Landships II

Looks very top heavy and front heavy, but the additional 6 pounder(?) each side may have offset that. Is that a MG turret just behind the cab and another at the rear of the tank?

nice drawing centurion,

did you guys notice how close the engine is to the sponsons, its practicly in the middle of the two sponsons, that would make things difficult . . .

also the top part has to be the exaust its directly above the engine

Roger Todd wrote:

---

The four guns in sponsons are all machine guns - there was to have been a 75mm gun in the bow, between the horns. See the drawings at the very bottom of this page: http://www.chars-francais.net/archives/saint-chamond.htm The thing on top of the hull you think may be another MG is, I suspect, an exhaust, given the location of the engine (again, look at the linked drawings, especially the plan view). Dunno what the thing at the rear is, though. Nice drawings, by the way, Centurion.-- Edited by Roger Todd at 22:18, 2006-02-27

---

Thanks for that, I didn't know it was supposed to have been MG armed and carry the normal 75mm. I think though that the rear object is the exhaust; it seems to be located more above it. The forward oval-shaped turret object sits a little too far away. I've combined the images to show what I mean.

P.S.: BTW, the comment about the top and front heaviness was not a criticism of the drawing but of the design itself. The Germans had a similar problem with their attempt on the rhomboid A7V.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 23:51, 2006-02-27

Albert Stern had a Mk.II sent to the St. Chamond factory to be fitted with a petrol-electric transmission prior to the Oldbury trials of March 1917. In the event, the tank was not ready in time and did not participate in the trial. Perhaps it remained at the factory, as the progenitor of this machine?

Rhomboid wrote:

---

Albert Stern had a Mk.II sent to the St. Chamond factory to be fitted with a petrol-electric transmission prior to the Oldbury trials of March 1917. In the event, the tank was not ready in time and did not participate in the trial. Perhaps it remained at the factory, as the progenitor of this machine?

---

I tried laying a drawing of a Mk I  over the original St Chamond and as I said earlier the curves do not match. I would suspect that the Mk II above was not the progenerator of this drawing. Its possible that when St Etienne attended one of the early demos of 'Mother' he took back a sketch and matters progressed from there.

The "machine gun" turret on the top of the hull is in fact far too small to house a gun much less a gunner and exhaust is probably the correct interpretation.

I think that the commander's tower would have been a relatively small part of the overall mass and therefore might not have had too bad a c of g effect. It would however have made it more difficult to conceal the tank in its approach.

The tank is  l'homme because of the 75mm in the front hull (rather akin to the mountings in the Churchill Mk 1 and the Char B of WW2). The "6 pounders" in the sponsons are, as someone has correctly identified Hotchkiss mgs with a an arrmoured tube over the barrel. (note there is no taper as one would expect on the barrel of an artillery piece).

BTW whilst on the general subject of St Chamond does any one know how the rear wheels were driven on the St Chamond M 1921 wheel/tracked tank?