European Tree part VI – Poland

Part I – Introduction
Part II – Italy, Czechoslovakia
Part III – Hungary
Part IV – Sweden
Part V – Yugoslavia

Hello everyone,

welcome to the sixth part of the European Tree series, showing you the vehicles, that could appear/fit in the possible European tree. Today, we are going to talk about Poland.

Of the major EU server communities (GER, CZ, PL), Poland is the largest, but also the most problematic, when it comes to their own tanks. Poland certainly has its place in the tank development history, but if we are to be completely honest – Polish tank development before and right after the war cannot match the Hungarian or the Czechoslovak one. This was caused by the historical factors, including:

- Czechoslovakia being an industrial superpower (literally, in the early 30′s, it was the biggest arms exporter in the world), inheriting most of the Austro-Hungarian industry potential
- insufficient armor production capabilities (manufacturing thick and hardened armor is actually quite complicated and only a few countries in the world had the capability to do so)
- importance and influence of other branches of the military

One of the most common armored vehicles in pre-war Poland (apart from armored cars) were the notoriously known TK tankettes, including those equipped with a rather powerful 20mm cannon. While Czechoslovakia experimented with tankettes as well in early 30′s, we got rid of them rather quickly after the infamous Tančík Vz.33 disaster – for some reason, tankettes prevailed in Poland.

tks20_mur

If you think these things were ridiculous, think again – they could mess up any early Panzer and they indeed did so, Roman Orlik’s action being the best known case. There were several experimental variants, including one with a 47mm cannon:

tkd

Overal, these tankettes are very light (3 tons), have very thin armor (4-6mm) and a rather weak engine (cca 62hp), but the horsepower was sufficient. Lowtier tankettes could appear on tiers 1 to 4 or so, possibly as sort of “tank destroyers” (since they lack turrets). The improved versions (apart from the 47mm one) included the 37mm TKS-D (3,1 tons, 46hp engine, 4-6mm armor, 37mm Bofors gun with cca 55mm of penetration (44mm at 500m)):

tks-d1_630

Two of the prototypes were made in 1937, they were tested in 1938 and then they served during the German invasion of Poland. The ultimate tankette development was probably the PZInż 160, a 4 ton variant, equipped with the 37mm Bofors, or even a 47mm Vickers AT gun. With an improved 95hp engine and maximum speed of 50 km/h, for its time it was quite formidable. The armor was thicker as well (cca 15mm). Unfortunately, Polish armored forces were not interested and the project was scrapped. There is some disagreement between various sources, whether the 47mm version actually existed and whether a prototype was actually built – Russian sources (wiki, Aviarmor) mention something called PZInż 161, which was supposed to be an upgunned and improved version of the vehicle.

PZInz160

So much for the “tank destroyers”. The rest of the vehicles, available to Poland, were mostly light and medium tanks. There are sevaral proposals for the possible Polish tree on EU forums, mostly around this thread. This variant looks about the most realistic (missing the upgraded tankettes though):

VNBTJ

Other variants include machinegun tankettes and that’s a no-go (no, you can’t have an 8mm machinegun – and yes, Panzer I Ausf.C is a special case). Anyway, back to the light/medium tanks:

4TP – this tank is also known as PZInż 140 (4TP means “4 tonowy polski” – 4 ton Polish, PZInż is the shortcut of the design bureau) was an early light tank project, developed based on the experience the Polish designers gained from Sweden and United Kingdom. One prototype was made in 1937 (Russian sources state 1936) and tested in 1938 without armament, but it was considered obsolete and the project was scrapped. The tank weighed 4,3 tons, had a Polish 95hp engine (max speed 55 km/h) and 17mm of armor (hull: 17/13/10, turret the same), was to be armed either with a 20mm autocannon or a 37mm gun.

4tp_1

4tpl_724

7TP – the most famous and common Polish tank. Basically a copy of Vickers Mk.E (another Vickers copy is in the game already as the Soviet T-26), although it had some quite modern improvements, Only around 150 were produced between 1935 and 1939 and while it was better than the German Panzer I and II tanks, it was considered inferior to the Czechoslovak Vz.35 (LT-35), let alone Vz.38. Nevertheless, the tank performed relatively well in the war, but no vehicles survived intact to this day unfortunately. It was equipped with the Bofors Wz.37 37mm gun – well, actually there were two variants: one with one turret and a 37mm, one with two miniturrets with 1 machinegun each. How well the latter worked, you can probably imagine. 7 tons, 110hp diesel engine (32-37 km/h, one of the first diesel-powered tanks in the world), Armor: 17/13/13mm, turret armor 15/15/15mm. A solid tier 2 or possibly even tier 3 candidate.

7_TP_tank

9TP – an improved and heavier version of the 7TP (it’s not a separate design per se, more like an upgrade to the 7TP). A hundred upgrades were ordered in 1939, but only a few were ready by the time Poland is invaded – some sources say 11, some 13. With the upgrades, the weight reached almost 10 tons, the tank had much thicker frontal armor (40/25/13 hull, 40/14/14 turret) and an improved engine (110hp, but lighter than the 7TP version), but it was much slower (26 km/h). All the produced vehicles took part in the defense of Warsaw. None survived to this day.

9_TP

untitled

10TP – a fast Polish wheel-cum-track prototype tank based on Christie’s design (specifically, the M1931, that was examined by the Polish engineers), resembling the Soviet BT series. The development started in 1935, one prototype was built in 1937 and it was trialled in 1938. The design had some major issues, including low fuel capacity and bad terrain passability. The prototype was also shown to the army in May 1939. It is not known, what happened with it after the invasion, but it was probably dismantlet or destroyed. The tank weighed 12,8 tons and was powered by an American 210hp engine (nominally 246hp, the Polish got cheated by the producer, La France), it could reach the maximum speed of 56 km/h (75 km/h on wheels) and was to be armed with the same 37mm gun as the 7TP (-10/+20 elevation). The armor however was relatively thin – the hull was 20mm thick, turret only 16mm.

10tp_1

10TP_8b

14TP – this was another (heavier) design based on Christie’s work, developed in parallel to the 10TP. Unlike the 10TP however, this project was not designed to run around on wheels, it used bigger gun and thicker sloped armor (basically the same line of thought, that led from BT to T-34). The design was ready by 1938 and by the time the Germans invaded, a prototype was partially finished by Ursus. What happened to it later on is unknown, it was presumably destroyed. The vehicle was to weigh 14 tons, was to carry a 37mm or 47mm gun, would be powered by a 300-400hp engine (before the war, the Polish considered buying a German Maybach) and would go as fast as 50 km/h. The armor was thicker as well (50mm or so).

71_707

The tank above is not to be mistaken with the “T39″. Right before the war, German intelligence produced a report about an alleged existing Polish tank called T39. It is unknown, whether this report was simply a mistake, or the info has been supplied by Polish counterintelligence, but no such tank existed.

20TP – 25TP – this tank concept is not clearly described anywhere and various sources contradict one another. Apparently, in 1938 – early 1939, the Polish were considering designing an even heavier medium tank in the 20-25 ton category. A competition was opened by the government and three companies took part: the PzInz, KSUS and BBTBr.Panc. – the name is not official and it was created by a Polish author.

25TP by KSUS was the heaviest variant:

bez_n_zvu51_147

bez_n_zvu_190

The projected weight was to be 25 tons, the armament was to be a 75mm field cannon. Maximum speed would be around 45 km/h (25 km/h in terrain), the armor was designed to be cca 50mm thick. It was to be powered by two 300hp engines (600hp for 25 tons gives it 24 hp/t!). Wikipedia mentions something about a 70mm gun, that’s probably just a typo. This variant was actually designed KSUS II – there was a KSUS I variant too, that was lighter (22 tons), had only one 315hp engine, was slower (30 km/h) and was to have thinner armor (35mm). This is the drawing of the variant KSUS I:

25tp__ksus_pr1

KSUS II:

25tp__ksus_pr2

1_copy89

1_copy91

Please note, that the entire “20TP”, “22TP” and “25TP” nomentclature is just fake, it was created by a Polish author to in order to recognize these prototypes. Also, wikipedia has the designs mixed up. Anyway, back to these tanks. The proposal by PzInz was created by Ing.Habich. Little is known about it – it would be in the 20-25 ton range as well and would be equipped with one 300hp engine. Frontal armor would be 60mm, side armor 40mm and it would be equipped with a 75mm AA gun wz.22/24. Max.speed would be cca 40 km/h.

8_746

21tp_1

And finally, the BBTBr.Panc. proposal – cca 23 tons, 540hp engine, 45 km/h, 50mm armor, the armament was quite special, 40mm AA gun and a 75mm “special” gun.

25tp_bbtbr.panc_pr1

All these proposals are a tier 6 – max. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to confirm the existence of any better design. There are various fakes being kicked around (I am almost certain the 40TP tank is a fake for example, based on a rumor of PzInz working on a mock-up of a 40ton tank, ST-50 a definitive fake), but nothing really above tier 6, as I mentioned. There is the T-38-85M1, but that’s basically just an adaptation of Soviet modernization program and tier 7 at best.

My best guess is that despite the size of Polish community, Polish tanks will appear either as premiums, or will be mashed up together with other nations.

119 thoughts on “European Tree part VI – Poland

    • You might want to reed up on how the Polish army used to use cavalry in WWII.
      I hate how every country judges us for doing that with out even knowing what kind of support they had.

      • In case anyone is too lazy to google it – Polish cavalry was simply infantry which used the horses to change their location very fast. It was armed with field cannons and anti-tank armament. It had won numerous battles against the Germans.

        PS: Wehrmacht (and pretty much any army those days) was using horses as well throughout the war.

        • Horses are still used by special forces today, as well as camels, so…

    • Probably the most relevant topic to this article would be:

      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/138001-wargaming-odkryl-polskie-projekty-czolgow/

      Q: I can see on the forums some posts about EU tech tree? Is that true and when can we expect that?
      A: EU tree is not finalized yet. What I can say for sure is that it will comprise Hungarian, Swedish, Swiss, and Yugoslavian tanks. We are still thinking about Italian and Polish trees, if we manage to extend them to tier 10, we will make them separate. Otherwise – they both will be a part of EU tree.

      • How will the crew speak in National voice? If it’ll be Eu Tree, that’d be hard, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, Serbian, and Polish voices in one tree….update might gonna be very hard.

        • Not really. WoT uses very, very few tank voices, and most of these are already recorded for local language versions if I’m not mistaken.

        • No chance to see it in WoT (TR-580), pal.
          Is in service from 1979. Too modern.

            • But how? IIRC there are no tier 5-6-7-8-9 Romanian candidate, but correct me if I’m wrong

              • Correct. These are the romanian tanks that could fit the game:
                R-35 Vanator de care (Tank hunter) – Renault R-35 with 45mm soviet gun and modified turret (tier 2 material)

                TACAM (Tun AntiCar pe Amfet Mobil = Mobile AT Gun) T-60 – Development of the soviet T-60 tank, using captured parts, including BT-7 components and the F-22 L/51 76,2 mm gun (tier 2 material).

                TACAM R-2 – Development of the R-2 tank (LT vz. 35) fitted with a more powerful captured gun (ZIS-3 L/42). Turret removed in order to make room for the gun. Again this tank was built with captured parts. (tier 3)

                R-3 – basically a variant of the Skoda S-II-C that was supposed to be built in Romania with local components. Unfortunately, the political situation ended this project before it started. (tier 3)

                TACAM R-1 – another modified tank (the Czechoslovak AH-IV) with its turret removed and fitted with a captured soviet gun (45 mm). It never passed the project stage. (tier 2)

                TACAM T-38 – same as TACAM R-2 but the modified tank was a LT vz. 38. (tier 3)

                Mareșal – contrary to people’s beliefs, this is the name of a program that contained six prototypes. It started with the M-00 which was a modified T-60 tank with a 122 mm (derp) gun. The next three prototypes M-01 M-02 and M-03 had better armor and was bigger. M-04 received a new romanian gun (7.5 cm DT-UDR Reșița Md.1943) and a new engine (Hotchkiss H-39, 120 hp). Germany sent its own engineers to guide the romanians in building this machine and the final prototype (M-05) was presented in a competition with a Sturmgeschütz III beating its german counterpart until the parts that were holding the gun in place broke, ending the tests. By the time the prototype was repaired, Romania switched sides and the soviets confiscated all the vehicles and blueprints. (M-00 could be a tier 4 and M-05 a tier 5)

                TR-580 – Production variant of the T-55 with a new hull and stretched chassis with 6 road wheels and metal side skirts. It has a combat weight of 38,2 tonnes. The TR-580 still uses the 580 hp engine of the T-55 (hence the name). (tier 10 medium) (more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-85#Predecessors:_T-55_and_TR-580)

                Romania also used Pz II, III, IV, StuG and even a few Panthers but they didn’t modified them at all and it would be just a duplicate of the german tech tree.

  1. SS you say: “Of the major EU server communities (GER, CZ, PL), Poland is the largest”

    Do you have any sources for this statement? I thought Ger > PL > CZ in term of playerbase. I am really interested in this…

    • I heard that from WG staff about a year ago, with rough numbers even, but those are not probably valid anymore and I don’t remember them anyway.

      • thx anyways. Would really be nice if WG would publish real numbers…but nah, wont happen.

    • Yea, Czolg Pancernik. I don’t really think that’s a serious project though. I wish it was, because that would mean the drawings I made on paper during my toilet visits have a chance for implementation as well.

          • It’s a pun on the Lemcernik, a portmoneau of Pancernik and its creator Stanisław Lem, used sometimes on the polish forum. Also one I’m pretty proud of if I might say so myself ;)

        • That would look pretty cool, actually…but yeah, I can see where its a fake design (how the hell would two sets of tracks per side actually work, unless the front ones were on a steering assembly like a wheeled vehicle?).

          • No, it is not fake design. It is real design, but made by civil who wasn’t engineer and had a very limited idea about tanks (it was young Stanislaw Lem). So project is not a fake, but it can’t be treated seriously.

  2. What about heavily modernized T-54/55 tanks? I know our army used those well until 2004 (Merida). Our captain used to say that these are so heavily modernized that they have hardly anything in common with standard T-54. I just don`t know how these would cope with WoT standards. Besides, we already have a ton of T-54 type tanks already, one would hardly break the balance. Can you maybe look those up SS?

    • Tank which was set in service in 1986.
      Do you mean it serious Wiktor?

      • Not the Merida itself. Yet it is a good example of Polish engineering line of thinking (not producing new tanks but upgrading what we have). There are numerous modifications to T-54 in Poland. Like T-55U that actually got into service. I presume that there were a lot more that were at least blueprints in 1946-1960.

        And Merida breaks only the time of development restriction (given that we strip the additional armor off, since FCS is not really a thing that game is considering AFAIK). The game is also not considering laser-warning systems and smoke dischargers. It is a tank with the same gun as Type59 if i`m not mistaken.

    • Wargaming mentioned that if they’ll make Polish three – they’ll have to include Soviet tanks in it.

  3. I don’t have any issue with tiers that don’t go all the way up to tier 10. Populating tiers 2-5 with all the random junk every nation was producing would probably be a good thing.

  4. I never understood the Polish obsession for the 7TP…
    In WoT, they seem to herald it like the Second Coming of Christ.

    It’s just a home-brewed Vickers :/

    • Most likely because that’s pretty much the only decent Polish mass-produced tank from that era.

      Many people doubt any of the tankettes would hit the game, though if they’d – I’d be delighted to play the. Tiny, mobile, annoying bloodsuckers. Tankettes IMHO are the only reason why it’d be worth adding Polish tree into WOT. They’d be something COMPLETELY new, fun to play, and well balanced.

      • I think EU players will probably be eager for tankettes to be implemented. They’ll get to derp ‘siemka pl’ players when seal clubbing in Hetzer, etc.

        • That assumes they’d be able to hit it in a first place – which is really optimistic scenario ;)

    • There were two major differences between 7TP and Vickers:

      - Diesel engine
      - Gundlach periscope

      Especially the latter could be very useful if it would be represented in game as an increased view range.

  5. A few errors, probably stemming from using older info from the thread.

    9tp- the picture you’re using shows a mix of early and late (sometimes erroneously classified as 9tp) production variants of 7tp, differing only in rear air intakes and exhaust placement. Same goes for the 11 built, those were late variant 7tps. In truth, only 2 prototypes of 9tp were ever built, one by the National Engineering Works (PZInż) and one by the Armored Vehicles Research Bureau (BBTBrPanc). Neither saw action.

    14tp- the picture shows the t-39, not the 14tp. Most likely the 14tp would have been virtually indistinguishable from his lighter cousin, sharing most of his components and layout. The biggest difference between those two would be thicker frontal armor and bigger fuel tanks at the expense of removing the complicated “wheel-cum-” parts from the tank.

    • T-39 is a designation from some quite mysterious German drawing of some Polish tank. It is hard to say, which tank (project) they meant making that drawing. It is quite possible that it was 14TP.

      • http://i41.tinypic.com/14j829f.jpg

        Drawings alleged 14TP, published in the West by Horst Scheibert as image “Polnische Kampfpanzer 39TP” and then reprinted in Poland.
        Were deliberately crafted “fakes” documents intentionally foisted off to the Germans.by the misinformation cell of Second Division Department of the General Staff.
        14TP tank was to have far more in common with 10TP than it might seem.

        Publicly known scans of these documents:
        http://i41.tinypic.com/14j829f.jpg
        http://odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum23/rysunek_copy.jpg
        http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img801/26/polnischerpanzerkampfwa.jpg

        Are not real and contain many of the substantive errors.
        It is an attempt to their reconstruction made ​​by Polish historian Jan Magnuski.
        He’s drawings are greatly inspired by early UK Comet project.

        • “Drawings alleged 14TP, published in the West by Horst Scheibert as image “Polnische Kampfpanzer 39TP” and then reprinted in Poland. Were deliberately crafted “fakes” documents intentionally foisted off to the Germans.by the misinformation cell of Second Division Department of the General Staff.”

          Would you be so kind and give me some reliable source of that information?

        • Poligon 2009-01
          Janusz Magnuski, Andrzej Kiński, Jan Jędryka
          Cruiser tank 10TP and Assault tank 14TP

  6. I’m confused. you wrote that KSUS II had 2x 300 HP and KSUS I had one 320 HP engine, while the pictures say exactly the opposite. So either you messed it up or the pictures make no sense.

    • The pictures look like they are from the past, so I guess it is SS’ mistake.

    • http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/152268-polskie-drzewko-zbior-informacji/page__st__200__pid__7089995#entry7089995

      BBTBPanc.
      Three turreted tank, weighing 23 tons. The project provided three towers in the tank. The main tower with 65 – 75 mm gun (according to J. Magnuski the 40mm Bofors Pom-Pom AA gun with coaxial mounted CKM and hull mounted mortar 81 mm) and one heavy machine gun with two smaller turrets fited on the front of the vehicle, each with 1 ckm. The crew of this project was to be 7 people, the speed of the tank to 40km / h, armor up to 50mm. The tank has a powerful engine of 500 hp or 2×300 hp motors.
       
      Drive: Engine 500 hp or 2 x 300 HP
      Length: 730 cm
      Height: 263 cm
      Width: 260 cm

      http://i39.tinypic.com/2lb043.png

      KSUST ver. I
      First variant of the KSUST project assumed identical construction scheme as the project BBTBPanc. Acording to the drawings had to be equipped with a 75 mm Schneider cannon wz.1897. Because 75 mm Guns in Poland is wasn’t produced (although planned) it appears to be the best choice. This variant assumed engine of 320 hp. The crew consisted of 6 people.
       
      Drive: Engine 320 hp
      Length: 730 cm
      Height: 200 cm
      Width: 260 cm

      http://i42.tinypic.com/29zsjk7.png

      KSUST ver. II
      Second variant of the KSUST project also assumed three turret system. He had a slightly lower rear part of the chassis. It had to be Propel with a very large drive unit consisting of two engines of 300 hp each. The mass of the tank was assumed at 25 tonnes. On the roads tank had to reach 45 km / h, and in the area of ​​25 km / h Armor, as in earlier projects had be 50 mm. Again armed with 3 CKM’s and one 75 mm cannon wz.37. The crew consisted of 6 people. Both versions were to be powered by petrol engines.
       
      Propulsion: Engine 2 x 300 HP
      Length: 730 cm
      Height: 200 cm
      Width: 260 cm
      Combat Weight: 25 tons
      Speed ​​on the road: 45 km / h
      Speed ​​in the area: 25 km / h

      http://i44.tinypic.com/2du9hj4.png

      http://i61.tinypic.com/2hz055h.png

    • If someone finds any reliable proofs that such projects existed…. Cause it is almost sure thet both are internet fakes.

    • These are definitely fakes!!!

      BUGI – was created on wiki by WoT players,

      53TP known as CCP is based on fake documents created by one of WoT fans, found on polish auction service Allegro.pl.
      Was ben recently discussed about it on the forum odkrywca.pl
      a false trail with roots in the CAW bulletin of Danuta Skrzypczak.
      Where simple mistake during scanning and text recognition has become the driving force behind the creation of false documents.
      Found bugs in it:
      Cover … Font Helvetica or Aerial with clear sharp edges undamaged tooth of time
      Glaring grammatical errors and phrases in which 39r. not used “in relation to that”
      The title Polish Heavy Tank has the same font as the other typed but greatly enlarged, and the adjectives we write a small letter is not it?
      Figure side view looks like lines of caterpillars led to a curve in the vector of nodes in the m-ch intersection with the carrier wheels …
      lines are too sharp for technical drawing, which at the time were painted nib or rapitografami …
      Tracks include selected thickness and overhangs at extreme load-bearing wheels while in other projects from this period draws to them without overhangs and a single dash …
      dimensions substantially similar to the family 20/25t KSUS and BBTBP …
      Since the design is stamped with the date stamp of July 22, 1939 why the second stamp is the signature 08.03.39?

  7. Well, SS, you are spreading some (i’m sorry to say) BS based on Polish enthusiasts’ creations.

    1. There was never 9TP officially, it was always “7TPwz.” 9TP is a wiki BS.

    2. There was an idea to buy 4-ton Vickers and i guess thas what that assumed 4TP prototypes are based on. For every purposes we can use it’s stats as entry ones.

    3. Both T-26 and Chinese Vickers are 2tier and going higher would be very hard, especially with that cannon.
    3.5. Bofors wz.36 and wz.37 had penetration comparable to German TaK/PaK36/KwK36 so penetration you listed is overenthusiastic – if you want to please Polish players you can add +3mm or +5mm max to it. And KwK36 is stock loltraktor gun so i can’t see it on 3tier.

    4. 10TP/13TP/14TP is the same tank, based who made the designation. There was at one point removed direct wheels drive but afaik it was done all on the same physical prototype (any data contradicting this?). These drawings are just “artists impression”.

    5. If i am to see TKS on 3tier it would have to be e-25 alike but i’m not sure if stats allow it.

    I think that’s all for now, at least as i can remember.

    • Well agreed on point 1, but what are Your sources on point 2?

      Point 3 is an interesting one as it’s of connected to point 1. Both design bureaus (PZInz. and BBT Br Panc.) presented their visions of how to improve 7TP, so a classic, historical version could make a nice tier 2, while any or both improved ones could make a tier 3, as armament replacement also was discussed.

      Point has been explained by Grumpy above. But could You give us Your sources again on removing the wheeled drive components off an original 10TP?

    • 4. 10TP/13TP/14TP is the same tank, based who made the designation. There was at one point removed direct wheels drive but afaik it was done all on the same physical prototype (any data contradicting this?). These drawings are just “artists impression”.

      10TP/13TP indead are same tank
      According to one of test drivers the vehicle ready to test drive had a weight of 13t.

      In 30′s polish tank were officially designated with number corresponding to tank weight and pronoun TP where TP is translated to TON POLSKI (tonage polish)

      But telling that 14TP is same as 10TP is a BS of U…

      The 14TP tank was another prototype built with substantial unification of its predecessor 10TP!
      Before war starts tank was finished in 60-70%, entire hull on truck’s without turret, was planed to use 10TP model turret from serial production.
      The prototype become destroyed by it’s constructors before Germans stomped to occupy URUS FACTORY.

      Better read this article:
      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/152268-polskie-drzewko-zbior-informacji/page__st__200__pid__7088264#entry7088264

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

      than spread out BS…

  8. PS: as for “tankettes prevailed”, the reasones were:

    1. Money.
    2. Poor state of industry, both with production and design (there weren’t even that many people who had an idea how to start to design anything – you see only a few names repeating on most designs of that time).
    3. Nobody still really knew what to do with tanks – tankettes were flavour of the year, they caught on, they did their job with introducing armor to Polish army and did better than expected in September but strangely all data from that time is a mess combined with bullshit – statements are that they were meant for recon units (most without radios!), that they were counterballance to Russian tankettes (most without means to destroy even an enemy tankette – TKS apart – and in much less number than Russians fielded) and other in such lines – there are no words, really…
    And this situation wasn’t much different from other armies, pre-WW2 nobody really had experience needed.

  9. PS2: when it comes to Polish tree, it cannot go without both T-34 and T34-85 with extra dog-crewmember ;) – although idk which role it would assume… Extra morale bonus maybe? Or spotting bonus due tu sniffing, lol?

      • If I recall correctly – there was some sort of idea in WG to put a dog into T-34-85. :P

    • Hmmm
      German Shepherd “шарик” – “Szarik / kuleczka” (remember “шарик” was gifted by Jefim Siemionitch to Janek after “шарик” mother “Mura” dies defending them on hunt from Siberian tiger, so the name must be written in Russian language or at least Polish phonetic)

      Definitively as tank module with bonus to crew morale and some to spotting.

      When speaking of modules don’t forget Polish invented Gundlah reverse periscopes, and of course polish consumables like:
      dumplings,
      herring’s,
      pickled cucumber and a hundred of spirit.

  10. I would much rather see a Swedish tech tree than a bunch of glass canons which would be hated by the majority of the very people they would be put in the game for. It is an interesting article though, thank you very much. :-)

    • Still looks better than Jap tree, which is pure horror up to tier 8 or so.

      • I actually quite like the Japanese tanks. They are definitely not for everybody, but I generally perform well above my average WR in them.

        • I have 70% WR in Chi To (after ~50 games), and my overall WR is ~54%. The gun is amazing – good pen, good alpha, and AMAZING DPM.

  11. nice…… a tree of copycats and fictional designs (just to satisfy the ego of a community????)

  12. TBH most trees by Polish players are full of wishful thinking rather than full of real knowledge. There are made by children and based on Wikipedia with all junk put there by the other kids. Main task of creators of the Polish trees is to prove that Poland have enough tanks to fill all tiers in all branches. This is not true.

    Yes, I know, most Polish players will be deeply pissed off right now but they have to understand that there are no way to build complete Polish tree with use of Polish tanks only, even in “Japanese” style. This is impossible even with use of Soviet vehicles modified during license production in Poland.

    This is list of vehicles which could be used in Polish tree, including some alternative armament or hulls. I could forgot about one or two vehicles but more or less this is the most complete tree without sci-fi proposals, fakes, undocumented “maybe” variants and wishfully “upgraded” tanks.

    I tier
    Poland had Renault FT, like many other countries after WWI. Copying it 1:1 would be senseless so there are two options:
    • Type “M” — Renault FT modified in Poland, one of vehicles had name “Hanuś”
    • Renault M26/27 or NC-2 — five were delivered to Poland

    II tier
    • LT — TK-3 → TKS tankettes with 20 mm machine guns
    • MT — Vickers Type E → 7TP wz.39 (there were no 9TP, just modification of 7TP)
    • TD — TK-3 with 37 mm gun → TKS-D
    • SPG — TKD

    III tier
    • LT — 4TP (PZInż.140)
    • MT — 10TP → 14TP
    • TD — PZInż.160
    • SPG — Sexton II (PFUK)

    IV tier
    • LT — M5 Stuart (PFUK), Covenanter (PFUK)
    • MT — 20/21/25TP
    • HT — N/A
    • TD — N/A
    • SPG — N/A

    V tier
    • LT — Crusader (PFUK)
    • MT — M4 Sherman (PFUK), T-34 (PFSU)
    • HT — Churchill I (PFUK)
    • TD — SU-85 (PFSU), Archer (PFUK)
    • SPG — N/A

    VI tier
    • LT — N/A
    • MT — T-34/85 license production with minor Polish modifications
    • HT — KV-1s (PFSU) — TBH Poland received five KV-8 with flamethrowers for training heavy tank crew but to fill this gap we can say there were KV-1s ones ;)
    • TD — SU-100 (PFSU), Achilles II (PFUK)
    • SPG — N/A

    VII tier
    • LT — N/A
    • MT — A30 Challenger (PFUK) — of course if Wargaming put it on VII tier and not as VI tier of second British MT branch
    • HT — IS-2m (PFSU)
    • TD — SU-152 (PFSU)
    • SPG — N/A

    VIII tier
    • MT — N/A
    • HT — IS-3 delivered (two vehicles) after WWII to Poland
    • TD — ISU-152 (PFSU)
    • SPG — N/A

    IX tier
    • MT — T-54 → T-55 license production with minor Polish modifications
    • HT — N/A
    • TD — N/A
    • SPG — N/A

    X tier
    • MT — N/A
    • HT — N/A
    • TD — N/A
    • SPG — N/A

    As you may see, there are more holes in this tree than in Swiss cheese. I’ve added vehicles used by Polish forces in the UK (PFUK) and in Soviet Union (PFSU) and those are italic ones but even with them there are no way to fill this tree. It seems Polish tree can be only part of European tree with several vehicles used as reward / premium tanks. Well, Polish premium tanks proposals could be really interesting article.

    • “I tier
      Poland had Renault FT, like many other countries after WWI. Copying it 1:1 would be senseless so there are two options:
      • Type “M” — Renault FT modified in Poland, one of vehicles had name “Hanuś”
      • Renault M26/27 or NC-2 — five were delivered to Poland”

      One more and the best candidate:
      Renault M26/27 wz.32

      Type “M” is just a regular FT17 fitted with better cooling system, and tracks.
      Most noticeable change is the tail encased with armor plates… IMHO boring as FT17.

      Renault M26/27 (NC-2) is already in game, as a result of the mess in the nomenclature and terminology it is introduced as Chinese NC-31… WGN did even used historical photos of polish M26/27 taken during test in Modlin wor WoT Wiki… :D

      Also there is interesting tankette project with rotating turret with U miss
      Duno to strong for T1 to weak for T2:
      Tankette TKW:
      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/138319-drzewko-polskich-czolgow-propozycje/page__st__3720__pid__6812492#entry6812492
      Or missing TKW

      III tier
      • LT — 4TP (PZInż.140)
      • MT — 10TP → 14TP
      • TD — PZInż.160
      • SPG — Sexton II (PFUK)

      10TP and 14TP are not one tank…
      14TP was the successor prototype of the 10TP project, was build with usage of parts taken from 10TP. before war starts only a complete hull was build, in contrary to 10TP hull was welded.
      It was planed to use it with model turret of the 10TP, later was planed to build bigger turret from rolled weld armor plates with supposed to fit prototype 47mm gun.
      None photographs are know of this prototype, it was probably destroyed before germans claims URSUS factory.
      Drawings alleged 14TP, published in the West by Horst Scheibert as image “Polnische Kampfpanzer 39TP” and then reprinted in Poland, were deliberately crafted by the cell misinformation II Division of the General Staff “fake” deliberately planted Germany, and 14TP tank was to have far more in common with 10TP than it might seem.
      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/152268-polskie-drzewko-zbior-informacji/page__st__200__pid__7088264#entry7088264

      Here is my visualization of it (RED OUTLINED) on with I”m working now with the support of historians from odkrywca.pl forum
      http://i59.tinypic.com/mkzukz.png

      IV tier
      • LT — M5 Stuart (PFUK), Covenanter (PFUK)
      • MT — 20/21/25TP
      • HT — N/A
      • TD — N/A
      • SPG — N/A

      20/21/25TP name does not exist in the sources. These are contractual / invented designation of tank and to be exactly competing projects off a medium tank, the tank was not yet marked with official designation, as it was at the initial stage. Finally, it was to be the vehicle with one-tower, a modern suspension, armed with long anti-aircraft 75 mm wz. 1922/1924 cannon, but in an relatively low and wide tower.
       This names was given by J. Magnuski, by analogy with the nomenclature of combat vehicles used in the Polish Army in the 30s

      Those refer to the tanks projects:
      BBTBP
      final variant – weight 22t
      by analogy with the nomenclature of combat vehicles used in the Polish Army in the 30′s – 22TP

      KSUST ver. I
      final variant – 25t
      by analogy with the nomenclature of combat vehicles used in the Polish Army in the 30 – 25TP
      according to the original design weight of 23t
      by analogy with the nomenclature of combat vehicles used in the Polish Army in the 30 – 23TP

      KSUST ver. II
      20t +
      by analogy with the nomenclature of combat vehicles used in the Polish Army in the 30 – 20TP

      25t BS PZInż know as 25t of eng. Habich
      final variant – 25t
      by analogy with the nomenclature of combat vehicles used in the Polish Army in the 30 – 25TP

      V tier
      • LT — Crusader (PFUK)
      • MT — M4 Sherman (PFUK), T-34 (PFSU)
      • HT — Churchill I (PFUK)
      • TD — SU-85 (PFSU), Archer (PFUK)
      • SPG — N/A

      T-34 (PFSU)
      Can be replaced with Habich 25t (20/25TP BS PZInż.):
      http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/152268-polskie-drzewko-zbior-informacji/page__st__200__pid__7092733#entry7092733

      Or 20/25TP BS PZInż. can be another polish T5.

      Acording to eng. Habich memories it was wery similiar in design to the erly t-34!
      First from the left:
      http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8065/ra6z.jpg

      VI tier
      • LT — N/A
      • MT — T-34/85 license production with minor Polish modifications
      • HT — KV-1s (PFSU) — TBH Poland received five KV-8 with flamethrowers for training heavy tank crew but to fill this gap we can say there were KV-1s ones ;)
      • TD — SU-100 (PFSU), Achilles II (PFUK)
      • SPG — N/A

      T-34/85 M1, M2 oba zmodernizowane w Bumar Łabędy i tam tez produkowane na licencji w latach 1951-56

      T-34/85 M1
      - wprowadzenie podgrzewacza silnika
      - przystosowanie silnika do pracy na różnych paliwach
      - wymiana filtrów powietrza
      - zwiększenie jednostki ognia amunicji artyleryjskiej
      - modyfikacja przedniego karabinu maszynowego na kursowy
      - zmniejszenie liczebności załogi z 5 do 4
      - wymiana środków łączności

      T-32/85 M2
      - wprowadzenie podgrzewacza silnika
      - przystosowanie silnika do pracy na różnych paliwach
      - wymiana filtrów powietrza
      - zwiększenie jednostki ognia amunicji artyleryjskiej
      - modyfikacja przedniego karabinu maszynowego na kursowy
      - zmniejszenie liczebności załogi z 5 do 4
      - wymiana środków łączności
      - obniżona i poszerzona wieża
      - dodatkowe uszczelnienie czołgu i przystosowanie do przekraczania głębokich przeszkód wodnych po dnie

      (sory no translation ATM)

      My tech tree proposal based only on polish project’s or tanks modernized in Poland during usage in LWP (also include vehicles captured by Polish Forces during Warsaw Uprising):
      https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-QDph0H7X6A8/UyMtLN0-v_I/AAAAAAAABgY/eM8uofrl1Sw/w1598-h610-no/drzewko+RNR.png

      • One more and the best candidate: Renault M26/27 wz.32

        You are messing two tanks. According to “Polish Tracks & Wheels #1″ by Jońca it was modification of Renault FT created after trials with Type “M”: “The work on replacing the original Renault traction system with one based on Vickers design was suspended for the same reasons [obsolete and unworthy of any modernization]. The Renault / Vickers tank, designated Renault wz.32, equipped with 37 mm cannon and a machine gun, was capable of 13 km/h. This speed was not considered satisfactory”.

        Type “M” is just a regular FT17 fitted with better cooling system, and tracks.

        There were more changes, look to Jońca’s book for details.

        Also there is interesting tankette project with rotating turret with U miss.

        I didn’t miss it. National tree is not the place to put every variant and/or project as separate tank, especially when several types fit to one tier. This one is useless as single tank, can be put as premium, can be part of development of TKS, this is meaningless.

        10TP and 14TP are not one tank

        KV-1s, KV-85 and KV-122 are not one tank either. With incoming “hull options” feature these tanks are close enough to be one tank in the game. Especially when there are no room for different engines, different armament etc. and detailed information about both projects are almost non-existing. Nitpickers could add that production of 10TP was abandoned so we are with single 14TP.

        20/21/25TP name does not exist in the sources.

        Name doesn’t exist because there are no correct name for this tank. Regardless of that you still need to use some kind of name and most readers are not able (and they don’t want to) to dig into the details.
        Another reason to write about “20/21/25TP” is that we have almost no information about all those designs and Polish researchers and WG team will be able to prepare just one medium tank on IV tier. IMHO it should be design of ing. Habich which could be excellent IV tier medium tank.

        Or 20/25TP BS PZInż. can be another polish T5.

        Well, Polish players think about Polish tanks like about invincible designs ahead of their times but it’s time for cooling hotheaded. Tanks based on Vickers design (VAT Type B, T-26 and proposed 7TP) are II tier ones. Putting 7TP on III tier to show its superiority is just plain stupid move because it will be meat for enemies.
        The same with other designs — regardless of variant 20/25TP is candidate for IV tier and it will be good tank on this tier able to deal even with VI tiers. On V tier it will be another shitty tank, just like Japanese VII tier Chi-Ri.

        T-34/85 M1, M2 oba zmodernizowane w Bumar Łabędy i tam tez produkowane na licencji w latach 1951-56

        Yes, T-34/85 was modified and upgraded in Bumar-Łabędy factory but changes are meaningless from the game point of view. Important ones are:
        • M1/M2 — more ammo
        • M1/M2 — crew reduced from 5 to 4
        • M1/M2 — another R/T equipment
        • M2 — modified turret

        In game it can give us slightly higher ROF, maybe a little bit better (~0.01) accuracy and modified details of 3D model.
        _____________

        Still — no chance for separate Polish national tree without copying half of it from other nations. Even with copying several designs there are no Polish SPGs and there are no Polish X tiers.

        If I can suggest anything — Polish players should abandon idea of separate Polish tree and should support idea of Polish branch in large European tree. There are several interesting designs to make strong II-IV tiers branch and quite a few of premium / mission gift tanks.

        • 20/21/25TP name does not exist in the sources.

          Name doesn’t exist because there are no correct name for this tank. Regardless of that you still need to use some kind of name and most readers are not able (and they don’t want to) to dig into the details.
          Another reason to write about “20/21/25TP” is that we have almost no information about all those designs and Polish researchers and WG team will be able to prepare just one medium tank on IV tier. IMHO it should be design of ing. Habich which could be excellent IV tier medium tank.

          Nope they shall have diffrent names and are the equivalent of the Soviet T-28 / T-35, in fact T-28 / T-35 bases on their construction… so we both agree T4.

          BBTBPanc.
          Three turreted tank, weighing 23 tons. The project provided three towers in the tank. The main tower with 65 – 75 mm gun (according to J. Magnuski the 40mm Bofors Pom-Pom AA gun with coaxial mounted CKM and hull mounted mortar 81 mm) and one heavy machine gun with two smaller turrets fited on the front of the vehicle, each with 1 ckm. The crew of this project was to be 7 people, the speed of the tank to 40km / h, armor up to 50mm. The tank has a powerful engine of 500 hp or 2×300 hp motors.

          Drive: Engine 500 hp or 2 x 300 HP
          Length: 730 cm
          Height: 263 cm
          Width: 260 cm

          http://i39.tinypic.com/2lb043.png

          KSUST ver. I
          First variant of the KSUST project assumed identical construction scheme as the project BBTBPanc. Acording to the drawings had to be equipped with a 75 mm Schneider cannon wz.1897. Because 75 mm Guns in Poland is wasn’t produced (although planned) it appears to be the best choice. This variant assumed engine of 320 hp. The crew consisted of 6 people.

          Drive: Engine 320 hp
          Length: 730 cm
          Height: 200 cm
          Width: 260 cm

          http://i42.tinypic.com/29zsjk7.png

          KSUST ver. II
          Second variant of the KSUST project also assumed three turret system. He had a slightly lower rear part of the chassis. It had to be Propel with a very large drive unit consisting of two engines of 300 hp each. The mass of the tank was assumed at 25 tonnes. On the roads tank had to reach 45 km / h, and in the area of ​​25 km / h Armor, as in earlier projects had be 50 mm. Again armed with 3 CKM’s and one 75 mm cannon wz.37. The crew consisted of 6 people. Both versions were to be powered by petrol engines.

          Propulsion: Engine 2 x 300 HP
          Length: 730 cm
          Height: 200 cm
          Width: 260 cm
          Combat Weight: 25 tons
          Speed ​​on the road: 45 km / h
          Speed ​​in the area: 25 km / h

          http://i44.tinypic.com/2du9hj4.png

          http://i61.tinypic.com/2hz055h.png

          • “Another reason to write about “20/21/25TP” is that we have almost no information about all those designs and Polish researchers and WG team will be able to prepare just one medium tank on IV tier. IMHO it should be design of ing. Habich which could be excellent IV tier medium tank.”

            IMHO as already told…

            Polish Medium Tanks were planned as a new concept, as it become clear that light vehicles will not work on the then rapidly changing field. Projects KSUS and BBTBr.Panc. were just studies of concept, but actually began even to ordered some elements for them to solve by study certain things.

            “Guidelines Committee for Armament and Equipment of the Ministry of Military Affairs (KSUS), regarding the concept of medium tank contained in the resolution adopted by the meetings of 10 and 11 January 1937, shortly after the passing of Jan. 8-9 armored expansion program for 1942. Mass of the car was reach 16 tons, the overall system was to be modeled on the British multiturret’d tank A6 (Vickers 16 tons) from the late 20′s and repeated in the Soviet T-28. Its characteristic feature was the placement of artillery weapons – 75 mm cannon wz. 1897 – in the main tower and machine guns in two smaller, single auxiliary turrets.”

            Those were the:

            KSUST I ( 22t)
            KSUST II (>20t)
            BBT Br. Panc. (first variant 23t, second final 25t)

            and Those Four should be molded to one tank of T4 (having in mind WG will introduce hull as tank module) i agree with this.

            While the Fifth one from those concept’s BS PZInż shall be T5 together with polish T-34/76… or even replace it so we will have no copies of other tech trees.

            Office BS PZInż of engineer Habich was invited to studies in order to ensure adequate competition for the remaining project offices.

            The work, initiated at the beginning of 1939, directed by the Head of Special Vehicles Bureau (BS PZInż), engineer Edward Habich, which is also the main designer of the tank.

            Habich withdrew from the concept of muliturreted tank.
            According to his project tank hull was to be as low as possible and wide, with inclined front and side plates.
            In front plate of the thickness up to 60 mm (side and rear panels have a thickness of 40 mm) was placed yoke for machine gun operated by gunner occupying the seat next to the driver.
            In an equally low, large tower (originally made ​​of welded rolled plates, and ultimately cast) – with two hatches for the crew was to be mounted major equipment in the form of a cannon coupled with a machine gun.

            The original assumptions were about 40-47 mm caliber cannon ( include 47 mm anti-tank cannon. constructed by Wacław Stetkiewicz).
            Then about a new weapon caliber 60 mm, but very quickly, because in the spring of 1939, an engineer Tadeusz Tanski involved in the design of the tank, proposed to use as the main armament of the French 75 mm AA cannon wz.1922/1924.
            These guns were purchased by the Navy Command in the amount of 14 units, accounted equipment 1st and 2nd Marine squadrons Flak Artilery. At that time they were already obsolete and not suitable for intercepting modern combat aircraft.
            Due to the good ballistic performance well lent it self to combat enemy tanks, and even their fragmentation-high explosive projectile had sufficient effectiveness to destroy typical field fortifications.
            Habich approved Tański proposal, simultaneously commissioning appropriate gun adaptation to alow it’s mountage in tank turret.
            Supplement for tank armament had to be third machine gun, designed for AA defense, placed on a special rotating basis over the commander hatch.

            For this new tank Department of Engines in PZInż., Headed by Eng. Zdzisław Rytel, worked out in cooperation Eng. Jan Werner, a special V-12-cylinder engine in two versions:
            gasoline carburetor 300 hp (according to other data had to be 8-cylinder)
            diesel with direct injection 250 hp.
            In view of protracted work on the prototype of the Polish power unit was planned to use of the German power units namely the Maybach engine, with a capacity of 221 ​​kW (300 hp). Information about this engines has already been received during construction 10TP and 14TP prototypes (ie in 1938) and started talking about to purchase it. One Maybach HR108 engine was eventually bough Through diplomacy with the help of the Swedish embassy, while Diplomatic Talks conducted with the Maybach company negotiating purchase of the HL108R with semi-automatic gear boxes and the HL120 engines (used eg in tanks Panzer III) were dragged by the German side and were not finalized until the outbreak of war.

            The chassis of the proposed tank called to apply six rubber-tyred wheels with diameter of 700 mm, Suspended on individual wishbones and combined by two with one common resilient element, which was a flat Leaf spring (similar in shape to the LT vz38), Leaf spring were provided on the outside of the hull.
            The upper branch of the track were sustain on four rubber-tyred wheels of a much smaller diameter.

            Was Ordered a single copy of the prototype tank (the details of this contract remain unknown due to lack of surviving documents), which was to be delivered to the trial.
            Preliminary orders were submitted for certain parts of tank as armor plates of the hull and suspension components, some of them will even been produced and delivered to URSUS factory before the war outbreak.
            Until the outbreak of the war, PZInż. been able to perform only a wooden mock-up of the tank in 1:1 scale.

            Despite years of research, we could not find any photographs or drawings (with the exception of the suspension schema similiar to the suspension LT vz38), on the basis of which can be reliably reconstruct the appearance of this version of the Polish medium tank.

            Known reconstructions of its appearance base on the memoirs of engineer Habich.
            With were Given to the public by Polish historians A. Jońca and P. Zarzycki.
            In connection with the fact that P.Zarzycki is working on a book describing Polish armored prototypes from the 30′s.
            Not all the information on 25t BS PZInż can be disclosed by these gentlemen’s.

            First from the left:
            http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8065/ra6z.jpg

            Specifications:
            Hull Armour 60-40-40mm
            Turret Armour up to 55mm
            Guns: 40mm , 47mm, 55 or 60mm, 75mm naval flak canon
            Engines of 300HP
            Inclined plates
            Those all make it a good equivalent T-34/76
            So as this it must be handled like a individual concept.
            This give us also opportunity to have more pure “POLISH” vehicles in Polish tree branch…

            Thats why we suggest to split it from other four of KSUS directive family.

            P.S.
            I’m not a fan/supporter off creating polish tanks to be OP and mythical
            as it’s is usually done by most polish ppl’s…
            It was already quite a lot of arguments about it on our forum (some of them see it evan as a T6 on equal place to the T-34/85 sic!!!), Which with those myths, we fight together with a small group of people…

        • The same with other designs — regardless of variant 20/25TP is candidate for IV tier and it will be good tank on this tier able to deal even with VI tiers.

          I can agree with U, because this will leave place for the T5 T-34 with was commonly used by LWP…
          But it’s construction is so different and revolutionary in comparison to KSUS and BBTBP bureaus that it must be handled as another tank.

        • You are messing two tanks. According to “Polish Tracks & Wheels #1″ by Jońca it was modification of Renault FT created after trials with Type “M”: “The work on replacing the original Renault traction system with one based on Vickers design was suspended for the same reasons [obsolete and unworthy of any modernization]. The Renault / Vickers tank, designated Renault wz.32, equipped with 37 mm cannon and a machine gun, was capable of 13 km/h. This speed was not considered satisfactory”.

          No…
          I’m not messing them…
          I’m use the original articles of J.Magnuski
          Jońca wrote his book after the Magnuski articles.
          Those were two different tanks.
          Type M was build by eng. Kardaszewicz team from the regular FT17
          While wz32 was build with use of one of our M26/27 Kegresse Histin

          Type M:
          http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/pol/Pol-RenaultFT17-Zelezniak.jpg
          https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hgk2MUha8Mg/UroCScSq5GI/AAAAAAAAB0w/ANZ6N2kCEUY/w557-h380-no/Bez%25C2%25A0tytu%25C5%2582u2.png
          http://cdn-frm-eu.wargaming.net/wot/eu/uploads/monthly_10_2013/post-11099677-0-14057000-1382734005.jpg

          Wz.32
          https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-wPSFwnIw2_Q/UmKlgsDtypI/AAAAAAAABPg/6ujKvZRqtl8/w583-h382-no/renault_wz32.jpg

          M26/27 with turret for wz32
          https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-wPSFwnIw2_Q/UmKlgsDtypI/AAAAAAAABPg/6ujKvZRqtl8/w583-h382-no/renault_wz32.jpg

          My article here:
          http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/138319-drzewko-polskich-czolgow-propozycje/page__st__3680__pid__6792673#entry6792673

          was based on following sources:
          “Do Broni” nr 2-3/2009.
          “Do Broni” nr 1/2009.
          “Nowa Technika Wojskowa” 9/97

            • First thing first — I’m not going to build Polish tree or even discuss where which tank could be placed in the tree, what equipment could be using and what armament it could have. This is pointless because there will be no Polish tree in WoT.

              It is possible that future “European” tree will have Polish branch, of course if Polish players will accept that they will not get separate national tree. But still, nobody will put there all tanks and their variants. This is not the way how the trees and vehicles are put into the WoT.

              Theoretical Polish branch will be mix of vehicles and variants, with their own “developed” designations, technical details and performance. If you want to help create it, stop expanding and stretching branch and concentrate on few types, joining them where this is logical from gameplay point of view. Everyone interested in Polish tanks knows perfectly that Vickers, 7TP and 7TP wz.39 are different tanks. But from gameplay point of view it’s natural to have it as one tank on II tier:
              • hull: Vickers → 7TP → 7TP wz.39
              • armament: Vickers → 7TP
              • turret: Vickers → 7TP wz.39
              • engine: Vickers → 7TP wz.39
              • radio: Vickers → 7TP wz.39
              • suspension: Vickers → 7TP wz.39

              Family of TKS tankettes or 20/25 projects should be “moduled” in the same way. Each tank have to be “grindable” with at least few modules to discover. That’s why nobody will care about proper names of non-existing tanks and nobody will make 4 separate tanks from 4 separate designs of 20/25.

              PS. As for Renault wz.32 — Jońca’s book was published in 2009 and IMHO is much more credible as much more newer source than 12 years older article of J. Magnuski.

              • IMHO U’r wrong…
                This is OCR of historian J. Magnuski article I’m speaking about:
                Renault FT wz.32
                “…suspension (from Vickers E tank) and new double weapon turrets.”

                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 “double weapon” turret, which was designed simultaneously. 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.25 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. In 1932, a new model was constructed.
                New yoke for the 37mm Puteaux cannon and Hothkiss wz.30 machine gun was constructed. The yoke 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.
                Yoke with double 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 mantlet 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 possibly dropped.

                And the article’s it self:
                “Nowa Technika Wojskowa” 9/97
                “Do Broni” nr 2-3/2009.

                http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2078/om3d.png

                http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8452/sivr.png

                http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/1830/fsef.png

                https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-DMlFeU-0hqk/Urne4Bh1GUI/AAAAAAAAB0Y/EiCWdUcwbMQ/w274-h552-no/Bez%25C2%25A0tytu%25C5%2582u.png

                “Do Broni” nr 2-3/2009.

                As U can see Magnuski did wrote far more details in he’s articles than Jońca in he’s book based on Magnuski work…

              • “First thing first — I’m not going to build Polish tree or even discuss where which tank could be placed in the tree, what equipment could be using and what armament it could have. This is pointless because there will be no Polish tree in WoT.”

                I’m agree with U in that matter.
                We have to much holes to fill up and entire tree.
                It’s pointless since after 39′ we did use much of our allies vehicles and
                after the 45′ all our constructions were modernized licence tanks from USSR…

                But i can’t agree with tank non-historic names (20TP et.) created with analogy to mess done by dead J.Magnuski…
                Janusz Magnuski is the author of such confusion. In his publications and books not existing before the war names of prototypes and projects likely appeared for the first time and entered the “circulation”.
                Were Created by a simple formula X-TP where X is substitute for a tonnage and TP is the abbreviation of “Tons Polish”.
                Putet like so name’s proved to be extremely susceptible and durable, now it’s hard to unscrew everything.
                Non-existent names of either projects and prototypes still appear on Internet forums, and even in printed books.

                IMHO Those shouldn’t be used, or we create same mess as WG.

                If polish tree branch come to be introduced for game it should be as much as posible corect historical…

              • “…or 20/25 projects should be “moduled” in the same way. Each tank have to be “grindable” with at least few modules to discover. ”

                Yes I’m agree with U i that mater but only to the point
                Where the two KSUST and two BBT Br. Panc. (total four of all five variants) are molded to one of T4 equal to USSR T-28… it’s the same concept like we have already discused on our forums…

                How ever the fifth tank from KSUS directive family , a revolutionary Habich project of BS PZInż suppose to be another one, it’s specifications and known facts (with I’ve already described and translated from the sources: Wojskowy Przegląd techniczny 7-8/1986, Nowa Technika Wojskowa 9/2006, http://odkrywca.pl/polskie-czolgi-,323402.html):
                Hull Armour 60-40-40mm
                Turret Armour up to 55mm
                Guns: 40mm , 47mm, 55 or 60mm, 75mm naval flak canon
                Engines of 300HP
                Inclined plates
                place it on T5 as equal to the USSR T-34/76.
                In worst case it can be used as a second Polish T4 equal to USSR A-20/A-32.

                Speaking about correct names…
                Why U don’t agree with correct names for KSUS directive family while
                U still use correct names for improved version of 7TP prototypes of PZInż and BBT Br. Panc. (with are often mistaken as 9TP or 7TP reinforced) ??

                Also if U look at skan’s of CAW documents with KSUS tanks drawings
                U will see those are not named with J.Magnuski method…

                Those are simply KSUST I, KSUST II, BBT Br. Panc.

                Of course we can still use incorrect method of Magnuski
                and name those by tonage… like X-TP where X is tank tonage and TP abbreviation of “Ton Polski”,game Interface will allow that because in game files are nodes for the Long full tank name and for it’s shortage…
                Like this we Can see in Tank Carousel correct long name of Eg. 20t KSUST I
                and in battle interface it’s shortage which with the Magnuski Method of X-TP will be: 20TP

    • II tier
      • LT — TK-3 → TKS tankettes with 20 mm machine guns

      Those also should have Puteaux SA-18 37mm maybe even as a stock gun…
      One of TK-S prototypes was rebuild and tested with it.
      http://derela.republika.pl/7TP_TKS_s.jpg
      Universal ball mount of eng. Napiórkowski used in TK-S family has possibile to mount the SA-18, after droping the experimental project TK-S with SA-18, it was often used then in polish armoured cars.

  13. I would love to see Orlik’s Tankette in the game. I have a kit of it. I”l have to take some pics and post them. Would it be a Tier 3 premium, perhaps?

  14. I can’t even begin to understand some of the stinky racist comments here. Even when they’re supposed to be light-hearted.

    So Poland can’t fill a tree by itself. Okay, that’s sad. But how many nations could, really? Six? Seven? No need to dish Poland (or Yugoslavia, or Italy, or…) about it.

  15. I’ll take a tree with holes over nothing. And yes, I’m not understanding the attitudes, either. Maybe I’m glad my Polish family got out of Europe when they did.

    • There are no way to create tree with holes and it’s really high time to understand and accept that. People demanding separate Polish tree even with holes and sci-fi tanks behaves like kids shouting, crying and kicking everyone nearby. Sorry, grow up, there are not enough tanks to fill whole tree.

      • Bassing on this list accepted by polish historians form odfkrywca.pl forums
        We can’t fill entire tree… It will have holes in 7th and 8th tier…

        WB-10
        RT FT 17
        Rt FT 17 M “Hanuś”
        Rt m26/27 NC-2
        Rt m26/27 wz.32
        TK3
        TKW
        TK-S / TK-SB
        TK-D
        TK-SD
        PZInż160
        PZInż130
        4TP
        PZInż180
        VA mk.E type B (with polish upgrades know also as Type F)
        Rt R-35 (bough total of 100 tanks, up to 49 or 50 come to poland before war starts)
        7TP jw.
        7TP upgraded (two version’s of PzInż and the BBTBP)
        10TP
        14TP
        25t KSUST I
        >20t KSUST II
        23t BBTBP (early variant armed with 1x81mm+1x40mm)
        22t BBTBP (final variant armed with 1x75mm)
        25t BS PZInż
        T-34/85 M1, M2 (1951-56 upgraded in Poland and produced under license)
        T54A, AD, AM (1957-64 upgraded in Poland and produced under license)
        T55, A, AD (1957-64 upgraded in Poland and produced under license)

        And the WG will not find way to create tree with holes!!!

        More than the existence of a projects, the entire tree may break down for deficiencies of modules for them…
        So we can even have a perfect candidate for t5-8, and not be able to match any decent guns or engines for it…

        This is the reason to mold some of our tanks to one representing entire project’s families…
        and I’ve totally agree with Ashmodiel in that mater…

        Sorry, grow up, there are not enough tanks to fill whole tree.
        Beter less real tanks than all U’rs fakes like BUGI, 40TP, CCP etc. which with myths we have to fight all the time…

        • …or the fakes like WTF-100, FV215b, FV4202 (in current config), T28 PT, E-50M (configuration), VK45… (configurations), GW Tiger P/E100, etc. etc. etc. These are just from on top of my head – I’m certain that after digging a bit more you’ll find info about more BS tanks in WoT.

          • So in accordance to this full real Polish tanks list…
            What U will propose to fill up holes in 7th, 8th and the 10th Tiers ?

            PT-76 ? Light amfibious tank with peashoter 76mm?

            40TP fake polish tank design by NA CG-Artist based on rumours about polish part in design of St-50?

            BUGI !?! totaly BS made by Fans based on french duck AMX40 with fake canon and tonage?

            53TP aka CCP designed after printing error in CAW biuletin of Danuta Skrzypczak
            and sold as real document on auction service?
            Clearly demented by historians ?

            another fake design of T-60 based on Object 416 proto mixing designs of T-55 and T-10 ?

            Ohhh… dont forget april fools joke from RU forums 45TP Emilia Platter…

            Ohh i’ve forgot… Lemcernik perfect polish 10T :D
            Great Equivalent opponent for German Maus and incoming Ratte ;D

            Any better ideas??
            So… Grew up we will never fill up entire tree…
            Beter start to support polish branch in Eu tree.

  16. This is a complete list of Polish Tanks.
    It includes vehicles from the second half of 30′s up to the late 60′s (reality WoT), whereby these are the only vehicles which are constructed or modernized in the Poland, eventually purchased for the needs of our troops. I didn’t iclude polish captured german tanks, and tanks of our allies used by LWP during WWII:

    WB-10
    RT FT 17
    Rt FT 17 M “Hanuś”
    Rt m26/27 NC-2
    Rt m26/27 wz.32
    TK3
    TKW
    TK-S / TK-SB
    TK-D
    TK-SD
    PZInż160
    PZInż130
    4TP
    PZInż180
    VA mk.E type B (with polish upgrades know also as Type F)
    Rt R-35 (bough total of 100 tanks, up to 49 or 50 come to poland before war starts)
    7TP jw.
    7TP upgraded (two version’s of PzInż and the BBTBP)
    10TP
    14TP
    25t KSUST I
    >20t KSUST II
    23t BBTBP (early variant armed with 1x81mm+1x40mm)
    22t BBTBP (final variant armed with 1x75mm)
    25t BS PZInż
    T-34/85 M1, M2 (1951-56 upgraded in Poland and produced under license)
    T54A, AD, AM (1957-64 upgraded in Poland and produced under license)
    T55, A, AD (1957-64 upgraded in Poland and produced under license)

    P.S.
    This list was check and accepted by polish historians of odkrywca.pl forums.

    • It’s Another fake model from RPM in 1/35 scale.
      PZInż. 126, was never produced neither planed, this model is a complete figment of the RPM model manufacturer.

      Tank is based on the chassis of light tank Vickers Mark E, whose formula was designed 7TP models (single and twin turret).

      After purchase of the “Super-Set” with towers of RPM, you can build other light tanks based on the chassis of Vickers. eg T-26, also one or two towers.

      This model, as well as other products of RPM are not accurate and fakes!

      Didn’t U notice a joke of RPM designer? Missing small “P” in model with will make it a popular polish small familly car of 80′s ??

  17. When have “fake tanks” ever stopped WG? T28 Prototype, T110E3, T110E4, T110E5-fake (based on a sketches). T28-totally fake (based from T95). T25/2-fake. There are so many tanks based off of little information.

    • But at least those have initial sketches and project concept’s.
      In comparison to fan made sketches of fake 40TP, BUGI, CCP or a April Fool’s joke 45TP Emilia Plater…
      Some ppl’s were even the fools who tried to give false projects for the wiki just for the needs of game tree
      thanks to them we now have a much more difficult task, because no one does not take seriously after such behavior.

      • “But at least those have initial sketches and project concept’s.” – please, do show me sketches of T25/2 as it is in game or STFU.

        • Both the chassis and the turret existed. Let’s not mix up plausible fakes and outright fantasy tanks…

  18. Exactly…..and I really am not complaining about that, I’m just using as a point. The tree presented here looks a lot better than some of the current ones, and should not be dismissed so flippantly out of anti-Polish bias. I’m not a fan-boy for the Poles, I’m just seeing some odd comments.

  19. “the Polish got cheated by the producer, La France)”

    u mad ? / trollface

  20. Branch proposal of Ashmodiel with I have corrected, added missing vehicles and corrected (from CAW documents scans) historic names for KSUS directive tank’s concepts.

    I tier
    Poland had Renault FT17, like many other countries after WWI. Copying it 1:1 would be senseless so there are two options:
    • Type “M” — Renault FT modified in Poland, vehicle had name “Hanuś” (reg. no. 3027)
    • Renault M26/27 wz.32 — one of five Renault M26/27 Kegresse Histin delivered to Poland was upgraded with Vickers mk.E chasis, and Double weapon turrets (IMHO the best candidate for Polish T1 so far…)

    II tier
    • LT — TK-3 → TK-S tankettes with 20 mm machine guns (one prototype of TK-S was armed with 37mm Puteaux SA 18 gun)
    • MT — Vickers mk.E Type B (with polish modification’s) → 7TP single turret → 7TP wz.39 (there were no 9TP, just modification of 7TP)
    • TD — TK-3 with 37 mm “Pocisk” gun → TK-SD
    • SPG — TK-D

    III tier
    • LT — 4TP (PZInż.140, PZInż.180)
    • MT — 10TP → 14TP
    • TD — PZInż.160
    • SPG — Sexton II (PFUK)

    IV tier
    • LT — M5 Stuart (PFUK), Covenanter (PFUK)
    • MT — 22t KSUST I → >20t KSUST II → 23t BBT Br.Panc. (1x40mm + 1x81mm + 3×7.62mm) → 25t BBT Br.Panc (1x75mm + 3×7.62)
    • HT — N/A
    • TD — SU-76 (PFSU)
    • SPG — N/A

    V tier
    • LT — Crusader (PFUK)
    • MT — 25t BS PZInż, M4 Sherman (PFUK), T-34/76 (PFSU)
    • HT — Churchill I (PFUK)
    • TD — SU-85 (PFSU), Archer (PFUK)
    • SPG — N/A

    VI tier
    • LT — N/A
    • MT — T-34/85 license production with minor Polish modifications, Cromwell (PFUK)
    • HT — N/A
    • TD — SU-100 (PFSU), Achilles II (PFUK)
    • SPG — N/A

    VII tier
    • LT — N/A
    • MT — A30 Challenger (PFUK)
    • HT — IS-2m (PFSU)
    • TD — SU-152 (PFSU)
    • SPG — N/A

    VIII tier
    • MT — N/A
    • HT — IS-3 two vehicles delivered after WWII to Poland
    • TD — ISU-152 (PFSU)
    • SPG — N/A

    IX tier
    • MT — T-54 → T-55 license production with minor Polish modifications
    • HT — N/A
    • TD — N/A
    • SPG — N/A

    X tier
    • MT — N/A
    • HT — N/A
    • TD — N/A
    • SPG — N/A

    TKW and German vehicles captured by polish forces not included IMHO those suppose to be seen as premium’s.

    • Added vehicles used by Polish forces in the UK (PFUK Blue) and in Soviet Union (PFSU red) even with them there are no way to fill entire tree

      An “→” vehicles family were molded to one (having in mind WG is gone introduce the hull’s as modules), otherwise even a best candidate in it’s tier will break down due to lack of modules for it…
      Of course those can be seen as individual tank’s for branch without changeable hulls, than “→” is equal to”,”

  21. Medium tanks:
    KSUST I – 22t
    KSUST II – 25t
    BBT Br. Panc. – first variant 23t
    BBT Br. Panc. – second variant 25t

    The problem to equip the Polish Army with medium tank of its own design and being produced by the domestic industry, was raised for the first time in the mid-20th of the twentieth century. Was determined during this time that due to the field conditions of eastern parts of Europe and the projected mass character of armed clashes, medium tank should have a specific construction, different from the well-known medium tanks built in the West. Formulation of those theoretical grounds, were mainly based of course on the current political and military situation, as well as on the available experience of the First World War, and Polish-Soviet War.

    Since the beginning work’s were directed towards tank of design similar to Soviet muli-turreted tanks T-28.

    It should be noted that in addition to the multi-turret design, the chassis is also very similar. Had both projects penetrate? Does any one stole someone ideas?

    For a medium tank assumed to consider vehicle of weigh up to 20 tons, fast, relatively well armored and armed.

    It was to be a kind of multi-purpose vehicle, versatile, designed not only to support the infantry and light tanks, but also to perform the tasks of an operational nature and overcoming the enemy defensive positions.

    Over the next decade the issue of constructing medium tank stalled. There was no such possibility to pattern the abroad designs, and attempts to build even lighter tanks of our own design completely failed. Still lacked both specialists with relevant experience and industry able to master the complex production technology for as a specific motor vehicle, which was the tank at all.

    Guidelines of the Committee for Armament and Equipment of the Ministry of Military Affairs (KSUS), regarding the concept of medium tank were included in the resolution undertaken after the meetings of 10 and 11 January 1937r., Soon after the passing in January 8-9 armored expansion program till the year of 1942r.:

    Weight of the vehicle suppose to be close to 16 tonnes, the overall system was to be patterned on the United Kingdom multi-turreted tank A6 (Vickers 16 toner) of the late 20′s and repeated in the Soviet T-28.

    Its characteristic feature was the placement of main armament – 75 mm cannon wz. 1897 – in the main tower and two machine guns in two smaller, single person auxiliary turrets in front of vehicle.
    The drive was to be an diesel engine with 320 hp or more.

    Preliminary studies, started soon in the Armored Forces Command, based on the resolution of KSUS, soon led to the conclusion that with required thickness of armor and weaponry and the desired performance of traction, weight of vehicle will exceed the specified weight limit and will reach 23-25 tons. In October 1937, after the grant by the Second Vice-Minister of Military Affairs on September 23 of 25 000 dollars loan, Department of Design and Construction Office of Armored Forces Technical Research (BBT Br. Panc.), Headed by Maj. Rudolf Gundlach, has developed its own preliminary draft of a medium tank, which was differ slightly mainly in terms of weaponry, from the original targets of KSUS, but was based on the same hull. Mentioned different armament was to be Bofors 40 mm automatic mainly based on construction of anti aircraft gun, complementary armament was mounted in the fuselage 81 mm mortar, and 3 machine guns.

    In comparison to the original KSUS project, main drive has to be either one gasoline carburetor engine with a power of 500 hp or two with the power of 300 hp.

    This Design, together with the conclusions was included in the rapport of the Armored Command “Justification Sheet medium tank proposed by BBT Br. Panc.” December 4, 1937 and has to be present at the next incoming meeting of KSUS.

    According to those adjusted requirements also KSUS did developed two concepts of medium tank (called variant I and II). At the same arming requirements, it was characterized by mass of 22t (variant I with armor of 35mm) or 25t (variant II with 50-mm armor).

    The first tank was to be powered by a diesel engine with a power of 320 hp, while second one with two Carburetor gasoline engine of 300 hp or a single carburetor gasoline engine of 600-hp.
    As a result, he had to develop speed of 45 km/h on the road and 25km/h in terrain, despite it’s thicker armor and more weight.

    As a result of the confrontation of both concepts, in 1938 become created in BBT Br. Panc., another, one could say a compromise design of a medium tank. It was expected that his weight will be 23 tons, the armor will have a thickness of 50 mm, weapons will be an automatic 40 mm cannon or a 75 mm field gun/howitzer of special design and 3 machine guns.

    It was considered whether it should be field cannon wz.1897 or a new design of howitzer, which were suppose to provide greater versatility of tank armament. However finally, the howitzer was abandoned just like a Schneider cannon, who had a significant size and a low rate of fire. The BBT Br. Panc was led for this decision by obtaining information about short-barreled 75mm Bofors gun, which was so small and light that was possible to mount it in turret with a coaxial 40mm automatic gun for that Abandoned a machine gun in tower. Design in this form has been approved by KSUS for realization in BBT Br. Panc. where also commissioned the construction of a prototype. During that year worked among others to design construction of turret rotation mechanism and a very complex mechanical guidance system for targeting artillery weapons – short-barreled 75mm cannon with coaxial 40 mm automatic cannon, as well as to choice of the gear box and the technological process for production of rolled armor plates of 50 mm thickness. Also started to negotiate over the purchase of the German Maybach “Zeppelin” engine with a power of 550 hp, which was in the final editing requirements. Talks on this matter – without visible progress – stretched so much that the completion date of the tank prototype and start of its production was planned for late 1940.

    22t KSUST ver. I
    First variant of the KSUST project assumed identical construction scheme as the project BBTBPanc. Acording to the drawings had to be equipped with a 75 mm Schneider cannon wz.1897. Because 75 mm Guns in Poland is wasn’t produced (although planned) it appears to be the best choice. This variant assumed engine of 320 hp. The crew consisted of 6 people.

    Drive: Engine 320 hp
    Length: 730 cm
    Height: 200 cm
    Width: 260 cm

    http://i42.tinypic.com/29zsjk7.png

    25t KSUST ver. II
    Second variant of the KSUST project also assumed three turret system. He had a slightly lower rear part of the chassis. It had to be Propel with a very large drive unit consisting of two engines of 300 hp each. The mass of the tank was assumed at 25 tonnes. On the roads tank had to reach 45 km / h, and in the area of 25 km / h Armor, as in earlier projects had be 50 mm. Again armed with 3 CKM’s and one 75 mm cannon wz.37. The crew consisted of 6 people. Both versions were to be powered by petrol engines.

    Propulsion: Engine 2 x 300 HP
    Length: 730 cm
    Height: 200 cm
    Width: 260 cm
    Combat Weight: 25 tons
    Speed on the road: 45 km / h
    Speed in the area: 25 km / h

    http://i44.tinypic.com/2du9hj4.png

    23t and 25t BBTBPanc.
    Three turreted tank, weighing 23 tons. The project provided three towers in the tank. The main tower with 65 – 75 mm gun (according to J. Magnuski the 40mm Bofors Pom-Pom AA gun with coaxial mounted CKM and hull mounted mortar 81 mm) and one heavy machine gun with two smaller turrets fited on the front of the vehicle, each with 1 ckm. The crew of this project was to be 7 people, the speed of the tank to 40km / h, armor up to 50mm. The tank has a powerful engine of 500 hp or 2×300 hp motors.

    Drive: Engine 500 hp or 2 x 300 HP
    Length: 730 cm
    Height: 263 cm
    Width: 260 cm

    http://i39.tinypic.com/2lb043.png

    sources:
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa nr 9/2006

  22. Polish Medium Tanks were planned as a new concept, as it become clear that light vehicles will not work on the then rapidly changing field. Projects KSUS and BBTBr.Panc. were just studies of concept, but actually began even to ordered some elements for them to solve by study certain things.

    Guidelines of the Committee for Armament and Equipment of the Ministry of Military Affairs (KSUS), regarding the concept of medium tank were included in the resolution undertaken after the meetings of 10 and 11 January 1937r., Soon after the passing in January 8-9 armored expansion program till the year of 1942r.:
    Weight of the vehicle suppose to be close to 16 tonnes, the overall system was to be patterned on the United Kingdom multi-turreted tank A6 (Vickers 16 toner) of the late 20′s and repeated in the Soviet T-28.
    Its characteristic feature was the placement of main armament – 75 mm cannon wz. 1897 – in the main tower and two machine guns in two smaller, single person auxiliary turrets in front of vehicle.
    The drive was to be an diesel engine with 320 hp or more.
    Those were the:

    KSUST I – 22t
    KSUST II – 25t
    BBT Br. Panc. – first variant 23t
    BBT Br. Panc. – second variant 25t

    The fifth tank concept from the resolution of KSUS armored weapons expansion program for 1942
    Was the:

    BS PZInż 25t (known also as HABICH tank)

    Office BS PZInż of engineer Habich was invited to studies in order to ensure adequate competition for the remaining project offices.

    The work, initiated at the beginning of 1939, directed by the Head of Special Vehicles Bureau (BS PZInż), engineer Edward Habich, which is also the main designer of the tank.

    Habich withdrew from the concept of muliturreted tank.
    According to his project tank hull was to be as low as possible and wide, with inclined front and side plates.
    In front plate of the thickness up to 60 mm (side and rear panels have a thickness of 40 mm) was placed yoke for machine gun operated by gunner occupying the seat next to the driver.
    In an equally low, large tower (originally made of welded rolled plates, and ultimately cast) – with two hatches for the crew was to be mounted major equipment in the form of a cannon coupled with a machine gun.

    The original assumptions were about 40-47 mm caliber cannon ( include 47 mm anti-tank cannon. constructed by Wacław Stetkiewicz).
    Then about a new weapon caliber 60 mm, but very quickly, because in the spring of 1939, an engineer Tadeusz Tanski involved in the design of the tank, proposed to use as the main armament of the French 75 mm AA cannon wz.1922/1924.
    These guns were purchased by the Navy Command in the amount of 14 units, accounted equipment 1st and 2nd Marine squadrons Flak Artillery. At that time they were already obsolete and not suitable for intercepting modern combat aircraft.
    Due to the good ballistic performance well lent it self to combat enemy tanks, and even their fragmentation-high explosive projectile had sufficient effectiveness to destroy typical field fortifications.
    Habich approved Tański proposal, simultaneously commissioning appropriate gun adaptations to allow it’s montage in tank turret.
    Supplement for tank armament had to be third machine gun, designed for AA defense, placed on a special rotating basis over the commander hatch.

    For this new tank Department of Engines in PZInż., Headed by Eng. Zdzisław Rytel, worked out in cooperation Eng. Jan Werner, a special V-12-cylinder engine in two versions:
    gasoline carburetor 300 hp (according to other data had to be 8-cylinder)
    diesel with direct injection 250 hp.
    In view of protracted work on the prototype of the Polish power unit was planned to use of the German power units namely the Maybach engine, with a capacity of 221 kW (300 hp). Information about this engines has already been received during construction of 10TP and 14TP prototypes (ie in 1938) and started talking about to purchase it. One Maybach HR108 engine was eventually bough Through diplomacy with the help of the Swedish embassy, while Diplomatic Talks conducted with the Maybach company negotiating purchase of the HL108R with semi-automatic gear boxes and the HL120 engines (used eg in tanks Panzer III) were dragged by the German side and were not finalized until the outbreak of war.

    The chassis of the proposed tank called to apply six rubber-tyred wheels with diameter of 700 mm, Suspended on individual wishbones and combined by two with one common resilient element, which was a flat Leaf spring (similar in shape to the LT vz38), Leaf spring were provided on the outside of the hull.
    The upper branch of the track were sustain on four rubber-tyred wheels of a much smaller diameter.

    Was Ordered a single copy of the prototype tank (the details of this contract remain unknown due to lack of surviving documents), which was to be delivered to the trial.
    Preliminary orders were submitted for certain parts of tank as armor plates of the hull and suspension components, some of them will eventually been produced and delivered to URSUS factory before the war outbreak.
    Until the outbreak of the war, PZInż. been able to perform only a wooden mock-up of the tank in 1:1 scale.

    Despite years of research, polish historians could not find any photographs or drawings (with the exception of the suspension schema similar to the suspension LT vz38, given by Habich to Piotr Zarzycki), on the basis of which can be reliably reconstructed the appearance of this version of the Polish medium tank.

    Known reconstructions of its appearance base on the memoirs of engineer Habich.
    With were Given to the public by Polish historians A. Jońca and P. Zarzycki.

    In connection with the fact that P.Zarzycki is working on a book describing Polish armored prototypes from the 30′s, Not all the information on 25t BS PZInż can be disclosed by these gentlemen’s for public use…

    First from the left:
    http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8065/ra6z.jpg

    Specifications:
    Hull Armour 60-40-40mm
    Turret Armour up to 55mm
    Guns: 40mm , 47mm, 55 or 60mm, 75mm naval flak canon
    Engines of 300HP
    Inclined plates

    sources:
    Nowa Technika Wojskowa nr 9/2006
    http://www.dobroni.pl/rekonstrukcje,czolg-sredni,12750

  23. TKW Tankette

    Creation of The TKW tankette:

    After creation of TK-3, commenced to look for opportunities of increase its firepower, and for modifications that would enable more effective conducting of gun fire. The result of this works, conducted since 1933, was light reconnaissance tankette TKW, which was constructed in 1934. Alongside with English Vickers 2,5 t it is the only tank with a weight not exceeding 2.5 tonnes with has the armament placed in an independent tower. Construction was based on the TK-3 tankette, and the idea came from the British light reconnaissance tank Vickers Mark I (based on tankette Carden Lloyd Mark VI).

    At first it was decided to build 6 experimental TKW tankettes. The prototype was converted from the TK tankette nr. 1164 (of the first series, made of mild iron plates) in the end of 1932 or early 1933., some of them with tower modified by addition of oriel at the front, which increase the space inside the turret. Trials conducted with prototypes showed a large amount of defects, including a cramped interior of the rotating tower, and a complete lack of communication between crew members, who have not seen each other (with a lack of internal communication this was a problem). In February 1935 the TKW design was abandoned and a production of further 5 tanks was canceled, but vehicle itself wasn’t scrapped. It was used to test various construction ideas. It was evident, that a bigger tank was needed to fulfill reconnaissance tasks, that could be fitted with a turret without such problems and carry more adequate armament.
    In that period, the works upon bigger and more capable reconnaissance tank 4TP started.

    The TKW prototype was given to the Armoured Weapons Technical Research Bureau (BBT Br.Panc.). In February 1935 it was used for testing new rubber and metal tracks of mjr. Stefan Kardaszewicz design, but they appeared a failure (during trials it had the older turret again). Later the prototype was broken to parts. The newer turret was most probably utilized in the PZInż.130 amphibious tank prototype.
    It is possible that new designs of gun yoke was also tested on it. Probably TKW tankette, was rebuilt to the TKS tankette and enrolled for service in the field units.

    construction of the TKW tankette:
    The TKW construction was based upon the TK-3 chassis. Its combat compartment was lower, and there was a small turret above the commander, armed with a standard 7.92 mm water-cooled wz.30 Browning machine gun in universal ball mounting with a telescopic sight. Turret armour was 8 mm, sides were riveted to a frame, it had a hatch on the roof and in a rear curved plate. A driver’s head was protected with a big box hood, fitted with a reversible tank periscope for all-around observation (invented in Poland, by Rudolf Gundlach), a two-part observation hatch in front and an access hatch on the top. The commander had vision slots only in his turret. However, trials in October 1933 revealed turret faults, like: lack of space, bad stability of gun mounting, poor observation, and especially poor ventilation. As a result, the second improved turret was developed in 1934, with a lengthened box-like front part, and ventilation slots under the hatch on the top, armed with a standard 7.92 mm air-cooled wz.25 Hotchkiss machine gun mounted in an universal ball mounting.
    Further field trials in summer 1934 showed, that this design was not successful at all. Its right side was overloaded and the crew members could not communicate with each other, while turret rotation and crew observation possibilities were limited. The driver’s hood limited turret rotation to 306°, while the turret limited driver’s field of view. Firing to the left side of the vehicle required rotation of whole tankette, but of course to a lesser extent than it had been before in the TK-3. In other directions turret rotated smoothly.
    On the left side at the driver was mounted searchlight, while behind him was placed the yoke for the RKM wz. 28 used to conduct AA fire.
    It was a slight improvement, as so far the RKM wz.28 yoke was located on the right side of the vehicle.
    Tower armor was reinforced to 20 mm (Information provided by some sources speaking of strengthening the whole vehicle armor to 20mm are Erroneous. The tankette would then have problems with driving off, as the engine wasn’t changed). Front armor shape was also changed.

    Chassis:
    on each side of the vehicle there were four road wheels, rubber rimmed, blocked in two two-wheel bogies, sprung with a pair of semi-elliptical leaf springs in each bogie. Bogies were moving up and down in runners of a suspension frame, and were sprung with a main semi-elliptical leaf spring, fixed centrally to the hull side (it was the main improvement over the Carden-Loyd suspension). A sprocket wheel was in front. At the rear there was an idler wheel, mounted on a suspension frame, with a tension adjustment mechanism. On each side there were 4 return rollers, mounted on an upper frame.

    Tracks: metal, single-pin: TK-3 – width 140 mm, pitch 45 mm

    Hull:
    was of armour plates, screwed to a frame. A major part of the hull was taken by a common combat compartment, containing also an engine and transmission. A driver’s seat was on the left, a commander/gunner’s seat on the right. The seats were separated with the engine and a gearbox before it. In front part of the hull there were drive gears with a differential mechanism, under two service hatches. Behind a driver there was a vertical water radiator with a fan behind it, under a rear housing. Behind a commander there was a fuel tank and, in a rear, a battery (under a right rear service hatch). A cooling air was drawn through a radiator from a crew compartment and, in need, from a small bottom hatch before the radiator. The air came out by a grill in a left rear service hatch. Under this hatch there was a shaft for emergency starting the engine by crank (the crank was carried in a battery compartment).

    Armour
    Armour of rolled plates, thickness (thicker plates were vertical):
    Front 6 – 8mm
    Sides 8mm
    Rear 6 – 8mm
    Top 3 – 4mm
    Bottom 4 – 7mm
    Turret 20mm

    Armament:
    7,92 mm Browning wz. 30 (in first variant of the tower – smaller one)
    7,92 mm Browning wz. 30 or 7.92mm Hotchkiss wz. 25 (in second variant of the tower – bigger one, with front Orin and ball gun yoke)
    7,92 mm rkm wz. 28 ( there was a pivot anti-aircraft mount for the wz.28 MG. It could be used only from the outside of a parked vehicle.)

    Apart from the gun, 2.5 kg of explosives were carried.

    Engine:
    petrol, inline, 4-stroke, water-cooled:
    Ford A – 4-cylinder, 40 HP at 2200 rpm, capacity 3285 cm³

    Transmission:
    multi-disc dry main clutch; mechanical gearbox – 3 gears forward, 1 reverse.
    Differential steering mechanism with band brakes; side drives.
    Turns were made by braking one track, using a steering wheel, connected with brakes.

    Fuel tank:
    60l

    TKW tankette – data:
    Mass – 2,8 – 3 t
    Crew – 2 soldiers.

    Dimension – length 258 cm, wide 178 cm, high 160 cm, ground clearance 30 cm.
    Armament – MG 7,92 mm Browning wz. 30 or a MG 7,92 mm Hothkiss wz. 25

    Armour of rolled riveted plates, thickness: Front 6 – 8mm, Sides 8mm, Rear 6 – 8mm, Top 3 – 4mm, Bottom 4 – 7mm, Turret 20mm

    Engine – gasoline, inline, 4-stroke, water-cooled Ford A – 4-cylinder, 40 HP at 2200 rpm, capacity 3285 cm³

    Fuel – gasoline
    Power relay voltage – 6V
    Max speed – 46 km/h
    range on the road – 200 km
    range in the terrain – 100 km

    painting
    Polish Vehicles in the testing phase were in sand color, and in this color were the TKW tankettes.
    in trials time they could also have been painted in camouflage colors.

    Photography:
    http://tinyurl.com/pwxnlwf
    http://tinyurl.com/qzkv2ul
    http://tinyurl.com/ndovaa5
    http://tinyurl.com/ne9kstp
    http://tinyurl.com/qcxwng7
    http://tinyurl.com/omhgo49

    Sources:
    http://www.dobroni.pl/rekonstrukcje,tankietka-tkw,12708
    Tank Power vol. LXXXII: 321 – Tankietki TK-3 / TK-S, 1939
    Janusz Magnuski, Andrzej Kiński, “Tankietka TKW” w: Poligon nr 3/2006

    Contrary to 1/35 RPM plastic kit, the TKW was not meant to be fitted with 20 mm cannon wz. 38 model A (FK-A). When the FK-A was manufactured, the TKW program had been abandoned for a long time.
    Besides, it would be difficult to fit this cannon into the existing small turret. There were no designations: “TKW I”, “TKW II” as well.

  24. • Renault M26/27 wz.32
    one of five Renault M26/27 Kegresse Histin delivered to Poland was upgraded with Vickers mk.E chasis, and Double weapon turrets

    Renault FT wz32:

    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:

    Polish FT-17
    Polish FT-17 on manoeuvres in the 20′s.
    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 FT wz.32
    “…suspension (from Vickers E tank) and new double weapon turrets.”

    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 “double weapon” turret, which was designed simultaneously:

    Double Weapon Turret wz.29
    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.
    None of photographs of this tower have been preserved.
    Based on the descriptions, we can suppose it looked like in the Soviet Union Russkij Reno:
    http://www.panzernet.net/tankist/fotky/tanky/reno/001.jpg
    http://www.panzernet.net/tankist/fotky/tanky/reno/004.jpg

    Coaxial Weapon Turret wz.32
    In 1932, a new model was constructed.
    New yoke for the 37mm Puteaux cannon and Hothkiss wz.30 machine gun was constructed.
    The yoke 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.
    Yoke with double 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.
    It is known one photograph of this tower taken during it’s tests, being mounted on one of polish Renault (FT) Kegresse-Hinstin M26/27 (Renault wz.29), photage comes from collection of J.Magnuski gallery:
    http://tinyurl.com/ngz6lgg

    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 mantlet 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.

    One known photo of it:
    http://www.odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum6/renault_wz32.jpg

    Mass: 7,2t
    Crew; 2 people,
    Dimensions; lenght – 4,5m, wide – 2,15m, high – 2,04m, ground Clarence – 0,4m,
    Armed; 1 canon 37mm Puteaux i 1 km 7,92mm wz 30,
    Targeting and observation accessory: 2 observing binoculars, 2 Gundlach reverse periscopes, 2 observation slot

    Armor – riveted rolled steel plates of thickness: hull front 18mm; bottom and up 5mm, turret; front, side and back 16mm.

    Engine – gasoline carburetor engine, four stroke, inline, four cylinders, Renault, max power 42KM, with 1500rpm./min. water cooled.

    Fuel – gasoline, tank capacity 120l, fuel consumption. 150l/100km.

    Drivetrain – main clutch, mechanical gearbox, four forward gears and one reverse, steering mechanism – the clutch side, the side gears.

    Suspension – blocked in a trolleys of two wheels with rubber bandages, flat leaf spring suspension, four supporting rollers, drive wheel in back of hull, front hull tension whell, track wide 230mm, scale 92mm, length of the abutment 2700mm, spacing of tracks 1755mm.

    Performance – power unit 5,8 KM/t, max speed up to 13km/h, range on the road 80km.
    Overcoming obstacles – contact pressure of 0.4 kg/cm2, slope 450, trenches with a width of 185cm.

    Sources…
    “Do Broni” nr 2-3/2009.
    “Do Broni” nr 1/2009.
    “Nowa Technika Wojskowa” 9/97

  25. • Type “M”
    Renault FT modified in Poland, vehicle had name “Hanuś”

    Tank of Louis Renault, constructed in 1916 and introduced into active service as the Char Léger Renault FTModèle 1917, construction was revolutionary in its time. Fundamental solutions of this tank (including armament in a rotating turret), and its composition became the classic one repeated till today.
    FT-17 tanks were built in many plants – in addition to the parent Renault factory in Bilancourt near Paris – also in Berliet, Schneider,
    Delaunay-Belleville and American factories. After the end of First World War, production of these tanks and vehicles patterned upon them, launched in many countries.
    The Renault Tank in its basic version, called “char canon”, was armed with a 37 mm Puteaux SA model 1917 gun.
    “Char mitrailleuse” was armed with a Hotchkiss wz. 14 caliber 8 mm machine gun.

    Vehicles “char signal”, Renault TSF based upon FT-17 hull, fitted with a radio in a big superstructure in a place of a turret. were not armed. Only about 200 exemplary of them was build.

    Nearly 1,000 tanks, marked Renault FT75RS, become equipped with a short-barreled 75mm de Blockhaus Schneider cannon .

    Tank was slow, designed to fight in the ranks of infantry, but with satisfactory terrain characteristics .

    He had a unit pressure 49 kPa and was able to go over 45 ° slopes, go across trenches with a width of 180 cm, and cross 70 cm ponds and walls 50 cm high.

    In the thirties, the obsolete radio tanks TSF were scheduled to be rebuild to combat tanks, replacing the superstructure with a turret.

    During this time period were also tested several variants of modernization projects of regular FT-17 tanks, including changes in hull shape and engine cooling system and become known as: FT-17 “Hanuś”

    Cf. Stanislaw Marczewski, in 1925 designed the significant improvements in the engine cooling system, as well as to the power relay system and increased fuel tank capacity of the tank. In 1926, according to the project of Cf. Marczewski in the tanks Department of CWS, one prototype of modernized tank called Hanuś (reg. probably 3027) become build (iron, from the series 25-27 here built).

    All of the changes also entailed the need to extend the fuselage ( tail was used for this purpose, after shielding him with complete armor).

    This vehicle also differed from regular ones by the rounded armor plates protecting the driver’s head and changed shape of the front fuselage.

    The tank become equipped with a small-link tracks developed before 1925 by Cpt. S. Kardaszewicz.

    Those Tracks in its final form, have more cells with a smaller scale than the original tracks.
    Usage of small-link tracks increased speed, improved fuel consumption, and lowered noise and shock level. At least 65 tanks were fitted with the new tracks since 1926 (it is not known how many tanks used these tracks in 1939).

    The traction Trials of “Hanusia” were successful, however, proposals for revamping to its pattern held in armed state Renault tanks were not accepted due to the excessive costs of the entire project.

    Data:
    Engine: Renault: 39 HP per 1500 rpm; 4480 ccm, 4-cylinder, 4-stroke, water-cooled, inline.

    Armament:
    There were two variants of armament. The tanks had either 37mm Puteaux SA-18 (wz.18) L/21 low velocity gun with 237 rounds, or 8mm Hotchkiss Mle.14 machine gun with up to 4800 rounds. About 3/5 of the initial number of tanks were armed with guns.
    In the late 1920s the machine guns in the Polish tanks were changed to a 7.92mm Hotchkiss wz.25 (the French FT-17 had their machine guns changed to 7.5mm Chatellerault (Reibel) Mle.31 in the thirties, receiving an unofficial designation: FT-31).

    Armour:
    Hull – riveted of rolled armour plates. Thickness – front: 16mm (vertical plates) – 8mm (horizontal plates), sides and rear – 16mm, top – 8mm, bottom – 6mm.

    The turret:
    appeared in two variants. The first was octagonal, polygonal, riveted of rolled armour plates, thickness 16mm. The second was round one, developed by Berliet works (also called Girod turret), welded of curved armour belt 22mm thick, and cast top 16mm thick. The weapon mounting was also 16mm thick in this variant. Each turret could be armed with a gun or MG.

    Crew: – two (driver and commander/ gunner). The tank was not equipped with a radio. The commanding was carried out with the color flags.

    Weight (MG tank / gun tank): 6,500 / 6,700 kg
    Length / with tail: 4.1 / 5 m
    Width: 1.47 m
    Height: 2.14 m
    Track width: 340 mm
    Distance between tracks’ middles: 1.35 m
    Ground clearance: 0.4 m
    Max. road speed: 7.8 km/h (4.9 mph) (with small-link tracks somewhat higher)
    Power to weight: 5.8 HP/t
    Range on road: up to 65 km
    Ground pressure: 0.44 – 0.49 kg/cm2
    Fuel consumption on road: about 146 litres /100 km

    Camouflage:
    In the beginning of the service, the Polish FT-17 were still in the French camouflage schemes, with irregular, “torn” patches of 3 or 4 colors. In the late twenties numerous vehicles (especially FT-17 CWS) were apparently dark green.

    Between about 1932 and 1936 a camouflage scheme was used, called the “Japanese” camouflage. It consisted of patches of yellowish sand, olive green and light blue-gray, separated with thin black stripes; blue-gray being the lightest shade (traditional publications commonly quoted dark brown colour instead of blue-gray)

    Since 1936-37, the tanks were painted in a standard camouflage scheme of three colours: greyish sand and dark brown (sepia) over brown-green (a base color). The patches were airbrushed, with soft transitions, their shapes were horizontal mainly. There was not any standard pattern of patches. The interior was painted in sand.

    Images:
    http://tinyurl.com/n2s3eth
    http://tinyurl.com/lxsue2l
    http://tinyurl.com/n3aktfg

    Sources:
    “Do Broni” nr 2-3/2009.
    “Do Broni” nr 1/2009.
    “Nowa Technika Wojskowa” 8,9/97
    http://derela.republika.pl/ft17pl.htm
    http://www.1939.pl/uzbrojenie/polskie/pojazdy/ft17/
    http://www.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~bolas/main/uzbrojenie/czolgi/ft17.htm