Does anyone have access to a real riveted Berliot or US made riveted turret? I am trying to determine how the armor plates butted against each other with the angle. I think the armor was 5/8" and if flat plates there would have been a significant gap that does not seem to be acceptable. Was the back portion of the armor butt edge angled so the exposed portion of the plate butted flush or close to flush and the armor gap was rectified? When you put thin plates together the gap is negligible but when you butt thick plates together at an angle the problem would appear to be significant
"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.
I think we're confusing it with the FU 2. Perhaps I should have been gentler in explaining that the use of the misnomer FT 17 is not encouraged. Likewise, Six Ton Tank should be rendered as Six Ton Special Tractor or M1917 Tank, depending on whether or not it had been adopted by the Army at the time. And Berliot turret as Berliet, throughout. No offence intended.
__________________
"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.
I think we're confusing it with the FU 2. Perhaps I should have been gentler in explaining that the use of the misnomer FT 17 is not encouraged. Likewise, Six Ton Tank should be rendered as Six Ton Special Tractor or M1917 Tank, depending on whether or not it had been adopted by the Army at the time. And Berliot turret as Berliet, throughout. No offence intended.
Actually, I missed the correct point and was distracted and frustrated at the time so your response did seem brusque to me and I took it wrong and responded inappropriately. I should have written "Beg your Pardon?" and requested clarification. Should have been FT of course. I am currently so engrossed with getting this tank project underway (we are so close to making it happen) that I was in bulldozer model looking for the final piece of the puzzle and was not in the mood for fine distinctions although I did not make that clear. I am a jack of all trades historian, not a specialist and I often am not precise. I will try to be more precise in the future. I need to get up off my arse and drive 2.5 hours to where a real FT is and ask permission to take a few measurements. I have been producing (not necessarily creating because I have friends with talent that create from my ideas) so much stuff for my low budget but successful Living History projects that I tend to cut corners in order to not get bogged down with the detail that often keeps a project from being completed. The following is a list of successful projects mostly from scratch or modifications in which I and my talented friends have done. The descriptions are not official: CSRG 1915 and CSRG 1918, MP 18/I, Warner and Swasey 1903 sniper rifle (real scope and rifle but had to drill and mount repro rail, 1918 BAR converted from 1918A2 airsoft, 1909 Benet Mercie created from Hotchkiss Portative (with original BM stock),Colt 1895 "Potato Digger" of the type used by the US Navy/Marines and TR's rough riders in Span Am war, rebuilding a m93 Mauser back to SpanAmWar config, a 10' visible gas pump from scratch and a few repro parts (did that one on my own), a MG 08/15 dummy gun from a parts kit. converting a Madsen LMG parts kit to WWI config, turning a industrial bike into a surprisingly convincing 1909 Harley Davidson motorcycle, working on a lot of Model T's for a museum getting them into running condition, also assisting in building a 1920 era garage.... none of these projects would not have happened had I not had a damn the torpedoes full steam ahead enthusiasm. However, this attitude gets a bit testy at the start of a project when anxiety is at its highest and the path is not completely clear. The FT project is a culmination of my efforts and I am pressing.
-- Edited by hoodoo on Sunday 28th of May 2017 06:30:14 PM
AHEC at Carlisle, PA has an FT/Six-ton on display with a riveted turret. Worth an email to them?
Charlie
Only if they have a true FT. The M1917 tank or Six Ton Special Tractor appears to have a slightly different hull width being made to US standard. The M1917 appears to have a width of 38.5". Some scale sources suggest either more or less than that (in mm). We are trying to get the French FT hull width (outside side armor to outside side armor not the overall dimensions). Trying to scale the drawings, even the French prototype drawing is proving to be unreliable.
One of life's constant struggles is the attempt to stem the tide of references to FT17 and even FT18. A consequence of our discussion here was the discovery that the Russian Wikipedia article on the FT described it as FT-17 throughout. With a bit of guesswork, a bit of logical deduction, and a great deal of Google Translate, that has been rectified. Correcting the article on the M1917 is beyond me at the moment - ru.wikipedia still refers to it as the Six Ton Tank - but at least it no longer states that the M1917 was alternatively known as the Ford Two-man Tank . . .
There are, apparently, about 275 million Russian speakers. How many are likely to be interested in the Renault FT, I couldn't say, but it can't be a bad place to start. Together, we can change the world!
"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.
Just got a quote from a real FT owner and tank expert over in the UK that the FT's hull width is 952mm which makes it about an inch narrower that the M1917. Also, wiki figures put the overall width with track showing the M1917 being 1.5" wider overall than the FT. Mystery not 100% solved but making progress.
Really for me, it should be a moot question as our FT is not going to be a museum grade repro/full scale model and not itself going to ever be a historical reference, I would go with 952mm or 978mm or anywhere in between and be happy. When people look for the differences they ain't pulling out a tape measure, they are looking to the exhaust, or gun mantlet to tell the difference anyways and our FT is going to be in "'merica" so it could pass for either if the need arises. A quick change of the mantlet and exhaust and viola....good enough for the movies.
Unfortunately, not knowing the truth is a splinter in my brain.....but sometimes, just in order to get things done, compromises have to be made. If I worried about the details I would have never gotten the successful living history projects done that I have accomplished (blush) so far. My stuff is to educate laypersons, not experts (although I am always impressed by museum quality models, replicas, and of course restorations).
A good day. The National Armor and Cavalry Museum responded with a measurement of 37 5/8" which computes out to 955.55 (I think this is one of the FT's from Afghanistan). The Weald Foundation came back with 952mm on theirs. We can live with the difference and are double checking the scale on the various plans we are using now.
Another great day for the FT project. MarkV was able to get over to the FT at the Museum of the American Gi and got to take confirmatory measurements of the hull plates which pretty much gets us to where we want to be to start the plate cutting. Went over to the Home Depot and picked up the plywood this evening.
For my FT project I used 980mm as the width of the hull. This was based on scaling up a 1:35 scale model. Since then the 1:16 scale model of the Renault came out and I think it is best for taking measurements from if a real one isn't available. I will say that the engine hatches are tricky to get right since there is no right angle due to the slope and angle of the hull. The ones I made are near identical to a tracing I made from a US M1917. So I'm pretty happy with the width I used. So long as the measurements are consistent and the tank looks proportional you will be ok. Warren
It would be interesting to scale up a takom 1/16 model and see how close the full scale measurements match up to the real thing. I believe the armour plating is riveted to a angle iron structure, actually bolted rather than riveted. I won't mention the name of this tank as I have been bollocked in the past for mentioning the unmentionable.
Yes, the majority of my FT is made from wood covered with resin and bondo. Some panels are plate aluminum. I have more pics and some build history on this facebook page if interested.
Great pics. Getting closer to painting turret and hull, maybe next week. I really like that yellow/sand? color. Is that commercially available? And did you prime with redbrown primer first. I was curious if so, about the coverage for the lighter color.
Thanks....I had the Tamya panzer sand yellow paint matched and specially made up a gallon of it in oil based enamel. The base coat primer is a gray epoxy concrete paint to help with water proofing. The red/brown is just rustolum primer. The color worked great.
