This link provides the original newspaper announcment of the steam tank in 1918. Some of the statements need to be taken with a substantial pinch of salt. No thought of keeping one's new weponry secret feom the enemy! http://www-tech.mit.edu/archives/VOL_038/TECH_V038_S0020_P001.pdf
Departing from the old custom of christening with the champagne bottle, only a single gold cross was hung upon her massive steel brow, typifying her dedication to the cause of God and justice... The American army engineers took full advantage of the experiences of the English engineers and improved upon the British type in many ways, eliminating features and designs which were proving impracticable in the big war engines of Europe and adding many distinctive American engineering improvements so that the "America" stands out as a peer of all war engines and a monument to American ability and ingenuity.
Hi all for a while now Ive been wanting to as a question about the steam tank and this seems like a good opportunity.... did it actually go to the western front for trials?........
It certainly went to France which is not quite the same thing. The US Tank Board had adopted a strict policy of not accepting any tank design for introduction to service that they did not first have the opportunity of trialing and as most of the Tank Board were based in Paris the Steam Tank would have to go there for their inspection.
There are some fascinating nuggets of information in that piece, Centurion. A bit of digging reveals that Prof E[dward] F Miller was an expert on steam engines. He headed the Mechanical Engineering Laboratory at MIT from 1911 (or 1912, accounts vary) to 1933, and co-authored 'Steam Boilers' with C H Peabody (head of the Department of Naval Architecture at MIT until 1920).
Oddly, his obituary doesn't specifically mention his work on the Steam Tank, only that 'during the World War [he] ...carried on experiments for the United States Army'.
What I have been wondering, is when was the Steam Tank scrapped?
An enquiry to the Bovington archives yielded several photographs. I asked to have a photo reproduction of one made, but the museum replied that the poor quality photocopy was really no better than their archived image, so a photo reproduction would be of little use.
I no longer have the photocopy.
However, the image showed the Steam Tank in a parking lot, surrounded by trees, with an automobile in the image. The automobile was unmistakably a 20's to even 30's model. It was absolutely not a Model T. So one wonders when the tank was scrapped, being that it appeared to be in one piece in this image, with a very much post-WWI car in the same image.
The atricle was very interesting from another point of view: in those days it was still a "man's world" as evidenced by the male occupation of stenographer.
I would think this is one area where the transfer of skills to become a female occupation has to be welcomed as the joys of dictation are directly proportional to the curvaceousness and looks of the stenographer! Tony
Something else arises from re-reading Centurion's article. The report says that the steam tank is "three times larger than the Brittania (sic), the British tank now visiting Boston," and "in which it is said the Brittania could be stored without any trouble." A few pars later it gives the weight as 45 tons, length 35', and width 11'6". Even if, as Cent says, Brittannia was a generic name, these statements can't be reconciled. What did the writer have in mind, or had he just no idea what a British tank looked like?
-- Edited by James H at 15:06, 2007-05-20
__________________
"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.
Certainly a female Mk IV was in Boston in April 1918 and was photo'd by at least one Boston newspaper knocking down some old buildings in Cambridge (the MIT Cambridge). There is a further inconsitency in the Steam Tank article in that it says it (the steam tank) is the same size as current tanks being used in Europe. The first remark is probably just a case of a Bostonian saying in effect 'we've got a bigger tank than the limeys nah nah ne nah na' Having been tracking the touring tanks in Britain through old newspaper reports etc this level of inconsistency and inaccuracy is not unusual. I suspect that there are some reporters who keep their heads where it is dark and warm, if a little smelly!
Newspaper reports should always be read with scepticism; they are a starting point for research into a topic, not an end in themselves. Chances are the reporter didn't know what a British tank looked like, or how large it was; or was just BSing, as Centurion says; probably a combination.
When it comes to anything even vaguely technical, most reporteers are clueless.
Hello Gentleman Very true Roger, as Roberts signature reads, always mistrust captions.. I guess I need to take that into account, especially when I run across archival films, labeled Schneider CA2 in action All the Best
Tim R
__________________
"The life given us by nature is short; but the memory of a well-spent life is eternal" -Cicero 106-43BC