The invention of the tank in the First World War evolved from the idea of a vehicle that
could break through enemy lines, using its armour to deflect enemy fire whilst carrying
weapons that could overwhelm the enemy forces.
Early vehicles were designed as casemates, with the British Mark I-V having two sponsons
containing either machineguns or cannons with limited degrees of traverse.
While these tanks were effective, an even more ingenious design originated out of France:
the incorporation of a turret that could fully rotate, giving the gunner a 360 degree view
around the vehicle.
Soon after, the incorporation of a turret would become a feature of nearly every tank
design throughout the 20s and 30s.
However, what if just one turret is not enough?
This was the question of tank designers of many nations in the West following WWI.
The first prominent design was the French Char 2C, which was designed in WWI and was
equipped with two turrets - one in the front armed with a 75mm gun, and one in the rear
armed with an 8mm machinegun.
The next major design would come out of Britain, and this vehicle would become the basis of
many multiturreted designs in the future.
The Vickers A1E1 Independent was a heavy tank design commissioned in 1922, with its multiturreted
design winning favour with the British General Staff, and the prototype being delivered in
1926.
The massive design saw one large central turret armed with a 47mm 3 pounder cannon, but unlike
the Char 2C, had an interesting layout for its machineguns.
Instead of one or two turrets, the A1E1 had four machinegun turrets placed around the
primary in a layout that gave a 360 degree area of protection.
The rear MG turrets could even face forward, and the left rear turret was designed with
the ability to be used against aircraft.
The Independent represented everything wanted in a landship: firepower, defence against
infantry and enough armour (at the time) to break through enemy lines.
This is likely why the plans of the Independent were so largely sought after by foreign nations,
specifically Germany and the Soviet Union.
The exploits of these documents by the latter nation are the subject of today’s video.
This video has been sponsored by the Tank Encyclopedia magazine.
Obviously if you’re watching this video you have an interest in tanks and tank history.
If you want to get even more information in an easy to read monthly release you can do
so for only 5 USD a month on Payhip and Amazon.
I’ll leave links to both options down below although I recommend looking at Payhip first
as there are even cheaper options available there.
I use the tank encyclopedia very often when researching my videos so I’m thrilled to
have them as a sponsor and I hope you all give their magazine a chance.
Now let's talk about a wacky russian design.
The origins of the SMK and T100 come out of a different tank project, one that many of
you may be familiar with - the T35.
The T35 was a result of the Red Army’s interest in multiturreted heavy tanks, and was heavily
inspired by the Independent.
It was even larger than the Independent, being 9.72 meters long (31 ft) and 45 tons.
The major difference was that the Russians took the “firepower” requirement to a
new level: the main turret housed a 76mm gun, while two secondary turrets were armed with
45mm guns similar to that on the BT-5 and T26 and two other turrets were armed with
machineguns.
It also had up to 30mm of armour, which was respectable for the early 1930s.
While the T35 seemed like a monster, the only benefits it gave the Soviets were its ability
to be a good propaganda vehicle for parades and videos.
The tank was very slow, and by the 1930s it was apparent that they were no longer suitable
for battle.
This is where General Dmitry Pavlov steps in.
In 1937, Pavlov passed an order named Resolution 94SS which saw a review of the Red Army’s
stocks of vehicles.
This included the T-35s, which were identified as being obsolete and therefore a replacement
was ordered to be developed by KhPZ 183, a factory which was busy designing what would
become the T-34.
The problem with this was that the factory was unable to develop two tanks at the same
time, and so the project was also given to Factory 185.
Eventually, another factory named Kirov Works was added on to the project and in true Soviet
fashion the T-35 replacement project became convoluted with three companies working on
the exact same thing but with different ideas.
In 1939, only two designs survived - Factory 185’s T-100 and Kirov Works’ SMK, named
after Sergey Mironovich Kirov.
Both looked very similar to each other, but let’s start with Kirov Works’ SMK.
The original plans for the SMK were significantly different from the tank we know today, as
it was going to have three turrets and apparently an octagonal chassis.
This design did not get far, and was soon changed to a “normal” design similar to
that which was developed.
The prototype presented in Moscow in 1938 was one that had three turrets and an 850
horsepower diesel engine.
It is not confirmed what the third turret was armed with, but it can be assumed that
it would have had another 45mm gun facing the rear of the tank.
The prototype was approved, but with the requirement that the third turret be removed.
This requirement actually helped the tank, as it was able to take the weight used by
the third turret to raise the frontal armour to 70mm.
An interesting design feature of the tank was that it had three compartments, the forward
and central fighting compartments and the engine compartment.
The forward and central fighting compartments would be where the crew of seven would be
scattered about, either being assigned to the 76mm main gun and its rear facing machinegun,
the 45mm secondary turret or the driver’s area.
The sides of the tank were 60mm thick, while the roof was 20mm.
This version of the tank was produced in 1939, but according to multiple sources Kirov Works
already knew that it was not an effective design and began work on a version that only
had one turret - it would later be known as the KV1.
The T-100 is a tank with not many sources, but it is very similar to the SMK in design
and history.
It is essentially the same as the SMK, with its original design consisting of three turrets
in a very large tank.
It was also approved with the requirement for the third turret to be removed, and its
prototype produced in 1939 looked strikingly similar to the SMK although the hull and turrets
bore a different shape
So now that the prototypes were ready, how did they fare in tests?
When sent to Kubinka in 1939, it was found that neither the T-100 or SMK handled themselves
well on the testing grounds.
The SMK performed slightly better than the T-100, being able to climb out of a 37 degree
ditch and also travel at 35.5 km/h (22 mph).
The main problem that the SMK found was exactly what it was designed to fix when replacing
the T35 - transmission failures.
While the two tanks effectively failed in the Kubinka Trials, what would be better than
testing them in an isolated test track?
Throwing them into a war, of course!
1939 was also the year in which the Soviet Union invaded Finland, with the war starting
in November of that year.
The 20th Heavy Tank Brigade was assigned the SMK, T100 and the KV-1 prototype, with the
task of attacking the Finnish Mannerheim Line and its various forts.
The tanks were tagged with infantry units to provide cover against the fortifications,
and according to AP Kunitsyn was given the “most difficult sector” to attack.
This first attack was a failure, and required the SMK and T-100 to retreat.
Kunitsyn was also a crewmember of the SMK, and stated that his tank was never penetrated
by enemy fire even though it “received a dozen and a half slug hits from the bunker.”
If the crews of the two prototypes thought the first battle was rough, then the next
day was going to give them and their tanks a run for their money.
The SMK may have been lucky before, but during this attack it became the focus point of Finnish
fire.
Over 12 hits were scored by 37mm anti tank guns, but none of these shots were able to
disable the vehicle.
It fired back, but it is not known what it hit nor if it was effective.
The crew would face a major problem when one 37mm shell was successful in disabling the
main turret - restricting the tank to only its 45mm gun.
If this was not bad enough, while the tank was driving it hit a Finnish mine that disabled
its left track and completely destroyed the track and the torsion bars in its suspension.
Apparently the explosion was even able to damage the transmission, effectively disabling
the machine.
This left the T-100 as the only remaining multiturreted behemoth in the fight.
The T-100 crewman along with a T-28 did their best to cover the SMK from enemy fire with
another 4 T-28s advancing to take up positions with some cover.
Attempts were made to repair or to pull it from its position using the T-100 but the
damage was too severe and the ground too icy to allow a solid grip.
The decision was eventually made to abandon the tank and retreat with the full crew of
the SMK moving into the T-100 resulting in it being overloaded with a total of 15 crew
members.
This resulted in medals and other awards for the crew however Pavlov was distressed by
the loss of the experimental vehicle.
I can’t exactly blame him either because the last thing I’d want to tell Stalin is
that I lost his brand new tank to the Finns.
By personal order of Pavlov a force made up by members of the 167th Motorized Rifle Battalion
and the 37th Sapper Company reinforced with 7 T-28s were sent in to protect the lost machine.
They managed to punch around 100 to 150 meters into the Finnish defenses before being hit
by machine gun fire and heavy artillery.
After 47 men were killed or wounded they retreated back to their starting position with the mission
unsuccessful.
The SMK would remain in its position until the end of February 1940 when a breakthrough
was made in the Mannerheim line allowing Soviet forces to finally recover it.
The task took 6 T-28s to tow the knocked out vehicle to the Perk-Yarvi railway station.
From there it was partially disassembled before being shipped back to the Kirov factory.
Supposedly orders were given to repair the tank after its arrival for shipment to Kubinka
but whether due to material shortages or otherwise this was never done.
The tank remained in storage at the factory until sometime in the 50s when it was scrapped.
The T-100 would see a better end, with it being converted into the SU-100Y self-propelled
gun - armed with a 130mm destroyer cannon and used to defend Moscow in 1941.
The SU-100Y still exists to this day in Kubinka.
The performance of the SMK and T-100s in Finland would essentially kill the idea of multiturreted
tanks for the Red Army, a lesson that would be learned by nearly every combatant in World
War II.
However, there was one prototype that survived Finland and would go on into history as a
successful heavy tank design - the Kirov Works’ second project, the KV1.
The KV1 showed that the SMK’s hull was of sound design, but the incorporation of multiple
turrets was problematic in the heat of battle.
As with many multiturreted tanks, the sheer amount of crew and the fact they were split
between turrets caused a problem with communication and fighting capability.
The tanks may have had more guns, but they were not useful if the crew operating them
could not cooperate.
The KV design did not have this problem, as there was only one turret that allowed the
turret crew to work together in engaging targets.
Approved by Stalin, the KV series would go on to be involved in the defense of the USSR
- with the prototype that served in Finland being captured by the Germans in 1941.
While the idea of a heavy tank with thick armour and multiple turrets to engage multiple
targets may seem intriguing on paper, these designs generally proved to be ineffective
on a modern battlefield.
This was especially the case in the Red Army, with the T-35, SMK, and T100 proving to be
unable to handle themselves in battle while being a massive target for enemy fire.
The SMK would live a short and failed career, while the T-100 would only live on in the
form of a massive self-propelled gun.
Neither would find themselves inspiring future designs, with the Red Army quickly moving
on towards tanks such as the T-34 and eventually the IS series.
The SMK and T100 may have been cursed by their design, but that does not mean we cant look
back and enjoy the idea of such behemoths and learn from their mistakes.
If you enjoyed this video please be sure to show it by liking it and subscribing to the
channel.
Huge thanks as always to my ConelyFans who help to make this content possible through
their support as well as Lordcaptainteapot for his research which went into creating
this video.
If you want to check out another even worse failure caused by a lack of communication
check out my video on Operation wikinger which was by far one of germany's worst military
disasters of the second world war.
I’ll see you there.