Landships II

eugene · Field Marshal

mk.VIII

Roger Todd · Legend

I don't think anyone has ever called the Mk VIII a 'revolutionary' design, either then or since - it was simply the ultimate expression of the classic rhomboidal tank. It retained the unsprung suspension of the earlier machines, the sponson mounted guns etc. It was better armoured and somewhat longer, to be sure, as well as having a better internal layout and more powerful engines. It would have been an effective breakthrough tank if used in large numbers, as I believe was to have been the case with the so-called 'Plan 1919'. It wouldn't have been useful for future war conditions, but then it wasn't designed for a future war, it was designed to finish the 1918 war. I think it's unfair to say that anyone called it 'revolutionary' as that sets up a straw man...

eugene · Field Marshal

revolunionary in a sense that a tank that would not be prone to freakquent break downs and more reliable, thats waht I was trying to ask how good was the tank in performance

Roger Todd · Legend

More evolutionary than revolutionary, then...

Well, as we all know, it incorporated various improvements over the previous Marks, such as the separate engine compartment, which I believe made a big difference to conditions inside the vehicle (in itself, that alone would have improved its efficiency). It was much longer, of course, than the earlier Marks, which would have greatly improved trench crossing (an even longer Mark VIII* was planned, at 44 feet in length! Hunnicutt says it was actually designed, but I've never seen any drawings - perhaps someone here has?).

Hunnicutt's 'Firepower' has some information about various new features. Internal communication, always a problem in earlier Marks, was originally effected by a larygaphone system, but this was found to not work terribly well and was abandoned in favour of flashlight signals. There was much better ventilation in the fighting compartment at the front, augmented by a fan in front of the engine compartment. There were the usual teething troubles inherent in any new design, for example, there were frequent fires caused by the engine backfiring through the carburetor, which were apparently 'easily handled' by onboard fire extinguishers (I can't help thinking that it must still have been a hairy experience!). The track shoes were tougher, the dishing in the middle of each shoe (the 'dimple' you can see) greatly increasing rigidity compared with a totally flat one. I would imagine, though I have no hard evidence, that mechanical performance would have been much better. The engine, at 300hp, was nearly treble the power of the old Daimler 105hp engines driving earlier Marks, though speed was barely improved (the lack of suspension probably provided the main limitation here, plus the increased weight), so I should imagine the Mark VIII's engine was subject to less strain. On the subject of weight, whereas most sources claim 37 tons, Hunnicutt says 43 tons - anyone got anything else on this?

The Stern archive has a letter from the US War Department representative, Stettinius, to Stern, dated 29 November 1918, reporting on field tests - had you asked this question last week I might have been able to look it up for you (unfortunately - or fortunately as far as I'm concerned - work is closed until 3 January)! However, as the date is so early, it would have been one of the first trials, and not terribly representative.

The problem with trying to assess how good the Mark VIII was is that it never saw action, and that's the real litmus test. Yes, we know it had various improvements, but it's hard to form any real conclusion. And the fact that it was designed within the limitations of the same overall concept as the earlier Marks (lightly armoured, heavy, large - capable of crossing wide trenches, unsprung suspension, tactically an infantry support vehicle) really does make it an evolutionary development, not a revolutionary departure - it was merely an improvement.

Centurion · Legend

One innovation that I believe was developed for the MK VIII (but may or may not have been fitted) was an observation cupola for the commander that consisted of two revolving circles of metal with numerous vertical slots. There was a sort of strobe effect so that the commander would appear to be looking out through a 360 degree horizontal vision slot but bullets would be deflected. Sounds horribly complex and liable to failure in combat conditions. Does any one know if it was ever fitted to any MK VIIIs?

-- Edited by Centurion at 17:40, 2005-12-23

eugene · Field Marshal

from the photos that i have right on my computer the mk.VIII had a small additional commanders coupola ontop of the drivers cab box

Roger Todd · Legend

Centurion wrote:

One innovation that I believe was developed for the MK VIII (but may or may not have been fitted) was an observation cupola for the commander that consisted of two revolving circles of metal with numerous vertical slots. There was a sort of strobe effect so that the commander would appear to be looking out through a 360 degree horizontal vision slot but bullets would be deflected. Sounds horribly complex and liable to failure in combat conditions. Does any one know if it was ever fitted to any MK VIIIs? -- Edited by Centurion at 17:40, 2005-12-23

I'm in a real rush because I'm running late to go out.... But, briefly, it was a French stroboscopic cupola (you can see it on the Char 2C) but according to Hunnicutt it was found to be very vulerable to machine gun bullets and so was abandoned (I think they tried it on one or two trial machines in the US). There are some good diagrams in Hunnicutt's book.

Vilkata · Brigadier

The Stroboscopic Cupola was one of those incredibly ingenuitive ideas designers had that simply could not function under battlefield conditions. There are lots of old fashioned childrens trinkets that involve a lampshade with small vertial slits in it spinning around and revealing an image beneath, it was the same concept. And a really cool one too!

---Vil.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

One innovation that I believe was developed for the MK VIII (but may or may not have been fitted) was an observation cupola for the commander that consisted of two revolving circles of metal with numerous vertical slots. There was a sort of strobe effect so that the commander would appear to be looking out through a 360 degree horizontal vision slot but bullets would be deflected. Sounds horribly complex and liable to failure in combat conditions. Does any one know if it was ever fitted to any MK VIIIs? -- Edited by Centurion at 17:40, 2005-12-23

It definitely was fitted but only to one tank. I have attached a comparison shot of 2 Mk VIII's.

Treadhead · Major

Howdy Fellas,

Once again I find myself compelled to say that I just love reading thru the threads here at Landships

And, once again, I feel strangely needy to place my foot in my mouth and attempt to add my

to the conversation...but after having recently spent a decent amount of time pouring over the Mark V* and the Mark V** profiles, the Mark VIII appears to me as simply an American variation of the lengthened Mark V*/V** with some other small differences added on..........OK, now you can commence throwing sharp, heavy things at me.....that is, if you can hit a moving target

Tread

Roger Todd · Legend

I think it's wrong to say that the Mk VIII was simply an American version of the Mk V* and Mk V**. For a start, it was designed by a joint Anglo-American committee, so it can't be said to be either a purely British or American machine. Second, it was a much better machine than either the Mk V* or Mk V**, chiefly in that it had a far better and more powerful engine, and the sealed, separate engine compartment made the vehicle's habitability, and thus potential fighting performance, vastly superior to any tank before. This can be easily seen in accounts of attempts to use the extra space in the long Mk V* and Mk V** tanks for carrying troops - they were pathetic failures, as the dreadful heat and fumes from the engine rendered the troops too sick to perform. Other improvements included the wider tracks, which meant that although some tons heavier than previous vehicles, ground pressure was actually lower. All in all, a much better vehicle than previous tanks, but, as I've said before, an evolutionary improvement, not a revolutionary departure.

Treadhead · Major

Howdy Roger,

Sometimes I am not as clear verbally as I am in my own mind {something my wife has pointed out to me on more than one occasion

} Meaning, what I was trying to say was that by appearance the Mark VIII and the Mark V*'s look similar. Neither has the tacked-on rear track horns of theTadpole and instead have lengthened main bodies...that's all

.
The improvements you point out of the Mark VIII over the Mark V*'s are apparently part of your "evolutionary improvement"....correct?

Tread.

Roger Todd · Legend

Ah, I see what you mean Treadders, soz... Well, only 'cos they're long. I think the Mk VIII is a much better looking tank than the Stars, they simply look odd (for much the same reason stretch limos look rubbish, whereas proper limos are vastly superior in the old aesthetics department - compare, say, one of these awful new stretch Rolls Royce jobs with an old Phantom V or something, and you'll see what I mean...). To me, the Stars look more like the US Steam Tank (Tracked).

Treadhead · Major

Couldn't agree with you more about the 'stretch' limo thing...living here at the base of the Rocky Mountains I get to see a lot of stretch limos for people who are going skiing at the mountain resorts...everything from standard cadillac's to new H2 Hummers stretched out to ungodly dimensions!

One of the reasons I am looking at potentially kit-bashing myself a Mark V*/V** is because I have always been a pushover for anything unique, or a variant. And the additional fact that the Stars were the bed for several WWI 'funnies' adds even more personal appeal to the recipe for me.
Since my modeling time is {it seems} always at a premium, I like to keep it interesting. I have also become a big Sherman fan, but cannot see myself modeling Sherman after Sherman like some WWII aficionado's seem to do...instead I would kit-bash my own version of the composite-hulled version of the Sherman

or even more interesting {to me} the mine clearing version of the Sherman...the LULU.

Tread.

-- Edited by Treadhead at 18:35, 2006-02-12

-- Edited by Treadhead at 18:36, 2006-02-12

-- Edited by Treadhead at 18:44, 2006-02-12

-- Edited by Treadhead at 18:44, 2006-02-12

Centurion · Legend

Treadhead

The length of the Mk V* V** and the VIII was intended to solve the same problem - wider German trenches. The V* was basically a makeshift devised by the guys in the field in France after the tadpole had proved ineffective. and then put into production. The V** was an attempt to produce a tank that improved on the V* without major redesign that would delay production. Essentially the engine was uprated (to give more power) and moved backwards in the hull. Ventilation was also considerably improved (which might have allowed troop carrying) and the shape of the bottom of the tracks had an extended curve to make turning easier. The V** was ordered in large numbers but the first of these were only just being delivered by the Armistice and the orders were canceled. Some interesting funnies were developed on the V**s built (including two different types of bridge carriers and a mine sweeper). I suspect that the V** was intended as insurance in case the Mk VIII was late. A Mk V*** was designed (sometimes referred to as Mk X) but never built.
The Mk VIII was intended to combine US manufacturing capacity with British design and combat experience. In fact almost all the design was done in Britain (by Lt G. J. Rackham) but of the 110 or so built , 100 were produced in the USA (albeit with armour and some parts supplied from Britain). It was effectively an entirely new design. The track frames were a different shape from the V* and V**. The power plant and transmission was different. The ventilating system used filters and kept the crew compartment at positive pressure in order to provide protection against chemical weapons (gas), this feature anticipating current NBC protection used in todays tanks. An electric intercom was provided to all crew positions and provision was made for a wireless (radio). Armour was thicker (although still too thin). British tanks were fitted with either a Rolls Royce Eagle engine or a twin Ricardo whilst US used the Liberty. British Mk VIIIs had Hotchkiss Mg and the American ones used the Browning.

A Mk VIII* was designed but never built - this would have been 44 feet long (10 ft longer than the standard VIII and 2ft longer than the German K Wagen - a real whopper)

Treadhead · Major

Howdy Centurion,

Thx for your input on this. As I have said before, this Forum is invaluable for me because I can learn from you gents the real nut & bolts about the subject matter. And the best part is it's normally painless {that means the objects you throw are not both heavy and sharp....just kidding

}

I have tried to look for more clear pictures of the 'funnies' but have only been able to find illustrations such as this one...

At least it gives me an idea of how either the bridgelayer and/or the mine-clearing device is actually mounted and constructed to the base vehicle...

Tread.

PostScript: You said "...A Mk VIII* was designed but never built - this would have been 44 feet long (10 ft longer than the standard VIII and 2ft longer than the German K Wagen - a real whopper)..." You're just teasing my soft-bellied 'variant' underside aren't you?......any pics?

Centurion · Legend

Treadhead

Look at the two enclosed photos of Mk V** funnies. In the second the V** has pushed a portable bridge fitted with a whippet's tracks over a gap. A similar approach was taken in WW2 with a Churchill AVRE and a Baily bridge (fitted with carrier tracks I think) and used in action.

No the VIII* isn't a spoof, it was considered, but it only got as far as a paper design - I'd love to see a picture too.

Also The Mk V*** "Mark X Paper only project to improve the Mark V, originally known as Mark V***. This was basically a contingency plan in case the Mark VIII project would fail (if so a production of 2000 was foreseen for 1919), trying to produce a tank with as many parts of the Mark V as possible but with improved manoeuvrability and crew comfort." I'd like to see this too