#bogie springs manufacturer

[bogiesprings]

Bogie Springs

Sonico Bogie multi spring assemblies are set up with hydraulic shearing , short taper rolling, spm drilling and other top-class manufacturing facilities. For more information please visit us : https://www.sonicoleafsprings.com/bogie-springs.html . #Bogiesprings #BogiespringsManufacturer #Sonicoleafsprings .

[anumberofhobbies]

Additional smells: A lot of times rain wetted gravel, the ballast, and wetted concrete platform will have unique fragrances. Another fragrance, if the track uses wooden crossties/sleepers, those get pressure-treated with preservatives during manufacture, creosote is common here in the US. The warmer the day day and, or, the newer the ties, the more intense the smell. Concrete or composite crossties/sleepers will not smell like that preservative.

Sometimes, after a train has stopped at the station the train's brakes can have a smell depending on brake type and brake shoe material. Hearing:

Wheeled luggage rolling along tile floors and concrete platforms can make identifiable sounds. On those freight trains, sometimes the brakes on the freight cars/wagons can stick and cause the steel rail to file a tiny flat spot on one or more of the steel wheelsets which will go thump-thump-thump-thump with a hint of bell ring in the sound as the train goes along. (freight car wheels are generally not individual like car wheels/tires, they come as a pair of solid steel wheels solidly attached to a steel axle, making what is called a wheelset) Also, those solid steel disc wheels can sometimes give a ringing component to the rolling rushing sound as a fast freight train passes by. And those brakes make sounds as passenger trains stop. I don't know what's available outside the US but for it there is a live feed YouTube channel named Virtual Railfan which among its camera locations has passenger stations. There is a rural Amtrak station in northeastern Missouri which gets 2 Amtrak stops per day and multiple freight trains with the cameras being well placed for catching most of the train sounds. Of course other cameras can do likewise, it is just that I know of that one since I live in the state. Here's VR's YT home page, https://www.youtube.com/@VirtualRailfan Also, springs in the draft gear/couplings and in the trucks/bogies can squeak periodically as the train goes along. Empty hopper cars have an echo-y component to their general rumble which loaded hopper cars do not. Diesel locomotives (usually diesel-electric with a diesel generator creating AC or DC to drive electric motors on each axle; there are also diesel locomotives having hydraulic transmissions) when pulling away from a stop will usually have the diesel motor, & its turbocharger if fitted, increase in volume and power a moment before the train actually starts moving. And sometimes relays or something in the electric transmission can be heard acting as the train accelerates from the stop. This is usually heard externally only by people near the locomotive, you probably will not be hearing that in the station coffee shop. Electric: Electric locomotives or railcars will naturally sound different from diesel locomotives or diesel railcars. Often, cooling blowers for the high voltage internal equipment are a dominant external sound. Sometimes there is an audible sound made by the electric collector as it slides along overhead wires or third rail. Sometimes there are visible sparks at intervals too. Touch: That rush of wind when a train goes by at speed can relieve you of your hat and even glasses if you are too close to the track. And it doesn't take a bullet train to do that, freight trains moving at Interstate highway speeds have done that at least once or twice during the history of railways.

How to create an atmosphere: Train Station

Sight

people patiently waiting for their trains, lost in their phones

passengers running down the platform to catch their train

someone struggling with all their baggage

small children running around

people waiting for their loved ones

a sad, but sweet goodbye

an excited and happy hello

people drinking and eating on the platform, waiting for their trains to arrive

people getting confused at the ticket vending machines

passengers waiting in line at the service desk to complain or to find a new route

people routinely checking the time and arrival of their delayed trains

Hearing

passenger trains arriving and leaving the station

the beeping of the doors opening and closing

the whistling of the conductor when the train is about to leave

a freight train speeding through the station, making it impossible to hear anything else at all

announcements of trains arriving, being late or being redirected to another platform

announcements about being careful to not let their baggage unsupervised and to only smoke in designated areas

pigeons flying around

passengers running down the platform, screaming for the train to wait for them

Touch

the stickiness of the floor

the gush of wind when a train drives through

Smell

that specific smell of every train station, that can't be pinpointed

the smell of fresh pastry from the bakeries inside the station

the smell of fast food and old oil

the smell of pigeons living inside the train station

that specific smell of train tunnels

the smell of cigarette smoke coming from the designated smoking area

Taste

stale air on the roofed platform

overpriced coffee or tea to go

sweet kiss goodbye

If you like my blog and want to support me, you can buy me a coffee or become a member! And check out my Instagram! 🥰

[systemsandcontrols]

Guide To choose the Right Tensile/Compression Strength Testing Machine

Despite the fact that Tensile/Compression strength testing machines are and utilized pretty much in every industry there is still absence of information with regards to buying the right machine. Given the scope of items, the features and the variations in cost getting one can be a bit overwhelming and this becomes especially true for non -standard applications.

One of the inquiries we get posed to by our clients is whether to pick a manually operated machine or motorized one and if motorized is chosen, would it be a good idea for us we pick a machine with Computer Control and inclusive of data acquisition. So, we should check out at this according to a point of view of a spring manufacturer.

There are two elements which go with this choice simpler. The first and most clear one is the price. Manually operated machines are less expensive obviously, then motorized lastly computerized. In any case, in the event that you are taking a heavier spring which are utilized in train bogies or airplanes, then, at that point, motorized ones must be utilized no matter what the budget. Imaging putting a pressure power of 5000 kg on a spring, (for example, the ones utilized under the train bogies) with a hand wheel. Indeed, even with utilization of a geared 3 train it's diligent effort.

Whenever that is chosen, the other element which is significant is the volume of testing. A spring manufacturer can let out a huge number of springs a day. The question then is whether to do batch testing or 100% testing. Batch testing is where you pick a couple of tests from the batch, test them and assuming all are good you say that the entire batch is good. In such cases a manual machine would be satisfactory. However, if one wants to test several thousand springs a day it's smarter to go for a motorized machine and reduce the burden of manual labour on the machine operator.

So, we decided on a manual or motorized machine. Subsequent stage in the development is whether to get a computer-controlled machine. These are machines operated straightforwardly from the computer and give the testing output as a force versus displacement chart. This imagines the way of behaving of the spring constantly. Regularly these software’s also provide a statistical report for all the tests, so min, max, standard deviation etc. and so forth. Are accessible as reports. Any large organizations where the report should be imparted to the higher ups who just need an outline of the production quality, these machines are a good decision. Any new product requiring data for approval must be tested on such machines. In many cases the client request that the manufacturer present the report online or in pdf format to avoid any possibility of manipulation. The best way to avoid from this is to utilize a computerized machine.

In specific cases the product you manufacture dictates the type of machine, there are ASTM, IS norms which settle on the decision for you. Be that as it may, for situations where it’s a non-standard product, we trust this article assists you with choosing what's best for you.

[leafsprings]

Leaf spring Manufacturer

Sonico Leaf Spring product range includes parabolic, conventional, bogie, trailer springs and much more. It caters to unique customer requirements . For more information about Leaf springs please visit us : https://www.sonicoleafsprings.com/leaf-springs.html . ＃LeafSpring ＃LeafSpringManufacturer ＃LeafSpringExporter ＃Sonicoleafsprings .

[sujanindustries]

Elevating Railway Infrastructure: Sujan Industries - Premier Railway Parts Manufacturers in India

In the expansive realm of India's railway industry, Sujan Industries emerges as a beacon of innovation and excellence, securing its position as one of the leading railway parts manufacturers in India. This article delves into the significant contributions and exclusive offerings of Sujan Industries, emphasizing their commitment to quality, innovation, and the advancement of India's railway infrastructure.

Unveiling the Expertise:

Sujan Industries has established itself as a trailblazer in crafting high-quality railway parts, contributing significantly to the efficiency, safety, and reliability of the nation's railway network. Renowned as one of the premier railway parts manufacturers in India, Sujan Industries stands out for its unwavering commitment to excellence and its continuous pursuit of innovative solutions.

Exclusive Railcar Components:

Central to Sujan Industries' offerings are their exclusive railcar components, designed with precision to meet the stringent standards of the railway industry. From essential bogie components to intricate brake system parts, Sujan Industries provides a comprehensive range that plays a vital role in ensuring the seamless operation of railcars. Their contribution is instrumental in enhancing the overall reliability of the railway network.

Rubber Springs for Enhanced Performance:

Recognizing the significance of shock absorption and stability in railway operations, Sujan Industries offers a line of top-notch rubber springs. Engineered to absorb vibrations and shocks, these springs enhance ride comfort for passengers and minimize wear and tear on railway infrastructure. Sujan Industries' rubber springs contribute to a smoother and more efficient railway journey, reinforcing their position as premier railway parts manufacturers in India.

Innovative Rubber Pads:

Sujan Industries further distinguishes itself with its innovative rubber pads, playing a crucial role in reducing noise and vibrations in railway operations. Precision-designed and crafted with high-quality materials, these rubber pads enhance safety and comfort in railway travel. The incorporation of Sujan Industries' rubber pads contributes to a quieter and more environmentally friendly railway environment.

Quality Assurance:

Quality assurance is a cornerstone of Sujan Industries' manufacturing process. Committed to delivering products of the highest caliber, the company adheres to stringent quality control measures at every stage of production. Rigorous testing ensures that every railway part meets or exceeds industry standards, solidifying Sujan Industries' reputation as premier railway parts manufacturers in India.

Environmental Sustainability:

In addition to their focus on quality, Sujan Industries is dedicated to environmental sustainability. Mindful material selection ensures that their railway components align with ecological best practices. By prioritizing sustainability, Sujan Industries contributes to a greener and more environmentally friendly future for India's railway industry.

Customer-Centric Approach:

Sujan Industries differentiates itself through a customer-centric approach, actively engaging with clients to understand their specific needs and challenges. This personalized interaction allows Sujan Industries to provide tailor-made solutions that address unique requirements. This commitment to customer satisfaction not only garners client loyalty but also solidifies Sujan Industries' reputation for reliability and integrity as premier railway parts manufacturers in India.

Conclusion:

In the ever-evolving landscape of Indian railways, Sujan Industries stands tall as a trailblazer, driving innovation and setting new standards of excellence. As a premier railway parts manufacturer in India, their exclusive railcar components, rubber springs, and rubber pads are pivotal in advancing the efficiency, safety, and sustainability of the nation's railway infrastructure. Sujan Industries' impact extends beyond the industry, influencing the experiences of passengers and contributing to the overall progress of India's railway sector.

[conventionalleafspring]

Conventional Leaf Springs: The Basics and Their Role in Automotive Suspension

When it comes to automotive suspension systems, one of the most common components used is the conventional leaf spring. These springs have been used for decades in a variety of vehicles, from trucks to sedans, and are known for their durability and ability to handle heavy loads. In this article, we will discuss the basics of conventional leaf springs and their role in automotive suspension.

What are Conventional Leaf Springs?

Conventional leaf springs are a type of suspension system that uses layers of curved metal strips, or leaves, to absorb and distribute the weight of a vehicle. These metal strips are typically made of steel, and are curved into a specific shape to provide the desired level of support and flexibility.

The number of leaves in a spring can vary, depending on the weight and load capacity of the vehicle. Lighter vehicles may have fewer leaves, while heavy-duty trucks may have several layers of leaves to handle heavy loads.

How do Conventional Leaf Springs Work?

When a vehicle with conventional leaf spring travels over a bump or uneven surface, the weight of the vehicle is transferred to the springs. The leaves of the spring compress, absorbing the shock of the bump and distributing the weight evenly across the entire length of the spring.

As the vehicle moves forward, the compressed leaves expand and return to their original shape, providing a smooth ride for the driver and passengers. The stiffness of the spring can be adjusted by adding or removing leaves, or by adjusting the curvature of the leaves.

Advantages of Conventional Leaf Springs

Durability

Conventional leaf springs are known for their durability and ability to handle heavy loads. They are able to withstand the stress of constant weight and movement, making them ideal for use in commercial and heavy-duty vehicles.

Cost-effective

Compared to other types of suspension systems, conventional leaf springs are relatively inexpensive to manufacture and repair. This makes them an affordable option for many vehicles, especially those used for commercial purposes.

Simplicity                                                                                                

Conventional leaf springs are simple in design and construction, making them easy to install and maintain. They do not require complex hydraulic or pneumatic systems, and can be repaired with basic tools and equipment.

Disadvantages of Conventional Leaf Springs

Rough Ride

Due to their stiffness and lack of adjustability, conventional leaf springs can provide a rougher ride compared to other types of suspension systems, such as air or coil springs.

Limited Adjustability

Conventional leaf springs have limited adjustability, which can make it difficult to fine-tune the suspension system for different road conditions and vehicle loads.

Weight

Conventional leaf springs are heavier compared to other types of suspension systems, which can affect the overall weight and handling of the vehicle.

Conclusion

Conventional leaf springs have been used in automotive suspension systems for decades, and are known for their durability, cost-effectiveness, and simplicity. While they may provide a rougher ride compared to other suspension systems, their ability to handle heavy loads and withstand constant stress makes them ideal for use in commercial and heavy-duty vehicles. By understanding the basics of conventional leaf springs, drivers and mechanics can make informed decisions about the suspension systems in their vehicles.

SONICO has positioned itself as one of the leading manufacturers of conventional, parabolic and bogie leaf springs in India’s Automobile Industry.

[tuskerhv]

Cargo and Curtain – Flat Bed, Low bed, Skeleton Semi Trailer

We are a Manufacturer, exporter, and supplier of Cargo and Curtain, Flat Bed, Low beds, and Skeleton Semi Trailers in Sharjah, Dubai, UAE.

FLAT BED SEMI TRAILER • Capacity: 30-60 ton • Material: Mild Steel S275JR or S355JR, Hot Rolled and Fabricated Components. • Optional Light Weight Hardox/Strenx Material • Chequered plate/ Wooden floor options • Options of Pipe grills / Channel Support/ corrugated panels / drop side panels • Bogie/ V.B. axles with heavy duty suspension, with optional Lift Axles • Landing Legs standard available in manual. Optional Electric Legs available. • Heavy Duty Disc Rims or Trilex as per client option • Options of EBS/ABS brake systems. • Heavy Duty Kingpin • Optional provision for Clip-On Generator. • High Quality 3 Layer External Epoxy Paint System, in single color of client’s choice • LED Side-Marker and Brake Lights, with flexi-holders • Options of Spare Tire Carrier, Toolbox, Fire-Extinguisher & Cool Box • Oil-Field Spec available

SKELETON SEMI TRAILER • Capacity: 30-60 ton • Main Frame/Chassis made of hot rolled / Fabricated I Beams, Material - Mild Steel • Mild Steel welded construction • Tandem/ Tridem axles with heavy duty suspension • High Quality External Epoxy Paint System, in single color of client’s choice • Available in Goose-neck, Extendable and standard format • Skeleton Trailer Manufacturers

CARGO AND CURTAIN TRAILERS • Capacity: 35 ton • Front panel - fixed headboard with steel section frame • Rear panel - double wing rear doors with container type locking mechanism • Sliding type curtain of European origin • Heavy Duty Landing Legs and Kingpin • High Quality External Epoxy Paint System, in single color of client’s choice

LOWBED SEMI TRAILERS • Capacity: 30-100 ton • Heavy Duty Hot Rolled Chassis made of Mild Steel • Mild Steel welded construction • Tandem/ Tridem axles with heavy duty suspension • Chequered plate/ Wooden floor • Front (Kneel Down) and rear loading Options • Hydraulic/ spring assisted loading ramps at rear – full width/ foldable (optional) • High Quality External Epoxy Paint System, in single color of client’s choice

For more, click here

CONTACT US

Tusker Engineering FZC Hamriya Free Zone, Phase-2, P.O.Box 51538, Sharjah, UAE Call: +971 6526 9282 Mail: sales@tusker.ae / info@tusker.ae Website: www.tuskerchv.com

[collinthenychudson]

Day 11: UAC TurboTrain

Info from Wikipedia

The UAC TurboTrain was an early high-speed, gas turbine train manufactured by United Aircraft that operated in Canada between 1968 and 1982 and in the United States between 1968 and 1976. Amtrak disposed of the trains in 1980. It was one of the first gas turbine powered trains to enter service for passenger traffic, and was also one of the first tilting trains to enter service in North America.

A series of design studies carried out by Chesapeake and Ohio Railway in the 1950s used the second-generation Talgo design for their car suspensions. The suspension arms for each neighboring pair of cars were attached to a common bogie ("truck") between them, as opposed to having a pair of separate bogies for each car. The bogies rode the common curve between the two cars, centered by traction springs that centered the axle between adjoining car bodies. TurboTrain cars are 2.5 feet (76 cm) lower than conventional cars, to lower the center of gravity in relation to the swinging point at the top of the arms. The arms included air springs to smooth out the motion, although it still felt "odd" while the train navigated short turns in switchyards and stations.

Like the earlier articulated trains, this meant that train lengths would be difficult to change. Their solution to this problem was to modify the power cars (engines) to allow the trains to be coupled end-to-end. Since articulated trains required "special" cars at either end anyway (to fill in the otherwise missing bogie), the C&O was double-ended, with a power car at each end. The power cars were organized with their two diesel engines on either side of the train, and the operators cabin in a "pod" on top. This left enough room for a passageway to run between the engines and under the pod to the nose of the car, where a coupling and doors were hidden behind a pair of movable clamshell covers. That way the train could be attached front-to-end with another, providing some of the flexibility in train lengths that coupled cars offered, while still being as lightweight as a normal articulated design. 

C&O's early work went undeveloped until the 1960s. At that time two major forces began operating that would re-invent the concept as the TurboTrain; one was the US Department of Transportation's desire to update train service in the US as a result of the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, the other was CN Rail's desire to update their passenger service with the ending of "pooled service" (with CP Rail) between Toronto and Montreal. United Aircraft (UAC) purchased the C&O patents to enter into the DOT's Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project. The TurboTrain was designed by personnel of the Corporate Systems Center Division (CSC) of UAC, at Farmington, Connecticut. The design was similar to the original C&O version, but modified to use turbine power instead of diesel. The chosen engines were a modified version of the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 (also a UAC division) known as the ST6, downrated from 600 to 300 hp (447 to 224 kW). The PT6 uses a "free turbine" that acts as a torque coupler, so the new design did not require a transmission and was able to drive the powered wheels directly. The power cars had three engine bays on either side of the car and could mount engines in pairs for two to six turbines, depending on the needs of the carrier. Another ST6 drove an alternator to provide 'hotel' electrical power for the train. Each power car had a fuel capacity of 5,774 litres; 1,525 US gallons (1,270 imp gal).

The turbine engines were smaller and lighter (300 pounds or 136 kilograms with accessories) than the diesels they replaced, so the original power cars ended up being much larger than needed. Instead of a major redesign, UAC re-arranged the interior of the existing layout. The control room "pod" on top was lengthened to produce a viewing area with seating, and additional seating was added along the main level as well. This produced the Power Dome Cars (PDC) that were 73 feet 3 inches (22.33 m) long (tip of nose to trailing articulated axle, while the Intermediate Cars (IC) were 56 feet 10 inches (17.32 m) long (axle to axle), considerably shorter than the 85 feet (25.91 m)-long conventional passenger cars of this period.

The ability to connect trains together remained largely unchanged, although the routing of the internal passage changed slightly to rise up into the observation area of the pod, then back down under the control room and from there to the nose. This particular design, with the control cabs on top and couplers hidden behind doorways on the front, is similar to that of the NS Intercity Materiel used in the Netherlands.

The Turbotrains were evaluated by multiple journalists in the Canadian press as having "rail noise that substantially exceeds that of standard equipment" and having poor riding characteristics, especially on curves, with one journalist stating that "the single-axle articulation in practice negotiates curves in a series of short jerks rather than the smooth flowing motion promised in press releases". The single-axle bogies on the Turbotrain were very mechanically complex and the suspension arms were "telescopic arms which were in essence ball-bearing screw actuators; the suspension of the inside-bearing powered bogies was "especially complex" and attached to the turbines via "an intricate web of mechanical couplings and shafts".

Two Turbotrains (DOT1 and DOT2) were built at the Pullman Works in Chicago. High-speed testing of the trains was performed from a base at Fields Point in Providence, Rhode Island, using track between Route 128 near Boston and Westerly, Rhode Island (track segments along this section, to this day, are the only areas where Amtrak operates Acela revenue service at 150 mph). After its construction at the Pullman yards in Chicago, the Turbotrain was sent eastward on August 1, 1967, at regular speed and without passengers, to Providence, Rhode Island in order for UAC Aircraft Systems engineers to tear it down, study it for further development, and then eventual high-speed testing on the PRR's specially-rebuilt track between Trenton and New Brunswick, New Jersey. 

In a competition with a GE powered Metroliner on Penn Central's main-line between Trenton and New Brunswick, New Jersey on December 20, 1967, one of the TurboTrains reached 170.8 mph (274.9 km/h). This remains the world speed record for gas turbine-powered rail vehicles.

On January 1, 1968, the TurboTrain program was transferred from CSC to Sikorsky Aircraft Division (SA) of UAC. The United States Department of Transportation leased both trainsets and contracted with the New Haven Railroad to operate them. The New Haven had been in bankruptcy since July 2, 1961; on January 1, 1969, it was absorbed into the Penn Central Railroad, which inherited the contract. On April 8, 1969, Penn Central placed the equipment in service on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and New York City. The three-car sets carried 144 people and operated at a maximum speed of 100 miles per hour (160 km/h). The TurboTrains were equipped with third rail shoes for operation into Grand Central Terminal. In their first year of operation the trains' on-time performance approached 90 percent. They covered the 230 miles (370 km) in three hours and 39 minutes.

After railroad bankruptcies and amid threats of more, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) took over passenger service for most U.S. railroads, including the Penn Central, on May 1, 1971. Amtrak continued Turbotrain service between Boston and New York, switching to Pennsylvania Station as its New York terminal. It also briefly ran Turbotrains elsewhere. Some service was from Washington, DC through West Virginia and Ohio to Chicago. In September 1976, Amtrak ceased revenue runs of Turbotrain trainsets and moved them to the Field's Point Maintenance Yard in Providence, Rhode Island pending any possible sales to CN. An additional attempt was made to sell the units to the Illinois Central, but the poor mechanical condition of the trainsets caused the deal to fall through.

In May 1966, Canadian National Railways ordered five seven-car TurboTrains for the Montreal-Toronto service. They planned to operate the trains in tandem, connecting two trains together into a larger fourteen-car arrangement with a total capacity of 644 passengers. The Canadian trains were built by Montreal Locomotive Works, with their ST6 engines supplied by UAC's Canadian division (now Pratt & Whitney Canada) in Longueuil, Quebec. The Canadian Turbotrains were originally planned to have been in service by the summer of 1967, but technical difficulties with the trainsets delayed passenger service entry until December 12, 1969; the primary failures concerned the auxiliary equipment and caused the power on the trains to go out.

CN and their ad agency wanted to promote the new service as an entirely new form of transit, so they dropped the "train" from the name. In CN's marketing literature the train was referred to simply as the "Turbo", although it retained the full TurboTrain name in CN's own documentation and communication with UAC. A goal of CN's marketing campaign was to get the train into service for Expo 67, and the Turbo was rushed through its trials. It was late for Expo, a disappointment to all involved, but the hectic pace did not let up and it was cleared for service after only one year of testing – most trains go through six to seven years of testing before entering service.

The Turbo's first demonstration run in December 1968, included a large press contingent. An hour into its debut run, the Turbo collided with a truck at a highway crossing near Kingston. Despite the concerns that lightweight trains like the Turbo would be dangerous in collisions, the train remained upright and largely undamaged. Large beams just behind the nose, designed for this purpose, absorbed the impact of the collision and limited the damage to the fiberglass clamshell doors and underlying metal. The train was returned from repairs within a week. No one was killed, though this event has been cited as a main deterrent to Canada's efforts to develop modern passenger rail. Initial commercial service started soon after. On its first westbound run the Turbo attained 104 mph (167 km/h) 10 minutes outside of Dorval. During speed runs on April 22, 1976, it achieved 140.55 mph (226 km/h) near Gananoque, the Canadian record to this day. However, in regular passenger service the Turbotrains were limited to 95 mph (153 km/hr) in Canada because of the Canadian route's numerous grade-crossings, estimated at 240 public highway grade-crossings and 700 agricultural or private crossings between Montreal and Toronto. 

Technical problems, including brake systems freezing in winter, required a suspension of service in early January 1969. Service resumed in May 1970; however, technical problems again caused the Canadian National to withdraw all Turbotrains from service again in February 1971. At this point, the CN management publicly expressed great dissatisfaction with these trainsets, with one vice-president claiming, "the trains never did measure up to the original contract and they haven't yet"; the manufacturer United Aircraft Company publicly claimed that CN suspended Turbotrain service for relatively minor technical problems. Railroad analysts, including Geoffrey Freeman Allen (editor of Jane's World Railways), noted that the Turbotrains employed too many advanced, derived technologies which had been packed in "without extended practical evaluation in railroad conditions. From transmission to suspension to auxiliaries, far too many vital components seemed to have been translated straight from the drawing board to the series production line. During the "downtime" CN changed their plans, and in 1971 a rebuild program began, converting the five seven-car sets to three nine-car sets. Several minor changes were added. The engine exhaust fouled the roof windows of the power car, so these were plated over, and a grill was added to the front of the engines just behind the clamshell doors. The remaining power and passenger cars were sold to Amtrak as two 4-car sets. One of those sets sideswiped a freight train on a test run in July 1973 and three of the cars were written off. The sale of the surviving Power Dome Coach car was cancelled, and it stood spare until a sister unit caught fire and burned in September 1975.

The three rebuilt 9-car sets entered service for CN in late 1973. CN ran the Turbos from Toronto-Montreal-Toronto with stops at Dorval, Kingston and Guildwood on the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor. Original train numbers were Train 62 which left Toronto at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Montreal at 4:44 p.m. Train 63 left Montreal at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Toronto at 4:44 p.m. (Both were daily trains.) Train 68 left Toronto at 6:10 p.m. and arrived in Montreal at 10:14 p.m., while Train 69 left Montreal at 6:10 p.m. and arrived in Toronto at 10:14 p.m. (The evening trains did not run on Saturdays.) The trip took 3 hours and 59 minutes downtown-to-downtown on trains 62 and 63, while the evening trains were slightly slower, taking four hours and four minutes to complete the run. Turbo service was about a full hour faster than CN's previous express trains, the "Rapido". However, even the runs made by the Turbotrains in the late 1970s still fell substantially short of their intended 120 mph design speed; the fastest average speed for the Turbotrain in regular scheduled Canadian passenger service was an intermediate booking from Kingston to Guildwood (102 minutes for the 145.2 miles between the two cities nonstop at an average speed of 85.4 mph (137.4 km/hr).

By 1974, after substantial modifications of the gearbox device and pendular suspension, and reinforcement of the sound insulation, the Turbotrains finally took up untroubled service. CN operated the Turbos until 1978, when their passenger operations were taken over by Via Rail, who continued the service. One of the three remaining trains developed an oil leak and caught fire on the afternoon run from Montréal to Toronto on May 29, 1979.  It was stopped west of Morrisburg. It took some time for the fire engines to arrive as they were forced to drive on the trackbed. The power car and two coaches were totally destroyed. There were no injuries, although rapid disembarkation was needed. The train was eventually towed back to the Turcot yard in Montréal and remained there for several years, covered by tarpaulins. 

The Turbo's final run was on October 31, 1982, when they were replaced by the all-Canadian LRC trainsets from Bombardier Transportation, which employed conventional diesel-electric locomotives. Although they had an early reputation for unreliability, according to CN's records, the rebuilt TurboTrains had an availability rate of over 97% for their careers with CN and Via. The LRC suffered from similar teething problems, notably with the tilt system locking the cars in a tilted position.

The withdrawal of the Turboliners was also precipitated by the rise in oil prices during the 1973 oil embargo and the following years, which destroyed "one of gas turbine traction's prime advantages, fuel cost economy".

None of the UAC TurboTrains were preserved.

models and route by: Trainz, Auran, and Download Station

[greatworldwar2]

• Hotchkiss H35

The Hotchkiss H35 or Char léger modèle 1935 H was a French cavalry tank developed prior to World War II. The Hotchkiss H35 was adopted in 1936 by the French Cavalry arm.

In 1926, it had been decided to provide armour support to the regular infantry divisions by creating autonomous tank battalions equipped with a light and cheap infantry tank, a char d'accompagnement. In 1933, the Hotchkiss company under its own initiative presented a plan to produce a design. This was made possible by the application of a new technology to produce cast steel sections to construct an entire hull. On June 30th, 1933, this proposal was approved by the Conseil Consultatif de l'Armement. On August 2nd, 1933 the specifications were issued: a weight of 6 long tons (6.1 t) and 30 mm (1.2 in) armour protection all around. Three prototypes were ordered from Hotchkiss, but the French industry as a whole was also invited to provide alternative proposals for a nouveau char léger. On January 18th, 1935, the first Hotchkiss prototype, not yet made of armour steel, was presented to the Commission d'Expérience du Matériel Automobile (CEMA) at Vincennes; it was a machine gun-armed tankette without turret. It was tested until 4 March 1935, when it was replaced by the second identical prototype to be tested until May 6th. Both had to be rejected because new specifications had been made on June 21st, 1934 that increased the desired armour thickness to 40 mm (1.6 in).

On August 19th, the third prototype was delivered, equipped with a cast APX turret and featuring a redesigned hull; it was tested until September 20th and accepted. On November 6th, 1935 a first order was made for 200 vehicles. Though it should have been completed between July 1936 and July 1937, the first production vehicle was in fact delivered on September 12th, 1936. A first additional orders had already been made of 92 on September 7th, 1936, to be completed in November 1937. A third one of 108 vehicles followed in January 1937, to be completed in September 1938. By January 1st, 1937 132 hulls had been produced. None of these had at that date yet been fitted with a turret. The first series vehicle was again extensively and intensively tested until 4 December 1936. The testing soon showed that its cross-country handling qualities were unacceptably poor. It was simply impossible to safely steer the vehicle on a somewhat bumpy surface, posing an extreme danger to nearby friendly infantry. The Infantry therefore initially rejected any further procurement. Eventually, in 1937, it decided to accept only the last hundred tanks to equip just two battalions with the type. For political reasons however, stopping production of the tank was unacceptable. As a result the first three hundred vehicles of the production run were offered to the Cavalry, which was forced to accept them because it would not have been granted a budget for other tanks anyway. The H 35 was, at 28 km/h (17 mph), also somewhat faster than the Renault R35, which was capable of 20 km/h (12 mph), although in practice its average speed was lower than that of the R 35 because of its inferior gear box.

The Hotchkiss H35 was a small vehicle, 4.22 m (13.8 ft) long, 1.95 m (6.4 ft) wide and 2.133 m (7.00 ft) tall and weighing 10.6–11.37 t (10.43–11.19 long tons). The hull consisted of six cast armour sections, bolted together: the engine deck, the fighting compartment, the front of the hull, the back of the hull and two longitudinal sections left and right forming the bottom. The hull was made water-tight by cementing these sections together with Aslic, a product based on tar mixed with lime. The casting allowed for sloped armour, avoiding shot traps, to optimise the chance of deflection but the protection levels did not satisfy the Infantry. Maximum armour thickness was not the specified 40 mm (1.6 in) but 34 mm (1.3 in). There were persistent quality problems, worsened by the fact that many subcontractors had to be used: at first the armour was made much too soft; when hardness was increased it became brittle and hence developed weak spots. There was a crew of two. The driver sat at the right front, behind a large cast double hatch and next to the combined gearbox and steering unit. Behind him was a round escape hatch in the bottom of the hull. Driving the vehicle was very hard work. The Hotchkiss lacked the Cleveland differential ("Cletrac") of its Renault competitor, and it responded unpredictably to changes of direction. The brakes could not sufficiently compensate for this, being too weak, especially when driving down-slope.

No less troublesome was the gearbox: it was difficult to engage the highest fifth gear and so the theoretical top speed of 27.8 km/h (17.3 mph) was rarely reached. There was one reverse gear. The inevitable rough handling of the tank by the driver resulted in much wear and tear. Mechanical reliability was poor. The suspension consisted of three bogies per side—each formed of two bell cranks arranged as "scissors" with springs at the top. Each bogie carried two rubber-rimmed wheels. The bogies superficially resembled the R35 type, but used horizontal helical springs instead of rubber cylinders. The sprocket was at the front, the idler which itself was sprung to automatically control tension at the rear. There were two top rollers. The tank was powered by a 78 hp six-cylinder 86 x 100 3485 cc engine which was on the left of the engine compartment. A 160-litre fuel tank on the right, combined with a twenty litres reserve reservoir, gave a range of 129 km (80 mi) or eight hours on a varied terrain. Also a cooling fan drew air through the radiator and was also expected to cool the fuel tank. The trench-crossing capacity was 1.8 m (5.9 ft), the wading capacity 85 cm (33 in). The APX-R turret was the same standard type as used on the R35 and R40 tanks, made of 40 mm (1.6 in) cast steel and armed with the short 37 mm SA 18 gun, which had a maximum armour penetration of only 23 mm (0.91 in). Traverse of the turret was with a handwheel. The commander sat in a saddle suspended from the turret. The tank carried about 100 rounds for the gun, and 2,400 rounds for the coaxial 7.5 mm Reibel machine gun – the 37 mm ammunition racked on the left hand side of the hull, the 7.5 mm ammunition on the right side in fifteen circular magazines with 150 rounds each; a final magazine was to be at the ready on the machine-gun itself.

For access there was a hatch at the back of the turret. When opened, the commander could sit on it for better observation, but this left him very vulnerable and slow to reach the gun. The alternative was to fight closed-up, observing through the vertical slits or the visor of the hatchless cupola. The Cavalry liked neither this arrangement nor the weak gun. The latter problem was lessened somewhat by enlarging the breech so that special rounds with a larger charge could be used. This increased muzzle velocity to about 600 m/s (2,000 ft/s) and maximum penetration to about 30 mm (1.2 in). In the Spring of 1940 the original diascopes of the Chrétien type were gradually replaced with episcopes, offering more protection.

In the Cavalry arm, the main user at first, the Hotchkiss tanks replaced as main combat tanks the light AMR 33 and AMR 35 vehicles, that for want of a better type had been used to form the bulk of the first two Cavalry armoured divisions. As the new medium SOMUA S35 was initially produced in very limited numbers, until early 1939 the Hotchkiss equipped three of the four divisional tank regiments. In April 1940 the 342e CACC (Compagnie Autonome de Chars de Combat or "Independent Tank Company") was sent to Norway after Operation Weserübung, the German invasion of that country, having first been intended to form part of an expeditionary force to assist Finland in the Winter War. This autonomous company, equipped with fifteen Char léger modèle 1935 H modifié 39, all with short guns, fought in the later phase of the Battles of Narvik, after having landed on May 7th. According to the official army acceptance lists, at the start of World War II 640 Hotchkiss tanks had been delivered. The inventories deviate slightly: of the 300 H35s allocated to the Cavalry, 232 were fielded by ten cavalry squadrons, 44 were in depot, eight in factory overhaul and sixteen in North Africa. Of the H39s, sixteen were used by the Cavalry in North Africa and six in depot; 180 were fielded by four Infantry tank battalions and fourteen were in the Infantry matériel reserve. It was decided to concentrate most Allied production capacity for light tanks into the manufacture of a single type, and the Hotchkiss tank was chosen as it had the necessary mobility to be of use in the many armoured divisions the Entente planned to raise for the expected decisive summer offensive of 1941. To this end British and Portuguese heavy industry had to assist in producing the cast armour sections. It was hoped to increase production to 300 a month in October 1940, and even 500 a month from March 1941, the sections of 75 of which to be provided by Britain in exchange for a monthly delivery of nine Char B1s.

These plans were disrupted by the Battle of France. In May 1940 the type equipped in the Cavalry units two tank regiments (of 47) in each of the three Mechanised Light Divisions and served as AMR in the 9th and 25th Mechanised Infantry Division. Furthermore, sixteen vehicles were part of the 1er RCA in Morocco. In the Infantry it equipped the two autonomous battalions mentioned above and two battalions of 45 in each of the three Divisions Cuirassées, the latter with the H39 variant. Most Hotchkiss tanks were thus concentrated in larger motorised units, in the armoured divisions supplementing the core of heavier tanks, though they were mismatched. Following the French defeat in the Battle of France about 550 Hotchkiss tanks were captured and used by the Germans as Panzerkampfwagen 35H 734(f) or Panzerkampfwagen 38H 735(f); most for occupation duty. Like the French, the Germans made no clear distinction between a H38 and a H39; and fitted many with a cupola with a hatch. Panzer-Abteilung 211 was deployed in Finland during Operation Barbarossa, equipped with Hotchkiss tanks. In 1944, three of its vehicles were converted to 7.5 cm self-propelled guns. German H35/39s also saw action in Yugoslavia with 7.SS-Freiwilligen-Gebirgs-Division "Prinz Eugen", 12. Panzer-Kompanie z.b.V. and I./Panzer-Regiment 202. In 1942 a project was launched to make use of French equipment as carrier platforms for heavier guns, directed by Major Alfred Becker, an artillery officer who was a mechanical engineer by trade. He had experience making similar conversions with captured Belgian and British vehicles. Some vehicles were modified into munition carriers or artillery tractors (Artillerieschlepper 38H(f)) or rocket-launchers (Panzerkampfwagen 35H(f) mit 28/32 cm Wurfrahmen). In June 1943, 361 Hotchkiss tanks were still listed in the German Army inventories as 37 mm gun tanks; this number had decreased to sixty in December 1944.

Three Hotchkiss tanks of the "H39" version had been exported by France to Poland in July 1939 for testing by the Polish Bureau of Technical Studies of Armoured Weapons, with a view to a larger purchase. During the German invasion of Poland in 1939 the Hotchkiss tanks, together with three Renault R 35 tanks, were organised into an ad hoc "half company" unit under lieutenant J. Jakubowicz, formed on September 14th, 1939 in Kiwerce, Poland. The unit joined the "Dubno" task force and lost all of its tanks during the marches and fighting against German and Soviet armies, due to fuel shortages. In North Africa, 27 vehicles (thirteen H35 and fourteen H39) were officially serving in the 1e Régiment de Chasseurs d'Afrique and were allowed to remain there by the armistice conditions; another five were hidden in Morocco. They fought the Allies during the opening stages of Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of French North Africa, near Casablanca in November 1942, destroying four M3 Stuart light tanks. The regiment then joined the allied cause and was re-equipped with M4 Sherman medium tanks in the summer of 1943. After the war, some Hotchkiss tanks were used by French security forces in the colonies, such as French Indochina, and occupation forces in Germany. Ten H39s were clandestinely sold to Israel, they were shipped from Marseilles to Haifa in 1948.

One Hotchkiss H35 and nine Hotchkiss H35s modifié 39 have survived to this present day, all of the modifié 39 were further modified by the Germans during World War II.

[i-am-an-abyss-of-gender]

Panzer IV The Panzerkampfwagen IV (Pz.Kpfw. IV), commonly known as the Panzer IV, was a German medium tank developed in the late 1930s and used extensively during the Second World War. Its ordnance inventory designation was Sd.Kfz. 161. Panzerkampfwagen IV Sd.Kfz. 161/VK 622 (Ausf. A) Panzermuseum Munster 2010 0128.JPG A Panzer IV Ausf. G "413" in desert colours, bearing the palm tree insignia of the Afrika Korps, "Friederike" script written on the gun barrel near the mantlet. This tank was on display at the Deutsches Panzermuseum. Type Medium tank Place of origin Nazi Germany Service history In service 1939–1945 (Nazi Germany) 1954[1]–1967 (Syria) Used by Nazi Germany Romania Turkey Hungary Bulgaria Italy Finland Spain Croatia Syria Wars World War II, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Six-Day War Production history Designer Krupp Designed 1936 Manufacturer Krupp, Vomag, Nibelungenwerk Unit cost ≈103,462 Reichsmarks and 115,962 Reichmarks With 7,5 cm KwK 40 (L/43)[2] Produced 1936–1945 No. built ≈8,553 of all tank variants[3] Variants StuG IV, Jagdpanzer IV, Brummbär/Sturmpanzer IV, Nashorn, Wirbelwind, Ostwind Specifications (Pz. IV Ausf. H, 1943[5]) Mass 25.0 tonnes (27.6 short tons; 24.6 long tons) Length 5.92 metres (19 ft 5 in) 7.02 metres (23 ft 0 in) gun forward Width 2.88 m (9 ft 5 in) Height 2.68 m (8 ft 10 in) Crew 5 (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator/bow machine-gunner) Armor Hull front: 80 mm (3.1 in) Hull side (upper and lower): 30 mm (1.2 in) Hull rear (upper and lower): 20 mm (0.79 in) Hull roof and floor: 10 mm (0.39 in) Schürzen: 5 mm (0.20 in) to 8 mm (0.31 in)[4] Turret front: 50 mm (2.0 in) Turret side and rear: 30 mm (1.2 in) Turret roof: 10 mm (0.39 in) Main armament 7.5 cm (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/48 main gun (87 rounds) Secondary armament 2 × 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns (3,150 rounds) Engine Maybach HL120 TRM 12-cylinder gasoline engine 300 PS (296 hp, 220 kW) Power/weight 12 PS (8.8 kW) / tonne Transmission (Synchromesh ZF SSG 77) 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios Suspension Leaf spring Fuel capacity 470 l (120 US gal) Operational range 200 km (120 mi) Maximum speed 38 to 42 km/h (24 to 26 mph) maximum, 25 km/h (16 mph) max sustained road speed 16 km/h (9.9 mph) off road The Panzer IV was the most numerous German tank and the second-most numerous German armored fighting vehicle of the Second World War, with some 8,500 built. Its chassis was also used as the base for many other fighting vehicles, including the Sturmgeschütz IV assault gun, the Jagdpanzer IV tank destroyer, the Wirbelwind self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, and the Brummbär self-propelled gun. The Panzer IV saw service in all combat theaters involving Germany and was the only German tank to remain in continuous production throughout the war. It was originally designed for infantry support, while the similar Panzer III was to fight armoured fighting vehicles. However as the Germans faced the formidable T-34, the Panzer IV had more development potential, with a larger turret ring to mount more powerful guns, so the two switched roles. It received various upgrades and design modifications, intended to counter new threats, extending its service life. Generally, these involved increasing the armor protection or upgrading the weapons, although during the last months of the war, with Germany's pressing need for rapid replacement of losses, design changes also included simplifications to speed up the manufacturing process. The Panzer IV was partially succeeded by the Panther medium tank, which was introduced to counter the Soviet T-34, although it continued to be a significant component of German armoured formations to the end of the war. It was the most widely exported tank in German service, with around 300 sold to Finland, Romania, Spain and Bulgaria. After the war, Syria procured Panzer IVs from France and Czechoslovakia, which saw combat in the 1967 Six-Day War. 8,553 Panzer IVs of all versions were built during World War II, a production run in Axis forces only exceeded by the StuG III assault gun with 10,086

vehicles. Development history Origins The Panzer IV was the brainchild of the German general and innovative armored warfare theorist Heinz Guderian.[6] In concept, it was intended to be a support tank for use against enemy anti-tank guns and fortifications.[7] Ideally, each tank battalion in a panzer division was to have three medium companies of Panzer IIIs and one heavy company of Panzer IVs.[8] On 11 January 1934, the German army wrote the specifications for a "medium tractor", and issued them to a number of defense companies. To support the Panzer III, which would be armed with a 37-millimetre (1.46 in) anti-tank gun, the new vehicle would have a short-barreled, howitzer-like 75-millimetre (2.95 in) as its main gun, and was allotted a weight limit of 24 tonnes (26.46 short tons). Development was carried out under the name Begleitwagen ("accompanying vehicle"),[9] or BW, to disguise its actual purpose, given that Germany was still theoretically bound by the Treaty of Versailles ban on tanks.[10] MAN, Krupp, and Rheinmetall-Borsig each developed prototypes,[8] with Krupp's being selected for further development.[11] The chassis had originally been designed with a six-wheeled Schachtellaufwerk interleaved-roadwheel suspension (as already adopted for German half-tracks), but the German Army amended this to a torsion bar system. Permitting greater vertical deflection of the roadwheels, this was intended to improve performance and crew comfort both on- and off-road.[11][12] However, due to the urgent requirement for the new tank, neither proposal was adopted, and Krupp instead equipped it with a simple leaf spring double-bogie suspension, with eight rubber-rimmed roadwheels per side. The prototype had a crew of five; the hull contained the engine bay to the rear, with the driver and radio operator, who doubled as the hull machine gunner, seated at the front-left and front-right, respectively. In the turret, the tank commander sat beneath his roof hatch, while the gunner was situated to the left of the gun breech and the loader to the right. The torque shaft ran from the rear engine to the transmission box in the front hull between the driver and radio operator. To keep the shaft clear of the rotary base junction, which provided electrical power to the turret including the motor to turn it, the turret was offset 66.5 mm (2.62 in) to the left of the chassis center line, and the engine was moved 152.4 mm (6.00 in) to the right. Due to the asymmetric layout, the right side of the tank contained the bulk of its stowage volume, which was taken up by ready-use ammunition lockers.[11] Accepted into service under the designation Versuchskraftfahrzeug 622 (Vs.Kfz. 622), "experimental motor vehicle 622",[10] production began in 1936 at Fried. Krupp Grusonwerk AG factory at Magdeburg.[13] Ausf. A to Ausf. F1 Panzer IV Ausf. A in 1939 Panzer IV Ausf. C 1943 The first mass-produced version of the Panzer IV was the Ausführung A (abbreviated to Ausf. A, meaning "Variant A"), in 1936. It was powered by a Maybach HL108 TR, producing 250 PS (183.87 kW), and used the SGR 75 transmission with five forward gears and one reverse,[14] achieving a maximum road speed of 31 kilometres per hour (19.26 mph).[15] As main armament, the vehicle mounted the short-barreled, howitzer-like 75 mm (2.95 in) Kampfwagenkanone 37 L/24 (7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24) tank gun, which was a low-velocity weapon mainly designed to fire high-explosive shells.[16] Against armored targets, firing the Panzergranate (armor-piercing shell) at 430 metres per second (1,410 ft/s) the KwK 37 could penetrate 43 millimetres (1.69 in), inclined at 30 degrees, at ranges of up to 700 metres (2,300 ft).[17] A 7.92 mm (0.31 in) MG 34 machine gun was mounted coaxially with the main weapon in the turret, while a second machine gun of the same type was mounted in the front plate of the hull.[11] The main weapon and coaxial machine gun were sighted with a Turmzielfernrohr 5b optic while the hull machine gun was sighted with a Kugelzielfernrohr 2 optic.[18] The Ausf. A was protected by

14.5 mm (0.57 in) of steel armor on the front plate of the chassis, and 20 mm (0.79 in) on the turret. This was only capable of stopping artillery fragments, small-arms fire, and light anti-tank projectiles.[19] A total of 35 A versions were produced.[10] The 300 horsepower Maybach HL 120TRM engine used in most Panzer IV production models. PzKpfw IV Ausf. D In 1937 production moved to the Ausf. B.[10] Improvements included the replacement of the original engine with the more powerful 300 PS (220.65 kW) Maybach HL 120TR, and the transmission with the new SSG 75 transmission, with six forward gears and one reverse gear. Despite a weight increase to 16 t (18 short tons), this improved the tank's speed to 42 kilometres per hour (26.10 mph).[20] The glacis plate was augmented to a maximum thickness of 30 millimetres (1.18 in),[19] while a new driver's visor was installed on the straightened hull front plate, and the hull-mounted machine gun was replaced by a covered pistol port and visor flap.[20] The superstructure width and ammunition stowage were reduced to save weight.[20] A new commander's cupola was introduced which was adopted from the Panzer III Ausf. C.[20] A Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung (smoke grenade discharger rack) was mounted on the rear of the hull starting in July 1938[20] and was back fitted to earlier Ausf. A and Ausf. B chassis starting in August 1938.[21] Forty-two Panzer IV Ausf. Bs were manufactured.[10] The Ausf. C replaced the B in 1938.[10][22] This saw the turret armor increased to 30 mm (1.18 in), which brought the tank's weight to 18.14 t (20.00 short tons).[22] After assembling 40 Ausf. Cs, starting with chassis number 80341, the engine was replaced with the improved HL 120TRM. The last of the 140 Ausf. Cs was produced in August 1939. Production changed to the Ausf. D; this variant, of which 248 vehicles were produced, reintroduced the hull machine gun and changed the turret's internal gun mantlet to a 35 mm (1.38 in)[23] thick external mantlet.[22] Again, protection was upgraded, this time by increasing side armor to 20 mm (0.79 in).[16] As the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 came to an end, it was decided to scale up production of the Panzer IV, which was adopted for general use on 27 September 1939 as the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 161 (Sd.Kfz. 161).[10] In response to the difficulty of penetrating the thick armor of British infantry tanks (Matilda and Matilda II) during the Battle of France, the Germans had tested a 50 mm (1.97 in) gun — based on the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun — on a Panzer IV Ausf. D. However, with the rapid German victory in France, the original order of 80 tanks was cancelled before they entered production.[24] In October 1940, the Ausf. E was introduced. This had 30 millimetres (1.18 in) of armor on the bow plate, while a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) appliqué steel plate was added to the glacis as an interim measure. A new driver's visor, adopted from the Sturmgeschütz III was installed on the hull front plate.[25] A new commander's cupola, adopted from the Panzer III Ausf. G, was relocated forward on the turret eliminating the bulge underneath the cupola.[26] Older model Panzer IV tanks were retrofitted with these features when returned to the manufacturer for servicing. 206 Ausf. Es were produced between October 1940 and April 1941.[3] The short-barreled Panzer IV Ausf. F1. In April 1941, production of the Panzer IV Ausf. F started. It featured 50 mm (1.97 in) single-plate armor on the turret and hull, as opposed to the appliqué armor added to the Ausf. E,[22] and a further increase in side armor to 30 mm (1.18 in).[27] The main engine exhaust muffler was shortened and a compact auxiliary generator muffler was mounted to its left.[25] The weight of the vehicle was now 22.3 tonnes (24.6 short tons), which required a corresponding modification of track width from 380 to 400 mm (14.96 to 15.75 in) to reduce ground pressure. The wider tracks also facilitated the fitting of track shoe "ice sprags", and the rear idler wheel and front sprocket were modified.[28] The

designation Ausf. F was changed in the meantime to Ausf. F1, after the distinct new model, the Ausf. F2, appeared. A total of 471 Ausf. F (later temporarily called F1) tanks were produced from April 1941 to March 1942.[3] Ausf. F2 to Ausf. J On 26 May 1941, mere weeks before Operation Barbarossa, during a conference with Hitler, it was decided to improve the Panzer IV's main armament. Krupp was awarded the contract to integrate again the 50 mm (1.97 in) Pak 38 L/60 gun into the turret. The first prototype was to be delivered by 15 November 1941.[29] Within months, the shock of encountering the Soviet T-34 medium and KV-1 heavy tanks necessitated a new, much more powerful tank gun.[30] In November 1941, the decision to up-gun the Panzer IV to the 50-millimetre (1.97 in) gun was dropped, and instead Krupp was contracted in a joint development to modify Rheinmetall's pending 75 mm (2.95 in) anti-tank gun design, later known as 7.5 cm Pak 40 L/46. Because the recoil length was too great for the tank's turret, the recoil mechanism and chamber were shortened. This resulted in the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/43.[31] When the new KwK 40 was loaded with the Pzgr. 39 armor-piercing shell, the new gun fired the AP shell at some 750 m/s (2,460 ft/s), a substantial 74% increase over the howitzer-like KwK 37 L/24 gun's 430 m/s (1,410 ft/s) muzzle velocity.[28] Initially, the KwK 40 gun was mounted with a single-chamber, ball-shaped muzzle brake, which provided just under 50% of the recoil system's braking ability.[32] Firing the Panzergranate 39, the KwK 40 L/43 could penetrate 77 mm (3.03 in) of steel armor at a range of 1,830 m (6,000 ft).[33] The longer 7.5 cm guns were a mixed blessing. In spite of the designers' efforts to conserve weight, the new weapon made the vehicle nose-heavy to such an extent that the forward suspension springs were under constant compression. This resulted in the tank tending to sway even when no steering was being applied, an effect compounded by the introduction of the Ausführung H in March 1943.[34] The 1942 Panzer IV Ausf. F2 was an upgrade of the Ausf. F, fitted with the KwK 40 L/43 anti-tank gun to counter Soviet T-34 medium and KV heavy tanks. The Ausf. F tanks that received the new, longer, KwK 40 L/43 gun were temporarily named Ausf. F2 (with the designation Sd.Kfz. 161/1). The tank increased in weight to 23.6 tonnes (26.0 short tons). Differences between the Ausf. F1 and the Ausf. F2 were mainly associated with the change in armament, including an altered gun mantlet, internal travel lock for the main weapon, new gun cradle, new Turmzielfernrohr 5f optic for the L/43 weapon, modified ammunition stowage, and discontinuing of the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung in favor of turret mounted Nebelwurfgerät.[35] Three months after beginning production, the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 was renamed Ausf. G.[36] During its production run from March 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade which consisted of a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) face-hardened appliqué steel plate welded (later bolted) to the glacis—in total, frontal armor was now 80 mm (3.15 in) thick.[37] This decision to increase frontal armor was favorably received according to troop reports on 8 November 1942, despite technical problems of the driving system due to added weight. At this point, it was decided that 50% of Panzer IV production would be fitted with 30 mm (1.18 in) thick additional armor plates. On 5 January 1943, Hitler decided that all Panzer IV should have 80 mm (3.15 in) frontal armor.[38] To simplify production, the vision ports on either side of the turret and the loader's forward vision port in the turret front were removed, while a rack for two spare road wheels was installed on the track guard on the left side of the hull. Complementing this, brackets for seven spare track links were added to the glacis plate. For operation in high temperatures, the engine's ventilation was improved by creating slits over the engine deck to the rear of the chassis, and cold

weather performance was boosted by adding a device to heat the engine's coolant, as well as a starter fluid injector. A new light replaced the original headlight and the signal port on the turret was removed.[39] On 19 March 1943, the first Panzer IV with Schürzen skirts on its sides and turret was exhibited.[40] The double hatch for the commander's cupola was replaced by a single round hatch from very late model Ausf. G. and the cupola was up-armored from 50 mm (1.97 in) to 95 mm (3.74 in). In April 1943, the KwK 40 L/43 was replaced by the longer 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/48 gun, with a redesigned multi-baffle muzzle brake with improved recoil efficiency.[41] The longer L/48 resulted in the introduction of the Turmzielfernrohr 5f/1 optic.[42] A Panzer IV Ausf H at the Musée des Blindés in Saumur, France, with its distinctive Zimmerit anti-magnetic mine coating, turret skirts, and wire-mesh side-skirts. The next version, the Ausf. H, began production in June 1943[3] and received the designation Sd. Kfz. 161/2. The integrity of the glacis armor was improved by manufacturing it as a single 80-millimetre (3.15 in) plate. A reinforced final drive with higher gear ratios was introduced.[43] To prevent adhesion of magnetic anti-tank mines, which the Germans feared would be used in large numbers by the Allies, Zimmerit paste was added to all the vertical surfaces of the tank's armor.[44] The turret roof was reinforced from 10-millimetre (0.39 in) to 16-millimetre (0.63 in) and 25-millimetre (0.98 in) segments.[43] The vehicle's side and turret were further protected by the addition of 5-millimetre (0.20 in) hull skirts and 8-millimetre (0.31 in) turret skirts.[4][45] This resulted in the elimination of the vision ports located on the hull side,[43] as the skirts obstructed their view. During the Ausf. H's production run, its rubber-tired return rollers were replaced with cast steel, a lighter cast front sprocket and rear idler wheel gradually replaced the previous components,[43] the hull was fitted with triangular supports for the easily damaged side skirts, the Nebelwurfgeraet was discontinued, and a mount in the turret roof, designed for the Nahverteidigungswaffe, was plugged by a circular armored plate due to initial production shortages of this weapon.[46][47] These modifications meant that the tank's weight increased to 25 tonnes (27.56 short tons). In spite of a new six-speed SSG 77 transmission adopted from the Panzer III, top speed dropped to as low as 16 km/h (10 mph) on cross country terrain. An experimental version of the Ausf H was fitted with a hydrostatic transmission but was not put into production.[34] The Ausf. J was the final production model, and was greatly simplified compared to earlier variants to speed construction. This shows an exported Finnish model. Despite addressing the mobility problems introduced by the previous model, the final production version of the Panzer IV—the Ausf. J—was considered a retrograde from the Ausf. H. Born of necessity, to replace heavy losses, it was greatly simplified to speed production.[48] The electric generator that powered the tank's turret traverse was removed, so the turret had to be rotated manually. The turret traversing mechanism was modified and fitted with a second gear which made hand-operation easier when the vehicle was on sloping terrain.[49] On reasonably level ground, hand operation at 4 seconds to traverse to 12.5° and 29.5 seconds to traverse to 120° was achieved.[49] The resulting space was later used for the installation of an auxiliary 200-litre (53 US gal) fuel tank; road range was thereby increased to 320 km (200 mi),[50] The remaining pistol and vision ports on the turret side hatches were removed, and the engine's radiator housing was simplified by changing the slanted sides to straight sides.[47] Three sockets with screw threads for mounting a 2-ton jib boom crane were welded on the turret roof while the hull roof was thickened from 11-millimetre (0.43 in) to 16-millimetre (0.63 in).[51] In addition, the cylindrical muffler was

replaced by two flame-suppressing mufflers. In June 1944 Wa Prüf 6 had decided that because bomb damage at Panzerfirma Krupp in Essen had seriously jeopardized tank production, all plates which should have been face-hardened for the Panzer IV were instead made with rolled homogeneous armour plate.[51] By late 1944, Zimmerit was no longer being applied to German armored vehicles, and the Panzer IV's side-skirts had been replaced by wire mesh, while the gunner's forward vision port in the turret front was eliminated[52] and the number of return rollers was reduced from four to three to further speed-up production.[53] In a bid to augment the Panzer IV's firepower, an attempt was made to mate a Schmalturm turret — carrying the longer 75 mm (2.95 in) L/70 tank gun from the developing Panther Ausf. F tank design, and partly developed by Rheinmetall from early 1944 onwards — to a Panzer IV hull. This failed and confirmed that the chassis had reached the limit of its adaptability in both weight and available volume.[48] Production Panzer IV production by year[3] Date Number of vehicles Variant (Ausf.) 1937–1939 262 A – D 1940 290 (-24) D, E 1941 480 (+17) E, F 1942 994 F, G 1943 2,983 G, H 1944 3,125 H, J 1945 ~435 J Total ~8,569 all The Panzer IV was originally intended to be used only on a limited scale, so initially Krupp was its sole manufacturer. Prior to the Polish campaign, only 217 Panzer IVs had been produced: 35 Ausf. A; 42 Ausf. B; and 140 Ausf. C; in 1941, production was extended to Vogtländische Maschinenfabrik ("VOMAG") (located in the city of Plauen) and the Nibelungenwerk in the Austrian city of St. Valentin.[3] In 1941, an average of 39 tanks per month were built; this rose to 83 in 1942, 252 in 1943, and 300 in 1944. However, in December 1943, Krupp's factory was diverted to manufacture the Sturmgeschütz IV and, in the spring of 1944, the Vomag factory began production of the Jagdpanzer IV, leaving the Nibelungenwerk as the only plant still assembling the Panzer IV.[54] With the slow collapse of German industry under pressure from Allied air and ground offensives—in October 1944 the Nibelungenwerk factory was severely damaged during a bombing raid—by March and April 1945, production had fallen to pre-1942 levels, with only around 55 tanks per month coming off the assembly lines.[55] Panzer IV: comparison of key production features[56] Version Main gun Superstructure armour mm (inch) Hull armour mm (inch) Turret armour mm (inch) Weight tonnes (long tons; short tons) Engine Notes F S R F S R F S R Ausf. A VK622 7.5 cm KwK L/24 15 (0.59) 18.4 (18.1; 20.3) Maybach HL 108TR 250 PS (246.6 hp; 183.9 kW) SGR 75 transmission Ausf. B 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 18.8 (18.5; 20.7) SSG 75 transmission Ausf. C 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 19.0 (18.7; 20.9) Maybach HL 120 TRM 300 PS (300 hp; 220 kW) Ausf. D 30 + 30 † 20 (0.79) + 20 † 20 (0.79) 30 (1.2) 20 (0.79) 20 (0.79) 30 (1.2) 20 (0.79) 20 (0.79) 20.0 (19.7; 22.0) Ausf. E 30 + 30 † 20 + 20 † 20 30 + 30 † 20 + 20 † 20 30 20 20 21.0 (20.7; 23.1) Ausf. F1 50 (2.0) 30 (1.2) 20 (0.79) 50 (2.0) 30 (1.2) 20 (0.79) 50 (2.0) 30 (1.2) 30 (1.2) 22.3 (21.9; 24.6) track width increased from 380 to 400 mm (15 to 16 in) Ausf. F2 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 50 30 20 50 30 20 50 30 30 23.0 (22.6; 25.4) single-chamber, globe, muzzle brake Ausf. G 50 + 30 † 30 20 50 + 30 † 30 20 50 30 + 8 (0.31)‡ 30 + 8 ‡ 23.5 (23.1; 25.9) multi-baffle muzzle brake Ausf. H 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48 80 (3.1) 30 20 80 30 20 50 30 + 8 ‡ 30 + 8 ‡ 25.0 (24.6; 27.6) Zimmerit paste added to vertical surfaces SSG 77 transmission Ausf. J 80 30 20 80 30 20 50 30 + 8 ‡ 30 + 8 ‡ 25.0 (24.6; 27.6) electric motor for turret traverse removed, Rolled homogeneous armour, no Zimmerit † – appliqué armor plate, bolted or welded on ‡ – Schürzen skirts Export The Panzer IV was one of the most widely exported German tanks of the Second World War.[57] In 1942, Germany delivered 11 tanks to Romania and 32 to Hungary,

many of which were lost on the Eastern Front between the final months of 1942 and the beginning of 1943 during the battles around Stalingrad, at which the Hungarian and Romanian troops there were almost annihilated by the attacking Soviet forces.[58] Romania received approximately 120 Panzer IV tanks of different models throughout the entire war.[59] To arm Bulgaria, Germany supplied 46[60] or 91[61] Panzer IVs, and offered Italy 12 tanks to form the nucleus of a new Italian Army armored division. These were used to train Italian tank crews while the-then Italian leader Benito Mussolini was deposed shortly after the Allied conquest of Sicily but were then retaken by Germany during its occupation of Italy in mid-1943.[60] The Falangist Spanish government petitioned for 100 Panzer IVs in March 1943 but only 20 were ever delivered by December that same year.[62] Finland bought 30 but only received 15 in 1944 and in the same year a second batch of 62[60] or 72[61] was sent to Hungary (although 20 of these were subsequently diverted to replace German military losses).[61] The Croatian Ustashe Militia received 10 Ausf. F1 and 5 Ausf. G in the autumn of 1944.[63] In total, 297 Panzer IVs of all models were delivered to Germany's allies.[64] Combat history A Panzer IV Ausf. E with hits on the turret and the edge of the gun barrel. The Panzer IV was the only German tank to remain in both production and combat throughout World War II,[65][66] and measured over the entire war it comprised 30% of the Wehrmacht's total tank strength.[67] Although in service by early 1939, in time for the occupation of Czechoslovakia,[68] at the start of the war the majority of German armor was made up of obsolete Panzer Is and Panzer IIs.[69] The Panzer I in particular had already proved inferior to Soviet tanks, such as the T-26, during the Spanish Civil War.[70] Poland, Western Front and North Africa (1939–1942) When Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, its armored corps was composed of 1,445 Panzer Is, 1,223 Panzer IIs, 98 Panzer IIIs and 211 Panzer IVs; the more modern vehicles amounted to less than 10% of Germany's armored strength.[71] The 1st Panzer Division had a roughly equal balance of types, with 17 Panzer Is, 18 Panzer IIs, 28 Panzer IIIs, and 14 Panzer IVs per battalion. The remaining panzer divisions were heavy with obsolete models, equipped as they were with 34 Panzer Is, 33 Panzer IIs, 5 Panzer IIIs, and 6 Panzer IVs per battalion.[72] Although the Polish Army possessed less than 200 tanks capable of penetrating the German light tanks, Polish anti-tank guns proved more of a threat, reinforcing German faith in the value of the close-support Panzer IV.[73] A British Crusader tank passing a burning German Panzer IV during Operation Crusader, late 1941. Despite increased production of the medium Panzer IIIs and IVs prior to the German invasion of France on 10 May 1940, the majority of German tanks were still light types. According to Heinz Guderian, the Wehrmacht invaded France with 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s.[74] Through the use of tactical radios[75] and superior tactics, the Germans were able to outmaneuver and defeat French and British armor.[76] However, Panzer IVs armed with the KwK 37 L/24 75-millimetre (2.95 in) tank gun found it difficult to engage French tanks such as the Somua S35 and Char B1.[77] The Somua S35 had a maximum armor thickness of 55 mm (2.2 in),[78] while the KwK 37 L/24 could only penetrate 43 mm (1.7 in) at a range of 700 m (2,300 ft).[17] The British Matilda II was also heavily armored, with at least 70 mm (2.76 in) of steel on the front and turret and a minimum of 65 mm on the sides,[79] but were few in number. Although the Panzer IV was deployed to North Africa with the German Afrika Korps, until the longer gun variant began production, the tank was outperformed by the Panzer III with respect to armor penetration.[80] Both the Panzer III and IV had difficulty in penetrating the British Matilda II's thick armor, while

the Matilda's 40-mm QF 2 pounder gun could knock out either German tank; the Matilda II's major disadvantage was its low speed.[81] By August 1942, Rommel had only received 27 Panzer IV Ausf. F2s, armed with the L/43 gun, which he deployed to spearhead his armored offensives.[81] The longer gun could penetrate all American and British tanks in theater at ranges of up to 1,500 m (4,900 ft), by that time the most heavily armored of which was the M3 Grant.[82] Although more of these tanks arrived in North Africa between August and October 1942, their numbers were insignificant compared to the amount of matériel shipped to British forces.[83] The Panzer IV also took part in the invasion of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Greece in early 1941.[84] Eastern Front (1941–1945) A PzKpfw IV Ausf. H of the 12th Panzer Division carrying Schürzen skirting operating on the Eastern Front in the USSR, 1944. With the launching of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, the unanticipated appearance of the KV-1 and T-34 tanks prompted an upgrade of the Panzer IV's 75 mm (2.95 in) gun to a longer, high-velocity 75 mm gun suitable for anti-tank use. This meant that it could now penetrate the T-34 at ranges of up to 1,200 m (3,900 ft) at any angle.[85] The 75 mm KwK 40 L/43 gun on the Panzer IV could penetrate a T-34 at a variety of impact angles beyond 1,000 m (3,300 ft) range and up to 1,600 m (5,200 ft).[86] Shipment of the first model to mount the new gun, the Ausf. F2, began in spring 1942, and by the summer offensive there were around 135 Panzer IVs with the L/43 tank gun available. At the time, these were the only German tanks that could defeat T-34 or KV-1 with sheer firepower.[87] They played a crucial role in the events that unfolded between June 1942 and March 1943,[88] and the Panzer IV became the mainstay of the German panzer divisions.[89] Although in service by late September 1942, the Tiger I was not yet numerous enough to make an impact and suffered from serious teething problems, while the Panther was not delivered to German units in the Soviet Union until May 1943.[90] The extent of German reliance on the Panzer IV during this period is reflected by their losses; 502 were destroyed on the Eastern Front in 1942.[91] The Panzer IV continued to play an important role during operations in 1943, including at the Battle of Kursk. Newer types, such as the Panther, were still experiencing crippling reliability problems that restricted their combat efficiency,[92] so much of the effort fell to the 841 Panzer IVs that took part in the battle.[93] Throughout 1943, the German army lost 2,352 Panzer IVs on the Eastern Front;[94] some divisions were reduced to 12–18 tanks by the end of the year.[89] In 1944, a further 2,643 Panzer IVs were destroyed, and such losses were becoming increasingly difficult to replace.[95] Nevertheless, due to a shortage of replacement Panther tanks, the Panzer IV continued to form the core of Germany's armored divisions, including elite units such as the II SS Panzer Corps, through 1944.[96] In January 1945, 287 Panzer IVs were lost on the Eastern Front. It is estimated that combat against Soviet forces accounted for 6,153 Panzer IVs, or about 75% of all Panzer IV losses during the war.[97] Western Front (1944–45) A Panzer IV Ausf. G of the 1st SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, 1942. Panzer IVs comprised around half of the available German tank strength on the Western Front prior to the Allied invasion of Normandy on 6 June 1944.[98] Most of the 11 panzer divisions that saw action in Normandy initially contained an armored regiment of one battalion of Panzer IVs and another of Panthers, for a total of around 160 tanks, although Waffen-SS panzer divisions were generally larger and better equipped than their Heer counterparts.[99][100] Regular upgrades to the Panzer IV had helped to maintain its reputation as a formidable opponent.[98] The bocage countryside in Normandy favored defense, and German tanks and anti-tank guns inflicted very heavy

casualties on Allied armor during the Normandy campaign, despite the overwhelming Allied air superiority. German counter-attacks were blunted in the face of Allied artillery, infantry-held anti-tank weapons, tank destroyers and anti-tank guns, as well as the ubiquitous fighter-bomber aircraft.[101] The side skirt armor could predetonate shaped charge anti-tank weapons such as the British PIAT, but could be pulled away by rugged terrain. German tankers in all theaters were "frustrated by the way these skirts were easily torn off when going through dense brush".[98] Pz.Kpfw-IV in Belgrade Military Museum, Serbia. The Allies had also been improving their tanks; the widely used American-designed M4 Sherman medium tank, while mechanically reliable, repairable, and available in large numbers, suffered from an inadequate gun in terms of armor-piercing.[102] Against earlier-model Panzer IVs, it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, struggled against the late-model Panzer IV.[103] The late-model Panzer IV's 80 mm (3.15 in) frontal hull armor could easily withstand hits from the 75 mm (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges,[104] though the turret remained vulnerable. The British up-gunned the Sherman with their highly effective 76 mm QF 17-pounder anti-tank gun, resulting in the Firefly;[105] although this was the only Allied tank capable of dealing with all current German tanks at normal combat ranges, few (342) were available in time for the Normandy invasion.[102] One Sherman in every British troop of four was a Firefly. By the end of the Normandy campaign, a further 550 Fireflies were built.[106] which was enough to make good any losses.[107] A second British tank equipped with the 17-pdr gun, the Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger, could not participate in the initial landings having to wait for port facilities to be ready to land. It was not until July 1944 that American Shermans fitted with the 76 mm gun M1 gun achieved a parity in firepower with the Panzer IV.[108][109] By 29 August 1944, as the last surviving German troops of Fifth Panzer Army and Seventh Army began retreating towards Germany, the twin cataclysms of the Falaise Pocket and the Seine crossing cost the Wehrmacht dearly. Of the 2,300 tanks and assault guns it had committed to Normandy (including around 750 Panzer IVs[110]), over 2,200 had been lost.[111] Field Marshal Walter Model reported to Hitler that his panzer divisions had remaining, on average, five or six tanks each.[111] During the winter of 1944–45, the Panzer IV was one of the most numerous tanks in the Ardennes offensive, where further heavy losses—as often due to fuel shortages as to enemy action—impaired major German armored operations in the West thereafter.[112] The Panzer IVs that took part were survivors of the battles in France between June and September 1944,[dubious – discuss] with around 260 additional Panzer IV Ausf. Js issued as reinforcements.[110] Other users A captured German Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. G used for anti-tank weapons testing by the British Eighth Army in Italy in 1943. Finland bought 15 new Panzer IV Ausf. Js in 1944 for 5,000,000 Finnish markkas each.[113] The remainder of an order for 40 tanks and some StuG IIIs were not delivered and neither were necessary German tank instructors provided. The tanks arrived too late to see action against the Soviet Union but instead ended up being used against Nazi Germany during their withdrawal through Lapland. After the war, they served as training tanks and one portrayed a Soviet KV-1 tank in the movie The Unknown Soldier in 1955.[citation needed] The additional weight, going from the 18.4 tons (Ausf. A) to about 25 tons (Ausf. J), of these modifications strained the relatively light chassis. The overloaded and primitive leaf-spring suspension gave its crew a shaky ride, earning the Panzer IV the nickname "Ravistin" ("Shaker") in Finnish service. This not only affected general crew comfort, but also hampered the accurate aiming of the main gun. What exactly caused this vibration that gave the PzKw IV Ausf. J

such a bad name among Finnish tank crews remains somewhat unclear, but the poor suspension seems to be the most likely suspect.[114] After 1945, Bulgaria incorporated its surviving Panzer IVs into defensive bunkers as gunpoints on its border with Turkey, along with Soviet T-34 turrets. This defensive line, known as the "Krali Marko Line", remained in use until the fall of communism in 1989.[citation needed] Twenty Panzer IV Ausf. Hs and ten StuG III Ausf. Gs were supplied to Spain in December 1943, a small fraction of what Spain had originally asked for. The Panzer IV represented the best tank in Spanish service between 1944 and 1954, and was deployed along with T-26s and Panzer Is. Spain sold 17 Panzer IVs to Syria in 1967, with the remaining three left conserved. These can be found in Madrid, Burgos and Santovenia de Pisuerga (Valladolid). Most of the tanks Romania had received were lost during combat between 1944 and 1945. These tanks, designated T4 in the army's inventory, were used by the Army's 2nd Armored Regiment. On 9 May 1945, only two Panzer IVs were left. Romania received another 50 captured Panzer IV tanks from the Red Army after the end of the war. These tanks were of many different models and were in very bad shape[59]—many of them were missing parts and the side-skirts. These German T4 tanks remained in service until 1950, when the Army decided to use only Soviet equipment. By 1954, all German tanks in Romanian military service had been scrapped. An ex-Syrian Panzer IV displayed at the AAF Tank Museum. While their numbers remain uncertain, Syria received around 60 Panzers that were refurbished in France between 1950 and 1952, followed by 50 others purchased from Czechoslovakia in 1954, per the Czechoslovakia-Syria arms deal.[115] A Soviet 12.7mm DShK machine gun on an anti-aircraft mount was retrofitted on the cupola. These ex-German tanks were used to shell Israeli settlements below the Golan Heights, together with Soviet-supplied T-34s, and were fired upon in 1965 during the Water War by Israeli Super Sherman and Centurion tanks.[112] Syria received 17 Panzer IVs from Spain, with these seeing combat during the Six-Day War in 1967.[116] Several of Syria's Panzer IVs were captured by the Israeli Army and donated to the Yad La-Shiryon museum. The AAF Tank Museum in Danville, Virginia later traded a US M5 Stuart light tank to the Latrun museum for one of the Czechoslovak-origin Panzer IVs, which is now an exhibit there.[117] In addition, Turkey was a buyer, with 35 Panzer IVs received until 4 May 1944 in exchange for some chromium ore. Delivery began with the Ausf. G and probably went on with Ausf. H versions.[118] Other sources state only 15 to 22 tanks were delivered in 1943, all of the Ausf G version.[119] Captured Panzer IVs in service The Soviet Army captured significant numbers of German armored vehicles, including Panzer IVs (its Russian designation was "T-4"). Some of them were pressed into temporary service and some others were used for driver or anti-tank training. Sometimes, captured tanks were used in different temporary units or as single tanks. While captured Tiger I/IIs and Panthers were only permitted to be used until they irrecoverably broke down, the simplicity of the Panzer IV and the large number of captured parts allowed for long-term repair and continued use. At least one captured Panzer IV Ausf. H was used by the Warsaw Tank Brigade of the Polish 2nd Corps in Italy during 1944. The 1st GMR (Groupement Mobile de Reconnaissance) of the FFI (French Forces of the Interior), later called 'Escadron Autonome de Chars Besnier', was equipped in December 1944 with at least one Panzer IV. Variants A Jagdpanzer IV tank destroyer, based on the Panzer IV chassis, mounting the 75 mm Pak L/48 anti-tank gun. A Sturmpanzer IV infantry-support gun The Wirbelwind self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. In keeping with the wartime German design expediencies of mounting an existing anti-tank gun on a convenient chassis to give mobility, several tank destroyers and infantry support guns were

built around the Panzer IV hull. Both the Jagdpanzer IV, initially armed with the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) L/48 tank gun,[120] and the Krupp-manufactured Sturmgeschütz IV, which was the casemate of the Sturmgeschütz III mounted on the body of the Panzer IV,[121] proved highly effective in defense. Cheaper and faster to construct than tanks, but with the disadvantage of a very limited gun traverse, around 1,980 Jagdpanzer IVs[122] and 1,140 Sturmgeschütz IVs[123] were produced. Another tank destroyer, the Panzer IV/70, used the same basic 75-millimeter L/70 gun that was mounted on the Panther.[124][125] Another variant of the Panzer IV was the Panzerbefehlswagen IV (Pz. Bef. Wg. IV) command tank. This conversion entailed the installation of additional radio sets with associated mounting racks, transformers, junction boxes, wiring, antennas and an auxiliary electrical generator. To make room for the new equipment, ammunition stowage was reduced from 87 to 72 rounds. The vehicle could coordinate with nearby armor, infantry or even aircraft. Seventeen Panzerbefehlswagen were built on Ausf. J chassis in August and September 1944,[3] while another 88 were based on refurbished chassis.[126] The Panzerbeobachtungswagen IV (Pz. Beob. Wg. IV) was an artillery observation vehicle built on the Panzer IV chassis. This, too, received new radio equipment and an electrical generator, installed in the left rear corner of the fighting compartment. Panzerbeobachtungswagens worked in cooperation with Wespe and Hummel self-propelled artillery batteries.[127] Also based on the Panzer IV chassis was the Sturmpanzer IV (called "Brummbär" by Allied intelligence) 150-millimetre (5.91 in) infantry-support self-propelled gun. These vehicles were primarily issued to four Sturmpanzer units (Numbers 216, 217, 218 and 219) and used during the battle of Kursk and in Italy in 1943. Two separate versions of the Sturmpanzer IV existed, one without a machine gun in the mantlet and one with a machine gun mounted on the mantlet of the casemate.[128] Furthermore, a 105-millimetre (4.13 in) artillery gun was mounted in an experimental demountable turret on a Panzer IV chassis. This variant was called the Heuschrecke ("grasshopper").[129] Another 105 mm artillery/anti-tank prototype was the 10.5 cm K (gp.Sfl.) nicknamed Dicker Max. Four different self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles were built on the Panzer IV hull. The Flakpanzer IV "Möbelwagen" ("moving van") was armed with a 37-millimetre (1.46 in) anti-aircraft cannon; 240 were built between 1944 and 1945. In late 1944 a new Flakpanzer, the Wirbelwind ("whirlwind"), was designed, with enough armor to protect the gun's crew in a rotating turret, armed with the quadruple 20 mmFlakvierling anti-aircraft cannon system; at least 100 were manufactured. Sixty-five (out of an order for 100) similar vehicles with a single 37 mm anti-aircraft cannon were built named Ostwind ("East wind"). This vehicle was designed to replace the Wirbelwind. The final model was the Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz, of which only five pilot vehicles were built. This vehicle featured an enclosed turret armed with twin 30-millimetre (1.18 in) Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 103 aircraft cannon.[130] Although not a direct modification of the Panzer IV, some of its components, in conjunction with parts from the Panzer III, were utilized to make one of the most widely used self-propelled artillery chassis of the war—the Geschützwagen III/IV. This chassis was the basis of the Hummel, of which 666 were built, and also the 88-millimetre (3.46 in) gun-armed Nashorn tank destroyer, with 473 manufactured.[131] To resupply self-propelled howitzers in the field, 150 ammunition carriers were manufactured on the Geschützwagen III/IV chassis.[68] Another variant was the Bergepanzer IV armored recovery vehicle. Some were believed to have been converted locally,[132] 21 were converted from hulls returned for repair between October 1944 and January 1945. The conversion involved removing the turret and adding a wooden plank cover with an access hatch over the turret

ring and the addition of a 2-ton jib crane and rigid towing bars.[133] Panzer IV mit hydrostatischem antrieb Another rare variant was the Panzer IV mit hydrostatischem antrieb. In 1944, Zahnradfabrik (ZF) Augsburg plant produced a prototype with an unusual drive concept. A Panzer IV Ausf. H tank received a fluid drive instead of the normal gearbox. Two oil pumps were installed behind the engine, which in turn drove two oil engines. An axial engine drive transmitted the power to the rear drive wheels via a reduction gear. Instead of the two steering levers, the driver had a crescent-shaped steering wheel with the steering movements of which two steering cylinders were operated, which in turn regulated the volume of the oil pumps and thus regulated the adjacent force on the two drive wheels. The only prototype built was not used and was shipped to America after the war to be subjected to driving tests. These finally had to be discontinued due to a lack of spare parts. The only surviving vehicle is now in United States Army Ordnance Training and Heritage Center in Maryland.[134] Production models Production models of Panzer IV[3] Name Production details Ausf.A, 1/BW (Sd.Kfz.161) 35 produced by Krupp-Gruson, between November 1937 and June 1938. Ausf.B, 2/BW 42 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from May to October 1938. Ausf.C, 3/BW 140 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1938 to August 1939. Ausf.D, 4/BW + 5/BW 200 + 48 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1939 to October 1940. Ausf.E, 6/BW 206 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1940 to April 1941. Ausf.F, 7/BW 471 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from April 1941 to March 1942. Ausf.F2, 7/BW Umbau (Sd.Kfz.161/1) Temporary designation for Ausf F chassis built with long 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 main gun, later renamed into Auf. G and 8/BW. Ausf.G, 8/BW 1,927 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from March 1942 to June 1943. Ausf.H, 9/BW (Sd.Kfz.161/2) ~2,324 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from June 1943 to February 1944. Ausf.J, 10/BW ~3,160 produced by Nibelungenwerke and Vomag from February 1944 to April 1945. Variants based on chassis Derivatives of Panzer IV Name Production details Tauchpanzer IV 42 converted from July 1940 as submersible medium support tanks Panzerbefehlswagen Command tank with additional radio equipment, 17 built on Ausf. J and further 88 on rebuilt chassis Panzerbeobachtungswagen IV Artillery spotter tank with special radio equipment, 133 converted from Ausf. J Sturmpanzer IV Heavy Assault gun armed with 150 mm Infantry gun Sturmgeschütz IV Assault gun, similar to StuG III, armed with 7.5 cm gun Jagdpanzer IV and Panzer IV/70 Tank destroyer armed with 7.5 cm gun Nashorn Heavy Panzerjäger armed with 8.8 cm Anti-tank gun Hummel Self-propelled artillery armed with 150 mm Howitzer Flakpanzer IV Multiple variants of Panzer IV chassis armed with various Flak guns Brückenleger IV b+c 20+4 bridge layer tanks built by Krupp and Magirus, on Ausf.C and Ausf.D chassis, from February to May 1940 Brückenleger IV s (Sturmstegpanzer) 4 assault bridge carriers converted from Ausf.C chassis in 1940 Bergepanzer IV 21 armoured recovery vehicles converted from Pz IV chassis from October to December 1944 Panzer IV mit hydrostatischem antrieb 1 Panzer IV Ausf. H with a hydraulic drive by Zahnradfabrik in 1944

Thank you for this my love

[truckandtractor]

Best Selling Tipper By Tata Motors: Tata Signa 4825. Tk

One of the top manufacturers in India, Tata Motors offers a wide variety of vehicles and the Tata Signa 4825.TK is one of the tippers customers find to be the most acceptable option. This blog has covered several noteworthy features of this tipper, so you can learn more about it and see how effective it is for transport operations.

Engine

Tata Signa 4825.TK Tipper is manufactured with a powerful Cummins ISBe 6.7 BS6 engine that offers the power of 250 HP and 950 NM of torque. This HCV tipper has a GVW of 47500 KG and a diesel fuel tank of 300 litres for the long run.

Clutch Transmissions

The Tata Signa 4825.TK Tipper's transmission is tuned to a G1150 9-speed Gearbox with a crawler & one reverse. This tipper also includes power steering, which makes driving an effortless task. 

Dimensions

The Tata Signa 4825.TK Tipper has a 6750 MM wheelbase that provides extra stability and prevents the tipper from turning over. 

Brake suspension

Parking brakes and Disc Brakes, which have a substantially stronger braking force, are fitted into the Tata Signa 4825.TK 16 tyre tipper. Additionally, the tipper is equipped with Parabolic Leaf spring / Semi Elliptical Leaf spring Air suspension in the lift axle for the front suspension and Semi Elliptical Leaf spring / Bogie suspension Air suspension in the lift axle for the rear suspension.

[bogiesprings]

Bogie Springs India

Sonico Bogie multi spring assemblies are set up with hydraulic shearing , short taper rolling, spm drilling and other top-class manufacturing facilities. For more information please visit us : https://www.sonicoleafsprings.com/bogie-springs.html . #Bogiesprings #BogiespringsManufacturer #BogiespringsIndia #Sonicoleafsprings .

[sujanindustries]

Sujan Industries: Leading Railway Parts Manufacturers in India

Sujan Industries is a renowned name in the manufacturing industry, specializing in railway parts. As one of the leading railway parts manufacturers in India, Sujan Industries has a proven track record of delivering high-quality, reliable, and durable products for the railway sector. With a commitment to innovation, advanced technology, and stringent quality control, Sujan Industries has become a trusted partner for railway companies across the country. In this article, we will explore the diverse range of railway parts manufactured by Sujan Industries and highlight their commitment to excellence in the industry.

Wide Range of Railway Parts

Sujan Industries offers an extensive range of railway parts that cater to the diverse needs of the railway sector. Here are some of the key products they manufacture:

Bogie Components: Sujan Industries produces a wide range of bogie components, including axle boxes, bolster springs, brake beams, side frames, and more. These components are designed to withstand the rigorous demands of railway operations, ensuring smooth and safe movement of trains.

Couplers and Draw Gear Components: The company manufactures couplers, draft gears, and associated components that play a crucial role in connecting railway vehicles. These components are designed to provide a secure and reliable connection, ensuring efficient and safe train operations.

Suspension Systems: Sujan Industries offers various suspension system components such as rubber pads, air springs, and dampers. These components contribute to the comfort and stability of railway vehicles, minimizing vibrations and enhancing passenger experience.

Brake Components: The company manufactures brake components like brake blocks, brake shoes, and brake discs that ensure effective braking performance and safety during train operations. These components are designed to withstand high temperatures, heavy loads, and provide reliable braking performance.

Electrical and Electronics Components: Sujan Industries also specializes in manufacturing electrical and electronics components for the railway industry. This includes traction motors, pantographs, circuit breakers, contactors, and other crucial components that contribute to the efficient functioning of the electrical systems on trains.

Commitment to Quality and Safety

Sujan Industries is committed to delivering railway parts that meet the highest standards of quality and safety. The company adheres to stringent quality control measures at every stage of the manufacturing process. They source the finest raw materials and employ advanced manufacturing techniques to ensure that their products are reliable, durable, and meet industry specifications.

Sujan Industries is also focused on safety, recognizing the critical role railway parts play in the overall safety of train operations. Their products undergo rigorous testing and inspection to ensure compliance with safety regulations and standards. By prioritizing quality and safety, Sujan Industries instills confidence in their customers and contributes to the overall reliability of railway systems.

State-of-the-Art Infrastructure and Technology

Sujan Industries possesses a state-of-the-art manufacturing infrastructure equipped with advanced machinery, tools, and testing facilities. Their manufacturing facilities are designed to optimize efficiency and precision in the production process. With a team of skilled engineers, technicians, and industry experts, Sujan Industries leverages technology to deliver cutting-edge solutions for railway parts manufacturing.

Commitment to Sustainability

Sujan Industries recognizes the importance of sustainability and environmental responsibility. The company takes measures to minimize its carbon footprint through efficient manufacturing processes, waste reduction, and responsible use of resources. By adopting sustainable practices, Sujan Industries contributes to a greener and more sustainable railway industry.

Customer-Centric Approach

Sujan Industries places great emphasis on customer satisfaction and building long-term relationships. They work closely with their customers to understand their unique requirements and provide customized solutions. Sujan Industries' dedicated customer support team ensures prompt response, technical assistance, and efficient after-sales service.

Conclusion

Sujan Industries stands out as one of the leading railway parts manufacturers in India, providing high-quality and reliable products for the railway industry. With their diverse range of railway parts, commitment to quality, safety, sustainability, and customer-centric approach, Sujan Industries has established itself as a trusted partner for railway companies in India. Choose Sujan Industries for your railway parts requirements and experience the excellence they bring to the railway industry.

[trailersprings]

Significance of Leaf Springs

Leaf springs are a basic part of the vehicle's suspension framework. They are introduced to support the tension caused by the entire weight of the vehicle or truck. Leaf springs likewise help to keep proper grip of the tires and manage the wheelbase lengths when it is accelerating or slowing down. To control the stature of the ride, leaf springs are very important.

The leaf spring comprises a curve molded, thin piece of steel - stacked with similar material in small sizes and bolted together, making a strengthened bow-like thing. When the endpoints of the springs are connected to the back pivot and the chassis, it can then withstand a large amount of pressure & weight of vehicle and evenly distribute it.

In simpler terms, a leaf spring refers to a spring with numerous layers of metal organized together. They're basic to the suspension frameworks of vehicles. The general motivation behind a leaf spring is to offer help for a vehicle. It additionally makes a smoother ride by retaining any knocks or potholes in the street. Also, leaf springs find the axle and control the stature at which the vehicle rides, while keeping the tires adjusted and aligned.

On account of these advantages, leaf springs are very much sought after. Smooth and easy transportation is one of the contributions of Leaf Springs which have enhanced the automobile industry. Nowadays, leaf springs are more famous with Heavy Commercial vehicles like trucks, SUVs and vans.

Sonico is a leading and complete solution provider in the domain of Leaf Springs. The manufacturing facilities of Sonico are equipped with Automatic Parabolic Rolling Line, Robotic Heat Treatment Line, Stress Shot Peening Line, Automatic Paint Line and Automatic Assembly Line with on-line CNC Scragging machine. Major types of Trailer Spring manufactured and exported by Sonico are — Parabolic Leaf Springs; Air Links; Conventional Leaf Springs, Bogie Springs, Trailer Springs and Spring Assembly For E Rickshaw.

[mackayrubberau]

Bogie Components Suppliers Australia -  Passenger, locomotive and wagon bogies can contain a number of resilient elements such as bump-stops, bolster springs, spherical & plain bushes, elements for steerable bogies and shock-absorber mounts. Mackay has designed and manufactured these resilient elements for service life improvements over OEM components.

[greatworldwar2]

• Panzer 38(t)

The Panzerkampfwagen 38(t), originally known as the ČKD LT vz. 38 was a tank designed during the 1930s, and developed in Czechoslovakia. It saw extensive use in World War 2.

The Panzer 38(t) was a conventional inter-war tank design, with riveted armour. The armour varied in thickness from 10 mm to 25 mm in most versions. Later models (Ausf. E on) increased this to 50 mm by bolting on an additional 25 mm armour plate to the front portion of the hull. The sides received an additional 15 mm increase of armour from Ausf. E production runs onward. The two-man turret was centrally located, and housed the tank's main armament, a 37 mm Skoda A7 gun with 90 rounds of ammunition. In addition, a 7.92 mm machine gun was in a ball mount to the right of the main gun. This machine gun could be trained on targets independently of the main gun, or coupled to the main gun for use as a conventional coaxial machine gun. The driver was in the front right of the hull, with the radio operator seated to the driver's left. The radio operator manned the hull-mounted 7.92 mm machine gun in front. Minor adjustments, such as adjustable seats for the driver and firmer footing for the commander/gunner and loader, were provided in German service. A total of 2,550 rounds were carried for the bow and turret machine guns. The driver could also fire the hull machine gun with a trigger fitted on the left tiller bar. In German service, a loader position was added to the turret by reducing the ammunition capacity by 18 rounds. All future Panzer 38(t) tanks were rebuilt according to this specification and those already in service were modified accordingly. The engine was mounted in the rear of the hull and powered the tank through a transmission at the front of the hull with five forward gears and one reverse gear. The track ran under four rubber-tired road wheels and back over a rear idler and two track return rollers. The wheels were mounted on a leaf-spring double-bogie mounted on two axles.

In 1935, the Czechoslovak tank manufacturer ČKD was looking for a replacement for the LT-35 tank they were jointly producing with Škoda Works. The LT-35 was complex and had shortcomings, and ČKD felt there would be orders both from the expanding Czechoslovak army and for export. ČKD decided to use a leaf-spring suspension with four large wheels for their new tank with an export success under the name "TNH". With small variations for each customer, 50 were exported to Iran, 24 each to Peru and Switzerland, Lithuania also ordered some. The British Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) had one trial model delivered on March 23rd, 1939 to Gunnery School at Lulworth. A report stated that "the (bow) gunner could not sit back comfortably as the wireless set was in the way of his left shoulder". The report also stated that, due to the shudder while the vehicle was on the move, it was impossible to lay the gun. As a result, the British did not purchase the LT-35 and the trial model was returned.

In the fall of 1937, the Czechoslovak Armed Forces launched a contest for a new medium tank; Škoda, ČKD and Tatra competed. Škoda Praga submitted the existing joint production export model mentioned above. ČKD also entered a prototype separate from the above, the interesting V-8-H (later called the ST vz. 39), which proved to have numerous mechanical problems. Tatra, known mostly for its smaller, wheeled armoured cars, submitted a paper entry that was a very novel concept that completely changed the layout of a tank, which concept they patented in 1938. On July 1st, 1938, Czechoslovakia ordered 150 of the TNHPS model, although none had entered service by the time of the German occupation. After the takeover of Czechoslovakia, Germany ordered continued production of the model as it was considered an excellent tank, especially compared to the Panzer I and Panzer II that were the Panzerwaffe's main tanks during the outset of WWII. It was first introduced into German service under the name LTM 38; this was changed in January 1940 to Panzerkampfwagen 38(t). The relatively small turret of the Panzer 38(t) was incapable of mounting a cannon powerful enough to defeat more heavily armoured tanks such as the T-34, so production of the Pz. 38(t) halted in June 1942 when more than 1,400 had been built. Other examples of the Pz. 38(t) were also sold to a number of other Axis nations, including Hungary (102), Slovakia (69), Romania (50), and Bulgaria (10).

The main advantages of the Panzer 38(t), compared to other tanks of the day, were a high reliability and sustained mobility. In one documented case, a regiment was supplied with tanks driven straight from the factory in 2.5 days instead of the anticipated week, without any mechanical breakdowns. In the opinion of the crews, the drive components of the Pz. 38(t) - engine, gear, steering, suspension, wheels and tracks - were perfectly in tune with each other. The Pz. 38(t) was also considered to be very easy to maintain and repair. After production of the Pz. 38(t) ceased, the chassis was used for tank destroyer designs, which were produced in greater numbers than the original Pz. 38(t). From 1942–1944, about 1,500 examples of the Marder III model were produced. It was replaced by the Jagdpanzer 38(t), based on a modified Panzer 38(t) chassis, of which approximately 2,800 were produced. The Panzer 38(t) chassis was also the basis for an anti-aircraft gun carrier, the Flakpanzer 38(t), of which about 140 were produced.

The Panzer 38(t) performed well in the invasion of Poland in 1939 and the Battle of France in 1940. It was better armed than the Panzer I and Panzer II tanks. It was on a par with most light tank designs of the era, although it was unable to effectively engage the frontal armour of medium, heavy and infantry tank designs. It was also used in the German invasion of the Soviet Union from 1941 onwards in German and Hungarian units, but was outclassed by Soviet tanks such as the T-34. Some ex-German units were issued to the Romanians in 1943, after the loss of many of the Romanian R-2 tanks. By then, it had become largely obsolete, though the chassis was adapted to a variety of different roles with success. Notable variations include the Sd.Kfz. 138 Marder III mobile anti-tank gun, the Sd.Kfz. 138/1 Grille mobile howitzer, Flakpanzer 38(t) and the Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer" tank destroyer. The German tank commander Otto Carius, who was credited with over 150 'kills', described an action in a 38(t) in July 8th, 1941: "It happened like greased lightning. A hit against our tank, a metallic crack, the scream of a comrade, and that was all there was! A large piece of armour plating had been penetrated next to the radio operator's seat. No one had to tell us to get out. Not until I had run my hand across my face while crawling in the ditch next to the road did I discover that they had also got me. Our radio operator had lost his left arm. We cursed the brittle and inelastic Czech steel that gave the Russian 47mm anti-tank gun so little trouble. The pieces of our own armour plating and assembly bolts caused considerably more damage than the shrapnel of the round itself."

The above report highlights the reason why the 38(t) was pulled out of front lines in favour of heavier Panzer III, IV and StuG IIIs. Panzer 38(t) continued to serve after 1941 as a reconnaissance vehicle and in anti-partisan units for some time. Several captured examples were refitted with Soviet DTM machineguns and employed by the Red Army. At the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans found Soviet T-34 tanks to be superior, as the German 37 mm Pak36 anti-tank gun proved incapable of penetrating the T-34's armour. To neutralize the T-34, the Germans mounted a captured Soviet 76.2mm gun on the chassis of the 38(t) model as a stop-gap measure and called it the "Marder III". Crews of early Marder III models fought exposed on top of the engine deck. Efforts to provide Marder III crews with more protection eventually lead to the Hetzer design.

The T-38 was the local designation for the wartime deliveries of Panzer 38(t)s from Germany to Romania in 1943. T-38 served with the forces operating in Kuban. within 2nd Tank Regiment and later the 54th Company attached to the HQ and the cavalry corps in Kuban and Crimea. T-38 tanks were still in action with the 10th Infantry Division and Cavalry Divisions in 1944. In the Slovak Army, this tank received designation LT-38. Because of the first series of the LT-38 was not finished in March 1939 and as it was seized by Nazi Germany, the army of the Slovak State, a German ally in the Polish and Soviet campaigns, initially had only LT-35 tanks. In 1940 Slovak Army ordered 10 tanks, which were used in Operation Barbarossa. Two tanks were destroyed, other 8 tanks later returned to Slovakia. After that, Slovak Army ordered another 27 tanks, and when Germans started withdrawing Panzer 38(t) tanks, Slovak Army received another 37 tanks from Germany. 13 tanks of this type were used by slovak insurgents during the Slovak National Uprising in 1944.