Landships II

MK1 Nut · Hero

Studebakar with Aero Engine

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Photo 1 is well known, but number 2 I have never seen before - it does help somewhat with the superstructure shape: great find!

James H · Legend

Ooh. Smashing. That really is helpful.

It looks as if, as we speculated, the cab bore quite a resemblance to that of Little Willie. The driving position is very different from that on the Newton, though. I'd say that the Newton must have been the basis for this, but there was clearly a drastic rearrangement of the internal layout.

Another thought: above the vision flaps (or maybe a vision flap and an mg position) the cab roof slopes on one side, a bit like the Whippet. In a previous discussion I thought there might have been more than one cab type, but this pic explains it.

Just when you think . . . .

-- Edited by James H on Wednesday 21st of January 2015 10:11:35 AM

James H · Legend

And a helpful caption: "Ordered by the British War Mission, New York, from the Studebaker Pierce-Arrow Export Corporation, South Bend, Indiana, U.S.A. Only one was manufactured."

TinCanTadpole · Legend

James H wrote:
It looks as if, as we speculated, the cab bore quite a resemblance to that of Little Willie. The driving position is very different from that on the Newton, though. I'd say that the Newton must have been the basis for this, but there was clearly a drastic rearrangement of the internal layout.

-- Edited by James H on Wednesday 21st of January 2015 10:11:35 AM

Personally, I think that there is not a great relationship between the Studebaker tank and their version of the Newton carrier. The contour of the tracks is similar, also the length of the vehicle and the track return rollers, but the rest of it is far removed from the Newton.

The tank has wider tracks of shorter pitch, looks as though it may have suspension bogies at the bottom of the track frames, and has a shorter central hull than the full-length cargo tray of the Newton. The concept, in terms of track frame shape, may be similar, but I don't see any likelihood of commonality in the hull structures.

James H · Legend

But what have the Romans ever done for us?

Red truck · Corporal

Aqueducts.

James H · Legend

I have found evidence of a connection between the Studebaker and the Newton, in a surprisingly obvious place.

The Medium Mk A Whippet by David Fletcher.

There are two references to the Studebaker. One says, "Orders (for the Newton) weŕe placed for 10,000 machines with Buick and 5,000 each with Willys-Overland and Studebaker. The tank was to be based upon the same technology, albeit with a fully armoured body and a much more powerful engine."

That is, admittedly, a bit vague. The other reference, though, is a little more persuasive:

"The new tank would use the tracks and running gear of this (Newton) tractor."

Whilst not totally conclusive, the latter statement, combined with the visual evidence, suggests strongly, in my view, a considerable degree of common ancestry.

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

Regarding the British Newton tractor. A version was built by Buick in the USA which was an improvement over the Studebaker design namely in terms of the engine. The Buick had a brushguard over the radiator to help protect it from damage and the shrouding over the engine and top mounted fuel tank were removed (maybe to help cool the engine?) Otherwise the hulls were identical down to the rivetting.

This is the Buick model seen in the USA circa 1918 (even says Buick on the back)

Just like the Newton tractors the Buick had a cargo area of about 4 feet wide x 6 feet long although a high load would interfere with the drivers view.

The Newton tractor itself was made by Newton Brothers of Derby intending a total load capacity of 2 tons (for the prototype although 3 tons was to be the production vehicles load capacity) using the Ford Model T engine originally and later two Ford engines and were intended to move supplies to the front line and a rapid 3 to 5 miles per hour ( again this was for prototype vehicles and 6 to 10 miles per hour was intended for the production vehicle) Sent to the US Studebaker, Overland and Buick all built their own versions.

This (below) is the Studebaker version built in 1918 (it even says Studebaker on the side)

k0ywYLj.jpg?1

Uses stamped steel tracks and has the engine and drive train at the back where the driver (steered with levers) is at the far rear and uses unsuspended rollers with track adjusters at the front.

The actual Studebaker tank MK.I Nut posted originally appear to be just a scaled up version of their tractor design and mounted two small turrets on the top which from the photo appear just large enough for a machine gun each.

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

I just realized I referred to a different photo with turrets and didn't post it sorry.
This is the Studebaker tank with twin turrets presumably outside the factory along with a batch of glum employees ruining the view of the tank.

The turrets appear to be behind each other at first glance but they actually appear slightly offset

and another photo of it during trials without the turrets

There are rumours that this vehicle ended up being sold to China used by a warlord called Zhang Zongchnag having been modified. Certainly the position of the circle bit on the side armour look like there are in the right position for the raised track supports.

It's possible that the vehicle was simply modified with additional side armour, a front mounted gun and the turrets changed for a simpler style and sold off.

Anyway - as far as I know these are the only two photos of it in China if indeed it is the same vehicle.

there's a whole series of photos of various Buick tanks being tested in 1918 and 1919 too if you like.

-- Edited by vollketten on Monday 23rd of February 2015 09:37:38 PM

James H · Legend

I think we should acknowledge Cheffy for the pic of the Studebaker at the factory. http://landships.activeboard.com/t3750586/studebaker-tank-most-forgotten-usa-tank-of-wwi/ His grandad is in it.

FYI, D. Fletcher says the engine was a 110hp Hall Scott.

I've been following the discussions elsewhere about the allegedly Chinese version, and it's hugely frustrating. The similarities are certainly visible, but how could it have got there? I would have said we'll never know, but . . .

BTY D. Fletch mentions Sir Percival Perry, manager of the Ford Company factory set up in Trafford Park in 1911, and later (unpaid) member of the Tank Mission in Washington D.C., who played a part in the commissioning of the Studebaker. It just so happens that my mother was born and raised in Trafford Park, and as a kid I met lots of people who had worked at Ford in its early years. Many lived in the terraced houses that Ford built for the workers, set out on the American grid pattern and named First to Fourth Avenue and First to Twelfth Street. At the top of Third Avenue was the Westinghouse Company, which built narrow-gauge railway engines for the Western Front. Baldwin knows all about that.

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

Some more shots of the Buick version on trials for people.

Buick built them as part of a need to supply the British government (some 22,000 units were reported wanted) and were the only one of the manufacturers to make any substantial changes to the vehicle layout.

http://i.imgur.com/8czEvmV.jpg - used a standard 6 cylinder Buick engine (steered with brake clutch levers and a modified engine lubrication system very similar to the 1920 Buick model and producing maximum power at 2200rpm) http://i.imgur.com/onpnAGM.jpg http://i.imgur.com/P4qfpw5.jpg and was built for the British government.

Another different model of the Buick design on trials http://i.imgur.com/qfp750h.jpg http://i.imgur.com/iw8FpfJ.jpg and again on 18th October 1918 http://i.imgur.com/SeFkMTj.jpg Buick made an unknown number of these carriers

great side view of it being driven by general manager Charles Nash http://i.imgur.com/05bJmCf.jpg

This is possibly the original British Newton tractor with another vehicle in the background http://i.imgur.com/rH2BPa4.jpg

As these are all substantially similar to the Studebaker hopefully this will provide more information to narrow down the Studebaker design a little more - sort of surprised I've never seen a model of one at all or carrying a Mortar or something.

TinCanTadpole · Legend

What I meant previously when I said I didn't think there was much connection between the two Studebakers, was that I thought them physically distinct from each other. I was not arguing about vague connections in the orders for vehicles, but saying that I do not believe them to share a common structure or tracks; earlier discussions on the Studebaker had made it sound (to me at least) as if the tank was thought to be an enclosed version of the tractor, whereas I consider that the tank has no more than a superficial resemblance, and was a completely new design. I point out the proportions of the track links, which are obviously much wider - although Cheffy's photo and the Studebaker Newton posted by Volketten suggest the possibility that track pitch might be identical.

Does anyone have any dimensions for the Newton? I've tried estimating, based on the size of people in photos; I could only estimate that length was at least 17ft, and perhaps closer to 20ft, with a width of 7-8ft.
Supposedly the tracks were commercially available conveyor chain links - any guesses what dimensions these standard links would have? It would help in estimating vehicle length and width.

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Forgot to say, regarding the unusual Chinese tank: the track links have indentations not present on the Studebaker Tank's tracks, and they appear thicker as well. There's a superficial similarity in shape and layout, but the amount of work required to alter the Studebaker would surely make it more likely that they are different vehicles.

James H · Legend

Maybe, TCT . I'm just telling you what D. Fletcher says. It also strikes me that if the Tank Mission wanted Studebaker to design a tank for them, why didn't they start from scratch and come up with something that didn't need to look anything like the Newton?

Are you Andy Dingley, by any chance?

TinCanTadpole · Legend

James, I have the Osprey book on the Whippet, so I've just re-read the section on the Studebaker tank; it is rather vague, which suggests that little is known for certain.

The book says that the tank was "to be based upon the same technology" as the tractor. I presume that the Newton was the first tracked vehicle that Studebaker had any experience of, so using familiar ideas as a basis for the tank makes sense. If they had not done that, they would have been crossing the same ground again that the Landships Committee had trodden in 1915 - having to learn everything from scratch, with the associated cost in time, rather than using technology that was tried and tested.

According to my understanding, Fletcher does not say that the Tank Mission asked Studebaker to design a tank, but rather that two officers from the Tank Mission designed the tank and got Studebaker to build their design. Exactly how much detail their design went into, and how much Studebaker had to do itself, is open to conjecture, but I suspect that the Tank Mission's design would have been more along 'back of an envelope' lines than engineering drawings. So perhaps Studebaker was given the basic outline ("About ...ft long, with two Daleks on top...") of what the appearance and function should be, leaving them not so much with the task of designing the machine, but of doing the calculations for a prescribed design. Naturally, the company would use familiar ideas from their Newton prototype, because they would know it would work and they could produce their prototype quickly.

The word "technology" can be vague though. I take it to mean that Studebaker took inspiration from the Newton tractor, not to mean that it used the same parts with extra bits added on top. It's quite possible from the looks of the tracks, that Studebaker used commercially-available conveyor chain for them, just as the Newton did - but in a larger size than the tractor had. That would be an example of using the same technology, yet the parts themselves are not identical.

Perhaps we are actually thinking on similar lines, but getting confused by the subtle ambiguities that frequently surface in the English language. It comes down to what one infers from the notion that the tank is based upon the tractor. Some might take the words "based on" in a general sense, to mean that there are shared ideas; others might take the words literally, to mean that the tank shared the exact design of its chassis with that of the tractor, with the differences lying in the upperworks fitted and the choice of engine. On that note, My view is that the former is correct, but the impression older threads gave me was that others on the forum might think that the tank literally used a Newton tractor as its chassis, just with a 'tin hat' fitted. Perhaps I simply made the wrong inference about what others on the forum thought, and mistook it to mean that they see things differently - when we may have the same view after all?

Andy Dingley? Nope, I am not he. The name seems vaguely familiar, but not enough to know who he is.