Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> Tanks -> Patton and the Renault FT - Some Odd Claims.
Post Info TOPIC: Patton and the Renault FT - Some Odd Claims.
James H


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3885
Date:
Patton and the Renault FT - Some Odd Claims.
Permalink   


Just been re-reading Camp Colt to Desert Storm: The History of U.S. Armored Forces. The Great War part is mostly chunks of Treat 'Em Rough! by Dale Wilson. At the moment I can't get hold of my copy of the latter, so I'm not sure whether the chapter is transplanted wholesale or whether parts of it are rewritten. But the point is this:

I hadn't previously noticed a passage that refers to Patton's visit with Lt. Elgin Braine to the Renault plant at Billancourt on December 3rd, 1917.

"After seeing all that went into construction of (the FT), they recommended four minor improvements which the French later incorporated: a self-starter, a self-sealing fuel tank, an interchangeable mount so that each tank could carry either a 37mm gun or a machine gun, and a firewall between the crew and engine compartments." The sources quoted are Patton, "Light Tanks," p1; Rockenbach, "Tank Corps Operations," p4. I haven't got access to those works.

I was startled to read the above claim of American involvement with and influence on the FT. But Dale Wilson's accuracy in Treat 'Em Rough! is a bit patchy. So what of the claims he makes here?

We know that the self-starter didn't happen. Neither in the FT nor even in the M1917. The M1917 just got an internal crank coupler, but AFAIK the FT didn't.

I wasn't aware that the interchangeable gun mount was Patton's idea. The decision to install the 37mm was taken in April 1917, and I thought the Berliet "omnibus" turret was designed without US involvement before December.

The self-sealing fuel tank I can't comment on. Not come across it before.

Finally, the firewall. IIRC we've seen a firewall in an FT , but was it a wartime feature or a post-War addition? I seem to remember some debate as to whether wartime FTs had a firewall and that the evidence wasn't conclusive. I thought the only definite evidence was that the firewall appeared in the M1917.

Can anyone clarify any of the above?



__________________

"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.
CharlieC


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2318
Date:
Permalink   

 

The self-starter did appear in M1917 tanks eventually. The upgrade to the Franklin engine in the mid-1920s included a self-starter. Certainly the Renault and Buda engines didn't

have a self-starter.

Regards,

Charlie



__________________
James H


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3885
Date:
Permalink   

CharlieC wrote:

 The self-starter did appear in M1917 tanks eventually. The upgrade to the Franklin engine in the mid-1920s included a self-starter. Certainly the Renault and Buda engines didn't have a self-starter.

 That's my understanding, Charlie.

Looking at all the stuff I can find, I'm inclined to think that Dale W has got seriously mixed up here. If Patton & Braine did make these recommendations (which is entirely reasonable) I don't think they were incorporated by the French, at least not during the War. The self-starter we can rule out of both FT and M1917. The fuel tank I haven't heard about, but it's comparatively minor. And I'm sure that Berliet were working on the omnibus turret before December 1917 - they'd had since April, when the decision was made. If any of these improvements were adopted, by either the French or the Americans, it must have been after the War.

 The firewall is a bit more complicated. It's hard to tell from drawings and photos exactly what want on behind the gunner, but looking again at this thread and the images it leads to it seems that the proper firewall, with the drop-down shutters and so on, can only have been on the M1917 and/or later FTs, maybe even retrofitted on the latter. The FT on display at Saumur is a 31, and even that doesn't have a proper firewall. There's some kind of partition between the gunner and the engine, but it's nowhere near as sophisticated as the shut-off system and seems to be there mostly to prevent him from coming into contact with the moving parts of the engine. It wouldn't isolate a fire.

So I reckon Dale W is glamourising this a bit. P & B might have made the observations, but it was a long time before they became reality. If only this were available.

Over to anyone who's interested.



__________________

"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.
CharlieC


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2318
Date:
Permalink   

 

It's impossible to reach the engine from the gunner's compartment in an FT - the transmission is forward of the engine and there is a partial firewall between the engine compartment and the

transmission compartment and another wall between the transmission and the turret area. (attached). I don't think Patton, who had trained on FTs would make that mistake but I can't

make the same comment about an author working from derivative sources.

Regards,

Charlie



Attachments
__________________
Tanker


Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 461
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour,

No self-starter on Renault FT during First World War

It was possible to start the engine with a crank handle, inside or out side the tank

                                   

                                   

or to start the tank in a slope

                                   

Patton were, some times, à true Marseillais with à big mediterranean "Tchatche"

Bonne après-midi - Michel



-- Edited by Tanker on Tuesday 11th of March 2014 02:06:20 PM

__________________
James H


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3885
Date:
Permalink   

Tanker wrote:
Patton were, some times, à true Marseillais with à big mediterranean "Tchatche"

 C'est-à-dire quoi, Michel? Qu'il parlait trop? Qu'il fanfaronnait?

J



-- Edited by James H on Tuesday 11th of March 2014 04:06:31 PM

__________________

"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.
Tanker


Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 461
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour James,

Yes, probably a little bit . . . . !

I have an other example, in May 1918, when he was at Saint Martin-aux-Bois, inside Groupement Saint Chamond n° XII.

Bonne journée - Michel



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> Tanks -> Patton and the Renault FT - Some Odd Claims.
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard