Landships II

Vilkata · Brigadier

1919 Russian "Sh'itonoska" One Man Tank.

Roger Todd · Legend

RE: 1919 Russian "Sh'itonoska" One Man Tank.

Tim R · Hero

Here you go Vilkata,

http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=63528&p=3&topicID=5068066&subForumID=169814

Drawing included

All the best

Tim R

Roger Todd · Legend

Nice work Tim!

I'll just take the opportunity to point out an error in my earlier post - according to Stoyan on the old thread Tim linked to, no Sh'itonoskas (or whatever) were built. I still think it's a rather unfortunate name...

Vilkata · Brigadier

Thanks fellas!!!

Yeah... How come every single piece of Early Russian Armor History is plagued by mis-information? I mean, I don't see how misinformation on really old tank designs can somehow further your reputation today!

---Vil.

Vilkata · Brigadier

Similarly to the Sh'itonoska tank, has anyone here heard of the 1929 French "Sodat" one-man tank? Like the Sh'itonoska tank, the driver in this would be prone aswell. This excerpt also comes from the same defunct site:

"By the mid 1920's, France paid little attention to the development of light tankettes. However, the obvious success of the English attracted their attention and compelled French engineers to start their own work on tankettes. In 1929, they developed the single-seated tankette called the "Sabat." This vehicle was intended to be transported by a truck, and in battle it ran on its tracks. The tankette was operated by a driver who was in the prone position. During a non-combat situation, the driver could operate the tankette in a sitting posture."

I'm guessing this was a paper-project just like the Sh'itonoska, but I was still curious if anyone had any information on it.

Furthermore, am I to assume that full-view drawings of the Sh'itonoska do not exist? There would be no way to make a model of it? There is only that one side-view drawing?

Thanks in advance!

---Vil.

Roger Todd · Legend

Vilkata wrote:

How come every single piece of Early Russian Armor History is plagued by mis-information? I mean, I don't see how misinformation on really old tank designs can somehow further your reputation today! ---Vil.

I think the problem is that you get what were for the time authoritative sources such as Milsom whose work is simply recycled by subsequent writers. But when he was writing, 1970, it was the depths of the Cold War, and it would have been difficult to find out even about out of date stuff like the Sh'itonivski. Add to this that he was actually relying a lot on a few old Soviet sources from the 1930s, a period of upheaval and fear, so writers then probably had rather more on their minds than getting every little fact correct. Plus you have the general chaos of the period the Sh'itonovski was designed (the Civil War) and either the loss of records then or the failure to record every last thing in the first place, and frankly, it's amazing Milsom found out as much as he did.

Today, with the throwing open of archives since 1991, there should be fewer problems. But another problem is this: the reluctance of the Anglophone world to interest itself in anything AFVwise that's not connected with either British and American AFV history in general, and WW2 German armour especially! We've seen on this board how often Stoyan or someone else from Russia will correct us because they have access to Russian-language sources that quite simply hardly anyone in the Anglophone world can be bothered to translate or make available in any form.

Centurion · Legend

The idea of a one man tank with the driver in a prone position keeps popping up. There were a couple of British proposals in the mid 1950s for just such a tank but they didn't get off the paper. I think the idea was to give every infantryman one. I gather that it was quickly pointed out on the first of these that when closed down the occupant's vision would be incredibly limited being basicall straight ahead and about two foot off the ground. The second proposal rectified this by copying a WW1 two man design actually built as a prototype called the Preying Mantis (but as a one man vehicle) whereby the whole bodywork could be hydraulically raised to 45 degrees thus allowing the user to see (and fire) over walls and hedges etc. A gymballed remote controlled turret over the drivers head contained the armament (mg and grenade launcher if memory serves). This whole thing was now so stuffed with hydraulics and linkages that it would have been unlikely to be mud or soldier proof and would have cost a fortune to manufacture.
I no longer have any details of this and am relying on memory but I'd be interested if anyone has any record.

Vilkata · Brigadier

Centurion, the Praying Mantis tank prototype is extremely hard to find any information on. Some list it as a Self Propelled Gun, so it doesn't appear in many "Tanks of the world" style books. Here is the only picture that the TANKS site has of it (in the SPG section for Britain):

It was based on the chassis of a Universal Carrier, and I believe that was the major limitation, I believe its weight overloaded the frame and made performance horrible. it was an incredibly interesting design though.

Furthermore, every place I have read says that it was a 2 man vehicle, with the crew box up top housing enough room for a gunner and driver.

Can anyon shed any more light on this Praying Mantis vehicle?

-----------------

I might aswell post this in this thread.. I hate opening up new topics for every single One Man Tank question I have. I just found another One Man Tank, the USA "Track Development Chassis T1". It was apparently designed expressly to test no track designs, but it was also armed with a MG, so I would definitely add it to the list of One Man Tanks. So now we have the Carden-Loyd series I through III, aswell as the Russian T-17, the Morris-Martel, Crossley-Martel, and now the USA T1. Still only 5 seperate designs. Unless that French "sabat" design turns out to be real, and not just a paper project!

T1 One Man Tank:
http://s2.simpload.com/070844b018bf012dc.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-T1-1-IonFonosch.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-TDCT1.jpg

Does anyone know of any other One Man Tanks? I would love to know about them.

---Vil.

Centurion · Legend

It wasn't an SPG by any means and, yes it did use a carrier as its basis. I have some further info that I'll have to scan tomorrow (1100 pm here). It was a wwII 2 man effort with the driver and gunner lying side by side and armed with a mg. The proposed 1950s one man 'tank' I was talking about adopted the same elevatable body.

Vilkata · Brigadier

I would love to hear about the 1950s 'praying mantis' style one-man tank Centurion. Was it ever actually built? Or just a paper project ?

I got confused - I thought you were saying the Praying Mantis tank was a proposal for a One Man tank. But no, it was merely the inspiration for a later 1959's one-man tank? I get it now. It's interesting that people thought the 'elevating combat compartment' idea was good enough to replicate.

Can't wait to see the scans!

---Vil.

Centurion · Legend

As I said in my first post I am working from memory and no longer have any material. The project was a paper project as I said.

Vilkata · Brigadier

RE: 1919 Russian &quot;Sh'itonoska&quot; One Man Tank.

Vilkata · Brigadier

RE: 1919 Russian "Sh'itonoska" One Man Tank.

Roger Todd · Legend

Vilkata wrote:

Double occupancy won't relieve the work load if your still asking each person to do exactly the same ammount of tasks! ---Vil.

Too true! Nice find, Vil, thanks for posting that. You're right, it is striking how often similar concepts from WW1 crop up in WW2.

Centurion · Legend

Ignore the model of the M21 it is so completely inaccurate as to be impossible to modify into anything approaching the real thing short of scratch building the entire cab. The cab was wider than the model shows and some side or almost side on photos are misleading. The doors and their housings are in bulged sections of the hull (almost like mini sponsons) giving enough room for two people. Les Engines Blinde Francais has photos showing this clearly.

Vilkata · Brigadier

Thank you for helping me understand that Centurion! I did notice the bulged out side-doors on the vehicle, which are absent in the model, among many other details. I still think it would be silly to put the machine gun in the dead center of the cab though - when firing an arc from hard right to hard left, would one person not have to hand the gun over to the other? Or would one simply lean over the others lap?? It seems very silly.

One thing that really fascinates me about "One Man Tanks" is just how few of them there were! I first started reading about WWI tanks under the assumption that there were only a few - but as I learnt more, the mass produced series, the modifications, the prototypes, the paper projects, the number of tanks concieved of or built during WWI can number into the dozens upon dozens! When I first started reading, I thought Germany only had one tank, the A7V - but, turns out, they had

Treffas Wagon
Marienwagon I & II (I was fully tracked, II was a half-track, but I'll still list it.)
Uberlandwagon (Artillery Support Version)
Heidi
A7VU
K Wagon
LK I & II

And numerous paper projects.

Thus, "One Fielded Tank" turns into a vast array of intriguing prototypes that really deserve attention, especially noting Germanys incredible armor developments of WWII.

So, I have to say that I am pleased that, so far, the number of One Man Tanks both paper projects and built can still be listed on two hands. It's refreshing to see a single sub-class of Tanks that there are a managable ammount of. So far I only have:

-[Britain]-
Carden-Loyd One Man Series
Crossley-Martel One Man
Morris-Martel One Man
-[France]-
Sabathe Tank
-[Russia]-
Zhitonoski
T-17
-[USA]-
T-1
(Was the Baldine One Man a US or British invention...?)

So all in all, I so far have 8 one-man tanks. Only 8, for all of armor-development history. It's really quite amazing. I am sort of surprised that Germany didn't have a One-Man Tank project! They were running out of materials and troop strength during WWII (and WWI!), so it would seem to make sense to try and augment your normal infantry divisions with one-man tanks. And... In conclusion I would like to say that the One Man Tank concept is not dead - I believe the idea does have promise, in limited applications. And the "Powered Armor" concept seen in Robert Heinleins 'Starship Troopers', and other places, is clearly trying to serve the exact same purpose as the original One Man Tanks were.

Overall I just find it an incredibly fascinating subject. I really would appreciate absolutely any information you guys have.

Thanks for reading all this :)

---Vil.

Centurion · Legend

Vilkata wrote:

Thank you for helping me understand that Centurion! I did notice the bulged out side-doors on the vehicle, which are absent in the model, among many other details. I still think it would be silly to put the machine gun in the dead center of the cab though - when firing an arc from hard right to hard left, would one person not have to hand the gun over to the other? Or would one simply lean over the others lap?? It seems very silly.

Maybe but of course its how the mg. is positioned in the cabs of the British WW1 heavy tanks. I suspect the traverse was fairly limited. Some versions of the M21 actually had the mg. slightly off set.

With regard to a driver having to steer and operate an mg. some multi seat medium tanks of various nationalities in the inter war and early WW2 years provided the driver with an mg. Then as tanks got biger this was moved and manned by a hull gunner (and often wasn' manned at all the space bing used for stores etc.)