Landships II

James H · Legend

Layout of Little Willie.

CharlieC · Legend

�

Try the thread on the cardmodel Little Willie - it has interior detail including the engine. Dave Winfield (the designer) does a lot of research on his models - the engine position in the cardmodel

is highly likely to be accurate. The statement isn't right - the engine was towards the rear of Little Willie although part of it would have intruded into the space under the turret. The image attached was taken through one of the viewports at the front of the vehicle - there is a pair of engine mounts visible on top of the chassis rails.

Regards,

Charlie

Roger Todd · Legend

Below are Dick Harley's drawings from the series he did with David Fletcher in Tankette. As you can see, the accounts you quote are not far off.

James H · Legend

Thank you, citizens. It does seem to have been a little snug.

James H · Legend

Once again, I am much obliged. A little jiggerypokery with what I believe the youngsters call "soft wear" has produced the diagrams shewn below. It certainly does look rather cramped and close to the plumbing. Maybe the original turret was put there as a formality, with a view to tweaking it later. Many accounts say that the turret was abandoned in favour of sponsons because of problems with the "centre of gravity," but I'm not sure there was a great deal of difference in height between Little Willie and the rhomboids.

BTW, just had a look at Willie on the dreaded Wikipedia, and there's something wrong there. The difference in height with and without turret works out at 9 inches, which photos indicate could not possibly have been the case.

-- Edited by James H on Wednesday 5th of February 2014 11:30:06 AM

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Quite so the observation on height: James' original photo shows the turret reaching well up the thigh of the worker standing on the roof, a height I would estimate at around two and a half feet (about three quarters of a metre). I haven't looked yet at Wikipedia's dimensions, but BT White quoted...oh, he didn't quote height; a general volume on tanks by George Forty and Jack Livesey quotes 10' 2", although it's not certain that includes turret.

What catches my eye about the internal layout is not so much the intrusion of the engine under the turret space, but the very high mounting of what I take to be the starting handle, running right through the length of said space; it rather looks, in modern "elf'n'safety" terminology, to be a serious trip-hazard for the crewmen when traversing the turret.

James H · Legend

Correct, TCT. Just found that Albert Stern (p30) does indeed give the height to top of turret as 10' 2". That makes the turret 23". I'd have said that it looks more than that in the photo, but it's been pointed out to me that there might have been a difference in height of the hull depending on whether Bullock or Tritton track frames were fitted. Maybe the hull sat lower on the Bullock frames, and with Tritton's the height was measured without turret. Am I explaining this properly?

�

Roger Todd · Legend

And it depends on whether the Bullock tracks are flat or fish-bellied... Dick Harley's drawings may help.

CharlieC · Legend

TinCanTadpole wrote:
<snip>

What catches my eye about the internal layout is not so much the intrusion of the engine under the turret space, but the very high mounting of what I take to be the starting handle, running right through the length of said space; it rather looks, in modern "elf'n'safety" terminology, to be a serious trip-hazard for the crewmen when traversing the turret.

�I've been emailing Dave Winfield, designer of the cardmodel Little Willie, about this thread. It would be a breach of etiquette to quote his emails without permission - summarising

Dave's comments:

- The internal drawing is speculative, drawn from memory and regarded as inaccurate by the Tank Museum.

- The tube running from the differential over the top of the engine is more likely a vent or oiling tube rather than a starting crank.

- The "crank" part of the tube is for a bridge between the two sides of the tank floor.

- No one is certain about the starting arrangement in Little Willie but similar engines had a shaft running down the side of the engine as part of the cranking arrangement not above the engine.

Regards,

Charlie

TinCanTadpole · Legend

James, yes, your meaning is clear.

Roger, I've just checked photos in BT White's "British Tanks and Fighting Vehicles, 1914-1945", and the aforementioned Forty and Livesey book: the answer is that the Bullock tracks were 'fish-bellied', as you put it, but in a less exaggerated manner than drawn by Dick Harley. Try halfway between his two drawings and you'll get the idea.

Dick Harley's drawings do seem to have some inaccuracy: the track-frame pivot point, by which it is attached to the hull, is drawn more than halfway up the frame, but a quick check of photos shows it should be AT the halfway mark. That holds true whether the track is Bullock or Tritton, and the gap left between return run and hull sponson appears about the same to my eyes - which suggests that there is little or no difference between the height on the two different tracks.

A possible cause of discrepancy would be the attitude of the hull; with tail wheels fitted, the tank sat with a very distinct backwards squat, whereas afterwards, sans tail, he sits level-hulled, so the height may vary. Which does prompt me to ask whether there were springs or something to stop the hull flopping back and forth on the tracks, given the pivot mounting?

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Charlie, thanks for your comments. I haven't been able to locate the cardmodel thread using the search function, and can't be bothered at present to trawl through a year or two of threads to find it, but looking at the photo you uploaded in your first post, I'd say it highly likely that "Willie" was started by a crank located between engine and differential, just like the rhomboids, except that the crank was probably mounted a bit higher up, with the differential end mounted in the hole through that cube-shaped block above the diff (visible in the photo).

James H · Legend

This is widening somewhat. Grateful for the sight of Dick Harley's drawings. I might be mistaken, but I thought the track frames went from flat on the Lincoln Machine (if such it was called) to fish-bellied on Willie. Maybe mistaken.

But there's something else. The gun. I'm engaged in a discussion elsewhere about this. Seems unlikely that they'd have put a real gun in a dummy, immovable turret just for a test run. Yet in the outdoor shots of the Lincoln Machine something is clearly holding up the tarpaulin to the front of the turret. A dummy gun? Is DH's depiction of one an explanation or an assumption?

TinCanTadpole · Legend

In this instance, James, I believe you are mistaken; try looking at this Landships II pic, paying particular attention to the frame carrying the bogies: you should see that it is flat along the top, but curved underneath, so it is deeper in the middle than at the ends. Since this carries the rollers, the rollers and thus the track adopt a gentle curve.

The turret drawing - good question! Proportions and mounting suggest a dummy, but whether Dick Harley knew that or took a guess I have no idea.

James H · Legend

You're right, TCT. Sorry.

airdave · Major

Just wanted to comment on the "turret" idea.
This Tank was never intended to have a "turret"...ie: a revolving attachment.

The original design was a round extension to the main tank body.
This extension would be more like a bunker.

A viewing and firing cupola that the crew could stand up into.

It was intended to have gun ports around the perimeter.
This is the only reason the top of the Tank had a large round hole cut into it.

In the following photo you can see the "extension" is being fitted before any of the windows or ports have been cut in the body plates.
A pistol or Gun port is visible, I'm guessing there are four equally spaced?
Judging by the top row of rivets, I'm sure it was solid capped.

But then at some point before the Tank was finished it was removed again.
(Never welded or bolted into place.)
Instead, a "plug" was made to cover the hole.

However the upper extension was removed before the Tank was completed
and a solid "plug" was installed in the opening.
The whole "turret" idea was probably deemed to be unneccessary work just for a "Track drive testbed".

...
re: that tube/"crank" that runs above the engine to the differential.

At the time I was designing my model, I was told the differential was not installed in the correct
position in the tank (by the Museum).
I also was told that the interior drawings were inaccurate since the tank was void of any internal
components for reference.
It just appeared to me to be a modified version of the Mk1 interior.

So, I tried very hard not to refer to those drawings.

I had some photos of the Differential showing a vent hole or opening into the casing.
I had another reference that showed an oiling tube (or vent tube) at a similar spot on the same type housing.

Other reference material seemed to indicate an oiling pipe running above the engine to an oiling or vent source.
A differential like this needs to be vented...and not venting into the cabin would be a good idea.

Then there was the engine...
We know the exact type of Daimler engine used, but no actual drawings or photos of that engine existed (that I could find).

I managed to find a photo, from Daimler, of a 4 cylinder motor from the same time/year that was apparently
a smaller version of the same motor. (This tank uses a 6 cylinder inline water cooled engine.)
And this 4 cylinder version had a manual cranking rod, connected at the front of the engine by sprockets
to the rear, at a hand crank.
But the supported cranking rod ran down the right side of the engine, above the intake manifold.
Not down the center of the engine like in the Mk1 tank.

To me this confirmed that the bent "tube" running to the top of the differential had to be a vent or oil tube.
Or maybe even a misinterpretation of the cooling pipe in a Mk1 tank.
And this is what I argued.

But...I'll admit theres still some confusion on this topic.
I have since seen some better photos of the Differential housing and the connecting point for this tube...or crank.
It looks more like a connecting spot for a supporting bearing...like for a cranking rod.

And I never took a real good look at the Mk 1 layout until after...and the cranking rod makes a lot more sense to me now.

It wasn't a big issue for me when designing my tank model.
I stuck to basic components and left a lot of the smaller details up to the builder.
I wasn't going for absolute accuracy on the drivetrain...just an approximation.
But I got into the habit of arguing against a cranking rod...and I think I might be wrong on that.

-- Edited by airdave on Friday 4th of July 2014 12:09:45 AM

James H · Legend

This is very, very, very interesting, Dave. I have been engaged in some dialogue about the turret in a place that I shall leave you to guess at. I now realise that there are a couple of references, here and there, to it being fixed, i.e. non-rotating - in fact, maybe a "fixed turret" is a contradiction in terms. Is it, technically, a barbette or a cupola? Or something else?

Anyway, while digging around I found a comment from David Fletcher in which he said that the turret could slide forward on rails. What disturbed me, when I was still imagining that it rotated, was the prospect of the gun crew being cut in half like magicians' assistants. Unless I'm doing him an injustice, he seems to have misunderstood. Stern wrote to Tritton on 3rd Sep, 1915, "With reference to the gun in the turret: the ship will probably want to use its gun at an angle of 45 degrees pointing forward, upward or downward when crossing irregular ground and not on the flat, therefore it is necessary to be able to shift the gun forward as far as possible. It does not appear to me to be a difficult thing to run this on rails from the centre, where it is now, right forward. I am also informed that it is not so necessary to protect the men from shrapnel, therefore a shield covering the front and the sides and the top partially seems to me to be sufficient."

So Stern was talking about the gun, not the turret, being on rails, just as you describe it. Note though, that he talks about only partial armour for the top, not a solid cap, and none at all for the rear, so it would have been more like a shield than a proper turret. I'm still not totally certain how it would have worked. In the photo, on the front of the turret is a rectangle that might have been marking out for a slot to be cut through which the pompom would project. How it could move forward on rails, I still don't understand.

But pinpointing where the engine was is brilliant. What no one seems to consider is that Tritton and Wilson are hardly likely to have designed and gone to production with something that couldn't possibly work.

The only thing I'd really like to know is where you came by and how confident you are of the information that it was never intended to have a revolving turret. Is it in the papers at Bov? Hope you have got a minute to spare.

airdave · Major

I look at the photos for the best answers.
and that photo I posted above clearly states a lot (in my opinion).

I see no effort, in the design of the hull, to accomodate anything up top.
At least nothing more than a bolted on (or welded) "cupola".
And the same goes for any sort of gun mount or rail mount.
I would even go as far to say the idea of cutting a hole in the top and adding an extension might have been an afterthought.
Probably something they thought of during the initial building stage and then scrapped before the completion of the vehicle.

Just look at the interior and roof of the tank. Look at the construction method.
(The layout of the roof strengthening angle iron pieces suggests they left a large central area open,
but that could just be coincidence or the adjustment of one or two angleirons to accomodate the cutout)
This all sounds like conjecture or construction afterthought to me.

would the "gun on rails" possibly refer to the forward gun?
There was an intended gun position at the front, between the window ports.

I can see the rectangle marked on the front of the "turret"
Its possible it is a surface anomaly, or it could be a chalked cutting line.

Possibly another "idea", for an elevating gun of some sort, but then when you realize the turret must rotate to make it usable, the idea goes out the window! lol
Thats a big turret...can you imagine the weight once the internal structure and support, the gun rails and mounts, the guns themselves...were added?
Who's gonna turn this thing?

Another thing to consider is the fact that this "tank" was never intended to be armoured.
It was boiler plate construction, intended purely as a testbed for the track drive system.
Could the statement "it is not so necessary to protect the men from shrapnel" be for this same reason?

I could understand designers batting around all kinds of design ideas
but with no real intention on implementing them (on this vehicle).

The basic hull design is very similar to what was used on the Mark 1, so they must have liked the basic shape.
But even that has no upper turret or ideas for an upper mounted gun.
(I say this with little knowledge of Mk.1 history or technical details)

-- Edited by airdave on Friday 4th of July 2014 04:26:17 PM

Tonys · Field Marshal

Could some dear member please do a short description of the development of Little Willie relating to the various names? We have LW "early", LW "late", No. 1 Lincoln Machine, Tritton Machine, etc.

Apart from the turret, the only difference seems to be in the shape of the track-support framework and the tracks themselves - are these just three variants on the same body of whatever name?

Tony

629

airdave · Major

"early" and "late" willie would only refer to the original Bullock Track design, and then the modified (Tritton) track design.
As far as I know, "No.1 Lincoln Machine" is the only technical name for the project.
And "Little Willie" is the only common name for the vehicle.

The Tritton redesign of the Track system was complete...not really a redesign of the Bullock Tracks,
since everything was a new design...right down to the individual track plates themselves.

The main body never changed as far as I am aware, throughout testing,

...other than the temporary fitting of the upper "bunker"
(which, in my opinion, is a better term...since many people assume a turret is a rotating or movable attachment),

and the inclusion and redesign of a tail steering "carriage".

The main body shape was carried over into the Mk.1 design
as was the steering carriage.

...
Side note...
just got a reply (and opinion) from (Sir*) David Fletcher...
*inside joke

I had an interest in putting out an alternate version of my Little Willie model.
In GREEN finish.
My thinking was that in old photos...specifically the photos taken outside the Foster factory
at Little Wilie's Press and Public unveiling, the vehicle definitely sports a fresh paint job.
It is all a very even colour, somewhat glossy, and appears to be a darker tone.

It makes sense that Willie was given a fresh "coat" for the appearance.
(In earlier photos, Willie always appears muddy and rusty over a bare metal, unpainted finish)

And then, I came across some colour postcards from the Bovington Tank Museum
...mid 1970s era?...
and Willie was sure enough, painted Green!

Green is obviously a standard British vehicle colour.
So, I made the assumption that Willie might have been painted Green originally.

However I asked for an opinion from the Museum itself (and David Fletcher) and David explained:
green was not being used on "Tanks" at that time (1915)
...the general concensus is that Willie was painted a darker gray in the Fosters photos
...and the only reason Willie got painted green, in the 1970s, was the fact that the Museum (at that time) had an abundant supply of green army paint.
It is now painted a "Navy" gray, which might be a little bright, but seemed appropriate for a "landship".

So, thems the facts.

LincolnTanker · Commander in Chief

I have attached photos of LW that with a bit of rivet counting should help to show that the turret centre was close to, or on, the side plate joint but displaced to the drivers side.

Image 4 reloaded

-- Edited by LincolnTanker on Saturday 20th of June 2015 06:24:35 PM

airdave · Major

Chris, your fourth photo won't load, and i would like to see that one.

This brings me back to something I noticed when designing my model.
The expanded left side section of the upper body appears to jutt out a little further than the right side.
If you measure the proportions (in photos), the left side often appears to be wider (based on the center line).
There is a riveted plate running exactly through the center of the body (top plate),
and I am measuring off each side of that.

Only actual measurements of the overhanging side compartments would confirm this. All I ever had to work with was photos.

...I just assumed it had to be a common visual distortion in the photos I was looking at.
I could not see any reason for one side of the vehicle to jutt out a little more.
And so, I made my model with mirrored sides and equal widths.

But to be honest, I don't think I ever noticed that the "turret" hole was off center.
LOL
My model is not correct in that respect.

Its such a small amount though.
Do you think it might have been unintentional?

-- Edited by airdave on Saturday 20th of June 2015 05:54:01 PM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

airdave wrote:
...other than the temporary fitting of the upper "bunker"
(which, in my opinion, is a better term...since many people assume a turret is a rotating or movable attachment),

Why on earth should anyone assume that a "turret" must rotate? The earliest turrets I can think of are those on castles, and none of them rotate! It's also a fact that a lot of tank terms originate from military architectural terms, e.g. glacis and cupola. To my mind, a turret originally didn't rotate, but after the term started to be used in connection with tanks, and then rotating turrets were developed, rather than adopt a new term the definition of turret was expanded to include projections that did rotate. So, to assume that a turret must rotate is to look at the development of the word from the wrong end of the telescope, so to speak.

Gwyn

P.S. David Fletcher has been awarded an MBE. He hasn't been knighted. I mention this only because I didn't understand the 'joke' and am feeling rather humourless today.

airdave · Major

you made my point...I know exactly what a turret is.
And I am not suggesting you don't.
but ask 100 non-members of this forum "what is a turret?" (in relation to military vehicles)
and I can assure you the common answer will be 'that thing on top that rotates, with the big gun..."

I was only suggesting that a better common term for the willie add-on might be "bunker"
or "cupola" or "gun-barn"...if nothing else but to avoid any assumptions that it might a rotating "gun turret".

...
I am already aware that Fletcher has an MBE.
I am already aware that he has not been knighted.
I can read wikipedia.
As I said, I have been in contact with him.

But, so you "understand"...

In my first communication with Mr Fletcher, I referred to him as "Sir" even though I knew it was not his title.
I was making a joke...an article of admiration. It was meant as a compliment.
His response was that "not there yet, but you never know?!"

...
"...feeling rather humourless today."

This, we can not have.

Granty101 · Colonel

I'll be getting drunk on malt whisky tonight...not sure what everyone else is doing!! lol

Grant

Tonys · Field Marshal

Brilliant description! Thank you.

It might be of interest for those that have not seen the old drawings of WWI tanks from Bovington that the "sticking-up thingy" on top at the front of the early tanks and also at the rear of the later ones is referred to as a "turret". As an m.g. could be stuck out through the odd hole, I suppose that this would be the correct terminology even although the "turret" couldn't rotate.

1016

airdave · Major

Chris...I have a suggestion that contradicts your theory (that the "gun barn" hole is off-center).

The "cap" (hole plug) may not be the original cap that was on Willie in the Fosters factory photos.
That cap was raised, maybe to allow air and sunlight in?...maybe to allow viewing?
It was raised at least the height, from the top deck, as the horizontal cross braces.

Anyway, my suggestion is that this cap that sits directly on the top plate now
is large enough in diameter, to be sitting off center.
But the opening in the top plate (underneath the circular cap) is not off-center.

I bring your attention to this interior photo (one of yours I think?)...

you can almost see both sides of the interior, and you can compare the bracing iron around the edges of the opening,
its width and spacing from the exterior walls.

There appears to be the same spacing between all the parts on either side of the body.
The opening itself does not look off-center.

This is assuming my theory that one side of the body is wider than the other is incorrect.
But even if my one side wider theory is correct, the opening still appears to be centered
in the top plate (when viewed from the underside).

I have other photos of the interior, but none show a larger gap between the frame work and hull sides on one side compared to the other.

-- Edited by airdave on Saturday 20th of June 2015 09:30:30 PM

Tonys · Field Marshal

I hadn't noticed before that there was, at one stage, a gap between the cover plate and the body of the tank. What makes it even more interesting is that the interior photos shown in the last post clearly show two riveting strips (joining the three pieces together) going beyond the opening, therefore creating a gap between the bodywork and the plates, yet no gap is visible from the outside and neither do the rivet heads appear on the plates from the exterior view!

Strange.

LincolnTanker · Commander in Chief

Dave, I see what your saying and are inclined to agree with you, maybe the cover is screwed to the thick stiffener ring and not the skin? There is no eccentric pattern of holes for mounting the cover showing on the inside photos, maybe the the cover has been placed for display in the wrong place and not bolted down?

I'm at the Tank Museum on Sunday and shall try to get more photos, unfortunately LW is on a spinning plinth so is not as useful as a reference as it used to be

Chris

LincolnTanker · Commander in Chief

Hi Tonys, I wondered about the lack of rivet heads on the outer side of the cover. My thoughts are that the plate could be the original turret top, the top surface we see is the inside of the turret. Re-cycling is not a new idea.

Photos of LW at the factory show spacer bars between the cover and the hull, maybe for ventilation.

Chris

MK1 Nut · Hero

LincolnTanker wrote:
Hi Tonys, I wondered about the lack of rivet heads on the outer side of the cover. My thoughts are that the plate could be the original turret top, the top surface we see is the inside of the turret. Re-cycling is not a new idea.
Photos of LW at the factory show spacer bars between the cover and the hull, maybe for ventilation.

Chris

Hi Chris, I think you could be right about the it possibly being the original roof plates, the double holes around the edge hint at positions for beams running vertically down, helping to join the side plates.

My impression of Little Willie was that it was only ever a trials ship for testing ideas for the final design, one that would be determined by the requirements of the Army. With this way looking at his Tank in mind, I only ever saw the Turret as a test for the bigger tank yet to be finalised. Looking at the size of the Turret, I would say it was intended for a single gun with the men sitting in the turret with their legs hanging in the body below.

I'm sure I have read somewhere that the Turret was dropped in favour of the side Sponsons due to top weight. I've never really believed that to be a plausible reason. Looking now at Little Willie, I am sure that any idea of a top side Turret was dropped because they just couldn't get around the problems it's position above the Engine would create. With this is mind, it may be that the mechanism for turning the Turret was never installed.

The Mk1 Tank is full of visible compromises and signs of ongoing alterations, I think it is not unreasonable that some parts of Little Willie design were never finalised.

-- Edited by MK1 Nut on Monday 22nd of June 2015 02:13:24 PM

Tonys · Field Marshal

Chris, perhaps the photos are not of the current top? Rivets are normally proud of the surface on both sides unless one side has been counter-sunk to give a flush finish. To start mucking around for a small plate wouldn't make sense from a time or cost point of view. The rivet plates certainly wouldn't be needed from a structural strength point of view. Furthermore, as I pointed out before, these plates and rivets are raising the "lid" above the top surface of the maid body.

As for it being the original top plate to the turret, I would have expected that plate to have been cut in one piece, especially as it would most probably would have had a top hatch cut into it at a later stage. I believe that it's in three pieces is because they were using off-cuts to form the blank. The rivets are rather big for a non-structural use, but possibly their drilling machinery was set up for that sized rivet.

I scale the rivets to have a head dia of 1" and therefore a head depth of 0,406". The shank of the rivet would be 0,625", which is rather a large rivet for such a small piece of steel!! It looks as if the rivet plates are about 1/4" thick, so the gap between the lid and the body should be 2/3"or 17 mm, which is not visible on the exterior pictures.

I would say that the lid was cut out of some piece/s of spare steel sometime after the turret was discarded.

Tony

LincolnTanker · Commander in Chief

Hi Hellen, I also think that LW was a only intended as a concept vehicle. The Landships Committee sent Fosters a set of extended Bullock tracks and instructed them to design and build a Landship, Fosters based the machine on their proven products and took about one month from cutting first metal to it running, quite an achievement! I've not seen any evidence that a steel floor was ever fitted, when I look inside LW it appeared the hull could be lifted off the chassis without too much trouble, a useful feature incase of modifications.

Chris

-- Edited by LincolnTanker on Monday 22nd of June 2015 07:14:59 PM

LincolnTanker · Commander in Chief

Hi Tonys, many internal rivets on LW are flushed.

Most of LW is made up of small plates, plate usually used for traction engines?

Chris

Tonys · Field Marshal

Chris,

Some of them are, some aren't, especially if you look at the internal picture provided earlier.

However, the much larger rivets in the photo are more of the pan rivet type rather than round head.

Another feature is the double rows of larger rivets joining the top plates of LW - they all have either a flat plate or an angle plate as a stiffener externally. These would be for stiffening the body - something the round plate was not designed for, so maybe it was tyhe top plate of the turret!!!!

Tony

MK1 Nut · Hero

One thing I have noticed about the MK1 Tank is that they used flushed rivets where ever something might rub or catch on a service. In the case of LW it might just be the case that a flush interior enables easier repositioning of parts as the design evolves.

One thing I did wonder though, if the round plate is the Turret Roof, maybe it is upside down and the flush rivets should be inside. It would give a few valuable inches of head space for the gunners. Just a thought.

Helen x

Granty101 · Colonel

I hope no one minds me posing some, (what might seem 'silly'), questions about Little Willie, but I'd like to know.

1: Do any original interior photographs exist? (Or were non-taken?).

2: Is the 'turret' cut-out, (i.e. roof hole), off centre, or is it just the cover plate that is off centre?

3: Dick Harley's interior drawing seems to show a steering wheel. Is this correct, or did Little Willie have 'skid' steering levers?

Many thanks in advance.

Grant

airdave · Major

1. apparently not.

2. thats what we are discussing. I proposed that the "hole" is basically centered, and the disc (that is covering the hole at the moment) is off-center.

3. I have a set of low res photos given to me by Bovington...examples of individual photos that can be purchased...showing the interior of LW.
These are not new photos, but they do show what is inside LW at the moment.
(I was warned that the placement of the Differential and gearbox were not accurate since they had no actual reference.)

I used these photos mainly for reference of the drivers area...they show the seats and seating positions.
As well as some of the controls. This includes "brake levers" and a "steering wheel".
I assume the wheel controls the cables to the steering carriage and the brake levers control the track drive.

airdave · Major

Sorry...I don't believe I have permisssion to post copies of the Bovingon photos I mentioned in the last post, so I don't want to piss anyone off.

Lincoln Tanker also has some good photos of the current interior and you can clearly see the steering wheel on the right side driver's seat area.
(But those are his photos to post if he chooses to...so I won't do that either.)

Granty101 · Colonel

I only ask about the steering wheel, as Little Willie is/was built by Fosters, traction engines use a steering wheel, so I assume it 'natural' for them to give it a steering wheel?? Or am I over-simplifying things?

Grant

Tonys · Field Marshal

I don't think that whether anything relating to traction engines had a steering wheel - they were wheeled vehicles, not tracked. The point of research should be whether any of the previous tracked vehicles had steering wheels.

Tony