Landships II

Roger Todd · Legend

Concrete Big Wheel Landship

Tim R · Hero

me want one!!!!!!!!!

Centurion · Legend

Interesting. Concrete armour is not unknown (WW2 saw the Bison series of mobile pill boxes and concrete merchant ships). The style of the drawings is somewhat 1950 ish (especially the way in which feet are denoted by a ' on the dimensions). One also wonders if the idea of an anti aircraft gun position would have occured to someone in 1915/16. It does bear a resemblance to a gigantic version of the German Treffas-Wagen of 1917. For my part I'll suspend judgement until I learn more. I'd be fasinated to know if any one has more info on this

Treadhead · Major

Howdy Roger,

Thx for posting this series of drawings. I must admit to being a little intrigued by the whole concept although the first thing that crossed my old mind was locomotion vs. weight....considering the engines of the day could barely move a British mark at pretty much walking speed, I can't imagine what kind of engine they had in mind for this behemoth

The only indication of engine type is in your last drawing{ CLS5.jpg} and that shows {I think} two side-by-side engines attached to the driveshaft, one engine with eight cylinders, and the other with ten!
I also agree with our good Centurion's observation regarding the inclusion of an AntiAircraft position...first, I'm not quite sure that would have been thought of at that time {as Centurion pointed out}, but further, I can't imagine a Five Story Concrete Landship being worried at all about what a WWI biplane could possibly drop on it that would do any damage to a rolling concrete building of this size!

The use of concrete as armour was also applied as applique armour by Sherman's in WWII...can't remember the exact Tank Battalion at the moment, but they used it on the front glacis plate.

Tread.

P.S......Five stories tall?........whew!

Mark Hansen · Legend

An interesting concept. As Tread has mentioned, motive power would have been a problem. But if you could get the thing going at a respectable pace (walking or better), it looks as if it would have been nearly unstoppable with the weapons of the time. Depending on whether the wheels would have been solid concrete, and it looks to be the case, you would need to hit the thing damned hard to stop it. A glancing shot wouldn't worry it too much, and a chunk out of a wheel would only make the ride a bit rougher.

One thought for the hypothetical AA position is to take out observation aircraft. Aircraft spotting for artillery might have made life difficult for the behemoth's crew.

Another thought is that you would want to keep this thing moving as much as possible. Its sheer weight would cause it to start sinking on any ground that was the least bit waterlogged.

A pity we don't know (yet) whether the drawings are genuine.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

One thought for the hypothetical AA position is to take out observation aircraft. Aircraft spotting for artillery might have made life difficult for the behemoth's crew.

Artillery spotting aircraft operated at both an altitude and a distance from the target they were directing fire on that would mean that a Lewis gun would have been no threat.

I suspect that Patton's comments about the engine on the 200 ton tank (quoted in another recent thread) would also have applied in this case.

Craig York · Sergeant

Reflecting on what Robert said about the drawing style, I wonder if this might not have been an anti-invasion notion from the early years of the second great war...An all-concrete structure has the hallmarks of 'minimal use of strategic materials' and the rather puny forward armament looks suspiciously like a Northover projector. The drive appears to be a fairly simple chain or cable arrangement...and I have to wonder where exactly it was supposed to be commanded from....

Centurion · Legend

Having pondered a bit I have the following observations/questions

1. How was it supposed to get to the battle front? Tanks are usually transported to the battlefield either on road carriers or (typically in WW!) by rail. However the Mk V* was at the limit of what would fit on a normal railway wagon (the K wagen was designed to break down into 5 loads, speciall arrangements were made for the Char de Rupture and even the American 1500 ton project was modular). There is no way to break down such a concrete monster for transport. It would have to drive to the battle. Imagine if you will a squadron motoring across Northern France. The collateral damage would be collossal (friendly squash) and the fuel usage vast (it would need its own convoy of tankers to service it).

2. The onboard fuel tank doesn't seem large enough

3. Although the style of drawing would fit with a WW2 anti invasion scenario the figures are in WW1 uniforms, indeed they appear to be 1914/15 vintage

4 Apart from no command position the thing has no real arrangement for steering. yes there is some sort of pully arrangement to the rear roller but this is positioned as far back as is possible. Where would the driver sit and how would he connect to this?

Craig York · Sergeant

I take your point about the uniforms-its an area I tend to be fairly ignorant of-but it occurs to me that a concrete landship could actually be constructed right at the front! Granted, its a thoroughly loopy notion, but the metallic components could simply be trucked up, the forms built, and the whole stuck together and sent rolling toward the Hun!

While the some of the details are curiously absent, I see from the side view that some of the interior spaces are tall enough for a second deck-perhaps the command and control funtions were to be conducted from there?

This may provoke some chortling from my cousins at my Yankee naivete', but I wonder if there might be something at the Patent office?

Centurion · Legend

Craig York wrote:

it occurs to me that a concrete landship could actually be constructed right at the front! Granted, its a thoroughly loopy notion, but the metallic components could simply be trucked up, the forms built, and the whole stuck together and sent rolling toward the Hun!

I'd thought of this BUT this would mean setting up a major concrete mixing and casting facility right in the rear of the trench line tyogether with a major errection facility with huge cranes etc (just to put the wheels on). The machinery would itself be a major transportaion problem and would have to be emplaced in the moulds for the one piece concrete structure to be poured around it. One wouldn't want to attack with a single vehicle so this would need to be set up for a significant number. One would think that even the Ruritanian intellegence service (let alone the German) would smell a rat ( a verylarge one) long before anything was ready to send towards the line and Herr Gemeral would order up the heavy rail guns and the Gothas and Friedichshaven heavy bombers to pound the construction site long before the concrete finished curing.

Roger Todd · Legend

Well, as I said in my preamble, nothing whatsoever is known about this drawing, other than what it purports to be, which is a concrete big wheel landship of Great War vintage. The drawings may, pace Centurion, be of a later date, perhaps based on even more obscure, lost, originals. Maybe they were based on patent drawings, though lacking a name, date or any other information it would be nigh on impossible to track them down.

I do, however, think that it's a completely ridiculous scheme, with all of the drawbacks enunciated above. But just because it's utterly absurd doesn't mean someone didn't suggest it and seriously think it would work...

We know from the various ludicrous patent drawings posted from time to time on this board that there is always someone available to propose the most bizarre schemes.

-- Edited by Roger Todd at 01:13, 2006-04-15

Centurion · Legend

Roger Todd wrote:

though lacking a name, date or any other information it would be nigh on impossible to track them down.

There does appear to be a signature just before the title on the first picture. The style of lettering matches that of the title. Blowing it up it looks like Cl???s (Clovis perhaps, unfortuately a google on this brings up 13 million matches with everything from ancient Frankish kings through a Saki character to porno) Is the P0114 on the original picture or it it a Bovingdon reference? Could it stand for project 0114?

I do, however, think that it's a completely ridiculous scheme, with all of the drawbacks enunciated above. But just because it's utterly absurd doesn't mean someone didn't suggest it and seriously think it would work... We know from the various ludicrous patent drawings posted from time to time on this board that there is always someone available to propose the most bizarre schemes

One has only to look at some of the dafter WW2 schemes to realise this. Hitler seems to have been obsessed with the gianormous Gustav rail gun, no less than 4 projects were hatched, three to turn it into a SPG (the P150 project, mounting it on eight Tiger chassis or shortening the barrel and using it as a street fighting vehicle!) and one to use it as an anti tank weapon. So a big concrete tank seems almost sane in comparison.

Roger Todd · Legend

I've never been able to make out the lettering, and it wasn't any clearer on Bovington's, sadly. The P0114 was on it already when it came into Bovington's hands, as David remarked upon the fact. Of course, it could mean anything. The stencil styling of it implies something official (or at least that it had passed through official hands at some point, if only for some military official to attach a note saying 'Bonkers!'), but again that's meaningless as anyone could use a stencil to make something look official.

Most people's projects look sane in comparison with Nazi projects...

Treadhead · Major

Howdy fellas,

As is the custom around here, multiple points have been made, and potential theories have been fielded concerning this concrete behemoth...and I, as has also been the custom {for me}, thoroughly enjoyed every bit of it.

But ya know, all this talk about a concrete landships has made me think of the actual possibilities for such a vehicle....so, how about we extend this line of thought and toss all of our individual ideas into designing a virtual WWI concrete landship of our own?

I'll start this off....

Track vs. Big Wheel ?

I like the Big Wheel idea for a couple of reasons. The first being the {almost} industructability of the Wheel itself, thereby ruling out the possibility of throwing a track, taking a dissabilitating {sp?} hit to the track, or even simply loosing traction.
To begin, the Wheels wouldn't have to 5 stories tall, but something a bit smaller and easier {quicker} to produce.
I also like the idea of four Wheels as opposed to the reverse-tricycle arrangement.
I also think the Wheels themselves should not be smooth, but rather, have a somewhat cog-design cast into them to aid in traction. {as is pictured above}

Locomotion?

Because of the weight v. locomotion issue brought up earlier, I was thinking of having a dedicated engine per Wheel for locomotion. This would enable the maximum amount of horsepower to be supplied to each Wheel and also serve {potentially} as a directional control. I am aware of the possibility of having one of the engines failing and hence rendering the vehicle dead-in-the-badlands, but... the very same outcome would happen if the vehicle had only one engine...right?
In fact, if one of the engines {on a four-wheeled version} were to fail, the other engine at the opposing side could be shut down and the vehicle could be recovered from the battlefield by the other two Wheels....

Anyway fellas, I have much more floating thru my deseased head, but I thought for fun I'd start this thing rolling but throwing out a few ideas that could picked apart, tossed aside, embraced, laughed at, and hopefully challenge the rest of you!!

Tread.

Maybe our very talented Centurion can draw up something based on all of our ramblings??......{hint

}

-- Edited by Treadhead at 15:43, 2006-04-15

-- Edited by Treadhead at 15:45, 2006-04-15

-- Edited by Treadhead at 15:48, 2006-04-15

-- Edited by Treadhead at 15:58, 2006-04-15

Centurion · Legend

Good idea Treadhead I enclose a link to a interwar big wheel - Admiral Byrd's Snow Cruiser

Actuall built and shipped to the Antartic but not it seems a success. I believe that it contained cabins for five (including the pilot of the scout plane). The wheels could be retracted when it stopped at night to allow exhaust gas to heat the rubber to avod cracking in the cold. I think tracktion in soft snow turned out to be very poor. Still it might spark some ideas

-- Edited by Centurion at 17:29, 2006-04-15

Centurion · Legend

In confirming/tracking down the provenance of Rogers concrete behemoth it occurs to me that if drawings of this had been lodged oficially in WW1 they would have ended up in the archives of the Inventions department of the Ministry of Munitions. These currently form part of the National Archives at Kew. Unfortunately I now live some distance from London but if anyone ever gets the chance to have a look it seems that they have quite a number of landship proposals.

Centurion · Legend

Treadhead�s idea of an exercise to produce a paper tank could be useful in extending our understanding of some of the issues that beset those early pioneers. However I think we might learn more if we didn�t just restrict ourselves to a concrete tank. How about making an assumption that tracks have not been invented and that we are restricted to a wheeled solution but facing the same terrain and tactical situation that existed in 1915? Could we have done any better than Tritton, Compton, Hetherington et al?
One of the biggest causes of failure in any large project is a failure to define clear objectives and benefits (its certainly been why many larger scale public sector IT projects in the UK and USA have proved to be costly and ineffective and the same problems apply to engineering situations). The original Landship Committee faced the same issue. Different people had different ideas as to what a Landship was supposed to do (and Churchill managed to hold all of these ideas at different stages in the project). Let me elucidate:

1. Armoured shields and people carriers. Landships were to be a way of getting troops across no mans land and into the enemy�s trenches whilst protecting them from rifle and machine gun fire. Tritton�s Trench Tractor fits this bill. However such an objective fails to take account of one salient factor. Taking the enemy�s first line trenches, although often bloody and at high cost in casualties, was not the greatest problem. In many accounts of WW1 battles the initial objectives are reported as having been taken on schedule, it is then, once the troops are in the maze of a defence in depth trench system that the greatest slaughter takes place and the advance becomes bogged down facing counter attacks, prepared strong points and having to take the system traverse by traverse, communications trench by communications trench, dug out by dug out. All of this in an environment where the enemy�s artillery has exact map references and precise ranges for every position. The Germans in particular were past masters at defence in depth.
2. Wire and trench crushers. The landship�s job was to destroy barbed wire and collapse trenches creating a path for the infantry to advance across. The French Frot armoured roller and some of the British trials with rollers and ploughs aimed at this objective. The giant concrete landship that started this thread is clearly in this class, however with its single forward firing gun with a limited traverse it would have been unable to do much about machine gun positions not directly in its path. Troops following such a machine would still be exposed to fire from concealed machine gun positions intended to enfilade their line of advance (such as almost annihilated the Newfoundland Regiment on Somme day one). Following directly in the trail of a tank was also risky as it gave the enemy artillery a clear place at which to aim (which is one reason why the Australians took such heavy casualties at Bullencourt).
3. Infantry support. The landship provides a moveable (and armoured) fighting platform mounting machine guns and cannon to enfilade enemy trenches and deal with machine gun positions and other strong points so as to support infantry in their advance in depth. This is what the British Mk I �V tanks were about. Such tanks need to be able to deal with �shelled ground� and have good trench crossing capabilities which can restrict their speed.
4. Disruption of enemy communications and movement. The landship cruises behind fixed lines and restricts the enemy�s ability to move troops and supplies. It sows alarm and confusion. This was very much the purpose of tanks such as the Whippet. This became very much the development of the inter war years leading up to the blitzkrieg approach.

Now it is possible for a landship to combine some of these roles but not all of them. If we are to have a �new landship committee� perhaps the first task is to define exactly what should be the role of the vehicle to be designed.

Any views? If we are to procede I would suggest we start a new thread.

Craig York · Sergeant

A " New Landship Committee" ? Sounds like a fine idea to me.

Robert- I did some looking for Admiral Byrd's snow cruiser some years ago without much luck-its mentioned in great detail in Clive Cussler's ATLANTIS FOUND ( Great modern pulp ) wherein the heros find it abandonded on the ice, restore it to running order, and arrive at the secret Neo-Nazi base in time to save the world. As detailed there, the snow cruiser's main problem was its tires, which were smooth. No tread whatsoever. Fine for Le Mans, but not what you want on snow, I think...

Centurion · Legend

Craig York wrote:
As detailed there, the snow cruiser's main problem was its tires, which were smooth. No tread whatsoever. Fine for Le Mans, but not what you want on snow, I think...

Many parts of Antarctica can be so cold that snow (if there is any) isn't slippery - just crunchy and is a problem for any kind of runner (this is one of the many pieces of bad luck that made Scott's expedition so difficult). A cousin who was with the British Antarctic Survey when they still used dog teams (1960s) confirms this. In such circumstances big smooth tyres would be fine as the tyres would tend to stick to the ice better than treads) Byrd's problem wasn't the exteme cold but that it wasn't as cold as usual! (BTW Napoleon's army suffered with the same sort of problem in 1812, that winter was particularly mild by Russian standards, had it been normal the roads would have been much harder and the army could have moved faster. it would also have been easier to move supplies).