Afghanistan FT-17 (Renault Tank)

[Listy]

Originally Posted by skiplc

Hasn't that tank been here in another thread a few months ago?

Ya think

Originally Posted by Listy

I know this has come up before on here, but I can't find the thread, so can anyone help?

[skiplc]

You can't find the other thread either?

[Listy]

Originally Posted by skiplc

You can't find the other thread either?

Nope. IIRC someone was asking how did the Taliban keep it running. Until someone pointed out the plinth...

[skiplc]

Here ya go...

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=117086

[Listy]

Originally Posted by skiplc

Here ya go...

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=117086

That's it. Thanks.

[dutched]

Originally Posted by the ace

It looks like a longer barreled 37mm. Remember, the FT-17 came in two versions.

Like you say a longer barrelled version of the Puteaux 37 mm SA 18.
Only problem is, I never seen the longer barrelled version before.

Ed.

[Admiral]

Threads merged!

ACG Staff

[dutched]

Originally Posted by parcher

You put a larger diameter pipe over the barrel so the enemy thinks that you have a bigger gun.

That's cheating, like hanging big socks from your washing line.

Ed.

[Estienne]

This is a complicated matter, and some elements are still unclear, but I shall try to round up what is known and respond to several points made in this discussion.

It's indisputable that two Renault FTs were discovered in the scrapyard in Afghanistan. There are claims that that there were another two in the country, perhaps on display inside or outside museums. The scrapyard was set up by the Taliban, presumably after they formed a government in 1996, as a dump for old military equipment so that valuable scrap could be processed and sold via neighbouring Pakistan. It's therefore possible that there were only two FTs - that the ones in the junkyard were the ex-display ones.

It appears that both of these machines, after consultation with the Afghan and French governments, were taken to the USA for restoration. There does not seem to be any mention of the fate of the supposed other two. The restorers at Fort Knox (who have examined every square inch of the vehicles) are of the view that these machines were sold by France to Poland after WWI, captured by the Red Army during the Russo-Polish War, and then presented to Afghanistan in 1919, as recognition either of independent Afghanistan by the Bolshevik Russian govt or vice versa.

One of the Afghan Renaults has ended up in France, restored at the Armour Museum at Saumur. Where this came from is not clear; I haven't been able to determine whether it's one of the Fort Knox pair or from another source.

So it's not absolutely certain whether there were 2, 3, or 4 FTs in the country. An unconfirmed report says that one FT is being restored in Afghanistan and will be put on display there.

Some other matters arising:

Only Renault-made FTs carried the Renault plate. The Renault factory built about 50% of the vehicles, the remainder being sub-contracted to SOMUA, Berliet, and Delaunay-Belleville.

French-built FTs were fitted with either the polygonal (Berliet) or round (Girod) turret, in roughly equal measure. Both types of turret could mount either the Hotchkiss MG or the Puteaux 35mm cannon. There was no "longer barreled" version of the 37mm - the two French versions of the FT were just MG or 37mm armed, but countries that bought FTs after WWI often substituted their own armament, as in the Finnish example.

References to an "FT-18" are incorrect. Reasons for this confusion are many, but neither Renault nor the French Army ever used the term. In fact, the name FT-17 didn't come into use until the inter-war period; throughout WWI it was just the FT - a Renault production code.

There was no such thing as the "American FT-17". US forces used FTs in France during WWI. The US near-copy of the FT was the M1917 or Six-Ton Tank, which had many minor differences. All M1917s had a polygonal turret. The US did not sell any M1917s overseas until 1940, and then only to Canada.

These FTs can't have been captured from Britain during the Third Afghan War. Britain didn't have any. And there is no evidence that they were used by the Afghan forces against British troops. A possible source of confusion is the area of Tank in present-day Waziristan, which was fought over during this war.

I think two things are certain:

Afghanistan could not have produced these vehicles domestically.

The rumour that they saw action, however limited, in the 1980s is stretching credulity to breaking point. The idea that they were maintained in anything approaching running order, or even maintaining the guns, for over 60 years is very difficult to accept.

Hope this is useful. If anyone can add anything concrete to the above, I'll be delighted to see it.

[Carl Schwamberg]

Thanks for the clarification on French nomenclature for this tank. What is the best source (of resonablly easy acess) for this. Also where might have the idea of a longer barreled French 37mm cannon come from?

[Estienne]

Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberg

Thanks for the clarification on French nomenclature for this tank. What is the best source (of resonablly easy acess) for this. Also where might have the idea of a longer barreled French 37mm cannon come from?

On this occasion, Wkipedia can be trusted, principally because I wrote this part of the article : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT#Nomenclature

The long-barrelled 37mm is a puzzle. The one on the Finnish FT is the only one I've seen mounted in a tank. The gun began life as an infantry weapon, the canon de 37mm TR (rapid fire) modèle 1916 trench gun. It was a two-man weapon, but when Col Estienne asked for it to be installed in the FT it was redesigned to be shorter and semi-automatic, hence the designation SA18. It looks as if the Finns fitted the 1916 model to their FT. It might not even be authentic, but perhaps a modern retrofit. There are some pics of the 1916 model here: landships.activeboard.com/t17286861/37mm-m1916-infantry-gun/

Hope this helps.

[Soothesayer]

I wouldn't discount India as the route. Anglo-Afghan relations recovered and improved very quickly after 1919, mainly due to the Soviet threat. It's often forgotten that in the 1920s Britain and Afghanistan formed a defence treaty whereby Britain would come to Afghan assistance in the event of a Soviet invasion.

[Fodder76]

I'm no tread head, but looking at that photo, how on earth is that "gun" supposed to be elevated / depressed. Compared to the photos of the real deal that looks to me like the original armament has been removed and, to make it look good on the plinth, some one has simply welded a few pipes on a square steel plate and slapped the whole thing on the turret?

I mean seriously, look at that and tell me how that is supposed to move.

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

as opposed to the this

Originally Posted by Admiral

[TacCovert4]

You're right. You look on the Admiral's photo of an authentic FT17, and you notice that the gun's mantlet comes out from the turret slightly and has an angle of its own. You can see this by noting the angle of the gun, and then the mantlet.

In the Afghan FT17 photo there is not any visible angle there, and in fact doesn't appear to be any sort of elevation equipment between the gun and the turret. Maybe it's just a hack-job for display purposes?

[Estienne]

Originally Posted by Soothesayer

I wouldn't discount India as the route. Anglo-Afghan relations recovered and improved very quickly after 1919, mainly due to the Soviet threat. It's often forgotten that in the 1920s Britain and Afghanistan formed a defence treaty whereby Britain would come to Afghan assistance in the event of a Soviet invasion.

Quite so. But Britain didn't have any Renaults. Some loan vehicles, ten IIRC, were used by GB on the Western Front, but handed back in 1918. No mention of FTs in any British inventories, reports, official histories.