crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 I came across this comment in a letter from a General George von der Marwitz, C-in-C, 2.Armee*: 12 August1918 'After the Battle of Cambrai I saw the tank as over-rated, I had become convinced that the things were too slow and the view out of them too limited.....I emphasized then, on the other hand, that the idea of caterpillar tracks for cross-country travel was brilliant and absolutely had to be used in the design of armoured guns. In my opinion they will be the artillery of the future. Our enemies have beaten us to it, they already have guns like that, and in very large numbers. They travel much faster than before, about as fast as a lorry on a good road.' Does anyone know what type of artillery he was referring to? 'Scorched Earth: The Germans on the Somme 1914-1918', p. 193; Pen & Sword Books Ltd;2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 A lot of French stuff - for example In addition the St Chammond tank was effectively used as an assault gun towards the end of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Plus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoweK Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 The A7V Überlandwagen supply carrier was built on the chassis of the famous German A7V Sturmpanzerwagen, the first and only German tank to see operational service in the First World War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 And Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 The A7V Überlandwagen supply carrier was built on the chassis of the famous German A7V Sturmpanzerwagen, the first and only German tank to see operational service in the First World War. More appropriately there was this version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Thanks for that quick response (no wonder you are an 'Old Sweat' - I have only 15764 posts to go! ). Your photos are the first I have seen of this type of WW1 tracked artillery. Clever sprung suspension mechanism. How many of these units were deployed and where? How was the munition transported? (I note the small lifting device for the shells?). Effects of recoil? . Did the British Army consider this type of weapon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 I'll have to dig out some of my library that's in French to answer some of this - bear with me. Britain of course developed the gun carrier but due to a design error the Cof G was in the wrong place when loaded with a gun and they used to ditch very easily and most were converted to supply work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 The Americans were working on the idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Centurion, Following your mention of the St Chamond tank, I found this web site: http://www.landships.freeservers.com/stchamond_194mm.htm , which describes the St Chamond Self Propelled Gun which came in two variants: either carrying a 280mm Howitzer, or a 194mm GPF Cannon. There is also this interesting comment on the design: 'A peculiarity with the St Chamond, was that the vehicle with the gun could not move about on it's own! The design was original - and may one say typically French in that. The Gun vehicle had two electric motors, one for each track, but the electricity for the motors came from a tracked load carrier - carrying the ammo - that was linked up to the SP gun whenever it had to move. ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 The Schneider and the St Chamond both formed the basis for a number of SP guns and of artillery tractors and ammunition carriers. Post war the Renault FT was also used as the basis for SPGs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2012 This web site http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=426 has an interesting account of the 'British Gun Carrier Mark 1'. It explains that machine did 'what it said on the tin': i.e. it carried the gun. In deployment,'... the gunnery crew would unload the armament, attach the wheels to the gun carriage and make the gun ready to fire' . The web site goes on to say that '... it is believed that none of these gun carrier systems ever fired a shot in combat despite there being the strength of some 48 vehicles'. In contrast, the Schneider 220mm version of the French SP Gun '... moved about on it's own accord: around a dozen were built before the end of the war, and they were employed, for instance, during the battles of the ST Mihiel salient.' http://www.landships.freeservers.com/stchamond_194mm.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Christie also bult an SPG in 1918 - it carried an 8inch howitzer http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/selfpropelledguns/usspg-Christie-8inch.jpg A failure with it's odd track design but with the tracks removed it could do 16mph on hard level going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 This web site http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=426 has an interesting account of the 'British Gun Carrier Mark 1'. It explains that machine did 'what it said on the tin': i.e. it carried the gun. In deployment,'... the gunnery crew would unload the armament, attach the wheels to the gun carriage and make the gun ready to fire' . The web site goes on to say that '... it is believed that none of these gun carrier systems ever fired a shot in combat despite there being the strength of some 48 vehicles'. In contrast, the Schneider 220mm version of the French SP Gun '... moved about on it's own accord: around a dozen were built before the end of the war, and they were employed, for instance, during the battles of the ST Mihiel salient.' http://www.landships...amond_194mm.htm There are accounts of the gun being fired from the gun carrier. However an article written by a veteran of the tank corps in 1919 makes it very clear that the CoG problem I mentioned was its undoing as a carrier - hence their use mainly as supply tanks. It did not do what it said on the can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2012 I think I would rather be sitting on the British Gun Carrier than on the American 'bucking bronco'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Centurion I have a photo the Gun Carrier ('First World War Tanks',2009; Shire Classics; p14.) showing a sideways view with a gun mounted on the front. (How can I copy and paste this image from my PC into this Forum? I keep on being told 'this is not permitted')) It makes me think that when the gun or howitzer was mounted on the carrier, the carrier was probably rather front-heavy. The http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=426 web site says that a 'Gun Carrier Mark 2' was proposed with the gun mount to the rear of the chassis, which suggests that the problem was one of weight distribution (front vs. rear) and hence your comment that '..they used to ditch very easily' means they may have flipped forward easily and grounded? Note the gun carriage wheels strapped on the side. Rgds Crickhollow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Yes that's exactly the problem - as I keep saying the CofG was in the wrong place so they used to ditch in quite small depressions because they would tip down into them when only a small part of the carrier was over the edge of the hole. The guns stood on a platform in the carrier reinforced to allow firing. This was intended to be used when there wasn't time to unload the gun and put its wheels on. Another factor was that Churchill as Minister of Supply wanted cargo carrying tanks not gun carriers. He is minuted as saying to Sterne that these would be more valuable than "lugging a big gun around" Sterne had to remind him that the carriers were dual purpose, the last batches of carriers appear not to have been fitted with the gun platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2012 This is the Gun Carrier image I tried to insert. It shows suspected heavy front-end loading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 This is the Gun Carrier image I tried to insert. It shows suspected heavy front-end loading. Don't forget there was a big heavy engine in the rear along with water and fuel tanks. This should have balanced the front loading so it isn't quite as obvious as you say. It appears to have been quite a subtle error in calculating the CoG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Just for interest: below is an extract of the 'Programme of Tank Display at Oldbury March 3rd 1917' demonstrating six different types of steering mechanisms for tanks plus one 'Gun-carrying Machine' It shows the specification at that time for a 'Gun-Carrying Machine'. Note the open driver position (!) and the trailing wheels to help with steering (independent use of secondary gears was also employed). The actual 'Gun Carrier Mark 1' that was first deployed in June 1917 (using components of the Mark 1 tank) had the driver and brakesman sitting in two armoured cabs on either side of the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickhollow Posted 8 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Don't forget there was a big heavy engine in the rear along with water and fuel tanks. This should have balanced the front loading so it isn't quite as obvious as you say. It appears to have been quite a subtle error in calculating the CoG. Maybe as the fuel (and water?) was consumed, then the horizontal centre-of-gravity shifted forwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianjonesncl Posted 8 June , 2012 Share Posted 8 June , 2012 Which units operated these machines ? Were these operated by the Royal Artillery ? (RGA ?) Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianjonesncl Posted 9 June , 2012 Share Posted 9 June , 2012 http://www.militaryp...hat-made-tracks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipperary Posted 9 June , 2012 Share Posted 9 June , 2012 Thanks Ian thats a great drawing very clear.john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 9 June , 2012 Share Posted 9 June , 2012 I think I've found the cause of the CoG problem The prototype gun carrier had the driving positions further back and lightly armoured (if at all) but on the production models sent to France they were moved forward and up armoured. This may have been at Sternes's insistence so that the vehicle could also function as a supply tank because of Churchill's demands [ A supply tank would have to be able to operate further forward than a gun carrier hence the drivers would need greater protection from small arms fire]. This may have tipped the balance in all senses of the phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now