Jump to content


Photo

Best Tank Of Wwi


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 31 May 2015 - 1326 PM

wanders off to amazon....


  • 0

#22 cbo

cbo

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,108 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2015 - 1444 PM

Trench crossing:

 

Mk V: 3 meters

Mk V*: 4 meters

Whippet: 2,2 meters

A7V: 2,3 meters

FT-17: 1,8 meters

Schneider: 1,8 meters

St. Chamond: 2,5 meters

 

AFAIK a firetrench would be somewhere in the region of 1 to 2,5 meters wide at the top, narrower at the bottom. But once the tank starts to push into the trench, I suppose it might start to cave in, making it less of an obstacle?

 

Anti-tank trenches were wider, probably beyond even the capabilities of the Rhomboid tanks? For those, you needed fascines and the little FT-17 could carry those as well as the larger machines:

 

FT-17FascineTank01.jpg

 

Given the advantages of the FT-17 over the Rhomboids (size, weight, rotating turret, transportability etc.), it looks like a prime candidate for Top WWI Tank.


  • 0

#23 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,933 posts

Posted 31 May 2015 - 1521 PM

.
 
The FT17 was an impressive design. But as far as a best tank for WW1, it would arguably have to be the Liberty Tank. It didnt arrive till it was all over is the problem. So that really leaves the MKV, which had the first 'modern' driving system in that all the controls were in the hands of one driver.

Doesn't the little FT predate the Mk V in having a single driver?

Was the FT the first production tank to have a suspension? I don't recall if the Schneider or St Chamond had one.

Edited by Mikel2, 31 May 2015 - 1524 PM.

  • 0

#24 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,933 posts

Posted 31 May 2015 - 1528 PM

I can't tell if the springs are for the lower wheels or to maintain track tension.

St_Chamond_tank_015.jpg
  • 0

#25 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2015 - 1546 PM

Were there ever any dedicated engineering FT-17 variants, or just fascine carriers?

 

It seems rather more logical in retrospect to build engineering/assault tanks with bridging equipment than take things to their logical conclusion and build this massive, super long tanks to cross AT trenches. The prototyped Mk VIII Star was supposed to be some whopping 14 meters long. I don't think it would have even been able to turn in soft terrain.


Edited by Jason L, 31 May 2015 - 1546 PM.

  • 0

#26 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,268 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 02 June 2015 - 0900 AM

Looks an awesome book Ken, Ill be sure to get that one if I see it.

 

In addition to the Togs, Maus, Tortoise, etc there is a section, a bit smaller, on Japanese super heavies...

...along with a Jason on the inside cover among the many other names :ninja:


  • 0

#27 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 02 June 2015 - 1049 AM

Were there ever any dedicated engineering FT-17 variants, or just fascine carriers?

 

It seems rather more logical in retrospect to build engineering/assault tanks with bridging equipment than take things to their logical conclusion and build this massive, super long tanks to cross AT trenches. The prototyped Mk VIII Star was supposed to be some whopping 14 meters long. I don't think it would have even been able to turn in soft terrain.

there was a command version


  • 0

#28 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 02 June 2015 - 1315 PM

Or, are you thinking of the FO version? The army referred to it as the signal tank [viz. Hunnicutt, Stuart] but the one USMC version pictured was kept by the arty regiment even after the eight M1917A1 were declared surplus. The bulky compartment was just for the radio.

 

Rlitj9.jpg


Edited by Ken Estes, 02 June 2015 - 1317 PM.

  • 0

#29 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 02 June 2015 - 1438 PM

Yes, i was under the impression it was a command tank. I have seen some footage from WWI show a box type structure on them. I have to say the more I have looked at the FT-17 and variants, the more I appreciate how clever a design it was for it's time.


Edited by Colin, 02 June 2015 - 1442 PM.

  • 0

#30 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 02 June 2015 - 1705 PM

There was a CS version with 75mm howitzer.


  • 0

#31 cbo

cbo

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,108 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2015 - 0540 AM

Were there ever any dedicated engineering FT-17 variants, or just fascine carriers?

 

It seems rather more logical in retrospect to build engineering/assault tanks with bridging equipment than take things to their logical conclusion and build this massive, super long tanks to cross AT trenches. The prototyped Mk VIII Star was supposed to be some whopping 14 meters long. I don't think it would have even been able to turn in soft terrain.

 

Variants:

 

- MG armed tank

- 37mm armed tank

- 75mm armed tank (gun in modified hull, no turret)

- 75mm armed tank (gun in turret)

- Signal tank

- Fascine laying tank (appears to be a normal tank with a fascine carrying attachment)

- Dozer tank (no turret, probably post-war)

- Mine plow tank (probably post-war)

- Bridge-layer tank (probably post-war)

- Heavy mortar tank - 1940 project carrying a 240mm or 280 mm mortar

- Pill-box tank - gutted and placed in the Maginot line, post-war

- Agricultural tractor tank - tanks were used to pull plows in evacuated rear areas where troops were doing agricultural work in lieu of the evacuated farmers.

 

EDIT: Just found another one...

 

- River barge towing vehicle:  (about half a page down)


Edited by cbo, 16 August 2015 - 1058 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users