An Alternate History of the FT-17

[CCA]

The Renault FT-17 or Automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault FT modèle 1917 was a French light tank; it is among the most revolutionary and infuential tank designs in history, as well as being on of the most produced tanks with over 50,000 variants built worldwide.
.....

A key to understanding the longevity of the FT-17 design and it's many variants with the FAT-V still being used in active service up to 1945 was the relative ease and speed the basic chassis and turret could be manufactured. This was important in understanding why the Espana Popular Ejercito continued to use and manufacture the tank in great numbers throughout the Second World War or the International War Against Fascism as it is referred to in the European Union and the USSR.

....

The FAT-I and variants- A technical History
The initial Spanish variant of the FT-17, the FAT-I(initials for Fabrica de Armas de Trubia-the syndicates and factories responsible for manufacturing Spanish military vehicles) began production in January 1924, production rights and blueprints had been aquired by General Primo de Rivera more than a year before but it wasn't until January that an initial tank-works had been built and equiped in Valencia. The following are a list of the FAT-I and it's variants.

FAT-Ia- This was the initial straight copy of the FT-17 armed with a 8mm Hotchkiss machinegun. Initial production run of 30 tanks all built.
FAT-Ib- The cannon armed variant, identical for all intents and purposes. Initial production run of 30 tanks built
FAT-Ic- Improved suspension and 35 hp engine brings top speed to 17km/h. Cannon-armed variant equiped with a co-axial machine gun. Aledged to have been based on the T-18 design of the Soviet Union. Initial production order of 40 built.

The FAT-I tanks were used to outfit the Brigada Blidada, which would be later reformed into Spain's first Tank Division.

Unfortunately after all the initial production runs were completed in December 1925 and a whole brigade outfited, the dictator appeared to have lost interest in tanks and ordered the Tank works in Valencia closed, the equipment would mothball until 1937 where they would once again be reopened and greatly expanded.

(More to come later)

[DuQuense]

Unfortunately after all the initial production runs were completed in December 1925 and a whole brigade outfited, the dictator appeared to have lost interest in tanks and ordered the Tank works in Valencia closed,

?What Dictator?

[CCA]

Originally Posted by DuQuense

?What Dictator?

Why General Primo de Rivera, of course.

Although to be honest, it's probably my fault. I wasnt clear enough.

[Tony Williams]

I don't know about "improved suspension": AFAIK the FT-17 had no suspension, so to fit any would have required a major redesign and almost certainly a bigger hull. And that tiny one-man turret was cramped as it was, without trying to cram an MG and a cannon in it. And the cannon was too small to be of much use anyway...

[CCA]

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

I don't know about "improved suspension": AFAIK the FT-17 had no suspension, so to fit any would have required a major redesign and almost certainly a bigger hull. And that tiny one-man turret was cramped as it was, without trying to cram an MG and a cannon in it. And the cannon was too small to be of much use anyway...

Well apparently the soviets managed that with the T-18 tank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-18_tank

[Tony Williams]

Fair enough - but you'll note that the result was categorised as "essentially unsuccessful".

[CCA]

An Operational History of the FAT-The Battle of Madrid.
Although the FAT-I was not a technically excellent tank, it still played a major role in determining the outcome of the Spanish Civil War. The Brigada Blindada was a contributing factor in the suppression of the Madrid Uprising in July 1936, although some historians have argued that the Nationalist cause was doomed from the onset due to the speed at which the Government armed worker's and formed local militia's.

The Battle of Madrid was the proving ground of the FAT-Ic. It performed admirably, althought it's suspectability to anti-tank rifle were duly noted. The FAT-Ic was also proven to be vulnerable to petrol bombs which the Nationalist troops improvized as an anti-tank weapon. The vulnerability of the FAT-Ic was exarcebated by the cramped conditions of urban warfare with many hiding places for infantry. Another weakness of the FAT-I, the overburdening of the Commander who had to play 4 roles- Commander, Gunner, Machine-gunner and loader. However, overall, the Battle of Madrid showed the importance of Tanks.

The Brigada Blindada suffered a number of casualties in the 3 day long Battle of Madrid with 6 FAT-Ia, 3 FAT-Ib and 9 FAT-Ic tanks being destroyed or disabled.

[Michele]

This assumes the tank unit stays loyal to the Government. Chances are they go over to the Nationalists.

In any case, in OTL there were two FT-17 regiments in the Spanish army. They should have had some 45 FT-17s apiece. But these were ancient heaps of rusty scrap metal, not tanks any more; maybe 5 per regiment were still mobile in 1936, and they all broke down within days.
In your ATL, these FATs are just slightly younger (produced circa 1923 – that's ages for any engine with the technology available at the time), have been mothballed for a decade, and drivers in 1936 have little training, if any. I don't see them as a war-winning weapon, even assuming they don't side with the Nationalists.

[CCA]

Originally Posted by Michele

This assumes the tank unit stays loyal to the Government. Chances are they go over to the Nationalists.

In any case, in OTL there were two FT-17 regiments in the Spanish army. They should have had some 45 FT-17s apiece. But these were ancient heaps of rusty scrap metal, not tanks any more; maybe 5 per regiment were still mobile in 1936, and they all broke down within days.
In your ATL, these FATs are just slightly younger (produced circa 1923 – that's ages for any engine with the technology available at the time), have been mothballed for a decade, and drivers in 1936 have little training, if any. I don't see them as a war-winning weapon, even assuming they don't side with the Nationalists.

Thank you for your thoughts.

But wouldn't the presence of an entire brigade of some 100 tanks outside the Presidential palace place obstacles in the path of a quick efficient putsch? The effect of stalling the attempted putsch and winning a crucial battle so early by a previously untested arm of an armed forces may make the Brigada Blindada the war winning force above and beyond their actual combat contribution

Plus as a relatively "progressive" service, chances are, the Tankists stay loyal to the government as virtually the entire airforce did in the real civil war.

Thanks for the information about the FT-17's, I could use that in the next update.

Many thanks,
CCA

[Michele]

Originally Posted by CCA

Thank you for your thoughts.

But wouldn't the presence of an entire brigade of some 100 tanks outside the Presidential palace place obstacles in the path of a quick efficient putsch?

What I am telling you is that maybe 10 can move out of their barracks. The rest are unserviceable junk heaps. And even those 10 will sputter to a halt, or be driven by untrained drivers into walls, or throw treads and be badly repaired by untrained mechanics, within the first few days.

Plus as a relatively "progressive" service, chances are, the Tankists stay loyal to the government as virtually the entire airforce did in the real civil war.

It is not a separate service, like navy and army. It's an arm of the army. And there were army barracks in Madrid going pro-coup in OTL.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Michele

This assumes the tank unit stays loyal to the Government. Chances are they go over to the Nationalists.

In any case, in OTL there were two FT-17 regiments in the Spanish army. They should have had some 45 FT-17s apiece. But these were ancient heaps of rusty scrap metal, not tanks any more; maybe 5 per regiment were still mobile in 1936, and they all broke down within days.
In your ATL, these FATs are just slightly younger (produced circa 1923 – that's ages for any engine with the technology available at the time), have been mothballed for a decade, and drivers in 1936 have little training, if any. I don't see them as a war-winning weapon, even assuming they don't side with the Nationalists.

If they had been mothballed for that long they would be lucky to have 10 start. For reasons I have never understood, mice LOVED to eat the insulation from wiring of the period.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by CalBear

If they had been mothballed for that long they would be lucky to have 10 start.

Yes.

[/quote]
For reasons I have never understood, mice LOVED to eat the insulation from wiring of the period.[/quote]

Mmm... because it wasn't plastic? Some significant organic basis in the material? Salty and therefore savory?

[CCA]

Originally Posted by Michele

What I am telling you is that maybe 10 can move out of their barracks. The rest are unserviceable junk heaps. And even those 10 will sputter to a halt, or be driven by untrained drivers into walls, or throw treads and be badly repaired by untrained mechanics, within the first few days.



It is not a separate service, like navy and army. It's an arm of the army. And there were army barracks in Madrid going pro-coup in OTL.

That's a valid point. Hmm, it seems that I'll have to do something of a complete re-write, Thanks for the info.

So basically we can't have Primo de Rivera lose interest and decide to mothball the service because they'll end up not running? And further more, there needs to be some sort of support infrastructure in place for a nation to plausibly run tanks?

Thanks.,
CCA