Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: The Newton Tank?


Legend

Status: Online
Posts: 3459
Date:
The Newton Tank?
Permalink   


I am by no means confident that this caption is correct, but it could be. Anyone explain?

Newton.jpg

 

And this. I recall the Studebaker Museum wasn't very helpful in the matter of the Studebaker Tank.

Newton_2.jpg

A poor photo of the Studebaker Military Tractor at the Studebaker Museum prior to World War II.
Photo courtesy of the Studebaker National Museum



Attachments
__________________

"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.



Major

Status: Offline
Posts: 131
Date:
Permalink   

For what used? As a combat vehicle, no armament can be seen and as a transport tank too little storage space, so an artillery tractor?

 or

 http://buickcity.blogspot.de/2008/03/buick-experimental-crawlertractor-1918.html

 



-- Edited by Hedi on Thursday 5th of April 2018 05:38:51 PM



-- Edited by Hedi on Thursday 5th of April 2018 05:43:26 PM

__________________


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 557
Date:
Permalink   

Some more info here. www.farmcollector.com/tractors/tractors-company-history/military-tractors-manufacturers-zmlz17novzhur


__________________


Major

Status: Offline
Posts: 131
Date:
Permalink   

Thanks for the link, really interesting.



__________________


Legend

Status: Online
Posts: 3459
Date:
Permalink   

Pzkpfw-e wrote:

Some more info here. www.farmcollector.com/tractors/tractors-company-history/military-tractors-manufacturers-zmlz17novzhur


 I was going to post that link, but I thought I'd do a bit of digging first. Some things about this reminded me of something.

 

This is what Sam Moore's article says:

Col. Newton was one of several brothers who ran an engineering firm in Derby, and the original tractors were built there, first with Ford Model T engines and then with Fordson F tractor skid units for power. All manufacturing capacity was in short supply in England, so American auto builders were enlisted. The order was split between Buick (5,000 units), Studebaker (5,000 units), and Willys-Overland (10,000 units).The Americans were to provide only skid units, consisting of an engine, clutch, transmission and rear axle. The skid units were to be shipped to a factory in Manchester, England, where they were to be assembled into completed machines. 

By coincidence, we were talking about the Ford factory in Manchester the other day, and we know that Model T engines were manufactured there. I am given to wonder whether that was where the American parts were sent.

Then I remembered this. I posted it a couple of years ago, but nobody took much notice:

Colonel Robert J. Icks, Ret'd. writing in a journal called AFV-G2 Magazine, in 1975. The article was actually about how steam power can be used with tanks, but he begins with several paragraphs on the origins and early use of tanks in general, and includes this:

The Allied plans for using tanks in large numbers in 1919 included provisions for keeping up the momentum of attack by means of thousands of unarmed tracklaying tractors. The British took up the responsibility for furnishing these and adopted a British Ford design known as the Newton Tractor. In addition to production in England, the British contracted with Buick and Studebaker in the United States to build these tractors, known here incorrectly as Buick and Studebaker tanks. Only the Studebakers could have been so called, because that firm also built for the British an experimental armoured cover which could be dropped over the tractor and bolted to it. The resulting vehicles resembled a miniature British heavy tank.

A couple of snags here. The Newton Tractor wasn't "a British Ford design". obviously. Is that confusion with the American components being assembled at the Ford factory?

The other thing is this: an experimental armoured cover which could be dropped over the tractor and bolted to it. The resulting vehicles resembled a miniature British heavy tank.

The Studebaker tank did look quite a bit like a miniature British heavy tank. Certainly, the cab was very reminiscent. But it looked as if it had been designed and built as a complete unit, not like a cover that could be bolted on. That description fits the vehicle at the top of this post, the "original Newton", supposedly with two Ford car engines. The cover seems to cover the top and extend down the sides, with what looks like a door. Judging from the man in the photo, it must have been only 4 or 5 foot high. Where did any driver or crew go?

So which tank is which? The matter is further complicated by the fact that Percival Perry, the head of Ford in Manchester, was also a member of the British Tank Mission in Washington, and so might well have offered his factory to produce the tractors.

Discussion invited.



__________________

"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.



Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 557
Date:
Permalink   

The Newton does look like it has an armoured cover bolted onto it.

__________________


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 244
Date:
Permalink   

The Studebaker Corporation's War Record states (page 54):

"In the spring of 1918, the British War Ministry asked the corporation to design a military caterpillar tractor equipped with a Studebaker Special-Six motor, and its engineers, working with engineers from the Ministry, at Detroit, completed and tested a caterpillar tractor which was accepted. An order was received for 5,000 of these caterpillar tractors, which were to be used in the 1919 spring drive on to Berlin. A number of these machines were shipped before the order was canceled in December because of the armistice."

Studebaker's Stockholder letter of March 14, 1919, reiterates this:


"...When the armistice was signed, we were manufacturing at our Detroit plants, gun carriages for 4.7" guns, shell parts, artillery wheel hubs, mine anchors, military tractors for the British Government and sundry other war supplies...By the latter part of December, all of these war contracts were cancelled."



Attached is a bad view of the Studebaker Military Tractor Model A on display at the old Studebaker museum (current existence of vehicle is unknown) and of the Buick tractor undergoing trials. As you see, the Studebaker is a bit different from the Buick version in that it has two seats as opposed to the Buick's one.
IMG_1448 (1).JPG

buick tractor.jpg

The illustration below of the tractor hull shows it without the power unit, seats, and steering controls bolted in place.

IMG_1450.JPG

And the single Super Six engine and drive train:

IMG_1449.JPG



This view of the Studebaker taken in England looks like it might have  the hint of an armored cab (or is that just something parked on the other side of the Studebaker tractor?):

Studebaker in UK008.jpg

 

And finally, I don't have a CLUE what this is but it appears to have been made at a Studebaker factory on one of the tractor chassis. Perhaps this is the "bolted on armor?" 

Studebaker.JPG!


The Studebaker is a perplexing vehicle!  I do appreciate James' efforts to sort it all out :)

 

John

 



Attachments
__________________

John A-G.
Hudson, WI USA



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1387
Date:
Permalink   

Jagjetta

This is great stuff - some new some old, but great stuff nevertheless.

Would you please let me know what the book is the two extracts are from? I'd like author (or anon.), date, publisher and where it was published if at all possible please. Also, would you please post illustration No. 27, the one of the track link?

Many thanks

Gwyn

__________________

Britain to Stay in EU. We are the 48%.



Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 244
Date:
Permalink   

Hi Gwyn,

The first one is from The History of the Studebaker Corporation by Albert Russell Erskine, published in 1924 by the Studebaker Corporation (page 54)

The second is just from the Studebaker Archives in South Bend, Indiana.  It is a letter "To the Stockholders" dated South Bend, Indiana, March 9th, 1918.

The diagrams are from "General Instructions for Drivers and Mechanics: Studebaker Military Tractor Model A," published by Studebaker (n.d., but appears to be 1918). 

 

Here is illustration 27: 

IMG_1451.JPG



Attachments
__________________

John A-G.
Hudson, WI USA



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1387
Date:
Permalink   

John

I am much indebted, thank you. This is fascinating detail, and I'd never seen a picture of a Newton tractor link before.

I would very much like to obtain a copy of the General Instructions. Did you find this in the Studebaker Archives might I ask?

Gwyn

__________________

Britain to Stay in EU. We are the 48%.



Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 244
Date:
Permalink   

I have an old photocopy of it that I obtained in a book purchase.  I don't know the sources of it.  I would be happy to make a pdf of the copy I have and send it to you.

 

John



__________________

John A-G.
Hudson, WI USA



Legend

Status: Online
Posts: 3459
Date:
Permalink   

John - the picture of the Studebaker with the people posing and the turrets on top is explained here: http://landships.activeboard.com/t3750586/studebaker-tank-most-forgotten-usa-tank-of-wwi/ Scroll down to a gentleman named "Cheffy," who, sadly, doesn't seem to have continued his interest. One of the men in the picture is his grandfather, who worked at Studebaker at the time. The picture before that is the same vehicle, but without the turrets. It's not "something parked on the other side of the Studebaker tractor." On balance, I don't think this is the "bolted on armour"; I think it's a purpose-built vehicle. As I say, I could be wrong, but I think the "bolted-on armour" is the very first photo in this thread.



__________________

"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.



Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 244
Date:
Permalink   

Thank you SO much James!  In a premier example of bad research, I had not noted WHERE I found those photos--I probably figured, "Oh I will remember they were on Landships II!

Yes, it would be great to revive Cheffy...perhaps he can shed some more light on this Studebaker.  

 

John

 



__________________

John A-G.
Hudson, WI USA

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard