As part of the researh on the U.S. SPGs, I noticed the following in the book suggested by "Ironsides" - "The Armies of Industry"
written by Benedict Crowell who was Assistant Secretary of War and Director of Munitions 1917-1920.
"The French Renault not being adapted to American methods of mass production, the ordnance department designers undertook to modify it with practical manufacturing considerations in mind. The result was what was virtually a new tank and one typically American. Our officers regarded it as a distinct improvement on the French machine. It was easier to build; it weighed no more than the French machine, yet cost considerably less; and it was a more powerful fighter, for it carried three men instead of two and mounted two guns, one a machine gun and the other a 37-millimeter gun. In justice to the original Renaults, however, it must be stated that a few of them also carried 37-millimeter guns. We ordered 1,000 of these Mark I tanks, as they were called, but the armistice cut short the manufacturing operation in its infancy."
I haven't heard of the Mark I before and wonder if anyone has seen images or drawings of it.
Hi Charlie That would be the Ford MKI see "Stuart" by Hunnicut where there are several pics, 1000 were ordered one pilot built... but hes bragging a bit I think it proved to be unstable when climbing C of G to far to the rear...
Sounds like another one for Landships II (sigh). The problems with weight distribution seem to be shown in the image posted. There are a couple of roadwheels
at the front off the ground even when the tank is at rest. Crowell says it was a redesign of the Renault tank to suit American production. Looks like some
elements of the Ford 3-ton design were used as well.
I know of this tank as "The Ford 3-Man Tank", and there are one or two threads to be found on this forum using that name. Up until this thread I'd never heard it called the Mark I, but I see the "Tanks" website has both names.
Good find, Ironsides. Tank doesn't quite look right without the return rollers in place. Perhaps it could have been sorted out if they had moved the track-frames backwards along the hull, removing the front axle, adding mountings at the back to carry the sprockets and slinging some drive chains in between the old and new sprocket positions (like the French did with some of the attempts to update the FT in the twenties)? Shouldn't have been a massive job to redesign like that, but the Cg would have moved forwards relative to the track contact patch.
A criticism of the Mark I tank was the impossibility of adjusting the tension of individual tracks - the whole axle had to be moved. I wonder if the tank was ballasted adequately for the weight
of the guns, crew and ammunition when it was tested.
The document is a good find. I'll have to work through the Landships II articles on U.S. armour and update the data on the tanks - unfortunately on a very long list - any volunteers?
Another Pic from "Development of armored vehicles, volume I tanks (AGF Board no. 2, 1 September 1947)."
IIRC that's the pic I was referring to here when Tim R enquired about the vehicle. A distressingly long time ago.
__________________
"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.