Have now read the article in Tank Zone, and it clears up one or two things. It was already my understanding that when Estienne approached Joffre with his ideas he was put in touch with Schneider, where development of the Baby Holt was already well under way and had been for some months. He certainly didn't walk into Joffre's office and lay the plans on his desk.
One thing the article establishes is how Estienne became aware of the Holt, which was by seeing it in use by the British. I have read various claims, including that he saw a Baby on the docks awaiting shipment to Tunisia, or that it was brought back from Tunisia.
If I have got this right now, the Holt first appeared in Austrian use, towing the heavy artillery in Belgium where it was observed by the British, who then ordered some from the USA. It was those that Estienne eventually saw.
Still not fully explained is how and when the Brish and French became aware of each other's work on Tanks and when Estienne first visited the UK.
__________________
"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.
If you can read it in French, you can first read in the revue GBM n° 86 (Jan-Mars 2009) the topic on the Caterpillar Holt and the tractor Schneider CD (Topic from François Vauvillier). Its' the better way to well understand the Schneider CA 1 story.
General Estienne never go on docks in Tunisia . . . . and some Baby Holt was already used in the French Army went he saw the General Joffre.
In the same times Schneider bought the baby Holt patent and some Holt to work on an armoured machingun on endless track vehicle.
The first General Estienne's contact, to built the tank, was with Louis Renault who refused the project.
For its first visit in UK in the British tank's factory, Estienne was always Colonel and not yet General, in charge of Artillerie spéciale". I can found you exactly when . . . .
To add to this discussion, I believe a plant was established in Steyr before the war. A number of machines were procured by the KuK and were photographed in use prior to hostilities. However, they were not used as prime movers for the M.11 30,5cm Morser. That task was ably accomplished by the purpose designed Austro-Daimler M12 zugmaschine.
I assume by "baby Holt" we are refering to the Holt 45. France had procured 352 of these vehicles in 1914. The British much prefered the Holt 75 & 120; getting 1,362, and 243 of each respectfully.
Because Holt could only fill about half the 1917 orders for the US government, other manufacturers participated under license; none of which survive today;
Reo Motor Car Co. Maxwell Motor Car Co. Federal Motor Truck Co. Interstate Motor Co. Chandler Motor Car Co.
One assumes that the Holts were not useful in the small fields of UK & Western Europe (which is why Hornsby gave up trying to sell their tractors) but much better suited to the plains of the USA and Eastern Europe. Hence the licence to manufacture in, if I remember correctly, Budapest.
__________________
"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.
Sorry, Of course I was speaking of Baby Holt 45 cv. The number of 352 Baby Holt is probably for the war. The first Holt were only ordered by French GQG in August 1916.
Colonel Estienne was in Great Britain in June 25 and 26th, 1916. In his report he speak of a camp 130 km North of London. He was not yet in Artillerie Special but always Artillerie Commander of an Army Corps.
General Buttler is coming in Marly le Roy in December 14th, 1916. This visit was delayed since July. The Saint was not ready and always in factory . . .
2 British Mark (male et femelle) with their teams (4 officers and 20 men) were also in Marly le Roy to be tested by the French Army. Coming from Wavran station, and arrived in Noisy le Roy station on 12 December, they returned by train towards Wavran station on 26 December. General Estienne is returned in Great Britain (3 and 4 March 1917) for test of a new tank and meetings with Brtish tank Corps officiers
Thanks, Michel. You are a very welcome and valuable addition to the Forum.
__________________
"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.
I would like to thank more especially James H, 28juni14 and Tanker Michel (I would say 'tankiste', in disregard of general Estienne's stipulations) for their very interesting contributions.
Two things about the French Holt tractors :
- the history about Tunisia has got some reality, but not connected with Estienne. The first two 'half-tracked' Holt 75 HP (and likely the only two ever used in the French Army) did come from a large French farm in Tunisia and were used as heavy artillery tractors in the Vosges in 1915 (Estienne was not on that part of the front). I have recalled the story in GBM 86, but this had been written long before my intervention, by different authors.
- apart from the two 75 HP quoted above, the French Army seems to have been using only the smaller Baby Holt 45 HP full-tracked type. Again, the story is told in GBM 86.
I am absolutely amazed by the figure of 352 Baby Holt acquired by France (information by '28juni14'.
What I know for sure is : - the first French Government order, placed on 21 September 1915, stood for 10 caterpillars, to be delivered by Schneider who acquired the license in early 1915, as said by Michel. These first 10 caterpillars were delivered in early 1916. - the total number of Baby Holt servicing in the French Army amounted to only 19 pieces on Nov. 11 1918.
From the two above ascertained informations, we can deduct that some other (small-size ?) purchases were done in the meantime. But 352 pieces seems quite a huge lot. I do not mean it is impossible. I just mean I am surprised.
'28juni14', do you have more precise informations ? Thank you in advance for this, as I would much like to improve my documentation of this point.
Bonjour, I was also surprise by this number of Baby Holt (352) but it's probably more than 20. For instance I have not well studied this problem with "Artillerie Spéciale" units, and it's sure that baby Holt was used by SRR (Section de Ravitaillement et de réparation) as recovery tank. Already in Cuiry les Chaudardes (Juvincourt's fight of April 16th, 1917) Baby Holt were present in AS. 2 Baby Holt was deployed in each Groupement 's SRR (AS 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 -107 -108) Each Section de Parc d'AS (Cercottes, Champlieu, Martigny les Bains, Mailly-Poivres and Bourron) used also 2 Baby Holt. These units were the AS 201 - AS 202 - AS 203 - AS 204 - AS 205. With Renault's Regiment, each BCL's SRD (Section de Réparation Entretien et Transport) used 2 baby Holt. For 7 Renault's Regiments it's : 21 SRD and 42 Baby Holt . . . The only problem is to know if all this Baby Holt were ordered and given to the "Artillerie Spéciale" . . . .
The words Tank and Tanker (tankiste was not used) was absolutly forbidden by General Estienne It was for that reason that the tank's teams spoke of them like "tankers" and song the "tanker story". . . . .
Gentlemen, the order numbers are from Caterpillar historical sources. They suggest French agents approached Holt in late 1914. Perhaps the official forms were not in the French registry until documents were received, or Caterpillar simply has the date wrong. The same source says the French bought 18 Holt 75s later in the war. I've attached two pics illustrating Holt 45s as prime movers for French Army heavy artillery.
- the first one depicts a standard 155 L Mle 1877 de Bange
- the second one is much more unusual : a 14 cm Mle 1891 naval gun on affût Saint-Chamond.
Back to Holt, the story I got is that the approach between the US company and the French Government was made through M. Jules Schnerb, the Holt agent in Anvers (Belgium) who got safe in France after the German invasion of August 1914. A visit with him by two French engineers from Schneider, MM. Brillié (the technical father of the Schneider tank) and Duhamel, to the British Army using Holt tractors, took place in Aldershot on 30 January 1915.
It is also said that The Holt Company approched the French Government very early in the war (late 1914), but this led to nothing at this stage.
The official French interest (GHQ and Joffre) towards the Holt caterpillars, especially the smaller Baby Holt, is recorded to have taken place in August 1915 (16th is the date of a GHQ's request to the War Ministry), and this gave way to the first order of 21st September.
Yet, the figure of 352 Baby Holt is amazing, even if it covers the whole period 1915-1918.
This has definitely to be sorted out...
Michel is calculating a (theorical) total of 68 Baby Holt in the AS repair and maintenance units.
They were also in use in the ALT (artillerie lourde à tracteurs), as recovery vehicles, but général Wilmet, commanding the ALT, wrote that the Baby Holt "served only a little". It may well be that the 19 caterpillars quoted on Nov. 11th 1918 refer only to the ALT's Baby Holt.
If we add the AS ones, it may comes up to a little less that one hundred. Where are the others gone ? Exported to Allies ? For sure, they were not all destroyed or out of duty.
Michel, Francois, & Jack; this is a very welcome and long overdue discussion. The British side of the story is so familiar, with every detail of every machine, however marginal a part it played, gone into in depth.(And, of course, the German side is meticulously examined) For the non-French enthusiast it is extremely difficult to find anything like this level of detail.This is excellent.
BTW Francois. I have not posted the pic of the Levavasseur machine on the Forum, since it is copyright. Do you think Histoire and Collections would object?
__________________
"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.