Landships II

Breaking:


Announcement: Please read the following announcement!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Gun Carrier Mark II


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1722
Date:
Gun Carrier Mark II
Permalink   


 

I've read that there was a project running to design a Mark II Gun Carrier at the end of WW1.

Anyone seen any sketches or drawings of the Mark II? The project seems to have been cancelled

after the Armistice.

Regards,

Charlie



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1364
Date:
Permalink   

Some years ago David Fletcher wrote an article in WHEELS & TRACKS No 58 on the various Gun Carrier designs of the Great War. Attached is a photoshopped consolidation of the sections on the Gun Carrier Mk II.



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1364
Date:
Permalink   

Here's another photo of the mock-up from Chamberlain & Ellis, British & German Tanks of World War 1.

 



Attachments
__________________
Rob


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1329
Date:
Permalink   

Ha! I like the mock up gun. Although it does appear to have a real wheel (type used for GS wagons etc) attached

__________________

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roblangham



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3337
Date:
Permalink   

Curious. After coming so close to a really useful SPG with the Mk I, they suddenly opted for a design in which the gun points backward and would have to be unshipped and turned round before firing. The French were in the process of doing the same with with the Schneider CD2. 



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 786
Date:
Permalink   

My best guess would be they spun the tank around and pushed the gun out. The fact the gun is removable probably reflects the perceived reliability issues of early tanks if the tank breakdown then at least there is a usable gun.



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1722
Date:
Permalink   

 

Thank you Roger - the David Fletcher article clears up the Gun Carrier Mark II mystery - it's probably worth a new section in the Landships II article on the Gun Carrier

(adds to list....). 

Helen, your argument is one of the many which was proposed at the end of WW1 and into the 1920s about the role of vehicles in moving artillery.

Opinons were split among a number of options and combinations of these - horse towing, wheeled towing, tracked towing and self-propelled guns.

I get the impression that the US Army Artillery would have been totally incapable of fighting after WW1 because the many factions in the artillery

officer corps could never have agreed on how to move the artillery. As it turned out the horsey faction won until it was realised in the 1930s that the US Army could

get into a 20th Century war with 18th Century technology - or, using Douglas MacArthur's phrase, the old guard just faded away. 

Regards,

Charlie



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3337
Date:
Permalink   

FWIW, the French had a not dissimilar schism: whether to carry or tow artillery. Hence the vacillating over Renault porteur v Schneider CD v Schneider CD3.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1722
Date:
Permalink   

There certainly were differing views in the French Army but they were more differences in emphasis rather than the deep divisions in the

US Army artillery and to some extent in the British RA. The French had an artillery movement scheme pretty much worked out by 1917 -

towing by 4-wheel drive trucks on roads and final delivery by tracked vehicles to the gun positions. This applied to the heavier artillery pieces

which were moved around - the smaller field pieces (75mm, 105mm) were attached to divisions and generally stayed with the divisions.

The early porteurs had the limitation that they couldn't carry the heavier guns so they would always have to have a mix of towing and carrying

vehicles. By the end of the war the dispute was pretty much resolved in favour of towing - the vast number of Ford 3-ton tanks ordered and the

Peugeot T3 tractors were supposed to be the tow vehicles for 75mm guns and 105mm howitzers for the French "Plan 1919". I think the French

had concluded that the horse was an anachronism for generals to sit on unlike the Americans who still thought it a viable way to move artillery.

Regards,

Charlie 



-- Edited by CharlieC on Tuesday 19th of November 2013 01:42:01 PM

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

I've seen the first pic before - it's in one of BT White's old books, and is also in an old thread from a couple of years ago (or more), but the Chamberlain & Ellis pic is new to me.

From the shape, with its similarity at the front to the Mk IX, I'm assuming it must be similar in size to the Mk IX; The Mk I carrier was 30ft long, the Mk IX APC 31ft 10in, so the Mk II can't be far off. Perhaps one of you knows how big that arty wheel is, for comparison?

I'm in agreement with Helen that the vehicle would be spun around before unloading the cargo - having the epicyclic steering gearboxes, there would no problem turning around, as old footage of Mks V, V**, and Medium C shows.

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

Okay, checked Landships II, there's a scale drawing of what looks like the right arty piece: wheel diameter about 5ft, that should help judge the size of the vehicle.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us