Landships II

Huh, so it was quite a bit narrower!

Very odd... The crew compartment of the standard Mk.V was already fairly cramped, narrowing it by that much must have made it even more cramped. But, the fighting comparment has been stretched... And in the one black & white picture, the gunner position seems to be at the rear...

Could the Mk.V* have been a test of making a "Tandem" tankette, rather than the standard "Side by Side" seating arangement? That would seem to make the most sense.

But if it was a Tandem Seating tankette, then why would, as preserved in the Swedish museum, the machine gun be at the front of the tankette?

Confusing confusing...

---Vil.

I am currently trying to build up a database of information on the Carden-Loyd series, I was thinking of writing a simple "Guide To The Different Carden-Loyds".

Isn't it amazing that, we all know the Carden-Loyd inspired either direct copies or entirely different vehicles literally all over the world, so many that it's really hard to keep track of them all. Especially if you start counting vehicles "directly inspired by" the Carden Loyd, such as the Panzer I, Japanese Te-Ke Tankette, Marmon Herrington CTL-1, etc. Yet, the Carden-Loyd series itself had so many countless varations and different types... Incredible.

It's almost like there should be a full article on a "Guide To The Carden-Loyd Series", aswell as a "Guide To Vehicles Spawned By The Carden Loyd Series".

But yes Peter, I would love to see more pictures of this vehicle, and confirmation that, being it was Vickers-Armstrongs first try at the Carden-Loyds, they decided to muck around with it and built it as a Tandem Seating vehicle rather than the normal Carden-Loyd side-by-side deal. It must have not sold that well, because all later models built by Vickers-Armstrong were regular side-by-side aswell.

Thank you in advance!

---Vil.

EDIT:

Ok folks.. Even if you've had a book for years and years, your constantly getting new information out of it..

Around 1924 Captain Carden and Captain Loyd built a very low unarmored tracklaying vehicle carrying one man and weighing about 700lbs. The driver was in the prone position, controlling the vehicle by handle bars. Tracks were ordinary conveyor chain with a life of about 20 miles.

Does anyone have any pictures of this prone-man tankette ?

Also, I read that all the other one-man carden loyds were controlled entirely by foot petals!
"In the first finished machine the driver sat astride the engine. Steering and braking were accomplished by foot pedals actuating brake drums mounted on the axle, the final drive having been moved to the front. Gears were shifted by means of a lever similar to the airplane "joystick" of the period."

So those Carden Loyd Mk.I-III vehicles were probably the closest anyone ever came to a functional one-man tank. The driver could maneuver while at the same time rotating the turret and firing. (The Balldine One Man also had foot-actuated controls I believe, but it's just a patent drawing.)

Really neat stuff.

---Vil.



-- Edited by Vilkata at 21:13, 2006-07-31

Kjell, thank you for your message!

After it was converted in the 30's or 40's to have the machine-gun at the front of the vehicle, are you quite sure it still used a crew of 2 men?

If this Mk.V* operated with only a single person, after the modification, then I could classify this as a One Man Tank.

I plan to write an article on One Man Tanks soon, and if it indeed was crewed by a single man post-modification, I could classify it as one.

Like you said, after the modification, why would there be any need at all for the rear person? He would have nothing to do. I speculate that the space was probably filled with reloads or equipment.

I would also greatly appreciate any images anyone can dig up of the Mk.V*!

Thanks again!

---Vil.

Hello Pody! And thank you very much for your offer.

As for Carden-Loyd tankettes, I have pictures of the Mortar Carrier, the 47mm self-propelled gun version, and almost every other variant. I have the Armour In Profile number 16 magazine, dedicated to the Carden-Loyd series. It has quite a lot of photos.

However, any photos you have would be greatly appreciated!

I have only this photo of the Mk.VIA, which I got off of the TANKS! website:
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-VCL-assemblyline.JPG

I know virtually nothing about the Mk.VIA, so if you have pictures of that, that would be great! Pictures of the Mk.VI* "Infighter"model would also be appreciated. But anything you want to send would be great! This is my email address:

destroidsrage@hotmail.com

Oh, and if you have pictures of the 1924 original Carden-Loyd prototype, where the driver was in a prone-position, that would be great aswell!

---Vil.

Vilkata wrote:

---

Kjell, thank you for your message! After it was converted in the 30's or 40's to have the machine-gun at the front of the vehicle, are you quite sure it still used a crew of 2 men? If this Mk.V* operated with only a single person, after the modification, then I could classify this as a One Man Tank. I plan to write an article on One Man Tanks soon, and if it indeed was crewed by a single man post-modification, I could classify it as one. Like you said, after the modification, why would there be any need at all for the rear person? He would have nothing to do. I speculate that the space was probably filled with reloads or equipment. I would also greatly appreciate any images anyone can dig up of the Mk.V*! Thanks again! ---Vil.

---

I looked on the C-L Mk V* at Axvall the other day. There are still two seats in the tankette, but the one at the back is not really useable. There is no room for your legs.

 

 

Here are the pictures Pody gratiously sent me. I have seen most of them before, but there are some new ones, and a wealth of technical information. When I got them most images were over 1MB in size, and it took some tinkering to get the images down.

I would really reccomend you all save these files to your computer, this is some great stuff!

Thank you again Pody!

---Vil.

P.S. Hey Centurion, remember how you told me the Carden-Loyd Mk.I one-man tanks turret had around 210 degrees of rotation ?


That's one of the pictures Pody sent me. I wish it was clearer (Pody, is there any chance the original in your book is higher quality ? I would love a better copy of it!) but it clearly shows two Mk.I one-man tanks, one being driven normally, but the other has its turret rotated all the way to the back!! That would certainly make everyday driving easier! So I guess the turret had full rotation!

I'd like to see a clearer picture - that one looks odd - the turret doesn't look quite the right shape for example.

Certainly on the photo I have the turret cannot rotate 360 degrees as the rear of the vehicle has a slightly raised bevel that would catch it. In any case as the soldier cannot turn 360 degrees in his seat (there isn't room for his legs to do so) one wonders how he could swing the turret right round or even get at it with enough leverage to bring it back to face forward without stopping the vehicle and dismounting. Possibly the turret could be carried stowed backwards for ease of transport.

 

It all depends on how much of the turret projects in front of the turret-ring. I have never seen an image that led me to positively identify the width of the turret ring. If we know that, we could know how much of that turret overhang was actually in front of the ring, and we could easily calculate using dead on side-views of the vehicle if it could clear the rear bevelled radiator housing. I think it probably could - I know the image is vague, but it really seems to me that the turret has been rotated fully. It's up to debate until better information can be sought.

Speaking of random Carden Loyds... Any of you ever seen this picture?

"The first type of motorized vehicle for the gun of 4,7 (Vickers Carden Lloyd MkVI)" (Translated from French.)


From this site:
http://www.clham.org/050341.htm

Never seen that little monster before... I've only seen one SPG Carden Loyd before, but that seemed to mount a smaller 47mm gun, and certainly of a different type. The one I am referring to is in that huge attachment load of Podys pics - although the pic appears in my Armour In Profile booklet aswell as the Tanks! website I believe.

---Vil.

I'm not trying to prove anyone right or wrong - just exploring the evidence. At least half the turret ring is visible so I traced the turret shape and flipped it 180 degrees. The result is shown attached. Now there may be some error in that the photograph is not  a true side eleveation but its pretty close and any error will be small. On that basis a 360 rotation is not possible and contemporary decriptions of the vehicle describe it as having 220 degrees. There would be no real rational for 360 as the gunner driver would not have room to rotate with the turret (and would also have to halt as he'd have to remove his feet from the driving pedals and let go of steering control). I can see that the turret could be unshipped from the ring and stowed to the rear for transport.

What worries me about the original blurry shot is that the turret doesn't appear to be the right shape  (too short and the forward slope too abrupt) and the crew look too big for their vehicles. I wonder if we are looking at a blurred reproduction of the dreaded artist's impression.

It looks like half a ring otherwise you'd end up with an oval ring.

Allow me to offer an opinion, first confessing my general ignorance about these tankettes. If the turret rotation allowed the front of the turret to swing past the forward edge of the radiator, then the centre of rotation must have been at about the middle of the nameplate. However, I think this would mean that the turret ring extended almost to the front of the hull, and it's diameter would have been greater than the hull width.

Now assume that half of the turret ring is visible in the photo, and that the centre of rotation is at the rear edge of the turret. Note that the lower rear corner of the turret armour is angled upwards. Perhaps this would allow the front of the turret to be elevated as it was rotated to the rear, with sufficent clearance to swing over the top of the radiator. As Centurion has suggested, this would put the turret in an immobile, rearward facing position for travelling, enhancing the driver's field of vision. The unimpeded forward arc of rotation would still be somewhat over 200 degrees with the turret in fighting position. This may explain the divergent descriptions of the turret's arc of rotation. 

 

You may definatly have a point there!

I cant see the point either in having the turret turned backwards and to operate the MG in that position is probably impossible. So turning the turret for transport etc while being outside the vhicle makes sence.

 

Erik

Sweden