Artillery mounted on caterpillar tracks?

[centurion]

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. '

Only about three were completed before the armistice and probably saw no action. However production continued into the 1920s and some of these SPGs were used by the Germans in Russia in 1942/3

[centurion]

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.'

As you say a few (not the whole dozen) used to support the Americans at St Mihiel. If I'm translating French text correctly they saw more action against the Italians in 1940 and may have ended up with the Germans in Russia. A tracked and armoured ammo carrier for support was under development but cancelled early in 1919

[centurion]

The Americans also built a Schneider look alike with extended Holt track units and mounting a British 8 inch howitzer. However unlike the French SPG the driver sat at the back behind the gun and probably had some difficulty in seeing where he was going. Not proceeded with as post WW1 designs using Christie track units were much more promising.

[centurion]

The British 3.6 inch AA gun was mounted on a tracked unit towed by a Holt caterpillar tractor. Again just too late to see service.

[centurion]

I came across this comment in a letter from a General George von der Marwitz, C-in-C, 2.Armee*:

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.'

I suspect that what he is talking about is in fact the Renault & Schneider Porteurs. These were flat bed tractors/lorries based on the Scheider and St Chamond tanks with the bodies removed. About 300 were in service with the French and US armies by the end of the war. They carried anything from stores and ammo to artillery pieces en portee (usually a 75 or 120mm). Not SPGs. He's greatly exaggerated the speed - about 10KPH on good going, possibly 12KPH with a light load.

[centurion]

See http://landships.inf..._articles.html# click on French

[crickhollow]

The horizontal weight distribution is obviously one factor, but the Gun Carrier design appears to offer much reduced height of track clearance at the front compared to the standard tank. From the planned design and photos views, I suspect that the Gun Carrier would have grounded fairly easily on small craters and ditches.

There is a design balance to be made in making it easy to unload the artillery using a front ramp, whilst at the same time giving the Carrier reasonable ground clearance.

[centurion]

You are confusing height of obstacle with width of depression. The vertical height that the gun carrier could climb over would be less (but still greater than tanks based on Holt units) so it would get stuck in shallower holes if it went into them but what the CoG determines his how wide a hole will have to be before it tips into it in the first place - in other words how much of the forward parf of the vehicle can be unsupported before it tips forward. This defines the width of depression it can cross. If you look at the rhomboid tanks almost all the heavy bits are in the middle (engine, guns etc). The little drawing you show of the gun carrier is of the prototype. See how the driver's position is over the centre. Now look at the pictures of the carrier as sent to France - you have two heavy armoured cabs (pus occupants) moved forward from the centre!

[ianjonesncl]

Courtesy of Military Drawings

This one shows a good perspective. The carriage and ordnance move forward on the slide, then the wheels can be attached. This looks to be quite sensible as the tracks will not actually touch the gun platform. A suggested into action drill - Halt, carriage / ordnance starts to move forward, one man (possibly) two per wheel brings them to the front , attach wheels , commence laying in centre of arc. Machine reverses, track left, ammuntion now available for firing.

[centurion]

French WW1 SPGs in German service in WW2 http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=222070

[crickhollow]

You do like to have the last word, Centurion - now I know how you reached over 15,000 posts!

Re. the hazard of ditching on the 'Gun Carrier' : I wonder if by 'width of depression' you mean length? A tracked vehicle can easily overcome a narrow depression no matter how wide.

The Mark 1 British tank was specified to have the ability to climb a 5-feet parapet and to cross an eight feet gap. Clearly this was not expected of the 'Gun Carrier' which, judging from the design, was intended for less challenging environments.

I suspect that overcoming the height of an obstacle in a tank such as an embankment, is due to sheer horsepower and also the design of the front of the tracks.

It is interesting to compare the design of the different WW1 tracked vehicles, which I believe were all based one way or another on the Holt design (which includes the Gun Carrier so I am not sure what you mean when you say '...the gun carrier could climb over would be less (but still greater than tanks based on Holt units)'

In order to overcome the height of an obstacle the British tanks adopted a distinctive rhomboid design of tracks which I believe was fairly successful. Most tractors used for pulling artillery etc. typically had rounded front ends

The German Sturmpanzerwagen A7V Tank had flat horizontal tracks :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-P1013-316,_Westfront,_deutscher_Panzer_in_Roye.jpg

Presumably the German tank was deliberately designed to travel on fairly level surfaces?

I believe the Saint Chamond tank (below) was front-heavy and prone to ditching- which looks fairly obvious risk judging from this photo:

The Char Saint-Chamond showing the overhanging front hull and the later M.1897 75 mm field gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Chamond_(tank)

C.

[centurion]

No British tanks were not based on Holt. The German A7V and the French Schneider and St Chamond all used track units directly based on Holt track units

[crickhollow]

The accuracy of my comment that all tracked vehicles are '...all based one way or another on the Holt design' depends what weight you give to the competing (and somewhat confusing) claims as to who really first developed the 'caterpillar' tracked vehicle.

The forerunner of the giant American Caterpillar company was Holt Manufacturing Company.

While over 100 related patents for crawler-type tractor treads had already been issued worldwide, all failed to work in the field. The center of innovation was in England, and in 1903 Holt traveled to England to learn more about ongoing development, though all those he saw failed field tests.[6] Benjamin returned to Stockton and utilizing his knowledge and his company metallurgical capabilities he became the first to design and manufacture a practical continuous tracks for use in tractors. On November 24, 1904, in the fields around Stockton, California, he successfully demonstrated the first successful track-type tractor.

Benjamin Leroy Holt (January 1, 1849 – December 5, 1920) was an American inventor who was the first to patent and manufacture a first practical crawler-type tread tractor.[2] ... He founded with his brothers the Holt Manufacturing Company and acquired a related patent for a track-type drive mechanism from a British company, Richard Hornsby & Sons of Grantham, England in 1911.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Holt#cite_note-laird-8

The American 'Bullock Creeping Grip Track' was also a form of tracked vehicle first produced in the early 1900s and tested in 1915 by the Landships Committee.

In the end I believe William Tritton of Fosters, Lincoln and Walter Wilson came up with a modified track design for 'Little Willie' using hinged riveted plates for the track.

I suspect that the original Holt track design (with British modifications?) is reflected in all tank design.

C.

Caterpillar (Holt) http://www.holtcat.com/about_us/a_heritage_of_innovation.aspx claim:

The impact of the Caterpillar tractor went far beyond agriculture. In World War I, it fought the mud of the Western front, towing equipment for the Allied military forces and was the inspiration for the development of the British tank, which profoundly altered ground warfare tactics.

[centurion]

No it is not reflected in any modern tank. Holt did not invent the caterpillar track and steam powered half tracks were in existence at the turn of the 20th century. The British army was experimenting with Hornsby tracked vehicles before Holt was producing any,

Whilst the use of Holt tractors may have stirred the idea of a tracked armoured vehicle at no time was there any Holt input into the first British tanks. The first real tank was the Lincoln No 1 Machine which used track units from the Bullock Creeping Grip Tractor Co a Chicago company (and nothing to do with Holt).

These proved inadequate (the tracks kept slipping off - a problem that later also troubled some of the Holt tractors used in Palestine and Mesopotamia). Tritton abandoned these and developed his own tracks from scratch which used unsprung rollers. These were fitted to the Lincoln No 1 which then became known as Little Willy.

The same basic Tritton designed track plates and unsprung rollers where used on "Mother" and all subsequent rhomboid tanks as well as on the Gun Carrier and Medium A (Whippet tanks).

The Holt contribution was an invention of the Holt (and later Caterpillar) PR and Sales department

Modern tank track systems owe nothing to Holt and can be said to have descended from a combination of Christie, the Vickers 6 ton tanks and Soviet designs - how long have you got?

[johnreed]

A good book written by Philip Ventham and David Fletcher titled Moving the Guns THe Mechanisation of the Royal Artillery 1854 - 1939 this is a good read and should answer all your question.

John

[crickhollow]

A good book written by Philip Ventham and David Fletcher titled Moving the Guns THe Mechanisation of the Royal Artillery 1854 - 1939 this is a good read and should answer all your question.

John

Thanks. I will try to source a copy.

[crickhollow]

Hello Centurion!

I think your comment that 'Modern tank track systems owe nothing to Holt' is a little unfair. The development of tracked vehicles has a very inter-related history .

'In October 1914 a British Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Ernest Swinton suggested armouring the American Holt artillery tractor and using it to carry infantry or guns' First World War Tanks; Bartholomew.E; Shire Publications Ltd; 2009.

I know Wikipedia is a source not to be totally relied upon, but if I may quote this extract from this account of Ernest Swinton's contribution at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Dunlop_Swinton :

After the war, General Swinton travelled to Stockton, California to publicly honour Benjamin Holt and the company for their contribution to the war and to relay Britain's gratitude to the inventor. Benjamin Holt was recognized by the General at a public meeting held in Stockton.

This web page says:

In England, David Roberts of Richard Hornsby & Sons had attempted starting in 1911 to interest British military officials in a tracked vehicle, but failed. Benjamin Holt of the Holt Manufacturing Company bought the patents related to the "chain track" track-type tractor from Richard Hornsby & Sons in 1914[3] for £4,000. When World War I broke out, with the problem of trench warfare and the difficulty of transporting supplies to the front, the pulling power of crawling-type tractors drew the attention of the military.

The British War Office ordered a Holt tractor and put it through trials at Aldershot. Although it was not as powerful as the 105 horsepower (78 kW) Foster-Daimler tractor, the 75 horsepower (56 kW) Holt was better suited to haul heavy loads over uneven ground. Without a load, the Holt tractor managed a walking pace of 4 miles per hour (6.4 km/h). Towing a load, it could only manage 2 miles per hour (3.2 km/h). Most importantly, Holt tractors were readily available in quantity. The War Office was suitably impressed and chose it as a gun-tractor.

Major Swinton, sent to France as an army war correspondent, very soon saw the Holt artillery tractors in use and their potential for other uses. In November 1914 Swinton suggested to Sir Maurice Hankey, Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence, that the British build a power-driven, bullet-proof, tracked vehicle that could destroy enemy guns. The idea was initially ignored until Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, learned of it. This led to the formation of the Landships Committee, although Swinton did not initially participate.

The War Office discarded Swinton's original proposal to use Holt company tractors, and instead chose to use a British firm, Foster and Sons, whose managing director and designer was Sir William Tritton.

In the same year he prepared from his own resources a propaganda leaflet and had it dropped from aircraft over German troops.[why?] In 1916 Swinton was promoted to a Lieutenant Colonel and given responsibility for training the first tank units. He created the first tactical instructions for armoured warfare. The Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors decided after the war that the inventors of the tank were Sir William Tritton, managing director of Fosters and Major Walter Gordon Wilson. By 1918, the War Office had received 2,100 Holt tractors.

I think EW Swinton is well respected for his contributions to British WW1 military developments in tank warfare and I doubt if he would have conveyed British gratitude to Holt Manufacturing Company, if he felt they had not made a contribution to tank design in addition to providing tractors for general haulage.

C.

[centurion]

Oh dear this is getting silly - he was relaying Britain's thanks for the number of Holt tractors used which wre substantial (for example the campaign in Palestine would probably have failed without them - They were used in France, Italy, Palestine, Salonika and Mesopotamia) - nothing to do with tanks. Swinton was already out of the design loop by the time that Tritton and Wilson developed the first tanks. The article you quote says zilch about any Holt contribution to tanks or to Swinton thanking them for this.

[centurion]

'In October 1914 a British Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Ernest Swinton suggested armouring the American Holt artillery tractor and using it to carry infantry or guns' First World War Tanks; Bartholomew.E; Shire Publications Ltd; 2009.

This is incorrect before the war CaptainTulloch, in a meeting with Swinton, suggested arming and armouring Hornsby tractors. Later H Marriott, an old mining associate of Swinton's wrote to him regarding the performance of a Holt tractor and recommending it as an artillery tractor. Swinton passed this on to the directors of artillery and transport. Later in October he suggested that one of these tractors might be used to push armoured rollers to crush wire.

[crickhollow]

Oh dear this is getting silly -

I don't think so - our exchange teased out all sorts of interesting sidelights on the development of tracked vehicles! All in the best traditions of the GWF

[centurion]

I don't think so - our exchange teased out all sorts of interesting sidelights on the development of tracked vehicles! All in the best traditions of the GWF

All of which had already been discussed previously!

If you really want to learn about the development of the tank you need to read some serious stuff - start with The Devils Chariots by John Glanfield.

[crickhollow]

I think I have 'done' tanks for now, thank you. Next topic 'WW1 Sense of Humour' - any suggestions?!

[CharlieBris]

I didn't pick up on this thread but thought I'd try to clear up some points.

The St Chamond SPG originally appeared as a single vehicle in 1917 which looked like a St Chamond tank cut done to the floor plates with a 120mm St Chamond gun at the back of the vehicle. This wasn't accepted since it was an expensive way to move a fairly small gun around and the St Chamond gun hadn't been accepted for the French Army.

The 2 vehicle St Chamond SPGs were variously armed with 220mm St Chamond howitzer, 155mm GPF gun, 194mm GPF gun(*) and 280mm Schneider howitzer. Only the 220mm howitzer version saw any action when it was used in trial night firings on German defences near Verdun in late July 1918. The 220mm and 155mm GPF versions were cancelled after the Armistice in November 1918. Some

50 194mm GPF and 25 280mm Schneider howitzer SPGs were delivered in the first half of 1919. These were all placed in a single unit (184 RALT) at Valence where they seem to have been maintained as a "force in being" and training courses on the SPGs were run between the wars.

The US appears to have acquired a single St Chamond SPG, upengined it to 150 hp (from 120 hp), fitted a US 240mm howitzer (license-built) Schneider 280mm in smaller calibre). It was tested at Aberdeen in 1921 as the Mark IV and Mark IVA (tractor) SP gun.

At the outbreak of WW2 they were mobilised and served as support for the Maginot line - the slow speed of movement precluded their use in support of armour. The Germans captured most of the SPGs

and used at least the 194mm SPGs in small numbers in Russia, Italy and France. There are two survivors of the gun vehicle - the 194mm at Aberdeen and a 280mm found buried outside Hanover a few years ago.

The number of 220mm Schneider SPGs produced is a bit uncertain but it was around 5. There's very little information around about the Schneider SPG. Guy Francois, who writes for the French magazine

"Histoire de Guerre - Blindes et Materiel", has indicated there is article on the Schneider SPG due to be published in the next few issues.

The US efforts in building SPGs was quite intense from about 1918 - 1921. There were 8 different Marks of SPG produced and a few concept vehicles by Christie and Holt. The Mark IV is mentioned

above but there was a small production run of 10 Mark II vehicles with the 155mm GPF gun and 3 vehicles (Mark VIII - I think) with a British 8 inch howitzer. In the end the US Army Artillery Board killed the

whole project off in 1922 by noting that "they could see no advantage of an SPG over a towed gun".

Regards,

Charlie

* - the 194mm GPF was a redesigned 155mm GPF intended to utilise the stocks of Naval 194mm ammunition. As well as being fitted to the St Chamond SPG it was intended to

field the gun on carriages similar to the 155mm GPF. However, due to production delays the towed version was never delivered and was cancelled after the Armistice.