Landships II

Date: Nov 30, 2005

The 3 Lost WWI Projects of Germany.

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Volmer recommended to the A7V committee that Germany concentrate entirely on producing light tanks (a seperate army report had indicated that the country did not have sufficent manufacturing resources to compete with the Allies in producing heavy tanks ). The committee did not agree and a decision was taken to produce develop and produce super heavy tanks (K wagen) heavy tanks (possibly the A7VU) and light tanks (LK II) ready for a 1919 offensive - the tactics to be unwittingly a mirror image of the Allies 1919 plan. All other projects (including those you quote) were abandoned. The result was of course that nothiong went into service. Had Volmer prevailed and only one type of tank selected it is possible that Germany would have had some LK IIs (his design) available to meet the British ofensive of August/ September 1918. I've got some books written in the 1930's that quote the relevant reports etc. When I've more time this PM I'll dig them out and giv more detail

Date: Nov 30, 2005

That little book also has a photo of the scale model of the Goebel-Landpanzerkreuzer undergoing trials. Alarmingly, though, even though it was published in 1969 it says that "it is not known whether there are any surviving German WWI tanks." Odd.

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Digging around I find that the following may be of interest/use.

1. Extracts from a translated report by Captain Weger of the German Army and a co designer of the A7VU and the K Wagen. He was liason officer between the high command and the German War Department

�Copying the English tank with some improvements was proposed (Dec 1917) The amount of raw material, metal and reclaimed labour necessary was so great that, in view of the obtainable delivery number and delivery time, it was decided that the proposition would not pay. The motor question was particularly difficult as all that were turned out were needed by the flying troops and by the artillery for tractors and could not be spared for anything else. The OHL was furthermore forced to curtail all new orders to a minimum on account of the reserve position of the infantry. Hence this tank building scheme was, after long conferences, abandoned.�

�Through its neglect thereof, the German War department is to blame for our failure in tank building.�

�Tanks to ensure success must be used in large numbers must be used in large numbers and this in turn demands mass production. But with the abnormal shortage of raw material and labour this could not be done without curtailing production of other important raw materials. Hence Tank production was a field in which we were forced, with heavy hearts but through necessity, to let the enemy take the lead.�

This explains why many projects came to nothing

2. In March 1917 the High Command ordered the production of super heavy tanks (the K Wagen) for delivery in early 1918. Engineer Vollmer had opposed the building of these K Wagens urging the production of lighter models (effectively the future LK I, LK II & LK III) but was over ruled and ordered to concentrate on the K Wagens

This is where effort was wasted

3. Despite this an order for a thousand LK IIIs (LK II with a revolving turret) was eventually placed for delivery in 1918 but with insufficient resources even the prototype LK III had not been completed by the Armistice.

One designer trying to juggle many projects at once

4. In the meantime Krupp had proposed a light tank and by May 1918 an order for 20 Krupps was placed along with 580 LK IIs. In the event by the Armistice only 1 Krupp and 2 LK IIs were completed.

5. A medium/heavy tank as an alternative to the A7VU was ordered from the Oberschleisien Iron Works - this was in many repects a cross between the French Char 2c and the later Vickers independent. By November 1918 only 2 chassis had ben completed.

In essence Germany probably only had enough design, development and manufacturing capacity to produce one simple tank design and in attempting to develop a full, potfo;io suceeded in producing nothing.

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Hello Guys

Does any body know any thing about this Krupp design of 1918.

https://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c363/rigsby101/krupp1.jpg

All the Best

Tim R.

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Tim, very interesting...

I believe I can help you with this.

The general shape of the tracks, aswell as the general shape of the tank body, are a lot like the Krupp Light Tank. You can see that, in simple terms, the Krupp Light Tank was devided into two main compartments. The rear box-like engine compartment, and the taller front multi-angled fighting compartment. Very similar to your picture.

Now look at the detail in your image. Detail is almost entirely devoted to the tracks and suspension. That implies the tracks and suspension were of importance in this picture.

The original Krupp Light Tank design had an un-sprung suspension. You can clearly see that in the images. Yet, Germany knew that sprung suspensions were far superior for speed, and cross country performance.

This picture you have, shows 4 sets of double-bogies per side. Two with leaf-spring suspensions. Special detail is applied to the special double-bogie wheels.

I believe it can be deduced, that Germany was keenly aware of the benefits of sprung suspension, and thus plans were drawn up for a Krupp Light Tank with sprung suspension. Perhaps the final production model of the KLT would have had sprung suspension.

Something along these lines must be the case.

---Vil.

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Whilst springing had many advantages one problem under Western Front conditions was clogging with mud and its impact on general maintenance. This proved to be a problem with all the Holt type suspension vehicles French and German but was a particular issue with the A7VU. The British unsprung tanks were less prone (but not immune) to clogging (and were cheaper ). Their useful life was expected to be relatively short (which is why some of the German captured Britsh tanks had problems - they were already pretty knackered when captured). Its possible that the Krupp tank was initially ordered unsprung to avoid the clogging problem and to save resources and production time. Tim's drawing coud represent the design in its early stage or, as you've speculated a possible later enhancement (possibly for a trial machine to investigate the mud problem?)