Polish tree for World of Tanks proposal (WIP)

Tier I

Tier II

Tier III

Tier IV

Tier V

Tier VI

Tier VII

Tier VIII

Tier IX

Tier X

TK-S TKS
4TP 4TP 10TP 10TP 14TP 14TP Cromwell Cromwell
RT M26/27 wz.32 RT M26/27 wz.32 TK-SD TK-SD PZInż.160 PZInż.160 Czołg Lewandowskiego Czołg Lewandowskiego
7TP 7TP 7TP wz.39 7TP wz.39 KSUST KSUST BS PZInż. 'Habich' 25TP "Habich" T-34/85M2 T-34-85M3 T-34/100 T-34-85(100) T-44 T-44 T-54AE T-54AE T-55AM (proto.) T-55AM P
WB-10 WB-10 7T 7T BBTBrPanc BBTBrPanc Panteher 'Pudel' "Pudel"
TK-S (P) TKS (P) JgPz.38(t) 'Chwat' "Chwat" ASU-85 ASU-85
TKD TKD PT-76 PT-76b
RT M26/27 wz.32 RT M26/27 wz.32

During 1930s, some modernization projects were tested on regular FT-17 tanks, including changes in hull shape and engine cooling system (FT-17 "Hanus"), suspension (from Vickers E tank) and new turrets, but none were accepted.

  • 16/16/16 mm
  • -10°/+35°
  • 4,6 t
  • 35 kph
  • 9.13 hp/t
  • Commander, Driver
    1. 37 mm wz.18 Puteaux SA L/21
    2. 29/46/18 mm
    3. 30/30/36 HP
    4. AP/APCR/HE
    5. 100 kg
    6. 13.2 mm wz.30 Hotchkiss
    7. 23/36 mm
    8. 8/8 HP
    9. AP/APCR
    10. 15
    11. 70 kg
      Renault FT Berliet
    1. 22/22/16 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
      Citroën C6
    1. 42 hp
    2. 266 kg
      Vickers 6t mk.E Type B
    TKS TKS 7TP 7TP TK-SD TK-SD
    × pl en

    Renault RT M26/27 wz.32


    The first real common tank of Polish Army was a renault FT17. We have tested it’s modernized version’s like the Renault FT Kegresse-Hinstin M26/27 and NC27. In 1924, 6 radio command tanks Renault TSF were bought in France. They were based upon FT-17 hull, fitted with a radio in a big superstructure in a place of a turret. They were not armed. Also, in 1929-1930, some of newer Renault tank designs were bought. They were 5 tanks Renault M26/27 and 1 tank Renault NC-27 (publications often quote 24 tanks NC-27, but only one was bought in fact). M26/27 was an unsuccessful development of FT-17, with the same hull and armament, fitted with a new track mechanism with Kegresse rubber tracks (they were proposed to the French Army under the designation NC-2, but were not accepted; instead, a batch was sold to Yugoslavia, where they served as M.28). Renault NC-27 was a further development of FT-17, with a redesigned hull and new chassis, but a turret with gun or MG armament remained similar (they were proposed to the French Army under the designation NC-1; its further development led to the French D1 tank).

    In the thirties, the obsolete radio tanks TSF were scheduled to be rebuild to combat tanks, replacing the superstructure with a turret. A new turret with a coxial 37mm gun and MG was developed by the Polish in this purpose, but it is not clear, if these tanks were eventually rebuilt using these turrets (it is rather doubtful, as no photos are known). There were also tested some modernization projects of regular FT-17 tanks, including changes in hull shape and engine cooling system (FT-17 “Hanus”), suspension (from Vickers E tank) and new turrets, mentioned above, but none were accepted.

    Use in the thirties:
    In 1930-36, the Polish Army had the biggest number of its Renault tanks:
    >112 light tanks Renault FT-17 (numbers: 1001-1112)
    >6 radio tanks Renault TSF (numbers: 2001-2006)
    >27 training tanks Renault FT-17 CWS (nos: 3001-3027)
    >5 tanks Renault M26/27
    >24 tanks Renault NC-27 (in fact, 1 tank, the rest might be FT-17s)
    174 tanks in total

    Renault wz.1932
    “…suspension (from Vickers E tank) and new turrets with dual weapons.”

    Construction begun in October 1932, with Renault M26/27 being used as basis instead of FT model, due to least amount of modifications required. Special care was taken not to modify Vickers suspension components (it was a set of spare parts - not mounted on an actual tanks). Because of this limitation, the original English side gear covers, suspension bogies and truck supporting wheels were fixed to holes existing in experimental tank's hull, using purpose built, cast steel mounting brackets. English drive wheels were installed in the back of the hull; torque was transmitted to wheels using special sleeves mounted on the rear axis. As mentioned before, the tank was supposed to be equipped with a turret having dual weapons, which was designed simultaneously:

    Turret wz.1929 (dual weapons - opposite sides)
    Was Developed in the Design Office Armoured Wibi (Biuro Konstrukcyjne Broni Pancernej WIBI).
    The project was created in 1929, the first prototype in 1930.
    Turret was octagonal, guns: 37mm Puteaux cannon and Hothkiss wz.29 machine gun
    were placed in opposite sides.
    After practical testing the model was rejected in 1931.
    It was too cramped interior and was impossible to conduct simultaneous fire from both weapons.

    Turret wz.1932 (dual weapons - coaxial)
    In 1932, a new model was constructed.
    New mount for the 37mm Puteaux cannon and Hothkiss wz.29 machine gun was constructed. The mount was made of molded armored plate 20mm thick. It give a possibility of guiding weapons in two axes, and allowed for observation of the target with two telescopes. Mount with coaxial weapons was mounted in the front oriel of the turret. Turret have an inner diameter of 1000 mm and a height of 700 mm. Armor thickness as the original Renault turret but weighed about 14 kg more. The top plate was closed with hatch cover of “special construction” (?), on both hatch sides was planed to place two Gundlach reverse Periscopes and sleeves for Słupski signal Flags. In the year of 1936. turret was considered successful project, six such towers were commissioned in Starachowice Plant (Zakłady Starachowickie ) for modernization of Renault FT TSF.

    In 1933 WD (Warsztat Doświadczalny Biura Badań Technicznych Broni Pancernych przy PzInż.) finalized works on tank modifications; in the same time "Ursus" Plant manufactured turret casts with new weapon mount and Factory of Jenike Brothers prepared the turret rotation mechanism. The turrets final assembly was carried out in Locomotive Factory in Warsaw. Between 1933 and 34 the tank went through intensive testing. Unfortunately the results achieved were unsatisfactory, with maximum speed "squeezed out" of the machine topping 13km/h and whole endeavor deemed inefficient. Other notable issues identified were excessive fuel consumption and engine overheating. After over annual testing project was considered not very effective and dropped.



    Soon



    Janusz Magnuski
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa No.9/1997
    Broń Wojska Polskiego 1918-1939



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    7TP 7TP

    The 7TP was the only genuine tank produced in Poland before World War II. It was also the most combatworthy armoured vehicle in Polish Army during the German invasion in 1939, and one of the icons of pre-war Polish Army.

  • 17/17/9 mm
  • -10°/+20°
  • 9.9 t
  • 37 kph
  • 11.1 hp/t
  • Commander, Driver, Loader
  • RT M26/27 wz.32 RT M26/27 wz.32
      47 mm wz.25 Pocisk L/28.9
    1. 45/70/23 mm
    2. 50/50/65 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 238 kg
    5. 47 mm wz.35 Pocisk L/45
    6. 54/79/27 mm
    7. 50/50/65 HP
    8. AP/APCR/HE
    9. 280 kg
    10. 37 mm wz.37 Bofors L/45
    11. 55/78/19 mm
    12. 40/40/50 HP
    13. AP/APCR/HE
    14. 82 kg
      PZInż.220
    1. 15/15/15 mm
    2. PZInż.220A
    3. 15/15/15 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
      PZInż.205
    1. 85 hp
    2. 861 kg
    3. PZInż.225
    4. 110 hp
    5. 850 kg
      PZInż.220 SMOK 7TP
    7TP wz.39 7TP wz.39
    × pl en

    7TP


    Two prototypes of the new tank were ordered on 19 January 1933. The sketches were ready by 24 June 1933, but the first prototype was assembled in the PZInż Experimental Workshop only in August 1934. It carried no. 1595 and a nickname Smok (Dragon). It was followed by a prototype no. 1596, accepted by the Army on 13 August 1935 (probably nicknamed Słoń - Elephant). The prototypes still utilized some British parts bought from Vickers. Both were twin-turret, made of mild steel (with possible exception of turrets). Their factory designation was PZInż. 120. The prototypes were intensively tested and the design underwent further improvements. At the same time there were built and tested prototypes of C7P tractor on the same chassis, what was partly responsible for long works.

    On 18 March 1935, the first series of 22 twin-turret tanks was ordered. All were twin-turret, utilizing machine gun turrets removed from 22 Vickers E tanks during their conversion to single-turret ones[note 2]. Such armament was a forced solution, since a final turret and gun had not been chosen by then. First series tanks had rear hull plates with two armoured grills, replaced next with less vulnerable solid armoured doors. Also a muffler was modified in October 1936 – unified with C7P tractor, and its position was changed from bottom to top of a rear plate (early mufflers had twin exhausts, late mufflers were shorter and had one exhaust). These changes were not applied to already built vehicles, apart from the testbed Smok, and probably all tanks ordered in 1936 and built in a single-turret configuration still had armoured grills and low mufflers. It is worth to note, that at the same time there was tested twin-turret Vickers Mk.E tank, modified in March 1936 to 7TP standard (no. 1359, so-called V/7TP).

    The final configuration was to be a single-turret tank, with an anti-tank gun. Different guns were considered, of 37-47 mm caliber. Some were of Polish design, including 47 mm Pocisk gun and projected 40 mm and 55 mm guns of Starachowice Works, but were mostly unproven. Vickers turret of Mk. E Model B tank was rejected because its short-barrel 47 mm Vickers gun had poor performance against armour. Vickers proposed also a new hexagonal turret with a new more powerful 47 mm gun, but it was also rejected. In autumn 1935, Swedish 37 mm Bofors gun was chosen, since it had been just adopted as a standard towed anti-tank gun for Polish Army, and offered a good performance for that time. Bofors also offered to design a turret, basing upon turrets for Landsverk L-30 and L-10 tanks.

    The prototype turret of mild steel was delivered from Sweden only in November 1936 and used to rebuild the prototype no. 1595 Smok in January 1937. The turret had access doors in its rear plate (photo), but the design was modified, and serial turrets, manufactured in Poland, had a rear niche instead, and an upper hatch. The niche could accommodate a radio or additional ammunition, and it also improved turret's balance (not to mention the tank's silhouette). The turret was equipped in Poland with an innovatory commander's reversible observation periscopeW, designed by Rudolf Gundlach, and a periscope sight, for firing on a move (of Zeiss design, produced in Poland). A secondary coaxial armament became a standard Polish infantry water-cooled 7.92 mm wz.30 machine gun (a modified and re-chambered copy of Colt-Browning M1917). The single-turret tank got a factory designation PZInż. 220.

    From 1938, some single-turret tanks were equipped with Polish radio N2/C - they were battalion's, company's and platoons' commanders'. The radio utilized a short whip receiver aerial on a turret niche's roof, and 6 m high transmitter aerial of a bamboo stick, mounted to the niche's left side. Probably it was made of two 3.5 m and 2.5 m parts, like in a cart-mounted version. Both were carried over a left fender, apparently with no special frame, and had to be erected manually. With 6 m aerial, it had a range of 10 km for voice transmission and 25 km for Morse code (I suspect, that it was used only when stationery, like in transportable version). With shorter aerials, it could have a range of 8 or 5 km for voice transmission. According to some publications, platoon's commanders had receivers only[10], but it does not seem confirmed. Tanks with radios were also fitted with an intercom for the crew, who were equipped with new type helmets with integral headphones. Only 38 N2/C radio sets were produced for tanks by the war, though not all were mounted in 7TP tanks. Some twin-turret tanks received a radio earlier (probably older RKB/C). In transport position, its pole aerial was carried horizontally, on two high struts between turrets (possibly they were folding rearwards; a rear one might have been an aerial's base). According to memoires, radio communication in 7TP tanks worked well, although its presence was limited to commanding vehicles - the rest of tanks had to follow the commander and watch flag signals.



    Soon



    http://derela.republika.pl/7tp.htm



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    7TP wz.39 7tp wz.39

    Polish designers were aware of relatively poor protection of 7TP, and planned its development. In autumn 1938 one serial tank no. 1766 was experimentally tested with extra weight to simulate heavier armour.Two variants of an improved tank were proposed in April 1939. They are commonly known as 9TP tanks.

  • 40/25/20 mm
  • -10°/+20°
  • 10.6 t
  • 34 kph
  • 11.32 hp/t
  • Commander, Driver, Loader
  • 7TP 7TP
      37 mm wz.37 Bofors L/45
    1. 55/78/19 mm
    2. 40/40/50 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 82 kg
    5. 40 mm wz.35 I.T.U. L/55
    6. 70/104/23 mm
    7. 45/45/55 HP
    8. AP/APCR/HE
    9. 129.8 kg
    10. 37 mm wz.37/39 Bofors L/45
    11. 78/98/19 mm
    12. 40/40/50 HP
    13. APCR/APCR/HE
    14. 82 kg
      PZInż.220A
    1. 15/15/15 mm
    2. PZInż.220A wz.39
    3. 40/20/20 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
    2. N2S
    3. 458.9 m
    4. N2C
    5. 700 m
      PZInż.235
    1. 115 hp
    2. 801 kg
    3. PZInż.155
    4. 110 hp
    5. 601 kg
    6. PZInż.725 (BAB)
    7. 120 hp
    8. 350 kg
      7TP 7TP wz.39
    KSUST KSUST
    × pl en

    7TP Reinforced wz.39


    7TP wzmocniony (7-tonne Polish, reinforced), 7TP wz. 1939 (7-tonne, Polish, mod. 1939), or 9TP PzInż (9-tonne, Polish, the State Engineering Works), 9TP BBTBrPanc (9-tonne, Polish, Armoured Weapons Technical Research Bureau)

    Protracted designing-construction works of Polish tank prototypes and the lack of ability to furnish army with modern equipment from abroad gave the foundation for a huge 7TP development in 1938.

    This programme was mainly aimed at increasing tank’s military value throughout strengthening its armour and (due to envisaged weight increase) using much more reliable powertrain which was supposed to maintain good manoeuvrability and traction performance. In the mid-1930’s, a large experience had been collected, and significant achievements in the field of producing armour plates were reported. Employees of Laboratorium Mechaniczno-Chemiczne BBT Br. Panc. (Mechanical-Chemical Laboratory of Armoured Weapons Technical Research Bureau) in cooperation with Komisja Badania Blach i Płyt Pancernych Instytutu Metalurgii i Metaloznawstwa (Commission for Research of Armour Plates and Sheet Metals from the Institute of Metallurgy and Metal Science) and metallurgical industry representatives had carried a lot of arduous studies followed by endurance tests of homogeneous and cemented (case-hardened) armour. Owing to the fact that Polish industry had short tradition in manufacturing modern plates, such issue was considered as a top priority. These researches led to work out and master mass production of 3-50 mm thick homogeneous armour plates, and also 8-20 mm thick cemented ones.

    What was crucial for tanks’ mass production was that metallurgical achievements had made it possible to devise new methods of welding such huge components as hull. In 1937, on the basis of tests results, Maj. Eng. Tadeusz Biemacki, the manager of metallurgy department in Labolatorium BBT Br. Panc., designed and accomplished 7TP’s experimental hull, made of 5-17 mm thick welded armour plates. It weighted around 1700 kilograms — significantly less than hulls built with the previous method, i.e. through superposing plates on a grit formed frame, and, later on, merging them by rivets or screws.

    Furthermore, some steps forward in the field of combustion engines had been made. In 1936, the engineers from BS PzInż (Studies Bureau of the State Engineering Works) — Jan Werner, Jerzy Dowkontt, Wacław Cywiński — created prototype power plants of own design, including the PzInż. 705 carburetor engine (indicated for a new family of lorries), and its derivative modification: the PzInż. 725 (more powerful, designed for heavy goods tracked vehicles). Data sheet of PzInż. 725: 345 kg, 6-cylinder inline vertical, cylinder bore x stroke: 100 x 110 mm, capacity: 5180 cm³, 95 HP at 2800 rpm, compression ratio: 6.35.

    By 1939, several prototypes of this engine had been built; although they were factory-tested, it was impossible to gain some experience from long term exploitation. Accordingly, at the beginning of 1938, the State Engineering Works received the brand new Saurer CT1D diesel engine, and its bulk production was about to be launched under the designation PzInż. 155. Data sheet of PzInż. 155: 600 kg, 6-cylinder inline vertical, cylinder bore x stroke: 100 x 110 mm, capacity: 7980 cm³, 100 HP at 1800 rpm, compression ratio: 16. The Saurer Company provided complete documentation and several model engines. The production start-up was foreseen for 1939.

    In April 1938, the Armoured Weapons Command ordered in the State Engineering Works a prototype 7TP tank with such power plant. One month later, it was finally built and delivered to Armoured Weapons Technical Research Bureau (the sample was probably made of iron plate). The tested vehicle (loaded with extra weight in order to simulate heavier armour) was considered as better than the one with PzInż. 725 engine. Its only disadvantage was that the newer motor showed less abilities to overcome rough terrain capabilities, which were caused by weight increase, while keeping the same chassis.

    The proposals for further 7TP modernization were presented in two projects:
    – the first, proposed by Armoured Weapons Technical Research Bureau (7TP reinforced): this modification provided newly developed Polish PzInż. 725 petrol engine (95 HP), which was smaller than the diesel one, and welded hull, of a lower profile, with a slanted front plate of the combat compartment. The brand new power plant was mounted on a right side of engine compartment (a drive shaft was also moved to right side, so it would be less an obstacle for the turret's crew). What is more, the cooling system had been significantly changed: its cooling grates were removed from an engine deck, and replaced with slots in sides. The motor's mass had an influence on reducing overall tank weight. All these qualities weighted in favour of PzInż. 725. On the other hand, the use of petrol increased the risk of fire, and tank would be ignited by direct hit. The armour, while maintaining the 7TP's weight and traction performance, was to be up to 30 mm in front and rear (vertical plates), 25 mm on a front slanted plate and the driver's hatch, and 20 mm on sides and turret. The driver was to be equipped with two G wz. 34 reversible periscopes.

    – the second, proposed by Studies Bureau of the State Engineering Works, worked by Edward Habich (7TP mod. 1939): in this variant, the PzInż. 155 engine was used. The tank hull shape was slightly different, in comparison with the 7TP; only armour thickness increased from 17 mm to 40 mm in hull front, from 17, 13 and 9 mm to 25, 20 and 13 mm respectively in sides, and from 15 to 20 mm in turret's sides and to 40 mm in turret's front. Weight also increased to 10 594 kg, so strengthened suspension (320 mm wider tracks, road wheels with replaceable rubber), and C7P tractor's transmission were proposed.

    Both project were submitted for consideration in May 1939. Despite the fact that the State Engineering Works draw heavy criticism from Col. Patryk O'Brien de Lacy (the head of AWTRS), its solutions gained Armoured Weapons Command's approval. Two prototype light tanks named 7TP mod. 1939 were ordered. In July, these vehicles (with some different adjustments — the one had standard transmission, the other adopted from C7P tractor) were finally built and received by Military Technical Inspection. Since 28 July, in the Kampinos Forest, tanks had been investigated and subjected to comparative trials with the third vehicle (it was to be experimental 7TP with CT1D engine, or another prototype tank called PzInż. 725).

    During the first drives, the prototype with C7P's transmission obtained the best results and performance, so it was supposed to be launched in mass production. Unfortunately, the outbreak of the Second World War foiled these plans.

    At the beginning of September, two or three experimental 7TPs mod. 1939, along with several different prototypes, were assembled in the WD BBT Br. Panc. (the Experimental Workshop of AWTRS), and in the SEW in Ursus (former Czechowice) near Warsaw. There is no information whether they were evacuated or stranded (damaged or concealed).

    The genesis of 7TP reinforced (7TP mod.1939):
    –1932: The beginning of designing a homegrown light tank based on Vickers tank; it had been marked as VAU-33 (Vickers-Armstrong-Ursus).

    – 1933:
    Agreement between AWTRS and the SEW for ordering in the SEW two made of steel prototype tanks, according to the VAU-33 project.

    – 1934:
    August — completion of an early transitional model in line with VAU-33 project; it was implied as PzInż. 120 (7TP twin-turret), carried no. 1595, and a nickname Smok (Dragon). Intensive trials and comparisons between PzInż. 120 and Vickers tank.

    - 1935:
    August – second iron prototype, reg. No. 1596, according to VAU-33 Słoń (Elephant) design is completed. The tank was handed to CW in Modlin and then to 3 Bat.Panc. in Warsaw for training purposes. During the year many improvements were introduced to the Smok, which, as prototype, was still at a disposal to BBT Br. Panc.

    - 1937:
    January – Bofors turret was mounted at the iron Smok. The procedure was conducted in Warsztaty Doświadczalne BBTech. Br. Panc. The vehicle was given designation PZInż 220 as a single-turreted version of the 7TP tank. Basing on earlier experiments, mjr inż. Tadeusz Biernacki, director of the metallurgy division of the Laboratorium BBT Br. Panc., designed and manufactured prototype hull for the 7TP tank. It was made from steel plates with thickness from 5 to 17 mm welded together and weighted 1700 kg.

    - 1938:
    April
    The DBrPanc. ordered prototype 7TP tank with experimental Saurer CT1D/PZInż 155 engine from the PZInż.

    May
    Circa 25.05.1938 the 7TP prototype (reg. no. 1766) with the CT1D was handed to BBT Br. Panc by PZInż for testing purposes. The tank had additional ballast attached in order to simulate the weight of the thicker armour. The tests were conducted in autumn of 1938 in Kompania Ćwiczebna Centrum Wyszkolenia Br. Panc. The tank number 1766 traversed 548 km during tests, the engine worked for 29 hours and 55 minutes. The CT1D was considered better than VBLDb, but the offroad capabilities were worse as the current chassis was kept.

    - 1939:
    March
    18.02.1939 or 21.03.1939 – the protocol from the tests of the prototype 7TP PZInż with the engine CT1D was written and the tank was rated well. The tank without mock-up ballast imitating the strengthened armour was 210 kg lighter than standard 7TP. The decision regarding further development — altering the design of the vehicle and adding additional armour — was made. Two parallel projects were started: BBTech Br. Panc and PZInz.

    April/May
    Presentation and evaluation of two projects (not final vehicles!) of the 7TP reinforced/9TP was conducted. Despite the criticism of design choices proposed by the PZInż by the BBTech Br. Panc., the commission of Dowództwo Br. Panc.approved the vehicle proposed by the PZInż.
    As result, two prototype vehicles were ordered from the PZInż, called 7TP wzór 1939. The changes were to be introduced on two 7TP tanks being in on-going production, perhaps immediately with full-featured armour plates (as proposed by the BBTec Br. Panc). The BBTech Br. Panc made a single vehicle according to their own project using iron plates based on the parts belonging to the first model 7TP tank (most probably the iron Smok still in possession of the WD BBTech Br. Panc.).

    July
    28/31.07.1939 and 03.08.1939 - the tanks were given for acceptance and tests to the military.
    Vehicle no. 1 adhered to the proposal by the PZInż but was equipped with standard gearbox from 7TP. The PZInż vehicle no. 2 fully adhered to the PZInż proposal from May/April 1938, as it employed gearbox from C7P. The third vehicle was presumably the experimental 7TP with the CT1D/PZInż 725 engine. The best results were achieved by the PZInż no. 2 vehicle (with C7P gearbox) and this tank was to be made into series production..
    The evaluation of vehicles from the PZInż and single one from the BBTech Br. Panc were conducted in the Puszcza Kampinoska (Kampinoska Forest).

    21.08.1939
    The paper regarding tests and improvements made in the PZInż no. 2 vehicle (C7P gearbox) was made.
    Adjustments:
    - moving the periscope/sight 80 mm forward,
    - window of gunner’s left-side turret periscope raised 80 mm,
    - direction scale added to the commander’s observation periscope,
    - more efficient turret rotation drive was introduced (as the turret was heavier),
    - studies regarding the improvements of ammunition were outlined,
    - the lack of possibility of adding driver’s machine gun due to the mantlet was stated,

    August/October
    After capturing Warsaw, both prototypes were probably taken by Germans or hidden/destroyed by the Ursus employees.
    According to the photographies, at least part of the PZInż prototypes stayed in Ursus (vide known photos of the PZInż 130). It would explain why the Germans could capture two vehicles.
    Was the third prototype (BBTech) evacuated?


    7TP reinforced, according to the BBT Br Panc, shown at 20.04.1939
    Characteristic features:
    - welded armor with thickness in range 8-30 mm, evenly laid, mass similar to the series 7TP, about 9858 kg with the service, sides of the vehicle made from two plates,
    - original 7TP suspension,
    - the difference of axial loading limited to 68 kg from 785 kg in standard 7TP,
    - ultimately carburetor engine (powered by petrol) PZINż 725 with power of 95-100 HP (maximal about 105 HP), weight 370 kg, requires single radiator. Standard Saurer VBLDb weighted 850 kg and required two radiators. The engine was located near the side of the hull, behind the driver. The engine was not series produced yet,
    - the Cardan shaft (without joints) was altered and moved to the side of the vehicle, eliminating the obstacle that hindered the ability of crew to work inside of the tanks,
    - standard gearbox (aluminum casing),
    - 130 mm (to 1988 mm) lower profile of the tank due to smaller engine,
    - favorable silhouette (skewed frontal plate, different rear etc.),
    - more space inside, increased crew comfort,
    - two wz. 34 periscopes for driver and commander,
    - thicker rubber layer on the road wheels,
    - intended speed of 32-34 km/h (on road?),
    - removal of all air circulation shutters, introducing solution as in „Skoda”/”Koblen Danek” tanks.

    7TP wz.39, according to Biuro Studiów PZInż (E. Habich) shown at 05.04.1939
    Features:
    Welded lower armor plate with thickness of 5 to 40 mm., uneven thickness: 40 mm in front, 25, 20 and 13 mm on sides, 40 mm turret front, 20mm turret back and sides, rear and upper armor without changes in relation to initial design of 7TP tank,
    - PZInż 155/CT1D engine — license model produced by PZInż since early 1938.
    - Gearbox adopted from C7P tractor (aluminium casing),
    - Increase in weight to ca. 11 tons (different sources claim increase of 729 or 800 kgs compared to standard version).
    - Reworked suspension, track width 320 mm (standard version — 267 mm)
    - Slightly changed outline (three additional plates of side armor?)
    - Road wheels covered with rubber,
    - substantially increased pressure of front wheels.
    - Increased mass may result in engine overheating issues (radiators in standard version were working at maximal power).
    - Speed up to 26,6 km/h on the road and 11,5 km/h off-road (tested in Kampinos village).

    Some sources state that 11 9TP tanks did take part in fights - defending Warsaw.
    With is probably not true...

    Fate of these machines remains uncertain. The prototypes were either captured by Germans after taking Warsaw or destroyed by Ursus’ workers.
    Third prototype 7TP (reference) could have been evacuated and was cannibalised.
    There are no sources that could unequivocally confirm accounts of 11 9TP tanks having been produced and used during defense of Warsaw.

    Turret of 7TP reinforced and 7TP wz.39
    Unfortunately no picture of 7TP reinforced or 7TP wz.39 was found. Turret shown below was part of 10TP tank. It differs from those used in 7TPs (different bolting scheme, side visor with periscope, different angle of plates in radio compartment). It is possible that these turrets were installed on 7TP reinforced and 7TP wz.39.



    Soon



    Andrzej Wszendyrówny, Marcin Wodejko, Do Broni 1/2009, Styczeń-Luty 2008 - Czołg 7TP w dokumentach Centralnego Archiwum Wojskowego
    Kwartalnik historyczno-modelarski, Militaria Vol.1 No.5 Zeszyt Specjalny - Czołg lekki 7TP część pierwsza
    Jędrzej Korbal - Od 7TP do 7TP wzmocnionego czyli życiorys 9TP



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    KSUST KSUST

    In January 1937, the Committee for Armament and Equipment Ministry of Military Affairs (KSUS) defined guidelines for the concept of a new medium tank. The general design was to be based on the English tank Vickers A6.

  • 50/30/20 mm
  • -10°/+10°
  • 25 t
  • 45 kph
  • 24 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator, Loader
  • PZInż.160 PZInż.160
    7TP wz.39 7TP wz.39
      40 mm wz.36 Bofors L/56
    1. 63/101/23 mm
    2. 50/50/60 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 470 kg
    5. 100 mm wz.39ST L/27.5
    6. 52/100 mm
    7. 400/340 HP
    8. HE/HEAT
    9. 1484 kg
    10. 75 mm wz.97 Schneider L/36.6
    11. 70/90/38 mm
    12. 110/110/175 HP
    13. AP/HEAT/HE
    14. 461 kg
    15. 75 mm wz.38ST L/40
    16. 90/120/38 mm
    17. 110/110/175 HP
    18. AP/HEAT/HE
    19. 670 kg
      B.B.T.Br.Panc. II
    1. 50/40/30 mm
    2. 340 m
    3. 35.5 °/s
    4. K.S.U.S.T. II
    5. 50/40/30 mm
    6. 350 m
    7. 34.5 °/s
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
    2. N2S
    3. 458.9 m
    4. N2C
    5. 700 m
      PZInż. Eberman 6V 18/25 Wibu
    1. 250 hp
    2. 1460 kg
    3. PZL Foka A
    4. 320 hp
    5. 300 kg
    6. Maybach VL-2 Zeppelin
    7. 550 hp
    8. 1259 kg
    9. 2xPZInż. R.W.A. I
    10. 600 hp
    11. PZL Foka C v12
    12. 600 hp
    13. 400 kg
      22TP 25TP
    BS PZInż. "Habich" BS PZInż.'Habich'
    × pl en

    K.S.U.S.T. Mk.II (25TP)


    The problem of equipping the Polish Army with a medium tank of own design and produced by the domestic industry, was mentioned for the first time in the mid-20th century. It was then established that due to the terrain of eastern regions of Europe and the predicted a mass character of armed clashes, medium tank should have a specific structure, distinct from the known medium tanks built in the West. Formulation of these theoretical grounds of course mainly based, on the current political and military situation, as well as on the available experience of World War I and the Polish-Bolshevik war. From the beginning, the work was directed towards a tank similiar to multi-turreted British A6 16t or Soviet T-28. It should be noted that in addition to the multi-turreted design, also the chassis is very similar, Could it be that those projects infiltrated each other? Did anyone stole somebody ideas?

    For a medium tank assumed a vehicle weighing up to 20 tons, fast, relatively well armored and armed.
    It was to be a kind of multipurpose versatile vehicle, designed not only to support the infantry and light tanks, but also to perform an operational nature tasks of overcoming the enemy defensive positions.

    Over the next decade the construction of the medium tank stalled.
    There was no opportunity to build one based on the abroad constructions, and attempts to build even lighter tanks of own design completely failed.
    At this time Poland lacked in both professionals with relevant experience, as well as industry capable of mastering complicated production technology of such specific motor vehicle which was the medium tank at all.

    In January 1937, the Committee for Armament and Equipment Ministry of Military Affairs (KSUS) defined guidelines for the concept of a new medium tank. Vehicle weight was to be 16 tons, while the armament was composed of a wz. 1897 cal. 75 mm Schneider cannon and two Hothkiss wz.25 machine guns. Engine type was supposed to be a diesel engine with an output of 320 hp. The general design was to be based on the English tank Vickers A6 "Sixteen tonner": the fighting compartment in front and the engine compartment at the back. There would be a central two-man turret with a 75mm gun and a coaxial machine-gun. In the front of the hull were to be placed two secondary machine-gun turrets, each with a 7.92mm machine gun. Similar to the USSR medium tanks T-28. Preliminary work on the project carried out in the Armored Forces Command have shown that with the assumed thickness of armor and weaponry weight of the tank will be 23-25 tonnes, which exceeds the limit of the expected mass.

    In October 1937, following the grant by the Second Deputy Minister of Military Affairs on 23 September of a credit in the amount of 25 000, Department of Design and Construction Bureau of Armoured Weapons and Technical Research (BBT Br. Panc.), Led by Maj. Rudolf Gundlach, developed its own preliminary draft of medium tank, with was slightly different, mainly in terms of weaponry, from initial assumptions of KSUS, although it was based on the same hull design. Mentioned weapons change would be there a central two-man turret with a 40mm automatic Bofors gun derivative from an anti air gun and a coaxial machine-gun. In the front of the hull were to be placed 81mm mortar and two secondary machine-gun turrets, each with a 7.92mm machine gun. In relation to the KSUS directive power unit had to be different, either a one gasoline carburetor engine with a power of 500 hp or two smaller with the power of 300 hp each one.

    The project of Maj. Rudolf Gundlah, together with proposals was included in the Referral of Armored Forces Command "Justification medium tank characteristics proposed by BBT Br. Panc." on 4 December 1937. aiming to be present at the next meeting of KSUS committee.

    However, in accordance with adjusted requirements KSUS did developed two concepts of medium tank (the so-called. K.S.U.S.T. Mark I and K.S.U.S.T. Mark II).
    While armed analogically to the KSUS committee requirements, those had to be characterized by mass of 22 tonnes (KSUST Mk.I with armor of 35-mm) or of 25 tonnes (KSUST Mk.II with armor of 50-mm).
    The K.S.U.S.T. Mk.I had to be powered by a diesel engine with a power of 320 hp, while the K.S.U.S.T Mk.II by two gasoline Carburetor with 300 hp each or a single gasoline Carburetor of 600-hp.
    As a result, developing a speed of 45 km/h on the road and 25 km/h off-road, despite of thicker armor and bigger mass.

    As a result of the confrontation of both concepts, in 1938. in BBT Br. Panc. was formed, one might say again, a compromise draft of a polish medium tank.
    It was expected that his weight will be 23~25 tons, armor will have a thickness up to 50 mm, weapons will be a 40mm Bofors automatic gun or 75 mm field gun or howitzer of special design and 3 machine guns.
    It was considered to use wz.1897 Schnaider Field Gun or a new type of howitzer being designed at Starachowice weapons plant, which weapons will have to provide more versatility of tank armament.
    However at the end, the howitzer was abandoned, just like Schneider Field Gun, as both had a extraordinary dimensions and a low rate of fire. These decisions was taken by the BBT Br. Pan. short after obtaining information about short-barreled Bofors 75 mm L/12-4.b/300/, which was so small and lightweight that would allow to mount it in main turret as co-axial with the 40 mm automatic Bofors, as result Main turret machine gun was abandoned.
    The project as such has been approved by KSUS for implementation in BBT Br. Panc., Who also commissioned to build the prototype. During the next year work on design of the tower rotation mechanism and a very complex mechanical aiming system of guiding co-axial short-barreled 75 mm Bofors Gun coupled with a 40 mm automatic Bofors cannon, as well to the choice of appropriate gearbox and to develop a technological process for the production of rolled armor of 50 mm thickness. Also begun negotiations to buy German Maybach Zeppelin engine with a power of 550 hp, which was in the final editing of KSUS committee requirements. Talks on this issue - with no visible progress - stretched so much that the deadline for completion of the prototype tank and start of it's production was planned not sooner than on year of 1940.



    Soon



    Nowa Technika Wojskowa 9/2006, s. 118-119, Janusz Magnuski. Czołg średni 20/25TP.
    Wojskowy Przegląd techniczny 7-8/1986
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa 6/2011, wydanie specjalne nr.10, s. 4-10, Robert Michulec. Nowy polski czołg średni
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa 11/2012, wydanie specjalne nr.13. Czy można było zrobić więcej? Polska broń pancerna w przededniu wojny
    Forum Odkrywca.pl: IIRP - Wojsko Polskie 1918-1939 - Polskie Czołgi



    Problem wyposażenia Wojska Polskiego w czołg średni własnej konstrukcji i produkowany przez przemysł krajowy, poruszony został po raz pierwszy w połowie lat 20. XX wieku. Ustalono wówczas, że z uwagi na warunki terenowe wschodnich rejonów Europy i przewidywany masowy charakter starć zbrojnych, czołg średni winien charakteryzować się specyficzną konstrukcją, odmienną od znanych wówczas czołgów średnich budowanych na Zachodzie. W formułowaniu tych teoretycznych przesłanek opierano się oczywiście na aktualnej sytuacji politycznej i militarnej, jak również na dostępnych doświadczeniach I wojny światowej, a także wojny polsko-bolszewickiej.

    Od początku prace kierowano w kierunku czołgu podobnego do radzieckich czołgów wielowieżowych typu T-28. Należy zauważyć, że oprócz układu wieżowego, również podwozie jest bardzo podobne. Czyżby projekty się przenikały? Czy ktoś komuś wykradł pomysły?
    Za czołg średni przyjęto uważać wóz o masie do 20 ton, szybki, stosunkowo nieźle opancerzony i uzbrojony.
    Miał to być swego rodzaju pojazd wielozadaniowy, uniwersalny, przeznaczony nie tylko do wsparcia piechoty i lekkich czołgów, ale także do wykonywania zadań o charakterze operacyjnym oraz przełamywania pozycji obronnych przeciwnika.

    W ciągu następnej dekady sprawa budowy czołgu średniego utknęła w martwym punkcie. Nie istniała żadna możliwość wzorowania się na konstrukcjach zagranicznych, a próby budowy nawet lżejszych czołgów własnej konstrukcji zupełnie się nie powiodły. Brakowało jeszcze zarówno specjalistów z odpowiednim doświadczeniem, jak i przemysłu zdolnego do opanowania skomplikowanej technologii produkcji tak specyficznego pojazdu mechanicznego, jakim był czołg w ogóle.

    Wytyczne Komitetu do Spraw Uzbrojenia i Sprzętu Ministerstwa Spraw Wojskowych (KSUS), dotyczące koncepcji czołgu średniego zawarto w uchwale podjętej po zebraniach 10 i 11 stycznia 1937 r., wkrótce po uchwaleniu 8-9 stycznia programu rozbudowy broni pancernej do roku 1942. Masa wozu miała sięgać 16 ton, ogólny układ wzorowany miał być na brytyjskim wielowieżowym czołgu A6 (Vickers 16 ton) z... końca lał 20. i powtórzony w sowieckim T-28. Jego cechą charakterystyczną było umieszczenie uzbrojenia artyleryjskiego - 75 mm armaty wz. 1897 - w wieży głównej, a karabinów maszynowych w dwóch mniejszych, jednoosobowych wieżyczkach pomocniczych. Napęd stanowić miał silnik wysokoprężny o mocy 320 KM.

    Wstępne studia, rozpoczęte niebawem w Dowództwie Broni Pancernych na podstawie uchwały KSUS, doprowadziły wkrótce do wniosku, że przy wymaganej grubości pancerza i żądanym uzbrojeniu oraz parametrach trakcyjnych, masa wozu przekroczy wskazany limit masy i sięgnie 23-25 ton. W październiku 1937 r„ po przyznaniu przez II wiceministra spraw wojskowych w dniu 23 września kredytu w wysokości 25 000 złotych. Wydział Projektów i Konstrukcji Biura Badań Technicznych Broni Pancernych (BBT Br. Panc.), kierowany przez mjr. Rudolfa Gundlacha, opracował własny wstępny projekt czołgu średniego, różniący się nieco, głównie pod względem uzbrojenia, od pierwotnych założeń KSUS, aczkolwiek oparty był na takim samym kadłubie. Wzmiankowane uzbrojenie stanowić miała 40 mm automatyczna armata Boforsa, będącą pochodną armaty przeciwlotniczej, które uzupełniać miał, zamontowany w kadłubie, 81 mm moździerz oraz 3 karabiny maszynowe.

    Zmianie w stosunku do projektu KSUS ulec miał napęd, który tworzyć miał jeden silnik gaźnikowy o mocy 500 KM lub dwa o mocy po 300 KM. Projekt wraz z wnioskami został zawarty w referacie Dowództwa Broni Pancernych "Uzasadnienie charakterystyki czołgu średniego proponowanej przez BBT Br. Panc." z 4 grudnia 1937 r. celem przedstawienia na najbliższym posiedzeniu KSUS.

    Jednak i KSUS opracował według urealnionych wymagań dwie koncepcje czołgu średniego (tzw. wariant I i II). Przy analogicznym jak w wymaganiach uzbrojeniu, miała cechować je masa 22 (wariant I z pancerzem 35-mm) lub 25 ton (wariant II z pancerzem 50-mm). Pierwszy czołg miał być napędzany silnikiem wysokoprężnym o mocy 320 KM, zaś drugi dwoma gaźnikowymi po 300 KM lub jednym 600-konnym. Dzięki temu rozwijać miał prędkość 45 km/h po drodze i 25 km/h w terenie, pomimo grubszego pancerza i większej masy.

    W wyniku konfrontacji obu koncepcji, w 1938 r. powstał w BBT Br. Panc., kolejny, rzec można kompromisowy, projekt czołgu średniego. Przewidywano, że jego masa wyniesie 23 tony, pancerz będzie miał grubość do 50 mm, uzbrojenie stanowić będzie 40 mm armata automatyczna lub 75 mm armata polowa/haubica specjalnej konstrukcji oraz 3 karabiny maszynowe.

    Zastanawiano się nad armatą polową wz. 1897 lub haubicą nowej konstrukcji, które zapewniać miały większą uniwersalność uzbrojenia czołgu. W końcu jednak z haubicy zrezygnowano, podobnie jak i z armaty Schneidera, która miała znaczne wymiary i niską szybkostrzelność. Do decyzji tych skłoniło BBT Br. Panc. otrzymanie informacji o krótkolufowym dziale 75 mm Boforsa, które było na tyle niewielkie i lekkie, że można byłoby umieścić je w wieży czołgu razem z armatą 40 mm. Zrezygnowano za to z wieżowego karabinu maszynowego. Projekt w takiej postaci został zatwierdzony przez KSUS do realizacji w BBT Br. Panc., któremu też zlecono budowę prototypu. W ciągu tego roku pracowano m.in. nad konstrukcją mechanizmu obrotu wieży oraz bardzo skomplikowanym układem mechanicznym naprowadzania na cel uzbrojenia artyleryjskiego - krótkolufowej armaty 75 mm sprzężonej z 40 mm armatą automatyczną, a także nad wyborem skrzyni przekładniowej, procesem technologicznym wytwarzania pancerza walcowanego o grubości 50 mm. Rozpoczęto również pertraktacje nad zakupem w niemieckiej firmie Maybach silnika Zeppelin o mocy 550 KM, który znalazł się w ostatecznej redakcji wymagań. Rozmowy w tej sprawie - bez widocznego postępu - przeciągały się tak bardzo, że termin ukończenia prototypu czołgu i rozpoczęcie jego produkcji planowane była na 1940 rok.



    Wkrtce


    BS PZInż. "Habich" BS PZInż. 'Habich'

    In 1939 PZInż. started the construction of a wooden mock-up of a medium tank designed by engineer E.Habich, and the prototype was to be ready a year later. The hull of the tank had to be of lowest possible profile with sloped armor plates, just like the turret, which was to be large but of lowest possible profile.

  • 60/40/40 mm
  • -10°/+20°
  • 29 t
  • 40 kph
  • 20.69 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator, Loader
  • 14TP 14TP
    KSUST KSUST
      47 mm wz.39 L/54
    1. 96/126/25 mm
    2. 70/70/90 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 600 kg
    5. 47 mm wz.40 L/55
    6. 126/184/25 mm
    7. 75/75/100 HP
    8. APCR/APCR/HE
    9. 625 kg
    10. 75 mm wz.22/24 Schneider L/50
    11. 115/144/38 mm
    12. 110/110/175 HP
    13. AP/APCR/HE
    14. 1070 kg
    15. 75 mm wz.36/37 L/50
    16. 131/184/38 mm
    17. 115/115/175 HP
    18. AP/APCR/HE
    19. 610 kg
      PZInż.25 (welded)
    1. 60/40/40 mm
    2. 330 m
    3. 39 °/s
    4. PZInż.25 (casted)
    5. 60/40/40 mm
    6. 370 m
    7. 37 °/s
      N2S
    1. 458.9 m
    2. N2C
    3. 700 m
      PZInż. R.W.A. I
    1. 300 hp
    2. PZInż. R.W.A. II
    3. 400 hp
    4. PZL Foka B v8
    5. 450 hp
    6. 300 kg
    7. Saurer BZD (turbo)
    8. 460 hp
    9. 900 kg
    10. PZL Foka C v12
    11. 600 hp
    12. 400 kg
      25TP wz.39 25TP wz.40
    T-34-85M3 T-34/85M2
    × pl en

    Medium Tank 25t BS PZInż. "Habich Tank"


    The origins.
    The concept of arming Polish Army with medium tanks appeared first in the mid-twenties of the twentieth century. It was recognized at the time that it should be a vehicle weighing up to 20 tons, fast, and sufficiently armored and armed. However, in the following years, the work on the medium tank wasn't taken forward. There was no opportunity to build one on the basis of foreign tanks designs (at the time appropriate tanks didn't exist, or were kept as top secret projects). Moreover, Poland didn't have experts with sufficient experience and industry capable of producing such a vehicle. Also one of important reasons was the lack of sufficient funds.

    First Concept.
    Once beginning of the production of the TK-S tankette's and the 7TP light tanks, in the mid-thirties of the twentieth century resumed back to the problem of the development of a medium tank. In January 1937, the Committee for Armament and Equipment Ministry of Military Affairs (KSUS) defined guidelines for the concept of a new medium tank. Vehicle weight was to be 16 tons, while the armament was composed of a wz. 1897 cal. 75 mm Schneider cannon and two Hothkiss wz.25 machine guns. Engine type was supposed to be a diesel engine with an output of 320 hp. The general design was to be based on the English tank Vickers A6 "Sixteen tonner": the fighting compartment in front and the engine compartment at the back. There would be a central two-man turret with a 75mm gun and a coaxial machine-gun. In the front of the hull were to be placed two secondary machine-gun turrets, each with a 7.92mm machine gun. Similar to the USSR medium tanks T-28. Preliminary work on the project carried out in the Armored Forces Command have shown that with the assumed thickness of armor and weaponry weight of the tank will be 23-25 tonnes, which exceeds the limit of the expected mass.

    Medium Tank 25t BS PZInż. "Habich Tank"
    Medium Tanks were planned as a new concept, as it was considered that light vehicles will not work on the contemporary, rapidly changing battlefield. There were three projects designed by KSUS and BBTBr.Panc. but those were only a concepts works with never left engineers desktops, but actually began to order and manufacture some of their parts to solve some certain things by study.
    Eventually it was decided to start construction of a prototype of the design of engineer E.Habich from the Special Bureau of PZInż company. In 1939 started the construction of a wooden mock-up, and the prototype was to be ready a year later. Initially considered various options of armament, including prototype 47 mm anti-tank cannon being constructed by cpt. Wacław Stetkiewicz and prototype anti aircraft gun 50~55 mm. Ultimately it was decided to equip the vehicle with long-barreled Schneider wz.22/24 75mm anti-aircraft cannon. The hull of the tank had to be of lowest possible profile with sloped armor plates, just like the tower, which was to be large but of lowest possible profile.

    Design.
    The work, initiated at the beginning of 1939. were directed by the Head of Special Vehicles Bureau, engineer Edward Habich, who was also the chief engineer of this tank.
    Habich withdrew from the concept of multi-turreted vehicle.

    Under his design, hull of the tank has to have lowest possible and wide profile, with slopped front and side armor plates. In the front panel of thickness up to 60mm (side and rear plates have a thickness of 40 mm) was placed universal ball mantle (designed by engineer Napiórkowski) for the hull 7.92mm machine gun (Type C4 - prototype air cooled machine gun) operated by gunner occupying a seat next to the driver.

    Turret has to be of lowest and wide profile possible, welded from 6 to 8 rolled steel armor plates. On top of the turret were placed one or two hathes for the crew, Gundlah G wz.34 reversible periscopes and Słupski sleves.
    The gun mounted in the turret has to be coupled with coaxial machine gun (Type C4 - prototype air cooled machine gun) and both suppose to be placed in a mantle of similar construction to the one from the 7TP.
    Armament had to supplemented by a third machine gun (again the Type C4 - prototype air cooled machine gun), designed for anti-aircraft defense, placed in mantle of special construction on the commander's hatch.

    Tank had to have also a strong field radio (N2/C) mounted in rear oriel of turret.

    The original assumptions of armament were about 40-47 mm caliber cannon: 40mm POM-POM or a prototype 47 mm anti-tank cannon being constructed by cpt. Wacław Stetkiewicz. Then thought about a new anti-aircraft 50-55mm caliber weapon being constructed in Starachowice weapons plant, but very quickly, because in the spring of 1939., engineer Tadeusz Tański involved in the design of the tank, proposed to use as the main armament the French Schneider 75 mm wz.22/24 long-barreled anti-aircraft cannon.
    Those guns, purchased by the Polish Navy Command in the amount of 14 pieces, were in armament of the 1st and 2nd Marine Flak squadrons. At that time those were already outdated and not very suitable to provide anti-aircraft defense against modern aircraft's.
    Due to good ballistic characteristics, it lent itself well to fight the enemy tanks, and their frag-destructive shells had sufficient effectiveness to destroy the typical field fortifications.
    Tański proposal was approved by Habich who had at same time commission works to adapt this gun to be mounted in tank turret.

    For the new tank Engine Department of th PZInż., Headed by Eng. Zdzislaw Rytel, designed in collaboration with Eng. Jan Werner, a special V-12 engine in two versions: carburetor gasoline of 300 hp (according to other data had to be 8-cylinder) and direct injection diesel engine of 250 hp. However Until the outbreak of the war, Engine Department of PZInż didn't finish any of those prototypes. Due to the prolonged work on the construction of Polish engine prototype, it was decided to look for another one outside the country. An American La-France engine with was bought for the 10TP seemed to be too weak and faulty and the most appropriate engine was found to be the German Maybach HL108 engine with power of 221 kW (300 hp), with has been already considered into account in 1937. during early development stage of 10TP, It was about 200 kg lighter than a American La France and reached by almost half as much power. However, despite many efforts and attempts to buy the HL108 with semi-automated gear-boxes in Germany... the 10TP had to be driven further with unreliable American La France. The case was so important that it was even an attempt to bring the engine to the Poland through help of Sweden, because the Germans (in 1937) did not agree to sell fewer than 8 ~ 10 engines., with qty. Polish side simply could not afford. However, the most likely to the September of 1939. Maybach buy failed, although some documents say that a new engine has been obtained... After the war In the 60's Leon Czekalski (a officer who did test drive of 10TP) recalled that 10TP was tested with two different engines, and for 2nd one waited for the long time...

    The chassis of designed tank was similar in construction to the chassis of the LT vz.38 and applied six rubber-tyred wheels of approx. 650~700mm diameter, suspended on individual suspension arms but combined by two with one common spring element, which was flat leaf-spring, the flat leaf-springs were placed on the outside of the hull. The upper branch of the tracks have to be supported also by rubber-tyred wheels but of a much smaller diameter.

    A single copy of designed tank prototype was ordered (the details of the contract are unknown due to lack of surviving records), which was to be delivered to the test. However until the outbreak of war BS PZInż. was able to make only a wooden mock-up of tank in scale of 1:1.

    On the basis of those scanty information, it can be concluded that the modern tank was is design, not outgoing constructions of its potential opponents perhaps even surpassing them. However, it seems weight of the tank was quite significantly underestimated, which at the scheduled armor would exceed 25 or more tons, it was also decided to use too weak engines.​ Engine of 300hp was a minimum to reach land speed of 40kph, better traction parameters could only give a engine of power greater than 400-450hp.

    Despite years of research, historians could not find any photographs or drawings (with the exception of some elements and the suspension schematic being held secret by Mr. Piotr Zarzycki for purpose of book being written by him), on the basis of which could be done reliable reconstruction of the appearance of this Polish medium tank.
    All we have for now are schematics drawn by KRZYCHAL from odkrywca.pl forums and the render of GrumpyStranger.
    Those schematics are made from proportion of human phantoms and known modules planned to used in tank like a: chassis carriage wheels, engine, main gun, auxiliary machine guns, radio etc.
    What we known for sure the tank must not exceed wide of 3.15m (polish railroads loading gauge) therefore we assume approximately 3.0m wide with is not wider than railroad tunnels and wagon platforms for railroad transport and not narrower than a 2.80m for enough crew working space... the rest come from modules proportions.
    However GrumpyStarnger render were created on the basis of discussion lead on the odkrywca.pl forums with the help of the knowledge of Mr. Piotr Zarzcki and Mr. Adam Jońca whose are the Polish experts in case of Polish armored vehicles prototypes.
    What makes them a reliable source of the appearance of the vehicle.



    Soon



    Nowa Technika Wojskowa 9/2006, s. 118-119, Janusz Magnuski. Czołg średni 20/25TP.
    Wojskowy Przegląd techniczny 7-8/1986
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa 6/2011, wydanie specjalne nr.10, s. 4-10, Robert Michulec. Nowy polski czołg średni
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa 11/2012, wydanie specjalne nr.13. Czy można było zrobić więcej? Polska broń pancerna w przededniu wojny
    Forum Odkrywca.pl: IIRP - Wojsko Polskie 1918-1939 - Polskie Czołgi



    Geneza
    Koncepcja wyposażenia Wojska Polskiego w czołgi średnie pojawiła się już w połowie lat 20. XX wieku. Uznano wtedy, że powinien to być pojazd o masie do 20 t, szybki, a także w dostatecznym stopniu opancerzony i uzbrojony. Jednakże w ciągu następnych lat prace nad budową czołgu średniego nie posuwały się naprzód. Nie istniała możliwość wzorowania się na czołgach zagranicznych (odpowiednich czołgów albo nie było, albo trzymano ich projekty w tajemnicy). Brakowało także w kraju specjalistów z odpowiednim doświadczeniem oraz przemysłu zdolnego do produkcji takiego pojazdu. Ważnym powodem był również brak wystarczających środków pieniężnych.

    Pierwsza koncepcja
    Do problemu opracowania czołgu średniego powrócono w połowie lat 30. XX wieku, po uruchomieniu produkcji tankietek TKS i czołgów lekkich 7TP. W styczniu 1937 roku Komitet do Spraw Uzbrojenia i Sprzętu Ministerstwa Spraw Wojskowych (KSUS) określił wytyczne dotyczące koncepcji nowego czołgu średniego. Masa pojazdu miała wynosić 16 ton, natomiast uzbrojenie miało składać się z armaty wz. 1897 kal. 75 mm oraz dwóch karabinów maszynowych. Napęd miał stanowić silnik wysokoprężny o mocy 320 KM. Ogólny układ miał być wzorowany na bazie angielskiego czołgu A6: uzbrojenie artyleryjskie miało być umieszczone w wieży głównej, zaś karabiny maszynowe w dwóch, mniejszych, jednoosobowych wieżach pomocniczych. Podobny układ miały sowieckie czołgi średnie T-28. Wstępne prace nad projektem przeprowadzone w Dowództwie Broni Pancernych wykazały, że przy zakładanych grubościach pancerza oraz uzbrojeniu masa czołgu wyniesie 23-25 ton, co przekroczy zakładany limit masy

    Czołg Średni 20/25TP PZInż.
    Czołgi średnie były planowane jako nowa koncepcja, gdyż uznano iż lekkie pojazdy nie sprawdzą się na ówczesnym, szybko zmieniającym się polu walki. Projekty KSUS i BBTBr.Panc. były studiami, choć faktycznie zaczęto nawet zamawiać ich pewne elementy aby rozwiązać studialnie pewne sprawy.
    Ostatecznie zapadła decyzja budowy prototypu oznaczonego 20/25TP konstrukcji inż.E.Habicha. Do budowy makiety przystąpiono w 1939 r., a prototyp miał być gotowy rok później. Początkowo rozważano różne warianty uzbrojenia, w tym armatę kal.47 i 50/55 mm. Ostatecznie zapadła decyzja o wyposażeniu wozu w długolufowa armatę plot.kal. 75mm sama wieża miała być duża i płaska.


    Czołg Średni 20/25TP PZInż. - konstrukcja...
    Pracami, rozpoczętymi na początku 1939 r., kierował szef Działu Pojazdów Specjalnych, inżynier Edward Habich, będący zarazem głównym konstruktorem tego czołgu.

    Habich odstąpił od koncepcji wozu wielowieżowego. Według jego projektu czołg miał mieć możliwie niski i szeroki kadłub o pochylonych płytach przodu i boków. W przedniej płycie grubości do 60 mm (płyty boczne i tylne miały mieć grubość 40 mm) umieszczono jarzmo karabinu maszynowego obsługiwanego przez Strzelca zajmującego miejsce obok kierowcy.

    W równie niskiej, dużej wieży - początkowo wykonanej z zespawanych 6-8 płyt walcowanych, a docelowo odlewanej - z dwo­ma włazami dla załogi, zamontowane miało być zasadnicze uzbrojenie w postaci armaty sprzężonej z karabinem maszynowym.

    Pierwotne założenia mówiły o armacie kalibru 40-47 mm (w grę wchodziła m.in. 47 mm armata ppanc. konstrukcji Wacława Stetkiewicza).
    Potem o nowej broni kalibru 60 mm, jednak bardzo szybko, bo już wiosną 1939 r., inżynier Tadeusz Tański biorący udział w projektowaniu wozu, zaproponował wykorzystanie jako główne uzbrojenie francuskiej 75 mm armaty plot. wz. 1922/24. Działa te, zakupione przez Dowództwo Marynarki Wojennej w ilości 14 sztuk, stanowiły wyposażenie 1. i 2. Morskich Dywizjonów Artylerii Przeciwlotniczej. W tym czasie były już one przestarzałe i niezbyt nadające się do zwalczania nowoczesnych samolotów. Ze względu na dobre charakterystyki balistyczne dobrze nadawała się ona do zwalczania czołgów przeciwnika, a i ich pocisk odłamkowo-burzący miał wystarczającą skuteczność do niszczenia typowych umocnień polowych.
    Propozycję Tańskiego Habich zaaprobował, zlecając jednocześnie odpowiednie zaadaptowania działa do zamontowania w wieży czołgu.
    Uzbrojenie uzupełniać miał trzeci karabin maszynowy, przeznaczony do obrony przeciwlotniczej, umieszczony na specjalnej obrotowej podstawie nad włazem dowódcy.

    Dla nowego czołgu Dział Silników/PZInż., kierowany przez inż. Zdzisława Rytla, opracowywał, przy współpracy inż. Jana Wernera, specjalny widlasty silnik 12-cylindrowy w dwóch odmianach: gaźnikowej o mocy 300 KM (wg innych danych miał być 8-cylindrowy) oraz wysokoprężnej z bezpośrednim wtryskiem paliwa o mocy 250 KM. Wobec przeciągających się prac nad prototypem polskiej jednostki napędowej, za najbardziej odpowiedni uznano niemiecki silnik Maybach HL 108 o mocy 221 kW (300 KM), który brano już pod uwagę w 1937 r., był on o 200 kg lżejszy od La France’a i rozwijał niemal o połowę większą moc. Mimo jednak wielu starań i prób zakupu silnika i skrzyni biegów w Niemczech, 10-TP dalej musiał być napędzany zawodnym La Francem. Sprawa była na tyle istotna, że podjęto nawet próbę sprowadzenie tego silnika do Polski za pośrednictwem Szwecji, gdyż sami Niemcy nie zgadzali się sprzedać mniejszej liczby silników niż 8~10 (w 1937 r.), na co polskiej strony po prostu nie było stać. Jednak najprawdopodobniej do września 1939 r. Maybacha zakupić się nie udało, choć niektóre dokumenty twierdzą że jakiś nowy silnik udało się pozyskać, być może miano go zamontować w prototypie 14TP. W latach 60. Czekalski wspominał, że na 10-TP testowano dwa różne silniki i że na ten drugi bardzo długo czekano...

    W podwoziu projektowanego czołgu miano zastosować sześć ogumionych kół jezdnych średnicy ok. 700 mm, zawieszonych na indywidualnych wahaczach lecz połączonych po dwa jednym wspólnym elementem sprężystym, którym był resor płaski, resory umieszczono na zewnątrz kadłuba. Górną gałąź gąsienicy podtrzymywać miały, również ogumione, koła o znacznie mniejszej średnicy.

    Zamówiono pojedynczy egzemplarz prototypowy czołgu (szczegóły tego kontraktu pozostają nieznane z powodu braku zachowanych akt), który miał zostać dostarczony do prób.

    Do chwili wybuchu wojny w PZInż. zdołano wykonać jedynie drewnianą makietę wozu w skali 1:1.

    Na podstawie tych skąpych informacji można stwierdzić, że powstawał nowoczesny wóz bojowy, nie ustępujący konstrukcjom potencjalnych przeciwników. Wydaje się jednak, ze zaniżono dość znacznie masę czołgu, która przy zaplanowanym opancerzeniu musiałaby przekroczyć 25 ton, zdecydowano się też na zbyt słabe jednostki napędowe. Silnik o mocy 300 KM był minimum dla osiągania prędkości 40 km/h, ale lepsze parametry trakcyjne mógłby zapewnić tylko silnik o mocy 400-450 KM.

    Mimo wieloletnich poszukiwań, nie udało się odnaleźć żadnych fotografii ani rysunków (z wyjątkiem schematu zawieszenia), na podstawie których można byłoby zrekonstruować wiarygodny wygląd tej wersji polskiego czołgu średniego.
    Jednakże Krzychal z forum odkrywca.pl oraz GrumpyStrenger Opierając się na źródłach i informacjach z WPT 7-8/86 i NTW 9/06
    Stworzyli najbardziej zbliżoną do pierwowzoru wizualizacje czołgu, praca na każdym etapie była konsultowana ze społecznością odkrywca.pl,miedzy innymi w dyskusji brali udział aJonca i pnz59 (Adam Jońca i Piotr Zarzycki, eksperci w dziedzinie prototypów polskiej myśli pancernej) docierając nawet do szkiców spod ręki E. Habicha...



    Wkrtce


    4TP 4TP

    The Polish light reconnaissance tank 4TP remained only a prototype. It belonged to a family of modern tracked vehicles, developed by Edward Habich in the late 1930s. The 4TP was meant to be used in the Polish Army in a place of the tankettes TK/TKS.

  • 17/13/13 mm
  • -7°/+25°
  • 4.3 t
  • 55 kph
  • 27.91 hp/t
  • Commander, Driver
  • TKS TKS
      20 mm wz.38 FK-A
    1. 43/55 mm
    2. 11/11 HP
    3. AP/APCR
    4. 10
    5. 57.6 kg
    6. 20 mm wz.38 FK-D
    7. 51/63 mm
    8. 11/11 HP
    9. AP/APCR
    10. 10
    11. 38.5 kg
    12. 37 mm wz.37 Bofors L/45
    13. 55/78/19 mm
    14. 40/40/50 HP
    15. AP/APCR/HE
    16. 82 kg
      PZInż.140
    1. 13/13/13 mm
    2. PzInz.180
    3. 20/13/13 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 300 m
      PZInż. 367GC-55
    1. 65 hp
    2. 285 kg
    3. PZInż.425
    4. 95 hp
    5. 260 kg
    6. PZInż. 725 (BAB)
    7. 120 hp
    8. 350 kg
      PZInż.130 PZInż.140
    10TP 10TP PZInz.160 PZInz.160
    × pl en

    PZInż.140


    The story of the Polish light reconnaissance tank 4TP, also known under its factory designation PZInż.140, is connected with designs of well-known British designers, J. V. Carden and V. Loyd. Working for Vickers-Armstrong, they designed numerous successful light tanks (among others Vickers E - 6 ton), which were exported to many countries and influenced many other designs in the world. Starting from 1928, they developed a line of the Light Tanks for the British Army (Mk I - Mk IV), and similar tanks for export. Main features of these designs were: a paired bogey-type suspension with two wheels per bogey, sprung on leaf springs or helical springs; an engine placed in the right part of a hull; two men crew and a rotating turret, armed typically with a machine gun. An export variant, Commercial Light Tank Vickers Carden-Loyd 4 ton, was developed into models: M1933, M1934, M1935, M1936 and M1937 (the latter was armed with a 4-pdr 40mm gun, built for Latvia). They were exported to many countries, mainly: Belgium (as T.15), the Netherlands (for the Dutch East Indies), Lithuania, Latvia, Siam, Argentina, Switzerland. They also served as a base for Vickers Carden-Loyd Amphibian Tank (more on PZInż.130 page) and several artillery tractors. The latest British Light Tanks of Carden-Loyd design were Mk V and Mk VI, with a 3-men crew.

    The only tanks produced in Poland in the early 1930s were tankettes TK/TKS (inspired by the Carden-Loyd tankette as well), but a program of armoured weapons' development anticipated construction of a light reconnaissance tank with a rotating turret and a stronger armament. It was meant to replace the tankettes in the future. That is why in September 1932, the 4-ton light tank, the Amphibian Tank and an artillery tractor of Carden-Loyd were demonstrated in Poland. As a result, in May 1933 the Chief of the Engineering Department, Col. Tadeusz Kossakowski proposed to buy 5 light reconnaissance tanks Carden-Loyd 4-ton and one Amphibian Tank in an evaluation and research purpose, but it was not proceeded because of a lack of funds. Instead, it was decided to develop similar tanks in Poland, basing on a specification worked out in the BBT BP (the Testing Centre of the Armoured Weapons). An attempt of fitting a tankette with a turret (TKW) was a failure. Therefore, a task of designing a new 4-ton reconnaissance tank and an amphibian tank, sharing the same components, was given to the PZInż. (the State Engineering Works) in 1935.

    The main designer of both tanks was the chief of the PZInż. Studies Section, engineer Edward Habich. The design and documentation of the light reconnaissance tank PZInż.140 was ready on 16 December 1936. Apart from a general inspiration by the Carden-Loyd layout, the new design was entirely Polish. It utilised some of the world's newest ideas, like a modern torsion bar suspension and also Polish inventions, like reversible periscopes. The engine was a Polish design as well.

    Just in January 1937, a plan of armoured weapons' development for 1937-42 years, anticipated a replacement of tankettes with the new light reconnaissance tank, which received an Army designation 4TP. The program expected producing 480 such tanks for 18 reconnaissance tank companies in infantry divisions and in 4 so-called Motorized Units (OM, Oddział Motorowy, former motorized brigades). The latter ones were expected to include a 4TP company and a 10TP company.

    A prototype of the reconnaissance tank was given to the Army on 15 August 1937. In the beginning of November it took part in a trial called "Autumn 1937", on a route of 1861 km. Also other prototypes were tested in this trial, among others the amphibian tank PZInż.130 and the tractor PZInż.152, both sharing the same chassis. The tank proved to be reliable, and its maintenance was simple. After the trial it was sent back to the PZInż. to apply some repairs and improvements. The testing continued in 1938. In June/July the 4TP was tested with a prototype 20mm automatic gun wz.38 FK-A. A committee of experts evaluated the tank to be a modern and successful design, fit for a serial production after some minor improvements. The main subject for improvement was the suspension. Although it was reliable and elastic, it was too soft and was causing the tank rock to sides too much, what made impossible an efficient fire while moving. Also materials used for constructing the prototype suspension had too low durability, what caused, first of all, breaking off of return rollers. The commission had some reservations as for a gearbox as well. All these drawbacks, however, were caused by the materials used in the prototype and were easy to be eliminated in a series production.

    The last trials of the PZInż.140 prototype took place in May 1939. It ran 4300 km (2672 miles) in total, without any serious failure. The tank was not ordered for a production, however. In a meantime, the Polish General Staff concluded, that when the tank enters service, its design would not meet the requirements of a future battlefield (such conclusion was caused, among others, by the analysis of tank skirmishes in the Spanish Civil War - it was generally correct, confirmed by a decreasing role of the light tanks in the WW2). It was recognized, that the future combat reconnaissance should be a task of better armed and armoured light tanks of 7TP-like class. Some publications claim, that a production of the 4TP was meant to start in 1940 anyway, but it is doubtful. In spite of all this, in the late 1930s the 4TP was a design comparable or better to the world's other light reconnaissance tanks of its class.

    Armament
    The only prototype of the light tank 4TP was not armed. Only in June/July 1938 the prototype of the Polish 20mm automatic gun wz.38 FK-A was tested with 4TP, and then returned to the factory. The tank was expected to be armed with a coaxial 20mm automatic gun wz.38 FK-A and a water cooled 7.92mm wz.30 tank machine gun. The ammunition load was to be 200 or 250 gun rounds and 2500 MG rounds. The turret was modeled after Bofors-designed turret of the 7TP tank, but it was smaller. It also had a hatch in a rear wall, like the first not accepted model of 7TP turret.

    During a prototype construction, an idea of arming the tank with the 37mm wz.37 gun was considered. A fitting of a complete 7TP two-men turret showed impossible, as was fitting of any other newly-designed two-men turret, due to their diameter and a necessity of rebuilding the tank. On reccomendation of the Armoured Weapons HQ, E. Habich worked a design of a modified tank 4TP, designated as PZInż.180, fitted with a bigger one-man turret. The turret of PZInż.180 had a shape of a truncate prism and was fitted with a 37mm gun. However, it was soon correctly recognized, that the commander would be overburdened with a gun handling, and all his duties would suffer (like in the French tanks or the T-70). Apart from it, the gun would have to be modified heavily to fit into this smaller turret. By the way, the 37mm gun found a better use in a low-profile tank destroyer PZInż.160, designed by E. Habich on the same chassis as well, which remained a project only due to the war outbreak.
    An idea of arming 4TP with a flamethrower was also considered, but it was not proceeded as well.



    Soon



    http://derela.republika.pl/en/4tp.htm



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    10TP 10TP

    The 10TP was a Polish light cruiser tank that never left the prototype status. While advancing the Polish armour development programme, the prototype was deemed unsuccessful. Discoveries made during testing that led to the design phase of the newer 14TP model, which was never completed due to the onset of World War II.

  • 20/20/20 mm
  • -10°/+20°
  • 12.8 t
  • 60 kph
  • 35.94 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator
  • 4TP 4TP
      37 mm wz.37 Bofors L/45
    1. 55/78/19 mm
    2. 40/40/50 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 82 kg
    5. 37 mm wz.37/39 Bofors L/45
    6. 78/98/19 mm
    7. 40/40/50 HP
    8. APCR/APCR/HE
    9. 82 kg
      7TP
    1. 15/15/15 mm
    2. 10TP
    3. 16/16/16 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 300 m
    2. N2C
    3. 700 m
      PZInż. 255
    1. 150 hp
    2. 900 kg
    3. American la France “J” V-12
    4. 240 hp
    5. 527 kg
    6. PZInż. R.W.A. I
    7. 300 hp
    8. Saurer BZD (turbo)
    9. 460 hp
    10. 900 kg
      10TP (proto.) 10TP
    14TP 14TP
    × pl en

    PZInż. 10TP


    At the end of the 1920s, the Polish Armed Forces felt that they needed a new tank model. The Military Institute of Engineering Research (Wojskowy Instytut Badań Inżynierii, WIBI) sent Captain Ruciński to the United States to legally acquire a Christie M1928 tank, its blueprint and license. The tank was to be used as a base for a new Polish light tank. The Poles however never received the machine and Christie fearing legal charges, refunded the purchase.
    Due to this failure to purchase the master model and the possible license, at the end of 1930 the WIBI Tank Design Bureau began preliminary design work on their own wheeled/tracked tank, based on the Christie M1928 and Christie M1931 models, known under the working name "A la Christie".

    The work was based on available data and advertising leaflets as well as notes and sketches that Captain Ruciński obtained from Christie. In 1932 the design drawings and a list of details were ready but soon the work slowed down because the designers were put in charge of a just-bought British Vickers Mark E tank that led to the 7TP light tank which was developed soon after.
    At the end of 1934, because of the liquidation of WIBI and establishing of the Design and Testing Centre of the Armoured Forces reporting directly to the Armoured Forces Command, most of the "A la Christie" project documentation was destroyed under the supervision of a special commission. Only a few hand-written notes and calculations were left.
    On 10 March 1935 design work on a new model called 10TP was started. Major Rudolf Gundlach headed the design team consisting of, among the others, engineers Jan Łapuszewski, Stefan Ołdakowski, Mieczysław Staszewski, Kazimierz Hejnowicz and a process engineer Jerzy Napiórkowski.

    Despite the fact that in 1936 the vehicle design was not completely finished, it was included in the programme of Armoured Forces that was a part of a general projection of growth and upgrade for the Polish Army for 1936-1942. This programme was approved by the Armament and Equipment Committee (Komitet do spraw Uzbrojenia i Sprzętu, KSUS) in January 1936. The 10TP tank was specified on the list of the equipment scheduled for four tank battalions in the new motorised units.

    Assembly of the first tank prototype was commenced in 1937 in the Experimental Workshop (WD) located within the area of the State Engineering Plants (PZInż.) Factory in Ursus near Warsaw, where all Polish tanks were produced in the period of 1931-1939. The work was supervised by Captain Kazimierz Grüner. At the same time two motorised cavalry brigades were formed with the intention that they would be equipped with the tank.
    Building of the tank was completed in July 1938. It took so much time because some basic assemblies that were not produced in Poland had to be acquired abroad like an engine of a sufficient output. It was not before 16 August that the 10TP tank rolled out for a first longer ride. It was driven by an experienced military specialist Sergeant Polinarek under personal supervision of the Chief of the Trial and Experiment Department in the Bureau of Technical Studies on Armored Weapons (Biuro Badań Technicznych Broni Pancernych, BBT Br.Panc.) Captain Leon Czekalski. The trials were kept secret because the activities of the German Abwehr and the members of the "Fifth Column" were then getting more and more intensive in Poland.

    Successive trials being stopped by minor faults lasted until the 30 September and then the tank was sent to the WD where design modifications were made. On 16 January 1939 the tank was tested, under supervision of its Chief Designer along a short distance trip to Łowicz and in the spring between 22 and 25 April, it went beyond Grodno, traveling along a total distance of 610 km. After this trip, when a total of nearly 2000 km were logged, the vehicle was sent again to the WD where it was nearly completely stripped down to check the wear on particular parts and assemblies, identify causes of malfunctions and to repair the damage. In May, the refurbished tank was demonstrated to generals and other top ranking military authorities.

    The designers, having analysed their experiences came to the conclusion that a tank of this type should be a purely tracked vehicle and any equipment needed for driving it on wheels was just an unnecessary weight. Getting rid of this weight allowed them to increase the armour thickness significantly while vehicle weight remained unchanged. Thus another development step of the 10TP was to be the 14TP tank. Its construction was started in the end of 1938 but it was not completed due to the war.

    Before the tank could enter mass production, German invasion of Poland in September 1939 ended the independent existence of the Second Polish Republic.


    Design
    The 10TP tank had a wide hull that made it possible to put two members of the crew inside side by side, a front machine gun and a 2-man turret. A solution to the problem of driving the vehicle both on wheels and tracks followed the American design, however Polish designers developed new, wider tracks, drive sprockets and a way of link hooking and moving. The tank steering system using hydraulic servomechanisms was their own advanced solution significantly affecting combat performance of the whole vehicle.



    Soon



    "Polish Armor 1939 – Polish Armor Projects and Prototypes". Retrieved 2014-08-09.
    Ford, Roger (1997). The World's Great Tanks from 1916 to the present day. Brown Packaging Books Ltd. pp. 99–100. ISBN 1-897884-29-X.
    Magnuski, Janusz, Armor in Profile 1/Pancerne profile 1, Warsaw: Pelta (1997) trans. by Witold Kałużyński
    Magnuski, Janusz, "Czołg 10TP"; "Nowa Technika Wojskowa" nr. 6/96



    Na rok przed wybuchem drugiej wojny światowej w Polsce zbudowano i rozpoczęto badania prototypu nowego czołgu kołowo-gąsienicowego, wg ówczesnych określeń sztabowych znanego jako pościgowy 10 TP. Pierwsze propozycje budowy wozu takiej klasy i o podobnej charakterystyce wysunięto już w latach dwudziestych, wieloletnie opóźnienia w ich realizacji spowodowane byty wieloma czynnikami, na które pomysłodawcy nie mieli wpływu. W latach 1926-29 kilkakrotnie podejmowano próby, bądź to zakupu za granicą, bądź też skonstruowania w kraju nowego typu czołgu w celu zastąpienia nim wozu Renault FT. zasadniczego sprzętu Wojska Polskiego, już wówczas uważanego za całkowicie przestarzały.
    Wysiłki te przez dłuższy czas były niemal całkowicie bezowocne, sytuacja zmieniła się dopiero pod koniec 1928 r. Powiało wówczas sensacją: prasa światowa zaczęła informować o rewelacyjnym wynalazku - najnowszym czołgu zbudowanym w Stanach Zjednoczonych przez J. Waltera Christie. Dzięki niespotykanej dotąd konstrukcji czołg mógł jeździć albo na kołach albo na gąsienicach rozwijając przy tym nieprawdopodobną wprost prędkość do 100 km/h.


    W końcu 1930 r. w BK Br. Panc. WIBI przystąpiono do wstępnego projektowania czołgu kołowo-gąsienicowego "a la Christie" (wewnętrzne, nieoficjalne określenie robocze). W1932 r. opracowano zestawienie detali i rysunków konstrukcyjnych wozu, jednak niebawem dalsze projektowanie uległo znacznemu przyhamowaniu, gdyż konstruktorzy zostali obarczeni pracami związanymi z modernizacją dopiero co zakupionego czołgu lekkiego Vickersa i tworzeniem nowego modelu nazwanego początkowo VAU-33 (Vickers-Armstrong Ulepszony, model 1933), następnie zaś 7TP. W końcu 1934 r., w związku z likwidacją WlBl i utworzeniem samodzielnego Biura Badań Technicznych Broni Pancernych (BBT Br. Panc.) podległego bezpośrednio Dowództwu Broni Pancernych, większość dokumentacji i teczek „czołgu a la Christie" została nawet komisyjnie zniszczona, pozostały jedynie odręczne notatki i obliczenia w brudnopisach; najbardziej zaangażowany w prace nad tym wozem kpt. Ruciński przeniesiony został do Dowództwa Broni Pancernych na stanowisko szefa wydziału materiałowego.
    Niemniej w nowym BBT Br. Panc. powrócono niebawem do zagadnienia budowy własnego typu czołgu kołowo-gąsienicowego, określanego teraz mianem pościgowego. Za zgodą szefa Sztabu Głównego specjalnie wytypowany zespół konstruktorów (inżynierowie Jan Łapuszewski, Stefan Ołdakowski, Mieczysław Staszewski, Kazimierz Hejnowicz oraz technolog Jerzy Napiórkowski) pod osobistym kierownictwem szefa wydziału projektów i konstrukcji mjr. Rudolfa Gundlacha, przystąpił 10 marca 1935 roku do prac projektowych wozu oznaczonego symbolem 10TP.
    Mimo, że w roku 1936 nie zakończono jeszcze ostatecznie projektu czołgu, został on włączony do programu rozbudowy broni pancernej na lata 1936-1942. Kiedy w styczniu 1937 r. KSUS zatwierdził ten program.
    Łącznie przewidziano budowę co najmniej 64 czołgów pościgowych (bez wozów rezerwowych) przeznaczonych do współdziałania z kawalerią w wykonywaniu zadań o charakterze manewru operacyjnego.

    Zespól inż. Łapuszewskiego w dość krótkim czasie opracował projekt oryginalnej konstrukcji czołgu, łączącej wiele ciekawych i zupełnie nowych rozwiązań technicznych, których nie miał nie tylko pierwotny model amerykański, ale także i znacznie późniejsze wozy pochodne zarówno sowieckie jak amerykańskie i angielskie.

    10TP miał znacznie szerszy kadłub (większej objętości wewnętrznej) o zupełnie zmienionym kształcie przedniego pancerza; umożliwiło to nie tylko umieszczenie obok kierowcy karabinu maszynowego obsługiwanego przez Strzelca przedniego ale także ustawienie nad przedziałem bojowym standardowej dwuosobowej wieży (konstrukcji Boforsa) stosowanej w czołgach 7TP i wyposażonej w znacznie nowocześniejsze przyrządy celownicze i obserwacyjne. Wszystko to sprawiło, że przy nieznacznie tylko zwiększonej masie ogólnej 10TP miał silniejsze uzbrojenie, a także grubszy pancerz.

    Problem jazdy na kołach i gąsienicach rozwiązano podobnie jak w konstrukcjach Christie: zdejmowano gąsienice i składano je na błotnikach. Pierwsza para kół jezdnych miała zwrotnice i była kierowana. Dla zwiększenia zwrotności i łatwiejszego wykonywania skrętów, druga para kół jezdnych podnoszona była do góry. W ten sposób czołg miał się poruszać po drogach z utwardzoną nawierzchnią wykorzystując atut większej prędkości maksymalnej. Gdy zachodziła konieczność zjechania z drogi należało założyć gąsienice, co wymagało zatrzymania czołgu i pracy jego załogi na zewnątrz.

    Podczas jazdy bez gąsienic ostatnia para kół jezdnych była napędzana za pomocą dość skomplikowanej wielostopniowej przekładni mechanicznej z kołami zębatymi, umieszczonej w zamkniętym karterze spełniającym jednocześnie rolę wahacza ostatniego koła jezdnego.

    Polscy konstruktorzy opracowali nowe, szersze gąsienice o większej podziałce, co nie pozostało bez wpływu na zmniejszenie wartości średniego nacisku jednostkowego na podłoże, a co za tym idzie i na zwiększenie zdolności poruszania się czołgu po bezdrożach. Nie bez znaczenia był fakt, że gąsienice te miały mniejsze opory przesuwu, nie były tak hałaśliwe, miały większą trwałość i mniejszą tendencję do spadania. Również koło napędowe gąsienic oraz sposób zaczepienia i przesuwania ogniw były oryginalną, choć trzeba to przyznać dość skomplikowaną konstrukcją, która w praktyce nie w pełni zdała egzamin.

    Natomiast system kierowania czołgiem (sterowania mechanizmami skrętu - sprzęgłami bocznymi) przy pomocy hydraulicznych siłowników wspomagających był rozwiązaniem naprawdę nowoczesnym znacznie ułatwiającym pracę kierowcy, pozwalającym - w porównaniu z konwen-
    cjonalnymi rozwiązaniami na tym polu - na uzyskanie większej manewrowości i prędkości przeciętnego czołgu, co oczywiście nie pozostawało bez wpływu na wzrost ogólnych walorów bojowych takiego pojazdu pancernego.

    W roku 1937 WD przystąpił do budowy pierwszego prototypu czołgu 10TP. Prace nie posuwały się tak szybko jak pierwotnie zakładano, gdyż ciągle jeszcze nie rozwiązano problemu silnika. Odpowiedniej jednostki napędowej o żądanej mocy - ponad 182,5 kW/250 KM - jak dotąd w Polsce nie produkowano, a oczekiwanie na skonstruowanie zabrałoby zbyt wiele czasu. Ostatecznie sprawę rozwiązano przez zakup w firmie Vimalert silnika American la France o mocy katalogowej - wg prospektów firmy - sięgającej 175,2 -179,6 kW/240-246 KM.

    Pod koniec czerwca 1938 r. montaż pierwszego prototypu 10TP był na tyle zaawansowany, że zakończenie prac przewidziano na lipiec.
    Sztab Główny Wojska Polskiego widział potrzebę wprowadzenia w latach 1939-1944 aż 394 lekkich czołgów kołowo-gąsienicowych. (Choć z obecnie znanych dokumentów nie ma wzmianki o terminie, w którym miano rozpocząć produkcję czołgu 10 TP).



    Wkrtce


    14TP 14TP

    The project began in 1938. The new tank, which was built off the 10TP design was to significantly improve the performance and quality of the medium tanks. The thickness of the armor on either side would have no less than 35 mm. The design provided that the tank to be fully tracked.

  • 50/35/35 mm
  • -10°/+20°
  • 16 t
  • 50 kph
  • 25 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator
  • 10TP 10TP
      37 mm wz.37 Bofors L/45
    1. 55/78/19 mm
    2. 40/40/50 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 82 kg
    5. 37 mm wz.37/39 Bofors L/45
    6. 78/98/19 mm
    7. 40/40/50 HP
    8. APCR/APCR/HE
    9. 82 kg
    10. 47 mm wz.39 L/54
    11. 96/126/25 mm
    12. 70/70/90 HP
    13. AP/APCR/HE
    14. 600 kg
      10TP
    1. 35/16/16 mm
    2. 14TP
    3. 50/35/35 mm
      N2S
    1. 458.9 m
    2. N2C
    3. 700 m
      American la France “J” V-12
    1. 240 hp
    2. 527 kg
    3. Maybach HL 120 TR
    4. 300 hp
    5. 510 kg
    6. PZInż. R.W.A. II
    7. 400 hp
      C.L.P. 14TP
    25TP "Habich" 25TP Habich
    × pl en

    PZInż. 14TP


    While in relation to the 10TP tank, we have rather full information (including photographs, allowing the restoration of it's appearance in drawings), then information related to the tank 14TP are quite rudimentary.​ The report on the state of armored warfare presented at the KSUS meeting in January 1937, contains the characteristics of different vehicles in the form of side sketches with the overall dimensions and the essential technical and tactical data.​ In these materials, the drawing of the 14TP is identical to the drawing of the 10TP, but later it's appearance can be changed, because the design was in the even development stage.

    Independently of wheel - tracked cruiser tank 10TP, the program provided development of tank with construction was similar to 10TP but with armor reaching a thickness of 10 - 35 mm. It have designation 14TP and was under development parallel to the cruiser tank 10TP.
    10TP trails proved that the concept of wheel - tracked tank is a dead end, the tank even as a refined design wouldn't have such qualities that could justify mass production.

    The Successor of 10TP - 14TP repeated design of 10TP with same chassis system. However, this tank has to move solely on tracks and featured engine of 300hp. power. He had to reach speed of 50 km/h.
    Has changed shape of front hull, designers resigned from the steering mechanism of the first axle, hydraulic lifting mechanism of second axle and of complex gear driving the rear wheels. During the 10TP trails engineers conducting research reported many reservations about the complex driving gear wheel, in practice become clear this complex rear ger wasn't used because tank could move on wheeled traction only on the hard roads while any atemp to off-road driving ends of tank being stuck. In such situation, the complex gear did only unnecessary strain on the vehicle and took precious hull space with could be saved for the better armor, ammunition and fuel.
    The front plate of the hull had to be probably a single plate inclined at a large angle. Water cooled Browning wz.30 machine gun mounted in heavy armored mantle of front hull, supposed to be replaced with prototype Air Cooled Type-C machine gun mounted in much lighter and simpler ball joke of eng. Napiórkowski.

    Weapons mounted in turret and the turret it self suppose to be similar to the ones of 10TP, but the Browning wz.30 in heavy armored mantle has to be replaced with prototype Type-C machine gun in a simpler Napiórkowski ball mantle. Probably in the future the main gun of tank could be the prototype anti tank gun of cpt. Stetkiewicz design. Turret has to be made of thicker armor plates (35-50mm), it is known that such turret was in development in spring of 1939r. perhaps for its development was used prototype turret of 10TP. Design of welded armor of this were entrusted to debuting Eng. Stefan Stankiewicz. Amazingly, for the armor of the new tower Eng. Stankiewicz did use plates of only 20mm thickness. Perhaps due to the troubles associated with the implementation of technology required fo manufacture of bent armor plates of a greater thickness.

    Tank project was completed at the beginning of 1938. And transferred to the Experimental Workshop of the B.B.T.Br.Panc., Where was planned to build a prototype. Due to further enlargement of tank mass decided to use engine of greater power exceeding 300-400hp (this has to be light assault tank of high speed reached on tracked traction). American La-France engine bought for the 10TP seemed to be too weak and faulty, and the engine of Polish design, developed in PZInż (design of engineer Z. Rytel and J. Werner), was only in trails and building prototypes phase. The most appropriate was the German Maybach HL108 engine with power of 221 kW (300 hp), it has been already considered into account in 1937. during early development stage of 10TP, It was about 200 kg lighter than a American La France and reached by almost half as much power. However, despite many efforts and attempts to buy the HL108 with semi-automated gear-boxes in Germany... the 10TP had to be driven further with unreliable American La France. The case was so important that it was even an attempt to bring the engine to the Poland through help of Sweden, because the Germans (in 1937) did not agree to sell fewer than 8 ~ 10 engines., with qty. Polish side simply could not afford. However, the most likely to the September of 1939. Maybach buy failed, although some documents say that a new engine has been obtained with could be mounted it in the prototype of 14TP. After the war In the 60's Leon Czekalski (a officer who did test drive of 10TP) recalled that 10TP was tested with two different engines, and on 2nd one waited for the long time...

    The question of the degree of completion of the prototype tank 14TP remains open.
    Official report of B.B.T.Br.Panc in June 1938. state information that construction works on the "light tracked tank" were almost finished, with 60% of components being already ordered, of which already received the tracks and leaf springs. In July, 1938. was Expected to receive the engine and gear-boxes, which could allow building and first trails of prototype in March of 1939. Meanwhile cpt. Czekalski after the defeat in the September written a report claimed that in 1938. were carried out studies on the tank 14TP​, and a wooden mockup was build in 1939r.

    Changes in 14TP drawing in comparison to 10TP:
    > No steering mechanism of 1st driving wheel pair
    > No lifting mechanism of 2nd driving wheel pair
    > No transmission for 4th driving wheel pair
    > Removed cavity from hull for turning mechanism - wider front hull
    > Simpler Upper front plate at high inclination angle
    > A larger driver hath on upper front plate
    > Heavy armored wz.30 MG replaced by light TYP-C MG
    > Welded armor plates
    > Longer aft section of turret ( radio oriel encapsulated with armored plates )
    > A larger central hath for commander and loader on turret roof



    Soon



    Nowa Technika Wojskowa nr 6/1996
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa "Broń Wojska Polskiego"
    Poligon nr 1/2009
    http://militarium.net/viewart.php?aid=677



    Niezależnie od pościgowego czołgu kołowo - gąsienicowego 10 TP, W programie rozwoju broni pancernych przewidziana była budowa podobnego wozu jednakże z pancerzem sięgającym grubości 10 - 35 mm. Nosił on oznaczenie 14 TP i byt projektowany prawie równolegle z wozami 10TP.
    W czasie prób 10TP okazało się, że koncepcja czołgu kołowo – gąsienicowego jest ślepą uliczką, wóz nawet jako dopracowana konstrukcja nie dysponował takimi walorami, które uzasadniałyby produkcję seryjną.

    14TP konstrukcja
    14TP powtarzał układ 10TP. jednak był to już wóz poruszający się wyłącznie na gąsienicach i wyposażony w nowy silnik większej mocy, układ zawieszenia pozostał ten sam.

    W 14TP zmianie uległ przód kadłuba, zrezygnowano z mechanizmów skrętu przedniej pary kół i hydraulicznego podnoszenia drugiej oraz przekładni napędzającej tylne koła jezdne, w trakcie prób 10TP inżynierowie prowadzący badania zgłosili wiele zastrzeżeń do skomplikowanej przekładni napędzającej koła W praktyce okazało się, że nie jest ona wykorzystywana ponieważ bez gąsienic czołg mógł się poruszać tylko po drogach z utwardzoną nawierzchnią próby zjechania. W teren kończyły się w zasadzie ugrzęźnięciem czołgu W tej sytuacji stosunkowo ciężkie urządzenie zajmowało niepotrzebnie miejsce w kadłubie i bezużytecznie obciążało czołg. Pozwoliło to na zaoszczędzenie cennej przestrzeni wewnętrznej na amunicję artyleryjską i paliwo.

    Przednia płyta kadłuba miała być najprawdopodobniej jednolitą płytą nachyloną pod dużym kątem. Kadłubowy karabin maszynowy wraz z ciężkim jarzmem i osłoną chłodzonej wodą lufy zastąpiony miał być przez prostsze jarzmo kulowe, w którym mocowany miał być karabin maszynowy kalibru 7,92 mm typu C z lufą chłodzoną powietrzem.

    Uzbrojenie montowane w wieży i sama wieża miały być podobne, ale zmieniony miał zostać karabin maszynowy z Browninga wz. 30 na typ C z lufą chłodzoną powietrzem. Wieża miała mieć także zwiększoną grubość płyt pancernych, prawdopodobnie o grubości wynoszącej do 35-50 mm. Wiadomo jest że nad taką wieżą pracowano wiosną 1939 r. być może do jej wykonania posłużono się wieżą modelową, zastosowaną wcześniej na 10TP.

    Projekt czołgu ukończono na początku 1938 r. i przekazano do Warsztatu Doświadczalnego BBT Br. Panc., gdzie planowano budowę prototypu. Z uwagi na dalsze zwiększenie masy pojazdu planowano zastosowanie silnika o mocy powyżej 300-400 KM (należy pamiętać, że miał to być czołg pościgowy, o dużej prędkości osiąganej na gąsienicach). Motor zakupiony dla 10 TP wydawał się za słaby, a polski projekt, opracowywany w PZInż (konstruktorzy Z. Rytel i J. Werner), znajdował się dopiero w fazie prób i badań prototypów. W BBT Br. Panc. zaplanowało zastosowanie niemieckiej silnika Maybach, o mocy 221 kW (300 KM). Informacje o tej jednostce napędowej otrzymano po zbudowaniu prototypu 10 TP (czyli w 1938 r.) i rozpoczęto rozmowy na temat jego nabycia. Rozmowy z firmą Maybach w sprawie zakupu dwóch egzemplarzy modelu HL108 (zastosowanego m.in. w czołgach PzKpfw III) wraz z półautomatycznymi skrzyniami przekładniowymi były przeciągane przez stronę niemiecką i nie zostały sfinalizowane aż do wybuchu wojny.

    Prototyp 14TP pozostał zatem bez silnika i nie mógł być w 1939 r. ukończony (do końca 1938 r. wykonano ponad 60% zespołów i części czołgu). Według zakładowego harmonogramu ukończenie prototypu oraz rozpoczęcie prób planowane było na marzec 1939 r. stale ulegało przesunięciom i opóźnieniom spowodowanym brakiem silnika.

    O ile w odniesieniu do czołgu 10TP dysponujemy dość pełnym informacjami (w tym także fotografiami, pozwalającymi na odtworzenie wyglądu w rysunkach), to materiały odnoszące się do wozu 14TP są zupełnie szczątkowe W sprawozdaniu o stanie broni pancernych przedstawianym na posiedzeniu KSUS w styczniu 1937 r zawarto charakterystyki różnych pojazdów w postaci szkiców bocznych z ogólnymi wymiarami oraz zasadniczymi danymi taktyczno technicznymi. W tych materiałach rysunek wozu 14TP jest identyczny z rysunkiem 10TP, jednak w późniejszych miesiącach mógł on ulec zmianie, bowiem konstrukcja znajdowała się stale jeszcze w stadium projektowania.

    Rysunki domniemanego 14TP, opublikowane na Zachodzie przez Horsta Scheiberta jako wizerunek „Polnische Kampfpanzer 39TP", a potem przedrukowywane w Polsce, były świadomie spreparowaną przez komórkę dezinformacji II Oddziału Sztabu Głównego „fałszywką" celowo podrzuconą Niemcom, a czołg 14TP miał mieć znacznie więcej wspólnego z 10TP, niż mogłoby to się wydawać.



    Wkrtce


    T-34-85M3 T-34-85M3

    After WWII the T-34/85 was the first tank in Poland to be mass-produced. In 1951, Poland bought a license for its production which started in 1952. During its service tank was upgraded locally to the T-34-85M1 and T-34-85M2. There were also plans of T-34-85M3 upgrade.

  • 45/45/40 mm
  • -7°/+22°
  • 33 t
  • 55 kph
  • 16.06 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
  • BS PzInż. "Habich" BS PzInż. 'Habich'
      85 mm wz.1943 L/51.6
    1. 128/172/43 mm
    2. 160/160/280 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 0.38
    5. 2.3 s
    6. 85 mm wz.1944 L/54.6
    7. 144/194/44 mm
    8. 180/180/300 HP
    9. AP/APCR/HE
    10. 0.37
    11. 2.3 s
    12. 85 mm wz.1944 L/54.6 (stabilized)
    13. 144/194/44 mm
    14. 180/180/300 HP
    15. AP/APCR/HE
    16. 0.33
    17. 2.15 s
    18. 88 mm wz.1936/55 L/56
    19. 145/194/44 mm
    20. 220/220/270 HP
    21. AP/APCR/HE
    22. 0.37
    23. 2.3 s
      T-34-85
    1. 90/75/52 mm
    2. T-34-85 (Bumar-Łabędy)
    3. 90/75/52 mm
      10-RT-26E
    1. 550 m
    2. R-113
    3. 730 m
      W-2-34
    1. 500 hp
    2. 750 kg
    3. W-2-34M
    4. 520 hp
    5. 750 kg
    6. WZ-2-34
    7. 530 hp
    8. 750 kg
      T-34-85 T-34-85M3 (hydraulic shock absorbers)
    T-34-85(100) T-34/100
    × pl en

    T-34-85M3


    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    T-34-85(100) T-34-85(100)

    A Polish tank project mounting a 100 mm gun on a T-34-85 tank from 1950s. The T-34/100 (1955) was slightly lower and had a wider turret than the T-34/85. To accommodate the larger caliber gun a heavier beefed-up recoil mechanism was used. The turret was modified with a machine gun extending through the turret at the rear. Also the turret and the sides of the tank had a greater slope and the armour had a smoother finish.

  • 74/45/40 mm
  • -7°/+22°
  • 34 t
  • 55 kph
  • 17.6 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator, Loader
  • T-34-85M3 T-34/85M2
      85 mm wz.1944 L/54.6
    1. 144/194/44 mm
    2. 180/180/300 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 0.37
    5. 2.3 s
    6. 85 mm wz.1944 L/54.6 (stabilized)
    7. 144/194/44 mm
    8. 180/180/300 HP
    9. AP/APCR/HE
    10. 0.33
    11. 2.15 s
    12. 88 mm wz.1936/55 L/56
    13. 174/210/44 mm
    14. 220/220/270 HP
    15. APCR/HEAT/HE
    16. 0.37
    17. 2.3 s
    18. 100 mm 52-P-412 L/53.5
    19. 175/235/50 mm
    20. 250/250/330 HP
    21. AP/APCR/HE
    22. 0.38
    23. 2.3 s
      T-34-85
    1. 90/75/52 mm
    2. T-34-100
    3. 90/75/52 mm
      10-RT-26E
    1. 550 m
    2. R-113
    3. 730 m
      WZ-2-34
    1. 530 hp
    2. 750 kg
    3. W-2-K
    4. 550 hp
    5. 750 kg
    6. WZ-2-IS
    7. 600 hp
    8. 750 kg
      T-34-85 T-34/100
    T-44 T-44
    × pl en

    T-34-85(100)


    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    T-44 T-44

    In 1950s Poland received from Soviet Union some T-44 tanks, which was used by Poles to train crews for T-54 and T-55 tanks.

  • 86/75/45 mm
  • -7°/+25°
  • 33 t
  • 51 kph
  • 18.8 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
  • T-34-85(100) T-34/100
      85 mm wz.1944 L/54.6
    1. 144/194/44 mm
    2. 180/180/300 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 0.37
    5. 2.3 s
    6. 88 mm wz.1936/55 L/56
    7. 174/210/44 mm
    8. 220/220/270 HP
    9. APCR/HEAT/HE
    10. 0.37
    11. 2.3 s
    12. 100 mm 52-P-412 L/53.5
    13. 175/235/50 mm
    14. 250/250/330 HP
    15. AP/APCR/HE
    16. 0.38
    17. 2.3 s
    18. 107 mm wz.1941 L/59.5
    19. 192/235/54 mm
    20. 300/300/360 HP
    21. AP/APCR/HE
    22. 0.37
    23. 2.9 s
      T-44
    1. 115/90/75
    2. T-44-100
    3. 120/90/75
      R-113
    1. 730 m
    2. R-123
    3. 850 m
      W-2-34
    1. 500 hp
    2. 750 kg
    3. W-44
    4. 512 hp
    5. 750 kg
    6. W-54
    7. 520 hp
    8. 750 kg
      T-44 T-44-2
    T-54AE T-54AE
    × pl en

    T-44


    Soon



    Soon





    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    T-54AE T-54AE

    T-54AE was a Polish modification of T-54A tank with upgraded protection in the form of spaced armor - armor plates fitted to hull front, side skirts and wire mesh screens around the turret. This provided its protection against ATGM.

  • 120+10/80+5/45 mm
  • -5°/+14°
  • 38 t
  • 50 kph
  • 22.36 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
  • T-44 T-44
      100 mm 52-PT-412 L/53.5
    1. 175/235/50 mm
    2. 250/250/330 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 0.38
    5. 2.3 s
    6. 100 mm 52-PT-412-2 L/56
    7. 183/235/50 mm
    8. 250/250/330 HP
    9. AP/APCR/HE
    10. 0.38
    11. 2.3 s
    12. 100 mm 52-PT-412c L/56
    13. 201/280/50 mm
    14. 320/320/420 HP
    15. AP/HEAT/HE
    16. 0.35
    17. 2.2 s
      T-54A E
    1. 200+5/160+5/65 mm
    2. T-54AM2 E
    3. 200+6/160+6/65 mm
      R-113
    1. 730 m
    2. R-123
    3. 850 m
      W-54
    1. 520 hp
    2. 750 kg
    3. W-55WAx
    4. 580 hp
    5. 750 kg
    6. W-55U
    7. 620 hp
    8. 930 kg
    9. W-44-5M
    10. 690 hp
    11. 900 kg
    12. Gas Turbine
    13. 850 hp
    14. 750 kg
      T-54 T-55AM 1st proto.
    T-55AM P T-55AM (proto.) Czołg Lewandowskiego Czolg Lewandowskiego
    × pl en

    T-54AE


    Judging by the markings on tank and surroundings it can be assumed that the images was taken before year of 1965.
    After yr. of 1965 to the year of 1980 all polish armored vehicles are marked with romboid-al check-board and white tactical number.
    In the background is visible tanker lorry ZIS 150, with was common support vehicle in polish forces between the years of 1950 to 1960.

    In the 50's there was widespread recognition of the need for improved protection against missiles and rockets using shaped-charge warheads since these could penetrate far more armor than conventional tank guns. New laminate armors were found to be effective in degrading the effect of shaped-charge warheads, and these were incorporated into the new T-64 tank. In parallel, Polish and Soviet engineers began to examine other protective methods that could be added to the existing tank fleet. The first of these schemes was the 1960 program to develop the ZET-1 ("zashchita ekrannaya tankovaya", translates to "tank protective screen" ). To protect the tank from frontal attack, a folding screen was designed that was attached to the forward section of the main gun. This screen folded like an umbrella when not in use, and in combat was unfolded. The wire mesh was sufficient to detonate incoming shaped-charge warheads, such as those on and-tank missiles, anti-tank rockets, and even tank rounds. In addition, small aluminum "flipper" panels were fitted to the hull side. These folded flush against the side of the tank when not in use, but in combat were folded outward to protect the lower hull sides. Although a state commission thought the idea worthy of adoption, the ZET-1 was ignored by the tank force which preferred to wait for the adoption of integral laminate armor on the new T-64 and T-72 tanks.



    Soon



    



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    T-55AM Prototyp T-55AM Prototyp

    Polish version of T-55AM developed between the late 1970s and early 1980s, fitted with a new SKO "Merida" fire control system. The tank is also equipped with additional passive armour on the hull and turret front.

  • 100+45/80+10/45 mm
  • -5°/+18°
  • 43 t
  • 49 kph
  • 19.77 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
  • T-54AE T-54AE
      100 mm 52-PT-412D L/56
    1. 201/330/50 mm
    2. 320/320/420 HP
    3. AP/HEAT/HE
    4. 0.33
    5. 2.1 s
    6. 100 mm 52-PT-412-2c L/56
    7. 241/330/50 mm
    8. 320/320/420 HP
    9. APCR/HEAT/HE
    10. 0.32
    11. 2.1 s
      T-54AM Prototyp
    1. 200+60/160+60/65 mm
      R-123
    1. 850 m
      W-55UWAx
    1. 640 hp
    2. 930 kg
    3. Gas Turbine
    4. 850 hp
    5. 980 kg
      T-55AM Prototyp
    × pl en

    T-55AM Merida Prototyp


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    Czołg Lewandowskiego Czołg Lewandowskiego

    One of the projects found by WG. Heavy tank with armor up to 200 mm and weight ~60t. No more info.

  • 200/?/? mm
  • ?°/?°
  • ~60 t
  • -?/+? kph
  • ? hp/t
  • ?
  • T-54AE T-54AE
      ?
      Czołg Lewandowskiego
    1. 200/?/? mm
      R-123
    1. 850 m
      Gas Turbine
    1. 850 hp
    2. 980 kg
      Czołg Lewandowskiego
    × pl en

    Czołg Lewandowskiego


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    no tank1 no tank1

    12 designs found by WG in WAT may fit here

  • ??
  • ??
  • ??
  • ??
  • ??
  • ??
  • T-34/85M2 T-34/85M2
      ??
    1. ??
    2. ??
      ??
    1. ??
      ??
    1. ??
      ??
    1. ??
      ??
    no tank2 no tank2
    × pl en

    No tank


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    TKS TKS

    In 1933, work was started on an improved tankette model. The main designer became Edward Habich (after Maj. Trzeciak's death). The new model was generally based upon TK-3 design, but only few parts remained interchangeable.

  • 10/8/5 mm
  • -7°/+25°
  • 2.8 t
  • -12/+45 kph
  • 26.78 hp/t
  • Commander, Driver
  • RT M26/27 wz.32 RT M26/27 wz.32
      37 mm wz.18 Puteaux SA L/21
    1. 29/46/18 mm
    2. 30/30/36 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 100 kg
    5. 20 mm S18-100 Solothurn
    6. 35/42 mm
    7. 11/11 HP
    8. AP/APCR
    9. 45 kg
    10. 20 mm wz.38 FK-A
    11. 43/55 mm
    12. 11/11 HP
    13. AP/APCR
    14. 10
    15. 57.6 kg
      TK-S
    1. 0/0/0 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
      PZInż. 367
    1. 42 hp
    2. 285 kg
    3. PZInż. 367GT
    4. 46 hp
    5. 285 kg
    6. PZInż. 367GC-55
    7. 65 hp
    8. 285 kg
    9. PZInż. 367TC-55
    10. 75 hp
    11. 285 kg
      TKS TKS-B
    4TP 4TP
    × pl en

    TKS


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    7T 7T

    Poland was the biggest user of Vickers Mk. E tanks (called 7T). Based on this tank Poles built their own vehicle - 7TP. However, they planned to upgrade original Vickers tank by mounting better armament and turret - both were projects of I.T.U. (Instytut Techniczny Uzbrojenia — Institute of Armament Technology), designed by eng. Edmund Rögl and eng. Henryk Knabe.

  • 13/13/8 mm
  • -15°/+20°
  • 7.3 t
  • 35 kph
  • 12.6 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver
    1. 40 mm wz.35 I.T.U. L/55
    2. 70/104/23 mm
    3. 45/45/55 HP
    4. AP/APCR/HE
    5. 129.8 kg
      B.B.T.Br.Panc. I.T.U.
    1. 15/15/15 mm
      RKBc
    1. 310 m
      Siddeley Puma
    1. 92 hp
    2. 545 kg
      Vickers Mk. E Type B
    × pl en

    Vickers-Armstrongs 6-Ton Mark E (7T)


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    BBTBrPanc BBTBrPanc

    In October. 1937 a variant was proposed by the Technical Research Armored Arms Bureau (BBT Br. Panc.) by Major R. Gundlach. The project was suspended and only mock ups were created.

  • 50/30/30 mm
  • -10°/+30°
  • 23 t
  • -?/+45 kph
  • 26.09 hp/t
  • 380 hp
  • Commander, Gunner, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator, Loader
    1. 40 mm wz.36 Bofors L/56
    2. 63/101/23 mm
    3. 50/50/60 HP
    4. AP/APCR/HE
    5. 4 shots
    6. 4.123 s
    7. 0.5 s
    8. 0.364
    9. 1,73 s
    10. 2134
    11. 42,68
    12. 470 kg
      B.B.T.Br.Panc.
    1. 50/40/30 mm
    2. 340 m
    3. 35.5 deg/s
      N2S
    1. 458.9 m
      2xPZInż. R.W.A. I
    1. 600 hp
      23t
    1. 20 deg/s
    2. 1.247/1.534/2.685
    × pl en

    BBT Br. Panc.


    Three turreted tank, weighing 23 tonnes. The project involved the 3 towers in the tank. Main tower with a gun of 65 to 75 mm (acc. J. Magnuski the AAA 40mm Bofors Gun and mortar 81 mm) and with one co-axial heavy machine gun, two smaller towers mounted on the front of the vehicle each with one heavy machine gun. The crew in this project was to be up to 7 people, the speed of the tank to 45km/h, armor up to 50mm. The engine was conceived as a powerful engine of 500 hp or 2 engines of 300 HP each. The water cooled heavy machine guns Browning wz.30 were eventually planed to be replaced by new prototype TYP-C air cooled heavy machine gun.

    For more information see details of KSUST.



    Soon



    



    Czołg trzywieżowy, o masie 23 tony. Projekt przewidywał 3 wieże w czołgu. Wieżę główną z działem 65 - 75 mm ( wg p. Magnuskiego z armatą plot Boforsa i moździerzem 81 mm) i jednym ckm oraz dwie wieże osadzone z przodu pojazdu, każda z 1 ckmem. Załoga w tym projekcie miała wynosić 7 osób, prędkość czołgu do 40km/h, pancerz do 50mm. Jednostkę napędową miał stanowić potężny silnik 500 KM lub 2 silniki 300 KM każdy.



    Wkrtce


    TKS (P) TK-S (P)

    In 1933, work was started on an improved tankette model. The main designer became Edward Habich (after Maj. Trzeciak's death). The new model was generally based upon TK-3 design, but only few parts remained interchangeable.

  • 10/8/5 mm
  • -7°/+25°
  • 2.8 t
  • -12/+45 kph
  • 26.78 hp/t
  • 140 hp
  • Commander, Driver
    1. 20 mm wz.38 FK-A
    2. 43/55 mm
    3. 11/11 HP
    4. AP/APCR
    5. 10
    6. 6.7 s
    7. 0,188 s
    8. 0,4
    9. 2 s
    10. 786,9
    11. 71,535
    12. -7°/+25°
    13. 57.6 kg
      TK-S
    1. 0/0/0 mm
    2. 290 m
    3. 26 deg/s
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
      PZInż. 367GT
    1. 46 hp
    2. 285 kg
      TKS
    1. 45 deg/s
    2. 0,863/1,151/2,014
    × pl en

    TKS


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    TK-SD TK-SD

    TK-SD was developed in 1937 using chassis of the C2P tractor. It carried the same modern 37 mm Bofors wz.36 cannon that served as Poland's primary towed antitank gun and main armament of the 7TP tank. Only two prototypes were completed.

  • 6/4/4 mm
  • -9°/+13°
  • 3.1 t
  • -12/+42 kph
  • 24.19 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
  • RT M26/27 wz.32 RT M26/27 wz.32
      47 mm wz.35 Pocisk L/45
    1. 54/79/27 mm
    2. 50/50/65 HP
    3. AP/APCR/HE
    4. 280 kg
    5. 37 mm wz.37 Bofors L/45
    6. 55/78/19 mm
    7. 40/40/50 HP
    8. AP/APCR/HE
    9. 82 kg
    10. 37 mm wz.37/39 Bofors L/45
    11. 78/98/19 mm
    12. 40/40/50 HP
    13. APCR/APCR/HE
    14. 82 kg
      TK-SD
    1. 0/0/0 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
      PZInż. 367GT
    1. 46 hp
    2. 285 kg
    3. PZInż. 367GC-55
    4. 65 hp
    5. 285 kg
    6. PZInż. 367TC-55
    7. 75 hp
    8. 285 kg
      TKS-B TKS-D
    PZInż.160 PZInż.160
    × pl en

    TKS-D


    The later, more sophisticated self-propelled gun model on the tankette base, was the TKS-D. Its development process was not typical, because it was first conceived as an armoured tractor for a modern 37mm wz.36 Bofors anti-tank gun, which was accepted as a basic Polish anti-tank weapon. It was planned, that the gun could be dismounted from its carriage and mounted on a tractor as well. The tractor could tow the gun-carriage then and fire the gun from the tractor in need. Judging from photos, however, TKS-D prototypes were only used with a gun mounted, which allowed to utilize tactical advantages of the self-propelled gun. Despite it was considered as a tractor at first, it became one of the world's first tank destroyers. Its advantage was very small silhouette and size, especially its small height (see a comparision sketch of small tank destroyers).

    The TKS-D design was based upon a modified TKS tankette chassis - the same, as in the light artillery tractor C2P. It differed from the TKS tankette by using side clutches in a transmission and bigger idler wheels, which were last roadwheels as well. This gave C2P and TKS-D better traction. Main designers were J. Lapuszewski and H. Lipko, under direction of R. Gundlach. In April 1937 there were two TKS-D prototypes completed, rebuilt from serial tankette TKS nr.8897 and a prototype tankette TKS-B nr.1510. The TKS-B chassis had already been fitted with the new running gear, the other one was fitted with it during rebuild.

    The TKS-D had a new, relatively long hull. Most of it was taken by an open crew compartment. Both TKS-D prototypes differed with the hull shape - one of them had higher side walls, sloped inwards. Since the gun sight and aiming mechanism was on the left side, a driver's seat was moved to the right side of the vehicle. A special two-wheel armoured ammunition trailer was also developed, carrying 80 rounds.

    In 1937-38, both TKS-D were tested in the Training Centre in Modlin. In 1938 they were assigned, along with the TKD platoon, to the 10th motorized Cavalry Brigade, and were used in manouvres in August and September 1938. Then, they took part in the action of regaining the Czech Zaolzie province, with the Brigade.

    A question of TKS-D serial production is not explained in a literature. According to some publications, TKS-D won a competition against PZInz.160 project due to much lower price, but supposedly the Polish authorities gave up self-propelled guns at all. It is not clear.

    The further fate of TKS-D prototypes is not sure. Until recently it had been a mystery, but the newest publication says, that both TKS-D were still present in an anti-tank platoon of the reconnaissance unit of the 10th Cavalry Brigade, along with 4 car-towed 37mm Bofors guns. Provided this is true, both TKS-D took part in an intensive fighting of the Brigade from 1 September 1939 in Beskidy mountains against two German armoured divisions. One of the vehicles was supposedly destroyed on 5 September in Skrzydlna village, the second on 9 September at Albigowa town.



    Soon



    http://derela.republika.pl/tkd.htm



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    PzInz.160 PzInz.160

    PZInż.160 was prewar Polish design of a light tank destroyer. Presumably the prototype was never built. Vehicle was based on 4TP chassis and it was supposed to be armed in 37 mm Bofors wz.36 or modern 47 mm wz.39 gun.

  • 17/13/13 mm
  • -9°/+13°
  • 4.3 t
  • 50 kph
  • 27.91 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
  • 4TP 4TP
    TK-SD TK-SD
      37 mm wz.37/39 Bofors L/45
    1. 78/98/19 mm
    2. 40/40/50 HP
    3. APCR/APCR/HE
    4. 82 kg
    5. 47 mm wz.39 L/54
    6. 96/126/25 mm
    7. 70/70/90 HP
    8. AP/APCR/HE
    9. 600 kg
    10. 47 mm wz.40 L/55
    11. 126/184/25 mm
    12. 75/75/100 HP
    13. APCR/APCR/HE
    14. 625 kg
      PzInz.160
    1. 0/0/0 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
    2. N2S
    3. 458.9 m
      PZInż. 367GC-55
    1. 65 hp
    2. 285 kg
    3. PZInż.425
    4. 95 hp
    5. 260 kg
    6. PZInż. 725 (BAB)
    7. 120 hp
    8. 350 kg
      PzInz.140 PzInz.160
    KSUST KSUST
    × pl en

    PZInż.160


    The tank destroyer PZInz.160 (correctly: PZInż.160, with Polish characters) was designed in Panstwowe Zaklady Inzynierii (State Engineering Works) as an alternative for the TKS-D, using the same gun 37mm wz.36 Bofors. It based on a modern chassis from a vehicle family developed by Edward Habich, used in prototypes of the light tank 4TP (PZInz.140), amphibious tank PZInz.130 and the artillery tractor PZInz.152. The tank destroyer design was given a factory designation PZInz.160. There is no information, if a prototype was ever built - probably it remained on a drawing board only.

    Tank destroyer PZInz.160. Due to a poor photo quality, it is not clear, if it is a prototype, a mock-up on a chassis or only a painting.
    PZInz.160 was armed with the anti-tank gun 37mm wz.36 Bofors, mounted low in front of the vehicle, and two 7.92mm machine guns. One machine gun was to be mounted in the front sloped plate, above the gun. The second was to be anti-aircraft one.



    Soon



    http://derela.republika.pl/tkd.htm
    AJAKS MiF nr 33 2/2006 TKS cz.2



    Na zlecenie Dowództwa Broni Pancernych, poszukującego odpowiedniego podwozia dla zmotoryzowania armaty przeciwpancernej 37 mm wz.36, inżynier Habich rozpoczął projektowanie także samobieżnego działa przeciwpancernego, wykorzystującego zunifikowane z rodziną PZInż. 140 podwozie. Miała być to alternatywa dla pojazdu o podobnym przeznaczeniu, na bazie podwozia ciągnika C2P, który konstruowany był przez BBT Br. Panc. (projekt przedstawiony w lipcu 1936 r.). W listopadzie 1936 r. biuro studiów PZInż. przedstawiło wstępny projekt pierwszego wariantu tzw. gąsienicowego opancerzonego podwozia dla działka przeciwpancernego 37 mm, nazwanego w biurze konstrukcyjnym PZInż. 160. Opracowując ten projekt konstruktor oparł się na podwoziu ciągnika PZInż. 152. Według założeń był to niewielki (lecz większy od TK-S), lekki i zwrotny, silnie uzbrojony, nieźle opancerzony wóz, z mocnym silnikiem, dzięki któremu osiągać miał stosunkowo wysoką moc jednostkową, a więc duże prędkości jazdy i miał równie duży zasięg działania. Pancerny kadłub miał być zespawany z blach pancernych nachylonych pod stosunkowo dużymi kątami. Przedział bojowy miał być otwarty od góry, zaś przedział napędowy zakryty pancerzem. Główne uzbrojenie miało być ulokowane nisko w kadłubie — oś lufy armaty miała leżeć nieznacznie wyżej, niż płaszczyzna górnej gałęzi gąsienic. Habich wyszedł z założenia, że armata w wozie powinna być zamontowana na stałe, aby nie musiał on holować kłopotliwych na polu walki, znacznie ograniczających zwrotność i swobodę manewru przyczepek (amunicyjnej i podwozia armaty). Z tego powodu zaproponował zastosowanie nie armaty piechoty wz. 36, lecz jej wariantu czołgowego wz. 37, który w tym czasie jeszcze nie wszedł do produkcji seryjnej. Być może to właśnie, w momencie oceny projektu, przesądziło o jego odrzuceniu.

    Po zapoznaniu się z projektem, szef SG WP polecił 5 sierpnia 1937 r. dokonanie pewnych zmian i przeróbek projektu, chodziło głównie o zwiększenie przestrzeni przedziału bojowego i dodatkowe uzbrojenie pojazdu w karabiny maszynowe (zamontowany w przedniej płycie kadłuba i drugi, na uchwycie przeciwlotniczym). Pod koniec sierpnia 1937 r. inż. Habich przedstawił projekt ulepszonego w tym duchu wariantu PZInż. 160. (PZInż 161) Koszt seryjnego wozu, przy budowie partii liczącej 25 sztuk, miał wynieść 75 000 złotych.

    Podczas rozpatrywania projektu w BBT Br. Panc. nie potrafiono, niestety, należycie ocenić zalet pojazdu, a być może umniejszano je na korzyść badanego właśnie własnego TKS-D. Referujący zagadnienie inż. Napiórkowski zarzucał projektowi, że trzeba będzie przerabiać niektóre mechanizmy armaty, a ponadto przytaczał wiele argumentów natury ekonomicznej (większa cena podwozia bazowego — C2P 40 000 zł, PZInż. 152 - 60 000 zł, większe koszty materiałów pędnych, spowodowane silnikiem większej mocy, konieczność poniesienia kosztów budowy prototypu - 240 000 zł, podczas gdy TKS-D był już gotowy) itp. Wyższe osiągi i lepsze właściwości bojowe oraz trakcyjne nie odgrywały w tym wypadku istotnej roli; nieco większe wymiary pojazdu dzięki którym miał on znacznie lepsze niż TKS-D możliwości pokonywania przeszkód terenowych również skrytykowano zarzucając, że utrudnią ...maskowanie tego wozu!

    W efekcie, w ten sposób zreferowany czynnikom decyzyjnym, projekt został odrzucony. Wojsko nie miało pieniędzy na tak drogie pojazdy. Nota bene, mające kosztować ok. 65 000 zł TKS-D, także nie zostały zamówione.



    Wkrtce


    JgPz.38(t) "Chwat" JgPz.38(t) 'Chwat'

    Probably the most notable Hetzer (from 743rd Panzerjager Abteilung) was the one which was captured by Polish Home Army during Warsaw Uprising on August 2nd of 1944, which was repaired and nicknamed "Chwat" (Daredevil) and was used against its previous owners.

  • 60/20/8 mm
  • -7°/+15°
  • 16.7 t
  • -11/+42 kph
  • 9.6 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
    1. 7.5 cm Pak 39 L/48
    2. 110/158/38 mm
    3. 110/110/175 HP
      Jagdpanzer 38(t)
    1. 0/0/0 mm
      FuG 10
    1. 455 m
      Praga EPA AC2800
    1. 160 hp
    2. 600 kg
      Jagdpanzer 38(t)
    × pl en

    Jagdpanzer 38 (t) "Chwat"


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    ASU-85 ASU-85

    A Soviet-designed airborne self-propelled gun of the Cold War Era. The ASU-85 is based on the PT-76 tank chassis, but without the amphibious capabilities and fitted with a new engine. Polish army received 31 ASU-85s in 1966. All were assigned to the 35th Self-propelled Artillery Squadron of 6th Pomeranian Airborne Division.

  • 40/15/15 mm
  • -5°/+15°
  • 15.5 t
  • 45 kph
  • 15.48 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
    1. 85 mm D-70
    2. 195/245/60 mm
    3. 230/230/280 HP
      ASU-85
    1. 0/0/0 mm
      R-113
    1. 730 m
      YaMZ-206V
    1. 210 hp
    2. 991 kg
    3. YaMZ-296W
    4. 240 hp
    5. 991 kg
      ASU-85
    × pl en

    ASU-85


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    Panther "Pudel" Panther 'Pudel'

    During Warsaw uprising in 1944 Poles captured two Panthers. One of them was named "Pudel", however it was more common to call it "Magda". The crew (former tankers) were trained by captured Germans in exchange for their life.

  • 85/50/40 mm
  • -8°/+20°
  • 44 t
  • -20/+55 kph
  • 15.82 hp/t
  • 840 hp
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator, Loader
    1. 7,5 cm Kw.K. 42 L/70
    2. 150/194/38 mm
    3. 135/135/175 HP
    4. AP/APCR/HE
    5. 4.027 s
    6. 0.336
    7. 2.21 s
    8. 2011.2
    9. 14.898
      Pz.Kpfw. V Ausf. G
    1. 100/45/45 mm
    2. 370 m
    3. 31.3 deg/s
      FuG7A
    1. 710 m
      Maybach HL 230 TRM P30
    1. 700 hp
    2. 1400 kg (should be 1200 kg)
      Pz.Kpfw. V Ausf. G
    1. 30 deg/s
    2. 0.959/1.151/2.205
    × pl en

    Panther "Pudel"


    Polish Panthers

    The Uprising started on 1.8.1944 at 17:00 and caught some of the Panther-equipped German units, stationed in the western part of the city off their guard. Amongst them were the brand new Panther G’s of the 27th Panzer Regiment of the 19th Panzer-Division. This unit was moved to Warsaw from the western front for some reast and to rearm with the new Panther Ausf.G tanks, getting rid of the older Ausf.A’s, that were transferred in turn to the 11th Panzer-Division.
    Apparently, on 2.8.1944 in early morning hours, a few Panthers from the abovementioned unit were making their way thru Warsaw (the route took them thru following streets: Górczewska-Mlynarska-Smetna-Powazkowska-Okopowa). At Okopowa street (near the old Jewish cemetery), the Panthers were ambushed by Polish rebel soldiers with firebombs (molotovs) and one tank burned out. The crew got out in time, mounted the second Panther and they made a run for it. It didn’t get too far however. It turned to the Mireckiego street, where it was first hit by handgrenades and then with a Gammon bomb (British made grenade, usable against armor), that damaged the turret, making the tank swerve violently off the street, crashing into a nearby wooden house and getting stuck. The crew was then taken prisoner. Third Panther (back at Okopowa street) was also damaged by handgrenades and immobilized, its crew bailed out and it was captured practically intact.
    Since two out of three vehicles were captured almost undamaged, the Polish soldiers decided to repair them and use them in combat. They didn’t get to do it on the second day (2.8.) and the tanks just stood there, but on the third day, the Polish actually started working on putting both vehicles in action. Two 6-man crews were formed to operate captured Panthers as a an “armored platoon”, formally under the “Zoska” batallion. These crews (like other soldiers during the Uprising) actually didn’t use names, they used nicknames (in brackets)

    1st Crew
    Commander: Ppor. Waclaw Micuta (Wacek)
    Driver: Pchor. Zdislaw Moszczenski (Ryk)
    Radioman/machinegunner: Kpr. Jan Zenka (Walek)
    Loader: Pchor. Witold Bartnicky (Kadlubek)
    Gunner: Pchor. Jan Myszowski-Boginsky (Bajan)
    Ammunition supply master: Pchor. Mieczyslaw Kijewski (Jordan)

    2nd Crew
    Commander: Dca por. Eugeniusz Romanski (Rawicz)
    Driver: Pchor. Jerzy Miskiewicz (Tomek)
    Radioman/machinegunner: real name unknown (Pobóg)
    Loader: Pchor. Witold Ocepski (Downar)
    Gunner: Pchor. Jerzy Michalski (Dabrowa)
    Ammunition supply master: Pchor. Zbigniew Ocepski (Kostrzewa)

    The ranks are in Polish, Ppor equals to 2ndLt, Pchor is some form of NCO if I read it correctly, Kpr. roughly equals corporal and I have no idea what “Dca por.” is. Either way, at the same time these crews were formed (6 crewmembers were selected because the tank commanders had other tasks too – they were local rebel commanders and ranking officers after all and when needed elsewhere, the tank had to have full compliment.
    At the same time the crews were selected, one captured German tried to actually make the Panthers work. It was discovered that first Panther’s fuel pump is damaged. The Polish struggled with the tank whole day, until skilled repairman Jan Luniewski (who worked earlier in German tank repair plant apparently) arrived and managed to get the first Panther going by fixing the air filter and tweaking the ignition. The tank was either in the evening on 3.8. or early on 4.8. moved to a nearby street the test its gun: the target was a German machinegun nest, which was knocked out by two shots.
    Meanwhile, the second tank was still stuck in the wooden house it crashed into and the Polish were trying to break it out. They tried to tow it out using the first Panther, but this failed – the Polish soldiers then had to manually dismantle the house the Panther crashed into, only then could they get the second Panther out.
    After that, an inspection was carried out. It was found out that the first Panther had only minor damages and it was decided to use it in combat. The tank was named “Pudel” in honor of one fallen Polish officer, but the crew called it informally “Magda”. The second tank had to be repaired further, but recieved the nickname “Felek”. Little is known of the extent of its exact damage, the confirmed is the destroyed rear turret plate (by the Gammon bomb), that was repaired at some point during next two days.
    The first tank went the action for the first time during the St.Sofia hospital liberation, the destruction of local concentration camp and the assault on Police school on 5.8.1944. It proved especially useful during the concentration camp assault (contributing to the fact only one Polish soldier died during the operation), but the two other actions were paid by many more casualties. “Felek” was ordered to support the assault on the Police School, but because of an operational screw-up, the crew didn’t recieve the permission to open fire before the entire attack was underway. The building was heavily fortified and machinegun fire killed many Polish soldiers, before the Panther arrived and turned the tide. In the end, the Polish did succeed in taking both objectives (school and hospital), but the price was high.

    The tanks went to action again on 8.8 to support the Polish troops fighting the Germans on Karolkowa street. However, as the “Magda”/”Pudel” arrived and turned from Mireckiego to Karolkowa, it was hit by three German 75mm tank shells, either from a Panzer IV Ausf.H, or from a Jagdpanzer 38t (unclear). A part of the crew was wounded, but the vehicle recieved only minor damage and was repaired on 9.8. – on 10.8. the “Magda” crew managed to knock out a German SPG and a heavy armored car (SdkFz 263 8-Rad) and in the afternoon a machinegun nest in Sv. Karol Boromeusz church.
    However, by that time the Polish situation on the Old Town was critical. Furthermore, “Felek” suffered from battery malfunctions (deemed irrepairable). It was decided to destroy the “Felek” – its ammo was transferred to “Magda”. “Magda” fought the next day too (11.8.) in support of the rebel counterattack, but it was damaged and abandoned by the Polish.

    The Warsaw Uprising is one of the saddest episodes of World War II history and ended with tens of thousands of dead civillians and thousands of troops on both sides. After the war, Poland did apparently recieve, salvage or capture several Panthers. Apparently, those few pieces that survived the war were used for training



    Soon



    Militaria XX wieku - Nr. 4 (7), Lipiec - Sierpień 2005, Nr. Indeksu 385557, ISSN 1732-4491
    Krzysztof Mucha: Pantery Powstania Warszawskiego
    http://www.info-pc.home.pl/whatfor/baza/pojazdy_w_powstaniu_panther.htm



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    PT-76b PT-76b

    The PT-76 is a Soviet amphibious light tank introduced in the early 1950s, armed with a 76.2 mm gun. Tank was used by Polish army with local modification - additional 12.7 mm DShK 1938/46 antiaircraft heavy machine gun on a rotatable mount and separate hatches for commander and loader.

  • 13/14/7 mm
  • -4.5°/+31°
  • 14 t
  • 44 kph
  • 21.43 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver
    1. 76.2 mm D-56T
    2. 127/175/38 mm
    3. 115/115/185 HP
    4. 76.2 mm D-56TM
    5. 127/280/38 mm
    6. 115/115/185 HP
      PT-76
    1. 20/16/11 mm
    2. PT-76b
    3. 20/16/11 mm
      R-113
    1. 730 m
    2. R-123
    3. 850 m
      W-6BAX
    1. 240 hp
    2. 600 kg
    3. UTD-20
    4. 300 hp
    5. 667 kg
      PT-76 PT-76b
    × pl en

    PT-76b


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    WB-10 WB-10

    Project of Polish tank designed by Ludwik Eberman in 1925. A year later two prototypes were built. The hull of the tank could move in relation to its tracks, which could increase the ability to overcome obstacles. Prototypes didn't pass tests.

  • 30/20/20 mm
  • -10°/+20°
  • 12 t
  • 25 kph
  • 6.66 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator, Loader
    1. 37 mm wz.18 Puteaux SA L/21
    2. 29/46/18 mm
    3. 30/30/36 HP
    4. AP/APCR/HE
    5. 100 kg
    6. 47 mm wz.25 Pocisk L/28.9
    7. 34/59/19 mm
    8. 50/50/65
    9. AP/APCR/HE
    10. 238 kg
      WB-10
    1. 30/20/20 mm
      RKBc
    1. 310 m
      Eberman WB-10
    1. 80 hp
      WB-10
    × pl en

    WB-10


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    PzKpfw T-39 PzKpfw T-39

    German intelligence produced a sketch of the Polish tank "T-39", showing a low profile machine with 5 pairs of Chritie-type roadwheels and a different turret. The sketch was probably based on a fake documents deliberately crafted by the 2nd Branch of Misinformation Cell of the General Staff.

  • 50/35/35 mm
  • -10°/+25°
  • 18 t
  • 55 kph
  • 22.2 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator
    1. 37 mm L/45 wz.37
    2. 63/97/19 mm
    3. 40/40/50 HP
    4. 47 mm wz.39
    5. 87/131/29 mm
    6. 70/70/90 HP
    7. 55 mm wz.39
    8. 105/170/30 mm
    9. 75/75/100 HP
      PzKpfw T-39
    1. 70/35/35 mm
      N2S
    1. 458.9 m
    2. N2C
    3. 700 m
      PZInż. R.W.A. I
    1. 300 hp
    2. Maybach HL 120 TRM
    3. 320 hp
    4. 510 kg
    5. PZInż. R.W.A. II
    6. 400 hp
      PzKpfw T-39 wz.39 PzKpfw T-39 wz.40
    ×

    PzKpfw T-39


    In light of this information, it appears that the drawings of the alleged 14TP tank, published in the western by Horst Schaibert as the image of "Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T-39" and then reconstructed by J. Magnuski and reprinted in Poland, were a fake documents deliberately crafted by the 2nd Branch of Misinformation Cell of the General Staff, purposeful foisted off upon the Germans and the Appearance of the 14TP tank is more similar to the 10TP tank than might to be supposed.

    A drawing found after the war in archive of one of the Abwehra’s facilities, captured on the so-called western territories (regained territories). On the original drawing there was label that read "Polnischer Panzerkampfwagen T 39". It can be assumed that was an inaccurate depiction of the 10TP tank, or the 14TP tank, based on the blueprints captured by Germans. It is equally probable that it is a part of disinformation spread by the II Division of the General Staff (II Oddział Sztabu Głównego) and in reality the 10TP would be much more similar to the experimental 10 TP.

    The drawings presumed to depict the 14TP tank were published in the West by Horst Scheibert as a depiction of the “PolnIsche Kampfpanzer 39TP” and then after the war found in archive of one of the Abwehra’s facilities, reprinted in Poland and reconstructed by historian Janusz Magnuski were intentionally fabricated by the disinformation unit of the II Division of the General Staff (II Oddział Sztabu Głównego) and were a forgery deliberately given to the Germans, while the true 14TP tank was to bear much more similarity to the 10TP tank, that it might have appeared.



    Soon



    Soon



    Nowa Technika Wojskowa nr 6/1996
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa "Broń Wojska Polskiego"
    Poligon nr 1/2009
    http://militarium.net/viewart.php?aid=677


    Cromwell Cromwell

    1st Armored Division of gen. Maczek fighting on Cromwell inflicted heavy losses to Germans in battlefields at Falaise, the battle which proved to be a decisive moment to break German resistance in Normandy, opening the way to the line of the River Seine, and then the Rhine. Polish division destroyed 55 tanks, 44 field guns, 38 armored cars and 207 vehicles.

  • 63/42/31 mm
  • -8°/+30°
  • 30.5 t
  • -20/+64 kph
  • 42.6 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator, Loader
    1. 57 mm OQF Mk.IV/V
    2. 105/160/30 mm
    3. 75/75/100 HP
    4. AP/APCR/HE
    5. 75 mm OQF Mark V/VA L/36.5
    6. 86/126/38 mm
    7. 110/110/175 HP
    8. AP/APCR/HE
    9. 95 mm OQF Mk I L/18.5
    10. 47/110 mm
    11. 370/270 HP
    12. HE/HEAT
    13. 945 kg
    14. 95 mm OQF Mk II L/23
    15. 131/120/47 mm
    16. 270/370/370 HP
    17. AP/HECF/HE
    18. 1000 kg
      Centaur
    1. 76/63/57 mm
    2. Cromwell
    3. 76/63/57 mm
      WS No.19 Special
    1. 570 m
      Nuffield Liberty Mk. IVA
    1. 400 hp
    2. Rolls-Royce Meteor IV
    3. 550 hp
    4. Rolls-Royce Meteor (3000 RPM)
    5. 1300 hp
      A27L Centaur A27M Cromwell
    ×

    Cromwell


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Soon


    IS-2 88mm KwK43 IS-2 88mm KwK43

  • 100/80/80 mm
  • -7°/+13°
  • 61 t
  • -12/+40 kph
  • 12.3 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Radio Operator, Loader
    1. 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71
    2. 203/237/44 mm
    3. 240/240/295 HP
      IS-88
    1. 100/90/90 mm
      10RKM
    1. 440 m
      W-2-IS
    1. 520 hp
    2. 750 hp
    3. W-2-K
    4. 550 hp
    5. 750 hp
    6. WZ-2-IS
    7. 600 hp
    8. 750 hp
      IS-2M
    ×

    IS-2 88mm KwK43


    Soon



    Soon



    Soon



    Soon


    TK-D TK-D

    In May-June 1932, four experimental TKD vehicles were built to test usage of SP-guns. They were converted from TK tankettes nos. 1156-1159 of the information series, built of a mild iron. Therefore, TKD vehicles were not armoured as well, but built of a mild iron, except a gun shield.

  • 10/8/5 mm
  • -12°/+23°
  • 3.1 t
  • -12/+42 kph
  • 7.3 hp/t
  • Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader
    1. 47 mm wz.25 Pocisk L/28.9
    2. 19 mm
    3. 70
    4. HE
    5. 238 kg
      TK-D
    1. 0/0/0 mm
      RKB/c
    1. 310 m
      Ford T
    1. 22.5 hp
    2. 285 kg
      TK-D
    × pl en

    TK-D


    The later, more sophisticated self-propelled gun model on the tankette base, was the TKS-D. Its development process was not typical, because it was first conceived as an armoured tractor for a modern 37mm wz.36 Bofors anti-tank gun, which was accepted as a basic Polish anti-tank weapon. It was planned, that the gun could be dismounted from its carriage and mounted on a tractor as well. The tractor could tow the gun-carriage then and fire the gun from the tractor in need. Judging from photos, however, TKS-D prototypes were only used with a gun mounted, which allowed to utilize tactical advantages of the self-propelled gun. Despite it was considered as a tractor at first, it became one of the world's first tank destroyers. Its advantage was very small silhouette and size, especially its small height (see a comparision sketch of small tank destroyers).

    The TKS-D design was based upon a modified TKS tankette chassis - the same, as in the light artillery tractor C2P. It differed from the TKS tankette by using side clutches in a transmission and bigger idler wheels, which were last roadwheels as well. This gave C2P and TKS-D better traction. Main designers were J. Lapuszewski and H. Lipko, under direction of R. Gundlach. In April 1937 there were two TKS-D prototypes completed, rebuilt from serial tankette TKS nr.8897 and a prototype tankette TKS-B nr.1510. The TKS-B chassis had already been fitted with the new running gear, the other one was fitted with it during rebuild.

    The TKS-D had a new, relatively long hull. Most of it was taken by an open crew compartment. Both TKS-D prototypes differed with the hull shape - one of them had higher side walls, sloped inwards. Since the gun sight and aiming mechanism was on the left side, a driver's seat was moved to the right side of the vehicle. A special two-wheel armoured ammunition trailer was also developed, carrying 80 rounds.

    In 1937-38, both TKS-D were tested in the Training Centre in Modlin. In 1938 they were assigned, along with the TKD platoon, to the 10th motorized Cavalry Brigade, and were used in manouvres in August and September 1938. Then, they took part in the action of regaining the Czech Zaolzie province, with the Brigade.

    A question of TKS-D serial production is not explained in a literature. According to some publications, TKS-D won a competition against PZInz.160 project due to much lower price, but supposedly the Polish authorities gave up self-propelled guns at all. It is not clear.

    The further fate of TKS-D prototypes is not sure. Until recently it had been a mystery, but the newest publication says, that both TKS-D were still present in an anti-tank platoon of the reconnaissance unit of the 10th Cavalry Brigade, along with 4 car-towed 37mm Bofors guns. Provided this is true, both TKS-D took part in an intensive fighting of the Brigade from 1 September 1939 in Beskidy mountains against two German armoured divisions. One of the vehicles was supposedly destroyed on 5 September in Skrzydlna village, the second on 9 September at Albigowa town.



    Soon



    http://derela.republika.pl/tkd.htm



    Wkrtce



    Wkrtce


    ABOUT MISC
    BACK

    About the tree

    This is the proposal of Polish tech tree for World of Tanks. The goal was to make it as historically accurate as possible. We are trying to avoid clones when it isn't necessary (they could be used for example to build TD line of HT line up tier 8). All tanks have real background, there are no fakes. Sources of info or any inaccuracies are mentioned in descriptions of tanks. Generally tech tree is based on infos from articles published in Polish military magazines, historical books or informations provided by polish historians (for example Piotr Zarzycki). There were also used web-sites like http://derela.republika.pl/, but everything from the Internet was checked.

    Statistics of the modules are created based on parameters which are already in the game (for example signal range of the radios). Penetration of the guns are made based on real values or (if there was no info) they were calculated by using DeMarre formula:

    Where: b is thickness of penetrated armor [dm], Vc final velocity of the bullet [m/s], q weight of he bullet [kg], u angle of impact [degrees], d calibre of bullet [dm] and k is a parameter of properties of armor (determined experimentally).

    In reality of WoT (penetration at 100 m at 90 degrees) it is enough to use velocity of the gun and k parameter can be determined based on statistics of guns already used in game.

    Please note, that some premium vehicles can appear in regular tree (but at the moment there is no good place for them) or they are alternatives for some tanks (for example WB-10 as tier I). A blue mark means, that the vehicle or module is new, red background of the module means, that there are some problems with it (see the description of the tank). You can also click on the incon of the tank to watch it in bigger resolution.


    Info

    Informations gathered by RazNaRok, GrumpyStranger, Revanche25, Rozkoszniaczek, bolo99, Roophert, WithinAmnesia

    This site was made by Roophert (rophert@gmail.com), based on source code of http://pipboy.wtz.cz/wot-cs/# with permission of it's author phdr_vrba (pipboy@seznam.cz).


    Links

    → Polska broń pancerna - informacje
    → Great site about history of Polish armour

    Czechoslovak tree by phdr_vrba
    Swiss tree by Mizutayio


    Changelog

    06.08.2017
    - renamed of all guns from tier I to V tanks;
    - stock gun for KSUST is 40 mm Bofors (same as BBTBrPanc);
    - rebalance of some guns;

    23.06.2017
    - updated statistics of "Pudel" (tier VI premium);
    - updated galleries of Pudel, BBTBrPanc and TKS;
    - added new links in "ABOUT" (Derela's site, CZ and CH trees);
    - added Polish Marks of Excellence in "MISC" with historical gallery;
    - added camouflages in "MISC";
    - added historical galleries of inscriptions, emblems and camouflages not introduced by WG (in "MISC");

    27.04.2017
    - added tier VII and VIII tanks: T-34-85(100) and T-44;
    - renamed of all guns from tier VI to X tanks;
    - modificated parameters of guns from tier VI to X tanks;
    - "Czolg Lewnadowskiego" moved from tier VIII premium HT to possible tier X HT;
    - T-34-85M2 (tier VI) renemed to T-34-85M3;


    15.12.2016
    - added 20 mm FK-D wz.38 gun for 4TP;
    - added TKS as a regular LT;
    - added mini TD branch (TK-SD, PZInz.160);


    03.09.2016
    - corrected short descriptions of tanks (thx DominikoPL);
    - changed Radioman to Radio Operator;
    - changed parameters of guns: 47 mm "Pocisk" wz.25 , 47 mm "Pocisk" wz.35, 47 mm wz.39St., 40 mm I.T.U. wz.35;
    - replaced gun 55 mm wz.39 with 47 mm wz.39 (different ammo);
    - changes in engines of KSUST;
    - added Polish translations of "Details";

    BACK

    National Emblem

    checkerboard
    checkerboardcheckerboard_panc

    The first one is the Air Force checkerboard, introduced by WG, but never used on armored vehicles. Alternatives for this are Husarz for ~pre-war vehicles (in that time there was no official national emblem for armored vehicles) and the Air Force checkerboard for military vehicles - 1960-1980 official emblem.

    Gallery with photos: imgur


    Polish crew

    female
    male

    Recognized: Ozzfanka (1x2), Cmd_Latina (2x3), Falathi (3x3)


    MoE

    MoEs

    Polish Marks of Excellence.

    Korpusowka

    This version is more historically correct.

    Gallery: imgur


    Food consumable

    bred_with_lard

    Bread with Lard


    Emblems

    embl1
    embl2


    Inscriptions

    insk


    Camouflage

    camo1

    camo2

    camo3


    Not introduced by WG

    Emblems: imgur

    Inscriptions: imgur

    Camouflage - summer: imgur

    Camouflage - winter: imgur

    Camouflage - desert: imgur