The Second World War, countless times, showed the potential of mine-explosive obstacles and confirmed the need to create special equipment to overcome them. Both during the war and after its end, all the leading countries of the world were engaged in the creation of engineering means that would allow troops to make passages in minefields and make the offensive of troops less risky. In new projects, both the already known principles of mine clearance and completely new ones were used. One of the most interesting projects of this kind was developed in France on the basis of an existing pre-war light tank.
After liberation from occupation and the end of the war, the military and political leadership of France took care of building a full-fledged armed force. The existing military-industrial potential did not allow solving all urgent problems in a minimum time, but still French enterprises tried to create and offer the army new models of equipment. The development of completely new projects was carried out, and in addition, the modernization and processing of existing equipment was carried out. A promising armored demining vehicle appeared precisely by reworking the serial tank of the old model.
Demining machine in the stowed position. Photo Strangernn.livejournal.com
It should be noted right away that the project ended in failure and was forgotten. Because of this, very little information about him has been preserved, and the available information is fragmentary. Fortunately, in the collections of museums and history buffs, there are several photographs of the prototype, showing all its features and allowing you to compose an overall picture. In this case, however, the main characteristics of a curious sample remain unknown. Moreover, history has not even preserved the name of the project.
By analogy with previous developments of this class, the post-war engineering vehicle can be called the Char de Déminage Renault R35 - “Renault R35-based mine clearance tank”. This name reflects the main features of the project, but may differ from the actual designations. Nevertheless, the official name of the engineering tank remains unknown, and therefore one or another of its "substitutes" has to be used.
According to reports, the engineering vehicle was developed shortly after the end of World War II, with development work completed in 1945 or 1946. Probably, the project was created by Renault, but any other French defense company could have been its developer. Only the type of the base tank speaks in favor of the Renault version, which in itself, however, is not sufficient evidence.
As part of the new project, it was proposed to take the chassis of the existing Renault R35 tank, devoid of the turret and units of the fighting compartment, and equip it with a set of additional special-purpose equipment. The new equipment, using the original principles of work, was supposed to make passages in minefields, destroying anti-personnel ammunition or provoking their detonation. Judging by the design of the prototype, there was no possibility of neutralizing anti-tank mines.
The lightweight "escort tank" R35 was taken as the basis for the engineering vehicle. This armored vehicle was created in the mid-thirties and soon entered service with the French army. After the capture of France by Nazi Germany, the tanks changed owners and were actively used on different fronts. A significant number of armored vehicles of this type were destroyed during the Second World War, but a certain number saw the end of the war and entered service with the new French army. By the standards of the mid-forties, the R35 tanks were hopelessly outdated and could no longer be used for their intended purpose. However, France had no choice and was forced to maintain a fleet of such equipment for some time. In addition, attempts were made to create new equipment for one purpose or another on the basis of an outdated tank.
During the development and construction of an armored demining vehicle, the authors of the project had to significantly redesign the design of the existing chassis. At the same time, most of the improvements consisted in the removal of no longer needed components and assemblies. First of all, the R35 tank lost its fighting compartment and turret. The opening in the roof of the hull, used to install the shoulder strap, was closed as unnecessary. The freed up volumes were probably used to install some new equipment. In addition, it was necessary to provide holes in the frontal parts of the hull, necessary for installing the drives of the trawl working bodies.
Light tank Renault R35. Photo Wikimedia Commons
After such processing, the hull retained a noticeable resemblance to the base tank. The lower frontal part was preserved, which had a rounded lower unit and a straight upper one. Behind the inclined part of the frontal part, there was still a frontal sheet, which served as the front wall of the turret box. The lower part of the sides, which was used to install parts of the undercarriage, remained vertical, while the upper had rounded sloping side elements. The sloped feed was still used.
The hull was of a mixed design and consisted of both cast and rolled parts. The forehead and sides of the hull were 40 mm thick, but the level of protection was different due to the different angles of inclination. The stern was covered with 32 mm armor, and the roof and bottom were 25 and 10 mm thick, respectively. For 1945, such armor was weak and could no longer provide any protection against existing tank and anti-tank guns.
The layout of the enclosure has not changed in the new project. The transmission devices were protected under the protection of the frontal armor, and the control compartment was located directly behind them. The central compartment, which previously served as a fighting compartment, was now used to install some new devices. In the stern, the engine was still placed, connected to the gearbox and other units by means of a propeller shaft.
The Renault R35 light tank was equipped with a Renault liquid-cooled carburetor engine. Such a power plant developed power up to 82 hp. The engine was located near the starboard side of the engine compartment, and to the left of it were the fuel tanks and a radiator. The transmission included a two-disc main clutch, a four-speed gearbox, a main brake, a steering mechanism based on a differential and band brakes, as well as single-stage final drives.
The tank had a specific chassis. On each side there were five rubberized road wheels. The front pair of rollers had an individual suspension on the balance bar, the rest were blocked in pairs. Rubber springs were used as elastic elements. Three supporting rollers were placed above the latter. The driving wheels were in the frontal part of the hull, the guides were in the stern.
After being converted into an engineering armored vehicle, the R35 tank retained the existing control compartment located behind the front transmission units. The front part of the turret box served as the driver's cabin. Part of its front wall and a large element of the inclined frontal part were hinged and served as a hatch. The equipment of the control station as a whole remained the same. The road should be watched through an open hatch or with the help of viewing slots in the armor.
Trawled while working. The center beam with the disc is up and ready to hit. Photo Atf40.forumculture.net
On the frontal part of the engineering armored vehicle, a support for a new type of working body was mounted. In its composition there were several large strong struts and other power elements of a smaller section. In the front of this frame, axles were provided for installing trawls. Chain transmissions were located on the sides to move them. Apparently, the power take-off was carried out from the standard power plant of the chassis. A U-shaped support with a curved beam was installed above the control compartment on the hull. The latter was intended for laying trawls when switching to transport position.
The project proposed unusual means of mine clearance, working on a percussion principle. A swinging base was placed on the axis of the frontal support, on which the beam was attached. The base was made in the form of a rectangular section structure, while the remaining part of the beam was diamond-shaped and tapering towards the end. The base of the beam had a hinge with which the beam could move up and down. In the stowed position, she turned up and fell back, lying on the hull support. Three swinging beams were placed on a common hinge.
The front end of the beam was equipped with a small strut reinforced with a brace. At the bottom end of the rack was a round shock trawl. It was he who had to interact with the ground or explosive devices, provoking their detonation. For more effective clearance of a relatively wide strip, the central boom was longer, and its disc-trawl in the working position was in front of the other two. When transferring the trawl to the transport position, it was necessary to open the locks of the racks, and they fell back.
As follows from the available data, at the base of the beams there was a crankshaft of a crank mechanism, driven by a chain drive. During trawling, the mechanism had to alternately raise the trawl beams and release them. The unsupported beam fell down under its own weight, and the round impactor hit the ground. The variable rise and fall of the three discs provided interaction with the ground and mines in a strip with a width comparable to the transverse dimension of the chassis. Due to the forward movement of the tank at a low speed, the trawl of the original design could make a passage of the required length for a certain time.
There is no detailed information on this, but it can be assumed that a stock of spare working tools should have been present on board the Char de Déminage Renault R35. In the event of damage or destruction of the disk in use, the crew should have been able to restore the vehicle's performance and continue working.
There is no exact information on the dimensions, weight and technical characteristics of the engineering vehicle. In the transport position, with the beams folded, the modified tank could have a length of at least 5 m. Width - less than 1.9 m, height, depending on the configuration, up to 2-2.5 m. The base tank had a combat weight of 10.6 tons Removing the crew compartment and installing the trawl could lead to the preservation of similar weight characteristics. As a consequence, it could become possible to maintain mobility at the level of the base sample. Recall that the Renault R35 tank developed a speed of no more than 20 km / h on the highway and had a cruising range of 140 km. When working in a minefield, the speed of movement should not exceed several kilometers per hour.
Machine in the stowed position, view to the starboard side. Photo Atf40.forumculture.net
According to some sources, the project of an armored demining vehicle based on the R35 was developed by the end of 1945, and a few months later an experimental vehicle went into testing. The prototype of the minesweeper was built on the basis of a serial light infantry tank taken from the army. The "extra" equipment was removed from it, and then equipped with new devices. According to reports, an experienced engineering tank went to the test site in March 1946.
It is known that the prototype was tested and demonstrated its capabilities. Details of the tests have not been preserved, but further events clearly indicate the lack of serious success. Industry and military specialists checked the original sample of special equipment, and decided to abandon its development, not to mention the adoption and putting into production. Probably, the unusual method of trawling was considered unsuitable for use in practice.
Even if we do not take into account the hopelessly outdated chassis, the design of the engineering vehicle casts doubt on the possibility of effective use of such technology. It must be admitted that the shock principle of demining showed itself quite well during the Second World War and therefore is still used today. Nevertheless, existing systems use a rotating rotor with impact elements moving at high speed, which allows them to successfully solve the assigned tasks. The trawl of the French design had to affect the mines differently, which led to negative results.
The use of a beam with a trawl disc to create the necessary pressure on the mine of the mass of the beam can indeed lead to fatal damage to the ammunition. However, undermining was not ruled out. Beams with struts and discs did not have a particularly strong structure, and therefore might regularly need to be repaired and restored. Even a stock of working bodies could hardly solve this problem and ensure an acceptable survivability of the machine. In addition, the proposed trawl differed from the existing designs by the excessive complexity of production and operation.
While maintaining the existing chassis, the engineering vehicle could have other noticeable problems. The mobility of such equipment left much to be desired, and the level of protection could not meet the requirements for armored vehicles of the front edge. It should also be noted that the trawl support elements were located directly in front of the driver's workplace and blocked the view. When the beams were moved to the transport position, the visibility situation was further worsened. As a result, driving such a minesweeper in any conditions, both on the battlefield and on the march, was extremely difficult, and the driver could not cope with it without assistance.
Some of the existing problems could be eliminated by replacing the chassis. By transferring the trawl to another machine, it was possible to increase the speed and power reserve, as well as optimize some points of operation. Nevertheless, even with this, the engineering armored vehicle retained all the shortcomings associated with the not very successful design of the working bodies. Thus, in its current form, the equipment could not be accepted for service, and the development of the project did not make sense.
After completing the tests, traces of the prototype are lost. Probably, it was disassembled as unnecessary or sent for another alteration. The original prototype has not survived to this day, and now it can only be seen in a few photographs. The project documentation was sent to the archive, and the specific version of the trawl was put aside. More to these ideas did not return. All new versions of armored demining vehicles of the French design were based on more familiar ideas and solutions tested on training grounds and battlefields.
