Landships II

Vilkata · Brigadier

Fantastic US Engineer Corps STEAM TANK Image!!

Mark Hansen · Legend

Vilkata wrote:

Behold, the heaviest operational tank of WWI, The America. ---Vil.

Would you call it operational in the sense of being used in combat or due to the fact that it could move under it's own steam (pun intended)? I think the heaviest tank completed during WWI would be a better appellation for the beast.

P.S.: And it is a great image, Vil.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 08:05, 2006-07-01

Vilkata · Brigadier

I would call it "operational" in the fact that it its armament and mobility were completed and ready for combat.

We could debate for hours whether the tank would have actually been any good at all in combat (more than likely, a stray shell would have ignited the kerosene stores, and exploded the steam-chambers scalding to death everyone inside), but many vehicles equally absurd were designed and attempted to be fielded in WWI.

The difference between the Tzar Tank, and the Steam Tank, is that the Tzar Tank was tried out, and completely failed. The Steam Tank was tried out, and worked well enough that it was sent to Fance. The US Military were fully ready to send the Steam Tank into combat.

I've always been a big fan of this gigantic beast. From its flame-thrower, to its scary teeth, it's quite an intimidating vehicle.

---Vil.

Centurion · Legend

Vilkata wrote:

I would call it "operational" in the fact that it its armament and mobility were completed and ready for combat.

The Steam Tank was tried out, and worked well enough that it was sent to Fance. The US Military were fully ready to send the Steam Tank into combat.

---Vil.

Ah no. It was sent to France because the US Tank Commission was based in Paris and would not accept any tank for operational service with US forces until they had seen it (and if they thought it worth the trouble) conducted trials on it. It would seem that the steam tank did not pass their scrutiny for it was not in their approved production plans (the lttle Ford 3 ton does seem to have passed). Paton would probably have been involved in any evaluation - it would be interesting to know if he left any notes on the subject - he does not seem to have suffered un suitable designs gladly

On the subject of operational - if you interpret this as meaning capable of being operated then the Best CL75, A7VU, LKII, Mark VII, Mark V**, Medium C, Fiat 2000 etc etc were all operational in WW1 but I fear this is not the interpretation most people would apply.

-- Edited by Centurion at 12:00, 2006-07-01

Vilkata · Brigadier

Well, I suppose "operational" is a pretty tricky word. In my mind, operational would mean:

1. Able to move under own power.
2. Armor and armament finalised.
3. Engines/transmissions finalised.

I wouldn't call the Skeleton Tank operational because it was still a mobility prototype at the end of the war. However, the 3 Wheel Steam Tank could move under its own power, and its armor, armament, and engines, were finalised.

Or should we use "completed" or "finalised" for such a thing?

Should "operational" only be used for vehicles accepted by the military to conduct military operations?

---Vil.

Mark Hansen · Legend

I would think operational would normally mean used in operations i.e. combat or peacetime duties. There are varying degrees of when an item is "officially" operational, usually due to a number of reasons including whether the immediate use of a tank/aircraft/ship/whatever is thought to be a higher priority than a longer test period. For example Haig's early use of the Mk I or Germany's use of the Me-262 or He-162 in WWII.

I think your last definition would be the best description for operational.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

I would think operational would normally mean used in operations i.e. combat or peacetime duties. There are varying degrees of when an item is "officially" operational, usually due to a number of reasons including whether the immediate use of a tank/aircraft/ship/whatever is thought to be a higher priority than a longer test period. For example Haig's early use of the Mk I or Germany's use of the Me-262 or He-162 in WWII.
I think your last definition would be the best description for operational.

I agree, "Officially" operational can be misleading - one of your examples the He 162 Salamander was never "officially" operational as it didn't have an RLM certificate of airworthyness (aint bureauocrats grand) but netherthe less at least one allied aircraft was shot down by this aircraft so one could say it was practically operational. On the other hand the Mark V** was probably "officially" operational but never got to the battlefront. And what about WW1 aircraft like the Sopwith Salamander - not "officially" operational before 11/11/1918 but nevertheless one carried out ground attacks during its evaluation in France (I'm sure the unfortunate targets would have been glad to know it wasn't official). However operational under either official or practical definitions the steam tank wasn't. I'd define it as either a prototype or a demonstration model (and if any body reminds me that the protototype Sopwith B1 was actually used in squadron service in a number of bombing raids in 1917 I'll stamp my feet and scream - there's always an exception to test the rule)

Roger Todd · Legend

What a magnificent image, Vilkata, thank you for posting that great find! I've always been fond of the old Steam Tank, and this image allows one to see so much detail. On a tangent, does anyone know if there are any scale plans available anywhere?

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

Anybody feeling the urge to write a small article on this monster of a tank? I will gladly post!

/Peter K