Landships II

JamesH · Major

American Stuff

Roger Todd · Legend

I don't think the Studebaker Supply Tank is Studebaker's Newton, because there is a photo of that machine, and it looks just like the other Newtons (attached). It is, as you say, very difficult to judge size, but the Studebaker Supply Tank does seem to have an 'arrow head' hull with low cupola quite similar to British practice between the horns, which implies the crew are under cover and protected (in line with the machine apparently being an armoured, but unarmed, vehicle). There even seems to be a vision slit/hole in the front plate. I agree with you that the machine does appear to have a low profile. It would be nice if other photos turn up, that's the only one I've ever seen.

I presume the land torpedo is the Wickersham machine, as it's virtually identical to the patent drawings Tim Rigsby posted on the 'More unknown American tanks' thread...?

-- Edited by Roger Todd at 21:12, 2006-04-02

Roger Todd · Legend

Honestly, I really should check my own books before typing things like 'It would be nice if other photos turn up, that's the only one I've ever seen'... From Chamberlain & Ellis (attached), another view, showing more of the side. It's clearly not as open as the Newtons, and is altogether somewhat more substantial. I do agree that it looks very similar to the Newton - even the recess in the side appears similar in shape to the Newton's open side, and one wonders, given the Studebaker connection, if the Supply Tank was based on the Newton, suitably scaled up?

-- Edited by Roger Todd at 21:42, 2006-04-02

JamesH · Major

There's not much to indicate size, except possibly the grass in the photo, but if you look at the rear of the machine it's got the same rounded shape as the Studebaker Newton and the axle boss gives a bit of an idea of scale. On the photo I've posted, it doesn't look as if the cupola goes the full width of the chassis, yet in yours there seems to be an armoured box of some kind which does. I was thinking it might have been built with a scaled-down, British-style cupola for a single operator, with the engine immediately behind and cargo space at the rear.

So yes, it does seem to be more than another Newton, but I would guess not much bigger - certainly not much higher. Maybe there's more info somewhere waiting to be unearthed.

And what is the Hamilton No. 2 machine? Yet another Newton, or is this a mix-up?

By the way; yes, the Land Torpedo is the Wickersham machine.

Centurion · Legend

Chamberlain & Ellis in their book 'Making Tracks - the Carrier Story' have the same photo as JamesH has posted and they include a significant word in their brief description "Intended as a supply and troop carrier" . In other words to meet a similar requirement to the Mk IX. This would suggest an entirely armoured vehicle possibly with rapid exit ports in the sides. However I too have always thought that un supported track looked iffy. However if one looks at the Steam tank it too has track unsupported down the length of the front horn so perhaps its a contemporary American design feature?

In general perhaps the Studebaker and the mark IX are effectively APCs whilst the Newtons are the WW! analogues of the Universal Carrier of WW2

JamesH · Major

I'd go along with that, but I'm convinced that the Studebaker must have been far smaller than the Mk IX. What are the things which are holding up the tracks amidships attached to? The photos are too murky to make out.

If you look at the size of the engine housing on the Studebaker Newton, it's big, and the driver at the rear must have had a very restricted view. It would make sense to move the driving position to the front and put the engine behind it. So if the box on the Tank is the engine, then the two vehicles must be similar in size. I'm going to fiddle about with these photos and some tank shots and try to find some component they have in common; that might give some indication of relative size.

Stand by.

Roger Todd · Legend

If it's any help, on the second photo I posted above, I reckon the thing at the top halfway along supporting the track looks like an upside down leafspring with a wheel at each end, rather like the one on the Ford tank here:

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/jpegs/new_artypics_04/Picture7060.jpg

Centurion · Legend

JamesH wrote:

I'm going to fiddle about with these photos and some tank shots and try to find some component they have in common; that might give some indication of relative size. Stand by.

How about rivet spacing and count the number of rivets from bottom to top of hull? I make it ten spaces (give or take a space) between the top and bottom of the front of the Studebaker. If we assume that they used similar spacing on the Studebaker Newton (if) it might be possible to make a size comparison. I don't have a good picture of the latter however.

Roger Todd · Legend

If you look at the photo of the Studebaker Newton I posted above (about halfway up the page), the rivets are much closer in pitch than on the SST.

I meant to add, vis-a-vis the leafspring and rollers on the SST that it's only similar to the Ford tank's, not identical.