I've finally got around to posting some pictures of WW1 tanks I found in an antique shop at
http://rockislandww1tanks.blogspot.com/
I also posted about these at the Landships forum-
http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=63528&p=3&topicID=22377886
Nothin really earth shattering, but some interesting pictures of interesting old tanks.
Andrew, those are fantastic.
Could I be so bold as to request some large, higher resolution versions of the scans?
When I scanned my Grandfather's WWII Camp Borden photos I found that a setting of 300dpi and 200%
enlargement gave very good results in terms of detail... so, if possible, scans of that size would be great.
j.c.farrelly@comcast.net
Jon
When it comes to WWI armour, I've always kind of liked the look of the St. Chamond...... although I figured that it should really be called a self-propelled gun rather than a tank......
I'm under the impression that the TOG series, Char B1, and Char 2C would be the ultimate development of WWI tank concepts? And the TOG2 is armed with a 17-pounder of the WWII fame for the main gun......
The LANDSHIPS site is an excellent source for early Armor Whiffs. Here's a link to the articles page.
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/tank_articles.htm
I especially reccomend the article on the American 150-200 ton landships...Big Wheels, baby!
I'll add that many of these articles come with good plan view drawings.
A couple of questions.
What type of tank was used as the basis for the stunt tank in the third Indiana Jones film?
What type of tank was used as the basis for the CGI tank in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 26, 2008, 10:51:56 PM
A couple of questions.
What type of tank was used as the basis for the stunt tank in the third Indiana Jones film?
Sort of based on the MK VIII 'International', with a turret added.
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/mk8_the_international_info.htm (http://www.landships.freeservers.com/mk8_the_international_info.htm)
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_34468-Made-for-Movie-Mk1.html (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_34468-Made-for-Movie-Mk1.html)
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 26, 2008, 10:51:56 PM
What type of tank was used as the basis for the CGI tank in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
Its a pretty generic 'rhomboid-type' tank and has no particular prototype.
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_22407-Made-for-Movie-Tank.html (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_22407-Made-for-Movie-Tank.html)
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on November 26, 2008, 11:22:25 PM
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 26, 2008, 10:51:56 PMA couple of questions.
What type of tank was used as the basis for the stunt tank in the third Indiana Jones film?
Sort of based on the MK VIII 'International', with a turret added.
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/mk8_the_international_info.htm (http://www.landships.freeservers.com/mk8_the_international_info.htm)
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_34468-Made-for-Movie-Mk1.html (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_34468-Made-for-Movie-Mk1.html)
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 26, 2008, 10:51:56 PMWhat type of tank was used as the basis for the CGI tank in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
Its a pretty generic 'rhomboid-type' tank and has no particular prototype.
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_22407-Made-for-Movie-Tank.html (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_22407-Made-for-Movie-Tank.html)
Thanks Jon,
That third Indiana Jones film had me confused thanks to the turret on the thing. It was hard to determine the origin of the turret and the tank as well. Suspected it was a hybrid and after watching the space fillers on the DVD that was pretty much confirmed but they never provided any further information on what the real vehicle had been prior to modifying it.
That LEG tank was pretty much in the dark and that made it a bit difficult to identify. Since it was CGI it had to be based on something real but it was nothing I had ever seen before.
The Indiana Jones tank was GMC medium truck before they modified it. The rhomboid tanks had no suspension to speak of. That's why they topped out at walking speed.
Kim M
Looked through a book once about WWI Armor that I wish I had bought. Think the title was "Tracks and Trenches". Lost of pics of WWI tanks that were knocked out. One of our club members did a dio which he originally was going to enter in the Humor category but after looking at the book, he decided that his dio was more realistic than funny.
Already mentioned on the Landships website by Doc Yo is the K-Wagen (see here (http://www.landships.freeservers.com/kwagenkit.htm)). Here are some more pics:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.tinypic.com%2F9jqaup.jpg&hash=795810c9de853b08454236fed0989f8f559aa5f6)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi44.tinypic.com%2F2ew1ul1.jpg&hash=986083bf51b7bd251a603d6e669fcbecf520f7f4)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2Fsw9s91.jpg&hash=0e1e451d2c4b66e16380fd3f6ec8471af363cfda)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2Frt11mg.jpg&hash=b8624a74e7d53c85c89dbd8b20aacb64df6984db)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FCAC23%2Fkwagenmock.gif&hash=0ed5da75b5ccafc00e72bdd3e9374e2666b0629d)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FCAC23%2Fkwagen_1.jpg&hash=dfa401714c8193bb818e7eb825408ed4da556f3c)
This beast was to have a crew of 27: a commander, two drivers, a signaler, an artillery officer, 12 cannoneers, eight machine gunners and two mechanics.
What's more there is a kit available - the Kora Models 1/72 K-Wagen:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FCAC23%2Fkwagenbox.jpg&hash=9a7467198d5ccaad25a95851351c9ed2e19dbcc7)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FCAC23%2Fkwparts.jpg&hash=c2d1165ea565d4d02070343ba39d4085ae8b4b1a)
It would make an interesting diorama to have one of these fighting it out with some British Mk IVs or similar.
Regards,
Greg
Panzershop (http://www.panzershop.cz/inshop/) has a couple of WWI Mk.1 Tanks listed on their web page that are a bit out of the ordinary and quite impressive. I guess you could call these two variants the grandfathers of all the current tracked cargo carriers and command tracks.
Mk.I Supply tank
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panzershop.cz%2Finshop%2Fpictures%2Fstore%2FShPS35C151.jpg&hash=59c98bd121085fd07217ff0585ea08ea23f75033) (http://www.panzershop.cz/inshop/pictures/store/PS35C151.jpg)
(click on thumbnail image to view larger image)
Mk.I Radio tank
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panzershop.cz%2Finshop%2Fpictures%2Fstore%2FShPS35C152.jpg&hash=14baacd8baea2d2858a9f29a9bfc3a0d6dca5b01) (http://www.panzershop.cz/inshop/pictures/store/PS35C152.jpg)
(click on thumbnail image to view larger image)
I've got a couple of plans for WWI tanks for "Plan 1919".
Firstly a "bridgelayer" mounted on the hull of a redundant Mk I battletank, not sure if I should keep the sponsons and have mg's for close in protection yet or not.
A Whippet fitted with a "proper" turret. Possibly armed with a Hotchkiss 37mm gun rather then an mg. Thinking of something on the lines of a Crossley a/c turret.
A early "Crocodile" based on a Mk IV female armed with flamethrowers instead of the sponson mg's.
These are all planed (kits are in hand) for after SMW - hopefully ;D
Quote from: royabulgaf on November 27, 2008, 06:34:23 PM
The Indiana Jones tank was GMC medium truck before they modified it. The rhomboid tanks had no suspension to speak of. That's why they topped out at walking speed.
Kim M
I agree. Although the tracks and sponsons look like they came from a Mk8 International.. the center hull is far too wide to be it.
my own K-wagen
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi64.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh199%2FWyrmshadow3%2FCivstuff%2FKwagons.png&hash=904eb01553d72b7a8d84e0b0a02a7574155ff250)
In the October issue of Millitary in Scale they have a report on the annual "Tankfest" show at Bovington. This includes pictures of a 1/1 scale German A7V built by the members of MAFA ! A full review will appear in the next issue.
Links to some pics on the IPMS Salisbury site (http://www.ipms-salisbury.org/Tankfest%202009.html)
***fixed your link***
Thats cool :wub: :wub: :wub:
I wonder how much Styrene Sheet was needed to build that :rolleyes: and I'm sure now that someone has scratch built it a kit will be out next year (https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa351%2FPanzerWulff%2Fsmileys%2Fcrying.gif&hash=057346e3221b9319a58c0d105bb8ef216e93778f)(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa351%2FPanzerWulff%2Fsmileys%2Fcrazy_smiley.gif&hash=abafce763a0119ae15baefb213e2217805e14c2a)
Now Where did that coat go
JK thats sweet I wonder how long it took to build? thanks for the link :thumbsup:
"Panzer"
Way back in the 60's/70's I used to go to Bovington quite a lot, it being only 20 miles from my parents place in Poole. I'm very sure there was something like that on display next to the British Male (or Female) WW.I tank and it was supposed to have been a captured one after it had broken down on the battle field. Back then you could clamber inside it or partially get in and then look through a perspex cubicle set just inside the door to view the interior.
Firstly thanks for fixing the link Jeff (I thought I'd tested it ??? :blink:)
Kitnut as far as I know the only guenuine A7V in the world is in Austrlalia. They may well have had a mock up at Bovington, it's a long time since I've been. It will be interesting to see how they built this in the November issue of MIS
Quote from: NARSES2 on September 16, 2009, 04:46:18 AM
Kitnut as far as I know the only guenuine A7V in the world is in Austrlalia. They may well have had a mock up at Bovington, it's a long time since I've been. It will be interesting to see how they built this in the November issue of MIS
Is there another German WW.I tank that looks like a A7V then, because there definitely was a square looking tank which you could get inside and see all the equipment.
Not that I'm aware of, They do have "Little Willie" which is very box like but you cant get in and around it.
I've looked on line and can't see anything that looks like what you describe but things will have changed over time and for certain anniversaries things can be opened up.
Quote from: NARSES2 on September 16, 2009, 08:12:57 AM
Not that I'm aware of, They do have "Little Willie" which is very box like but you cant get in and around it.
I've looked on line and can't see anything that looks like what you describe but things will have changed over time and for certain anniversaries things can be opened up.
That rings a bell, I think you've nailed it Narses
EDIT: No that wasn't it, just had a look at it, I can definitely remember something that looked like the A7V
Quote from: NARSES2 on September 16, 2009, 04:46:18 AM
Firstly thanks for fixing the link Jeff (I thought I'd tested it ??? :blink:)
Kitnut as far as I know the only guenuine A7V in the world is in Austrlalia. They may well have had a mock up at Bovington, it's a long time since I've been. It will be interesting to see how they built this in the November issue of MIS
The Germans paid for the restoration of
Mephisto the sole remaining A7V in Brisbane, about a decade ago. Part of the deal was for them to be allowed to measure it comprehensively in order to build a replica. I understand that's been done but not sure which Museum now houses it in Germany.
Quote from: rickshaw on September 20, 2009, 12:24:23 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on September 16, 2009, 04:46:18 AM
Kitnut as far as I know the only guenuine A7V in the world is in Austrlalia. They may well have had a mock up at Bovington, it's a long time since I've been. It will be interesting to see how they built this in the November issue of MIS
The Germans paid for the restoration of Mephisto the sole remaining A7V in Brisbane, about a decade ago. Part of the deal was for them to be allowed to measure it comprehensively in order to build a replica. I understand that's been done but not sure which Museum now houses it in Germany.
Well I'm really puzzled now, I'm sure I've seen something like it, maybe not an A7V but definitely big and square. I wrote to the Bovington Museum to see if they had had anything like it but the reply was no.
This is the reply from th curator:
Robert,
There has never been an A7V here at the Museum. I am not sure which vehicle you might have been looking at – Little Willie is small and box shaped but as far as I am aware has never been opened to the public. We have a number of WW1 vehicles that have been opened – the Mk IX for example. There is one real A7V remaining (in Brisbane, Australia) and a good replica at the PanzerMuseum in Munster, Germany.
The new replica was made by Bob Grundy and was displayed here at our Tankfest Event in June this year. If you want to see images of it moving (and lots of other vehicles here) tap in A7V or Tankfest onto You Tube and there are plenty of clips.
Sorry we can't help with the memory more...!
David Willey
curator
was there a British Mk.IV (or Whippet ?) painted with German crosses at Bovvy ? -- captured by the Germans & re-captured back -- can't think of anything else it could have been.
The A7V "Mephisto" has not been restored -- the roof is still damaged & internally she is a mess -- she broke-down & was used as a static pillbox by both sides, later an artillery shell went thru the roof when abandoned in no-man's land -- when the fighting deminished she was towed-out at night during a gas-attack by a Queensland unit of the Aussies -- most of the interior was then stripped out -- all the swivelling seat/MG mounts, fuel-tank, one radiator, steering wheel etc.
For years it sat outside the old Queensland Museum in Brisbane. In 1970 it had a car-port roof built over it & in 1971 it was externally sand-blasted (removing the WW1 camouflage & large artwork of a Lion that was put there by the capturing forces) and repainted where it stood. In 1986 it was moved to the new museum & placed in the open front entrance, still exposed to the elements & only protected from above by the projecting concrete porch.
In the mid-1990's the Germans demanded it back, saying "if you won't look after it properly, we will". It then had a new paint-job, dummy MG barrels added & moved round to the side of the museum where the dinosaur exhibit is viewable thru a window from outside, and a glass extension of this window was built to enclose the A7V against the museum building. You can now see it from outside with the dinosaurs behind it !! The Germans may have contributed to the cost but wouldn't have been charged for measuring it.
The Australian War Memorial is still secretly fighting to get it moved to Canberra as it was supposed to go there in 1919 but was unloaded from the ship in Brisbane (first port stopped at) for some reason & (as a Queensland unit had captured her) the locals thought it was for them as there was no proper addressing information on it.
The "A7V" in Germany was built on a Durrkopp ammunition tractor chassis -- just like the originals were -- the MAFVA repro is on something modern so it can be driven.
Approximately 8 A7Vs survived the war with 4 (or 5) given to Poland to fight the Red Russians ; they last saw action between August & September 1920 and were still in service as late as 1926. England & France scrapped their examples very quickly & the Aberdeen Proving Ground cut "Nixe II" up for scrap in 1942.
The main gun from "Schnuck" is in the Imperial War Museum in England & the PanzerMuseum in Germany has a restored example of the Tracked Ammunition Carrier that formed the basis for the A7V design. The German Police used a light-armoured female "A7V style" vehicle, called "Heidi", (turrets at the front corners & projecting MG "bays" on the sides at rear) built on the Ammo-carrier chassis for anti-riot duties in Berlin, 1919.
Hi to all,
I hope you enjoy the link.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2008/06/road-to-hell.htm (http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2008/06/road-to-hell.htm)
Regards
Pete A
I've been kinda meaning to ask about this ever since the asthetics of Command & Conquer series computer games stirred up the ideas.
For a country that needed an indigenous tank design but had no experience building or maintaining anything other than tractors or obsolete tanks (as in the likes of FT-17 and tankettes, if taking a WWII point of view), would it have been possible to merge, say, two chassis of such vehicles in tandem to support a hull that can accommodate a bigger turret (and, by extension, weapons)?
There were several articulated designs drawn or tried in early WW1 -- Crompton, Pedrail "Articulateur", linked Bullock Tractors and some Big-Wheel designs that were articulated. Only the "linked Bullocks" was actually built but the articulated joint kept breaking so the idea was dropped.
Would make some great whif models tho (doing some drawings to start with).
Articulated scheme would be too complicated. I'm aiming for something like the enclosed pic (note the first tank in the column, which shows the tread arrangement of the Rhino tank in the Red Alert 2).
Quote from: dy031101 on July 27, 2010, 02:14:48 PM
I've been kinda meaning to ask about this ever since the asthetics of Command & Conquer series computer games stirred up the ideas.
For a country that needed an indigenous tank design but had no experience building or maintaining anything other than tractors or obsolete tanks (as in the likes of FT-17 and tankettes, if taking a WWII point of view), would it have been possible to merge, say, two chassis of such vehicles in tandem to support a hull that can accommodate a bigger turret (and, by extension, weapons)?
Question: How are you going to drive or synchronize the drive of two separate track-laying systems?
One of the main technical hurdles of tank design was creating a reliable transmission that could absorb and transfer the necessary engine power without destroying itself. Because of the mechanical realities combining more than one 'Chassis' (which most tanks don't actually have BTW) isn't really a simpler solution.
Aahh , then you say the one below would never be made to work , even by the WW2 Germany ;D ?
Quote from: tahsin on July 27, 2010, 11:35:16 PM
Aahh , then you say the one below would never be made to work , even by the WW2 Germany ;D ?
The motive system is the least of that monstrosity's problems. :banghead:
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 27, 2010, 10:47:04 PM
Quote from: dy031101 on July 27, 2010, 02:14:48 PM
I've been kinda meaning to ask about this ever since the asthetics of Command & Conquer series computer games stirred up the ideas.
For a country that needed an indigenous tank design but had no experience building or maintaining anything other than tractors or obsolete tanks (as in the likes of FT-17 and tankettes, if taking a WWII point of view), would it have been possible to merge, say, two chassis of such vehicles in tandem to support a hull that can accommodate a bigger turret (and, by extension, weapons)?
Question: How are you going to drive or synchronize the drive of two separate track-laying systems?
Perhaps the same way the 4x4 Mini-Moke which Leyland produced for trials for the Australian Army in the late 1960s? The original Mini-Moke was front-engined and front-wheeled, two wheel drive. Leyland simply cut two Mokes in half, welded them back together and reversed the gear box in the rear-engine. It had two gear sticks which were linked together by a piece of steel and could be disconnected to run or idle the rear engine seperately, if necessary (such as on long road marches). Apparently the hare-brained scheme worked quite well but the Moke was simply too small and too low to really make it work properly as a military cross-country vehicle (although I have seen a bogged Moke literally lifted out of the mud by four diggers ;) ).
Quote
One of the main technical hurdles of tank design was creating a reliable transmission that could absorb and transfer the necessary engine power without destroying itself. Because of the mechanical realities combining more than one 'Chassis' (which most tanks don't actually have BTW) isn't really a simpler solution.
I see no more problem doing this than building a viable four or six wheel drive truck. You have a transfer case and drive shafts to each set of tracks. Works for trucks. Would work for a light tank (emphasis on the word light!).
Quote from: tahsin on July 27, 2010, 11:35:16 PM
Aahh , then you say the one below would never be made to work , even by the WW2 Germany ;D ?
Alright maybe you're right, but joncarrfarrelly is also right on his comment...... ;D
Quote from: rickshaw on July 28, 2010, 03:51:03 AM
Would work for a light tank (emphasis on the word light!).
Although I previously said "tank", I think if and when I put it in 3D it'll be no more than a tank destroyer...... :banghead:
Would I nevertheless have been able to concentrate the engine to the rear to make as much room for a fighting compartment and a turret of, say, an upgunned M18?
Quote from: dy031101 on July 28, 2010, 05:44:25 AM
Quote from: tahsin on July 27, 2010, 11:35:16 PM
Aahh , then you say the one below would never be made to work , even by the WW2 Germany ;D ?
Alright maybe you're right, but joncarrfarrelly is also right on his comment...... ;D
Quote from: rickshaw on July 28, 2010, 03:51:03 AM
Would work for a light tank (emphasis on the word light!).
Although I previously said "tank", I think if and when I put it in 3D it'll be no more than a tank destroyer...... :banghead:
Would I nevertheless have been able to concentrate the engine to the rear to make as much room for a fighting compartment and a turret of, say, an upgunned M18?
Try something along the lines of the original 6 Pdr armed Firefly wheeled tank destroyer (with Molins auto-loader). The 6 Pdr was a very effective gun until the end of the war, particularly once APDS was developed for it. Unfortunately its much under-rated in the minds of most wargamers ("Bigger is better").
More than likely though, it would be easier to build it with a fixed gun and with the engine in the front compartment, the transfer case in the middle and the fighting compartment to the rear. Rear fighting compartments offer all sorts of advantages in AFV design. You can fit a bigger gun, a larger fighting compartment and have the engine offer improved protection. The Germans worked that out with their Panzerjaeger such as the Marder III, the Nashorn, etc.
Quote from: rickshaw on July 28, 2010, 03:51:03 AM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 27, 2010, 10:47:04 PM
Question: How are you going to drive or synchronize the drive of two separate track-laying systems?
Perhaps the same way the 4x4 Mini-Moke which Leyland produced for trials for the Australian Army in the late 1960s? The original Mini-Moke was front-engined and front-wheeled, two wheel drive. Leyland simply cut two Mokes in half, welded them back together and reversed the gear box in the rear-engine. It had two gear sticks which were linked together by a piece of steel and could be disconnected to run or idle the rear engine seperately, if necessary (such as on long road marches). Apparently the hare-brained scheme worked quite well but the Moke was simply too small and too low to really make it work properly as a military cross-country vehicle (although I have seen a bogged Moke literally lifted out of the mud by four diggers ;) ).
Quote
One of the main technical hurdles of tank design was creating a reliable transmission that could absorb and transfer the necessary engine power without destroying itself. Because of the mechanical realities combining more than one 'Chassis' (which most tanks don't actually have BTW) isn't really a simpler solution.
I see no more problem doing this than building a viable four or six wheel drive truck. You have a transfer case and drive shafts to each set of tracks. Works for trucks. Would work for a light tank (emphasis on the word light!).
I'm well aware of the Twin-Moke, however one look at the power-train of an FT-17 or even a tankette shows how that 'simple' solution wouldn't work, or at least not for long or reliably. BTW from what I've read over the years the 'connected gear-changing' was a nightmare and they couldn't keep the engines synchronized (the truly critical requirement), the final solution was replacing the rear manual gearbox with an automatic, but it still wasn't very good. Prior to the advent of electronic controls, keeping two separate power-trains synchronized was problematic, at best.
Transfer cases were also one the most common failure points in armoured vehicle development, its that power transmission problem again. Also a tank is not a truck, and driving tracks is very different from driving wheels, the stresses and loads are not the same. Again you run into the problem of the tech and manufacturing level quoted in the original question and if the hypothetical country in question has the ability to manufacture robust transfers cases and the associated drive shafts, then there would be no need to cobble together old vehicles that one has on hand, they could just build something new.
Jon
I was kinda thrown off (okay okay, maybe I didn't read the exchange of info hard enough); I'll read it harder again, but in the meantime...... would it be easier or harder to have the four sets of treads driven by one engine (either a more-powerful single type or a "coupled" type comprised of a few low-power ones geared together)?
(If I'm not mistaken from the exchange: is it where the transmission problem joncarrfarrelly brought up and for which rickshaw commented that the resultant vehicle still have to be light comes into play?)
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 27, 2010, 10:47:04 PM
Because of the mechanical realities combining more than one 'Chassis' (which most tanks don't actually have BTW) isn't really a simpler solution.
Do you mean...... even if I taking two FT-17s (or tankettes, or tractors, or whatever) worth of the tracks, road wheels, and suspension sets, I might as well really be mounting them on a new hull to begin with whether it's my original intention or not??
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 28, 2010, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 28, 2010, 03:51:03 AM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 27, 2010, 10:47:04 PM
Question: How are you going to drive or synchronize the drive of two separate track-laying systems?
Perhaps the same way the 4x4 Mini-Moke which Leyland produced for trials for the Australian Army in the late 1960s? The original Mini-Moke was front-engined and front-wheeled, two wheel drive. Leyland simply cut two Mokes in half, welded them back together and reversed the gear box in the rear-engine. It had two gear sticks which were linked together by a piece of steel and could be disconnected to run or idle the rear engine seperately, if necessary (such as on long road marches). Apparently the hare-brained scheme worked quite well but the Moke was simply too small and too low to really make it work properly as a military cross-country vehicle (although I have seen a bogged Moke literally lifted out of the mud by four diggers ;) ).
Quote
One of the main technical hurdles of tank design was creating a reliable transmission that could absorb and transfer the necessary engine power without destroying itself. Because of the mechanical realities combining more than one 'Chassis' (which most tanks don't actually have BTW) isn't really a simpler solution.
I see no more problem doing this than building a viable four or six wheel drive truck. You have a transfer case and drive shafts to each set of tracks. Works for trucks. Would work for a light tank (emphasis on the word light!).
I'm well aware of the Twin-Moke, however one look at the power-train of an FT-17 or even a tankette shows how that 'simple' solution wouldn't work, or at least not for long or reliably. BTW from what I've read over the years the 'connected gear-changing' was a nightmare and they couldn't keep the engines synchronized (the truly critical requirement), the final solution was replacing the rear manual gearbox with an automatic, but it still wasn't very good. Prior to the advent of electronic controls, keeping two separate power-trains synchronized was problematic, at best.
The Russians put into production the T-70 light tank with two separate engines, one running each track. Yes, they had problems, just as they did with the BTR-60 and BTR-70 with two separate engines. The Australians used three truck engines running through a transfer case to power the Sentinel. The UK used two separate bus engines for the early Mathilda. The US used two separate engines to run the LVT-4. They also built the Chrysler Multi-Bank engine for the Sherman which used
five engines. These examples worked. Some better than others. It is not the optimum method but there are examples of where it was used and it worked.
Quote
Transfer cases were also one the most common failure points in armoured vehicle development, its that power transmission problem again. Also a tank is not a truck, and driving tracks is very different from driving wheels, the stresses and loads are not the same. Again you run into the problem of the tech and manufacturing level quoted in the original question and if the hypothetical country in question has the ability to manufacture robust transfers cases and the associated drive shafts, then there would be no need to cobble together old vehicles that one has on hand, they could just build something new.
Jon
Again, I agree it is sub-optimum. However it has been done in the past and it has worked. I purposefully suggested a
light tank because I was well aware of the power train problems associated with heavy weights. One of the reasons why its harder than with trucks to make them robust is the rolling friction problem that tracks have compared to wheels on hard surfaces.
One should be very careful about assuming that only an optimal solution will be suitable. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that. You make do with what you've got.
Quote from: dy031101 on July 28, 2010, 05:44:25 AM
Quote from: tahsin on July 27, 2010, 11:35:16 PM
Aahh , then you say the one below would never be made to work , even by the WW2 Germany ;D ?
Alright maybe you're right, but joncarrfarrelly is also right on his comment...... ;D
Would never doubt it , but the Internet sez lots about German WW2 engineering , right ? Not that I claim the UFOs but these guys had 60 cm mortars on tracks , and those tracks do look like ship lenght , what were they thinking on this one ???
How about many engines , many generators and one single fuse box that disperses electricity to many transmissions .Simple not but people might have lots of copper
Turreted Mark IV female
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FdrawTanks%2FTurret_MkIV.jpg&hash=429049a6651124e53468712e033590d191c64dc4) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/Turret_MkIV.jpg.html)
Now that's interesting :thumbsup:
There were some French heavy tank projects which looked quite similar although the turrets were farther forward.
Indiana Jones prop...? :o
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on January 21, 2018, 04:27:03 AM
Indiana Jones prop...? :o
That was a Mark VIII, with a turret. (And built around an excavator ;D )
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/indianajones/images/8/8d/Tank.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100815012515)
Quote from: ysi_maniac on January 20, 2018, 06:20:16 PM
Turreted Mark IV female
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FdrawTanks%2FTurret_MkIV.jpg&hash=429049a6651124e53468712e033590d191c64dc4) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/Turret_MkIV.jpg.html)
That's got some serious deflection issues...and the driver and TC pillbox is gonna have some blast damage every time the main gun fires.
Quote from: scooter on January 21, 2018, 05:32:07 AM
That was a Mark VIII, with a turret. (And built around an excavator ;D )
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/indianajones/images/8/8d/Tank.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100815012515)
Well, they needed something to
dig them out of trouble. ;D
Yeah, yeah, I know. Hat, coat etc............
I also wonder if a turret right above the engine (it was literally placed in the middle of the tank!) would be a good idea at all, and I doubt that there's be any space for it...? But it's whifworld, after all. ;) When there's one in an Indiana Jones movie, there's got to be something to it. ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 21, 2018, 08:46:48 AM
Yeah, yeah, I know. Hat, coat etc............
Fedora & leather A2. Don't forget the bullwhip and gas mask carrier. ;D
Quote from: scooter on January 21, 2018, 04:37:44 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 21, 2018, 08:46:48 AM
Yeah, yeah, I know. Hat, coat etc............
Fedora & leather A2. Don't forget the bullwhip and gas mask carrier. ;D
I've got the fedora anyway, see my avatar. Can't afford the A2. ;D
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on January 21, 2018, 10:05:54 AM
I also wonder if a turret right above the engine (it was literally placed in the middle of the tank!) would be a good idea at all, and I doubt that there's be any space for it...? But it's whifworld, after all. ;) When there's one in an Indiana Jones movie, there's got to be something to it. ;D
Doable in a Mk. VIII
Liberty, as the engine was aft of the fighting compartment.
http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles.html?load=tank_articles/Mark_VIII.html
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.landships.info%2Flandships%2Ftank_articles%2Fimages%2FMark_VIII_15.jpg&hash=b73b1b01787a4d77eafbe775c5c3fb2d46d3a387)
Turreted St Chamond and Schneider
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Turreted_StChamond_Schneider.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/e58f1c54-aee2-42c9-bc15-f72ec22af374/p/e26f0e47-0dfa-41ef-8cd7-ae2f0cb9a222)
Repositioned gun ------> JagdSchneider ;D
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/JagdSchneider.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/e58f1c54-aee2-42c9-bc15-f72ec22af374/p/5e8c8610-60e3-4299-b456-12fcdafba5fa)
Fixing/updating St Chamond
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/StChamond_long_train.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/e58f1c54-aee2-42c9-bc15-f72ec22af374/p/3afe5b37-b7a6-4661-beb7-baffb31ff585)
Brengun 1/144th Mark IV airship tug. Resin and etch:
https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BRS144058?result-token=fEfZt
(https://d26qn1y84zs32g.cloudfront.net/pics/BRS144058_3.jpg?t=1626725258)
I'm sure we could think of other things for it to tow (steampunk flying saucer is what immediately springs to mind).
That's neat. :thumbsup:
Bearing in mind how small that is, it's 1/144, then it' has a particularly nice finish :thumbsup:
Just supposing gunpowder had never been invented ? Then with a few additions it could become a mobile armoured trebuchet ;) . I'll go and pick my prescription up now ;)
I'd be tempted to put a Hills Hoist (rotary washing line to non-antipodeans) on the top strung with long underwear - Armoured Laundry. Duke of York's Own Heavy Laundry Brigade Ypres 1917.
FWIW everytime I read this thread title I picture a MkIV tank with Explosive Reactive Armour...
Quote from: NARSES2 on April 03, 2023, 06:23:38 AMJust supposing gunpowder had never been invented ? Then with a few additions it could become a mobile armoured trebuchet ;) . I'll go and pick my prescription up now ;)
I can see what you mean! ;D
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on April 04, 2023, 06:23:09 AMQuote from: NARSES2 on April 03, 2023, 06:23:38 AMJust supposing gunpowder had never been invented ? Then with a few additions it could become a mobile armoured trebuchet ;) . I'll go and pick my prescription up now ;)
I can see what you mean! ;D
Thank you :thumbsup: ;D
Quote from: zenrat on April 04, 2023, 05:12:17 AMI'd be tempted to put a Hills Hoist (rotary washing line to non-antipodeans) on the top strung with long underwear - Armoured Laundry. Duke of York's Own Heavy Laundry Brigade Ypres 1917.
They could also have armoured de-lousing stations ;)
My amphibious assault craft of the Second Battle of Gallipoli can be found here;
https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=52416.msg1026063#msg1026063
I'd like to be able to build a flying elephant tank at some point.
More information on the design can be found here;
http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles/Flying_Elephant.html
Those amphibs look amazing, were they an RW project or completely from your head? I like the snorkels sticking out of the top. ;D
I've sometimes considered purloining a British WW1 light tank from Rheged minor's stash and building it as an ice cream vendor I suppose I'd have to call it "Mr Whippet" ices.
Sorry, Chris, I know that's getting close to another entry in THE BOOK
Quote from: Rheged on April 17, 2024, 03:56:33 AMI've sometimes considered purloining a British WW1 light tank from Rheged minor's stash and building it as an ice cream vendor I suppose I'd have to call it "Mr Whippet" ices.
Sorry, Chris, I know that's getting close to another entry in THE BOOK
Be perfect for a NAAFI/AAFES field food truck (aka the infamous "Roach Coach")
Quote from: Rheged on April 17, 2024, 03:56:33 AMI've sometimes considered purloining a British WW1 light tank from Rheged minor's stash and building it as an ice cream vendor I suppose I'd have to call it "Mr Whippet" ices.
Sorry, Chris, I know that's getting close to another entry in THE BOOK
Actually I find that quite amusing. Just wonder how many of us are old enough to get it ? :angel: ;D
Quote from: NARSES2 on April 17, 2024, 06:25:18 AMQuote from: Rheged on April 17, 2024, 03:56:33 AMI've sometimes considered purloining a British WW1 light tank from Rheged minor's stash and building it as an ice cream vendor I suppose I'd have to call it "Mr Whippet" ices.
Sorry, Chris, I know that's getting close to another entry in THE BOOK
Actually I find that quite amusing. Just wonder how many of us are old enough to get it ? :angel: ;D
Pick me! ;D
Yum! :mellow:
They don't make soft-serve ice cream like that any more. :(
Quote from: Old Wombat on April 17, 2024, 08:34:41 AMYum! :mellow:
They don't make soft-serve ice cream like that any more. :(
Always prefered slightly "crisp" soft scoop rather than out of the machine. We had an Italian family run ice cream shop in our local market in the 50/60's and it was :wub: :wub: My dad had gone to school with their two sons in the 30's so we got a discount :thumbsup:
Quote from: Old Wombat on April 17, 2024, 08:34:41 AMQuote from: NARSES2 on April 17, 2024, 06:25:18 AMQuote from: Rheged on April 17, 2024, 03:56:33 AMI've sometimes considered purloining a British WW1 light tank from Rheged minor's stash and building it as an ice cream vendor I suppose I'd have to call it "Mr Whippet" ices.
Sorry, Chris, I know that's getting close to another entry in THE BOOK
Actually I find that quite amusing. Just wonder how many of us are old enough to get it ? :angel: ;D
Pick me! ;D
Yum! :mellow:
They don't make soft-serve ice cream like that any more. :(
No, truth in advertising legislation means it has to have a higher food content now... ;D
It's all waffle cones and gelato these days but you really can't beat the old style soft serve in an old style cone (just what were they made of?) with a flake jammed in the top.
Back into this thread.
Use of tanks of this era continued on for some time.
A diorama of actual events that I finished last year.
Testing of the prototype Bailey Bridge Concept early in WW2. Can't get enough weight ? Stack 'em up ;D
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ujxbzyd3xzz5qg8q9ybon/BBridgeTest.jpg?rlkey=l0lhaz025ha5n6u1w5qy4g8md&st=jkfd0t2e&raw=1)
The real deal. Used a Mk V** tank that had be a development vehicle for bridge laying and recovery roles
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wpyp5r7ftt9beg8aftftp/BBTest_1.jpg?rlkey=lpa5ne5bszpd0222d00urag98&st=dse82e0u&raw=1)
Interesting, where did they do those tests?
The very first trials section of Bailey Bridge is about 1.5 miles away from my house, it forms the barrier between the car park and the offices at Mabey & Johnson's plant in Lydney where Bailey Bridges were built.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/2082/cF3xPc.jpg)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/2876/O7WBuN.jpg)
And here's my Subaru Legacy, my company car in 2007, parked right up against it. ;D
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/9519/4A4BQh.jpg)
:thumbsup: :mellow: :mellow:
Quote from: buzzbomb on April 18, 2024, 05:02:15 PMBack into this thread.
Use of tanks of this era continued on for some time.
A diorama of actual events that I finished last year.
Testing of the prototype Bailey Bridge Concept early in WW2. Can't get enough weight ? Stack 'em up ;D
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ujxbzyd3xzz5qg8q9ybon/BBridgeTest.jpg?rlkey=l0lhaz025ha5n6u1w5qy4g8md&st=jkfd0t2e&raw=1)
That's a tremendous build :bow:
One can safely state that Donald Bailey got it right with this design!
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 17, 2024, 02:37:02 AMThose amphibs look amazing, were they an RW project or completely from your head? I like the snorkels sticking out of the top. ;D
That's very kind of you, thank you very much!
Yes and no. There was a real world amphibious personnel carrier called the Mk.IX "Duck." The initial seed for this idea was that I wanted to mount a gun at the front of a Male tank but needed to think of a reason for doing so. I then thought that an amphibious tank would need the gun there so that it was above the waterline. I took some design ideas from the real world Mk.IX to make mine more plausible.
GOOD thinking! :thumbsup:
I've just realised what the 'flappy bits' are on the tracks too, they provide the drive when it's afloat of course. :banghead:
I wasn't aware of the Mk IX "Duck". Just proves you're never to old to learn :thumbsup:
Quote from: NARSES2 on April 19, 2024, 05:36:39 AMQuote from: buzzbomb on April 18, 2024, 05:02:15 PMBack into this thread.
Use of tanks of this era continued on for some time.
A diorama of actual events that I finished last year.
Testing of the prototype Bailey Bridge Concept early in WW2. Can't get enough weight ? Stack 'em up ;D
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ujxbzyd3xzz5qg8q9ybon/BBridgeTest.jpg?rlkey=l0lhaz025ha5n6u1w5qy4g8md&st=jkfd0t2e&raw=1)
That's a tremendous build :bow:
Looks even better in the flesh.
Quote from: zenrat on April 20, 2024, 04:12:50 AMQuote from: NARSES2 on April 19, 2024, 05:36:39 AMQuote from: buzzbomb on April 18, 2024, 05:02:15 PMBack into this thread.
Use of tanks of this era continued on for some time.
A diorama of actual events that I finished last year.
Testing of the prototype Bailey Bridge Concept early in WW2. Can't get enough weight ? Stack 'em up ;D
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ujxbzyd3xzz5qg8q9ybon/BBridgeTest.jpg?rlkey=l0lhaz025ha5n6u1w5qy4g8md&st=jkfd0t2e&raw=1)
That's a tremendous build :bow:
Looks even better in the flesh.
This is true! :thumbsup:
How about this...
:wub: :wub:
(https://www.bnamodelworld.com/image/cache2/1000x1000/catalog/wip3d/WIP-35025_05.jpg?v=12)
(https://www.bnamodelworld.com/image/cache2/1000x1000/catalog/wip3d/WIP-35025.jpg?v=12)
https://www.bnamodelworld.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=139558
Oh that's nice. :thumbsup:
Somewhere, in one of my many books, I've seen a photo of that
It must have got VERY hot in that cab! :o
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 20, 2024, 05:51:23 AMIt must have got VERY hot in that cab! :o
But probably not as poisonous as in a Mk I Tank.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 20, 2024, 05:51:23 AMIt must have got VERY hot in that cab! :o
Toasty for the winter.
There is/was a free 1/35 paper model of this tractor.
The Fowler tractor looks "normal" in comparison with this :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Tank World War One offering.