pershing hull-down in a concrete pit, Italy.

Sherman Firefly

Along with the M26 Pershing, the Italian Army’s obsolete Shermans were also replaced in the early 1950s. Again many of the tanks were used as fixed fortifications with a number of tanks positioned in concrete pits. Alternatively, the front of the hull and the engine deck were removed leaving just a square section of the superstructure mounting the turret, which was mounted on a concrete shelter. The turrets retained many of their original fittings and all the positions were fitted with CPRC/26 type radios and sometimes field telephones. Three Sherman Firefly turrets, along with three MG turrets, mounted on concrete shelters were installed near Dobbiaco, which had formed part of the Vallo Alpino.²⁹

Sherman M4/M4A1

In a number of cases Sherman tank turrets were used but without their main and coaxial armament. Instead the MG42/59 machine gun was fitted (the NATO version of the German MG42).³⁰ The machine gun was mounted on a standard pedestal that had been used in other bunkers of the Vallo Alpino built in the 1930s. The embrasure was slightly enlarged to improve the field of fire. Other openings were welded shut. A small part of the original hull was retained and this served as the base plate for the turret. Two hatches were cut in the front to allow the crew access. The tanks engine was removed and this meant that there was no power to heat the shelter and that the turret had to be traversed by hand. The lack of power and the cramped conditions were not considered a major handicap because the turrets were only intended to be used as holding positions before the Italian army could be fully mobilized. When not in use the turret was concealed with wooden shuttering.

Postscript

In 1986 plans were considered for replacing the older Sherman and Pershing turrets with more modern M60 and German Leopard Mk I turrets. However, this would have contravened the terms of the CFE Treaty that expressly stated that equipment over certain limits set in the agreement should be destroyed and not reused. The possibility of improving the turrets against NBC threats was also considered, but no further action was taken. With the demise of the Warsaw Pact the border defences were no longer of any use and from 1992 all the Italian fortifications, including the tank turrets, which were by this time obsolete, were gradually dismantled.³¹

Sherman turret on a concrete shelter, Italy.

The main and coaxial armament of the Sherman were removed and replaced with an MG42/59. The other openings were welded shut. (C. Vermeulen)

A final view of the Sherman turret at Dignano that clearly shows the entrance and the section of tank body that formed the base of the structure. (C. Vermeulen)

THE NETHERLANDS

In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and before NATO was established, the countries of Western Europe faced the very real threat of a Soviet invasion. Emergency defence plans were quickly drawn up by F/M Montgomery, as chairman of the permanent defence organization of the Western European Union,⁽³¹⁾ with the River Rhine identified as the main defence line. All forces east of the river were to be evacuated in the event of war and were to be deployed along its length. This meant that the Netherlands occupied a crucial position in the defensive plan. However, it was recognized that Dutch forces at this time were too weak to make a material contribution to the defensive strength of the forces arrayed against the Soviet Union. The actions of the retreating German forces and the Allied bombing had left the Netherlands devastated and all the country’s resources were invested in rebuilding the infrastructure and not the armed forces. At the same time the few military resources that were available were involved in the war of independence in Indonesia, which had been a Dutch colony before the war.

In spite of the parlous state of the Dutch armed forces, the General Staff, at the beginning of 1949, began to formulate a plan (Plan Leeuw or Lion) to counter the Soviet threat. This coincided with NATO’s plan for defending the Rhine, but was also necessary because the old water line⁽³²⁾ was deemed to be too far west to enable an effective defence of the densely populated conurbations. Those forces that could be scraped together were deployed along the River IJssel, a branch of the Rhine and at the ends of the Afsluitdijk.⁽³³⁾ Before the war this had been heavily fortified and these defences were now modernized and new defences added, including for the first time emplaced tank turrets, which were necessary because all the original anti-tank shelters now mounted only machine guns.

After the war the victorious allies demobilized and left a large amount of equipment in Europe. The Canadians in particular, who liberated much of the Netherlands, left a number of tanks, mostly Rams and Shermans. Many of these were obsolete or were in a poor state of repair and because the Dutch army had neither the money, the expertise, nor the men to operate the tanks even if they were repaired it was decided to use them in a static role. At the eastern end of the Afsluitdijk (at Kornwerderzand) four Sherman Firefly turrets with 17-pounder main armament were employed and a further three emplaced at Den Oever. A number of tank turrets⁽³⁴⁾ were also installed to defend the IJsselbridges. Many of these had their main armament removed and replaced with machine guns.

This expedient was fine in the short term, but it was recognized that at least five divisions would be needed to defend a line running along the River IJssel. This was considered too expensive and a more cost effective solution was sought. In 1949 studies were begun into the possibility of making the IJssel river into an obstacle of strategic importance. This research led to the idea, eventually accepted in 1951, of using huge caisson-like barriers to dam the River Waal at Nijmegen and the River Rhine at Arnhem so diverting the water into the IJssel to form large inundations from 2–8km (1–5 miles) wide depending on the season. This was estimated to cost 100 million florins – a fraction of the cost of a standing army.

The barriers consisted of large floating steel constructions that could be manoeuvred into place when an attack by the Warsaw Pact was considered imminent and sunk in the river using stones or concrete. This could be achieved in a matter of hours and further shoring up work completed soon after. However, it took some days or even weeks (depending on the season) for sufficient water to amass and at that time it was calculated that the Soviets could reach the IJssel within days of the outbreak of war. As such it was imperative that these strategic points were defended from both air and ground attack. Therefore, each of the three locations⁽³⁵⁾ was provided with perimeter defences that included numerous anti-aircraft defences but also emplaced tank turrets.

At Nijmegen, five Sherman Firefly tank turrets with their original 17-pounder main armament were installed along with a further twenty-nine Sherman turrets mounting machine guns. At Arnhem, twenty-one Sherman tank turrets were emplaced, all fitted with machine guns, and finally at Deventer, a further six Sherman firefly turrets were employed along with twenty-three Ram turrets mounting machine guns.³²

Sherman turret armed with an MG on a concrete shelter, The Netherlands.

The tanks were installed by the Speciale Werken von Rijkswaterstaat (Special Works Service of the Department for the Maintenance of Dikes, Roads, Bridges and Canals), in close cooperation with the Ministry of War. Employees of the Department were also recruited to put the dams in place in times of danger and were given extra pay for doing so.³³

After a certain amount of trial and error it was found that the best way of installing the turret was to move a tank into the prepared position and then remove the tracks and most of the road wheels.^(36) 34 The majority of the tank’s fittings were removed save for the traversing mechanism and the periscopes.

The turrets tended to be positioned in a circle around the caissons with anti-tank and machine gun turrets supporting each other. Machine gun turrets were also used to give protection to the 40cm Bofors guns.

Ram

The machine gun turrets, by far the most numerous, were standard Ram (Cruiser Tank Mk II) or Sherman turrets, which had had their main armament removed and replaced with an MG. On the Sherman the original opening where the main gun had been located was enlarged to approximately 275mm (10in) to allow a small field of fire for the weapon. The turrets mounted four different weapons: the water-cooled Vickers or Browning machine gun; the air-cooled Browning, or the light Bren machine gun. Each turret was fitted with a special gun carriage to mount the weapon.

Being concreted into position meant that the crew’s emergency escape hatch in the hull floor was no longer usable so a new exit was provided in the rear above where the engine had once been.⁽³⁷⁾ The space left by the removal of the engine served as living quarters for the crew, but with no engine the turret had to be rotated by hand. The only other additions were a small heater and a telephone connection. Surprisingly no artificial ventilation was provided.

The positions were constructed on concrete rafts (supported where necessary by six concrete piles). The base was protected by 30cm- (12in) thick reinforced concrete walls and 3m (10ft) of earth ramparts. Where it was not possible to use earth ramparts, the walls were increased to 60cm (24in).^(38) 35

Ram armed with an MG encased in concrete, the Netherlands.

A Ram tank turret located near Olst on the road to Deventer. The main armament was removed and replaced with a machine gun. (Johan Meijer)

A Sherman turret that is till in situ near Doesburg. The specially widened embrasure for the MG is clearly visible at the front. For safety reasons all the openings have been sealed. (Johan Meijer)

Ram

Turret statistics:

Armour (thickness/angle):

Sherman Firefly

After the war the Netherlands acquired fifty-seven Sherman Fireflies and eleven of these were installed as fixed fortifications. The turrets retained their main and coaxial armament but, like the machine gun turrets, the original tank engine was removed. In this case the engine was replaced with a Coventry-Victor-Dornhoff 2.5Kw generator, which provided power for heat, light and ventilation – one vent in the turret and one in the hull. The turret still had to be rotated by hand, but generally the turret was only required to cover a narrow front and so power traverse was not essential. The concrete shelter was mounted on six piles and had 60cm (24in) thick walls to withstand the heavy recoil of the main armament.⁽³⁹⁾

Sherman Firefly

Turret statistics:

See Italy above

Bunker statistics:

Sherman Firefly mounted on a concrete shelter, The Netherlands.

A Sherman Firefly turret, which was installed near Olst on the road to Deventer. The access hatch to the crew’s compartment is visible at the rear. (Johan Meijer)

Staghound

The Dutch, in common with a number of nations, also used armoured car turrets for airfield protection. Here again the entire hull, stripped of the majority of its parts, was buried in the ground and encased in reinforced concrete.³⁶ Many of the turrets were exhumed in the 1980s, but several of these turrets still remain, although their future is in doubt.

Postscript

With the partial restoration of the German Army, NATO changed its strategy in Western Europe to that of a ‘forward defence strategy’ with the River Weser and River Elbe providing defensive positions for NATO forces. As a result, the IJssellinie became largely redundant and in 1964 it was proposed that the line be dismantled. By 1968 most of the work had been completed and today relatively few of the tank turrets remain:³⁷

Nijmegen:	3 MG tank turrets.
	1 AT turret.
Arnhem:	6 MG turrets.
Olst:	4 MG turrets.
	1 AT turret (with a fake barrel).

NORWAY

At the end of the Second World War Norway inherited approximately thirty-two Panzer III (5cm and 7.5cm) and Sturmgeschütz III Ausf G tanks and assault guns. These were left behind when the German forces, which had occupied the country, departed after the cessation of hostilities. These were given the designation KW-III and were in use from the end of the war until 1960. When they were finally withdrawn from service a number of the turrets were mounted on concrete emplacements. At least one of the Panzer III turrets was used to protect Fornebu airport, Oslo (now closed and redeveloped).³⁸

Under the Marshall Aid plan, Norway also purchased 124 American M24 Chaffee light tanks along with a number of M8 Greyhound and M20 armoured cars. To prolong their usefulness, around seventy Chaffees were given a mid-life update which saw them fitted with a new engine and a 90mm main gun. The new tank was designated the NM-116 and was not withdrawn from service until 1970. A number of the unmodified turrets (together seemingly with turrets from the M8 armoured cars) were used as fixed fortifications and were manned by Home Guard units.

SOVIET UNION

In the years after the ending of the Second World War the Soviet Union’s military thinking was concerned more with offensive rather than defensive strategies. However, with the emergence of China as a major power and the growing tension between the two great communist states the emphasis changed. The border between the two countries stretched for some 7,000km and thinking at the time suggested that one division could defend a 10km-(6-mile) front. The mathematics of this was frightening for the Kremlin. Even a more conservative assumption that one division could hold a 15km-(9-mile) front still meant that the Soviets would need to maintain an army of more than 450 divisions. The solution to this problem was a return to the use of fortifications, including concrete bunkers mounting tank turrets.

The tradition of using turrets in this fashion had been established in the 1930s with the construction of the Stalin and Molotov Lines and this idea was revisited and was helped in no small part by the military’s policy of mothballing rather than scrapping old tanks.⁽⁴⁰⁾ In the 1970s and 1980s a large number of Tankovaya Ognievaya Totshka (TOT), or tank firing posts, were constructed. Obsolete T34/85, IS2, IS3, IS4, T10, T44, T54 and T55 tanks with their engines removed were buried in the ground so that only their turrets were visible. The hull was then concreted in place and was linked to a shelter at the rear with access to the tank via the tank’s emergency hatch. Alternatively, turrets were mounted on specially designed bunkers which included special compartments for the crew, an ammunition store capable of storing several hundred shells, a diesel engine and air filters.⁽⁴¹⁾ These tended to be fitted with turrets from T54 and T55 turrets.³⁹

The turrets mounted on both these positions were largely unmodified save for the addition of a radar fire control system and appliqué armour. They were generally located about 3km (1½ miles) back from the border, and because it was impossible to install these positions all along the frontier, they were concentrated at strategically important locations with particular concentrations in front of major Far-Eastern cities.⁴⁰ They were built so that they were mutually supporting and were reinforced with other defences including concrete bunkers and even turrets from old warships. One Soviet city that was protected with emplaced tank turrets was Vladivostock. In the 1970s, in the Vladivostock Defensive Region, the Soviet Navy installed turrets near the Vladivostock–Khabarovsk highway with nine IS2 turrets emplaced near the village of Uglovoje. Turrets from T34-85, IS2 and IS3 tanks were also used to protect the Kuril Islands near Vladivostock.⁴¹

An early T54 turret mounted on a concrete shelter protecting a section of the border with Communist China. (Sergei Netrebenko)

One of the reinforced concrete bunkers on the border with China that were built alongside the emplaced turrets to deter a possible attack by Chinese forces.

(Sergei Netrebenko)

It is unclear how many of these TOTs were constructed along the Chinese border, but it certainly ran to hundreds maybe even thousands. What is clear is that they provided a potent deterrent with one commentator noting that, ‘The whole forms an excellent firing point, with powerful (often 122mm) tank gun, two machine guns, an excellent optical system, reliable defence against a nuclear blast and an underground cable connecting it with the command post. With these resources, two or three soldiers can defend several kilometres of frontier.’⁴²

T44

The turret was based on that of the T34/85, but dispensed with the collar at the base. The first prototype was completed in 1944 and some 150–200 were completed before production ceased in 1947 in favour of the more modern T54.⁴³ A number of turrets were later released for use in a static role along the border with China.

A T44 turret mounted on a concrete shelter with octagonal base plate. This example was installed on the Soviet border with China. The barrel appears to have been sealed. (Sergei Netrebenko)

IS2

The first prototype was produced in 1943. The turret was very small and restricted the amount of ammunition that could be stowed and slowed the rate of fire.⁴⁴ In spite of these shortcomings a number of IS2s were retained and were later buried in the ground along the Chinese border, sometimes strengthened with a concrete surround.

An IS2 turret emplaced on the Soviet border with China. The position was protected by reinforced concrete, which can be seen in the foreground. (Sergei Netrebenko)

A rear view of the same IS2 turret which shows that the whole tank was simply buried in the ground and surrounded by reinforced concrete. In the left foreground the engine louvres and barrel rest are visible. The rear machine gun appears to have been removed and the gap sealed with a steel plug. The turrets cast number is clearly visible on the rear bustle. (Sergei Netrebenko)

IS3

A prototype was completed in November 1944. It differed from the IS2 in that it had a hemispherical turret. Before the end of the war in Europe 350 IS3s were produced.⁴⁵ With the development of more modern tanks a number of the turrets were mounted on concrete shelters, but in addition a unique position for the IS3 was developed and tested at the Scientific Research Institute of Engineering Technical Equipment of the Red Army near Moscow.⁽⁴²⁾ An hydraulic system allowed the tank turret to be raised above the ground to fire and then lowered out of sight when not in use.⁴⁶

An IS3 tank turret installed on the border with China. Interestingly the concrete on this example has been shaped to afford the turret more protection. The small gap may have been cut to allow rain and snow melt to drain away. (E. Hitriak)

T10

The IS10 as it was originally known was the last of the IS series of tanks and after Stalin’s death it was renamed the T10. Production began in the mid-1950s and it was finally taken out of service in 1993. However, in spite of this lengthy period of time it was not considered particularly satisfactory, partly because of the slow rate of fire, which was the result of using two-part ammunition. The turret was, though, very well protected and the main armament was capable of penetrating 450mm of armour at a range of 2,000m, which meant that it was ideally suited for use as a static fortification.

A Soviet T10 Tankovaya Ognievaya Totshka (TOT) located on the border with China. The tank, minus its running gear, was buried in the ground and some thin metal sheeting applied. The photograph shows the crew on exercise in the 1970s. (S. Zaloga)

Finland

Though far less menacing, a similar solution to that adopted along the border with China was used along the border with Finland. In the Karelian ukreplinnyje rajony (UR) a specially designed bunker was built to mount the IS4 turret. These were constructed to the rear of the front line (1–3km (½–1½ miles) back) and tended to be built near main roads so as to be able to cover the likeliest routes of attack.

The position mounting the turret was essentially divided into two distinct sections. The main fighting compartment and an auxiliary section. The main entrance at the rear led into a dog-leg corridor which bisected the auxiliary section. On the left, and the larger of the two rooms, was the quarters for an infantry section, whose job it was to protect the turret from infantry attack. Opposite was a store for their weapons, uniforms and equipment. At the end of the corridor was the main fighting compartment below the turret. This could accommodate fifty rounds of ammunition stored in racks secured to the walls. A metal ladder led from here, through an armoured ceiling, to the turret. Below the fighting compartment was a chamber to take spent shell cases.

From the fighting compartment the corridor continued to a hallway, which served as a home for the batteries that provided power to the turret systems. Leading off this hallway were three doors leading to the ammunition store, the crew’s quarters and a machine room. The ammunition store, which was located next to the turret, could accommodate one hundred rounds on metal racks. Next to this was the crew’s quarters, which was fitted with two beds, a table, chairs and a sink as well as sanitary facilities. Adjacent to this was a room housing a small diesel engine, which powered an AC generator, and a fuel tank. The room was also home to a small stove. A door led from here to another room housing the main ventilation and air filtration systems that protected the crew from NBC attack. A separate compartment in this room housed the various filters. Flues led from here to the outside and were fitted in such a way that they did not appear above the surface.

The walls of the main shelter were 4m thick and the ceiling 2m thick and were impervious to all but the heaviest shells. However, this contrasted with the auxiliary section where the walls and ceiling were noticeably thinner; the outer wall was only 2m thick and the ceiling 1.5m. The difference in the thickness can be attributed to the positioning of the auxiliary rooms at the rear of the shelter which was less exposed to armour piercing shells that would have a flat trajectory and which were considered to pose the greatest threat to the operation of the position. Moreover, when the shelter was under attack the rooms would be unoccupied because the infantry section would most likely be deployed outside.

Separate to the TOT was a small ammunition store. This was located some 50m from the main position. The main entrance led into a small pressure chamber. Through a second door was the main store where it was possible to store 150–300 rounds for the main armament. In addition to the main entrance there was an unsealed loading hatch (which seemed to undermine the effectiveness of the pressure chamber!).

Because the positions were static, secrecy concerning the construction of the bunker and camouflage of the turret was imperative. The structures were built quickly and were described as civilian construction projects to avoid any awkward questions. When complete the turrets, including the barrel, which rested on a metal support, were covered with metal sheeting and the whole was covered with earth. Entrances to both the TOT and ammunition bunker were similarly concealed. The whole position was surrounded with barbed wire and a small wooden cabin on concrete foundation was built and was manned by security personnel, although it could be that these guards were not actually aware of what they were protecting.

Training for the crew was also conducted in such a way that the position of the turrets was not compromised. A single turret which was identical to all the other positions, and which could double as a fully functioning defensive position, was used to train the crews. On mobilization the crew was given the number of their position and were transported to the location. It was only on arrival that the crew was provided with the information necessary to operate the turret effectively – maps, panoramas with the ranges of key features and so on.

Inspite of all these precautions the TOTs could not escape the fact that unlike a standard tank they lacked mobility and as a consequence they were vulnerable to enemy fire once their position had been pinpointed. But these positions also suffered from other shortcomings despite the fact that they were arguably the most advanced in the history of this type of fortification.

The entrance to the position was protected by a series of doors and gates that were not particularly strong. The entranceway also lacked a machine gun embrasure to protect against infantry assault. There was also no provision for the decontamination of uniforms and equipment following an NBC attack. Inside the shelter there were no blast doors and the internal walls were very thin especially for the ammunition room (40mm) and under the turret (25mm). This exposed the crew to a far greater danger if there was an internal explosion, and to make matters worse there was no emergency exit.⁴⁷

IS4

Soviet IS4 turret mounted on a concrete bunker in the Karelian UR.

The IS4 was a further development of the IS2, but it was not a popular tank not least because it was extremely heavy by comparison with its siblings and only 250 were built.⁴⁸ However, the thick armour of the IS4 meant that it was ideally suited to the role of fixed fortification and as late as 1984 – forty years after it was developed – a manual was issued with instructions for emplacing the turret.

The IS4 turrets used in the Karelian UR were specially designed for the purpose. Hatches on the roof were dispensed with meaning that access to the turret could only be gained from the bunker. No additional protection was provided against shaped charges because the small target was considered the best protection against such a threat.

An IS4 turret located on the Sino-Soviet border and which protected the vast open plains of the region. The tank has been buried in the ground so that just its turret is visible. Reinforced concrete has been used to provide extra protection. (Sergei Netrebenko)

One of the prototype Gorchak turrets armed with a 30mm grenade launcher, machine gun and a rocket launcher. (W. Parad courtesy of M. Sledzinski)

Postscript

It is not known exactly how many TOTs were installed in the Karelian UR⁽⁴³⁾ but they were withdrawn from service in the late 1990s and the turrets removed. The turrets on the Chinese border have also seemingly been abandoned although many are still in place. However, the idea has not been completely dismissed with because as recently as 1999, Russia introduced the Gorchak. This is not strictly speaking a tank turret but it is a continuation of the concept. A prefabricated shelter is buried in the ground and is fitted with a 30mm grenade launcher, a 7.62 or 12.7mm machine gun and a 9M113 Konkurs rocket launcher. It is manufactured by the same company that makes the armament modules for the BMP-1 and 2, BTR-70 and eighty armoured car turrets. The Gorchak will probably remain as a prototype.⁴⁹

SWEDEN

Despite a long-standing tradition of neutrality dating back to 1814, Sweden was always prepared for war. In 1936, with the storm clouds gathering over Europe, Sweden embarked on a rearmament programme that saw an increase in the numbers of aircraft and antiaircraft guns and later, the commencement of work on a series of coastal defences to protect her exposed southern flank.⁽⁴⁴⁾ The work on the fortifications was carried out in four phases between July 1939 and October 1940 and saw the construction of more than 1,000 bunkers and pillboxes, or ‘värn’, in what later became known as the Per Albin Line.⁽⁴⁵⁾ Twelve basic designs were developed with most of them designed to accommodate a machine gun, although some were designed for the Bofors 37mm anti-tank gun.

Sweden’s preparation for war also included the development of a strong armoured force. In the years leading up to the Second World War the Swedish army showed a great interest in a number of tanks that were designed and manufactured in Czechoslovakia and an order was placed for ninety TNHP-S tanks which were to be delivered in the summer of 1940. However, the German authorities, impressed by the performance of the Czech tanks, cancelled the order and took the tanks themselves. Unperturbed, the Swedes entered into negotiations to manufacture the tank under licence and in December 1940 the Germans agreed. The Czech TNHP-S, now given the designation Stridsvagn m/41 SI, was to be manufactured by Scania-Vabis. In June 1941 the Swedish army placed an order for 116 of these tanks. The first tank rolled off the assembly line in December 1942 and the last in August 1943. For all intents and purposes, the Strv m/41 was the same as the Panzer 38(t). However, the tank was fitted with either the 37mm Bofors m/38 L/37 or L40 anti-tank tank gun and two 8mm m/39 machine guns – one in the turret and one in the front glacis plate.

Yet, even before the first of the Strv m/41 SI tanks was delivered, it was clear that the original design was dated by comparison with tanks now being used by the Allied and Axis forces. Unable to design and develop a new tank and unable to buy more modern tanks from the main belligerents, the Swedes decided to order an improved version of the original Czech model. The Strv m/41 SII, as it was christened, had thicker armour, a more powerful engine and a larger fuel tank, but mounted the same weaponry. In June 1942, 122 of these tanks were ordered, although only 104 were delivered between October 1943 and March 1944 when production ceased.⁽⁴⁶⁾

The Swedish Strv m/41 was based on the Panzer 38(t). When it was taken out of service a number were used for airfield defence as here. (Svein Wiiger Olsen)

A Swedish Strv m/42 tank turret. It is fitted with a 75mm main gun and twin coaxially mounted machine guns. The turret dated from the Second World War and when used for coastal defence was upgraded with a new electro-optical fire control system. (SPHF)

This powerful armoured force, together with the extensive fortifications programme and a flexible policy of political realism meant that, despite a number of alarms (including the Russo-Finnish Winter War and the German invasion of Norway which threatened to embroil Sweden in the conflict), Sweden managed to protect her neutral status. With the war over the government in Stockholm undertook a defence review, which led to the introduction of new more modern tanks and a decision to renovate the Per Albin Line, which now became part of the Swedish coastal defence system.

With the introduction of newer tanks in the mid 1950s it was decided to gradually phase out the older models including the Strv m/41 (but also the m/38, m/39 and m/40), which totalled some 400 tanks. It was suggested that a number⁽⁴⁷⁾ of the surplus turrets should be used as fortifications along the coast, but their weak armour and poor armament meant they were not ideally suited to this role, so instead it was decided to position them around strategic installations, particularly airfields.⁽⁴⁸⁾ However, the potential for using tank turrets for coastal defence was not dismissed. One of the newer tanks to replace the Strv m/41 was the Strv m/42 which entered service in 1944. It was armed with a 75mm gun and three 8mm machines – two mounted coaxially. In total, 282 tanks of this design were delivered to the Swedish army. It was eventually taken out of service in 1957 but a number of the turrets were retained for use as fixed fortifications and because they mounted the more powerful 75mm gun they were deemed suitable for coastal defence. The turrets were used largely unaltered save for the addition of a new electro-optical fire-control system and remained in use until 1980.⁵⁰

The Stridsvagn 74⁽⁴⁹⁾ that replaced the Strv m/42 (and the Strv m/41 that was finally withdrawn from service in 1960) entered service in 1958. It was armed with a 75mm main gun and two 8mm M/39 machine guns. Some 225 of these tanks were produced but after more than a decade with the Swedish Army they were withdrawn from front-line units and from the early 1970s the turrets were used for fortifications.⁽⁵⁰⁾ Approximately half of the turrets were used to reinforce the southern coastal defences with some being mounted on old bunkers to defend harbours and others on new purpose-built shelters. The remainder were used to protect the east coast (where there was a perceived Soviet threat) and to protect other strategically important sights including a nuclear plant.⁵¹

At the same time as the Strv 74 entered service, the Swedish Army also took delivery of its first batch of Centurion tanks – the Strv 81 – armed with a 20-pounder (83.4mm) main armament. In the mid-1960s these were modified to mount the more powerful 10.5cm gun and in the process were redesignated the Strv 102. Not all the Centurions were seemingly upgunned and a number of the turrets that retained the 20-pounder gun were used as fixed fortifications. The turrets were either permanently emplaced or were placed in store and in times of emergency were carried on trailers to be mounted on prepared concrete bases.⁵²

The Stridsvagn 74 turret is gently removed from its mount prior to being scrapped. The turret’s protective covers can be seen at either side. The bunker at Simrishamn was originally built in the 1940s but was renovated in the 1960s. (Leif Högberg)

Postscript

The Swedish government went to great lengths to ensure that these defences remained secret and up until the 1990s it was forbidden to take photographs of the structures. They also tended to be covered by camouflage (sometimes false buildings) or by special covers. However, it is known that as late as 1985, in Scania, the southernmost province of Sweden, (between Helsinborg and Kristianstad) there were 110 bunkers mounting 75mm turrets and thirty-five mounting 37mm guns.⁵³ In the 1990s the Swedish Government decided to remove the country’s coastal defences, including the emplaced tank turrets. The turrets were removed and sent for scrap and the bunkers demolished or filled with concrete. A number of the turrets are still in place, their stay of execution facilitated by their remote location, which made it too difficult to reach by either crane or boat to remove them. It is hoped that some or all of these will be saved to form part of museums devoted to the study of the Swedish defences.

SWITZERLAND

Switzerland is the world’s oldest democracy and has had a long tradition of neutrality. But this peace-loving nation has always been prepared to defend her borders with force if necessary. Initially the fortifications were concentrated around the capitals of the respective cantons, which were independent states at that time, but at the end of the nineteenth century, following the creation of the new state of Italy and the Franco-Prussian war, the focus changed to national defence. Work on the fortifications was started but was limited in scope to the Gotthard Pass and at St Maurice because of the huge expense. Work on other defences was undertaken prior to and during the First World War but these positions tended to be much less sophisticated. After the war economic constraints meant there was no money for new fortifications with only sufficient funds available to maintain the current works.⁵⁴

This situation changed in the 1930s when Switzerland’s neutrality was threatened with the growth of fascism in Italy on her southern border and the election of Hitler’s Nazi party in Germany. The situation worsened with the Anschluss of 1938 when her near neighbour Austria was absorbed into the Third Reich. Sandwiched between these two political heavyweights, and with significant German- and Italian-speaking communities, Switzerland was in a delicate situation. The government’s solution was to construct a series of fortifications. These stretched along her borders, but also included a number of fortresses in what was known as the National Redoubt. The defences consisted of bunkers for machine guns or anti-tank guns and larger forts that mounted a variety of artillery pieces.

After the outbreak of the Second World War, efforts to complete the fortifications were redoubled and included the installation of a number of Panzer Drehtürme mounting the 10.5cm 1939 L52 gun. For the time, this was a very modern weapon, with an effective range of 19km (12 miles). The turrets were generally installed in artillery forts together with a number of 7.5cm cannons and 4.7cm anti-tank guns. The turrets were often cleverly disguised; the three turrets at Fort Magletsch, for example, were disguised as small Alpine chalets.

The 10.5cm gun was produced in Switzerland at the Maschinenfabrik Oerlikon in Zurich, although it was designed by the Schneider company of France. The turret was also manufactured in Switzerland, but much of the armour plate was produced in Germany and supplies became increasingly erratic, especially following the outbreak of war. In spite of this production work was completed and in the period between the outbreak of the war and 1943, 22 Panzer Drehtürme were installed – ten in Fortress Sargans; ten in Fortress Gotthard; and two in Fortress St. Maurice.⁵⁵

Table 2 10.5cm Panzer Drehtürme

One of the Panzer Drehtürme mounting a 10.5 cm gun installed around Sargans in north-east Switzerland. (C. Vermeulen)

In 1995 the Swiss Army decided to decommission many of its World War II era fortifications, which were found to be increasingly costly to maintain. This included the removal of the 10.5cm turrets.⁽⁵¹⁾

Centurion

In 1955 the Swiss government agreed to purchase one hundred Mk 5 Centurion tanks from Vickers Ltd of the United Kingdom. These were delivered in the course of the next two years and were given the designation Panzer 55. In 1957 a further one hundred Centurions, this time Mk 7s, were procured and given the designation Panzer 57. A reorganization of the Swiss armed forces in 1961 identified the need for more tanks and a further one hundred Centurions were bought from South Africa. At the same time a programme was introduced to up-gun half of the Centurions with the L7 105mm gun. These tanks were given the new designation Panzer 55/60 or Panzer 57/60. This programme was subsequently extended to include all the Centurions so that by 1979 all the tanks had one of these designations depending on which model they were.⁵⁶ These formed the backbone of the small Swiss armoured force until 1986 when they were replaced by the more advanced German Leopard 2. The Centurion tank turrets were not scrapped, however, but were used as fixed fortifications.

Somewhat unusually the turrets were not simply mounted on a concrete bunker but were recessed inside a concrete casemate with a large embrasure. This protected the turret roof from guided munitions specifically designed to strike at the thinner turret top armour. As well as the fighting compartment the casemate also had rooms for the crew, storage of ammunition and for a generator that powered all the systems.

A number of improvements were made to the turret, which by the mid-1980s was beginning to show its age. Additional armour was applied to the front of the turret and a Warmtebild-Zielgerät 90 thermal imager was also fitted which enabled the crew to identify and engage targets at night.

As with so many of these turrets it suffered from a number of shortcomings. While the bunker walls provided added protection they also prevented the turret from revolving a full 360 degrees. Moreover, although presenting a small target, a direct hit or a ricochet off one of the embrasure walls, which tended to funnel enemy fire, could have a devastating effect. Finally, the successful operation of the turret was also hampered by the effects of dust and smoke generated by exhaust from the gun and which could obscure the crew’s view. To make matters worse the cost of building and maintaining the turrets in these concrete shelters also proved prohibitive and only twenty-seven were installed, with a further four built at a special centre to train the crews. Because of the small number of turrets installed this facility was rarely used and proved to be an expensive white elephant. To cap it all, it now seems that the turrets, as with so many of their fortifications, have been withdrawn from service.⁵⁷

A Swiss Centurion tank turret mounted in a concrete embrasure. Clearly visible is the additional frontal armour. To the side is a recess in the concrete wall to accommodate the gun barrel when the turret was not in use.

Staghound

In addition to the Centurion turrets, the Swiss also used turrets from Staghound armoured cars as improvised fixed fortifications. The Staghound was designed by the Americans in 1942 for supply to the British. However, by the end of the war the 37mm main gun was obsolete and the Staghound was withdrawn from service. After the war the Swiss Army bought a number of these surplus armoured cars and installed the turrets on prefabricated concrete stands. The original armament was removed and replaced with a water-cooled MG11 machine gun. The silhouette of the turret was disguised with exterior cladding that resembled a rock and ensured that the turret blended in with the landscape. The concept was not considered to be a great success, however, and only a few were used in this way; three turrets are confirmed as being installed in experimental positions around Dailly (St Maurice).⁵⁸

One of the Staghound armoured car turrets installed in experimental positions near Dailly. The 37mm main gun was replaced by water-cooled machine gun. Additional camouflage has been added to the turret to help it blend in with its surroundings. (C. Vermeulen)

SYRIA

In common with her powerful neighbour, Israel, Syria also used dug-in tank tanks as a form of defence. Of the 1,000 or so tanks designated as being in store, a number were actually being used in static defence positions. It is assumed that these were older T54/55 and T62 tanks rather than the more modern T72s in service.⁵⁹

UNITED KINGDOM

After the Second World War the British Army sought to procure a new armoured car. The competition was won by Daimler, which offered the Ferret scout car. More than 4,000 of these were produced between 1952 and 1971 and later versions were fitted with a turret. When the Ferret was eventually withdrawn from service the turrets were used as improvised fortifications to protect military airfields. The turret was fitted to an armoured base that was large enough to accommodate a single crew member who would operate the 7.62mm GPMG.⁶⁰ The turret was fitted with spaced armour to provide added protection.

A Ferret armoured car turret used for airfield security. Noteworthy are the lifting lugs on the top of the base, the canted turret ring and the spaced armour on the turret side. (Bernard Lowry)

UNITED STATES

Following the end of hostilities in Europe the American military began to consider post-war security. One option considered was the use of tank turrets mounted on concrete emplacements to provide the nucleus for strong points. In particular their use was considered for the landward defence of harbours and for beach defence.

At that time the Chief of Ordnance noted that some 500 75mm M4 turrets were available at the Baldwin Locomotive Works, Philadelphia for use in this way. It was recommended that they be released for the defence of overseas bases, however, the need for space at the Locomotive Works was pressing and it seems that the turrets were scrapped.⁶¹ Another memorandum at that time recommended the retention of 1,000 M4 turrets, ‘in view of the projected need for weapons of this type in preparation of satisfactory post war defense of overseas bases’.⁶² However, it seems that the idea did not progress beyond the planning stage.

______

⁽¹⁾Interestingly a number of Panzer III turrets were dispatched to Bruck an der Leitha in March 1945 to protect Vienna, but the city fell before the turrets had arrived. See Chapter 3, Part 1.

⁽²⁾ The Charioteer was a post war conversion of the Cromwell chasis with a new turret and a 20pdr gun.

⁽³⁾ Fort Nauders was built between 1834 and 1840 to defend the narrow gorge south of Resia in the Tyrol on the border with Italy.

⁽⁴⁾A US sponsored initiative to rebuild the military strength of NATO countries during the Cold War.

⁽⁵⁾ It has been suggested that the newly formed Czech Republic is planning to use emplaced turrets, but this is unconfirmed.

⁽⁶⁾ It is believed that these were Ausf G and Ausf J tanks but mention is also made of the KwK40 L/43 gun which was fitted to the Panzer IV Ausf F2.

⁽⁷⁾ Somewhat surprisingly, considering this later experiment, the Engineering Corps in May 1950 turned down the opportunity to take delivery of forty complete and twenty incomplete Panzerkampfwagen V Panther turrets. These, as is detailed in Chapter 3, Part 3, were most effective in a static defence role.

⁽⁸⁾ It would seem, as with later models, that the turret would be installed only as and when needed, thus it was essential to understand how best to cover the opening where the turret would sit and how long it would take to install the turret when taken from store.

⁽⁹⁾Initially gravel 4-6mm diameter was to be used, but this proved unsatisfactory and was replaced with gravel of 10-12mm diameter.

⁽¹⁰⁾ This protection could be increased by carefully covering the passageway with spoil, but this restricted the turrets traverse.

⁽¹¹⁾ It is assumed that the driver and radio operator hatches were retained, but could not be used because of the concrete bulwark at the front.

⁽¹²⁾And seemingly the Soviet T54, but this cannot be confirmed.

⁽¹³⁾ The location was determined in accordance with general army regulations governing the positioning of anti-tank weapons. It was necessary to ensure that there was no dead ground in front of the position and that there was cover for the crew to enter.

⁽¹⁴⁾Where an excavator was used the diameter had to be increased by 50cm (19in).

⁽¹⁵⁾ This approach limited the structure’s ability to withstand enemy fire but it was considered capable of withstanding a single hit by a 105mm round or an 82mm mortar.

⁽¹⁶⁾The original type RM31T radio was replaced with an RM105 unit that was fitted to the turret wall.

⁽¹⁷⁾ A full rotation using the hand crank took three minutes, while with the power traverse one revolution could be completed in approximately thirty seconds.

⁽¹⁸⁾ The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, signed in Paris on 19 November 1990, by the twenty-two members of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact. It is an arms control agreement that established parity in major conventional forces/armaments between East and West.

⁽¹⁹⁾See section on Israel for a description of the Bar Lev Line.

⁽²⁰⁾ The first H39 tank arrived in May 1947 to equip the Regiment Etranger de Cavalerie (Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiment), with twenty more arriving in April 1948.

⁽²¹⁾ An armoured enthusiast travelling in Indo China observed several very large bunkers mounting what appeared to be twin APX1 (Somua S35) turrets. D. Seguin, ‘Panzerstellung – Part Two’, AFV News, Vol. 9, No.1, January 1974, pp.4–5.

⁽²²⁾In the post war carve up of continental Europe, Stalin accepted that Greece should fall under the British sphere of influence.

⁽²³⁾The West Bank (of the Jordan River) was captured from the Jordanians following the Six-Day War.

⁽²⁴⁾ Access via the transmission cover meant that the more heavily armoured glacis plate of the tank faced away from the enemy leaving the lightly armoured engine cover exposed to artillery and mortar fire.

⁽²⁵⁾The Bar Lev Line was a chain of fortifications built by Israel along the eastern bank of the Suez Canal after it captured the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt during the 1967 Six-Day War. The line was named after the Israeli Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev and consisted of an earthen rampart and a series of concrete observation posts positioned every 10–12km along the canal, with extra fortifications at potential crossing points.

⁽²⁶⁾ The modern state of Italy as it is known today was created in 1870.

⁽²⁷⁾ Little work was done on the border with neutral Switzerland where reliance was placed on defences built during the First World War.

⁽²⁸⁾This term is used loosely because many of the defences were constructed from concrete, but were not on the scale of the original Vallo Alpino fortifications.

⁽²⁹⁾ Some sources state that M47 tank turrets were also used but it has not been possible to verify this.

⁽³⁰⁾ Second World War vintage Fiat M15/42 tanks were also used. Plans had been drawn up by the Germans to use these turrets in the defence of Italy – see Chapter 3, Part 1. The engines and the other internal fittings were removed as was the main gun, replaced with a machine gun. C. Clerici, G. Muran and S. Poli, ‘Le Fortificazioni di Frontiera Italiana de Secondo Dopoguerra’, Notizie Ai Soci – Gruppo di Studio Delle Fortificazioni Moderne (Jan.–Feb. 1995), pp.13-22.

⁽³¹⁾The precursor to NATO.

⁽³²⁾ The old water line had been established in the seventeenth century and was designed to protect the province of Holland.

⁽³³⁾ An artificial dike built in the 1930s that linked Friesland and Groningen with the Netherlands proper.

⁽³⁴⁾ Perhaps as many as twenty-five.

⁽³⁵⁾ A further barrier was added on the River Ijssel, north of Deventer (Olst) so as to raise the water level sufficiently to ensure it flowed through the polders east of the river.

⁽³⁶⁾An attempt to remove them all in trials led to the tank shifting on its mount and damaging the reinforcing rods.

⁽³⁷⁾ Exceptionally, where turrets were installed on a dike, a horizontal escape hatch was used.

⁽³⁸⁾ This necessitated increasing the amount of raw materials thus: 58m³ (190ft³) of concrete; 3,175kg (6,959lb)of reinforcing rods and 1,010kg (2,226lb) of metal.

⁽³⁹⁾The turrets in the IJssellinie were heavily influenced by the experience gained in constructing the positions to protect the Afsluitdijk. The engine of the tank in the original positions was replaced by a generator and a battery pack, which drove the traverse gear. Unfortunately the heat generated by the generator caused the battery to emit noxious fumes and may have contributed to an incident in 1959 when the crew of a turret was killed when firing the gun.

⁽⁴⁰⁾The Soviet military believed that in wartime an old tank was better than no tank at all!

⁽⁴¹⁾ It is possible that these shelters were identical to those used in the Karelian UR – see below.

⁽⁴²⁾Later called the Special Test Site for URs.

⁽⁴³⁾It is known that at least five of these structures were built on the border with Finland. The location of any other turrets remains a secret.

⁽⁴⁴⁾ Sweden already had a series of coastal defence batteries that had been built since the turn of the century. The weapons were of varying calibres and vintages and were mounted on barbette mounts or in armoured turrets.

⁽⁴⁵⁾Named after the Swedish prime minister at the time (although it was later known as the Scandia Line).

⁽⁴⁶⁾ The other eighteen chassis were used for a more powerfully armed self-propelled gun.

⁽⁴⁷⁾It is believed that the number of Strv 41 turrets installed is roughly equivalent to those manufactured under licence.

⁽⁴⁸⁾ It is interesting to note that when the Swedish Tank Museum at Axvall wanted to restore their Strv m/41 tank they had to negotiate with the military authorities to get a turret from one of their fixed positions.

⁽⁴⁹⁾ The Strv 74 was essentially a rebuilt Strv m/42 with a new turret.

⁽⁵⁰⁾ Budget restrictions meant that there was only enough money to install approximately fifteen tank turrets in any one year and as such it is believed that not all the turrets were used.

⁽⁵¹⁾With the exception of those turrets that form part of museums all these turrets will be, or have been removed.