Landships II

Date: Aug 7, 2005

[STEAM TANK] Most Evil Looking Tank Of WWI

Date: Aug 7, 2005

Just a little note...

The Steam Tank was the heaviest operational tank of WWI.

At 50 tons, it was heavier than the A7VU, which was 39 tons, which in turn was heavier than the Mk. VIII, and the A7V. Of course, the K-Wagen, Flying Elephant, etc, were bigger, but they never got completed.

Of related interest, the heaviest operational tank of all time was the WWI designed Char 2C French Heavy Tank.

"In 1939 the Char 2C, Lorraine, as the company command tank, was uparmoured to make it immune to standard German antitank guns. The front armour was enhanced to 90 mm, the side to 65 mm. In this configuration weighing about 75 tons, the Lorraine had at that time the thickest armour of any operational tank and is probably still the heaviest operational tank ever."

The German MAUS super-ridiculous-heavy tank of WWII, aswell as the German E.100, and aswell as the later-on USA Super-Heavy Tank T28 (a four-track, non turret, mobile 105mm assault gun), were all significantly heavier than the FCM-2C, but the T-28 was canned after 2 prototypes, and the Maus and E.100 never became fully operational.

---

Date: Aug 9, 2005

Oh come on, no one has anything to say? Say something, anything! :D

Am I the only one who thinks this tank has a distinctive /evil/ look to it?

That and its HUGE! HUGE! Look at the second pic, of the guy reaching up, and talking to the crew on top of the tank. This tank was /tall/, /long/, and /wide/.

THIS was a landship.

---

Date: Aug 9, 2005

It looks impessive but tis a shame its the rhobial design that way it doesnt really stand out, i found out that most people like tanks in WWI that actualy faught or were made in masse, I myslef like all the big ultra big tanks, because if a Mk.V was a landship, than the k-wagen, and the steam tank and the medelejev tank were the landdraughtnaughts

Date: Aug 9, 2005

Don't forget the Flying Elephant!

Trust the British to come up with such a ludicrous name...

I think what mainly makes the Steam Tank look evil are the strange spikes at the front.

Date: Aug 9, 2005

I dont know I always thought the a7v was the most otragous tank, and they had twnety of them so they were built in numbers, but if yo ureally think about it its a box on wheels with another box on top (that also makes the tank very cool)

Date: Aug 9, 2005

Heh, my vote for most outrageous mass produced tank goes to the St Chamond. Some of the photos of ditched ones are hilarious!

I'd love to see a model of anything that at least made it to prototype stage. The Mendeleyev model is cool enough, I suppose, but the freaks that got built, like the Tsar tank, the skeleton tank, the Vezdekhod, and the K-wagen are probably the most amazing for me. Honourable mentions to the Ford 3-ton and Holt gas-electric.

This site has several variants that I was unaware of before:
http://jedsite.info/tanks/hotel/holt_series/holt-gas-electric/hge-intro.html

Date: Aug 9, 2005

I think a one man tank is really something . . .
http://jedsite.info/tanks/hotel/holt_series/ha-15/ha15-intro.html

Date: Aug 9, 2005

Steam Tank in France

Hello,

here a newspaper cutting with a report on the arrival of the
Steam tank in France.

Many greetings

Mario Doherr

Date: Aug 9, 2005

In case people cant read that article:

THE NEW YORK HERALD, PARIS, SATURDAY, JUNE 22. 1918.

FIRST AMERICAN BUILT TANK TO ENTER BATTLE IN FRANCE

FIRST AMERICAN TANK Photo by Paul Thompson.

The first tank constructed in america will be ploughing its way across the battlefield in France to spread terror in Hun trenches. It has taken months to construct it, at a cost of $60,000. It is a giant in size, however, and is expected to overcome almost any obstacle that can be placed in its path by the enemy. The
tank was constructed in a city near Boston. It crawled into Boston under its own power and was christened in historic Copley square. Some idea of the tremendous size may be gained from the fact that a man may stand erect under the peak of its stern, which is but half the height of the land craft. It will be known as the America.

That is seriously interesting!

"It will be known as the America"... Could this be the flagship of the American armored forces in WWI? Could this single, expensive, tank be Americas 'breakthrough tank' ? The mere fact this tank was called the "America", must be a testament to how important it was presumed to be back then.

---

Date: Aug 10, 2005

And you know, a lot of the information on that site is highly suspect...

http://jedsite.info/tanks/hotel/holt_series/holt-series.html#s181

Especially the picture of the Steam Tank which is obviously photoshopped to show a revolving turret on top of the cab. The very same image exists, but it shows two men lounging on top of the cab. No turret.

Odd....

Compare:

My book says that "As first fitted, the flame projector was in the front plate, but it was later located in a small turret above the front cab."

So... There should be a turret there... But yah.. Im confused. Especially because "later it was located in a turret above the front cab", and that picture shows the tank IN france, ready for duty!! Why would they put a turret there AFTER the armistice? So yeeaaahhh.

Anyone got any ideas?

---

Date: Aug 10, 2005

YEs its photoshop (I think), I have the program and after I opened the file in photo shop you can view that the objects in the photo conflcit, as in the turret overlaps something and the shade is srewd up so its a lame cut and paste photo shop job, OR

a bad photo taken in france with the turret, thats rare, it also might be the guy who owns the sight really wanted a photo of a steam tank with the turret thats mentioned in text . . .

Date: Aug 10, 2005

eugene wrote:

...a bad photo taken in france with the turret, thats rare...

No, it's definitely not a bad, rare photo, as it clearly derives from that first image with the two men on top. All the figures are in exactly the same positions, and you can even make out in the second photo the shadow cast onto the front of the cab by the chap on top leaning forward in the first.

eugene wrote:

...it also might be the guy who owns the sight really wanted a photo of a steam tank with the turret thats mentioned in text . . .

It's just someone's mockup of what it might have looked like with a little turret atop. Nothing to get excited about.

Incidentally, the whole business with the steam engines turned out to be a wild goose chase. The steam engines were meant to supply the flamethrower with high-pressure steam to project the combustible liquid. However, in the event, the steam engines weren't up to it, so they had to fit an auxiliary 35hp petrol engine to work the flamethrower instead! What a farce...

Date: Aug 11, 2005

There are lots of flaws with steam engines. Weight, for one. Theyre messy, crude, all of that.

But they have POWER.

The Steam Tank had two 2 cylinder engines developing a total of 500hp, and thats far more than any other operational tank of the great war. Even the gigantic FCM 2C, after being fitted with dual AIRSHIP ENGINES only had 500hp.

I think the steam engines were sort of dual purpose. The 3 Wheel Steam Tank was also developed, and it didn't have a flame thrower. Sure, the steam was going to be used to pressurise the fuel for the flame-thrower, but to say that the Steam Tank utilised steam-engines /purely/ for its primary armament, is a little bit too presumptuous. The fact is the americans didnt have a single other powerplant at the time capable of moving this monster.

Just some thoughts.

---

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Vilkata wrote:

Sure, the steam was going to be used to pressurise the fuel for the flame-thrower, but to say that the Steam Tank utilised steam-engines /purely/ for its primary armament, is a little bit too presumptuous.

I would not presume to be an expert on the vehicle, I was merely going on what one of my books said about this decidedly obscure and peripheral tank.

TANKS! (http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/) says:

Built by the Army Corps of Engineers in conjuncton with Stanley Steamer, this tank was intended to attack enemy strong points with an attached flamethrower and act as a battering ram if needed. Fueled by kerosene, powerful twin 500hp two cylinder steam engines powered a track apiece. James Merrick of the Stanley Museum advised TANKS! that the engines allegedly came from "two Unit Railway Car engines and boilers, manufactured by the Stanley Motor Carriage Company in Watertown, Massachusetts, the makers of the Stanley Steamer automobile." Further he informed me that "there is a legend that this tank was driven about the streets of Boston as a demonstration during a Liberty Bond Drive, only to break down in front of the Boston Public Library in Copley Square." Eventually a 35hp gasoline engine was added which gave 1600psi to the flamethrower because the steam engines could only provide 700psi. A two-speed forward and two-speed reverse transmission was provided. No suspension was used, but the tracks were 24" wide. Accounts state that this tank arrived in France in 1918, however, the war ended before any meaningful tests could be carried out.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

And I've just noticed that you had all that information about the steam engines in your original post - d'oh!

Date: Aug 11, 2005

So many times in WWI armor texts, people confuse Two Engines With A Combined Horsepower of 500hp, to be that EACH engine was in fact 500hp.

The Steam Tank did -not- have 1,000 HP. (or did it ???)

If it did, It would have had an absolutely incredible power to weight ration, and when its boilers started kicking in, it would have been going ridiculously fast for the time. No, certainly if was 500 hp, with a still very good 10hp per ton.

Here is another mystery for me...

I believe historians have completely falsified the actual speeds of many WWI tanks. Maybe because they didnt know any better.

I dont know how steam engines compare to gasoline engines as far as raw power created, but doesnt it seem like 10 hp per ton would give this thing a higher top speed than 4mph, which is what my book says it was?

The top speed for the Skeleton Tank is in FACT, around 12 mph. The original designers said so much, and in fact, if you calculate the absolute average Mph, per hp per ton, of all primary tracked AFVs in WWI, and calculate out what the Skeleton Tanks speed is, you get around 12 mph. With a weight of 9 tons, and 11.11 hp per ton, this is entirey understandable. I hold this as FACT. Yet my book says the top speed was 5mph. 5? Riiight.

Now, I'm guessing that steam engines are good for low speed raw power, and could slowly pull an elephant over a mountain, but I don't think they are that good for SPEED. If I use the same Average MPH, per HP per Ton of all primary tracked AFVs in WWI, you actually come up with the Steam Tank having a top speed of 11.27 mph. However, unlike with the Skeleton Tank, I can't presume this to be true, as I have never read historical accounts of its speed, and I have no fundamental knowledge about steam engines compared to petrol engines, of which I am using statistical data from.

---

Date: Aug 11, 2005

But surely speed isn't just dependent on hp/ton? How much energy was lost in different transmission configurations, for example?

But I take the point about steam engines. The steam engine Maxim built for his giant biplane test-rig in 1894 had a better power-to-weight ratio (including the boiler, feedwater and fuel) than the Wright brothers' i.c. engine of 1903!

"Not a lot of people know that..."