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