Wwi Tanks FR Uk Pak

WW I ARMOURS
CARS
~1~
France
Tanks and armoured carsAround 4,000 armoured military vehicles by September

1918
Models:
Charron model 1905 armored car

Hotchkiss mle 1909
Peugeot 1914 armored car
~2~
Renault FT
Renault modle 1914
Saint Chamond
Schneider CA
White AM modele 1915/1918
Early developments
It seems that similar conceptions of an armored tractor were shared early in the war by
both allies. On the French side, Colonel Estienne, a renowned military engineer and
successful gunnery officer, studied in 1914 the idea of an armored transport able to
carry troops through no mans land. After some trials in Great Britain, he saw the new
Holt tractor (largely in use for towing artillery) as an opportunity to develop his ideas.
The Fouch prototype was an early forerunner, the Number 1 Type C. It was designed
and tried as soon as February 2-17, 1916. This was basically a lengthened Holt chassis
(1 meter with an extra bogie) wrapped into a makeshift boat-like structure. The front
design was meant to cut through barb wire and possibly surf on mud. It was unarmed,
made of wood and open-top. Trials were organized with Louis Renault, the car maker,
and two officers, De Bousquet and Cdt Ferrus. Most of this experience was later passed
onto the CA-1.
Among other projects, the Char Frot-Turmel-Laffly was tried in March 1915 and
rejected by the commission. It was a 7-meters long armored box, based on a wheeled
Laffly steamroller, and propelled by a 20 hp engine. It was protected by 7 mm (0.28 in)
of armor, up to four machine-guns or more, a crew of nine, and a top speed of 3-5 km/h
(2-3 mph).
The same year, the Aubriot-Gabet Cuirass (ironclad) was also tried. This was a Filtz
farm tractor equipped with an electric engine, fed by cable, and equipped with a
revolving turret housing a QF 37 mm (1.45 in) gun. By December 1915, another project
by the same team (this time autonomous with a petrol engine and full tracks) was tried
and also rejected.
The Schneider CA-1
Another engineer, from Schneider, Eugne Brill, had already started work on a
modified Holt chassis. After political pressure and final approval by the head of staff,
Schneider Cie, by then the biggest French arsenal, started work on the Schneider CA-1.
But because of administrative mismatches and Schneider reorganization for war
production, the CA-1 production (then assumed by a subsidiary of the firm, SOMUA)
was delayed by months. By April 1916 when the first were delivered, the British had
already thrown in action their Mark Is. The surprise effect was mostly lost. Losses were
enormous, but this is more due to General Nivelles poorly coordinated plan and the
lack of reliability of this first model. Many Schneider tanks simply broke down or
bogged down on the way. Others were picked up by German artillery.
The Saint-Chamond
~3~
The Schneider CA-1 was an arsenal-built model and the later Renault FT was a car
company product. But by 1916, the Army wanted its own project, which became the
Char Saint-Chamond. The St Chamond, developed in parallel to the Schneider CA, was
also based on a modified Holt chassis. It has a far bigger hull, to fill the Armys
requirements for better armament, in fact becoming the most heavily armed tank of the
war on the Allied side, with a QF 75 mm (2.95 in) field gun and four machine-guns. But
its longer hull proved to be its demise. It was more prone to being bogged down than
the Schneider, and consequent operations had a huge attrition rate. Consequently it was
mostly relegated to operations on better terrains, easily found during the last stages of
the war, after the stalemate was broken, or relegated to training. The Saint Chamond
could have been rated as a heavy tank as well, but it was not the case in French military
nomenclature. By 1918 this kind of tank was considered obsolete, although possessing
some interesting innovations.
The best-seller, Renaults miracle
The famous FT (a factory serial designation without meaning), was born from Renaults
ideas for mass-production, General Estienne own concept of the mosquito tank fleets,
and the inspired pen of Renaults chief engineer, Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier. It was
really a breakthrough, an historical landmark. The vehicle was small, but not cramped
(at least for the size of an average Frenchman, recruited largely from the peasantry). It
was organized in a new way, now mainstream: The driver at the front, engine at the
rear, long tracks and a central revolving turret housing the main armament. Light,
relatively fast, easy and cheap to built, declined in gun and MG armed versions, it was
turned into the thousands in 1917-18, widely exported and produced under licence for
years. It was the first American tank, first Russian, first Japanese, and first of many
other nations after the war. The Italian FIAT 3000 was largely inspired by this model.
Other tanks
Other projects were on their way in 1917-18, but never did it, or after the war. Saint
Chamond, for example, worked on a new model largely inspired by the British
rhomboid style hull, but with a fixed superstructure at the front, and later a revolving
turret. It stayed a paper project. The FCM-2C (Forges et Chantiers de la Mediterrane)
was another project from Estienne, a land-cruiser designed to operate breakthroughs
in the most difficult and heavily defended sectors. It was ambitious, with several turrets
and a crew of 7. Perhaps overambitious, as the Mediterranean shipyard dragged on to
produce a single prototype. Eventually a serie of 10 super-heavy tanks were built in
1920-21, propelled by captured German Maybach engines.
WWI French medium tanks
Schneider CA-1 (1916)
400 built, one 47 mm (1.85 in) SB field gun in barbette, two Hotchkiss machine guns in
sponsons.
Saint Chamond (1917)
~4~
400 built, one hull mounted 75 mm (2.95 in) field gun, 4 Hotchkiss machine guns in
sponsons.
WWI French light tanks
Renault FT 17 (1917)
4500 built, one 37 mm (1.45 in) SB Puteaux gun or one Hotchkiss 8 mm (0.31 in)
machine gun.
WWI French heavy tanks
Char 2C (1921)
20 built, one 75 mm (2.95 in), two 37 mm (1.45 in) guns, four Hotchkiss 8 mm (0.31 in)
machine guns.
WWI French armored cars
Charron armoured car (1905)
around 16 built, one Hotchkiss 8 mm (0.31 in) M1902 machine gun.
Automitrailleuse Peugeot (1914)
270 built, one 37 mm (1.45 in) SB Puteaux gun or one Hotchkiss 8 mm (0.31 in) M1909
machine gun.
Automitrailleuse Renault (1914)
Unknown number built, one 37 mm (1.45 in) SB Puteaux gun or one Hotchkiss 8 mm
(0.31 in) M1909 machine gun.
~5~
The Schneider CA-1, the first French operational tank. Due to its design being closely
based on the long Holt Chassis, the large, angular hull was prone to bog down and
poor maintenance and average training proved issues as well. Like British tanks they
suffered enormous casualties due to German artillery fire and gained the nickname of
mobile crematoriums because of the exposed fuel tank. By late 1917, all existing CA-
1s had been limited to training purposes only.
The Saint Chamond, produced by the army with army specifications, was the most
heavily armed and impressive tank of the Allies, but proved completely unreliable in the
field. With the same, lengthened Holt chassis and an even longer, protruding angular
hull, the Saint Chamond had even poorer mobility than the CA-1 from Schneider.
Serving officers, after many crew reports, even complained on this matter to the
national assembly, which led to an official commission of inquiry. However, on
relatively moderate ground, they proved efficient, with speed better than usual (7.45
mph / 12 km/h). Some advances features like its Crochat Collardeau electric
transmission proved somewhat unreliable in real combat conditions.
~6~
The famous Renault FT. By far the best of the three designs launched during the war, it
was revolutionary, featuring many characteristics still in use on modern tanks to this
day. The FT was also the most produced tank of the war, surpassing by far in this matter
any contemporary tank. Marshal Joffre imagined an assault with perhaps 20,000 FTs in
early 1919, which was intended to open the way towards the heart of Germany.
Peugeot Tank (Prototype)
~7~
This little fellow was Peugots competitive answer to Renault, a sign it would, as well,
join the war production effort with the same minimalist approach took by General
Estienne for hi swarms of mosquito tanks. It was designed by Captain Oemichen, an
engineer from the Special Artillery branch of the French military. The Peugeot tank was
indeed a small machine at 8 tons, with the driver (right) and gunner (left) seated in
chelon, side by side, in a fixed superstructure. The whole upper front section, from the
engine to the roof, was one solid cast block, sloped and thick. There were access doors
on the sides and rear of the superstructure. The armament consisted of a single 37 mm
(1.46 in) standard short-barrel SA-18 Puteaux gun ball-mounted and offset to the left,
although other sources state it was a 75 mm (2.95 in) BS howitzer. The suspension
comprised two pairs of bogeys, leaf and coil springs, plus an upper protection plate for
the most sensitive part of the wheeltrain. The upper part of the tracks was supported by
five return rollers. The engine was a current Peugeot gasoline model, probably serial 4-
cylinder. Released in 1918, it successfully passed evaluations, but since it did not bring
anything new the Renault FT wasnt already providing, the program was cancelled.
Weighing nearly 70 tons, studied and developed since 1916 at Forges et Ateliers de la
Mditerranne (FCM), the Char 2C was another long wanted army project, a super-
heavy tank. It was intended to be able to deal with the most fortified German positions
and recapture forts of the eastern border. But the development of such an advanced
model was initially so slow that the project was taken over by Renaults chief engineer
Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier and General Mourets careful and personal involvement.
They were operational by 1923. The original order of 200 was cancelled after the 1918
armistice.
Charron Armoured Car
~8~
The world&rsuqo;s first Armoured Car was the French Charron, and it was rolled out in
1905. (That very same year the Austrian Austro-Daimler - a rather small vehicle,
characterized by a large, dome shaped MG-equipped turret, sited at the rear - also saw
the light of day, but as the Charron made its debut in the newyear of 1905, it is safe to
say that the French vehicle was first.) But while the AFV was built and engineered by a
French firm, the basic design came from a Russian officer, M.A. Nakasjidze, based on
his experiences from the then ongoing Russo-Japanese war.
It was basically an ordinary automobile, including large windows, equipped with a steel
plate body, and shutters for the windows. On the roof was mounted a turret with a
Hotchkiss MG. (It also carried a spare MG.) It had a crew of four, and could be driven
in a maximum roadspeed of 45 km/h. It had a number of interesting features, including
tyres filled with liquid, that made them semi-selfhealing in case of a hit. Only a small
number of vehicles were produced. Some (perhaps only one) was used during the unrest
in Russia, as a urban pacification vehicle. The German Army tried at least two, used
~9~
them in maneuvers, but were obviously not impressed. The French Army used a number
of Charrons during WW1, but obviously mainly as a sort of AA or baloon-buster
vehicle.
This is the first armored car, entered service with the Russian army. The project was
developed in 1904 podesaulom Siberian Cossack regiment MA Nakashidze. The
machine was built by the French firm Charron (Charron Girardot Voigt 1906) and in
1905 delivered to Russia. The choice of this company was not accidental, because in
1902 it was one of the first Charon introduced armored vehicle. The body was made of
armored steel 4.5 mm thick. Machine Gun "Hotchkiss" caliber 8 mm mounted in a
rotating turret. Another gun, a spare stored inside korpusa.Privod from the engine to the
rear axle is performed. The wheels are made of steel plates, as common in those years
on cars spoked wheels do not have the necessary strength. Tire rubber, solid. The car
features a large clearance (the distance from the lowest point of the machine to the
ground), which has a positive effect on patency. To overcome the trenches and ditches
~ 10 ~
on the sides of the body are transported easily removable bridges rut.
In 1906 armored Nakashidze made a test run on the route St. Petersburg - Oranienbaum
- Wreaths, during which moved along the highways and byways, as well as arable land.
Very encouraging results were shown during the trial firing. In the same year the car
was shown at Krasnoselskikh maneuvers. The Special Commission recognized the
armored car is quite useful for intelligence, communications, combat cavalry, as well as
for the prosecution of the retreating enemy.
Clearly understanding the needs of the Russian army in armored cars in France the
government ordered 10 vehicle chassis, which were supposed to book already in Russia.
In 1908, all cars were built and shipped to the customer, but managed to get only 8
instances as 2 supposedly "lost" in Germany. Nevertheless, it became the first armored
Nakashidze serial armored vehicles of the Russian army. Unfortunately, their use during
the First World War is not known. Armored remaining in France in 1914-1915. used as
"hunters airships."
Combat weight 3200 kg

CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 4800
Width 1700
Height mm 2400
one 7.62-mm machine gun Maxim or 8 mm
WEAPONS
Hotchkiss in the tower
allowance of ammunition ?
aiming DEVICES mechanical machine gun sights
housing forehead - 3 mm
housing board - 3 mm
RESERVATIONS
food body - 3mm
roof and bottom - 3 mm
~ 11 ~
carburetor, 4-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 35 hp
ENGINE
moschnot
TRANSMISSION mechanical type
4x2, dual rear wheels, tubeless tires,
CHASSIS
suspension leaf springs
SPEED 45 km \ h
POWER RESERVE ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
The width of the den, m ?
The depth of the ford, m ?
MEANS OF
missing
COMMUNICATION
Charron-Girardot-Voigt 1906 army armored vehicle
~ 12 ~
Official designation: Charron-Girardot-Voigt
Alternative notation: absent
Start design: 1906
Date of construction of the first prototype: 1906
Stage of completion: 13 copies were built.
In 1902, almost simultaneously with the show in London avant-garde armored Simms,
France designers Sharri-Girardot and Voix presented its own development. Basically,
the machine does not represent anything unusual - created on the basis of the production
model of the car that was partially armored hull protection and armament, consisting of
a single gunman gun back. Despite the apparent imperfection of this sample (built, by
the way, in the two prototype) made an impression on the military, who have agreed to
partially finance the construction of more sophisticated modifications.
~ 13 ~
Two years later there was a full armored car, named Charron creator names. Now the
car has received a fully armored body with reservation 6 mm, capable of withstanding
contact with large-caliber bullets and shrapnel. Wooden wheels had steel wheels and
tires filled with special substances that protect them from close gaps. On the armored
car was 30-horsepower engine, allows a speed up to 45 km \ h on the chassis and up to
30 km \ h on a country road. The only 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss was located in the
tower of the circular rotation of the rifle, developed a naval officer Gueye. The machine
is also equipped with two lights for night action.
Of the two prototypes produced one sent to combat tests in Morocco, and the second
gave the Russian army for tests. The first test for Charron armored car became the
revolution of 1905, during which this machine is actively used to suppress riots in St.
Petersburg, and the effect has been so impressive that the Russian government has
ordered 12 more copies. However, Russia, they have not got. It is known that machines
of 6 was sent. They were shipped in late 1906 or early 1907. On the border with
Germany, German customs armored vehicles did not miss. The situation was partially
settle - four "Sharron" remained in France, and the other two Germans expropriated.
Armored cars are not caused much interest at the General Staff, and, after some tests,
they were handed over otdnomu of army units. According to some reports, it was the
4th Guards Brigade. During operation, "Charron" modernized. In order to improve the
work of the crew back part of the body was increased (typical protrusion disappeared),
and on the roof secured spare tire. According to some sources it was the machine with
numbers IA-855 and IA-879, and the second, for unclear reasons, it has been used
without a tower. In France itself, the interest in the development of Charron quickly
extinguished and the First World War, the French army entered with armored vehicles
Peugeot and Renault.

CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 4800
~ 14 ~
Width 1700
Height mm 2400
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 8-mm machine gun in the turret Hotchliss
aiming DEVICES machine-gun sight
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Petrol, 4-cylinder, 37 hp
4x2: Front and rear-driven axle, single wheels, pneumatic
CHASSIS
tires, suspension leaf springs
SPEED 50 km \ h on the highway
Cruising on the highway ?
overcome obstacles
The angle of ascent, hail. ?
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Schneider-Brillie Army armored car transporter
Official designation: absent

Alternative notation: Camion Blindado Schneider-Brillie No.15 mod 1909
Home Design: presumably 1909
Date of construction of the first prototype: presumably 1910
Stage of completion: built a small series of machines, used in China during the 1935-
1939 biennium.
~ 15 ~
The acquisition in 1908 of the colonial possessions in Morocco and Western Sahara,
Spain brought more problems than acquisitions. Sohdat there reliable military base
could not for years, but local warlike tribes (primarily riffskie) feel completely at ease
and did not want to put up with the existents of the Spaniards. To pacify the unruly
"Moors" in Morocco were perebroscheny considerable force, with artillery Commission
(Comision de Experiencias de Artilleria) sought not only manpower and equipment, and
armored cars (!)
Such a requirement was vyidvinuto under the influence of the first meetings with the
Arab tribes, are characterized by high mobility. In documents of the time armored
vehicle was called "modelos blindados para la campana de Melilla ". The order for
its acquisition has been issued November 9, 1909. Since then Spain has a high level of
motorization, the highest resolution for the purchase of armored vehicles in France was
obtained directly from the King Alfonso XIII.
The contract, signed on December 11, 1909, provided for the production of armored
forces of the Schneider and lead engineer was Yuzhen Bril (Eugene Brillie), who
became famous thanks to the development vopsledstvii medium tank Schneider CA1.
The first supplied the chassis, and the second - equipment. The total amount was 33,000
~ 16 ~
francs in gold, which were to be paid in three installments. Get ready to sample planned
two and a half months after the first payment, but no firm Schneider to meet the
deadline, holding the assembly for three more weeks. In its justification for the French
side said that it is the first machine of this kind and is nothing similar previously were
manufactured. It was a bit strange, because technologically armored Schneider-Brillie
not carried a no innovative ideas, the more that the Spanish Army has put over the real
problem - protection against small arms fire and the ability to transport troops or
payload within the housing.
Housing armored vehicles, were collected from the 5-mm sheets of rolled armor on a
wooden frame using bolts and rivets, was divided into two parts. In front for the driver
and controls. The middle part was given over to the transport and fighting compartment
which could accommodate two machine-gun crew and 10 soldiers with ammunition.
For this reason, the housing was made unusually high and acquired a distinct box-like
shape. Armament, respectively, consisted of two 7-mm machine guns Hotchkiss, who
ustanadvivalis on the sides of the crew compartment. However, the presence of the
pistol ports not preclude firing of personal weapons (vintnovok and pistols). The rear
part of the body intended for the carriage of a payload weighing up to 1500 kg.
According to Schneider assurance company established book has been able to withstand
falling bullets caliber rifle at a distance of 100 meters.
~ 17 ~
On a single sample making armored ustanvlivalsya gasoline 4-cylinder engine
producing 40 hp at 1000 \ min. The transmission was a mechanical type with a manual
3-speed gearbox, obespechivashey three speeds forward and 1 reverse. As the base was
used by Schneider commercial truck chassis with wheel formula 4x2. The front wheels
are controlled, Shed. Dual rear wheels are leading. Tubeless tires manufactured by
Continental. Since the wheels were spitsovannymi, Schneider has produced for them
armored wheels.
Fuel capacity armored vehicles was 100 liters, enough for 100 kilometers at an optimum
technical secondary speed. Maximum speed when driving on good paved roads was 18
km \ h. The fully-equipped form, with the crew and weapons, armored combat weight
Schneider-Brillie Model 1909 was 5500 kg.
~ 18 ~
Armored car, yet had no official name, arrived in Spain June 20, 1910, and five days
later he was taken to a car Artillery School (Escuela de Automovilismo de Artilleria)
located in Carabanchel. There she was awarded the Army number "15", and appeared
on the boards "ARTILLERIA" inscription. During the first year of operation
broeavtomobil used to train mechanics and drivers, and atkzhe for "races" on the route
Madrid-Segovia-Madrid through the ports of Navacerrada and Leon.
After more than 19 months (17 January 1912) armored "Schneider" was sent to the
front. Three days later, the car arrived in Nador, which was transferred to the
subordination of artillery commander Rafael Carranza Garrido (D.Rafael de Carranza
Garrido). Formally, the resulting army vehicle belongs to a class of armored truck
(Camion Blindado), so its tasks were quite appropriate: outposts and convoys escort, the
evacuation of the wounded and transport infantry. After the first campaign against the
Arab tribes in 1913 armored car he was cancel reservation.
Tactical and technical data easily armored vehicles Camion Blindado Schneider-Brillie
sample 1910
CREW, pers. 5-6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 5800
Width 2300
Height mm ?
~ 19 ~
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS two 7-mm machine gun Hotchkiss sample 1909
aiming DEVICES optical machine-gun sights
RESERVATIONS board housing - 5 mm
feed - 5 mm
Brillie, Petrol, 4-cylinder with a capacity of 40 Lucy at

ENGINE
1000 \ minutes.
mechanical type with a 3-speed manual transmission (3

TRANSMISSION
+ 1)
4x2: dual rear axle wheels, tubeless tires, suspension

CHASSIS
leaf springs
Cruising on the highway 100 km
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Hotchkiss mle 1909
France (1909) Armored car 4 built
About Hotchkiss
~ 20 ~
Everybodys familiar with the concept of the American Dream, especially from the
European perspective from two centuries ago, but what about the other way around ?
Thats the unusual path followed by Benjamin B. Hotchkiss, a crafty American born in
Watertown, Connecticut, who became a gunsmith in the 1850s until the end of the
Secession war, when the government showed little interest for firearms. He moved to
France and set up a munitions factory in Viviez, near Rodez, and then in Saint-Denis,
near Paris, as Hotchkiss & Cie. He developed a marine autocannon to deal with torpedo
boats known as the Hotchkiss gun, but died in 1897. His successor devised a reknowned
air cooled, gas actuated infantry machine gun which was in widespread use among the
Allies during WWI. In the 1930s, he also designed the Hotchkiss H35 light tank. But,
early on in 1903, the company also extended to the new business of carmaking with a
17 hp, then a six-cylinder model, which was the basis for its first and only armoured car,
the model 1909.
The Hotchkiss mle 1909
The model was clearly a follow-up of the Charron, Girardot et Voigt 1902, displayed at
the Paris Exhibition as a concept car in December, 1902. The Army used the Panhard-
Genty 1906 in Morocco against rebelling tribes and found it so useful, that it was
followed by other conversions of the same style until 1911. However, the Hotchkiss
Automitrailleuse was specifically designed, from the ground-up, to be such a vehicle.
The model was tested by the Army, but also remarked by the Turkish Sultan.
Design
The Hotchkiss model 1909 was based on a standard touring car, powered by a 60 hp
gasoline engine, partially armored with 1/4 (6 mm) thick plates, mostly around the rear
compartment, protecting the machine-gunner. This was a kind of bath-tub
arrangement installed over the rear sedan seats, which protected only the high-up
gunner. Access was granted by side doors. The driver and co-driver were woefully
exposed to enemy fire, and it is dubious that the engine itself was protected in any way.
There was an extension of the platform over their heads, acting as a blast baffle and/or
to protect against weather. The sole armament was a standard factory model 1909 7.9
mm (0.31 in) air-cooled Hotchkiss machine gun protected by a shield. It had a ground
clearance estimated at 30.5 cm (12 in), and wheelbase of 3.65 m (144 in) for an
estimated wheel tread of 1.65 m. It had a 3 speed forward, one reverse manual gearbox
and liquid-cooled Hotchkiss 6-cyl 9.5 L gasoline engine, front-axle, chain drive. Crew
comprised the driver, co-driver, machine-gunner and loader.
With Turkey
The first vehicle delivered was demonstrated to the Army, tested, but no order followed.
However, four were eventually built for the Sultan of Turkey Sultan Abdul Hamid II
just before the Young Turk revolution. The irony was that these were captured prior to
delivery to Istanbul and assisted in the overthrow of the government. There is no record
of their use in WW1 and they were kept stationed in Istanbul for the duration of the war.
Other than this model, only German-origin armored cars were used according to the rare
photos.
The 1917 Danish HtK46
~ 21 ~
The Danish government tested, in the spring of 1917, the HtK46 armored car, which
was based on the Hotchkiss 1909. It was quickly dismissed due to appalling cross-
country performance and low-to-average road performance. It was so overloaded that it
was difficult to drive anyway. The vehicle had full armor unlike previous models, and it
was probably much too heavy for the original chassis. It was eventually destroyed in an
accident in 1920 and discarded in 1923. Its only known specs were its engine, a 4-
cylinder, 2.200 cm3 (134 cubic inches) with 4 speeds gearbox and 3 or 4 crewmembers.
Illustration of the model in Turkish service, used for anti-riot duties. The probable color
was white and not green, as it is sometimes illustrated.
Hotchkiss 1909 Specifications
~ 22 ~
Dimensions 5 x 1.7 x 2 m (198.5 x 67 x 79 in)
Total weight, battle ready Unknown
Crew 2+2 (driver, co-driver, machine-gunner, loader)
Propulsion 6 cylinder, gasoline (9.5 liters), 75 hp (55 kW) @ 1150

rpm
Suspension 42 leaf springs
Est. speed (road) 64 km/h (40 mph)
Armament 7.9 mm (0.3 in) Hotchkiss Machine Gun
Armor 3 mm (0.12 in)
Total production 4 in 1909
~ 23 ~
Official designation:
Alternative notation: Hotchkiss et Cie Model 1909
Start design: 1909
Stage of completion: 4 built cars sold in Turkey.
There is a very interesting history of the first series of French armored car. In 1909 the
Turkish sultan, who watched the novelties of military equipment ordered in France on
the company Hotchkiss light armored vehicle, which would be widely used components
and assemblies production vehicles. The order was made in a timely manner, and
armored cars started to send to Turkey in the same year. While the machine is in the
way, there was a revolution in Turkey and almost all the cars fell into the hands of the
Young Turks, who used them against the Sultan.
~ 24 ~
SPECIFICATIONS POLUBRONIROVANNOY MACHINES
Hotchkiss sample 1909
Combat weight ~ 2000 kg
CREW, pers. 2-3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 5040
Width 1700
Height mm 2000
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.9-mmpulemet Hotchkiss
RESERVATIONS housing board - 3 mm
food body - 3mm
Carburetor, in-line, 6-cylinder, 75 hp at 1150 on \

ENGINE
min
TRANSMISSION mechanical type: 3-speed Gearbox
4x2: single wheels, tubeless tires, suspension leaf

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 25 ~
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Automitrailleuse Panhard Mle 1914 Machine-gun armored car
Alternative notation: Automitrailleuse Panhard Mle 1914
Start of planning: 1914
Stage of completion: collected several specimens involved in fights 1914-1916 gg.
~ 26 ~
Shortly before the start of the Italo-Turkish War, in 1911, the French colonial forces
ordered the firm Panhard & Levassor few skinned "armored cars", intending to use them
to pacify the rebellious Arab tribes in Morocco. These machines are designed based on
the chassis of light commercial vehicle, having a partial crew protection (steel sheets)
and armed with a 7.62 mm machine gun. The crew of the armored car Panhard could
consist of 3-4 people.
Later, in 1914, the army makes a repeat order to use these machines on the Western
Front. There is evidence that at least one of them had a reservation, but their use is no
information.
SPECIFICATIONS armored vehicles

Panard Mle 1914
Combat weight ?
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.9-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
aiming DEVICES ?
~ 27 ~
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE petrol
4x2: single wheel, pneumatic tires, suspension leaf

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Automitrailleuse Gasnier Mle 1915 Machine-gun armored car
Alternative notation: Gasnier AM Mle 1915, Automitrailleuse Gasnier Mle 1915
~ 28 ~
Stage of completion: built one instance.
In 1915 by Gasnier it was made a prototype of a light armored vehicle armed with an 8-
mm machine gun and equipped with an engine of 40 hp The thickness of the body
armor plates appear to not exceed 5-8 mm. On the test information is not armored.

Gasnier sample 1915
Combat weight ~ 2500kg
CREW, pers. 2-3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.5-mm or 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
aiming DEVICES optical machine-gun sight
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE carburetor, liquid-cooled, 40 hp

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
~ 29 ~
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Delaunay-Belleville Machine-gun armored car
Alternative designation: Auto-Mitrailleuse Blindee Delaunay-Belleville Mle 1914
Information on this broneatvomobilyu handbooks available. In Armored cars in WWI

site it states that it was the first reserve a car of this brand. Presumably, the body of 5-6
mm armor plates was mounted on the chassis of commercial models Delaunay-
Belleville O6. The armored car was ready in September 1914 and has been used on
cranes least until the beginning of 1915.
There is also a version that the workshops in Vincennes was built another one armored
vehicle based on the same chassis. Which one of them is shown in the only surviving
photograph is now hard to say. Perhaps this is the second option, because Lewis
machine guns were actively used by sailors, and according to available data, this
machine was handed over to the 7th department of the 4th Marine mixed group, which
was armed with two machine guns and four armored vehicles pushenyh.

Delaunay-Belleville sample 1915
~ 30 ~
CREW, pers. 2-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.7-mm machine gun Lewis
aiming DEVICES machine gun sights
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Gasoline, liquid cooling
4x2: single wheels, pneumatic tires, suspension leaf

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ~ 30 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
~ 31 ~
Peugeot 1914 armored car
France (1914) Armored car about 270 built
Peugeot armored cars in 1914
When the war has started in August 1914, France already had a history of armored car
development. The earliest was the Charron model 1905. 4 Charron CGVs were already
in service since 1908, and some had been exported to Russia. Peugeot entered the fray
in 1914, delivering an entire array of armored cars based on tourism vehicles. They used
the chassis of the Peugeot 146, 148, but more usually of the commercial 42 model 153,
and makeshift armor arrangements. They had no standardization and, by late 1914, this
improvised series was stopped. At the same time, Peugeot devised a better armored
standardized model, based probably on the 148 chassis and delivered in two distinct
series.
Design of the Peugeot AM and AC
The Peugeot model 1914 AC (for autocannon) was fitted with a standard Schneider
37 mm (1.45 in), short-barrel model 1897 field gun mounted on a central pivot. It was
based on the Peugeot 18CV chassis. Over 150 were built in all. The first series AC-1
received a completely open platform and the gun was protected by a curved shield. The
second model, AC-2, had a fully traversing turret at the rear, an open-top fighting
compartment, but completely armored engine hatch, sides and driver compartment, with
5.5 mm (0.21 in) iron plates. The armor was designed by Capt. Reynaud. Access was
through a rear door and on the sides of the driver compartment. To compensate for the
extra weight, the rear tire was doubled. The driver compartment received only two small
vision slits, but the fighting compartment sides were sometimes given small hatches.
The normal crew comprised a driver, commander, loader and gunner.
The other model was based on a Peugeot 20CV chassis, as the Peugeot AM (for
automitrailleuse) mod.E1. which was generally equipped with a model 1914
~ 32 ~
Hotchkiss 6.5 mm (0.25 in) machine gun. 120 of these were built. The two were very
similar in design and parts were interchangeable. By early 1915, all were simply called
Automitrailleuse Peugeot.
The Automitrailleuse Peugeot in action
By August 1914 some cavalry units were equipped with Peugeot AM cars, notably the
6th and the 7th Armored Car Groups (7th Cavalry Division) and the 1st Cavalry Corps.
Within the first stage of the war mobile warfare allowed them to add their full potential
to infantry support on the spot and patrolled well behind enemy lines. But in 1915,
when the stalemate began, they saw themselves of limited value. They mostly served to
patrol the frontline on open roads and bring fire support when needed. But their off-road
capabilities were severely reduced. When the war became more mobile in 1918, only 23
were left. The production had slowed down since 1915 and no replacements had been
allocated.
Postwar service
By 1919 the Polish government, threatened by the degenerating situation in Russia,

tried to purchased French armored cars, and only received 18 Peugeot AMs in August
1920 along with spare parts. They were shipped by sea and arrived in September-
November 1920, too late to be effectively committed in operations. Three were armed
with guns, with three more rearmed afterwards. The rear fighting compartment had
sloped flanks as seen on photos, unlike the regular models, which makes some sources
speak of a new postwar modified model 1918 version. After their arrival they formed
an Armored Car unit based in Poznan and later the 1st and 2nd Armored Car platoons.
These units were frequently rearranged during the twenties. In May 1926, during Jzef
Pilsudskis coup, two assisted government forces, and one was damaged during the
street fighting. They received, in the early 1930s, a small overhaul in the CWS
workshops, with a new strengthened gear. Already in 1930 their replacement by the
wz.28 halftrack was in full swing. Considered obsolete by 1931, they were lent to the
police for training and patrol duties. By 1935, they nearly had all been retired, but three
~ 33 ~
remaining in service with the police took part in the border fight on the 1st of
September 1939 in Upper Silesia and dealing with the German Freikorps. The
remainder were destroyed during the war.
Four Peugeot AMs were also lent to the Serbian government to deal against Bolshevik
incursions, and later reused by the Yugoslavian kingdom. They seem to have been kept
in service until the German invasion in April 1941, but their fate is unknown.
Peugeot AM, armed with the Hotchkiss machine-gun. Early camouflage. Unknown
cavalry unit on the Marne river, late 1914.
Peugeot armored car AC-2, with the short-barreled mle 1897 Schneider field gun and
spoked wheels. Also notice the late Japanese style camouflage. Yser front, summer
1918. In 1916 they were rearmed with Puteaux guns, carrying 400 rounds. By 1918 they
served as fast infantry support.
~ 34 ~
Samochod Pancerny Peugeot AM in service with the Polish Border Police, 1st of
September 1939. They were probably the oldest AFVs in service in Poland and fought
with the German Freikorps and other advanced elements of the German army near
Katowice. The six gun-armed cars (named after Lithuanian queens) received a
6+594437 mm (1.45 in) wz.18 (SA-18) Puteaux L/21 with 40 rounds. The other 8
(named after Lithuanian kings and princesses) received a 7.92 mm (0.31 in) Hotchkiss
wz.25 and narrower shields. Among other modifications they received new headlights
and a big searchlight, new rear sloped compartment, extra storage boxes and reinforced
gear. Their chassis number was painted next to Polish blazon.
Peugeot armored car specifications

Dimensions 4.801.802.8 m (15.755.99.18 ft)
Total weight 4.9 tons
Crew 4-5 (driver, commander, 2 gunners/loader)
Propulsion 4-cyl Gas. Peugeot, 40 bhp (30 kW) at 2500 rpm
Speed 40 kph (25 mph)
Range 140 km (85 mi)
Armament 137 mm (1.45 in) Puteaux gun or 7.92 mm (0.31 in) Hotchkiss
M1909 machine gun
~ 35 ~
Armor Maximum 5.5 mm (0.21 in)
Total
270 in 1914-1915
production
The Peugeot armored car was a four wheeled armored vehicle based on a commercial
Peugeot truck that was quickly developed by the French in 1914 for use in World War I.
History
The Peugeot armored car was rapidly developed by the French Army in 1914 to halt the
advance of German forces. The vehicle was improvised from an existing commercial
Peugeot truck, and underwent a rapid series of developmental changes once entering
production. The vehicle resembled other armored cars of the era, such as the Rolls-
Royce Armoured Car, and possessed a single rather ungainly turret mounted to the top
of the vehicle. The turret was equipped with a single 37mm gun, giving the vehicle
effective firepower for the period, though a comparatively slow rate of fire compared to
other vehicles equipped with machine guns. Early experiences on the battlefield quickly
brought about improvements in armament and firepower to combat the new armored
fighting vehicles emerging from Germany, and eventually the introduction of the tank.
Production of the vehicle slowed once the war switched to trench warfare, finally
ending with the end of World War I.
In combat
The vehicle was designed for speed and movement, making it suited to counter the
initial German invasion of France in 1914. Once World War I had switched to trench
warfare, the vehicle was of little use, and was delegated to patrolling roads in rear areas,
though the Peugeot's speed was brought to advantage on one final occasion to stem the
German breakthrough of March 1918. Following World War I, the few survivors were
~ 36 ~
handed over to the Polish Army, where they remained in service for several years,
seeing action against the Russians. Four cars were sent to Serbia as military aid from
France, and later used by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Operators
France
Poland
Serbia
Kingdom of Yugoslavia
Type Armored car
Place of origin France
Used by France, Poland
Wars World War I
Manufacturer Pugeot
Produced 1914
Weight 4.90 tonnes
Length 4.8 m
Width 1.80 m
Height 2.80 m
~ 37 ~
Crew 4-5
Main One Puteaux SA 18 37mm

armament gun or a machine gun
Pugeot gasoline engine.

Engine
40 hp
Operational 140km
range
Speed 40 km/h on-road.
Automitrailleuse Peugeot Mle 1914 Light armored vehicle
Alternative notation: Automitrailleuse Peugeot Mle 1914
Stage of completion: commercially produced in 1914-1915.
Almost simultaneously with the establishment of production of armored vehicles on

Renault Trucks chassis in 1914, the release of their analogue was organized, which was
used for the chassis supplied by Peugeot. According to one source for this purpose it
was used a commercial chassis Peugeot 146 or 148, on the other - it could be a model of
Peugeot 153.
Armored vehicle was riveted hull with thick armor plates up to 5.5 mm, designed by
Captain Raynaud's (Raynaud). Peugeot Armament originally consisted of one 37-mm
cannon, but soon most of the cars were equipped with a 7.62-mm first and then 8-mm
~ 38 ~
machine gun Hotchkiss Mle 1914. Ammunition for the gun consisted of 6,000 rounds of
ammunition for the gun - 300 shells .
Chassis was 4x2, the wheels themselves have tire size 880h120 dm. At the armored
vehicles was installed carburetor 4-cylinder 4-stroke engine capacity of 24 hp Liquid-
cooled. Fuel tank capacity was 45 liters. Transmission consisted of the propeller shaft
and the 5-speed gearbox (4 forward and 1 reverse).
Depending on the composition of the weapons were manufactured various kinds of

buildings. The first armored vehicles of this type have only bookings and onboard an
open top. The machine gun in this case mounted on a standard tripod in the back. A
little later there was a modernized version, distinguished by a modified front part of the
body, the front sheet which is installed at a large angle of inclination (one of its sections
in front of the driver's seat pushed forward), and the gun can be equipped with armored
shields. A third, less massive version with 37-mm cannon, had a small tower. In
addition, there was an improvised version of the Peugeot armored car, which was
different from the usual truck only armored cab and mounted in the back of the machine
gun Hotchkiss.
Mass production of armored cars Peugeot was established at the end of 1914, and all
were released about 150 cars. In January, the first machines arrived at the disposal of
the 6th and 7th armored car groups under the 7 th Cavalry Division and the 1st Cavalry
Corps. They took an active part in the fighting on the Western Front at the initial stage
of the war and were almost completely replaced by the new armored vehicles by March
1918, when the number of Peugeot were involved in repelling the German offensive in
Lombardy.
After the war in the reserve still remained 28 armored cars Peugeot, part of which was
sent to Morocco to maintain order in the colonies. In 1920 they were used against the
Moroccan rebels.
In the same year, in the framework of the provision of military assistance to Poland,
which unleashed a war against Soviet Russia, the French government sold 18 armored
vehicles and spare parts for them. Six of them were equipped with 37-mm guns, the
~ 39 ~
other carrying only 8-mm machine guns Hotchkiss. It had already been upgraded
machines that were designated as Peugeot Mle1918. This ammunition for the guns was
reduced to 40 rounds for machine gun - 2000 rounds. In addition, it is estimated the
Polish technicians engine maximum power was 40-45 hp, instead of the declared by 24
hp.
In September-October 1920, all Peugeot were compiled on the basis of armored cars in
Poznan, which is formed from the 1st and 2nd battalions of armored car. In the Polish-
Soviet war, they did not have time to participate, but in May 1926 Peugeot took part in
the street fighting during the coup, initiated by Marshal Pilsudski. Loss was not among
the machines, but the death of one of the Polish commanders who have remained loyal
to the government.
After that, before the start of the 1930s. Peugeot were the main Polish army armored
vehicles. Despite its technical obsolescence, these machines are actively used in
carrying out various military maneuvers, although for the most part, they were
transferred to a scientist units. At the end of 1935 Peugeot withdrew from parts of the
first line, sending 12 cars in Bydgoszcz, where they were to be used for the training of
personnel. One armored vehicle was handed over to the museum and three more
expected to sell the Portuguese police, but the deal never took place.
Shortly before the outbreak of war with Germany a few cars passed parts of the Polish
Police in Silesia. At dawn on September 1, 1939 armored vehicles tried to use against
German spies and saboteurs from the local, predominantly German population. The first
fight took crews Peugeot plant in near Horzhuve, after which one of the armored
vehicles tried to break through to the coal mines. None of these cars are not spared -
they were hit with hand grenades and burned.

CREW, pers. 4-5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 4800
Width 1800
Height mm 2800
~ 40 ~
Clearance, mm ?
one 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss Mle1914 or one 37-
WEAPONS
mm cannon SA18
allowance of ammunition 300 or 6,000 rounds of ammunition / td>
aiming DEVICES machine-gun sight or sight teleskpichesky
housing forehead - 5.5 mm
board housing - 5.5 mm
RESERVATIONS food body - 5,5 mm
roof - 5.5 mm
gun shield - 5.5 mm
carburetor 4-cylinder 4-stroke engine capacity of 24 hp
ENGINE
liquid-cooled
TRANSMISSION mechanical type with 5-speed gearshift
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED 40 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
~ 41 ~
Minerva Armored Car
Type Armoured car
Place of origin Belgium
Weight 4t
Length 4.90 m
Width 1.75 m
Height 2.00 m
Crew 3-6
~ 42 ~
Armor up to 4 mm
Main 1 x Hotchkiss Model 1909

armament machine-gun
4-cyl Gas. Minerva 8L

Engine
40bhp at 2500 rpm
Suspension 4x2 wheel
Operational 150 km (90 mi)

range
Speed 40 km/h (25 mph)
The Minerva Armored Car (French: Automitrailleuse Minerva) was a military

armored car expediently developed from Minerva civilian automobiles by Belgium at
the start of the First World War.
Background
Main article: Armored car (military)
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the first military armored vehicles were
manufactured by adding armor and weapons to existing vehicles. The first armoured car
was the Simms' Motor War Car, designed by F.R. Simms and built by Vickers, Sons &
Maxim in Britain.[1]
Another early armoured car of the period was the French Charron, Girardot et Voigt
1902, presented at the Salon de l'Automobile et du cycle in Brussels, on 8 March 1902.[2]
The vehicle was equipped with a Hotchkiss machine gun, and with 7 mm armour for the
gunner.[3][4][5] Although it too was only a prototype and never used in warfare.[3]
History
The Minerva's use in combat in August 1914 made Belgium one of the first nations to
employ armoured cars in the World War I,[6] though Italy had previously been the first
to use armoured cars in a theatre of conflict, in the 19111912 Italo-Turkish War.[7]
Also the armored Canadian Automobile Machine Gun Brigade was formed on August
24, 1914 and close to being assembled by that September.[8]
During the war those that could afford to rode to battle on their own horses, much like
this in 1914, Lieutenant Charles Henkart arranged for two of his civilian Minerva Motor
Works tourers to be armoured at the Cockerill Works in Hoboken.[9] The initial
armoured cars were adhoc but soon Minerva had created a standard design. American
papers were reporting the use of the armoured car by September 1914.[10] The crew was
partially exposed to gun fire with the open top. This would prove fatal to Lieutenant
Henkart when on September 6, 1914 he was killed by gun fire after the armoured car he
~ 43 ~
was in was caught in a German ambush.[11][12] Before the Minerva factory was captured
during the German invasion and occupation of Belgium about thirty Minerva armored
cars were built. In 1916 the design of the original armored car was completely revised.
The open top was now fully enclosed and the machine gun under an armored cupola.
The Belgian Army used the cars as motorized cavalry units with three-cars platoons.
The armoured car units were mostly used for reconnaissance, infantry fire support and
missions behind enemy lines.[13] After the Western Front became bogged down in
trench warfare some of the cars were sent to the Eastern Front with the Belgian
Expeditionary Corps in Russia.[13]
The Germans were able capture three of the cars and modified them for use during the
invasion of Romania with at least one being used during the 1919 troubles. They even
saw use in the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s.[13]
Renault mle 1914 Armoured Car
The great Renault concern at Billancourt, near Paris, which was responsible for about
one fifth of all passenger cars built in France in 1914 was obviously an important unit in
the French war effort. Among its earliest war productions was a preliminary order for
100 armoured cars. The earliest of these had improvised armour "blindage de fortune"
- built on the 18 h.p. Renault and other chassis without major modifications. By
November 1914, however, a standard pattern was being delivered in which dual rear
wheels were introduced. A truck type armoured body was fitted mounting a machine
gun on a pivot and protected in some cars, but not all, by a large flat shield. The engine
armour disguised the famous Renault dashboard radiator: there was an air intake at the
front of the bonnet.
~ 44 ~
Louis Renault was infuriated by being told, after the first 100 armoured cars had been
completed, with difficulty because of a shortage of armour plate, to convert them to
ambulances! Renault refused and it appears that the decision was altered and the
conversions were not carried out.
Late in 1914 appeared the Renault which, in both Automitrailleuse and Autocanon
forms, continued in use throughout the war. This car was recognizably a Renault
because the front portion of the bonnet was made as low as possible and the armoured
grilles of the dashboard radiator appeared behind it at the front of the crew
compartment. The hull was open topped and the armament, either an air-cooled machine
~ 45 ~
gun or a 37mm gun, was mounted here. A gun shield was fitted in either case, although
that for the machine gun was rather more Vshaped. The chassis with the 18 h.p. four
cylinder 95/160 engine was again used. This had semielliptic springs and detachable
woodenspoked, pneumatictyred wheels, dual at the rear.
France ended the war with only 39 Renault armoured cars left, so losses must have been
heavy although it must also be said that armoured car production from the end of 1915
onwards was concentrated on White Armoured Car.
Renault 47mm Autocannon

The first lorry-mounted gun to go into action in France, in the First World War, was
probably the British Commander C. R. Samsons 3-pdr on an L.G.O.C. B type chassis,
which was constructed to Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) designs, by the French
shipyard Forges et Chantiers de France at Dunkirk, in October 1914.
~ 46 ~
The French equivalent of this weapon appeared during the course of 1915, and
consisted of a gun of the same calibre as Samsons on the chassis of a Renault 2.5t lorry
with solid tyres. Whereas the RNAS vehicle was unarmoured, and the gun mounted
fairly high on the lorry platform, the French Autocanon 47mm was fully armoured, and
the gun was mounted low between the rear wheel arches in the body of the vehicle. The
only disadvantage of this lower mounting was that the gun did not have a forward field
of fire, because the driver's cab was in the way. The gun, chosen because it had more
than double the range of the alternative, the 37mm, was manufactured by Hotchkiss.
The first prototypes were completed by the end of January 1915. Tests showed that the
heavily armoured vehicle was too heavy, and the speed too slow, and no more than four
were manufactured.
These Autocanons (like their British equivalents which, apart from Samsons prototype,
were built on Seabrook chassis) were manned by naval personnel - Fusiliers Marins -
and were ready for action, organized in sections of two, in June 1915. They seem to
have been mainly used as anti-aircraft/airship assets, but were also used as mobile light
artillery, running up and down behind the lines, attacking any targets of opportunity.
Automitrailleuse White
The French Government began receiving, in 1915, supplies of trucks built by the White
Motor Co. of Cleveland, Ohio and by the end of the same year the first twenty armoured
cars were constructed in France on White chassis. The White was a fairly conventional
chassis with a 35 h.p. four-cylinder water-cooled engine with drive to the rear wheels,
although in the armoured car duplicate steering controls were fitted for driving
backwards in emergency. The maximum speed of this 6-ton vehicle was 45km/h and the
radius of action was about 250 km.
The normal crew carried was four men and the armament consisted of one 37mm. gun
and one Hotchkiss machine gun, or alternatively machine guns only. The two
mountings were on opposite sides of the turret, which was of distinctive design and
liberally equipped with observation ports.
By the end of the First World War the French Army had no less than 205 White
armoured cars, more than three times the combined total of Renaults and Peugeots. This
large supply led France, like Britain, to retain many wartime armoured cars in service
after the war and some White armoured cars, modernized in details, like fitting them
~ 47 ~
with modern pneumatic wheels, but still essentially the same in appearance, were in
action in the first years of the Second World War. It was also used by the Brazilian
Army in the 20s (below).
~ 48 ~
Renault modle 1914
France (1914) Armored car 50 built
About Renault armored cars in WW1
Back in 1905, Renault was already a pioneer in the rapidly-growing automotive

industry. Long situated at Boulogne-Billancourt, in a suburb of Paris, the company
founded by Louis Renault already tested the military waters in 1909, with a Hotchkiss
shield-protected machine-gun carrying vehicle. It attracted limited interest from the
military, perhaps inspired by the 1908 Charron. However, shortly after the start of the
~ 49 ~
war, along with Hotchkiss, Schneider, De Dion Bouton, Panhard Levassor, Gasnier,
Archer and Latil and Peugeot, Renault presented in 1914 its own model, intended for
AA purposes. It was followed the next year by a completely rebuilt model similar to the
Peugeot, along with the conversion of the former mle 1914. Also, Renault produced a
lorry armed with a 47 mm (1.85 in) autocanon Renault for the motorized marine
infantry.
Renault Autoblinde 1914
This first model was accepted and fifty units were built until early 1915, as 42 AA
vehicles with an open air rear compartment, armed with a single 8 mm (0.31 in) St
Etienne light machine gun. It was relatively lightly armored, with vertical plates
between 4 and 6 mm (0.16-0.24 in) in thickness. These enclosed the closed driving
compartment (with a single wide armored shutter), while the rear compartment was
open, large enough for two operators (loader and gunner). Access for all crewmen
provided through this open compartment. The machine gun was protected by a large
frontal shield, with a mounting providing full vertical manual elevation (90) and
traverse. It had ammunition supplied in 8 mm/24 cartridge strips. This model had a
ground clearance of 24 cm (9.5 in), 3.35 m wheelbase (132 in), with a 42 front steering
with manual transmission, and a Renault water cooled petrol engine. The axles rested on
leaf spring suspensions.
Wartime use
Although a hundred were originally ordered, only 50 were built before their limitations
were discovered. The AA mount was problematic, and the rate of fire and range were
not sufficient for their intended rle. Also, the armor was too light to protect against
shrapnel and machine-gun rounds, while the open compartment left the crew vulnerable.
But, probably worst of all, the front wheel drive proved ill-suited in operations. In 1916,
all 50 were taken over to be rebuilt to the mle 1915 standard, which resembled the
Peugeot armored car, with a short barrel 37 mm (1.46 in) gun or Hotchkiss LMG behind
a shield.
Renault AC 1914 specifications

Dimensions 4.5 x 1.7 x 1.7 m (180 x 66 x 66 in)
Total weight 3 tons, estimated
Crew 3-4 (driver, commander, gunner/loader)
Propulsion 4-cyl Renault WC, gasoline, 35 bhp (26 kW)
Top speed (road) 45 km/h (28 mph)
Range Around 100 km (62 mi)
~ 50 ~
Armament St Etienne M1907 machine gun
Armor 4 to 6 mm (0.16 to 0.22 in)
Renault automitrailleuse modle 1914.
~ 51 ~
Renault Armored Car modle 1915. The mle 1914s were rebuilt to this standard.
Automitrailleuse Renault Mle 1915 Machine-gun armored car
~ 52 ~
Alternative notation: Automitrailleuse Renault Mle 1915 <
Stage of completion: in 1915-1916. built about 150 copies.
Being under the clear influence of the initial success of improvised armored Minerva
French army ordered its own version of the Belgian car. From 1914 France began to
produce its own version of the chassis for Peugeot and next went into production a new
armored vehicle Renault. In general, he repeated Minerva machines \ Peugeot: easy
booking, one machine gun for armored shields, wheel formula 4x2. Mass production
machines was 3600-4000 kg, speed - 40 km \ h, engine power - 24 hp Some armored
cars instead of 8-mm gun was equipped with 47-mm cannon. For the 1915-1916
biennium. have released about 120 copies, and 30 of them were sent to Russia. For
reservations and armament export armored vehicles did not meet the requirements of
both Renault fronts used to accompany the transport units on the march and as a
protective armored car.
~ 53 ~
Interestingly, not all Renault armored vehicles headed for scrap after the war finished.
In the beginning of 1940 in Indochina as part of the colonial forces still there were
several such machines, as well as the older Peugeot Mle 1915. However, their condition
and readiness of the data is not present.

Renault Mle 1915
Combat weight 3600-4000 kg
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
~ 54 ~
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.9-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE karbyuratonykh, capacity of 24 hp

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
~ 55 ~
Autocanon de 47 mm Renault cannon armored car
~ 56 ~
Alternative notation: Autocanon de 47 mm Renault
Start of planning: November 1914
Date of construction of the first prototype: August 1915
Stage of completion: 4 built machines were used until 1919
In November 1914, when the war on the Western Front has not yet acquired the
positional character, the command of the French army is very much to reflect on further
mechanization. The initial success of armored vehicles, without any doubt, was great,
but ground forces lacked the more powerful fire support. On this basis, demands were
made for the development of "autocannon" - combat vehicles equipped with rapid-guns.
During the 1914-1915 biennium. It introduced several models, but the most common
model steel chassis commercial truck Peugeot. However, in a limited amount it was
released very successful "autocannon" on Renault chassis.
~ 57 ~
The initiator of the creation of such a machine made by Lieutenant-Villena Bargemon
(Villeneu-Bargemont), which in a short time to prepare a draft. The base 2.5-tonne
chassis trucks Renault was chosen. Chassis of the machine was 4x2, spitsovannye
wheels with rubber tires and suspension on the leaf springs. Since "autocannon" to be
used for direct interaction with the infantry on the battlefield driver's cab and hood were
fully booked, and the horizontal bronelisty installed at great angles. Under the hood was
placed Renault petrol engine capacity of 16 hp, which was not enough for
potyazhelevshy machine. booking thickness was 7 mm.
The main armament consisted of 47-mm semi-automatic guns of the sample in 1902,
was mounted on the former site of the transport platform on the column book-rests
installation. To improve the security of the calculation of artillery cannon installation
was protected by armored shields U-shaped roof. Maximum field of fire on the horizon
was about 270 . Ammunition was placed in a special installation for the driver's cab.
The first prototype Autocanon de 47 mm Renault (it is so often referred to as

"autocannon" in modern foreign sources) has been presented to the customer 15 th
August 1915. The characteristics obtained during testing armored vehicles were quite
encouraging, but by the time the two warring sides firmly dug into the ground and apply
"autocannon" under the new conditions was difficult.
The large order for armored gun was not followed according to the changed situation. In
addition to the prototype it was collected three more production machines, which were
sent to the front and periodically used until November 1918
SPECIFICATIONS cannon armored car Autocanon de 47 mm Renault obr.1915 city
~ 58 ~
CREW, pers. 5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 47-mm semi-automatic gun obr.1902 year
aiming DEVICES gun sight
board housing - 7 mm
food body - 7mm
RESERVATIONS
gun shield - 7 mm
roof - 7 mm
bottom -
Of Renault, gasoline, liquid cooling, capacity of 16

ENGINE
hp

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ~ 20 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 59 ~
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Autocanon de 75 mm mle 1913 \ De Dion Bouton Anti-aircraft armored vehicle
~ 60 ~
Official designation: Autocanon de 75 mm mle 1913
Alternative notation: De Dion Bouton
Stage of completion: built a small series.
Between 1913 and 1918. French army had adopted a significant number of self-
propelled guns on protivoaerostatnyh De Dion Bouton commercial vehicle chassis. The
basis was taken from the truck wheel formula 4x2 (rear-wheel drive twin, leading),
equipped with a gasoline 8-cylinder engine producing 35 hp In place of the cargo
compartment was located a platform on which you install the 75-mm field gun of the
sample in 1897 (Materiel de 75mm Mle 1897), which was also used for installation on
tanks St.-Chamond M1917 and could be used as anti-aircraft. In this embodiment, the
artillery system was designated Autocanon de 75 mm mle 1913 and has been used
successfully throughout the period of the First World War.
~ 61 ~
Although the choice of such a powerful tool for creating anti-aircraft automatic control
system may seem inadequate, let us not forget that aviation in 1913 was in its infancy
and has a high speed and powerful weaponry. flak gap could then literally break any
aircraft, not to mention balloons massively used by all warring parties. In addition, guns
Materiel de 75mm Mle 1897 offers a truly unique firing rate (up to 15 rounds per
minute), with a muzzle velocity of 500 m \ s and a maximum firing range of 6900
meters.
Since 1915, ACS chassis De Dion Bouton delivered to the British Army, which used
them not only during wartime conditions, but also for air defense metropolis.
Also, there is evidence that in the interwar period, several anti-aircraft self-propelled
guns were transferred to the Polish army, and several guns were swapped on the chassis
of trucks Polski FIAT 621 and the box-shaped armored shields were protected. Together
with field guns Materiel de 75mm Mle 1897 which can be used the same ammunition,
these cars took part in the reflection of German aggression in September 1939
~ 62 ~
Although the post-war service of self-propelled guns was interested in the fate of their
brief initial version. In 1933 it has been upgraded to use guns as antitank, after which
she received the designation Canon de 75 mm mle 1897 modifie 1933. The only
external difference of this variant was broneschit. After the fall of France in the summer
of 1940 the German troops got a significant number of these guns of all types - together
with the Polish spoils of their total number exceeded 600 units. In the Wehrmacht, they
passed a new stage of modernization and designated as 7.5 cm PaK 97/38. In the course
of the company on the Eastern Front old French guns were rushed into combat units to
make up for losses and with relative success were used to fight the Soviet tanks.
Subsequently, part of the 7.5 cm PaK 97/38 participated in the defense of the Atlantic
Wall in June 1944.
SPECIFICATIONS anti-aircraft armored vehicle

Autocanon de 75 mm mle 1913
CREW, pers. 6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one anti-aircraft 75mm cannon
~ 63 ~
aiming DEVICES telescopic sight
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE Gasoline, liquid cooling, capacity of 35 hp

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ~ 25-30 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
De Dion Bouton Mle 1914 reconnaissance vehicle
Alternative notation: De Dion Bouton Mle 1914
~ 64 ~
VPosle beginning of the 1st World War, the French automotive industry to a large
extent been the militarization of and during the second half of 1914 introduced several
prototypes of armored vehicles, some of which could be considered quite successful.
Clear favorites when looked firm Renault and the Peugeot, but not advocated by the
industrial giants of smaller companies, one of which was a De Dion Bouton.
At the end of 1914 the designers of this company had booked a commercial truck. This
is quite typical for the period of the car had a 4x2 (double rear wheels, the front axle
controlled, rear drive), on the suspension leaf springs and gasoline engine with liquid
cooling. Hull construction was riveted. Sheets of armor, presumably 5-8 mm,
completely closed only the engine cover. The driver's cab and the load (combat) were
polubronirovannymi department, without a roof. On the sides, rear and front hull
mounted additional folding broneschitki. Also partially armored wheels of the two
axles.
The main purpose of armored De Dion Bouton was intelligence and support cavalry
units - the problem is quite feasible for it, especially given that the crew could take one
or two guns. However, the French army chose to Renault and the Peugeot armored
vehicles, have similar characteristics. Information about the fate of De Dion Bouton
sample 1914 and fighting application no.

De Dion Bouton sample 1914
CREW, pers. 2-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one or two 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
RESERVATIONS ?
~ 65 ~

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ~ 30 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Autocanon De Dion Bouton Mle 1916 Light armored vehicle gun
Official designation: Autocanon de 75 mm mle 1913

Alternative notation: De Dion Bouton
Stage of completion: built a small series.
~ 66 ~
After the failure of the sample polubronirovannym car company 1914 De Dion Bouton
"rehabilitated" self-propelled anti-aircraft guns on the same chassis, equipped with a 75
mm gun of the sample in 1897, this success has allowed to return to the design of high-
grade armored vehicles, and this time De Dion Bouton prepared more radically.
Armored Car presented in 1916, really it came out very powerful. Despite the
persistence of commercial chassis engineers have done a great job of management
assistance. As a result, the body received a trough-shaped form with sloping board and
frontal bronelistami - such a scheme was widely used on German armored vehicles. The
power plant was protected hood, whose frontal and upper vertical bronelisty also had a
rational angles. For the cooling of the engine in the front three single-hatch was made,
opening and closing of which is regulated from the driver's cab.
Fighting compartment was combined with the management department. Monolithic

frontal armor plates could be opened on the march for a better viewing area and
ventilation, seating on the struts. In the firing position the driver is able to monitor only
two small diamond-shaped cutout, secure bulletproof glass. On the sides, in the upper
sloped armor plates, were similar loopholes. For drop-off and landing crews used two
large doors on both sides of the machine. Also, the rear control station has been
provided, equipped with only the most essential mechanisms. Similarly, manufacturing
and aft sloping armor sheet.
A bit unusual, although widely anticipated, was adopted. On the roof of the enclosure
was installed riveted 8-sided tower in front of the compartment which sets a 37-mm gun
Puteaux SA18, and in the stern - one 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss. Presumably, when
the available volume of the ammunition body could consist of 100-120 rounds for the
gun and the ammunition for the machine gun 5000-6000. On the roof of the tower
mounted spotlight.
~ 67 ~
In general, the armored car De Dion Bouton 1916 sample made a good impression, and
in the presence of 8-mm reservation could easily be used in direct support of infantry
and cavalry, if not a few negative factors.
First of all, the military confused the high alignment of the machine, which was not
conducive to a high driving performance. Not too well recognized location embrasures
for observation. Another point was the lack of a "level playing field" for this type of
machine. In that year, the war has not yet emerged from the trench-trench stage, and
given the specificity of the area is constantly eroded by bad weather, armored De Dion
Bouton remained unclaimed. In addition, soon found a strong competitor - armored
vehicle on White American truck chassis, the hull of which is designed for the company
Segur et Lorfeuvre.
~ 68 ~
After a while, De Dion Bouton firm's engineers introduced an improved model. The
difference lies in the presence of a viewing window in the driver instead of the two
embrasures, slightly modified body and reinforced arms. Now, in the back of the tower
was installed two machine guns, which are located between another spotlight. However,
and this option was rejected by the military. It must be assumed that the De Dion
Bouton in hostilities unused. The further fate of this interesting machine remains
unknown.
SPECIFICATIONS cannon armored car

Autocanon De Dion Bouton specimen 1916 (the first option)
CREW, pers. 4-5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss and one 37-mm gun

WEAPONS
Puteaux SA18
aiming DEVICES eleskopichesky and machine-gun sight
RESERVATIONS ?

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ~ 20 km \ h
overcome obstacles
~ 69 ~
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
White AM modele 1915/1918
USA/France (1915-18) Armored car about 220 built
Origins
In 1915, the French were desperate to get more armored cars. Besides some foreign
supplied models, they also sought to build some, based on locally available chassis. One
of these chassis were made by White in the US, and that model was also produced
locally, under licence. The armored bodies were supplied by Sgur & Lorfeuvre. Those
built based on US-built chassis were called modele 1915, and had left-hand drive.
The French White AC model 1918
~ 70 ~
The model 1917-18 White 42 was based on locally-built White trucks, the French
using the nude chassis with the White engine, transmission & gearbox, leaf springs, rear
axle with doubled tires, and made their own complete armored body at Sgur &
Lorfeuvre, in 1917. The latter was composed of approximately 30 bolted panels on a
rigid steel frame. The hull was flat, but there were two bulges on the fighting
compartment, were two doors were situated. There were armored shutters for the driver
and commander, and small side sights with armored flaps opening upwards on the sides,
as well as at the rear. This vehicle was indeed fitted with a French reverse steering
system in case of an emergency, that a rear driver could use. The engine hood was
armored with two access doors, and the radiator had a series of armored shutters for
cooling. The turret was remarkable, as it was large enough to accommodate two men,
serving two weapons, one at each end, generally a combination of the short barrel
Puteaux (SA-17) 37 mm (1.46 in) gun and a Hotchkiss 7.5 mm (0.3 mm) light machine-
gun, or two LMGs. The turret was sloped, with two side panels that could be opened.
There were mudguards at the front, and storage boxes fixed above the rear ones, while
tooling (shovel, pickaxe and others) were fastened on the sides of the driving
compartment. These 200 vehicles were used on the western front until the end of the
war, and kept in service until 1930.
Postwar service
Both models were completely rebuilt after the war, between 1928 and 1932 as the
Laffly AMD-50 (96 vehicles) and AMD-80 (28 vehicles). Both were called White-
Laffly, although their body was entirely French and their chassis was made by Laffly, a
French company. They spent their career in North Africa, at least until 1943, being
completely obsolete by then. For more information see the AMD-50 and AMD-80 in
the WW2 section.
White 1918 specifications

Dimensions 5.50 x 2.30 x 2.60 m (18.047.558.53 ft)
Total weight 6.5 tons
Crew 4-5 (driver, commander, 2 gunners, loader)
Propulsion 6-cyl gasoline, 3672 cc, White engine, 50 bhp
Speed on-road 65 km/h (40 mph)
Armament 1 x 37 mm (1.45 in) Puteaux gun, 7.5 mm (0.31 in) Hotchkiss M1909
machine gun
Armor Maximum 8 mm (0.3 in)
~ 71 ~
Total
200 in 1917-1918
production
White AC in French service, 1918, with the specific turret and armament. By the end of
1915, the first twenty armored were cars constructed in France on the White chassis.
Here is the model 1917. Duplicate steering controls, for driving backwards, were
apparently fitted in emergency. In total, 200 chassis of two White series were armored
in France.
Official designation: Automitrailleuse White

Alternative notation: White AM Mle 1917
Start design: 1916
Stage of completion: commercially produced in the years 11917-1918 ..
~ 72 ~
Loomed in September 1916 on the Western Front fracture again aroused great interest
in armored vehicles, which do not find a place in the "trench" war. At the beginning of
the next 1917 Renault company received an order for the production of a new type of
party armored vehicles, intended to support the cavalry units and reconnaissance. By
this time, the project was ready hulls Sgur et Lorfeuvre, who had monogamous 8mm
book. But most importantly, the French managed to quickly decide with a choice of
chassis.
The base chassis has been borrowed from a commercial 2-ton truck White. The
production of these machines has been established in America (model TAV), and in
France, in the company of Renault (model FA). And at home White truck assembly
completed in 1919, and in France, production continued until 1922. The difference
between them lies in the width of the chassis and its total weight. For the production of
both types of armored vehicles used without limitations, but most of the cars were
assembled on the basis of White TVS.
By August 1914 there were about 2000 machines of this type in France, so that
problems with service and spare parts are not foreseen in the coming years. Chassis has
rear-wheel drive and had a wheel formula 4x2. The front wheels were single, rear - dual.
Conventional pneumatic tires, have been replaced Ducasble bulletproof firms, although
the spokes and rim were wooden. The suspension system was also quite standard and
used the depreciation on the leaf semi-elliptic leaf springs. Axle load distributed as
follows: 2.2 tons were in the front and 3.8 tonnes on the back.
The housing accommodates space for a crew of 4 people: commander (usually it was a
non-commissioned officer), the driver of the front control position, the rear control
station the driver and gunner served the guns and machine guns.
The front part of the body, in the shape of an armored box, took the engine
compartment. There was installed a gasoline 4-cylinder engine capacity of 35 hp White
and a displacement of 3672 cc. Liquid cooling system to use radiator which was
~ 73 ~
mounted in front of the engine, and was protected by armored shutters for air inlet.
Blinds had two fixed inclined plate at the bottom and a controlled top cover.
White Transmission was mechanical type with a 4-speed manual gearbox, provides 4
speed forward and two back. For engine installed fuel tank capacity of 100 liters. To
gain access to the engine compartment units have been provided with two removable
armor plates on the sides, is bolted to the frame of the body.
For driving in the dark armored vehicle was equipped with a large removable spotlight
illuminator is attached on brackets on the radiator shutters and a pair of smaller lights
that are mounted at the upper corners of the front wall of the engine compartment. The
third light is used to illuminate the road when reversing, located on the left rear wing of
armored vehicles.
Branch management is in the middle of the hull, and was combined with the combat. It
also had a distinct box-like shape, but the front and aft bronelisty installed at large
angles of inclination. According to the requirements of the time armored vehicle
equipped with two control stations. As a result of the placement of the crew was as
follows. The engine compartment on the right side were bodies of front control station
and place of the first driver. Nearby is the place for the second driver, who, if necessary,
moved to the aft part of the hull. Second control station placed back on the left side.
reverse transmission mechanism allows all four programs are about the same speed in
reverse as in forward progress. However, the front and rear control stations were not
equivalent, as the latter did not have all the controls.
Sight "devices" placed in the body have been very modest. Overview of the front driver
provided two frontal window lowers bronekryshkami and two circular inspection holes
in the sides of the driver's compartment is also equipped bronekryshkami semicircular
shape. Aft helm station was equipped with only a narrow window with a stern
bronekryshkoy and two lateral inspection openings.
At the stern of the hull settled combat compartment in the roof of which was set
simmetricheaya tower rather complicated form. It was made into a cylindrical shape, the
top two of which sheet (front and rear) installed obliquely. In it, diametrically opposed,
mounted 37 mm gun Puteaux SA18 sample in 1916 and one 8-mm machine gun
Hotchkiss Modele 1914. In addition, the laying transported another 8-mm machine gun,
which can be used as a portable or zenith. In the first case the fork is used in setting the
right side of the body, and to repel air attacks had to get out of the car. Full ammunition
consisted of 198 rounds and 5500 rounds of ammunition. The roof of the tower two
hatches were made, through which the vehicle commander and gunner were to observe
the terrain. The sides of the tower, and on both sides of the gun and the gun had one
more rectangular hatch is also intended to review.
Landing in the armored vehicle made by two large rectangular doors that were on the
sides and having a curved shape. This allowed us to slightly increase the amount of free
space in the fighting compartment, which is for 4 people crew turned cramped. The left
door opened toward the stern, right - toward the bow of the armored vehicles.
~ 74 ~
On the sides of the stern of the hull placed large boxes for tools and spare parts. Flat
smaller box hung on the left side under the round manhole control department. Behind
him in special brackets fastened staff entrenching tools - a shovel and pickax.
Entering service in 1917, the "machine-gun car" (Automitrailleuse White) armored cars
have become the main French army and served for more than 25 years. Such a long
period was due to the successful hulls, which is then "migrated" to the modernized
Laffly. By the end of 1918 it was built about 230 armored vehicles, but only 205
entered service.
However, the problem is also missing. Armored vehicles used on 1917 model year, the
engine 35 hp It was recognized as not the best option, because the combat weight
Renault-White was 6000 kg. In addition, much attention had to be paid to the
preparation of the second driver, as armored vehicles driving in reverse with the steering
of feed required certain skills and dexterity, as in this case, the control wheel is back.
However, such a problem was each army, which operated the armored cars with two
control stations.
~ 75 ~
However, the maximum speed AM White when driving on the highway is 37 km \ h
(according to other sources - up to 45 km \ h), and on dirt roads it reaches 12-20 km \ h.
Chassis also proved to be very reliable - in the course of operation in Morocco, well-
prepared cars could pass through 100 km a day on the road. However, by this time the
chassis White were badly worn and needed maintenance or replacement.
Although the tactical and technical data armored AM White were considered
insufficient in the first post-war years up to June 1934 to replace them was simply
nothing. Only in 1931 we were prepared to replace them armored Laffly 50AM, which
were nothing more than a body Sgur et Lorfeuvre mounted on the chassis of the truck
Laffly LC2. So uncomplicated way to arrive no less than 98 "new" machines.
Geography application AM White has been very broad. Appearing they failed at the end
of the First World War to fully realize themselves on the Western Front. But in the
overseas possessions AM White operated at maximum capacity. The first "colonial"
armored vehicles were sent to Morocco, where the French were harassing raids of local
Arab tribes. During the 1920-1930's. most of the AM White was transferred from the
mother country, Lebanon, Syria and Indochina. Several armored vehicles even
participate in "restoring order" in Shanghai and its surrounding areas, where the colonial
part of guarding private property and the lives of the French capitalists.
However, the "generational change" launched by the summer of 1934 does not mean
that AM White immediately went to warehouses. In fact, their operation in the
metropolis was completed only in 1937. Due to the lack of new technology AM White
remained on the equipping of the colonial forces until completely worn out. The last
fight of these machines took in the spring and summer of 1941 in Lebanon, where the
French army tried unsuccessfully to defend its colonial possessions. Several vehicles of
this type have been used in parts of the intelligence in the 6th and the 7th Cavalry
Regiment. Indochina single AM White finished his service at about the same time. The
~ 76 ~
rest of the armored cars were dismantled before the war or during the German
occupation.

CREW, pers. 4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 5600
Width 2100
Height mm 2750
Clearance, mm 400
one 37-mm gun Puteaux SA18 and one 8-mm machine
WEAPONS
gun Hotchkiss Modele1914 / td>
allowance of ammunition 198 shells and 5,500 rounds of ammunition
RESERVATIONS food body - 8 mm
top and bottom plate - 4-5 mm (?)
Tower - 8 mm (?)
The White, 4-cylinder, gasoline, power 35 hp and a
ENGINE
displacement of 3672 cc.
TRANSMISSION 4-lingual-speed (4 + 2), mechanical brake
CHASSIS 4x2: single wheels, tubeless tires, suspension leaf springs
37 km \ h on the highway
SPEED
12-20 km \ h in the area
~ 77 ~
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Automitrailleuse Vinot-Deguinguand Machine-gun armored car
Alternative notation: Automitrailleuse Vinot-Deguinguand
Start design: 1918
Stage of completion: one prototype was built.
Active use of armored vehicles in the autumn of 1916, soon led to the cessation of
"trench warfare". Now opponents of troops again were forced to maneuver, although not
on the same scale as in 1914. However, these conditions have led to the obvious
~ 78 ~
conclusion - the troops needed armored battlefield, more lightweight and mobile than
tanks.
The French army in the period of 1915-1916. I received several dozen different armored
vehicles, of which only a big series built on the chassis of the car Peugeot and Renault
trucks. Soon they were joined by White, but it was not enough. As practice shows use
during combat armored car I received a few dozen or even hundreds of bullet hits, some
of which were cross-cutting. Booking 5-8 mm thick completely saved from the German
armor-piercing bullets, and even more so from the shells. Another major shortcoming
was the low permeability of these armored vehicles on the ground. The strange thing is
that the attempts to create an armored vehicle on the wheel chassis, which would be
optimally combined characteristics of the principle of "protection-speed, cross-arms," in
France, then virtually taken. Nevertheless, they took place, however, for the most part
frankly bad.
In early 1918, the forces in the construction of armored vehicles for the French army
tried to firm Vinot-DeGuinguand (read as "wine-Deginzhan") - is not widely known in
those years and is now completely forgotten. At first, things went well and in 1908 the
material condition allowed not only to set up production of cars series 16 \ 24CV, but
also buy a company "Gladiator". However, further development of the forces on the
proihvodstvennyh capacity is not enough and in 1925 Vinot-DeGuinguand composition
Donnet joined the firm. And yet, a bright trace was left. The engineers of this company
Vinot-DeGuinguand was developed completely original design and layout scheme
armored car, not often found in the future. First of all, the aim was to "Conveniently
combat use." If you recall the tactics of Russian armored vehicles, then they often went
into battle in reverse. Also then there were the French and the British. It was caused by
only one factor - in the case of injury or exhaustion of ammunition ought car as quickly
as possible to withdraw from under enemy fire, and do it quickly, you can only when
driving to the forward. Thus, the final shape next concept - armored cars must have two
control station and preferably two drivers. One of the first to a similar conclusion was
reached by engineers at Vinot-DeGuinguand, but their further research and
experimentation it was difficult to call rational.
The desire to create something original and unlike the other structures led to a rather
strange wheel formula 6x2. Expressed "locomotive" wording (but according to the total
number of wheels), this scheme would look like 2-2-2. In other words, the wheels of the
front and rear axles are manageable, and the average axle with dual wheels - leading. It
is more logical would be to do all three of the leading bridge, but then there were the
inevitable difficulties with the transfer of power from the engine to the steering wheel.
Apparently, Vinot-DeGuinguand engineers abandoned such technological solutions, and
went much more simple way. armored suspension remains standard and included semi-
elliptical (or chetvertellipticheskih) leaf springs. Tubeless type wheels are equipped
with tires made of solid rubber and protected wings, interconnected footboards.
The layout of the body matched his appearance. In front of the inside of the elongated
bonnet, housed powerplant. Since the type of information it has not been preserved,
there is speculation that could be the basis of 6-cylinder or 12-cylinder petrol engine air
cooling capacity of about 80-100 hp and a working volume of not less than 4200 cc.
Otherwise, given the approximate weight of the chassis only about 2 tons, apart hulls
with the arms and internal hardware (which together would be at least 8 tons), the use of
~ 79 ~
a less powerful motor would be completely ineffective. For a better cooling of the hood
on each side were made on two sections of shutters.
The middle part of the body was completely given over to the fighting compartment.
Assuming a large crew of designers have equipped the car 10 small hatches (5 on each
side), through which it was possible to observe the terrain or the firing of personal
weapons. The front and rear broneliste setting made even one hatch with inspection
slots intended for drivers. On the roof of the fighting compartment installed squat but
large tower of cylindrical shape, designed for the installation of an 8-mm machine gun.
At the rear of the chassis to place elements of transmission and controls the second
steering station. Embarkation and disembarkation of the crew, the approximate size of
which was not less than 5-6 people, was carried out through the doors in the sides of the
crew compartment.
As fate Automitrailleuse Vinot-Deguinguand (like this machine is often referred to in

foreign sources) it is still not known exactly. Photo single prototype was published in
"La Vie Automobile" magazine in 1918 without any clarification of tactical and
technical characteristics. It is also not clear whether the full test cycle was carried out. It
is possible that this was done purely for promotional purposes, because the military
commission the machine rejected the mean poor ride quality. However, if we recall the
example of the German heavy armored car Bussing A5P, has two driving axles, the
French have had a good chance of success. However only in the case where technical
solutions have been chosen and implemented correctly.

Vinot-DeGuinguand sample 1918
CREW, pers. 5-6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one or two 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
aiming DEVICES ?
~ 80 ~
housing forehead - 9 mm (?)
board housing - 9 mm (?)
RESERVATIONS
food body - 9 mm (?)
ENGINE petrol
6x2, medium twin wheels, tubeless tires, suspension

CHASSIS
leaf springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Archer
~ 81 ~
Alternative designation: Auto-Mitrailleuse Archer
Stage of completion of works: Construction of a series of 4 cars, used on the territory of
South-East Asia in 1915-1917.
In May 1915, a French engineer Franois-Joseph Archer (Francois-Joseph Archer),

owner of the eponymous firm Archer has, suggested the army armored vehicle project,
adapted to support the infantry on the battlefield. In his opinion, such a machine is
equipped with a 85 mm gun of its own design, could provide substantial support forces,
trying to break the enemy's defensive line. In addition, it was possible to tow another
light weapons. Despite the attractiveness of the project and we have not begun to
implement it.
Then an alternative project was proposed, involves the installation of an 8-mm

Hotchkiss machine gun in the rear of the hull. In fact, it has been offered the option
polubronirovannogo car, is an analogue of armored vehicles Renault and Minerva is,
successfully used at the initial stage of the war. Type the selected chassis could not be
determined yet. Sozhno only state that served as the base of a civilian car with a 4x2.
The crew consisted of 2-3 persons: a driver and two machine-gunner. Thickness
reservation apparently did not exceed 4-6 mm.
A total of four armored vehicles byo collected Archer, but by the time they become a
war on the Western Front acquired positional character. (Apparently it was French
Indochina), where armored vehicles arrived at the disposal Armee d'Orient to appliances
not in vain to put down the entire party was sent to Southeast Asia. According to their
preliminary information used during the 1915-1917 biennium. Details of their operation
remain unclear.
SPECIFICATIONS LIGHT POLUBRONIROVANNOGO armored vehicles

Archer sample 1915
~ 82 ~
CREW, pers. 2-3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
aiming DEVICES optical machine-gun sight
forehead housing - (6 mm?)

RESERVATIONS
Tower - (6 mm?)
roof - 4 mm (?)
the bottom - (4 mm?)

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED about 25-30 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 83 ~
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Berliet army armored vehicle
Alternative notation: Berliet
Start design: 1919
Stage of completion: one built ekzmplyar transmitted Poland.
In 1919, together with a regiment of tanks FT-17, from France arrived armored vehicle
of unknown type. Data on its manufacturer, and performance characteristics are not
available. Presumably, the basis for this car served as a commercial Berliet truck 4x2
and a gasoline engine.
~ 84 ~
Externally, the armored car strongly resembled Italian Lancia 1Z, but had a massive
shape. Armor is almost completely covered wheel, even though they were equipped
with tubeless tires of hard rubber. On the engine hood has been installed a T-shaped
design to overcome the barbed wire. Given that during the 1st World War, the bulk of
the French armored vehicles received 8 mm book, the same parallel can be made with
regard to Berliet.
The layout of the armored car was standard, with a combined combat compartment and
the control compartment. On the roof of the enclosure was installed faceted tower (or
add-in?). According to Polish sources armament could consist of 2-3 machine guns
caliber 7.92 mm, while taking into account the French origin of the machine was more
likely install an 8-mm machine guns Hotchkiss. The estimated mass of Berliet was 5000
kg, the crew - 5-6 people.
Immediately after the arrival of the armored car Berliet was included in the 1st Tank
Regiment, but did not participate in the combat against the Soviet forces. The only
noticeable shares only parades were for him and military parades. In March 1921, when
was the first reorganization of the Polish armored forces, Berliet was transferred to the
20th Infantry Regiment, stationed in Krakow. In the future, this machine was used to
train personnel and was decommissioned in the early 1930s.
However, one of the surviving photographs, allegedly dated September 1939, embodied
the very Berliet. Armored vehicles had been left on the railway platform, apparently
never having to take part in battles with German troops.
~ 85 ~
SPECIFICATIONS light armored cars
Berliet sample 1919

CREW, pers. 5-6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 5420
Width ~ 2000
Height mm ~ 2500
Clearance, mm ?
two or three 7.92-mm machine gun Schwarzloze MG08
WEAPONS
or 8 mm Hotchkiss
housing forehead - 9 mm (?)
RESERVATIONS
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 86 ~
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Levavasseur \ Projet de canon autopropulseur Fire Support Vehicle
Alternative notation: Projet de canon autopropulseur
Start design: 1903
Date of construction of the first prototype:
Stage of completion: The project was rejected.
It is no secret that each of uchastvovashih in the 1st World War countries could without
too much trouble to get tracked armored vehicles, long before it started, and France was
no exception to this rule. In 1903, the captain of the 6th Artillery Battalion Levasseur
(Levavasseur) offered the War Ministry machine project called Projet de canon
autopropulseur - gun car. According to the description preserved this "car" many
believe the prototype tank, but rather match the self-propelled artillery.
The design of this machine was quite simple. Track-mounted armored hull was mounted
box-shaped, in which the frontal broneliste mounted 75-mm field gun. The power plant
consisted of a petrol engine capacity of 80 hp As you can see, nothing unreal or
supernatural Levasseur did not promise, that's only military officials felt that the army is
quite able to do without such "toys". How wrong they were, it became clear in 1915,
when the war moved to the stage of positional and France desperately needed not only
tanks, but also fire support vehicle.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS fire support vehicle

Projet de canon autopropulseur 1903

CREW, pers. 2-3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
~ 87 ~
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 75-mm cannon in the housing
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE gasoline, 80 hp
CHASSIS crawler type
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Climbing, hail. ?
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION ?
Boirault Machine
Alternative notation: Boirault machine
Home design: December 1914
Date of construction of the first prototype: February 1915
~ 88 ~
Stage of completion: built two prototypes, the project is rejected in mind the
impossibility of practical use.
Three months after the beginning of the First World War, it became obvious that the
fighting on the Western Front will carry isklyuchitelno positional character. By
November 1914 both warring sides girded kilometers of trenches and rows of barbed
wire, which could not overcome even armored vehicles. The result was a desperate
situation, when the British, French and Germans successfully defended, but as soon as it
came to the offensive operation is the number of victims was estimated in the tens of
thousands. Since the human reserves were not endless and protracted war is not too
happy with the command on both sides of the front began work on the design of
technical equipment, able to quickly solve these problems. One such project was the
vehicle for overcoming the barbed wire, the proposed engineer Bouar (Boirault).
This was one of the original and at the same time absurd structures. In fact, it is one
huge metal caterpillar, consisting of six pieces of rectangular shape, the length of each
of which is 4 meters with a total construction length of 8 meters. movable section with a
cabin located in its center for the driver and mechanic and petrol engine capacity of 80
hp Machine weight eventually reached 30 tons.
Driving movement Bouar car was uncomplicated - the internal part moved inside the
truss section on rails is literally pushing them forward. Established 19 th January 1915
Commission assessed the project is very low. Construction Bouar vygldela very fragile
and, in addition, inactive. Formal evaluation were presented on May 17 and on June
10th the project was rejected. Just after made a number of improvements, the new
Commission has decided to test the device in an environment far from the fighting.
Running tests have started 5th November 1915 Bouar car barely scored a top speed of 3
km \ h. With the overcoming of obstacles and trenches also had problems that made a
very bad impression on the military. But most importantly, the car almost could not turn
around - in fact, the operation was carried out manually with the release of what to do
~ 89 ~
and the machine itself and its crew is very easy target for the enemy. Of course, in this
situation of no mass production could not walk and talk.
However, this story had a continuation. At the end of 1915, when the UK gathered
momentum tank program, the French military Ministry has also search for the most
suitable projects for their own tank. And then I remembered the car Bouar. The
following year was built the new prototype has a more compact size and a better level of
protection of vital units of the machine. It should be noted that Bouar take into account
some past mistakes, but in general the principle of the movement is not changed. It
involves the installation of two 8-mm Schneider guns to fight with the infantry. The
result, as might be expected, was unsatisfactory.
The official presentation of the second embodiment of the machine Bouar Military
Commission was held on August 17th 1916 at the site Souain-Perthes-les-Hurlus. Three
days later, on August 20th, to demonstrate the possibilities of this design was carried
out in which the present generators Henri Gouraud (Henri Gouraud). The machine was
able to pass the 1500 meters on level ground at a speed of about 1 km \ h,
simultaneously breaking the line of barbed wire, trenches 1.5 and 1.8 meters wide and 2
meters in diameter crater. Guro noted in actual combat conditions, the machine is not
able to not only maneuver, but in general accurately reach the target. Hence the
conclusion about the impossibility of its practical application. The story of these
unusual vehicles over. About Bouar designs were quick to forget, then disassembled
both prototypes of metal.
SPECIFICATIONS MACHINE TO OVERCOME barrage

Boirault sample 1915
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
~ 90 ~
Length mm 8000
Width ?
Height mm 4000
Clearance, mm -
WEAPONS -
allowance of ammunition -
aiming DEVICES -
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE Carburetor, 80 hp
CHASSIS 6 rectangular SECTION
SPEED 3 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 91 ~
The Boirault machine (French: Appareil Boirault), was an early French experimental
landship, designed in 1914 and built in early 1915. It has been considered as "another
interesting ancestor of the tank",[1] and described as a "rhomboid-shaped skeleton tank
without armour, with single overhead track".[2] Ultimately, the machine was deemed
impractical and was nicknamed Diplodocus militaris.[3] It preceded the design and
development of the English Little Willie tank by six months.
Background
The immobility of the trench warfare characterizing the First World War led to a need
for a powerfully armed military engine that would be at the same time protected from
enemy fire and could move on the extremely irregular terrain of battlefields.
~ 92 ~
As early as 24 August 1914, the French colonel Jean Baptiste Eugne Estienne
articulated the vision of a cross-country armoured vehicle:[4]
"Victory in this war will belong to the belligerent who is the first to put a cannon on a
vehicle capable of moving on all kinds of terrain"
Colonel Jean Baptiste Estienne, 24 August 1914.[4]
January 1915November
In service
1915 (experimental)
Wars World War I
Designer Boirault
Designed 1914
Produced January 1915
Number built 1
Weight 30 tonnes
Length 8.00 m
Width 3.00 m
~ 93 ~
Height 4.00 m
Crew 2
petrol
Engine
80hp
Speed 3 km/h
Development
First Boirault machine
Schematical advance of a Boirault machine over a hole in the ground and a barbed wire
barrier.
~ 94 ~
The first Boirault machine in this post-war L'Illustration in 1919. The bottom
photograph is the Frot-Laffly landship.
One of the first attempts was made in France with the early experiment made with the
Boirault machine, developed in 1914 by French engineer Louis Boirault, proposed to
the French War Ministry in December 1914, and ordered for construction on 3 January
1915.[3] On 19 January a commission, headed by Sub-secretary of State of Inventions
Paul Painlev, was formed to evaluate the project.
The objective of the machine was flattening barbed wire defences and riding over gaps
in a battlefield. The machine was made of huge parallel tracks, formed by six 4x3 meter
metallic frames, each with four transverse beams, so that it could also be described as a
single track covering the entire width of the vehicle, rotating around a triangular
motorized center,[3] and driven via chains and rods by an 80 hp petrol engine.
This device proved too fragile and slow however, as well as incapable of changing
direction easily, as was indicated by a report on 17 May. The project was officially
abandoned on 10 June 1915.[3] Upon the insistence of the inventor, modifications were
made, a new commission was formed and new trials organized on 4 November 1915,[3]
for the benefit of the Engineer Arm. The machine, loaded with nine tonnes of
simulation weights, successfully flattened an eight metre wide barbed wire obstacle,
overcame a funnel with a diameter of five metres and crossed a trench two metres wide.
It reached a speed of 1,6 km/h. A second test on 13 November showed however that it
was still extremely difficult to change direction. The whole assembly had to be lifted by
a main jack, after which it could be turned for a maximum of 45 by hand from the
outside or by a system of smaller jacks from the inside of the machine. Again the
project was rejected, because of its visibility, noise, vulnerability, low speed and lack of
manoeuvrability. Military historian Lieutenant-Colonel Andr Duvignac concluded that
those that had baptised it Diplodocus militaris (after a giant sauropod dinosaur, well-
known at the period) "were not only poor humorists but also good judges".[5]
Second Boirault machine
~ 95 ~
In service August 1916 (experimental)
Wars World War I
Designer Boirault
Designed 19151916
Number built 1
Crew 3 (estimated)
Speed 1 km/h
A new model was developed, more compact and lighter, with armour for the engine and
the driver compartment. It was composed of six metal plates rotating around the core
chassis, and had some level of steering control, allowing for a turning radius of 100
meters. Speed however was extremely low, at 1 km/h. The new model was tried by the
Artillery Arm on 17 August 1916 at Souain-Perthes-ls-Hurlus, until complete
abandonment of the project.[3]
General Henri Gouraud commented on the performance of the machine on 20 August

1916, explaining that it ran for 1,500 meters in flat terrain, at about 1 km/h. It managed
to cross a railroad, flatten a line of barbed wire, and crossed trenches 1.5 and 1.8 meters
wide, and a hole two meters in diameter.[3]
General Gouraud commented on the sheer strength of the machine, but its weak ability
to properly direct itself:
The direction is not precise (...) If this machine is capable of squashing everything on its
way, it cannot be affirmed that it will be able to meet with certainty such and such
designated enemy objective, such as a bunker, machine gun housing, observatory...
Realized away from the battlefield, on a training ground, in conditions that do not
reflect reality in the least, these trials are far from being conclusive
General Gouraud, 20 August 1916.[6]
Aftermath
The project was actually abandoned, as regular tanks were being developed. A few
months before, in October 1914, the French arms manufacturer Schneider & Co. had
already sent out its chief designer, Eugne Brilli, to investigate tracked tractors from
the American Holt Company, at that time participating in a test programme in England.
This Schneider program was met with approval by the French War Ministry and was
merged with the Estienne plan, and a production order of 400 Schneider CA1, the first
French tank to see the battlefield, was made on 25 February 1916.[7]
~ 96 ~
These vehicles were designed by a French engineer M.Boirault. Mr.Boirault proposed
the Boirault Machine (prototype 1) in December 1914, to help combat the ever growing
nuisance of barbed wire and static warfare. His attempts developed into two of the
strangest vehicle designs of World War One.
Boirault Prototype 1
This vehicle was designed to be capable of crossing muddy trenches, and crushing the
dreaded miles of barbed wire. It consisted of six metal frames sliding on a pyramidal
structure. The driving compartment was situated in the middle, and was supported by
large girders. This was also where the petrol engine was located, it helped propel the
monster to a maximum of 3 kph. Propulson was achived by the motor turning chains
and driving rods, which were connected to the metal girders.
All in all, it was a very complicated vehicle. It was extremely ungainly, and very
difficult to steer. There was no form of turning the beast, except by the use of lifting
jacks. The crew would have to dismount, and use the jacks to help maneuver it into the
direction they needed to go. The Boirault Machine was extensively tested in February
1915 and again in November 1915. Initially, the Boirault Machine did what it was
~ 97 ~
designed to do, but due to it being extremely slow, and its vulnerable size, the project
was dropped.
Technical Data:
Frame Length: 4m
Base Length: 8m
Weight: 30tons
Power: 80hp
Speed: 3kph
Crew: 2
~ 98 ~
~ 99 ~
Boirault Prototype 2
~ 100 ~
This vehicle was designed after the French Military Commission started actively
searching for a tank design in late 1915. After the first project was dropped, Mr.
Boirault designed a smaller and more compact version of the Boirault Machine. This
vehicle was based on the Prototype 1, and was improved upon by armouring the
driving, and motor department, and installing a simple form of a steering control. It still
ran on six metal frames sliding on a core chassis. Speed was even slower than the first
vehicle, with a top speed of 1kph. It could navigate through rough terrain, crush barbed
wire, and pass across a 6ft wide trench. But due to its slow speed and 100m turning
radius, the design was stopped in its tracks. There were plans to fit machine guns to the
sides, where the doors were located, in the fashion of the rotating Schneider machine
guns.
Technical Data:
Speed: 1kph
Crew: 3 (estimated)
~ 101 ~
The Breton-Pretot Apparatus
In 1915, a French government engineer, J.L. Breton designed a barbed wire cutter of his
own design, and built with the help of the engineering Firm Pretot. This device became
known as the Breton-Pretot Apparatus.
The Breton-Pretot Apparatus consisted of a set of movable blades supported by a steel

disk wheel which was attached like a plough to the rear tow hook of the tractor.
~ 102 ~
Breton used a 5-ton Bajac petrol tractor modified to attach his apparatus for trials.
Type Armoured wire cutter
In service 1915 (experimental)
4 tonnes (+1 tonne for

Weight
armour)
Crew 3
gasoline internal combustion

Engine
engine
~ 103 ~
He also added a ton of ballast to the front of the Bajac to simulate the weight of the
armored body, to which Breton proposed if his idea proved practical. This was never
realized.
From July 22, 1915, until August 7, the modified Bajac tractor was tested by the French
Army testing commission. Due to its successful demonstrations, 10 models of the
Breton-Pretot Apparatus were ordered for further testing. It was proposed in September
1915, that the Breton-Pretot Apparatus could be mounted to a Renault Automitrailleuses
Model 1915 Armored Car. This was to be mounted in both forward and in reverse
positions. The machine gun and shield was removed, so the Breton-Pretot Apparatus
motor and driving mechanisms could be fitted. Tests proved mechanically difficult,
mounted to the rear of the Renault, as well as cross-country movement was none
existent. This idea was also dropped before a Breton-Pretot Apparatus could be fitted
and tested on the front of a Renault.
~ 104 ~
The American Jeffrey Quad tractor, which the French Army was using as artillery
tractors was also proposed. It was hoped that the four wheel drive, would prove better in
cross-country performance than the Bajac, which performed very poorly in its test. Due
to this reason, Bretons proposed armored version of the Bajac was dropped, before the
idea could get off the drawing board. Tests were carried out between August and
September with the Jeffery Quad tractor, which it performed exceptionally, except
during its cross trench test, which it failed drastically and had to be pulled out of the
trench by a Latil Tractor. An armored version of the Jeffery Quad was also proposed by
Breton, the proposed armored Jeffery Quad with only an armored cab, was never built
or tested.
The Breton-Prtot machine was an experimental wire-cutting device developed in

France from November 1914. It was developed by Mr. Prtot, engineer, and Jules-Louis
Breton, member of the French National Assembly.[1]
Background
enemy fire and could move on the extremely irregular terrain of battlefields. Barbed
wire especially posed a considerable threat as it was cheap and easy to install, extremely
~ 105 ~
effective at slowing or stopping an offensive by troops against protected fire, and very
difficult to eliminate, even with artillery. Special machines were considered to attempt
to eliminate this problem: armoured, armed vehicles, with a capacity to flatten or
otherwise eliminate barbed-wire lines.[2]
Wheel tractor base
The Breton-Prtot machine was a saw designed to cut the barbed wire protecting enemy
trenches of World War I. The first version consisted of a small circular saw, driven by a
six hp engine, attached to a long lever that was placed on a small cart with four wheels,
that had to be pushed towards its objective. Breton proposed the machine to the French
government in November 1914 and a prototype was tried in January 1915, when it was
shown that the system in this form had little practicality. The use of caterpillar tracks
was discussed that same month, but since none was available at that time, the system
was then mounted at Liancourt on the back of a Bajac tractor in an attempt to obtain all-
terrain mobility,[1] towards the end of February 1915. The small circular saw was
replaced by a large vertical saw with thirteen teeth, but a larger horizontal circular saw
was added, just above ground level to cut the barbed-wire poles. In July the system was
again changed, the horizontal saw being left out and large deflection shields being
placed to protect the wheels. Eight small bronze cannon were used as simulation
weights.[3]
After satisfactory tests on 22 July 1915, at Maison-Lafitte, the War Minister, Alexandre
Millerand, ordered ten armoured and armed wire-cutters to be manufactured on 7
August.[4]
Caterpillar base
~ 106 ~
The Bajac agricultural tractor however proved not mobile enough the initial
experiment had only tested the wire-cutting ability and had the severe disadvantage
of having to approach the enemy lines driving backwards. Breton and Prtot then
considered using some of the two hundred American four-wheel drive Jeffery tractors
that had been commanded by the French Artillery. When this was refused, Commandant
Boissin directed Breton to the Schneider company which was working on the caterpillar
track system, under a production licence from the American Holt Manufacturing
Company.[1] Experiments with the Holt caterpillar tracks had started in May 1915 at the
Schneider plant with a 75 hp wheel-directed model and the 45 hp integral caterpillar
Baby Holt, showing the superiority of the latter.[5] On 16 June, new experiments had
followed in front of the President of the Republic, and again on 22 July 1915 in front of
War Minister Alexandre Millerand, who decided on 7 August 1915 on the construction
of 10 armoured and armed Breton-Prtot machines. For his machine, Breton was thus
allowed to order ten Holt tractors, to use as a base for his wire-cutting machine,.[1]
Experiments again took place on 10 September for Commander Ferrus. This order was
modified on 7 December 1915 into an order to re-use the caterpillars to produce the first
Schneider CA1 tanks.
Souain experiment
The Souain experiment was a French military experiment using a Baby Holt
Caterpillar, in the former battlefield of Souain, in northeastern France, on 9 December
1915. The experiment has a decisive influence of the French tank program and initiated
the design and order of the two French operational tank, the Saint Chamond and
Schneider CA1. The experiment occurred the same month the British Little Willie was
being completed.
Background
enemy fire and could move on the extremely irregular terrain of battlefields. This led to
numerous attempts at designing an effective all-terrain armoured vehicle.[2]
Caterpillar experiments
In January 1915, the French arms manufacturer Schneider & Co. sent out its chief
designer, Eugne Brilli, to investigate tracked tractors from the American Holt
Company, at that time participating in a test programme in England, for a project of
mechanical wire-cutting machines of the Breton-Pretot type. On his return Brilli, who
had earlier been involved in designing armoured cars for Spain, convinced the company
management to initiate studies on the development of a Tracteur blind et arm
(armoured and armed tractor), based on the Baby Holt chassis, two of which were
ordered.
Experiments on the Holt caterpillar tracks started in May 1915 at the Schneider plant
with a 75 hp wheel-directed model and the 45 hp integral caterpillar Baby Holt,
showing the superiority of the latter.[3] On 16 June, new experiments followed in front
of the President of the French Republic, and on 10 September for Commander Ferrus,
~ 107 ~
an officer who had been involved in the study (and ultimate abandonment) of the
Levavasseur tank project in 1908.[4]
Souain experiment
Finally, a Baby Holt caterpillar was demonstrated at Souain on 9 December 1915, to the
French Army, with the participation of commandant Ferrus, lieutenant Charles Fouch,
General Philippe Ptain.[5][6]
Souain was a former battlefield with rough terrain and trenches, recently recaptured
from the Germans, and offered perfect conditions to test the qualities of the new tank
prototype.
The results of the Baby Holt caterpillar were excellent, displaying remarkable mobility
in the difficult terrain of Souain. The length of the Baby Holt however appeared to be
too short to bridge German trenches, justifying the development of longer caterpillar
tracks for the French tank project.[7] The Souain prototype could effectively bridge shell
holes and trenches up to 1 meter in width, with a maximum limit of 1.20 meters, but
required some support to bridge wider gaps, rendering it unsatisfactory as such.[8]
According to the official report "the machine can only cross trench lines if some basic
passageway across the trenches is prepared for it"[9]
Souain prototype consisting of an armoured Baby Holt being tested at Souain on 9

December 1915
Finally, on 9 December 1915 at Souain, on a former battlefield with rough terrain and
trenches, and in the presence of General Philippe Ptain, a prototype armoured vehicle
motorized with a Baby Holt caterpillar was tested, with provisions to attach Breton's
wire cutting apparatus to it.[4][6] Only later, in early 1916, would such a device be
actually attached during experiments.
~ 108 ~
These very encouraging tests prompted General Estienne to make a formal proposal on
12 December 1915 to build tanks based on a modified, lengthened, Holt caterpillar.[4]
The ten Holt tractors were thus finally diverted to the production of the first French
tanks of the Schneider CA1 model.[1] The tanks were not equipped with the Breton-
Prtot saw, as tests had shown that their tracks alone were sufficient to destroy barbed-
wire.
Because of the connection with the Breton-Prtot saw, Breton convinced himself he had
become the leading French expert on armoured vehicle design[7] and considered himself
to be the true inventor of the French tank. He felt rather piqued when Estienne took over
"his" project. This caused him to cooperate with a rival of Estienne, Colonel mile
Franois Lon Rimailho, in the development of an alternative tank, the Saint-Chamond.
In 1917 an Allied inter-parliamentary commission even concluded that Breton had a
better claim to the invention of the tank than the British. In the postwar controversy on
this subject Breton vociferously defended his position. Modern historians however,
agree that the claim is unfounded.[3]
~ 109 ~
Baby Holt Tank
Due to the French artillery considering the Jeffery Quad indispensable for towing
artillery, this idea was dropped after considerable development work. Since the French
Artillery was unwilling to divert some of the Jeffery Quads to the testing of the Breton-
Pretot Apparatus, the French army turned its thoughts and ideas to the use of crawler
tracks. In early 1915, Schneiders chief engineer Eugene Brilli met Mr. Schnerb, the
Holt representative, who showed him plans for both the 75 h.p. Holt and the smaller 45
h.p. Baby Holt. In May 1915, one each was purchased by Schneider for tests. The 75
h.p. and the 45 h.p. were demonstrated the following month to the artillery and technical
corps officers, in the hope that they would be adopted for moving artillery.
The Baby Holt impressed the officers more than the 75 h.p., so 15 were ordered from
America through Schneider. The Ministry of War decided since the Artillery insisted on
keeping the Jeffery Quad as an artillery tractor, they would convert 10 Baby Holts with
the Breton-Pretot Apparatus. The Baby Holts were to be delivered by February 1916,
~ 110 ~
meanwhile Schneider was asked to convert a Baby Holt into a "Tracteur arm et blind"
for trials.
On December 9, 1915, a Baby Holt, fitted with mock up armor (boiler plate) was
demonstrated on a cross country course at Sauain to a testing commission, composed of
artillery and machine-gun corps officers.
At this stage, the Breton-Pretot Apparatus was not fitted, but provisions for it to be
attached were provided. General Petain observed the demonstration at Sauain. In
actuality, this was Frances first tank effort, with tracks, but it was never considered
such.
A fully armored Baby Holt was planned, it was to carry two Hotchkiss machine guns,
one in the nose, and one in a rudimentary rotatable turret. This version was never built,
but designs were drawn up.
The testing commission concluded that the Baby Holt was "Mobile and Robust" , and
would most likely be useful as an armored machine gun carrier, but its cross country
ability was particularly poor because of the short tracks. Reservations were also put
~ 111 ~
forth, concerning the Baby Holts ability to maneuver under fire long enough to actually
use the Breton-Pretot Apparatus. Since these ideas failed, Estieene drew up a new Holt
design based on the 75 h.p. Holt tractor.
On December 12, 1915, Estienne had a meeting with Joffre where he laid out plans for a
vehicle, Estienne described as an Armored Holt , which was Estiennes answer to his
Landship ideas. This vehicle was to weigh 12 tons, be 4 meters long, 2.6 meters wide
and 1.6 meters high, and would be able to tow a 7 ton armored trailer to which would
carry 20 infantry. The vehicle would be armed with two machine guns and a 37mm
cannon. Provisions were made for the addition of the Breton-Pretot Apparatus.
This particular design was never actually built, but it grew into what we know as the
Schneider C. A. (Char dAssault).
As you know, the French tankostroitelnaya program developed in parallel with the
British, but it was a very tortuous path only in 1917 led to the creation of such
successful tanks as Renault FT-17 and FCM 1A. Until that time favorites were
bronetraktory various kinds, including the wheel type.
In general, the relation to the type of armored vehicles were tracked in France a kind.
Up until the end of the war they were treated solely as a "mobile gun emplacements",
the main task of which was to support the infantry. With bronetraktorami wheel, as you
would expect, nothing worthwhile in this regard failed, and in 1915 more attention was
paid to the firm Holt crawler tractor, supplied in large quantities to Europe. The new
program was named Tracteur blinde et arme.
The task of the developers obtained Generalnogoo Staff, was at that time not trivial - in
fact, they are required to build an armored self-propelled gun on the tractor chassis. In
this respect, the leading positions went firm Schneider & Co., whose leadership in
January 1915 sent to the UK chief designer Eugene Bril. He was to get acquainted with
the experience of the British construction of future tanks, as well as the detailed study of
Holt tractors of various models, including wheel. On his return Brealey, who already
had experience in construction of armored vehicles in Spain, focuses on the
recommended model Baby Holt . Despite this, the order was issued to test two tractors:
wheel with the engine capacity of 70 hp and a caterpillar with an engine capacity of 45
hp The victory went to Baby Holt, and on June 16th unarmored prototype mock-hulls
was shown to the President of the Republic Raymond Poincar. Because tests Baby
Holt was able without difficulty to overcome a narrow trench and pokaschal good
quality running program of construction of armored tracked vehicles immediately came
out as a priority. Soon it was ordered batch of 10 bronetraktorov equipped with armored
hull and turret. Armament of these machines was to consist of 2-3 Hotchkiss guns
caliber 8 mm (one in the tower and two in the front of the case). Next, Schneider
decided to combine the company's program to the project wheeled armored cutter
barbed wire Breton-Pretot, developed by the engineer Jules-Louis Breton. In foreign
sources stated that ten of the fifteen cars were equipped with special cutters, but in fact
it is impossible to check it out now. Most likely, meaning the wheel bronetraktory.
The next phase of testing was to demonstrate the prototype Baby Holt representatives of
the French army, which took place on December 9, 1915 at the site under Suen, where
more recent fierce fighting raged. From the point of view of observers, including the
~ 112 ~
present General Philippe Ptain and Colonel Jean-Baptiste Eugne Etten, the car proved
to be excellent. However, to overcome the German trenches needed to lengthen the
chassis. Thus, the project bronetraktora Baby Holt gradually grew into Schneider CA1
assault tank project. However, the fate of the prototype is not further disclosed.

Baby Holt Tank sample 1915
Combat weight ?
CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm -
WEAPONS three 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
aiming DEVICES -
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE Holt, Carburetor, 40 hp
(On one side) 5 of rollers, support rollers 3, the front guide

CHASSIS and a rear drive wheel, caterpillar krupnozvenchataya steel
shoe
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 113 ~
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Torpille Terrestre Remotely controlled subversive machine
Official designation: Torpille Terrestre

Alternative notation:
~ 114 ~
Few people know that in 1915, engineers Aubriot and Gabe, except construction
bronetraktorov dubious combat value, created another unique example of the combat
vehicle. It is a remote controlled wedges, which the creators call Torpille Terrestre (
"electric torpedo ground").
The idea of its creation was very simple. In light tracked chassis the minimum size is set
an explosive charge. Management was carried out by two electric wires fixed in the
stern of the hull. Machine weight was about 200 kg. It was assumed that the "torpedo"
will deliver the charge directly to the enemy trenches, or the outfield fences, destroying
them.
SPECIFICATIONS subversive CONTROLLED MACHINES

Torpille Terrestre sample 1915
CREW, pers. -
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS blasting charge
aiming DEVICES -
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE electric
mechanical type: 6-speed gearshift type

TRANSMISSION
"Cleaveland"
CHASSIS (On one side), two road wheels, front steering wheel
SPEED ?
~ 115 ~
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
control-by-wire
COMMUNICATION
Delaunay-Belleville Light tank
Official designation: Delaunay-Belleville

Start design: 1916
Lightweight Delaunay-Belleville firms tank, built in 1919, probably familiar to many

fans of armored vehicles of the 1st World War. This experimental machine was created
as a "counterweight" Renault FT-17, but in the end did not show before him
reschayuschih advantages. However, few people know that in 1916 the same firm
proposed a draft of another light tank, which served as the basis for the tractor chassis.
By itself, the choice of "tractor" base in 1916 was not something extraordinary - is
another matter that it represented the project. In our case, Delaunay-Belleville firm's
engineers have taken as a basis it is spent and widespread chassis "holtovskogo" type,
but in the modified form. With respect to each side of the tank chassis included 7 road
wheels, front steering and rear wheel drive, as well as krupnozvenchatuyu steel
caterpillar tracks. Road wheels soobiralis two carts: Front consisted of 3 rollers and
~ 116 ~
equipped with a spring-spring rear consisted of 4 rollers with two springs. The upper
branch of the caterpillars kept directing beams.
The body of the tank is somewhat like FT-17, and had a "classic" layout with a front
control otedeleniya and rear engine. It can be assumed that the transmission is also used
tractor. On the roof of the housing establishes a superstructure with a gun and a machine
gun. Based on the surviving circuits conclusion is that for each of the specified type
weapons existed a fire sector, and very limited.
From a modern point of view of the firm Delaunay-Belleville tank project from 1916 it
was entirely the chances of implementation, but apparently the choice has already been
made in favor of the FT-17. As subsequent events showed, that "Renault" with its
unusual chassis and tower with a circular rotation, was the most successful of the
French design and remained in service until the end of the 2nd World War.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Light Tank

Combat weight ?
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 5000
Width ~ 2000
Height mm ~ 1800
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one gun and one machine gun
aiming DEVICES optical sight (?)
housing forehead -
board housing -
food body -?
RESERVATIONS
Tower -
roof -
dgische -?
ENGINE Carburetor
~ 117 ~
on one side: a front steering and rear wheel drive, 7 road

CHASSIS wheels assembled in two carts yulokirovannoy stiffer
suspension, krupnozvenchataya caterpillar of 30 steel shoe
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Delaunay-Belleville Light tank
Official designation: Char Delaunay-Belleville

Stage of completion: the project is rejected due to lack of clear advantages over the FT-
17.
~ 118 ~
Along with the tank Peugeot, another French company - Delaunay-Belleville, presented
its project light tank. Previously, the company engaged in the production of cars,
including a half-track, which gave her some experience in this field. However, the
design of tanks Delaunay-Belleville engineers have up to this point is not involved and
therefore it was decided to borrow some design decisions (including housing
arrangement) by series FT-17.
Chassis was mnogokatkovoy, with the front runners and rear driving wheels. The upper
branch of the caterpillars supported by special guides. The crew consisted of two
persons - the driver and commander (also perform the gunner and loader functions).
From the FT-17 tank was distinguished by the presence of hydraulic transmission such
as Williams-Janney, which has been installed with a trial basis. Because of the increased
size of the engine compartment of the tank had to slightly lengthen the body and
increase its height. Armament on the prototype was to include two 8-mm machine gun,
but provided for the installation of a 37-mm tank gun.
Heigl The handbook, published in the mid-1930s., Pointed out that the original Tank
was designed as a wheel-track, but lost the final draft of the wheel for the sake of
simplification of the structure. In addition, it emphasized that the implementation of the
rotation mechanism of the tank was done so well that a driver can carry out without any
problems on the horizon pointing gun
In 1919, a prototype tank Delaunay-Belleville was built. Since its characteristics were at
the level of FT-17 to build two equivalent machines army refused.
SPECIFICATIONS Light Tank

Combat weight ?
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
~ 119 ~
Length mm 5002
Width 2120
Height mm 2540
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS two 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
aiming DEVICES optical sight (?)
board housing -
food body -?
RESERVATIONS
Tower -
roof -
dgische -?
ENGINE Carburetor
TRANSMISSION hydraulic, such as Williams-Janney
CHASSIS crawler type
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 120 ~
Frot-Laffly landship
The first experiments of tank in France gave rise to a lot of original projects, for the
most part did not find realization in the metal due to their shortcomings, or because of
excessive grandeur of conception. However, some development still reached the level of
prototypes and was quite close to a full-fledged fighting machine. One of them was a
project referred to as western sources as the Char Frot-Turnel-Laffly, although in fact
this car is more consistent bronetraktoru. As is known, in order to achieve early success,
you must have remarkable talent, and resources, or to take the path of least resistance.
That is the second way was chosen P.Frotom engineer, who in the early years of the war
was the person responsible for the technical part of Canal du Nord (North Channel).
Instead of developing a new chassis it is proposed to use the chassis of the road roller (!)
Laffly company, providing it with the body of 7-mm armor and weapons. The project
was supported by the military, who have agreed to build a prototype.
Bronetraktor Frot-Turnel-Laffly (although it would be more appropriate to call it

"armed bronekatok") was equipped with armored box-shaped body, the lower front
where the sheets have a large inner slope that was supposed to contribute to a better
field to overcome obstacles. Thus the body turned completely symmetrical, because of
what the 20-strong petrol engine was in its middle part. Branch Office has both front
and rear of the machine was able to freely leave the battlefield, if necessary. The rest of
the volume of housing occupied by fuel tanks, cooling systems, weapons and
ammunition.
According to the plan Frot his "tank" could well dispense with machine-gun armament,
since the main goal was the enemy's infantry. According to the draft one gun was placed
in front of the case and three in the rear. The crew fighting machine consisted of 9
people: the driver, commander, gunner and four three assistant gunners. When the
design weight of about 10 tons bronetraktor could reach a maximum speed of 3-5 km \
h.
~ 121 ~
The assembly of the first prototype bronetraktora Frot-Turnel-Laffly was completed at
the production facilities of the company Laffly in March 1915 Reservation for him
supplied by Corpet of g.Kurneve (Courneuve). The first driving tests have disappointed
the military - the car almost could not move over rough terrain and overcome even
small wire entanglements. In addition, bronetraktor proved too difficult to manage. All
this has led to the abandonment of the further development of the project Frot-Turnel-
Laffly, and the only example bronetraktora was soon dismantled.

CREW, pers. 9
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 7000
Width 2000
Height mm 2800
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS four 8-mm Hotchkiss gun in a housing
RESERVATIONS food body - 7mm
roof -
bottom -
wheel formula is 4x2: Four metal roller with a drive to
CHASSIS
the rear axle
SPEED 3-5 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
~ 122 ~
Top: Frot-Laffly tank, tested on 28 March 1915 in France.
Bottom: "Rouleau cuirass Paul Frot" in L'Illustration.
Type Light Tank
In service March 1915 (experimental)
Wars World War I
Designer Paul Frot
Designed December 1914
Manufacturer Laffly
Produced Early 1915
Number built 1
Weight 10 tonnes
Length 7.00 m
Width 2.00 m
~ 123 ~
Height 2.30 m
Crew 9
Armor 7 mm
Main 4 machine guns

armament
gasoline internal combustion

Engine engine
20 hp
Fuel capacity 30 liters
Operational one day operation

range
Speed 35 km/h
The Frot-Laffly landship, also Frot-Turmel-Laffly landship (French: Char Frot-

Turmel-Laffly, also Rouleau cuirass Paul Frot), was an early French experimental
armoured fighting vehicle, or landship, designed and built from December 1914 to
March 1915, preceding the design and development of the English Little Willie tank by
about nine months.
Background
for a powerful armed military engine that would be protected from enemy fire at the
same time, and could move on the extremely irregular terrain of battlefields.
As early as 24 August 1914, the French colonel Jean Baptiste Estienne articulated the
vision of a cross-country armoured vehicle:[1]
Victory in this war will belong to the belligerent who is the first to put a cannon on a
vehicle capable of moving on all kinds of terrain.
Colonel Jean Baptiste Estienne, 24 August 1914.[2]
Development
One of the first attempts was made in France on 1 December 1914, when Paul Frot, an
engineer in canal construction at the Compagnie Nationale du Nord, proposed to the
French War Ministry a design for a landship with armour and armament based on the
motorization of a Laffly road roller with heavy fluted wheels, that had been developed
from 1912 and had been used to compact canals:[3]
~ 124 ~
This rolling fortress, which only cannon could stop, would force our enemies to adopt
another tactic, and anyway would give us a marked momentary advantage.
Letter of Paul Frot to the French War Ministry, Les Sables d'Olonne, 1 December
1914.[4]
The tank used 7 mm armour and was motorized with a 20 hp gasoline internal
combustion engine, and was able to move both forward and backward, with two driver
positions, one at the front and the other at the back. It was to be equipped with machine
guns on raised platforms attached to the compactor chassis, at least one in front and
three in the back, of which two had to project from the sides for 360 degrees coverage.[5]
This armament was never actually fitted: the barbettes and row of gun ports visible in
the pictures are the result of retouching.[6] The retouched photographs seem to indicate
two cannon and six machine guns. Total length was 7 meters, width 2 meters, height 2.3
meters. It weighed a bit less than 10 tons. It could have been manned by a crew of nine:
one commander, two mechanics and six gunners. Speed varied between 3 and 5 km/h.[7]
The compactor base was built by the Laffly Company, at Boulogne sur Seine using a
modified Laffly Type LT, and the armour was made by Corpet Company, at La
Courneuve. The tank was tested on 28 March 1915 on the grounds of the Corpet &
Louvet factory, and effectively destroyed barbed wire lines and climbed a 25% slope,
but was deemed lacking mobility:[8]
The trials of this machine have demonstrated that it would not be possible to obtain
practically satisfying results from it.
Letter from Colonel Mourral, Chef de Section technique du Genie, to Paul Frot,
Paris, 10 April 1915.[9]
Aftermath
The project was actually abandoned in favour of General Estienne's concurrent project
of a tank using a tractor base, codenamed "Tracteur Estienne", which was being
developed at that time.[10]
A few months before, in January 1915, the French arms manufacturer Schneider & Co.
had already sent out its chief designer, Eugne Brilli, to investigate tracked tractors
from the American Holt Company, at that time participating in a test programme in
England. This Schneider program was met with approbation of the French War
Ministry, was merged with the Estienne plan, and a production order of 400 Schneider
CA1, the first French tank to see the battlefield, was made on 25 February 1916.
The prototype of the Frot-Laffly was sold to the United Kingdom, Paul Frot claiming in
a letter dated 8 January 1918 that it had influenced British tank design.[11]
~ 125 ~
Alternative notation: Char Frot-Turnel-Laffly
Date of construction of the first prototype: March 1915
Stage of completion: project closed in mind the futility and technical imperfection.
The first experiments of tank in France gave rise to a lot of original projects, for the
most part did not find realization in the metal due to their shortcomings, or because of
excessive grandeur of conception. However, some development still reached the level of
prototypes and was quite close to a full-fledged fighting machine. One of them was a
project referred to as western sources as the Char Frot-Turnel-Laffly, although in fact
this car is more consistent bronetraktoru. As is known, in order to achieve early success,
you must have remarkable talent, and resources, or to take the path of least resistance.
That is the second way was chosen P.Frotom engineer, who in the early years of the war
was the person responsible for the technical part of Canal du Nord (North Channel).
Instead of developing a new chassis it is proposed to use the chassis of the road roller (!)
Laffly company, providing it with the body of 7-mm armor and weapons. The project
was supported by the military, who have agreed to build a prototype.
Bronetraktor Frot-Turnel-Laffly (although it would be more appropriate to call it

"armed bronekatok") was equipped with armored box-shaped body, the lower front
where the sheets have a large inner slope that was supposed to contribute to a better
field to overcome obstacles. Thus the body turned completely symmetrical, because of
what the 20-strong petrol engine was in its middle part. Branch Office has both front
and rear of the machine was able to freely leave the battlefield, if necessary. The rest of
the volume of housing occupied by fuel tanks, cooling systems, weapons and
ammunition.
According to the plan Frot his "tank" could well dispense with machine-gun armament,
since the main goal was the enemy's infantry. According to the draft one gun was placed
in front of the case and three in the rear. The crew fighting machine consisted of 9
people: the driver, commander, gunner and four three assistant gunners. When the
design weight of about 10 tons bronetraktor could reach a maximum speed of 3-5 km \
h.
The assembly of the first prototype bronetraktora Frot-Turnel-Laffly was completed at

the production facilities of the company Laffly in March 1915 Reservation for him
supplied by Corpet of g.Kurneve (Courneuve). The first driving tests have disappointed
the military - the car almost could not move over rough terrain and overcome even
small wire entanglements. In addition, bronetraktor proved too difficult to manage. All
this has led to the abandonment of the further development of the project Frot-Turnel-
Laffly, and the only example bronetraktora was soon dismantled.
~ 126 ~
CREW, pers. 9
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 7000
Width 2000
Height mm 2800
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS four 8-mm Hotchkiss gun in a housing
RESERVATIONS food body - 7mm
roof -
bottom -
wheel formula is 4x2: Four metal roller with a drive to
CHASSIS
the rear axle
SPEED 3-5 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Renault FT
The Renault FT, frequently referred to in post-World War I literature as the "FT-17" or
"FT17", was a French light tank that was among the most revolutionary and influential
tank designs in history. The FT was the first production tank to have its armament
within a fully rotating turret.[note 1] The Renault FT's configuration crew compartment
at the front, engine compartment at the back, and main armament in a revolving turret
became and remains the standard tank layout. As such, historians of armoured warfare
have called the Renault FT the world's first modern tank.[2]
Over 3,000 Renault FT tanks were manufactured by French industry, most of them
during the year 1918. Another 950 of an almost identical licensed copy of the FT (the
M1917) were made in the United States, but not in time to enter combat.
Development
~ 127 ~
The FT was designed and produced by the Socit des Automobiles Renault (Renault
Automobile Company), one of France's major manufacturers of motor vehicles then and
now.
It is thought possible that Louis Renault began working on the idea as early as 21
December 1915, after a visit from Colonel J.B.E. Estienne.[3][4] Estienne had drawn up
plans for a tracked armoured vehicle based on the Holt caterpillar tractor, and, with
permission from General Joffre, approached Renault as a possible manufacturer.
Renault declined, saying that his company was operating at full capacity producing war
materiel and that he had no experience of tracked vehicles. Estienne took his plans to
the Schneider company, where they became France's first operational tank, the
Schneider CA.
At a later, chance meeting with Renault on 16 July 1916, Estienne asked him to
reconsider, which he did. The speed with which the project then progressed to the
mock-up stage has led to the theory that Renault had been working on the idea for some
time.
Louis Renault himself conceived the new tank's overall design and set its basic
specifications. He imposed a realistic limit to the FT's projected weight, which could not
exceed 7 tons. Louis Renault was unconvinced that a sufficient power-to-weight ratio
could be achieved with the production engines available at the time to give sufficient
mobility to the heavy tank types requested by the military.[5] Renault's most talented
industrial designer, Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier, generated the FT's detailed execution
plans. Charles-Edmond Serre, a long time associate of Louis Renault, organized and
supervised the new tank's mass production. The FT's tracks were kept automatically
under tension to prevent derailments, while a rounded tail piece facilitated the crossing
of trenches. Because the engine had been designed to function normally under any slant,
very steep slopes could be negotiated by the Renault FT without loss of power.
Effective internal ventilation was provided by the engine's radiator fan, which drew its
air through the front crew compartment of the tank and forced it out through the rear
engine's compartment.
Renault's design was technically far more advanced than the other two French tanks at
the time, namely the Schneider CA1 (1916) and the heavy Saint-Chamond (1917).
Nevertheless, Renault encountered some early difficulties in getting his proposal fully
supported by the head of the French tank arm, Colonel (later General) Jean Baptiste
Eugne Estienne. After the first British use of heavy tanks on 15 September 1916 during
the Battle of the Somme, the French military still pondered whether a large number of
light tanks would be preferable to a smaller number of superheavy tanks (the later Char
2C). However, on 27 November 1916, Estienne had sent to the French Commander in
Chief a personal memorandum proposing the immediate adoption and mass
manufacture of a light tank based on the specifications of the Renault prototype. After
receiving two large government orders for the FT tank, one in April 1917 and the other
in June 1917, Renault was at last able to proceed. However, his design remained in
competition with the superheavy Char 2C until the end of the war.
Crew locations shown with panels open
~ 128 ~
The prototype was refined during the second half of 1917, but the Renault FT remained
plagued by radiator fan belt problems throughout the war. Only 84 were produced in
1917, but 2,697 were delivered to the French army before the Armistice.
Manufacturers
About half of all FTs were manufactured in Renault's factory at Boulogne-Billancourt

near Paris, with the remainder subcontracted to other concerns. Of the original order for
3,530, Renault accounted for 1,850 (52 per cent), Berliet 800 (23 per cent), SOMUA (a
subsidiary of Schneider & Cie) 600 (17 per cent), and Delaunay-Belleville 280 (8 per
cent). When the order was increased to 7,820 in 1918, production was distributed in
roughly the same proportion. Louis Renault agreed to waive royalties for all French
manufacturers of the FT.
Attempts to manufacture in U.S.
When the U.S. entered the war in April 1917, its army was short of heavy materiel, and
had no tanks at all. Because of the wartime demands on French industry, it was decided
that the quickest way to supply the American forces with sufficient armour was to
manufacture the FT in the U.S. A requirement of 4,400 of a modified version, the
M1917, was decided on, with delivery expected to begin in April, 1918. By June 1918,
U.S. manufacturers had failed to produce any, and delivery dates were put back until
September. France therefore agreed to lend 144 FTs, enough to equip two battalions. No
M1917s reached the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) until the war was over.
Turret
The first turret designed for the FT was a circular, cast steel version almost identical to
that of the prototype. It was designed to carry a Hotchkiss 8mm machine gun. In April
1917 Estienne decided for tactical reasons that some vehicles should be capable of
carrying a small cannon. The 37mm Puteaux gun was chosen, and attempts were made
to produce a cast steel turret capable of accommodating it, but they were unsuccessful.
The first 150 FTs were for training only, and made of non-hardened steel plus the first
model of turret. Meanwhile, the Berliet Company had produced a new design, a
polygonal turret of riveted plate, which was simpler to produce than the early cast steel
turret. It was given the name "omnibus", since it could easily be adapted to mount either
the Hotchkiss machine gun or the Puteaux 37mm with its telescopic sight. This turret
was fitted to production models in large numbers. In 1918 Forges et aciries Paul Girod
produced a successful circular turret which was mostly cast with some rolled parts. The
Girod turret was also an "omnibus" design. Girod supplied it to all the companies
producing the FT, and in the later stages of the war it became more commonplace than
the Berliet turret.[6] The turret sat on a circular ball-bearing race, and could easily be
rotated by the gunner/commander or be locked in position with a handbrake.
Service history
The Renault FT was widely used by French forces in 1918 and by the American
Expeditionary Force (AEF) on the Western Front in the later stages of World War I.
~ 129 ~
The battlefield debut of the Renault FT occurred on 31 May 1918 east of the Forest of
Retz, east of Chaudun, between Ploisy and Chazelles, during the Second Battle of the
Marne. This engagement, with 30 FTs, successfully broke up a German advance, but in
the absence of infantry support, the vehicles later withdrew. From then on, gradually
increasing numbers of FTs were deployed, together with smaller numbers of the older
Schneider CA1 and Saint-Chamond tanks. As the war had become a war of movement
during the summer of 1918, during the Hundred Days Offensive, the lighter FTs were
often transported on heavy trucks and special trailers rather than by rail on flat cars.
Estienne had initially proposed to overwhelm the enemy defences using a "swarm" of
light tanks, a tactic that was eventually successfully implemented. Beginning in late
1917, the Entente allies were attempting to outproduce the Central Powers in all
respects, including artillery, tanks, and chemical weapons. Consequently a goal was set
of manufacturing 12,260 Renault FT tanks (including 4,440 of the American version)
before the end of 1919.
After the end of World War I, Renault FTs were exported to many countries (Belgium,
Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland, Iran, Japan, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland,
Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and Yugoslavia). Renault FT tanks were used by
most nations having armoured forces, generally as their prominent tank type. The tanks
were used in many later conflicts, such as the Russian Civil War, Polish-Soviet War,
Chinese Civil War, Rif War, Spanish Civil War, and Estonian War of Independence. On
5 February 1920 Estonia purchased nine vehicles from France.[7]
Renault FT tanks were also fielded in limited numbers during World War II, in Poland,
Finland, France, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, although they were already obsolete.
In 1940, the French Army still had eight battalions, each equipped with 63 FTs, as well
as three independent companies, each with 10, for a total organic strength of 534, all
equipped with machine guns. These were put to use after most of the modern equipment
was lost in earlier battles.
Many smaller units assembled after the start of World War II also used the Renault FT.
This usage gave rise to the popular myth that the French had no modern equipment at
all; in fact, they had more modern tanks than the Germans.[8] The French suffered from
tactical and strategic weaknesses rather than from equipment deficiencies. When the
best French units were cut off by the German drive to the English Channel, the
complete French materiel reserve was sent to the front as an expediency measure; this
included 575 FTs. Earlier, 115 sections of FTs had been formed for airbase defence.
The Wehrmacht captured 1,704 FTs. They used about 100 for airfield defence and about
650 for patrolling occupied Europe.
Some were used by the Germans in 1944 for street-fighting in Paris, but by this time
they were hopelessly out of date. Vichy France used Renault FTs against Allied
invasion forces during Operation Torch in Morocco and Algeria. The French tanks,
however, were no match for the newly arrived American M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart
tanks.[9]
The FT was the ancestor of a long line of French tanks: the FT Kgresse, the NC1, the
NC2, the Char D1, and the Char D2. The Italians produced the FIAT 3000, a
moderately close copy of the FT, as their standard tank.
~ 130 ~
The Soviet Red Army captured 14 burnt-out Renaults from White Russian forces and
rebuilt them at the Krasnoye Sormovo Factory in 1920. Nearly 15 exact copies, called
"Russki Renoe", were produced in 19201922, but they never used in battle because of
many technical problems. In 19281931, the first completely Soviet-designed tank was
the T-18, a derivative of the Renault with sprung suspension.
In all, the Renault FT was used by Afghanistan, Belgium, Brazil, the Republic of China,
Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland, France, Nazi Germany, Iran, Japan, Lithuania, the
Netherlands, Philippine Commonwealth, Poland, Romania, the Russian White
movement, the Soviet Union, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United
Kingdom, the United States and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Nomenclature
Much confusion surrounds the name of this tank.
It is sometimes stated that the letters FT stand for the French terms faible tonnage (low
tonnage), faible taille (small size), franchisseur de tranches (trench crosser), or force
terrestre (land force). None is correct. Nor was it named the FT 17 or FT-17; nor was
there an FT18.
All new Renault projects were given a two-letter product code for internal use, and the
next one available was 'FT'.
The prototype was at first referred to as the automitrailleuse chenilles Renault FT

modle 1917. Automitrailleuse chenilles means "armoured car [lit: motorized machine
gun] with tracks." By this stage of the War, automitrailleuse was the standard word for
an armoured car, but by the time the FT was designed there were two other types of
French tank in existence and the term char d'assaut (from the French char - a cart or
wagon, and assaut; attack or assault), soon shortened to char, had at the insistence of
Colonel Estienne, already been adopted by the French and was in common use. Once
orders for the vehicle had been secured it was the practice at Renault to refer to it as the
"FT". The vehicle was originally intended to carry a machine-gun, and was therefore
described as a char mitrailleur - mitrailleur (from mitraille; grapeshot) had by this time
come to mean "machine-gunner".
Many sources, predominantly English language accounts, refer to the FT as the "FT 17"
or "FT-17." This term is not contemporary, and appears to have arisen post World War
One. In Estienne's biography,[10] his granddaughter states, "It is also referred to as the
FT 17: the number 17 was added after the war in history books, since it was always
referred to at Renault as the FT." Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Malmassari (French tank
officer and Doctor of History) states, "The Renault tank never carried the name FT 17
during the First World War, although the initials F.T. seem to appear in August
1917."[11] Some confusion might also have been caused by the fact that the American
version of the vehicle, produced in the USA under licence from Renault, was designated
the M1917.
When it was decided to equip the FTs with either cannon or machine-guns, the cannon
version was designated char canon (cannon tank) and the latter, in accordance with
French grammar, renamed char mitrailleuse (machine-gun tank).
~ 131 ~
It is frequently claimed that some of these tanks were designated FT 18. Reasons given
for the claim include: it distinguished tanks produced in 1918 from those of 1917; it was
applied to FTs armed with cannon as opposed to those with machine-guns; it
distinguished FTs with a cast, rounded turret from those with a hexagonal one; it
referred to the 18 horsepower engine; it indicated a version to which various
modifications had been made.
However, Renault records make no distinction between 1917 and 1918 output; the
decision to arm FTs with a 37mm gun was made in April 1917, before any tanks had
been manufactured; because of various production difficulties and design requirements,
a range of turret types were produced by several manufacturers, but they were all fitted
to the basic FT body without any distinguishing reference; all FTs had the same model
18 hp engine. The Renault manual of April 1918 is entitled RENAULT CHAR
D'ASSAUT 18 HP, and the illustrations are of the machine-gun version. The official
designation was not changed until the 1930s, when the FT was fitted with a Model 1931
machine-gun and renamed the FT31. By this time, the French Army was equipped with
several other Renault models and it had become necessary to distinguish between the
various types.[12][13][14][15][16]
Variants
Char canon: an FT with a 37 mm Puteaux SA18 short-barreled gun about 3/5

of tanks ordered, about 1/3 of tanks actually produced
Char mitrailleuse: an FT with an 8 mm Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun about
2/5 of tanks ordered, about 3/5 of tanks produced
FT 75 BS: a self propelled gun with a short barreled Blockhaus Schneider 75mm
gun at least 39 tanks were produced
Char signal or TSF: a command tank with a radio. "TSF" stands for tlgraphie
sans fil ("wireless"). No armament, three-men crew, 300 ordered, at least 188
produced
FT modifi 31: upgraded tanks with 7.5 mm Reibel machine gun. This
modification started in 1931 on the 1580 chars mitrailleurs still in French
stocks; all the metropolitan guntanks were (at least officially) scrapped to build
utility vehicles on their chassis and the guns used to equip the R 35. This version
was sometimes referred to as the "FT 31", though this was not the official name.
FT-Ko: Thirteen modified units imported by the Imperial Japanese Army in
1919, armed with either the 37 mm Puteaux SA18 cannon or machine guns;
used in combat in the Manchurian Incident and subsequently for training[17]
M1917 US-built copy. 950 built, 374 of which were gun tanks and fifty of
which were radio tanks. During World War II the Canadian Army purchased
236 redundant M1917s for training purposes.
Russkiy Reno: the "Russian Renault", the first Soviet tank, produced at
Krasnoye Sormovo. A close copy. 17 units were produced. Also known as
"Tank M".
Renault FT CWS: the Renault FT CWS or Zelazny ("mild steel") tanks were
built in Poland for use as training vehicles only (Polish combat tanks were
French manufactured). These tanks used spare French engines and components.
The hulls and turrets were manufactured to French specifications in all other
respects. Around 27 CWS FT tanks were built. CWS is the abbreviation for
~ 132 ~
Centralne Warsztaty Samochodowe (translated as "Central Workshops for Motor
vehicles" or "Central Truck Workshop"), a plant in Warsaw which performed
maintenance and depot level repair.[18][19]
Renault M26/27: a development of the FT with a different suspension and
Kgresse rubber tracks; a number were used in Yugoslavia and five in
Poland.[20]
FIAT 3000 an Italian derivation.
T-18 A Soviet derivation from FIAT 3000 with sprung suspension.
Polish gas tank A Polish modification built in the Wojskowy Instytut Gazowy
("Military Gas Institute") and tested on the Rembertw proving ground on 5 July
1926. Instead of a turret, the tank had twin gas cylinders. It was designed to
create smoke screens, but could also be used for chemical attacks. Only one was
produced.
Renault FT AC: A plan to convert France's obsolete FTs in to Tank Destroyers.
The tank never left the drawing board. It was designed to have a Canon de
25mm Anti-Tank gun.
Type Light tank
In service 19171949
Afghanistan
Belgium
Brazil
Republic of China
Commonwealth of the
Philippines
Czechoslovakia
Estonia
Finland
France
Nazi Germany
Iran
Japan
Used by Kingdom of Italy
Lithuania
Manchukuo
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Russian White
movement
Soviet Union
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
~ 133 ~
United States
Kingdom of
Yugoslavia
World War I*
Russian Civil War*
Polish-Soviet War*
Chinese Civil War*
Spanish Civil War*
World War II*
Franco-Thai War*
Wars Turkish War of
Independence (by
France)* 1948 Arab
Israeli War (by
Egypt)[citation needed]*
Winter War (by
Finland)[1]
Designed 1916
Char canon
Char mitrailleuse
FT 75 BS
Variants Char signal
FT modifi 31
U.S. M1917
Russkiy Reno
6.5 tonnes (6.4 long tons; 7.2

Weight
short tons)
Length 5.00 m (16 ft 5 in)
Width 1.74 m (5 ft 9 in)
Height 2.14 m (7 ft 0 in)
Crew 2 (commander, driver)
Armor 8 to 22 mm (0.31 to 0.87 in)
Puteaux SA 1918 37 mm gun

Main or 8 mm Hotchkiss machine
armament
gun
Engine Renault 4-cyl, 4.5 litre,

thermo-siphon water-cooled;
~ 134 ~
Gasoline (petrol) pump;
Engine oil pump; Zenith
preset carburettor; Magneto
ignition
Power/weight 5 hp/tonne
sliding gear; four speeds

reverse, one forward. One
main clutch plus two
Transmission
subsidiary clutches (one for
each of the two tracks) used
for steering the tank.
Suspension vertical springs
Fuel capacity 95 litres (about 8 hours)

range
France (1917) Light tank around 4500 built
~ 135 ~
The worlds first modern tank
Tank development went on at the same pace in Great Britain and in France in 1915.
When Little Willie had already passed all its tests, so had the French Schneider CA-1.
This machine was first suggested and conceived by Eugene Brill, chief engineer of
Schneider on the Holt tractor chassis and designed by Col. Estienne, the French father
of the tanks, between May and September 1915. It had to overcome many problems
and was first engaged en masse during General Nivelles offensive of April 1917 at
Berry au Bac. It performed poorly, lacking speed, good maintenance, protection, trench
crossing ability and was also very cramped. This painful experience made Estienne and
other tank enthusiasts in France to think differently, both tactically and technically, and
this ultimately led to the development of the Renault FT, a pioneering vehicle whose
basic features are still found on modern MBTs.
The idea and concept
FT was a factory code. It never got a name. FT has no meaning but was the next
identification letters available for this project in Renault nomenclature. The next project
would be FU and the next FV etc(some authors suggested later Faible Tonnage
low tonnage or Franchisseur de Tranches trench crosser). The Renault FT was
also called FT 17 although this specific naming was never acknowledged by Renault
or any official working on the project. It was to be related to the year 1917, like
modele 1917 as it was customary for many French weapons of the time, but this was
introduced after the war.
~ 136 ~
It began as a concept, and became a personal project of Louis Renault, the famous car
maker. He sought the ideal weight-to-ratio proportion for a more agile and faster tank
than the Schneider CA-1 and the heavy Saint Chamond, and also a cheaper and easier
model to produce.
All started after a meeting between Colonel Estienne and him at the Hotel Claridge in
Paris. Until then, Louis Renault declined any involvement into tank production,
claiming his lack of experience with tracked vehicles and other commitments. However,
as an engineer he was taken up by the challenge, and after the meeting, started a
practical study for a light vehicle, easy to manufacture with a reduced, unskilled
workforce (factories had been depleted then by mass drafts and enlisting).
The core idea came from Estienne himself. Instead of cumbersome armored boxes, he
imagined an immense fleet of cheap bees, five or six light tanks for the price of a
single St Chamond. Small, fast and narrow, they could, by their sheer number,
overwhelm the enemy defense -hence the swarm of light tank concept. Knowing the
administrative and industrial roadblocks before him, he approached one of the most
prominent French industrialists of the time.
~ 137 ~
He also imagined a tank with a power-to-weight ratio good enough to overcome
trenches and shell craters, and a fully rotating turret to take full advantage of a single
weapon, either a gun or machine-gun. The fully rotating turret was not new. It was used
operationally since 1915 on many French armored-cars, Renault, Peugeot and White,
and by countless others around the world. The 1905 Charron armored car already used
fully revolving turrets.
Development history
The light tank concept was not one that felt natural to military strategists, despite the
fact that it was easier to produce en masse. This was the gamble of Louis Renault,
~ 138 ~
whom, with the unwavering support of Col. Estienne, directly called for the acceptance
of his ideas from the commander in chief, Joffre, but he was then rebuffed by the
minister of the armaments and production, Albert Thomas.
The latter only agreed for a single prototype. More so, when production got approved in
December 1916, confirmed again in February 1917, the order was postponed due to
priority being given to artillery tractors instead.
It was officially accepted in May 1917, when Ptain replaced Nivelle, but, still, the
reluctant director of Motor Services, general Mourret, was not replaced before
September by Louis Loucheur, who finally gave the green light. In the meantime, the
prototype delivered in January 1917 performed first trials at Renaults Billancourt
factory, before being sent to the Artillerie spciale proving grounds at Champlieu for
corrections.
Although performing according to plans, it was later met with skepticism by the
commission officers present at Marly on 22 April. Some asked for better ventilation, a
wider turret and hull, or to raise the ammunition capacity to a staggering 10,000
cartridges! Still, the project had the enthusiastic support of the Consultative Committee
of the assault artillery, and General Ptains arrival on the scene seemed to unlock the
situation.
He was sold on Estiennes ideas, but for different reasons: He saw these as a morale-
booster for simple soldiers. Helater ordered that all the trucks carrying these tanks to the
frontline had this mention written in large characters on their back plate: Le meilleur
ami de linfanterie (infantrys best friend).
~ 139 ~
Design
The Renault FT prototype included a rotating turret, a concept already tested with the
Little Willie, a rear engine configuration, a front driver, with the turret operator (and
commander) right behind. Compared to the short and narrow hull, the modified Holt
chassis was big enough to allow sufficient grip on any ground.
To manage large trench crossings a rear tail was mounted, which facilitates balance and
hanging. Instead of mobile fortresses or land cruisers, the Renaut FT seemed lightly
armed, but the turret made it versatile and efficient in most circumstances.
Renaults talented engineer Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier designed a narrow riveted box

(slightly more than an average shoulders width), with flat sides, pointed noise and
sloped rear. All available internal space was used, with almost no room to spare. The
engine was located at the rear, and separated from the fighting compartment by a
firewall. The driver sat on the front, his feet acting on the brake and release clutch
pedals between the large pair of idler wheels.
The commander stood just behind him. At first the standing position was only meant for
short-term offensive, but with time, a leather strap was fixed on both sides, as an
improvised sitting. However, the commander still had to stand up to use his narrow
cupola.
The crew accessed the tank through the front, through a two-doors hatch, and
collapsible upper vision armored panel. The commander could exit from the rear turret
hatch, a feature which became mainstream on French tanks. The driver had three vision
slits, one on the collapsible panel, two on the sides.
~ 140 ~
The Renault 4-cylinder air-cooled petrol engine was started either by a rear crank or an
internal one. It was handily reachable from above, protected by a large hood. The petrol
tank was installed after the turret and before the engine, high for gravity and well-
protected except from above.
A steel chain was usually suspended on the rear tail in order to be used for towing
another vehicle. Large metal boxes were suspended on the flanks, with shovels, picks,
spanner and other tools, as well as sometimes additional fuel tanks and spare track links.
There was no means of communication between the turret operator and driver and the
interior was almost deafeningly noisy, so a kind of kicking code in the back,
shoulders or even head of the driver was used to transmit steering orders. These were
armed with a Puteaux SA 18 37 mm (1.45 in) short-barreled, low-velocity gun, or a
coaxial Hotchkiss 7.92 mm (0.31 in) machine gun.
Production (1917-18)
The prototype was examined by a commission, but almost cancelled in favor of the new
Char 2C heavy tank, which never made its appearance before the armistice. After a few
mass-production modifications on the prototype, the first wave was ordered in
December 1916 for deliveries in February 1917, but amended, then suspended, and was
still in jeopardy in May, despite the arrival of Ptain.
It was not until September 12 that the new armament minister Louis Loucheur took
Thomass office, and the project was definitely approved. Under Charles-Edmond
Serres supervision, the first 84 machines were delivered prior to the end of 1917, and
2697 more until November 1918. This was, by far, the largest tank production by any
country at that time, but caused problems to Renault which was still not ready to fulfill
such orders and convinced other firms to share the lot, like Berliet at Lyon, and
(Schneider) Somua and Delaunay Belleville.
~ 141 ~
It was proposed as a licence to foreign countries as well, and the US industry was first
in line, the federal government receiving a single tank and complete plans for 1200
more, both to cover the needs of the French and US Army.
Renault produced two variants of the FT, the female, or machine-gun model, which
was more common, and the male, armed with a short-barreled 37 mm (1.45 in)
Puteaux SA 18 gun. Those models also differed by their definitive Omnibus turret,
multi-faceted (standard) or rounded with bent metal plates, also known as the Girod
turret first introduced by Berliet (hence the Berliet turret).
By December 1917 3100 FTs were to be produced with the Omnibus turret, in both
types, as well as 700 derived BS versions (fitted with a short 75 mm howitzer) and 200
TSF, radio versions. In January 1918, the order was again shifted for 1000 female,
1850 male, 970 BS (howitzer versions) and 200 TSF. In October the total order has
reached a staggering 7820 machines. In November the armistice came and the order was
cancelled, 1850 had been delivered so far by Renault, 800 by Berliet, 600 by Somua,
and 280 by Delaunay-Belleville. The largest turret manufacturer was Paul Girod
Aciries at Ugine, which casted, assembled and forged round and octagonal models.
Problems were experienced with the armor plates. Many came at the time from Britain,
which caused delays due to local priorities. The supply of the new 37 mm Puteaux gun,
specially redesigned from a light artillery gun, was also slow to reach full production.
Despite the considerable delays (almost a year) before an effective production started,
the first batch was still plagued with defects.
About one third of the initial order had to be shipped back to the manufacturer for
corrections. There was also a continuous lack of spare parts, which hampered the units
~ 142 ~
operational capabilities and limited maintenance in the field. The poor quality of the
fuel filters in particular, and the highly sensitive fan belts caused considerable turmoil
and up to ten per cent of active vehicles were unfit for service in 1918 because of this,
waiting for replacement parts.
In 1919 a new redesigned version was proposed by Renault, including a more powerful
engine, a long-barreled Puteaux gun and additional cases fitted in their tracks. It was
successfully exported throughout the world. Some of them were immediately put into
action, like the Finnish and Polish versions against the Soviets.
War operations of the FT
The small FT was an undeniable success, despite some flaws of the first series,
including the radiator fan belt and cooling system problems. Large number of FTs were
provided to most Western front units by mid-1918, and they were involved in all major
offensives (4356 engagements and 746 lost in action), successfully crossing no mans
land and cleaning trenches as designed, but also forests.
The first operational unit using FTs was the 1st BCL (Batallion de Chars Lgers), on 18
February 1918. But only at the end March did this unit receive its full tank complement,
although still unarmed. Each battalion counted three companies, with a full strength of
75 vehicles. The majority were MG-armed (41), with 30 gun-armed and up to four TSF,
with 3 vehicles in reserve.
Although it was smaller and less impressive than previous tanks, the FT was
nevertheless successful, as Estienne had predicted, because so many reached the enemy
lines at the same time, overwhelming the German defenses. It was also a tricky target
due to its narrow section and small height. It gave confidence to the regular soldiers
whom advanced behind it, avoiding most of the punishing machine-gun fire.
~ 143 ~
First engagement occurred in May, 1918 at Foret de Retz, near Soissons. Tactics also
involved a combination of gun-equipped male tanks to strike machine gun nests and
pillboxes, and females, equipped with a 7.92 mm (0.32 in) Hotchkiss machine gun to
finish the job. There, the rotating turret made all the difference. As the production rose
and the tactics were refined and codified, a swarm of light tanks was intended to be
thrown towards the German lines in the greatest Allied offensive planned for January-
February 1919. Of course the armistice put an end to this plan, including a grand total of
12,260 tanks to be built in France, USA, Italy and Great Britain.
The American FT
Soon after the US joined the war, it was considered suitable to equip the newly formed
units with provisional French FT tanks. Since the French general staff needed a huge
production, US manufacturers were approached. Built under licence and with a revised
design, this was later called 6 tons tank M1917 for model 1917.
In fact, an estimated 514 FTs were delivered and 950 M1917 were built under licence
(accepted in October 1918), but none were put to action before the end of the war. Later
on, in mid-1919, a revised version was produced, the lengthened M1917A1, with minor
alterations and a new, more powerful 100 hp (74.6 kW) Franklin petrol engine and an
electric starter. Production was assumed by Van Dorn Iron Works, the Maxwell Motor
Company, and the C.L. Best Tractor Company. The M1917 formed the basis of the
future US Army corp of the early twenties.
A world success
If the United States, which were involved in the war, logically received many FT 17s,
other countries also did. The Italians, for example, received 3 which were later copied
and modified to produce the FIAT 3000. 24 were also used by the British, for testing.
The French alone accepted in active duty during and after the war no less than 3177
machines, which made the French army, by far, the dominant tank force in the world at
the time, and remained so nearly twenty years after.
~ 144 ~
Exports, well served by Renaults knowledge of the international market, reached
Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia,
Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Japan.
These tanks remained in first line many years in these countries, to the point that two
Afghan FT17s were found in relative good condition during Operation Enduring
Freedom! Actually the US still has many M1917s as museum pieces, but none of the
original French FT. The only one, previously owned by the Patton Museum of Cavalry
and Armor, was turned to the French government at a French request.
Variants
In fact the gun armed variant was sometimes incorrectly dubbed FT 18. Among variants
were 188 radio carrying vehicles (Renault TSF), about 40 FT 75 BS, armed with a
punishing 75 mm (2.95 in) howitzer to deal with concrete pillboxes, the 13 Japanese
modified FT-Ko, the 27 FT CWS built in Poland with French spare parts (also one gas
firing model) and about 1580 FT 31, upgraded models with the new Reibel 7.5 mm (0.3
in) machine gun.
These were still in use in regional units in September 1939, and many of them were
posted outside the metropolis. The Russkyi Reno remains unique, but a modified
version with a new sprung suspension was built in large numbers during the early
twenties. During the interwar period, these Renault FT fought in many events, like the
Russian Civil War, the Polish-Soviet War, the Manchurian War, the Chinese
Revolution, the Rif War (in Morocco), the Spanish Civil War and the Estonian war.
Other French variants include anti-tank gun FTs, which would have been armed with a
25 mm (0.98 in) or a 40 mm (1.57 in) gun. Some 2,000 FTs, then in service and in
reserve, were planned for conversion. An FT with an experimental short-pitch track was
designed in an attempt to increase speed, but the Kegresse system was preferred.
Several SPGs were considered, the 75 Chenilles and 105 L Chenilles, which featured
the gun aimed at the rear of the vehicle. The STAV Chenilles and STA 75 Chenilles
also competed for the SPG requirement. A Renault FT Ammunition Carrier was
planned to aid these SPGs.
~ 145 ~
The FT 75 BS Poseur de Pont was planned to mount a bridge for other FTs to cross, but
it was cancelled. A handful of Renault FTs were planned to mount a mast with two
floodlights, planned to aid with lighting the trenches and policing duties. FTs were also
planned to mount fascines, a snowblower, a bulldozer, and a crane. The Renault FT
featured the first ever mine plow, but it was never mass produced.
Some FTs were planned to be converted to agricultural tractors, but several problems
cancelled the project. An odd plan was the FT Poseur de Masque, which carried a 2-ton
concrete block that was intended to obscure machine-gun slits on the Siegfried Line.
~ 146 ~
Camouflage
After some successful experiments with field artillery, French tanks were painted in
sophisticated patterns comprising between three and seven different colors, sometimes
separated by black strips, known as tiger pattern. There were not intended to blend the
vehicle into the background but to disrupt the shapes for enemy observers. Professional
artists, led by Guirand de Scevola, a cubist academic painter, were committed to study
visual disruption and apply often complicated patterns, later summarized as the
dazzle. But with the growing production, these patterns were simplified to be applied
by unskilled workers right at the factory.
Interwar & World War Two
FT 17s after the war were in service with more than 20 countries around the world and
took an active part in many military conflicts on different continents. It has become one
of the most popular interwar model, and purchased by Finland, Estonia, Lithuania,
Yugoslavia, Belgium, while Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Greece and
Sweden tested it. The biggest buyer outside Europe was Brazil. The FT influence
worldwide could not be underestimated: They were the very first US, Soviet and
Italians tanks, generating close-copies and printing a profound mark on later
developments.
~ 147 ~
There were still thousands of FTs in various conditions around the globe when the
Second World War broke out. The bulk of this WWI vintage fleet was in France, mostly
because of a late rearmament. Both the Renault R35 and Hotchkiss H35 were due to
completely replace this model (almost 2800 light tanks combined in May 1940).
But still around 1850 FTs were listed as of 1939, renamed FT-31. These were
rearmed version with the Reibel 7.5 mm (0.295 in) compact machine-gun, a gas-
operated model originally designed to serve on the Maginot line. But this upgrade did
not improve their limited capabilities in range and speed, although not worrying an
ageing general staff still thinking in trench warfare terms. Many were stationed in the
Colonies, others served in second line, some were in various depots or assigned to
training units when the western campaign began. This fleet was seized by the Germans,
and reused for various duties.
Numerous Renault FT-17s saw action during the three first years of the war. The Polish
ones were committed when the Germans launched Fall Weiss, Finnish modified Naaras
and Koiraas fought as dug out pillboxes for ambushes during the winter campaign, the
Belgian FT-18s were also at the stakes when the Werhmacht crossed the north-eastern
border in May 1940. Later on in April 1941, the Yugoslavian FTs and a very few Greek
models also saw action against the Panzerdivisions.
In Indo-China, also in 1941, French colonial armored brigades equipped with the FT-17
(in original conditions) opposed a Thai invasion. The very same year, Iran, still
operating a small fleet of FTs was found mobilized during the Anglo-Soviet invasion of
their country. Perhaps some of these were sold or sent to Afghanistan and found some
years ago by G.I.s in a metal dump.
~ 148 ~
In French service
The FT-31 was a large-scale modernization of all existing FT models, upgraded with a
new Reibel 7.5 mm (0.29 in) machine gun and a new mask. About 1560 took part in the
battle of France in May-June 1940. Some were parts of regional airbases defence forces.
Most were captured and later served with Vichy forces and the Wehrmacht. Other were
still listed in the Colonies of North Africa, Indo-China, and Syria and many survived
until 1945.
In German service
After the fall of France, the Wehrmacht captured as many as 1700 FTs, which were
redesignated, painted in feldgrau with the Balkenkreuz. They were all machine-gun
equipped. All captured FT 31 tanks which were not allocated to the Vichy police forces
were taken over by the Wehrmacht.
Some served as training machines. Others, often rearmed with a more potent machine
gun, served as airfield guarding vehicles, snow ploughs, were deployed in counter-
insurgency forces, armored trains and for police duties in all of Europe and fought
during the Paris uprising in August, 1944. Official designation was PzKpfw 17R
730(F), 730c being the gun version (rearmed with the 37 mm/1.45 in Puteaux), and
730m the machine-gun version. They were painted in the usual feldgrau scheme, but
some later units replaced in active duties in France were painted with dark green stripes.
Poland
The Poles contracted the delivery of 23 FTs for the defense of their newly liberated
country. But they never saw action until the very end of the 1920 Soviet-Polish War.
Most of those involved in the battle of Warsaw and other events were French FTs which
French or Polish crews. Later on, many more were acquired, reaching a maximum of
174 machines.
Some were later made by CWS (meaning Centralne Warsztaty Samochodowe

Central Car Workshops) which manufactured 26 or 27 tanks from French spare parts
between 1925 to 1927, plus some with Polish iron plates and other parts. The local
production model used soft iron instead of steel, and were retained for training as the
armor was improper to combat usage. Perhaps 30 to 60 Polish FTs were later sold to
~ 149 ~
Uruguay (which in turn sold them to Spain, then in Civil War), others were bought by
Yugoslavia and China. Polish engineers devised improvements, like a faster prototype
equipped with laterally flexible tracks or designed derivatives like the smoke tank Czolg
dymotworczy.
Italy
Italy got three FT-17s in June 1918. But the deliveries were reserved to French units
first, so the general staff decided to start their own production. Despite the fact that the
program was cancelled in November 1918, the design was drafted for the upcoming
FIAT 3000 finally delivered in numbers between 1922-1926.
Spain
12 FTs were bought in August 1921, all machine gun armed, deployed in 1922 in
Morocco against Beni Said Tribe (Rif war). These were later found on opposite sides
during the Civil War, with the Republicans (the 1st Tank Regiment of Madrid), and on
the side of Francos nationalists with the 2nd Tank Regiment of Zaragoza. The 1st
Regiment took part in the defense of Madrid on September, 1st, 1936. The FT remains
influential in the design of the Trubia, the first Spanish tank built in small series
between 1926-1931.
Russia
During the Polish-Russian war of 1920 and the Civil war, both the Poles and the White
Russians had many FTs enlisted, later captured by the Red Army, notably at the battle
of Berezovka. By 1920 the Red Sormovo factory succeeded in copying this model and
produce the first Soviet tank (Freedom Fighter Comrade Lenin), now preserved,
followed by a series of Russkiy Reno, which had a long barreled 37 mm gun and a
machine-gun in a separate turret mount. Ultimately this experience led to the
development of the T-18, largely influenced by the FT design.
Finland
There were about 32 tanks given to the Finnish army in 1919 and two more provided in
1920, all equipped with the 1919 model rounded turret and long barrel 37 mm (1.45 in)
Puteaux gun. Most of them were still in use during the Winter War of 1939. Some were
placed in entrenchments, others used as training tanks and were still in service in 1943.
Some were called Koiras (14), gun armed, equipped with the long barrel Puteaux 37
mm (1.45 in), or Naaras (18), machine-gun versions.
They first saw action in Russia with General Yudenichs White Arm. Base livery was
med grey, but they later received a camouflage made of green and red brown stripes,
with partially washed white paint over it in winter. During the Winter War of 1939 most
of them were dug into hull down positions and used as pillboxes in defensive lines or
pre-positioned ambushes. Others served as training machines until 1943.
Yugoslavia
~ 150 ~
The Royal Army of Yugoslavia acquired 34 FT-17s in the early twenties (54 according
to sources claiming 8 being from French units left in Bulgaria, the others in the 1930s,
including some Polish-made CWS), followed by 21 Renault NC2 (M26/27) Kgresse,
improved, faster models. The batch was completed later by 54 Renault R35s. All were
committed against the German onslaught in April 1941.
Brazil
Total order in 1921 was 12 carros de assalto, enough to make a company with 4
machine gun armed, 7 gun-armed, and one TSF, command version. A former WWI
observer in French units and father of the Brazilian tank force, Captain Jos Pessa
Cavalcanti de Albuquerque, suggested the purchase. Although they were initially
purchased to test tactical theories, these tanks fought against the rebellion of 1924 and
the revolution of 1932, and survived WWII, being kept for training purposes.
Belgium
The Belgian army purchased some 75 gun-armed versions, slightly modified and locally
called FT-18. The engine was modified, giving an extra kph in top speed, and the armor
was slightly reinforced. All were still in service by May 1940.
Lithuania
Twelve Renault FT-17 tanks were bought from France in 1923. The tanks were named
Audra, Drasutis, Galiunas, Giltine, Grianstinus, Karzygis, Kerstas,
Kovas, Pagieza, Pykoulis, Slibinas and Smugis. They were equipped with a
Vickers machine-gun and served with the Radviliskis tank regiment from the early
twenties to the late thirties.
Greece & Turkey
Greece tested both the FT gun-armed and MG-armed and the more modern NC2, but
none was ordered. A single batch was delivered to the Turkish Infantry Shooting School
based at Maltepe in 1926.
Romania
Although a handful Berliet-built FTs were sent to Romania for training in 1917, some
72 brand-new ones were purchased and delivered in June 1919, to face-off the ever
present Soviet threat. They saw widespread service but were withdrawn from active
duty and kept for training from 1939.
China
Some 30 to 45 steel Polish-built CWS tanks were sold to China, according to some
sources. But the first were former French FTs left in Vladivostock in 1919 (then into
white Russian hands) were acquired by the Manchurian warlord Chang Tso-Lin. 14
more were acquired in 1924-25 and fought against Wu Peifu.
~ 151 ~
By 1929, all these FTs of various origins were passed onto Chang Kai-Tchek NRA in
1929, as the 1st Cavalry Brigade (perhaps 34 in all). They fought borders wars with the
Soviets and later the Japanese. They were joined by British Vickers models. Many were
seized in 1931 by the Japanese in Mandchuria. In 1938 or 1939, French FTs from the
China Light Tank Company were captured and send to reinforce the puppet army of
Manchuko.
Japan
Japan bought the Renault FT in 1919, at the same time with a batch of Mark A
Whippets. It was designated Ko Gata (Model A). The Type 79 according to the
chronological nomenclature, was never officialized. These thirteen tanks were
immediately sent to the newly created Army Infantry School and the first unit, 1st IJA
tank Company at Kurume, for officer training. Some were transferred to the Army
Cavalry School.
In 1929, Japan also acquired the modernized NC-1 (M26/27), Otsu(B)-Gata Sensha.
The Ko-Gata was used during the incident of Harbin, Manchuria in 1932. The unit
was commanded by Captain Hyakutake. Both models were still in active service by
1940. Japan acquired spare parts after the occupation of Vichy-controlled Indochina.
Main source: The Renault FT Light Tank, Steven J. Zaloga, Osprey Vanguard 1988.
Another reference: Minitracks n10 about the FT.
Renault FT specifications
4.95(with tail)/4.20 x 1.74 x 2.14 m
Dimensions
(16.24/13.775.77.02 ft)
Total weight, battle ready 6.7 tons
Crew 2 (commander/gunner, driver)
Propulsion Renault 4 cyl petrol, 39 hp (24 kW)
Speed 7 km/h (4.3 mph)
Range/consumption 65 km (40.38 mi)
Armament Female: Hotchkiss 7.9 mm (0.32 in)

machine gun
Male: Puteaux SA 18 37 mm (1.45 in) gun
~ 152 ~
Total production 3700 (France)
First World War
First series, training machines, with the provisional cast turret. The factory grey livery
was related to artillery units.
FT early production version with the Berliet rounded turret, and factory dark olive
green. The first cast turrets, complex and costly to manufacture, were later replaced by a
new model, the Omnibus made of riveted plates, either octagonal or rounded.
The standard FT of 1917, equipped with a 7.92 mm (0.32 in) Hotchkiss machine gun.
About two thirds of all FTs produced during the war were females like it.
~ 153 ~
Unknown unit, with the octagonal variant of the Omnibus turret developed by Berliet,
which was probably the cheapest to produce.
Unknown unit, chassis 66562 Le Tigre, tiger pattern, 1918.
Fall 1918 or 1919, five-tone pattern, later named the Japanese style.
Unknown unit, Le Tigre, fall 1917. The Tiger was the nickname of the popular
French president, Georges Clmenceau.
~ 154 ~
Unknown unit, early 1918, three tone camouflage, applied on the original factory khaki.
FT Char Canon La Victoire, unknown unit, 1918.
The male Renault FT, armed with a short barrel SA 19 Puteaux 37 mm (1.45 in) gun,
with about 238 rounds, used against fortified positions. At point-blank range, a 37 mm
shot could penetrate any kind of concrete pillboxes.
~ 155 ~
Char canon, unknown unit, 1918. The bordering black stripes were often omitted by
then.
Renault FT, Berliet model with the Girod turret, 506E RAS, 1918.
Variants & Prototypes
Renault TSF, in khaki livery, early 1918. Click to see another variants.
~ 156 ~
FT 75 BS, howitzer armed version. About 40 were built after the end of the war. Here is
an example (unknown unit) with a three-tone 1918 factory-applied camouflage (without
bordering stripes).
Interwar
FT Passe-partout from the 1st Company, 2nd Section, 2nd Battalion, 1st Polish Tank
Regiment, Lodz, 1920.
Polish Renault Lis from the 1st Tank Regiment, Puk Czolgow.
~ 157 ~
Lithuanian FT(mod) Slibinas, 3rd Company, Lithuanian Tank Battalion, Radviliskis
1925.
Freedom Fighter Comrade Lenin the first Soviet built tank, copied after captured FTs,
1920.
FT-17, 112nd slow-running Tank battalion, Briest 1935
Type 79 Ko-Gata, Manchuria 1937.
~ 158 ~
Carro de Assalto, Brazilian FT, 1935.
6-Ton tank M1917, armed with the Marlin machine gun, garrisoned for training at Fort
Knox in 1920-1925.
6-Ton Tank M1917, 37 mm (1.46 in) gun version, from the USMC light tank platoon,
East Coast expeditionary force, Tientsin, China, 1927.
World War Two
~ 159 ~
Finnish Renault FT, Koiras (gun version) in the original med-grey livery. Click the
image to see the Naaras.
Renault FT modifi 31 (sometimes FT 31), modernized version, from the 31st BCC.
Renault FT 31, 33rd BCC, France, May 1940.
FT 31, 63rd BCC, Aleppo, Syria, 1940.
~ 160 ~
1st Armored Tank Batallion of the Yugoslavian Royal Army, April 1941.
PanzerKampfwagen 17R 730(F), from a drivers training unit in France, 1943.
PanzerKampfwagen 730(F), France, winter 1944.
~ 161 ~
~ 162 ~
~ 163 ~
If the French made the worst tank of the war, they also made the very best one, the
Renault FT, a quite revolutionary vehicle which set the shape and pattern for tanks of
the future, even until today. It came out of a desire to give the standard tanks like the
Schneider CA 1 a light partner, designed to be more more useful than the heavy tanks
~ 164 ~
for the exploitation of breakthroughs. It was a joint semi-private project between the
maverick father of the French tank weapon, General Estienne, and the french firm of
Renault. After many bureaucratic delays the first prototypes were tested in early 1917,
and proved to be an immediate success. It included a number of very innovative
features, including a manually moved turret.
The turret made the employment of its armament much more flexible and effective, and
the whole vehicle was considerably more agile and easy to drive than its heavier
partners, yet better protected. Although the short length of the vehicle, rectified
somewhat with the addition of the special tail, often made trench-crossing difficult, the
track assembly with its large front wheel gave the tank good ability to climb high
obstacles. It also proved easily adapted to form numerous variations (besides the basic
variants, equipped with either one MG or one 37mm cannon), including a Signals and
Command tank (TSF), a 75mm gun tank and a Fascine Carrier.
Both the French and the US used the FT during WW1, and the British and Canadian
forces employed some, in the capacity of Liason Vehicle: they removed the weaponry
and left the hole open, to enable the passenger a good view forward.
The tank was produced long after the war, and was exported to more than ten countries,
including Japan, Poland, Canada, Spain and Brazil. Clones or copies were made in Italy,
USA and the Soviet Union, and it was used in practically all the armed conflicts of the
Twenties and Thirties. It soldiered in WW2, where it was used by the French, Finns,
Yugoslavs and others. Even the Germans themselves used captured FTs, in security
roles
In Action
The Renault FT was first used in combat on the 31 May 1918, in support of an attack by
Morrocan Infantry in the Retz forest, as a part of the attempts to halt the German Spring
Offensive. This is an excerpt from a report written by one of the participants, capitaine
Aubert, 304th Company:
The signal was given, "Advance". After a few hundred yards suddenly the corn ceased.
We were in open, uncultivated ground. As soon as we debouched we were subject to
~ 165 ~
heavy machine-gun fire directed particularly against the slits and port holes. The
hammer of the bullets against the armour, accompanied by the splash, showed us the
general direction of the fire. In our case it was coming from the left. Many bullets struck
the gun shield and made traversing difficult. But we swung the turret and there was the
machine gun, not more than 50 yards away. It took five rounds to put it out, and the
tracks completed the work. All the tanks were now on the same alignment. They were all
in action firing and manoeuvring, which showed us that we were on the enemys line of
resistance.
The actual maneuvering of the FT is described thus in Dale E. Wilsons excellent and
ground-breaking book on US Armour in WW1, "Treat em Rough!":
Tank commanders were required to transmit commands to their drivers by kicking them.
This was the only means of internal communication, as the Renaults lacked a radio
intercom system and were too noisy for voice commands to be heard. To get the driver
to move forward, the commander kicked him in the back. Similarly, a kick to either
shoulder signaled a turn in the direction of the shoulder kicked. The signal to stop was a
kick to the drivers head, while repeated kicks to the head meant the driver should back
up.
The drivers controls consisted of a clutch pedal on the left of the floor, an accelerator
pedal in the center, and a parking brake pedal on the right. The engine was started by
~ 166 ~
means of a hand crank located at the back of the gunners compartment on the firewall
separating the gunner from the engine compartment. The driver could control the
vehicles speed by either depressing the accelerator pedal or using a hand throttle
control located on the right side of the driver7rsquo;s compartment. A spark control
lever was also provided, allowing the driver to advance or retard the ignition spark,
depending on the amount of strain on the engine. Two large steering levers, one on each
side of the drivers seat, acted as the service brakes when pulled simultaneously. To
steer to the right, the driver merely pulled back on the right lever, braking the track on
that side of the tank. The left-side track would continue moving at normal speed,
pivoting the vehicle to the right. A similar procedure was used to turn to the left. The
most difficult task for drivers to master was negotiating short, extremely steep grades.
The trick was to learn to slip the clutches in such a way as to allow the vehicle to return
to the horizontal gently, without a crashing jolt, as it cleared the top of the obstacle.
Combat Weight 7.4 tons

Armour 6 - 16 mm
Renault 4-cylinder 39
Powerplant hp, thermo-siphon
cooled
Fuel Capacity 100 litres
Transmission 5.3
Coil and leaf springs
Suspension
with pivoted bogie
Max. Road
7.7 km/h
Speed
Max. Road
35 km
Range
Max. Gradient 50%
Max. Vertical
0.6 m
Obstacle
Max. Trench
1.35 m
Crossing
Ground
0.435 m
Clearance
1 x 8mm Hotchkiss MG
or
Armament
1 x 37mm Puteaux
Cannon
5,400 rounds (MG) or
Ammunition
237 rounds (Cannon)
Crew 2
Camouflage
~ 167 ~
There have been numerous attempts to impose a system on the camouflage of the
Renault FT. Unfortunately there was no official camouflage scheme, the FT was
delivered with 3 or 4colour factory painted camouflage. The colour palette used for
FT camouflage appears to have been similar to that previously used for the Schneider
and St Chamond, that is blue-grey (gris artillerie), dark green, brown and pale ochre.
There were considerable variations in these colours as would be expected during war
time. The only reliable guide to FT camouflage is to work from original photographs.
Note that there is no base coat on the FT tank as there was on the St
Chamond/Schneider.
~ 168 ~
Official designation: Renault FT-17
Start design: 1916
Stage of completion:
For the design of a light tank Renault took in July 1916. It was agreed that these
machines will be needed in addition to the medium tank and be used as a commander,
~ 169 ~
as well as for direct support of the attacking infantry. Taking the model of the tank
commander's SA "Schneider" 2, quickly it was made the first sample weight of 6 tons
with a crew consisting of 2 persons. Chassis equipped with a mixed suspension of leaf
and coil springs. Armament consisted of machine guns, and the maximum speed was
9.6 km / h. December 20 designer himself tested the tank in the presence of members of
the Advisory Committee on special purpose artillery. New did not like the fact that she
had only machine-gun armament, although it was assumed that the tanks will act against
manpower. Also criticized the small size and weight, due to which the tank is,
ostensibly, will not be able to overcome ditches and trenches. However, Renault was
able to convince the members of the Committee whether to continue the work, and in
March 1917 the firm Renault received an order for 150 light combat vehicles.
Conducted April 9 official test was a complete success, and the committee has increased
the order to 1,000 tanks. However, the Minister intervened weapons and suspended the
order. He demanded to increase the internal volume of the tank and place in the tower
two people. Tank, although he had many innovations, proved to be very successful,
low-cost machine, simple and reliable due to the low ground pressure - 0.59 kg / cm, he
had a good cross, overcome rises to 45 degrees and ditches width 1.8 m Speed. and
power reserve, however, remained low. By the battlefield tank trucking. FT 17 was one
of the most successful tanks of the First World War. It was the first tank with a classic
design, with the details set out precisely in the body of the car, and a tower, rotating a
full 360 degrees. Production of this tank was ordered in large size - more than 3,000
units during the First World War. Of Renault FT-17 Spanish army of Renault FT-17,
the French army of Renault FT-17, passed in 1940 to the training of the Polish armored
Now it's time to talk about the FT-17 modifications. In the same 1918, the work was
carried out to transform light tank in ACS. The first option provided for the installation
of self-propelled 75-mm cannon in the front hull, and rear the superstructure was placed
high enough for a comfortable accommodation of the tank commander and two crew
members drkgih. This variant is designated as FT-17BS was later put into production,
but in a modified form. Instead of the usual bulky add-ons installed non-rotating cutting
tower with 75-mm howitzer Schneider. As an experiment in the FT-17 also tried to
establish a long-barreled guns, but clearly tank chassis was not designed for this
purpose and on prototypes it is not moved. In the battles FT-17BS to participate do not
have time, and their future was short-lived after the war - in contrast to the cannon and
machine gun options most of the 600 machines vypushennyh went for scrapping and by
1939 they were very few. Another mass, but also short-lived version was radiotank TSF
FT-17, equipped with a radio station ER10 in the cockpit instead of the tower.
Apparently, so are several command vehicles had to war, and after the war of the
radiotankov gave Poland. However, Polish, and French TSF type tanks were
decommissioned by 1939. Commanding tank FT-17 tank TSF Commanding FT-17 tank
TSF Commanding FT-17 TSF ACS based on the tank of Renault FT-17, ACS prototype
based on a tank of Renault FT-17 prototype Additionally, the following modifications
FT- was built in single copies 17: - supply tank, there was no tower and has been
completely redesigned nose of the body, which is adapted to carry a variety of cargo,
the driver was placed back in the high cabin - tank tractor, also without a tower,
intended for hauling cargo - tank transporter fascines - tank-launched bridge - tank-
dozer, without a tower and with "footswitch", two guides are mounted on the axis of the
drive wheels - tank director smokescreens, in France and Poland, several prototypes
prototype artillery tank Renault FT-17BS Renault FT-17BS was built - serial sample
Renault FT-17BS captured in 1940 by German troops FT-17 Polish army with
dymopuska devices, 1920. - Tank chassis with firm Kegresse, we can say that from a
~ 170 ~
conventional FT-17 in this modification, only left the body, the tower has been
redesigned, the chassis is completely replaced, and appeared in front of the two special
drum to improve patency. In fact, such "improvements" did not bring anything good
because the driving characteristics of the tank by and large remained the same. Several
experimental machines in 1925 was sent to the military tests in Morocco in 123rd
Squadron. Experiments with chassis Kegressa ended in 1927 after the release of two
other limited-edition versions - M24 \ M26 and 25 \ 27. The latter option was without
drums and rubber caterpillar had a steel insert, increases its durability. About 30 cars
were sold in Poland and Yugoslavia, but the beginning of a new war is only a small part
of them remained in the ranks. Successful development of the company Renault has
also generated a lot of "side" versions and imitations. For example, in late 1918, the
firm Peugeot has presented its development, is strikingly similar to FT-17. This tank
was considered a competitor, though the type and caliber of the weapons he was closer
to the FT-17BS. On weapons, he was not accepted, and remained in a single sample.
The tanks FT-17 chassis Kegresse, 1925 (Morocco), and a modified version of a sea
trial Later firm Delaynau-Bellevielle demonstrated revised version of FT-17 with the
new hydraulic transmission Williams-Jannay. The tank has got an upgraded chassis and
weight category closer to medium tanks. prototype testing took place until 1920
inclusive, but for service it was not adopted. In the "Reno" battle were used en masse,
ie, many cars blow applied simultaneously. For example, in July 1918, 480 FT 17
applied counterpunch in Soissons area. However, their main task remains the support of
infantry in battle. In 1925 they took part in suppressing the uprising in Morocco. Also in
1925 the French Ministry of War decided to put into production a new classification of
armored tanks and armored cars, dividing them into four types. The easiest type in this
hierarchy has got essentially improved model FT 17 - Char NC 1 constructed as concern
Renault. This is sometimes called a tank NC 27. The main distinguishing features of the
legacy FT 17 were new suspension and reinforced armor. He was never put into
production, although a few specimens have been sold in Japan. The next attempt was
the NC 2 (second name NC 31). This model also had no success, and this time was sold
to Greece. Despite the fact that new models of tanks, Renault FT 17 is constantly
produced in France remained in service in decent quantities. Total France to the
beginning of the Second World War had about 4,800 tanks, with 1,600 of them were old
FT 17. The information below reflects the number of full and finding the French FT 17
as of May 1940 The necessary explanations: FT17m - it means that this tank was armed
with a machine gun, FT17c - armed with 37 mm cannon, FT17BS - mounted 75-mm
howitzer Schneider, FT17TSF - unarmed tank with a radio station. These tanks were in
service with the following departments and units:
~ 171 ~
a) a tank battalion with tanks FT17: 11th BCC: 42 Renault FT17m / c 18th BCC: 63
Renault FT17m / c 29th BCC: 63 Renault FT17m / c 30th BCC: 63 Renault FT17m / c
31st BCC: 63 Renault FT17m / c 33rd BCC 63 Renault FT17m / c 36th BCC: 63
Renault FT17m / c 62nd the BCC: 30 Renault R35 and 15 FT17 (Morocco) - rearmed
Renault R35 64th the BCC: 45 Renault FT17 (in Tunis, arrived from Algeria) - rearmed
Renault R35 66th BCC: 45 Renault FT17 (Morocco) - rearmed R35 Colonial BCC: 63
Renault FT17m / c 343ya CACC: 21 Renault FT17m / c 344th CACC: 21 Renault
FT17m / c 350th CACC: May 16 received 12 D2 tanks and how many tanks left FT 17 -
is unclear, probably 9.
In total, tank battalions and companies of May 10: 651 Renault FT17. (If you count the
parts that were re)
b) Regional platoons of tanks FT17: From 1 to 4 platoons regional FT17 tanks (from 4
to 16 tanks) were sent to 25 regional and regiments were called sections de chars de
regiments regionaux. The total number of tanks of 192 units.
c) Protection of military and civilian objects in military districts. These units were
established in May 1940 and included the following units: antilanding company: 7 on a
mouth 12 tanks. Total 84 Renault FT17 tank. Security platoon airports: From 1 to 5
regional squads (from 4 to 20 tanks) were sent to the 11 military districts. Total FT17
them - Platoons 112. The protection of important buildings: from 1 to 3 regional squads
(from 4 to 12 tanks) were sent to the seven military regions with a total of 72 tanks in
their special military group Paris - 50th the BCC: 50 tanks FT17m. Regional security
platoons: 9 tanks sent to the 10 military districts. Total 90.
Overseas regional platoons: one separate tank company Tunisian coast guard: 16 FT17
tanks. Platoons of tanks to defend the important cities in Morocco - 28 tanks in Tunisia -
16 and in Algeria - 20. Total 64 tank. In Syria and Lebanon had 56 tanks of the 63rd
FT17 BCC. Most of them are in the park, but there was a separate tank company -
CACL - Sompagnie Autonome des Chars du Levant - three groups of 10 tanks (3 tanks
FT17m, 6 FT17c 1 FT17BS) in Beirut, Aleppo and Damascus - a total of 30 tanks . In
June 1940, this company was strengthened by 6 more tanks FT-17 (on the tank FT17c
~ 172 ~
in each group and three tanks defensive FT17m Estabel airbase in Lebanon) In addition,
there were about 20 FT17 tanks in Indochina.
TOTAL: 1381 FT17 consisted on sluzhbe.1146 tanks in France and 235 in the colonies.
From 1146 FT17 tanks in France, May 10, approximately 546 were in combat units.
SUMMARY: On May 10 there were 546 combat units Renault FT17 tank. However,
quite a large number of other French technique the old tank was to serve in the
Wehrmacht. They consisted in the service of police units in France. Many older FT 17
colonies were in France, for example in the same Morocco. There they were used
against American troops in November 1942 during the "Torch" operation, a in 1944, the
Germans used the FT 17 in street fighting in Paris. About 17 combat use FT sold abroad
can be found in the article "FT17 tanks in the armies of other countries", and the use of
tanks during the First World War, there is information in the article "Fighting
application of the first French tanks".

Renault FT-17, 1918, the sample
CREW, pers. 5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 5000 (with the "tail")
Width 1740
Height mm 2140
Clearance, mm
one 27-mm cannon SA18 or one 8-mm machine gun

WEAPONS
Hotchkiss
~ 173 ~
allowance of ammunition 237 or 1,500 rounds of ammunition
board housing -
food body -
RESERVATIONS
tower -
roof -
bottom -
ENGINE Of Renault, Petrol, 4-cylinder with a capacity of 35 hp
(On one side) 9 road wheels with a blocked podeskoy, 6

CHASSIS support rollers, front steering and rear wheel drive, with steel
caterpillar krupnozvenchataya Tracians
SPEED 7.7 km \ h on the highway
overcome obstacles
bias
Wall height, m 0.50
The depth of the ford, m 0.80
The width of the den, m 1.80
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Renault FT TSF
The French FT was by far the best Tank coming out of WW1, and it also spawned
numerous variants. One of them was the Char Renault TSF, a radio cum command tank.
The Char TSF (tlgraphie sans fil telegraph without a wire) was called for by
General Estienne when the big order for 2500 Renaults was placed in the Autumn of
1917. It was intended as a command vehicle to provide contact between units and with
their headquarters or supporting arms or as an observation vehicle. The number of
signal tanks required was originally 200 but this was later increased in early 1918 to
470. The thought was to equip every FT batallion with a section of 6 of these radio
tanks.
~ 174 ~
All the mechanical details of the Char TSF were the same as those of the FT combat
tanks. In the signal vehicle the crew was increased from two to three men: driver, radio
operator and observer/commander and the turret was replaced by a fixed armoured
superstructure, equipped with a cupola on top, an observation window in front and a
periscope, and housed the radio set. In the prototype vehicles the superstructure
overhung the hull sides but in production tanks this was modified so that the hull itself
did not have to be modified.
At the start of WW2 the TSF was long since obsolete, and the superstructure of many of
these ended up as observations posts in the Maginot Line.
Renault TSF Walk-Around
The Char TSF hull below is - to my knowledge - the only one in existance. It is an
empty hull, the superstructure originally found in the remnants of the Maginot Line, and
(?) now waiting for reconstruction in the fabulous Tank Museum in Saumur in France.
The photos have been taken by Eric Gallaud.
~ 175 ~
Renault FT 75 BS
The Renault FT tank was deployed in 1918 with both machine gun and 37mm cannon
armament. It was recognised at the time that although the 37mm gun was quite capable
against light fortifications a larger gun was needed to attack established fortified
positions. General Estienne, the "father of the French Tank Corps", specified that a
vehicle should be developed on the chassis of the Renault FT with a 75mm Blockhaus
Schneider (BS) gun mounted. The 75mm BS was originally a short range fortress gun
which was mounted in the Schneider CA1 tank. Although the 75mm BS gun had a short
effective range, its small dimensions, light weight and high rates of fire made it
attractive as a support gun on FT tanks. The images of the 75mm BS are of a Schneider
CA1 gun at Saumur, images by Eric Gallaud
Performance 1
Calibre 75mm
Barrel Length L/9.5
Elevation -10 to +30
Traverse 60
Projectile Weight 5.55kg
Muzzle Velocity 200 m/sec
Max. Range 2100m
~ 176 ~
Effective Range 600m
~ 177 ~
Renault FT 75 BS Prototype
Two different prototypes were built and trialled at the start of 1918. The Renault design
moved the driver to an elevated position in the centre of the tank with the gun mounted
low in the front of the tank. This prototype was found to be overweight and difficult to
manouver due to the restricted view of the driver. Exactly how two gunners were
expected to service the gun in the cramped forward part of the vehicle has never been
explained. The design was rejected.
Production Version
The second prototype was constructed by the Champlieu organisation and was a
straightforward conversion of a standard FT tank replacing the turret with a fixed
superstructure. It was found that the weight increase was limited to 200kg (compared to
the FT tank) with a ammunition load of 35 rounds. This vehicle was accepted as the
Renault FT 75 BS and some 600 were ordered in mid-May 1918. It was intended that
each section of FT tanks should have a single FT 75 BS as a support vehicle and
roughly half of the order would replace the Schneider CA1 tanks which were going out
of service. The first production FT 75 BS was completed in late July 1918.
~ 178 ~
However, there were delays in production and only 11 75 BS vehicles were delivered
before the Armistice in November 1918 and, as far as is known, none saw action. After
the Armistice the orders were cut back severely and only another 29 were delivered in
1919.
The 75 BS was thought of as a support vehicle and there were a number of studies to
use the tank to tow sleds, trailers and as a bridging tank2. The FT tank was limited in its
trench crossing capabilities due to its small size so equipping each section of tanks with
a bridge carrier was seen as way to overcome this deficiency. Given the small size of
the FT chassis the size of bridge which could be deployed was quite small. The concept
was to tow a bridge behind a FT 75 BS and when required the bridge would be dropped
off and attached to the front of the tank by linkages outboard of the idlers and
suspended by wire ropes. Once in place across a trench the front of the bridge would be
dropped by releasing the wire ropes and then reversing the tank so the bridge
disengaged from the linkages. Exactly how this was justified as a viable procedure in
combat is not known. The early production 75 BS had hitch points for a bridge behind
the idlers and channels over the superstructure to guide the wire rope used to hold the
bridge before deployment. This concept lasted until the early 20s when it seems to have
been abandoned.
Postwar service
Many of the FT 75 BS were shipped to French units in North Africa and Syria (Levant)
after WW1. A few saw some action in the French colonies in skirmish campaigns
against rebellious tribesmen. Two FT 75 BS were found by the Allies in Tunisia in 1942
after Operation Torch, the invasion of Vichy held North Africa.
~ 179 ~
~ 180 ~
~ 181 ~
Renault NC
The NC (sometimes also known as the Char NC1 or NC 27) was another derivative of
the FT-17, and can be seen as one of the last attempts to modernize this classic design.
The result was not sucessful.
~ 182 ~
Like the FT-17 it was to be a so-called Infantry Tank, used in close support. The hull
was up-armoured (maximum 34mm), and in addition to this, a completely new track
assembly was designed based on the Kegresse suspension. The bogies were suspended
by a triple coil spring column suspension combined with six vertical hydro-pneumatic
shock absorbers and ran on three four-roller bogies and one independent roller per side.
The so called Cleveland controlled differential system was also used here, for the first
time in a French tank design. The motor was a 4-cylinder 60hp Renault liquid cooled
engine running on gasoline, that gave it a max speed of some 20 km/h. The weight was
8.5 tons, and it had a crew of two. It used the original FT-17 turret almost unchanged,
and was armed either with a MG or a 37mm Puteaux gun. It was 4.41m long, 1.71m
wide and 2.14m high.
It was a bit too heavy and big for just a two man MG/37mm gun tank, and both the
clutch and the gearbox were plagued with problems. It also had short range. And the
interior was cramped. (See photos below.) Also, there were some complaints regarding
the quality of the steel used.
The NC was not used by the French Army, but was exported to Yugoslavia and Japan.
The Japanese Army called it Otsu-Gata Sensha, and used it in combat in China in the
early Thirties. (They first saw fighting in the so-called Shanghai Punitive Expedition in
1932.) The Japanese also saw the defects of the design, and actually rebuilt it quite a lot:
they installed a new, 75hp Mistubishi engine, beefed up both the armament and the
armour. Also, the suspension of the NC was more or less copied when the Japanese
built their own maedium tank, the Type 89. Both the Netherlands and Sweden bought
one NC each, for evaluation, but it was a disappointment, and no further NCs were
bought by these two countries. In Sweden the single NC was designated fm/28, and
used during the 30s, primarily for driver training.
~ 183 ~
~ 184 ~
~ 185 ~
Renault FT Self-Propelled Guns
~ 186 ~
The problem of moving artillery in support of any advance across the trenches on the
Western Front was identified by the French Army as a central issue in 1915. The
inability of horse drawn or wheeled vehicles to traverse the terrain of no-man's land and
shell cratered trench systems was obvious which left only tracked vehicles as a viable
alternative. French industry prompted by the Ministry of Munitions and Army High
Command explored just about all possible options for moving artillery with tracked
vehicles. Some of these studies resulted in vehicles which were placed in production
such as the Renault FB artillery portee vehicle and the Schneider CD heavy towing
vehicle. Although these vehicles mostly solved the problem of transporting artillery
over bad ground it was clear there was still a delay once artillery pieces had been
delivered before the artillery could go into action due to the set up time. The St
Chamond SPGs offered a solution for bringing heavy guns into action quickly, although
to modern eyes a speed of 2.5 km/hr requires a redefinition of "quickly". There
remained a similar problem for light field guns and howitzers.
The start of production of the light Renault FT tank in 1917 offered a possible solution
to the deployment of light field guns on tracked vehicles based on the FT chassis. By
May 1918 studies were underway to use turretless FT tanks with light guns such as the
75mm Mle 1897 field gun and 105mm Mle 1913 howitzer fitted. At the end of August
1918 the French Army GHQ received and approved these studies. On 3 Sept 1918 a
specification was issued for a vehicle based on the Renault FT with the 75mm Mle 1897
field gun with a crew of 4 (driver plus gun crew), carrying 100 rounds of ammunition
and a total weight of 5 - 6 tonnes. In response to the specification three prototypes were
built. The intent was to construct an SPG which could be used for counter-battery fire
and in an anti-tank role.
Renault FT SPG
The first SPG produced was designed by Renault and tested by them in August 1918
and handed over for official testing at Bourges, the French Army proving ground, on 18
Sept 1918. The vehicle was extremely minimal. The gun was limited to fire over the
rear of the SPG and could only be moved in the vertical plane (-4 to +24) which
limited the max. range of the 75mm gun, there was a control which allowed the whole
vehicle to be turned for gun traverse, the details of how this worked are unknown. The
driver had to exit the vehicle before firing and the accommodation for the two man gun
~ 187 ~
crew was an unprotected pair of seats on top of the SPG. 40 rounds of ammunition were
stored in boxes on top of the engine compartment. Although the Renault SPG was found
to be quite stable and met the criteria established for mobility over bad ground the poor
ergonomics and smaller than specification ammunition capacity meant it was rejected
by the French Army.
A video of the Renault SPG has recently (Dec 2013) been released by CNRS (French
Army Archive) which shows the Renault SPGs being demonstrated. (Please note the
video may be slow to load).
~ 188 ~
~ 189 ~
Renault also experimentally fitted a 105mm howitzer to an FT tank chassis. Very little
is known about this version but the upper part of the hull seems to have been
extensively modified to fit the howitzer.
~ 190 ~
STAV SPG
With the rejection of the Renault SPG, Army Headquarters requested that the "section
technique automobile de Vincennes" (STAV) study an SPG with capacity to carry 150
rounds of ammunition (half a day's firing) and using the Gramme naval mounting for
the 75mm gun. The front of an FT chassis was cut down and the gun mount installed on
the reinforced floor of the chassis. The driver was relocated to the centre of the vehicle,
similar to the unsuccessful Renault prototype for Renault FT 75 BS. The gun crew had a
unprotected bench across the rear of the chassis. The prototype was built by Renault and
had a 360 traverse and elevation -8 to +40 although at elevations above +10 the gun
had to be fired over the rear of the vehicle. The ammunition capacity was 120 rounds.
The first, and only, prototype was finalised on 9 Oct 1918.
~ 191 ~
STA SPG
The last FT SPG design was that of the "section technique de l'artillerie" (STA) which
had been studying SPG design since May 1918. This was a much more elaborate design
with the engine moved to the centre of the chassis and the driver also in a central
location. The rear of the FT chassis was opened out to create a platform for the gun
crew and the gun was mounted to fire over the front of the vehicle. The gun could be
elevated from -5 to +41 with 11 of traverse. The SPG could carry 90 rounds of
ammunition. The SPG appears to have been built by Renault and was sent to Bourges in
late October 1918. Later modifications to the STA SPG included extending the rear
platform, adding a folding spade to prevent movement of the vehicle during firing and
the addition of a Hotchkiss MG presumably for local defence.
~ 192 ~
~ 193 ~
Renault Munitions Vehicle
One of the problems with operating SPGs with quick firing guns was that of
ammunition supply. Renault produced a prototype of a tracked munitions vehicle with a
central drivers position and an open compartment with a hinged gate at the front. The
volume of the compartment was 1.5m x 1.05m x 0.9m. The track spacing was slightly
increased compared to the FT tank. Only one prototype was produced but it's hard to see
a role for such a vehicle when the existing Renault FB and Schneider CD could carry
much more ammunition.
~ 194 ~
The fate of the Renault SPGs
The STA/STAV SPGs fell foul of politics. General Herr, Inspector General of Artillery,
opposed the SPGs since he believed that towing guns with tracked tractors was a better
solution. He managed to convince Gen Ptain, the commander in chief who opposed the
production of a trial batch of 4 SPGs proposed by the Ministry of Munitions on 6 Nov
1918. However, the SPGs had supporters. General Sainte-Claire Deville, Inspector
General of Ordnance, strongly supported tracked artillery in Dec 1918. Ptain avoided a
confrontation by calling for more studies of the competing views. By the time these
were completed the war was long over and the FT tank was considered to be close to
obsolete so proposals to build enough STA and STAV SPGs to properly evaluate them
were never taken up.
~ 195 ~
Saint Chamond
Early model Saint-Chamond
Weight 23 tonnes
Length 8.9 m
Width 2.7 m
Height 2.4 m
8 (commander-driver,
gunner-loader, assistant
Crew
gunner, four machine
gunners, mechanic)
Armor 1119 mm
Main 75 mm gun
armament
Secondary Four 8 mm Hotchkiss M1914

armament machine guns
4-cylinder Panhard-Levassor
Engine (petrol)
90 hp (70 kW), Crochat-
Colardeau electric
~ 196 ~
transmission
Suspension Coil spring
Speed 12 km/h
The Saint-Chamond, named after the commune of Saint Chamond, was the second
French heavy tank of the First World War, with 400 manufactured from April 1917 to
July 1918. Although not a tank by the present-day definition, it is generally accepted
and described as such in accounts of early tank development. Born of the commercial
rivalry existing with the makers of the Schneider CA1 tank, the Saint-Chamond was an
underpowered and fundamentally inadequate design. Its principal weakness was the
Holt "caterpillar" tracks. They were much too short in relation to the vehicle's length
and heavy weight (23 tons). Later models attempted to rectify some of the tank's
original flaws by installing wider and stronger track shoes, thicker frontal armour and
the more effective 75mm Mle 1897 field gun. Altogether 400 Saint-Chamond tanks
were built including 48 unarmed caisson tanks. The Saint-Chamond tanks remained
engaged in various actions until October 1918, belatedly becoming more effective since
combat had moved out of the trenches and onto open ground. Eventually the Saint-
Chamond tanks were scheduled to be entirely replaced by imported British heavy tanks.
Development
The Schneider
In January 1915, the French arms manufacturer Schneider sent out its chief designer,
Eugne Brilli, to investigate tracked tractors from the American Holt Company, at that
time participating in a test programme in England. The original French project was to
provide mobility to mechanical wire-cutting machines of the Breton-Pretot type. On his
return Brilli, who had earlier been involved in designing armoured cars for Spain,
convinced the company management to initiate studies on the development of a
Tracteur blind et arm ("armoured and armed tractor"), based on the Baby Holt
chassis, two of which were ordered.
with a 75 hp wheel-steered model and the 45 hp all-caterpillar Baby Holt, showing the
superiority of the latter.[1] On 16 June, new experiments followed in front of the
President of the French Republic, and on 10 September for Commander Ferrus, an
officer who had been involved in the study (and ultimate abandonment) of the
Levavasseur tank project in 1908.[2]
In early 1916, the first prototype of the Schneider tank was assembled in an army
workshop. It featured tracks from the American-made Holt caterpillar tractors that were
already used in France for towing heavy artillery. Private Pierre Lescure designed the
fighting compartment. Lieutenant Fouch lengthened the tracks to improve trench-
crossing ability. In this early form the prototype of the Schneider was called Tracteur A
~ 197 ~
- not for security reasons, but because nobody knew exactly how to call such vehicles;
the French word char was not yet applied to tanks. Eugne Brilli, the chief designer at
Schneider, rejected this Tracteur A prototype. Instead he had invented a tail for his own
tank's chassis thus providing the same trench crossing ability but for less overall weight
and length.
The Saint-Chamond
While Brilli began to assemble this second prototype which was to become the
Schneider CA1, the arms manufacturer Forges et Aciries de la Marine et d'Homcourt
(aka "FAMH"), based at Saint-Chamond, Loire, was given an order for 400 tanks by the
French government, a political move prompted by General Mourret of the Army
"Service Automobile". Saint-Chamond intended to build a tank that would be partly
similar to the Schneider. Brilli refused to share his patents for free, and Saint-Chamond
refused to pay. As a result the "Forges et Acieries de la Marine et d'Homecourt"
company, being unable to replicate certain patented details (notably the tail) of the new
Schneider tank, developed its own proprietary design: the "Char Saint-Chamond". It
included a "Crochat-Colardeau" gasoline-electric transmission, a traction system
already used on railcars in service with the French railways. Furthermore, the freedom
to design a heavier and larger tracked vehicle gave Saint-Chamond the opportunity to
upstage the Schneider company. This they did by installing on their "Char Saint-
Chamond" a more powerful, full size 75 mm field gun plus 4 Hotchkiss machine guns
instead of the two machine guns present on the Schneider tank.
The Char Saint-Chamond on display at the Muse des Blinds in Saumur, the last
surviving example.
Saint-Chamond's technical director was Colonel mile Rimailho, an artillery officer

who had become dissatisfied over the insufficient reward he had received for helping
design the famous Canon de 75 modele 1897 field gun as well as the Modele 1904
155 mm "Rimailho" howitzer. Following his departure from the French State arsenal
system (APX) and joining Saint-Chamond, Rimailho designed a 75 mm field gun
similar to the Mle 1897 75 mm gun he had co-developed with Sainte-Claire Deville. It
was the proprietary Canon de 75mm TR Saint-Chamond (Modele 1915), designed to
fire the regular French 75 mm ammunition. Colonel Rimailho, who had a direct
financial interest in selling his company's gun, induced the Ministry of War to specify
that the new Saint-Chamond tank would also mount the Saint-Chamond made 75. In so
~ 198 ~
doing Rimailho had also upstaged the Schneider CA1 tank which could only be fitted
with a smaller Schneider-made fortress gun firing a 75 mm reduced charge ammunition.
To accommodate a regular length and full size 75 mm field gun, a hull longer than on
the Schneider tank was essential. The earliest Saint-Chamond prototype, a tracked
vehicle longer and heavier than the Schneider tank was first demonstrated to the French
military in April 1916.
When Colonel Jean Baptiste Eugne Estienne, who had taken the initiative to create the
French tank arm, learned that an order for 400 additional tanks had been passed on April
8, 1916, he was at first quite elated. When it later became apparent that they would be of
a different type, Estienne was shocked and wrote:
I am painfully surprised that an order has been launched of this importance without
asking the opinion of the only officer who, at the time, had undertaken a profound study
of the technical and military aspects involved and who had brought the supreme
commander to the decision to take this path [towards a tank arm].[3]
Description
The Char Saint-Chamond showing the overhanging front hull and the later M.1897
75 mm field gun
As a result of Rimailho's manipulations, the new tank had become a rather cumbersome
and underpowered vehicle. It lacked a rotating turret, instead using a large overhanging
front compartment housing the long 75 mm gun protruding from the nose.
Within the forward fighting compartment and on the left was the driver, also the vehicle
commander. On the right a machine gunner operated the front Hotchkiss machine gun.
~ 199 ~
This machine gunner was also responsible for the breech operation of the 75 mm gun
which he had to perform after pivoting on his seat to the left. A loader (referred to in
some sources as the gunner) adjusted the gun's elevation, observing the target through a
small hatch in the front of the tank, which left him vulnerable to enemy fire. Traversing
the 75 mm gun required traversing the whole tank, and this was performed by the
driver. A second fighting compartment at the back held one machine gunner next to the
secondary driver's position, where the tank could also be driven backwards by the
mechanic in an emergency. Between those two compartments stood in the open the
gasoline engine and the electric generator. Narrow passageways on both sides of the
engine connected the front and rear compartments. The passageways also held
Hotchkiss positions, one on each side in front of the engine. Altogether, the Saint-
Chamond had four Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun positions: one in the front, one in the
back and one on each side of the tank.
Despite weighing 23 tons, the tank could manage a top speed of 12 km/h. This speed
was seldom achieved in the field as the long nose was prone to digging into the ground.
The relatively high maximum speed on flat ground was made possible by the "Crochat
Colardeau" transmission which coupled a Panhard-Levassor 4 cylinders 90HP sleeve-
valve gasoline engine to an electric generator capable of giving an output of 260
amperes under 200 volts. The generator was connected to two separate electric motors,
one for each track, thus permitting perfect gradual steering of the tank.
Due to its short tracks and over-extended body, the vehicle experienced major
difficulties in crossing trenches and overcoming obstacles. This led to such negative
reactions by the crews in training that a special mention was passed on to General
Headquarters:
Nobody wants to serve on the Saint-Chamond. Second Lieutenant de Gouyon, principal

Saint-Chamond driving instructor at Marly, has publicly declared that it has become
virtually impossible for him to continue to carry on and, since he is a Member of
Parliament, that he will request to have the whole matter placed on the next
parliamentary agenda.[4]
Improved Saint-Chamond tanks (1918)
Originally the crew of nine men was protected by 11 mm of steel armour on the sloping
front and 17 mm on the sides. Later on, the addition of an extra layer of spaced 8.5 mm
armour on the front improved protection. Beginning with the 151st vehicle, the roof was
also redesigned with a double slope so that satchel charges and grenades would slide
off. Concurrently, the original two observation turrets in front and on top were done
away with and replaced by a single low profile square turret permitting front and sides
vision by the tank's driver/commander. With time, the tracks were also widened in two
steps from 324 mm to 412 mm to lower their ground pressure. After Saint-Chamond
tank No 210 the more effective Model 1897 field gun was installed instead of
Rimailho's (profitable) 75 mm Saint-Chamond gun. At about the same time barrel-like
rollers were added underneath the front and rear of the tank to help crossing trenches.
This improved version was later called, unofficially, the Modle 18. Production slowed
down in March 1918, after at least 377 had been assembled, and ceased completely in
July 1918.
~ 200 ~
Initially, forty eight Saint-Chamond tanks were modified as supply and recovery
vehicles that could tow the lighter Schneider tanks. Their first action as a fighting
vehicle took place at Laffaux Mill on May 5, 1917. Sixteen Saint-Chamond tanks were
engaged there, several of them getting stuck into some trenches, but only three were
destroyed in combat. During the rest of the war, twelve groups in total were formed
with Saint-Chamond tanks : Artillerie Spciale No's 31-42. In mid-1918, since combat
had left the trenches for the open fields, it was used to engage German field gun
batteries (Nahkampfbatterien) at a distance with its 75 mm cannon. The Saint-Chamond
proved at last quite effective in this specialist assault gun role. The Saint-Chamond's
final engagement in battle, with initially 16 tanks, took place in early October 1918, in
support of the U.S. First Division near Montfaucon. As reported in Ralph Jones et al.
(1933) in reference to this last engagement : "The Saint Chamond tanks were
handicapped by damage to their tracks, by derailments, by the breakage of the caps of
connecting rods on forward bogies and of track pins". By that time, the Renault FT tank
had successfully taken over the major role in the French tank force and had also been
purchased by the American Expeditionary Forces in France.
After the war 54 were rebuilt as ammunition carriers; the remainder were scrapped.
There are unsubstantiated stories about Poland using the tank against the Red Army in
1920. If true these specimens were in all probability not from the Soviet Armythe
latter never had been supplied with them and the French Expeditionary Forces to Russia
were only equipped with the Renault FT.
Survivors
The last Saint-Chamond tank remaining in existence (an improved mid-1918 model),
alongside other French tanks of World War I (Schneider CA1 and Renault FT), is
preserved at the Muse des Blinds at Saumur, France. It had survived, together with a
Schneider CA1 tank of the same vintage, at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds Ordnance
Museum in Maryland, and was later donated by the U.S. to the French government.
Between 2015 and 2017 it was restored to running condition and repainted in a World
War I camouflage scheme, at a cost of 120,000. It will take part in various displays
throughout 2017 to mark the centenary of the first use of tanks by the French army.[5]
France (1917) Medium tank 400 built
The second French tank
Developed in parallel with the Schneider CA, the Saint Chamond was the second tank
built by the French in 1917. It dwarfed the Renault FT and was the most heavily armed
Allied tank of the war.
It was also one of the pioneering generation of armored boxes, which actually never
really succeeded anyway other than demonstrating the inability to cope with rough
terrains of the Holt chassis. With a long hull and feeble 90 hp (67.14 kW) engine for
nearly 25 tons of solid steel, its prospects never matched the reality of trench warfare.
An army project
~ 201 ~
When the Schneider project was unveiled to a limited assistance some officers were
outraged that it had completely bypassed their own requirements and normal course of
military conception program. Moreover, when Eugne Brill worked on the CA-1
series, he refused to share its patent , which was Schneider property, with a rival
company, Forges et Aciries de la Marine et dHomcourt (FAMH) bases at Saint
Chamond, near Clermont-Ferrand, in the center of France.
As a result of this FAMH, which intended to built the CA-1 after a government order,
developed their own model, which ultimately was given the name of the town were it
was built.
Front view of the 75mm gun on the char Saint-Chamond French Heavy Tank at the
French Tank Museum
A tank equipped with the famous 75
FAMH, just like Schneider, was a company working closely with the Army and Navy,
based in a coal and metal-rich, industrial region. The whole project started under the
close survey of Colonel mile Rimailho, a gifted artillery engineer who had strong
financial interests in the Saint Chamond company.
It was producing a local-built, enhanced version of the famous Model 1897 canon de
75, the worlds first field gun fitted with a hydro-pneumatic recoil mechanism, later
widely copied and built under licence abroad. The Canon de 75mm TR Saint-Chamond
(Modele 1915) was a model produced in large quantities. Col. Rimailho insisted from
the start, departing from the original Schneider design, that the Saint-Chamond be
equipped with his gun.
An innovative, pragmatic design
~ 202 ~
The only way to carry the 75 mm (2.95 in) in a satisfactory way was to put it on the
front rather than in a side sponson. This required a specially crafted new hull to fit the
existing, modified Baby Holt chassis. The engine was placed at the center, with no
compartimentation.
The weaponry was pushed fore and aft, four machine-guns in all, in small sponsons.
The hull was basically a big rectangular box, with armor plating designed to sustain
average infantry fire. The engine was quite innovative, using for the first time a patented
Crochat-Collardeau electric transmission, already proven on railcars. When the
prototype was ready in September 1916, it came as a shock to Colonel Estienne, who
had never been informed of a rival project.
He would have preferred mass-producing the Schneider instead, notably from a

organisational as well as logistical point of view. Only the lobbying of col. Rimailho in
Parisian political spheres provided the green light for 400 units.
Production and trials
The Saint Chamond, which was designed to carry the 75 mm (2.95 in) in a big fighting
compartment, was larger than any previous prototypes including the CA-1. The hull
looked as if it had been stretched, protruding over the Holt chassis. Ground clearance
was a concern from the start, as well as weight distribution.
The frontal part of the hull, housing the gun, was too heavy, and tests showed it had a
tendency to sink nose first into the mud. A modified version included a new raised,
inclined glacis with new observation slits, and a sloped roof to deflect German
grenades.
~ 203 ~
The heavy 75 mm (2.95 in) was replaced by the lighter Model 1897 after the 165th
vehicle. But none of these modifications altered the tanks behavior on rough terrain.
The overhang was too much for the chassis. This longer hull also meant that stability
was comprised. Soon, if the noise, hot environment, smells and toxic poisoning werent
sufficient enough, the crews experienced sea sickness after prolonged, rough rides.
Later models had their frontal armor reinforced with additional bolted plates.
The Saint Chamond in action
Production began in March 1917 and ended in March 1918, after the 377th vehicle. The
remainder were converted to supply tanks and recovery vehicles. They saw their first
action at Laffaux Mill on May, 5, 1917. Several were stuck in various trenches, but
three succeeded.
In total, following deliveries, twelve artillery groups were raised, Artillerie Spciale
number 31 to 42. However, its obvious limitations quickly caused regular complaints
from various officers, relaying crews.
It was phased out as an offensive tank, on the sole profit of the mass-produced FT.
However, their precious 75 mm (2.95 in) and speed on roads and moderately flat
terrains made them ideally suited as mobile assault guns, to deal with German batteries
(Nahkampfbatterien).
~ 204 ~
In the summer of 1918 the Allies were on the counter-offensive and the Saint Chamond
found open terrains suitable for it. They fought on, sometimes with other tanks and US
troops, until the armistice.
~ 205 ~
Fate
Understandably the Saint Chamond was considered obsolete by 1918. But this not
prevented its building company to develop a replacement model, highly inspired by
British designs.
It was intended to weigh 25 tons, with full length tracks and a rhomboid hull, differing
by a forward towering driver post and two 75 mm (2.95 in) guns in sponsons. Saint
Chamond was unable to produce it quickly and the initial order was eventually dropped,
as well as the project.
No Saint Chamond actually fought outside France, despite some rumors that a handful
were sent to the Polish forces fighting against the Soviets in 1919. The sole survivor
was sent to the US Aberdeen Ordnance Proving Ground for evaluation and tests after
the war.
It was given back after a 67 year loan and arrived in France in 1985 along with the
Schneider CA that had also been on loan. Both are on display now in the Saumur
museum (Musee des Blindes).
~ 206 ~
~ 207 ~
~ 208 ~
Rollers fitted to the front and rear of the St Chamond tank to help it get over trench
walls. There were two in the front and one fitted to the rear. (Photo Eric Gallaud)
Surviving tanks
This WW1 Saint Chamond French Heavy Tank, called Et Encore, can be found at the
French Tank Museum in Saumur.
~ 209 ~
Agricultural tractor tracks were used on the WW1 Saint-Chamond French Heavy Tank.
Inside view of the 75mm Gun on the WW1 St-Chamond French Heavy Tank.
Saint Chamond specifications

8.9m x 2.70m x 2.40m
Dimensions
(29ft 2in 8ft 10in 7ft 10in)
Total weight, battle ready 23 tons
Crew 9
~ 210 ~
Propulsion Panhard Levassor 4 cylinder petrol, 80 hp
Range on/off road 60/30 km (37.3/18.6 mi)
Main Armament St-Chamond 75mm TR long barrelled field

gun
75mm M1897 long barrelled field Gun
Secondary Armament 4x Hotchkiss M1914 8 mm air-cooled

machine guns
Armor 11-19 mm (0.43-0.75 in)
Total production 400
One of the very first Saint Chamonds engaged in operations, Lauffaux plateau, May
1917. Notice the flat roof, angled vision kiosks, and the M1915 heavy field gun. The
unspotted, unblended three-tone livery was usual in 1917, often featuring stripes as
well.
One of the late production char Saint Chamonds, engaged in counter-battery support in
June 1918.
The Char Schneider C.A.1 was intended to be the standard French heavy tank and an
order was placed for 400 of them on 25 February 1916. However, Monsieur J. L.
~ 211 ~
Breton, of the French Government department responsible for war inventions, gave
authority for the firm Forges et Aciries de la Marine et dHom-court, at Saint
Chamond near Lyon, to design another tank, larger and better armed than the Schneider.
Both departmental and industrial jealousies were involved because this step was taken
without full knowledge of the Army and neither Joffre, the CommanderinChief, nor
Estienne, the leading military expert on the subject were consulted and there was no
cooperation with the Schneider firm.
The design of the Char Saint Chamond, as it was known, was undertaken by Colonel
Rimailho of F.A.M.H who took as starting point a lengthened Holt Caterpillar chassis,
which had been specially built up from parts of three Holt tractors for comparison with
the Schneider built chassis in trials at Vincennes on 21 February 1916. The prototype
vehicle of Saint Chamond design was completed by September 1916, and it was in its
essentials a larger version of the Schneider. The suspension was based on the Holt
suspension and was unlike the swinging frame system of the Schneider. Although the
tracks were longer the much larger hull led to a considerable overhang at front and rear
which, it was soon found, resulted in poor crosscountry performance and handling
characteristics. Wooden rollers were added under the front and rear of the hull to help
~ 212 ~
prevent the hull "bellying" in soft ground. These worked quite well in good conditions
but failed in the slush of the Western Front battlefields. It was also proposed to add a
non-driven track under the front of the hull but although this was trialed it never was
fitted to production vehicles. The Saint Chamond had an electric transmission - a
Panhard four-cylinder petrol engine of 80/90 h.p. operated a 52-kw dynamo which in
turn supplied two electric motors, one to each track. This system eliminated the gear
changing difficulties inherent in other early tanks and allowed the St Chamond to "turn
in place" and reverse at about the max. forward speeds. However, the transmission was
complicated and delicate and, unfortunately, unreliable and added to all the other
troubles with this tank.
In addition to the handling faults, the St Chamond was found to have further defects
when in action for the first time on 5 May 1917. Facilities for crew exit in emergency
were poor, vision arrangements were inadequate and the recoil cylinder of the 75mm
gun was found to be vulnerable to enemy fire.
In addition to the handling faults, the St Chamond was found to have further defects
when in action for the first time on 5 May 1917. Facilities for crew exit in emergency
were poor, vision arrangements were inadequate and the recoil cylinder of the 75mm.
gun was found to be vulnerable to enemy fire. In an effort to correct at least some of
these faults, modifications were introduced both in the course of production and
retrospectively. After the first 165 tanks (of the 400 ordered) were built, the 75mm. St
Chamond T.R. gun was replaced by the standard 75mm Model 1897 field gun. Colonel
Rimailho had been the designer of the 75mm T.R gun and had been receiving payments
for each one used. The flat roof with two circular cupolas of the early tanks was
modified to a new pattern with sloped sides to prevent grenades sitting and exploding
on the roof. There was one square cupola at the left on most tanks. The tracks, which
were too narrow, were replaced with wider ones with a chevron tread pattern to give
~ 213 ~
more traction and to accommodate these the hull side plates over the tracks had to be
modified.
It was recommended that additional 8.5 mm plates should be added to the side plates
(which were a basic 8.5 mm.) to give full protection against the German "K" bullet,
although this modification was not carried out in full. Other features of the Char Saint
Chamond were the four Hotchkiss machine-guns (one each side, one at the front, one at
the back with 8488 rounds carried) in addition to the main weapon (for which 106
rounds were supplied) mounted in the front plate; its crew of nine men, and its weight
(due mainly to its heavy transmission system) of 24 tons.
~ 214 ~
The St Chamond was first used in action on May 5 1917, in support of an infantry
attack at Moule de Lafflaux. The major flaw in the construction the front overhang
at once revealed itself: of the 16 St Chamond tanks that participated in the assault, 15
got firmly stuck when they attempted to cross the German trenches. In the next big tank
attack, both Schneider CA.1s and St Chamonds participated, but the result was again a
flop: only the CA.1s managed to pass the German trenches.
None of the modifications introduced could make the St Chamond into a good tank and,
after the French had given consideration to other designs to replace it and the Schneider
CA, it was decided to accept the offer of British heavy tanks for employment in the
offensive planned for 1919. The production of the tank was not pursued after the intial
order of 400 were completed. Under 1918 these vehicles participated in some 375
different actions, and at the end of the war only 72 were still left in service.
~ 215 ~
St Chamond Self-Propelled Guns
by Charlie Clelland
Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs) are usually associated with WW2 but the history of SPGs
stretches back to WW1. One of the conclusions of the French High Command analysing
the failed offensives of 1915 was that artillery could not be brought up in support of
attacking infantry fast enough to prevent counter-attacks pushing back the attacking
forces. Although using tracked towing vehicles for heavy artillery was feasible, shown
~ 216 ~
by trials with Holt tractors, there were delays in setting up the guns even when delivered
to suitable firing positions. Ideally a vehicle was required which could traverse the
churned up landscape of the trenches and fire from the vehicle. Wheeled vehicles could
not traverse the shell cratered landscape and were limited in the size of gun which could
be carried and fired from the vehicle.
Much of the information in English on the St Chamond SPGs is incomplete and often in
error so this article relies on articles in French published in Historie de Guerre, Blinds
& Materiel.
120 L Rimailho SPG
The French Army asked the FAMH (St Chamond) organisation to study the problem. St
Chamond's technical director Col. Emile Rimailho designed a vehicle based on the St
Chamond tank chassis with a 120mm St Chamond gun mounted at the rear of the
chassis. The vehicle was tested in 1917. Very little data seems to be available on this
vehicle but it appears that the sprung suspension of the St Chamond tank was simplified
to rigid by bolting the Holt bogie frames to the hull sides. Although this vehicle appears
to have met the basic requirements it was a development dead end since the gun was
hardly larger than existing field guns and the gun type had not been accepted for the
French Army. The French Ministry of Munitions was also of the view that, given the
expense of the St Chamond vehicle, as large a gun as possible should be mounted.
St Chamond SPG redesign
The exact reasoning that Rimailho and his team used to arrive at the next SPG design
has not been recorded but it can be reconstructed to some extent. Ideally an SPG should
carry as large a gun as practicable since this means it can destroy any strongpoints
holding up an advance and from a range that keeps the vehicle away from local anti-
tank defences. Also a large calibre gun can add significantly to the weight of artillery
fire in the initial bombardment before an attack. However, a large, heavy gun meant that
the vehicle would only be able to carry a small amount of ammunition or be dependent
on a separate munitions vehicle for its ammunition supply. The solution arrived at was
quite ingenious - use two vehicles: one to carry ammunition and the gun crew and the
other to carry the gun. Because the St Chamond chassis was powered by a petrol-
~ 217 ~
electric system the gun carrier did not have to have an engine and generator but could be
powered from the tractor vehicle by an electrical cable. Since the engine and generator
were no longer necessary the centre of the chassis could be opened out so the gun could
recoil below the deck level which meant the gun could be mounted lower in the chassis
and improve the stability of the gun vehicle. Since the St Chamond had two electric
motors which could independently drive each track the vehicle could "turn in place"
which meant the mounted gun didn't need traversing gear which in turn allowed for
(notionally) even larger guns to be mounted without destabilising the carrier vehicle.
~ 218 ~
St Chamond SPG tractor
The tractor unit of the St Chamond SPG was much the same across all the various
models of SPG. The main difference between the SPG version tractors were the shell
racks at the rear of the tractor. The power train was similar to the St Chamond tank with
a Panhard petrol engine of 120 h.p. coupled to the Crochat-Collardeau transmission
with an external 50m power cable fed power to the gun vehicle. When travelling on
roads a 2m steel drawbar was used to link the tractor and gun vehicle, off road the two
vehicles were only linked by the power cable. At the rear of the tractor was a small
crane to lift shells onto the tractor and also transfer shells to the gun vehicle. The crane
details are a little different between the different SPGs. The tractors were also equipped
with a hoist at the rear of the vehicle to lift shells up to the deck level.
Obusier 220mm de St Chamond sur afft-chenilles St Chamond
~ 219 ~
The 1917 version of the 220mm St Chamond howitzer could fire a 100kg projectile at a
muzzle velocity of 500 m/sec giving a max. range of 13,500m. The 1918 version was
even better with a longer barrel giving a muzzle velocity of 560 m/sec and a max. range
of 15,000m. However, it was not adopted by the French Army since the war ended
before production could start.
The prototype of the 220mm howitzer SPG was initially equipped with wheels as well
as tracks. The double rear wheels were intended to be attached to extensions of the drive
sprockets and the pair of wheels at the front of the vehicle were attached to frame which
was normally swung to one side. It was found that changing from tracks to wheels was
not a simple exercise and although the wheels meant that road surfaces weren't damaged
by the tracks it was too difficult and time consuming. The gun vehicle was also too wide
with the wheels fitted. The 220mm howitzer SPG was the only one fitted with wheel
conversion.
The gun mount was a dual system which used the hydro-pneumatic recoil/recuperator of
the gun combined with inclined rails somewhat like the Vavasseur gun mount of the
1880s. The gun was attached to a trolley which ran on the inclined rails. The trolley was
also equipped with brakes so the gun trolley was slowed when it returned to the battery
position after firing. The gun was designed to fire over the rear of the vehicle. There are
4 jacks on the gun vehicle, whether these were used to stabilise the gun vehicle before
firing is not known.
For transport the barrel was lowered to 0 and the trolley moved up to the fully forward
position - there is a rack and pinion gear on the surviving 194mm SPG which looks as if
~ 220 ~
it was used to pull the gun towards the front of the gun vehicle. There are a pair of large
handwheels attached to chassis sides which connected to the vehicle drive via a
gearbox, they were used for fine gun traverse movements. Where large traverse
movements were required the vehicle would be turned with the electric drive.
The 220mm SPG was tested without the howitzer with a ballast weight representing the
gun in January 1918. The 220mm howitzer was eventually fitted and tested at the St
Chamond proving ground in April 1918. It was delivered to the French Army testing
centre at Bourges in May 1918. The initial testing was satisfactory so it was deployed
~ 221 ~
north of Verdun in July 1918 for operational trials. This was the only time the St
Chamond SPGs were used in operations during WW1. Evaluation by the army was
quite enthusiastic, noting the SPG could achieve 2.5 km/hr and although the corners of
roads were damaged by the tracks and crossing bridges required more study the
performance of the SPG was "already remarkable". General Foch, commander in chief,
demanded the construction of 75 220mm SPGs in Sept 1918. No production 220mm
howitzer vehicles were completed before the Armistice in Nov 1918 when the order for
these vehicles was cancelled.
Data
Calibre 220mm
Vehicle Length 6.53m
2.54m (gun in travel
Vehicle Height
position)
Vehicle
24,000kg
Weight
Elevation +0 to +60
Traverse 360 (vehicle traverse)
Muzzle
500 m/sec (Mle 1917)
Velocity
~ 222 ~
Max. Range 13,500m
Shell Weight 100 kg
Rate of Fire 2 Rounds/min
Mortier 280mm TR de Schneider sur afft-chenilles St Chamond
The adaptation of the 280mm TR Schneider howitzer to the St Chamond chassis was
part of a project to place the heaviest guns on tracked chassis to improve their mobility
(4). St Chamond reported that the design was under way in March 1918. On March 2nd
25 SPGs with the 280mm Schneider howitzer were ordered. Given the weight and size
of the Schneider howitzer barrel additional structure was required to balance the gun
during firing. An air brake was also used to slow the howitzer's return to battery
position when it rolled down the inclined rails. In October 1918 St Chamond projected
that the first 280mm SPGs would be delivered in April 1919. All 25 ordered 280mm
SPGs were delivered in 1919 and appear to have been immediately placed in reserve.
The swinging foot which originally was used for the removable front wheels on the St
Chamond chassis was recycled as the support for a large circular earth plate to stabilise
the gun vehicle during firing. The charging trolley of the platform mounted 280mm
~ 223 ~
howitzer was retained and the front of the gun vehicle was extended to accomodate the
rails for the charging trolley.
Data
Calibre 279.4mm L/12
Vehicle 7.46m
~ 224 ~
Length
Vehicle 2.54m (gun in travel

Height position)
Vehicle
28,000kg
Weight
Vehicle 5 km/hr (roads) 2 - 5km.hr

Speed (off road)
Elevation +10 to +60
Traverse time 360 in 15 - 20 secs
Muzzle
418 m/sec
Velocity
Max. Range 10,950m
Shell Weight 203 - 275 kg
Rate of Fire 2.5 Rounds/min
~ 225 ~
Canon 194mm GPF sur afft-chenilles St Chamond
The 194mm GPF gun was a development by Filloux to utilise the large stocks of
194mm ammunition available in French Naval Arsenals. The 194mm (or 19cm) guns
were used as secondary guns on pre-dreadnought battleships and the main guns on
protected cruisers - both of these classes of warships were obsolete by WW1 but large
holdings of ammunition remained. The 194mm GPF gun used the same carriage as the
155mm GPF although it was somewhat heavier at 16,000kg which meant it was
transported as two components - barrel plus carriage. The max. range of the 194mm
GPF was 18,000m with an 83.5kg projectile and the max. rate of fire was 2 rounds/min.
Filloux proposed in 1917 to have the first 194mm gun in testing by April 1918. It was
intended to initially equip a regiment (36 guns) with towed 194mm pieces and the
whole program was to create 200 gun tubes, 150 on towed carriages and 50 on the St
Chamond SPG chassis. Delays in production meant that none of the towed 194mm guns
were complete at the time of the Armistice. The program was reduced to 100 gun tubes
which were all to be used on the 50 St Chamond chassis. No towed 194mm guns
entered service with the French Army1.
St Chamond began investigating adapting the 194mm GPF to the St Chamond chassis in
February 1918, 50 194mm SPGs were ordered on March 2, 1918. No 194mm SPGs
were completed before the Armistice and the 50 SPGs were delivered in the second half
of 1919.
Data
Calibre 194.4mm L/33.5
Vehicle
7.755m
Length
Vehicle
2.54m (gun in travel position)
Height
Vehicle
29,600kg
Weight
Elevation 0 to +40
Muzzle
725 m/sec
Velocity
Max. Range 20,800m
Shell 78.83kg (Mle 1921 AGP),
~ 226 ~
Weight 84.88kg (Mle 1920 FAGP)
Rate of Fire 1 Rounds/min
Canon 155mm GPF sur afft chenilles St Chamond
The 155mm GPF gun is discussed in another article on Landships II here.
Mechanisation options for the 155mm GPF gun were explored in the early part of 1918.
One, fairly obvious, option was to mount the gun on a St Chamond chassis. The
Commander in Chief of the Army asked the Minister of Armaments in September 1918
for 130 155mm GPF SPGs. The first prototype SPG was not completed before the
Armistice when the order was cancelled. The sole 155mm GPF SPG was completed
early in 1919.
~ 227 ~
Caterpillar Mark IV and IVA 240mm SPG
The US Army had no heavy artillery at the time the USA entered WW1 in 1917.
However, the US Army was determined to "catch up" with other armies and very
quickly acquired licences to build the French 155mm GPF, 280mm (240mm) TR
Schneider and British 8inch howitzer. There seems to be very little accessible
documentation on the US Army heavy artillery but it is reasonably clear the US Army
~ 228 ~
was following the British and French advances in mechanising artillery. It appears that
the US Army Ordnance Dept commissioned the building of a tractor and gun vehicle by
the Rock Island Arsenal in 1918 based on St Chamond drawings of the 280mm armed
vehicle modified for the 240mm howitzer barrel. The Mark IVA had a 150 hp 6-
cylinder Van Blerk engine driving a 70 kW 400V General Electric generator - this
reportedly gave a maximum speed of 9 mph (14 kph). The loading trolley on the St
Chamond 280mm SPG was replaced by a crane was installed on the gun vehicle to lift
the shells directly to the loading tray of the gun from the tractor. The vehicles were
designated Mark IV (the gun vehicle) and Mark IVA (the tractor) and were tested at
Aberdeen, MD in 1920-21.
The results of the US Army's evaluation of the Mark IV are unknown. The US did not
pursue SPGs after about 1923 in part due to financial constraints on the Army and the
conclusion of the Artillery Board that "self-propelled guns offered no advantages over
towed guns".
Service after WW1
The 25 280mm and 50 194mm GPF armed SPGs delivered in 1919 were incorporated
into a unit eventually known as 184 RALT (Regiment de Artillerie Lourdes Tracteur)
at Valence. This unit seems to have keep the St Chamond SPGs as a "force in being"
between the wars, maintaining and preserving them as well as running training courses
to ensure a pool of trained gunners and operators. French Army evaluations of the St
Chamond SPGs between the wars were not positive complaining of the low speed of the
SPGs and the damage the tracked vehicles did to the roads. The St Chamond SPGs were
mobilised at the start of WW2, but, because of their low speeds saw little, if any action
during the German invasion of France in 1940. Many of the SPGs were destroyed by
retreating French troops when the SPGs couldn't be evacuated due to the speed of the
German advance.2
~ 229 ~
However, the St Chamond SPGs were used in propaganda film clips shot in May 1940.3
194mm St Chamond Deploying

194mm St Chamonds Firing
280mm St Chamonds Deploying and Firing
These show St Chamond 194mm GPF SPGs deploying although it should be noted the
gun vehicle is being driven in reverse in one segment presumably to look more
menacing. In the other clip with the batteries firing it should be noted that using the
jacks and plate to hold the hull still during firing seems to have been abandoned by
1940 and the gun vehicle is allowed to roll back about 2m on firing, presumably it is
driven back to the firing line.
The Wehrmacht used captured St Chamond SPGs in small numbers in Russia, Italy and
France as the 19.4cm Kanone 458(f) auf Selbstfahrrlafette . At least 3 194mm SPGs
were on strength with the 84th Heer Artillery Regiment, part of Army Group North in
front of Leningrad in 1942. The SPGs seem to have been used as heavy artillery with
limited self-mobility. Many of the extant images of St Chamond SPGs were taken
during Wehrmacht service. The 280mm howitzer armed SPG does not seem to have
~ 230 ~
been used by the Wehrmacht possibly because so few were intact after the French Army
retreat in 1940.
Survivors
There are two surviving gun vehicles, no tractors appear to have survived.
The collection at Aberdeen has a 194mm GPF gun vehicle. This was, according to the
plaque beside the vehicle, captured in a Wehrmacht vehicle park outside Paris in 1944.
The vehicle was transported back to the US and has been displayed outside at Aberdeen
until recently. . The vehicle was generally in poor condition, the floor had rusted away
and a number of other components had been mostly destroyed by neglect. The images
are from a set taken by Seth Gaines in 2008 at Aberdeen, Seth has allowed us to use his
~ 231 ~
images for this article. The 194mm GPF SPG is now at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and is being
restored.
~ 232 ~
A few years ago another St Chamond SPG gun vehicle was found buried outside
Hannover, Germany. This was a 280mm Schneider howitzer armed vehicle. The vehicle
has been reassembled and is at the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, Dresden.
~ 233 ~
~ 234 ~
Saint-Chamond M1916 \ M1917 Middle infantry support tank
Official designation: Saint-Chamond M1916 \ M1917

Start design: 1916
Stage of completion: about 400 tanks were built.
~ 235 ~
Design and prototype FAMH 1916
In contrast to the Schneider tank company's chief designer FAMH Colonel Rimalo went
some other way. As in the first case, the basis was taken Holt tractor chassis, but the
base was significantly lengthened, thus increasing the support surface caterpillars and
thereby reduce the pressure on the ground. Chassis is now consisted of eight road
wheels on board a semi-detached 3 truck (front bogie includes two rollers, the other two
- three), five supporting rollers and the rear drive wheel arrangement. Carriages
connected to the housing and to each other by means of articulated levers, the frame
body rested on the trolley through the vertical cylindrical helical spring. The front fork
truck fastened steering wheel with track tensioning mechanism. Just caterpillar
consisted of 36 trucks krupnozvenchatyh consisting of pillows ( "shoe") in width 324
mm and two rails.
The body of the tank, due to the selected layout and weapons, was very long, with a
large bow for the removal of the chassis dimensions. He was going out of the armor
plates with a thickness of 5 to 17 mm by means of dowel, and had at the sight in the
profile view of a chisel. To such an unexpected decision at the time FAMH company's
engineers did not come by accident. The main armament involves the installation of a
75-mm gun TR special design, the course of which the rollback has been very great.
Shooting was conducted unitary regular shots. For its time, TR had a very good
performance - the initial velocity of its fragmentation projectile was 529 m \ s, which
allows not only effectively fight with the infantry of the enemy, but to destroy its
strongholds. The disadvantages of this setup tools in the tank became limited angles
pickup. Horizontal calculation could direct the gun at around 8 , and vertically - from -
4 to + 10 , since it is often accompanied by the transfer of fire by turning the whole
machine. Placing weapons in the bow of the hull resulted in its rapid extension. There is
also offset to the left side, for the driver and tank commander. Right from the gun was
placed gunner, serving the bow gun, and another four machine-gunner, one of which
served as a mechanic, were placed on the sides and at the rear of the tank.
To balance the weight distribution of the created imbalance feed also had to extend, and
in the resulting space was equipped with a second helm station. As conceived by the
~ 236 ~
creators of the tank, it would allow the tank to quickly get out of the battle, as did the
crews of armored vehicles, but in practice almost none of the tank crews could not use
this function in combat conditions.
The tank was Panard petrol engine with four twin-cylinder diameter of 125 mm and a
stroke of 150 mm. At 1500 \ min. Maximum capacity was 80-85 hp, while 145 of the \
m is increased to 90 hp, that in any case for a 23-ton machine was not enough. The
engine is started with the starter or crank. The fuel tanks are placed on the sides (two on
the left and one on the right), but taking into account the experience of their British
colleagues performed armored.
Tank electric transmission was the original scheme. The engine runs on dynamo
(generator) with two inductors, each of which is given voltage 200V and 260A current.
In the case where they are included in series, the voltage was 400V, the current - 140A.
From the generator voltage was applied to the two traction motor is driven via a
mechanical reduction gear a caterpillar. Since the movement of the driver of a pedal at
the same time included the resistance of the primary winding and operated throttle
carburetor. Thus governed engine speed and current in the primary winding. The speed
of rotation of the electric motor was set potentiometers. When required to convert the
car into reverse driver used a special switch. Turn a small radius was carried out using
an appropriate short-circuit the motor and caterpillar retarding conventional mechanical
brake.
The advantages of this type of transmission consisted in the fact that the tank had the
opportunity to start moving smoothly in a wide range of continuously changing speed
and turning radius. However, the electric transmission had a large mass, was
cumbersome and while highly unreliable.
The assembly of the first prototype (serial number 414) was carried out at the plant in
g.Sen-Chamond (Saint-Chamond), and where there was a widely known name of the
tank, although it is also common designation H-16. Begun in the summer of 1916 tests
of the new machine brought more disappointments than successes. Mobility and
~ 237 ~
flotation tank on the ground was even worse than in the CA1, which in this context is
also not "shine". It was necessary to increase the width of the truck first to 412 and then
to 500 mm. Also redesigned radiator and oil lubrication system, which often broke
down, disabling the engine. Subsequently, improved insulation of electrical
transformers, and the exhaust pipe was taken along the roof to the stern. Before the start
of series-built abandoned bulwarks, to cover on a prototype chassis.
M1916 and M1917 Bulk tanks sample 1917 year.
Serial production of Saint-Chamond M1916 tanks began in late 1916, three months
after the first passing car combat units. For the first time they tried to apply during the
Nivelle Offensive the yardarm Ain, scheduled for April 16, 1917 The concentration of
technology in this area was conducted without due secrecy, so the German
reconnaissance aircraft is easy enough to "uncovered" area of finding the first French
tanks. The situation was complicated by the attackers by the fact that all 48 arrived
M1916 tanks out of service for technical reasons, so the fight went only 132 CA1.
Accurate fire of the German guns literally covered the French, who have lost 76
vehicles. We can say, "Saint-Chamond" lucky here.
Leaving no hope for a breakthrough of the German defense in Laffite plateau French
decided to engage in a new offensive 19 CA1 1st and 10th tank groups, as well as 12 of
31 M1916-th group. Having advanced to the front width of 3.2 km at a depth of 500
meters of the lost six armored cars, but were able to keep the positions captured. This
gave some confidence in combat capabilities, "Saint-Chamonix", which were stopped
only deep mud and 3-meter ditch.
More successful was the use of tanks with the support of La Malmaison in the 6 th
Army. Assembled there 20 tanks 31 th and 33 th group, with 38 CA1 of the 8 th, 11 th
and 12 th group went on the attack early in the morning on 23 October. German
defenses were able to overcome only 20 tanks, but that was enough - the 12-km front,
the French managed to move into the 6 km.
~ 238 ~
Expensive lessons learned went good. For example, if the tanks 400-600 series had a
flat roof, the 700 Series it became sloping to the sides, it rolled to a German infantry
uncultivated hand grenades. Also, instead of cylindrical, rectangular observation towers
entered, but because of this review has worsened and the designers had to finish off the
top hatches.
Not spared and strengthening of booking. As it turned out, 15-mm armor-board tank
armor-piercing bullets made its way perfect type "K", which the Germans successfully
used in the fight against the Allied tanks and armored vehicles. In order to once again
not to overload the machine armor thickness was adjusted to 17 mm. Changed and
armament. Instead, not the proven TR tank guns on the tanks began to establish its
modernized version, characterized by the presence of a swinging part of the field of 75-
mm guns in 1897 with a length of 36,3 caliber barrel and crane lock.
Since 1917, modified tanks "Saint-Chamond" were designated M1917. The launch of
these tanks lasted just over a year, until March 1918, the plant has not left the last 400 th
serial M1917 with serial number 813. However, the efforts of field repair teams were
born "hybrid" version of the tank, which had the old building with a new gun or square
turret on a flat roof.
Meanwhile, the combat use of "Saint-Chamond" continued. On the eve of the German
attack, which took place in the spring of 1918, the French concentrated main tank forces
in the band of the 3rd Army, where the main attack was expected. Here, the "Saint-
Chamond" most of the time spent in reserve and again were put into action only in the
summer, when the Germans drained allies unleashed their counterpunch.
Trying to parry the German 18th Army in the Battle of Le May are involved in virtually
all available on this section of the front medium tanks. During the course of the hardest
battle of 103 M1917 CA1 and 56 French armored division lost 46% of their original
line-up (42 and 31 tanks, respectively), but the German offensive on the PC has been
stopped.
~ 239 ~
A week later, July 18, 1917, at Soissons, in the enemy moved the biggest tank group,
which could raise the French in the First World War. 131 "Saint-Chamond" was leveled
against the German defense in depth and 220 FT-17. As usual, they are lying ahead of
tanks and infantry penetrated the enemy's defenses. There are more than powerful book
really helped crews M1917, as the Marines, under the cover of massive hulls of tanks,
nevertheless managed to break through the first line of German trenches. Then they
were able to move not mean lag behind the attack on their way of cavalry and infantry
units. During the operation, the French missed 103 tanks of all types, which accounted
for approximately 40% of the initial amount, and the depth of the promotion was only
2.5-3 km.
In the future, "Saint-Chamond" tanks were used in the fighting sporadically. The last
major operations with their participation was a joint Franco-American offensive in
Saint-myeloma held on 12-13 September (involved 36 M1917 34-th and 35-th groups)
and fighting in Champagne, it lasted from 26 September. However, here the "first
violin" played light tanks FT-17, and medium tanks Schneider CA1 in October finally
taken out of the combat units, turning them into tracked vehicles supply. The same fate
in the near future was prepared, and 72 surviving tanks Saint-Chamond M1917. As
mentioned above, more than half of them had been subjected to alteration, similar to
CA1, but several cars preserved in its original form and sent to the warehouse. The
experience of combat employment suggests that "Saint-Chamond" is most advantageous
~ 240 ~
to be used as a self-propelled artillery. In this case the benefits are provided is much
larger, and smaller losses.
The last mention of tanks M1917 refer to the summer of 1940. At this point, single
copies of these machines were in training centers and schools in the tank. Most likely
their technical condition was such that the use of the old "Saint-Chamonix" was
possible only as a non-self-uchebny benefits. However, some of them still 75 mm
cannon. In the past such as M1917 were captured by German forces after the partial
occupation of the camps in the summer of 1940
The story ended with M1917. after the war, tanks were sent to be melted down,
although a car is still preserved and is now demontriruetsya in the tank museum in
Saumur.
Information on the participation of Saint-Chamond tanks in the Soviet-Polish war in

1919-1921. on the side of the Polish forces is not confirmed. However, sometimes there
are allegations of exploitation M1917 allegedly seized from the Red Army, as part of
the Polish Army. The same is true of the war in Morocco, which allegedly also
participated in Saint-Chamond. In fact, the tribes fought against the riffs here only
Reanault FT-17, and, oddly enough, the six surviving Schneider CA1, which were
purchased from France in 1921 and sent to Africa as ACS.
Other applications of embodiments tank modifications Saint-Chamond
The most realistic option of using Saint-Chamond tanks caught unsuitable as a means of
supporting the infantry, was their use as ACS. Actually, the closer the French have done
so by the end of the war. Along with support from tanks in April 1917 issued by supply
tanks (Le Char Kesson), characterized by the absence of arms and often used to tow
wrecked cars and the transport of ammunition. Subsequently, 54 standard tank, rejected
the army, were converted during this option. Thus obtained analogues of the British
"tenders" successfully ispolzovalis not only French, but also American forces.
~ 241 ~
Further, during the 1st World War, French engineers have attempted to accommodate
the tank is not particularly good for other purposes. In 1918, on the basis of concern
FAMH M1917 was developed movable bridge bearings fitted an electric motor. From
left tank only basic chassis on which motnirovalsya redesigned body and a retractable
bridge construction. The project, launched bridge had to be controlled remotely. Going
by some distance in the water, it builds bridges. The machine is called "hydrochenille"
and was quite promising, but in December 1918, all the work on it was stopped.

CREW, pers. 8
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 8830 (with a gun)
Width 2668
Height mm 2362
Clearance, mm 410
WEAPONS one 75-mm gun TR and three 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
allowance of
106 rounds of ammunition and 7,500
ammunition
aiming DEVICES telescopic sights and optical machine-gun
RESERVATIONS feed - 8 mm
roof - 5 mm
the bottom - 5 mm
ENGINE Panard, 4-cylinder, carburetor, 90 hp, fuel tank 250 liters
TRANSMISSION electric type
(On one side) 8 sdvvoennyh track rollers, supporting rollers 5,
peredneee steering and rear drive wheel, the suspension is
CHASSIS
blocked with vertical springs krupnozvenchataya caterpillar
steel shoe
SPEED 8 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m 0.38
~ 242 ~
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Saint-Chamond 25 tonnes Heavy Tank Corps Support
Official designation: Saint-Chamond 25 tonnes

Alternative notation: Char 25t Saint-Chamond
Apparently under the impression from the success of combat use of heavy tanks Mk.I
and Mk.II engineers Saint-Chamond French company developed a project of its own
25-ton heavy tank, using as a basis for the design of the British machines. In general,
both tanks were identical, except that the 75 mm gun has been installed in a front hull
and four 8-mm gun housed in side sponsons. sponsons design was an original, providing
a circular firing machine guns. When equipped with a tank of 120-horsepower engine
planned to get the speed of the order of 5 km \ h.
~ 243 ~
The project was reviewed by the technical committee, but at that time we will do the
purchase of more modern tanks Mk.V directly in the UK, while the company FCM
already give an assignment to build a prototype heavy tank 1C.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Heavy Infantry Tank

Saint-Chamond 25 tonnes in 1917, the sample
SPECIFICATIONS armored OBSERVATIONS

Renault YS sample 1939
Combat weight ~ 20,000-25,000 kg
CREW, pers. 7-8
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 75-mm gun obr.1897 of the case and four 8-mm

WEAPONS
machine gun in the sponsons
allowance of ammunition ? shells and 16,000 rounds of ammunition
aiming DEVICES optical sight
~ 244 ~
food body - 5,4 mm
RESERVATIONS
sponsons -?
roof -
bottom -
mnogokatkovaya, with front-and rear guide wheels? stiff

CHASSIS
suspension, caterpillar steel shoe
4.5 km \ h maximum
SPEED
0.5 km \ h in the area
Cruising on the highway ~ 100 km
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
The width of the den, m ~ 2.50
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
~ 245 ~
Schneider CA
Type Tank
1916-1918 (France)
In service
1921-1936 (Spain)
France
Used by Kingdom of Italy
Spain
World War I
Wars Rif War
Spanish Civil War
Designer Schneider
Manufacturer SOMUA
Number built 400
Weight 13.6 tonnes
~ 246 ~
Crew 6
Armor 11 mm + 5.5 mm spaced
Main 75mm Blockhaus Schneider

armament
Secondary 28 mm Hotchkiss M1914

Schneider 4-cylinder petrol

Engine
60 hp (45 kW)
Suspension Coil spring
Operational 30/80 km
range
Speed 8.1 km/h (5.0 mph)
The Schneider CA 1 (originally named the Schneider CA) was an armoured fighting
vehicle developed in France during the First World War. Although not a tank in the
modern sense of the word, not being a turreted vehicle, it is generally accepted and
described as the first French tank.
The Schneider was inspired by the need to overcome the stalemate of trench warfare
which on the Western Front prevailed during most of the Great War. It was designed
specifically to open passages for the infantry through barbed wire and then to suppress
German machine gun nests. After a first concept by Jacques Quellennec devised in
November 1914, the type was developed from May 1915 onwards by engineer Eugne
Brilli, paralleling British development of tanks the same year. Colonel Jean Baptiste
Eugne Estienne in December 1915 began to urge for the formation of French armour
units, leading to an order in February 1916 of four hundred Schneider CA tanks, which
were manufactured by SOMUA, a subsidiary of Schneider located in a suburb of Paris,
between September 1916 and August 1918.
The tank was of the "box" type, lacking a turret, with the main armament, a short
75 mm cannon, in the right side. Generally it is considered a very imperfect design,
even for its day, because of a poor layout, insufficient fire-power, a cramped interior
and inferior mobility due to an overhanging nose section which had been specially
designed to crush through barbed wire belts. Improved designs were almost
immediately initiated but the production of these, the Schneider CA 2, CA 3 and CA 4,
was eventually cancelled.
~ 247 ~
The Schneider CA 1 tanks were widely used in combat during the last war years. Their
first action on 16 April 1917 was largely a failure, the tank units suffering heavy losses,
but subsequent engagements were more successful. In 1918 the Schneider tanks played
an important role in halting the German Spring Offensive and breaking the German
front in the French summer offensives. They were active until the end of September
1918, less than two months before the Armistice of 11 November 1918, their numbers
having dropped considerably due to attrition. After the war the surviving tanks were
mostly rebuilt as utility vehicles but six Schneider tanks were deployed by Spain in the
Rif War in Morocco, and the type saw its last action in the beginning of the Spanish
Civil War.
Development
Armoured caterpillar tractor development
Before the First World War, mechanic Charles Marius Fouch cooperated with engineer
douard Quellennec and the latter's son Jacques Quellennec to adapt existing caterpillar
tractors to the conditions of Egyptian and French farming, among them the Holt Model
75. In this context in 1914 contacts were made with engineer Eugne Brilli of
Schneider & Co. to adapt the Castran Flexible Track Tractor. When that year war
broke out, Jacques Quellennec was drafted as an infantry sergeant, witnessed most men
of his unit being slaughtered during the First Battle of the Marne and was then severely
wounded at the end of October. While recovering, he devised plans for an armoured
tractor armed with a machine-gun and capable of destroying German machine-gun
nests. Many in this period had comparable ideas but contrary to most, Quellennec had
excellent contacts. Fouch had become a second lieutenant with the Grand Parc
Automobile de Rserve of the Service Automobile, the Army branch responsible for
motorisation, and Brilli was chief designer with one of France's main arms
manufacturers. Early December, Quellennec met Fouch in Paris and both then went to
Brilli to present drawings of a tracked armoured fighting vehicle. During a second visit
Quellennec urged Brilli to bring over two Holt Model 75 tractors, at that time present
in Tunisia, to France in order to perform the first trials. Brilli showed himself less than
enthusiastic about the idea, objecting there would be not enough room on a tractor for
both crew and armament. In February 1915, Quellennec was sent to an air force training
base and tasked Fouch with trying to convince Brilli, without much apparent
success.[1]
Meanwhile, the Schneider company had been given the order to develop heavy artillery
tractors in January 1915. On 30 January it sent out its chief designer, Brilli, to
investigate tracked tractors from the American Holt Company, at that time participating
in a test programme at Aldershot in England.[2] On his return, Brilli, who had earlier
been involved in designing armoured cars for Spain, apparently without mentioning
being influenced in this by Quellennec,[1] convinced the company management to
initiate studies on the development of an armoured fighting vehicle, based on the Baby
Holt chassis, two of which were ordered. The type was intended to be sold to the French
Cavalry.[3]
with a 75 hp wheel-directed model and the 45 hp integral caterpillar Baby Holt,
showing the superiority of the latter.[4] The Castran and the Killen-Strait Tractor were
~ 248 ~
also tested but rejected.[1] Work was now begun on an auto-mitrailleuse blinde
chenilles ("tracked armoured self-propelled machine gun"). On 16 June, new
experiments followed in front of the President of the Republic Raymond Poincar,
leading to the order of six,[1] later expanded to ten, armoured tracked vehicles for further
testing. The type was since July called a machine offensive chenilles ("tracked
offensive machine") and was based on the Baby Holt with a suspension that was to be
thirty centimetres lengthened. In August drawings were made of what was now
designated the tracteur blind et arm ("armoured and armed tractor").[5] In September
1915 the Schneider programme was combined with an official one for the development
of an armoured barbed wire cutter by engineer and Member of Parliament Jules-Louis
Breton, the Breton-Prtot machine. Ten of the fifteen available Baby Holt vehicles were
to be armoured and fitted with the wire cutter of which ten systems had been ordered on
7 August. This involved the Service Automobile in the project. On 10 September, new
experiments were made for Commandant L. Ferrus, an officer who had been involved in
the study (and ultimate rejection) of the Levavasseur tank project in 1908.[6]
The Souain experiment
Main article: Souain experiment
The Souain prototype crossing a trench, on 9 December 1915.
On 9 December 1915 in the Souain experiment, a Schneider prototype armoured tank, a

Baby Holt chassis with boiler-plate armour, was demonstrated to the French Army.[7][8]
Among the onlookers were General Philippe Ptain, and Colonel Jean Baptiste Eugne
Estienne an artillery man and engineer held in very high regard throughout the army
for his unmatched technological and tactical expertise. The results of the prototype tank
were, at least according to Estienne,[1] excellent, displaying remarkable mobility in the
difficult terrain of the former battlefield of Souain. The length of the Baby Holt
however appeared to be too short to bridge German trenches, justifying the development
of longer caterpillar tracks for the French tank project.[9] For Estienne the vehicle shown
embodied concepts about armoured fighting vehicles which he had been advocating
since August 1914. Already on 1 December Estienne had proposed to the French GHQ
the use of tracked armoured tractors to move infantry, equipment and cannon over the
battlefield, having performed some trials with British caterpillar tractors.[5] On 11
December Estienne let a certain lieutenant Thibier draw a sketch of two conceptions:
the one of a Baby Holt chassis fitted at the front and the back with auxiliary rollers, to
improve the trench-crossing capacity; the other of an elongated suspension protected by
side armour.[5]
Estienne's proposal
~ 249 ~
On 12 December Estienne presented to the High Command, represented by General
Maurice Janin, a plan to form an armoured force equipped with tracked vehicles. In it he
formulated some specifications. The machines should be twelve tonnes in weight,
protected by fifteen to twenty millimetres of armour. The dimensions of the vehicles
were indicated as four metres long, 2.6 metres wide and 1.6 metres high. An engine of
eighty horsepower should allow for a maximum speed of nine kilometres per hour and a
low speed of three. The vehicle should be able to cross a two metres wide trench and
tow a seven tonne armoured sled holding twenty men with arms and equipment. Its
armament should consist of two machine guns and a 37 mm gun, able to pierce the
armour shields of enemy machine guns. The crew would total four men.[5]
Tank drawings ordered by Colonel Estienne right after the Souain experiment, drawn on
11 December 1915. The plans are basically based on the 45 hp Holt caterpillar, but a
little picture of the Holt Model 75 is attached
On 20 December Estienne, on leave in Paris, together with Ferrus visited Louis Renault
in Boulogne-Billancourt, in vain trying to convince the car producer to get involved in
the production of the new weapon system. Later the same day they received Brilli who
disclosed the amount of work already done by Schneider on its project. The August
order of ten vehicles had been confirmed on 7 December; on the 15th the official
contract was signed. On 22 December, the Schneider company began to prepare for
armoured vehicle production. It indicated it had the capacity to manufacture in total
three hundred to four hundred units in 1916. At this point the Schneider project
envisioned a ten tonne vehicle, armed by a 75 mm gun, protected by 10 mm chrome
steel and powered by a specially developed 50 HP engine allowing for a top speed of
7 km/h.[10] On the 27th, the paper design was adapted to incorporate some of Estienne's
ideas; because the original drawings have not been rediscovered, it is impossible to
determine to what extent this was done. The same day new tests were held with the
Baby Holt tractor at Vincennes; the next day Estienne further elaborated his proposal at
the GHQ. The prototype was fitted with extensions at the front and rear end to improve
its trench-crossing capacity and successfully tested on 5 January 1916.[5]
~ 250 ~
Final caterpillar test, on 21 February 1916, before the mass order of the Schneider CA1
tank on the 25th. The eight-wheeled vehicle is shown. The man spanning the trench
with his arms is Fouch.
Estienne's plan met with approbation from Commander-in-chief Joffre, who on 7

January 1916 proposed the production of an "offensive engine" to Minister of
Armaments Albert Thomas. On the 18th Estienne was received by Joffre personally to
clarify his ideas.[5] In a letter to the ministry dated 31 January 1916 Joffre desired the
production of four hundred tanks of the type suggested by Estienne.[11] Although there
had been a long prior development phase with the Schneider company, Estienne's
decisive role in getting the Schneider vehicle produced in mass has earned him a
traditional position in history as the creator of the first French tank.[5] This is put into
perspective by his limited involvement in its technical design;[5] as early as January
1916 the actual completion was entrusted to a ministerial bureau headed by General
Lon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, director of the Army automobile service. Mourret
did not closely cooperate with Estienne, who was essentially excluded from decisions of
a technical nature.[5]
In January it was decided to manufacture a longer suspension. Schneider had, already

before 9 December 1915, devised a system thirty centimetres longer with seven road
wheels instead of five.[12] Mourret ordered to build an alternative system. Two Baby
Holt tractors, part of the order of fifteen by Schneider on 21 September 1915, and
property of the French State, were during two weeks from 2 February onwards in an
army workshop combined into a single elongated vehicle, a caterpillar offensif allong,
by Lieutenant Charles Fouch, assisted by a small team of mechanics. The workshop
was in the Farman factory at Billancourt appropriated from the l'Automobilette
company.[13] It was again about a foot longer than the Schneider type, and featured three
bogies with a total of eight road wheels.[5] The new suspension system was not based on
exact blueprints but improvised by private Pierre Lescud.[12] On 17 February the eight-
wheeled system, which prototype was later designated L'appareil n 1 Type A ("Device
Number 1 Type A") was tested at Vincennes, easily crossing trenches up to 1.75 metres
wide and overcoming barbed wire obstacles. On 21 February successful tests were held
at Vincennes, the Schneider company providing a non-elongated Baby Holt chassis for
~ 251 ~
comparison.[12] From this it was concluded that the tank was sufficiently developed to
justify a production order. On 25 February 1916 the War Ministry secretly ordered the
production of four hundred tracteurs-chenilles type Schneider & Cie blinds ("tracked
and armoured tractors of the Schneider type"),[14] at a price of 56,000 French francs per
vehicle. For security reasons it was pretended these were simple towing vehicles,
tracteurs Estienne.[5] The earlier order of 15 December for ten vehicles was hereby
replaced.[15] Fouch was ordered to improve the prototype, which resulted in a slightly
changed L'appareil n 1 Type B, tested on 2 March. Further changes, now including
improvised side armour extending to the front in a bow, created the L'appareil n 1
Type C or Machine Profile which was tested on 17 March. On 27 February, Schneider
had been asked to provide a first armoured superstructure made of boiler steel, which
was late March placed on the eight-wheeled chassis.[12] Pictures of this vehicle have
often been presented in books as showing the "first Schneider CA prototype". However,
this entire development line, even though its official order had been based on it, would
not be ancestral to the Schneider tank.[12] In the Spring of 1916, for reasons that are not
entirely clear, there was a fundamental falling-out between the French Army and
Schneider Cie.[12] The latter company would develop and produce its Schneider tank on
the basis of its seven-wheeled chassis, which had been patented on 17 January; the
Army would develop the eight-wheeled system into the Saint-Chamond heavy tank.[12]
Designation
Whereas the first order spoke of tracteurs Estienne, the factory designation of the tank
was Schneider CA. The meaning of "CA" is uncertain. Later it was usually understood
to mean Char d'Assaut, literally "chariot" and today the full French word for "tank".[16]
However, the "CA" part first surfaces in a Tracteur CA,[17] as a next development step
in 1916 after the Tracteur A (the lengthened Army prototype or L'appareil n 1 Type A),
Tracteur B and Tracteur C. The term char d'assaut in the meaning of "tank" was first
applied by Estienne in October 1916.[5] Sometimes a reversed order was used:
Schneider AC.[18] The combination with "char" was typically in the form of Char
Schneider.[18] A gun-towing tractor (remorqueur), based on the CA chassis and
produced in 1918, was designated Schneider CD,[19] and a prototype porteur variant of
it, intended to carry a heavy artillery piece, the CD3.[20] This would seem to indicate that
the CA suffix was merely a Schneider product code similar to those used by Renault.
At the end of 1916, the type was called Schneider CA 1 to make a distinction with a
derived tank project, the Schneider CA 2. In 1917 the Schneider CA 1 is also called the
Schneider 1916 to distinguish it from the Schneider 1917, another name for the next
tank project, the Schneider CA 3.[17] This had its origin in a demand by Estienne on 30
January 1917 to agree on a standardised terminology. General Mourret then proposed to
use the official designations Schneider Modle 1916 and Saint-Chamond Modle
1916.[21]
Description
To the modern eye, the tank is hardly recognizable as such and appears as an armoured
steel box resting on top of a caterpillar tractor. It has no turret, and its inconspicuous
main armament is a fortification 75 mm Blockhaus Schneider, placed in a barbette in the
right front corner of the tank. The right side had been chosen because the gunner had to
stand to the left of the barrel to operate the gun.[22] The cannon type was developed from
~ 252 ~
a 75 mm trench mortar that had been adapted to fire from a fixed fortification position
by adding a recoil compensator and a gun shield; in this configuration it weighed 210
kilogrammes.[23] This short-barrelled cannon had a length of just 9.5 calibres. It fired the
standard French HE Model 1915 75 mm shell but with a reduced propelling charge,
shortening the length of the round from 350 to 241 millimetres, allowing for a muzzle
velocity of only two hundred metres per second. This limited the maximum range to
2200 metres, the practical range was six hundred metres and the tank needed to close
within two hundred metres of a point target to allow for precision shooting. The gun has
a traverse of 60, a depression of -10 and an elevation of 30.[16] The ammunition stock
is ninety vertically stowed rounds. Two 8 mm Hotchkiss Model 1914 machine guns,
projecting from the flanks in large hemispherical ballmounts, and resting on pintles,
complement the short 75mm gun.[5] The right machine gun is, because of the room
needed for the main gun, positioned more to the rear than the left one. The machine
guns have a traverse of 106, a depression of -45 and an elevation of 20.[16] To the
right of the cannon there is a bin for twenty readily accessible 75 mm rounds. Three
other bins are positioned respectively at the extreme right rear corner (fourteen rounds),
to the left of the engine (thirty-two) and at the left rear corner (twenty-four). The latter
is situated to the right of a bin, at the extreme left corner, for the stock of four thousand
rounds of 8 mm ammunition.[24] In 1918, in practice fifty belts with ninety-six rounds
were carried, for a total of 4800 rounds.[25]
Another unusual feature is the slanted overhang of the frontal part of the chassis which
has the form of a pointed nose, ending in a high obliquely protruding steel spur. It had
been designed for cutting through and crushing down German barbed wire, thus
opening passages for following French infantry, originally seen as the primary function
of the system. This long overhang could cause the tank to ditch itself readily. The major
dimensions of the tank are a length of 6.32 metres (20 feet 9 inches), a width of 2.05
metres (6 feet 9 inches) and a height of 2.3 metres (7 feet 7 inches).[5] The design is of
the early so-called "box tank" type, in which the crew, propulsion system and all
manner of equipment are not clearly separated. As a result, there is no real fighting
compartment. The room available to the crew, illuminated by three small electric
lights,[26] is entered through a double door in the back of the tank and is extremely
cramped. The crew consisted of a commanding officer who was also the driver; an NCO
who was the gunner, two machine gunners, a loader who assisted both the cannon and
the machine guns and a mechanic who doubled as a machine gun loader.[5] Four of these
six men had, at their assigned position, to crouch inside a 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) high space
between the roof and the tank's floor. They then had to stand within two narrow troughs,
one, behind the driver's seat, used by the gunner and a second square one more to the
back, between the suspension elements, used by the cannon loader and the two machine
gunners. Most of the space however, had a height of just three feet between the roof and
the covering of transmission and suspension:[27] if the mechanic wanted to assist the
right machine gun, he had to lie on his belly to load it.[24] Part of each Schneider tank
team were also three embedded riflemen who functioned as a sort of outside crew,
during battle directly accompanying the vehicle. All-around protection was provided by
11.4 mm steel plate, later improved by a spaced armour of 5.4/5.5 mm, raising the
weight from 12.5 to 13.5 tonnes. The roof had 5.5 mm armour.[22] The plates are partly
riveted; the superstructure is largely bolted.
The 60 hp Schneider gasoline engine and its radiator are located in the front part of the
tank, to the immediate left of the driver. The four cylinder, 135170 9753 cc, engine is
~ 253 ~
of a type specially constructed for the Schneider CA. It attains its maximum output of
sixty horsepower at a thousand rpm.[5] The three forward speeds gearbox, as well as the
differentials, which can be engaged by brakes on the half shafts to steer the tank, are all
located on the rear axle. They are linked to the engine in the front by a driveshaft and a
primary clutch. A secondary clutch is coupled to each sprocket and can be decoupled
for a tight turn.[28] The main clutch and the main brakes can be engaged by pedals, the
throttle by a handle.[28] By means of a reverse device the three gears can also be applied
to drive backwards.[28] Steering was generally very tiring and there was a tendency to
jump out of gear when the clutch was engaged too forcefully.[12] The tank's official top
speed is only 8.1 km/h. Practical terrain speed was even lower at two to four km/h. The
first gear at 1000 rpm equals a speed of 2 km/h, the second of 3.95 km/h, the third of
6.75 km/h.[28] At two kilometres per hour the vehicle can climb a slope of 55%.[5] The
capacity to overcome obstacles, limited to a parapet of about eighty centimetres,[16] is
improved by two short climbing tails, fitted to the left and right of the lower hull rear.
The lower profile of the tails is curved, allowing the vehicle to gradually raise itself
above a trench floor, until its centre of gravity shifts over the edge causing its hull to
suddenly tumble forward. The trench-crossing capacity is about 175 centimetres.[16] The
wading capacity is eighty centimetres.[29] Two fuel gravity-feed reservoirs placed above
the engine below the right front roof and nose plate, have a total capacity of 145
litres,[28] and allow for a practical range of about fifty kilometres,[16] though the official
range is eighty kilometres.[29] The suspension consists of seven double road wheels
attached to two bogies, the one in front carrying three, the other four.[5] The rear bogie is
sprung by two vertical coil springs, the front one larger than the rear one. The front
bogies of the left and the right, each sprung by a vertical coil of narrow diameter, are
connected to each other by means of a yoke-like transverse beam, itself attached to the
hull bottom by two wide vertical coils springs, diminishing rolling and tilt when
crossing rough terrain. Ground clearance is forty-one centimetres.[5] There are five small
return rollers. The six-spoked idler is attached to the front bogie and can thus move
vertically to some degree. The sprocket, having twenty teeth, is however fixed in
relation to the hull. It has a somewhat larger diameter than the idler, causing the upper
track profile to slope slightly downwards to the front. The track consists of thirty-three
flat links with a width of thirty-six centimetres.[29] The ground pressure is about
0.75 kg/cm[29]
As the traverse of the main gun was limited, it had first to be pointed in the general
direction of the target by the driver-commander swivelling the entire vehicle. To
facilitate this, a small rectangular frame is fitted on the right side of the nose of the tank.
Looking through it, the driver had a sightline parallel to that of the cannon in a neutral
position.[30] In practice, the commander had a too limited view of his surroundings
through the small hatches to his left, front and right and had to resort to lifting his head
out of his rectangular top hatch to observe the enemy.[23] Small rectangular hatches,
fitted with a vision slit, are further present to the front of each machine-gun. The main
ventilation is provided by a large skylight slit running along the midline of the hull. It is
doubly roofed with the lower roof having a second slit in its top, while the higher roof
has open lower sides, creating oblique oblong ventilation channels through which fresh
air can be sucked in from the outside. The top roof is the highest element of the vehicle.
With later production vehicles, polluted air is removed through a broad ventilation grid
in the nose, having a recessed armour plate below it. To the left and the right of the
skylight roof rectangular escape hatches are present in the hull top.
~ 254 ~
The vehicles were delivered by the factory painted in the standard grey colour used by
the Artillery Arm and other branches of the army and that was often called "artillery
grey". It was a rather light pearl grey shade. At first, by the Section Camouflage in the
field a specially designed complex striped flame pattern was added consisting of narrow
vertical red brown, dark green and yellow ochre patches, delineated in black. This was
intended to break the contours of the vehicles. To some observers, it made them seem
strikingly colourful. The original grey paint was perhaps only partly covered, including
it in the ensemble; an alternative interpretation of the lightest patches seen in black-and-
white photographs is that it represents a light green hue. Later, when the appliqu
armour was added a much simpler scheme was used where the same hues were shown
in large irregular areas, again demarcated in black.[5][31] In the first combat actions, it
became clear that German machine gunners concentrated their fire on the vision slits.
To confuse them, in the summer of 1917 a cross-hatched scheme of narrow vertical and
horizontal dark grey stripes was applied on top of the original patches.[31] The stripes
continued over the side machine gun ball mounts but a round area remained untouched
to suggest a false position. The individual Schneider CA tanks had serial numbers
ranging from 61001 to 61399. The first tactical markings consisted of simple numbers,
to distinguish the individual tanks within a training unit. Early 1917 the combat units
used small inconspicuous playing-card symbols, each symbol indicating one of four
batteries within a groupe. These were sprayed in white on the tank side, often combined
with an individual tank number, depending on the style each groupe preferred.[31] The
tank number could also be indicated on the tank spur, by horizontal stripes.
Production
In the original contract of 25 February 1916 it had been stipulated that all four hundred
units would be delivered that same year: the first hundred by 25 August and the last by
25 November, completing the full order in nine months. Because Schneider had no
experience in tracked armoured fighting vehicle production and a true pilot model was
lacking, this was highly optimistic. Also the Schneider company had expected to be able
to employ the other major French arms producer, the Forges et Aciries de la Marine et
d'Homcourt, as a subcontractor but this rival proceeded to develop from the alternative
prototype ordered by Mourret a heavier tank design, the Saint-Chamond. As a result, the
first prototype could only be presented to the Ministry of Armament on 4 August.[32]
The Schneider subsidiary Socit d'outillage mcanique et d'usinage d'artillerie or
SOMUA at Saint Ouen near Paris was only on 5 September able to finish the first
vehicle chassis,[32] which would on 8 September be delivered at the training centre at
Marly. The first Army tests were carried out on 12 September.[32] On the original
deadline of 25 November the total had risen to just eight vehicles; on 4 January 1917
thirty-two were present. To aggravate matters, these were training vehicles, not fitted
with hardened armour but boiler plate.[5]
Late January production picked up, attaining three or four units per day. However, it
soon slowed down again because the new Commander-in-Chief, Robert Nivelle,
ordered that priority should be given to the manufacture of the Schneider CD towing
tractor. As a result, production fell from seventy tanks between 28 January and 27
February to sixty between the latter date and 28 March and only twenty additional
vehicles were manufactured until 12 April. On 15 March the total accepted by the Army
had reached 150 tanks; by 1 April this number had risen to 208, by 1 June to 322. Then
production almost came to a halt, both because of a loss of interest in the type and to
~ 255 ~
maintain a sufficient spare parts manufacture. The total reached 340 on 30 September,
370 on 1 December and 372 on 19 December. The full order would not be completed
until August 1918.[5] The ultimate costs of the project were about fifty million French
franc.[1] Official factory deliveries were fifty in 1916, 326 in 1917 and twenty-four in
1918. Of these 397 were transferred to the French Army.[33]
Early 1917 one vehicle had been delivered to Italy.[34] The tank had been ordered by the
Italians after Captain Alfredo Bennicelli had observed the first French Army testing in
September 1916; the single vehicle was in 1917 tested and deployed on the Kras front.
It made a favourable impression and in the Autumn of 1917 the Italian High Command
desired either the purchase of twenty Schneiders or the tooling capable of producing
them. This plan was abandoned after the heavy defeat of the Italian Army at the Battle
of Caporetto.[35] Its High Command now envisaged the equipment with a far larger
number of tanks, demanding the import or manufacture of about 1500 Schneiders. After
it had become clear that the French industry did not have the spare capacity to meet
those demands and that they far out-reached the possibilities of domestic production, it
was decided to produce the cheaper and more modern FIAT 3000 instead, a copy of the
Renault FT, three of which had been received in May 1918.
Improvements
During production, the type was gradually improved, which caused further delays. From
the 245th vehicle onwards an automatic starter was installed, engaged by a handle,[28] as
the original manual system did not allow for a sufficiently quick response to a changing
battlefield situation. Also it was decided the design was too poorly protected. After the
first use of British Mark I tanks on 15 September 1916, the Germans had begun to
introduce antitank-weapons. One of the measures taken by them was the issuing of the
Kerngeschoss or "K-bullet", an armour-piercing hardened steel core round. To defeat it,
from the 210th vehicle onwards the Schneider tank was fitted with 5.4 millimetres
spaced armour plates on the sides and front, with a distance of four centimetres between
the main armour and the appliqu. Even without the spaced armour, the front plates
would have been immune against K-bullet fire from a distance of two hundred metres,
because of their 60 angling,[10] providing an effective line-of-sight thickness of 22.8
millimetres. During the spring of 1917 existing vehicles were uparmoured (creating a
surblind version) by the army workshop at Champlieu. Some of these, such as a
vehicle with series number 61213, were fitted with additional armour plates on the
vertical front surfaces, including an extra rectangular shield around the gun barrel.[36]
On 1 April 1917 of the 208 tanks available only about a hundred had been retrofitted.
None of the older tanks had at this point yet received the new starter engine, this part of
the improvement process would take until the end of the summer.[5]
The first combat actions showed that the fuel reservoirs were prone to explode when the
vehicle was hit by an artillery round. To remedy this the reservoirs were replaced by
fuel tanks with a double wall, using a felt filler layer to absorb gasoline leakages.
Furthermore, these fuel tanks, of eighty litres each, were moved to a safer position,
under armour but outside the original hull, in vertical rectangular steel boxes to the left
and right of the rear door. This necessitated the construction of an additional safer exit
gate, at the left side of the vehicle. On 8 September 1917 only twelve tanks had been
changed to this new configuration. On 21 March 1918 about 245 vehicles featured all
three major improvements.[5]
~ 256 ~
Numerous smaller modifications were introduced during the testing phase and the
production run. The first included an improved cooling system and better ventilation to
prevent and remove carbon monoxide fumes which otherwise threatened to asphyxiate
the crew within an hour. To prevent dirt entering the chassis near the crank, at the
bottom of the vehicle an armour plate was added.[22] Later additions were a periscope
sight, an exhaust pipe and speaking tubes for internal communications.[18] In 1917, to
provide some modicum of communication with higher command levels and
accompanying tanks or infantry, a hinged metal shield was attached to the rear of the
hull skylight roof. Its back was painted in a conspicuous horizontal tricolour red-white-
red scheme. When lifted by means of a steel cable operable from the inside via a
grooved small vertical plate located on the front of the skylight roof, it indicated the
position of the tank to friendly observers from behind.[37] Several versions of this
system existed, differing in the precise location of the shield and its shape. It was
especially intended to signal to the infantry that it was safe to advance after the tank had
neutralised all enemy machine-gun positions.
Some improvements were studied but eventually not applied. Simple ones included the
introduction of track shoes with a chevron profile to improve grip.[22] Also it was
originally considered to use blocks of sodium peroxide ("oxylithe") to remove the
carbon monoxide, but this was rejected in view of the fire hazard.[32] The first testing to
equip a French tank with a radio set was carried out in the summer of 1917 with a
Schneider CA, using a twelve-metre wire antenna with a range of 8.5 kilometres. After
a second test with a fourteen-metre antenna established on 18 August 1917 that contact
could be made with an aircraft within a distance of two kilometres, provided that the
tank was not moving, it was decided to equip the command tanks of two units, AS 11
and AS 12, with an mitteur 10ter radio set.[38]
Much more far-reaching were early proposals to fundamentally change the design, to be
implemented during the production run. These were inspired by the awkward lay-out in
which to limit the width of the tank, the main armament had been placed in an
inconvenient position. On 1 December 1916 a certain Lieutenant Saar submitted
drawings showing a vehicle on which the 75 mm cannon had been replaced by a 47 mm
gun turret, the number of machine guns was raised to six, the number of vision slits to
eleven and the engine was located in the middle of the hull. On 28 and 29 December
1916 the Schneider company considered to move the 75 mm gun to the nose of the
vehicle and give it a 120 traverse.[39]
Operational history
Training
To deploy tanks, it was first needed to train crews and create tank units. On 14 July
1916 Estienne started to set up a training base at the Fort du Trou-d'Enfer, a fortress at
Marly-le-Roi. For reasons of secrecy this location was officially attached to the 81st
Heavy Artillery Regiment, a depot unit. On 15 August the camp was formally
established and quickly filled with recruits, most of them young volunteers from various
French armies.[40] At Marly the crews received their first instruction consisting of the
basics of maintenance and a lot of driver training with an emphasis on crossing
trenches, avoiding shell craters and running down trees and walls. Because at first no
actual Schneider vehicles were available, Holt tractors were used instead;[41] later the
~ 257 ~
boiler plate training chassis were employed with the superstructure removed and
replaced by a protective wooden frame. From the spring of 1917 onwards about seven
vehicles were used for this goal. For unit training and live fire exercises, demanding far
larger manoeuvre grounds, on 30 August 1916 a camp was established at Cercottes,
which received its first training vehicles on 17 November 1916. To get better acquainted
with the mechanical side of the tanks, most crew members had to leave Cercottes for a
month to work as a trainee with the SOMUA factory. New vehicles would normally be
first delivered at Cercottes. In 1917 the Cercottes base grew to a strength of about five
thousand men, many of them sent there from units trying to get rid this way of
undesirable elements,[42] forcing the base command to reduce manpower by again
removing them. On 28 September 1916 a large instruction centre was established at
Champlieu, south of Compigne. This location, close to the frontline and officially part
of the warzone, could serve for final training and sending out battle-ready units to those
armies needing them.[43] Also the tank workshops were located there, repairing and
updating existing vehicles.[5] The bases at Cercottes and Champlieu used about sixty-
four tanks purely for training purposes, to limit the wear on the combat vehicles.
Unit formation
The French Army did not intend to create an independent tank force; the tank units
would be part of the Artillery Arm, which was reflected in the organisational
terminology. The basic units were officially called Groupes, but had the designation
"AS", for Artillerie Spciale. Each group consisted of four batteries, each battery again
of four tanks. This would have resulted in a total of sixteen tanks and indeed this was
the official organic strength of an AS, but the fourth battery was normally a depot unit,
intended to provide replacement vehicles and crews for the other three batteries. It had
an official allotment of three tanks and the total matriel strength of an AS was thus
fifteen. Actual operational strength varied wildly, due to frequent breakdowns. The
personnel strength consisted of twelve officers each commanding a tank of the three
regular batteries sixteen NCOs and 110 men of lower rank.[44] In practice often four
batteries of three tanks were fielded, to allow for a greater tactical flexibility. The first
Schneider CA units were formed from 17 November 1916 onwards.[45] Six AS were
raised until the end of January 1917, three more in February and March each and again
two in April and May each for a total of seventeen operational Groupes, numbered AS
117.[44] Three more had been created by 2 June 1917, AS 18, 19 and 20, but were
almost immediately dissolved, their personnel retrained to form Saint Chamond units.
Between 1 March and 1 May 1917 the AS were combined into five larger units, called
Groupements, with a variable strength.[45] In May 1918, three of the surviving four
Groupements, I, II and IV, were each attached to three light tank Renault FT battalions
to form larger Rgiments de Artillerie Spciale, the 501e, 502e and 504e RAS
respectively.[46]
Actions
Berry-au-Bac
Estienne had hoped to create a powerful and large striking force before committing his
tanks to battle. He had strongly disapproved of the, in his eyes premature, British use of
tanks in September 1916, just two months after first deliveries of the Mark I. However,
political circumstances would compel him to deploy the Artillerie Spciale before it was
~ 258 ~
at full strength or adequately trained. In December 1916 Robert Nivelle had been
appointed supreme French commander on the promise that his tactical innovation of the
"rolling barrage" would ensure a quick collapse of the German front. Not favourably
inclined towards the independent mass deployment of armour, Nivelle hoped that the
tanks produced could be made of some use by letting them assist his planned offensive.
Ultimately, the Germans learned of the French intentions so that strategic surprise was
lost, allowing them to reinforce the threatened front sectors; nor was there a tactical
surprise, as it had become known that French tanks existed and were about to be
introduced.[47] Three AS first assembled at the frontline near Beuvraignes in late March
1917, hoping to exploit a possible success in an offensive by the Third Army, that
however had to be cancelled because of the strategic German retreat to the Hindenburg
Line.[48] Eventually, the tank units were to support the attack by the Fifth Army at the
Aisne and were concentrated in a nine kilometres wide sector south of Juvincourt-et-
Damary, chosen for its firm ground.[49] The Germans had created a strong defensive belt
in this area, held by four divisions of the Bavarian Army, with a depth of nine
kilometres and divided into four main trench systems.[47] The plan was for the French
infantry to take the first and second trench within about four hours, advancing behind
the "creeping barrage", after which the tanks would immediately exploit this success
and maintain the momentum of the offensive by quickly progressing towards the third
trench, directly followed by the infantry; together they would conquer the third and
fourth trenches.[50] The "strategic rupture" resulting from this and many adjoining
attacks was to be exploited through deep penetrations by large reserve infantry armies,
outflanking the Hindenburg Line from the south.[49] Three Groupements were
committed to the offensive. Two of these, named after their commanders Louis Bossut
and Louis Lonard Chaubs, were attached to the 32nd and 5th Army Corps
respectively and would engage on the first day. Groupement Bossut consisted of five
groupes: AS 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9, thus fielding eighty tanks, as the AS in this phase of the
war operated at full strength with four batteries of four tanks. Groupement Chaubs,
created on 8 March, included AS 3, 7 and 8, with about forty-eight tanks.[47] Each
Groupement was reinforced by a supply and recovery unit or Section de Rparations et
de Ravitaillement which besides two unarmed Saint-Chamonds and some Baby Holt
tractors was equipped with two unarmed Schneider CA tanks, towing Troy trailers with
fuel, bringing the total at 132 Schneider vehicles, at that date the largest tank force ever
deployed. On 13 April the tank units concentrated behind the frontline. There they were
joined by supporting infantry companies: five from the 154e R.I. of the 165e D.I. for
Groupement Bossut and three of the 76e R.I. of the 125e D.I. for Groupement
Chaubs.[51]
~ 259 ~
The larger front-sector of the attack of 16 April. In fact the tanks penetrated further than
indicated here, to a position to the northeast of Juvincourt
During the early morning of 16 April 1917 the Nivelle Offensive was launched. In the
sector where the tanks operated the initial waves of French infantry succeeded in taking
the first and second German trenches as planned, but with very heavy losses. The
French artillery was insufficient in number to simultaneously sustain the creeping
barrage and suppress the numerous German artillery batteries. This was aggravated by
the German air superiority which allowed artillery observation planes to precisely direct
German interdiction fire on the advancing French columns. Groupement Chaubs
suffered many losses before it was even able to leave the French lines. When arriving at
the frontline in the early afternoon, it had to assist the infantry in clearing the second
trench of the last German remnants. These did not panic at the sight of the French tanks
but had been trained to hide from them, leaving their cover to engage the French
infantry when the armoured vehicles had moved on. At the end of the day, the French
infantry proved unable to continue the offensive and the last surviving French tanks had
to be withdrawn.[52] More to the east, north of Berry-au-Bac after which village later the
entire tank action would be named, Groupement Bossut proved more successful. It
managed to cross the various trench lines losing only a few vehicles and in the late
morning concentrated to carry on the offensive. However, around 11:00 the tank of
Bossut, Trompe-la-Mort ("Dare-devil") leading the advance, carrying a tricolour fanion
blessed in the Sacr-Cur at Montmartre, received a direct heavy artillery hit,
incinerating most of the crew and blowing Bossut himself from the rear entrance from
which he had been directing the battle, killed by a shell splinter through the heart.[53]
Nevertheless, the Schneiders continued their progress, advancing several miles in a
narrow penetration through a shallow valley towards the third German trench. The
weakened infantry though, was unable to follow, forcing the tanks to wait for the arrival
of reserve units. For several hours the tanks moved up and down the conquered terrain
to avoid presenting static targets for the German artillery. Despite this many vehicles
were hit, as they were in plain sight of German batteries on the surrounding hills. Flank
assaults by Bavarian stormtroopers were repulsed. In the early evening, fresh infantry
units together with the tanks conquered a sector of the third trench, marking the high
tide of the French progress during the entire Second Battle of the Aisne. The Schneiders
then withdrew, again suffering losses by artillery fire.[54]
~ 260 ~
One of the tanks destroyed at Berry-au-Bac
The Nivelle Offensive was a grave disappointment, demoralising the French troops and
leading to the French Army Mutinies. The sense of failure extended to the Schneider
tanks. Their losses had indeed been heavy: 76 of the 128 combat tanks engaged had
been lost. Many of these had burnt: 57 in total, 31 with Groupement Bossut and 26 with
Groupement Chaubs. Most had been set on fire by German artillery: twenty-three
vehicles of Groupement Chaubs had been hit by indirect fire and fifteen of
Groupement Bossut; this latter unit had fourteen tanks hit by direct fire. Investigations
showed that most vehicles had carried additional fire-hazards: to compensate the limited
range two fifty litre cans of petrol had been attached to the rear and some crews had
even stowed a third one inside; sometimes explosive charges had been stowed outside;
each tank had a bottle of ether to mix with the petrol to boost the engine and to enhance
the fighting spirit three litres of strong liquor had been provided at the start of the battle.
Also the personnel losses had been high: 180 of the 720 crew members, and 40% of the
supporting infantry had become casualties.[55] On a positive note, twenty broken-down
tanks had been salvaged from the battlefield, all enemy infantry assaults had failed, and
the spaced armour proved to be very resistant, beyond expectations, against small-arms
fire and shell splinters. The main technical complaint was that visibility from within the
vehicle was poor for the driver as well as the gunners.[56] Tactical lessons drawn were
that tanks should spread out more to avoid artillery fire and had to cooperate more
closely with the infantry.[57]
Groupement III, commanded by Captain Henri Lefebvre, was intended to assist an

attack by the Fourth Army on 17 April at Moronvilliers. It consisted of two Schneider
groups, AS 1 and AS 10, reinforced by some Saint-Chamond tanks. When the initial
infantry attacks largely failed, the tank attack was cancelled, also in view of the events
the previous day.[58]
Moulin-de-Laffaux
~ 261 ~
Despite the general failure of the Nivelle Offensive and the ensuing mutinies, French
High Command in May 1917 tried to make use of the force concentration at the Aisne
by at least conquering the notorious Chemin-des-Dames positions. Part of the plan was
a limited but strategically important objective: the German saillant east of Laffaux
where the Hindenburg Line hinged on the Chemin-des-Dames, named after the hillock
of the Moulin-de-Laffaux. This attack was to be supported by Groupement Lefebvre. To
improve the cooperation with the infantry, the Groupement was reinforced by an
infantry battalion specially trained in combined arms tactics, the 17e Bataillon de
Chasseurs Pied. Coordination with the artillery was improved by attaching a special
observation plane, protected by six SPAD VII fighters, that had to identify German
antitank-batteries and have them destroyed by counterbattery fire; it also had to report
the position of the tanks to higher command levels.[59]
The more general offensive was launched on 5 May. Whereas most infantry attacks
along the Chemin-des-Dames were bloody failures that day, the tank attack on the
Moulin-de-Laffaux largely attained its objectives. The Schneiders, advancing not in
column but "line abreast", exploited the initial infantry conquest of the first trench by
crossing the second and then assisted the foot soldiers in heavy and fluid battles with
counterattacking German reserves. Eventually most tanks broke down and had to be left
behind by the advancing infantry. Salvaging them proved difficult as thunderstorms
made the surface of the in itself firm chalkstone of the area very slippery and the terrain
was rough, dotted with ruins and intersected by ravines and quarries. The majority of
the vehicles were repaired during the night, but the soil had so deteriorated that only a
single battery of four was deployed on the sixth. Nevertheless, the Schneiders had made
a good account of themselves. Of thirty-three tanks engaged only five had been
destroyed, three of them Schneiders. Casualties among the crews numbered fifty-five,
three of them fatal.[60]
La Malmaison
The battle of La Malmaison
In the wake of the mutinies Philippe Ptain was appointed supreme commander. He
tried to restore confidence by abstaining from overambitious offensive plans. Only in
1918 when the influx of American troops and new armoured vehicles would tip the
balance in favour of the Entente, could decisive attacks be considered. His motto was
therefore: J'attends les Amricains et les chars ("I wait for the Americans and the
tanks"). However, remaining purely inactive would undermine the morale; to bolster it a
series of meticulously prepared small-scale offensives were undertaken in which
success was guaranteed by deploying an overwhelming numerical superiority,
~ 262 ~
especially in artillery, to conquer a limited objective. On 23 October 1917 Ptain in one
blow took the notorious Chemin-des-Dames crest, including the fortress of La
Malmaison. The attack was supported by Groupement Chaubs, at the time consisting
of AS 8, 11 and 12. Due to the losses in April, each AS now deployed twelve tanks.[61]
Including the supply vehicles the Schneider total numbered forty-one.[62] The command
vehicles of AS 11 and AS 12 were that day the first French tanks ever to use radio
equipment in battle.[38]
The tanks did not play a decisive role in this action. Because of the traffic jam, many
were unable to even leave their own lines; many others broke down or got stuck in a
marsh before reaching the enemy. Those that managed to engage however, effectively
cooperated with the infantry. A ground fog largely hid the vehicles from enemy artillery
and the spaced armour defeated German machine-gun Kerngeschoss-rounds. Losses
were therefore low, with two tanks burnt and less than 10% personnel casualties. Six
vehicles that had in May been abandoned at Moulin-de-Laffaux, could now be
salvaged.[46] Despite their modest contribution, the efficacy of the tanks seemed proven,
justifying the planned expansion of the tank force.[63] During the three 1917 battles,
Schneider tanks engaged 175 enemy targets.[62] Eighty-six vehicles were lost that
year.[33]
The 1918 battles
The Battle of Soissons, the most successful Schneider action
French command considered to launch large-scale summer offensives in 1918,

benefiting from a grown number of AFVs. At this point of the war, less than a year after
their first employment, the Schneider tanks were already considered obsolete. They
~ 263 ~
nevertheless still formed an essential part of the tank force: a successor medium tank
type, the Schneider Modle 1917, had been cancelled; the light Renault FT had not been
produced in sufficient numbers yet, especially the 75 mm cannon version; and the Saint-
Chamond was of limited utility, so the Schneiders had to provide the necessary fire-
power. Their continued importance became obvious when the French plans were on 21
March, at which date 245 Schneider tanks were operational,[62] disrupted by the German
Spring Offensive, a massive infantry onslaught made possible by the Treaty of Brest-
Litovsk allowing Germany to shift the bulk of its forces to the Western Front. In April
there were minor counterattacks at the Somme by a small number of Schneider tanks:
five vehicles on the 5th at Sauvillers-Mongival, six on the 7th at Grivesnes, and twelve
on the 18th at the Bois de Sncat, west of Castel. On 28 May, also at the Somme,
twelve vehicles (AS 5) supported an American Expeditionary Forces attack in the Battle
of Cantigny, the first time in history American troops cooperated with tanks. At first the
German offensive was largely directed against the British Expeditionary Force but when
this ultimately failed to produce the desired decisive breakthrough, late May the
Germans turned in force on the French in the Third Battle of the Aisne. The German
advance threatened the Champlieu base, which was abandoned, severely disrupting
repair and maintenance.[64] Early June the offensives had created a large French salient
around Compigne and Erich Ludendorff decided to reduce it in Operation Gneisenau.
Soon for the French the situation became critical as a German success would open the
way to Paris. On 11 June, tanks were for the first time used in mass for a mobile
counterattack in the Battle of Matz. Although most of the vehicles involved were of the
Saint-Chamond type, also two Schneider Groupements (II and III) participated with
seventy-five tanks. The French armour concentration, hitting the flank of the enemy
penetration, succeeded in halting the German advance and Gneisenau was cancelled.
The success came at a price however: thirty-five Schneiders were lost.[65] In the west of
the salient on 9 July a small local counterattack took place named after the Porte and
Des Loges farms, which was supported by about fifteen Schneider tanks of AS 16 and
AS 17.[66]
On 15 July the Germans began their last large 1918 offensive, attacking Rheims in the
Second Battle of the Marne. Soon their advance faltered and they found themselves in a
very vulnerable situation, with overextended supply lines and exhausted troops lacking
well-entrenched positions. On 18 July French and American divisions, cooperating with
a large number of tanks, started a major offensive, the Battle of Soissons, in which for
the first time since 1914 Entente forces on the Western Front succeeded in making
substantial progress, reducing the entire German salient created in the Third Battle of
the Aisne. In the operation three Schneider Groupements (I, III and IV) participated
with 123 vehicles,[67] the second largest deployment of the type during the war. The
battle was a strategic disaster for the Germans, leading to the disintegration of a large
part of their forces and initiating a period of almost continuous retreats. Although now
at last the conditions were favourable to fulfil the offensive role for which they had been
created, the Schneider tanks could not be of much assistance to the itself also decimated
French infantry. By 1 August 1918 the number of operational Schneider CA tanks had
dropped to fifty.[62] As production was halted that month, losses could not be replaced,
whereas the intensified fighting resulted in a much-increased wear. As a consequence,
effective levels remained low: forty vehicles on 1 September, sixty on 1 October, fifty-
one on 1 November.[62] Accordingly, in subsequent operations the Schneiders never
again equalled the numbers reached in July. On 16 August three groups with thirty-two
tanks attacked near Tilloloy; on 20 August one group of twelve participated in actions
~ 264 ~
near Nampcel. On 12 September Groupement IV could muster twenty-four tanks to
support the Americans in the Battle of Saint-Mihiel. From 26 September during the
Meuse-Argonne Offensive Groupement IV continued to support the Americans with
about twenty-two tanks, and Groupements I and III supported the French Fourth Army
with thirty-four vehicles. During October most Schneider units were recuperating and
German intelligence assumed the type had now been completely phased out, replaced
by the newer and more effective Renault FT tanks, but in fact it was planned to again
deploy about fifty Schneiders in a large offensive in Lorraine to begin on 11
November.[68] That day however, the First World War ended as the Armistice with
Germany was concluded. During the 1918 battles, Schneider tanks engaged 473 enemy
targets.[62] In the war, in total 308 Schneider tanks had been lost, 86 in 1917 and 222 in
1918: 301 by enemy artillery fire, three by mines, three by antitank rifle fire and one by
unknown causes.[69]
Later designs: the Schneider CA2, CA3 and CA4
The first projects to create new variants were based on the original Schneider CA
design. On 27 September 1916 Estienne wrote a memorandum to the General
Headquarters outlining his thoughts about a possible command tank. Considering that
tank units would not only attack static enemy positions but also had to manoeuvre on
the battlefield against moving hostile troops, he foresaw that their commanders would
need more agile vehicles with armament and armour concentrated in the front, to lead a
pursuit or cover a retreat. Therefore, a variant was needed fitted with a turret featuring a
37 mm gun and one or two machine-guns in the front instead of the sides, protected by
15 mm front armour, with a crew of four and with a top speed of at least 10 km/h. Fifty
such vehicles should be constructed. On 2 October, Joffre demanded the production of
fifty voitures cuirasses de commandement. On 13 October Schneider had a paper
design ready; on 17 October the order was confirmed by Mourret. Towards the end of
1916 a "mock-up" was ready under the designation of Schneider CA2. On 26 and 27
March 1917 a prototype made of boiler-plate, perhaps identical to the "mock-up", was
tested at Marly.[70] It had the standard suspension of the Schneider CA but its hull was
strongly shortened so that the overhanging nose had disappeared. The 75 mm cannon
had been replaced by a cylindrical turret, intended to be armed with a 47 mm gun and a
machine-gun, close to the rear of the hull. The hull was further diminished in size and
weight by a considerable narrowing, and closing of the roofed skylight slit, which
lowered its height. As a result, the type weighed only eight tonnes.[69] During the testing
the vehicle, though no longer getting itself stuck on an overhanging nose, still proved
unable to climb out of muddy shell craters. It was concluded that the suspension should
be lengthened by the equivalence of three track links, about forty centimetres, and on 13
April 1917 a quick commencement of production was envisaged. In reality Estienne had
already on 22 March decided to discontinue this project in favour of a Renault FT
command (signal) version. The CA2 prototype was subsequently used as a training and
test bed vehicle and the immediate need for command vehicles was met by fitting two
standard Schneider CAs with radio sets.[71] On 29 December 1916 it was proposed to
develop from the Schneider CA2 two light tank prototypes.[72]
Early 1917 it was suggested to construct some vehicles as flamethrower tanks by

installing a flamethrowing device in two armoured turrets, one at the left front corner
and the other at the right rear corner, each having a field of fire of about 180. The fuel
reservoirs would be inside the hull. No production resulted.[23] In February 1917,
~ 265 ~
Schneider proposed to build a variant with a thirty-two centimetres wider hull fitted in
the front with a 47 mm gun and two machine-gun turrets placed diagonally behind the
driver position, while the engine was relocated to the rear of the vehicle. On 2 April
1917 the Ministry of Armament asked Schneider to design two improved versions of the
Schneider CA: one with a gun turret, the calibre not surpassing 47 mm if it were a long
gun; the other with a long 75 mm gun in the front of the hull.[39]
After the failure of the Nivelle Offensive, Schneider understood more capable designs
had to be manufactured if the tank were to remain a viable weapon system. On 1 May
1917 it discussed a range of possible options, numbered one to five. All had in common
that basically the same mechanical components were used as with the Schneider CA,
though often improved, and that the suspension was only partially changed: elongated
by the addition of an eighth road wheel and using thirty-five instead of thirty-three
wider, forty-five centimetres broad, track links. However, all were also strongly
modernised: the hull overhang had disappeared, the hull front formed as a sloped
wedge, and the inner space was compartmentalised, with an engine room, protruding
behind the sprocket, at the back and the driver in front. The armour base was about
sixteen to twenty millimetres. The first two proposals were probably identical to the
April 1917 projects and discarded by the company as inferior. The last three, favoured
by Schneider itself, were all turreted vehicles: design No 3 had a 47 mm gun in the hull
and a single machine-gun turret; No 4 differed in having two machine-gun turrets and
No 5 in having the gun moved to a turret.[73] During discussions about these proposals,
Estienne pointed out that the intended long 47 mm gun had not entered production yet
and that no high performance explosive charge was available to give it a sufficient
effect on soft targets.[74] Therefore, he insisted on fitting the standard 75 mm field gun,
even if this would raise weight to 14.5 tonnes. A week later Schneider presented
proposal No 6, which envisaged a vehicle weighing fourteen tonnes and having a
shortened 75 mm gun in the turret. On 5 July 1917 drawings were ready of the type,
which was now called the Schneider CA3. However, these included an alternative
version with a shortened 75 mm gun in the hull. Estienne had misgivings about this
project, questioning its trench-crossing capacity and predicting engine power would be
insufficient, given a weight that had by now reached 16.6 tonnes. Also he demanded a
gun sight allowing some fire-on-the-move capability.[75] Nevertheless, on 24 July the
Consultative Committee of the Artillerie Spciale decided that the four hundred vehicles
of the Schneider Modle 1917 ordered on 10 May 1917,[76] were to be of the CA3 type.
These had to be delivered from May 1918 onwards.[77] A prototype was ordered of each
version the mechanical parts in May and the armour hulls in July but the company
itself limited its construction activities to the one with the gun in the hull, probably
because a cannon turret was judged to be "absurd" given the lack of enemy tanks and a
machine gun turret was seen as necessary for close defence against infantry assault.[78]
Later that year, in an official answer to an inquiry by parliamentarian Paul Doumer
regarding the progress achieved within French tank development, the designation
"Schneider CA4" is used to indicate a design studied within the context of a larger order
for two prototypes, weighing twenty tonnes and fitted with a cannon turret armed with
the shortened 75 mm gun, and of which Schneider is unable to predict when the single
prototype to be constructed would be finished, though deliveries could start in April
1918.[79] A mock-up was built of the Schneider CA3,[78] and on 24 October the chassis
was tested at SOMUA.[77] During the summer however, Estienne and Ptain had
become worried that the medium tank production might become an obstacle to the
planned light tank mass production of the Renault FT. On 27 October the committee
~ 266 ~
advised that the construction of the Schneider CA3 would be suspended in favour of
light tank production.[77] It argued that the type could probably not be delivered before
August 1918 anyway, too late for the summer offensives of that year, and that an
improved medium tank design should be taken into development instead. The ultimate
decision not to produce the Schneider CA3 was only taken in February 1918. [78] On 19
January 1918 it was proposed that the preproduced CA3 components would be used to
construct a further two hundred Schneider artillery tractors.[80] On 3 November 1917 the
order for the Schneider CA4 prototype was annulled.[78] The new medium tank project
had already been started on 15 August 1917 and strived for a technically advanced
seventeen tonne vehicle armed with a shortened 75 mm gun and benefiting from a much
improved mobility.[81] It remained a paper project.
Sometimes projects of a more general investigative nature considered to employ

Schneider CA hulls. In January 1917, engineer Louis Boirault proposed an articulated
tank, a vehicle that would be long enough to cross wide trenches and yet sufficiently
flexible to maintain mobility. Older literature sometimes suggested that he actually
coupled two Schneiders rear to rear to research this concept.[77] In fact, this was on 8
May 1917 merely advised by the committee judging the merits of the proposal, as a
lighter alternative for Boirault's original plans which envisaged three hulls of a
completely new design. The Schneider company would subsequently refuse to make
any vehicles available and the project was continued based on the Saint-Chamond
hull.[82]
Aftermath
France
Even before the end of the war, on 6 October 1918 Estienne had proposed to phase out
all Schneider tanks from operational units, remove their armament and deploy them as
instruction and recovery vehicles.[83] These should be distinguished from those vehicles
that from the very beginning had been used as supply tanks, with the cannon removed
and the hole plated over.[29] Indeed, by the end of 1918, all surviving Schneider tanks
had been given the destination of utility vehicles,[33] although it is unknown to what
extent and at what rate any rebuilding took place. On 1 December 1918 Groupements I
and IV fused with Renault FT units and Groupement II and III, together with AS 9 from
Groupement I, reformed into three new Groupements Lourds (I, II and III) equipped
with the British Mark V* type.[84] Some of the still serviceable Schneiders were rebuilt
as recovery vehicles and tank transporters serving with Renault FT units.[77] In 1928 a
project was presented for a Schneider CA Modle 1928 recovery tank with the upper
hull replaced by a motorised crane, that could be stabilised by a large jack at the rear of
the vehicle.[80]
Last surviving Schneider CA
The only surviving exemplar of the Schneider CA, at the Muse des Blinds in Saumur,
is also the world's oldest tank in full running condition. It was donated at the end of the
war by the French government to the United States of America, was preserved in the
Aberdeen Proving Ground Ordnance Museum in Maryland, USA and in 1985 again
donated to France for restoration. The tank's original four cylinder Schneider gasoline
engine and the original transmissions were fully restored to original working condition
~ 267 ~
by the repair teams at the Muse des Blinds. This particular vehicle had been fitted
with later upgrades, such as the fuel reservoirs located at its rear.[85]
Italy
Italy in the summer of 1918 formed its first tank unit, the Reparto speciale di marcia
carri d'assalto, with one Schneider and three Renault FT tanks; the Schneider tank was
replaced in November 1918 with a FIAT 2000.[86]
Spain
On one occasion after the war phased out Schneider tanks were exported. After an
urgent request by the Spanish government following serious defeats against Berber
rebels in the Rif War, six were sold to Spain on 16 September 1921 within the context
of a joint French-Spanish effort to subdue the newly independent Rif Republic. The
vehicles were designated Carro de Asalto Schneider M16 and modified by the addition
of a driver's visor annex gun port in the front glacis plate. They reached Morocco on 28
February 1922.[87] On 14 March 1922, as the first Spanish tanks to see combat action
ever, they provided close support fire. Seen primarily as mobile artillery, they were
combined into an artillery assault battery commanded by Captain Carlos Ruiz de Toledo
which supported the single Renault FT company. In September 1925 they took part in
the major amphibious landings in the bay of Al Hoceima. The Schneider tanks saw
action until May 1926 and returned to Spain in 1929, not having lost a single vehicle. In
Spain, due to their poor mechanical state, they were delegated to a reserve status and
used as training and instruction vehicles. Four were part of the depot of the Regimiento
Ligero de Carros de Combate N 1 at Madrid, a Renault FT unit, the other two were
part of the depot strength of RLCC N 2 at Zaragoza, the other Renault FT unit.[88] At
the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, the first unit remained under Republican
command, while the second took the side of the Nationalist rebels. The Madrid vehicles
saw some action during the bloody attacks on the Cuartel de la Montaa, the main
military barracks of the capital. Some of the tanks were manned by militia members of
the Unin General de Trabajadores and the Unin de Hermanos Proletarios.[89] Also
the Zaragoza vehicles participated in the initial fighting. Probably all Schneider tanks
became inoperational during 1936.
France (1916) Medium tank 400 built
The first French tanks
~ 268 ~
In 1915, the French Armys Section Technique du Gnie (STG) Engineer Technical
Section, attempted to improve the cross-country mobility of armored cars by building
ten armored tractors on Filtz agricultural tractors. These were intended to crush or cut
through barbed wire entanglements, but their combat debut at Verdun in the autumn of
1915 demonstrated their poor mobility in rough terrain.
Tracteur agricole Filtz blindet arm Section technique du Gnie, July 1915. It is just a
pre WW1 armoured Fergusion-Fordson type farm tractor. It looks like a like a WW1
Armoured car with tractor wheels.
This was not the answer. The French Army needed a fully tracked vehicle that could cut
a path through lines of barbed wire, cross trenches and deal with machine gun posts to
enable the infantry to follow and exploit the breakthrough.
Behind the idea of an armored mobile platform for guns and machine-guns are two men
on the Allied side. These were Col. Ernest Swinton (United Kingdom) and Col.
Estienne (France). Both were strong advocates of the concept, having in regard the
stalemate and useless cost of each offensive.
In Britain the Landship Committee, presided by Sir Winston Churchill, backed the
entire project. This evolved into the Little Willie, itself later serving as a basis for the
development of the Mother, the Mark I series and later the Whippet.
On the other side, Col. Estiennes idea was backed by President Raymond Poincar and
Marshall Joffre. A commission led by General Janin later approved first orders for the
~ 269 ~
Schneider CA-1. Developed on the basis of the Holt tractor, it was the first operational
French tank and the second in the world after the Mark I.
Holt type Caterpillar lengthened for trench crossing trials February 1916
A Schneider project
Schneider was a major well-known armament manufacturer in France. It produced guns

and ammunition for the army and navy, but also had some armor expertise from their
shipbuilding activities. Most French battleships had received Schneider sandwich iron
plates since the 1880s. It mirrored Vickers-Armstrong in Britain, but was not of
comparable size.
~ 270 ~
The first French tank the Char Schneider CA-1
~ 271 ~
Colonel Estienne, Father of the tank
Since the beginning of hostilities col. Jean-Baptiste Eugne Estienne was fascinated
with the idea of armored transports that could bring infantry safely up to the enemy
trenches. Born in 1860, he graduated the renowned Polytechnique school and began his
career as an artillery officer, writing a guidance book to correct artillery errors,
presented to the Academie des Sciences in Paris. He worked on telemetric and pointing
goniometer devices.
Seen as a brilliant pioneering engineer, he was given the development of a newborn

Aviation Militaire (Air Force) by general Brun in 1909 at Reims. He worked on several
tactical applications and even the first flying artillery concept. During WWI, he was
attached to general Ptain at the 22nd Artillery Regiment based at Belfort.
Although directing a successful air guided artillery barrage, he nevertheless saw the
infantry cut to pieces by machine-gun fire. On the 25th of August he declared in front of
his staff and officers Gentlemen, victory will be owned by the one of any belligerents
which could place a 75 mm gun on a car able to move on all terrains.
~ 272 ~
He learnt during the summer of 1915 that Eugne Brilli was already working on an
armored prototype able to cross barb wire, based on a Holt tractor. After gaining the
approval of General Joffre for 400 orders, he gathered a small team in early February to
produce the prototype of the CA-1 on the basis of the Schneider chassis, which was
ready within two weeks.
After relatively successful tests, Schneider began building the infrastructure for mass-
producing the CA-1. This process took quite long. The first units were ready in
September. At the same time Estienne was named at the head of the newly formed
Special Artillery corp.
The initial order of nearly 1000 tanks was cancelled and later reissued for 150 medium
CA-1 tanks in February. The first unit was ready for combat in April 1917. Later, for his
unwavering support for tank development, Estienne earned the Lgion dHonneur as
well as the div. general rank in December 1918.
Eugne Brilli and the development of the CA-1
If Estienne was the tireless supporter and promoter of tanks in France, Eugne Brilli
conceived the first operational model, through a subsidiary of the Schneider company,
SOMUA. A former railway engineer, he founded, with Gustave Gobron, the Gobron-
Brilil car company in 1903.
He then separated and ran his own company, Brilli Automobile, until it was bought off
by Schneider. His department developed trucks and utility cars, tractors and military
tools. He was first inspired to build a tank after seeing a modified Holt tractor pass
through barb wire on difficult terrain at the Royal Engineer Corps during the summer
1915. With the support and ideas of deputy Jules-Louis Breton, he began to work on a
machine using this tractor chassis, train and tracks.
The original prototype chassis was ready and made its trials on December, 9, before
general Ptain and colonel Estienne. Both associated their ideas and led to the
development of the first true CA-1 prototype in early 1915.
~ 273 ~
General conception
The Schneider CA was designed under col. Estiennes specifications to carry a 75 mm

(2.95 in) field gun to deal with bunkers, casemates and other heavy entrenched
positions, and softening infantry with machine-gun fire from the ballmounts.
It has to be fitted with a petrol 80 hp (60 kW) engine for a designed speed of 9 km/h
(5.59 mph), but finally the Schneider 60 bhp (44.8 kW) engine was retained and placed,
with the radiator, at the front. It was based on the well-known American and licence-
built Baby Holt chassis, with a massive boxy hull mounted above. However, the first
trials at Souain in December 1915, quickly showed that the original chassis was far too
short and was unable to pass even relatively narrow trenches.
To find a better engine and longer tracks, the Holt 75 hp (56 kW) engine was chosen
instead and the entire plan was redrawn and, at the same time, production was shifted
and reorganized at the SOMUA factories near Paris.
To keep the hull compact but allow the crossing of larger trenches, a tail sabot was
fitted and a track on the front to crush and cut trough barb wire. The sides were flat,
lightly armored but later protected by a double sandwich plates arrangement.
The front was sloped, not in order to deal with enemy shells but to clear the view of the
driver in the nose and secure large openings for the barbette gun. With its tail and
angled prow, this tanks superficially looked like an armored ship mounted on a
caterpillar as some officers wrote. Joffre himself, whom authorized 400 to be built,
called them land ironclads, a reminder of the popular British denomination of 1915.
~ 274 ~
Despite its longer tracks, the final CA was very cramped and access through the rear
was difficult. Driving was assumed by three forward and one reverse speed gearbox,
plus steering differentials on the rear axle, linked to the engine at the front by a central
driveshaft.
First engagement and career
The first batches of CA-1s were ready for action on April, 16, 1917, just in time for the
Nivelle Offensive, at Berry-au-Bac (part of the Chemin des Dames general offensive).
132 tanks, almost all models then available, were engaged. But the result was a disaster.
Many found the rough terrain was too much for their tracks and their forward rail acted
to overhang the hull, prone to ditch itself in any solid obstacle. The engine was not
powerful enough and many broke down at the very beginning. The others advanced in
broad daylight and the Germans deployed a lethal artillery barrage, and used field guns
at short range in direct fire, firing on flat trajectories against tanks which were designed
to only sustain machine-gun and infantry fire.
Eventually the Germans quickly learned to target the exposed forward gasoline reserve
and many burst into flames, earning the infamous nickname of Mobile Crematoriums.
A total of 57 CA-1s were lost that day. 44 broke down at the start and the remainder
managed to reach their objectives, breaking through German first and second lines.
However poor coordination meant that the infantry failed to support them and retreated.
Only 56 survived. The entire, futile offensive, was a disaster and Nivelle was sacked
and replaced by the more cautious Ptain.
~ 275 ~
Later on, in 1918, available Schneider CAs were reorganized into twenty Artillerie
Spciale units and given to then general Estienne. They participated in some minor
offensives, with infantry support, but were progressively phased out to the sole profit of
the light FT. As the production ended in August 1918, many were retired into training
units or used as supply tanks.
Variants and aftermath
The 400 originally ordered by general Joffre were delivered by Schneider and most later
production models were modified following acquired combat experience. Notably, the
high up, gravity-feeding gasoline tanks were moved rearwards and armor somewhat
increased, overloading even more the engine. The last were unarmed and the free space
was used as additional storage (Char de Ravitaillement).
They were used to safely supply advanced units in enemy territory. The frontal rail was
usually shortened or even removed. Italy, which was interested, bought a single unit, but
after trials preferred the more advanced FT 17. After the end of hostilities, some six
were sold to the Spanish and served with colonial forces in Morocco, serving actively
against local rebellions until 1926.
They were later engaged on the Republican side near Toledo in 1936. They were, by
then, hopelessly outdated. No Saint Chamond actually fought outside France, despite
some rumors that a handful were sent to the Polish forces fighting against the Soviets in
1919. The sole survivor was sent to the US Aberdeen Ordnance Proving Ground for
evaluation and tests after the war. It was given back after a 67 year loan and arrived in
France in 1985 along with the Schneider CA that had also been on loan. Both are on
~ 276 ~
display now in the Saumur museum (Musee des Blindes). It is in a running condition
tank.
Specifications
6.32m x 2.30m x 2.05m

Dimensions (L x W x H)
(20ft 9in x 7ft 6in x 6ft 9in)
Crew 6
Propulsion Schneider 4 cyl petrol, 60 hp (45 Kw)
Range on/off road 80/30 km (50/19 mi)
Armament 2xHotchkiss M1914 8 mm (0.31 in)

machine guns
~ 277 ~
1xSchneider 75 mm (2.95 in) blockhaus
gun
Armor 11 mm + 5.5 mm spaced (0.43+0.21 in)
One of the first Schneider CA-1 tanks engaged on the front, April 1917, at Berry-Au-
Bac, part of the disastrous Nivelle offensives. The olive livery was not a standard one,
but it was the standard factory paint. When the first units arrived they were put in
combat in such haste that most of them appeared in this livery.
A late 1917 CA-1 in February 1918, in a training unit near the front, freshly
camouflaged with an unusual pattern of sand, dark brow, khaki green and pale blue over
a dark blue-grey basis. Later these took part in the July 1918 offensives launched by
Ferdinand Foch, were 350 French tanks were committed.
~ 278 ~
The last Schneider CA-1s committed in action were the ones participating in the August
French counter-offensive under General Gourauds command, after the failure of the
Ludendorff summer offensive. The livery is the one used in early 1918, with bright
colors separated by blacks lines, creating a paving effect to disrupt shapes. But these
colors made the tanks even more visible on a uniform grey-brownish battlefield. The
French usage of playing card symbols to identify units by their letter stuck until WWII.
A Schneider CA Char Ravitailleur. In mid-1918 all early production models which

had survived were sent to training duties and, later, most of the late production CA-1
were converted to supply tanks. Their superstructure was altered, they gained extra
armor, lost their heavy blockhaus gun which was replaced by a new hatch and also had
their machine guns removed.
~ 279 ~
Original design sketch
~ 280 ~
Col. Estiennes drawings from December 1915 of a tank built on the Holt tractor.
However, the entire project was designed by Schneider engineer Eugne Brilli.
~ 281 ~
~ 282 ~
Surviving tank
WW1 French Schneider CA 1 Char Tank can be found at the French Tank Museum in
Saumur
~ 283 ~
An agricultural caterpillar track system based on the American Holt companys design
was used on the French Schneider CA 1 Char Tank
Replica Char Schneider CA1 tank inside the 1st Infantry Division museum in Cantigny
Park, IL, USA.
The development of trench warfare on the Western Front in 1914-15 prompted the
invention in France, as in England, of devices to overcome machine guns and barbed
wire.
Rollers and wheeled tractors of the agricultural type for crushing or cutting through
obstacles were tried out. In January 1915 the armaments firm of Schneider et Cie of Le
Creusot obtained two versions of the successful American tracklaying Holt tractor.
One was the semitracked and more common type, already in use by the British Army
~ 284 ~
for gun towing, with tracks at the rear and steering wheels at the front and the other was
the smaller "Baby" type with tracks only. The latter was found to be more handy for use
as a cross-country vehicle. A demonstration was given before the President of the
French Republic on 16 June 1915; the Schneider concern were encouraged to prepare
designs for an armed and armoured version (tracteur arme et blind).
Eugene Brilli was the designer employed on this work, and he was responsible for the
introduction of the nose piece and the tail skid later used in the production machines.
One of the armoured Holt tractors was fitted with a machine gun but the idea was that
the main function of these vehicles should be to destroy and cross barbed wire and it
was intended that they should be fitted at the front with a wire-cutting device invented
by J. L. Breton, a member of the Chambre des Dputs.
~ 285 ~
An official order for ten machines was given to Schneiders on 15 December 1915 At
this time Colonel Baptiste Estienne, who for over a year had been urging the French
G.Q.G. to develop armoured tracklaying vehicles to overcome the stalemate of trench
warfare, was put in touch with the Schneider firm. He was able to place his own ideas
and practical experience of warfare at the disposal of Monsieur Brilli and changes were
introduced into the designs.
Two prototype Schneider machines, including the one fitted with a machine gun, which
also had extended tracks, were demonstrated at Vincennes on 21 February 1916. Both
did well in crossing trenches and barbed wire and 400 of similar type to the machine
gun armed model were ordered on 25 February, delivery to be made before as
November. At this stage the inclusion of a 75mm gun in the armament was evidently
decided on.
~ 286 ~
The first batch of vehicles "tracteurs Estienne", later known as "Chars dassault" or
simply "Chars" were delivered in September 1916, in the same month that British tanks
were first used in action on the Somme. The Schneider tank consisted, essentially, of an
armoured box with a pointed nose placed on a lengthened Holt Caterpillar chassis. The
suspension consisted of two frames, carrying the roadwheels, return rollers and idler
concentrically mounted with the drive axles at the rear. The frames were sprung by
large springs mounted on the hull sides. A similar suspension was used on the FT-17.
The engine was a 70 h.p. four-cylinder type mounted near the front, to the left of the
centre line, with the radiator in front of it. An air intake grille was incorporated in the
nose glacis plate. The three-speed gearbox was at the rear and the track driving
sprockets were at the rear of the track. The maximum speed attainable was 5 mph. and
steering was by the clutch and brake method. One short 75mm. gun was fitted in a
sponson on the right hand side of the hull with one Hotchkiss machinegun further back
on the same side and one Hotchkiss machinegun in the middle of the hull on the other
side. Ninety rounds of ammunition were carried for the gun and 4000 rounds for the
machineguns. Six men made up the crew, the officer in command being also the driver.
The Schneider CA.1 was quite possibly the worst AFV of the whole war. Never mind
that it was painfully slow, badly ventilated, cramped and noisy and that its armour was
thin - the same can be said of almost all tanks of the Great War. No, in addition to this,
it used a standard Holt Tractor track system, which was way too short for this kind of
vehicle, and made all trench-crossing and parapet-climbing very difficult. And its main
gun was located in a small embrasure on the right hand side, with a very narrow field of
fire as a result - the two MGs were also mounted in a awkward way, that limited their
usefulness.
However, the tanks largest drawback was its two petrol tanks, that were placed high up -
like the British Mk 1, the engine had no fuel pump, but depended on gravity feed - on
each side, next to the Machine Gunners. The thin side armour was easily penetrated by
bullets or splinters. When this occurred the crew were often sprayed with petrol from
~ 287 ~
punctured fuel tanks. Often enough a single, misplaced bullet would set the tank on fire,
unsurprisingly it was nicknamed "The Mobile Crematorium".
It was first used in combat in an attack outside Barry au Bac, on the Aisne River, on the
16th of April 1917 (a part of Nivelles infamous and futile offensive against Chemin des
Dames). The approach to the jumping-off positions was done in broad daylight, in full
view of the Forward Observers of the German Artillery, who greeted the slow moving
column with showers of shells, inflicting heavy casualties on the AFVs even before they
crossed their own lines. Some tanks managed to breach the German lines, but it was still
a disaster. Of the 121 tanks used, 81 were immobilized, 56 of which were destroyed
beyond repair.
Faults which became apparent in the Schneider tanks in training and later in action for
the first time on 16 April 1917 included poor ventilation and vision arrangements and
inadequate armour, danger in action of fire in the internal petrol tanks and lack of egress
on the left hand side. Changes to add extra doors, modify the petrol tanks and add
additional 5.5mm. plates to the main vertical surfaces (which were 11.4mm at the sides)
to give protection against the German "K" bullet were recommended but were carried
out at best only slowly and spasmodically and not all tanks received all or indeed any
modifications.
Despite the changes the tank still proved both unsuccessful and quite unpopular with the
crews. Production was slowed down to a trickle, and many surviving CA.1s were
converted to unarmed Supply Tanks - Char de Ravitaillement.
The defects in the French heavy tanks led Colonel Estienne to advocate the acquisition
of British Mark V or later model tanks in exchange for Renault light tanks, which were
highly successful and in quantity production. This was done and seventy-seven Tanks,
Mark V* were received by the French before the Armistice. Some Schneiders were still
~ 288 ~
in service when the war ended. It was also tested by the Italian Army, but they saw the
obvious defects of the tank, and declined to buy it (rightmost image below).
~ 289 ~
Schneider CA1
Assault tank
Official designation: Char dÀssault CA1

Alternative notation: Schneider CA1
The history of the first French tank is inextricably linked with the names of Colonel
Zh.E.Etena, make every effort to start serial production of combat vehicles. Of course,
~ 290 ~
Etienne was not a "pioneer" of the tank - and before him in France to the military
department received various projects of armored tracked vehicles. However, in all cases
without exception, the military refused to finance such developments, explaining their
solutions or technical imperfection of unreality realization of such projects in the metal.
"The ice was broken" in August 1915, when the marshes of the Somme have been tested
Holt tractor company. Then the ground battles have acquired a distinct character and
position of the French army took a new weapon of war. On the use for military purposes
tractors thought before (mainly for clearing obstacles), but due to the high permeability
and good thrust-weight ratio Etienne planned to do on the basis of "Holt" full tank.
In a detailed memorandum dated 1 December 1915, Colonel outlined the main tactical
and technical data for future combat vehicle. "Land Battleship" (Cuirase Terrestre)
Etienne had to have a mass of about 12 tons, a length of 4 meters, height of 1.6 meters
and a width of 2.6 m The crew would consist of 4 persons, the thickness of armor -. 15-
20 mm. The proposed composition of the arms, as it turned out later, was the standard
for many French tanks for many years - a 37-mm gun to fight the fortified gun
emplacements and two machine guns for self-defense. According to Etienne, petrol
engine capacity of 80 hp allowed to develop the tank speed 3-9 km \ h, which would be
enough to support the advancing infantry on rough terrain. An interesting feature of the
project was the ability to transport bronepritsepa weighing up to 7 tons, which is located
20 infantrymen. Thus the properties of the tank were attached to the conveyor.
For its project Etienne turned for help to the famous car designer Louis Renault, but the
head of one of the largest French firms refused Colonel, citing the workload of current
orders and lack of experience in the construction of these machines. Then Etienne
proposed to build a tank company Schneider, whose engineers under the direction of
E.Briye back in January converted Holt tractor artillery tractor. It changed the course of
a few things for the better. The General Staff is now shown more interest in armored
tracked vehicles, several adjusting the requirements for it. After that, December 20,
1915, Etienne and Brihaye discussed details, and two days later was made a common
project.
~ 291 ~
The final version of the tank was presented to the General Staff in a few weeks and
already January 31, 1916, General Joffre (Chief of the French troops) demanded that the
State Secretary of the military department to issue an order for 400 machines. At the
same time the third bureau headquarters launched a detailed study of their combat use.
The Schneider tank was designated SA-1, which meant Char dÀssault - "Support
tank" or "Assault Tank first model", and in its modern classification carried tanks of the
middle class. To try all innovations Brihaye first built a prototype armored tractor
"Baby". On this test car seemed Military Commission sufficiently reliable, but at the
same lack of permeability and mobility was observed. In repeated trials, February 21,
1916 has been established by an elongated chassis, but Brihaye already decided to
abandon the tractor chassis (which was quite reasonable), using elements of it locked
spring suspension. So CA-1 was not a "remake of the tractor in the tank", as is often
trying to introduce in the current literature. Nevertheless, "tractor" last imposed on CA-
1, a heavy imprint.
The construction of the first French tank something reminiscent of the British "1
Lincoln", it is built on the chassis of the tractor Holt, although there is clearly outdone
the French allies. Housing tank was going to the rectangular frame so that he found
himself on the chassis. Rigid frame formed by two longitudinal beams with cross
bindings. Rolled armor plates of 11 mm thickness were going klpkoy on the frame.
The layout of the tank was so original, that after this is not repeated anywhere else.
In front of the body with the left hand, installed carburetor 4-cylinder engine or Renault
Schneider nominal power of 40 hp hp maximum and 65 The power plant was equipped
with a liquid cooling system and automatic lubrication. engine cylinders had a diameter
of 135 mm, were interconnected by two piston stroke length was 170 mm, the
maximum speed - 1,200 per minute. Radiator positioned in front of the engine and
provided him with a fan. Fuel tanks with a total capacity of 160 liters, located under the
engine and were covered with armor. Fuel may be supplied as the force (by means of
the pulsator engine exhaust gases are supplied) and a hand pump.
~ 292 ~
To his right, almost exactly in the longitudinal axis of the tank, was the driver (he is -
the tank commander) to the control units. To monitor used viewing window with hinged
bronezaslonkoy and three observation slits. Since the space for installation of 75-mm
guns simply no choice, it was decided to mount the sponson to slant cut-sheet, to
somehow provide acceptable firing angles. However, even then pointing angle of the
horizon did not exceed 40 degrees. In order to improve the tank's cross-his nose of
acquired characteristics pointed to the outline of the beam to overcome the barbed wire (
"bowsprit") that finally gave him a resemblance to the "land battleship."
The sides of the middle part of the body, in the propeller installations covered with
hemispherical shields were onboard 8-mm machine guns Hotchkiss model 1914 with a
rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. The fire from right gun gunner led separate, from
the left - a mechanic who followed the work of the engine. Planting the tank crew was
carried out through the double doors in the aft hull plates, but the driver can leave the
car through the upper hatch in the roof of the commander's cabin. standard has also been
installed in the aft for those years, the "tail", which made it possible to overcome the
SA-1 trench width not exceeding 1.8 meters.
75-mm gun, which was mounted on the tank, was of special design. She had a barrel
length of 13 calibers and wedges. They fired shots ordinary field gun the same caliber,
but with a reduced charge. Effective range of 600 meters, the effective - not more than
200. The initial 7.25-kg projectile velocity of 200 m \ with quite enough to deal with
light fortifications, such as the wooden dugouts, at a short distance. Immediately the
firing of guns led the assistant commander, which was located behind the ammunition
of 90 rounds.
Chassis tank, with respect to each side, consisted of two tracks: the front was carrying
three dual road wheels, rear - four. The front fork truck was attached guide wheel axle
with a screw mechanism for track tensioning. Caterpillar itself consisted of 34 large
trucks, which in turn, consisted of two pillows and rails on which rolling wheels with
flanges. Driving wheel, located behind, had teeth engagement for joint shoe. The total
length of the caterpillar bypass was 3 meters, the length of the bearing surface - 1.80
~ 293 ~
meters. Transmission SA-1 comprised a 3-speed gearbox with a reverse, allows to vary
the speed in the range of 2 to 8 km \ h and povorta differential mechanism.
According to the plan of serial construction of the whole party by "Schneider" ought to
put on 25 November. Run as a large order to a completely new technology was clearly
not under force, so the first CA-1 was obtained only September 8, 1916, while the
supply of other machines completed until next year.
Formation of tank units have begun in France in August and September 1916 in Fort
Trou dÀnfer which by October had one CA-1 and M1916, as well as several non-
armored chassis intended for crew training. Soon, the training part was divided - the
initial technical training has been moved in the automotive service camp Serkott and
directly training initially conducted at Marly, and since December 1916 in Shaplie.
For their tanks French decided to use artillery organization, dividing them into the
battery. Initially it was planned that each battery will be 8 cars, but soon their number
was reduced to 4. Of the three such units equipped with armored group, named for the
British fashion "division". Each group received AS index (assault guns) and a serial
number. At first, we wanted to use the divisions in the tanks of both types, but soon
abandoned this venture.
First Division, equipped with tanks, CA-1, collected in the period from 1 to 25
December 1916 and by April 1917 the total number of tanks increased to 208 units,
which will fully equip them for another 15 groups (AS1 - AS15). Each division had
three batteries of four tanks, mechanized unit supply and repair (SSR), and several
reserve tanks. In total in the division, there were 16 tanks, 18 officers and 74 non-
commissioned officers and soldiers.
As long as the training tank crews in April 1917, the French command, by the 5th and
6th armies, has planned an offensive in the region of Ain river, which is now better
known as the "Nivelle offensive". In general, the area on which the tanks had to act was
perfectly passable even for so imperfect machine. In addition, looking back on the
experience of British colleagues, the French intended to throw into the attack a large
mass of armored vehicles to help with her literally break through the German defenses.
However, when preparing for some big mistakes were admitted, which ultimately led to
its complete failure. Focusing technology took place almost in front of the Germans, the
~ 294 ~
scouts who opened the place unhindered deployment of armored units. In addition, the
shelling lasted for 15 days finally determined the direction of the main attack, which
allowed the enemy to prepare for anti-defense, digging a wide trench and pulling
artillery.
French tanks, numbering 400 units, in the morning on April 16 were to attack in the
village of Berry-au-Bac, but before the onset revealed that the destination was reached
only 208 by "Schneider" and 48 "Saint-Chamonix". Last pre-combat checks generally
showed that only 132 CA-1 will be able to take part in the attack. Battle-worthy tanks
were divided into two groups: Major Busse (2,4,5,6 and 9 divisions) and Major Shobe
(3,7 and 8th divisions). With the support of infantry tanks Bussy groups were thrown
into the breach in the area between the rivers La Met and Len, where they had to
overcome the defenses from Zhyuvenkur. From the west in the same direction came the
group Shobe.
The ensuing battle resulted in the present slaughter of the French. Tanks Major Shobe
held anti-tank ditch, 4-5 meters wide, which is why the first group of one column
beginning on their own to cross the bridge of La Met, and then also stopped at the
trench of about 3 meters wide. While the soldiers of the 154th Infantry Regiment
adjusted their passage through it, the German artillery mercilessly beaten by the French.
This "crossing" a tank commander of the group was hit, and the Major Bussy burned in
a car set on fire. Left without covering infantry surviving tanks continued to move to the
third turn of the German defense, absorbed by 2-3 km. The results of the battle were as
follows. Bussy Group lost 32 of the 82 tanks on the German positions and 12 more
around their trenches. Shobe Group in general could not boast of any success - the first
line of German defense remained not cleared up, and the French lost 26 tanks, burnt and
6 padded.
Despite this setback the General Staff was not disappointed in the tanks, as tracked
vehicles would be able to perform their task, whether the attack planned more carefully.
Conclude from this in the next attack on the plateau Luff, held May 5, 1917, the losses
were slightly lower. It was attended by 19 by "Schneider" from AS1 and AS10, 12 tanks
and "Saint-Chamonix" from AS31, which are supported by infantry captured the mill
and Luff moved to the front of 3200 meters to a depth of 500 meters. So little progress
has been due to the presence in the German defense wide moats and trenches go through
that could not a single tank without help. During the attack on the near approaches to
the German trenches two tanks were destroyed, four more are stuck in the soft ground,
and were destroyed by artillery. After the return of the remaining tanks turned out that
the damage has not received a single SA-1.
After that, "Schneider" was taken to the rear for modernization. Bottom tanks were
covered with steel shield, which protects the mechanism from contamination. Fuel tanks
moved aft, placing them on either side of the landing door, which is now a single leaf.
This step has allowed, in part, to get rid of gas contamination of the crew compartment.
For easier access to the engine cut through a large hatch in the left side, and were
installed jammers, lamps interior lighting and electric starter. In addition, it planned to
equip the tank periscope observation and panoramic sight, since from the beginning to
the SA-1 was used modernized mechanical. In addition, the tanks began to equip
invoice armor, strengthening the forehead and the side bronelistami additional 5.5-mm
thick, which were installed at a distance of 40 mm. This method previously performed
~ 295 ~
well on the armored vehicles and the factory Schneider undertook to equip a reinforced
armor tanks ranging from 129-th series instance, a little later - with the 210-th, but in
the end this work, and indeed the rest of the stages of modernization, conducted
workshops in Shamplie. All these improvements resulted in a change in appearance of
the tank and its weight increased to 14 tons. On the front of the modified SA-1 was sent
in October.
At the final stage of the 1917 campaign, the tanks have also played a significant role.
During the ensuing battle of La Malmaison (23-25 October), in the band steps 6th
French army is actively used by the connection of the 38 by "Schneider" (AS8, AS10,
AS11) and 20 "Saint-Chamonix" (AS31 and AS33), among whom there were 5
"radiotankov", intended for coordination tank groups. Together with them two
dismounted cuirassiers battalion were sent to the front, past the accelerated training
Shamplie where soldiers were trained to interact with the tanks.
As in previous cases, the French attack, which began at 5:15 am on October 23, initially
developed very poorly. In the first hour of the battle 24 machines were unable to reach
the German trenches, stuck directly on the initial positions. Other 19 tanks were hit in
the neutral zone, but the remaining 20 have successfully completed the task, separating
the 12-mile front 6 kilometers into the German defenses. Losses thus amounted to only
two "Saint-Chamonix".
By the end of February 1918 grade armored divisions equipped with SA-1 and M1916 \
1917 has changed. Now, the French Army had 4 battalions to 4 groups by "Schneider"
(245 cars) and 4 battalions of tanks "Saint-Chamond" (222 cars).
Soon followed the German offensive launched in Picardy in March 1918, almost led to
the defeat of France. The breakthrough of the German part has been so swift that the
Allies were in most cases are not ready to repel their attacks. For the "patching holes" in
their own defense of the French had to use existing tanks fragmented, with small groups
on multiple machines. In particular, April 5, 1918 five SA-1 from the AS4 tried to
support the attack of two infantry battalions to the farm Adelpar but not tasted success
were forced to retreat, losing two cars. After a day, 7 April, six CA-1 of AS2 were sent
as reinforcement Company 355 th Infantry Regiment, carried out the counter-attack at
UAH. Tanks were able to pass through the German defense orders, but the infantry did
not support them and in the end, "Schneiders" had to move away, lost 4 tanks. More
successfully acted SA-1 from the AS5 the afternoon of May 28, together with the 29th
Infantry Regiment of Americans conquer Cantina and failing at full strength back.
The last time used the summer of 1918 large units of French medium tanks, when
Allied forces were able to stop the Germans and drive them back. In prepared by 11
June counterattack aimed to parry the German units at Reims, was attended by 56 by
"Schneider" 3rd Battalion, imparted to the 152nd Infantry Division, and 103 "Saint-
Chamond", distributed between the 48 th, 120 th and 165 th infantry Division of the 3rd
army. As was to act quickly to ensure adequate contact time simply does not remain.
Advancing units then read out the order as follows: "... Infantry must fight as if the
support is not at all the tanks. The tanks will follow the infantry and support it in case
of need ... "
~ 296 ~
In such circumstances, the counterattack would be doomed to failure, however, and
German units, constantly advancing in a few weeks, too, were not in good shape. The
result of the Battle of Le May, where they took fighting medium tanks, has been very
disappointing - was incapacitated or cast 31 "Schneider" and 42 "Saint-Chamonix" (that
is, 46% of the initial strength), but the onset of the 18th German Army at Compiegne it
was stopped.
A month later, the French tank crews came last more success. Concentrated in Soissons
large tank grouping General Zh.Fosh began a counter-offensive to eliminate Marne
front projection. Total 343 tanks were assembled: three groups of CA-1 and Saint-
Chamond M1917, and three battalions of light Renault FT-17. Early in the morning of
July 18, 1918, almost without prior artillery preparation, under the cover of fog, infantry
and tanks of huge mass pressed through the German defense. By 8 am, the promotion
was 4-5 km, and by midday the tanks reached the German artillery positions. Total
losses amounted to 102 cars, 40 of which are out of service for technical reasons.
In the future, German resistance only increased, and as major victories had gone. For
example, on August 16-17, 3.8 and 12 th group of the SA-1 unsuccessfully attacked in
Tilolua. Lots of cars stuck on the weak, the rains softened the ground, some were
destroyed. Comes at the same time, Somme tanks CA-1 Group 11 and FT-17 5th
Battalion acted more successfully and were able to provide a small promotion of the
10th Corps.
September 12 and 33 tanks of the 13th SA-1 from the AS14 and AS17, 36 "Saint-
Chamond" of AS34 and AS35, as well as 135 tanks FT-17 505th Panzer Regiment were
used during the attack at the Saint-miles that conducted primarily forces of the 1st US
army. Having lost only 4 padded tank allies advanced to 7-9.5 km depth, and two weeks
later (26 September) launched a new offensive by the Meuse, from where almost 300
tanks per share by "Schneider" had 24 machines (AS14 and AS17). At this time, the
Americans have advanced only 4.5 km, and the FT-17 had passed to them very
ineffective support the infantry. Only on October 3, when fire support three batteries
"Saint-Chamond" infantry still entrenched in the occupied positions.
Shortly before the signing of the armistice CA-1 tanks took part in the battles in
Champagne, where a group of AS15 was attached to the 2nd Army Corps. Most of the
work is made easy "Renault", formed the basis of this time the tank forces of France.
The lasted until 8 October the battle the French lost 56 tanks of 184, followed by
"Schneider" completely taken out of the fighting, the role of defining their supply
trucks. With their weapons and removed the roof, turning it into a cargo transporters
and crews. Before the armistice had to remake the 97 tanks, some of which were used as
a repair, and almost all machines of this type to the metal after the war finished.
This, however, does not mean that the firm Schneider gave up trying to improve your
tank. More spring of 1917 the project SA-2 was prepared, which was a variant of the
commander tank weighing 8 tons armed with 47 mm gun in the turret. Initially, the
Defense Ministry has ordered 50 copies, but when it became known test results FT-17
that contract annulled.
Almost immediately, in March of the same year, it was filed new roject, distinguished
by enhanced reservation and 75 mm gun in the turret with a circular rotation. Military
~ 297 ~
development like, but instead of short-guns, they demanded to equip long-barreled tank.
So how to install it in the tower was impossible Etienne proposed to move it to the nose
of the body with an angle pointing on the horizon of 20 degrees. Thus, from the
"Schneider" could get a good self-propelled unit.
After considering both projects Advisory Board decided to implement the project in a
metal tank komandirvskogo CA-3. It is stated that the first prototype tested October 24,
1917, but already at the initial stage of running the tests, it became clear that the
"Schneider" is not suitable for this purpose, primarily due to the low permeability.
Order on completion of work followed by 27 October at the Ministry of weapons was
not in accordance with the turn of events.
But the story Schneider CA-1 is far from over. Which began after the First World War,
a wave of liberation movement forced many colonial countries to send in their overseas
possessions impressive troop. One such conflict was the war in Spain with the African
tribes in Morocco and Western Sahara. In 1921, the French government, fulfilling an
agreement on military aid, Spain has sold six SA-1 tanks, which do not have time to
disarm and left on conservation. Arriving in Morocco, these machines were used until
1926 as a support for the ACS, without entering into open conflict. Unfortunately, their
battle is the information could not be found.
Having dealt with the help of French and Moroccan recalcitrant tribes riffskimi
Spaniards took the path of "democratization" that eventually led to the Civil War. By
the autumn of 1936 it turned out to be all "Schneider" in the hands of the Republicans,
but in combat-ready condition was not more than three machines. That they, along with
preserved FT-17, used in the defense of Madrid, losing to the end of the year all the
tanks of this type.

CREW, pers. 6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 6320
Width 2050
Height mm 2300
Clearance, mm 400
one 75-mm cannon and two 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss
WEAPONS
Mle1914
allowance of ammunition 90 rounds and 4,000 rounds of ammunition
Mechanical gun sight
aiming DEVICES
stereoscopic view commander
housing board - 15 m
RESERVATIONS food body - 11.4 mm
roof - 5.4 mm
bottom - 5.4 mm
Schneider or of Renault, carburetor, 4-cylinder, liquid-cooled,
ENGINE
65 hp maximum output ..
~ 298 ~
TRANSMISSION mechanical type with 3-speed gearshift and friction clutches
(On one side) 7 steel road wheels of small diameter, semi-
CHASSIS detached two carts, 4 support rollers, rear drive wheel
arrangement, krupnozvenchataya caterpillar steel shoe
SPEED
2 km \ h on rough terrain
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m 0.30-0.40
The width of the den, m 1.70-1.80
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Canon de 220mm L Mle1917 Schneider (FAHM) Self-propelled artillery unit.
Alternative notation: Canon de 220mm L Mle1917 Schneider (FAHM), Schneider
220mm TR Mle.1917
~ 299 ~
The need for a "mobile" heavy artillery during the 1st World War, there was all the
warring parties. This was especially evident on the Western Front, where the Anglo-
French allies and the Germans were forced to transport huge heavy-caliber guns or
specialized heavy tractor or implements disassembled and transported in parts. This
created a lot of inconvenience, and required additional time. In that time, the French
general of artillery F.Err so designated role of the ACS in the current war:
"... For the proper use of tactical properties of each of the armed forces as artillery and
infantry, the latter should be given support tools. These instruments should be the
property of the infantry on a par with its machine guns and tanks, they have to live with
it, move and fight in its ranks, to be adequately protected in order to be able to move in
a hail of bullets. "
The solution was found in the installation of guns on the finished tractor chassis, but
rather robust design simply did not exist. Then it was decided to develop on the basis of
an existing chassis to develop a new, with reinforced suspension, capable of supporting
the weight of the tools and the power of recoil. French engineers have approached this
problem seriously and not be peddling trivia. Two variants of heavy self-propelled guns
were developed.
The first was a kind of "triplex", involves the installation of guns and mortars caliber
from 194 to 280 mm on the tracked chassis with an open platform without body armor.
However, on the "self-propelled" were controls that were placed in front of the housing.
~ 300 ~
The second option was more progressive - 220-mm gun (Canon de 220mm L Mle1917
Schneider), also mounted on tracked chassis, had an opportunity to guidance on the
horizon in the range of 20 . The recoil function performed inclined flitches - under the
action of the recoil cannon rolls back "up the hill", where under its own weight crawled
into place. Self-propelled gun was equipped with a 6-cylinder petrol engine capacity of
225 hp Duesenberg Aft, which establishes an instrument was protected bronelistami
thick (approximately) up to 6-8 mm. Currently, these machines are called "self-
propelled guns of the sample Schneider, 1918", although they may occur, and other
designations.
Although the first development of heavy self-propelled guns are in 1916, the first two
prototypes were built only in 1918, when the war ceased to be positional. As you can
see, General Erra requirements have been met almost entirely, except for protection
from bullets and shrapnel. However, self-propelled guns showed quite acceptable
performance. They can reach a maximum speed of up to 5-7 km \ h and quite briskly
moved on rough terrain. Conclusion The military commissions have been quite
favorable, but after the war from the series construction of these vehicles declined.
Apparently, the only example of 220-mm self-propelled guns in the interwar period was
a warehouse, where he was captured by German troops in summer 1940. Because by the
time the great interest this design is not represented, self-propelled gun went for scrap.
SPECIFICATIONS self-propelled
Canon de 220mm L Mle1917 Schneider (FAHM)
Combat weight ?
CREW, pers. 5-6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm
WEAPONS one 220-mm Howitzer Schneider
~ 301 ~
RESERVATIONS broneschit - 6.8 mm (?)
The Duesenberg, carburetor, 8-cylinder with a capacity
ENGINE
of 225 hp
CHASSIS tractor type
SPEED 5-7 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Char de Commandement Schneider CA2 Commanding tank
Official designation: Char de Commandement Schneider CA2

~ 302 ~
Shortly before the arrival of the first French tanks to the army the most visionary
theorist of tank (as well as practices) General Etienne offered the commander in chief of
the Army to create a command tank. In his letter dated September 27, 1916 he set out
the following thought (abridged translation):
"I believe that the unity of assault artillery units (ie tanks - Ed.) Have to maneuver on
the battlefield is therefore necessary to provide for their management command tanks
having the following characteristics:
- The speed of the terrain 10 km \ h,
- Overcoming ditches width of 1 meter,
- Crew of 4 people
- Adopt one or two machine guns and a 37mm cannon, which could carry forward the
fire and on the sides. Reservations should be strengthened to 15 mm. It makes sense to
provide for the construction of 50 tanks commanders. "
~ 303 ~
From then existing storm tanks Saint-Chamond M1916 Schneider CA1 and the most
suitable for this role, chose the latter, but the Army demanded increase striking power,
and therefore the creation of the commander of the tank were considered secondary
task.
In fact, the first draft of the CA2 (a better name - Le char de Commandement Schneider
CA 2) does not provide for making fundamental changes in the design of serial assault
tank. Chassis, together with the transmission and power plant completely passed from
CA1. Even the shape of the housing bottom of the case decided to leave with minimal
modifications, do not forget to "tie" are typical for this machine "bowsprit" and "tail".
Perhaps the only feature distinguishing CA2 of the first draft of the CA1, became
noticeably shorter nose of the body and more optimal placement of weapons. In this
case, four machine guns were placed in a ball mount on the sides, and the fifth - in the
frontal part of the right housing. On the left side there was a squat cylindrical tower with
a 37-mm cannon.
Back to the issue was only six months later, when the program is in full swing on the
modernization of CA1 tank. In a report dated 15 March 1917, General Etienne reported
that the Schneider engineers, with the assistance of military experts, has developed a
new version of the track commander's car, which has the following features: advanced
truck tracks, 37-mm or 47-mm gun in the turret with a circular rotation , increased to 15
mm book, combat weight - about 13 tons. One of the initiators of these improvements
was Lieutenant Saar, which found support from Etienne. The sum of their efforts were
justified, and on March 26 of the same year he entered the test tank CA2 of the second
project, equipped with the upgraded hull and turret on the roof of the fighting
compartment.
As in the first case of left engine and chassis of CA1 but significantly altered body.
Nasal part became even shorter, acquiring a wedge shape, and had a solid armor plates
from the observation slits for the driver. Tower shifted closer to the center of the crew
compartment, and the number of machine guns was reduced to two (one on each side).
Primarily intended to improve the mobility of the machine on rough terrain and
overcome to achieve wider ditches, because the serial CA1 hardly overcome such
obstacles that are wider than 1.5 meters. Armament on the prototype CA2 not
ustanvlivalos, but the layout of the tower, most likely, was present. However, the
experiment carried out on a rainy day on March 26 at Champlieu, he failed. Tank
enough playfully jumped the ditch bow, but immediately stuck the stern, starting
caterpillars burrow into the ground - it was stated in the test report.
"L'essai d'un char type CA 2 (Schneider a chenilles prenantes) pour le franchissement

des trous d'obus a donne les resultats suivant: L'avant de l'appareil, etant descendu
jusqu'au fond du trou d'obus , a gravi facilement la pente opposee sans que la partie
avant du blindage vienne en contact avec la terre.
L'appareil a pris la position figuree par le croquis. A ce moment les chenilles ont patine
sur la terre grasse. L'appareil n'a pas pu sortir du trou par ses propres moyens, ni par
l'avant parce que les chenilles patinaient, ni par l'arriere parce que l'arriere bec, formant
cuillere venait affouiller profondement le terrain.
L'essai a ete fait l'apres-midi du 26 Mars par temps de pluie et sur terrain tres detrempe.
~ 304 ~
It was also noted that the proposed design of the tower is far from optimal, and it should
at least increase the height. All this made a very negative impression on the
representatives of the General Staff, who are already not the best way to treat CA1
design.
Proposed summer of 1917 CA3 supporting the project has not received, though Etienne
insisted on the release of 400 series machines CA2 modifications to compensate for the
loss and replacement of CA1. A much more attractive then turned out to be the newest
light tank Renault FT-17, on the basis of which began to produce command vehicles.
Unlike CA2, it is not equipped with weapons and had a very close conning tower with a
thin book, but it does not stop to adjust its serial production under the designation
Renault TSF and operated until the beginning of the 2nd World War.
What happened to the CA2 then - remains unknown. Chances are, prototype tank was
dismantled the metal. Currently, you can find photos and even footage from the
documentary ( photo 1 , photo 2 ), which can be seen on the battlefields high boxy
tanks and towers. It is suggested that this is the CA2, but it does not meet the reality.
This is actually a dummy tanks made on the basis of tractors.
SPECIFICATIONS command tank

Schneider CA2 1917 sample of
CREW, pers. 4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 37-mm cannon and two 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss Mle
WEAPONS
1914
Mechanical gun sight

aiming DEVICES
stereoscopic view commander
RESERVATIONS board housing - 15 mm
feed - 11.4 mm
~ 305 ~
Tower -
roof - 5.4 mm
bottom - 5.4 mm
Schneider or of Renault, carburetor, 4-cylinder, liquid-cooled, a

ENGINE
maximum power of 65 hp
TRANSMISSION manual 3-speed gearshift and friction clutches

CHASSIS detached two carts, 4 support rollers, drive wheel rear
raspolozheniyao; Caterpillar Melkozvenchataya steel shoe
SPEED
2 km \ h on rough terrain
overcome obstacles
The angle of ascent, hail. 30-35
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Char de Commandement Schneider CA3 Commanding tank
~ 306 ~
Official designation: Char de Commandement Schneider CA3
Stage of completion: proctitis rejected.
The last attempt to "squeeze" from the construction of the tank assault CA1 maximum
possible was the development of significantly modernized version of the armored
command vehicle. The initiative of its creation belonged General Etienne, which has
already managed to make sure that the "little blood" will not be able to finalize the CA1.
CA2 model, released for testing in May 1917, showed low driving performance,
although the effect is expected quite the opposite. Rather unfortunate predecessor began
study options CA3, with a modified chassis and a completely new chassis.
Design began in July 1917 was carried out very rapidly. The firm of Schneider, in the
next months, presented at least seven projects CA3: S 1056/1057, S 1058/1059 (Both
were significantly revised draft CA2), S 1033 (version with 75-mm cannon in the nose
of the body), S 1050 / S 1051 (variants with short-75-mm cannon sample 1897 in the
tower).
Perhaps closest to the realization of projects could be considered S 1056/1057 and S

1058/1059. The chassis, which was meant for them, many of the elements in line CA1.
Minor changes were made only to the suspension and the support rollers. The body of
the tank kept the nose of the wedge with a single exchange machine gun and a small
add-in for the driver on the left side. The middle part of the crew compartment was
redesigned. Machine guns on the sides are not set, but saved room for their attachment,
and the interior space was better suited for monitoring the surroundings. On the roof
there were two small towers with observation slits and a mushroom-shaped caps. The
back panel has been considerably increased and now strongly advocated the dimensions
of the chassis. "Bowsprit" and "tail" is not installed.
The project was reviewed by a military commission of the summer of 1917. In general,
CA3 produced a good impression, because its production can be deployed without
"breaking" of the production process. However, low driving performance of the tank
commander and low speed made little CA3 suitable for use on the Western Front.
Conducted parallel with testing company Renault light tank prototype showed that the
chassis CA3 has no further prospects and is suitable only as a tractor or a conveyor.
Officially, the work on the command tanks were discontinued November 8, 1917 on the
orders of General Petain. Nevertheless, the firm Schneider received an order to build
200 improved chassis that came to equip the French Army under the designation
Schneider CD. Thus, the project CA3 remained only on "paper" stage, although there is
another option CA4, which also has not been realized.
SPECIFICATIONS command tank

Schneider CA3 sample of 1917

CREW, pers. 4
DIMENSIONS
~ 307 ~
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one to three 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss Mle1914
aiming DEVICES ?
housing board - 15 m
roof - 5.4 mm
bottom - 5.4 mm
Schneider or of Renault, carburetor, 4-cylinder, liquid-cooled,
ENGINE
65 hp maximum output ..
TRANSMISSION mechanical type with 3-speed gearshift and friction clutches
CHASSIS detached two carts, 4 support rollers, rear drive wheel
arrangement, krupnozvenchataya caterpillar steel shoe
SPEED ~ 4 km \ h
Cruising on the highway ~ 40km
overcome obstacles
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Chenilette St-Chamond M1921 \ M1928 Wheel-tracked wedge
~ 308 ~
Official designation: Chenilette St-Chamond modele 1921 \ 1928
Start design: 1919
Stage of completion: built several prototypes.
In a series of light reconnaissance vehicles, in addition to firms tankettes Carden-Lloyd

and Martel, it was no less significant representatives - French wheel-tracked armored
St-Chamond, which also could be called symbols of the era.
The idea of using a removable propeller appeared more during the 1st World War, but
then did not have the technical means to implement it, and the main production were
busy release of the current technology. But in the early years of the interwar period,
when the need to be armed with a high-speed armored vehicle is no longer questioned,
wedgies gained rapid impetus to the development. By developing such a machine
~ 309 ~
FAHM company specialists (Compagnie des Forges et Acieries da la Marine et
d`Homecourt) started in 1919. According to the "inertia" wedgies appropriated the name
St-Chamond. It was assumed that for reconnaissance will be enough light and booking a
machine gun caliber rifle. Actually, more of the wedges are not required.
single version of the wheeled-tracked armored car was ready in 1920. Compared with
the same to him by the British Morris-Martel French engineers decided to resort to a
more complex constructive solution - go to the tracks was carried out at the same time
lowering them to the ground and raising the body to the wheels with the car type
bridges (with tubeless) which are arranged in front and behind. Complete the transition
to the wheels on the tracks by a mechanical drive takes 10 minutes. Managed were only
the front wheels, the drive of the compact 2-cylinder engine capacity of 15 hp I was to
the rear wheels. Pendant road bridges had depreciation on the leaf springs. Tracked part,
in relation to each board, composed of 10 semi-detached pairs of rollers 5 trucks with
locked suspension, four support rollers, guide front and rear drive wheel.
When traveling on wheels control was carried out by a conventional steering wheel. On
tracks wedge ruled pedals and levers. The driver, who is also - the shooter, was placed
in a high superstructure housing, which reservation thickness is 6 mm. Equips wedge
model 1920, one 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss, installed in the front add-sheet with a
small smescheniiem right of the central axis (the machines Martel design, for example,
the gun is always "looked" back).
On the M1920 tests showed good driving performance. It could reach a speed of 28 km
\ h on wheels and up to 6 km \ h on the tracks, gradeability 30 , wide trench up to 1.7 m
and a ford depths up to 0.7 m. The first tests took place in a single wedge form, but very
soon it became clear that one person is very difficult to combine the duties of a driver,
commander and gunner. Then the crew was increased to two people and later became
the standard for the type of tankettes St-Chamond.
~ 310 ~
After minor modifications wedge has been adopted for mass production under the
designation Chenillette St-Chamond modele 1921 ( "wedge Saint-Chamond model
1921"), although its "mass" was limited to only a few instances. It turned out that the
French army did not burn with the desire to take the wheel-crawler wedgies adopted.
Presented in a short time the options of self-propelled units equipped with 75-mm short-
gun ( kompnovka ) and 75-mm cannon, the obr.1897 ( kompnovka c column book-rests
installing armored shields to the box ) also did not find the support of the army. But
these modifications could not be better suited for the role of mobile artillery, designed
to support the infantry and reconnaissance units. No significant alterations in this
structure has not undergone M1921 - was enough to rebuild the superstructure body.
Attempts to offer export-M1921 also unsuccessful. In 1923, one car was shipped to
Finland, where subjected to extensive testing. Suffice it quickly became apparent that a
~ 311 ~
mechanical travel drive change and transmission can not withstand high loads. Added to
this is the lack of protection of public suspension elements and weak arms with limited
firing angles. In such circumstances, any further supply M1921 Finnish delegation
refused. Later wedge used solely for training purposes and was decommissioned in
1937.
Another wedge of this modification was sent to Japan. Presumably this occurred in
1924. The Japanese army then considered options for adopting and reconnaissance
armored M1921 good fit in terms of reference. Nevertheless, the winner was recognized
wedge Carden-Lloyd Mk.VIb, as having the best technical reliability.
There is also evidence that Spain and the Soviet Union also purchased (or received for
the test) on the same model M1921. Apparently, tankettes characteristics were found to
be insufficient, as the Spanish army refused further deliveries and Soviet designers did
not show much interest to the M1921.
The following modification M1924 was equipped with a single tapered tower, like the
one that was put on Renault NC1 \ NC2 tanks, but without the characteristic mushroom
cap. Instead, on the roof of the tower from the left, low setting has been performed with
two viewing devices. Although the body height has decreased, the installation of the
tower led to an increase in the overall height of the machine up to 2.13 m. Also reduced
~ 312 ~
the size of the door. In addition, the increase in the thickness of the booking up to 11
mm weight increased to 3,600 kg, which has a negative impact on the mobility of the
machine. It is clear that in the proposed version of M1924 was rejected and the infantry
and cavalry.
In 1926, there was a fourth modification of the M1926, which was installed
transmission Williams Janney. Due to the failure of the tower height could bring up to
1.98 m. Now the machine gun was mounted on the right at the top of the superstructure
with a highly oblique frontal armor plates. On the left, in front of the driver's seat, had a
rectangular hatch with an observation slit. Once again, we reduce the size of the landing
door. The resulting improvements have increased the combat weight up to 4200 kg, but
also in the form of a wedge M1926 was rejected by the army.
After this turn of events FAHM company decided on a radical modernization. The
general scheme is preserved, but everything else has been completely redesigned.
Crawler undercarriage has been lengthened compared to M1926, 24 cm in height and
increased. Bridges automotive type suspension with open items have been replaced with
a new design, as in the Czech wheeled-tracked tank Skoda KH-50. Now, the wheels
rose along the sides of a mechanical drive. The suspension system is likely to include
the amortization on the plate springs.
The case was also completely new. The upper frontal armor plate was located at a large
angle of inclination. In the front part of the two-folding hatch was made, intended for
planting, planting a driver whose place is now housed at the central axis of the machine.
Superstructure body had a more complex structure, with the location in front of the 57-
mm (?) gun to install a large sector traverse. The door on the left side left, on a rooftop
observation cylindrical turret. Dimensions wedgies, which received M1928 index, were
as follows: full length-3.85 m, width with wheels - 2,40 m, height - 3.00 m.
In general, the armament, booking and combat capabilities, wedge M1928 more in line
of light tanks. Nevertheless, the French army was not interested in this interesting
~ 313 ~
machine. Modification M1928 remained in one piece, and the development of the
wheeled-tracked tankettes FAHM company is no longer involved.
SPECIFICATIONS WHEEL-TRACK wedgies

Saint-Chamond M1921
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 3600
Width 2080
Height mm 1930
Clearance, mm
WEAPONS one 8-mm machine gun in the hull Hotckiss
aiming DEVICES optical sight
RESERVATIONS
food body - 6 mm
the roof and the bottom -
ENGINE Petrol, 2-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 15 hp
(Tracked part, on one side) of 10 semi-detached pairs of

rollers 5 trucks, 4 podderzhivayuschik roller, front steering
CHASSIS and rear drive wheel;
(wheel side), two bridge-type car with four uni-directional
wheels, tubeless tires
28 km \ h on wheels
SPEED
6 km \ h on tracks
~ 314 ~
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m 0.70
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Char Peugeot Light tank
Official designation: Char Peugeot

Start design: 1918
Stage of completion: collected two unarmored prototype project canceled after France's
surrender.
~ 315 ~
In parallel with the development of Renault FT-17 light tank, which had a great success
in the fields of the First World War battles, similar to the design of combat vehicles
were engaged in other well-known French company. In particular, the company Peugeot
has presented its own project, which had a number of both positive and negative
qualities.
The initiator of the tank and one of its chief designers was captain of Omis. He
proposed structure looks similar to the FT-17, but without a tower and with a simple
chassis. Thus, with respect to one side, running gear consisted of four road wheels
(blocking in pairs in two carts with cushioning springs in the spring), the front of the
steering wheel, rear wheel drive and five supporting rollers. Upcoming suspension
components were covered by armored shields. Housing tank had riveted construction
and benefit from a spacious wheelhouse. The sides and sloping stern armor plates were
carried out door to landing-landing crew and load ammunition. The main armament
consisted of 37 mm SA18 gun, mounted in a ball mount in the front hull offset to the
left side. As an alternative, can be installed 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss. To the right
of the driver's seat was a gun, equipped with a viewing device.
Tank went on trial at the end of 1918, when Germany's defeat in the war was a matter of
the nearest months. Despite a number of positive Ososbenno tank Peugeot was on the
same level with the FT-17 with no exceptional advantages over them. In this situation,
the army abandoned the Peugeot company offers and the project was canceled.
SPECIFICATIONS Assault Tank ROUGHTERRAIN

Char Peugeot sample 1918
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
~ 316 ~
Length mm 9000
Width 2400
Height mm 2700
Clearance, mm ?
one 75-mm cannon in the hull, and one 47-mm gun in the
WEAPONS
turret
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
Two track the two triangular sections; Caterpillar

CHASSIS
krupnozvenchataya steel odnogrebnevyh Shoe
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Char Varlet Assault Tank terrain
~ 317 ~
Alternative notation: Char Varlet
Start design: 1918
Stage of completion: the project is rejected due to the complexity of implementation.
Truly a unique project of the composite tank was created by French engineers in the
interwar period. More in 1918 Amde Varlet (Amedee Varlet - the chief designer of
the firm Delahaye) proposed a draft "tracked vehicle" that could be used as an "assault
tank". Unlike other similar developments Varlet decided to abandon the usual scheme.
In his opinion, the best cross-country could provide two-piece composite chassis.
Details about the composition of weapons have not been preserved.
A few months later it was developed an improved version with two towers. Between the
two sections planned to install a tower with a gun, which had the corners of the vertical
tilt of -2 to + 60 and a horizontal circular rotation. Thus the tank can be used as a
means of defense. In both sections, it planned to install two guns. The engine was
installed in the aft section of the tank. The front section, where there was a separation of
management, was able to turn in a horizontal plane nearly 90 .
~ 318 ~
While the build as the original tank failed due to the high technical complexity. After
nearly 20 years Varlet back to the old design, but at a new technical level. In 1936, the
project was a significant sepeni finalized. new completely original chassis, and a special
unit for swinging turret with a significantly increased angles vertical guidance has been
designed for the tank. Armament was significantly enhanced by the use of 47-mm gun
in the turret and 75 mm gun, which is installed with the machine guns in the front
section with an offset to starboard. In sum, it would be possible to Char Varlet
effectively fight not only with field fortifications, but also with armored vehicles of the
enemy. The crew, presumably, could consist of 3-4 people.
~ 319 ~
Elaborate chassis was an equilateral triangle at the end of which is equal to the diameter
of the main wheels. Lower rear wheel is the master and the rotating moment of the
motor is transmitted to it by means of gears. In all three "faces" was installed on three
additional (tension) roller.
Pledged in the tank Varlet unconventional technical solutions, of course, we have the
right to exist. The case remained for small - to implement the project in the metal. Make
it even in 1937 turned out to be very difficult, so the tank was only in the form of
sketches and a single layout. The idea of a composite tank returned only after the 2nd
World War. In 1970-ies. Swedish experts experimental tank UMEX 20, but then the
pilot stage to move this project could not be developed and built.
SPECIFICATIONS Assault Tank ROUGHTERRAIN

Char Varlet sample 1936
Combat weight ?
CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 9000
Width 2400
Height mm 2700
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 75-mm cannon in the hull, and one 47-mm gun in the
~ 320 ~
turret
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
Two track the two triangular sections; Caterpillar

CHASSIS
krupnozvenchataya steel odnogrebnevyh Shoe
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
194mm GPF Self-propelled artillery unit
Official designation: 194mm GPF

Alternative notation: Canon de 194 mle GPF, Mortier de 220mm Saint Chamond TR,
~ 321 ~
Mortier de 280mm C Mle 1914 Schneider
Stage of completion: produced in small batches during the 1918-1919 biennium.
At the end of the First World War, when technological progress has advanced
sufficiently to create different types of combat tracked vehicles, the French command
considered it possible to create a self-propelled artillery heavy type. There is no doubt
that the huge cannon, howitzers and mortars required significant efforts to move them to
the front, and it required the presence of a large number of specialized tractors.
However, even if any, it required considerable time to bring guns to the stowed position.
Correct this deficiency have been called the new machines, which is engaged in the
development company Saint-Chamond.
~ 322 ~
French engineers have decided not to niggle and created a composite system consisting
of towing and directly self-propelled, which is essentially a self-propelled carriages with
tractor tugs . The chassis is identical for both machines have been developed technical
director of the company Saint-Chamond engineer Rimalo (Rimailho). Applied to one
side of the chassis consisted of 13 road wheels on board with a blocked spring
suspension, front and rear guide of the drive wheel. Caterpillar krupnozvenchataya
consists of a cast steel tracks. Most of the elements of the chassis has been standardized
with an average tank St.Chamond M1917. The power plant, which included petrol
engine Panhard SUK4 M2 120 hp and a mechanical transmission housed in the aft part
of the hull, the separation of management - in the front.
On the roof of the housing SAU was established for weapons carriage and arranged
space for the gun crew. To reduce recoil chassis equipped with additional stops installed
in the front of the chassis next to the driver's seat. Tractor transporter (also known as
regenerative tractor ) are equipped with a platform for transportation of equipment and
ammunition. In the experimental samples was no reservation.
Given the huge variety of artillery systems by a single gauge we decided not to limit. In
total, it has been built, at least five different versions of self-propelled carriages, most of
which are equipped with tools such as GPF (Grand Puissance, Filloux).
120mm GPF - apparently this machine became the founder of the series. In early 1917,
we built one prototype, and then decided to move on to more powerful guns, which at
that time were abundant.
155mm GPF - the second prototype, equipped with 155-mm field gun on a modified
machine.
194mm GPF - the most mass modification, equipped with guns caliber 7.63 inches
(194 mm). In fact, these instruments represented a modification of 155mm GPF with a
new barrel length of 6500 mm, which increased the explosive projectile capacity almost
doubled. Now projectile weighing 78.83 kg, at an initial seorosti 640 m \ s, I might has
been sent to a range of 20,900 meters. Once installed on the track traversing carriage
oruliya angle was 55 , and vertically it may hover between -0 to + 37 . The
~ 323 ~
maximum rate of no more than 1-2 shots per minute. When transporting the gun had
disassembled into two parts: the trunk was removed from the mast and was placed on a
special transport platform. To drag gun body with shopping carts on carriage and back
used tractor equipped with a winch-towing. Only 50 of these cars were built combined.
Mortier de 220mm Saint Chamond TR - small series of self-propelled carriages

equipped with 220-mm mortar siege with a length of 10.5-caliber barrel. It should be
noted that the characteristics of this artillery system was very impressive. The projectile
weighing 100.5 kg was the initial velocity of 415 m \ s and a maximum flight range of
up to 10,800 meters. mortar sample weight 1916 kg 7792 left. Vertical guidance angles
ranged from -1.3 to + 65 and within 6 of the horizon. The maximum rate - two
shots per minute. Built with 6 self-propelled guns of this modification.
Mortier de 280mm C Mle 1914 Schneider - the most powerful version, equipped with
a siege of 280-mm mortars with a length of 12 calibers stvloa that metric was 3353 mm.
This gun fired shells weighing 205 kg at a maximum range of 10950 meters at an initial
speed of 418 m / s. vertically pointing angles are in the range from -10 to + 60 , on
the horizon - no more than 20 . Weight in firing mortars condition - 16000 kg. Built 25
units, which had a very original circuit operation. Self-propelled carriage with mortar
equipped with two electric motors, which are supplied with energy via cables from a
leading transporter of the tractor, which was a mobile generator with a petrol engine.
Accordingly, each transporter has its driver.
~ 324 ~
After evaluating all of the system proposed by the General Staff decided on the
priorities. In 1918 it was decided to establish the production of self-propelled serine
above two calibers, as well as facilities equipped with 220mm guns Schneider M 17
self-propelled crawler firm Fahm. Despite a spectacular start in November 1918, the
project was closed. The official reason was the end of the war, but in fact, France could
not afford to release a significant amount of expensive self-propelled guns.
In the interwar period, it was concluded that to be armed with a large number of self-
propelled mortars would be clearly excessive and gradually most of them were re-
equipment of 194 mm cannons. Nevertheless, a few copies of 280-mm self-propelled
guns still left. Most of the time these machines held in storage and in the autumn of
1939, they were again put into operation. different numbers appear in the foreign
sources. For example, it indicates that total 184 self-propelled guns of all types have
been mobilized. More reliable are the data that the French regiment was mobilized for
one 194-mm and 280-mm self-propelled guns - in their total amount does not exceed 50
units.
Precise data on the combat use of heavy self-propelled guns on the Western Front are
absent, but in May and June 1940, almost all of them became German trophies. Despite
the apparent obsolescence of design artillery system had more impressive firepower and
had a significant stock of shells in warehouses. All this led to the adoption on the self-
propelled guns Wehrmacht under the designation 19.4cm Kanone 485 (f) auf
Selbstfahrlafette and 28cm Morser 602 (f) auf Selbstfahrlafette. In early 1942, three
machines equipped with 194-mm guns were sent to the Eastern Front and joined the
84th Artillery Regiment and, according to some reports, they have found a use for
Cherkassy. As for the 280-mm self-propelled guns, then their fate is not known.
It is also interesting that the French 280-mm mortar actively used, first the Tsarist
Russian army, and then the Red Army, and by June 1941 there was armed with 25 guns
of this system. In addition, the captured mortars captured in France were used by
German troops during the siege of Leningrad in 1941-1942.
~ 325 ~
At this time, the only surviving sample of 194-mm self-propelled installation is located
in the exhibition tank Museum Aberdeen Proving Ground (USA). However, there is
hope for the restoration of the second self-propelled, which is now in a dilapidated
condition.

CREW, pers. 1+?
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one gun 194mm GPF
aiming DEVICES telescopic gun sight
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Panhard SUK4 M2, carburetor, liquid-cooled, 120 hp
(On one side), three trucks on the road wheels 3, two carts 2
CHASSIS Opon roller, front steering and rear wheel drive,
krupnozvenchataya metal caterpillar
SPEED 8-10 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
missing
COMMUNICATION
~ 326 ~
FCM 1A Heavy tank
Official designation: FCM 1A

Alternative notation: Char Lourd
Start design: 1916
~ 327 ~
Stage of completion: built one prototype, the project is closed in favor of FCM 2C.
Few people know that the French program for the construction of tanks began before
the British and, if not annoying errors developers, French armored vehicles could enter
the battle field more in 1915. As has been repeatedly mentioned. French designers
decided to take the path of least resistance, which led to the creation of Saint-Chamond
tanks and CA-1 of Schneider, executed on the basis of tractor chassis with placing the
gun in the frontal. At best, a few reservations and protected undercarriage these tanks on
combat effectiveness do not go to any comparison with the British cars of the same
class, and that determined their fate. During 1918-1919,. they completely replaced the
lighter Renault FT-17 tanks and heavy Mk.V *. Much better on this background looked
project presented "Mediterranean Society Zheleznodelatelnyh factories and shipyards"
(FCM).
for the development of heavy tank Quest received from the head of the DSA (Directeur
des Service Automobiles - Automotive Service Management) M.M.Savite back in July
1916. Immediately after receiving the data on the combat use of tanks Mk.I FCM
company has developed a project of tank weighing 38 tons, armed with 105-mm cannon
and equipped with 30-mm armor. Engine 200 hp It was to provide a firm renault. Very
soon - December 30, 1916, the project titled PD Char Lourd A provided to the
Advisory Committee of the assault artillery. In general, the efforts of engineers from the
FCM evaluated positively, however, at the regular meeting held on January 17, 1917,
the findings were not so optimistic. Preliminary evaluation of the project showed that
the 30mm booking and full komlekte weapons with ammunition and fuel, Masai tank
around 40 tons. When the then existing technologies to create a robust and easy-to-
ekspuatatsii mechanical type transmission it was not possible, so it was recommended to
develop electric powertrain type, like a tank Saint-Chamond M16. This process was
developed by General Etienne, who immediately offered two alternative tank version
with 75-mm cannon and different types of transmissions - mechanical and electrical.
By this time, the committee finally decided on the requirements of the booking - the
protection of the tank should withstand the ingress of German 77-mm field guns, thus
leading him back to the starting mark of 30 mm. Experience combat use of French tanks
showed that without the placement of the main weapons in the rotating tower can not
do, because the same Saint-Chamond could direct his weapon in a highly restricted
~ 328 ~
sectors and subsequently used as a self-propelled guns. With this project the firm FCM
position looked quite promising, especially since the summer of 1917 a new tank Char
Lourd 1A was designed.
Chassis heavy tank was not very original. According to the requirements in the assault
tank it had to do quite high, almost life-size. Suspension of rollers of small diameter was
blocked, but the stiffness of the course is partly compensated by their number. The drive
wheels located in the front, guiding the engagement ridge - back. All open chassis
components were closed armored shields.
The layout of the tank 1A was a classic. In front of the case management department
was located, where the driver's seat and his assistant. Further fighting compartment
located on the sides of which were made by two loopholes for firing from machine guns
and one viewing device. Here it was located just five tank commander, gunner, loader,
gunner and mechanic. Engine and transmission compartment located in the rear of the
chassis, taking up more than 50% of its length. Reservation was done to differentiate
between. The front part of the housing and the tower was made of 35-mm armor, side
and feed the body - from the 20-mm armor, roof and bottom - 15 mm.
Surveillance device was little. In the case of four peepholes protected by bulletproof has
been made (two in front and two on the sides). The commander would conduct
surveillance of the terrain with the help of the commander's turret (mounted on the roof
of the main tower) or a telescopic gun sight.
The composition of the weapons has been very strong. The turret of the conical shape,
which is mounted on the roof of the fighting compartment, placed the 105-mm gun and
8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss. According to the project and the layout is another
machine gun was in a ball mount in the front part of the body with a slight shift to the
left side, but on the prototype, he did not appear. In laying transported another four 8-
mm machine gun.
~ 329 ~
Before the start of production of a prototype wooden mockup was built. Prototyping
Commission was satisfied - the appearance of the tank 1A was very impressive and at
the same time he had a tower with a circular rotation and a stronger book than any of the
British "rhombus".
On sea trials, which took place near the town of Seyne (Seyne), prototype 1A released
December 10, 1917. Official test cycle began on December 21-22 with a run on the road
between the towns of Sein and Sublette (Sablettes), after which the tank went on the
sandy beach. Due to the high chassis 1A easy to overcome all the major obstacles, such
as trench width of 2 meters and a vertical wall height of 0.9 meters, 3.5 meters in
diameter pit, barbed wire, scarp, small craters from shells and slides located at a
distance of 3.5 meters apart. At full speed, the tank could dump 35 cm diameter tree.
The only weak point in regard to mobility 1A became the difficulty of control on bends.
In other words, the tank moved well in a straight line. If you try to "banked" tank,
because of the great length of the chassis, the design Track Shoe and unfinished
mechanical transmission, barely moving, even on a hard surface.
Fire tests also have been quite successful. Shooting from the 105-mm gun proved its
high efficiency, but on serial tanks decided to set still 75-mm cannon. Opting for a less
powerful weapon was due to several factors: less recoil, smaller dimensions and more
ammunition. If the 105-mm artillery shells planned 120, then to 75 mm they can be
downloaded for 200 pieces. For each of the five guns were supposed to 2500-3000
rounds.
~ 330 ~
Despite polozhitelnye results of the project 1A were discontinued in favor of more
promising Char Lourd 1B, heavier and better armed. But the total cost of the design
and manufacturing of a prototype FCM 1A amounted to 600,000 francs, which was
rather big amount for the war-torn France. The tank was equipped with a 75 mm gun
and four machine guns. FCM 1B Total length was 8.29 meters for the project, combat
weight - about 45 tons.
Prototype tank FCM 1B has not been built since November 11, 1918 the war ended. At
the same time, with the option of electric transmission Char Lourd 1C,
predstavilennoy in 1917 by Establishment Experementale Francais, received support.
This project looked more monstrously - the length of about 10 m, the crew of 10 people,
a reservation of 45 mm. Since the combat weight of the tank exceeds 50 tonnes as a
power plant planned to use two 250-horsepower engine.
But here, the committee is not particularly in a hurry with the decision on the beginning
of construction of at least one prototype. The thing is that in 1917 the British offered
their Mk.IV 77 tanks in exchange for French FT-17, which made it possible to
temporarily cover the shortage of heavy tanks in direct support of the infantry. Later, in
December of the same year, the government gave permission for the construction of
tanks Mk.VIII, Anglo-American development of a prototype of which was not even
built. All these factors, plus the doubt in the choice of weapons and armor thickness
could lead to disruption of its own construction program breakout tanks.
Yet Etienne managed to convince the committee of the correctness of his views and
February 9, 1917, made a special presentation, he convincingly proved that the attack
should lead the infantry was heavy machines with powerful weapons and booking (ie
those than can not boast of English tanks). The argument turned out to be weighty and
21 February tanks were included in the production program. The official decision on the
construction of the French heavy tanks was adopted on 13 June.
Numerous delays have meant that the construction of the first prototype tank 1C FCM
did not take place. At the same time, the relevance of the summer of 1918 in the
~ 331 ~
presence of a heavy assault machine greatly reduced. The German army launched a full-
scale retreat, and soon Germany got herself into the vortex of revolutionary events that
led to its surrender.
By and large, this tank was a weighted version 1A model, which has up to 45 mm armor
was reinforced frontal part of the hull and turret (slightly modified), and the 75-mm gun
became standard. The composition and the location of the light infantry weapons
preserved, but even then the question was raised, and his more rational distribution,
because the aft part of the tank remained vulnerable to infantry attacks. So, it was
decided that in the rear part of the tank must be installed a small tower with a 8-mm
machine gun. On a single prototype 1C idea is not implemented, as it would lead to a
significant change in the design of the hull. By the way, on the prototype used a
captured German engines the Mercedes, previously used in airships, and their number
increased by one unit. In sum, the electric transmission and power plant with a total
capacity of 500 hp We were to improve the driving performance of the tank, but in fact
it did not happen. At the tactical and technical parameters Model 1A and 1C were
almost equal, if not to take into account increased to 8-10 km \ h maximum speed later
version of the tank.
In early 1918, a new version of a breakthrough tank, called Char Lourd 2C was
developed. It was a project in which popytlis correct some design flaws of the previous
models, which led to an increase in fighting weight up to 70 tons, while the crew has
increased to 12 people. Armament is now housed in the two towers, and on the sides of
the hull. In order to increase the tank tracks overcome obstacles bowed body, leading to
an increase in its height to 4.15 m.
for its time, it was a very good project, influenced the konestruktorskuyu thought -
enough to remember Soviet tanks GUVP projects or Japanese heavy tanks and 1 2591
(Type 91). The last two were built under the clear influence of the French. On the other
hand, the fate of the company FCM assault tanks was not so joyful. Initially, several
times has been reduced order, which in the final version is limited to 10 cars.
Construction of heavy tanks was delayed until 1922, and to maintain combat readiness
~ 332 ~
in all 10 tanks was not possible every year. Service 2C tanks was rather peaceful.
During the 1922-1936 biennium. they are periodically involved in the maneuvers and
different looks, until they were sent to the reserve. By the beginning of the 2nd World
War, survived all the tanks 2C, but the two of them had to make out in full view wear
design. In May 1940, when the situation at the front became critical, the command of
the French army decided to use 2C in combat conditions. The result of this enterprise
was a natural vplone - all 6 tanks sent to the front were destroyed by their crews, 40 km
from Nofshato station.
The only prototype of the FCM 1A long rust in the open air, after which he was
regarded as a museum piece. In the end, the German tank became a trophy - in June
1940, he was captured on one of the streets of Versailles, where the French organized a
strong point. By this time the tank was in the slow-moving state (without an engine,
tracked trucks, machine guns, and a piece of equipment). It is possible that he, as well
as somewhat less ancient FT-17, just towed to the city, turning the bunker. So it is quite
possible, a prototype of the FCM 1A could take part in the fighting on June 14-17. The
new owners, without any confusion, let it be scrapped, after FCM 2C.
SPECIFICATIONS heavy tanks

FCM 1A sample of 1917
CREW, pers. 7
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 8350
Width 2840
Height mm 1980
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 105-mm or 75-mm gun and five 8-mm machine guns
120 shots to 105-mm artillery shells and 200 rounds of 75-

allowance of ammunition mm guns
12500-15000 ammunition for machine guns
telescopic gun sights

aiming DEVICES
optical machine-gun sights
Tower - 35 mm
RESERVATIONS housing forehead - 35 mm
food body - 20 mm
~ 333 ~
roof casing - 15 mm
hull bottom - 15 mm
ENGINE Of Renault, Petrol, 8-cylinder rated at 250 hp
(On one side) 28 (?) Of rollers of small diameter, 6

CHASSIS
supporting rollers, front steering and rear wheel drive
SPEED 6 km \ h
overcome obstacles
bias ?
Wall height, m ~ 1.20
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Char de Bataille Project Charlie Clelland
The purpose of this article is to discuss the project tanks created to meet the 1921 Char
de Bataille specification. A number of these tanks used the cable track system invented
by Col. Phillip Johnson in 1918 so they share features with the British Medium Mark D
and the US M1922 Medium tank.
At the end of WW1 the French Army was well equipped with light tanks, the Renault
FT, and had small numbers of a heavy tank, the FCM 2C. However, there was a
deficiency in assault tanks (char de rupture) since the Schneider CA1 and St Chamond
tanks had left service at the end of WW1 and although the French Army had received
Mark V* tanks from the British before the end of WW1 these tanks had tactical
limitations and were never designed for long service lives.
Gen Estienne had defined the role of a char de bataille (battle tank) in a May 1919
memorandum Mmoire sur les missions des chars blinds en campagne in which he
proposed that the role of a "battle tank" was to accomplish a breakthrough of an enemy
line by destroying fortifications, gun emplacements and opposing tanks. In January
1921 a commission headed by General Edmond Buat initiated a project for such a
vehicle. It should be noted that the term char de bataille refers to a tactical concept
rather than an official designation.
~ 334 ~
The specification of the Char de Battaille built on experience from WW1 and combined
the roles of an assault gun with a conventional tank as an economy measure. The
general specification was:
Max. weigh of 13 tons

Max. armour thickness of 25mm
Two turret mounted machine guns
Hull-mounted 75mm howitzer fixed as low as possible in the front of the hull
Crew of three
The reasoning for the hull mounting of the gun was that a low mounted gun could
engage typical WW1 trench fortifications which were set close to the ground surface
and be easy to load allowing (notionally) high rates of fire. The specified weight and
consequent size restrictions on hull width meant that the gun was fixed in the horizontal
plane so the tank had to maneuver to traverse the gun. It was intended to use a 75mm
howitzer for an assault gun and a 47mm gun as an anti-tank vehicle.
The French manufacturers of WW1 tanks, Renault, Schneider, FAMH (Forges et

Aciries de la Marine et dHomcourt known as Saint-Chamond), FCM (Forges et
Chantiers de la Mditerrane) and Delaunay-Belleville were invited to participate in the
project and were required to submit prototypes for testing in 1924. Renault and
Schneider formed an alliance and submitted two prototypes, the SRA and SRB.
Delaunay-Belleville's proposal was for an enlarged Renault FT, this was eliminated at
an early stage. To avoid the political infighting between the manufacturers which had
characterised WW1 tank production any patents resulting from the development of the
tanks were to be assigned to the French Army and the Army reserved the right to
combine parts of any or all projects into a single tank type. In exchange all of the
manufacturers were to be awarded large orders for the new tank.
It's difficult to understand why the tanks were specified with a fixed gun mounting since
even the most precise transmission system fitted to WW1 tanks, the petrol-electric
Crochat-Colardeau transmission fitted to the Saint-Chamond SPGs, needed manual
gearboxes for fine traverse of the gun vehicle. The French manufacturers used the
opportunity to include the most advanced design ideas for the prototype tanks including
Johnson's cable or snake track.
Four prototypes were delivered to the arsenal Atelier de construction de Rueil (ARL) in
May 1924. One of the evaluation tests was a 20km set course drive, all of the prototypes
broke down, suggesting the prototypes were technologically immature. None of the
tanks was a clear winner but further development was to use the Schneider-Renault
SRB as a starting point. Renault was selected as the primary manufacturer, and, after a
prolonged development produced the Char B1 which served in WW2. The road to the
Char B1 is outside the scope of this article since none of Johnson's track or suspension
systems were used.
Schneider-Renault SRA
The SRA was the heaviest of the prototypes at 19.5 tons and had an epicyclic
transmission with hydraulic disk brakes. The transmission proved to be incapable of the
fine movements required to point the gun accurately. The suspension was a simple
~ 335 ~
affair of multiple wheel bogies sprung by leaf springs. The twin machine gun turret was
cast steel with a max. thickness of 30mm.
~ 336 ~
Data
Weight 19.5t
5.95m (L) x 2.49m (W) x
Dimensions
2.26m (H)
Hull
0.4m
Clearance
Track Width 0.53m
Contact
5.0m
Length
Crew 3
Engine Renault 6-cylinder 180CV
Fuel
430l
Capacity
Max. Range 140km
Top Speed 17.5km/hr
75mm howitzer in hull + 1
Armament hull-mounted MG
2 turret-mounted MGs
Schneider-Renault SRB
~ 337 ~
The SRB was armed with a 47mm gun possibly as an anti-tank vehicle. It was
somewhat lighter at 18.5 tons although it was somewhat larger than SRA. It seems to
have used the same engine as the SRA but this was mated to a hydraulic Naeder
transmission from the Chaize company combined with a Fieux clutch and Schneider
gear box. The SRB had a hydraulic suspension with tracks derived from the Renault FT
design. How the suspension worked is unknown.
Data
Weight 18.5t
6.0m (L) x 2.50m (W) x
Dimensions
2.38m (H)
Hull
0.41m
Clearance
Track Width 0.53m
Contact
5.1m
Length
Crew 3
Engine Renault 6-cylinder 180CV
Fuel
370l
Capacity
Max. Range 125km
Top Speed 18km/hr
~ 338 ~
FAMH
The FAMH prototype was armed with a 75mm howitzer mounted centrally in the hull.
The twin machine gun turret was of riveted construction of 25mm armour plate. The
tank was powered by a 120hp Panhard engine was mated to a hydraulic Jeanny
transmission which drove the snake tracks independently. The suspension was an
advanced hydro-pneumatic type although no details are known. Although the power
available was less than the Schneider/Renault prototypes it had a top speed of 18.2
km/hr.
~ 339 ~
Data
Weight 17t
5.2m (L) x 2.43m (W) x
Dimensions
2.4m (H)
Hull
0.40m
Clearance
Crew 3
Engine Panhard 120hp
Fuel
230l
Capacity
Max. Range 70km
Top Speed 18.2km/hr
FCM 21
The FCM prototype resembled a scaled down FCM Char 2C and inherited the multiple
roadwheel suspension with ineffective leaf springs. The turret had a stroboscopic cupola
which was a scaled down version of the Char 2C cupola. The FCM prototype was
lighter at 15.6t than other prototypes but the top speed was lower. It used the same
Panhard engine as the FAMH prototype with a top speed of 17.4 km/hr. The type of
transmission is not known but it seems to have been a conventional type with clutches
for each snake track.
~ 340 ~
Data
Weight 15.6t
6.5m (L) x 2.05m (W) x
Dimensions
2.52m (H)
Crew 3
Engine Panhard 120CV
Fuel
500l
Capacity
Max. Range 175km
Top Speed 17.4km/hr
FCM Char 2C
~ 341 ~
The Char 2C, also known as the FCM 2C, is a French super-heavy tank developed
during World War I but not deployed until after the war. It was, in physical dimensions,
the largest operational tank ever made.
Development
The Char d'assaut de grand modle
The origins of the Char 2C have always been shrouded in a certain mystery.[1] In the
summer of 1916, probably in July,[1] General Lon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, the
Subsecretary of Artillery, verbally granted Forges et Chantiers de la Mditerrane
(FCM), a shipyard in the south of France near Toulon, the contract for the development
of a heavy tank, a char d'assaut de grand modle. At the time, French industry was very
active in lobbying for defence orders, using their connections with high-placed officials
and officers to obtain commissions; development contracts could be very profitable
even when not resulting in actual production, as they were fully paid for by the state.
The French Army had no stated requirement for a heavy tank, and there was no official
policy to procure one so the decision seems to have been taken solely on his personal
authority. The reason he later gave was that the British tanks then in development by a
naval committee seemed to be better devised as regarded lay-out, ventilation and fire
protection, so a shipyard might improve on existing French designs.[2] Exact
specifications, if they ever existed, have been lost. FCM then largely neglected the
project, apart from reaping the financial benefits. At that time all tank projects were
highly secret, and thereby shielded from public scrutiny.
On 15 September 1916 the British deployed tanks in battle for the first time in the form
of the Mark I, and a veritable tank euphoria followed. When the public mood in Britain
had been growing ever darker as the truth of the failure of the Somme Offensive could
no longer be suppressed, tanks offered a new hope of final victory. The French people
now became curious as to the state of their own national tank projects. French
politicians, not having been over-involved in them and leaving the matter to the
military, were no less inquisitive. This sudden attention greatly alarmed Mourret, who
promptly investigated the progress that had been made at FCM and was shocked to find
there was none. On 30 September he personally took control of the project. On 12
~ 342 ~
October, knowing that the Renault company had some months earlier made several
proposals to build a heavy tracked mortar which had been rejected, he begged Louis
Renault to assist FCM in the development of a suitable heavy vehicle; this request
Renault obliged. Even before knowing what the exact nature of the project would be, on
20 October Mourret ordered one prototype to be built by FCM.[2]
This development coincided with a political demand by Minister of Armament Albert

Thomas to produce a tank superior to the British types. On 7 October he had requested
Lloyd George to deliver some Mark Is to France but had received no answer. Correctly
concluding that no such deliveries would materialise, on 23 January 1917 he ordered
that French tanks should be developed that were faster, and more powerfully armed and
armoured than any British vehicle. He specified a weight of forty tonnes, an immunity
against light artillery rounds and a trench-crossing capacity of 3.5 metres.[3]
Meanwhile, Renault had consulted his own team, led by Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier,
which had been, since May 1916, in the process of designing the revolutionary Renault
FT light tank. This work had not, however, stopped them from considering other tank
types. Renault, always expecting his employees to provide new ideas instantly, had by
this attitude encouraged the team to take a proactive stance setting a pattern that
would last until 1940 and to have various kinds of contingency studies ready for the
occasion, including a feasibility study for a heavy tank. This fortunate circumstance
allowed a full-size wooden mock-up to be constructed in a remarkably[1] quick time. It
was visited by the Subsecretary of State of Inventions Jules-Louis Breton on 13 January
1917, who was much impressed and developed a keen interest in the project.[1] The
design was presented to the Consultative Committee of the Assault Artillery on 16 and
17 January 1917, after the basic concept had been approved on 30 December. This
proposed tank was the most advanced design of its time; it was received very
favourably, also because of the enthusiastic report by Breton, and a consensus began to
form that the project was most promising and a potential "war-winner". It featured a
105 mm gun in a turret, had a proposed weight of 38 tons and 35 mm armour. The
committee decided to have two prototypes developed, one with an electrical
~ 343 ~
transmission, the other with a hydraulic transmission.[1] In this period both the French
and the British military had become aware of severe mobility and steering problems
with heavy tracked vehicles; the French designs paralleled extensive British
experiments with all kinds of improved tank transmissions to solve them.
Resistance to the project
In January 1917, the Ministry of Armament proposed to build three weight classes of
tanks: light, medium and heavy tanks,[2] the latter class corresponding to the new
project. However, the FCM tank had already made a powerful and influential enemy.
Brigadier Jean Baptiste Eugne Estienne, commander of the new tank force, the Assault
Artillery, closely cooperated with Renault in the development of the Renault FT, and
through this connection was kept well informed of the other tank project. Estienne
began to fear that the production of the heavy vehicle would use up all available
production facilities, making the procurement of the much more practical Renault FT
light tank impossible. He was not averse to the production of heavy tanks as such but
only in a limited number and on the condition it did not impede the manufacture of light
tanks.[3] That his fears were not unfounded became apparent when in November
Mourret tried to obstruct further development of the Renault FT, arguing that all
available resources should be concentrated into heavy tank production. Alarmed,
Estienne now wrote a letter to the Commander-in-Chief, General Joffre, dated 27
November 1916 and defending the light tank concept. In it he admitted that "colossal
landships" might in certain circumstances have their uses, but pointed out that while it
was as yet unproven that any workable heavy type could actually be developed, let
alone produced in sufficient numbers by the French industry, it would be folly not to
give priority to light tanks that could be constructed without delay. He insisted that
Joffre use all his influence to bring about the cancellation of the heavy tank project.
Joffre answered that Estienne was no doubt correct in his tactical and organisational
analysis, but that he could not oblige him because political backing of the heavy tank
was simply too strong. The Minister of Armament, Albert Thomas, had committed
himself too openly to Mourret's cause and did not dare to retract support now. Joffre
~ 344 ~
advised Estienne not to worry too much; he would make sure at least that the Renault
FT would not be cancelled, and precisely because heavy tank development would take
such a long time, for the immediate future it would not get in the way of light tank
production. There would surely be no harm in allowing some prototypes to be built.
The Consultative Committee of the Assault Artillery (Comit Consultatif de l'Artillerie

d'Assaut or CCAS) had been created on 13 December 1916 and for the first time met on
17 December. During this first session it was reported that Renault and FCM were
cooperating in a heavy tank project of thirty tonnes. Estienne on this occasion stressed
that production should be "orientated towards small types and very large types".[1]
During the next meeting on 30 December, Estienne was surprised to discover that for no
clear reasons a 105 mm gun was planned. He himself preferred a 75 mm gun. Estienne
was absent on the crucial meeting of 17 January, but by letter informed the committee
that he found the project well-presented and satisfactory and agreed with the quick
construction of two prototypes; he stated his preference for a 75 mm over a 105 mm
gun.[1]
In December Joffre was replaced as supreme commander by Robert Nivelle. In late

January Nivelle learned of the heavy tank project from Estienne. He was much more
alarmed than Joffre had been. On 29 January he wrote a letter to Minister Thomas,
making clear that under no circumstances could the project be allowed to impede
production of the Schneider CA. Thomas answered on 5 February that there was no
danger of this; anyway he had just happened to affirm on 1 February the policy of
General Mourret, who had already ordered the simultaneous development of three
prototypes: the lightened "A" version, weighing thirty tons, having a length of 6.92
metres, with a suspension featuring twenty-nine double road wheels, four main bogies
and five top rollers, powered by two Renault 200 hp engines and to be equipped with a
75 mm gun, to fulfil the original order of 20 October; the "B" version of forty-five tons
with a hull lengthened to 7.39 metres, armed with a 75 mm gun and two machine guns,
with a suspension featuring thirty road wheels, five main bogies and six top rollers,
using a new 380 hp engine and a petro-hydraulic transmission and the "C" version of 62
tons with a 75 mm gun, a length of 9.31 meters, a suspension featuring forty-five road
wheels, six main bogies and nine top rollers, and four engines of 110 hp combined with
a petro-electrical transmission.[1] Nivelle's misgivings were reinforced by inquiries from
a parliamentary financial commission led by Pierre Renaudel. A plan by Breton to
immediately order fifty vehicles more or less identical to the mock-up was therefore
rejected. The 1 February order of two additional prototypes was confirmed by the
CCAS on 7 February. Eventually the "FCM 1A" would be developed with a 105 mm
gun and the "FCM 1B" would use a petrol-mechanical transmission.[1]
At first, progress with the FCM 1A prototype was satisfactory. FCM director Moritz
was assured by Renault in January 1917 that the desired 200 HP engines were reliable
and would pose no danger to the project. Moritz then predicted that the first prototype
would be ready by 1 May 1917. On 10 April 1917 he still assumed that the first trials
could have begun within five weeks. On 16 April the Nivelle Offensive failed
completely, and the first use of French tanks was likewise a failure; in reaction Thomas
ordered all tank production and projects to be ended. This led to an emergency alliance
between Estienne and Mourret to bring about a reversal of this decision. When Thomas
happened to visit Russia, Mourret surreptitiously ordered a restart of the tank projects.
On his return an enraged Thomas caused Mourret to be fired, thus removing Estienne's
~ 345 ~
greatest rival. Meanwhile, there were unexplained delays in the delivery of the engines
and the gearbox by Renault. On 5 June, FCM could only take note that the promised
pieces had not arrived yet. On 24 June the ministry of armament complained about the
situation. On 13 August Breton personally inquired with Renault and was informed it
would take at least another three weeks. A possible explanation of the delays might be a
deliberate decision by Renault to give priority to other projects.[1] During a meeting of
the CCAS on 18 October, Moritz could at last announce that trials could begin on 20
November. In that meeting Estienne was critical of heavy tanks: "the infantry has as
much need of large tanks, as it needs 400 mm cannon; it has need of small tanks, as
much as it needs 37 mm and machine-guns".[1]
The FCM 1A
On 17 November, director Moritz, introducing to the CCAS the forthcoming

presentation of the FCM 1A prototype, explained it was a test bed that did not exactly
correspond to the original "A version" specifications.[1] In fact the company, in its
efforts to get an actual running vehicle ready as soon as possible, had built a prototype
that was largely based on the original mock-up[1] and thus was much closer to the "B"-
concept, albeit with a 105 mm gun and a petrol-mechanical transmission; the hydraulic
transmission had been abandoned by the CCAS on 10 May.[4] A detailed army report on
the plans of January 1917 survives that can give a good impression of the qualities of
the eventual prototype.[1]
The vehicle was the largest tank built until that date. It had a length of 8.35 m (27.4 ft),
a width of 2.842 m (9.32 ft), a hull height of 1.98 m (6.5 ft), a turret roof height of
2.785 m (9.14 ft) and a total height, cupola included, of 3 m (9.84 ft). It was also the
first tank vehicle that offered a real protection against artillery HE rounds: the front hull
was covered by 35 mm (1.38 in) armour plate; the same was the all-around thickness of
the turret. The sides and rear were protected by 21 mm (0.83 in) plate, the top and roof
by 15 mm (0.6 in). The total weight of the tank was 41.4 tonnes. Its empty hulk weight
was 22.1 tonnes, 17.5 tonnes accounted for by the hull, of which 5.5 tonnes of armour,
and 4.6 tonnes by the turret, including 1.3 tonnes of armour.[1]
~ 346 ~
The hull of the FCM 1A was very elongated, in order to cross wide trenches. It was
more or less compartmentalised into four sections, that however were not separated by
bulkheads: a relatively short driver compartment at the front, a fighting compartment
with a turret at its top, a larger munitions room and finally a large engine compartment
at the rear. The last was enlarged at both sides over the tracks, to create room for long
rectangular fuel tanks. The front of the hull followed the profile of the tall climbing
faces of the tracks and therefore gradually curved upwards, ending in a high, vertical,
nose plate. The glacis plate behind it was oriented almost horizontally and connected at
its rear to the vertical top front plate of the driver compartment. As the turret ring was
larger than the width of the hull, it partly rested on rounded lateral extensions. The turret
was a truncated cone with a roof sloping down to the front, so that in side view its
profile was wedge-shaped.
Crew
Originally a crew of seven had been planned, but in December 1917 this had been
reduced to six: a commander in the left of the turret who also had the responsibility of
aiming the gun; a second man in the right of the turret who combined the functions of
gunner, machine-gunner and loader; a standing assistant-loader handing new rounds to
the loader at first two of these had been seen as necessary; a driver; a front machine-
gunner; and a mechanic who doubled as a rear machine-gunner.[1]
Armament
The main armament was a 105 mm gun, a Canon de 105 Court Schneider, shortened to
reduce its recoil so that it could fit into a turret. It fired a HE shell with four
kilogrammes of explosives and a muzzle velocity of 240 m/s. The large hull allowed for
a large ammunition stock of 122 rounds: eighteen, stacked in three vertical rows of six
in front of him, were directly accessible to the gunner/loader; two batches of eight were
stowed below the fighting compartment floor and forty-four, stacked in four vertical
~ 347 ~
rows of eleven, lined each wall of the ammunition room. The commander pointed the
gun by observing the target through a vane sight, fitted on the turret roof, from his
rectangular "cupola". There were two Hotchkiss 8 mm machine-guns in fixed ball-
mount positions; reserve machine-guns or pistols could be fired through five vertical
slits that could be plugged: one at the rear of the turret, two at the turret sides and two at
the hull sides below the turret rear.[1]
Driveline and suspension
In the prototype a single Renault 220 HP twelve cylinder engine was installed, allowing
a maximum speed of 10 km/h (6.2 mph) at 1200 rpm. The minimum speed was 2 km/h
(1.24 mph). The transmission was mechanical, using a disc clutch. The sprocket was at
the rear, the idler at the front. The suspension consisted of bogies, sprung by leaf
springs, of four wheels each with alternating external and internal flanges. The tracks
were 600 mm (23.6 in) wide, resulting in a ground pressure of 0.6 kg/cm. Ground
clearance was 400 mm (15.7 in). The centre of gravity was in the middle of the vehicle,
at a level of one metre above the ground. The design prided itself on not having any
overhanging sections at the front or the rear, as had greatly hampered the mobility of the
earlier French Schneider CA1 and Saint Chamond tanks. The tank could overcome a
1 m (3.3 ft) high vertical obstacle and cross a trench 3.5 m (11.5 ft) wide.[1]
Ergonomics
Much attention had been given to ergonomics, Mourret's stated motive in having the
tank designed by a shipyard. The vehicle was less cramped than earlier designs, the
crew being able to more or less walk through the hull, with only a slight crouch. The
mechanic could access the engine at both sides. The commander could communicate
with the driver, the front machine-gunner and the mechanic via speaking tubes. External
communications were the responsibility of the mechanic who could lift a little hatch just
behind the turret to give signals by fanions, pyrotechnic devices or electrical lights. The
tank could be entered through the cupola, but each member had oval or round escape
hatches above and below him.[1]
~ 348 ~
The Char 2C is ordered
On 20 December 1917 the first prototype was ready to be shown to an investigating

commission of the CCAS, with actual trials being held at La Seyne-sur-Mer on 21 and
22 December. Mourret had been replaced as head of the commission by Estienne;
British and American observers were present. The FCM 1A, with its futuristic
appearance, made an excellent impression on those present. Moritz demonstrated that
the vehicle was effortlessly capable of crossing 3.5 metres wide trenches, climb ninety
centimetres high walls and descend into, and climb out of again, six metres wide and
four metres deep craters. In woods, it could break a 28 centimetres thick pine tree and
run over a 35 centimetres thick one. A speed of 6 km/h was attained. The main problem
was that it proved difficult to steer the tank due to its extreme track length and
insufficient chain link profile. The track would easily slip when braked, though it was
on no occasion thrown. The aircraft engine tended to overheat and its basic lack of
power resulted in a maximum 65% climbing slope. Though the first shortened 105 mm
Schneider cannon had been received in October, the first live firing tests were only held
on 5 and 7 February 1918, with satisfactory results.[1]
Discussing the results of the trials, on 4 January 1918 the technical department of the
Artillerie Spciale concluded that the FCM 1A seemed a powerful combat vehicle
capable of having an important negative effect on enemy morale. Already on 30
December, minister of munitions Louis Loucheur had thought that France "hadn't a
minute to lose" and suggested to Prsident du Conseil Georges Clemenceau to spend
fifty million French francs to construct a hundred FCM 1As, the first fifteen to be
delivered from July 1918 onwards, in order to have a strength of eighty vehicles on 31
December. However, Clemenceau would leave the decision to Estienne.[1]
General Philippe Ptain, the new High Commander of the French Army, asked Estienne
to use his position to end the project. Estienne told Ptain that this was ill-advised while
the public was questioning why these heavy tanks had not been produced. Besides, the
~ 349 ~
allies (specifically the British and the US) would only consent to give France 700 of the
new Mark VIII Liberty design if France had made at least a token effort to produce its
own heavy tanks. Thus the French authorities had to delay the project while outwardly
endorsing it. Estienne had already set this course by choosing the heaviest version, the
"C", for production, requiring a completely new prototype, causing a considerable
delay. Then Ptain demanded unreasonably high production numbers, thus delaying
planning and initiating a political row.
Ptain asked for 300 heavy tanks to be ready by March 1919, causing a quarrel to erupt
between Clemenceau, who was both Prime-Minister and Minister of War, and
Loucheur, the Minister of Armament, who felt it was impossible to provide the labour
and steel required. Meanwhile, Estienne and Ptain complicated the issue with further
demands. Ptain asked for special pontoons, and Estienne demanded battering rams and
electronic mine detectors to be fixed. When the war ended, not a single tank had been
built.
At first, the production order for the Char 2C was cancelled. Despite the end of
hostilities, however, strong political pressure to adopt new heavy tank projects
remained, as there was now a considerable surplus capacity in the heavy industry. To
stop this, the Direction de lArtillerie dAssaut on instigation of Estienne decided in
April 1919 to procure ten Char 2Cs after all, and use this as an argument to reject any
other projects. This was not completely successful; as late as 1920 it was proposed to
the Section Technique des Appareils de Combat to build a 600-tonne tank with 250 mm
armour.[5] At FCM Jammy and Savatier finished the Char 2C prototype, the other nine
tanks being built almost simultaneously; all ten were delivered in 1921 and modified by
the factory until 1923. They would be the last French tanks to be produced for the home
market till the Char D1 pre-series of 1931.
Description
~ 350 ~
The Char 2C is the only super-heavy tank ever to attain operational status a super-
heavy tank is not simply a tank that is very heavy but one that has been deliberately
made much heavier than regular tanks of its period. The next operational tank to
approach its weight would be the German Tiger II heavy tank of World War II.
The Char 2C had a loaded weight of 69 tonnes, partly because of its armour 45 mm
at the front, 22 mm at the sides, 13 mm at the top and 10 mm at the bottom but much
of it just because of its huge size. The armour was among the thickest of World War I-
era tanks, though by modern standards this would be considered thin. It is still easily the
largest tank ever taken into production. With the tail fitted, the hull was over twelve
metres long. Without tail, the hull length was 10.27 metres, the width three metres, the
height 3.8 metres.[6] Adding the cupola, normally detached for transport, brought height
to 408 centimetres. Within its ample frame there was room for two fighting
compartments. The forward compartment was crowned by a three-man turret the first
such in history mounting a long 75 mm gun, and the second, at the rear of the tank,
was topped by a machine-gun turret. The front turret, made of 35 mm plates, was placed
so high that its crew had to climb into it by means of a ladder, sitting on seats suspended
from the turret roof and operating on an elevated level compared to the hull machine
gunners below. The rear turret was made of 22 millimetre plates. Both turrets had
stroboscopic cupolas. The four independent 8 mm machine gun positions at the front,
one at each side and one to the right of the driver, gave protection against infantry
assault.
The fighting compartments were connected by the engine room. Each track was
powered by its own 200 or 250 hp engine, via an electrical transmission. The 200 hp
Mercedes engines made possible a top speed of twelve kilometres per hour. These
original engines wore down quickly and were eventually replaced by 250 hp Maybach
engines which rendered a maximum speed of 15 km/h. Between the engines was a high
corridor, allowing two electricians standing upright to constantly attend the complex
~ 351 ~
apparatus. Seven fuel tanks, four to the left and three to the right, containing 1,260
litres, gave it a range of 150 kilometres. The suspension contained thirty-nine
interleaving road wheels on each side, making for a total of ninety wheels on the tank.
Designed to negotiate the challenging terrain of trench warfare, the type had in principle
excellent mobility. The Char 2C could cross a trench 425 centimetres wide, enough to
pass the typical canal sluices in northern France. A vertical obstacle could be climbed of
170 centimetres. The wading capacity was 140 centimetres.[6]
To man the tank required a crew of twelve: driver, commander, gunner, loader, four
machine gunners, mechanic, electrician, assistant-electrician/mechanic and a radio
operator. Some sources report thirteen, probably due to pictures of the crews that
included the company commander. The assistant-mechanic was seated to the front right
of the rear fighting compartment, on top of a escape hatch, and the radio operator was
seated at the front left.[7]
Operational history
The ten tanks were part of several consecutive units, their organic strength at one time
reduced to three. Their military value slowly decreased as more advanced tanks were
developed throughout the 1920s and 1930s. By the end of the 1930s they were largely
obsolete, because their slow speed and high profile made them vulnerable to advances
in anti-tank guns.
Nevertheless, during the French mobilisation of 1939, all ten were activated and put into
their own unit, the 51st Bataillon de Chars de Combat. For propaganda, each tank had
been named after one of the ancient regions of France, numbers 90-99 being named
Poitou; Provence; Picardie; Alsace; Bretagne; Touraine; Anjou; Normandie; Berry;
Champagne respectively. In 1939, the Normandie was renamed Lorraine. As their main
value was in propaganda, the giants were kept carefully out of harm's way and did not
participate in the September 1939 attack on the Siegfried Line. They were used instead
for numerous morale-boosting movies, in which they were often shown climbing and
crushing old French forts. To the public, they obtained the reputation of invincible super
tanks, the imagined dimensions of which far surpassed the actual particulars.
French command was aware that this reputation was undeserved. During the Battle of
France in 1940, the six operational tanks of the 51st Bataillon de Chars de Combat were
lost near the Meuse-sur-Meuse station.[8]
Versions
In 1926, the later Champagne was modified into the Char 2C bis, an experimental type
with a 155 mm howitzer in a cast steel turret. New engines were fitted and the machine
gun positions deleted. In this configuration the tank weighed perhaps 74 tons. The
change was only temporary though, as the vehicle was brought back into its previous
condition the very same year; the new turret was used in the Tunisian Mareth Line.
Between 15 November and 15 December 1939 the Lorraine, as the company command
tank, was experimentally up-armoured at the Socit des Aciries d'Homecourt to make
it immune to standard German antitank guns. The front armour was enhanced to 90 mm,
the side to 65 mm. In this configuration, weighing about 75 tons, the Lorraine had at
~ 352 ~
that time the thickest armour of any operational tank, and is probably still the heaviest
operational tank ever.
Type Super-heavy tank
In service 19211940
Used by France
Wars World War II
Designed 1917
Produced 1921
Number built 10
Variants Char 2C bis
69 tonnes (68 long tons; 76

Weight
short tons)
Width 3 m (9 ft 10 in)
Crew 12
Armour 45 mm (1.8 in) max.
Main 75 mm Canon de 75 modle

armament 1897
Four 8 mm Hotchkiss Mle

1914 machine guns (three in
Secondary gimbal ball mounts at front
armament
and both sides forward, one
mounted in a rear turret)
Two engines
Engine
2 x 250 hp
~ 353 ~
Suspension unsprung

range
Speed 15 km/h (9.3 mph)
Replacement
As early as 1916, the French Army had ordered the construction of a so called "Char de
Rupture", a Breakthrough Tank - an idea which can be found behind many of the
Monster Tank projects nursed by many combatants in the late stages of the War. FCM
(Forges et Chantiers de la Mediterrane), a shipyard in the South of France, was tasked
by General Mourat with the development of a heavy tank, in spite of FCMs lack of
experience in vehicle construction. The construction of the Char 2C became a political
scandal this is summarised in the Wikipedia article on the Char 2C.
The FCM 2C was not a bad design, considering that the basic idea was not that great -
and especially if you compare it to the German effort, the lame-duck "K-Wagen". It
weighed some 69 tonnes, but it was well-armoured (45mm maximum) for its day, and
still rather fast (12 kph). The Allies planned a big war-winning push in 1919, to be
spearheaded by British and American Mk VIIIs and this tank: the French FCM 2C. 300
FCM 2Cs were ordered, but at the time of the armistice in November 1918 only 10 were
on the production lines: these were eventually completed in 1921. No more were built.
~ 354 ~
Specifications
Length 10.27m
Width 2.95m
Height 4.01m
Weight 69 tonnes
Max. Armour 45mm
1 cannon 75mm APX

Main Armament
1897
Secondary Armament 4 machine guns 8mm
Crew 12
~ 355 ~
Max. Speed 12 kph
Official designation: FCM 2C

Stage of completion: built 10 copies, all lost in 1940
FCM 2C tank unique in its kind. Its history began in late 1916, when the General Staff
of the French army demanded to create a breakthrough heavy tank, which was to
replace failed tanks support St.Chamond M1916 and Schneider CA.1, which are already
at the time of its introduction did not cause much excitement in the military. Their
running characteristics and fighting qualities were generally modest, forcing the French
to seek help from the UK. After lengthy negotiations, the British agreed to exchange 77
heavy tanks Mk.V * on the same amount of light Renault FT-17, but the deal was
implemented only in 1918, and then had to find a quick solution, and in the home.
~ 356 ~
Given the experience of the use of "diamond-shaped" heavy tanks Mk.I and Mk.II
French General Staff in December 1916 formulated the requirement for a tank of similar
weight category and destination. After only a month on the consideration received
several projects, the most promising of which seemed FCM company project. The
estimated mass of the tank was around 38 tons, reservations - up to 30 mm, armament
consisted of 105 mm guns and several machine guns. A characteristic feature of this
machine was the placement of the main gun in a rotating turret with a circular field of
fire. In the summer of 1917, the project has been revised, after which he was issued an
order to build two experimental heavy tanks under the symbol 1A, the assembly of
which began in the autumn of the same year. Without waiting for the prototypes will go
to trial, the FCM engineers presented a new project later received index 2C. Tank was
much larger and the thickness of the booking brought in the frontal part of the body up
to 45 mm.
The main armament consisted of a 75-mm cannon ARCH 1897 was located in the tower
with 320 field of fire. Additional armament included four 8-mm Hotchkiss machine
guns, one of which was installed in the tower in the stern, two - on the sides (under the
main tower), and another - in the front of the case. Many problems arose in the design
of the chassis. According to the technical project of the tank it had to overcome trenches
and ditches width of 4 meters and at the same time do not "get out" of the size of
railway platforms. As a result, little more than the length of the tank 10 meters width to
height ratio turned out 1: 2.
The layout of the French tank was also hardly be called successful: the Department of
Management is located in the bow of the hull, for him - fighting compartment (the
tower was designed for 4 people), the engine-transmission compartment and aft crew
compartment. The engine was located almost exactly in the center of the body, but
because of its size and additional equipment exhaust system and the radio had to make
up, protecting them armored casing. Actually this case and "ate" the very same 40
degrees. from a circular firing the main gun. Transmission of the machine was complex.
~ 357 ~
Two engines are activated by a separate DC generators. Each of them provide power to
the electric motor is driven by the corresponding caterpillar tank. Failure of one engine
powered electric motors switched to a generator and then a tank weighing 70 tons could
only move at walking pace. Chassis made by analogy with the British: it turned
multiwheel with tracks full body wraps.
We can say that this time the task is to "catch up and overtake" the UK in building a
heavy tank was fully implemented, which gave reason to issue an order for 700 tanks
(later shortened to 300), which was to release a new offensive, scheduled for spring
1919 It was well known that Germany surrendered in November 1919 and the grandiose
plans armored breakthroughs have been canceled. From the release of heavy tanks also
had to be abandoned. War-ravaged France could not afford to have a large tank fleet of
vehicles of different types. For example, the cost of one tank FT-17 amounted to
100,000 francs, while one tank 2C costing the treasury as much in 2,000,000 francs in
prices in 1920 In addition, the heavy tanks were too "greedy" and difficult to operate.
On average, the tank engine consumes 12.8 liters of fuel per 1 km of track, so a huge
1,280-liter fuel tank is completely emptied after 150 km of driving on the highway. In
cross-country cruising range was even less. A lot of money also was spent on training
and maintenance crews. As a result, the existing army received only 10 copies 2C, the
assembly of which began in late 1918, after the end of the war was no hurry, and the
last heavy tank of the series passed only in 1922. According to tradition, each tank
received its own name, like a warship.
The interwar period was too calm to 2C tanks. As in the 1920s. They are the only tanks
2C breakthrough until 1938 involved for different kinds of maneuvers. They are still
determined by the shock function, although with the advent of anti-tank artillery
reservation heavy tanks still recognized insufficient. Of course, 20-mm and 37-mm PTO
could hardly penetrate the frontal armor, but with the sides and stern of the tank turned
out to be virtually defenseless against them. The situation worsened after receiving
information on the implementation in the production of 75-mm PTO, for whom the 50-
~ 358 ~
mm armor was not an obstacle. On the other hand 2C tank gun could effectively deal
with only light Pz.I type machines or Pz.II, but limited firing angles and a small
mobility of French tank and drove it an advantage to a minimum. Nevertheless, the
existence of this "land battleships" in the French army has for nearly two decades has
pushed for the creation of their "dreadnoughts on tracks" and other countries. In
England, a heavy five-turret tank A1E1 "Independent" was created in Germany - a
series of two-towered medium tanks "Grosstraktor" three-turret NbFz and heavy, and in
the USSR - a heavy five-turret T-35. It is interesting that until the beginning of the war
in the Moscow Military Academy. Frunze, which was prepared for the command of the
armored forces and designers personnel for defense plants, as an educational visual aids
used carefully made of metal two-meter model FCM 2C.
In the mid-1920s. French engineers have made several attempts to enhance the combat
effectiveness of the tank. In 1923, on one of the cars (99 "Champagne") in the
experimental procedure established 155-mm howitzer and French short-motors rated at
250 hp weight of the tank then increased to 74 tons, which further reduced the
maximum speed. As a result, modification 2Sbis remained in one piece, and in 1939 he
again re-equipped 75-mm cannon.
By the beginning of 1939 in all the 10 preserved specimens (numbers 90-99), some of
which was not in combat readiness. By this time they were all in the same 511th tank
regiment in Verdun, where they have long did not go anywhere. In July, we decided to
transfer the tanks under g.Belrup (Belrupt) 5 km away from the original place of
dislocation, which of them was formed 51th Tank Battalion (51 BCC) composed of
three divisions, commanded by a colonel who Fournet. In each of them there were three
tanks, and another served as commander of the machine. However, an attempt to
overcome even such a small distance proved to few 2C daunting task. On the march old
Mercedes engines literally "choking", resulting in two tanks require serious repairs.
After the war, in October 1939, the battalion was relocated to Brihaye that 43 km
northeast of Verdun. Here again tankers are enhanced training to practical shooting,
tanks and retooled the Maybach engines, seized from the arsenal of Puteaux. They were
produced more in 1919 as reparations from Germany, and until that time remained
unclaimed. By May 10, 1940, eight combat-ready tanks brought to the camp in the 5-6
km from Verdun, and during the same month they were in n \ n Nora (Noroy ECP) and
Zhudrevill (Joudreville).
Day May 12 battalion commander was ordered to load the tanks at the station Landry
(Landres) and advancing to the front line at the disposal of the III-rd Army. In
preparation for the march took several hours and about 8 o'clock in the evening they
were able to hit the road, while losing two cars for technical reasons. Arriving in Landry
turned out that there are no loose locomotives. Only after the insistence on the part of
the commander of the battalion, and the intervention of the station locomotives were
isolated and at dawn on June 13 began loading tanks on the platform. Of these, two
compounds are formed by three in each tank. The first part leaves at 13:30, and the
second - at 14:30.
At that time, the commander of the 513th Regiment (GBC513) Colonel Saint-Sernin
(Saint-Sernin), referring to the rapid German advance ordered to blow up two non-
transportable tank jammed in Manville (95 "Tourane") and piennes (92 "Picardie
~ 359 ~
"). Arriving at the station Gondrekur-le-Chateau (Gondrecourt-le-Chateau) battalion
was in a difficult situation. Communication with the headquarters of the III-rd Army
was absent, so for further instructions was not from anyone. Only a few hours later
members of the 51st Battalion was able to find the command that gave them the order to
disembark in n \ n Certilleux and Landaville, which is 5, and 8 km south of Nofshato
(Neufchateau), and take it defense. However, a few kilometers from the plant will be
subjected to air bombardment, but this time it is possible to get rid of only minor
injuries. Followed them battalion headquarters, headed by Colonel Fournet, from behind
their tanks since w \ d canvas in Sertilleux station was destroyed, and road workers fled.
Going to look for their train to arrive in tanks Fournet Nofshato where trying to ask
them about the fate of the local commissioner. That is obviously not owning the
situation, nothing intelligible could not answer. The situation is partly saved switchman,
who spoke about the fact that both the composition could be sent along paths through
the station Is-sur-Til, 22 km from Dijon. Returning to the "original position" battalion
commanders waited patiently for news.
The first data came a day later - 15 May. It turned out that the tanks stuck around
Nofshato. Meanwhile, Army Headquarters approves the route of movement through the
Is-sur-Til, as the most secure. Between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning trains manage to
pass Nofshato, but expelled with the motorcyclist reports inform the headquarters fails,
because he has already managed to migrate to another city. Since then, the commander
of the 51st Battalion with headquarters communications no longer had.
At 16:00 Fournet sends Captain Rolle to find out where the compositions are in what
condition. Returning an hour Rolle reported that tanks are locked in Meuse (40 km from
Nofshato), where the station in front and behind them accumulated more 5 trains.
Worse, standing in front of part of the fuel burn, and machinists and mechanics
locomotive fled, after bringing them out of action. By this time, German troops
occupied g.Kulmon-Shalindri (Culmont-Chalindrey) 24 km from the Meuse. Unable to
unload the tanks with platforms Fournet takes heavy, but justifiable decision - in order
to avoid the capture of remaining 2C should be destroyed by the Germans. By 7 o'clock
it was all over. The staff and the headquarters was evacuated by truck, leaving the
broken enemy tank.
~ 360 ~
Nevertheless, the Germans, in almost the whole state, got a tank 99 - which prevented
completely incapacitate hard to say now. Apparently, the French are too hurried, and in
this case limited to damage to individual units. This machine was delivered in Berlin,
where he exhibited at some trophy weapons. On its further fate information is not
preserved.

FCM 2C sample 1921
CREW, pers. 12-13
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 10270
Width 2950
Height mm 4100
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 75-mm gun and five 7.5-mm machine guns Hotchkiss
telescopic gun sight

aiming DEVICES
food body - 25 mm
RESERVATIONS main tower -
small tower -
roof -
bottom - 15-18 mm
two gasoline Mercedes GIIIa, 180 hp each (on the modified

ENGINE
tanks were installed Maybach engines of 250 hp)
(On one side) 36 of rollers with a blocked spring suspension,

CHASSIS 5 guides and 3 support rollers, front drive and rear steering
wheel, caterpillar krupnozvenchataya steel shoe
~ 361 ~
SPEED 12-15 km \ h
overcome obstacles
bias ?
Wall height, m 1.22
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Cuirasse Aubriot-Gabert traktor
Until now we have assumed that France during the First World War, "thanks" to the
conservative views of the supreme command of the army, far behind from Britain in
tank building and was able to catch up only after the Renault FT-17 light tank. Created
before this serial assault tanks St-Chamond M1916 \ M1917 and Schneider CA1 called
unsuccessful. However, few people remember in 1915 built a machine to overcome
barbed wire Bouar (Boirault) and "Katkov" tank Frot-Turmel-Laffly. And this does not
include unrealized projects!
There was one more interesting example of armored vehicles that can not be confidently
attributed to any tanks or to broneavotmobilyam. The initiator of its creation and was
the designer engineers Aubriot and Gabe (Aubriot-Gabert), which has decided to use for
their own purposes 4-ton wheeled tractor Filtz.
~ 362 ~
The car has received the body, going through a dowel of armor plates, presumably a
thickness of about 6 mm. In front of an electric motor housed in the rear (!) - The
fighting compartment. The armament consisted of one 37mm cannon mounted in a
cylindrical tower. Crew - two people: a driver and commander (aka arrow). Interestingly
the problem was solved by energy source - electricity supplied through the power cable
from the mobile (or landline?) Generator.
The summer of 1915 bronetraktor Aubriot-Gabert began to pass sea trials, which ended
very quickly. Disadvantages of this machine were too obvious: low permeability, failed
chassis and "tail" of the electric cable, which can be easily cut or shoot.
~ 363 ~
Assessing the results and Gabe Aubriot redesigned the project, refusing to "wire" the
motor and improve the running of the machine. Tower on this modification was absent,
so the 37-mm gun was mounted in a fixed cabin in the bow of the hull.
Upgraded bronetraktor Aubriot-Gabert zyzval some interest in the French army, which
has already led to six months positional battles. It has sometimes seriously affected the
front of even a small number of armored vehicles on the situation, so the army
command has initiated the construction of 10 Aubriot-Gabert combat vehicles in the
modified form. In August 1915, several samples were sent to assess the combat
capabilities of the 4th and the 10th Army. However, the second option bronetratkora
Aubriot-Gabert was unsuccessful. Mounted on it 45-hp engine is clearly not "pulled"
the heavy car, so the speed was lower than expected, and Aubriot-Gabert cross country
in general could not move. Thus, the project was finally rejected, which led to a review
from the front of bronetraktorov and their subsequent disposal.
Another attempt at creative tandem Aubriot-Gabe offer a full French army fighting
machine became his third project . At this time, the basis was taken undercarriage
crawler tractor on which you install the armored corps. The engine was placed in the
rear of the case, the separation of management and weapons - in the bow. The geometric
dimensions were as follows - machine length is 6 meters, width - 2.5 m, height - 2.0
meters. The design weight was determined at 8-10 tons, maximum speed - 8-10 km \ h.
The real "highlight" was the bronetraktora petrol-electric engine. Although the project
was completely implement the army refused to prototype construction, as it was already
"fed up" previous bronetraktorami Aubriot-Gabe, who in addition to wasting funds
brought nothing. In addition, in the autumn of 1915 it has successfully passed the
military tests a tractor "Holt" based on which, subsequently, the first French tanks were
built.
SPECIFICATIONS BRONETRAKTORA
Cuirasse Aubriot-Gabert (2nd model) of the sample in 1915
CREW, pers. 2
~ 364 ~
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 4500
Width ~ 2000
Height mm ~ 2500
Clearance, mm ~ 500
WEAPONS one 37-mm cannon in the housing
aiming DEVICES ?
housing forehead -
board housing -
RESERVATIONS food body -?
roof -
bottom -
ENGINE electric, power 45 hp
wheel formula is 4x2: spitsovannyh four metal wheels

CHASSIS
with cleats and drive to the front axle
SPEED ~ 4 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
~ 365 ~
Fouche Type C traktor
In March 1916, the French Lieutenant Charles Foch presented the project relatively
simple and inexpensive to manufacture tracked armored vehicle, which was the basis of
the design tractor chassis. The idea seemed good and the military department in a short
time make an order for the construction of a prototype and ispytanyaiya.
As a base case was selected Holt tractor equipped with a gasoline engine - these
machines in large quantities delivered to the Allies of the United States, so that the base
material already had enough of them. Designed Foch body wore pronounced contours
of the ship, that the plan of creation was to ensure the future of "tank" called Fouche
Type C good characteristics to overcome the field of obstacles. For information about
booking tlschine and type of weapons available. We can assume that bronetraktor could
be equipped with several 8-mm machine guns Hotchkis.
~ 366 ~
The first prototype, however, received only the housing of the layout tree. The sea trials
carried out on cross-country, led to a natural result - Foch proposed structure clearly
does not meet the current requirements of the front. The project was closed as quickly as
it began. Especially since almost parallel began shturmvogo tank tests by Schneider
CA1 firm, showed much better results.
Fouche Type C sample of 1916
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 5000
Width 2500
Height mm 1700
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS ?
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS non-armored
ENGINE Carburetor
(On one side) of rollers 8,? support rollers, front steering

CHASSIS and rear drive wheel, caterpillar krupnozvenchataya steel
paths
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
~ 367 ~
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
?
COMMUNICATION
Breton-Prtot Apparatus traktor
Realizing all uasy trench warfare in the winter of 1915 the Allies "fire" the pace began
to look for ways out of the situation. Numerous infantry device though and found a use,
but did not solve several major problems in chsile which came to the fore on the
permeability of cohesive soils. His role was played by the speed and security. To
combine all these qualities the French engineer Jules-Louis Breton had proposed a
number of projects related to one task - to effectively tackle the wire zagrazheny. The
first experiments with a small circular saw, which is driven by a separate engine power
6 hp and is mounted on four-wheel chassis, proved to be very successful. Breton tested
a prototype in November 1914 and showed his military commission in January 1915.
Although this time it is not as smooth Proglio experiment gave good reason to start
work on more serious cars.
~ 368 ~
On rasssmotrenie French command was handed over several projects, which served as
the basis for the machine exclusively on a wheeled chassis. Thus to achieve the desired
speed of movement, which was important under enemy fire. So, they were presented the
project with all-wheel drive Jeffrey Quad and armored Peugeot obrztsa 1915. its
mounting system section with cutters (front or rear of the machine) has been developed
for each option. At the same time, Breton actively discussed the possibility of using a
tracked chassis, but this option is not received then support, ostensibly due to lack of
opportunities proveti similar experience.
The priority has been put forward on the basis of a variant of the wheel farm tractor
Bajac, has good cross-country capability. Order it did in February 1915, and direct the
construction company made Prtot workshops forces. Hence the name of the machine
sounded like a Breton-Prtot Apparatus. The first prototype was a "demonstrator
opportunities" - circular saw has been replaced by a horizontal saw with 13 teeth, which
is attached to the stern of the hull. Sami teeth remained immobile and served to capture
the barbed wire, and it was done cutting chain, like the modern chainsaw. After the first
test cycle, the system was modified, getting steel shield to protect the wheels and a ton
of ballast (in the role made eight small bronze guns) as simulators weight hulls. The
tests lasted from July 22 th to 7 th August 1915 and ended quite successfully.
~ 369 ~
In August and September, similar tests carried out with the participation of all-wheel
drive Jeffrey Quad artillery tractor, which also went well, but this time the machine is
not preodlevala trenches that were were simply can not afford. The idea of using the
French tractor Latil seem tempting, but then it became clear that the wheel of the
machine for this purpose will not fit.
However, after successful testing of the prototype Breton-Prtot Apparatus for Mayson-
Lafitte (Maison-Lafitte) French Minister of War, ordered to sign a contract to build 10
more machines in a similar configuration. While there were preparatory work plans
changed. Successful tests Baby Holt tractor forced to completely abandon the wheeled
vehicles and all efforts sosrelotochilis crawler. Thus, any serial Breton-Prtot Apparatus
has been built, and the idea of "protivoprovolochnoy" armored vehicles very quickly
lost its relevance since the appearance of tanks with sufficient striking power.

Breton-Pretot Apparatus sample 1915
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm -
WEAPONS one 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss (draft)
aiming DEVICES -
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE Carburetor
CHASSIS 4x2
SPEED ?
~ 370 ~
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
British Empire
Models:
Austin armored car

Daimler-Guinness / Inchicore M1916 Armoured Lorries
Gun Carrier Mk.I
Lanchester 42 armored car
Medium Mark A Whippet
Medium Mark B
Medium Mark C
Pierce-Arrow
Rolls Royce armored car
Tank Mark I
Tank Mark II
Tank Mark III
Tank Mark IV
~ 371 ~
Tank Mark IX
Tank Mark V
Tank Mark VIII International Liberty
Prototypes
Little Willie
Tritton Chaser Whippet prototype
Light, medium & heavy tanks, armored carsAround 2600 armored military
vehicles built by September 1918
Breaking the Stalemate
Just like the French, the British commanders saw all of their offensives pinned down by
relentless enemy machine-gun fire. As early as 1915, marching into the open was seen
as suicidal. Obstacles like the bombed landscape, the deep muddy ground and barbed
wire also contributed to slow down any assault and render it virtually impossible
without immense casualties. While the Germans managed to find a way to use elite
infantry (the Strmtruppen) for assaults, both the British and the French started thinking
of a way of delivering infantry literally to the enemies trench entrance, dealing with
casemates and machine-gun nests, and protecting infantry in no-mans land. Besides this,
H.G. Wells steam and pedrail wheels from the famous The Land Ironclads of 1903
were in the minds of most politicians and officers.
One engineer in particular had a tremendous impact on the tank development in Great
Britain, William Tritton, Managing Director of Fosters. He designed the Little Willie,
a prototype for testing many features later used in the Mother, the prototype for the
first British operational tank, the Mk.I, and later the Whippet, the first British light
tank. Also very important were Major Walter Gordon Wilson and Major General
Swinton. Supporting them was the Landship Committee, headed by Sir Winston
Churchill. The specificity of using caterpillar tractors, in large use by the army for
towing artillery guns, led to the rejection of this idea by the War Office at first, and its
adoption and development by the Royal Navy. Naval guns, sponsons and most of the
vocabulary also came from the Navy, reflected in the genesis of the Mark I and
following models. The very name tank, a code name to deceive spies, was used to
cover the first experiments at the Scottish Lincoln William Foster & Cie. In fact, factory
workers were told that they were assembling mobile water tanks for operations in
Mesopotamia. Later, they were shipped in large wooden crates to maintain secrecy, with
sometimes With Care to Petrograd and a fake destination in Russia.
War Production
The British engineers devised an original approach to the trench crossing problem.
Contrary to the French, whom basically developed some kind of armored boxes above a
modified Holt chassis, their solution was a very long track, basically covering the entire
length and height of the hull. The famous rhomboidal-shaped profile became an iconic
visual landmark in tank history, immediately identifiable with WWI armored vehicles.
The solution proved well adapted to the worst terrain imaginable. The Mark I however
~ 372 ~
had the engineering problems of its time: too heavy for its engine, too slow and lacking
agility, uncomfortable for the crew with no hull compartmentation (leading to poisoning
from hot carbon gases), unbearable noise and a rough ride. If in idea these tanks were
protected, on impact the plates produced small shrapnel-like splinters on the inside of
the vehicle. Soon enough, the Germans learnt how to use mortar shells, grenades, the
newly developed hollow charge K bullet and direct fire from artilleries against the
British tanks. These limitations produced an amazing attrition rate through the first
operations, during the Somme Offensive in September 1916. Many broke down at the
start, others were bogged down in large craters or broke down en route, and the rest
were dealt with by German artillery. The one third which survived, however, did their
job. The first offensive was a success despite terrible losses and lack of coordination,
mostly thanks to the shock and awe produced by their appearance in the German lines.
They also had a tremendous propaganda value, and triggered a sudden, somewhat
irrational morale boost in the infantry ranks, which was badly needed after repeated
failures.
After the Mark I, the Mark II was produced only for training purposes, but nevertheless,
also put in action in later 1917 offensives, with disastrous effects. The Mark III was also
a training version, with some improvements which will be seen on the upcoming Mark
IV and Mark V models. The Mark IV was the biggest production of the type: 420
males, 595 females and 250 tenders (supply tanks). They incorporated early war
experience in a single package, with a more powerful engine, better armour, a relocated
fuel tank, and retractable sponsons. Three of them (two females and a male) fought
during the second battle of Villers Bretonneux, in April 1918, against a rare German
A7V. This turned into a duel between the British male and the German tank, which
ended in a draw. The Mark V appeared in late 1917, but was only available in quantities
by mid-1918. This was the last wartime evolution of the type, featuring several minor
improvements, including a new, long-awaited gearbox and steering system. The original
Mark V was supposed to be a brand new, far more ambitious design, but because of
concerns about delays on the production lines, it was ultimately rejected for a more
pragmatic approach, based on the Mark IV, itself driven from the Mark III. Apart from
200 males and 200 females, some were converted later as hermaphrodites, bearing a
gun in the left sponson, and two machine guns in the right one. They were put to the test
on the 4th of July 1918, during the Battle of Hamel, in which 50 supported the
Australian troops advance. After the war, some fought with the Russian Whites, and
were ultimately captured by the Reds.
In 1918 a different tank appeared under the official designation of Medium Mark A,
soon called Whippet. It was not truly a light tank, but with half the weight of the
Mark IV and a pair of torque-abundant engines (also used in the London two-decker
buses of the time), it was considered fast by those times standards, designed to exploit
breakthroughs on the battlefield made by heavier tanks. This led, in 1918, to the
development of a separate branch of fast medium and heavy models.
1919 Projects and Early 20s Developments
By 1918 the Mark V was considered nearly obsolete. New projects included the Mark
VI, with a completely redesigned hull. But in 1917, although a mock-up and detailed
plans were ready, the committee decided to stop it in favor of the new joint US-British
project, the Mark VIII Liberty. The Mark VII was a separated project, developed in
~ 373 ~
1917 as an improved Mark I with a lengthened hull, a new revolutionary Williams-
Janney hydraulic transmission and an electric starter. Out of an order of 75, three were
ultimately produced and only one delivered and tested in France. The Mark VIII, was
designed for mass production both in Great Britain and the USA, with a joint design
filling both countries requirements. It was basically a redesigned, lengthened model (13
m or 42 feet) with the greatest trench-crossing capabilities ever achieved, a turret-like
fixed superstructure with multiple machine guns, and a howitzer mounted in the front
hull. It came too late for WWI, but 100 were built by the Rock Island Arsenal, 40 by the
Manchester Tank Syndicate and 11 by the North British Locomotive Co in Great
Britain. They served until the thirties. The Mark IX, dubbed the Pig, was a
specifically designed supply tank and troop carrier, of which 34 were ultimately built
out of an order of 200. A special amphibious model was also tested successfully, known
as the Duck.
The British Mark A Whippet also proved a sound concept and enjoyed several
improvements in the field, mostly attempted by Major Philip Johnson of the Central
Tank Corps Workshops in France. He fitted one with leaf spring suspensions, sprung
track rollers, and later modified it even further with an epicyclical transmission from a
Mark V and a powerful 360 hp V 12 Rolls-Royce Eagle. This led to the fastest tank ever
built during WWI, capable of 48 km/h (30 mph). Johnson will work on the later
Medium Mark D project. The Mark A was followed by the Mark B, Lieutenant Walter
G. Wilson devising a brand new, bigger (18 tons) design, with a forward superstructure,
the engine at the rear, longer tracks with a rhomboid chassis and a frontal sloped glacis
plate. It looked like a mix between all previous designs, bristling with five machine-
guns in mini-sponsons. However, due to the rival project from Tritton, the Mark C, only
102 were produced out of an order of 450, and only 45 were accepted in service by the
end of 1918. They only served in France for a couple of weeks, all others being
scrapped. The latter, called the Hornet was designed by Tritton chief designer
William Rigby. It incorporated many improvements from the Whippet, along with a
forward superstructure, a rhomboid track, sloped frontal armor and more powerful
engines. It was also heavier, but its speed was still excellent. It met all requirements for
the army and 6000 were ordered in 1918. None was delivered until the end of WWI, and
only 50 were completed in 1919. Some served in Russia and those that remained in
Great Britain were ultimately replaced by the Medium Mark I.
WWI British Tanks
Tank Mark I (1916)
200 built. Males armed with two 6 pdr and 2 Lewis or Vickers machineguns in
sponsons. Females armed with 4 Lewis machineguns and one Hotchkiss machinegun.
Tank Mark II (1916)
50 built. Not protected. Training only.
Tank Mark III (1917)
50 built. Improved version. Training only.
~ 374 ~
Tank Mark IV (1917)
1120 built. Many improvements. Frontline tank until 1918.
Tank Mark V (1917)
400 built. Only available in early 1918. Many improvements, last evolution used during
the war.
Mark VIII (1918)
30 built. British variant of the joint US-British liberty design.
Medium Mark A Whippet (1918)
200 built. Four or Two Vickers or Hotchkiss machine-guns.
Mark IX Pig (1918)
36 built. First purpose-built APC.
Gun Carrier Mk.I (1918)
50 built. 150 mm howitzer SPG.
WWI British Armored Cars
Rolls-Royce (1914-1919)
120 built. Lightly armored. One Lewis or Vickers machine-gun.
Lanchester 42 (1914-1916)
36 built. One Vickers cal.303 LC machine-gun.
Austin 42 (1915-1916)
180+ built. One Vickers cal.303 LC machine-gun.
~ 375 ~
A Male Mark I Tank with all its battle-gear, early 1917. The rear tail-wheel was meant
for better steering, and the roof was made of a grilled framework to deflect grenades.
The upper armor could barely stand against grenade shrapnel
A Male Mark V composite (with two guns in sponsons) in Estonian service by 1920
~ 376 ~
Diagram of a Mark V* (star)
The Mark A Whippet was a real improvement as a concept, introducing some tactical
agility on the battlefield. Only 200 were produced until the end of the war.
~ 377 ~
The only known photo of the Mark VI mock up. No prototype was ever built, as this
improved version was dropped in favor of the Mark VIII Liberty.
The Mark VIII Liberty, a joint Anglo-American project, planned to be built in France en
masse, but later cancelled and built in both countries and small series after the war. It
was the last evolution of the lozenge or rhomboid heavy tank type
~ 378 ~
This massive model, called the Pig, was the first troop-carrier built in Great Britain.
Only a handful were operational in time, but most were used as supply tanks. They were
considered underpowered. Another amphibious variant, the Duck, was also produced.
Gun Carrier Mark I. This was the world first SPG (self propelled gun), with a 150 mm
howitzer for mobile artillery support .
~ 379 ~
The Mark B Whippet was a project by Major Wilson, which previously worked on
other William Tritton designs. William Trittons efficient lobbying promoted his own
Mark C, and ultimately only 102 Mark B were delivered, before and after the end of
WWI
A Mark C Hornet, Trittons successor for the Whippet. Only 50 were completed
after the war .
AC Armored Car Light armored vehicle
~ 380 ~
In 1915, the famous British firm AC, famous primarily for its racing and sports cars, has
also decided to make a contribution to military affairs. Like many other companies, it
introduced a commercial, conventional chassis with partial booking that covered the
engine, side and rear of the vehicle. Data on the thickness of the armor did not survive,
but apparently it did not exceed 4,5,5-mm, which was then the standard for British
armored vehicles in this class.
Chassis remained without any changes, while maintaining spitsovanyh wheel

suspension and exposed to the plate springs. Staffing arms missing, the crew consisted
of two people.
AU armored car was not adopted for the British Army. Apparently, the combat
capabilities of the machine felt inadequate, and therefore the further development of the
AU reconnaissance vehicle has not received.

AC Armored Car model 1915
~ 381 ~
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 3000
Width ~ 1500
Height mm ~ 1800
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS standard weapons missing
aiming DEVICES -
housing - 5 mm (?)
RESERVATIONS
superstructure - 5 mm (?)
4x2, rear drive axle wheels with pneumatic tires
CHASSIS
spitsovannye
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Autocar Armoured Car Canada.
~ 382 ~
The first contingent of the Canadian Army expeditionary force arrived in England on 16
October 1914, equipped with a "motor machine-gun corps" of twenty armoured cars.
This formation - the first in the First World War designed and equipped right from the
start as an armoured force - was the outcome of the enterprise shown by Raymond
Brutinel. Brutinel had served in the French Army and became convinced of the value of
the machine-gun. Living in Canada at the outbreak of war in 1914, he persuaded
wealthy business contemporaries led by Sir Clifford Sifton to join with him in raising
and equipping a brigade of motor machine-guns. Brutinel purchased a total of 20
Autocars: 8 were made into Machine Gun Carriers, 5 were for Ammo and supply
carrying, 4 were for Officer Transport, 1 was a gasoline carrier, 1 was a repair vehicle,
and the 20th one was an Ambulance which the Autocar Co. donated. All were made
mechanicaly identical so parts could be swapped around.
The cars were ordered from the Autocar Company, of Ardmore, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
They were standard commercial chassis with solid tyres armoured with 9.5mm plate
supplied by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation. The armour gave all-round protection but
was unusual in that it not only offered no head cover for the driver, but had no vision
port in the front plate. However, the cars were not intended to go into action as fighting
vehicles but to act as carriers for the two machine-guns normally provided in each car.
These machine-guns were originally air-cooled, American-made Colts Model 1895
(which the German workers at the Colt Plant tried to stop from being shipped, so they
were smuggled out at night.) but later, with the Canadian Corps in France, from August
9th 1916 0.303-in. Vickers water-cooled machine-guns (on a swivel mount allowing
them 360 degree rotation) were used instead. These guns could also be off-loaded and
used on normal ground tripods.
~ 383 ~
A normal "Ground" Vickers Machine Gun Crew consisted of 6 men: #1 was the gunner
who also carried the tripod to the setup position, #2 was the belt feeder who carried the
gun to the setup position, #3 & 4 were in charge of the ammo boxes , cooling water and
spare parts, #5 was a scout and runner, #6 was a range taker and spare body. All men in
the Crew were trained in all positions and could strip and reassemble the weapon
blindfolded. The cramped size of the Canadian Motor Machine Gun Autocars only
allowed 3 men each for the 2 Vickers plus one driver and one officer who had the
opption of using a Lewis Machine Gun mounted in front. Each Car could carry 10,000
rounds.
King George V, when inspecting the 1st Canadian Motor Machine-Gun Brigade at
Aldershot shortly after their arrival from Canada, expressed the opinion that the unit
should prove very useful - a view that did not coincide with general military opinion at
the time. The Canadian motor machineguns were, however, of great value in France,
from their arrival in 1915 to the end of the war - perhaps at their best in holding the
German offensive of March 1918 - in providing a mobile reserve of fire power.
However, because of the light armour (only to waist height) their crews suffered an
exceptionally high casualty rate. At wars end only 4 of the 8 gun carriers were still
operational and 1 more repaired after.
~ 384 ~
The Autocar in the photos below, can be seen in The Canadian War Museum, in
Ottawa. It is the only one left in existence, and was used by the 1st Canadian Motor
Machine Gun Brigade. The photos have been provided by P Radley, and you must have
his written consent before you republish them in any type of publication.
~ 385 ~
~ 386 ~
Armoured Ford Model T
Ford Armoured Car (Admiralty Pattern) might never have been born at all had it not
been for a series of accidents. In December 1915 Commander Oliver Locker-Lampsons
RNAS armoured car squadron sailed for Russia and, while on passage, ran into one of
the worst Arctic gales within living memory. In the ships holds several of the
Lanchester armoured cars, which formed the basis of the squadrons equipment, broke
loose from their lashings, and caused such damage to themselves and to other vehicles
that the whole consignment had to be returned to the United Kingdom for repair, while
the personnel disembarked at Alexandrovsk where they spent the winter waiting for an
ice-free passage to Archangel, at that stage the only North Russian port with a rail link
to the south.
The squadron had been despatched to Russia as a gesture of Allied solidarity under an
agreement by which the Tsars Government paid all expenses and the British provided
the cars and crews. However, a Belgian armoured car unit was already operating in
Russia, and its employment had caused such difficulties that the Russians decided that
they simply did not want a second foreign squadron. The Admiralty acceded to their
request for the recall of the British personnel, but under-estimated the abilities of
LockerLampson himself, a professional politician and personal friend of Winston
Churchill, who as a result of some very high level manoeuvering, managed to have the
decision reversed.
The problem for the Russian GHQ was how best to employ their unwanted guests. It
was decided to send them to the Caucasus Front, where the Russian Army was engaged
not only against the Turks, but rebellious Kurdish tribesmen as well. Conditions were
very similar to those prevailing on the North West Frontier of India, and it was felt that
the British would settle down quickly in such surroundings.
The squadron performed very well in a series of small actions, although the Caucasus
provided some of the worlds worst going for armoured cars. The Lanchesters low
~ 387 ~
sumps were constantly being cracked open, the crews being forced to resort to
ingenious mixtures to effect repairs, including jam, chewing gum and sticking plaster,
and melted bullets poured into the cracks from above. This was far from satisfactory,
and the squadrons United Kingdom base at Newport, Monmouthshire, was asked to
provide a light armoured car to complement the Lanchester and Seabrook establishment.
The new vehicle was designed by Petty Officer L. Gutteridge, who chose the basic Ford
Model T as his starting point, since it had already demonstrated its sturdy cross country
abilities in other theatres of war and was, moreover, simple and robust. Gutteridge
calculated that even the simple conversion he planned would double the Model Ts
weight of 10 cwt, and allowed for this by using stronger suspension springs and tie rods
on the back axle. The 5 mm armour plate was attached to an angle iron framework
which was in turn bolted to the chassis, and consisted of a housing for the engine and
radiator, a tall cab for the driver, and an opentopped superstructure at the rear, the
suspension being partially protected by wheel discs. The vehicle was armed with a rear
facing watercooled Maxim machine gun, the crew of which sat behind the driving cab,
protected to some extent by the square 9 mm gun shield. Quick release clamps
permitted the gun and its tripod to be removed for ground action. A large 10 gallon
petrol tank and a patent Stepney Wheel completed the conversion. A total of nine
armoured Model Ts were built by W. G. Allen & Sons of Tipton, of which six are
known to have reached the unit in Russia, where they served as Light Recce Sections.
~ 388 ~
They did not, however, serve in the Caucasus as originally intended. Following the
collapse of the Rumanian Army, LockerLampsons squadron had been shipped across
the Black Sea and thrown into action in the Dobruja, where the Russians were
desperately trying to plug the gap and hold the advancing Bulgarians in check. During a
series of hardfought rearguard actions, in which the cars fired "over the tail", the
British crews earned the admiration of their Russian counterparts, and received a
number of Imperial decorations. Most of the action took place along roads, but
conditions were frightful, as the autumn rains had set in, and several of the heavier cars
bogged down and were lost. On the other hand, the Model Ts, whose quaint appearance
had generated much mirth on their arrival, covered themselves in glory, wallowing
along through the mud without undue difficulty.
The following spring found the squadron in Galicia. By then, the March Revolution had
taken place and the Tsar had gone; but the Provisional Government rashly decided to
keep Russia in the war, and mounted a spring offensive. The result was disastrous.
Large sectors of the front were simply abandoned, and for ten days Locker-Lampsons
men held a 25 mile stretch of the line unaided. Once again, the cars inflicted heavy
losses, but by the end of this period of constant action, they had almost all been knocked
out.
By now Gutteridge had himself arrived in Russia, and was serving at the squadrons
rear base at Kursk. He shortened the body of one of the Model Ts and installed a
mounting for a Lewis gun, a small consignment of which had recently been delivered
from England, thereby reducing the crew to two. It may have been Locker-Lampsons
intention to so modify all his armoured Fords, but events decreed otherwise, and almost
all seem to have been lost in the spring fighting. Gutteridge used the armour from a
wrecked Ford to protect a Fiat lorry, and this hybrid vehicle saw action in support of the
Russian 2nd Cavalry Division.
~ 389 ~
It occurred to me that even I, probably the worst modeller in the world, could make this
simple little vehicle using the Airfix 1:32 scale Model T kit as a base. No plans are
available, but after carefully studying photographs and the kit itself I decided it could be
done. The first task was to cut away both mudguards and the running boards, so that I
was left with a bare chassis. Then I cut back the outer chassis member to a point level
with the dashboard. The outer edges of the dashboard itself were also cut away, taking
the outside edges of the windscreen notches as a guide. Now I was ready to begin
assembly.
The original seat could not be used since it was much too large to be adapted, and in any
event in 1916 armoured car drivers did not have a seat in the accepted sense. They
usually sat on a pile of mats with a sling backrest, but the latter was seldom used.
However, only a fool suffers discomfort voluntarily, and in this case I decided that my
driver had retained the small rumble seat for his own use, and built up a mounting for it.
Only a portion of the radiator shows on the finished model, but I made up the whole
bonnet assembly and cemented it to the chassis as a useful guide. I then cut out four
discs for the wheels and cemented them in place, followed by the bosses. After these
had dried I completed the front and rear axle assemblies and fixed them to the chassis; I
decided to leave all the remaining subframe details until the very end, as they would
obviously not stand too much handling.
Phase Two was the fitting of the hull armour to the chassis, and I began by fixing the
small plate which guards the front suspension, leaving a small hole for the starting
handle. Then I worked my way steadily towards the back of the vehicle, following the
photographs and cutting each plate in turn from 20 thou card. Having completed the hull
the next step was to reinforce the angles from within and build boxes over the rear
wheel arches.
Phase Three was the drivers cab. None of the photographs I have ever seen show the
bottom of the cab, but clearly this did not descend far below the level of the hull
armour, or the poor man would be unable to get to his seat and be more or less isolated
from the machine gun crew behind. However, Gutteridges intention had been simply to
~ 390 ~
provide protection for the driver's head and shoulders where they protruded above the
level of the hull armour, and the whole superstructure was obviously carried on an
angleiron framework. When building the cab, it should be noted that while the left wall
runs front to rear, the right wall is offset. Both walls, the rear plate and the visor all have
vision slits which could be closed by internal sliding hatches, which are easy to simulate
once the holes have been cut. The roofmounted Stepney wheel (a clipon getyou
home device) was made by cutting out the spokes from a spare wheel and attaching four
pieces of scrap from the brackets. The frame was cut from strips of 40 thou card, care
being taken to ensure that the legs were just high enough for the visor to rest above the
dashboard plate.
Finally I added such details as the sump and flywheel housing, steering arms, prop shaft
and rear axle tierods, all taken from the kit itself, as were the front and rear lights, and
of course the exhaust system.
I mentioned earlier that I had cut back the forward end of the outer chassis member.
This certainly helped in establishing the line for the engine armour, but it was only
when the steering arms were in place that I realised that these were terribly vulnerable
and that the space did have a use after all. B. T. Whites excellent book Tanks and
Other Armoured Fighting Vehicles 19001918 clearly shows a short protective armour
skirt in this position, and this filled the gap exactly. In the field I suspect that these skirts
may have grounded too often for comfort, and the majority seem to have been removed.
The same book also shows the basic Eastern Front colour scheme in which the cars
were painted a light brown with a hint of olive. Locker-Lampson's larger cars, the
Lanchesters and Seabrooks, carried the Imperial Russian roundel of black, orange and
white, but this does not seem to have been painted on the Model Ts. The internal unit
designation was carried on the front armour, the only clear example of which that I have
seen being I.B. 4, although a distorted photograph in a 60-year-old copy of Lloyds
Magazine shows what might just be 1.B.2. Having finished the model, I was only too
aware that it had numerous faults, but the end product bore sufficient resemblance to the
original for it to be recognisable. To an experienced modeller the conversion will seem
~ 391 ~
quite easy, with plenty of opportunity for superdetailing in the way of rivets; on the
other hand, the job is simple enough to tempt the beginner, who will find very few
unexpected snags provided he sticks to the assembly order I have outlined.
Ford T Armored Car Light armored vehicle auxiliary
Armored the Ford, which appeared on the Russian front, together with the British
Armored Division, have been specially created for this order and were booked Ford-T
car chassis. Chassis with the transmission and the engine remained unchanged, but the
machine was installed fully armored cab (which housed the driver and his assistant) and
the engine hood. In the cargo hold of a tripod mounted 7.62-mm machine gun, which is
already upon arrival in Russia was closed armored shields. booking thickness less than
5 mm. A total of 11 armored vehicles of this type were built.
Armored vehicles Ford used from June to September 1916 in a cohesive and support
vehicles on the Caucasian and Romanian fronts. With the end of summer 1917, when
the front-line situation in Russia is out of control, armored vehicles were at Kursk,
where in January next year the personnel were evacuated to the homeland, and a part of
the material is almost completely went to the Bolsheviks. Since then, the fate of
armored Ford remains unclear. Most likely they are also used for some time and the
beginning of the 1920s.
~ 392 ~
~ 393 ~
Ford was obr.1916
CREW, pers. 2-3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 3400
Width ~ 1500
Height mm ~ 2000
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.62-mm machine gun "Maxim"
~ 394 ~
RESERVATIONS
food body - 5 mm
gun protection - 5 mm
ENGINE The Ford, carburetor, liquid-cooled, 20 hp
4x2 suspension with leaf springs, wheels, single,

CHASSIS
pneumatic tires
SPEED ~ 50 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Ford-T Machine Gun Carrier Light Combat Vehicle
During the fighting in the territory of modern Palestine, the British expeditionary force
was used vans Ford-T as a mobile machine gun points. It was very convenient not only
~ 395 ~
for the pursuit of the enemy, but also to suppress pockets of resistance. No special
modifications "Ford" did not pass. As a rule, the machine was installed one or two
machine guns Lewis (on the pin on the left of the driver and on-board).
Improvised "machine gun carrier" used by British Commonwealth forces until the end
of the war and were utilizirovany about 1919, when they were replaced by Rolls-Royce
armored cars.
SPECIFICATIONS LIGHT combat vehicles

Ford-T Machine Gun Carrier was obr.1915
CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 3000
Width ~ 1500
Height mm ~ 1600
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.92-mm machine gun Lewis
aiming DEVICES -
~ 396 ~
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE The Ford, Carburetor, 50 hp

CHASSIS
spitsovannye
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
~ 397 ~
Daimler-Guinness / Inchicore M1916 Armoured Lorries
United Kingdom (1916) Improvised APC 5 built
~ 398 ~
The first APCs?
The Daimler-Guinness or Inchicore M1916 Armoured Lorries were a little known,

lightly-armored truck series that saw service in Ireland, 1916, during the Easter Rising.
These are, of course, both unofficial designations, as they were just referred to as
Armoured Lorry, Armoured Car, Boilers, and other vague names in primary
sources, thus creating confusion, especially in the later part of the rising as to whether
sources refer to a Daimler-Guinness or a different armored car.
The Republican rebels, who held down strategic positions in occupied buildings, were
causing massive casualties to the British army. Knowing this, what is perhaps the first
APC in the world was built in order to protect soldiers en route to objectives and
heavily defended areas. It was made from locomotive parts and donated lorries from the
Guinness Brewery.
The Daimler-Guinness can actually stake a claim to being the first APC, or at the very
least, the first improvised APC, depending on which paradigm one chooses to define
what constitutes an APC. Other vehicles that appear to be APCs were being built around
1916, most notably the Locomobile armored car (which was in service with the New
York National Guard), but is arguably not an APC, and was also not fully enclosed. It is
also unclear which month it was built (and therefore which one was made first), but the
Daimler-Guinness certainly saw service before the Locomobile.
Context: The Easter Rising
The Easter Rising was an attempt by Irish Republicans to establish an Irish Republic,
separate from the United Kingdom. Irish Republicanism was a long-standing ideology,
which long predates The Troubles (1968-1998). Britains engagement in WWI provided
an excellent opportunity for Republicans and Nationalists to start a rebellion. The
Supreme Council of the Irish Republican Brotherhood met on 5th September, 1914, a
mere month after Britain joined the war, to discuss the possibility of a rising. By May,
1915, military plans were being drawn up by a newly formed military committee of
intellectuals and Republican leaders.
~ 399 ~
On Monday morning of April 24th, 1916, an estimated 1200 Republicans from the ICA,
IV, and Cumann na mBan rose up and occupied various strategic locations across the
city, such as Liberty Hall, and the General Post Office. The number of rebels was
greatly diminished due to the IVs cancellation of plans (because a weapons shipment
for the rebels from Germany was intercepted), thus meaning that Irish Rebel numbers at
first matched British military numbers. On the first day, sporadic firefights broke out
across the city, mainly involving occupation of buildings from both sides. The rebels
did not capture Dublins train stations, meaning that an estimated 15,000 more British
reinforcements could arrive by the end of the week.
One of the freshly recruited British regiments, the Sherwood Foresters, from
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, was engaged in battle at Mount Street bridge on 26th
April a location which would become notorious for the heavy casualties suffered by
the British.
Seventeen rebel snipers occupied a few buildings, having fortified them since the
beginning of the rising. The Sherwood Foresters were spotted by the rebels, and as they
reached the junction of the road, were fired upon. The British took heavy casualties, as
they lay down in the middle of the open road, and were unable to return fire they had
no munitions, having just returned from maneuvers. Ten lay dead by the end of the
engagement, and many more were wounded. The Sherwood Foresters regiment was
exceptionally inexperienced, having had to be shown how to load and fire their weapons
only once they got off the boat at Dublin. They also did not bring their grenades or
Lewis guns, which meant that they could not lay down any heavy fire on occupied
buildings. Two days later, more British troops would arrive with heavy reinforcements,
including machine guns and artillery in order to capture the bridge.
The warfare experienced by the British was a warfare that they had not been trained for.
It was brutal, gritty, and slow-moving urban combat, featuring guerilla warfare from
rebels who knew their surroundings. Worse still, the rising was, for the most part,
unforeseen by the British
Production
The British were seeking to acquire vehicles in order to keep their military effort
flowing efficiently throughout the city streets. However, also knowing that heavy
casualties were being taken in incidents such as the Battle of Mount Street Bridge
(although that battle may have happened after the Daimler-Guinness concept was
created), Colonel Bertram Portal at the Curragh Camp (the British rural stronghold in
Ireland) decided that improvised armored vehicles would have to be built in order to
protect soldiers. They were, essentially, flatbed delivery lorries with locomotive
smokeboxes bolted onto the rear, with some armor added elsewhere to the vehicle.
Roughly twenty lorries were donated to the British army by the Guinness Brewery. This
included five Daimler-Milnes delivery lorries, which would be converted into Daimler-
Guinnesses at Great Southern & Western Railway Company, Inchicore Works. There is
a debate as to whether or not the lorries were donated by Guinness or simply
appropriated by the British Army. However, it is highly likely that the trucks were, in
fact, donated. In a letter from General John Maxwell (Commander-in-chief of British
forces in Ireland) addressed to A.E. Guinness, dated 17th May, 1916, it is stated:
~ 400 ~
At this moment when the lorries you have so generously put at our disposal are being
returned to you, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you personally, and
your firm, for the splendid spirit you have displayed in coming to our aid during an
extremely critical period. I can further assure you that the assistance given to us by your
lorries practically saved us from a breakdown in our transport arrangements, and
enabled us to get through without a hitch. I should like to bear testimony to the pluck
and loyalty with which your drivers have attended to their lorries throughout the late
rebellion. It is impossible to speak too highly of their qualities, and I consider they are
an honour to their firm and to their country.
The letter is quite clear. In a private letter, Maxwell has no need to lie about the
situation If the lorries were stolen, and if the letter was to be viewed by the public,
then, and only then, would Maxwell need to lie. However, even the Republican
newspaper An Phoblacht, in a 2013 article about Guinnesss loyalism states that there
are conflicting reports about how these lorries got into British hands. Notably, thirty
three drivers from the Guinness Brewery also volunteered to drive the donated trucks,
and, presumably, drove Daimler-Guinness conversions, too, as most soldiers did not
know how to drive. Many workers who refused to aid the British when asked were also
dismissed, which further suggests that Guinness was a willing collaborator.
There is a suggestion that the smokeboxes used for the conversion were boilers taken
from the Guinness Brewery, but it seems as though this is just a misconception. It
actually appears as though they were actually locomotive smokeboxes, because they
have indicative features such as the double-barred hinges (see photos).
Fairly little is known about the vehicles construction at Inchicore, and it is unclear
when exactly they were built, and when the concept was made. It is likely that the
vehicles were constructed at some point between late Monday and early Wednesday,
but it is believed that the construction of one vehicle took roughly a full work-day. The
diary of Colonel Bertram Portal would reveal substantial information, but,
unfortunately, it was up for auction in 2013, and no transcripts have been released to
historians (see Sidenote II below).
It is also likely that the men who built the vehicle wished to remain anonymous, and did
not tell their stories, as they collaborated with the British something which would
prove to be an incredibly unpopular move. In a letter from the Chief Mechanical
Engineers Office at the Inchicore Works addressed to a former secretary at the Bureau
of Military History, Dublin, dated 15th November, 1951, it is stated:
Rising of Easter week, 1916. Our Secretary has forwarded me your letter of the 5th
November, together with leaflet, and I have gone into the matter very fully and
contacted existing members of the staff who were in this Department in 1916, and
whilst there is recollection of events at that time, I am afraid there is very little in the
way of documentary evidence which would be of assistance to you. It is, for instance,
common knowledge that we did under direction of the British Army Authorities,
through their Army Ordnance, construct armoured vehicles by mounting locomotive
boiler barrels on road lorries, as shown on the photographs herewith, but there is no
record of the number so turned out, and the only record I can trace is an entry in our
Accounts Ledger which reads as follows:- Half Year Ending 30th June 1916. Works
Order A. 282. Military Account, War Office. Armouring Motor Cars 365* The
~ 401 ~
wording of the entry and the amount expended would go to show that there was more
than one vehicle turned out. This work was carried out by Works employees, chiefly
Boilermakers. Having regard to the time that has since elapsed, it is not now possible to
produce documents of any kind beyond the ledger Record quoted above. I am also
enclosing a group of photographs showing an armoured train, and armoured cars
constructed at Inchicore in 1922 which may be of interest. (*33,523 in todays
money, 2016)
A recent article from ansionnachfionn.com, reports some dubious or unsubstantiated

claims. Firstly, it is reported that Sir William J. Goulding, the owner of the Great
Southern and Western Railway (GS&WR), authorized the donation
of twelve locomotive smokeboxes to the British for the conversion. There is no
evidence to substantiate this claim, and, it appears as though only ten smokeboxes were
actually used, as one Type 1 Daimler-Guinness (which is believed to be the first
conversion) featured only two smokeboxes. These were larger than the other
smokeboxes used on the other Type 1 Daimler-Guinnesses, but it still appears slightly
shorter than the others. Secondly, the article reports that the work was carried out by
military engineers from the 3rd Reserve Calvary Regiment. In reality, photos appear to
show that it was mostly civilians present at the construction of the vehicles, and the
above letter from 1951 suggests that it was mainly the boilermakers themselves who
carried out the work, only under the direction of British army ordnance. The final
dubious claim is that some vehicles had rear-facing Lewis guns. Whilst there is a pistol
port notably larger than others (in fact, clearly large enough to mount a Lewis gun) at
the rear of the vehicle (and a dummy port just above it), the actual use of it by a Lewis
gun is not proven to the satisfaction of the author. (See Sidenote IV below)
There were three types of the vehicle:
Type 1 the most commonly seen version, featuring cylindrical locomotive

smokeboxes bolted together and placed on the rear of the vehicle, with a small area of
the flatbed extending past the smokeboxes (presumably for ease of access)
Type 1a was made from two long smokeboxes, with four gun ports, and seemingly only
two dummy ports painted on each side. The passenger / fighting compartment was
slightly shorter than the ones seen on Type 1b and 1c. Type 1b and 1c were made from
four shorter smokeboxes. Type 1b and 1c can only be differentiated by small details,
such as the layout of their pistol ports, and support bars on the cab roof. 1c also had
substantially more dummy ports painted on than 1b. These are also the most commonly
photographed Daimler-Guinnesses.
Type 2 a box shaped version with an adjoined fighting compartment and drivers
compartment. It appears to have been made from steel plates. It has a rectangular rear
which appears to be made from two water tanks riveted together. Only one photo is
known to exist.
Type 3 somewhat similar to Type 2, but with a V-shaped prow, probably for
deflecting bullets. Only two known photographs exist, thus meaning further information
is unavailable.
Type 1s had roof holes (for chimneys) sealed up with metal plates, as revealed from
photographs, which would be necessary to avoid grenade attacks or rebels firing down
~ 402 ~
on passengers. There was a door at the rear of the vehicle, for entry and exit for Type
1, this was the smokebox hatch, but it is unclear what kind of hatches the Type 2 and 3
vehicles had. Usually four small pistol ports were also added to each of the sides of the
smokeboxes, and dummy ports were painted on to confuse snipers although looking
closely at even poor quality photographs, it appears somewhat obvious which are
which. Steel plates were also added onto the cab of the vehicle, as well as the engine
compartment for protection.
Combat and tactics
Daimler-Guinnesses are most well known to reverse up against entry points to a

building, allowing soldiers to enter with minimal casualties from snipers, but they
actually performed many roles such as scout, APC, gun-truck, gun-tow vehicle, and
general transport of military goods. They could carry an estimated 15-20 soldiers, but
there were only four pistol ports on either side, and according to Sergeant Sam Cooper
of B company, 2/6th South Staffs, firing from inside was uncomfortable due to the
space being too small and enclosed. However, there are reports of the Daimler-Guinness
being used to broadside rebel positions, which shows that it was not too uncomfortable.
Cooper also recalls that every bullet that bounced on the vehicles armor left his ears
ringing.
The idea of painting on dummy pistol ports was truly inspired, but its actual
effectiveness was dubious. They were quite obvious, and, above all, if weapons were
poked out of the pistol ports, it would be clear which ones were real, however, there are
no credible reports of snipers ever hitting a soldier who was inside the vehicle. The
vehicles were likely to be, for the most part, bulletproof.
Combat at the GPO
All sources agree that the Daimler-Guinness first saw action on Wednesday, 26th. By
combining the information as given in AFV news, Caulfields The Easter Rebellion,
and a statement from Volunteer Joseph Sweeney (a sniper on the GPOs roof), its first
engagement is fairly well detailed.
On Wednesday night, a Daimler-Guinness was supporting the 3rd Battalion of the

Royal Irish Regiment. They crossed the Liffey over the Butt Bridge, moved along
Gardiner Street, turned left onto Parnell Street, and moved up to Moore Street. Then, in
order to reassess rebel strength, the vehicle turned off Parnell Street and onto Sackville
Street (now OConnell Street), and stopped in front of the Gresham Hotel. It was
spotted by Volunteer Joseph Sweeney, who stated that him, Volunteer Reilly, and three
other rebel snipers fired at the vehicle with rifles. All of their bullets ricocheted. Then,
Sweeney (and possibly Reilly) decided to fire at the drivers slits, with the aim of killing
the driver in order to disable the vehicle. Between three and five shots were fired by
Sweeney, and the vehicle stopped. The vehicle then attempted a restart, but it failed, and
lay motionless until later that night. Once dark enough, and when all the lights were all
out, it was towed away, reportedly by another Daimler-Guinness.
It is highly unlikely that the vehicle was damaged by, or that the driver was killed by,
rebel fire it seems as though the vehicle suffered from an untimely mechanical failure.
~ 403 ~
Another engagement at the GPO is reported just before 3pm on Thursday 27th.
According to an account from Max Caulfields The Easter Rising: There were
constant alarms that the military had begun their attack. Once almost the entire garrison
rushed to the northern side of the building, with a few craning dangerously out of the
windows to see, after someone had reported an armored car coming down Henry Street.
From the roof of the warehouse in Henry Street, Volunteer John Reid and his comrades
opened fire on the monster. Bullets bounced harmlessly off its plating, until somebody
tossed a bomb and stopped it Men were then lined up in the main hall shortly after
3pm, and Patrick Pearse announced the destruction of the vehicle, and this may be the
only time a Daimler-Guinness was knocked out by rebels.
Combat near the Four Courts
Wednesday Shortly after 5pm, the Sherwood Foresters, under the command of
Colonel Portal marched out of Dublin Castle towards Grattan Bridge. They were pinned
down by rebel fire from the Four Courts building, just over the Liffey, which pinned
down the Sherwoods. A Daimler-Guinness brought sixteen sharpshooters to the Church
of the Immaculate Conception opposite the Four Courts building across the river. From
behind tombstones, they began to return fire on the rebels, but to no avail. The Daimler-
Guinness then towed an 18-pounder gun to Grattan Bridge, and commenced fire with
four hits to the east wing, which allowed the Sherwoods to continue their advance.
This account does not appear to be substantiated outside of AFV news. (See Sidenote
IV below)
Combat at Capel Street
Wednesday During advance up Capel Street, presumably in the evening, at some

point before 8pm, an unknown number of Daimler-Guinnesses (possibly two), were
used to secure buildings. They did this by the typical method of reversing up to building
entry points. It is unclear which unit the Daimler-Guinnesses supported.
IV below)
Combat at North King Street
Wednesday A Daimler-Guinness was spotted by rebels on Bolton Street (north of

Parnell Street), but no further details (such as exact time) are available.
IV below)
Thursday The first well-documented usage of a Daimler-Guinness near North King

Street was not in fact combat. Captain Edmunds of A Company, Sherwood Foresters,
was in charge of a sector between Capel Street and Coles Lane. He found a large supply
of sacks in a factory in his sector, and unspecified armored cars were used to deliver
sandbags filled with earth to be used as barricades at strategic points on Abbey street,
west of the GPO, and possibly other points.
~ 404 ~
Friday In the early morning, an unspecified armored car was used for recon
(presumably a Daimler-Guinness), which was lightly fired at with Mauser bullets. This
followed an incident on Thursday in which a Red Cross ambulance attempted to reach
the Richmond Hospital, but was fired upon from the rebel barricade.
Despite such minor roles, it was on Friday evening and Saturday morning that the
Daimler-Guinness saw its longest and most brutal fighting. North King Street housed a
major rebel stronghold known as Reillys Fort, and the rebels were dug-in deep.
General Maxwell ordered an attack, nevertheless, and an encirclement with three
battalions was planned. Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Taylor of the 2/6th South Staffs, was
given orders to press westwards from Capal Street to join up with the 2/5th South
Staffs, who were advancing eastwards from Queen Street. From the Sherwood
Foresters, he learned that North King Street was too strongly held for an unsupported
infantry assault, so at some point after 5:45pm, an armored car arrived to support the
attack. The vehicle slowly drove up the road, and soldiers followed closely behind,
firing at all the houses along the street. They broke into houses, occupied them, and
tunneled from building to building using pickaxes. In the early stages of the battle,
civilians were guided back to the Bolton Street Technical Schools, Taylors base of
operations.
Two hundred yards up the road, rebel Volunteers Frank Shouldice, Thomas Sherrin,
William Murphy, William Hogan, John Williamson, and John Dwan had positions on
an iron stairway outside Jamesons Malt House. They were spotted and the armored car
slew across the street and fired broadside at them, thus indicating that this almost
certainly a Daimler-Guinness, and not any other armored car. The rebels returned fire,
but to no effect. None of the volunteers were hurt, either. The armored lorry continued
to back up against the front doors of houses, to allow infantry to disembark with relative
safety. However, this tactic did not negate all casualties. According to Sergeant Sam
Cooper of B company, 2/6th South Staffs, one soldier was found dead below a window,
probably hit by a sniper shortly after he disembarked from the armored lorry.
The Daimler-Guinness later came close to Sherrins position, and the Volunteers were
hailed with bullets. They returned fire and, most importantly, threw grenades at the
vehicle, causing it to withdraw. None of the Volunteers were hit in the exchange.
There is a misconception that the Daimler-Guinness smashed through the rebel

barricade, but this does not appear to be the case. According to Caulfield, the rebel
barricade was still in tact by midnight, and the South Staffs had made very little
progress in the battle. This meant that the British had to turn to guerilla tactics
Saturday By 2am, the Daimler-Guinness slowly struggled towards the barricade. It

came within thirty yards, and a party of soldiers with crowbars and pickaxes
disembarked. They broke into No. 172, owned by Mrs. Sally Hughes, where twenty
other families were taking refuge. Hughes recalls that about thirty soldiers entered,
although this might be an exaggeration. They ransacked the house, and then led two
civilian men upstairs, and shot them dead. The rebels retreated once they heard the
pickaxes hammering at the walls.
From the rebel barricades, songs were then sung, which astonished the South Staffs to
the point where they stopped firing whilst each of the several songs were being sung. As
~ 405 ~
daylight began to cast over Dublin, the South Staffs stopped tunneling, and stormed
over the empty rebel barricade and were fired upon from Reillys Pub. Seeking cover,
the soldiers dashed off into Beresford Street, where Shouldice shot them all dead, one
by one, from his iron stairway. By 7am, the rebels began to run out of ammo, and were
exhausted. By 9am, Shouldice took a vote with his men, and they decided to run from
their positions. Soldiers fired on them once halfway across the street, but it seems as
though they all made it to safety.
By circa 17th May, 1916, all of the remaining Daimler-Guinnesses were in the process
of being dismantled, and the lorries and smokeboxes were returned to their owners.
Overall significance
The Daimler-Guinness is usually a footnote in history, and this is not because it was a
bad vehicle with minor significance. As Maxwell stated in his letter to Guinness, the
trucks that were given to them were a true help to the British military effort, and this is
no exaggeration. In fact, even a simple assessment of its short combat history reveals
that it not only allowed the British to adapt their tactics for guerilla warfare, but it also
stopped the number of British casualties from being so high. If British soldiers remained
unshielded from enemy snipers, the rebels may have even been able to hold out even
longer. The artillery barrages from the Gunboat Helga were fairly ineffective against
buildings such as the GPO. Even the fearsome 18-pounder guns, with their incendiary
rounds, caused few direct casualties, but plenty of collateral damage, such as effectively
gutting the GPO after a roof collapse. It was the soldiers with rifles and machine guns
that caused casualties, and the eventual surrender of rebel forces which ended the rising.
The author notes that the Daimler-Guinness has also probably not become such a
renowned symbol because it was, frankly, a British vehicle. Whilst there is much
attention pointed at glorifying the Rebel side of the rising, there has been little until
recently on the British side of the story, and, if it were a rebel vehicle, it would be,
without doubt, glorified. They tend to be little more than a footnote in modern sources
(particularly museums in Dublin), although around Easter, 2016, some articles on the
vehicle have sprang up, which provide excellent information, and have invaluably
contributed to this article. However, a contemporary painting by Archibald McGoogan
entitled After the Bombardment shows both a type 1 and 2 Daimler-Guinness, which
can be viewed here. It is currently on display at the National Library of Irelands
Rising exhibition, Dublin.
Rendition of Daimler-Guinness Type 1b.
~ 406 ~
Daimler-Guinness Type 1b is posed next to by soldiers in Dublin, 1916. Four
locomotive smoke boxes can be seen which have been bolted together, and have had
four pistol ports crudely cut into the side. The rest of the pistol ports are just painted on
to confuse snipers.
A British soldier sits on the rear of Daimler-Guinness Type 1b near the Granville Hotel
(now the Savoy Cinema), Sackville Street (now OConnell Street), north of the River
Liffey. The smokebox door allowed troops entry and exit, and, reportedly, the ability to
be placed against windows and opened, allowing soldiers to storm a building. The two
barred hinges can be seen clearly in this photo, which is more typical of a locomotive
smokebox than anything else. A large pistol port is seen just above the lower hinge bar,
which is clearly larger than the other pistol ports, and a dummy port is seen just above
the top hinge bar. This larger port was reportedly for use of a Lewis gun. Credits
Manchester Guardian, History of the Great War, 1916.
~ 407 ~
Daimler-Guinness Type 1b, location unknown, possibly Sackville Street. Credits
ansionnachfionn.com
Another view of Daimler-Guinness Type 1b. Exact location unknown, possibly

Sackville Street, or nearby.
~ 408 ~
Daimler-Guinness Type 1b, surrounded by a crowd of civilians on Sackville Street.
Credits ansionnachfionn.com
Believed to be the same view of the above, roughly at the same time.
~ 409 ~
Daimler-Guinness Type 1b from an unknown film, presumably newsreel, probably from
British Pathe. Footage of the Daimler-Guinness can be found in A Terrible Beauty,
1916, a docudrama directed by Keith Farrell, 2016, both real and reenactment.
Daimler-Guinness Type 1b, possibly shot from a window one story up. Exact location
unknown, possibly near to the Four Courts building or the GPO.
~ 410 ~
Front view of Daimler-Guinness Type 1c on Sackville Street. The engine compartment
and cab have been armored up for protection. Judging by the layout of the painted on
pistol ports, this is not the same one as in the above photos.
Daimler-Guinness Type 1c, believed to be on Sackville Street. Credits

ansionnachfionn.com. Note: Photograph is possibly mirrored, as the original can be
seen in the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks, and the Bureau of Military
History, Ireland, photographic archives which both show it the other way around.
~ 411 ~
Redacted photo of Daimler-Guinness Type 1c from 1951. Photo believed to be taken at
Kingsbridge Station (now Heuston Station). This is a rare photo of rifles shown poking
through the pistol ports. Despite some claims, firing from inside the vehicle was
probably not such an uncomfortable experience.
Unaltered photo of the above. Most men appear to be civilians, that being the case, it is
likely that the men were airbrushed out because they (or their families) did not wish to
be associated with their allegiance to the British. However, it is suggested that military
engineers performed the work. A drawing or edited image of this photo was included in
Popular Mechanics Magazine, November, 1916, and can be viewed.
~ 412 ~
Daimler-Guinness Type 1a photographed with its builders. This one seems to be
perhaps the rarest Daimler-Guinness, and does not appear to have many dummy ports
painted on. The passenger compartment appears to be shorter than other Daimler-
Guinnesses, and was seemingly made from only two smokeboxes (which appear wider
than other smokeboxes seen on other vehicles, however).
Daimler-Guinness Type 2 at the junction of Sackville Street and Bachelors Walk. The
OConnell monument can be seen in the background. This type supposedly built when
no more smokeboxes could be acquired. This is the only known photograph of it
(although other, digitally enhanced versions exist). It may look fake, but this is because
the background is out of focus, and it is one of the poor quality versions of the
photograph. It has been suggested that perhaps two metal water tankers and a few
additional steel plates were made for this conversion, which is a very likely explanation.
~ 413 ~
Drawing of a Milnes-Daimler truck. Whilst this one does not belong to the Guinness
Brewery, nor is it the exact model, it is very similar to what the Daimler-Guinness
armored lorries would be based on.
A train built in 1902 at Inchicore. The steambox at the front is incredibly similar to
those used on Type 1b and 1c Daimler-Guinnesses. However, it seems as though most
of the handles were removed for the conversion, their boltholes still visible. The
chimneys, too, were removed and the holes were covered with steel plates.
Sidenote I: Other Improvised Armored Vehicles, 1916
Several other improvised armored cars made in 1916 in other workshops at Inchicore,
the Guinness Brewery, and another unknown workshop are also reported in
Improvised Armour, From the British Army 1916, to the Islamic State 2016, an
article by ansionnachfionn.com, and AFV news. The only one described in the articles
~ 414 ~
is a QF-3 pounder (it is unstated whether this was a Hotchkiss or a Vickers) mounted on
the rear of an armored truck. It was driven on Wednesday 26th to Kingstown (now Dun
Laoghaire), and on Thursday, from a firing position at Mount Street Bridge, it
bombarded the rebel 3rd battalions position at Bolands Mill, which was headed by
Eamonn de Valera. de Valera ordered a large, green flag to be hoisted on an empty
building three or four hundred yards away, and the British fired on the empty building
instead. Later that day, the SPG lorry was taken by the Sherwood Foresters to the Royal
Hospital at Kilmainham, to an unknown fate. It is unclear why such a modification
would be made, presumably it was for providing rapid access to indirect (and possibly
direct) heavy fire.
Sidenote II: Colonel Bertram Portals Diary
Another reason as to why so little is known is known about the construction of Daimler-
Guinness trucks is because the diary of Bertram Portal (who came up with the concept)
was lost until 2013, where it was found in a charity shop. It was then up for auction for
28,000 ($39,700). No notes were allowed to be taken, and it seems as though no
transcript has been made available to historians. Viewing the transcript would almost
certainly reveal invaluable information. According to the auction house, it was unsold
and returned to its seller.
Sidenote III: Other Armored Cars at Inchicore, 1922
Between 50 and 150 armored Lancia trucks were supplied to the British, many of which
were sent to Ireland. Whilst in service with the Free Staters in 1922, at least 50 were
given armored roofs at Inchicore, and another 7 were converted to drive on railways as a
result of IRA activity on the railways. Some even had a machine gun turret. These
conversions took place between September 1922 and April, 1923. More is known about
these vehicles, and there is even newsreel footage from British Pathe of their creation,
which can be accessed here. These strongly resemble the earlier Pierce-Arrow, and
other vehicles made in India, Mexico, and many other contemporary armored cars.
~ 415 ~
This is armored Lancia was used as an artillery tractor by the Free Staters during the
Irish War of Independence, 1922. Other roles were performed by vehicles of this type,
including troop transport. An estimated fifty one hundred and fifty were supplied to
the British army, but many ended up in Ireland. Seven were converted to fit on railways,
which varied slightly from the other. This one is at the junction of Dame street and
Georges street Dublin, looking towards Trinity college. Credits National Library of
Ireland, photographic archives.
Sidenote IV: Unsubstantiated Claims
Some information in this article has been noted as potentially unsubstantiated or not
proven to the satisfaction of the author. Most primary sources, such as photos,
eyewitnes accounts, and newsreel footage, are available online from the National
Library of Ireland Archive, and the [Irish] Bureau of Military History Archives. The
two main sources which gave the author trouble with cross-referencing of events are
British Use of Armoured Vehicles During the 1916 Easter Rebellion in Ireland, an
article from AFV News Volume 35, No.1, January, 2000, and Improvised Armour,
From the British Army 1916, to the Islamic State 2016, an article from
ansionnachfionn.com. It is possible that claims and accounts from both AFV news and
ansionnachfionn.com have been written using primary sources and accounts from Irish
archives, which have not seen by the author of this article, due to the vast number of
accounts that would need to be trawled through.
That being said, neither of these articles state their sources, and some select claims
cannot simply be cross-checked with archives (for reasons stated), nor can they be
corroborated by any of the other sources used to write this article most worryingly,
Max Caulfields highly regarded The Easter Rebellion. Published in 1963, Caulfield
was able to interview many survivors of the Easter Rising, which makes it a highly
useful source, although some exaggerations may have been made in the euphoria of the
coming 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising (in 1966). The role of the Daimler-
Guinness in the shelling of the Four Courts by the Sherwood Foresters on Wednesday,
as claimed in AFV news, is particularly difficult to substantiate, for what would be a
fairly noteworthy event. However, smaller claims as made by ansionnachfionn.com,
such as the use of a rear-mounted Lewis gun are not too unreasonable to assume to be
true, there is just a lack of primary evidence.
~ 416 ~
Guiness Improviosed Armored Vehicle The improvised armored car
A little-known historical fact we have - a rebellion in Ireland in the summer of 1916, in

fact, closely linked to the use of armored vehicles, including heavy tanks.
It started on Monday, April 24, when almost unarmed forces "Civil Army" and "Irish
Volunteers" won the majority of government agencies in Dublin. Soon, the steps of the
post office standing not one of the leaders of the uprising P.G.Pirs read out the
declaration of independence of Ireland, but after a few hours of the Irish capital was
covered by "battles of local importance." Taken by surprise British forces tried to oust
from the armed forces of the rebels, but could not make it that because of its small size.
After waiting for reinforcements the British during the 48 we were able to create almost
20-fold superiority in troops, but most importantly - have been received armored
vehicles.
The first was an improvised armored car built in the workshops of the Southern Railway
in Ichkorte. In just 10 hours the specialists of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment backup made
from ordinary commercial chassis Daimler and boiler delivered with the Guiness
brewery, a real armored car. The boiler was converted into a troop compartment with
loopholes, and some of them were drawn to knock the opponent confused. The driver's
cab is sheathed with steel plates. Of course, in this battle, which raged at the front, this
"reservation" was not enough, but the Irish rebels had almost no heavy weapons.
Subsequently, two more were made like cars: two with boilers and one with the flat side
of the steel sheets. This machine is more known as Guiness Armored Lorry, though
there are also others, such as Guiness Improviosed Armored Vehicle .In any case, the
official name for it was not.
~ 417 ~
Rebellion was nearly crushed by the morning of April 28, 1916, and the next day Pierce
ordered to stop the senseless resistance. Orphaned armored Guiness (as they are called
in some sources) was sent to the store, and then click "cancel reservation".

Guiness Improviosed Armored Vehicle
CREW, pers. 4-5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS standard weapons otstutsvovalo
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
~ 418 ~
4x2, single wheels, tubeless tires, suspension, leaf

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
B-Type Armored Truck Armored truck
In September 1914, the French company Forges et Chantiers received an order from the
British Air Service (RNAS) on bookings of trucks B-Type. Such a request was not
spontaneous - British troops desperately needed in any armored vehicles and at a time
when the armies of the continental countries had reservations commercial vehicles on an
industrial scale in the UK, this process barely gaining momentum. The first truck
arrived on the modernization of September 17, the second - a few days later. In fact,
both cars were polubronirovannye transporters, the main purpose of which was the
delivery of the soldiers.
~ 419 ~
The car with the number B752 was ready first. It was a very simple version of the
reservation, is to install armor plates in front of the radiator and the driver's cab.
Transportation ground gained armored ramps. No doors or hatches for the embarkation
and disembarkation of the crew was not provided - all of these operations were carried
out with the help of ladders ejected. Standard weapons akzhe absent, but in the back it
was possible to install one or two infantry machine gun.
The second car, which had a number DX1284, had fully armored hood and the driver's
cabin, although troop-bay still had no roof. Nevertheless, we can say with confidence
that this is the car was prooobrazom for future armored wheeled chassis.
Combat use of B752 was very short-lived. In October and November 1914, this
machine was used in the group improvised armored Major Samson who tried to stop the
Germans in the area of Dunkirk and Antwerp. After fighting in the transition stage
positional truck for some time it has been used in the rear. Regarding cars with number
DX1284 is no accurate information.
SPECIFICATIONS VEHICLE POLUBRONIROVANNOGO

B-Type Armored Truck of obr.1914
~ 420 ~
CREW, pers. 2-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers or 7.92-mm

WEAPONS
machine gun Lewis
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
4x2, single wheels, tubeless tires, suspension leaf

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
~ 421 ~
Talbot-Baxter Armored Car Light armored vehicle
The acute shortage of modern military equipment in the colonial possessions of the
European powers often encouraged local "artisans" in the creation of decent models of
armored vehicles, especially on wheels. Most of all in this respect succeeded British and
French companies, subsidiaries located in the colonies. A good example of the
successful implementation of the idea of an improvised armored cars to serve the British
truck chassis. But there were other, less well-known artifacts. One of them was also
established in India after World War I and is now known as the Talbot-Baxter
Armored Car (or just - Baxter Armored Car).
Precise data on this improvised armored car, which, however, was released a small
series, did not survive. In foreign sources claimed that the design and construction of
hulls engaged company Baxter. As you might guess, as a "standard" was taken Rolls-
Royce Armored Car, production of which has been launched in 1915. Some disputes
arise in determining the type of chassis, on which was placed "Indian" hull of. Most
Western fans of "old" armored concurs that it could be the "Silver Ghost". The chassis
of commercial vehicles with 4x2 was equipped with suspension, leaf springs and single
wheels with pneumatic tires. On the "Silver Ghost", starting from 1913, established 4-
speed gearbox (previously had 3-speed) and 30-horsepower gasoline engine with frontal
radiator.
Hulls, designed by British engineers in the semi-artisan conditions, it turned out quite at
the level of modern analogs. Apparently, when used in the manufacture of 5 mm or 6
mm armor rolled steel sheets. housing layout was pretty standard, with a front engine
compartment and fighting compartment at the rear. The tower also has its own design,
with slanted board bronelistami. As the weapons in the tower was installed a 7.62-mm
(or 7.71 mm) machine gun Vickers.
Armored vehicles Talbot-Baxter Armored Car built on donations, and therefore the
number of them turned out to be small. Apparently, in 1915, it managed to collect no
more than 5 units, had individual differences. Information on the use of Talbot-Baxter
Armored Car preserved very little. According to some armored vehicles were involved
in support of the British Army during the fighting in Waziristan (now Pakistan emirate
on the border with Afghanistan). These events took place in 1932-1933. during another
~ 422 ~
Arab uprising, which ended with the defeat of the rebels. Date of final decommissioning
armored Talbot-Baxter Armored Car is not clear.
To date, only one sample was preserved Talbot-Baxter Armored Car. This sample was
higher armored shell and machine-gun turret from the Rolls-Royce Armored Car. The
technical condition of the sample is poor: completely lacking interior equipment and
armament, partially disassembled chassis and undercarriage. Armored vehicles is in
private hands and, apparently, its recovery is no one did.

Talbot-Baxter Armored Car sample 1915
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.71-mm or 7.62-mm machine gun Vickers
~ 423 ~
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
4x2, single wheels, suspension to the plate springs,

CHASSIS
pneumatic tires
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Cadillac Armored Car Indian Pattern Colonial armored car
One of the first armored vehicles created for the British Army during the First World
War, has been developed on its own initiative in India. The reason for its introduction
was to send both Indian and British parts of the front, which weakened the group of
~ 424 ~
troops in India. In order to compensate for the shortage of staff, and at the same time to
modernize the technology park, the 1915 Cadillac commercial chassis of the car was
booked in Calcutta.
Without further ado, the British military decided to set a standard automotive body
frame box-shaped with numerous loopholes for firing of personal weapons (rifles and
pistols) and machine guns. All the weapons fitted to the upper superstructure with
sloping sides. In total, the armored Cadillac could carry four 7.62-mm machine gun
Maxim and 6-8 rifles. True to serve them at the same time it was very difficult because
of crowding in the fighting compartment. For four rectangular ventilation hatch in the
roof was done with armored covers, leans up. booking thickness was 5 mm.
Chassis included two bridges with single wheels fitted with tubeless tires and
suspension on the leaf springs. By car, left the standard gasoline engine, but it is the
~ 425 ~
type could not be determined. In the front part of the hood, refrigerating, performed two
armored flaps controlled from the cab.
Thus, the armored Cadillac Armored Car Indian Pattern (as stated in the foreign
sources), was the most powerful machine gun armament, but the fighting did not
participate. Colonial troops were enough work in India and in Pakistan, where a weak
book did not play a special role. This armored vehicle, due to the presence of
overweight and tubeless tires used only on roads with a hard surface, or in the cities.
Probably Service Cadillac continued until the end of the First World War, after which
armored vehicle pulled down the metal.

Cadillac Indian Pattern 1915

CREW, pers. 1+8
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
three or four 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers and 10-11
WEAPONS
rifles
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
4x2, single wheels, suspension to the plate springs,
CHASSIS
pneumatic tires
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
DeLaunay-Belleville Armored Car Light armored vehicle
~ 426 ~
In the long line of the initial period of the Great War armored vehicles models occupies
a special place Delaune-Belleville. Cars of this type were widely used on the Western
Front, not only French, but also English. In September 1914, the first batch of the
contract Delaune-Belleville was staged in the UK, after which the assembly was
arranged their enterprise Maida Vale in north London.
The successful design of this car attracted the attention of professionals from RNAS.
Given the high reliability chassis British military engineers bookings project was
designed, provides for a rotating tower. The case was a fairly simple form, with vertical
and inclined board bronelistami frontal plates. On top was placed a massive cylindrical
tower with a 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers. unarmored transport platform has been
made in the rear of the chassis. Chassis was wheeled formula 4x2 with rear dual wheels
and suspension on the leaf springs. booking thickness was 7.6 mm. Thus, the
appearance and performance characteristics armored Delaune-Belleville was close to
Lanchester.
After the tests, armored vehicles, carried out in early 1915, it was decided to carry out a
number of improvements, after which the order RNAS booked three more chassis
DeLaunay-Bellevielle. From prototype they differed only in a few extended hull and
turret. Despite the fact that the maneuver phase of the war was over by this time all the
issued armored vehicles of this type have been placed at the disposal of one of the
RNAS squadrons and served in France and Belgium. Their periodic use continued until
~ 427 ~
the end of 1916, after which DeLaunay-Bellevielle were decommissioned and cancel
reservation.
Upset the British on this issue had not particularly since real combat value DeLaunay-
Bellevielle was small. The machine has a low mobility, and suspension components
chassis had no protection and was too vulnerable to enemy fire. One of the few
advantages were only good armor protection and high speed when driving on good
roads.

DeLaunay-Bellevielle Armored Car obraschtsa 1915

CREW, pers. 4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 4695
Width ?
Height mm 2146
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS board housing - 7.6 mm
Tower - 7.6 mm
Delaunay, carburetor, 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 35 hp
ENGINE
power
4x2 suspension with leaf springs, tire size 4,5h34,5
CHASSIS
dm
SPEED 80 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
FIAT Armored Car Indian Pattern staff armored car
~ 428 ~
Official designation: absent
Alternative notation: FIAT Armored Car Indian Pattern (in contemporary sources)
Stage of completion: premenyalsya in 1915-1916. in hostilities against the Ottoman
Empire in the Middle East.
Indian craftsmen, who created in 1914-1915. relatively few successful armored vehicles
on the British and American chassis, stir again, once you book two Italian cars FIAT.
To be precise, that the British are about to get more radios armored personnel carriers.
Given the tense situation in the eastern colonies, it was a reasonable decision. In 1914,
the army requisitioned 12 commercial vehicles of five different brands, which were
theoretically suitable for the installation of the armor plates and weapons.
Work on bookings FIAT type machines have been performed railway workshops forces
the spring of 1915 for the needs of the 1st motorized armored brigades (1st Armored
Motor Brigade) stationed in the state of Peshawar. The first machine was fully armored
cab and a transport section with a rounded roof. The undercarriage left wheel
spitsovannye. The second "fiat" transport department had lower height and an open top
sides, and instead spoke forged wheels appeared. On both machines left lean-front and
rear dual wheels with hard rubber tires without cameras. Rear-wheel drive was carried
out using a chain transmission.
The main difference was the presence of armored vehicles Marconi radio station is
operating in the telegraph and telephone, they can be used as staff vehicles.
Communication could be made between the two machines at speeds up to 25 miles per
hour (40 km \ h). At stops 15-foot (5-meter) antenna provided in the range of the radio
telegraph mode, up to 10 miles (16 km). FIAT armored armament consisted of a 7.62-
mm machine gun Maxim.
The first experience with-scale armored vehicles proved to be quite successful for the
colonial troops. By the end of 1915 in India, there were already two motorized brigade
with headquarters in Lahore, and Bannu. Each team consisted of three batteries, which
units were located in the most important cities - Chennai, Mumbai, Lucknow and
Sekonderabad.
~ 429 ~
Particularly important was the north-east direction. Here, in what is now Pakistan, riots
were not rare and often turns into armed conflict. Thus, the interaction between
scattered over a vast territory troops were desperately needed. There is also evidence
that the FIAT of the first model was sent to serve in Mesopotamia, NCU was fierce war
with the Turks for the redivision of the Middle East lands. However, the year and the
details are not specified. In general, the use of armored vehicles FIAT accurate
information has not yet been found.
~ 430 ~
FIAT Armored Car Indian Pattern sample 1915
CREW, pers. 5-6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.62-mm machine gun portable Maxim
aiming DEVICES mechanical machine gun sight
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE The FIAT, gasoline, liquid cooling
TRANSMISSION ?
~ 431 ~
CHASSIS 4x2, suspension leaf springs, pneumatic tires
SPEED ~ 40 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION Marconi radio
Austin Armoured Car in British Use
The Austin Motor Company of Longbridge, England, made three different types of
armoured car in The Great War; the Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3. The Series 3
armoured cars were improved in response to feedback from Russia, and a 1918 version
was made. Series 1, 2, and the first version of the Series 3 went to Russia and were not
used by the British Army. The improved Series 3 (often called the 1918 Pattern) would
~ 432 ~
have gone to Russia too, were it not for The October Revolution. Instead those 40
vehicles, already built, were taken from Cardiff docks, where they were ready to be
despatched, and used by Dunsterforce in the Middle East, and the 17th Battalion of the
Tank Corps in France and Ireland. Dunsterforce got 24 cars, and the 17th took the
remaining 16.
To look at, the 1918 Pattern Austin was not much different from the first version of the
Series 3, the only obvious change being the twin wheels on the rear axle, however, the
chassis had also been strengthened. For a British armoured car it was unusual in
possessing two turrets; the British favoured designs with just one turret. Twin turrets
add more weight than a single turret, making a vehicle top heavy. The 1918 Pattern
Austin had twin turrets because, of course, the original customer for these machines was
the Russian Army which, at the time, favoured twin-turreted armoured cars. Between
Cardiff docks and "The Front" the cars destined for the 17th Battalion had the
mountings changed to accept the Hotchkiss machine-gun instead of the Vickers, the cars
for Dunsterforce, however, retained the Vickers machine-guns.
The cars were 4.88m (16ft) long, 2.01m (6ft 7in) wide, and 2.39m (7ft 10in) high. They
were built on Austin's 30hp "Colonial" chassis, although, as stated, with this version the
chassis was much strengthened. The 4-cylinder engine developed around 50bhp which
was enough to move this 5.3 tonne (5.8 tons) vehicle at a top speed of 56kph (37mph).
Armour was 8mm thick on vertical surfaces and 4mm elsewhere. The tyres were filled
with Rubberine (a puncture sealing substance).
There was a five man crew in these cars: commander, driver, two gunners, and a spare
driver in the stern. The car had two driving positions: the rear armour stepped down
behind the turrets allowing a rearward facing driving position, this "spare" driver had
the same controls as the forward facing driver except for the foot pedals. This allowed
the car to get out of trouble as quickly as it got into it. According to B. T. White (1970)
Austin supplied 80 of these vehicles to the British Army.
For identification purposes, in the 3 photos below, you can see the 1918 Pattern Austin
in the centre, with its predecessor the Series 3 on the left, and its successor, the Peerless
Armoured Car on the right. The Series 3 had single wheels on the rear axle, whereas the
1918 Pattern Austin had twin wheels there. The Peerless Armoured Car appears to have
~ 433 ~
been made using the same armoured bodies as the 1918 Pattern Austin, suggesting that
a large number of these bodies were made, or that they were stripped off the 1918
Pattern cars as those vehicles broke down. Whatever the reason, the Peerless chassis
was some several feet longer than the Austin and the chassis members can be seen
projecting beyond the armour at the rear of the vehicle, whereas the 1918 Pattern Austin
chassis and armoured body are the same length as each other.
The following account is from Tanks in the Great War 1914-1918 by Brevet-Colonel
J.F.C. Fuller, D.S.O.
In March 1918 the 17th Tank Battalion was in process of formation at the Tank
Training Centre at Wool, when the German Spring offensive resulted in so great a
demand being made on the home resources that it was converted into an Armoured Car
Battalion on April 23. On the following day the drivers were selected, and sixteen
armoured cars, which were earmarked for the eastern theatre of war, were handed over
to it, the Vickers machine guns being replaced by Hotchkiss ones.
On April 28 the cars were embarked at Portsmouth, and on the 29th the personnel,
under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel E. J. Carter, left Folkestone for Boulogne.
Thus in six days the whole battalion was formed, equipped, and landed in France.
After some ten days' training the 17th Battalion joined the Fourth Army and went into
the line at La Hussoye, being attached to the Australian Corps. A few days later the
battalion was transferred to the XXIInd Corps, which was then resting in G.H.Q.
reserve, immediately behind the right flank of the British Army, and battalion
headquarters were established at Pissy. Here training continued until June 10, when at
9.30 a.m. instructions were received by Lieutenant-Colonel Carter to report to the
headquarters of the First French Army at Conty.
~ 434 ~
At Conty orders were issued for the battalion to proceed to Ravenel near St. Just. The
battalion was notified of this by telephone, and, although the night was very dark and
wet and the roads crowded with traffic, it reached Ravenel by 5 a.m. on June 11, after a
sixty-mile journey, and went into action with the Tenth French Army in its counter-
attack at Belloy on that day. In this battle two sections of armoured cars engaged the
enemy with machine-gun fire, but the quantity of debris scattered on the roads, and the
fragile nature of the chassis of the cars, prevented their being freely used. On the
conclusion of these operations the battalion returned to the XXIInd Corps.
On arriving at Amiens Lieutenant-Colonel Carter was informed that his unit was to take
part in the projected attack east of this town. The chief difficulty foreseen in an
armoured car action in this neighbourhood was the crossing of the trenches. Although
only one day was available wherein to find a solution to this difficulty, it was
accomplished by attaching a small force of tanks to the battalion. These tanks were used
to tow the armoured cars over the obstacles, or rather, along the tracks the tanks formed
through them. This solution proved eminently successful.
On the morning of August 8 the battalion moved forward with its accompanying tanks,
which successfully assisted all its cars over "No Man's Land". Beyond Warfusee,
several large trees, felled by shell fire, had fallen across the road, entirely blocking it;
these were speedily removed by the towing tanks, thus clearing the road not only for the
armoured cars but for our guns and transport. After this delay the cars moved rapidly
forward and passed through our attacking lines about twenty minutes before the infantry
were timed to reach their final objective. To accomplish this the cars had to run through
our own artillery barrage; this they did without casualty.
~ 435 ~
The road was now clear and the cars proceeded through the enemy's lines, scattering
any infantry they found on the road. They made for the valley near Foucaucourt, where
the headquarter troops of a German Corps were known to be encamped. These troops
were completely surprised and many casualties were inflicted on them by six cars
moving through the valley. The confusion caused soon developed into a panic, the
enemy scattering in all directions, spreading the alarm.
~ 436 ~
Whilst this surprise was developing, several sections of armoured cars turned south and
north off the Amiens-Brie road. The former met large columns of transport and
mounted officers and teams of horses apparently belonging to the German headquarters
at Framerville. These were fired on at short range, four officers being shot down by a
single burst of fire. Shortly after this the German headquarters were reached, and the
Australian Corps flag, which had been carried in one of the cars for the purpose, was
run up over the house which, until a few minutes before, had been occupied by the
German Corps Commander. At about this time one car came in sight of a German train:
the engine was fired at and put out of action; later on the cavalry arriving captured it.
The cars which had turned northwards entered Proyart and Chuignolles, two moving up
to the river Somme. At Proyart the cars found the German troops at dinner; these they
shot down and scattered in all directions, and then, moving westwards, met masses of
the enemy driven from their trenches by the Australians. In order to surprise these men,
who were moving eastwards, the cars hid in the outskirts of Proyart, and, when the
enemy was between fifty and one hundred yards distant, they rapidly moved forward,
shooting down great numbers. Scattering from before the cars at Proyart the enemy
made across country towards Chuignolles, only to be met by the cars which had
proceeded to this village, and were once again fired on and dispersed. Near Chuignolles
one armoured car obtained "running practice" with its machine guns at a lorry full of
troops, and kept up fire until the lorry ran into the ditch. There were also several cases
of armoured cars following German transport vehicles, without anything unusual being
suspected, until fire was opened at point-blank range.
~ 437 ~
Although more than half the cars were out of action by the evening of the 8th there were
no casualties amongst their personnel sufficiently serious to require evacuation.
After repairing the damages sustained on August 8, the 17th Battalion was transferred to
the First Army, and on August 21 took part in the operations near Bucquoy. At the
~ 438 ~
entrance of the village a large crater had been blown in the road, over which the cars
were hauled after a smooth path had been beaten down across it by a Whippet tank. The
cars then made their way through the enemy's lines and reached Achiet-le-Petit ahead of
our infantry, where several machine guns were silenced by them. In this action two of
the cars received direct hits, one of them being burnt out and destroyed.
On August 24 the battalion operated with the New Zealand Division in the attack on
Bapaume, the cars penetrating to the Arras-Bapaume road, where severe fighting took
place.
In the attack of September 2, the 17th Battalion operated with the Canadian Corps in the
assault on the Drocourt-Queant line. In this action four cars were hit by shell fire, but
two squadrons of aeroplanes co-operating with the cars attacked the German battery so
vigorously that the crews of the disabled cars were able to escape being captured.
On September 29 the armoured cars operated with the Australian Corps and the IInd
American Corps in the attack on the Hindenburg Line near Bony; here numerous
casualties were inflicted on the enemy and four cars were put out of action by being
burnt. This position was captured by the Australians on the following day.
On October 8 the armoured cars were attached to the Cavalry Corps, which was
operating from Beaurevoir towards Le Cateau. On this day the cars kept touch with the
cavalry, but on the following morning they moved forward through Maretz. About two
miles beyond this village a section co-operated with South African infantry and drove
the German machine-gunners from a strong position they were holding. The cars were
able to run right through the hostile machine-gun fire, and by enfilading the enemy's
position killed the German machine-gunners and captured ten machine guns and two
trench mortars.
~ 439 ~
A section of cars made a dash to cross the railway bridge on the Maretz-Honnechy road,
but the enemy's demolition party saw them coming and, lighting the fuse, fled. The
leading car, however, got across safely, the charge exploding and blowing up the bridge
immediately this car had crossed and thereby cutting it off from the second car, which
was some fifty yards behind. The leading car then went through Maurois and Honnechy,
all guns firing; both of these villages were crowded with troops. Near Honnechy church
the car ran into a by-road by mistake; at the same moment a group of Germans came out
of a house and the car accounted for five of them in the doorway. This incident was
described with enthusiasm by a French woman, the owner of the house, to Lieutenant-
Colonel Carter on the following day. After passing Honnechy the car was run towards a
bridge which was known to exist. Profiting by his previous experience the commander
of the car determined to save the bridge from demolition and so not only effect his
retreat but secure it to the British Army. To accomplish this the car rapidly moved
round a corner of the road leading to the bridge, with its guns pointing in the direction
where the demolition party would probably be. This action proved successful, the
demolition party being scattered by a burst of bullets before the charge could be fired.
The bridge was thus saved and proved of great importance to the British forces later on.
The car then crossed the river and proceeded to the spot where the second car had been
unable to cross, picking it up; both cars returned to report their action, one at least
having accomplished a very daring and useful journey.
On November 11 the armoured cars were reconnoitring towards Eppe-Sauvage and

Moustier (twelve miles east of Avegnes), near the Belgian frontier, some seven or eight
miles in advance of the nearest British troops, when at 10:30 a.m. an officer from the
33rd French Division informed the officer in command that he had heard rumours of an
armistice; a few minutes later a dispatch-rider corroborated this information, stating that
hostilities were to cease at 11 a.m. Firing went on until about three minutes to eleven,
when it ceased, breaking out in a final crash at eleven o'clock - then all was silence; a
silence almost uncanny to the men of the 17th Tank Armoured Car Battalion, who had
~ 440 ~
not been out of gunshot since July 17, the date upon which the battalion opened its
eventful history with the French Army on the Marne.
On the 26th (November 1918) four sections of cars were ordered to Charleroi to deal
with a reported disturbance. In this town they were received with the greatest
enthusiasm by the inhabitants, and at Courcelles were surrounded by excited townsfolk
who, having collected all available brass instruments, crowded round the cars playing
the British National Anthem at a range of about five yards.
The record of this battalion is a truly remarkable one. It was formed, equipped, and
landed in France in the short space of six days. In six months it fought in ten separate
battles with English, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, South African, French, and
American troops, and was three times mentioned in German dispatches. Every car was
hit and some of them many times, and yet the total losses in killed in action throughout
this period was only one officer and four other ranks. At the cost of these five men and
seven cars totally destroyed, this battalion must have inflicted scores if not hundreds of
casualties on the enemy. That the British Army was not equipped with many more of
these units will be a problem which will doubtless perplex the minds of future military
historians.
~ 441 ~
Austin Armoured Car was a British armoured car produced during the First World
War. The vehicle is best known for its employment by the Russian Army in the First
World War and by different forces in the Russian Civil War.
In addition to the British-built Austins, a few dozens of vehicles were manufactured in

Russia in 1918-20. These are usually referred to as Austin-Putilov or - if fitted with a
Kgresse halftrack chassis - Austin-Kgresse.
Production history
British Austins
~ 442 ~
Austins 1st series.
In August 1914, just after the beginning of the First World War, the army of the Russian
Empire started to form armoured car units. Due to limited production capabilities of the
country's automotive industry it was decided to order a number of vehicles abroad. A
committee was sent to the United Kingdom, but didn't find an armoured car which met
their requirements for overhead protection and two machine gun turrets.
To meet these requirements, the Austin Motor Company designed a new armoured car.
The vehicle, known as Austin 1st series, was based on a passenger car chassis with rear
axle drive. Wheels were wooden, spoked, with pneumatic tyres and an additional set of
wheels with full rubber tyres for use in combat was carried. Two Maxim machine guns
were mounted in separate turrets placed on both sides of the hull behind the driver's cab.
The vehicle was protected by armour plates 3.54 mm thick screwed to a body frame.
The crew of four - commander, driver and two gunners - could enter or leave the vehicle
via a door on the left side of the cab or via big two-leaf rear door. On 29 September
1914, 48 armoured cars were ordered. One car cost 1,150 pounds. After arrival in
Russia the front and turret armour was replaced with 7 mm plates. First combat
experience, however, revealed that the protection was still too weak and the vehicles
were fully rearmoured at Izhorski Works, Izhorsk. The improved armour made the
Austins much heavier, resulting in limited mobility and occasionally in chassis damage.
However, the car was still considered more successful than alternative designs by,
among others, Armstrong Whitworth, Renault and Sheffield-Simplex.
On 6 March 1915 the Russians ordered 60 vehicles of an improved design, known as

Austin 2nd series. This time the chassis of a 1.5 ton truck with a more powerful engine
was used. The hull was shorter, with thicker armour, the driver's cab roof was modified
to improve machine guns' angle of fire. Less welcome was a removal of rear access
door. The army also decided it wanted a rear driving post, so after arrival to Russia all
~ 443 ~
vehicles were fitted with a redesigned rear hull section, which housed a second driving
post and additional hatch. Another upgrade was the addition of side shields to the
machine guns.
Sixty units of Austin 3rd series were ordered on 25 August 1916. The vehicles were
similar in characteristics to the 2nd series, but had modified rear hull with driving post,
MG shields, bulletproof glass in the front vision slots and lacked big side windows.
Yet another version, with strengthened chassis and double rear wheels, sometimes
referred to as Austin model 1918, was ordered in 1917 but due to events in Russia none
were delivered.
Russian Austins
Austin-Putilov in the Artillery Museum, Saint-Petersburg.
In 1916 a decision was made to produce a Russian armoured car on the well known
Austin chassis. 60 chassis units - identical to those used in 3rd series - were ordered
from Austin. The mission of building armoured hulls was entrusted to Putilovski
Works, Saint Petersburg. It was planned to build the cars by July 1917, but work was
virtually brought to halt by the February Revolution and the subsequent chaos. Not until
March 1918 were the first cars produced. Later the production was transferred to
Izhorski Works. A total of 33 vehicles were produced in 1918-1920. In contemporary
Russian documents the model was referred to as Russian Austin (Russian:
- Russkij Ostin), but eventually became better known as Austin-Putilov
(Russian: - - Ostin-Putilovets).
~ 444 ~
Twelve hulls identical to those of Austin-Putilov were mounted on a Kgresse halftrack
chassis, resulting in vehicles known as Austin-Kgresse. Production continued from
July 1919 until March 1920 when it was stopped by shortage of materials and parts.
Russian Austins' most obvious features were diagonally placed MG turrets (in order to
reduce width) and additional right side door. They also had MG mounts with better
elevation and other minor improvements.
Service history
Russia
Austins (1st series) of the Russian Army during First World War.
Arrival of the 1st series Austins allowed to start forming automobile machine gun
platoons (Russian: - pulemyotniy avtomobilniy
vzvod or - avtopulemyotniy vzvod). First platoons (5-12),
formed according to the organization no. 19, had each three Austins, four staff cars, a
truck, a workshop truck, a tanker truck and four motorcycles, with personnel of four
officers and 45-46 soldiers. Further platoons (13-24, 26-28, 30-36), formed according to
the organization no. 20, received only two Austins but had a gun section consisting
from a gun-armed Garford-Putilov Armoured Car, a staff car, a truck and a motorcycle.
Platoons 5 to 12 received an additional Garford. Crews of those auto-MG platoons were
entirely drawn from volunteers. Most of platoons were used in the Western and South-
Western Fronts, some platoons in the Northern Front and Caucasus. In combat they
were attached to divisions or regiments.
By mid-1916 it was evident that larger units should be formed to make armoured cars
more effective. In August, platoons were arranged into twelve "armoured automobile
~ 445 ~
battalions" (Russian: - bronyevoy avtomobilniy
divizion or - avtobronedivizion), each attached to a specific army.
Each battalion was formed from two to five former platoons, which were renamed to
sections while retaining old number. In some cases, for example in the Caucasus
theatre, the platoon organization was retained.
In the Russian Civil War Austins were used by many participants, including both Red
and White armies, Ukrainians etc.. The Red Army had the largest number of vehicles,
including all the Austin-Putilov and Austin-Kergesse vehicles and most of the 3rd
series. In Soviet service the cars were organized into "armoured automobile units"
(Russian: - bronevoy avtomobilniy otryad or
- avtobronevoy otryad), similar in strength to a World War I-era
platoon: three machine gun-armed cars and one either gun-armed or machine gun-
armed, four staff cars, five trucks, a tanker truck, a workshop truck and four
motorcycles. The RKKA Austins also saw combat in the Polish-Soviet War. By 1921
the RKKA possessed about 16 Austins of the 1st series, 15 2nd series, 78 3rd series and
Putilovs. British-built Austins were removed from service by 1931, and by 1933, the
Russian-built ones were also retired.
The Austin-Putilov armoured car named Vrag Kapitala (Enemy of the Capital), on
display at the Artillery Museum, Saint Petersburg, is often referred to as the vehicle
which Lenin stood on to address the crowd in April 1917. However, it cannot be true as
this armoured car was only manufactured in 1919.
Other users
British Austin in Ireland in 1920
British
~ 446 ~
Sixteen of the Austins built for Russian but not sent following the revolution were used
to equip the 17th (Armoured Car) Battalion of the Tank Corps. The Vickers machine
guns were exchanged for the Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun which was the standard
machine gun of the British tank unit. The 17th Battalion arrived in France in April 1918.
Its first operations were in support of the French Army in June. It returned to the British
Army in August and was very successful at the Battle of Amiens. The Austins were
towed in pairs by tanks across the battlefield. Once they reached better ground on the
other side of the lines, they ranged freely. A German Corps headquarters 10 miles back
was captured and German reserves, artillery and supply lines were shot up. The 17th
was the first British unit to cross the Rhine in 1918.
After the war, the bodies were reused on Peerless lorry chassis. Some of these were still
in service at the start of the Second World War.
Some cars were sent to the Caspian Sea region. Austins were also used by the British in
the Anglo-Irish War.
Austin-Putilovets Poznaczyk near Bobruysk, PolishSoviet War 1920
Others
A few Austins model 1918 ended up with the Japanese Army, where they
remained in service until the early 1930s.
Polish Armed Forces captured up to 20 Austins in the Civil War and Polish-
Soviet War. Some were subsequently employed by the Polish. Five remained in
service after the war, some until the 1930s.
Two Austins 3rd series, initially sent by the Soviets in 1918 to help the Red
Guards in the Finnish Civil War, were taken over by the Finnish Army, which
used them until the mid-1920s.
~ 447 ~
Estonia used two captured Austin-Putilovs, named Tasuja and Suur Tll.
Latvian Army used one Austin 2nd series, named Zemgaleetis.
One 3rd series Austin was used by the Romanian Army.
2-3 cars were given by the Soviets to the Mongolian People's Army in the early
1920s.
In 1919 four vehicles, two 2nd series and two 3rd series, were used by the
German Kokampf armoured unit.
The last active Austin was probably the vehicle employed by the Austrian Army
until 1935.
At least one car was captured at the Dobruja Front at 17 November 1916 by the
Bulgarian Army.
Variants
Austin 1st series (or model 1914) - based on a passenger car chassis with 30 hp
engine and rear axle drive. Wheels wooden, spoked. 3.54 mm armour,
eventually replaced with 7 mm plates. Weight with original armour 2.66 ton.
Road speed 5060 km/h. Road range 250 km. Crew of 4 (commander, driver
and two gunners). 48 units built.
Austin 2nd series (or model 1915) - based on 1.5 ton truck chassis with 50 hp
engine, shortened hull, thicker armour, redesigned driver's cab roof, no rear
door. After arrival to Russia were fitted with a redesigned rear hull section (with
second driving post and rear hatch) and MG side shields. Weight 5.3 ton. Road
speed about 60 km/h. Road range 200 km. Crew of 4-5. 60 units built.
Austin 3rd series - Modified rear section and in the driver's cab, rear driver
post, MG side shields, bulletproof glass in front vision slots, no big side
windows, no rear hatch. Weight 5.3 ton. Road speed about 60 km/h. Road range
200 km. Crew of 4-5. 60 units built.
Austin model 1918 - Strengthened chassis, double rear wheels. 70 vehicles were
ordered, but were not delivered due to events in Russia in 1917.
Austin-Putilov - Had locally produced hull designed by the Putilovski Works,
with diagonally placed MG turrets, right side door and thicker armour. Chassis,
the same as in the 3rd series, were still ordered from Austin. Armour 4 to
7.5 mm thick. Weight 5.2 tons. Road speed about 55 km/h. Road range 200 km.
Crew of 5. 33 built.
An "Austin-Kegresse" Armoured Car with Kegresse tracks of the Red Army which was
damaged during the PolishSoviet War. In the area of Zhytomyr, 21 March 1920.
~ 448 ~
Austin-Kegresse (or Austin-Putilov-Kegresse) - Austin-Putilov hull mounted
on a half-track chassis. Weight 5.8-5.9 tons. Road speed about 25 km/h. Road
range 100 km. 12 built.
Armoured hulls of damaged Austins were sometimes (mostly during the Russian
Civil War) mounted on other chassis, usually White, Fiat or Packard. The
combination of White chassis and Austin hull is sometimes referred to as
White-Austin.
Type Armoured car
Place of origin United Kingdom
Weight 5.3 t
Length 16 ft (4.9 m)
Width 6 ft 8 in (2.03 m)
Height 9 ft 4 in (2.84 m)
Crew 4 or 5
Armour 3-6 mm
Main 2 x machine guns (Maxim or

armament Hotchkiss)
Engine Austin 4-cylinder inline, 4 stroke,

water cooled gasoline engine
~ 449 ~
50 hp (37 kW)
Power/weight 9.5 hp/ton
Transmission 4 speed, 1 reverse gearbox
Suspension 4x2 wheel
Operational 125 mi (201 km) radius of action

range
Speed 35 mph (56 km/h)
History of Austin armored cars Of 1914-1915.
His appearance armored car "Austin Putilovets" obliged the Russian Purchasing
Commission, which in the end of 1914 visited the UK in order to select automotive
technology to equip its own army. The head of the commission was Colonel of Secrets,
directed abroad by special order of the Minister Sukhomlinov. Based on the test results
of cars reserved for projects Nakashidze (1904) and the German company Benz (1911)
Main Military-Technical Office (GVTU) has developed technical requirements for this
type of military equipment, the main of which was the installation of two machine guns
in separate towers with a circular rotation and reservation is the roof. The last
requirement may seem a little strange, but then it was believed that the crew is sufficient
only vertical booking (ie walls and guards guns) - the first French armored Peugeot and
Renault types of visual confirmation. Arriving in the UK Commission found that the
British Army with similar performance machines are absent in principle, since the terms
of reference to them no one gave out. Then Secrets made a proposal to develop a special
armored vehicle for the Russian army. For this work came from a little-known firm in
our Austin Motor Co.Ltd., Have 29 September to submit the final draft of the machine
and immediately received an order to produce 48 copies.
The basis for the Austin armored car was the chassis of the car so-called "colonial" type
of the same firm with an engine capacity of 30 hp carburettor "Kleydil" Magneto and
"Bosch". Transmission of the machine included the propeller shaft, through which the
transmission to the rear axle, a leather cone clutch belt system and 5-speed manual
~ 450 ~
gearbox (4 speeds forward and 1 reverse). Chassis was 4x2 and front-wheel drive.
Spitsovannye wheels were made of wood, remained standard tire (size 895h135 mm).
The body of the machine, manufactured in the company's Vickers factory of armor
plates of thickness 3.5 - 4 mm, has turned quite angular. Small angles were only the
upper side plates above the control room and the front sheet of the engine compartment.
Fighting compartment located offset to the rear of the machine, was "crowned" by two
cylindrical towers, which were on one machine gun with trunks protected by special
covers. In order to ensure a more rational installation of towers and increase the space
inside the car had to endure them for their body size, and on the sides to make
additional insert a semi-cylindrical shape. Full combat weight was 166 pounds (2656
kg). Austin armored car crew agreed with the requirements of the army consisted of 4
people: the commander of the machine (with the rank of junior officer), driver
(corporal) and two machine gunners (non-commissioned officer and corporal). Final
price for each armored vehicle was set at 1150 pounds.
Upon arrival at the Russian armored vehicles were subjected to a detailed study by
experts GVTU and combat officers, rightly felt that the 4 mm armor is not a reliable
protection from bullets caliber rifle, causing the fall-winter 1914 part of the profits
Austin subjected to modernization, setting them bronelisty to 7 mm. This resulted in an
increase in mass and a deterioration in ride quality, although in general opinion about
"Austin" remained positive. Armed broneamobili in Russia, received two machine guns
such as "max" of the sample in 1905 or 1910. In the Russian army, they became better
known as "Austin" 1-Series, and foreign sources - Austin model 1914.
By the formation of the first machine-gun armored car platoons began December 21,
1914. According to the state 19 each squad should have three "Austin", four
passenger car, three motorcycles without sidecar and one with a sidecar, truck, car and
tank truck. Personnel included four officers and lower ranks 45-46. Total statewide
19 was formed eight platoons from 5 to 12. All armored cars got them their own
names: "Strong", "Ardent", "Hell", and so on. At the beginning of 1915 the process of
modernization "Austin" worn over a character. Machines, which managed to get to the
front, spoke at the Izhora plant, where they are held perebronirovka. Newcomers
armored vehicles, which were intended to equip the 13th and subsequent platoons, fine-
tuned once.
~ 451 ~
Accepted winter 1915 20 staff significantly increased the firepower of automotive
bronevzvodov. It was assumed that the number of machine-gun cars reduced to two, and
a cannon armored car type "Garford Putilovets" will be introduced instead of the third,
which added a passenger car, motorcycle and truck. In this type of 22 new platoons
were formed, received numbers 13 - 24, 26 - 28 and 30 - 36. The first eight units who
fought at the front, too, received a cannon machine, but while maintaining three
"Austin".
Officers are trained at the School of Infantry Officers, led by a Major General Filatov,
also known for his three-wheeled cannon armored vehicles. Especially for this
Replacement armor company under Captain Khaletskaya was formed in the spring of
1915, and the development of new types of armored vehicles charged armor department,
who worked at the Military Automobile School. Due to this in a short time we managed
not only to satisfy an army armored vehicles, but also to equip them well trained crews.
Part of the lower ranks of the volunteers and staff volunteers including many
professional mechanics and drivers, also contributed to the fact that the level of crew
training is at a very high level. By August 1915 there were 49 at the front and 19
machine-gun cannon armored vehicles, formed the basis of 19 bronevzvodov.
At the same time, the preliminary analysis made in the spring of 1915 showed that the
supply of armored vehicles from the UK and France, is not enough. In this regard, the
joint Russian-British government committee in London was instructed to coordinate
actions of both parties and set up production of armored vehicles on the Russian project
and from June to December to build 236 cars.
Already on March 6 Austin company was issued a second order for the production of
the second series of machines. Instead, the base of the car is now used by the base 1.5-
ton truck with a reinforced frame, modified transmission and engine capacity of 50 hp
The thickness of the reservations brought to position 7 mm. The design of the body
~ 452 ~
changed, lowering the driver's compartment roof and shortening its overall length.
However, it was not eliminated all the shortcomings. Shorter body saved some weight,
but led to unnecessary distress inside the machine. Rear control station has not been
established, and emergency back door was dismantled. The landing of the crew and
landing can be carried out only through a door in the left side. By the end of the year
Austin company has released this sample 61 armored car, and the removal of identified
flaws engaged in the summer of 1915 Izhora plant, so "Austin" 2 Series (Austin model
1915) came to the front in November.
The new party of British "Austin" in an amount of 60 units was commissioned by

August 25, 1916. The company has tried to take into account the experience of combat
employment and operation of armored vehicles of the first two series, again entering the
second control station, closing peepholes bulletproof glass and proceed with pneumatics
with a special compound "Avtomassa", allows to delay bullet holes. The aft part of the
hull was slightly modified. The rest of the "Austin" 3 Series matched the previous
modification, though their combat weight increased to 5300 kg.
In the new Russia, "Austin" began arriving in the late autumn and in the summer of
1917 the army ordered the car were taken. At the same time the order was placed for
another 70 armored 3-series is sometimes called Austin model 1918 differed gable rear
wheels and reinforced frame. The construction of these machines was started when the
Russian Empire entered the final phase of the collapse and the Bolsheviks seized power.
Russian "Austin" in battles 1915-1922 gg.
Combat employment of Russian "Austin" turned out to be extremely successful. It just

so happens that these British cars formed the basis of armored battalions and long
considered one of the most successful types of armored vehicles of the Russian army.
"Austin" the first series went into battle in the winter of 1915 - at the same time
revealed and the most significant drawbacks of these machines. First of all, it impacted
booking weakness, because even 7-mm armor plates not saved the crew from small
arms fire.
~ 453 ~
Tactics use of Russian armored vehicles while not particularly flexible, yet has proved
very effective. In the battle machines were reversing at low speed, opening fire with
machine guns on the detected enemy firing points. The Germans, in turn, tried to
concentrate on attacking their armored vehicles massed machine-gun and artillery fire.
Here are the most well-known cases of "Austin" in the course of the campaign in 1915
in the West and South-Western fronts:
"On the night of 12 on February 13, 1915, one day after dealing out of Starozheb
Pultusk under Prasnysh, having marched 120 miles, a detachment of the 1st company of
avtopulemetnoy 4 machine gun and a cannon car burst onto the fortified position of the
Germans have to. Dobrzhankovo. Having lost three cars with all the servants who were
shot with 30 steps, I took two bridges, cutting off the retreat of the Germans ... "
"February 22 at 7:00 am Cars 8th platoon approached the enemy at 900 paces, and
opened fire. The enemy immediately opened machine-gun fire, which the armor car was
broken in several places. On the "Strong" was killed Lieutenant scar and injured the
driver, after which the car was gone. In the "glorious" two bullets hit the driver, killed
Lieutenant Johansen and injured captain Zorn. "
"... In the battle on June 20 after the driver was wounded and his aide killed, wanting to
save the rest of the crew, junior non-commissioned officer Vasily selflessly Skrypnyk
shot from a machine gun as long as he was not killed and blown up the car."
"... At the time when the projectile had been torn front door (Corporal Antipin)
selflessly handed gunner ammo - non-commissioned officer, until he was killed by a
bullet in the forehead and burned in the car exploded."
"February 13, 1916, after it produced intelligence, the armored vehicle" Mars "by
traveling to the manor Oger at 10 pm, from manor Silla, reversing approaching the
enemy at a distance of 600 - 800 steps, opened fire on the working Germans with
~ 454 ~
machine guns. Released 12 tapes. The Germans opened artillery and rifle fire on the car,
but to no avail. "
These examples show that the protection of armored vehicles, "Austin" was not very
reliable and often the success of the battle depended on the strength and skill of the
crew. Also noted unsuccessful roof construction the driver's cabin, the deflection of the
frame channels, low dynamic performance and a limited arc of fire of machine gun
turrets forward. this information was immediately transferred to the headquarters and at
the Izhora plant, but to correct the situation with a weak booking could not be complete
until the operation of "Austin".
In 1916, the Russian General Staff had planned a major offensive in the assembly area
of the Austro-Hungarian troops in western Ukraine, intending to return the lost position
in the two years before that. The enemy forces in the area were pretty impressive, but
they consisted of raznosherstyh divisions formed throughout the Empire, and not
distinguished by high morale. In addition, the Austro-Hungarian command was virtually
no armored vehicles, the production of which has not paid much attention. The Russian
army on the other hand, there was an impressive staff of armored vehicles of different
types, including a cannon. In addition, significant help was coming from Belgium and
the UK Foreign Armored Division, which consisted armed with armored vehicles
"Rolls-Royce", "Lanchester", "Peugeot", "Morse", "Pierce-Arrow" and "Ford". In the
summer and autumn of 1916, these units are particularly distinguished themselves in the
battles on the Rumanian front, along with the 4th Armored Division. In general,
"Brusilov Offensive" brought the greatest success of Russia for the war, however,
expansion of the army and the ensuing error High Command led to the fact that by the
winter of 1917 Russian troops retreated. In some cases, there was a frank flight infantry
units and the so-called "fraternization" with German and Austrian soldiers. However,
these facts had nothing to do with the personnel of the Armored Division, which
continued to fight with no less success. If not outright betrayal of individual infantry
campaign in 1916 might have ended very differently. Certificate of courage of crews of
armored vehicles could be the next episode, described in a report to the command of the
4th Armored Division (the name was given in August bronevzodam):
~ 455 ~
"November 17, 1916 at 16 o'clock was appointed general infantry attack, and seven
minutes before the beginning of its armored cars of the 24th branch of" Skobelev
"subcommand lieutenant Rudnev was ordered to leave the fray.
... Approached the barbed wire of the enemy, he opened the car trenches fire from
machine guns. But at this time, one after another shell burst its splinters drove the rear
door, and brought the car down.
The squad leader, seeing from the observation post the death of the machine and having
by this time the overall command of the English armored squadron, commanded to go
into battle and get in tow "Skobelev" two British machine-gun machine ,, but these
machines carry out this task they could not, because one of them was broken gun
casing, and the other, thanks to the soft ground, closer to the "Skobelev" could not.
Then the commander of the department was ordered to go to the lieutenant Nartsissova
their armored vehicle "Suvorov" to assist "Skobelev".
"Suvorov", before you reach the car "Skobelev", opened fire with machine guns, but at
that moment a shell bell tower was struck and broken wheels. The car stopped, but the
fire from the second gun did not stop ... "
This fight against the Bulgarian troops spent the armored vehicles of the 1st series -
both were too badly damaged and were not subject to restoration. Instead, the division
received two "Armstrong-Whitworth-Fiat" had just received from Petrograd. Data on
total losses "Austin" is ambiguous. The accuracy of the information only for the
irretrievable loss of 11 armored vehicles of the 1st series.
The most tragic for the Russian army began a campaign in 1917. After the February
Revolution, the process of the collapse of the army and navy units is irreversible, which
resulted in the formation of huge "gaps" in the front line, close the command that was
simply nothing at times. Troops more or less steadily kept the defense only in the
central part of Belarus and western Ukraine, although there are often cases of desertion
occurred. New offensive Brusilov well planned and scheduled for June turned into a
~ 456 ~
disaster. The deployment of troops and the supply process was itself under scrutiny
enemy reconnaissance aircraft which constantly hung over the positions of Russian
troops. For the offensive in Galicia were concentrated significant bronesily 7 th, 8 th, 11
th divisions, Division I special army battalion of special purpose (such as armored
vehicles from Jeffrey-floats), as well as two foreign Armored Division. The total
number of armored vehicles of all kinds amounted to almost 100 units, but it was not
possible to use these parts to the full.
After a small initial success of the German and Austrian troops crossed to the counter
and paid the Russian army to flight. In fact, the fight continued only a few infantry units
and armored division - can be considered more than a success, taking into account the
internal situation of their actions. To some extent the situation saved the formation of
"units of death" created on a voluntary basis, and consisted mainly of officers who
wanted to fight to the bitter end. This is the title of the summer of 1917 was awarded the
9th, 10th and 12th Armored Division in, we managed to save most of the fighting
capacity and trained technical personnel. However, there were other units, as evidenced
by the report can serve as commander of the 11th Armored Division Lieutenant Colonel
Novikov, machines which covered the retreat of Russian troops in the Tarnopol district,
where the initial breakthrough of the Germans was to the front of 10-15 km.
"Since the beginning of the German breakthrough at Tarnopolsky direction to the place
of a breakthrough were advanced armored vehicles of the 1st Division, and their selfless
acts for two days detained enemy at Tarnopol. Constantly leaving for the infantry, not
always even with the support of artillery, they are his bold departures, often on bad
country roads, the Germans held off the pressure and leads the infantry, continuing to
this day to be in line outpost. During the fighting, several cars were destroyed by direct
hits of projectiles, all machines worn out and in need of repair, and some fell into
disrepair. Nevertheless, the spirit of division continues to be excellent. "
There have been other episodes of unparalleled courage of crews Armored Division, but
the situation in the country has deteriorated so much that restrain the Germans was not
possible by 1917 October year. Due to lack of fuel and spare parts in the territory
occupied by the enemy had to give up at least a dozen armored vehicles, some of which
could still be repaired and back in operation.
Moreover, from January deliveries of armored vehicles in combat units actually

stopped, and some have already received machines began to withdraw from the front
~ 457 ~
back to Petrograd. It was not caused by military necessity and the desire of successive
governments to protect themselves from the actions of "competitors". So in Petrograd
were almost all "Austin" 3 Series, semi-tracked "Kegress" and "Ahtyrets", as well as
several "Fiats", "Garford" and "armstrong". An additional incentive for the final
disruption of management and supply divisions was the elimination of the Commission
on June 22 armored vehicles at GVTU instead which was organized in July Armour
Division, unable to cope with the current situation. Until October 25, 1917 managed to
equip 46 battalions, and another was in a formative stage.
The October Revolution brought new division of the available armored vehicles, but
most of them remained with the Bolsheviks. Only in the area of Petrograd in March
1918 there were no less than 31 machines of this type, and 7 more were registered for
the Moscow Military District. Since the external enemies of Soviet Russia was more
than enough, the new army leadership had to go back to the drill and discipline, in part,
to the former organization collapsed Armored Division, which had been reorganized
into avtobroneotryady (ABO). Their formation began in the summer of 1918.
Cars belonging to the Red Army is actively used on all fronts, sometimes engaging in
battle with their "brothers". Below is a small excerpt from "A Brief Chronicle of the
48th broneotryada" created February 25, 1920 in g.Dmitrievka at Taganrog on the
orders of the command of the 3rd Army. In fact it was the first unit of this type, created
after the collapse of the Russian Empire, and its first combat units began several
improvised armored cars with machine guns and only in May 1920, the 48th squad won
four "Austin" of various modifications, the previously sunk the Whites in the Don:
"July 1, 1920 a detachment consisted of the following number of machines: 4 armor

brand" Austin "called" tov.Lenina Name "," Name tov.Trotskogo "," tov.Zinoveva
Name "," Name tov.Sverdlova "4 auxiliary truck, 3 cars and 2 motorcycles and the team
of 101 people, led by kombroneotryada tov.Zhorzh.
July 14, according to the order nachbronechastey North Caucasus Military District, a
detachment in that the composition was out in Taganrog at the disposal of the 3rd Army
to fight with troops under the command of Colonel Whites Neverov, landed on the coast
of the Azov Sea near Crooked Scythe.
~ 458 ~
During the battle for the village of Ivanovka armored "tov.Sverdlova Name" has been
undermined by a bomb thrown. At this time, the part of the enemy was pushed armored
car brand "Fiat" in order to seize the armored car undermined. Seeing this, the armored
car "Name tov.Zinoveva" rushed to the enemy armored car and, having developed a
strong fire on him, forced the latter to escape. Then - in September 1920, the group
participated in the defeat of white and green bands of General Khvostikov, operating
near the village of Urup in the Kuban, and then was in Armavir.
November 23, 1920 on the basis of orders received nachbronechastey 9th Army number
643 unit was shipped and sent to Sochi Kuban-Black Sea region in order nachdiv 31.
February 15 squad has been put forward in Adler.
On the night of February 19, 1921 by the order of the brigade commander 91
nachboeuchastka detachment under the command tov.Zhestkova consisting of 3
armored vehicles and all of the above composition was made to der.Moldavka to attack
with parts of our division in the neutral zone in Georgia.
After heavy fighting on the border, where the 75-mm shells fired from the sea, was hit
by an armored car "Name tov.Zinoveva" but remained in the ranks, February 23
armored vehicles entered the g.Gagry. February 27 armored cars with mounted
reconnaissance Infantry Regiment, at 10 o'clock in the morning without a fight took
g.Gudauty. On the night of 3 to 4 March, waiting the approach of all parts of our
infantry, boebazu pulling and tucking all the machines, the squad again began to pursue
the enemy, retreating toward Sukhum. Throughout the New Athos from Sukhum to the
enemy fled in panic from our armored cars, no resistance, and to 2 hours, in spite of all
the destroyed bridges, the squad at full strength come into Sukhum-Kale, where he was
greeted with a standing ovation population . "
In this document, however, does not specify to which it belonged modification

"Austin". Perhaps it could be armored, built in 1918-1920. project Putilov.
As for the rest of the "Austin" at the hands of the White Army, their actions were not so
successful. In addition to the machines British government arrived in Russia during the
First World War it considered it possible to provide its new allies tanks and armored
cars. For example, the spring of 1919 came from the UK four "Austin" 3 Series from the
former Russian order. These machines, known as "Bold", "Mighty", "General Mark",
~ 459 ~
"Sharp", "General Kornilov," and "General Alexeyev," were handed over to the
Volunteer Army of General Denikin and participated in the fighting in the south of
Russia. The last three armored car became trophies of the Red Army and joined the
order of the 48th broneotryada.
One "austin" 3 Series, somehow turned out to be in Ukraine, was seized by local
nationalists and renamed "Petliura". As the name suggests, you can infer that this
machine is used in the eponymous warlord troops during the 1918-1919 biennium.
Preserved and another picture "Austin" (dating from the summer of 1918), which took
the name of "Ataman Bogaevsky" and belonged to the Don Cossack Army. According
to some sources, this machine later passed into the hands of "red". Also, the Don
Cossacks used one one armored car 1 Series bearing the name "Bear."
Another two "Austin" 3 Series came during the Civil War in the Far East and became
part of the 28th avtobroneotryada People's Revolutionary Army (NRA), the Far Eastern
Republic. It is interesting that the government of that State, lasted only four years, but
was semi-bourgeois enjoyed the support of the RSFSR. The reason for this loyalty was
a mutual desire to get rid of the presence of troops on Russian territory invaders (first of
all - the Japanese), who considered themselves masters of Siberia and behaved very
rudely. During the 1920-1922 biennium. This armored vehicle was successfully fought
against Japanese troops and the remnants of the White Army in Primorye.
After the Civil War audited the remaining equipment. It turned out that at the end of
1921 remained 16 cars 1 Series, 15 Series 2 machines and 20 machines 3 Series.
Gradually, they were taken from the RKAA mean strong deterioration, though
December 10, 1929 in the armed forces continued to be 76 "Austin" all series. Finally,
this type of armored vehicles were retired in 1931 and cancel reservation.
Austin Armored Car - Service abroad 1915-1941 gg.
No less interesting was the fate of "Austin", caught on the other side of the border. Not
feeling great sympathy for the new government, withdrew from the war with Germany,
~ 460 ~
the British left, all issued at armored vehicles. Subsequently, in April 1918, of the
"Austin" was formed 17th bronebatalon Royal Tank Corps in the summer of the same
year to take an active part in the battles in France. From armored vehicles destined for
Russia, they did not have any differences except guns Hotckiss Mle 1914 caliber 8 mm,
which is installed with machine guns "Maxim" sample 1910, standard for the Russian
army at the time.
For the first time the British "Austin" was used to support the French Corps June 11,
1918, and in August the armored vehicles equipped avstraliyskimim crews involved in
the Battle of Amiens. Their most successful operation was the seizure of August 8
villages Framervill (Framerville), when "Austin", following through the German
trenches for British tanks on the move broke into the town in minutes freeing him from
the Germans and beat on the door of their headquarters Australian flag. Until November
1918 the crews acted as successful, losing all 3 machines.
In 1919-1921 gg. more "Austin" the British sent to Ireland, where the war for
independence. Armored vehicles were used in the major Irish cities to maintain order.
Sudden collapse of the Russian Empire demanded from the UK to increase its military
presence in the Caucasus, where Turkey had the greatest impact. In February 1918 came
the British Expeditionary Force (Dunstenforce), which included a 20 "Austin" to protect
the possessions of the Caspian Sea in Baku. Since then the Turks were the common
enemies of all Britons have collaborated not only with the White Army and the
Bolsheviks, although this period was very short-lived. In November 1918, in connection
with the surrender of Germany and its allies Dunstenforce left the Caucasus. In fact,
during the 10 months used only 8 cars, while the others were at the repair because of
some technical problems.
In 1919, at least 16 armored vehicles were sent to India, where he excelled while
situation is not a special tranquility. Arriving cars through the year identified in the 5th
armored car department of Indian Tank Corps. Their service in the ranks of this division
lasted from 1921 to 1923 inclusive, after which the "Austin" was cancel reservation.
After the defeat of Germany and the signing of the surrender in 1919, two
"unemployed" Austin Armored Car sold to Japan, where they have successfully
operated until the appearance in 1926 of more modern armored Crossley M1923. Just at
this time, the Japanese had a plan full occupation of Manchuria, enforced in 1928-1931
gg. In addition to light tanks and the same Crossley in operation using both the old
"Austin". According to some sources, one of these machines was subsequently
transferred marionetochnymu pravitelstvu Manchukuo, though in the final stage of
operation, "Austin" served as training machines. Also, there are reports that the
Japanese armored vehicles of this type in 1919-1920. They served in Siberia, but
documentary evidence of this has not yet been found.
At the end of the 1920s., In order eksperimentanom, one of the armored cars Austin has
been upgraded. Instead of the old britansokgo chassis, has no Dolna cross, installed a
new triaxial 6x4. However, Japanese specialists have found that to improve the vitality
of the chassis should be used spitsirovannye wheels alloy tubeless tires. This led to a
decrease in driving performance and armored experiment recognized unsuccessful.
~ 461 ~
However, the experience gained was used in the development of armored vehicles of
their own design.
Armored cars, which have become German and Austrian trophies as a result of a hasty
retreat of the Russian army, and are in good technical condition (or with minimal
damage) were subjected to current repair and re-commissioned. Against former enemies
"Austin" is not used, since the end of 1918 they were sent to Germany, where he
employed to suppress the Communist uprising in Berlin and other cities. As of 1919 in
the division "Kokampf" including two armored vehicles of the 2nd series, and two 3-
series, but their subsequent fate is not accurate information. However, one of the
"Austin" continued until 1935 in the Austrian police force.
Not having to deal with the internal enemies of Soviet Russia was forced to send a
significant portion of the forces to repel foreign aggression. The most serious opponent
in this respect was Poland. of the State Government considered himself offended by the
Russian Empire and demanded significant compensation, particularly in terms of
territory. In such conditions of the RSFSR SNK could not go, that led to the Soviet-
Polish war, which began in 1919. A great help in organizing the attack of the Entente
countries had from Poland, the Poles put a lot of weapons, including tanks. Cases of
clashes between Polish FT-17 and Soviet armored vehicles were recorded, but the two
sides took a good trophies in armored vehicles. Parts of the Red Army had captured
several French-made tanks and Poles got seven "Austin" and two half-track "Austin
Kegressa" (according to other sources the total number of machines of this type
amounted to 12 units). In terms of the value of the spoils in a better regard was the
Soviet side, as in the Polish army "Austin" was immediately transferred to the category
of machinery and training given to be scrapped in the late 1920s.
However, the fact of the first use of "Austin" on the side of the Polish troops took place
somewhat earlier. In August 1917, on the territory of Belarus was formed 1st Polish
Corps under the command of General I.Dovbor-Musnitski. This division had at its core
the officers loyal to the Russian government, and therefore fought against the Germans
until the October Revolution. When the government changed the Poles turned their
weapons against the Bolsheviks. In early 1918, they managed to capture one "Austin" 1-
Series which was damaged by the rear axle. Loss of ability to move the car on February
10 included in the improvised armored train "Zwiazek broni" under the command of
Lieutenant Stanislav Malagovskogo. In addition to the armored car, mounted on the
load platform as a machine-gun emplacement, the armored train had one 76.2-mm field
gun obr.1902 year and several 7.62 mm machine gun "Maxim". His first combat
operation (in other words - a raid) was set up by the Poles at the station Red Beach on
21 February. The appearance of the armored train was so unexpected that the "red"
almost without a fight, left the locality. One member of the crew "Zwiazek broni" later
recalled: "... at the station there was panic, because our train looked very scary ..."
following fighting continued around the same success, until 10 May armored train was
captured by German troops, disarmed the crew.
Now back to the "Austin", captured during the Soviet-Polish war. The first of these was
the armored car the 2nd series, which belonged to the 10th ABO 14th Army
constraining Polish troops in August 1919 near Minsk. Then, 26 April 1920, during the
fighting for the Zhytomyr was captured "austin" 3 Series. The crew of the machine
fought heroically for the truth - you enter the city soviet "austin" brought a lot of
~ 462 ~
confusion in the ranks of the enemy soldiers, armed only with rifles, and was stopped at
the other end only after the Polish cannon armored "Garford" and machine-gun
"Peerless". Only after that the joint efforts of infantry and armored vehicles was stopped
too spirited Soviet machine.
In June 1920, after the battle near Bobruisk, another trophy was the "Austin" 1 Series
modified by setting the hulls on the chassis of "White" truck. The car previously owned
by the 14th Infantry Division, and after a small repair in August of the same year was
introduced in the 2nd Polish broneotryada and was named "General Haller". A second
similar machine was seized in the same period, receiving the name "Mars" and the army
number 4434.
Recent trophies Poles got under Malorita - September 20, 1920 in their hands
immediately got four cars, two of which belonged to the "Austin" 2 Series.
After the signing of the peace treaty British-built armored vehicles rearmed 7.92-mm
machine guns Maxim wz.05 \ 08, and put at the disposal of the 5th broneotryada where
they are intensively exploited until the mid-1920s. Gradually, "Austin" written off and
by 1931 only one machine with the number 4432 continued to be used for the training
of crews in Modlin. In the future, this armored vehicle was set as a monument to the
Modlin Fortress and went in September 1939 the German troops.
There is also information about the presence in the Romanian army of armored vehicles
of this type are captured in the Ukraine in 1918 or 1919. But his career was in "Austin"
and other interesting episode connected with the army of the former enemy. As you
know, during the 1914-1917 biennium. prisoner surrendered tens of thousands of
soldiers of the Austro-Hungarian Army, mostly Czechs and Slovaks. After the
revolution, they decided to send home through Siberia, but in 1918 the way of
command Kropus Czechoslovak and Soviet power dispersed. In fact, by the end of 1919
a considerable part of the way Transsiirskoy line and its environs were in the hands of
the Czechs and the White Army. In Siberia, it was captured a significant amount of
various ammunition, and even one of Austin supposedly 3-Series. Where did this
armored vehicle at such a considerable distance from the front - is not known. Vprolne
~ 463 ~
likely that previously lined the car tried to evacuate out to the rear, and only after that it
fell into the hands of the Czechs. In the extant photographs clearly shows that the
"Austin" retained only one tower, which indirectly confirms the theory about the
evacuation. In order to compensate for sagging firepower Czech engineers had installed
a second machine gun on the left of the driver's seat in the cockpit lobovom broneliste.
The nature of the use of the only Czech "Austin" is now is anyone's guess. It is possible
that this machine while "traveling" with trains new owners, periodically attracted to
"restore order" in the new territories. Whatever it was, in 1920, any details about it are
given.
A third country, which has become the owner of the trophy "Austin" was Finland.
Unlike Poland there were strong pro-Bolshevik sentiment that resulted in the beginning
of 1918 to the Civil War. The Soviet side expressed indecision is critical, allowing the
White Guards of the Finns and the Germans in January-April 1918 smoothly to capture
some of the ships and shore facilities of the Russian fleet and to assist the local Red
Guards. However, there is evidence that at the same time in Finland arrived two
"Austin" 3-Series, which were soon captured by Finns and then used until the end of the
1920s.
Approximately in 1921, two or three armored vehicles were handed over to the
Mongolian Red Army and served until the more modern machines such as AD-3 and
AD-6, also purchased in the USSR.
However, the most long-lived proved armored car belonging to Latvia. Captured in the
fighting for the independence of the "Austin" 2 Series has gone through several stages
of modernization and was named "Zemgalietis". At the end of which the machine had a
completely new chassis of the truck and an improved hull of Ford, which has been
significantly altered the bow, there broneschitki removable front, as well as armored
guards with machine guns. After the incorporation of Latvia into the Soviet Union
armored vehicles of this small Baltic state was declared obsolete and sent to the
Technical Division. However, in June 1941, "Austin" there seized and sent to the front.
During the march column of vehicles, including armored car went this was attacked by
German aircraft and damaged "Austin" was thrown into his crew, becoming in the end
the Germans trophy. The story Austin Armored Car armored vehicles ended.

CREW, pers. 5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 4900
Width 2000
Height mm 2580
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS two 7.62-mm machine gun "Maxim" or obr.1905 1910
allowance of ammunition 6000 cartridges
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS
~ 464 ~
food body - 8 mm
roof -
Tower - 8 mm
ENGINE Austin, carburetor, 4-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 50 hp
4x2 with pneumatic tires, size 920x120 mm filled
CHASSIS
composition "Avtomassa"
SPEED 60 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Armstrong-Whitworth Light armored vehicle
In 1915, the fleet of armored vehicles of the Russian army added another type of
armored vehicles. Unlike other samples that were taken in the UK members of the
military department, the supply of these vehicles suggested a James Segor - authorized
firms FMBest & Co., "temporarily residing in St. Petersburg", and acts as an
intermediary. Knowing how much the Russian army is interested in the supply of
armored vehicles, Segor sent its offer directly to the Chief General GVTU Mileant. In
the present specification it was about 30 armored vehicles with two different types of
engines, weaponry from machine guns in a turret with a circular rotation and with a
framework of "the best English-dried ash."
~ 465 ~
The project was considered GVTU and criticized by parts of the reservation, the circuit
is completely arranged for the Russian side, and weak arms. Then, in the direction of
Armstrog-Whithworth (AW) company engineers developed another project created
based GVTU requirements. In March 1915, the Russian military attach in the UK
General Timchenko, Ruban said the General Staff, that a new armored vehicle will have
two diagonally located tower (which were designed on the orders of Captain Mironov),
cruising range of 65 miles (about 104 km) while moving forward , 17 miles (about 27
km) in reverse, reservations from 6 to 8 mm, ground clearance - 270 mm. The first two
machines company has committed to deliver within eight weeks after the conclusion of
the contract and further to 4 per week. Price for each armored vehicle was determined
1,700 pounds, along with packaging and delivery to the British port. All subsequent
costs assumed the Russian side.
Agreement for the supply of the first 10 vehicles was signed April 9, 1915. Case
production has not been firm AW company, and the chassis and final assembly carried
out firm Charles Jarrot & Letts. In August, followed by a repeat order for 30 armored
vehicles, but these vehicles have already been used FIAT 60x90 Reinforced chassis
with gable rear wheels and a reinforced rear axle from FIAT 15-ter. Thus, sometimes
referred to as "Zharrot" in Russian document armored cars from the first batch and the
second - "Fiat". All the difference between them is only in the spokes of the wheels,
which have "zharrota" were metal ( "cycling" type), while in "fiat" they were made of
wood ( "artillery"). In addition, the first type of machine used 38-horsepower engine
and because of the lighter weight of the chassis was only 4 tons. On the "Fiat" sets the
engine 60 hp with the full weight of 5 tons. The crew of the armored car was 5 people.
~ 466 ~
Otherwise, both versions were identical. The body was made of rolled armor plates up
to 8 mm thick, which is attached to a wooden frame. The engine and radiator are placed
in front of, behind them are the separation of management and fighting compartment.
The towers, equipped with a machine-gun-type "maxims" of the sample in 1910, were
placed closer to the stern on the diagonal.
In the spring of 1916 the British, albeit with some delay, complied with the order. Upon
arrival in Petrograd all 40 cars were subjected to a thorough visual inspection. GVTU
Commission armored vehicles responded very unflattering about the type of the selected
gear and armor protection. As a result, the amount spent completions for "zharrota" was
big enough: to make the new front axles, rear axles reinforced by additional Springer,
put a spacer between the front fists frames, installed additional sight buttons armor
strips, on the roofs of the towers are installed additional armored covers for guns trunks
put protection.
In "fiat" situation was also not the best way. It was necessary to change the method of
fixation of removable rims and tires, as well as the hinges on the doors. Additionally, at
speeds above 25 miles per hour (40 km \ h) flew tires. A major shortcoming of the two
armored vehicles were stationed outside the tank's hull spring rear axle.
~ 467 ~
Nevertheless, improvements process was fast enough and already June 12, 1916 the
front was sent to the first four of the modified "zharrota": one in the 5 th and 22 th car
platoons and four were transferred to the head of the automotive part of the
Southwestern Front. By the end of June, three other "zharrota" was taken to the 20 th,
43 th and 46 th platoons.
"Fiats" appeared at the front in the autumn and October 1, 1916 their number seven
units. At the same time on one of the armored vehicles tried installing anti-aircraft turret
with a single machine gun "Maxim". Tests carried out on 27 October and a few months
later began to produce similar installations for armored vehicles, "Austin" and "Izhora
Fiat".
In January 1917, the front was the latest addition - in the 4 th and 9 th platoons were
sent for two cars, and then there was a long break, associated with the revolutionary
events. By the February revolution in Petrograd was at least 20 "Fiats" who could not
get into the army because of the decision of the Council of Workers 'and Soldiers'
Deputies to use them to fight the counter-revolution. By the time of repair have returned
9 "zharrotov" that more January 25 were accepted by the commission GVTU unfit for
further fighting. Instead unsuccessful British chassis hulls supposed to be moved to a
truck chassis "Fiat Type 55" and replace board bronelisty hood. failed As you might
guess, I do. All summer and early autumn of 1917. "zharroty" and "Fiats" were in
Petrograd. Anything to say about their application at this point is difficult, since no
information on this issue has not been preserved. One can only assume that some of the
vehicles used for security functions, and in early 1918 the most combat-ready armored
vehicles were handed over to the Red Army. At least we know that a few "Fiats"
including as part of the 9th and 11th broneotryadov, and two or three machines of this
type (apparently, from the number of remaining at the front) fell into the hands of the
White Army. According to the latest "Fiats" survivors of the Civil War, the Red Army
were in service until 1930.
~ 468 ~
In 1917, at least one "Fiat" was captured by German troops at Tarnopol in quite a state
of combat readiness. Apparently the car abandoned due to lack of fuel, or small
breakages, which could not be repaired on the spot due to the rapid otstutpleniya
Russian army. The car was repaired and then served in Germany under the name
"Strolch" until the early 1920s. More on one "Fiat" as trophies dostalsyalatviytsam, but
due to poor technical condition, he used a very short time.
~ 469 ~
4000 kg (on "zharrot" chassis)
Combat weight
5000 kg (on the "fiat" chassis)
CREW, pers. 5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 4900
Width 1900
Height mm 2500
Clearance, mm 350
WEAPONS two 7.62-mm machine gun "Maxim" in the towers
aiming DEVICES -
RESERVATIONS
food body - 7mm
Tower - 7 mm
benztnovy, in-line, power 38 hp ( "Zharrot") or 60 hp (
ENGINE
"Fiat") hp
4x2 with dual rear wheels and the depreciation on the
CHASSIS
leaf springs
60 km \ h forward travel
SPEED
15 km \ h in reverse
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 470 ~
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Peerless Armoured Car
6.9 t (7.6 short tons; 6.8 long

Weight
tons)
Crew 4
Armour 10 mm (0.39 in) maximum
Main Two Hotchkiss 0.303 (7.7

armament mm) machine guns
Secondary None
armament
Engine Peerless
~ 471 ~
40 bhp (30 kW)
Power/weight 5.8 hp/tonne

range
During the First World War, sixteen American Peerless trucks were modified by the
British to serve as armoured cars. These were relatively primitive designs with open
backs, armed with a Pom-pom gun and a machine gun, and were delivered to the British
army in 1915. They were used also by the Tsarist Russian Army as self-propelled anti-
aircraft guns.
After the war, a new design was needed to replace armoured cars that had been worn
out. As a result, the Peerless Armoured Car design was developed in 1919. It was
based on the chassis of the Peerless three ton lorry, with an armoured body built by the
Austin Motor Company.
The Peerless lorry was a relatively slow and heavy vehicle but was reckoned to be
tough, with solid rubber tyres and rear-wheel chain drive. The armour for the vehicle
produced by the Austin company was based on an earlier design created for the Russian
Army, which had been used in very limited numbers at the end of the war in France.
The original Austin design, however, was shorter than the Peerless and the resulting
combination was awkward and difficult to steer in confined spaces. In order to reduce
the problem, a duplicate set of driving controls was installed at the rear of the vehicle.
The most common variant was a twin-turret design fitted with two machine guns.
However, a number of other variants were developed, including a vehicle armed with a
3-inch gun and an anti-aircraft variant armed with a 13-pounder AA gun.
Poor off-road performance hampered the vehicle but it still saw considerable service,
notably in Ireland. A few were still in service with the British at the start of the Second
World War. Seven were in service with the Irish National Army during the Irish Civil
War and used by the Irish Defence Forces up until 1932. The type was not popular in
Irish service. One was taken to Cork City on board the SS Avronia as part of the sea-
borne landing force but took a long time to unload. The car was reliable, but slow,
heavy, unstable, and unsuitable for poor roads - effectively meaning that its deployment
by the Irish military was almost exclusively restricted to urban areas. (See Rolls Royce
Armoured Car.) In 1935, four Irish Peerless armoured hulls were mounted on modified
Leyland Terrier 6x4 chassis. A year later their twin turrets were replaced by a single
Landsverk L60 tank turret. This new vehicle was known as the Leyland Armoured Car
and remained in Irish service until the early 1980s. The 14 old Irish Peerless turrets with
their Hotchkiss machine guns were fitted in 1940 to 14 Irish-built vehicles and
designated the Ford Mk V Armoured Car.[1]
~ 472 ~
Lanchester 42 armored car
United Kingdom (1914) Armored car 36 built
The Lanchester 1914
To avoid confusion, this is the 42 armored car; There was another model built in the
interwar, a 64. This WWI model was originally requested by the Royal Naval Air
Service for rescuing downed pilots well behind enemy lines and to support advanced
bases of the RNAS. At that time, Lanchester was one of the most trusted manufacturers
for the task, along with Rolls-Royce. Their origin could be traced back to the tests and
studies made by Dr F. W. Lanchester antebellum, leading to reliable but somewhat
unconventional vehicles. RNAS held a heterogeneous collection of vehicles stationed in
Dunkirk in 1914, some of the 25-h.p. and 38-h.p. Lanchester touring cars type. One 38
hp car was converted as an armored car during late December 1914. One of its most
recognizable features was the patterned turret also shared by the Rolls-Royce, but it
lacked mudguards, unditching boards and electrical equipment. It was tested and 36
conversions followed in 1915, fully equipped.
Design
The Lanchester was based on the regular 38 hp chassis with front and rear single axles,
but doubled Rudge Whitworth tires at the rear, suspended on cantilever rear springs of
semi-elliptic type assembly. This unconventional layout was completed by two vertical
coil shock absorbers resting on the front axle, in addition to the front leaf springs. Both
were attached to the upper part of the armored body. The armor was 8 mm (0.31 in)
strong at the front (radiator shield, hood, windshield, sides), and perhaps 4-5 mm (0.16-
0.2 in) on top and bottom, assembled by rivets to a frame. It was well sloped thanks to
the engine configuration, with the engine resting beside the drivers feet. The latter was
rated for 38 hp but developed 60 to 65 hp at 2200 rpm, served by a three-speed epicyclic
type gearbox worm drive transmission at the rear. The center of gravity was low, giving
it excellent stability. The turret and rear part were made of corresponding rolled plates.
The patterned turret had two small rear and top two-piece hatches, and at the opposite
end was mounted a regular ordnance Vickers-Maxim water-cooled cal.303 (7.69 mm)
~ 473 ~
machine gun. A lighter one, of the regular Lewis aviation type could also be stored
inside and fired from the pistol ports.
There was a folding windshield with sight slits and two obstructed windows plus two
small pistol ports on each side of the driving area. Access was performed by two rear
doors and there was no compartmentation. Behind the turret rested a rear storage utility
platform and two large stowage boxes on top of the rear mudguards. Between the two
axles, on the lower body section, were attached two unditching boards and platforms for
additional storage. Electrical equipment, shovels and spare tires were attached or stowed
above. This equipment was very similar or identical to the Rolls-Royce type in
operation, allowing commonality and easing maintenance.
In service
Thirty-six were delivered to the RNAS (Royal Naval Air Service) in three squadrons of
twelve, serving in Belgium. One of these squadrons was then gave to the Belgian army.
10-15 more were later loaned by the RNAS to be fully operated by the Belgian Army.
The Russian army received twenty-two vehicles in December 1915 and all but three
were rearmed with the 37 mm (1.46 in) Hotchkiss QF naval guns. As the western front
stabilized, armored cars were less in use and the entire British detachment of the RNAS,
under the command of Oliver Locker-Lampson, was sent to Russia in January 1916 in
an expeditionary force deployed in Caucasus, also operating in Romania and Galicia.
Others reached as far as Persia and Turkey, leading raiding parties against Ottoman
forces, totaling an impressive amount of mileage and further increasing their reputation
of sturdiness and reliability. In fact they stood quite well the comparison to the other
Rolls-Royce armored cars in service within the RNAS Far East units. In early 1918 the
expedition force departed from Murmansk. They were later found in support of the
Whites, taking part in the civil war, and some were captured by the Red Army.
Lanchester 42 specifications
Dimensions 16 ft x 6 ft x 7.5 ft (4.87 x 1.82 x 2.13 m)
Total weight, battle ready 4.5 tons (10,230 lbs)
Crew 4 (commander, driver, machine-gunner, loader/mechanic)
Propulsion 6-cyl Gasoline Lanchester, 60 hp @ 2200 rpm 12.5 hp/t
Speed 50 mph (80 kph)
Suspensions 4 x 2 leaf springs
Armament 1 x Vickers Water cooled cal.303 (7.69 mm) machine gun
~ 474 ~
Total production 36
Lanchester armored car from the RNAS (Royal Naval Air Service), Dunkirk, 1915.
A camouflaged Lanchester, Flanders, 1916.
RNAS operating in Persia, 1916.
~ 475 ~
Russian Lanchester, Caucasus 1916. Notice the 37 mm (1.46 in) Hotchkiss, the small
cupola above the turret, the absence of stowage boxes at the rear and the tires wrapped
in mud chains in autumn.
~ 476 ~
"The Lanchester car of 1914 was a well-designed, beautifully running, but in many
ways unconventional vehicle. Based on the designs - fully supported by test research -
of the great Dr F. W. Lanchester, the cars bearing his name were eminently suitable for
conversion to armoured cars and, in fact, Lanchesters were the only cars, beside the
RollsRoyce, of the turreted pattern to be built in quantity for the Royal Naval Air
Service Armoured Car Division.
Several 25-h.p. and 38-h.p. Lanchester touring cars were based at Dunkirk with
Commander C. R. Samson's force by December 1914 and also one 38-h.p. Lanchester
armoured car. Unfortunately, this vehicle has not been identified - it may have been one
of the early open top improvised types - but it is likely that all the Lanchesters stood out
well in comparison with most of the other touring cars and light lorries in the varied
collection of vehicles held by the R.N.A.S. at Dunkirk.
~ 477 ~
Certain it is, however, that a prototype turreted pattern Lanchester armoured car was
built by the early part of December 1914. This car closely foreshadowed in appearance
the vehicles which were to go into service later, except that it lacked mudguards and
equipment such as unditching boards and did not have electric lighting.
The principal, and, indeed, the only, major change made between the prototype - which
was built on a standard 38-h.p. chassis - and the first car of the production series which
appeared about January or February 1915 was in the suspension. Rudge Whitworth twin
wheels were fitted at the rear instead of singles. These were detachable wire-spoke
wheels with wide rims which carried two tyres as opposed to the normal singles which
were still fitted at the front. The Lanchester cantilever rear springs - semi-elliptic leaf
type - were duplicated and the front cantilever suspension was reinforced by shock
absorbers-coil springs in vertical tubes, the tops of which were attached to the upper
part of the main body frame structure. The Lanchester suspension had the great merit of
being very much easier on tyre wear than that of the Rolls-Royce armoured cars.
The mechanical layout of the Lanchester, with the engine beside the driver's feet, made
possible a more sloping and better protected bonnet in the armoured car than was
practicable with more conventional cars. The low centre of gravity also made them very
stable. The turret and fighting compartment of the Lanchester were almost identical to
the turreted Rolls-Royce, as were the rear platform and stowage boxes (although the
latter do not appear to have been fitted to some of the earliest Lanchesters).
Apart from the modifications mentioned, the 38-h.p. chassis used for the Lanchester
armoured cars was standard. The six-cylinder, 4.8-litre engine (R.A.C. rating 39 h.p.)
~ 478 ~
developed 65 b.h.p. at 2200 r.p.m.; the gear-box was a three-speed epicyclic type and
transmission was by worm drive to the rear axle. As an armoured car weighing between
four and five tons the top speed was about 50 m.p.h. The crew consisted of three or four
men and the armament was one Vickers-Maxim machine-gun mounted in the turret,
although a Lewis light machine-gun was usually also carried, stowed inside the car.
Thirty-six Lanchester armoured cars were completed by the end of March 1915 and
were used to equip three squadrons of the R.N.A.S. All of these squadrons were in
France by May and one of them later served with the Belgian Army.
Later in 1915, twenty Lanchester armoured cars - apparently the greater part of the
equipment of two squadrons which, because of the trench warfare situation, were by
then inactive - were sent to the Russians. It was proposed that these cars should later be
taken over by the Russian expeditionary force under the command of Commander
Oliver Locker-Lampson. This force had as its nucleus both in personnel and equipment
the Lanchester squadron which had been supporting the Belgian Army and was
supplemented by a heavy squadron of the R.N.A.S. and extra transport, many of the
service vehicles being on Lanchester chassis.
The expeditionary force disembarked at Alexandrovsk (near the North Cape) in January
1916. After an immediate set-back, when the cars had to be sent back to the United
Kingdom for repair to damage caused by frost and a storm en route, the armoured car
force operated in support of the Russians through 1916 and 1917 until the Revolution.
From the Arctic Circle, the force was sent down to the Caucasus in June 1916, from
where detachments pushed down into Turkey and into Persia. Withdrawn from this
area, the R.N.A.S. force was sent via the north shore of the Black Sea to support the
Russians in Roumania and in Galicia (south Poland) where they were in action before
the end of the year. They continued to bolster the Russian armies until the outbreak of
the Revolution in November 1917 made further support of no avail.
~ 479 ~
The twenty Lanchester armoured cars (referred to above) sent to the Russians in 1915
do not appear to have been made available to the R.N.A.S. force when it was in Russia.
Some or all of these cars differed from the others in that they lacked the lockers over the
rear wheels and had a small square cupola added on top of the turret.
A few other Lanchester armoured cars beyond the original thirty-six appear to have
been built, although the details are uncertain. In December 1916 however, the
Lanchester Motor Company was asked to give a quotation for supplying a complete set
of armour for one of the armoured cars damaged in the fighting in Roumania. The
quotation given had to be based on Beardmore 8-mm. plate for vertical surfaces because
the original slightly thicker type was no longer available.
The Lanchester armoured cars stood up magnificently to the terrific wear and tear
imposed by the appalling roads - or absence of them - in the Russian campaign and gave
very little mechanical trouble. Some of these cars must almost without doubt have
covered more ground on active service than any other fighting vehicles of the First
World War."
The Lanchester Armoured Car was a British armoured car derived from the
Lanchester Sporting Forty touring car produced during the First World War.
It should not be confused with the later interwar period six-wheeled development.
History
In 1914, the Lanchester was the second most numerous armoured car in service after the
Rolls-Royce. Designed by the Admiralty Air Department for the Royal Naval Air
Service Armoured Car Section in France it was intended to support air bases and
retrieve downed pilots.[1] A prototype was produced in December 1914 with production
following in early 1915.
~ 480 ~
A number of changes were made; principally strengthening the chassis and suspension,
and doubled rear wheels fitted to the rear axle to improve traction, weight distribution.
The vehicle had a distinctive circular turret with a narrow horizontal roof with central
hatch, steeply sloped at the sides, and continuous sloped bonnet plating. This last,
together with a much more compact form than the earlier Rolls Royce Armoured Car
achieved by positioning the driver beside the powerful and reliable engine, which
featured an epicyclic gearbox) gives the Lancaster a deceptively modern appearance
that matches its paper specification when compared with its later inter-war 6x4 version.
Thirty six of the production version were sent to France in May 1915, one twelve-car
RNAS squadron served with the Belgian Army. In addition, Belgium received between
10 and 15 cars on loan from the RNAS.
On the Western Front it served its intended purpose despite what were considered
advanced features. However, with the rough road conditions and even rougher cross-
country treks the 4x2 Lanchester chassis caused difficulties which were never
satisfactorily resolved, limiting its usefulness.
In 1915, all thirty six RNAS armoured cars were passed to the British Army. Since the
BEF had acquired a variety of armoured cars, and this represented a challenge in terms
of maintenance, stores and training it was decided, given trench warfare had severely
limited the role that armoured cars could play, that the British Expeditionary Force
should standardise on a single type, selecting the Rolls Royce[2] Accordingly, all
Lanchester armoured cars were returned to Britain.
After being overhauled, 22 vehicles were supplied to the Imperial Russian Army in
December 1915. Of these 19 were later rearmed with a 37-mm naval Hotchkiss gun in
place of the standard Vickers machine gun. In January 1916 more Lanchesters arrived
with the RNAS expeditionary force[3] deployed in the Caucasus, Romania and Galicia in
support of the Russians. RNAS detachments were sent as far as Persia and Turkey and
the Lanchesters travelled many thousands of miles until, in early 1918, the expedition
force departed Russia via Murmansk.
Jack Livesey in Armoured Fighting Vehicles of World War I and II[4] wrote
"Operating in climates ranging from desert to near-Arctic conditions... during their time
in Russia these cars covered 85,295km/53,000 miles. [They] were deployed in a manner
that would become the standard for AFV warfare in the 20th Century. Acting as scouts
and armed raiders, they operated well forward of the infantry following in their
armoured trucks. When operating alongside the infantry they would act as fire-support
vehicles..."
Their last operation was in support of the Brusilov Offensive in mid 1917.
Following this deployment Russia descended into civil war and the RNAS armoured car
division was withdrawn back to Britain, while Lanchesters still in Russian hands were
used by the White Russian forces.
During most of its service life, the Lanchester was considered an admirably fast and
reliable vehicle, the only caveat being limitations imposed by the chassis.
~ 481 ~
Variants
Vehicles received by the Russian Army were fitted with a small cupola on the turret and
with side shields for the machine gun.
Type Armoured car
Weight 4.7 t
Length 4.88 m
Width 1.93 m
Height 2.29 m
Crew 3-4
Armour up to 8 mm
Main Vickers machine gun (turret)

armament
Secondary Lewis Gun (stowed inside)

armament
6-cylinder
Engine 60 hp (45 kW) Lanchester
petrol engine
~ 482 ~
Suspension 42 wheel
Speed 80 km/h
Originally projected commissioned by Royal Navy Air Service (RNAS - Royal Naval
Air Service) for the protection of airports and rescue downed pilots Lanchester armored
car became the most mass after similar cars Rolls-Royce company. At the end of 1914
~ 483 ~
British engineers has been developed to standardize the hull of the tower and that with a
few changes to the chassis acc ustanvlivatsya commercial vehicles Rolls-Royce, Talbot,
Delaunne-Bellevielle and others.
Specialists of the company Lanchester Motors Company, were founded upon the
chassis "tourist" of the car, and in December 1914 presented the first prototype.
Machines Enclosure retained the old structure, but due to the rearward displacement of
the engine was able to increase the angle of the front armor plates that improved their
bulletproof. The thickness of the reservation and the front side of the chassis was 8 mm.
Armored armament consisted of one 7.7-mm Vickers machine gun, ustanvlennoy in a

single tower with beveled upper board bronelistami. Sighting shooting was carried out
by a conventional mechanical machine-gun sight. Observing the surroundings driver led
through a small hatch with viewing slot in the front hull, extra peepholes were on the
sides and in the tower.
Thanks to the powerful at the time the engine 60 hp "Lanchester" could move on the
highway with a maximum speed of 60 km \ h. Chassis of the car had a 4x2. The front
wheels are equipped with shock absorption on coil springs, rear wheels type Rudge-
Whithworth were double stranded and double springs.
The first order for 36 vehicles was received from the Royal Navy Air Service (RNAS -
Royal Naval Air Service) in the early 1915 Building armored cars moved very rapidly,
so that in May the same year, three squadrons of "Lanchester" went to France.
However, some fighting in France, it was not long - "trench warfare" completely
exclude freedom of maneuver, which is why an armored car eskdrony decided to return
to his homeland and to disband.
Thus, one of the squad transferred to the subordination of the Belgian Army, and later
Belgium received from RNAS 10 more (according to other sources 15) cars. Some
~ 484 ~
armored vehicles of the 15th squadron acquired O.Loker Simpson for formed units to
them.
More interesting was the fate of Lanchester arrived in Russia. In September 1915, the
Russian military mission expressed its desire to purchase 22 machines of this design,
highlighting the success of their use in combat conditions. Immediately upon arrival in
Russia GVTU proposed to equip these machines with 37-mm cannon Hotckiss system
that ustanvlivalas also for Renault and Peugeot the French armored vehicles.
Preliminary calculations showed that the variant with a gun will be the hardest of 1.5
pounds (25 kg), and for its installation does not need additional ventilation, only six
boxes of ammunition received additional armor. When tests revealed that the tower for
37-mm guns fitted is not very good. In particular it pointed out that the attachment to
the body with 4 clips is not optimal and the shot is possible slight shift tower. Grasp the
correction of this deficiency volunteered Major General Sokolov, who in 1916 began to
develop a new system of connections hull and turret. In addition, we studied the
possibility of installing 37-mm guns Maxima Nordenfeld system and trench guns of the
same caliber, Major General Officers School Filatov offer armored vehicle equipped
with two mortars.
Of the 22 received armored vehicles "Lanchester" 19 were equipped with 37-mm guns
Hotchkiss, one machine-gun and left the other two passed broneeskadronu commanded
Locker-Simpson. As additional weapons systems used by the machine gun "Maxim",
the shooting of which was carried out through a hatch in the back door. It is noteworthy
that 10 guns received from the Obukhov factory originally prednaznachenlis to be
installed on heavy bombers, "Ilya Muromets", but they were too heavy for him. Nine
others were planning to establish a submarine.
"Lanchester" entered service 12 armored car platoon (25 th, 35 th and 37-47 th), where
they are joined poryadevshy Park and partially replaced the broken down "Garford".
During March and August 1916, these machines have proved to be excellent in the
South-Western Front, however, were marked and disadvantages. First of all, it was
noted that the caliber of 37 mm projectile is not universal, and the action of his
explosive projectile was too weak. In addition, the car had a clear excess Aluminium
hinges, low ground clearance and an unsuccessful attachment bronelistov system
protects the radiators.
~ 485 ~
In May 1916 in Russia came the British Expeditionary Force RNAS, which was
supposed to support the Russian army. It includes, among other materiel, had 12
armored vehicles "Lanchester", two Rolls-Royce, four Pierce-Arrow armed 57-mm
cannon and 11 auxiliary armored truck Ford. "Expedition" armored cars differed from
the standard presence of a small dome in the machine-gun turret and cutouts in the sides
for additional guns. Initially, the British sent to the south, where the section of the front
was more stable. Armored operated very active and a half years of service "dashed off"
more than one thousand kilometers of roads of Galicia, Romania and the Caucasus.
The October Revolution found a squadron of Kursk, where the remaining machines
were repaired. Personnel were evacuated to the United Kingdom, and "Lanchester" got
the new government as "trophies". In January 1918 armored vehicles in the
"revolutionary Southern Division armored vehicles" were sent to Ukraine to help
establish the Soviet regime. Later, in February 1919, this division was reorganized into
special-purpose armored car division at SNK of Ukraine by sending armored vehicles
for repair in Kharkov. By this time in the ranks was only two cannon "Lanchester".
For the latest information regarding the combat use of Soviet armored vehicles belong
to the summer of 1919 year. Then the station canopies two "Lanchester" attacked
Makhno an armored train. The machine under the command A.Ryabtseva got round to
the tower, and was put out of action, but at this time the second car the best shot pierced
the boiler of a steam locomotive, then Makhnovists were forced oststupit.
As for the other "Lanchester", previously used by the Russian army, the majority of
them fell into the hands of the White armies and then took part in the Civil War. On
their operation after 1920 there is no reliable information.
~ 486 ~
Lanchester Armored Car was obr.1917

CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 4880
Width 1930
Height mm 2990
Clearance, mm ?
one 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers-Maxim in the tower,
WEAPONS
and a 7.71-mm machine gun Lewis portable
~ 487 ~
food body -?
RESERVATIONS
roof -
bottom -
bpshnya - 8 mm
ENGINE Carburetor, 6-cylinder, 60 hp
4x2 suspension with leaf springs, wheels, single,
CHASSIS
pneumatic tires
SPEED 60 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
~ 488 ~
~ 489 ~
~ 490 ~
Mercedes Armored Car Light armored vehicle
It would be a mistake to assume that in the period of so-called "trench warfare" on the
Western Front design ideas in the UK worked exclusively for the modernization of
tanks. Suffice it to recall, "Lanchester" and "Rolls-Royce", in which British troops and
their allies fought during the 1915-1918 biennium. However, there were many other
fighting vehicles, less well-known wide range of armored vehicles lovers. One of them
was an armored car Mercedes.
Its construction had been initiated by Mr Ismeyu no one living in the town Irven
Minster in Dorset. We must assume that this man was not the poor, if he agreed to give
his personal car (it is possible that it was one of several) for the needs of the British
Army. This is quite an expensive gift in 1916 was transferred to the territorial cavalry
regiment (Yeormaby Regiment) stationed nearby. At the same time, Mr. Ismay insisted
on booking the car.
~ 491 ~
It is possible that the project was drawn up with the assistance of officers of the same
regiment. At least, in the construction of "Mercedes" does not feel strong "amateurish",
differed numerous armored cars Home Guard, which appeared later in '24.
Reservation was done simply - wooden frame with bolts fastened armor plates. Engine
compartment, where the installed power of the gasoline engine 45 hp, was fully
protected, but the fighting compartment (combined with the driver's cab) is in the form
of an open top "bath". On this basis, we can assume that the "Mercedes" were going to
be used for reconnaissance, outpost, or, in extreme cases, the pursuit of the enemy. The
armament consisted of a single machine gun Colt 7.62 mm mounted on the pin. Chassis
no changes. As in the original machine it retains 4x2. All wheels were single,
spitsovannymi and equipped with pneumatic tires. Suspension leaf springs. Coil was no
protection.
Booking The works were carried out in the shortest possible time, the firm Wolseley
shops forces, but in the original version of the armored Mercedes did not last long.
Apparently, the news from the front quickly reached the rear of the compounds, and
soon it was decided to make some improvements. In particular, the half-cut side of the
crew compartment, and appeared on the roof has been installed single tower with a
circular rotation. The composition of the weapons has not changed.
Despite modernization Mercedes at the front did not hit, staying in the metropolis to the
end of the war. Most likely, this unique car after 1918 was dismantled.

Mercedes Armored Car model 1916

CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.62-mm machine gun Colt
~ 492 ~
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE The Mercedes, gasoline, inline power of 45 hp
CHASSIS
spitsovannye
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Peerles Armored Car Armored car
During the First World War armored vehicles Peerless (in translation - "the
incomparable"), the basis for the creation of which served as a 3-ton American truck of
the same brand, became known as the self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, which were
delivered to the British and Russian armies. In this capacity, the machine faithfully have
served until the end of hostilities and were soon sent to razbronirovku, but the idea of
using American chassis for purely military purposes remained.
In late 1918, the British Army Command found that military armored vehicles park very
worn and require early replacement and modernization. Then, the main efforts exerted
to improve the most abundant type of machinery "Lanchester" and Rolls-Royce, but in
early 1919 it was proposed to establish the body of the armored cars Austin so-called 3-
Series (of unrealized Russian order) by 2.5-ton truck chassis Peerless. Using "native"
way of "Austin" deemed unsustainable due to its severe congestion.
~ 493 ~
Structurally armored Peerless Armored Car was as follows. Chassis retained wheel
formula 4x2 with front wheel steering and chain drive on the gable of the rear axle
wheels. In order to improve the survivability of the chassis have been applied tubeless
tires of hard rubber, which is extremely negative impact on driving performance.
Armored and equipped aft control station, as the plan going into the fight backing is still
considered relevant.
The case had riveted construction and going from rolled armor plates with a thickness
of 3 mm to 8 mm. In front of, under the hood of an armored, placed gasoline 4-cylinder
engine capacity of 40 hp Peerless Behind him was the fuel tank of 108 liters. Fuel
consumption per 100 km was 74 liters, so that the radius of action of the machine has
been very limited.
~ 494 ~
In the middle of the separation of management was located where the driver's seat.
Frontal armor plates was performed bicuspid with two observation slits. On the sides
there were two more rectangular inspection hatch, designed to monitor the
surroundings. As a rule, Peerless armored vehicle manned by two 8-mm machine guns
Hotchkiss, set out in two cylindrical towers on the sides towards the stern of the body.
Total ammunition was 3,500 rounds of ammunition. armored crew consisted of 5
people. Any connected or not to install the radio equipment.
Construction of the shell as before firm engaged in Austin Motor Company, and the
final assembly of cars carried on the company in Birmingham in the period from
October 1919 to January 1920.
Peerless Machinery type Armored Car sample in 1919 differed from Austin just a
longer chassis base. At the same time, the total weight of the combat armored vehicles
was 6800 kg, which was one and a half tons more than in the same "Austin". As a
consequence, "Peerless" had a very low speed, maneuverability and agility. The need
for such efforts armored car was caused unrest in the colonies, and particularly in
Ireland, where, after the revolution of the summer 1916 the British were forced to keep
a large military contingent reinforced tanks and armored vehicles. In March 1920, when
was there the 17th Tank Battalion was disbanded, and its "Austin" exhausted their
resources, command decided to replace them with "Peerless". Recruiting arrived very
quickly and by the end of next year as part of the 3rd Tank Battalion including 69
armored vehicles such as Peerless, 34 Rolls-Royce and 10 tanks. Basically they carried
patrols and clashes with Irish fighters involved are not very common.
When the December 6, 1921 it was announced that the independence of Ireland, the
British decided to bring the newly formed Irish Army 7 cars, which were widely used
until 1932, after the cancellation of the chassis was sent to razbronirovku and first tower
used in the construction of three-axle armored vehicles Leyland Armored Car 6x4
(1934) and then Ford Armored Car Mk.V (1940). However, one of the "Peerless" in
~ 495 ~
1940 was sent to Cork City (Cork City) on board the ship "Avronia" to strengthen the
coastal defenses.
Career "Peerless" was very long in the British Army. For a while they were still in
Ireland, and then send them home delivered Territorial Armoured Car Companies
(territorial division of armored vehicles) and more about 10 years continued to be used
for the training of personnel.
By May 1940, when the landing of the German troops in Britain seemed imminent, the
two surviving armored car was repaired and re-introduced into the system - these
machines as part of 1st Derbyshire Yeomanry (1st Cavalry Regiment Territorial) a few
months used to protect airfields. So far, only two survived Peerless Armored Car, one of
which is on display in the exhibition tank museum in Bovington.
However, the story of armored vehicles on the chassis Peerless has not ended. After the
First World War "Peerless" appeared in Greece, but it was not the British supply and
improvised armored transporters intended to carry out police functions. Instead, the
body of "Austin" on their set top box-shaped hulls protected by a wire mesh from defeat
with hand grenades and stones. A few years later the Greek cars were modernized -
instead of the nets they have established bronelisty.
In March 1935, when the army and the navy revolt broke out anti-monarchist, armored
vehicles "Peerless" actively used against the rebels. Most likely, these armored cars
survived until the beginning of World War II, but their fate could not be traced back to
this point.

Peerles Armored Car sample 1919
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 6120
Width 2240
Height mm 2770
Clearance, mm 250
two 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers-Maxim or two 8-mm

WEAPONS
gun in Hotckiss tower installations
~ 496 ~
aiming DEVICES ?
board housing -
food body -?
RESERVATIONS
roof -
bottom -
towers -
ENGINE 4-cylinder, carburetor, in-line, liquid-cooled, 40 hp
TRANSMISSION mechanical type: four-speed transmission, hydraulic brakes
wheel formula 4x2, with the rear gable wheels and chain
CHASSIS
drive to the rear axle on leaf springs suspension
38-40 km \ h on the highway

SPEED
8 km \ h in reverse
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Lancia Armored Lorry Light Armored Car
~ 497 ~
Rebellion in Ireland in 1916, which took place in November 1916, quickly led the
British administration to the idea that no armored vehicles in case of a new escalation of
the situation will not be possible. However, the operation of the tanks seemed expensive
then, and after the war, many of the remaining "diamonds" first editions went to be
scrapped and new units were sent. As usual, the solution was found on the basis of the
concept of hope and self-reliance.
In addition to the domestic construction vehicles, the British army has a large number of
heavy trucks Lancia IZ, shipped from Italy. This type of car was used by the Italians for
a very successful serial production of armored vehicles of the same name, but in the UK
decided to spend money on the development and construction of these combat vehicles
will be wasteful. Especially in a difficult period of the British troops in Ireland were
needed not only to armored cars and tanks. For the delivery of artillery and soldiers
required a slightly different armored car, which had a spacious and well-protected
troop-bay. That for this purpose perfectly approached the base, "Lanci".
The first production version of the armored personnel carrier was fully armored engine
compartment hood and the driver's cab, and head-plates are installed at great angles. But
the troop-compartment was carried out only partially armored, since the role of the roof
gable served net. Standard weapons in armored personnel carriers was absent, but there
was a hatch with a machine gun (as a rule, it was Lewis 7,71-mm caliber) in the frontal
driver's cabin. The board armor plates were made embrasures for firing of personal
weapons.
~ 498 ~
The first "Lanci" entered the army in 1921, and very soon their number has been
increasing rapidly. It was at this time last peak came the confrontation of the British
Army and the Irish Republican Army. Stationed in the territory of Ireland 3rd Tank
Battalion of the Royal Tank Corps possessed by the time the great powers, not least due
to technology, transferred from Mesopotamia. In the spring of 1921 in its composition
there were 103 armored vehicles (69 Peerless and 34 Rolls-Royce) and 10 tanks Mk.IV.
Number of armored vehicles, "Lancia" if not specified. AT
December of the same year, the British Cabinet signed an agreement with the IRA,
which formally recognized the independence of the country. However, in return he had
to give up the northern part of Ireland, is now known as the Ulster. These "half-
measures" did not suit many people, including quite a moderate pro-independence. In
Ireland, the civil war which lasted until mid-1923, but now the rebels opposed Irish
regular troops trained under the supervision of British instructors. In order not to
~ 499 ~
"eyesore" old gray camouflage replaced by a matte gray-green color. In addition, the
machines have numbers with the letters "QI" or "L".
Transfer summer of 1922 began, the technology and now it is "Lanci" formed the basis
of armored fleet. First, the Irish army has received no less than 50 armored personnel
carriers and 13 "Rolls-Royce", and by early 1923 the number of "Lancia" was already
100 units. As you might guess, most of the cars were reserved powers of the Irish
themselves.
During the Civil War there were losses not only in manpower. For various reasons, the
end of 1923 managed to keep only six "Rolls-Royce", but the number of "Lancia" rose
to 135. By this time, the appearance of an armored personnel carrier has undergone
some changes. Often mesh is removed or replaced on the steel sheets. In addition, some
of the vehicles turned into a bronedreziny.
The idea that travel by armored vehicles can be not only on ordinary roads, it came
rather late. Terms of the Western Front to that did not have, and the specifics of the
Eastern Front up to a point allies are not interested at all. Who first had the idea to
modify the armored vehicles, placing them on the progress of the train, it does not
matter. In this case it is important that in the years 1922-1923. This process has been
organized at the Dublin plant Inchicore.
The first of bronedrezin, which had a tail number AL 33 and the British Code L-1588
was prepared on the 29th September 1922. Second collected by 15 October, and another
car with registration number OI8909 was ready on 13 November. The last two "Lanci"
railway cranes were called "Fire" and "Grey Ghost". Modernization was continued by
installing towers - at least, subjected to revision two cars, one of which had 51 rooms
AL.
Having had time to go to battle on both sides of the conflict in Ireland, "Lanci" served
faithfully for over 15 years. According to their intended purpose was used for the last
time during the suppression of the rebellion in Dublin in 1935. The remaining cars were
~ 500 ~
written off only in the late 1930s. When Sweden came more modern armored Landsevrk
L-180.
However, the history of armored vehicles on the basis of Lancia IZ had continued.
Experience bookings Italian truck was successful and in 1922, several RAF machines
were delivered in a similar configuration. RAF armored vehicles needed not only for the
transport of troops and equipment. On the qualities "Lanci" well suited for patrolling
and outposts, although not in Europe, and the Middle East. The constant clashes with
militant Arab tribes led to the strengthening of the British contingent in Transjordan
(since independence in 1947 the country became known as Jordan), Iraq and Kuwait,
including in terms of the supply of armored vehicles.
Structurally, both variants of armored personnel carriers had no significant differences.

Shredding only the shape and location of the embrasures in the frontal driver's cab and
the landing side compartment became slightly lower. In laying transported two machine
guns such as Lewis.
~ 501 ~
The exact number of "Lancia" collected for the Middle East is difficult to call, but given
the fact that they were a part of the 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th armored car mouth, there
were no less than four. Here, these machines have become better known as Lancia
armoured patrol car (LAPC). It is noteworthy that at the same time their service in
the Middle East carrying Rolls-Royce armored cars, but if "Lanci" written off at the
beginning of the 1930s., Their "colleagues" have continued to work until 1943.
However, in the years 1921-1922. two LAPC still decided to bring to the level of full-
fledged combat vehicles. Changes undergone body, and more specifically - its combat
compartment. The upper third of the board bronelistov and stern armor plates (with two
double wing hatches) are now installed at an angle. But the most important difference
was the presence of the crew compartment on the roof of the tower with a circular
rotation, where one machine gun Lewis was. The second machine gun, shooting of
which was carried out through the recess in the front hull. often transported in the
packing.
Presumably, the works on modernization of "Lancia" were held at the same factory in
Inchicore, Dublin. Officially they were called AC1, although formally RAF adopted
them have not accepted and used as a "freelance" technique. The first mention (as,
indeed, and photograph) the availability of upgraded Lancia AC1 refers to February
1922. In the future, the traces of these machines are lost, but according to the most
plausible version lifetime they spent in Dublin.
~ 502 ~
PECIFICATIONS light armored cars
Lancia Armored Lorry sample 1921
CREW, pers. 10 + 3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 3400
Width ~ 1500
Height mm ~ 2000
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS two 7.71-mm machine gun Lewis in the housing
korupsa forehead - 6 mm
RESERVATIONS
food body - 6 mm
roof - 6mm
ENGINE The Lancia, Petrol, 4-cylinder, 5-liter capacity of 35 hp
4x2, suspension leaf springs, dual rear wheels, tires of
CHASSIS
hard rubber
SPEED 60 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 503 ~
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Pierce-Arrow Armoured AA Lorry
An Anti-Aircraft (AA) Brigade was formed by the Royal Marine Artillery (RMA) in the
Autumn of 1914 for service in the field. The equipment chosen for this unit consisted of
the Vickers Naval 2-pdr automatic gun - usually known as the "pom pom" - mounted on
a PierceArrow 5-ton lorry chassis, armoured.
The establishment fixed for the RMA AA Brigade was four batteries, each with four
guns, together with supporting transport and a headquarters. Also included were twenty-
four motorcycle combinations equipped with Maxim machine guns. To ensure that the
Brigade was highly mobile, transport was on a generous scale, with thirty-four Pierce-
Arrow lorries and two Pierce-Arrow workshop vehicles. Although there were only to be
sixteen guns, forty-eight chassis were ordered for them, the balance to be maintained as
spares.
~ 504 ~
The order for the armoured cars (also the Pierce-Arrow lorries and workshops) was
placed with Wolseley Motors Ltd, a subsidiary of Vickers, on 30 December 1914. The
Pierce-Arrow chassis (imported from the USA) used was a 14-foot wheelbase type with
30 hp four-cylinder engine and shaft transmission to the rear wheels. The wheels were
the spoked artillery type with detachable rims and fitted with solid rubber tyres, 36-inch
singles at the front and 40-inch twins at the rear. The armour protection was 5mm plate
on thirty-two vehicles and on the remaining sixteen was increased to 7.5mm with
rooves of 5mm plate. In addition to the "pom pom", one Maxim machine gun was
provided, for which there were mountings on the side and rear doors and at the front.
The armoured cars were delivered by Wolseley between March and June 1915 but the
supply of "pom poms" could not keep pace and the cars for only two batteries were
equipped with guns by the end of April, when they were sent to France. The guns for a
third battery were received during August and the Brigade was not fully equipped until
September. Spares for the "pom poms" were in short supply and during the Summer of
1915 there was a shortage of ammunition for the guns. In spite of these difficulties, the
RMA AA Brigade did good work, the first aircraft claimed to be shot down was on 30
April, two days after the unit was first in action, and in all around twenty enemy
machines were hit and probably destroyed up to the time that the unit was re-equipped
with 3-inch AA guns (on different mountings) during the Summer of 1917 and the "pom
pom" was withdrawn.
~ 505 ~
The "pom poms" had a rate of fire of four rounds per second and could put up a
formidable barrage. Their range was short, originally under 3000 yards, but by
improvements in fuses and ammunition this was progressively increased so that
eventually enemy reconnaissance and bomber aircraft were forced to operate at over
10,000 feet, where they were far less effective. During their time in France, the guns
were frequently operated from the same positions for extended periods, and the scale of
spare armoured cars turned out to be far in excess of the requirements of the Brigade
and so some of them were handed over to the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS)
Armoured Car Division during 1915 and one car, at least, fitted with a "pom pom"
ended up in Russia with Locker-Lampson's force.
Sixteen other armoured cars, very similar in appearance to the Pierce-Arrows were built
by Wolseley Motors on Peerless chain-drive chassis. These were built for Russia and
delivered in 1916. The chain-drive of the Peerless lorries is an identifying and
distinguishing feature.
Peerles Anti-Aircraft Armored Car Anti-aircraft armored vehicle
~ 506 ~
In December 1914, when the activity of aviation in both the West and the Eastern Front
was small, Main Artillery Directorate (GAU) Russian Army decided to get ahead of
several events and concluded with the firm Vickers contract to build 16 anti-aircraft
armored vehicles. For self-propelled zenitnkam also expressed interest and the British
military, which has placed its order in 1915.
As the base was chosen chassis 3-ton truck with American company Peerless front
wheel steering and chain drive to the rear axle with dual wheels. On these machines
installed liquid-cooled gasoline engine produces 32 hp The case had riveted
construction and going from rolled armor plates 8 mm thick. Front bonnet and the front
sheet of the sheet in front of the driver's place had a slight angle.
In the open top fighting compartment mounted on the column book-rests installing 40-
mm machine gun Vickers-type "pom-pom". Pointing angle in a horizontal plane was
360 vertically - from -5 to + 80% deg. As protection there was a box-8-mm armor
shield. Additional armament (to repel the enemy infantry attacks) consisted of one
infantry machine guns carried in the installation. machines Full crew consisted of 5
people.
After receiving the order Brits especially not in a hurry and completed it only by 1 June
1916, and in September the first cars arrived in Russia. A month later, "Peerless" came
at the disposal of the 1st Heavy Artillery Brigade spare, where by the end of January
1917 of 16 armored vehicles formed four (from 1st to 4th) Some armored battery for
firing at air fleet. In February, all four batteries were planning to send to the front, but
because of the revolution they were detained in the rear for a few months. As the
government and the opposition had their own plans for the use of armored vehicles
accumulated in Petrograd. Periodically "Peerless" was used for demonstrations and
simple care, and that is so valuable machines did not get it was decided to immediately
dispatch anti-aircraft armored cars to the front in the hands of the Soviets command of
the Russian army.
~ 507 ~
Currently known only to the action of the 3rd Brigade in the period from May 31 to
June 30, 1917 According to the combat log of the unit arrived in armored Sinyavka
station May 20 and were sent to the disposal of the 15th Siberian Division of the 9th
Army Corps 2- First army to counter the enemy aircraft.
The combat aircraft gunners work entered on 22 May and on 22 June they accounted
dropped the first success. On that day, covering guns, 40-mm machine guns made 147
shots blasting grenades and tracers for enemy reconnaissance aircraft, its engine
breaking. Scout was forced to stop the flight and sharply down to the ground leaving
behind a trail of smoke.
The next day (23 June) at 7:20 am, on the 42th position artbrigady, "Peerless" fired
another enemy plane, making this one of 170 shots. The aircraft was hit and went down,
and at the time of the fall, he enveloped in smoke and crashed.
Then things were not so positive. Due to the failure of the summer offensive and the
ensuing collapse of the entire front of the action of anti-aircraft armored vehicles were
sporadic, although their personnel until the last moment remained faithful to the oath
and the government. The last attempt to give a decisive rebuff to German and Austro-
Hungarian troops advancing on Ukraine and Belarus was the creation of the so-called
"death parts", the composition of which, as a rule, were drawn from combat officers.
The number of such units by the order of the Supreme Commander Brusilov included
the 9 th, 10 th and 12 th armored car battalions and 2nd bronebatareya a "Peerless".
Unfortunately, no decisive influence they have had and after the events of October
1917, almost all cars have passed into the hands of the Bolsheviks.
Since then, the fate of the Russian "Peerless" traced very vague. It is known that in
1918, they tried to use the north-west direction, and according to foreign sources of
several anti-aircraft armored vehicles were used during the Soviet-Polish war, and at
least two of them were Poles trophies. In any case, by 1921 at a "Peerless" in the Red
Army, as well as other non-operated. Meanwhile, the British army intensively exploited
anti-aircraft armored vehicles Peerless on the Western Front until the very end of the
war.
~ 508 ~
Peerles sample 1916

CREW, pers. 5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 40-mm Vickers machine gun and a 7.62 mm machine
WEAPONS
gun "Maxim"
board housing -
RESERVATIONS
food body -?
machine shield -
4-cylinder, carburetor, inline, liquid cooling, capacity of
ENGINE
32 hp
mechanical type: four-speed transmission, hydraulic
TRANSMISSION
brakes
wheel formula 4x2 with rear Dual wheels and chain drive
CHASSIS
to the rear axle on leaf springs suspension
SPEED
8 km \ h in reverse
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
~ 509 ~
Pierce-Arrow
United Kingdom (1914) Anti-aircraft armored lorry 48 built
Development
When, in the autumn of 1914, the Royal Marine Artillery (RMA) decided to create an
anti-aircraft brigade, it had already choosen its weapon, the Vickers Naval 2-pdr
automatic gun. It was better know as the Pom-Pom, a gun of WW1 and WW2 fame.
To carry it, the choice was made to adopt the PierceArrow 5-ton lorry chassis and give
it a fully armored chassis. The Pierce-Arrow armored car was born, being the first
British SPAAG. On 30 September 1914, the order was passed to Wolseley Motors Ltd,
a subsidiary of Vickers. The chassis were imported from the USA.
Design
The vehicle had a 14-foot wheelbase (4.26 m) and was propelled by a 30 hp four-
cylinder engine connected, through a shaft transmission, to the rear axle. Steering was
~ 510 ~
done using the front axle. Each was given spoked artillery type rubber-tyre roadwheels
with detachable rims. The front roadwheels were 36 in (91 cm) in diameter, while the
double rear wheels were 40 in (104 cm). A bolted frame was assembled on the chassis,
upon which were fixed the armored body plates, 5 mm thick (0.2 in). The next 16
received 7.5 mm (0.3 in) plates. For close defense, the vehicle relied on a Maxim
machine gun which could be mounted on pintles on either side, the rear doors,
the front or through the co-driver armored shutter. The body was conventional, with a
front engine protected by folded panels, a driving compartment with two separate
armored shutters and the open rear compartment with room for the ammunition, extra
storage on each side of the chassis, and access doors. The equipment was completed by
handlebars on either side of the hull that were meant to help the crew climb in, two
roadlights and two headlights at the front and two convoy lamps at the rear.
The main armament was pretty impressive for a land vehicle. The 2-pounder (40
mm/1.57 in) could fire four rounds per second, and therefore several vehicles could put
up a formidable barrage against any aircraft incursion at the time on a 3000 yards (2700
m) radius. With better ammunition in 1917, they were even found able to destroy high
altitude bombers (cruising at 10,000 ft/3000 m), but with poor accuracy.
In service
Deliveries took place between March and June 1915, but because of a shortage of
2 pounders, only two batteries were equipped by the end of April and sent to France.
The third one was created in August, but the brigade was not complete by September.
However, spares for the gun and ammunition were in short supply in 1915. The Brigade
shot down its first plane on 30 April 1915, only two days after introduction on the front,
and over twenty more have been claimed before the unit was reequipped with longer
range 3-inch AA guns during the Summer of 1917. In between, some were handed over
to the RNAS (Royal Naval Air Service), and a single one joined the Locker-Lampson
force in Russia. Their equivalent in Great Britain were the Seabrooke lorries, mostly
used against Zeppelin raids. The Peerless (Wolseley) chain-driven were relatively
similar to the Pierce-Arrow, but all were sold in 1916 to the Russian Government.
Pierce-Arrow specifications
Dimensions 17ft x 6ft2 x 5ft10 (5.20 x 1.90 x 1.80 m)
Total weight (est.) 6 tons (12,000 lbs)
Crew 5 (driver, co-driver/machine-gunner, 3 gun operators)
Propulsion 4-cyl gasoline, liquid-cooled, 30 hp
Speed (est.) 25 mph (40 km/h)
Suspension 2 x 4 leaf springs
~ 511 ~
Range (est.) 100 km (62 mi)
Armament Main: 1 Vickers QF 2-pdr (40 mm/1.57 in) AA gun

Secondary: 1 x Maxim water cooled cal.303 (7.7 mm) machine gun
Armor 5 mm (0.2 in), later 7.5 mm (0.28 in)
Total production 48
Pierce Arrow with the RMA, 1915 or 1916, with a camouflage livery.
Pierce-Arrow armored car, left view
~ 512 ~
Pierce-Arrow, top front view
~ 513 ~
Immediately after the First World War, the British realized how much can be dangerous
German airships, possessed at that time a huge range of flight and a good bomb load.
There were also dangerous and airplanes, who were gathering intelligence on the British
positions. To protect against the threat of air in the autumn of 1914 by order of the
RMA management (Royal Marine Artillery) was created Antiaircraft Brigade (AAB -
Anti-Aircraft Brigade) the main weapons which were to become the marine 2-pounder
(40 mm), automatic guns, better known as the "pom-pom", mounted on a 5-ton trucks
Pierce Arrow. The advantage of this tool is its high rate - about 4 shots per second, but
the first shells have an effective height of the lesion just 914 meters after completion of
their height adjusted up to 3000 meters, which made the German pilots to fly higher,
reducing the quality of the bombing..
~ 514 ~
The initial composition of the four guns AAV consisted of four batteries each, with
transport vehicles, 24 motorcycles armed with machine guns Maxim system and its own
headquarters. Although at the time at the disposal of AAV had only 16 guns for them
ordered 48 machines, one third of which is intended for the booking and the installation
of weapons, several machines to be used as auxiliary, and the rest would go for spare
parts. Order on the chassis alterations under the military needs have concluded with
Wolseley companies and Vickers December 30, 1914 Pierce Arrow American trucks
have 14-foot chassis base and equipped with a 4-cylinder 30-horsepower engine with
rear-wheel drive. Tires are made of hard rubber, significantly increases their
survivability in battle, but a negative impact on terrain. The front wheels have a
diameter of 36 inches, rear twin - on armor protection 40. 5 mm deemed insufficient, so
after 32 chassis for reservation the remaining 16 received a 7.5-mm armor. In addition
to this, in addition to the main armament, the crew received a 7.62-mm machine gun
Maxim on the turret.
The Wolseley company, to carry out conversion of the chassis, carrying out orders
between March and June 1915. In the same time the firm Vickers significantly overdue
in the supply of guns, so only 8 cars were fully armed to the end of April. The two AAV
battery soon were sent to France and already 30 April, one of them was hit by the first
German plane. Until the summer of 1917, when worn 2-pounder gun was replaced with
a new 3-inch, AAV hit and destroyed at least 20 enemy aircraft. Part of the air defense
vehicles during this time has been transferred to accompany conventional armored
vehicles. Less successfully fought armored cars were sent at the end of 1915 in Russia
as part of the expeditionary force under the command of Locker-Simpson. Actually I
have not been able to find on their combat employment data.
In 1916, by request of the Russian government's firm Wolseley has released 16 more
armored vehicles, but this time Peerles chassis was chosen for conversion. Externally,
they are very like the Pierce Arrow and differed only installing a machine-gun
armament.
~ 515 ~
Pierce Arrow Anti-Aircraft Armodred Car sample 1915
Combat weight
CREW, pers. 4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
one 40-mm anti-aircraft gun Vickers and
WEAPONS
7.62-mm machine gun Maxim
aiming DEVICES ?
food body - 7,5 mm
ENGINE Petrol, 4-cylinder, 60 hp
TRANSMISSION ?
CHASSIS 4x2, suspension leaf springs, tubeless tires
SPEED about 40 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 516 ~
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION missing
"Terror" Armored Car The improvised armored car
During the First World War from the lack of modern technology suffered primarily
colonial possessions where tanks and armored vehicles were delivered very late. For
example in Egypt and the surrounding estates most massive armored car in 1920 was
the Rolls-Royce Armored Car. It was very good for its time machine, but its weak
armor and weapons are often caused discontent among the military. Colonial forces
needed more powerful armored vehicle, and because they do not have to rely on the
mother country, had to turn to its own "production capacity". Thus was born one of the
most interesting examples of improvised armored car, which significantly surpassed the
serial counterparts in some respects.
As a starting base was chosen Commer commercial truck chassis. Chassis was the drive
to the rear wheels, which were double. The front axle was controlled. Tires tubeless
performed from hard rubber. Armored Corps had quite a simple form with a small
inclination angles of the front and aft armor plates. Conventional lights on an armored
car were missing, but was located a small spotlight on the driver's compartment.
Judging by the design of the hull inside could host multiple infantry and vehicle use as
an armored personnel carrier. The crew consisted of 4-6 people.
~ 517 ~
On the roof of the body installed two cylindrical towers, the front was located closer to
the starboard side, and back - closer to the left. According to various reports of the
armored car armaments consisted of 3-4 type machine guns Lewis. In addition, the
boards were made loopholes for firing of small arms (pistols and rifles). In order to
improve the ventilation of the crew compartment (a climate in Southeast Asia is very
hot and humid) towers performed lifting the roof.
It should be noted that a reliable booking is not passed in vain - view from the driver's
seat was insufficient and was conducted only through the hinged armor plates with
observation slits. The same observation "appliances" made in the towers and on the
sides of the body, too, did not provide a good overview.
Released in a single copy improvised armored car "Commer" called "Terror",

although he also became known as the "Mother of Cairo Fleet". For its time, it was a
formidable force, as was intended to deal with Egyptian separatists who favor
independence. However, the use of "Terror" the British had a very short time. In 1922,
Egypt got rid of the British protectorate, though a significant military contingent of the
colonial forces for a long time remained in the country. Apparently, it lost its actual
purpose armored vehicle was demolished in the mid-1920s.
~ 518 ~
TACTICAL-TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS armored vehicles
"Terror" Armored Car was obr.1915
CREW, pers. 6-7
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS three or four 7.92-mm machine gun Lewis
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE carburetor, liquid
~ 519 ~
4x2, single wheels, tubeless tires, suspension leaf
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Rolls Royce armored car
United Kingdom (1914) Armored car 120 built
Development history
In 1914, despite its early endeavors, armored car development in Great Britain was near
to nil. The first Rolls Royce ACs were conceived almost by accident. In August 1914,
the Eastchurch Squadron of the RNAS (Royal Naval Air Service) was based in Ostend
under the command of Wing Commander Charles Rumney Samson. On the road to
England, they were ordered to stay in Dunkirk and help spotting the enemy incursions.
Two of the cars were equipped with a 0.3 cal. (7.62 mm) Maxim machine-gun, to
supplement the lack of aircraft. After a few sorties, they were armored with boiler
plates, and later used in coordination with other airplanes that spotted the enemy. So
successful were their actions that, by decision of the War Office in October, all other
Rolls Royce Silver Ghost chassis were converted as armored cars. A committee headed
by the Admiralty Air Department rationalized the conversion and set up the new tactical
units, giving birth to the Armored Car 1914 Pattern. These vehicles also acquired fame
during the Middle-Eastern campaign. Modernization will follow after WWI, with the
1920, 1921 Indian and 1924 patterns, which survived long enough to see service during
WWII in Africa.
Design of the 1914 Mk.I Pattern
~ 520 ~
The Rolls Royce Silver Ghost, as a car, was not yet associated to the image of immense
luxury we know today. Although they were already much costlier than other sedans and
coups, they were built with a very high quality level and a quite remarkable engine
which did most for its reputation. It was a carefully crafted 6-cylinder petrol, water-
cooled engine, giving 80 hp (60 kW) or a 19 hp/tonne weight ratio. The early series
aetheric name came from its all-silver finish, but could also stem from the ability of the
engine to run almost without vibration and noise. It is said to have been customary for a
seller to put one customers coin on its edge, right on the engine hood central hinge and
start the engine to illustrate this.
The chassis was a 24, with a single front and a double rear axles, and metal wire
wheels, with two to four in spare. The armor was made of 0.47 in (12 mm) rolled steel
plates, riveted around the chassis to a light frame. As defined by Flight Commander
T.G. Hetherington, the armored bodyworks most important feature was its rear
revolving turret (Admiralty turreted pattern), fitted with folding panels on each side and
a small hatch for the commander in the middle. It housed a regular water cooled
standard naval 0.303 cal (7.62 mm) Vickers machine gun. The engine hood and radiator
were completely armored. The rear of the chassis, between and above the axle, was left
for storage boxes, spare parts and everything else, as well as the side catwalks.
Later development: The Mk.I 1920, 1924 and other Patterns
It is estimated that 120 vehicles were so converted for the RNAS until 1915. Rolls
Royce was then requested to built aero engines. After the war, in 1920, it was decided to
modernize the type, which became the 1920 Pattern. These had thicker radiator armor
and new wheels with fully metallic rims. The Mk.Ia was characterized by a commander
cupola added to the main turret. The machine-gun was also upgraded. Three years later,
survivors undergone a second modernization phase, 1924 Pattern Mk I, which had a
permanent commander cupola. Rolls Royces sent in India were modified as the 1921
Indian Pattern, featuring roomier, extended hull armor, and a redesigned domed turret
with four machine-gun ball mount emplacements. 76 vehicles survived. Some were
again modified with a new open-top turret like those used on the Marmon-Herrington
armored cars serving in Africa. These turrets housed a variety of weapons, a 0.303 (7.62
mm) Vickers machine gun, a coaxial Bren AT rifle and an extra AA mount for a light
Lewis machine-gun.
In service
By December 1914, the first three 1914 Mk.1 Pattern armored cars appeared in service
with the first Dunkirk RNAS squadron. In all six squadrons of cars were used until
August 1915 and then the unit was disbanded, with some cars transferred in the Middle
East theater. They distinguished themselves in Syria-Palestine, in Aden, Iraq, and
Iranian operations against the Turks, and notably in the desert with the Arabs irregulars
of the Arabian revolt led by Col. T.E. Lawrence (which used a squadron of nine
vehicles). He estimated them more valuable than rubies. They also saw action in
German South-West Africa and, later, East Africa. Two squadrons were sent to
Gallipoli in April 1915, and were the only ACs to see action there. Others accomplished
an absolute record-breaking mileage under Commander Locker-Lampsons force in
Russia, until the 1917 Revolution, almost without repairs or maintenance.
~ 521 ~
By the 1922-23 Irish Civil War, 13 British vehicles were given to the Irish Free State
government. They were widely used for convoy protection against guerrilla attacks,
street fighting and were instrumental in the retaking of Cork and Waterford. By 1944
they were still in service, and one, the ARR-2 Sliabh na mBan (part of the convoy
which saw General Collins killed) is officially still in active service (although for
parade). In 1940-1941, about seventy-six Mk.I 1924 Patterns were still in service. They
were sent to the East African theater against the Italian forces. By 1941, some Fordson
truck chassis received the armored bodies of former Rolls Royce ACs (Number 2
Armoured Car Company RAF). It is no mystery its legendary qualities of reliability
participated in establishing the RR as one of the most famous British armored vehicles.
There are four other surviving examples.
Rolls Royce specifications (1914 Pattern)

Dimensions (L-w-h) 194 x 76 x 100 in (4.93 x 1.93 x 2.54 m)
Total weight, battle

4.7 tons (9400 lbs)
ready
Crew 3 (commander, driver, machine-gunner)
Propulsion 6-cylinder petrol, water-cooled 80 hp (60 kW), 19 hp/t
Suspensions 4 x 2 leaf springs
Speed 45 mph (72 kph)
Range 150 miles (240 km)
Armament 1 x Vickers Water cooled cal.303 (7.62 mm) machine gun (see
notes)
Samsons squadron Silver Ghost, August 1914.
~ 522 ~
Rolls Royce Mk.I 1914 Pattern, RNAS, Dunkirk, February 1915.
Camouflaged Rolls Royce Mk.I 1914 Pattern, Egypt, 1916.
T.E. Lawrences Rolls Royce Mk.I 1914 Pattern, Palestine, 1917. These cars were
apparently 44, their front axles receiving twin tires to cope with the harsh terrain and
the roof plates were often dismounted due to the heat.
~ 523 ~
British army Rolls Royce Mk.I 1920 Pattern, sent in Ireland in 1922. Now preserved at
Bovington.
Mk.I 1924 Pattern, Great Britain, 1929. Others served in Egypt until 1940.
Rolls-Royce 1924 Pattern with a modified open-top turret in Eastern Africa, 1941.
~ 524 ~
~ 525 ~
~ 526 ~
~ 527 ~
Rolls-Royce Armoured Car: Admiralty Turreted Pattern
For many people, the name Rolls-Royce still conjures up the idea of "armoured car", at
least as much as visions of the urbane life associated with what is claimed to be "the
Best Car in the World". The reason is easy to find because not only did Rolls-Royce
armoured cars serve on many fronts as far apart as South-West Africa and Russia from
1914 onwards in the First World War, but in a recognizably similar form were
employed in the British and other armies throughout the inter-war years all over the
world, and again in action during the earlier years of the Second World War.
The foundation of this story of successful longevity really lies in the London-Edinburgh
trials of the year 1911 when Rolls-Royce cars established their reputation for high
quality combined with strength and reliability. After the outbreak of war, early reports
from Commander C R Samson's Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) aeroplane and
armoured car force at Dunkirk confirmed that mechanically the best of his improvised
armoured cars were undoubtedly the Rolls-Royces.
In September 1914, all Rolls-Royce chassis in the works at Derby, or in the hands of
coachbuilders or agents, and some cars completed with coachwork were requisitioned.
These were all of the "Silver Ghost" model which had been standardized since 1908.
The engine was a six-cylinder 7428cc unit described as 40/50 hp and developing a
maximum of around 8o bhp. The gear-box was a four-speed type in 1914 cars although
it is believed that a few earlier cars with the three-speed gear-box may also have been
among those converted to armoured cars.
Design of the turreted pattern Rolls-Royce armoured car was commenced about October
1914, following discussions as to how to provide better protection than that offered by
the early open top armoured vehicles. A small committee was formed in the Admiralty
Air Department to consider this problem. Leading members were Squadron Commander
W Briggs and Flight Commander T G Hetherington (both of the RNAS) and they were
assisted by Lord Wimborne and Mr N C Macnamara. A rough design of car with a
~ 528 ~
turret was worked out and a model was made in three-ply wood. This involved some
curved armour plates and Mr Scott of William Beardmore and Co evolved a method of
bending light armour plate.
After the design was finalised, production went ahead and the first three Rolls-Royce
armoured cars of the turreted pattern were delivered on 3 December 1914. The
complement for the first RNAS squadron of the Armoured Car Division, twelve
armoured cars, was completed during December. The squadron was sent to the East
Coast of England both for trials and to guard against invasion. In service, heavier
suspension was found to be necessary and new springs, consisting of thirteen leaves at
the front and fifteen leaves at the rear, were fitted on these cars and standardized for all
later Rolls-Royce armoured cars. The new axle casings were also changed for a heavier
pattern.
Six squadrons of Rolls-Royce armoured cars were completed by the end of January
1915, but Maxim machine-guns had to be obtained from ships of the Fleet to fully equip
them all.
Training went ahead quickly, and in March the first two squadrons were sent on active
service overseas; one to France (and later to Egypt) and the other to German South-
West Africa from whence in July a section went on to East Africa. Early experience in
action in France suggested the need for a plate on the gun barrel to protect the open
mounting and this was fitted, on many cars later. In Africa the cars won praise for their
mechanical reliability (although conditions in some areas precluded the use of the
higher gears for days on end), but the twin Rudge Whitworth rear wheels filled with
Rubberine (a puncture sealing substance) were often in urgent need of replacement.
~ 529 ~
In April two further squadrons were sent to Gallipoli where, however, only one major
opportunity presented itself for armoured car action.
From August 1915 onwards the RNAS Armoured Car Division was broken up and most
of the equipment was handed over to the Army. Some Rolls-Royce armoured cars were
at this time stripped of their armour and converted into ambulances, light lorries or
tenders. Others remained in service in Light Armoured Motor Batteries of the Army,
including the cars in Egypt and Palestine and the ones that took part in Colonel T.E.
Lawrences campaign.
Two Rolls-Royce armoured cars were in Russia with Commander Locker-Lampsons

force (which remained an RNAS detachment) until the Revolution in 1917; one of these
~ 530 ~
was claimed to have done 53,000 miles over terrible roads or no roads at all with only
minor repairs (you can read their complete story in The Czars British Squadron by
Bryan Perrett and Anthony Lord, 1981).
The Rolls-Royce 1914 Admiralty turreted pattern armoured car needs little description:
its basic layout with a central drivers and fighting compartment topped by a revolving
turret and and open platform behind was used for other types of British armoured cars
right up to the Second World War. The crew was normally three men; the driver sitting
on the floor on a cushion and, in action, the other two standing to serve the Vickers
machine-gun mounted in the turret. Space was limited inside the car, however, and for
this reason sometimes the crew was only two, in which case the driver fed the machine-
gun, when driving, with one hand.
There were a few modifications and variants of the basic type. One experimental car
had the turret removed and a 1-pdr automatic gun ("pom pom") fitted on an open
mounting. Minor modifications were also made on the cars according to their own
theatres of war. For example, T E Lawrences cars all had double wheels front and rear
to cope with the extremely rough desert terrain. They also removed the roof plates so
that the conditions inside would be made more bearable. Other modifications were
made for different fighting zones such as the addition of an extra commanders cupola
on the turret roof. For engaging and pulling away barbed wire entanglements, some cars
in France had a pivoted hook fitted at the front; this idea apparently originated at
Gallipoli, where Turkish trenches were attacked in this way. Other than this no other
major modifications were made right up to 1920 when new plans were drawn up for a
totally improved armoured car. It turned out however that the so-called improvement
was almost identical to the old 1914 pattern save an extra inch to the turret height,
louvres on the hatches in front of the radiator plus the replacement of the spoked wheels
with disc wheels.
~ 531 ~
Some Rolls-Royce armoured cars of this 1914 pattern (together with cars of the very
similar 1920 pattern) remained in service for many years after the War; notably with the
Royal Tank Corps in India and with the Royal Air Force Armoured Car Companies in
Iraq. Some of the RAF cars (somewhat modernised) were still in active use at
Habbaniya as late as 1941.
~ 532 ~
Colour schemes varied with the type of country in which they were used. Normally
service green was used in the United Kingdom but green with brown and dark grey (or
variations of this theme) were used in war-time European theatres; and sand with or
without charcoal and black (or pale blue-grey) were used for desert camuoflage. Dazzle
camouflage was also used in fairly regular patterns. The colours consisted of yellow
ochre, red-brown, blue and dark green (similar to the early tanks of this period). The
tyres are light grey, the colour of natural rubber. The bronze green seen on the vehicle
below is a typical post-war colour.
The photos below have been taken by Knut Erik Hagen, a long-time contributor to this
site, and show the Rolls-Royce 1920 pattern that can be seen in the excellent Tank
Museum in Bovington, England.
~ 533 ~
Type Armoured car
In service 1915 - 1944
World War I, Irish Civil War,

Wars
World War II
Manufacturer Rolls-Royce
Number built 120 During World War I
Rolls-Royce 1920 Pattern,

Rolls-Royce 1924 Pattern,
Variants
Fordson Armored Car, Rolls
Royce Indian Pattern[1]
Weight 4.7 tonnes[1]
Length 4.93 m (194 in)[1]
Width 1.93 m (76 in)[1]
Height 2.54 m (100 in)[1]
Crew 3[1]
Main .303 Vickers machine gun[1]

armament
Secondary none
armament
6-cylinder petrol, water-

[1]
Engine cooled
80 hp (60 kW)[1]
4x2 wheel (double rear

Suspension
wheels), leaf spring[1]
240 km or 150 miles[1]

Operational
~ 534 ~
range
Speed 72 km/h (45 mph)[1]
The Rolls-Royce armoured car was a British armoured car developed in 1914 and
used in World War I and in the early part of World War II.
Production history
The Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) raised the first British armoured car squadron
during the First World War.[2] In September 1914 all available Rolls Royce Silver Ghost
chassis were requisitioned to form the basis for the new armoured car. The following
month a special committee of the Admiralty Air Department, among whom was Flight
Commander T.G. Hetherington, designed the superstructure which consisted of
armoured bodywork and a single fully rotating turret holding a regular water cooled
Vickers machine gun.
The first three vehicles were delivered on 3 December 1914, although by then the
mobile period on the Western Front, where the primitive predecessors of the Rolls-
Royce cars had served, had already come to an end.[2] Later in the war they served on
several fronts of the Middle Eastern theatre.[3] Chassis production was suspended in
1917 to enable Rolls-Royce to concentrate on aero engines.[4]
The vehicle was modernized in 1920 and in 1924, resulting in the Rolls-Royce 1920
Pattern and Rolls-Royce 1924 Pattern. In 1940, 34 vehicles which served in Egypt
with the 11th Hussars regiment had the "old" turret replaced with an open-topped unit
~ 535 ~
carrying a Boys anti-tank rifle, .303-inch Bren machine gun and smoke-grenade
launchers.
Some vehicles in Egypt and Iraq received new chassis from a Fordson truck and became
known as Fordson Armoured Cars. Pictures [1] show them as equipped with what
appear to be turrets fitted with a Boys ATR, a machine gun and twin light machine guns
for anti-aircraft defence.
Combat history
A 1924 Pattern Rolls-Royce Armoured Car with a "new" open-topped turret in the
Bardia area of the Western Desert, 1940.
Six RNAS Rolls-Royce squadrons were formed of 12 vehicles each: one went to
France; one to Africa to fight in the German colonies and in April 1915 two went to
Gallipoli. From August 1915 onwards these were all disbanded and the materiel handed
over to the Army which used them in the Light Armoured Motor Batteries of the
Machine Gun Corps. The armoured cars were poorly suited to the muddy trench filled
battlefields of the Western Front, but were able to operate in the Near East, so the
squadron from France went to Egypt.[3]
Lawrence of Arabia used a squadron in his operations against the Turkish forces.[1] He
called the unit of nine armoured Rolls-Royces "more valuable than rubies" in helping
win his Revolt in the Desert.[1] This impression would last with him the rest of his life;
when asked by a journalist what he thought would be the thing he would most value he
said "I should like my own Rolls-Royce car with enough tyres and petrol to last me all
my life".[1]
In the Irish Civil War (19221923), 13 Rolls-Royce armoured cars were given to the
Irish Free State government by the British government to fight the Irish Republican
~ 536 ~
Army.[1][5] They were a major advantage to the Free State in street fighting and in
protecting convoys against guerrilla attacks[citation needed] and played a vital role part in the
retaking of Cork and Waterford. Incredibly, despite continued maintenance problems
and poor reaction to Irish weather, they continued in service until 1944, being
withdrawn once new tyres became unobtainable. Twelve of the Irish Army examples
were stripped and sold in 1954.[5]
At the outbreak of World War II, 76 vehicles were in service. They were used in
operations in the Western Desert, in Iraq, and in Syria.[5] By the end of 1941, they were
withdrawn from the frontline service as modern armoured car designs became available.
Some Indian Pattern cars saw use in the Indian subcontinent and Burma.
Variants
1920 Pattern Mk I - thicker radiator armour and new wheels.

1920 Pattern Mk IA - commander's cupola.
1924 Pattern Mk I - turret with commander's cupola.
1921 Indian Pattern - based on the 1920 Pattern. Had extended hull armour to
provide extra space and a domed turret with four ball mounts for machine
guns.[5]
Fordson - based on a 1914 Pattern. Some vehicles in Egypt received new
chassis from Fordson trucks.
A single experimental vehicle had the turret removed and replaced by a one-pounder
automatic anti-aircraft gun on an open mounting. Some cars had Maxim machine guns
instead of the Vickers gun.
Having some experience in the use of polubronirovannyh Rolls-Royce cars "Silver

Ghost" British officers the idea was proposed to build on the same chassis fully armored
vehicle equipped with a machine gun in the turret. The appearance of this armored car
could have a decisive role in the fast breaks and just a few weeks to start building a
small batch intended for front-line trials. The design of armored Rolls-Royce of the
sample in 1914 was not the best, even for its time, but provide acceptable working
conditions for the crew, and had good processability. Series chassis from the "Silver
Ghost" remained virtually unchanged - had only a few forces frame. Hulls squat form a
~ 537 ~
fully protected engine compartment and fighting compartment, which is a multifaceted
box installed on the roof of the tower. The shape of the tower, with the characteristic
bevelled upper bronedistami subsequently used on many other armored vehicles up to
medium tanks. On the stern of a small transport area, where it was possible to transport
ammunition and equipment it was abandoned. Despite the "fire terms" design and
construction of the first three "Rolls-Royce", arrived in France December 3, 1914,
turned out to be almost useless, since maneuvering phase of the war ended. Until the
summer of 1915, an armored car squadrons were stubborn fighting by improv, and then
the car was transferred to another section of the front, where they are used very rarely.
Meanwhile, on another front - the Turkish, events unfolded in a somewhat different

way. In the spring of 1915 to Gallipolis began to throw 3rd and 4th armored car
squadrons under the command of Lieutenant Commander Wedgwood (JCWedgwood).
On the morning of April 25 at the n \ n Moudros a landing - first to the shore sent 11
machine-gun teams, so that they served as a deterrent "buffer" for the rest of the landing
of troops. At this time, the 3rd squadron went to g.Sedd el-Bar, and the 4th squadron
moved to g.Byulair. However, these local successes had no decisive effect on the
overall situation. With few interruptions armored vehicles were used to support the
cavalry and infantry, including during an unsuccessful offensive launched by the Allies
June 28. In autumn 1915 the war in this sector, too, has taken a position in nature, so a
part of the "Rolls Royce" had to be sent back, and the rest transferred to the infantry.
Although the number of members subsequently the "Rolls Royce" has increased, much
success in front of them was not achieved. As of 1915 in the ranks of the six full RNAS
armored car squadrons with 12 cars each. In addition, one armored vehicle equipped
with a 40 mm automatic Pom-Pom (built drawing ), intended for use as air defense
machine. To do this, we had to completely cut off the superstructure and dismantle the
tower.
Since work on the Western Front for the armored vehicles could not find the "Rolls
Royce" gradually began to ship in the colony. In the same year, a squadron was sent to
the North-East Africa and later in Egypt from France sent another squadron, who took
~ 538 ~
an active part in the battles of the Arab rebels led by Lawrence of Arabia. At the final
stage of the campaign on the western front "Rolls-Royces," played a very small role, but
after the First World War career "Rolls-Royce" has not ended.
Two years before the surrender of Germany and its allies in Ireland popular uprising.
The rebels managed for some time to seize the key points in Dublin, but in the next 48
hours to act quickly, the British army was able to create a 20-fold superiority in
manpower, strengthening the infantry five armored cars, "Rolls-Royce". The uprising,
which began on Monday, April 24, 1916, three days became a focal fights and 28 April
the Irish were forced to surrender.
Once ended World War in Ireland began to throw fresh reinforcements. Thus, in
January 1919, in Dublin, on the banks of the Rhine arrived 17th Tank Battalion
trehrotnogo composition. Roth "A" has 14 armored cars Austin the latest release series
(previously they were meant Russia, but in 1917 they were transferred to the Army), a
company "B" - 16 medium tanks Mk.A "Whippet", and the company "C" has been
equipped with heavy tanks Mk.IV, which were later replaced by newer and Mk.V
Mk.B. In addition, in early 1921 on Irish soil came 34 armored Rolls-Royce Armored
Car sample 1920. However, already in 1923 the majority of armored vehicles had to be
sent home, because by this time Ireland gained independence and to pacify the rebels
now become a private army.
Received as a gift 13 "Rolls-Royce" Irish National Army are actively using them in the
civil war. They are mostly used for combat patrols and escorts, but in August 1922, a
convoy of armored cars, "Rolls-Royce" could not save from destruction the commander
of the Irish Army, General Collins, passenger car that was ambushed while returning
from maneuvers.
As of the 1923 Irish Army had 6 "Rolls-Royce", and their service was very long - the
last car has been removed from service only in 1947 (!). One of the armored cars called
~ 539 ~
"Slivenamon" (one of the cars of the convoy troubled Collins) is now preserved at the
headquarters of the Irish army in Kara.
Carried out at the time the modernization of armored vehicles has led to the creation of
three more advanced options. The first phase was carried out in 1920 and was to
strengthen the radiator reservation, increase the height of the tower and replace
spitsovannyh wheels on solid disc. Standard armament consisted of a 7.71-mm machine
gun Vickers. Although combat weight increased to 33861 kg of maximum speed of
armored vehicles was 72 km \ h. This variant was designated Rolls-Royce 1920
Pattern Mk.I.
The following modification of Rolls-Royce 1920 Pattern Mk.IA was not so radical -
was installed commander's cupola and ball mount Vickers machine gun.
In 1924, "Rolls-Royce" modernized for the last time. On the model of Rolls-Royce
1924 Pattern Mk.I has a new tower with the commander's cupola. Along with other
minor improvements combat vehicle weight was 4217 kg.
In the interwar period, "Rolls-Royce", remaining in the metropolis, used mostly for
patrolling and security services, and from the beginning of the 1930s. they took the role
of educational armored vehicles. More intensively proceeded exploitation in the
colonies.
One of the largest parks in Rolls-Royce Armored Car from the mid-1920s. I was in
India. Here, part of the machine was modified to equip them with a wider body and a
domed turret with four ball units for machine guns Vickers. This modification was
based on the basis of a sample of armored cars in 1920 and is now known as the Rolls
Royce Indian Pattern. During World War II, four cars were sent to Iraq, where the
mutiny of Rashid Ali in May 1941. The uprising against the British petered out near the
beginning, therefore, "Rolls-Royce" in the fighting did not participate. Initially, they
~ 540 ~
were left at the port on the Persian Gulf, going further to the metal, but due to the
invasion of Persia (Iran) Expeditionary Force Command has decided to transfer them to
Baghdad. The distance is 350 miles old armored cars passed with great difficulty, but in
the end they arrived at their destination and were subsequently handed over to the 31 th
Indian mobile workshop.
Slightly longer lived four armored cars served in Burma at Mingaladon airport. Are
here, "Rolls-Royce" refers to the "Indian" modifications and served since 1922. Each
machine had a unique name: "Snipe", "Kestrel", "Eagle" and "Hawk". The first
encounter (which ended in vain) took place February 9, 1942, when two armored
vehicles accompanied the convoy met an enemy patrol. Since their crews had a job to
deliver an important official in g.Martaban crews decided to break through the
checkpoint Japanese posed a few kilometers from the city. In the ensuing battle "Eagle"
and "Hawk" came under heavy machine-gun fire - injuring three crew members, and the
machines themselves have received numerous holes and damage the engine and the
radiator. This "Eagle" was so damaged that it had to tow the truck. After the battle,
"Rolls-Royce" was sent to Rangoon, where these machines are recognized not subject to
recovery. History of Burmese machines ended the morning of February 22th, when an
attack on the British camp the Japanese captured two armored cars, the crew of which
were not even able to run to their cars.
As of September 1939, in the ranks remained only broneavtmobili issue 1920-1924.,

The total number does not exceed 80 units (42 Rolls-Royce 1920 Pattern Mk.I, 10
Rolls-Royce 1920 Pattern Mk.IA and 24 Rolls-Royce 1924 Pattern Mk.I). All combat-
ready machines were refurbished and mobilized to the troops of territorial defense.
Since their military value was small "Rolls-Royce" were used only for the protection of
airports, and at least two armored vehicles of this type survived the war.
In the colonies, where the island was a lack of armored vehicles, "Rolls-Royce" much
more intensively exploited. For example, 34 armored vehicles deployed in Egypt as part
~ 541 ~
of the 11th Hussars have been modernized. In 1940, instead of the standard tower and
they have established a new, open type (like dogs), where the mounted anti-tank rifle
Boys caliber 13.97 mm, the Bren machine gun and mortars for firing smoke grenades.
Modified armored actively fought against the German and Italian units until the end of
1941, is to replace them do not come more modern designs.
More radical was the modernization of 20 armored vehicles from the 2nd company of
armored vehicles RAF (RAF). Because their chassis was badly worn hulls decided to
rearrange the undercarriage Fordson truck. They have kept the old style of the tower
with a machine gun Vickers, but equipped with their anti-aircraft turret with a single
machine gun Lewis or twin Vickers K or Browning. Part of the machinery received an
additional anti-tank rifle Boys. These armored vehicles, more commonly known as
Fordson Armored Car , used in operations in Libya, Syria and Iraq until the end of
1941. Surviving "Fordson" involved to protect airfields up until 1944.
Several "Rolls-Royce" during the 1940-1941 biennium. It was transferred to the Polish
and Belgian armored units formed in the UK after the failure of the war on the Western
Front. Of course, neither of which the combat use of the question, as these worn-out
armored cars were used only for training of personnel, and in 1942 was sent to
razbronirovku.
Catastrophically unlucky armored car sold in 1933 in distant Bolivia, who fought at the
time against Paraguay. They are mostly used for patrol traffic routes convoys and only
time in combat they tried to use when trying to break through to Campo Grande.
Events unfolded in the morning of December 11, 1933, when the 4th and 9th Infantry
Divisions Bolivians out of the encirclement. For their support command sent two Rolls-
Royce, who were ambushed by the 7th Cavalry Regiment Paraguayans. With a limited
review and low permeability armored vehicles stuck on the ground, and their crews had
no choice but to surrender. It is the whole car was towed to the rear, where they had a
small repair and were handed over to the police after the war Asunsona, served there for
several years.
~ 542 ~
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 4930
Width 1930
Height mm 2540
Clearance, mm ?
one 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers or 7.92-mm machine
WEAPONS
gun Bren
aiming DEVICES ?
board housing -
food body -?
RESERVATIONS
Tower - 12 mm
roof -
bottom -
Rolls-Royce 40 / 50hp Silver Ghost 7, carburetor, 6-
ENGINE
cylinder, liquid-cooled, 80 hp
4x2, single wheels, pneumatic tires, suspension leaf
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED 72 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Rolls-Royce Armored Car RNAS Pattern
~ 543 ~
The immediate predecessor of the famous armored Rolls-Royce, the last two world
wars, was his polubronirovanny variant, created on the initiative of Istcherchskogo
Squadron flight commander RNAS (Royal Naval Air Service) Charles R.Semsona.
Once the impression may be that the idea of creating such a machine intended to be the
primary objective of the protection of airfields and military installations, but the nuance
of the situation lies precisely in the fact that it is engaged in the design of armored
vehicles the RNAS, and not an army department. But initially it was prepared for just
such a role.
In September 1914, fearing raids of German "Zeppelin", which could rise into the air
from coastal bases in Germany or Belgium, Sir Winston Churchill ordered to send to
France 200-300 personnel at RNAS 100 armored vehicles, which would be engaged in
security and anti defense airfields. The most interesting thing is that at that time the
British army officially was armed with a single armored car! To solve this problem was
to aviators and ground support services. On arrival at Dunkirk Samson and his men
went to work. As for the realization of the full booking proek5ta machines it requires a
lot of time until it was decided to equip some cars and trucks Maxim machine guns
caliber 7.71 mm. But this was not enough, since before Samson was set a global
challenge to cover the 50-mile zone around the city. In fact, this meant the inevitable
clash with the Germans in ground combat. Although the Admiralty has pledged
approximately 50-60 armored vehicles implementation of this plan dragged on for
almost six months and eventually lost relevance since the beginning of "trench warfare".
Up to this point the expeditionary forces had to somehow get out themselves. Not
becoming to wait until the Germans come, Samson decided himself to pay them a visit,
going to the front with a few machine-gun machine. The first encounter with the
German lancers confirmed that guns are an effective tool against them, but on condition
that the fight does not go to "bayonet" phase. Then Samson undertook a series of
"raiding operations", one of which ended in Kassel bombardment of German staff car
driver who chose to retire. Two-days later the British went to Lille, which was believed
to have been captured by the enemy. The purpose was the supply trucks and cars,
destroying that could slow down the pace of the German offensive. However, instead of
a warm welcome, the locals took over the British and the Germans raised the panic. The
case ended with a few random shots, and he got hit Samson mug of ginger beer, which
flew into his car breaking the windscreen. Assessing the damage Samson came to the
conclusion that his machines need at least a partial reservation, otherwise their crews
will be prepared for an unenviable fate. To protect against bullets caliber rifle that was
considered sufficient armor quarter of an inch thick, which translated into the metric
system was 6.35 mm. As the main machine for booking chosen Rolls-Royce "Silver
Ghost" - one of the most successful and reliable cars at the time, it was widely used by
the British army. Standard body completely dismantled, and a metal frame fastened
armor plates, completely closes the hood and part salon. Onboard armor protected only
to shoulder level, but the driver and front passenger frontal camouflage armored shields
and the rear part of the body where the installed machine gun Maxim, was slightly
elevated. Direct work on Car conducted workshops Forge et Chatier in Dunkirk under
the guidance F.R.Semsona (brother of Charles).
Exactly how much was booked Rolls-Royce "Silver Ghost" is now hard to say. Perhaps
their number did not exceed a dozen. During the second half of September 1914, they
successfully operated at the front line, which was held in the French city of Kassel
(Cassel), Orsha (Orchies), Anish (Aniche) and Douai (Douai) - these settlements were
~ 544 ~
near the Belgian border, and were part of the province Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Nord-Pas-
de-Calais ). Soon they were joined in the modified armored Rolls-Royce with rotating
towers coming from the United Kingdom, but the war has already started to go could
not be obtained in the positional stage and a large effect on their use. The last major
battle, which was attended by the armored vehicles, began the defense of Antwerp in
early October 1914. Later polubronirovannye Rolls-Royce "Silver Ghost" was taken to
the rear, where they finished their careers as security vehicles.
Rolls-Royce RNAS Pattern sample 1914
Combat weight about 2000 kg

CREW 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm
Width
Height mm
Clearance, mm 280
WEAPONS one 7.71-mm machine gun Maxim
aiming DEVICES mechanical machine gun sight
food body - 6.35 mm
Rolls-Royce, 6-cylinder, carburetor, in-
ENGINE line; output 80 hp .; the working volume
of 7430 cc
TRANSMISSION ?
wheel formula 4x2, leaf suspension on
CHASSIS semi springs, wheels spitsovannye,
pneumatic tires
SPEED about 60 km \ h (?)
overcome obstacles ?
RNAS Armored Car Light armored vehicle
~ 545 ~
Successful actions of the Belgian light armored "Minerva" input 1914 autumn
campaign, led RNAS (Royal Navy Air Service - the Royal Naval Air Service) to initiate
the creation of similar machines. As one of the options considered was the use for this
purpose on the chassis of the car Rolls-Royce "Silver Ghost", are characterized by high
reliability and build a large series.
Armored vehicles got riveted body is assembled from sheets of 6-mm armor. The layout
has remained unchanged, but the aft of the crew compartment was equipped with a
cylindrical tower. Armament "Rolls-Royce" consisted of a 7.71-mm machine gun
Hotchkiss. Also on the sides of the rear of the casing is a box with tools. The crew
consisted of three people: the driver, commander and gunner.
It should be noted that Rolls-Royce chassis chosen not by chance - even in August 1914
on the initiative of Eastchurch Squadron RNAS flight commander Charles R. Samson
was armed with machine guns Maxim few cars to counter the German aviation. Since
the forces and means at Samson was not enough, he sent a request to the Admiralty to
build a few more machines to ensure the mobility of air defense systems in the 50-mile
area around Dunkirk. Admiralty in response promised to provide 50-60 armored
vehicles.
In the meantime, Samson made several "raiding operations" on its own. The first of
these was held in Kassel (Cassel), when a machine gun fired at the car of the British
headquarters German car, forcing him to "take flight". Two days later, Samson went to
~ 546 ~
four cars in Lille, hoping to find and destroy enemy vehicles out there, but this
campaign has ended in confusion. Anxious residents of the city so alarmed at the sight
of armed British cars, one of them threw a detachment commander in the bottle of
ginger beer, which has broken through the windshield and hit him right in the jaw.
Samson This led to the conclusion that without protection in a real fight of his car
prepared for the bitter fate, with the result that they put "armor" of the sheets of thick
iron boiler 1 \ 4 inch (6 mm).
Later, in September 1914 polubronirovannye cars Samson fought heavy battles against
German troops. Together with Rolls-Royce in the same act six polubronirovannyh
Talbot vehicles. Came to the rescue soon reinforcements from six retrofitted armored
vehicles (with turrets on the driver's seat) on October 1, involved with the defense of
Antwerp. A week later, it became clear that the city hold fail and crews of armored
vehicles have set the task as much as possible to wear down the enemy in defensive
battles. By the end of October War in France gradually began to acquire a "trench" in
nature and the available at that time on the front four armored car squadron (5,6,8 and
15) was transferred to the subordination of the 3rd Cavalry Division and will soon
cancel reservation.
SPECIFICATIONS VEHICLE POLUBRONIROVANNOGO

RNAS Armored Car was obr.1914
CREW, pers. 2-3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
~ 547 ~
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers or 7.92-mm machine

WEAPONS
gun Lewis
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
Rolls-Royce 40 / 50hp Silver Ghost 7, carburetor, 6-

ENGINE
cylinder, liquid-cooled, 80 hp

CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ~ 70 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Rolls Royce 1914 Admiralty Pattern Armoured Car Admiralty armored car
~ 548 ~
Following polubronirovannymi machines on the Rolls-Royce "Silver Ghost" chassis,
created in France under the direction of Samson, in the United Kingdom conducted a
similar job, but at a qualitatively new level. If the earlier model had only partially
enclosed body armor, its next version of the book was already full. The initiators of the
project were not only employees RNAS: squadron commander U.Biggsa (W. Briggs),
Flight Commander T.Dzh.Hezrington (Thomas Gerard Hetherington), Lord Wimborne
(Lord Wimborne) and N.K.Marnamara (NC Macnamara).
The implementation of the project assigned to the company William Beardmore & Co.,
which has approached this issue from the point of view of technological design and
therefore forms a new car turned out very angular. Armor plates joined back to back at
right angles and fastened using rivets and over wooden frame. An exception was only a
small driver's cabin, made in the form of a truncated pyramid. The bow of the hull were
attached two main-beam headlamps. For the cooling of the engine in the front of the
bonnet to make double opening shutters. The thickness of the armor plates was 6.35
mm.
Chassis shifted from commercial Rolls-Royce "Silver Ghost" unchanged. It remained

spitsovannye wheels with pneumatic tires and suspension on the leaf springs. The rear
wheels are leading, front - operated. Apparently realizing the vulnerability of the main
elements of the chassis in the coming battles will be high, the front wheels receive
armored boxes.
Armament armored vehicles was quite standard and consisted of a machine gun Vickers
kaibra 7.71 mm, which is transported in the packing. Precise data on the ammo has not
been preserved, but it is believed that with them it was possible to take the 2000-3000
rounds.
According to the most reliable data, six armored vehicles of this model were built,
which today received the designation Rolls Royce 1914 Admiralty Pattern Armoured
Car. At full strength, they were sent to France at the end of September - beginning of
October 1914, they had to bear not only patrol, but also engage in direct clashes with
the German troops. Several "Rolls-Royce" were transferred under Antwerp, where the
October 2, the British crew had to endure a brutal fight.
~ 549 ~
To the extent that a modern armored rotating turret machines earlier models became
withdraw to the rear, where they finished their career. One of the "Admiralty Rolls-
Royces," the fall of 1914 was captured by German troops, and after the repair has also
been sent to the rear for the study.
TACTICAL-TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Admiralty armored vehicles

Rolls Royce 1914 Admiralty Pattern Armoured Car
CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 7.62-mm machine gun Maxim, or 7.71-mm machine

WEAPONS
gun Vickers
~ 550 ~
roof - 6.35 mm
superstructure - 6.35 mm
Rolls-Royce, 6-cylinder, carburetor, in-line; output 80 hp

ENGINE
.; the working volume of 7430 cc
wheel formula 4x2, leaf suspension on semi springs,

CHASSIS
wheels spitsovannye, pneumatic tires
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Rolls-Royce Armored Car Indian Pattern Colonial armored car
During the First World War, the threat of German invasion there was not only against
the UK. Successful actions of the enemy in the North-East Africa and the Pacific, told
~ 551 ~
the British that Germany is fully capable of small forces to achieve great victory. To
counter the aggressor, and at the same time to intimidate local residents who are not
indifferent to the colonial domination, in 1915-1916. Force India car workshops in a
small batch of armored vehicles was assembled.
As basis Chassis Commercial vehicle Rolls-Royce, was it true this is the "Silver Ghost"
is now unlikely to be set. In any case, the chassis possess single front and rear dual
wheels with depreciation on the leaf springs and tubeless tires. The rear wheels are
protected with steel wings. Apparently, the machines were equipped with petrol engines
of Rolls-Royce 80 hp For better cooling in the front of the bonnet did fixed blinds.
The case was simple, but very high-tech form. The sides of feed and the upper frontal
armor plates were set vertically. A slight slope had only the front armor plate, is located
between the hood and the cab. The driver and his assistant performed completely
closed. At the same time, the fighting compartment did not have a roof and could be
closed by inclement weather only a tarpaulin. Behind the cab sets a single 7.71-mm
Vickers machine gun without armored shields. A full crew of armored vehicles can
comprise from 3 to 5 people.
It seems to have been built at least four armored vehicles (we will call them
conditionally Rolls-Royce Armored Car Indian Pattern) in two versions. Second
distinguished by the presence of two cylindrical recesses on the sides of the body and a
device for overcoming the barbed wire. At least, the photos of that time captured three
of these armored vehicles. However, it is not clear where India could take those same
obstacles. On operation Rolls-Royce Indian Pattern mod.1916 information almost did
not survive. It is known that up to the end of the war they were involved to patrol.
SPECIFICATIONS COLONIAL armored vehicles

Rolls-Royce Armored Car Indian Pattern

CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
~ 552 ~
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Rolls-Royce, petrol
CHASSIS 4x2, pneumatic tires, suspension leaf springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION -
SVDF Armored Car 4x2 Colonial armored car
~ 553 ~
History of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps (Shanghai Volonterr`s Defence Force) began
in 1927. The main objective of this compound was foreign property protection
(especially the British) from the encroachments as the Japanese troops, and the Chinese
themselves. After the occupation of Manchuria, the Japanese have developed at least a
large-scale company, intending to capture all oceanfront with most major cities. After
the so-called "January 28 Incident" in 1932, the Chinese government was forced to
abandon the accommodation in Shanghai its armed forces than seriously weakened its
positions in the area.
By this time the Corps deployed in the city, consisted of 6 units totaling 1525 persons:
company "A" (UK), "Bed and" (European), "the C" (Chinese), a Scottish company,
"White" Russian battalion (from the number of emigrant officers of the tsarist army)
and the division of the US Marines. Subsequently, the number of members grew to
2,300 people, but the armor needed to resist a well-equipped Japanese army. Since the
United Kingdom has officially refused to take part in the conflict on the side of the
Chinese volunteers had to deal with the problem on their own.
So, in the same 1927, it was decided to book a few trucks. At least three of them had
rear-wheel drive chassis with a 4x2 (presumably on the chassis of Ford trucks), of hard
rubber tires and suspension on the leaf springs. Reservations closed the hood, the
driver's cab and the compartment of combat, which is installed on the roof of a
cylindrical tower, similar to the one that was installed on armored vehicles such as
Rolls-Royce. The armament consisted of a 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers with liquid
cooling. In the rear of the car survived the cargo bay. In addition, based on the same
chassis was assembled The Staff armored car with a more spacious and fighting
compartment without a tower.
During 1932, these armored cars were used mainly for outposts and patrol, the crews
also completed with Russian officers. Machine gun variants have onboard digital dom
number "1" to "8", and the command vehicle was carrying at the front of the hood are
two letters "C". It was possible if they take part in the battles with the Japanese army - is
unknown. The last mention of "volunteer" otnovitsya armored vehicles in August-
November 1937, when the Japanese army after fierce battles with Chinese forces
stormed Shanghai.
~ 554 ~
Also in 1932, it was booked in several three-axle trucks with 6x4 and rear single
wheels. Hulls had quite a simple form, vaguely recalling a similar armored Crossley 6x4
Armored Car, started a few years earlier for use in India. The main difference between
"volunteer" machines was diagonal installation of two single towers, equipped with a
machine gun. At least two of the armored car in 1932 became the spoils of the Japanese
army.

SVDF Armored Car 4x2 sample 1932
CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
aiming DEVICES _
~ 555 ~
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
4x2, front-wheel-driven, single, dual rear wheel leading,

CHASSIS
tubeless tires, suspension leaf springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
~ 556 ~
Suzare-Berwick "Wind Wagon" Experimental armored car
~ 557 ~
Especially for action in North Africa and the Middle East experts and RNAS company
Suzane-Berwick was designed armored car driven by a propeller, made according to the
type of aircraft. Then it was thought that conventional broneavtomobilm bogged down
in soft or sandy soil, and therefore the idea to equip the machine propeller. As
conceived by its creators, with more bogged armored thrust produced by the propeller
had to pull it out.
In mid-1915 Suzare-Berwick company workshops forces have collected only one such
aerobronevik of ordinary steel, equipping it with a 110-horsepower engine and
Sunbeam 4-bladed propeller. The crew consists of 2 people, armament - one machine
gun caliber 7.71 mm, mounted in front of the compartment. The car soon became
known as "Wind Wagon" ( "Vetrovagon").
After some testing of this scheme decided to abandon - the vulnerability of units in
combat would be quite large, and besides the usual armored cars have sufficient
permeability for the action in the wilderness.
~ 558 ~
Suzare-Berwick "Wind Wagon" sample in 1915

CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 4500
Width about 1700
Height mm ~ 2000
Clearance, mm ?
RESERVATIONS mild steel (prototype)
ENGINE Sunbeam, gasoline, air-cooled, 110 hp
wheel formula 4x2: Front Axle A message-driven, azdny
CHASSIS bridge leading, single spitsovannye wheels, pneumatic tires,
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Armored Car Ford (Sudan Defence Force) Colonial armored car
~ 559 ~
During the brief campaign in North-East Africa Italian troops against the British
mechanized unit from the Sudanese Defense Forces (Sudan Defense Force) received
two similar in purpose but different in armored design.
The first was a reserved all-wheel drive truck Ford V8 (4x4), and the second version
was more specialized, although it was released in smaller quantities. To create all-wheel
drive truck chassis used Ford, probably be released on license by Marmon Herrington.
Chassis machine consisted of the top four single wheels.
In contrast to the first embodiment of reservation is to develop more efficient and, in

fact, a makeshift armored vehicle turned out no worse than serial counterparts.
However, the feed side and had angles of inclination, which greatly reduced their
bulletproof but simplified structure. Small narrowing casing were only in the front and
rear. Booking Engine also performed quite simply, using two frontal flaps unmanaged
blinds.
Standard weapons included one anti-tank rifle Boys caliber 13.97 mm in the open-
topped tower and a Bren light machine gun caliber 7.92 mm, which can be fitted on the
pin.
The exact amount of the booked so Ford truck is not known. At least we can speak of
two samples differing type of tower (cylindrical and faceted).
~ 560 ~
it was not possible to find data on the use of armored vehicles of the model Ford. It is
likely that they were used at the final stage of the campaign in Ethiopia and Eritrea
(Summer-Fall 1041). It is possible that after the end of hostilities Ford for some time
been used for patrols and outposts in the occupied territories. Given that in 1942 in
North Africa came sufficient number of serial armored Marmon Herrington, Sudanese
"Ford" may write off around the same time.

Armored Car Ford (Sudan Defence Force) was obr.1941
CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 7.62-mm machine gun Vickers and one 13.97-mm

WEAPONS
anti-tank rifle Boys
aiming DEVICES _
~ 561 ~
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Ford V8, gasoline, liquid cooling, power 80-85 hp

CHASSIS
pneumatic tires, suspension leaf springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Standard \ Napier Armored Car Light armored vehicle
During both world wars, colonial power Britain, often had no new equipment had to
improvise, and it should be noted, have not turned out worse than in the metropolis. One
such example can serve as an armored car based on the British Standard commercial
vehicle production.
~ 562 ~
Presumably, to rework ispolzovalast machine model "S", one of which is available to
the British troops stationed in India. Force local automotive workshop was carried
reservation is at least one chassis Standard chassis and two Napier. All received similar
armored hulls thick armor which presumably was 3-5 mm. The roof was missing, which
was due to two reasons - the hot climate and the complexity of the installation of towers
(apparently fixed superstructure are not satisfied military). In the fighting compartment,
which could also be used to transport several soldiers, installed a 7.71-mm machine gun
Vickers or 7.92-mm machine gun Maxim. The differences between them zaklyuchlis
only bookings front of the hood.
Armored vehicles Standard and Napier were transferred in 1915 in the 10th Armored
Motor Battery and used during the war in the state of Punjab, which remained very
tense throughout the colonial presence of British forces.

Standard \ Napier Armored Car model 1915
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 4000
Width ~ 1800
Height mm ~ 2500
Clearance, mm ?
~ 563 ~
one 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers or 7.62-mm
WEAPONS
machine gun Maxim
RESERVATIONS housing - 3-5 mm (?)
ENGINE Carburetor

CHASSIS
spitsovannye
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Armored Car No.1 \ Armored Car Dennis Colonial armored car
~ 564 ~
Events of the First World War left no doubt - Imperialism does not sleep and is hungry
for new conquests. While on the western Allies zealous in terms of redrawing of
European borders and divided the captured colonies in Asia and Africa, the Far East, the
Japanese militarists continued to conquer China. Fortunately, after the revolution of
1912 the Chinese central government did not own situation in the country. Especially
valuable possessions were in the south-eastern part. Perhaps China for a long time
would be occupied by the Japanese, if not overseas aid. Northern provinces helped the
Soviet Union and in the richest regions densely populated European capitalists. Outpost
that defended European companies and concessions, there were two - Shanghai and
Hong Kong. Regular troops are gone, so had to keep order "volunteers." To be more
precise - it was a civilian armed force consisting of British, French, Russian and other
soldiers who were out of work after the war, or simply looking for a job in itself.
The first time, especially a lot of work they did not. Sometimes the "volunteers" had to
pacify the rioters Chinese, and this lack of light infantry weapons. But as always I
wanted more. On tanks and armored vehicles could not dream, as these "toys" were too
expensive. Then I had to improvise.
At the beginning of the 1920s. "Volunteer" armed forces, consisting mainly of British
and Russian, have received from the local capitalists, represented by Sir Paul Chetera
(Paul Chater), financial assistance in the amount of $ 1,500. This large amount of
money at the time was spent on the purchase of trucks Ford and the construction of the
first armored car. The experience was so successful that in 1925 decided to buy a
second truck for the same purpose - this time the choice fell on Dennis company car.
The assembly of the second armored car produced in the shipyard Hong Kong &
Whampoa Dock Co.
Dennis Company was founded in 1895 and engaged in the construction of the inter-war
period, not only trucks but also buses. In 1919, Dennis acquired company White and
Poppe, which is engaged in production of engines and gearboxes, which significantly
simplifies the production process. Chassis truck had a 4x2. All the wheels have been
~ 565 ~
supplied with tubeless spitsovannymi and hard rubber tires. Front wheel pair was
controlled, the back (with wheels gable) - a leading.
The body of the machine was designed in the best traditions of the past war, which gave
him a certain similarity with the German Daimler and Ehrhardt sample in 1915.
Distinctive features of these armored cars were high side and frontal oblique sheet body.
On the roof of the fighting compartment, which could serve as a paratrooper, has single
tower, the shape of which was apparently borrowed from the British armored vehicles.
Tower has a cylindrical shape with a chamfered upper sheets on the sides. Apparently,
not to peretyazhelyat car cargo area has been left in the rear.
About booking information was not kept. It is possible that the thickness of the armor
plates did not exceed 5-9 mm, it would be optimal for the type of chassis. However, it is
not excluded that the ship (the case is still going on Verviers) could be used instead of
steel armor. Equips one armored infantry caliber machine gun, located in the tower. The
housing was provided loopholes for shooting from the sidearms.
Official designation in this war machine was not, but foreign sources can sometimes be
found marking Armored Car Dennis or Armored Car No.1. This was the first
armored car that was included in the armored car unit (Armoured Car Section) whose
commander was appointed lieutenant Doubiggina (Dowbiggin). In 1920-ies. armored
car No.1 was used mostly for patrols and outposts, but it did not live up to the Japanese
occupation.

Armored Car No.1 sample in 1925
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
aiming DEVICES _
RESERVATIONS ?
~ 566 ~

CHASSIS
tubeless tires, suspension leaf springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Talbot Armored Car Light armored vehicle
Along with the armor protection Wolseley cars at the initiative of RNAS officers was
carried out a similar operation with the company Talbot car, which had similar
characteristics and also in military service. The process of equipping armor of
commercial vehicles was started back in October and November 1914, but at that time
he wore a rather improvised character. By December, and RNAS had already picked up
a lot of experience, so every new model gets better than the last - Rolls-Royce and
Manchester are to vivid examples. But there were other projects that clearly "budget"
character.
So, in the autumn of 1914, in fact on its own initiative, at RNAS workshop was held
Reservation few Talbot vehicles. In particular, it states that the first Clement Talbot was
~ 567 ~
booked back in September techniques Eastchurch Squadron RNAS flight commander
Charles R. Samson.
Indeed, the essence of this process was to trim the metal plates wood frame building and
installing a small cabin on the driver's seat. Chassis remained unchanged: two axles
with single wheels, pneumatic tires, suspension springs liistovyh. booking thickness less
than 5 mm. rear axle wheels mounted protected armored shields. Standard weapons on
Talbot Armored Car (Admiralty Pattern) (it's called "Modified Admiralty 1st
Pattern Clement-Talbots " in some sources) was absent, but in the transport
compartment could seat several soldiers. In general, this model is an analogue of
Wolseley.
Earlier Talbot company engaged in production of tourist class cars and hanging armor
weight which was based on the modification of 508-609 kg, affected the chassis.
Armored vehicles was slightly congested, but overall was pleased with the RNAS like
"improvisation". A total of 21 armored was ordered the Talbot, but built only 6. It is
natural that such an armored vehicle could be used only as a messenger or duty on the
rear communications. However, the command has ordered to send all six Talbot to
France, where they have increased RNAS units. Four of them, like ships, have been
named HMS Aniche, HMS Cassel, HMS Orchies and HMS Douai.
It was not long, and officers from the aircraft decided to adapt the design to the modern
requirements. It was developed by a completely new body, which was highly
superstructure. Now armored vehicle could carry up to 5 people inside, and front and
rear was installed on one machine gun Vickers caliber 7.71 mm. How many of these
cars were built is now hard to say. It is also not yet been able to find information about
their combat use.
~ 568 ~
Talbot Armored Car sample 1915

CREW, pers. 3-4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
~ 569 ~
one or two 7.62-mm machine gun Maxim, or 7.71-mm
WEAPONS
machine gun Vickers
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Petrol, 4-cylinder with a capacity of 25 hp
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Sheffield-Simplex \ Army Motor Lorries Armored Car Light armored vehicle
~ 570 ~
In the spring of 1915, when the Russian army was forced to leave a significant part of
Poland and Ukraine, the need to increase the fleet of armored cars became much more
urgent. At that time Russian industrial facilities could not ensure the needs of the front,
so in October 1914 in the UK was sent to the procurement commission headed by
Colonel Sekretova. The Russian delegation then opted for the armored car company
Austin Motor Company Ltd. Although this machine does not have enough weapons
booking composition it is quite consistent with the technical requirements and the price
is quite arranged customer. After just a few months, the Anglo-Russian governmental
committee was authorized to enter into new contracts, but this time the choice was made
so poorly.
Among the ordered vehicles were armored cars Sheffield-Simplex Armored Car. The
contract for delivery of 10 copies was signed on May 7 as the date of completion of
deliveries expected by June 15 in 1915. A month later, in July, an additional order for
five machines was issued, which were scheduled to receive by 15 November, and
subsequently brought the total order up to 25 copies. In obsche complexity to
December 1915, British companies have had to put 236 machines of all kinds, but the
execution of those commitments far exceeded the time.
Armored vehicle Sheffield-Simplex is nothing original, as was created based on the

chassis of commercial machines 30NS modification of the same company, with 6-
cylinder petrol engine capacity of 30 hp
Reservations housing does not exceed 4 - 5.5 mm, which was not enough to protect
against bullets even caliber rifle. Armor plates were attached to the wood (Ash-tree)
frame and connected to each other by means of rivets. The body had a very
prizemistnye shape, which favorably affects the visibility of the car, but at the same
time has created overcrowding in the fighting compartment.
According to the first draft, proposed by the company, only one armored vehicle armed
with a machine gun mounted in the turret. After reviewing the project, Colonel secrets,
with the assistance of Captain Mironov, we developed a two-towered option will
significantly increase the combat capability of the machine. The crew consisted of three
people - a driver, commander and gunner. weight armored vehicles in a fully equipped
condition was 5,000 kg.
~ 571 ~
Now it is not clear what guided Russian procurement commission, signing a contract for
the supply of armored vehicles Sheffield-Simplex, the price for each of which was 1615
pounds (for comparison, Austin armored car cost only 1150 pounds). Disadvantages of
this machine were already obvious initial stage of its design, and most likely here
starring "financial issue" and not "care about the country."
The summer of 1915, the company Army Motor Lorries of Wagons Russian Purchasing
Commission has proposed a similar version of the armored car on the same chassis, but
with a few changes. The contract for the supply of 36 cars for the same price was signed
on August 11 with the term of the order by November 1915.
The first copies of armored vehicles Sheffield-Simplex and Army Motor Lorries began
to arrive only 17 units of both versions were delivered to Russia only in the fall and by
December 8th. Russian Acceptance Commission was very dissatisfied with the
equipment arrived. In his report to the Commission on armored vehicles GVTU made
the following conclusions:
"... Wooden Caracas as a basis for securing armor plates is a big disadvantage. The
chassis is heavily overloaded. Observed failure differentials, semiaxes and Carter. "
~ 572 ~
In addition, Army Motor Lorries company's armored vehicles have "... low speed and
the deflection of the front cams frame chassis, as well as the collapse of the wheel
before the test."
In fact, the car arrived could not be used as combat. However, according to GVTU
Commission, after minor modifications Sheffield-Simplex can be used as bronedreziny,
and the rest was to strengthen the book. But the Army Motor Lorries company's
armored vehicles were so bad that the question of their further use and was not resolved
until the revolution.
By the spring of 1916, the Russian side has received 61 car, which after some time, the
forces of the Kolomna Locomotive Works began to be converted into bronedreziny. The
first prototype was ready in the autumn, and soon he was sent to Savelovo. Following
sent there 22 more armored Sheffield-Simplex, and in September 1916 two cars still
received increased bookings.
Further refurbishment of machinery Sheffield-Simplex in bronedreziny were engaged in

workshops Bronevoi railway car platoon, but since January 1917 it has decreased, this
process is almost entirely focused on the front. At the same time, armored Army Motor
Lorries were deposited in garages and warehouses of Petrograd, which gradually fell
into complete disrepair. It would seem that the fate of "British" a foregone conclusion,
but the February Revolution made it possible to return it to service.
~ 573 ~
General chaos which began to sink Russian Empire after the overthrow of the monarchy
in the first place affected the big cities, primarily - Petrograd. Workers 'and Soldiers'
Council has here all the forces trying to "trample down" power, not disdaining force.
Cases of seizure of military depots and barracks have become commonplace, so that in
addition to small arms at the "opposition" were guns and armored vehicles. Fortunately
for the Provisional Government, the composition of the auto-machine-gun platoon
consisted almost entirely of officers, whose loyalty could be no doubt. To prevent the
opposition from the Council of the Order of GVTU on March 30, 1917 were ordered
back into service all available armored Army Motor Lorries and Sheffield-Simplex, then
transfer them with spare Armored Division. The number obtained by division
"Sheffield" remains unclear, but it is known that they were not involved in the clashes
due to poor technical condition. To find the application unusable materiel Reserve
Armored Division commander addressed on 31 May, a request to cancel reservation 17
machines to use their chassis as normal trucks.
In June 1917 it adopted a proposal to rearrange housing Sheffield-Simplex Jeffrey on

the automobile chassis, for which the Officers Infantry school to send two armored cars.
The work was begun, but because of the revolutionary events it did not have time to
finish. Following was approved by installation option hulls Army Motor Lorries on
Lancia truck chassis, but after detailed study of the possibilities of their chassis this
modification was considered unsuccessful.
After the coup of October 25 (November 7), 1917, almost all the remaining armored
vehicles went in Petrograd Red Guards. Their further fate rather vague. Several
machines were used for patrolling and escort the objects of the Russian capital in 1917-
1919 gg., But a couple of Sheffield-Simplex yet got to the front and fought in the North-
Western Front. At the same time one of the cars was the trophy of the Latvian army and
was named "Imanta". This armored vehicle was the most long-lived and was written off
only in the early 1920s. The remaining vehicles Sheffield-Simplex and Army Motor
Lorries were cancel reservation immediately after the Civil War in Russia.

CREW, pers. 3
~ 574 ~
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS two 7.71-mm machine gun in the tower installations
allowance of ammunition food body - 5,5 mm
Tower - 5.5 mm
roof - 4 mm
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Sheffild-Simplex, carburetor, 6-cylinder, 30 hp
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ~ 60 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Garford Model 1914 Armored Car
~ 575 ~
In the summer and autumn of 1914, when the war on the Western Front was of agile
character, the British Defense Ministry has expressed interest in buying armored
vehicles, the successful experience of the application of which had the French and
Belgians. One of the first of these machines was the armored car, created Garford
American truck chassis. All improvements were limited to the installation of a simple
shaped armored hull without a roof, with armor thickness on the order of 4-5 mm. Hood
had protected only in the form of armored shields in front of the radiator grille.
Armament consisted of two 7.71 mm machine guns Lewis is, one of which was placed
in front of the chassis next to the driver, and the second was in the fighting compartment
and had the opportunity of a circular firing. The crew consisted of 5 people.
Armored vehicles was released only a single copy. Details of its combat Apply
unknown.

Garford Model 1914 Armored Car

CREW, pers. 4-5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one or two 7.92-mm machine gun Lewis
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
4x2, single wheels, tubeless tires, suspension, leaf
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Wolseley Armored Car Light armored vehicle
~ 576 ~
Experience car booking Rolls-Royce, whose actions fall of 1914 proved to be very
successful and allowed to further develop this area, moreover, that the order to "combat
vehicles" issued by the Admiralty has not been canceled.
In 1915, under the guidance of experts from the RNAS was carried reservation is two
Wolseley car. In contrast to the earlier "Rolls-Royce", they got almost completely
closed housing protected by 5 mm armor plate. Above the driver's seat was installed a
small cabin with a front flip, and two small windows on the sides. To access vohduha
removable frontal panel has been provided to the radiator. At the rear of the machine,
open-top, could easily accommodate 2-3 people. Staffing arms missing, but ukdake
could carry one or two infantry machine gun caliber (like Maxim illi Vickers). Standard
chassis no changes, retaining leaf springs, wheels and spitsovannye conventional
pneumatic tires.
The appearance of these armored cars coincided with the initial stage of "trench
warfare" when on the Western Front both sides vrylis literally into the ground and over
the next year did not undertake large-scale operations, with the exception of the battle of
Verdun. Both Wolseley remained in the metropolis and the chance of sending their
almost was not in Europe. It seems to be told that their service emerge quietly, but in
November 1916 a rebellion broke out in Ireland and to reinforce the British forces on
the island urgently began to throw tanks and armored vehicles. Among them was one of
Wolseley, but it accounts for the most part fell security functions.
~ 577 ~
But the second car "lucky" few more. After a critical period of winter 1916-1917 gg.
Western front line began to change more rapidly, that revived the program of
construction of armored vehicles with a bang. As a result, the second Wolseley was sent
to the continent and participated in the operations of the British Expeditionary Force in
Belgium. In particular, this car was spotted in Antwerp in early 1917. What happened to
her then - it is not known. It is likely that Wolseley after the war were dismantled in
mind the complete obsolescence and wear design.

Wolseley Armored Car sample 1915

CREW, pers. 1+4
DIMENSIONS
~ 578 ~
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS
gun Vickers in laying
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE carburetor, liquid-cooled, 30 hp
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Wolseley CP Type Armored Car Light armored vehicle
The history of the armored car is not so much interested in its operation in the ranks of
the British army, as the very fact of its occurrence. Autumn 1914 brought with it the
Western Front the bad news - the French army retreated, the Germans were already at
the walls of Paris. France was on the verge of a new and shameful capitulation only
short-sightedness of the German command had saved the country from a military
catastrophe. Since plans for the fleeting and victorious war for Britain completely
~ 579 ~
destroyed. But at that time, the Great War has not yet passed the stage of "trench" and
the front line is dynamically changed, however, is not in favor of the Entente.
In anticipation of the coming protracted campaign, the British army began to arm
themselves with new types of equipment and first preference for armored vehicles. Most
of them went to the front, but something had to leave and for the protection of the
mother country. In the wake of "national idea" Mayor of London in November 1914 he
announced the creation of a public fund of 10,000 pounds, intended for the construction
of six "armored vehicles with machine guns" ( "armored motor cars with machine-
guns"), which was to convey London Mounted Brigade .
Fundraising was held under the supervision of a public committee. About 1,500 pounds
could raise through private donations persons, with considerable credit for this belonged
to vigorous activity Strasony Lady (Lady Strathona) and her husband, Sir Howard (Sir
Howard). Also "forked" Rothschild, Sir John Ellerman and Lord Stephen, each of which
is allocated as much as 500 pounds. There were other private donations, but much
smaller amounts.
Collected money for six armored vehicles of course not enough. The Mayor of London,
long reflection, came to the conclusion that the good idea failed and wait collect 10,000
pounds can be very long. With approximately 3,000 pounds Municipality initiated the
construction of two armored vehicles, selecting for this case trucks Wolseley CP Type.
Officially order for armored vehicles of the same name was issued on 24 November.
Most interestingly, 6 days before the War Department also issued an order for bookings
of two such trucks, that is hardly a coincidence.
I must say that Wolseley CP Type and B Type, received at the British Army service in
1914, it proved to be very reliable cars and have served not only the war, but also after
its completion were modernized. Design CP Type was so successful that the 1.5-ton
truck in 1924 was produced under license in the Sumida Japanese company, and in 1928
also served as a base for armored vehicles. Chassis of the machine had a chain drive to
the rear axle, all-wheel drive are equipped with single and tubeless tires. Suspension
included depreciation on the leaf springs. The base chassis was 13 feet (3.96 meters).
On the truck was set gasoline 4-cylinder engine volume of 3.2 liters and power of 16-20
hp
The development of the body involved in the firm Vickers, who presented the project in
December 1914. Reservation included vertically installed onboard bronelisty thickness
of 0.196 inch (5 mm). Upper bronelisty arranged horizontally. The exception was the
radiator protection, as well as the front and aft upper bronelisty. On the roof of the
housing in a cylindrical ring is a small tower, where it was possible to place a machine
gun Vickers-type infantry caliber. Equipped with armored cars with two types of lamps:
on the bonnet (beam) and on the sides of the driver's compartment (low beam). Chassis
also undergone some changes. Wheels have received forged wheels and Dunlop tire
company sizes 1000h100 mm. To improve the permeability of the rear axle wheels
made double.
The operation of armored vehicles on the basis of Wolseley CP Type acted only in
October 1915. So strong was the slowness of consequence to stabilize the situation at
the front, which has acquired the character of a position clearly. Territorial cavalry did
~ 580 ~
not feel great enthusiasm by the appearance of these machines and then the War
Department decided to find another use for them.
The real lack of new technology always felt colonial, or as they were called -
expeditionary force. Typically British troops stationed anywhere were shipping trash in
Asia or Africa. But the autumn of 1915 battles with Turkish troops in Egypt and
Palestine have shown the failure of such a doctrine. To help the expeditionary forces
sent more equipment, including armored vehicles. Among the latter were two Wolseley
CP Type. Before the "trip" Both cars have been minor changes - given the hot climate in
enclosures installed electric fans. Unfortunately, the description of their operational use
has not been preserved. Perhaps, Wolseley CP Type were scrapped for metal after the
war finished.
It is noteworthy that almost 15 years later, in Japan, on the basis of licensed truck was
built a small series of own armored cars have become known under the name Wolseley-
Sumida, but a number of sources indicate them on the chassis type - Wolseley CP.

Wolseley CP Type Armored Car sample 1915
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?

WEAPONS
gun Vickers in laying
~ 581 ~
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE CP Type, Petrol, 4-cylinder with a capacity of 16-20 hp
4x2, front-wheel, single, dual rear wheels, tubeless tires,

CHASSIS
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Seabrook Armored Car cannon armored car
~ 582 ~
At the beginning of World War I aviation specialist department of the British Admiralty
was created heavy armored gun, which used the base 5-ton truck equipped with a
Standard 32-horsepower engine Continrntal.
The body of the car had klpnauyu konsturktsiyu and going from LTL rolled steel
armor thickness of 8 mm. The power plant, located in nosovoaya part, and the driver's
cabin were made fully protected by armor. Protection frontal radiator consisted of two
armored shutters, openable in traveling or stationary position. To gain access to the
engine also had on the hood sides hatches. On transporno site was mounted 47-mm gun
on a pedestal with armored shields. In addition, the housing board had the ability to
install up to four 7.71 mm machine guns Vickers. In order to increase space for service
housing side guns were made swing out. In addition, to maintain acceptable shelling
sector at the rate of straight-ahead position to the left of the driver was almost the same
height as the hood. However, over the driver's seat was installed a small cabin with
observation slits on the sides and the front hatch. The crew consisted of 7 people: the
driver, gunner and 4 2 gunner.
Chassis, apparently has not changed. All wheels are single, equipped with rubber
spitsovannymi and tubeless tires. Suspension included depreciation on the leaf springs
poluelipticheskih. Rotary wheel front axle equipped with only the U-shaped wings,
while the rear wheels got armored shields.
Some of these machines were sent to Belgium and worked as part of the British Marine
Air Service (RNAS). The first machine was delivered on 5 February in 1915. All built
Seabrook came to equip six squadrons of the RNAS, six units in each. As the situation
on the Western Front stabilized by the time the first squadron in November 1915 was
sent to Egypt, where he was included in the Western Frontier Force and participated in
the battles against the local Arab plmen. The other five squads departed for France -
here in the next few months, they were used to support the infantry and shelling enemy
fortifications. However, due to low traction properties, armored vehicles were otzvany
Seabrook from the front. Upon arrival at Velikoritaniyu surviving Seabrook formed a
separate "heavy" squad. Now their main task was the defense of the east coast from
~ 583 ~
possible raids of German "Zeppelin". Presumably, the fighting careers of these
machines continued until 1918.
SPECIFICATIONS cannon armored car

Seabrook Armored Car sample 1915

CREW, pers. 7
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
one 47-mm cannon and four 7.71-mm machine gun
WEAPONS
Vickers
aiming DEVICES optical sights
RESERVATIONS
food body - 8 mm
roof - 8 mm
Continental, gasoline, liquid cooling, capacity of 32
ENGINE
hp
wheel formula 4x2: tubeless tires, suspension leaf
CHASSIS
springs
SPEED .
Cruising on the highway .
~ 584 ~
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION
13-pdr Anti-Aircraft Gun (Thornycroft Type J Lorry) Self-propelled anti-aircraft

weapon
~ 585 ~
The second year of the First World War was marked by a sharp intensification of air
operations on both sides, which is now not only conducted reconnaissance and artillery
fire adjustment, but also moved to the bombing. The question of protection against
shock aircraft, as well as by accompanying their fighter cover (often "watered" with
machine gun fire ukryvshuyusya not infantry and artillery positions), had to be solved
as soon as possible.
In most cases, they helped barrage infantry machine guns and rifles, but progress in the
field of aviation is not standing still and literally every month a new type of aircraft
appeared on the front - with the growth rate grew and the height of the flight. Shoot
down machine-gun fire bomber, flying at an altitude of 500 meters was very difficult,
therefore, for the front needed weapon more powerful. The solution was quite simple.
At the beginning of the 1900s. adopted RHA (Royal Horse Artillery) began receiving
13-pounder field gun (Ordnance QF 13 pounder, the metric caliber 76.2 mm). It turned
out that the introduction of a number of minor improvements it could be used as anti-
aircraft. In particular, it was required to increase the vertical pointing angles, which are
constituted by field version -5 to + 16 . But that was not all - animal traction
gradually gave way to mechanized, allowing more quickly to throw the artillery in the
right section of the front. Now anti-aircraft guns require much more than in 1914, so
that when they are needed to solve the issue of lack of mobility.
Thus, the first step was the modernization of the Ordnance QF 13 pounder Mk.III,
which began in October 1914. Cannon lost a standard wheeled gun carriage, instead of
which came install column book-rests, modified underride mechanism (with short
otkatnikami) and improved carriage, changed the guidance angles from 0 to 70 .
After the improvements weapon received official designation 13 pounder 6 cwt anti-
aircraft gun.
~ 586 ~
The next step was to select the most suitable gear. After a brief search for the
installation of a 13-pound anti-aircraft guns were selected trucks Thornycroft Type J
and Daimler. Both machines have high performance and large enough to accommodate
the cargo platform tools to install column book-rests. The first of these machines has
been recognized but the best truck on the test results arranged War Office in 1913 and
1914, but the lightest 3-ton category of Class A. It is enough to say this -., A total of the
British Army has received more than 5,000 three-ton "Thornycroft "1913 sample year.
Given the number of production machines is highly simplified operation and repair ZSU
on their base.
The instrument was set to open the loading platform without any body armor. The
driver's cabin has also been left open, but in bad weather it covers a canvas awning.
Behind the driver's cab of the ammunition was located and tools. Full crew ZSU,
together with the calculation consisted of five people. What was unusual was the
location of the two gunners on the left side of the gun. To reduce the effects of recoil
~ 587 ~
after a shot to the frame fastened four lifting stop (two on each side), put forward in the
firing position.
However, in spite of the simplicity of the design anti-aircraft gun had one serious
drawback - field gun absolutely not intended for firing at air targets and because of its
ballistic characteristics have been very low for the fight against the enemy aircraft. As a
rule, standard shots were fired shrapnel bullets weighing 5.67 kg, which were later
replaced with high explosive. The maximum height of the shots was 5200 meters.
On the number of "Thornycroft", converted into ZSU, accurate information has not been
preserved. Given the low ballistic data 13-pounder anti-aircraft guns such machines
could hardly have been more than 50 units. Their production was carried out during
1915, but they remained short arms. It was soon concluded that the artillery system has
exhausted itself as a temporary measure. For its replacement has developed a new
version, use the "recalibrate" the 18-pounders (Metric caliber 83.8 mm), adapted to fire
13-pound shells. As a result, the initial velocity of the projectile has risen from 520 m \ s
to 655 m \ s, and the height was increased to 5790 meters. Modernization has been so
successful that these weapons were in the British army until the early 1920s. As for the
13-pound samples, they later dismantled from the trucks and stationary plants column
book-rests, turning it into a normal field guns. Over the past ZSU this type were
dismantled during the 1916-1917 biennium.
The only preserved example of 13-pound anti-aircraft gun on the chassis Thornycroft
Type J has long rusted in the store, while in 1967 he was not sent for restoration. By this
time, the car was almost completely dismantled, but the running gear and weapon still
remained in fair condition. Now restored ZSU on display at the Imperial War Museum
g.Daksford.
SPECIFICATIONS self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon

13-pdr Anti-Aircraft Gun (Thornycroft Type J Lorry) of the sample in 1915
~ 588 ~
Combat weight 3250 kg (without tools)
CREW, pers. 1+4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width 2194
Height mm ?
Wheelbase mm 3985
Clearance, mm 350
One 76.2-mm anti-aircraft gun (13 pounder 6 cwt anti-

WEAPONS
aircraft gun)
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE Thornycroft, gasoline, 40 hp
4x2: front-wheel single, dual rear wheels, tubeless tires,

CHASSIS
SPEED 23 km / h on the highway
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF -
~ 589 ~
COMMUNICATION
~ 590 ~
13-pdr Anti-Aircraft Gun (Daimler Mk.3 Lorry) Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon
At the beginning of the First World War were carried out numerous studies on the
adaptation of field guns in the anti-aircraft. The greatest success, strange as it seems, fell
to the lot of Russian experts, however, the Allies tried to ensure their ground forces
sufficient amount of anti-aircraft artillery systems. In October 1914, work began on
completion of 13-pound guns, used by the British cavalry. For it has been developed
column book-rests installation, which could be mounted on a transport platform truck
suitable duty. Also we have upgraded recoil devices and mast, which allows to increase
the vertical angle pointing guns to + 70 .
~ 591 ~
From the available stock of trucks were chosen two: Thornycroft Type J Lorry and
Daimler Mk.3 Lorry. Both cars were almost equal in performance, but the "Daimler",
apparently, is a supplement to "Thornycroft". Outwardly, they differ only in the length
of the loading platform and the type of wheels which have "Daimler" were
spitsovannymi. The instrument was installed on an open platform with a circular
rotation. Any body armor calculation and the cab was absent. Chassis not changed. The
crew consisted of five people: the driver, commander, gunner and two charging. The
machine is also equipped with four rests, gasivshimi recoil, which is attached to the
frame, two on each side.
The information could not be found on the number of built ZSU chassis "Daimler". It is
possible that it was limited to only a few samples, which were used during the 1915-
1916 biennium.
~ 592 ~
13-pdr Anti-Aircraft Gun (Daimler Mk.3 Lorry) of the sample in 1915
CREW, pers. 5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
One 76.2-mm anti-aircraft gun (13 pounder 6 cwt anti-

WEAPONS
aircraft gun)
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE Daimler, petrol

CHASSIS
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 593 ~
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
3-inch 20-cwt Anti-Aircraft Gun (Peerless) Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon
Park self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, "heavy-duty" in 1915 added another machine,

assembled on the chassis 4-ton truck Peerless. The same chassis in the same period was
used to install a 40-mm high-velocity anti-aircraft gun.
Base chassis no changes. As well as in the commercial version of Peerless was a lorry
with a 4x2. The wheels of the front axle were Shed, rear - gable. Tubeless tires of hard
rubber. Suspension leaf springs. On the loading platform was installed 3-inch naval
anti-aircraft gun (QF 3 inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun, the metric caliber 76.2 mm). The
gun features a good ballistic performance and shooting led shrapnel shots. Speed 12.5-
pound projectile sostavyala 760 m \ s, 16-pound projectile - 610 m \ s. Maximum height
"casting" projectile, depending on its weight ranged 6700-7200 meters. One of the great
advantages of this artillery system was the possibility of vertical guidance in sectors
from -10 to 90 . Also placed on the platform and tool of ammunition. Booking tools,
cab seats and artillery calculation absent. To reduce the recoil after firing were
predasmotreny four stops, Establishing two on each side.
~ 594 ~
In all likelihood, it was built only a sample of the 3-inch self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.
The information could not be found on its combat use.

3-inch 20-cwt Anti-Aircraft Gun (Peerless) of the sample in 1915
Combat weight about 6500-7000 kg
CREW, pers. 5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
One 76.2-mm anti-aircraft gun (3-inch 20-cwt anti-

WEAPONS
aircraft gun)
RESERVATIONS -
ENGINE Peerless, petrol
~ 595 ~

CHASSIS
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Seabrook Heavy Armoured Car
Following their successes with machine-gun armed cars, Commander CR Samson and
some of the other officers of the Eastchurch Squadron, Royal Naval Air Service
(RNAS) designed a lorry that mounted a Vickers 3-pounder semi-automatic gun. The
vehicle was built by Forges et Chantiers de France at Dunkirk, and delivered on 16th
~ 596 ~
October, 1914. It was in action the very next day, in support of the 2nd Life Guards (3rd
Cavalry Division). On many occasions after that, it did useful work, and the decision
was made to attach a 3-pdr equipped, heavy armoured car to each section of the RNAS
armoured car squadrons.
The chassis chosen was the Seabrook 5-ton lorry, with a 4-cylinder Continental 32.2hp
engine, with chain drive transmission to the rear wheels. (Seabrook didnt actually make
the lorries; they imported them from the Standard Motor Truck Company, of Detroit,
USA.) The 3-pdr gun was mounted on a turntable just forward of the rear axle. It had
all-round traverse, and the sides of the armoured body could be lowered to form a
platform for the gun crew. Some cars, but not all, had a gun shield. Four mountings for
Vickers-Maxim machine-guns were provided at the corners of the open compartment.
The hull armour was built up of 8mm plate.
The first Seabrook heavy armoured car was delivered by the Portholme Aerodrome
Limited, Huntingdon, on 5th February, 1915. The cars were distributed to the RNAS
Armoured Car squadrons in France and England, three per squadron. They were
intended to give support to the Rolls-Royce or Lanchester armoured cars in action, but it
was soon realised that the much lower speed and manoeuvrability of the Seabrooks
made this, usually, impractical.
Samsons first 3-pdr lorry had not given any trouble, but the armoured Seabrook was
much heavier, at some 10 tons laden weight. The springs, the wheels with their solid
rubber tyres, and the back axle, often gave way. The weight of the cars made it difficult
to cross even the smallest of gullies, severely restricting their mobility. The 3-pdr gun
was very useful, however, prompting the C-in-C, Sir John French to ask the Admiralty
to send more of them to France.
Because of the difficulty of working with the lighter armoured cars, instructions were
given for the Seabrooks to be formed into separate squadrons of six cars each. Five of
~ 597 ~
these squadrons were formed, most serving in France. One squadron was, however, sent
to Egypt in November, 1915, to join in operations against the Senussi. They were, of
course, totally unsuited to desert conditions and easily bogged in the loose sand.
~ 598 ~
Motor-Driven Car for Use in Warfare
Be it known that I, Frederick Richard Simms, a subject of the Queen of Great Britain,
residing at London, England, have invented a new and useful Motor-Driven Car for Use
in Warfare, (for which I have applied for a patent in Great Britain, No. 7387, dated
March 26, 1898,) of which the following is a specification. This invention relates to a m
otor-driven car adapted for use in warfare and as a means for defense, attack, transport,
or traction. My car, in addition to being applicable for use as a town or coast defense or
as a means of attack, is also equally suitable for highroads or cross-country.
Chassis and Engine
~ 599 ~
The car is constructed of a frame, of channel and angle steel, mounted upon wheels. The
wheels are four in number, and are mounted on front and rear axles. The frame is
supported upon the driving-wheels by semi-elliptical springs, and upon the front, or
steering, wheels by spiral springs. The car can be driven by any suitable motor; but I
preferably employ a petroleum, or gas, engine of the Daimler type, the motor being
arranged to rotate an intermediate shaft through the medium of variable-speed and
reversing gear, contained in the casing. The intermediate shaft is provided with sprocket
or chain wheels, which actuate the driving wheels by means of chains and chain-wheels.
The whole control of the car is under the management of one man, preferably located in
the centre of the car. The car is steered by any suitable means, and in the drawings I
have shown two suitable methods. As the occupant of the car, during an attack,
withdraws inside the car for protection, I provide mirrors, whereby the car can be
steered from the inside. The mirror is carried upon a telescopic rod, so that it can be
raised and lowered as required.
Instead of driving my car directly from a petroleum or other motor, it will be obvious
that I can drive it indirectly with a dynamo. When the dynamo is used, a portion of the
current generated by it can be employed for searchlights or the like, or for sending
currents around the belt of the car in the manner described below.
Defensive Capability
The sides of the car are made of armour-plate, and detachably supported upon semi-
elliptical springs, which rest upon standards carried by the frame. The sides are also
supported by end stays and lateral stays. By this method of fixing the armour to the
frame, the effect of vibration is lessened, and its resistance to penetration is increased.
The armour-plate sides are made of such a shape that the outside of the car is somewhat
cigar-shaped, so as to form a ram at each end, as clearly shown in the drawings. The
lower edge of each side is provided with a projecting belt, which is bolted to the lower
edge of the armour-plate, and is electrically insulated therefrom by an interposed layer
of insulating material. The belt slopes outwardly toward the lower edge, and is
preferably sharpened to a cutting edge. When required, an electric current can be sent
through this belt as an additional protection against molestation. Furthermore, the sides
~ 600 ~
are provided at their upper edges with half-buried rollers, which run around the top
portion, thereby preventing a firm hold being obtained upon the car. These rollers may
be spiked, if desired. The wheels are protected by chain mail or other similar suitable
jackets, suspended from the bottom of the car.
Offensive Capability
~ 601 ~
At each end of the car there is mounted a turret, which is adapted to revolve upon a
support, the nceessary movement being imparted to the turret by any suitable
mechanism. The turret support comprises a circular race, carried by legs. The turret is
provided with a number of rollers, which run upon the race. To revolve the turret there
is a hand-wheel. In each turret there is mounted a quickfiring or other suitable gun,
preferably a Maxim gun, and a seat and foot-rest for the gunner.
The "Motor War Car" was demonstrated to the Press on 4th April, 1902, at The Crystal
Palace in south London. The design was changed in some details from the earlier
drawings. For instance, the two turrets, each with a Maxim machine gun, were replaced
by open mountings with a 1-pdr Maxim QF gun at one end, and two Maxim MGs at the
other. These guns had shields at the Press demonstration, although at other times the
shields were absent. It was claimed that alternatively a 6-pdr gun could be mounted; or
that the normal crew of four could be increased to about twelve, if the machine were
required to act as an armoured personnel carrier (considering this was 1902, this idea
was very imaginative). Notice also, that the photos do not show the electrified, razor-
sharp belt running around the hull.
The chassis was built by Simms own company, but the 6mm thick, armoured hull, was
built by Vickers, Son & Maxim to Simms design. The engine used was a 4-cylinder,
16hp Cannstatt-Daimler, mounted centrally. The gearbox (also Cannstatt) had four
forward gears giving 1, 3, 5, and 9mph at 750rpm, and 1 reverse gear. The engine was
designed to run on either petrol or heavy oil. The brakes, it was proudly claimed, could
bring the machine from top speed to a stop, in 8 yards (7.3m). The brakes worked on the
rear wheels in two stages by operation of a handwheel; first, through bands on the hubs,
and then, through further rotation of the handwheel, by application of clamps on the
tyres of the wheels.
~ 602 ~
The demonstration of the War Car was well attended by the Press, but nobody from the
War Office was present. The absence of War Office representatives was explained by
Simms as being due to them having to attend some committee meeting or other, and a
contemporary journal suggested that, no doubt the alteration of a button die, or the
design of a "dustmans cap" for The Guards, was more important. However, the lack of
interest by The War Office caused Simms and Vickers, Son & Maxim to abandon
further development of this most interesting vehicle.
~ 603 ~
Official designation: Motor War Car
Alternative notation: Simms Motor War Car
Start design: 1902
Today there is no precise definition as to which of the armored vehicles can be

considered a "real armored car." Since the end of the 19th century with enviable
regularity began to appear different kind of project "blindirovnnyh" tractors and cars,
but only a few were able to bring them to the level of practical implementation. The
most striking example is the armored locomotive Fowler B.5 British buildings, which
~ 604 ~
appeared in 1900. This machine has not had weapons, but a reserve has already been
created. Less than two years as a British engineer Frederick R.Simms introduced draft
wheeled vehicle, equipped with machine guns and armored corps. Many foreign sources
is Simms Motor War Car is considered to be the world's first armored car, but was it
really so?
As is known, Simms started his frantic activity back in 1899, presenting a "Battle quad"
- unarmoured four-wheel bicycle with a gasoline engine and a machine gun mounted on
the steering wheel Maxim. he calls his creation "motor scout" and although this pattern
the military, for obvious reasons, did not take, it does not diminish the enthusiasm.
The next logical step was to be the construction of an armored car. Moreover, the
project is not created in a vacuum. Back in 1896, ie three years before the appearance of
"motor scout", American Edward Pennington (EJPennington) published in the press
pictures of two combat vehicles. The first of them, equipped with three dogs and a very
specific streamlined body , apparently, had no name. But the second, established on the
basis of motorcycle, naziyvalas "Fighting to Autocar" . It was she, and served as a
prototype for a future Motor War Car.
Gaining in the course of those years, the concept of "land battleship" influenced the
project most significantly - the case had specific outlines fore and aft, are very
reminiscent of armored rams. In America, these figures have remained the drawings, but
Simms was not so indifferent to them. Raged the Boer War in South Africa claimed a
massive amount of military and a lot of achievements of engineering thought, including
machine guns and armored trains. But this was not enough. Action Army was absolutely
necessary vehicle equipped with machine guns and protected by armor, which prompted
Simms to offer its initiative to the military department. Because to create a completely
new fighting machine in a short time was problematic, the inventor chose to enlist some
of the company with an international name. As a result, the firm Vickers, Son & Maxim
provided the assembly housing.
~ 605 ~
Already 4th April 1902 prototype Motor War Car (Motor fighting vehicles) was
submitted to the Crystal Palace, causing a real stir. However, to the prototype Simms
showed sincere interest only ordinary people, but not the representatives of War Office,
who also visited the exhibition. So what is the reason, because in many respects Motor
War Car was really good design? Let's take a closer look deal with the machine design.
As already mentioned, the housing Motor War Car had pronounced "armored" shape
and mounted to the chassis on a metal frame. Theoretically, it not only improves
aerodynamics, but also allows to overcome road obstacles. The thickness of the "armor
belt" was 6 mm, which was enough to protect against bullets caliber rifle at ranges of
200 meters, depending on the type of weapon. In addition to the unusual shape of the
machine body has a non-standard layout. Apparently, one of the final projects Simms
assumed the existence of two cylindrical towers equipped with machine guns Maxim.
However, because of the technological difficulties, they are "temporarily" abandoned
and Simms were restricted to three machine guns with armored shields, two of which
were installed in front and one behind. However, during sea trials the armor elements
were also taken. Full crew could consist of 4 people, although there are no precise data
are not preserved on this indicator. For planting crew intended metal ladder, which had
to be moved across the board.
Engine compartment was located in the middle part of the body - are installed gasoline
4-cylinder engine Cannstatt-Daimler power of 16 hp, which by means of a chain drive
was connected to the rear axle. The driver's seat was situated over the engine.
Transmission has also been developed and provided by Cannstatt 4 speeds forward and
one reverse speed. At about 750 \ min, the figures were 1.61, 4.83, 8.05 and 14.48 km \
h, respectively. It was alleged that the engine can run on either gasoline or on "heavy
oil".
Chassis consisted of two road bridges. The wheels of the front axle have a diameter of 3
feet and a width of 3.5 inches, while the rear axle, the figures were 4 feet and 6 inches.
~ 606 ~
The suspension used chetvertellepticheskie plate springs. Among other things, it was
stated that the braking system provides a complete shutdown of the machine running at
maximum speed, with the braking by only 9 yards (8.22 meters). At the same time the
brakes were equipped with only the rear axle wheels.
Thus, Motor War Car was really good fighting machine for its time, but in this ointment
not without a spoon of tar. First of all, we note a lack of visibility from the driver's seat.
Even in the version with open guns it was very limited, not to mention the option of two
towers. Big questions were to mobility and terrain on the area. It is not difficult to guess
that the Motor War Car can move without any problems on the roads paved, but the
specifics of the chassis is unlikely to be allowed to maintain at least acceptable
performance on soft ground or rough terrain.
However, this was by no means a waiver of further work on the Motor War Car. That
conservatism and stagnation Honourable Lord of War Office, armored perceived
nothing more than expensive toys, led to the cancellation of the project. In addition, the
war in South Africa ended in victory for the British forces and the urgent need for
armored vehicles disappeared for long 12 years.
Despite the fact that Simms did not manage to bring your project to a full realization of
its Motor War Car can be considered the first combat vehicle polubronirovannoy special
development. Until a full armored car he did not have quite a bit. Nowadays Motor War
Car is a good theme for a variety of "speculation" in the first place in various online
publications. But if on the forums of liberty in the interpretation of events is quite
acceptable, in printed publications periodically "go too far". So, at the beginning of the
last century began to appear drawings depicting "combat use" Motor War Car, and in
recent years is not rare steel projection and schemes of armored vehicles equipped with
different variants of the towers, small-bore gun (instead of the rear machine guns) and
even on the crawler . To all such variations should be taken no more than a fantasy to
their authors.
~ 607 ~
CREW, pers. ~4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 8500
Width ?
Height mm 2400
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS three 7.92-mm machine gun Maxim
RESERVATIONS
food body - 6 mm
armored shields - 6 mm
Cannstatt-Daimler, petrol, 3.3-liter, 4-cylinder with a capacity
ENGINE
of 16 hp
mechanical type: 4-speed gearbox, chain drive, mechanical
TRANSMISSION
brake
wheel formula 4x2: Front Axle A message-driven rear axle
CHASSIS leading, single spitsovannye wheels, tubeless tires,
suspension chetvertellepticheskih leaf springs
SPEED 14.48 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 608 ~
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
"Flying Elephant" Super-heavy tank
Alternative notation: "Flying Elephant"
Start design: 1916
Stage of completion: project closed in view of the complexity of technical realization.
The first experience of combat use of diamond-shaped tanks Mk.I brought as an

undoubted success and disappointment. In addition to the problems of a purely technical
nature in "Diamonds" had a lot of weaknesses, easily the targeted artillery. Primarily
suffered no protected crawler chain, which repair under field conditions has been
fraught with difficulty. The body of the tank with a maximum of 16 mm frontal book
could only withstand the firing of small arms, since any projectile hit (and then in vogue
were calibers 77-120 mm) can be easily deduced from the car down. For ustarneniya
these shortcomings needed to alter or Mk.I, or create a new tank. Colonel Tritton chose
the second path.
One of the first attempts to abandon the diamond scheme was launched in July 1916,
when work began on the project 100-ton (!) Tank, called "Flying Elephant" ( "Flying
Elephant"). Tritton proposal in many respects resembled a weighted version of the tank
"Little Willie", but naetot time the chassis was divided into two parts: primary and
secondary. The basic chassis was largely similar to the "wheelies" and, apparently,
provided for the use of certain elements of the series of tanks Mk.I. Auxiliary part,
consisting of two slightly raised above the surface of caterpillar tracks, was placed
under the tank bottom and intended to improve the patency and prevent "posting". The
first version of the reservation provided for frontal armor thickness of 3 inches (76.2
mm) and a board thickness of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
The body had the shape of an armored box, divided into three parts. Ahead, to install
casements type, placed 57-mm gun, which is located just above the commander's seat
~ 609 ~
and the driver. The sides closer to the gun, and the stern was set to one 8-mm machine
gun. Thus, the crew of "Flying Elephant" would have amounted to 8-10 people. As the
power plant was planned to use two petrol engines Daimler-Foster 105 hp each, were
located in the middle of the housing. Geometric tank dimensions were 26.75 feet long
(8.15 m), 9.84 feet (3 m) wide and 10 feet (3.05 m) in height. Given that the book
"Flying Elephant" reached 51-76 mm, its combat weight really approaching 95-100
tons. In foreign sources also indicated that it was developed two versions of super-
heavy tank, known under the names of Design A and Design B. The first stood longer
chassis reminiscent Mk.A "Whippet" and the body with a hemispherical front part. The
second project was a more familiar image of our "Flying Elephant".
In December 1916, the project was submitted for consideration to the War Department,
but officials refused to implement it, even though Tritton had already reached an
agreement with the firm W.Foster and Company Ltd for the construction of a prototype.
The motive has served not only the large mass of the tank, as the presence of serial
tanks Mk.II-Mk.IV, successfully deystvovashih at the front and well established in
manufacturing. In any case, on the thumbnail and layout work for "Flying Elephant" not
moved and were finally folded in 1917
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS super-heavy tank

"Flying Elephant" sample in 1916
Combat weight 100,000 kg

CREW, pers. 8-10
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 8150
Width 3000
Height mm 3150
Clearance, mm ?
one 57-mm cannon and four to six 8-mm machine guns in
WEAPONS
the building
aiming DEVICES optical machine-gun and telescopic gun sight
RESERVATIONS side housing - 51 mm
food body - 51 mm
ENGINE two Daimler-Foster, petrol, V-shaped, 105 hp each
caterpillar, Duplex, blokirovnnoy road wheels with
CHASSIS suspension, front rails and rear wheel drive,
krupnozvenchatye tracks with cast Tracians
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ~ 1.00
~ 610 ~
The depth of the ford, m ~ 1.00
MEANS OF
missing
COMMUNICATION
The Flying Elephant

The design of the Flying Elephant was a protracted affair, and went through a number of
radically different forms, as well as names, before finally settling down. In fact, the
design process appears to have involved two distinct phases; Flotilla Leader/Battletank
and the Flying Elephant. This article will explore the complex design process, and the
quite remarkable series of designs developed, as well as attempt to explain why the
project ultimately failed.
Most major tank building nations have been seduced by the superheavy tank concept. A
few monstrosities from the Second World War, such as the Germans 188-ton Maus, are
well known, but it is not so widely appreciated that scarcely had the first experimental
tanks undergone trials during the Great War than plans were set in motion to build 100-
ton-plus behemoths. Appearing in most accounts as little more than a footnote was a
British attempt to build a shellproof tank, known to posterity as the Flying Elephant.
The first serious (as opposed to purely paper) project for a hundred-ton tank, the Flying
~ 611 ~
Elephant was no mere whimsy or exercise in gigantism for its own sake, and nor was it
a proposal merely to build a handful of monster machines, as appeared to be the case
with the bloated German K-Wagen. The Flying Elephant was to represent a new class of
tank, and the vehicles role developed beyond the initially somewhat vague, but
understandable, desire for a shellproof tank for its own sake into something rather more
interesting.
Genesis
Development of the Shellproof Tank, or as it finally came to be known, the Flying

Elephant, ran almost parallel with the creation of the first tank itself. The story has been
told elsewhere of how, protected at a crucial early stage from the depredations of
sceptics by the mercurial Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, the
Landships Committee, formed in February 1915, had produced the first vaguely
practicable cross-country armoured vehicle, Little Willie. But Willie was unsuitable as a
fighting machine, and before long William Tritton, the brilliant engineer-director of
William Foster & Co of Lincoln, and Lt Walter Wilson, an automobile- (and sometime
aero-) engineer par excellence, had produced the classic rhomboidal Great War tank,
Mother, matronly progenitor of the Mark I and its ilk, and far more suited to the task of
churning across the Flanders mud.
But the early tanks were armoured only against machine gun and rifle fire, not artillery.
With armour plating scarcely a half-inch thick, when hit by enemy shells they ran the
risk of becoming instant crematoria for their unfortunate crews. Barely had Little Willie
run his first trials in December 1915, then, than thoughts turned to heavier protection.
Around Christmas 1915, the imaginative Col Ernest Swinton, in his new capacity as
Assistant Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID), noted concerns about
the danger to the tanks under development from new German tactics using protected
quick-firing (Q.F.) guns in a report copied to the Landships Committee. He
recommended research into the capacity of light armour to resist small high-explosive
(H.E.) shells, noting that Admiral Sir Percy Scott, the great naval gunnery innovator,
had performed promising experiments a few years previously at Portsmouth into the
effects of H.E. against submarine hulls.
This report did not in itself recommend, or even explicitly presage, the development of
a special shellproof tank. It is clear that, at this stage, there was interest in determining
whether it would be feasible to make the existing design of tank (Mother) resistant to
shells, whether through a thicker single layer or a double-skin of the planned, relatively
thin, bullet-proof armour. But the implications of the report were clear enough,
however, and were to bear fruit within two months. On 14 February 1916, Swinton
addressed a CID report entitled simply "TANKS" to the General Staff at the War
Office. After briefly discussing progress with the current design, Swinton wrote:
"As you know, the machine approved and now being produced, is furnished with bullet-
proof protection alone. The Tank Supply Committee, however, propose to try and evolve
another and superior type of machine... which will be armoured so as to be proof
against the high explosive shell from German field guns, and... the small calibre quick-
firing artillery which it is believed the enemy may bring against them."
A great deal of thought had gone into this proposal (indeed, the bulk of the report is
devoted to it), as Swinton further requested the General Staff make their
~ 612 ~
recommendations in respect of armour, armament, speed and climbing abilities, with
their reply to be made direct to Albert Stern, the dynamic secretary of the Tank Supply
Committee (successor to the Landships Committee). To put this into perspective, it
must be recalled that the tank concept was still in its infancy; Mother had gone through
her paces for the first time barely three weeks before, and it would not be until autumn
1916 that the first Mark Is went into action. The response was swift. Gen Bird, Director
of Staff Studies at the War Office, addressed the Staffs requirements to Stern on 19
February, noting that the new machine should: resist field gun fire; have no increase
over the present armament of two 6-pdrs; have a top speed of 6mph (somewhat faster
than Mother); and should be able to cross a ditch 1012ft wide with a 6ft parapet and a
trench 4ft 6in wide on the other side. Furthermore, it should not be very much larger,
especially in height, than the current machine. If satisfying the speed and climbing
requirements were to mean excessive size increases, then speed could be sacrificed.
The Tank Supply Committee now had detailed, if rather ambitious, specifications, and
the next few months saw experimental work being carried out, mainly on armour plate.
The Committees resident expert on armour was Lt Kenneth Symes, who had conducted
experiments the year before into protection against bullets. From April until June 1916,
he and Wilson organised a number of trials with plate supplied by Messrs. Beardmore &
Co, the Glasgow shipbuilders. Indeed, the first experiments appear to have involved a
German 77mm field gun which was sent to Glasgow for trials against 2in high tensile
plate some time around 10 April. In June, Wilson reported that British 13-pdr and 18-
pdr guns firing shot and shell were being used to test more 2-in plate. The results were
promising enough that a Beardmore manager, Mr Service, stated that 1in and 1in plate
would likely be as effective as 2in, and recommended further tests.
The Flotilla Leader
~ 613 ~
The first design study would appear to have been the curious sketch made on 12 April
1916 labelled "Suggested Flotilla Leader". This was for a 45-ton machine, with armour
up to 2in thick, low-slung tracks like those of Little Willie, and a pair of sponson-
mounted 6-pdrs at the front, near the nose. Between them, in a polygonal cupola, are
five machine guns, with another six at the rear and two on the flanks. Under the cupola
is what appears be a supplementary track higher than, and between, the main track units.
This feature reflects Walter Wilsons suggestion at the Tank Supply Committee meeting
of 6 March that "the track should be made in two parts, the front track being double
armoured", to assist with climbing. Authorship of the design is unknown, though the
handwriting on the sketch appears to be that of Wilson.
Foster's Battletank
Whoever devised the Flotilla Leader, William Trittons first detailed design of 13 July
1916, called the "Fosters Battletank", bore a striking resemblance to the earlier sketch.
At the front, under the armoured machinegun cupola, hangs a fullwidth 2in armour
plate on hinges, which protects the front of the tracks. In all places at the front, the
armour is 2in thick, with a doubleskin of in armour protecting the sides. With the
rear machine guns of the Flotilla Leader absent, the Battletanks armament is
concentrated forward, giving it a distinctly aggressive air. Trailing the rear is a larger
version of the steering tail wheels of Mother and the Mark I tanks. No indication is
given on the schematic design drawing of how the tail was to be attached to the hull,
and the accompanying drawings reflect this vagueness. The machine is huge, 32ft 6in
long without the tail wheels, 43ft with them. It was estimated that the machine would
have weighed around a hundred tons. Two six-cylinder 105-hp Daimler engines were to
be coupled together to produce 210-hp. Some accounts state that the engines were to
have shared a common crankshaft, effectively making it a V12. But in all drawings of
the various designs, the engines are always shown sidebyside, each with its own
gearbox. Unlike the later Whippet medium tank, however, the engines did not power the
tracks independently of each other. The gearboxes were coupled together and ran a
single shaft. The new doubleengine was ordered on 19 June.
~ 614 ~
At the rear is a short, pivoted pair of supplementary tracks, the first appearance of
Trittons auxiliary track system, which he patented in late 1916. Unlike the well known
final designs tracks, which were to deal with "bellying", or sinking in mud, these short
tracks were to help push the machine over obstacles, or up the edges of craters, as can
be seen in the patent sketches below. Why Tritton should have eschewed the front
mounted track of the Flotilla Leader is unknown. Although they worked closely as a
team on Little Willie and Mother, there was always an element of good natured rivalry
between Tritton and Wilson, and if Wilson was indeed responsible for the Flotilla
~ 615 ~
Leader sketch, this may have been Trittons way of placing his own inventive stamp on
the new design.
This design was to change considerably, and until it was finalised, construction work
could not begin, the only apparent progress during the ensuing months having been on
the Daimler doubleengine, as well as the armour plate experiments. The next design
was radically different.
Conception of the Flying Elephant: Preliminary Design
It has been seen why and how the shellproof tank concept began to be developed. The
two designs which resulted were for huge machines, considerably exceeding the original
War Office specifications. A more compact vehicle was clearly preferred, and at some
point in July or August 1916, a new, more detailed, design appeared, together with the
first use of the name Flying Elephant. The tracks were around the same length, though
turned up more at the front, rather like those of the later Whippet. But the armament and
hull were completely different, and far less bulky. Gone are the two 6pdr sponsons; in
their place is a huge, partspherical casemate carrying a single gun. The drawing
appears to show a 12pdr gun of naval pattern, and Tank Supply Committee notes later
that year support the move to a larger gun than the 6pdr (at a Tank Supply Committee
meeting of 20 November 1916, Stern reported that "the Ordnance Board were making a
new 3in gun for this machine, but as a matter of fact, any field gun could be utilised").
The huge, hinged armour plate at the front has been replaced with a smaller, fixed plate,
sharply angled, perhaps to deflect shot downwards away from the tracks. The main
body is now rounded, the better to deflect shot and shell, a feature of the patent
mentioned earlier in this article. Again, the power source is the double Daimler engine,
~ 616 ~
with the exhaust pipes leading straight up to the roof and venting out of the top of the
machine. No machine gun mountings are indicated.
Final Design
By the end of August 1916, the design had changed again, and settled into the familiar
machine seen in drawings. The vehicle was shortened to 27ft 9in, around the length of a
Mark I, the earlier designs probably being judged too long. Armour was increased in
thickness to 3in at the front, and 2in on the sides, which may have been another reason
for shortening the vehicle.
The inner supplementary tracks have become rigid fixtures, and lengthened to around
~ 617 ~
twothirds the length of the whole machine. This marks a radical departure from the
original concept, and is the fully developed manifestation of Trittons "livebelly" track
system, intended to spread the weight of the vehicle if it sank in soft mud. These
auxiliary tracks were generally to have been unpowered, but could be coupled to the
engines by means of dog clutches. In fact, the final form of the Flying Elephant fairly
closely follows the layout of the machine described, and illustrated, in Trittons second
patent for the auxiliary track system, a system that, in the event, never saw service.
Meanwhile, the large casemate mounting the nose gun was simplified in shape, and the
frontal armour plate shrunk to a vestigial, fixed downward curving "lip". No indication
is made in the Fosters drawings as to the configuration of the engine exhausts, so in the
accompanying drawings it has been assumed that much the same arrangement as in the
previous design would have been the case. Six machine guns now covered the sides and
rear.
It was only now that construction began in earnest, with instructions in November 1916
to Tritton to "proceed with the armouring of this machine with 1in. armour
plate7quot;, which, according to dEyncourt, was sufficient to keep out German 77mm
shells. John Glanfield has written that the weight saved by using this slightly thinner
armour would have produced a machine of around 60 tons, a figure supported by a TSC
memo from January 1917. This was still double the weight of a Mark I but somewhat
more practicable than the earlier 100 tons. At this point, the project started to look quite
feasible. The first machine (referred to at this meeting as either the Heavy Machine or,
interestingly, the Mark V) would be complete at the end of January 1917, according to
Stern, and that if put into production, a number would be ready by August or
September.
~ 618 ~
But by midJanuary 1917, the schedule had slipped yet again. The "heavier design" was
discussed at length at a Tank Supply Committee meeting on 16 January. It now
appeared that the first machine would be ready for trials at the end of March. The need
for a 3in gun was emphasised as it was feared that having already experienced the first
British tanks in action, the Germans would produce more powerful machines. The role
of the Flying Elephant was refined to that of tank-killer: "It is considered that a certain
number of the heavier type with 3in guns would be useful against the German tanks."
As for their operational use, Stern and dEyncourt recommended forming conventional
tanks into groups of ten headed by one heavy machine, and that at least twenty of the
latter should be built.
Post Mortem
In the end, of course, the Flying Elephant never was completed. It is uncertain how far
construction had proceeded before the project was cancelled some time in early 1917.
Some writers have claimed that it was "almost complete" at cancellation, but William
Rigby, Trittons chief draughtsman and thus in a good position to know, later went to
great pains to say that very little had been fabricated apart from the engines and some
elements of track frames. Why was progress so slow? To start with, the constant radical
changes to the design were a serious impediment. From April 1916 until the end of
August, four quite different designs appeared, making it impossible to begin any
meaningful construction work, except on the doubleengine, the only consistent feature.
Partly, too, because resources were severely stretched. During this period, Tritton was
busy ironing out the many problems coming to light with the Mark I. Wilson was
helping John Greg at Metropolitan design the Gun Carrier, so Tritton could not rely on
much help from that quarter. In fact, after the initial flush of enthusiasm, one detects a
distinct waning of interest on Trittons part. All the references to the project in TSC
memos and reports from that time on carry a strong scent of classic committee delaying
tactics, claiming that it would be ready in a few months time, and then a few months
later saying the same thing again! In any case, with conventional tanks available in large
numbers, and no German tanks for the Flying Elephant to kill (the A7V would only go
into action in March 1918, and then only in small numbers), there really seemed no
need to divert stretched resources into a costly experiment.
A more fundamental reason was that given by Stern in his memoirs. He stated that the
machine was cancelled as "mobility was thought to be a surer defence than heavy
armour", which rather brings to mind Admiral Fishers dictum that "speed is armour".
Opinions still differ as to how valid this conclusion was. Chamberlain and Ellis believe
that events vindicated Stern. Certainly, huge resources were to be devoted to Trittons
Whippet, lightly armed and armoured, and fast to boot, but so too were huge resources
devoted to the relatively slow Mark IV. It would probably be more accurate to say that
numbers were a surer defence than either speed or heavy armour.
It is also uncertain what the implications of the projects cancellation were for future
developments. It is certainly undeniable that, for many reasons, during the next twenty
five years the British produced a succession of poorly protected, lightweight tanks.
Might having had no operational experience with a heavily armoured machine during
the Great War have contributed to this? One suspects, however, that had the Flying
Elephant been completed it would have been a failure. The machine was grossly
underpowered, even in its lightened version (which would almost certainly have been
~ 619 ~
exceeded) and the "tunnels" formed by the lowslung tracks with their close proximity
to the side armour skirts and hull above would have been prone to clogging up with
mud and stones. The armour skirts themselves would have dug into the ground with
only minor sinkage, impeding movement even more. As for transportation, it is difficult
to see how such a large and heavy machine could have been easily transported to the
Front. Unlike the K-Wagen, designed to be dismantled by crane into several sections,
none of the Shellproof Tank designs could be broken down.
One suspects that Tritton could see that the machine would fail, perhaps furnishing
another explanation for his desultory progress why spend all that money and time on
something you know will fail? Quite apart from the waste, an outright failure would
have been a blot on his reputation. Far better to let it slip and let people wonder about
whatmighthavebeen. It may be of significance that the Fosters commemorative
book celebrating their role in the development of the tank, published after the Great
War, makes no mention whatsoever of the Flying Elephant.
The Fowler B5 Armoured Road Locomotive
Fowler steam traction engines emerged most successfully from War Office trials in
1899 for engines to be employed in the South African war. As a consequence, machines
built by John Fowler & Co Ltd of Leeds represented by far the biggest proportion of the
forty or so traction engines that were in South Africa by mid-1900.
~ 620 ~
The traction engines were used for pulling trains of supplies, alongside oxen or mule
transport, or towing guns to different positions. For protection against attacks on supply
columns by Boer raiding parties some armoured traction engines were ordered, and the
first of these vehicles, together with four bullet-proof trucks, arrived in South Africa in
July 1900, followed by a second train two weeks later.
~ 621 ~
The armoured engines were Fowler model B5s of 10 nhp (nominal horse-power) or 115
to 125 maximum ihp (indicated horse-power). The bullet-proof plates completely
enclosed the body of the machine in a slab-sided structure, only the chimney projecting.
At the front a hinged semicircular plate protected the lower part of the boiler, and at the
rear the armour was extended out either side, partly over the driving wheels. Three
loopholes for the use of the crews weapons were provided in each of these projections.
Access to the vehicle was by means of a door through the armour at the rear. The
armoured trucks which went with the Fowler B5s were four wheelers, the front axle,
which incorporated the tow-bar, being mounted on a turntable. The armour on each side
was in three sections, which could be hinged inwards independently. Each section
carried a loophole. There was no overhead armour protection. A field gun could, by
means of special channels, be hauled into a truck and carried, instead of being towed.
Four Fowler B5s were armoured; numbers 8894, 8895, 8898 and 8899. The first two
armoured road trains were sent to Bloemfontein on arrival, where the armour was
removed from both engines and trucks and used to make armoured railway trains.
Towards the end of 1901 the General Officer commanding the Kimberley District asked
for further trucks to be fitted with armour so that the troops needed for road-convoy
escort duties could be reduced, and the War Office was requested to supply two
armoured trucks. Remembering that the first two sent had been stripped of their armour
~ 622 ~
to make armoured railway trains, it is not surprising that the War Office did not meet
this request.
The gun-carrying truck, mentioned above, inspired Lieutenant-Colonel von Layriz, a

prominent German military writer, to suggest that quick firing guns should be mounted
on the wagons to act as a sort of mobile fort to protect bridges and other important
points against flying columns of Boers. This idea was not adopted, but if it had it is
interesting to speculate that it would have anticipated by many years some of the
elements of the tank.
Big Wheel Landship The wheel combat vehicle
~ 623 ~
Alternative designation: Big Wheel Landship
Date of construction of the first prototype: 1915 (unfinished)
Stage of completion: project canceled in favor of tracked tanks.
The idea of creating vysokokolsnoy combat vehicle based on the patent Diplock did
not come out of nowhere. Asking them more in 1903-wheel drive system, in which the
permeability is enhanced by the use of special "shoes", it proved to be rather enduring
and popular. First it turned gunners, not only French. Wheels type "pedrail" used in the
Italian and German heavy guns type - as the most vivid example is the "Big Bertha".
For this idea in 1915, a British officer caught T.Herrington (TG Hetherington), which
already had some experience in the development of armored vehicles. In his opinion for
the successful overcoming of deep ditches and trenches required to have a wheel
diameter of not less than 3 meters. On the basis of this theory, it vysokokolsnaya
articulated combat vehicle has been designed with all-wheel drive. Unfortunately, the
detailed description of the Big Wheel Landship not survived, but the overall printsmp
roughly corresponded Russian wheeled tank Lebedenco design.
In the early spring of 1915, the project was submitted to the Commission on land and
ships already March 20 a demonstration model to Winston Churchill. Prime Minister of
the car is very much that allowed us to obtain an order for 6 units at a price of 70,000
pounds each.
In April, it started the construction of a full-size wooden model, but at this stage the
work stopped. The reason for that was constantly changing specifications from the War
Office, which for a long time could not decide on the basic functions of this type of
armored vehicles. In addition, there were difficulties of a purely technical nature and the
project stalled Big Wheel itself. Not a single car and did not have time to build.
~ 624 ~
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Wheeled combat MACHINES
Pedrail Big Wheel sample 1915
CREW, pers. ?
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm
WEAPONS one gun in the housing
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
~ 625 ~
foraula 4x2 wheel: four-wheel design
CHASSIS
Diplock
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
Pedrail Landship Tracked combat vehicle
Alternative designation: Big Wheel Landship
Stage of completion: project canceled in favor of tracked tanks.
Of the many wonderful projects armored combat vehicles, created during the 1st World
War, it was the closest to realization. Suffice it to say that for some time it was
considered as an alternative to the famous "Willy". It is a combat vehicle Pedrail
Landship, a draft of which was presented to the Committee on land ships (Landship
Committee) Colonel Crompton (REBCrompton). Officially, the presence of the project
was announced March 1, 1915, we can say - on the eve of "trench warfare". Crompton
itself, as a professional soldier, also a member of the Committee, and was already
familiar with some of the projects submitted earlier. This allowed him to avoid some
mistakes, but not all.
~ 626 ~
The first proposed something similar Commodore M.Suetter (Suetter) - his project
involved the use odnogusenichnoe chassis on which to fix the body with anti-bullet
armor. Machine length was 30 feet (9.14 meters) at a weight of 24 tons, which
corresponds to the majority of bridges duty at the time. In a short time the project has
been finalized Diplock engineer, supervised by Pedrail Transport Ltd .. The length of
the car increased to 38 feet (11.58 m) and a width of 12 feet 6 inches (3.81 m) by using
two chassis connected in tandem. Thus, the total length reached up to 22-23 meters.
Each of the sections of the chassis was equipped with 46-horsepower gasoline engine
Rolls-Royce. According to the Diplock, in the aggregate, these two measures would
improve patency machines pitted with craters and trenches areas. At least, the calculated
turning radius was approximately 65 feet (19.81 m).
In fact, the scheme itself crawler chassis Pedrail Landship Mk.I based on the wheel
type "pedrail" Pat was created in 1903. Diplock suggested to equip the wheel with
~ 627 ~
special "boots" that were attached throughout the length of the rim with simple joints
and bushings. Thus achieved smoothness and improved cross-country roads. In the
same year it was built locomotive (steam tractors), fitted with wheels system "pedrail",
which tests for the most part confirmed the correctness of the decision. But Diplock
wanted more, and that inspired him to create a chassis with a central tracks of such a
system. This plan, he began to implement since 1905, and, in addition to the
experimental chassis, he gave the British army tracked Halftone trailer. After the war
Diplock has developed a project of mobile armored shields , but this idea has not
found sufficient support in the military and limit the construction of wooden models,
which the assembly held on Talbot factory.
The layout of the combat vehicle Pedrail modification Mk.I was quite appropriate
representations of the time. The driver's seat was in the middle of a combat vehicle in
the superstructure, which was raised to a height of 3 feet 3 inches (0.99 m) over the rest
of the body, full height is 7 feet 3 inches (2.20 m). The crew was composed of eight
persons, including the driver. The main armament was offered a 12-pound cannon.
Project fighting weight was estimated to be 25 tons with ground pressure of about 12
pounds (5.44 kg) per square centimeter. Housing symmetrical shape placed on a special
frame, covering both the chassis section. To successfully overcome the obstacles (which
could be only shallow pits and trenches) bronelisty lower front and rear were installed at
a large angle of inclination.
Preliminary drawings and calculations were ready by 28 February 1915, after which the
project took "under his wing" Colonel Crompton, recently named one of the LC
members. Four days later, on March 4 Pedrail Landship sketches were presented to the
Committee. Perhaps the project during that time has undergone some changes, not have
affected his appearance. The key moment in the history of this car was on March 20
when the model is "land ship" was represented by Winston Churchill. First Lord of the
British was pleased with the work done and ordered the book immediately tracked
Pedrail Landship twelve and six-wheeled combat vehicles equipped with "ped-rail". The
price of each car was determined to 70,000 pounds. This success was due to Churchill's
~ 628 ~
sincere love to all kinds of iron "mastodons" symbolizing moschb British Empire. That's
just the practical benefits of this almost was not.
However, by this time the tactic of using "land ships" has been significantly revised.
From engineers demanded that future tanks have the function of APCs (Armored
Infantry Carrier) intended for delivery to enemy positions 70 (!) With a full infantry
ammunition, and armed only with machine guns. Although later the number was
reduced to 55 men, the problem is not solved. Anyway, the 12-pound gun would have to
be dismantled.
Meanwhile, the contracts were distributed. The firm Rolls-Royce has got an order for
engines - as the base case were used Silver Ghost capacity of 40 \ 50 hp, which moved
from a commercial vehicle with manual transmission. In general, the move was fully
justified as "ghosts" had a good performance and the RNAS were in demand, which by
the way is the main customer of tanks and armored vehicles. The assembly of military
vehicles were to hold firm Foden Ltd.
~ 629 ~
Clearly anticipating wrong Crompton went to France, to assess the situation on the
Western Front. On his return, which was held on April 21 combat vehicle project has
been subjected to revision. Previously proposed scheme did not old enough to overcome
the obstacles, so each section gets its own body length of 22 ft (6.71 m). The radius of
the turn in this case, would have been 42 feet (12.80 m) at the best terrain on the area. It
has also provided the possibility of equipping the machine device for overcoming the
barbed wire. In the modified form of "land ship" was designated Mk.II.
Realizing that Diplock tractor is not the best option as a basis for the combat chassis
Crompton studied the possibility of replacing the US Bullock or domestic Killen-
Stright. the first version of which was approved in May 1915, was selected for Pedrail
Landship. It was assumed that the length of each undercarriage 9 feet (2.74 m) to
decrease a turning radius of 40 feet (12.19 m). Tractors were immediately ordered from
American suppliers and arrived a month later.
~ 630 ~
In July 1915, the War Department once again changed the specification - is now
shipping the landing was not required, and the car had to equip cannons and machine
guns. Project Pedrail Landship newly redesigned, deciding to mount much housing
modernizivaronny to normal tractor chassis. In addition, on the roof of each of the
sections are now installed on a 3-pounder field gun or 40-mm "pom-pom" or four
towers with machine guns. It was envisaged that the artillery system type may have a
larger caliber. The overall height of the machine was reduced to 7 feet 6 inches (2.28 m)
at the combat weight of 25 tons. Further planned height of the machine to reduce to 6
feet (1.83 m). The modification was designated Mk.III.
At this point, the assembly of the first prototype Pedrail Landship company engaged
Metropolitan Carrige, Wagon & Finance Co., which is transmitted from Foden contract
in April 1915, at the same time an order for 12 machines was reduced to a single
prototype - interest in the "land ships" pedrail significantly waned. Completion of the
machine held firm Stothert & Pitt Ltd., which used a ready reserve units and aggregates.
Rolls-Royce company, fulfilling the conditions of the contract, delivered two 100-
horsepower engine. At the request of the Department of trench warfare the car had to
equip flamethrower that has raised a lot of up to 32 tons, but was in fact made only
coupling of the two unarmored chassis connected by a common frame. Another upgrade
projects Crompton, held under the designation Mk.VII (what happened to the other -
you can easily guess), also left without attention.
Chassis Pedrail Landship prototype testing began in July 1915 and held in the Salisbury
Plain. It is unlikely that this pattern could be considered a prototype of the tank, as the
tractor chassis Bullock (equipped, by the way, the front wheel steering) is not suitable
for military purposes. However, there are allegations that the machine showed the
maximum travel speed of 15 miles per hour (24 km \ h). Even taking into account the
characteristics of NONCOR overstating it was just outstanding performance, but on the
part of overcoming obstacles articulated "land ship" greatly inferior to any of the
"House".
~ 631 ~
The same happened with the revised version, which is more consistent with an earlier
Mk.I - Kromton Diplock and still tried to use dual odnogusenichnuyu chassis rigidly
bonded general frame, it goes beyond the dimensions of the front and back more than
half a meter. To facilitate the overcoming of obstacles in front and behind the lower
drums were installed, but it does not save the situation. In fact, it was an experimental
platform with a front control station, very indirectly otnositvshayasya to combat vehicle.
During testing it was established some semblance of a closed tent housing, under which
a person could easily accommodate 20. Of course, odnogusenichnaya undercarriage had
certain advantages, but the idea itself Diplock finally reached a dead-end path of
development and has been rejected by the military.
Prototype Pedrail Landship chassis (Mk.I) passed in Bovington, where he was better
known under the name "Porton Tractor". His career ended in a landfill, where Pedrail
Landship sent in 1923 and soon dismantled the metal.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Tracked combat vehicles
Pedrail Landship sample 1916
Combat weight ~ 25000-28000 kg
CREW, pers. 8
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ~ 10000
Width ~ 2500
Height mm 2280 (on the project)
Clearance, mm
~ 632 ~
WEAPONS one 3-pound gun in the housing
aiming DEVICES ?
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE two Rolls-Royce, carbureted, 100 hp each
two articulated sections odnogusenichnye Diplock

CHASSIS
design
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
missing
COMMUNICATION
Gun Carrier Mk.I
The Gun Carrier Mark I was the first piece of self-propelled artillery ever to be
produced, a British development from the First World War.
Development
During 1916 it became clear that in case of a breakthrough, the very purpose of the first
tank, the Mark I, artillery would have great trouble following the advancing troops. Any
successful offensive would therefore be in danger of stalling immediately. To solve this
problem, Major John Greg,[1] an engineer working for the main tank producing
company Metropolitan, Carriage, Wagon and Finance, proposed to build special
mechanised artillery, using parts of the Mark I. The production of a prototype was
approved on 5 June 1916; the actual design began in July. The first prototype was ready
to participate in the Tank Trials Day at Oldbury on 3 March 1917. An order of fifty
~ 633 ~
vehicles was given to Kitson & Co. in Leeds. Deliveries to the army started in June and
ended in July of the same year.
Description
The vehicle bore little resemblance to the Mark I. The tracks retained a vestige of the
'lozenge' form but very low, almost flat. At the rear a rectangular superstructure covered
the Daimler 105 hp engine and transmission of the Mark I; the transmission was
reversed compared to its position in the Mark I. This structure also housed the vehicle
commander, a mechanic and two gearsmen. The original double tail wheel of the Mark I
(intended to aid steering but often omitted in action) was attached to the rear of the
vehicle and seems to be retained in photographs.
The front section, an open area between the tracks, was flanked by tall narrow
structures, above the front of the track frame at each side, that acted as armoured cabs
for driver on the left and brakesman to the right. In the prototype these driving positions
had been directly in front of the superstructure; moving them forward greatly improved
visibility, but made communication very difficult. This arrangement had obvious
disadvantages where, as in the Mark I, four men, including the gearsmen, had to
coordinate their actions to drive and manoeuvre a most ungainly vehicle. Between these
two structures lay a low-slung pivoting platform able to accommodate a 60-pounder (5-
inch) gun, a 6-inch 26 cwt howitzer or any equivalent in stores or personnel.
This platform acted as a loading ramp, down which a loading trolley or cradle could be
lowered and positioned beneath the gun carriage. The wheels of the gun were removed
and attached to the side of the carrier until needed again. The carriage was lowered onto
the trolley which could then be winched up onto the platform using a pair of engine-
driven winding drums. The procedure could be reversed to unload the gun. Spaces to
the rear of the cabs were used to store up to a hundred rounds of ammunition for the
howitzer in addition to other warlike stores. In theory, the field gun could be fired from
the vehicle; in reality only the howitzer could be so used.
~ 634 ~
Since this weapon could be fired while mountedeven if never fired in angerthe Gun
Carrier Mark I has been called the first modern self-propelled gun, defined as a weapon
system capable of independent action and having operational mobility on the battlefield.
Operational history
Salvage tank on a train on the way to the Battle of Cambrai, November 1917
In July 1917, two Gun Carrier Companies were formed of 24 vehicles each. Probably
none of them ever fired a shot. As breakthroughs never materialized the vehicles were
ultimately only used as supply tanks. It was calculated a single tank had the same
carrying capacity as 291 human porters. The first Gun Carrier Tanks arrived in France
before the Third Battle of Ypres (31 July 10 November 1917) and were attached to
XVIII Corps.[2] The gun carriers were first used at the Battle of Pilckem Ridge (31 July
2 August 1917) and by the end of the year 44 were in France.[3][4] The gun carriers
moved 60-pounder guns and several hundred tons of ammunition. The gun carriers were
rarely employed as mobile artillery but as supply tanks they had much greater capacity
than converted Mk I and Mk IV tanks and were well-suited to the conditions of the
Western Front and they would remain in constant use until the end of hostilities.[5][6][7]
In June 1918, the two Gun Carrier Companies became supply companies attached to the
3rd and 5th Tank Brigades. At the Battle of Hamel (4 July 1918), four gun carriers
moved 2025 long tons (2025 t) of engineer stores just behind the final objective
within thirty minutes of its capture. The four officers and sixteen men transported the
equivalent of 1,200 man-loads, economising about two infantry battalions of manpower.
At the beginning of August, the 1st Gun Carrier Company was attached to the 5th Tank
Brigade, the 2nd company to the 3rd Tank Brigade, 1st company to the 1st Tank
Brigade and the 2nd company to the 4th Tank Brigade. The 3rd and 5th Tank Supply
companies were at Blingel Camp, the 4th company was with the 2nd Tank Brigade, all
~ 635 ~
except the 1st Tank Supply Company and the 2nd Gun Carrier Company, ready for the
Battle of Amiens (812 August 1918).[8] There were seven gun carriers available for the
opening of the Battle of Cambrai on 20 November 1917 and for the Battle of Amiens,
the Australian Corps had 22 gun carriers allotted for supply.[9] On the night of 6/7
August, the 1st Gun Carrier Company carrying explosives had driven to an orchard on
the west of Villers Bretonneux, a shell from a German battery near Chipilly ignited a
camouflage net and 16 of the 22 vehicles exploded.[10]
Variants
Two vehicles out of the order of fifty were finished as Gun Carrier Cranes, salvage
tanks with a hand-operated crane in the front but without the distinctive pair of forward
cabs.[11]
Gun Carrier Mark II
There was a project for a Gun Carrier Mark II. Early in 1917, a wooden mock-up was
made of an improved type, carrying the gun at the back. A prototype was partly built
but never finished; the existence of the project is still reflected by the original type
being today known as the Gun Carrier Mark I.
Type Self-propelled artillery
Used by UK
Wars World War I
Designed July 1916
~ 636 ~
Manufacturer Kitson & Co.
Produced JuneJuly, 1917
Number built 48
Gun Carrier Crane, Gun

Variants
Carrier Mark II (project only)
27 long tons (27 t) unloaded,

Weight
34 long tons (35 t) maximum
30 ft (9.1 m), 43 ft (13 m)

Length
with tail
Width 11.6 ft (3.5 m)
Height 7.9 ft (2.41 m)
Crew 6 + gun crew
Main 60-pounder gun or 6-inch 26

armament cwt howitzer
Daimler petrol engine

Engine
105 hp
Suspension Unsprung
Operational 23.5 mi (37.8 km)

range
Speed 3.70 mph (5.95 km/h)
United Kingdom (1917) Self propelled gun 50 built
Development history
The Gun Carrier was the worlds first self-propelled gun design, though it never fired a
single shot in anger. Its invention led to the development of the famous SPGs of World
War II, largely based on the same concept: a modified regular tank chassis carrying a
standard artillery gun in a semi-enclosed compartment.
~ 637 ~
After the first deployment of the Mark I tank in 1916, it was realized that artillery would
not be able to keep up with the pace of the advance. Without artillery support, an
offensive would quickly be ruined. Thus, the creation of the Gun Carrier was
imperative.
Design
A British Army engineer named Major Gregg, working at the company that built the
Mark I tank, came up with a solution. Using parts from the Mark I tank, he proposed the
design of a special mechanized artillery. On July 5, 1916, the production of a prototype
was approved, and in July, work began. On March 3rd, 1917, the prototype participated
in Tank Trials Day. Fifty vehicles were ordered by the Army, to be produced by Kitson
& Co.
The Gun Carrier didnt look much like the Mark I at all. Instead of high and angled
tracks, they were low, almost flat. A superstructure in the rear protected the 105-
horsepower Daimler engine and the Gun Carriers transmission, propelling it along at 6
km/h (4 mph). The double tail wheel attached to the end of the Mark I tank to aid in
steering was retained on the Gun Carrier. It was crewed by 6 men: a commander,
mechanic, and two gearsmen; with the addition of a driver and brakesman above the
front of each track. While the placement of the crew improved visibility,
communication was difficult. The front held a choice of a BL 60-pounder gun or 6-inch
howitzer behind a shield-like structure. Only the howitzer could actually be fired from
the vehicle. In order to transport the guns, only the wheels were removed from the
carriage and attached to the side of the Gun Carrier.
Variants
Two of the Gun Carriers were converted to Gun Carrier Cranes, salvage and supply
tanks. Wooden mock-ups were built of a Gun Carrier Mk. II, housing the gun at the rear
of the tank. They were never ordered into production, but the result was that the Gun
Carrier was re-designated Gun Carrier Mk.I.
Operational use
~ 638 ~
48 of the 50 Gun Carriers were organized into Gun Carrier Companies, with 24
machines each. These entered service in the latter part of 1917. None of the Gun
Carriers ever fired a shot, as no breakthrough materialized. They were used as supply
tanks, and as troop carriers. It was estimated a single Gun Carrier could transport over
100 troops at a single time.
Gun Carrier Mk.I specifications

Dimensions 32 x 8 x 7.5 ft (9.75 oa x 2.41 x 2.30 m)
Total weight, battle

28.45 t (56,900 lbs)
ready
Crew 4 + gun crew
Foster-Daimler Knight sleeve valve petrol engine, 105 hp

Propulsion
(transmission inverted)
Suspensions None
Range 37.8 km (24 miles)
Armament BL 60-pounder (5-inch/127 mm) field gun/6-inch howitzer
Total production 50 (48, with two conversions to Gun Carrier Crane)
~ 639 ~
Gun Carrier Mark I (1917) with the 60-pounder.
~ 640 ~
Gun Carrier Mk.1
The Gun Carrier was suggested as a companion machine to the Mark I Tank, to carry
forward medium artillery and ammunition over shell-torn ground covered with old and
new trench systems. It was apparent by mid-1916 that offensives on both sides (and
notably the German attack at Verdun in February July 1916) soon lost their drive
through the difficulty of bringing up artillery to maintain support.
The idea of a gun-carrying tank was put forward by Major J.R. Greg of the Metropolitan
Carriage, Wagon and Finance Co., who were the builders of the greater proportion of
~ 641 ~
Tanks Mark I produced. Design commenced in July 1916 and the prototype, built by the
Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon and Finance Co., was running at the beginning of 1917.
The Gun Carrier, Mark I, as it became designated, used the main mechanical
components of Tank, Mark I, including the steering tail wheels (which were later
discarded). The purpose for which the Gun Carrier was designed, however, necessitated
a changed arrangement and resulted in an entirely different appearance from the tank.
The layout comprised an open space at the front in to which the artillery piece (usually a
60-pdr. gun or a 6in.howitzer) could be winched up a ramp, and behind this space an
armoured box which contained a crew compartment and the engine and transmission. In
the prototype, the driver and brakesman sat in the open over either track in front of the
rear compartment, but in production machines two armoured cabs, either side of the
breach of the gun, were fitted. This layout required the engine (a 105-h.p. Daimler) to
be placed at the rear (unlike the Tank Mark I) with transmission shaft leading forwards
~ 642 ~
to the differential which was located near the front of the armoured compartment. The
final drive chains then led back to drive sprockets at the rear of the track assembly.
Overall tracks, as in the heavy tanks, were not provided for in the Gun Carrier and the
fact that the tracks went through tunnels under the front crew cabs and the rear
compartment led to difficulties with mud collecting at these points.
Forty-eight Gun Carriers were built (two similar machines were completed as Salvage
Tanks), the majority of them by Kitson & Co at Leeds, by July 1917. In France, they
were used far less for carrying artillery than ammunition. The vehicle was designed so
that the 60pdr. gun or the 6in, howitzer could be fired from it, although from a practical
point of view only the 6in. howitzer could be used in this way: These weapons were
employed in this fashion at night on a few occasions and achieved some tactical
success, but the Gun Carrier companies were eventually converted into supply
~ 643 ~
companies and carried other supplies as well as ammunition. When transporting a
medium gun or howitzer, sixty-four rounds of ammunition could be carried or, without
the weapon 130 rounds, or approximately seven tons of supplies. It was estimated that
six Gun Carriers with their combined crews of twenty-four men could carry a load
which would otherwise require 1745 men - the only practicable alternative form of
crosscountry transport.
~ 644 ~
~ 645 ~
Gun Carrier Mark II
A new design of gun carrier was proposed by Wilson and Gregg in June 1917. This was
based on Mark V tank hull, engine and transmission although the hull was somewhat
wider than the Mark V and it was intended to use 26.5inch wide tracks. Sponsons were
not fitted and were replaced by large doors in the side of the hull. It was not intended to
fire a gun from the Mark II Gun Carrier so the gun was carried at the rear of the tank
which gave the driver a good view forwards - a common complaint about the Mark I
Gun Carrier. The gun, either a 6inch howitzer or 5inch gun was placed on tow ramps at
the rear of the carrier and winched up the ramps until it hit the curved ramp end plates.
Further winching pulled the ramps clear of the ground. The winch was driven from the
epicyclic gears of the Mark V and the winch cable passed through the roof to a pulley
behind the driver's cab. A further pulley was suspended from a tripod frame and the
winch cable was attached to the lunette (towing ring) of the gun. There was space inside
the hull for storage of 70 rounds of ammunition. Smaller calibre guns could be carried
with a corresponding increase in ammunition storage. The project was never taken up
and only proceeded as far as a wooden mockup of the design.
~ 646 ~
Official designation: Gun Carrier
Alternative designation: GC
Start design: 1916
Stage of completion: 48 built copies.
~ 647 ~
Very interesting way decided to simplify the problem of transportation of heavy
weapons by the British. Instead of the usual caterpillar tractor it was proposed tank
transporter - a unique sample of a combat vehicle, created during the First World War.
During the construction of the tank, referred to as GC (Gun Carrier), used the same
engine and transmission as the tank Mk.IV, but the layout and chassis made virtually
from scratch. The driver and the vehicle commander is now housed in separate cabins
on the sides, while the cargo and the other three crew members were placed on the
platform. The tank could carry 60-pound (127-mm) gun or a 6-inch (152mm) howitzer.
Using a special ramp, slide with rollers and winch pulls a weapon on the platform (the
whole system works with a motor-driven). Wheels then removed and hung on the board.
Other space occupied gun crew and ammunition. Without tank guns could carry 130
shells.
Engine compartment thus moved aft and "flipped" so as not to change the transmission
chain from the motor. For ease of maintenance in the food made two doors. Bypass
caterpillars greatly changed - it is significantly lowered and pulled, giving the shape of
an ellipse. In a first embodiment, the tank was equipped with "tail", but during the
operation was abandoned.
In general, the machine was cumbersome and unwieldy. Manage GC was extremely
difficult and often participated in this process 3-4. In combat use nobody was going to
GC - gun, though fixed on the platform, to fire at the enemy could only theoretically.
English engineer somehow not occurred to him that the GC can be used as self-
propelled guns. Of course, the caliber of guns would have to reduce, and even 100-mm
gun could cause a lot of troubles with skilful use, not to mention the fact that moving to
a new position would require much less time. Yet GC was prepared for the fate of a
simple conveyor.
Formation of the first company, equipped with these machines began in Leeds July 9,
1917 they were in the autumn on the front, but in the short time they were used as tools
of the conveyor. It is much easier to tow the gun turned out to be horse-drawn, or in
cars. But as an ordinary supply tanks GC it was just irreplaceable. On the platform he
could carry up to 10 tons of cargo and simultaneously pull scraper weighing up to 22.4
tons!
Of the 50 tanks manufactured GC one car turned into a shovel with open turntable and
another altered in Bram equipping its armored cab, crane, winch and anchor device for
the stop into the ground.
~ 648 ~
After the war, all the tanks of type GC sent for scrapping.
Combat weight ?
CREW, pers. 4+6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS -
aiming DEVICES -
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Of Daimler, gasoline, 105 hp
CHASSIS ?
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION -
~ 649 ~
British heavy tanks of World War I
A British Mark I "male" tank near Thiepval on 25 September 1916, fitted with wire
mesh to deflect grenades and the initial steering tail, shown raised[1]
Type Tank
~ 650 ~
In service (Mk I) from 1916
United Kingdom (Mk I

IX)
Germany (Mk IV)
Empire of Japan (Mk IV)
White movement (Mk V)
Soviet Union (Mk V)
Used by
United States (Mk V,
V*, VIII)
France (Mk V*)
Canada (Mk V, V*)
Estonia (Mk V)
Latvia (Mk V)
First World War

Russian Civil War
Wars
German Revolution of 1918
19
William Tritton, Major

Designer
Walter Gordon Wilson
Designed 1915
(Mk I) William Foster & Co.

of Lincoln
Manufacturer
Metropolitan Carriage,
Birmingham
Produced (Mk I) 1916
Number built 150
Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV,

Mark V, Mark V*, Mark
Variants V**, Mark VI, Mark VII,
Mark VIII, Mark IX, Mark
X, Gun Carrier Mark I
Male: 28 long tons (28 t)

Weight
Female: 27 long tons (27 t)
~ 651 ~
32 ft 6 in (9.91 m) with tail
Length
25 ft 5 in (7.75 m) without[2]
13 ft 9 in (4.19 m) [male]
Width 14 ft 4 12 in (4.38 m)
[female][2]
Height 8 ft 2 in (2.49 m)[2]
8 (commander/brakesman,
Crew driver, two gearsmen and
four gunners)
Armour 0.240.47 in (612 mm)[2]
Male: Two Hotchkiss 6 pdr

Main QF
armament Female: Four .303 in Vickers
machine guns
Male: Three .303 in

Secondary Hotchkiss Machine Guns
armament Female: One .303 in
Hotchkiss machine guns
Daimler-Knight 6-cylinder
sleeve-valve 16-litre petrol
Engine
engine
105 horsepower (78 kW)[2]
Male: 3.7 hp/LT (2.7 kW/t)

Power/weight Female: 4.0 hp/LT
(2.9 kW/t)[2]
primary gearbox: 2 forward

Transmission and 1 reverse
secondary:2 speeds
Suspension 26 unsprung rollers
50 imperial gallons (230 l;

Fuel capacity
60 US gal) internal[2]
Operational 23.6 miles (38.0 km) radius

range of action,[2] 6.2 hours
~ 652 ~
endurance
3.7 mph (6.0 km/h)

Speed
maximum[2]
British heavy tanks were a series of related armoured fighting vehicles developed by
the UK during the First World War.
The Mark I was the world's first tank, tracked and armed armoured vehicle, to enter
combat. The name "tank" was initially a code name to maintain secrecy and disguise its
true purpose.[3] The type was developed in 1915 to break the stalemate of trench
warfare. It could survive the machine gun and small-arms fire in "No Man's Land",
travel over difficult terrain, crush barbed wire, and cross trenches to assault fortified
enemy positions with powerful armament. Tanks also carried supplies and troops.
British heavy tanks are distinctive by an unusual rhomboidal shape with a high climbing
face of the track, designed to cross the wide and deep trenches prevalent on the
battlefields of the Western Front. Due to the height necessary for this shape, an armed
turret would have made the vehicle too tall and unstable. Instead the main armament
was arranged in sponsons at the side of the vehicle. The prototype, named "Mother",
mounted a 6-pounder (57 mm) cannon and a Hotchkiss machine gun at each side. Later,
subtypes were produced with machine guns only, which were designated "Female",
while the original version with the protruding 6-pounder was called "Male".
The Mark I entered service in August 1916, and was first used in action on the morning
of 15 September 1916 during the Battle of Flers-Courcelette, part of the Somme
Offensive.[4] With the exception of the few interim Mark II and Mark III tanks, it was
followed by the largely similar Mark IV, which first saw combat in June 1917. The
Mark IV was used en masse, about 460 tanks, at the Battle of Cambrai in November
1917. The Mark V, with a much improved transmission, entered service in mid-1918. In
~ 653 ~
total more than two thousand British heavy tanks were produced. Manufacture was
discontinued at the end of the war.
Development
The Mark I was a development of Little Willie, the experimental tank built for the
Landships Committee by Lieutenant Walter Wilson and William Tritton between July
and September 1915. It was designed by Wilson in response to problems with tracks
and trench-crossing ability discovered during the development of Little Willie. A gun
turret above the hull would have made the centre of gravity too high when climbing a
German trench parapet (which were typically four feet high),[5] so the tracks were
arranged in a rhomboidal form around the hull and the guns were put in sponsons on the
sides of the tank. The reworked design was also able to meet the Army requirement to
be able to cross an 8 ft (2.4 m) wide trench.
A mockup of Wilson's idea was shown to the Landships Committee when they viewed
the demonstration of Little Willie. At about this time, the Army's General Staff was
persuaded to become involved and supplied representatives to the Committee. Through
these contacts Army requirements for armour and armament made their way into the
design. The prototype Mark I, ready in December 1915, was called "Mother" (previous
names having been "The Wilson Machine", "Big Willie", and "His Majesty's Land Ship
Centipede"). Mother was successfully demonstrated to the Landships Committee in
early 1916; it was run around a course simulating the front including trenches, parapets,
craters and barbed wire obstacles. The demonstration was repeated on 2 February before
the cabinet ministers and senior members of the Army. Kitchener, the Secretary of State
for War, was sceptical but the rest were impressed. Lloyd George, at the time Minister
of Munitions, arranged for his Ministry to be responsible for tank production.[6]
The Landships Committee was re-constituted as the "Tank Supply Committee" under
the chairmanship of Albert Stern; Ernest Swinton, who had promoted the idea of the
tank from the Army angle was also a member. General Haig sent a staff officer Hugh
Elles to act as his liaison to the Supply Committee. Swinton would become the head of
the new arm, and Elles the commander of the tanks in France.[6]
The first order for tanks was placed on 12 February 1916, and a second on 21 April.
Fosters built 37 (all "male"), and Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon, and Finance Company,
of Birmingham, 113 (38 "male" and 75 "female"), a total of 150.[7]
When the news of the first use of the tanks emerged, Lloyd George commented,
"Well, we must not expect too much from them but so far they have done very well, and
don't you think that they reflect some credit on those responsible for them? It is really to
Mr Winston Churchill that the credit is due more than to anyone else. He took up with
enthusiasm the idea of making them a long time ago, and he met with many difficulties.
He converted me, and at the Ministry of Munitions he went ahead and made them. The
admiralty experts were invaluable, and gave the greatest possible assistance. They are,
of course, experts in the matter of armour plating. Major Stern, a business man at the
Ministry of Munitions had charge of the work of getting them built, and he did the task
very well. Col Swinton and others also did valuable work."
~ 654 ~
David Lloyd George[8]
Description
The Mark I was a rhomboid vehicle with a low centre of gravity and long track length,
able to negotiate broken ground and cross trenches. The main armament was carried in
sponsons on the hull sides.
The hull was undivided internally; the crew shared the same space as the engine. The
environment inside was extremely unpleasant; since ventilation was inadequate, the
atmosphere was contaminated with poisonous carbon monoxide, fuel and oil vapours
from the engine, and cordite fumes from the weapons. Temperatures inside could reach
50 C (122 F). Entire crews lost consciousness inside the tank or, sometimes, collapsed
when again exposed to fresh air.[9]
To counter the danger of bullet splash or fragments knocked off the inside of the hull,
crews were issued with leather-and-chainmail masks.[10] A leather helmet[11] was also
issued, to protect the head against projections inside the tank. Gas masks were standard
issue as well, as they were to all soldiers at this point in the war (see Chemical warfare).
The side armour of 8 mm initially made them largely immune to small arms fire, but
could be penetrated by the recently developed armour-piercing K bullets. There was
also the danger of being overrun by infantry and attacked with grenades. The next
generation had thicker armour, making them nearly immune to the K bullets. In
response, the Germans developed the 13.2 mm Mauser anti-tank rifle, and also a
Geballte Ladung ("Bunched Charge") several stick grenades bundled together for a
much bigger explosion.
A direct hit by an artillery or mortar shell could cause the fuel tanks (which were placed
high in the front horns of the track frames either side of the drivers' area, to allow
gravity feed) to burst open. Incinerated crews were removed by special Salvage
Companies, who also salvaged damaged tanks.
Steering was difficult, controlled by varying the speed of the two tracks. Four of the
crew, two drivers (one of whom also acted as commander; he operated the brakes, the
other the primary gearbox) and two "gearsmen" (one for the secondary gears of each
track) were needed to control direction and speed, the latter never more than a walking
pace. As the noise inside was deafening, the driver, after setting the primary gear box,
communicated with the gearsmen with hand signals, first getting their attention by
hitting the engine block with a heavy spanner. For slight turns, the driver could use the
steering tail: an enormous contraption dragged behind the tank consisting of two large
wheels, each of which could be blocked by pulling a steel cable causing the whole
vehicle to slide in the same direction. If the engine stalled, the gearsmen would use the
starting handle a large crank between the engine and the gearbox. Many of these
vehicles broke down in the heat of battle making them an easy target for German
gunners. There was no wireless (radio); communication with command posts was by
means of two pigeons, which had their own small exit hatch in the sponsons, or by
runners. Because of the noise and vibration, early experiments had shown that radios
were impractical, therefore lamps, flags, semaphore, coloured discs, and the carrier
pigeons were part of the standard equipment of the various marks.[12]
~ 655 ~
During the First World War, British propaganda made frequent use of tanks, portraying
them as a wonder weapon that would quickly win the war. They were featured in films
and popular songs.[13]
Markings
The Mark IV tank Lodestar III at the Belgian Royal Museum of the Army, Brussels.
This tank retains its original paint
When first deployed, British tanks were painted with a four-colour camouflage scheme
devised by the artist Solomon Joseph Solomon. It was found that they quickly got
covered with mud, rendering elaborate, camouflage paint schemes superfluous. In late
1916, the Solomon scheme was abandoned and tanks were painted with a single shade
of dark brown.[14]
At the rear of the tank, a three, four or five digit serial number was painted in white or
yellow at the factory. At the front there was a large tactical marking, a prefix letter
indicating the company or battalion, and a number (training tanks had no letter, but
three numbers).[15] Some tanks had their tactical number painted on the roof for air
recognition.[16] Later, vertical red and white stripes were painted on the front to aid
recognition after the Germans began deploying captured British tanks.
Tanks were often given individual names and these were sometimes painted on the
outside. A small handful were known to carry artwork (similar to aircraft nose art).[15]
Variants
The first tanks were known as the Mark I after the subsequent designs were introduced.
Mark Is armed with two 6 pounder guns and three .303 Hotchkiss machine guns were
called "Male" tanks; those with four Vickers machine guns and one Hotchkiss, were
called "Female". Swinton is credited with inventing the terms.[17]
~ 656 ~
To aid steering, a pair of large wheels were added behind the tank. These were not as
effective as hoped and were subsequently dropped.
The subsequent Mark II, III, IV, and V, and later tanks, all bear a strong resemblance to
their "Mother".
Mark I
British Mark I tank with the Solomon camouflage scheme
Crew: 8
Combat Weight
o Male: 28 tons (28.4 tonnes)
o Female: 27 tons (27.4 tonnes)
Armour: 0.230.47 in (612 mm)
Armament
o Male: two 6-pounder QF, three Hotchkiss Machine Guns
o Female: four 0.303 in Vickers Machine Guns, one Hotchkiss Machine
Gun
The Gun Carrier Mark I was a separate design, intended to carry a field gun or howitzer
that could be fired from the vehicle. In service, it was mostly used for carrying supplies
and ammunition. Forty-eight were built.
Initial production of the Mark I was to be by Fosters and Metropolitan: 25 from Fosters
and 75 from Metropolitan, which had greater capacity in Wednesbury at the Old Park
site of the Patent Shaft Company, a subsidiary of the Metropolitan.[18] Metropolitan also
received an order for a further 50 so that the Army would be able to raise 6 tank
companies of 25 tanks each and set up further production under their Oldbury Wagon
and Carriage Company. As there were not enough 6-pounder guns available for all 150
~ 657 ~
tanks, it was decided to equip half of them with just machine guns. A new sponson
design with two Vickers machine guns in rotating shields was produced.[19]
Mark II
Mark II; tank no. 799 captured near Arras on 11 April 1917
The Mark II incorporated minor improvements over the Mark I. With the Army
declaring the Mark I still insufficiently developed for use, the Mark II (for which orders
were first placed in July) would continue to be built, but would be used only for
training.[17] Due to this intended role, they were supposedly clad in unhardened steel,
though some doubt was cast on this claim in early 1917.[20] Initially, 20 were shipped to
France and 25 remained at the training ground at Wool, Dorset in Britain; the remaining
five were kept for use as test vehicles. As the promised Mark IV tanks had not arrived
by early 1917, it was decided, despite the protestations of Stern (see below), to ship the
25 training vehicles in Britain to France,[20] where they joined the other 20 Mark IIs and
15 Mark Is at the Battle of Arras in April 1917. The Germans were able to pierce the
armour of both the Mark I and Mark II tanks at Arras with their armour-piercing
machine gun ammunition.
The Mark II was built from December 1916 to January 1917 by Foster & Co and
Metropolitan (25 Male and 25 Female respectively).[21]
Five Mark IIs were taken for experiments on improved powerplants and transmission.
They were provided to firms to show what improvements they could make over the
Mark I system in an open competition. In the demonstrations held in March 1917, only
three of them were able to compete alongside Mother, which had been fitted with a
Daimler petrol-electric system. Wilson's epicyclic gear system, which replaced the
secondary gear and the gearsmen, was clearly superior and adopted in later designs.
~ 658 ~
Surviving parts from Mark II no. 799 (D26), including tracks and gunshields, can be
seen at the Muse Jean et Denise Letaille, Bullecourt.
Mark III
The Mark III was a training tank and used Lewis machine guns and a smaller sponson
for the females. Fifty were built. It was originally intended that the Mark III was to have
all the proposed new design features of the Mark IV. This is why there were two distinct
training types, the Mark II being little more than a slightly improved Mark I. However,
development of the new features was so slow that the change from the Mark II was very
gradual. The last two Mark IIIs were melted down in the Second World War. They did
not see action overseas.
Mark IV
Main article: Mark IV tank
A female Mark IV tank C14. Photographed with German forces after the Battle of
Cambrai. December 1917
~ 659 ~
Mark IV female tank knocked out
The Mark IV was a more heavily armoured version of the Mark I, and went into
production in May 1917. Fundamental mechanical improvements had originally been
intended, but had to be postponed. The main change was the introduction of shorter-
barrelled 6-pounder guns. It had all its fuel stored in a single external tank (located
between the rear track horns) in an attempt to improve crew safety. The sponsons could
be pushed in to reduce the width of the tank for rail transportation. Rails on the roof
carried an unditching beam. A total of 1,220 were built: 420 males, 595 females and
205 tank tenders, which were supply tanks.
The Mark IVs were used successfully at the Messines Ridge in June 1917, where they
outpaced the infantry on dry ground, but in the Third Ypres of July and August they
found the swampy ground difficult and were of little use. About 432 Mark IV tanks
were used during the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917.
The first tank-to-tank battle was between Mk IV tanks and German A7Vs in the Second
Battle of Villers-Bretonneux in April 1918.[a]
Mark V series
Main article: Mark V tank
~ 660 ~
Mark V "male" tank, showing short 6-pounder (57-mm) Hotchkiss gun in right sponson
The Mark V was first intended to be a completely new design of tank, of which a
wooden mock-up had been finished. However, when the new engine and transmission
originally destined for the Mark IV became available in December 1917, the first, more
advanced Mark V design was abandoned for fear of disrupting the production run. The
designation "Mark V" was switched to an improved version of the Mark IV, equipped
with the new systems. The original design of the Mark IV was to be a large
improvement on the Mark III but had been scaled back to be a mild improvement
because of technical delays. The Mark V thus turned out very similar to the original
design of the Mark IV i.e. a greatly modified Mark III.
Four hundred were built, two hundred each of Males and Females. Several were
converted to Hermaphrodites (also known as "Composites") by fitting one male and one
female sponson so that each tank had a 6-pounder. This measure was intended to ensure
~ 661 ~
that female tanks would not be outgunned when faced with captured British male tanks
in German use or the Germans' own A7V.
The Mark V was first used in the Battle of Hamel on 4 July 1918, when 60 tanks
contributed to a successful assault on the German lines by Australian units. It took part
in eight further major engagements during the War. A number saw service in the Allied
intervention in the Russian Civil War on the White Russian side. Most were captured
and used by the Red Army in the Russian Civil War. Four were retained by Estonian
forces, and two by Latvia.
Mark V*
The Mark V* was a version with a stretched hull, lengthening it by six feet. It had a
larger "turret" on the roof and doors in the side of the hull. The extra section was also
designed to house a squad of infantry. The weight was 33 tons. Of orders for 500 Males
and 200 Females, 579 had been built by the Armistice the order was completed by
Metropolitan Carriage in March 1919.[22]
~ 662 ~
A British Mark V* tankon the roof the tank carries an unditching beam on rails, that
could be attached to the tracks and used to extricate itself from difficult muddy trenches
and shell craters
Mark V**
A British Mark V** tank
Because the Mark V* had been lengthened, its original length-width ratio had been
spoiled. Lateral forces in a turn now became unacceptably high causing thrown tracks
and an enormous turn circle. Therefore Major Wilson redesigned the track in May 1918,
with a stronger curve to the lower run reducing ground contact and the tracks widened
to 26.5 in (673 mm). The Mark V engine was bored out to give 225 hp (168 kW) and
sited further back in the hull. The cabin for the driver was combined with the
commander's cabin; there now was a separate machine gun position in the back. Of a
revised order for 700 tanks (150 Females and 550 Males) only 25 were built and only
one of those by the end of 1918.[22]
Mark VI
Main article: Mark VI (tank)
~ 663 ~
The Mark VI was one of a pair of related projects to develop the tank initiated in late
1916. The Mark V would be the application of as many advanced features as could be
managed on the Mark I hull design and the Mark VI would be a complete break with the
Mark I hull. The Mark V would not be built as such, because of the delays with the
Mark IV and it would be a different Mark V that was built. The Mark VI project design
had a completely new hull taller and with rounded track paths. The single main gun
was in the front of the hull. It did not progress past the stage of a wooden mock-up; the
project was cancelled in December 1917 in order that a tank co-developed with the US
(the Mark VIII) could go forward.
Mark VII
Mark Knothe, the Technical Liaison Officer between Stern, Elles and Anley,
contributed to the development of the tank, designing a longer Mark I with Williams-
Janney hydraulic transmission;[23] one of the Mark IIs used as test vehicles had used a
hydraulic transmission. In October 1917 Brown Brothers[b] in Edinburgh were granted a
contract to develop this line of research further. In July 1918, the prototype was ready.
Its drive system was very complex. The 150 hp (112 kW) Ricardo engine drove into
Variable Speed Gear Ltd. pumps that in turn powered two hydraulic motors, moving
one track each by means of several chains. To ward off the obvious danger of
overheating, there were many fans, louvres and radiators. However, steering was easy
and gradual and the version was taken into production to equip one tank battalion. Three
had been built, and only one delivered out of an order for 74 when war ended.[23] It was
passed over in favour over the VIII, which was ordered at the same time. The hull was
slightly lengthened in comparison with the Mark V. No Mark VIIs survive.
Mark VIII
The Allied Mark VIII (Liberty) tank
Main article: Mark VIII (tank)
When Stern was removed from his post following disagreements with the War Office,
he was sidelined by appointment to a new department to work on a cooperative design
between the Allies assembly in France, hulls, guns and their ammunition from the UK
~ 664 ~
and other components (principally the engines) from the USA.[24] American
involvement in the development of the tank design led to the Mark VIII, also known as
"Liberty" or Anglo-American tank (though initially the French were partially involved).
The engine was compartmentalised from the crew, and the turret structure included
forward and rear firing machine guns. Of a planned (shared production) of 1,500 each, a
single British prototype was finished by the end of the war. The British built just 24, the
Americans completed 100 between September 1918 and 1920, at the Rock Island
Arsenal, at a cost of $35,000 [8,750] apiece ($430,000 [226,000] in 2006). About 40
hulls for the U.S Liberty were produced by the Manchester Tank Syndicate, 11 British
Type Mark VIII by the North British Locomotive Co.[25]
They were used and upgraded until the 1930s, when they were given to Canada for
training; some M1917s were sold to the Canadians at nominal scrap value. The tank
itself was over 34 feet (10 m) long, and there had been an even longer 44 foot (13 m)
version planned but never made (the Mark VIII*). The tank was outdated by the 1930s
due to its speed (under 6 mph/10 km/h) and armour (166 mm), but it did have one of
the longest independent trench crossing capabilities of any armoured fighting vehicle
(AFV) ever made. Modern main battle tanks and AFVs rely on bridge laying tanks for
crossing large deep trenches.
Crew: 12 (later 10)

Weight 37 tons (37.6 tonnes)
Length/Height/Width : 34 ft 2 in by 10 ft 3 in by 12 ft 4 in (10.4 m by 3.1 m by
3.8 m) (Mark VIII* length 44 ft/13.4 m)
Engine: Ricardo 330 hp petrol (UK), Liberty V12 300 hp (U.S.).[25]
Mark IX
Main article: Mark IX tank
The Mark IX was a troop carrier or infantry supply vehicle among the first tracked
armoured personnel carrier not counting experiments with the lengthened Mk V's.
Thirty-four were built out of an order for 200.
Mark X
The Mark X was a paper-only project to improve the Mark V, originally known as Mark
V***. This was basically a contingency plan in case the Mark VIII project would fail (if
so a production of 2000 was foreseen for 1919), trying to produce a tank with as many
parts of the Mark V as possible but with improved manoeuvrability and crew comfort.
Combat history
The first tanks were added, as a "Heavy Branch", to the Machine Gun Corps until a
separate Tank Corps was formed on 28 July 1917 by Royal Warrant. A small number of
Mark I tanks took part in the Battle of the Somme during the Battle of Flers-Courcelette
in September 1916. They were used to cut through barbed wire to clear the way for
infantry, and were even driven through houses to destroy machine gunner's
emplacements.[26] Although many broke down or became stuck, almost a third that
~ 665 ~
attacked made it across no man's land, and their effect on the enemy was noted, leading
to a request by the British C-in-C Douglas Haig for a thousand more. This came as a
surprise: William Tritton had already started the development of a heavier tank: the
Flying Elephant. Unfortunately for the Allies, it also gave the Germans time to develop
a specifically designed anti-tank weapon for the infantry, an armour-piercing 7.92 mm
K bullet.
Eight Mk I tanks were used against Turkish forces in the Second Battle of Gaza in April
1917 during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. With its three destroyed tanks replaced
by Mk IVs, the tank company fought at the Third Battle of Gaza.
British tanks were used with varying success in the offensives of 1917 on the Western
Front; however, their first large scale use in a combined operation was at the Battle of
Cambrai in November 1917, when nearly 400 tanks working closely with advancing
infantry and a creeping barrage overran the German lines in the initial attack. During the
Battle of Amiens in August 1918, several hundred Mark V tanks, along with the new
Whippet and Mk V* tanks, penetrated the German lines in a foretaste of modern
armoured warfare.
Mark V tanks captured by the Red Army from the White Army in the course of the
Russian Civil War were used in 1921 during the Red Army invasion of Georgia and
contributed to the Soviet victory in the battle for Tbilisi.[27]
In 1945, occupying troops came across two badly damaged Mk V tanks in Berlin.
Photographic evidence indicates that these were survivors of the Russian Civil War and
had previously been displayed as a monument in Smolensk, Russia, before being
brought to Berlin after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.[28] Accounts of
their active involvement in the Battle of Berlin have not been verified.[29]
~ 666 ~
Little Willie
Type Prototype tank
Designed July 1915
Manufacturer Fosters of Lincoln
Produced AugustSeptember 1915
Number built 1
Weight 16.5 tonnes
19 ft 3 in (5.87 m)
Length 26 ft 6 in (8.08 m) inc. rear
steering wheels
8 ft 3 in (2.51 m) to top of
Height hull
~ 667 ~
turret
Crew (Projected) 6
Main (Projected) Vickers 2-

armament pounder gun
(Projected) Various
Secondary suggestions of Maxim,
armament Hotchkiss, Lewis, or Madsen
machine guns
Foster-Daimler Knight sleeve

Engine valve petrol
105 hp (78 kW)
Two-speed forwards, one

Transmission reverse
final drive by Renolds chains
Suspension Unsprung
Speed 2 mph (3.2 km/h)
Little Willie was a prototype in the development of the British Mark I tank.
Constructed in the autumn of 1915 at the behest of the Landships Committee, it was the
first completed tank prototype in history. Little Willie is the oldest surviving individual
tank, preserved as one of the most famous pieces in the collection of The Tank
Museum, Bovington, England.
Number 1 Lincoln Machine
Work on Little Willie's predecessor was begun in July 1915 by the Landships
Committee to meet Great Britain's requirement in World War I for an armoured combat
vehicle able to cross a 8-foot (2.4 m) trench. After several other projects with single and
triple tracks had failed, on 22 July William Ashbee Tritton, director of the agricultural
machinery company William Foster & Company of Lincoln, was given the contract to
develop a "Tritton Machine" with two tracks. It had to make use of the track assemblies
- lengthened tracks and suspension elements (seven road wheels instead of four) -
purchased as fully built units from the Bullock Creeping Grip Tractor Company in
Chicago.
On 11 August actual construction began; on 16 August Tritton decided to fit a wheeled

tail to assist in steering. On 9 September the Number 1 Lincoln Machine, as the
~ 668 ~
prototype was then known, made its first test run in the yard of the Wellington Foundry.
It soon became clear that the track profiles were so flat that ground resistance during a
turn was excessive. To solve this, the suspension was changed so that the bottom profile
was more curved. Then the next problem showed up: when crossing a trench the track
sagged and then would not fit the wheels again and jammed. The tracks were also not
up to carrying the weight of the vehicle (about 16 tons). Tritton and Lieutenant Walter
Gordon Wilson tried several types of alternative track design, including balat belting
and flat wire ropes. Tritton, on 22 September, devised a robust but outwardly crude
system using pressed steel plates riveted to cast links and incorporated guides to engage
on the inside of the track frame. The track frames as a whole were connected to the
main body by large spindles.[1] This system was unsprung, as the tracks were held
firmly in place, able to move in only one plane. This was a successful design and was
used on all First World War British tanks up to the Mark VIII, although it limited speed.
Description
The vehicle's 13 litre 105 bhp Daimler-Knight engine, gravity fed by two petrol tanks,[2]
was at the back, leaving just enough room beneath the turret. The prototype was fitted
with a non-rotatable dummy turret mounting a machine gun; a Vickers 2-pounder
(40 mm) Maxim gun ("Pom-pom") was to have been fitted, with as many as six Madsen
machine guns to supplement it.[3] The main gun would have had a large ammunition
store with 800 rounds. Stern suggested to Tritton that the gun could be made to slide
forward on rails, giving a better field of fire, but in the event the turret idea was
abandoned and the aperture for the crew plated over. In the front of the vehicle two men
sat on a narrow bench; one controlling the steering wheel, the clutch, the primary gear
box and the throttle; the other holding the brakes. Overall length of the final version
with the lengthened tracks and rear steering wheels in place was 8.08 m (26 ft 6 in). The
length of the main unit without the rear steering wheels installed is 5.87 m (19 ft 3 in).
Most mechanical components, including the radiator, had been adapted from those of
the Foster-Daimler heavy artillery tractor. As at least four men would have been
required to operate the armament, the crew could not have been smaller than six. The
~ 669 ~
maximum speed was indicated by Tritton as being no more than two miles per hour.
The vehicle used no real armour steel, just boiler plate; it was intended to use 10 mm
plating for production.
Little Willie and Big Willie
Little Willie showing its rear steering wheels, September 1915
Wilson was unhappy with the basic concept of the Number 1 Lincoln Machine, and on
17 August suggested to Tritton the idea of using tracks that ran all around the vehicle.
With d'Eyncourt's approval[4] construction of an improved prototype began on 17
September. For this second prototype (later known as "HMLS [His Majesty's Land
Ship] Centipede", and, later still, "Mother"), a rhomboid track frame was fitted, taking
the tracks up and over the top of the vehicle. The rear steering wheels were retained in
an improved form, but the idea of a turret was abandoned and the main armament
placed in side sponsons.
Number 1 Lincoln Machine was rebuilt with an extended (90 centimetres longer) track
up to 6 December 1915, but merely to test the new tracks in Burton Park, near Lincoln;
the second prototype was seen as much more promising. The first was renamed Little
Willie, the scabrous name then commonly used by the British yellow press to mock the
German Imperial Crown Prince Wilhelm; Mother was for a time known as Big Willie,
after his father Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany. That same year the cartoonist William
Kerridge Haselden had made a popular comic anti-German propaganda movie: The
Adventures of Big and Little Willie. Although Little Willie was demonstrated alongside
Mother in January 1916, it was by then peripheral to the development of British tanks.
Though it never saw combat, Little Willie was a major step forward in military
technology, being the first tank prototype to be finished.[note 1] During the remainder of
World War I, some tank crews continued to informally refer to their vehicles as
~ 670 ~
"Willies" or "buses". In 1922 the Royal Tank Regiment adopted a folk song called My
Boy Willie as its regimental march.[5]
Today
Little Willie was preserved for posterity after the war, saved from being scrapped in
1940, and is today displayed at the The Tank Museum at Bovington. It is essentially an
empty hull, without an engine, but still with some internal fittings. The rear steering
wheels are not fitted and there is damage to the hull plating around the righthand
vision slit, possibly caused by an attempt at some point to tow the vehicle by passing a
cable through the slit. This would have torn the tank's comparatively thin steel plating.[6]
Little Willie
By the beginning of 1915 the Western Front was in deadlock with neither side able to
penetrate the hail of machine-gun fire or cross the enemy trenches. The answer to the
problem was to produce a Land Battleship, similar to the armoured cars used
successfully by the Royal Naval Air Services (RNAS) during the early period of the
war, when the front was still fluid, but capable of crossing the muddy shell pounded
ground and the enemy defences of the static front. To coordinate operations, the
Landship Committee was formed and their recommendations were that an armoured
vehicle firing a high explosive shell should be produced capable of crossing a standard
German trench of eight foot gap, and four foot mound. Various designs were tried
ranging from vehicles that "walked" to gigantic powered wheels, but none were really
successful, or strategically satisfactory.
~ 671 ~
Instructions to Mr William Tritton of William Foster and Co Ltd of Lincoln, England,
assisted by Lieutenant W G Wilson of the RNAS, to design a small landship with so
called Bullock tracks were given when these other landship projects, and parallel
experiments, seemed unlikely to lead to a successful conclusion in time to play a useful
part in the war. In America agricultural tractors with caterpillar tracks were receiving
wide acclaim and the Landship Committee eventually purchased two "Creeping Grip"
tractors from the Bullock Tractor Co. of Chicago, USA. The Chairman of the Landship
Committee (Mr E Tennyson dEyncourt) gave the order for the experimental vehicle on
29 July 1915. Work on what was known at first as the "Tritton Machine" was
commenced immediately. The Tritton Machine was, in essence, like one half of the
articulated gun-equipped landship with Bullock tracks, designs for which had already
been drawn up by Colonel Crompton. The hull was a rectangular armoured box (boiler
plate was, in fact, used) carried on tracks of shorter length than the body and
surmounted by a turret. The armament was to be a QF 2-pdr gun and several machine-
guns.
The "Creeping Grip" tracks ordered specially from the Bullock Tractor Co were longer
than the normal type used on the agricultural tractors tried out in earlier landship
experiments. They were supplied as a unit complete with track frames and wheels and
had seven small road wheels and five guide wheels compared with the four road wheels
and three guides of the standard type. No attempt was made to introduce the Rolls-
Royce engines on shortened car chassis, some of which had already been completed for
the twelve Pedrail landships: this would have complicated the design and a 105hp
Daimler six-cylinder engine, gear-box and differential of the type well known to Tritton
from use in Foster's Wheeled tractors, was used to power the Tritton Machine, or
"Lincoln Machine Number 1" as it was also known. Transmission was to the centre of
the track frames, which were pivoted, and thence by chain drive to the track sprockets at
the rear.
~ 672 ~
There was little data on full tracked vehicles to go on; most of the tracked agricultural
tractors of the period, including the Bullock tractors were, in modern terms, "half-
tracks" with the front end supported on wheels. Tritton made provision for a pair of
wheels steerable on the Ackermann principle, at the rear of the machine. These wheels
were intended to improve the balance, assist in crossing trenches and aid the normal
steering of the vehicle, which was by braking on either track.
The Tritton Machine was the first vehicle to be designed and completed as a landship,
or tank, but was not entirely successful because the lengthened Bullock tracks were
found to be of poor quality and were still too short and a trench of only 4-foot width
could be crossed, when the current War Office requirement was for a 5-foot trench.
These shortcomings were foreseen and a second type was drawn up by Tritton, assisted
by Wilson, even before the first was completed. This had improved tracks, specially
designed, and new track frames (about 3 ft longer) and running gear, although the other
features remained the same. This became "Little Willie" - the name is said to be a
reference to the German Kaiser. Little Willie was about 26 feet long by 9 feet high, and
weighed about 14 tons. Trackplates were 20.5 inches wide steel plates riveted to guided
links. The 105hp engine was retained. Steering was achieved by applying brakes or
clutch to one track, with minor course corrections made using rear tail wheels. The
round plate on the superstructure blanked out the turret ring, which was to support a
2pdr gun giving a 360 traverse. A gun (probably a fake) had been fitted to the Lincoln
Machine Number 1, but it had been covered during trials.
~ 673 ~
The modified Lincoln Machine Number 1, or "Little Willie" as it then become known,
started testing early in December 1915, and was much better than in its previous form
but was still unable to meet new War Office obstacle-crossing requirements. In addition
to this it was found to be top heavy and the proposed 2 pdr gun was not capable of
delivering an HE shell. A revised design known as "Big Willie" or "Mother", despite its
new outward appearance was mechanically almost identical to its predecessor, the main
difference being that the track was passed over the superstructure giving greater trench-
crossing capacity and stability. Two sponsons were added which, although giving a
~ 674 ~
restricted traverse, could deliver HE shells from the 6-pdr guns. This became the first
operational tank, the Mark I. Also, this design provided the basis for British tanks up to
the Mark VIII ("The International") in 1919.
~ 675 ~
~ 676 ~
Official designation: Lincoln Machine No.1
Alternative notation: "Little Willie"
Stage of completion: one prototype was built, the project is canceled in favor of the
"Big Willie".
As is known, the design and construction of armored vehicles engaged in the British
Royal Naval Aviation Service (RNAS). What caused such a solution is difficult to say,
but the first British armored serials were created under the control of this particular
department. In early 1915, after the failed experiments with armored tractors, it was
finally decided to establish at the Admiralty Committee on land the ships. The
Committee included Colonel R.Krompton, energetic lieutenant (in civilian life - a
banker) and Albert Sterni RNAS officers. The official date of the creation is considered
to be February 15, 1915, and the first time the Committee met on 22 February.
Consensus among them did not exist - almost every member of the Committee had its
own project and made every effort to implement it. In fairness it should be noted that
none of them did not meet the requirements of the Western Front. Offer "tanks" with
articulated and conventional crawler chassis as vysokokolsnye fighting vehicles titanic
size. Of course, even building a single prototype would entail a lot of technical
problems.
Meanwhile, under the influence of the front-line officers are the main requirements for
the future tank: bulletproof armor, crossing through a funnel with a diameter up to 3.7 m
and a depth of 2 m, 1.2 m wide moat, overcoming zagrazhdeny wire, speed of at least
4 km / h, power reserve of up to 6 hours, the crew of up to 6 people, a gun and two
~ 677 ~
machine guns. For this project, on the initiative of the Admiralty and the RNAS, 15
Joint Army and Navy Committee chaired by the Director of fortification and
construction Lieutenant General Scott-Moncrief. He coordinates the work of Colonel
Swinton, shortly before returning from Europe and appointed by the Secretary of
Defense imperskoy Committee.
From that moment on things went quickly. Instead of grand, but it is so technically
complex projects, we have returned to the idea of using the tractor chassis. Tests booked
trehgusenichnogo tractor Killen-Stright seems to confirm this theory, but then it became
apparent that a pure tractor chassis for the tank is not necessary.
To develop a new chassis had to turn to the company W.Foster & Co. (Linkolnshir),
which was engaged in those years, Hornsby tractor assembly. These machines are
unique in that they in fact were the locomotives on caterpillar tracks and used as prime
movers for the "land train". In addition, the company has produced wheel tractors for
field artillery.
After some discussion, the Committee put forward the following technical requirements
- the power unit were to use tractor Foster-Daimler British-built and chassis from the
American Bullock, which was taken at the beginning of August 1915. General guidance
on "skreschavaniyu" tractors held by the managing engineer William Tritton, and help it
to provide a reserve Navy Lieutenant volunteer Walter Gordon.
Although employees of the company is not officially the number of "working for the
defense," in fact, they were transferred to the barracks. Skilled forbidden to leave the
territory without authorization, if maleyshem suspected of disloyalty were fired.
Moreover, the terms were presented very tight. Dedicated to the "tank program" funding
coming to an end, and the finished prototype was not. However, Triton and Wilson
made it almost impossible for the 38 days designed prototype combat tracked vehicle,
which is now considered to be the first tank in the world. Formally, the prototype had
the name Lincoln Machine No.1, but often you can meet other designation - "Tritton
tank" that can also be considered correct.
In general, such a short time was due to the fact that British engineers tried to avoid
serious rework and maximize the tractor components and assemblies. Bullock used the
chassis, as well as many other machines of the same type, distinguished by the absence
of final drives, so the rotation was carried out using a conventional wheel, mounted on
the front. The prototype tank-like Design course was inappropriate, so the guide wheels
~ 678 ~
located at the back on a separate carriage. For each board chassis included 8 of rollers,
supporting rollers 5, the front steering and rear wheel drive. The prototype used the so-
called "hard" suspension.
Tank Corps was pronounced boxy shape with the characteristic projection in the bow
and the layout of the tower with a circular rotation, which had planned to establish a 40-
mm automatic gun Vickers. Layout Lincoln Machine No.1 was as follows: Department
of Management in the front, combat compartment - in the middle, the engine-
transmission compartment (with the engine Foster-Daimler 105 hp) - at the stern. The
crew was to consist of 4-6 people.
As for weapons, the variant with the tower for some time been considered as a major,
but a prototype tower and gun were missing, and a cutout in the top broneliste was
sewn. As you might guess, weapons scheme with sponsons was more attractive to the
British Admiralty, constantly gravitated to the "land cruiser" with onboard tools.
Prototype Testing began September 10, 1915 and ended not too successfully. The total
length of the machine made up of 8 meters, weight - 14 tons. The tank has a low
permeability, and the chassis was poorly adapted to high loads. However, Lincoln
Machine No.1 maximum speed of 5.5 km \ h, which was slightly above the desired
indicator.
When it became clear that half measures do not succeed, Triton and Wilson redesigned
chassis. Road wheels, driving and steering wheel with caterpillar width of about 500
mm as before mounted on a separate armored box frame, but it changed track and
bypass appeared broneekran board with cutouts to reset the accumulating dirt on the
track. Also I had to change the design of the tracks. In consideration it was proposed
three options: cable caterpillar, reinforced tape of surrogate rubber caterpillar and team
leader with a stiffer suspension. The British chose the last one, which was subsequently
used on all heavy tanks of the 1st World War.
~ 679 ~
Wooden mock-up of the updated prototype was ready September 28, 1915 and the end
of November was prepared improved version. The name "Little Willie" He was due to
company employees, who saw in the tank forms a certain resemblance to one of its
creator. Full tank weight was 18300 kg. The power plant has not changed, so the tests
"Little Willie" was able to develop a maximum speed of only 3.2 km \ h when driving
forward and 1 km \ h in reverse. Driving characteristics on the other hand, improved
slightly. After upgrading the chassis tank could overcome trench width of 1.52 m (while
Linoln the figure was only 1.2 m), a vertical wall height of 0.6 m and a rise of no more
than 20 .
Thus, in most settings "Little Willie" is quite consistent with the TTZ February 1915,
but the autumn the situation has changed - the command of France put forward demands
trench in 2.44 m and 1.37 m in the wall that the tank based on tractor chassis it was
almost an impossible task. Against the background of these events, Tritton and Wilson
re-processed project, retaining most of the building and completely redesigned chassis.
Thus began the "diamond-shaped" tanks, the first representative of which was the "Big
Willie".

"Little Willie" sample in 1915
CREW, pers. 4-6
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 5450 (without the "tail")
~ 680 ~
Width 2800
Height mm 2410
Clearance, mm ?
one 40-mm cannon and two 7.7-mm machine gun

WEAPONS
Hotchkiss Mk.I
roof - 6mm
the bottom - 6 mm
ENGINE Foster Daimler, carbureted, 105 hp
TRANSMISSION mechanical type: 4-speed
(On one side), 8 twin track rollers, supporting rollers 5, the

CHASSIS
rear drive wheel, krupnozvenchataya metal caterpillar
3.2 km \ h (forward)
SPEED
1 km \ h (back)
overcome obstacles
The angle of ascent, hail. 20
Wall height, m 0.60
MEANS OF
missing
COMMUNICATION
~ 681 ~
The Macfie Landships
The History
Robert Francis Macfie is one of the unsung minor heroes of the story of the origins of
the tank. A talented Scots-Canadian engineer and early aviator (he had built and flown
three aeroplanes between 1909 and 1911!), he had travelled widely before the war and
had seen Holt tractors in action on plantations in the West Indies. It was only natural,
then, that when war broke out, he should be an ardent advocate of tracklayers.
At first, he used his connections with the Royal Flying Corps to contact War Office
officials, who were staunchly unmoved by his ideas. Next, he turned to Lt Harry
Delacombe, who was working with Commodore Murray Sueter in the RNAS, telling
him that armoured cars should be replaced with fighting tracklayers. Sueter being away
at the time, Delacombe discussed Macfies idea with other officers in the RNAS
armoured car division, prompting Capt Tommy Hetheringtons famous proposal for a
gigantic wheeled landship.
Macfie soon joined the RNAS armoured car division, serving as engineer to Capt
Hetherington (with whom he had flown at Brooklands in 1911), and sent a meorandum
to Sueter in November 1914 outlining how six Holt tractors would be able to haul 85-
ton twelve-inch naval guns over broken roads with ease. Sueter rejected the idea, telling
Macfie that they werent in the business of hauling naval guns around. Nevertheless, the
idea had been broached.
By February 1915, momentum had been gathering into finding a way to break the
trench deadlock, momentum that was channelled, steered, and sometimes misdirected,
by the energetic First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. He had already looked
into, with mixed results, Hetheringtons giant big wheeler, trench-crushing rollers and
even a proposal by Commodore Sueter himself for an armoured vehicle driven by a pair
of pedrail tracks in tandem.
~ 682 ~
Figure 2: Revised design of 19 August 1915: 'Experimental Armoured Caterpillar'
Churchill formed the Landships Committee to coordinate this disparate activity, and
Macfie attended its first meeting on 22 February 1915. Chaired by Eustace Tennyson
dEyncourt, Churchills Director of Naval Construction, Hetherington, Macfie and the
veteran engineer Col Rookes Evelyn Bell Crompton, were present among others. Up
until this time, those present had been adherents of the big wheel. But Macfies forceful
advocacy of tracklayers, supported by his extensive experience with them, was to prove
crucial. Crompton, who was to play an important role in subsequent developments,
became an instant convert to tracks.
This meeting was the only one Macfie attended, for reasons that will become apparent.
Be that as it may, by April, Macfie had asked for Sueters support in developing an
armed tracklayer. Not only did Sueter agree, giving him a free hand, but he also gave
him 700 and instructed Messrs Nesfield & Mackenzie, a small West London
engineering firm which had been making anti-aircraft gun mountings for Sueter, to
render Macfie all necessary assistance.
Macfie took an old Allday lorry as a basis for experiments and had Albert Nesfield
convert it to tracks. Little is known of this vehicle, but Nesfield maintained that
Macfies design used two pairs of tracks, the front pair being pivoted for steering.
Nesfield, meanwhile, had designed a landship that ran on one pair of full-length tracks,
each independently powered and one or other of which could be slowed or braked for
steering. He also built an electrically powered model that used bicycle chains for tracks.
An interesting feature was the "angularized tracks" , as Sueter termed them, with the
front of the track frame raised to facilitate better climbing. Foreshadowing Mother, they
rather resembled the rear tracks of the Killen-Strait tractor, but enlarged and turned
around. A photograph of the model appears below (the strange object on the left that
resembles a ships ventilator probably represents a periscope).
~ 683 ~
Figure 3: Macfies amphibious tracklayer patent (by kind permission of the UK Patent
Office)
It is at this point that the story turns rather sour. Since early June, Nesfield had been
complaining about Macfie&rsuqo;s "violent abusiveness" toward both himself and his
workers, and the two were to fall out bitterly over Nesfields model. Sueter had ordered
it to be shown at a meeting of the Landships Committee on 29 June, but it is not known
if this happened (there is no record in the minutes of that period). On 1 July, Nesfield
was showing the model to Hetherington, Crompton and some other officers at the
armoured car divisions Wormwood Scrubs HQ when Macfie seized the model and
claimed it as his. By this stage, Sueter was describing relations between Macfie and
Nesfield as a series of "regular dog fights".
Sueter ordered Boothby, the commander of the armoured car division, to try to persuade
Macfie and Nesfield to resolve their differences, but in vain. During all this, Macfie had
produced a revised design in August 1915, but ultimately, and with great regret, Sueter
ordered all work by Macfie and Nesfield to cease. Macfies reputation within the service
was damaged by the spat over the model, never recovering, and in fact he resigned in
November 1915, alleging that his designs were being pirated. The Landships Committee
ignored him, Albert Stern, in particular, dismissing him as "a very troublesome fellowv
and "a most impossible man to work with".
Stern had one more encounter with Macfie in December 1916, when the latter had
approached him for help with building a pilot version of his machine, for which he had
found commercial backers interested in mass producing it (this was after the first British
tanks had seen action). Stern asked to see the drawings, assuring Macfie that they would
receive a fair hearing, but Macfie refused, retorting, with what would appear by now to
~ 684 ~
be characteristic ill grace, that Stern had not treated him fairly before. Stern, never one
to suffer fools gladly, terminated the meeting immediately. Thus was Macfies last
chance squandered by his recklessness. From this point, Macfie conducted a vicious
campaign of vilification against Nesfield and other past colleagues, which ended in
1919.
In the final analysis, despite his undoubted engineering ability and drive, Macfies
contribution to the development of the tank, apart from his important appearance at the
first Landships Committee meeting, was far less than it might have been. The reason for
this is that he had all the social skills of a rhinoceros at a garden party. Where tact was
required, he provided insults; where patience was a virtue, to Macfie bullying was the
order of the day; and where diplomacy in negotiation was vital, he could only summon
up reckless sarcasm. While this may be a harsh judgement, it must be said that
throughout any account of his activities, certainly with respect to his landships work,
there runs a common thread of petulance, grudge-bearing and an intemperate tongue.
The Designs
But what of Macfies designs, and what of Nesfields influence? At the Royal
Commission on Awards to Inventors in 1919, Macfie and Nesfield entered competing
claims to the same materials, including the model (which was demonstrated at one of
the hearings; an illustration of it climbing over a thick, presumably legal, textbook
before interested onlookers appeared in "The Sphere" magazine). Certainly, the model
exhibited some advanced features, such as an "arrow head" profile nose, similar to Little
Willie later, and the upturned "angularized" tracks, which foreshadowed Mother. But
the Commission found no evidence that the model had a direct influence. Although
Sueter and Crompton had seen it, neither Tritton nor Wilson had, and nor were they
even aware of it.
In any case, although Macfies prescient advocacy of tracklayers cannot be disputed, his
exact contribution to the design process can be. Macfis patents show machines with
multiple track units, invariably including one for steering at the front, rather like
Nesfields description of the Allday lorry conversion. The immediate impression, in
fact, is of a degree of mechanical naivety.
~ 685 ~
Figure 4: Macfies tracked vehicle patent (by kind permission of the UK Patent Office)
But with Nesfields involvement, suddenly there appeared two sets of designs with
single pairs of long tracks, upturned at the front. Although the revised design of 19
August 1915 was almost certainly Macfies alone, as by that time he had fallen out
completely with Nesfield, the initial version was almost certainly mainly Nesfields
doing. In fact, this is confirmed by John Glanfields comment in "The Devils Chariots"
to the effect that one source of the friction between the two men was Macfie&rsuqo;s,
doubtless dogmatic, insistence that Nesfields method of steering, by stopping one
track, would sheer the tracks off.
Superficially, the revised August design bears a striking resemblance to Little Willie,
though more thickly armoured. It is doubtful if the trailing wheels would have worked
very effectively, as they depend entirely on their own weight to gain purchase on the
ground. Little Willie, and subsequently Mother and the Mark Is, used powerful springs
to press their tail wheels into the ground. Intriguingly, there is what appears to be a
three-bladed propeller protruding from the rear on a long shaft (which looks as though it
would have suffered severe whiplash). Bearing in mind Macfies patent for an
amphibious tracklayer that also features a three bladed propeller on a long shaft, it
implies an amphibious capability. One doubts the effectiveness of this, however, as the
machine would surely have lacked enough buoyancy. The tracks are unusual, in that
they are roller-tracks similar to those fitted to German Orionwagen tractors before the
war. The shoes are deep, with sets of rollers on bearings inside which engage with a
smooth track-frame. No armament is specified, and there appears to be no provision in
the drawing. There appears to be room enough at the front, however, but anything else
is speculation.
~ 686 ~
Medium Mark A Whippet
Type Medium tank
In service 1918-1930s
Designer William Tritton
~ 687 ~
Produced 1917-1918
Number built 200 by 14 March 1919
Weight 14 t
Length 6.10 m (20 ft)
Height 2.75 m (9 ft)
Crew 3
Armour 14 mm
Main 4 0.303 inch Hotchkiss

Secondary none
armament
2 Tylor Twin 4-cylinder

Engine side-valve JB4 petrol engine
2x 45 hp (67 kW)[1]
4 forward speeds and 1

Transmission
reverse
Suspension unsprung
Speed 13.4 km/h (8.3 mph)[1]
The Medium Mark A Whippet was a British tank of the First World War. It was
intended to complement the slower British heavy tanks by using its relative mobility
and speed in exploiting any break in the enemy lines.[2] Whippets later took part in
several of the British Army's postwar actions, notably in Ireland, North Russia and
Manchuria.[3]
Development and production history
On 3 October 1916 William Tritton, about to be knighted for developing the Mark I,
proposed to the Tank Supply Committee that a faster and cheaper tank, equipped with
two engines like the Flying Elephant, should be built to exploit gaps that the heavier but
slow tanks made,[4] an idea that up till then had been largely neglected.[5] This was
~ 688 ~
accepted on 10 November and approved by the War Office on 25 November. At that
time the name for the project was the Tritton Chaser. Traditionally the name Whippet is
attributed to Sir William himself.[6] Actual construction started on 21 December. The
first prototype, with a revolving turret taken from an Austin armoured car the first
for a British tank design, as Little Willie's original turret was fixed was ready on 3
February 1917 and participated (probably without one) in the tank trials day at Oldbury
on 3 March.[7] The next day, in a meeting with the French to coordinate allied tank
production, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces Field Marshal Haig ordered
the manufacture of two hundred vehicles, the first to be ready on 31 July. Although he
was acting beyond his authority, as usual,[8] his decisions were confirmed in June 1917.
The first production tanks left the factory in October and two were delivered to the first
unit to use them, F Battalion of the Tank Corps[9] (later 6th Battalion), on 14 December
1917. In December 1917 the order was increased from 200 to 385 but this was later
cancelled in favour of more advanced designs, the Medium Mark B, Medium Mark C
and Medium Mark D.[10]
Description
This armoured fighting vehicle was intended for fast mobile assaults. Although the track
design appears more "modern" than the British Tanks Mark I to V, it was directly
derived from Little Willie, the first tank prototype, and was unsprung. The crew
compartment was a fixed, polygonal turret at the rear of the vehicle, and two engines of
the type used in contemporary double-decker buses were in a forward compartment,
driving one track each.
Steering
When driving in a straight line the two engines were locked; turning the steering wheel
gradually closed the throttle for the engine of one track and opened the throttle for the
engine driving the other.[11] The two engines were joined at their cross-shafts, from
which the final drive to the tracks was by chains to sprockets on either side. When
steering the clutches joining the cross-shafts were released, one engine sped up while
the other slowed down, the turn being on the side opposite to that of the faster running
engine. The steering effect could be increased by use of the brakes on one engine or
another. This arrangement had the advantage over that of earlier tanks of being
controlled by one man only, but called for great skill on the part of the driver, because
one or both of the engines could be stalled if care was not exercised.[12] Although in
theory a simple solution to give gradual steering, in practice it proved impossible to
control the speeds of the engines, causing the vehicle to take an unpredictable path.
Drivers grew wary and stopped the vehicle and locked one track before every turn; this
caused many track breaks, as the movement became too abrupt.
Other features
The fuel tank was in the front of the hull. The sides featured large mud chutes which
allowed mud falling from the upper treads to slide away from the tank, instead of
clogging the track plates and rollers.
Armament
~ 689 ~
Armament was four 0.303 in Hotchkiss Mk 1 machine guns, one covering each
direction. As there were only three crewmen, the gunner had to jump around a lot,
though often assisted by the commander. Sometimes a second gunner was carried in the
limited space, and often a machine gun was removed to give more room, as the machine
guns could be moved from one mounting position to another to cover all sides.
Variants
The fast Whippet-Mark V hybrid constructed by Johnson
Major Philip Johnson, the unofficial head of Central Tank Corps Workshops in France,
as soon as he received them began fitting one of the Whippets with leaf springs. Later,
in 1918, he fitted this vehicle with sprung track rollers, Walter Gordon Wilson's
epicyclical transmission from the Mark V and a 360 hp V12 Rolls-Royce Eagle aero-
engine. A top speed of about 30 mph (48 km/h) was reached. This project made Johnson
the best qualified man to develop the later fast Medium Mark D, which looks like a
reversed Medium A. Other experiments included the fitting of a large trailing wheel
taken from an old Mark I tank and attaching a climbing tail, in both cases attempts to
increase trench-crossing ability.[13]
For a time it was assumed that after the war some Whippets were rebuilt as armoured
recovery vehicles, but this was not the case.
The Medium Mark B, a completely different design by Wilson, also had the name
"Whippet". For a time it was common to describe any of the lighter tank designs as a
Whippet, even the French Renault FT. It had become a generic name.
The German Leichter Kampfwagen developed from December 1917 being also a
turret-less tank with the engine in front resembled the Whippet, but was a smaller
vehicle with thinner armour.
Combat history
~ 690 ~
Whippets of 3rd Battalion at Maillet-Mailly, 26/Mar/18. Some, in action earlier in the
day were the first Whippets to be used. (Infantry are of the New Zealand Division)
Whippets arrived late in the First World War, at a time when the entire British Army,
recovering from the offensives in Flanders, was quite inactive. They first went into
action in March 1918, and proved very useful to cover the fighting withdrawal of the
infantry divisions recoiling from the German onslaught during the Spring Offensive.
Whippets were then assigned to the normal Tank Battalions as extra "X-companies". In
one incident near Cachy, a single Whippet company of seven tanks wiped out two entire
German infantry battalions caught in the open, killing over 400.[14] That same day, 24
April, one Whippet was destroyed by a German A7V in the world's second tank battle,
the only time a Whippet fought an enemy tank.
British losses were so high however that plans to equip five Tank Battalions (Light)
with 36 Whippets each had to be abandoned. In the end only the 3rd Tank Brigade had
Whippets, 48 in each of its two battalions (3rd and 6th TB). Alongside Mark IV and V
tanks, they took part in the Amiens offensive (8 August 1918) which was described by
the German supreme commander General Ludendorff, as "the Black Day of the German
Army". The Whippets broke through into the German rear areas causing the loss of the
artillery in an entire front sector, a devastating blow from which the Germans were
unable to recover. During this battle, one Whippet Musical Box advanced so far it
was cut off behind German lines. For nine hours it roamed at will, destroying an
artillery battery, an Observation balloon, the camp of an infantry battalion and a
transport column of the German 225th Division, inflicting heavy casualties. At one
point, cans of petrol being carried on Musical Box's roof were ruptured by small-arms
fire and fuel leaked into the cabin. The crew had to wear gas masks to survive the
fumes. Eventually, a German shell disabled it and as the crew abandoned the tank one
was shot and killed and the other two were taken prisoner.[15]
~ 691 ~
The Germans captured fewer than fifteen Whippets, two of which were in running
condition.[16] They were kept exclusively for tests and training purpose during the war,
but one of them saw action afterwards with the Freikorps in the German Revolution of
19181919. The Germans gave them the designation Beutepanzer A.[17]
After the war, Whippets were sent to Ireland during the Anglo-Irish War as part of the
British forces there, serving with 17th Battalion, Royal Tank Corps.[18] Seventeen were
sent with the Expedition Forces in support of the Whites against Soviet Russia. The Red
Army captured twelve, using them until the 1930s, and fitted at least one vehicle with a
French 37 mm Puteaux gun. The Soviets, incorrectly assuming that the name of the
engine was "Taylor" instead of "Tylor" (a mistake many sources still make) called the
tank the Tyeilor. A few (perhaps six) were exported to Japan,[19] where they remained in
service until around 1930.[20]
United Kingdom (1917-1918) Medium tank 200 built
The first light cavalry tank
Since the start of operations with the MK.I and IV it became clear that a slow moving
vehicle was not the best solution to make any breakthrough. The idea was expressed by
William Tritton, the maker of Little Willie and Mother, which became the Mk.I, to
the newly created Tank Supply department.
He expressed that a light and fast machine could better exploit the gaps made by heavier
tanks in the enemy lines, reviving, in a way, the cavalry concept on a battlefield
dominated by the machine-gun. This was in October 1916 and the department gave its
consent on November 10. This was confirmed by the War Office on the 25th of the
same month. Construction of a prototype of the Tritton Chaser began in December.
Design
The Whippet (the surname, found appropriate, was from Tritton himself) was studied
and built at Fosters of Lincoln, with many features derived from Little Willie. The turret
idea was revived and a prototype, hastily built on the basis of an Austin armored car,
was tested in February with a rotating turret and presented on March 3rd at the Tank
trial days before the War Office, at Oldbury.
On the 4th of March, Sir Douglas Haig, the commander-in-chief of the British Army,
approved an order of 200 units to be ready before the fall of July 1917. However, the
heavily modified Austin showed at Oldsbury was nothing near the final prototype, and a
lot of work and tests had still to be made. The Medium Mark A Whippet and its
original shape, with a fixed turret at the rear, are now an iconic figure of WWI.
~ 692 ~
This feature was due to the position of the engine and fuel tank at the front, and an
octagonal case-mate for the crew was placed to the rear, bristling with machine-guns.
The track system was entirely based on that of Little Willie, including the unsprung
track links. The hull was riveted and made of reinforced iron plates, 8 to 14 mm (0.23-
0.55 in) thick.
The dual engine was derived from the ones propelling the well-known London double-
decker or imperial buses, but required a complex steering system. Also the track
skirts incorporated ingenious mud chutes.
Arrival and operations in France
The development time was approximately one year. The June 1917 deadline was not
respected, and the first batch of Whippets were delivered in October 1917. The were
immediately affected to the F battalion of the tank corps. But intensive training and
instruction procedure had to follow, then shipping to France, and deployment on the
front.
Eventually this first operational unit was ready by December. But the whole British
Army was recovering at the time from the terrible losses of the past Flanders and
Somme offensives, so these tanks saw action for the first time in March 1918.
They took part in covering retreating units from the Spring Offensive and later, when
available in sufficient numbers, pressed into small X-detachments into regular
Mk.IV/V units, fulfilling the embodiment of Trittons original ideas. During these
offensives their speed and mobility proved very useful, despite their relative lack of
armor. Some units penetrated deep behind German lines, creating havoc. This was
confirmed even more during the April 1918 Amiens offensive.
One remains famous above all. The Musical box was cut off from its own unit, but
roamed at will for nine hours behind the German lines, wiping out an entire camp
battalion, a motorized column, destroying machine-gun nests and an artillery battery
and even an observation balloon, before finally being silenced by direct gunfire. Many
~ 693 ~
other performed some staggering exploits, and Whippet crews were among the most
decorated of WWI.
However, behind the big titles of the newspapers and propaganda of the time, these
machines were far from perfect. The theoretical four-machine-gun case-mate was never
seen as practical, as the 0.303 Hotchkiss Mk.I butts and fixations crowded the place.
Most of the time the lateral machine-guns were simply removed, and when side fire was
needed, the aft or rear ones were just shifted in place within a minute. But the major
issue was the steering system. Although theoretically a brilliant concept, they would
have allowed a single driver to smoothly, gradually control the speed using the throttles
of both engines, each propelling a track.
But this system was found to be over-complicated, even for trained drivers. In the
deafening noise of action, it was not rare to use brute force and stall one or both
engines. The unsprung tracks were seen by mid-1918 as an obsolete feature.
Career after the war and influences
The Germans managed to capture some, which became training machines as

Beutepanzer A. One of these then operated offensively during the German revolution of
1919. Only one tank duel involving a German A7V and a Mark A was ever recorded, in
April 1918. But, lacking any gun, the Whippet had soon been disabled.
Whippets saw also extensive service after the war, in Ireland with the 17th battalion of
the RTC (Royal Tank Corps) and in Russia, to support the Whites during the harsh
winter of 1919. Seventeen were sent, but most were captured afterwards, and the Red
forces used them as Tyeilors (from the engine name). One of these (perhaps more)
was improved with the addition of a French Puteaux 37 mm gun.
Six were later sold to Japan, which studied them well, as they were their first ever tanks.
~ 694 ~
Despite the success of only two hundred machines, the Whippet was soon scheduled to
be replaced. It gave way to a project of Major Wilson, former Tritton assistant, drawn in
July 1918, resulting into a real scale mock-up model and was developed into a prototype
in September 1918 by Trittons Metropolitan Carriage and Wagon Company. The Mark
B (also called Whippet) was accepted in service in the following month, while more
than 450 were ordered.
Only 47 units were delivered before the end of WWI and the cancellation of the order.
Many were scrapped afterwards, but the Mark B, which combined the lozenge hull of
the Mk.IV/V family with the fixed turret of the Mark A, pushed forward, incorporated
many interesting aspects. They fought with the Whites during the Russian revolution, in
1919 and 1920 and some were captured.
It was also eclipsed by next Tritton concept, the Mark C Hornet, in 1920.
One of the first Mark A in operations, in March 1917.
~ 695 ~
A late Whippet, A259 Caesar II, now in the Bovington tank museum.
The A347 Firefly of the sixth battalion, B company, one of the numerous X-
companies attached to larger units made of heavy Mk.IV and V during April-May
1918. This one is now displayed at the Royal Museum of the Army in Brussels.
A Russian Red Whippet. It is clear that most of the seventeen Whippets which were
sent to the White Russians in their effort to regain the country were captured by the
opposing faction. This Tyeilor (from their engine name) in particular, was reequipped
with a French Puteaux 37 mm (1.45 in) gun, for added firepower. Their fate is
~ 696 ~
unknown, but six were later sent to Japan, were they constituted their very first armored
forces.
Mark A Whippet specifications

6.09m x 2.54m x 2.74m
Dimensions L-W-H
20ft x 8ft 4in x 9ft
Width 1ft 8in (51.5cm)

Track Links
Length 9 inches (22.5cm)
Total weight, battle ready 14 tons
Crew 3
Propulsion Twin Tylor 4-cylinder water cooled side

valve JB4 Petrol engine
2x 45 bhp at 1,250rpm (90 bhp in all)
Cone clutch to four-speed and reverse

gearbox to
Transmission worm reduction and bevel drive, chain loop
to
drive sprocket, one for each track
Range Around 70 km (43.49 mi)
Trench Crossing 10ft (3.04m)
Armament 4x 0.303 inch (7.62mm) Hotchkiss air-

cooled machine-guns
Ammunition stowage 5,400 0.303 inch (7.62mm) rounds
Armour Max 14 mm
Tank Medium Mark A "Whippet"
~ 697 ~
Soon the extreme slowness of the early tanks was identified as a problem. Of course,
tanks were initially thought of as weapons of breakthrough only, but some experts
started talking about using tanks for exploitation as well, working together with the
cavalry. This, however, required a faster tank. The result was the Medium Mark A
"Whippet" - or, as it was initially known, after its designer: "The Tritton Chaser".
Work started in October 1916, and the prototype made its debut on February 3, 1917.
Full running trial was completed on February 11, 1917. This was the Oldbury version,
with a smaller/shorter superstructure. It housed a fully rotating Austin armoured car
turret, located on the left side of the vehicle. It had no exhaust, and no engine vents, on
either side of the engine housing. Another distinct feature was the rear, unarmoured,
round petrol tank. The suspension had five mud chutes and 16 wheel supports on either
side. After the first few prototypes, to facilitate speedy production, the turret was
abandoned and it was instead given a fixed crew compartment that could house 3 or 4
men manning Hotchkiss MGs in 3 out of the 4 positions provided. The fourth and fifth
mudchute were combined leaving the final design with just four mudchutes, wheel
supports were decreased to 6, exhaust and ventilation openings were cut into the engine
compartment, and the petrol tank was moved to the front and armoured. An order for
200 vehicles was placed, and production started in December 1917.
~ 698 ~
The main points of design were long, low-set tracks, each driven by its own 45hp Tylor
engine. The steering was done according to a very novel method. The driver sat behind
a standard steering wheel, the turning of which directly affected the throttles of the two
engines, thus increasing or decreasing the speed of the tracks, thus making turning a
simple and straight-forward affair. (The gear boxes and transmission were independent
for each track, but could be locked together when the tank was to run straight ahead.) In
~ 699 ~
theory that is. In reality it was a system very difficult to master. For example, if the turn
was too tight, one engine easily stalled, which brought the whole tank to an abrupt halt.
Whippets were first used in action near Herbetune in northern France in March 1918,
but the tanks really came to the fore in August the same year when some 90 of them
were used during the Battle for Amiens. (The action in August showed that the idea of
"Cavalry Tanks" was as dead as the Cavalry themselves: in good conditions the horses
were faster than the tanks, but whenever they met any serious opposition they had to
wait for the "Whippets" to move up in support. And in heavy going the tanks left the
cavalry behind.)
~ 700 ~
The Whippet had poor trench-crossing capability, but with its 13-14 km/h the Whippet
was faster than the other tanks, and when used in the role it was originally intended for,
it could make quite an impression. One such Whippet, "Musical Box", belonging to B
Coy, 6th Battalion, commanded by lieutenant CB Arnold, took part in the big attack on
August 8, 1918, overtook the slow Mk Vs, routed a German Artillery Battery and on its
own penetrated to the rear of the German lines. Quoting Mitchell: "From this on the
lonely Whippet, with its bold crew of only three men, carried on a war of its own. It
shot down retiring infantry, attacked horse and motor transport, and regularly terrorized
the bewildered Boche." This went on for eleven hours, and then the tank was first
immobilized, surrounded and then destroyed by fire from field artillery. Arnold and one
of his crew survived, and were taken prisoners.
Experimental modifications by the Tank Corps Central Workshops in France to a Mark

A included the addition of leaf springs to the suspension and later the substitution of a
Rolls-Royce 360hp aero engine for the Tylor engines. These changes increased the
speed of the tank from about 8 mph to no less than 30 mph.
The German Army captured a number of Whippets, but they were never used in combat
by them during the war. Their opinion of the Whippet was rather high, however, and
some believed it was the only Allied tank that was worth copying outright. At least one
captured Whippet was used by Freikorps forces during the unrest in Germany after the
war.
The Whippet was also used in the Russian Civil War, first by the Whites, and later,
when captured, by the Red Army. At least one of their Whippets had a 37mm cannon
fitted to replace the forward-firing Hotchkiss MG. Also, an unknown number of
Whippets were, after the war, purchased by the Japanese, who used them until 1929.
~ 701 ~
Official designation:> Medium Tank Mk.A
Alternative notation: "Whippet"
Start design: 1916
Stage of completion: 200 copies built.
Even before the start of series production of heavy tanks Mk.I most advanced strategists
clearly understood that only these machines are no different mobility (not to mention
the noise level, size and operating performance), you can not do without. Without
waiting for an official order from the War Office British designer William Tritton
independently drafted a more lightweight and mobile tank, which was subsequently
attributed to the "middle" class. The risk was huge, but as it turned out, he himself fully
justified ...
The tank was not created from scratch. In its design the individual elements of the
chassis prototype "Little Willie" were used, which contrasted sharply with the more
familiar to the bureaucrats of the military establishment "diamonds". In addition to good
mobility Tritton considerable attention paid to the technological production of new
machines and, consequently, its final cost. However, for this I had to sacrifice some
comfort for the crew.
~ 702 ~
Thus, the chassis of the tank, as applied to one side, consisted of 16 dual track rollers (7
of them with flanged) with a "hard" suspension, 5 support rollers, front-wheel, rear-
steering wheel and krupnozvenchatoy track tape of 67 tracks. The power plant, again in
order to reduce the cost of production, consisted of two automobile engine power of 45
hp equipped with separate transmissions.
The body of the tank, which is going to riveting and bolted to the strips and corners of
the flat armor plates with a thickness of 14 mm to 5 mm, had the original layout with a
front engine compartment and the rear crew compartment. In the engine compartment,
parallel to the axis of the machine next to the engine carburetor equipped with two
water cooling Taylor JB. Mounted in front of a single engine radiator was blown two
fans driven chains Gall, air is sucked through the board bronezhalyuzi. Access to the
engine is handled by flaps overhead hatches. Transmissions, each of which had a four-
speed (1st - 2.28, 2nd - 4.95 3rd - 8.35, 4th - 12.8 km / h) located under the cabin floor
and equipped with reverse gear. Exhaust pipes with silencers to be displayed on the
sides of the engine compartment, and although rejected in part, contributed to the cabin
crew gassed. On the sides of the rear cabin of the caterpillars were attached boxes of
spare parts. In addition, the roof and sides of the hull crews often transported extra fuel
cans, as the consumption of the two engines was too big.
Tritton tank project, which was supposed to ensure the pursuit of the enemy and support
the action of heavy tanks, was presented to the 3rd October 1916, the Commission of
the Tank Supply Department. The initiative was approved by the development, as
reflected in the agreement of November 10 th and 25 th December, the confirmation of
the War Office was received. By the time the project was held under the unofficial name
"Tritton Chaser", that the creator of this machine called her "Whippet"
(Greyhound).
The construction of the prototype was launched at Foster plant in Lincoln city of the
21st December 1916. The first prototype, completed on 3 February 1917, was equipped
with a turret of the armored car Austin, but when it became clear that the production of
these elements will only complicate the design and increase its cost, it was decided to
~ 703 ~
make a higher superstructure complex shape with four 7.71-mm Mk.I Hotchkiss
machine guns globular plants, thus providing a circular firing. The crew increased from
3 to 4 people, commander, driver and gunner two. After running tests prototype
"Whippet" I was sent in Oldbury, where on March 3, a famous British tank industry for
"tank trials day". The next day, after a meeting of representatives of the Allied
Command, the British commander of the field army Haig ordered the construction of
just 200 Mk.A "persecution tanks" with the delivery of the first machine for the July
31, 1917.
Despite the fact that the production of "Whippet" was deployed in a very short period of
time, to meet these requirements it was physically impossible. Accordingly, the first
production tank left the assembly plant in October 1917, and on December 14th the two
"Whippet" were sent to the battalion "F" (later reorganized as the 6th Tank Battalion)
Royal Tank Corps. In the same month, orders increased more 185 tanks, but a year later
it was canceled because of the war and the emergence of more new designs.
By March 1918, the RTC received at its disposal 50 tanks. During the first months of
operation it was found that Mk.A in operation even more than the more numerous
Mk.IV. However, they are not only not inferior to the combat effectiveness, but even
superior to their heavy "counterparts." Often, the type of tanks Mk.I \ Mk.IV, breaking
the enemy defensive positions or taking location, were not able to go back for
replenishment of ammunition and refueling. With tanks Mk.A such an occasion does
not happen often, because the mobility of these machines has been called the level
above. The first fight they adopted March 26, 1918 by a forest Meyi-Meye, and on
August 8th at Amiens in the breakthrough was cast with 96 tanks, which managed to
move to 10-16 km. This success was the result not so much a mass application tank
units, as the general situation of the German troops at the front, which, after the failure
of the May offensive ultimately drained of their power and were forced to retreat.
At the same time, the Germans succeeded in capturing several damaged Mk.A
(according to various sources it was repaired from 2 to 4 tanks), which are enlisted in
the armored "Assault department", get there name Beutepanzer A. they are not used in
~ 704 ~
the fighting, although the autumn of 1918 year voiced such plans. The main task of
"trophies" was the training of tank crews and develop tactics to combat armored
vehicles. After the surrender of Germany, almost all German tanks were confiscated and
demolished. The exceptions were a few cars (including one Mk.A), which was allowed
to be included in the Freikorps and used to suppress the revolutionary actions in
Yuerline in January and until the summer of 1919. The only medium tank captured
quite successfully used in conjunction with the three same trophy Mk.IV and one A7V
"Heidi" as part of Schwere Kampfwagenabteilung, but after the suppression of the
uprising in Berlin, all of these machines went to be scrapped.
After the 1st World War, the remaining Mk.A were part of RTC is very long. However,
in 1920 several Mk.A sent to Ireland, where another revolution broke out, finally led the
country to independence, and one tank was in the Union of South Africa, which was
used during the suppression of the miners' performances. There is also information that
one more Mk.A was brought to Canada (probably for informational purposes only).
Since that time Mk.A steel decommission, and after the establishment of serial
production of medium tanks Vickers Mk.II company last car of this type are completely
removed from service.
Part Mk.A used for a variety of testing and development of new technical solutions. For
example, Major F. Johnson, who served in the Tank Corps Headquarters workshops in
France (Central Tank Corps Workshops), in 1918, proposed to upgrade the "Whippet".
Improvements were radical, but in appearance almost not affected - a tank equipped
with one aircraft engine Rolls-Royce "Eagle" 360 hp a planetary transmission of Mk.V,
stiffer suspension and was replaced by suspension with semi-elliptic leaf springs. As a
result, it managed to get a specific power of 25 hp \ m., Which increased the maximum
speed of 32 km \ h! However, the modernized tank has not caused much interest
because of the obsolescence of the overall design and chassis unsuitability for such high
speeds. However, developments on this modification Johnson handy when creating a
tank Medium Mk.D, which has not been accepted for service.
~ 705 ~
Not being able to contain a large number of obsolete tanks expensive British
government without much hesitation began to sell them to friendly countries and
regimes. The first in this series were Erected Forces of Southern Russia, which quite
successfully pressed the "red" on the Don and in the Caucasus. The first batch of six and
six Mk.A Mk.V arrived in Novorossiysk 22th March 1919. The tanks were part of the
1st Tank Battalion, while maintaining the English numbering, but received new names.
Since the arms of one of the machine guns, the Russian side considered manifestly
inadequate, the tank called "Siberian" in the experimental procedure equipped with 37-
mm gun Hotchkiss.
It is believed that the fighting of the 1st Tank Battalion, which included management
and four armored troop, formed not the best way, but in fact it is absolutely not true.
Mk.A tanks were part of the 3rd unit (2 cars) and the 4th unit (3 cars), were under the
command of Captains and Kolosovsky Mironavich respectively. At first all went well,
even too much. Unload the 9th May 1919 under the station Honzhenkovogo force
VSYUR easily knocked out the "red", and on May 10th they were captured
Yasinovataya. But the battle on May 22 was not so smooth - the station
Honzhenkovskaya two Mk.A could not help his infantry, stuck in the soft ground. At
the same time, one of Mk.V tanks came into the bout with two armored trains, "Red."
The crew managed to damage the locomotive of one of them (later an armored train was
captured VSYUR), but the second knocked out a tank that could not be recovered.
At the beginning of June 1919 in Division unsettled participated in the battles of the
Empress. Sent to the 1st (two Mk.V) and 4th (two Mk.A) detachment under the
command of British Major Brousse and British instructors. In the battle they went at
02:00 on June 16, breaking through barbed wire "red", but to stay in the trenches, where
they were met with heavy gunfire and hand grenades. The battle lasted until dawn, when
tanks opened fire on the enemy artillery. The afternoon of June 17th tanks again
"ironed" the barbed wire, but the breakthrough point "red" their crews did not dare.
Generally, the action tank crews under the Empress received a low evaluation on the
part of the infantry.
In July, the tanks sent by Taganrog, which was organized by the repair facility, and in
the meantime arrived in Novorossiysk new transports. Total VSYUR received 73 tanks
~ 706 ~
of two types, but as of August 19, 1919 as part of a single division there were only five
Mk.I, which were distributed among the three units. A few cars were in the tank school.
Although the use of tanks was not a frequent event, their appearance on the battlefield
has never remained unnoticed by the enemy. So, on September 27, three Mk.A of the
4th Tank Detachment were sent to support the 2nd Corps General Kuban Ulagai.
Disguised in haystacks at the station Kotluban tankers wait for the parts of the 1st
Cavalry Regiment of the Don "Red" and almost completely destroyed it.
However, for the 1st division luck on this end. As a result, organized in October 1919,
the command of the Red Army counter-offensive forces VSYUR had to leave a
substantial part of the territory occupied by them, and sometimes retreat turned into a
rout. British instructors have been evacuated, and the command did not really know
exactly how and in what area should be used armored vehicles. Total "red" managed to
seize 50 tanks. Until the end of March 1920 the biggest trophies were taken to Taganrog
(19 cars), Rostov (9 machines) and Novorossiysk (18 cars).
Despite such a cruel loss VSYUR remnants of the army evacuated the Crimea, where
the 1st battalion of tanks to May 1920 was re-formed and has received new equipment.
Mk.A tanks were only in the 2nd and 4th brigades. In May-June 1920 they took part in
the offensive of Wrangel at Perekop, but this time the infantry and artillery "Red" were
more prepared for a meeting with armored vehicles. According to the report dated May
25 th for the last days "were eliminated forever" two and one Mk.V Mk.A, and another,
and two Mk.V Mk.A require serious repairs to the base in Sevastopol.
Meanwhile, further forces for an offensive in VSYUR have no choice, especially

because in August 1920 began heavy fighting for the Kakhovka bridgehead, which
lasted until October. The crew of the 2nd and 4th units particularly successfully made
"raiding" surgery 1-3 years, when they were captured five hamlets, several dozen
prisoners, and one 76.2 mm gun. Also, the tank crew "Siberian" (the only one equipped
with a 37 mm cannon) managed to knock out cannon armored car Garford-Putilov.
However, such a diligent application of military vehicles over the fact that at the end of
September 3rd four tanks out of service for technical reasons. His career "Siberian"
~ 707 ~
ended in failure - during an unsuccessful attack on September 5, he was hit by an
artillery shell and burned. Two more tanks were destroyed. In general, the entire autumn
campaign VSYUR developed unsuccessfully, and counterattack on October 12, with the
participation of all combat-ready tanks of the 1st Division (12 units). The night attack
they managed to break through the first line of defense "red", but the infantry while
under heavy fire of the enemy, they were followed by far in all areas of a breakthrough.
Three tanks were destroyed, several more were damaged, but in the end the remnants of
the division had to retreat. The first counterattack of the "red", held on October 15, was
repulsed, but the strength to hold the position was no more. During the next three days
VSYUR irretrievably lost yet at least 6 cars, and at the end of October, "red" themselves
broke through the front and headed in the Crimea - in Sevastopol, they were captured
and Mk.V tanks FT-17. The story Mk.A tanks as part VSYUR ended and another began
- as part of the Red Army.
Trophy Mk.A tanks were introduced in the 1st tank unit of the Red Army in the spring
of 1920 and in June, they were sent to the Western Front to support the action of
armored cars. The first fight is a bit spontaneous for both sides. Around the village
Stolpische tank with its own name "Stenka Razin" suddenly attacked the Polish
infantry, but was immediately covered with artillery fire. With the broken machine guns
crew took off and went to the rear (later pulled down the tank and sent to Mogilev).
This was followed a few skirmishes with the enemy, but in August 1920 the four
broneotryada transferred to the Southern Front, where battles with VSYUR conducted.
Of the 15 tanks, only one belonged to Mk.A, however, to meet in battle with his former
"brother-soldiers" none of them happened.
After the Civil War of tanks was fixed Mk.A official name "Taylor" (by brand
engines), and they attributed to a class "C" in 1921 (average). During the reorganization
of the Armoured Forces, held at the end of 1923, of the "flotilla of light" brought 6
Mk.A 12 and FT-17, and with a "heavy flotilla" they formed a separate squadron of
tanks to the chief Artillery Directorate. Such composition lasted a very short time and in
September 1924 the squadron was disbanded, and on the basis of established fleets tank
regiments to 18 machines each. Operation Mk.A tanks continued until 1928, when they
went out of the total obsolescence and wear and tear "reservists". As of January 30,
1930 there were 12 tanks out of service: 8 cars of stock 37 and one car for the 11th
Air Brigade, Bronekomandnyh courses Military Technical Academy and Orel Armored
School. They were disposed of in 1930.
~ 708 ~
Very foggy had a history with the delivery Mk.A tanks in Japan. Interest in British cars
the Japanese showed long ago, but buy a few samples of military equipment they
managed only after the 1st World War. Presumably in 1924 he was made a contract for
the sale of 4 (according to other sources - 6) tanks, which brought to a separate party. In
1930, at least three Japanese tanks were sent to Manchuria, but the details of their use
are unknown.

CREW, pers. 4
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 6100
Width 2620
Height mm 2750
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS four 7.71-mm machine gun Hothckiss Mk.I
~ 709 ~
allowance of
5400 cartridges
ammunition
cutting his forehead - 15 mm
cutting board - 13mm
cutting feed - 13 mm
RESERVATIONS cabin roof - 5 mm
roof enclosure - 4 mm
two Tylor JB4, Petrol, 4-cylinder with a capacity of 45 hp
ENGINE
each
mechanical type: 4-speed gearbox (4 + 1), final drives, and the
TRANSMISSION
main friction clutches, brakes, mechanical
(On one side) 16 twin track rollers (7 of them with flanged)
with a "hard" suspension, 5 support rollers, front wheel drive,
CHASSIS
rear steering wheel and caterpillar krupnozvenchataya of 67
trucks
SPEED 12.8 - 13.4 km \ h on the road
overcome obstacles
The angle of ascent, hail. 40
Wall height, m 0.80
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
~ 710 ~
~ 711 ~
Medium Tank Mk.A "Whippet"
Medium tank
The first combat experience British tanks showed that slow-moving heavy machinery
should be supplemented by a light and mobile. William Tritton (later an award for his
work noble dignity) engaged in the development of such a machine in the factory Foster
in Lincoln on its own initiative - an order from the War Department on such a car is not
there - trying to create a high-speed tanks, which together with the cavalry could lead
pursuit of the enemy developing deep breakthrough, the perfect heavy tanks. At the
same time the car again it was necessary to create a faster and more cost-effectively.
Therefore Tritton chassis designed for the type of "Little Willy", and in the power plant
used two finished the 45-strong engine Taylor automobile type with separate
transmissions. In fact, it was a question put to the caterpillar lightweight armored car
(though, for its power plant on each side), which was manifested in the tank
arrangement with a front engine compartment. Armament was limited to one single
machine gun in a rotating turret mounted next to the driver's wheelhouse. The car was
made in December 1916, we have experienced in February 1917, and the tank Tritton
under the motto "Chaser" March 3 ( "pursuer" in the British Navy so called sea
hunters) or "light machine Tritton number 2" was introduced in Birmingham together
with experienced heavy and special tanks. In order June followed by 350 pieces soon
reduced to 200 due to the high cost of production. The tank was designated the
"average" Mk.A nickname "Whippet" (whippet - whippet breed, derived from the
English Greyhound and known great run fast). With the production of towers once
problems arose, and to speed up the case of them decided to give up running the aft
cabin with a single fixed machine gun on the perimeter, increasing the crew from two to
four persons - commander, driver and gunner two. As such, the tank went into
production in December 1917 Due to the narrowness of the second cutting machine
gunner usually refused, and his work served as the commander. The driver was placed
in the control room on the right seat, the commander stood to his left in the alcove
~ 712 ~
protruding from the frontal machine gun mount. For ventilation and observation served
as the commander of the hatch in the roof with a hinged front cover. Behind it was a
machine gunner, serving the right or aft gun. Embarkation and disembarkation produced
through feed single door with a ball under machine gun installation. Paul formed felling
wood flooring. Niche commander and the roof of the long engine compartment severely
restrict the driver's view. Track progress with a stiffer suspension going on within the
armored sides of the hull. The tank drove four 7.7-mm machine gun Hotchkiss Mk.I,
three of which were attached to the ball plants, one was a spare. Depending on the
situation, the easily rearranged guns from one installation to another. Filled Hard tape
cartridge fit into the racks on the floor cutting. For firing revolvers were holes
bronezaslonkami. The body was going riveting and bolted to the strips and corners of
the flat armor plates with a thickness of 14 mm to 5 mm. Security of the frontal part of
cutting multiple increased installation of armor plates at angles of inclination in the
vertical and horizontal planes.
In the engine compartment, parallel to the axis of the machine next to the engine
carburetor equipped with two water cooling Taylor JB. Mounted in front of a single
engine radiator was blown two fans driven chains Gall, air is sucked through the board
bronezhalyuzi. Gasoline supply - on the "Vacuum" system. Cylindrical fuel tank was
located in an armored box on the nose of the body - on the one hand, he was removed
from most of the crew, but then turned out to be extremely vulnerable, that could make
a fixed tank under enemy fire. Access to the engine is handled by flaps overhead
hatches, like the cars of those years. Start engines - from the magneto and from one
crank at the rear. Each engine is mated with its transmission, ask four speeds: 1st - 2.28,
2nd - 4.95 3rd - 8.35, 4th - 12.8 km / h. Transmissions are located under the floor
cutting, also had the reverse mechanism. The output shaft of the gearbox through a
worm pair of rotating a cross shaft at the end of which was attached an asterisk, caused
by Gall chain drive wheel on one side. The transverse shafts were mounted on bearings,
supplied with a band brake. When driving in a straight line or failure of one engine
cross-shaft could be connected cam clutch, but the tank then becomes unmanageable.
There was a special delivers the friction mechanism that limits the power transmitted
from one shaft to another, 12 hp To rotate a short-range driver turned off or slowed
down a caterpillar, with a large radius - covered the throttle of one engine and would
open another. Regulation damper throttle controls steering wheel. In addition to his
driver operated pedal right and left clutches, two brakes levers board, two levers
gearbox, locking lever.
Chassis on one side included 16 twin track rollers (7 of them - flanged), the axis of
which is rigidly fastened on the arcuate bottom frame contours, dual front steering
wheel with screw tensioning mechanism and dual rear driving wheel teeth engagement,
support rollers 5. One pair of rollers connected by transverse bolts and clung to the rails
of track coil spring, rollers without flanges held on rails truck with the help of special
tareli. Caterpillar consisted of 67 trucks, similar to heavy tanks. Crawler perimeter
extends beyond the body that was to increase throughput and help to overcome the
obstacles. On rugged ground the length of the supporting surface was 1.22 m, and the
specific pressure - 1.1 kg / sm.kv. in soft ground caterpillar sinking, increasing the
bearing surface. The outer wall of the frame caterpillar drive makes a great folds in -
through the window formed dumped dirt from the upper branches caterpillars.
On the sides of the rear cabin of the caterpillars were attached boxes of spare parts.
Crews tried to hang on the tank as much as possible additional gas canisters. The most
convenient place seemed roof, and crews often even fight kept the cans there, although
~ 713 ~
the tank corps is rightly banned instructions. The best option turned out to mounting
canisters at the stern under the guise of "steps" between the housing projections chassis.
Tank Management "Whippet" was not easy (in fact, had to drive two cars at once), and
driver training required a lot of practice. Drivers "Whippet" considered virtuosos in the
tank body, and really showed great skill and ingenuity. In one of the fights of the driver
"Whippet" was fighting alone - blocking cross-shafts, he continued to move and drove
the fire from machine guns. In a close heat and fumes in the cockpit were felt more
strongly than in the heavy tanks, there were cases when the steering wheel and handle
guns fired tankers hands. Exhaust pipes with silencers to be displayed on the sides of the
engine compartment, and although rejected in part, contributed to the cabin crew
gassed. Crews Ugoraniya happened here more often, sometimes crews to battle not to
lose consciousness, breathing through respirators filter cartridges. Besides Foster & K
tanks "Whippet" built "the North British Locomotive Works." Armor supplied by
Beardmor. In March 1918, the Tank Corps received the first of 50 "Whippet". Mk.A,
expensive and complicated in production and operation, were still more successful than
their heavy "colleagues". Tankers boasted that "dogs" are capable, at least on their own
to come back from battle. In total, until 14 March 1919, 200 tanks were produced Mk.A.
On March 26, several "Whippet" visited the battle in the forest Meyi-Meye and
massively (96 cars) they applied on August 8 at Amiens, where the mobility of the
"Whippet" allowed for the first time in the history of armored forces to achieve
similarity operational breakthrough - "Whippet" moved on 10-16 kilometers into the
German defenses. Actions "Whippet" so different from the usual "surly" slow heavy
"tank", that at first they saw as an independent type of combat vehicle. The order of
General Rawlinson said: "fell to tanks and" Whippet "role in combat on August 8 was
performed by them in all respects perfectly." Make Mk.A "cavalry" tank failed. For real
action "maneuvering" tanks on the operational depth was necessary to establish clearly
their interaction with the cavalry, and landed on the infantry trucks to support their
progress with artillery fire and aircraft (and therefore need to be as mobile
communication machine), supply of fuel and ammunition, motorize engineering units.
All of this in 1918 was still in its infancy.
Several captured German parts of the "Whippet" (according to various sources the
Germans managed to repair of 2 to 4 tanks) were enrolled in the tank "assault
separation", but the battles are not used. Their main purpose was to train tank crews and
vyrobatka tactical combat armor.
Mk.A to war tanks in the army of the interventionists and White Army during the
Russian Civil War. March 22, 1919 in the port of Novorossiysk arrived six Mk V and
six Mk.A "Whippet", entered in the 1 s Division of the Armed Forces of South Russia
tanks. May 22, two Mk.A participated in the attack near the town Overpass. The
Russian tanks kept the English numbering, but received new names. At least one
"Whippet" ( "Siberian") frontal machine gun replaced by a 37-mm gun Hotchkiss. The
Red Army captured "Whippet" were named Taylor (by brand engines) and served until
the early 30-ies.
Several cars in the early 20-ies. acquired Japan, where they are exploited in the training
unit to mid-30s.
~ 714 ~
Major F. Johnson, who served in the Tank Corps Headquarters workshops in France
(Central Tank Corps Workshops), proposed to upgrade the "Whippet", in order to
simplify its management and improve mobility. Two Taylor replaced one aircraft engine
Rolls-Royce "Eagle" 360 hp a planetary transmission of Mk.V, stiffer suspension and
was replaced by suspension with semi-elliptic leaf springs. The resulting specific power
of about 25 hp / t possible to raise the speed to 32 km / h (according to data drunim - 48
km \ h), but such speeds is not old enough chassis tank. However, according to this
modification, the developments in handy when creating Tank Johnson Medium Mk.D.
CREW, pers. 3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 6080
Width 2620
Height mm 2750
WEAPONS four 7.7-mm machine gun Hotchkiss Mk.I
allowance of ammunition about 3000 rounds
the forehead and sides of the hull - 14 mm
RESERVATIONS add-on - 14 mm
roof and bottom - 6 mm
ENGINE two gasoline Taylor JB, capacity of 45 hp
TRANSMISSION manual 4-speed transmission
(on one side) 16 twin track rollers,
CHASSIS
supporting rollers 5, the rear drive wheel
SPEED 13.4 km \ h
Cruising on the highway 130
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m 0.75
ATTENTION
All rights to text materials belong to the administration Aviarmor site.
Reproduction or use without the prior written permission of administration
or if there is an active link to this site.
2008 www.aviarmor.net
~ 715 ~
Medium Mark B
Weight 18 tons[1]
Length 22 ft 9 in (6.9 m)
4:[1] commander, driver,

Crew
mechanic, machine gunner
Armour 14 mm-6 mm [1]
4 x .303 in (7.92 mm)

Main Hotchkiss machine guns[1] to
armament be placed in seven possible
ball-mounts
Secondary -
armament
Ricardo 4-cylinder petrol

Engine
100 hp (75 kW)
~ 716 ~
Suspension unsprung
Operational 105 km or 65 miles [1]

range
The Medium Mark B was a British tank of the First World War developed as a
successor to the Whippet, but ultimately unsatisfactory and production was cancelled at
the end of the war.
History
The engineer Lieutenant Walter G. Wilson and the industrialist Sir William Tritton had
cooperated in 1915 to develop the Mark I, the world's first tank. However, when Tritton
decided to build the Medium Mark A "Whippet", Wilson was left out. The Medium A
was designed by Tritton's chief engineer, William Rigby. The Whippet was a successful
design and proved effective but suffered from a lack of power, complex steering and
unsprung suspension. Wilson, now a Major, decided he could by himself develop a
better tank as replacement: the 'Medium Tank Mark B'. He probably started drawing in
July 1917. Major Philip Johnson of Central Tank Workshops was impressed when he
was shown a wooden mock-up during a visit to Britain late 1917. The prototype was
built by Tritton's firm, the Metropolitan Carriage and Waggon Company, and was
finished in September 1918.
It seems that early in the design process Wilson considered building an alternative or
parallel Male version fitted with a 2-pounder (~40 mm gun) in the superstructure but he
had abandoned these plans by March 1918.
The design by Wilson had elements of both the Mark I and the Whippet: a similar but
smaller tracked rhomboid chassis of the former and fixed turret like the latter. A novel
feature was the separate compartment in the back, housing the 100 hp (75 kW) engine (a
four-cylinder shortened Ricardo design) and behind it the epicyclic transmission. Two
fuel tanks at the back held 85 imperial gallons (386 L) of petrol. Other innovations were
the ability to lay a smoke screen and the use of sloped armour in the front of the hull.
~ 717 ~
The smoke screen device consisted of a sulphonic acid reservoir located over the
exhaust pipe.[1] Armament consisted of a maximum of five machine guns in the
superstructure and two in the side doors. These hull doors looked a bit like miniature
sponsons. The machine guns were removable and in practice fewer guns would have
been taken along, the machine-gunner moving his gun when switching position; most
sources give an estimate of four.
A production of 450 vehicles had been ordered even before the prototype was finished
and this number was now increased to 700, to be manufactured at North British
Locomotive in Glasgow and later at Metropolitan, Coventry Ordnance Works and the
Patent Shaft and Axletree Company. Confusingly the new tank was to have the same
name as the Mark A: "Whippet". Almost immediately after having been taken into use,
the type fell from grace for two reasons. Firstly the engine compartment couldn't be
easily accessed from the fighting compartment. Repair under fire would therefore have
been very dangerous. Secondly Tritton had constructed a rival type: the Medium Mark
C "Hornet". This other design had superior speed and trench crossing abilities. Wilson
had limited the size of the Mark B to that of a single railway flatcar. The end of the war
led to cancellation after 102 were produced out of the first order for 450. Of these only
45 were taken into service by the British Army, the remaining 57 probably going
straight to the scrapyard.
After the war the type was quickly phased out in favour of the Mark C. Two vehicles
were used by the North Russian Tank Detachment. Both were lost and the Red Army
used at least one until the Thirties. The last British unit to have the Mark B in service
was 17th (Armoured Car) Battalion during the Anglo-Irish War.
Official designation: Medium Tank Mark B

Alternative notation: Mk.B
Start design: 1918
Stage of completion: 102 tanks and built a prototype.
~ 718 ~
The adoption in 1917 of a medium tank Mk.A "Whippet", has better mobility and
speed, it allowed the British tank units to operate more efficiently. However, a new car,
built under the direction of Triton, was not without a number of drawbacks. Tank
engines obviously lacked power, and its management was only by a very experienced
driver. The rigid chassis suspension system is not too happy with tank and without
lacking any amenities close the conning tower.
Realizing that Mk.A not completely satisfied with the British army engineer Lt. Walter
G.Uilson (who two years earlier with the Tritton has developed a serial heavy tank Mk.I
first in the world) proposed an alternative project. According to him, the average tank
should have Mk.A's speed and maneuverability by regions like the "diamond-shaped"
tanks. All these qualities, it was decided to combine the model, which was named
Medium Tank Mark B (Mk.B).
Work on the new tank began in July, and in the autumn of 1917 he was a wooden mock-
up was demonstrated Wilson military specialists. The design of the tank caused the
approval of the Major F.Dzhonsona, who led at the time of the Central Tank Workshops
(Central Tank Workshops), which allowed to start construction as soon as possible a
full prototype.
~ 719 ~
Mk.B prototype was completed in September 1918. Assembling the tank engaged
Tritton firm Metropolitan Carriage and Waggon Company - despite a certain delay
competition from assembly machines were minimal. Externally Mk.B tank sufficiently
strongly resembled Mk.V * with an elongated body, but have smaller geometric
dimensions.
Onboard sponsons were removed, and the superstructure in the bow of the hull on the
contrary increased. Compared with Mk.A housing layout and placement of the crew
became more rational. As in "Diamonds" driver and tank commander located in the
front, in the superstructure body. There were places for gunners. At the stern of the hull
was a gasoline 4-cylinder engine 100 hp Ricardo and transmission elements. Next to
them was located two fuel tanks Holds 85 gallons (320 liters).
As part of the powertrain has been used 4-speed manual gear changes (4 speeds forward
and 1 reverse) with a planetary rotation mechanism and the final chain drive directly to
the drive sprocket.
Also worked out a variant of the tank equipment 2-pound (40-mm) gun, which was
scheduled to be installed in an enlarged size superstructure body. However, by March
1918 Wilson refused the construction of this modification in favor of a purely machine-
gun version. Superstructure had five points for the machine-gun units (two on the sides,
two in front and one at the stern), and the side doors were mounted two more machine
guns. However, this option was considered as "overload". Usually Mk.B armament
consisted of four or five guns. For the first time on British tank was planned installation
of the device setting smoke screens, which is mounted along the exhaust pipe on the
roof of the enclosure.
~ 720 ~
Without waiting for the construction of a prototype of the British War Office ordered
the construction of 450 medium tanks Mk.B, and this number soon increased to 700
units. Issue tanks was planned to organize in the North British Locomotive companies
in Glasgow, Coventry Ordnance Works and the Patent Shaft and Axletree Company.
Oddly enough, but the serial designation of this machine was to be Mk.A "Whippet".
Probably, so the British sought to preserve the continuity of the very different
structures.
Despite the rapid deployment of mass production, none of Mk.B take part in the 1st
World War had not. By November 11, 1918 continued to completion of several dozen
tanks, which formally meant the British Army. Of these, only some cars were equipped
devices dymopuska. Further Mk.B release was reduced in favor of a more perfect Mk.C,
and later completely revoked. Total for 1918-1919 years. We managed to collect 102
tanks.
In the UK, the fate Mk.B was too short. The Army has adopted 45 machines, using
them only in the metropolis. The only "foreign", division and along with the latter,
which is exploited Mk.B, became the 17th Tank Battalion. In 1919 he was sent to
Ireland to suppress the rebellion and remained there until 1922, while this country has
gained independence.
Of the remaining 57 the number of tanks in stock in anticipation of the further fate.
Some of them are partially dismantled and sent to the artillery range for use as a target.
Others were simply cancel reservation or to cut metal. Officially Mk.B tanks remained
in service with the British Army until 1925
~ 721 ~
More actively developed career "expeditionary" tanks. In July 1919, three medium
Mk.B three heavy Mk.V were delivered in Arkhangelsk as a part of a tank unit under
the command of Lewis-Brown. Information about the activities of this unit is very
sketchy. According to some sources of the British Expeditionary Force Command
hoped to use them in the course of a planned attack on the Petrozavodsk, according to
another version of the tanks could be transferred A.Kolchaka army if she was able to
connect with the army of General E.Millera. In any case, a tank squad before September
1919 was in Arkhangelsk, when the evacuation of the British forces. In spite of the
permission to leave the White Army all the machines four of them British took with
them. In the Northern Region remains one Mk.B (hull number 1613) and Mk.V, to
February 20, 1920 the Whites were loaded onto a barge and drowned in the Dvina to the
tanks have not got "red" in the capture of the city. Despite this, on the orders of the
Inspector armor parts of the 6th Army (Red Army) Pribytkova, both cars were raised
and repaired. At the end of 1920 they were sent to Moscow and included the disposal
avtobronevoy Reserve Brigade. Interestingly, according to Soviet documents Mk.B was
listed as a "tank with the motor Crossley". The use of this machine as a part of the Red
Army continued until the mid-1920s., And the only Soviet Mk.B carried very original
tri-color camouflage. The fate of the tank remains unknown.
Evacuated from the Russian tanks did not return to their homeland - the British decided
to send two Mk.B friendly Latvia, which led to tough defensive battles against the
Germans and against the Red Army. As part of the Latvian army, they were named
"Latgalietis" and "Vidzemnieks" and served until the early 1930s. Until they were
replaced by light tanks Vickers 4-ton M1936.
SPECIFICATIONS medium tanks

Medium Tank Mk.B sample 1918
CREW, pers. 4
~ 722 ~
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 6900
Width 2700
Height mm 2600
Clearance, mm ?
four to seven 7.7-mm machine guns Hotchkiss Mk.I in the

WEAPONS
superstructure and side sponsons
food body - 14 mm
RESERVATIONS
add-on - 14 mm
roof - 6mm
the bottom - 6 mm
Of Ricardo, carburetor, 6-cylinder with 150 hp .; the volume

ENGINE
of the fuel tank - 320 liters
mechanical type: 4-speed gearbox and plnetarny mehenizm

TRANSMISSION
rotation
(On one side) 22 support and tension rollers supporting the

CHASSIS rail, the front rail and rear drive wheel, krupnozvenchataya
metal track with a width of 520 mm shoe
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 723 ~
MEANS OF
missing
COMMUNICATION
United Kingdom (1918) Medium tank 102 built
Development history
The success of the Mark A Whippet, as a cruiser or cavalry tank, able to disrupt
enemy lines and exploit breakthroughs, made its way into the War Office. It was
decided in 1917 to give a successor to William Trittons pet project. The Whippet,
created by William Rigby, the chief engineer of Tritton, was the first cruiser,
relatively light and fast compared to the Tanks. It suffered from numerous flaws that
needed to be addressed, like a lack of power, rough ride due to unsprung suspensions,
and a complex steering system. It should be noted that the lack of a proper suspension
never impeded the production of numerous such models. The resented roughness of the
ride was lessened by the slow speed, very near to infantry pace. When the speed
increased, that was another story.
Anyway, the project called Mark B was quickly developed to address these issues, but
not by Tritton. It was designed by Lieutenant Walter G. Wilson, who had left the early
tank team, as he was convinced he could create better models and had been recently
promoted to the grade of major. He probably drew this vehicle as soon as July 1917. A
mockup was built in late 1917 and presented to Major Philip Johnson of the Central
Tank Workshops. The latter was impressed, but many delays occurred before a
prototype was eventually ordered from the Metropolitan Carriage and Waggon
~ 724 ~
Company. This was Trittons firm, which developed the rival Mark C Hornet, at the
same time. It was ready for trials in September 1918.
Design
For this design, Wilson used elements of the heavy Marks, like the characteristic
rhomboid hull. He also mixed some elements of the Whippet design, including the fixed
turret, placed at the front, meaning the drivers view was no longer restrained by the
hull. This casemate was bristling with machine guns placed in ball mounts. There were
two at the front, one on each casemate side, two in the hull doors/sponsons, and one at
the rear of the casemate, giving a grand total of seven mounts. However, only four .303
(7.7 mm) French Hotchkiss light machine guns were carried, which could be moved
from one location to another. This was done in order not to further impede movement in
the already cramped interior. A supply of 2500 to 3000 cartridges was given. By
default, the Mark B had a female configuration, but Wilson prepared a male design
armed with 2-pdr short barrel guns, that existed only as a paper project.
The great novelty in the design was the addition of a isolating wall, separating the crew
compartment from the engine compartment, which housed a 100 hp (75 kW) four-
cylinder shortened Ricardo engine, coupled to an epicyclic transmission, a well-proven
modern design. Two fuel tanks were protected by a bulkhead at the back, carrying 85
imperial gallons (386 l), that allowed a 65 mile (105 km) operational range in average.
The top speed, due to a 5.6 hp/ton power to weight ration, was only 6 mph (10 km/h),
but that was already twice faster than the heavy Marks. The armor, made of cold hard
steel bolted on a frame, was 0.5 to 0.25 inches (14 mm to 6 mm) thick. However, there
was no special lining inside to prevent spalling on impact. The frontal armor protection
was innovative, with a sloped beak that provided even more effective thickness.
Another innovation, devised to protect the tank and the following infantry from enemy
gunners, was the ability to lay a smoke screen, with a device consisting in a sulphonic
acid reservoir located over the exhaust pipe.
~ 725 ~
Production and service
A production of 450 vehicles was ordered even before prototype completion, later
increased to 700. They were to be manufactured at the North British Locomotive in
Glasgow and, later, at Metropolitan, Coventry Ordnance Works and the Patent Shaft
and Axletree Company. The early ordnance name Mark A Whippet was quickly
changed. A problem was soon detected, the engine compartment being difficult to reach
from the inside and, at the same time, the allegedly superior rival Mark C was unveiled.
With the end of the war cancellation came, and only 102 were produced. Only 45 were,
apparently, taken into service by the British Army, while the remainder were probably
stored and later scrapped. The Mark C was considered a better design altogether and,
while the existing vehicles were phased out, two Mark Bs were shipped to the White
Russian northern tank detachment. They were captured by the Red Army, which kept at
least one in use until the thirties. A single Mark B saw action with the 17th (Armoured
Car) Battalion during the Anglo-Irish War.
Medium Mark B specifications

Dimensions 22.9 x 8.1 x 8.6 ft (6.9 x 2.7 x 2.6 m)
Total weight, battle ready 18 tons (36,000 lbs)
Crew 4 (commander, driver, machine-gunner, loader/mechanic)
Propulsion 4-cyl Gasoline Ricardo, 100 hp (75 kW) 5.6 hp/t
Armament 4 x Hotchkiss cal.303 (7.7 mm) machine guns
Armor 6 to 14 mm (0.25 to 0.55 in)
~ 726 ~
Medium Mark B in British service, after the armistice of November 1918. Wilson
designed a tank that could fit inside a single standard railway flatcar. But this seemed an
error, as it also limited its capacity to cross large trenches (contrary the Mark C),
precipitating its demise.
Russian (Red Army) Mark B in the early 1920s. The photo shows it was painted white,
probably for the winter 1919 campaign.
~ 727 ~
Mark B on trials, without machine guns.
Blueprint of the Mark B.
~ 728 ~
Mark Bs stored in the early 1920s. The type was quickly phased out in favor to the
Mark C.
The Mark B medium tank (confusingly, also nicknamed "Whippet") weighed 18 tons,
had a crew of four, 14mm (maximum) armour, and was capable of 6.1 mph (9 kph). The
designer, W.G. Wilson, decided on a rhomboid-style hull, with a large fighting
compartment and reversed the layout of the previous Mark A by placing the engine at
the back of the tank. The engine, in a separate compartment from the crew, was a four
cylinder version of Ricardos engine and produced 100hp. This engine, linked with a
fourspeed epicyclic gearbox made the machine relatively easy to control, but it was
underpowered for a tank weighing 18 tons and the top speed was not considered good
enough for a medium. The driver of the tank sat at the front in the centre. The
commander had no cupola for himself, which posed problems commanding the tank.
The machine gunners had five positions to choose from in the large fighting
compartment, there were also two more machine guns on the hull side doors, which
looked like miniature sponsons. This made it a problem for the gunners to move about
the tank from machine gun to machine gun. All production Medium Bs were machine
gun armed but there was a design for a "male" version mounting a long 6 pounder
(57mm) gun in a fixed superstructure, but alas, there is no evidence that any of these
were actually built.
~ 729 ~
The initial order for Medium Mark B's was increased to 450 in the Summer of 1918 but
the end of the war brought about a cancellation of the order after only forty-five tanks
had been completed by the Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon & Finance Co. and the North
British Locomotive Co. The Armistice occurred before there was time to train and equip
units of the Tank Corps to use the Medium Mark B in action but some were sent to
Russia with the British expedition in 1919 and others to Ireland in the same year.
Three Medium Mark B tanks were sent to the North Russian Tank Detachment in
Archangel in August 1919. One of them fell into the hands of the Bolsheviks, and the
tank was apparently in excellent condition and served well into the twenties. The two
others found their way to the Baltic, where they were used by the Latvian Army - see
the photo below right: (Thanks to Michel Boer for this important information.)
Medium Mark C
Trittons rival
In 1917, Sir William Tritton was working with Major Gordon Wilson to produce the
Mark A Whippet, the first British light/cavalry tank. Its replacement was already
being planned in 1918. However, relationships between Tritton and Wilson deteriorated
to such an extent that the latter launched his own project (which became the Medium
Mark B). As soon as he heard of it, Wilson, under the guidance of his chief engineer,
William Rigby, designed a rival project, which would become the Medium Mark C.
~ 730 ~
Development of the Mark C
Trittons own project had been developed at breakneck speed. On 19 April 1918, the
general blueprints were ready and had been approved by the British Army. In August
1918, the first prototype was finished and ready for trials, trying to catch up with the
Medium Mark B construction. A first order rapidly came for 200, later augmented to
600, when it became apparent that Wilsons Mark B could not fulfill its requirements.
The Mark C was to be manufactured at William Foster & Co Ltd at Lincoln, Armlet &
Wortley joining in as a subcontractor. Like the Mark B, it was to be unofficially dubbed
Hornet. However, the war ceased just as production started, and the order was
cancelled after just 36 tanks were built. With the remaining parts, another batch of 14
was manufactured in 1919, giving a a total of 50.
~ 731 ~
Design
The Mark C resembled the Mark B in many ways and both differed from the previous
Mark A by having their main superstructure shifted to the front. Other than that, both
had the same classic rhomboid chassis shape, although both were higher than the
Whippet, and they had the same engine, a Ricardo 6-cyl petrol, which developed 150
hp. It was housed in a rear separate engine compartment behind a standard epicyclic
transmission in the middle section, with the radiators above, and two rear exhaust pipes
and silencers running along the rear section. The engine was still easily accessible from
the crew compartment. The main 150 imp gal (680 l) petrol tank was located in the rear
section. The tank had about 225 km (140 mi) of range, much better than any previous
model. With a power-to-weight of 7.5 hp/tonne, to speed was around 12.7 km/h (8
mph), which was slightly less than the Mark A. But with 20 tonnes versus 14, it was
understandable. Armour was about 13 mm (0.51 in).
The driver-compartment comprised the drivers seat and ammo storage for the machine-
guns. The rest of the crew was located in the casemate, which was given four ball
mounts, covering all angles. The driver had his own small cabin/lookout door,
~ 732 ~
protruding from the front casemate, with three sight slits and an odometer. The
armament comprised between two and five Hotchkiss M1909 machine-guns. Five were
usually supplied, but when less were installed they were switched between positions as
needed. Only the limited interior space prevented to use of all five at once, and in
practice it rarely exceeded three. The commander had his own special revolving lookout
turret and small map table. The former was located above the rear section of the
casemate. Interestingly enough, there was a Chappe type signal arm just behind it, to
communicate between tanks. Vision was good, with as much as 11 sight slits covering
all angles. The crews own gear was safe in internal stowage boxes and there were even
speaking tubes to facilitate internal communication.
Like other rrhomboid tanks, the wheel train counted multiple small roadwheels with an
unsprung suspension. The track adjusting idlers were located at the front, and drive
sprocket at the rear.
Active service
The Mark C, despite being late in the game, was quickly preferred over the Mark B. It
was planned for the great spring offensive of 1919, for which the Tank Corps should
have optimistically received 6,000 Medium C, a third of which were to be of the Male
version, receiving the long six-pounder gun in the casemates front. The drawings of
this version were ready when the war was over. The only units receiving the new tank
after the war was the 2nd Tank Battalion. None were sent in foreign expeditions and
they were kept in service until their replacement by the more modern Medium Mark I/II
of 1926-28. Their only military action occurred when trying to contain labour unrest
in Glasgow (Battle of George Square, 1919).
~ 733 ~
Mark C specifications
Dimensions 7.9 x2.5 x2.9 m (25.10 x8.1 x9.6 ft)
Total weight, battle ready 20 tons (40,000 lbs)
Crew 4 (driver, commander, mechanic, machine-gunner)
Propulsion Ricardo 6-cyl petrol, 150 hp, 7.5 hp/tonne
Suspension Unsprung
Speed (road) 12.7 km/h (8 mph)
Armament 5x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine-guns
Armor 13 mm front (0.31 in)
~ 734 ~
Medium Mark C, standard livery 1919.
Medium Mark C, rear view.
~ 735 ~
Medium Mark C at the Battle of George Square during the labor riots of Glasgow, 1919.
When Sir William Tritton, chairman of William Foster & Sons, Lincoln, heard in 1917
that Maj. W.G. Wilson was designing a new medium tank he instructed his chief
designer, William Rigby, to design a competing tank to Wilson's. Rigby's design was
accepted by the British Army on 19 April 1918 with a prototype to be ready in August
~ 736 ~
1918. The tank was completed on schedule and was accepted as the Medium Mark C
"Hornet" although the name seems to have been little used later. The initial order of 200
tanks was increased to 600 but at the time of Armistice none had been completed. After
the war 36 Medium Mark C tanks were completed and delivered to the 2nd Battalion,
Tank Corps. A further 14 Medium Cs were constructed from spare parts and materials
assembled for production.
The Medium Mark C was designed with a similar configuration to the Medium B
although it was considerably larger and somewhat heavier at 20 tons. The fighting
compartment at the front held three crew, two machine gunners and the tank
commander who had a rotatable cupola at the rear of the citadel. The driver was located
at the front in the centre of the tank. Unlike the early tanks, the Medium C could be
driven by one man. Armament was 4 Hotchkiss machine guns, although it was planned
to build "male" Medium Cs with a 6 Pounder gun, these were never built. The 6
Pounder gun proposed was the long L/40 version used in the Mark I tank rather than the
short L/23 version in the Mark IV. It's thought this choice was made to reduce the
effects of muzzle blast on the driver. The tank was equipped with speaking tubes which
made it much easier to operate the tank since the crew could communicate with each
other, something that was very difficult in the earlier tanks.
The engine bay was large enough to mount the same engine as the Mark V tank, the
150hp 6-cylinder Ricardo. The transmission was in front of the engine with the rear
sprockets driven by two-stage chain drives running down the inside of the hull on each
side. The fighting compartment was isolated from the engine and transmission by a
firewall. The suspension was rigid and the tracks were similar to the earlier tanks. The
armour plating varied between 14mm and 6mm, similar to the heavy tanks.The Medium
C had a higher top speed than the Medium B, 8 mph, and generally was a more
maneuverable vehicle. There was a large fuel tank holding 150 gal (680 l) in the rear
corner of the tank which gave a range of 140 miles (230 km)
The Medium C was never deployed outside Britain. The only notable events during its
service life was the participation of 4 Medium Cs in the Victory Parade in London on
19 July 1919 and the deployment of Medium Cs to Glasgow to help suppress civil
unrest associated with the Battle of George Square on 31 January 1919. The Medium Cs
were gradually replaced by Vickers Medium Mark Is from 1925 onwards. There are no
surviving Medium Mark Cs.
~ 737 ~
The Medium Mark C Hornet was a British tank developed during the First World
War, but produced too late to see any fighting.
Development
In 1917 Sir William Tritton had developed the Medium Mark A Whippet without
involving his former co-worker Walter Gordon Wilson. In response Major Wilson
began to design an improved type on his own, the Medium Mark B, in July 1917. As
soon as he became aware of Wilson's intentions, Tritton ordered his chief designer,
William Rigby, to design a rivaling type: the Medium Mark C. The drawings were
approved by the British Army on 19 April 1918. The prototype was finished in August,
a few weeks before the Medium B prototype also in construction at Tritton's own
factory. At first 200 tanks were ordered; later this was increased to 600, all to be
produced by William Foster & Co Ltd at Lincoln with Armlet & Wortley as
subcontractor. The colloquial name of the tank was to be "Hornet", but it seems nobody
ever used it.
Description
~ 738 ~
Medium Mark C, crosssection diagram
Superficially, the Medium C looks a lot like its rival, the Medium B.[1] It too has the
general rhomboid shape of the Mark I and later heavy tanks combined with a fixed
armoured structure, or Casemate, well forward,[2] fitted with ball-mounts for five
machine guns. However, Tritton's Medium Mark C was a much longer vehicle. It had a
separate engine compartment at the back like the Medium B, but here it was large
enough to house a normal 6-cylinder Ricardo engine behind a standard epicyclic
transmission. Also it was easily accessible from the fighting compartment. The larger
engine meant the tank had better speed (about 8 mph (13 km/h)). The greater length
gave it a superior trench crossing ability. A fuel tank holding 150 imp gal (680 l) of
petrol allowed for a range of 140 mi (230 km). Overall mobility therefore was much
better.
Rigby had taken great care to improve the design's ergonomics. The commander had a
special revolving lookout turret and even a small map table. There were eleven vision
slits. Special stowage boxes were fitted for the personal gear of the crew of four.
Speaking-tubes were used to improve communication. The driver had an odometer.
Operational history
In the (likely) case the Medium Mark D would not be ready for mass production in
1919 the Tank Corps hoped to receive no fewer than 6,000 Medium Cs that year, a third
of which of a "Male" version with a long six-pounder gun in the front of the
superstructure. Though drawings were prepared nothing would come of this.[1] When
the war ended all orders were cancelled with only 36 vehicles nearly finished. These
were completed together with fourteen others built from preproduced parts for a total
production of fifty. General J.F.C. Fuller considered switching the budget for the
development of the Medium D to a further production of Medium C's so as to fully
equip all peace time tank battalions with this better tank, but decided against it. Only the
2nd Tank Battalion would have the tank. As it was the most modern materiel of the
Tank Corps, it was carefully kept from harm: no Medium C's were sent either with the
Expedition Forces against the Bolsheviks in Russia or to the Anglo-Irish War. The only
~ 739 ~
tanks participating in the 1919 victory parade were four Medium C's. The only "action"
the tank ever saw was putting down labour unrest in Glasgow, following the rioting
known as the Battle of George Square in 1919.
From 1925 on, the Medium C was gradually replaced by the Medium Mark I and
Medium Mark II. Proposals to use Medium Cs as recovery vehicles were rejected. A
single vehicle was used to test a new type of transmission. In 1940 the last remaining
Medium C was melted down.
Designer Rigby
Manufacturer Fosters
Weight 20 t
4: commander, driver,
Crew
mechanic, machine gunner
Armour 14 mm
Main 5 x .303 machine guns

armament
Secondary -
armament
Ricardo 6-cyl petrol

Engine
150 hp
Suspension unsprung
Operational 225 km
range
Medium Mark D
~ 740 ~
Genesis
The design of the Medium Mark D had its origins in the Central Tank Corps Workshops
in France in 1918. When the Central Workshops were established in 1916 each tank
battalion had its own workshop organisation. In January 1918 the workshops were
reorganised and personnel were distributed between the Central Workshop and 5
advanced workshops. One of the advanced workshops was an experimental workshop
with Lt.Col. Phillip Johnson as its head. Johnson was interested in improving the
capability of existing tanks and conducted experiments with a modified Medium A
Whippet with leaf spring suspension, different engine (believed to be a 300hp Rolls
Royce Eagle engine) and a Wilson gearbox (possibly sourced from a Mark V tank). The
modified Whippet was considerably faster than the standard Whippet, 30 mph vs 8 mph.
Johnson also designed a new track system, called the "Snake track" based on a cable
with track elements fixed to the cable but free to swing laterally. This was trialled on a
Mark V tank, the top speed of the modified Mark V was increased to 20 mph compared
to 4.6 mph of the standard tank. The Snake track permitted lateral movement of the
track during manoeuvres with a lessened risk of throwing a track.
Johnson also invented a unique suspension system based on a sprung cable which was
threaded through pulleys mounted on the roadwheels and the tank's chassis. Johnson's
team began the design of a new medium tank based on the snake track and cable
suspension. The initial design appeared quite promising and Col. J.F.C. Fuller saw fast
medium tanks as being central to "Plan 1919" which he was working on. Plan 1919
required medium tanks to exploit a breakthrough opened by heavy tanks. Fuller lobbied
the Minister of Munitions, Churchill, for the development and production of the
Medium D. Churchill promoted the Medium D as essential to the development of Tank
Corps and should be actively developed and produced. However, WW1 had ended, and
expenditure for military hardware was rapidly reduced. After a protracted bureaucratic
tussle between the Ministry of Munitions, the Mechanised Warfare Dept, the War
Office and Treasury, funding was granted in December 1919 for 20 Medium D tanks.
During the year or so before the final decision was made the quantities of Medium Mark
D tanks requested were reduced from 500 in Dec 1918 to 75 in July 1919 and finally
down to 20. Johnson had returned from France in 1918 to head the Department of Tank
~ 741 ~
Design and Experiment, work continued on the Medium D design. A wooden mockup
of the Medium Mark D was displayed at Woolwich in early 1919.
Medium Mark D
The first prototype Medium D was delivered in 1919 powered by a 240 hp Siddeley
Puma engine. The fighting compartment was an oval version of the citadel on the
Whippet moved to the front of the tank. Only machine guns were carried and the driver
was located at the back of the citadel. The tank appeared to slope towards the front.
This, in part, was a response to the criticism of the poor forward vision of the Mark A
Whippet due to the long and high engine deck. The Medium Mark D has, by some
authors, been said to be incapable of climbing over obstacles. However, the
specification called for clearing a 4 foot (1.22m) obstacle when driving forwards and 6
feet (1.83m) driving in reverse. The performance over obstacles probably wasn't as
good as rhomboid tanks but would have met specification. At a late stage in design the
Medium D became an amphibious tank with the snake track elements acting as paddles
in water. The requirement for a sealed hull meant that the Medium D could not be fitted
with a reasonable sized gun since the gun port would have to have low in the hull to
maintain stability and this would have meant the tank was unable to float.
~ 742 ~
11 mild steel pre-production machines were ordered from the following manufacturers:
John Fowler & Co. Leeds (contract date 17-8-18) - 4 tanks ordered, 3
completed. One destroyed by fire and incomplete machine stored.
Vickers Ltd. Wolseley subsidiary (contract for first 2; 10-09-18. Remaining 4;
27-09-18) - 6 tanks ordered, 2 completed, 2 cancelled and other 2 finished as
Medium D* and Medium D**
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd also contracted for 1 Medium D which was stored
incomplete.
The tanks from Vickers and Fowlers were slightly different, the Fowler tanks had a
curved top to the fighting compartment and the Vickers used two inclined plates with a
joining strip.
The first of four Medium Ds delivered was burned out during trials, the remainder
proved to be mechanically unreliable. The 13.5 ton Medium D, when it was running,
was quite fast, 23 mph was recorded as the top speed on flat ground and up to 28 mph
downhill. An analysis of the Medium D by Admiralty experts showed it was unlikely to
be able to float stably so the hull was modified as the Medium D* and D**.
~ 743 ~
Johnson had been sent to India in 1920 to investigate the use of tanks in the colony. His
report was positive and two Medium D tanks, Fowler and Vickers built examples, were
sent to India for trials in 1922 for tropical trials. The Fowler tank was insulated with
asbestos panels, among other trial measures, in an attempt to reduce the effects of hot
weather on the crew. The tanks eventually were dispatched to Ahmednagar, Maharastra
State but both broke down driving from the railway station to the Army camp. They
were towed to the camp and abandoned.
Medium Mark D*
One Medium D* was produced by Vickers at the end of 1919. The hull of the tanks was
widened from 2.26m (7' 5") to 2.56m (8' 5") and a new track with the pitch increased
from 7.5" (19cm) to 10" (25.4cm) was trialed. The original 3-speed transmission was
replaced with a 4-speed but it retained the epicyclic steering gear of the Medium D. The
top speed was slightly higher at 24 mph even though the tank's weight had increased to
14.5 tons. The improvement in floatation stability was only marginal so the hull was
further modified.
Medium Mark D**
One Medium D** was produced by Vickers in 1920. The hull width was increased to
2.7m (8' 10"), the tracks reverted to the 7.5inch pitch of the Medium D. The hull length
was also increased from 30' (9.144m) to 31' 10" (9.7m) and additional internal
bulkheads were built into the hull. A new flush plated rear bulkhead was introduced on
the Medium D**. The Medium D** used different engines, initially it had a 300hp
uprated Puma engine and later a 370hp Rolls Royce Eagle. The 15 ton tank achieved a
top speed of 31 mph but it isn't known which engine this speed was achieved with. The
epicyclic steering gear was replaced by cam-operated clutch/brake steering. In 1921 the
Medium D** was fitted with an experimental hydraulic Williams-Janney transmission.
~ 744 ~
Medium Mark DM
~ 745 ~
The Medium D** was used by Johnson as the basis of the definitive Medium DM or D
(Modified). Two of these were produced in 1921 by the Woolwich Ordnance Factory
powered by a Rolls Royce Eagle 12 cylinder engine. The fighting compartment had an
additional cupola on top for the tank commander, which reduced the driver's visibility
still further. The weight of the tank had increased to 18 tons and the top speed reduced
to 20 mph. The DM was also amphibious, at least one sank in the Thames and had to be
recovered. There is a 1921 film clip of the recovery at British Path. The Medium DM
proved to be no more reliable than the original Medium Ds, the complexity of the tank
and the difficulties in driving it made it unsuitable for service. It should also be noted
that the cable suspension had no redundancy in that a failure of a cable would
immobilise the tank through failure of the suspension on one side.
~ 746 ~
Medium D inspired prototypes
Johnson's design team reused some of the elements of the Medium D design in two
further projects. An 8 ton amphibious light tank known as the "Light Infantry Tank",
powered by 100 hp Hall-Scott engine, was similar in configuration to the Medium D but
had some improvements in the track and suspension. The track no longer used a cable
but was composed of ball jointed segments with the track shoes welded on the strut
between the ball joints. The cable suspension also had a cam tensioning device to stop
the cable going slack at the rear end of the tank. Only a single tank was produced in
1921 and although it could achieve a top speed of 30 mph, the design proceeded no
further since it inherited many of the faults of the Medium D.
Johnson was also instructed to design a family of vehicles for colonial use. The tank of
this family had twin MG turrets and the snake track was replaced by a conventional
track although the cable suspension was retained. A single example was built at
Woolwich as the "Tropical Tank" in 1922. It was tested briefly at Farnborough and then
abandoned.
Retrospect
It's easy to dismiss the Medium Mark D as an oddball design that proved to be
unreliable and flawed. However, the Medium D foreshadowed the fast medium tanks
which became so important in WW2. It's fairly clear that Churchill bulldozed the
bureaucrats to not only save the project from post-WW1 cutbacks but also to get
continued funding. However, Churchill must have made enemies, British bureaucrats
are not noted for their easy-going pragmatism so its likely the Medium D was
developed in an environment of continuing criticism and covert subversion. Churchill
had left the Ministry of Munitions by 1921 which deprived the project of its champion.
The requirement that the tank should be able to float in retrospect was a fatal flaw, not
only did it limit the armament options but also introduced needless distortions to the
form of the hull. The relationship between Johnson, his design team and the Army
seems to have been a contributor to the failure of the project. Gen. Elles, the Tank Corps
~ 747 ~
commander, noted that the design team lead by Johnson ignored feedback on the
Medium D from service personnel. This communication problem probably became
worse after 1920 since Johnson and his team had left the Army and became contract
civilian employees. Johnson's department was closed down in 1923 which spelled the
end of the Medium D and its derivatives. No Medium D has survived.
United States - M1922
The US Army Ordnance Dept created a specification for a new medium tank in 1919.
This called for a tank with a max. weight of 18 tons, power to weight ratio of 10 hp/ton,
max. speed of 12 mph and a range of 60 miles. The tank was to be armed with a light
cannon and two machine guns and the armour to withstand 0.50 inch calibre AP rounds
fired from close range. A wooden mock up was created and inspected by the Tank
Corps Technical Committee in April 1920. With some minor modifications the
Ordnance Dept was authorised to construct two pilot medium tanks. The first of these
was fairly conventional with coil spring suspension and known as the M1921. The
Ordnance Dept had heard of the Medium D and obtained drawings and specifications of
the snake track and cable suspension. The second medium tank prototype was
constructed with a snake track and cable suspension as the M1922.
The US Army was under severe financial restrictions at this time and although the
production of new tanks was unlikely to be authorised the Ordnance Dept was allowed
to build prototypes to investigate new tank designs so that the USA did not lose all
expertise in tank design. The M1921 was constructed at the Rock Island Arsenal and
delivered to the Aberdeen Proving Ground in February 1922. It was powered by Murray
and Tregurtha engine which was rated at 220 hp but, in fact, produced 195 hp. The lack
of power limited the M1921 to a top speed of 10 mph. The tank was armed with a 6
pounder (57mm) gun and a 0.3 inch MG in a turret. A further 0.3 inch MG could be
mounted in the cupola on top of the turret. The M1922 was completed in 1923 and
shipped to Aberdeen arriving in March 1923. Testing showed that the suspension cable
wore out very quickly and this was replaced by a chain. The track elements were 18
inches wide and had a wooden inserts, similar to the Medium D track. The suspension
worked well and although the tank was limited by the unreliable and underpowered
Murray and Tregurtha engine it achieved a top speed of 16 mph. The T1 medium tank
design was thought to be more promising, so the M1922 was used as test bed for
various tank components and eventually retired to Ordnance Dept museum at Aberdeen.
The M1922 still survives and is located at the Anniston Army Storage Depot, Bynum,
Alabama.
~ 748 ~
~ 749 ~
~ 750 ~
Tanks Mark I, II & III
Even as the first British tank design, the "Tritton Machine" (a.k.a. "Little Willie") was
being redesigned, Lieutenant W G Wilson was working on an entirely new model of
landship to meet the new War Office requirements to cross an 8ft wide trench and climb
a parapet 4ft 6in high.
In this new machine, known at first as "Big Willie", the famous rhomboid or lozenge-
shaped profile with tracks running round the top of the hull was introduced for the first
~ 751 ~
time. It has been said that the lower curve of the track was derived from a section of the
perimeter of a big wheel of a diameter sufficient to cross the trench width stipulated by
the War Office. This data may conceivably have dictated the height of the front idler
wheel and the overall length of the machine, but the use of an upturned track profile for
crossing obstacles had already been demonstrated in the Killen-Strait tractor and in the
design of the Nesfield-McFie landship, a model of which was submitted to the
Admiralty in June 1915. Be this as it may, the "Wilson Machine" or "HMLS Centipede"
as it was also known, was an effective and impressive vehicle.
To avoid the high centre of gravity attendant on a turret on top of the hull, the main
armament - two Naval 6-pdr guns - was carried in half-turrets, called "sponsons" (a
Naval term) projecting from each side of the hull. The same power unit as "Little
Willie" was retained, together with the same type of track and also the tail wheels.
The "Wilson Machine" was built by William Foster & Co Ltd at Lincoln and first ran on
16 January 1916, just over a month after the rebuilt "Little Willie". It easily excelled its
smaller relative in comparative trials of both machines and at Hatfield Park,
Hertfordshire negotiated without difficulty barbed wire entanglements and
representations of British- and German-type trenches which were specially constructed
to test the machines ability. The "Big Willie" also acquired the nickname of "Mother"
and as the progenitor of all the British heavy tanks of the First World War this,
appropriately, is the name by which it is nearly always known today.
~ 752 ~
~ 753 ~
"Mothers" performance in demonstrations in January and February 1916 convinced the
military and Government spectators of the potential value of this new weapon and forty
machines were ordered early in February; an order which was shortly afterwards
increased to 100. "Mother" was built of boiler plate (and is identifiable in pictures by
the close pitch rivets) but the production machines were, of course, to be of armour
plate varying from 12 mm to 6 mm in thickness, although otherwise identical to their
prototype. However, it was decided to change the armament in half of the machines
produced to machine-guns only, to enable them to attack infantry more effectively -
these ones had a total of four Vickers water-cooled machine-guns in the sponsons and
one Hotchkiss machine-gun.
By this time the name "tank" had come into general use. This had its origin in the code
name "Water Carrier for Mesopotamia" used in William Foster & Cos works for
"Mother" - this soon became shortened to "tank". Less revealing of its purpose than
"landship", this name was later officially adopted, the first production machines
becoming Tanks, Mark I. The machine-gun armed tanks were then called "female", the
ones with 6-pdr guns being "male".
~ 754 ~
The first order for tanks was divided between William Foster & Co to build twenty-five
and the Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon & Finance Co at Wednesbury - seventy-five.
This order for 100 was increased in April 1916 to 150.
The battle in which the tanks, manned by the newly raised Heavy Section, Machine Gun
Corps, first took part was unfortunately an ill-chosen one, with unsuitable ground and
when numbers were insufficient to take full advantage of the element of surprise. This
was the battle of Flers-Courcellette, part of the great Somme offensive which was then
failing, when forty-nine Mark I Tanks went into action on 15 September 1916, although
only a few tanks reached their objectives. Despite the inexperience of the crews,
breakdowns through mechanical trouble or bad ground, the results achieved were
encouraging enough to bring orders for further tank production.
After Flers-Courcelette it was realized that the Daimler engine and its associated
transmission were the least satisfactory part of the existing Mark I design, and steps
were taken to investigate some alternative types of drive and transmission for possible
fitting to future vehicles. While an improved design for the new tanks was being worked
out, permission was obtained for another 100 of the existing design to be built as an
interim type to keep the factories occupied. These were designated Mark II and Mark III
~ 755 ~
(50 of each) and were produced, once again, in both male and female form, these
vehicles were similar in all respects to the Mark I save for detail alterations.
~ 756 ~
Heavy Tank Mk.I \ Mk.II \ Mk.III
Heavy tank
Official designation: Heavy Tank Mk.I, Mk.II, Mk.III

Alternative notation: Mark I, Mark II, Mark III
Date of construction of the first prototype: December 1915
Stage of completion: built 350 tanks used in 1916-1918.
Construction and testing of the combat vehicle No.1 Lincoln Machine prototype largely
convinced not only the developers, but also the Committee on land ships (Landships
Committee) headed Yu.E.DÈnkurom in mind that the selected connection to the
chassis of the tractor type poorly adapted to overcome the wide trenches and vertical
obstacles up to 1 meter. However, to completely abandon this option is not in a hurry,
which led to the construction of a prototype "Little Willie", which actually is the same
as No.1 Lincoln Machine with a modified body, without a tower and a machine-gun
armament (though involves the installation of 75 mm cannon). In parallel, other options
were studied chassis that would better meet the requirements of the military.
The team of engineers led by Everett Wilson, has developed largely unique chassis so-
called "diamond-shaped" type. The basic idea is as follows - to combat vehicle can
overcome the obstacles of different types of idlers were made far in advance and lifted
up above the body, while the drive wheels almost touched the ground. Thus, tracked
undercarriage completely cover the body and had a diamond shape, with the left was the
"tail". This device was a X-shaped hole, which mounted two iron rails flanged wheels.
Since the time to develop a fundamentally new chego-to just was not, it was decided to
use a modified chassis elements from the "Little Willie" - thus applied to one side there
were 26 twin rollers with a stiffer suspension, of which the role of reference carried a
maximum of 18. Each Track included 90 steel shoe width of 20.5 inches (520 mm), the
construction of which also worked on "Little Willie". The engagement took place tracks
for the pin joints truck, with its upper branch slipping by special guides.
Directly corps was in many respects similar to the "Little Willie". In fact, it was a box,
assembled on a steel frame of the armor plates with a thickness of 6 to 12 mm. Such
protection does not protect against projectiles and large fragments, but allowed to save
the crew and important units from defeat bullets of all calibers. The internal layout was
~ 757 ~
something similar to the ship. Ahead of the driver's seat and housed the commander,
behind which was a 6-cylinder engine 105 hp Daimler Exhaust pipes went up and
protected with armored covers. Two gas tank for 114 liters each were placed at the sides
of the cabin between the inner and outer walls of the side wings. A little behind the
engine, was installed weapons, served with hospitality of the crew members and the
back of the housing placed the radiator, transmission and hydraulic jack to lift the "tail".
On the front broneliste also fastened two lights.
Transmission was performed extraordinary. The propeller shaft through the clutch (on
ferrodovoy cone lined with longitudinal control) handed rotation from the engine to a
two-speed gear box with sliding gear, and its output shaft through the worm gear - on
the differential. Each transverse differential output shaft has two gears at the end of
which together with a pair of sliding gear shaft formed on a separate two-speed gearbox
board. Drive rear drive wheels carried out by a chain transmission (Gall chain) and a
single-row gear reducer.
Full crew consisted of 8 people: commander, driver and two driver assistant, two
gunners and two machine-gunner. The internal intercom was missing, so all crew
members should have a good voice, to shout over the roar of the engine and the clank of
caterpillars, but often tankers communicate using gestures. For external communication
plan to use a semaphore signaling, but it was never established.
Separately the problem of weapons was considered layout. Because of the rotating
tower gave another "Little Willie" officials of the Admiralty, the development of the
tank was in whose jurisdiction, approved the placement of cannons and machine guns in
the side sponsons, just as it was done on the cruisers and battleships of the time. It was
assumed that in each sponson is installed on a 6-pounder cannon and 7.71 mm machine
gun Vickers. Theoretically, this gave a circular firing, but in practice it turned out that
the future tank has a plurality of "dead zones", so on these models attempted to address
this shortcoming. Accordingly, the machine dimensions were impressive: total length -
9,5 m, height - 2.5 m, width with sponsons - 4.0 meters. However, due to the specific
contours of the chassis, the support surface length varied between 1.2-1.3 meters on
solid ground.
~ 758 ~
The first prototype combat vehicle, which had the original name of "Centipede" and
soon renamed "Mother" (also often used the name "Big Willie"), was completed in
December 1915. By this time, the command of France has tightened its requirements,
and at a meeting of the joint committee unanimously agreed that the car should have a
combat weight of not more than 22 metric tons, with the ability to pass ditches width of
2.44 meters and a wall height of 1.37 meters. Then, on December 24th 1915, at the
suggestion of Swinton and Colonel Daley Johnson, fighting machines became known
by the term "tank" ( "Tank"), and their development was carried out allegedly to
Russia under the guise of "field tanks for water." The interesting thing is that the
command of the Russian army really got the attention of the tanks before their combat
use, but too long "buildup" of various departments and officials led to the fact that
machines of this type have appeared in Russia after the revolution.
The first driving tests "Mother" was held on 30 January 1916. To sustain weight
restrictions failed (weight was 28.45 tons), but driving performance this car has
surpassed "Little Willie", that determined the choice in its favor. Both prototypes were
shown to the supreme command and direction of the country on February 2. The general
attitude to caterpillar armored vehicles was then very skeptical, and Lord Kitchener
explicitly stated that "... This pretty expensive toy not win the war." The fallacy of his
reasoning became clear in less than a year, but in the beginning of his career the first
tanks were indeed extremely precarious structures with weak defense and very little
reserve. However, the Chief of the armies of France, General Douglas Haig knew that
turn the tide of battles on the Western Front in its side by the old methods will not
succeed, and on February 8th issued a request for the supply of 40 tanks.
Check the assembly of tanks "Mother", which was given the designation Mk.I (Mark
I), was issued on 12 February, although there are also claims that on the same day only
began formal testing of the prototype. Total was to collect 100 copies, but in the course
of construction, Colonel Swinton offered to equip half the tanks only with machine
guns, which in his view was to ensure a more effective "cleansing" the enemy trenches.
To some extent, this concept is justified, but even up to the time when the battlefields
were not enemy tanks with cannon armament, which took place in April 1918.
~ 759 ~
No differences in a constructive manner Tank Mk.I from "Mother". Chassis and body
remained almost unchanged, only the front higher felling was carried out to provide the
commander and driver visibility is acceptable. With the entry into operation revealed
many structural failures and deficiencies, which have not been paying attention. In
particular, the absence of a gasoline pump led to the fact that the bank ceased gasoline
supply and one of the crew was forced to pour it from the bottle. Needless to say that
any stop of the low-speed machines in combat was fraught with fatal consequences.
Exhaust pipes without silencers are also strongly unmasked tank, so mufflers crews put
themselves in field workshops.
However, the real nightmare for tank management was the world's first series of tanks,
although well-trained crews in some cases showed real "miracles of aerobatics" on the
battlefield. In total, required the coordinated efforts of four people at once. While the
tank was moving in a straight line tankers can feel more or less calm. However, once
required to make at least a small twist or even expand the tank in the opposite direction
(that is almost never done), the crew had to try my best to make the maneuver and it
does not break the car. Procedure at turn was as follows:
1. The driver with the help of hydraulic jack raised a "tail" of the tank (it consisted of
two metal wheels)
2. Driver blocked differential,
3. The driver gave the command to one aide put onboard the box to the neutral position,
and the other - engage 1st or 2nd gear (showing one or two fingers) and then engages
the clutch,
4. At this time, the tank commander band brake to slow down corresponding caterpillar.
In general, the management of the tank was one of the main problems to solve it is
completely possible only on machines Mk.V option, which has finally applied a full
manual transmission with planetary gearbox. However, this "scourge", pursued
absolutely everything "rhomboid" tanks was hit by engine exhaust into the cabinet.
During the fighting situations ugaraniem tank was a huge amount, and even in the later
~ 760 ~
models of the crews periodically leave their cars under enemy fire, to catch his breath
and rest from the constant shaking.
Surveillance device as such was not - in this role were peepholes, which closed mesh or
glass, but in both cases it did not save the crew from eye damage. By the way, each
tankman issue special mask and a leather helmet - the latter was necessary in order to
protect the head from hitting the protruding parts inside the case. In combat tanks
moved on the principle of "do as I do", repeating the maneuver commander's car. For
the short-range communication using flags or lights.
Weak Mk.I body armor has led to the emergence of yet another extraordinary
adaptations. Since the tank roof was flat on it easily could throw a grenade. Consisting
of several wooden frames with a tensioned mesh on them to prevent the possibility of
"opening" of the roof structure was designed by the case - in the armed forces, it was
called "monkey cage". The frames were placed at an angle to slope obtained for the
board. In general, the benefits of this invention, there were few, as the frame is often
frustrated in battle.
Armament Mk.I tanks, depending on the modification, significantly different. Option

Mk.I "Male" (male) was equipped with two 57-mm cannon 6-pounder QF and three
7.71 mm machine guns Vickers (instead later put 8-mm machine guns Hotchkiss).
Option Mk.I "Female" (female) was equipped with four 7.71 mm machine guns
Vickers and one or two 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss, who was transported to the
packing.
Under the contract, 25 tanks were to be built on the firm Fosters and 75 - at the firm
Metropolitan. Later the order expanded to 150 tanks in total were collected at 75
"female" and "male". An additional 25 tanks in the machine-gun version appeared not a
good life - due to the lack of 57-mm guns, it was decided to equip these machines only
with machine guns.
~ 761 ~
After the first application Mk.I, though not as successful as expected, the general asked
for the front D.Heyg 1,000 tanks, tanks and then in 1250 improved design. Military
Council initially rejected the request, citing inadequate design Mk.I, but after contacting
Lieutenant Stern, which was part of the Committee on ships and land intensively
promote the theme of creating armored tracked vehicles, directly to the Prime Minister,
Lloyd George, and the situation has changed to 1917 was planned expansion of
production of tanks. Build gathered just two new versions.
Mk.II models differ mainly by the lack of excess "tail" and a bit downwards sloping
sponsons. Instead of an armored cabin installed under the jack box with the property,
the capacity of the tanks increased to 281.4 liters, steel road wheels were replaced by
iron, as in the roof of the housing made rectangular hatch with bronekozhuhom instead
of round. In total, in the period from December 1916 to January 1917, it was built on
the 25 "female" and "male". Subsequently, five tanks were used for the experiments
with various types of transmissions.
Mk.III Mk.II model was similar, but was opening for the sheets on armor (which was
never established). Every sixth track broadened and entered beam samovytaskivaniya.
The series also limited to 50 tanks and 25 "female" put 7.71-mm machine guns Lewis
is, because they have been standardized for the RNAS (development of tanks formally
still was in charge of the agency). Most Mk.III tanks used in Bovington as training
machines, and for the training of drivers used tanks without sponsons.
As is known, the first battle Mk.I taken during the attack on the Somme. The first 49
arrived in France in the autumn of 1916, the tanks and were distributed between the
buildings of the 4th and Army Reserve. Early in the morning on the position to attack
the positions of the 1st German army left 32 tanks. At 05:30 on 22 September the first
marched into battle tanks under the command of Captain Mortimer the D1 number. No
massive strike, as is fond of saying, did not work - 9 tanks were in front of the infantry,
9 operated separately, 9 stuck on the way to the goal, and 5 more are out of order due to
technical reasons. During the offensive, all the goals set before the tank crews were met.
~ 762 ~
Total losses amounted to 10 tanks came out of the building for various reasons (at least
one was shot down by the enemy), and the other 7 tanks required minor repairs.
The next two battle took place on the 25th and 26th of September settlements
Gvedenkur and Le Cap. Like the first time most of the tanks to the enemy positions are
not reached, but the other crews helped the infantry to move forward a little. In mid-
November 1916 tanks fought on Ankrah and Beaumont-Abel, but here the success of
their application was very relative.
Probably the last time Mk.I tanks participated in the attack at Arras in April 1917, when
the British command has collected almost all the combat-ready machines. The first
attack took place on 9 April and ended in failure a failure - the Germans concentrated
about 10 guns per kilometer of front, prepared the "pitfalls" and manned infantry armor-
piercing bullets. Once in a very awkward situation, a lot of tanks were put out of action,
and not by doing the majority of combat missions. During this battle Mk.II tanks were
introduced to fight twice more - on April 23 and May 3, and in the second attack were
able to participate only 13 machines. It is noteworthy that 10 of them British command
offered to Australians who thought they could use them more effectively.
At the same time, events unfolded in the Middle East, where Turkey confidently pressed
the Entente. To help the Egyptian Expeditionary Forces decided to allocate the
requested Mk.IV of 8 tanks, but instead mistakenly sent many educational Mk.I. In
December 1916, these vehicles were included in the battalion "E" and during the spring
of 1917, with varying success, were used during the battle of Gaza.
As I got older tanks Mk.IV machines, who were lucky enough to survive in the "meat
grinder" 1916-1917 gg. altered in the supply tanks and designated as the "Tender". They
were not carrying any weapons and sponsons, and their duty was enough to provide five
types of combat Mk.IV tanks - for example, 40 machines Mk.I "Tender" used in the
spring of 1917 during the fighting in Messina. In addition, some of the Mk.II and Mk.III
was converted into radiotanki placing one sponson battery, in the other - the radio, and
on the cabin installed a mast with an antenna.
~ 763 ~
After the war, all remaining Mk.III tanks were sent for scrapping. It was possible to
save only one sample Mk.I and Mk.II, which are now museum pieces.
DESIGN tactical and technical totalizer Heavy Tank

Heavy Tank Mk.I sample 1916
Male: 28450 kg
Combat weight
Famale: 27430 kg
CREW, pers. 8
DIMENSIONS
9060 (without the "tail"),
Length mm
9910 (with the "tail")
Male: 4200
Width
Famale: 4380
Height mm 2450
Clearance, mm 420
Male: two 57-mm guns in the sponsons, four 7.71-mm
machine gun Vickers, one or two 8-mm machine gun
WEAPONS
Hotchkiss
Famale: five 7.71-mm machine gun Vickers
allowance of Male: 332 6242 shot and cartridge
ammunition Famale: 30080 cartridges
telescopic gun sight,
aiming DEVICES
roof - 5-6 mm
the bottom - 5 mm
Daimler-Foster, carburetor, 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 105 hp,
ENGINE
fuel tank 228 liters
mechanical type: the main 2-speed gearbox, gearbox side, the
TRANSMISSION
main differential band brake
(On one side) 26 of rollers with a blocked suspension, front
steering wheel, rear wheel drive, the top been supporting rail;
CHASSIS
90 krupnozvenchatyh shoe teeth meshing width 521 mm and
197 mm pitch
SPEED 6.4 km \ h on the road
overcome obstacles
The angle of ascent,
22
hail.
Wall height, m 1.00
~ 764 ~
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Tank Mark I
United Kingdom (1916) Heavy tank 150 built
100 years of armored warfare
The Tank Mark I marked both the dawn of armored warfare and the start of the whole
tank lineage that would soon find its treasured place in almost all armies of the world. It
is important to remember that, although a weapon of war, perfected in the art of death
and destruction on land, the tank also saved lives, thousands of them. This started right
in 1916, when the first Mark Is helped restore the confidence of the exhausted and
depressed fighting men, after facing years of being treated like meat for the butcher.
This was the weapon that would unlock the stalemate and put an end to trench warfare.
In reality, things get more complicated and, as crude as it was, the tank was never more
than an organic part of a refined late trench warfare as a whole: New infantry tactics
(inaugurated by the Canadians at Vimy Ridge), creeping artillery barrages with deadly
precise schedules, better air reconnaissance and even strafing and aerial bombardments,
and of course better coordination with tanks. The Mark I was the first of a lineage that
stretched until 1918 with the Mark VIII Liberty, a lineage which also marked the
beginning and the end of the rhomboid type in a period of just two years. As the
famed Little Willie prototype is celebrated as the first practical tank, built a hundred
years ago, the Mark I was the first operational tank.
The Big Willie in an illustration showing the first tank being tested with a tail wheel.
According to photographs, it was painted in white, a color adopted by the navy for land
vehicles.
~ 765 ~
The Little Willie
The Mk.I tank was the first operational tank in the British army and in the world. It was
based on the Little Willie (The Lincoln machine) project, supported by the Landships
Committee, headed by Walter Wilson and William Tritton. It was largely an attempt to
overcome the previous models issues. One of the solutions was to avoid adding a turret
and mounted the guns in sponsons instead. The Little Willie, also known as the
Lincoln machine number one, was tested and modified, and the lessons were taken in
account for the development of the Mark I and its prototype, called Big Willie or,
more commonly, Mother.
Mother, the production prototype
In December 1915, the final prototype was ready for the first trials, which took place in
April 1916. It was named officially His Majestys Land Ship Centipede, but was
know colloquially as Mother or Big Willie, as a joke directed towards the German
Kaiser and the crown prince, both named Wilhelm. In the meantime, the Tank Supply
Committee succeeded the Landship Committee, under the chairmanship of Albert
Stern. Other members included Ernest Swinton, the head of the committee, General
Haig, who acted as a liaison officer, Hugh Elles who would later become the
commander of the tank force in France. The trials were held up in an impressive
reconstruction of no-mans land with trenches, parapets, craters and barbed wire, and
impressed all officers except the Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener. Despite of this, an
order was secured for 150 tanks in two batches, with one order being issued 0n 12
February 1916 and another on April 23.
Design
The Mk.I was elaborated to encompass all the lessons learnt from the Little Willie trials
in 1915. No turret (giving a low center of gravity), armament mounted in sponsons,
bolted hull made of boiler panels, newly designed tracks inherited from the Little Willie
and a large, easily recognizable rhomboid hull, with the tracks surrounding the hull,
making up the entire length of the machine. This shape could not be underestimated.
While Great Britain learned the difficult trade of crossing heavily cratered, muddy
terrain with the previous Lincoln machine, a radical solution was adopted, which proved
adequate to the task, but too radical at the same time, and would emerge in postwar
years.
~ 766 ~
The Mother on trials. It was made of boiler plates, chiefly to speed up construction.
Following Mark Is had hardened steel plates.
Indeed, a running track of this size allowed to gap the largest known trenches of the
time, negotiate craters, while the front three meter recess allowed the vehicle to climb
almost any obstacle. But, in addition of being heavy, these full-running tracks caused a
safety problem for the crewmembers, who could get caught in it and be dragged under
the tank. It also limited the ability to store anything on top, save for a narrow portion of
the central hull. Visibility was perfectible and a lot of space was lost by cramming all
the return rollers. A nightmare for an engineer, as well as the maintenance crew.
Mobility
Propulsion relied on a six cylinder petrol engine at the rear of the hull, with no
compartmentalization, due to the transmission system tunnel, which ran through the
tank and, more importantly, because, at that stage, the engine was relatively untested
and finicky enough to force engineers to need to be able to get their hands on the engine
just in case. In addition, the engine had to push quite hard to carry the 28 tons of
steel with its just 105 horsepower, with a crushingly low of 3.7 hp per tonne. Not
surprisingly, the burden was made greater by the incredibly sticky nature of the mud,
which was shown by recent studies to just stick to metal, which meant a tremendous
force was required to extract whatever was plunged in it.
At least in the case of the tracks, the flat shape and serial arrangement made it more
likely to surf on the surface, although taking along a large amount of mud in the
process. Being clogged in a sinkhole was just the level of effort which the valiant little
Daimler was not ready to undertake. Breakdowns were commonplace and ruined the
early stage of the assault, largely diminishing the number of tanks that just had the luck
to make their way into the no-mans land and reach the destination. Also, the engine not
being separated from the fighting compartment proved ruinous for the crew, which fell
ill quite quickly, but that feature remained unchanged until 1918. The general staff
didnt see this sickness as a limitation either, given the relatively short distance which
had to be crossed between opposing trenches. A mobility aspect which was incorporated
into the design concerned the removable sponsons, allowing the tank to be narrower and
thus, providing easier transport by rail.
~ 767 ~
Crew
The crew comprised eight men, of which two were drivers (one for the gearbox and
the other for the brakes) and two others controlling the gears of each track. This system
needed perfect coordination, which was difficult due to the noise inside and the
protective leather helmets they used. The four others were gunners, serving the six-
pounders and the machine guns, depending on the armament. 50% of the Mk. Is were
armed with two guns in the sponsons and three machine-guns (two in the sponsons, one
axial in the hull), named males, and the other half were females, armed with five
machine-guns. These were either Vickers models or the 8 mm (0.31 in) Hotchkiss air-
cooled equivalents. The tanks were quite big, weighing 28 tons with an eight meters
long hull and an overall length of nearly ten meters with the additional tail wheel,
another feature kept from the Little Willie. It was designed to help crossing very large
trenches, but later proved impractical and was dropped.
Production
No less than 150 Mk.Is were built at William Foster & Co. of the Lincoln Metropolitan
Carriage and Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon & Finance Co. at Wednesbury. The first
order of 100 was increased to 150 in April 1916, acting as a pre-series for further mass-
productions. The Foster deliveries concerned 37 males, while Metropolitan Carriage,
Wagon, and Finance Company, of Birmingham, delivered 113 Tanks, including 38
males and 75 females. Later on, two rails were mounted over the hull to handle a
wooden beam, used for unditching. The first were ready in a hurry and deployed in
August, just in time for the Somme Offensive. From the end of 1917 and until 1918,
some of the surviving ones were converted as signal tanks with a large antenna at the
base of the drivers cab, participating in the battle of Cambrai. Others were converted as
supply tanks.
Succession: the Mk. II and III
~ 768 ~
As the Mark I showed many limitations, the next batch of 50 tanks (25 females and 25
males) were built at Foster & Co and Metropolitan for training purposes only. There
were some claims about their unhardened steel plates, but all data seems to show that
the Mk.IIs were regular Mk. Is with a few modifications for training purposes. Some 20
were sent to France for advanced training and those left remained at the Wool training
ground in Dorset.
However, in 1917, there werent enough tanks operational for the offensives planned in
April 1917 near Arras, and twenty surviving Mk.Is and all the Mk.IIs remaining in
Britain were put in action (despite some protests), suffering high casualties, mainly due
to the new armor-piercing bullets the Germans employed.
The Mark IIIs were training tanks as well (the great improvements were still planned for
the Mk.IV) and were all fitted with Lewis machine guns in smaller, lighter sponsons.
Otherwise, few changes were visible at the beginning, as this batch of 50 vehicles was
designed to incorporate all the Mk.IV improvements. Deliveries were slow and none
left Great Britain.
The Mark I In Action
Their first operational use was in September at Flers-Courcelette, but this first attempt
was a near disaster. Most of the tanks broke down on their way, others bogged down in
the mud. However, despite the lack of training of their crews, some managed to reach
their designated objective, if only too few. Only 59 were part of this attack, most of
them being captured afterwards by the Germans. The first issues quickly arrived at the
War Office. When they appeared however through the fog, they had an uncanny
psychological effect on the German troops, which fled their trenches, leaving their
machine guns. The distant roar and clinging of the tracks, and later the slow-moving
masses emerging from the fog which resembled nothing built yet were enough. But
their ability to take punishment and return fire was compelled by the fact the Germans
were caught completely unaware of their existance. A real surprise achieved by the
well-guarded secret behind the name that stuck ever since, the tank.
Sick Crews
The noise, the smell and the temperature that reached nearly 50 degrees Celsius were
just unbearable. There were powerful emanations of carbon monoxide, cordite, fuel and
oil vapors, all made worse by poor ventilation. The crews often opened the narrow door
situated just behind the sponson, in an attempt to get some fresh air in. With poor
training and almost no internal communication, steering was enormously difficult,
resulting in mechanical over-stress, causing many breakdowns.
Breakdowns
Another factor was the petrol engine, overwhelmed by the weight of the hull combined
with the very sticky, heavy mud typical of the region, something that was rediscovered
when excavating and experimenting with the supposed battlefield of Agincourt.
Coordination between the tanks also proved inadequate, theoretically by using a set of
fanions, flags, lamps, semaphores and other devices inspired by navy practice. There
~ 769 ~
was no radio on board. Pigeons were used instead to report positions and status with the
General Headquarters.
Protection issue
Crew security was also an issue inside the tank. If the 8 mm (0.31 in) plates were
proven bullet proof, each impact produced mini-shrapnel inside the hull, injuring
anybody inside. Following the first reports, thick leather jackets and helmets, or a
combination of leather and chain-mail, were provided to the crews. Spall liners only
appeared decades later.
Surviving example
Despite its historical importance, which could already be perceived in 1916, only a
single male survived. The worlds oldest surviving combat tank is showcased at the
Bovington Tank Museum, in static display. Its Number is 705, C19 and it was named
Clan Leslie, but both its true identity and wartime history remain a mystery. It was
suggested that it might have been used as a driver training tank, numbered 702, the
second Mark I built. It was discovered laying in 1970 in the grounds of Hatfield House,
the worlds earliest proving ground for tanks.
Video footage of Mark I at fers-Courcelette in september 1916
Mark I specifications
Length 26ft (7.92m).
Length with tail 32ft 6in (9.92m)
Dimensions Width 8ft 4in (2.53m).
Width with Sponsons 13ft 2in (4.03m)
Height 8ft (2.44m)
Total weight 27.5 (female) 28.4 (male) tons
Crew 8
Propulsion British Foster-Daimler, Knight sleeve valve, water-

cooled straight six 13-litre petrol engine, 105 hp at
1,000 rpm
Road Speed 3.7 mph (5.95 km/h)
Trench Crossing ability 11ft 6in (3.5m)
Armament Male Tank 2x Hotchkiss QF 6 pdr (57 mm) gun (1.4m long
barrel)
4x 0.303 inch (7.62mm) Hotchkiss air-cooled
~ 770 ~
machine guns
Armament Female Tank 4x 0.303 inch (7.62mm) Vickers water-cooled

machine guns
machine gun
Armor From 6 to 15 mm (0.23-0.59 in)
Length 8 1/2 inches (21.5cm)

Track links
Width 1ft 8in (52cm)
Length 2ft (61cm)

Sponson Hatch
Length 2ft 3in (69cm)

Rear Hatch
The first engagement of the Mk.I at Flers Courcelette, 15 September 1916. Despite their
poor performance, the tanks were increasingly popular among soldiers, with propaganda
and songs talking about miracle weapons.
~ 771 ~
~ 772 ~
The Mother prototype in trials by April 1917. The hull was made of resistant boiler
panels which, along with poor ventilation, kept the interior very hot. Proof against
normal infantry weapons, it was sensible to machine-gun rounds and could be disabled
by field guns and specially-crafted armor-piercing bullets.
Tank Mark I male at Fers-Courcelette in September 1916. The males were recognizable
by their long-barrel Hotchkiss QF guns.
Tank Mark I female in 1917.
~ 773 ~
Tank Mark II
Development of the Mark II
The Mark II was superficially identical to the Mark I. The Army had already declared
that the Mark I was still insufficiently developed for use. Therefore, orders for the Mark
II were first placed in July 1917.
It was to be a simple, limited upgrade, but since the development of better models
would take some time, the Mark II was retained as a stopgap and for training units only.
There was (and still is) a controversy about whether their construction used mild
(unhardened) steel or not, due to their planned use, since the beginning, as training
tanks.
Some doubt was cast on this claim in early 1917. Debates still rage, despite the fact that
20 males were sent in France to beef-up depleted units and to fight, and it is dubious
these had been reconstructed in the meantime, either at home or in France with regular
hardened steel.
The Mark IIs were delivered from December 1916 to January 1917 by Foster & Co and
Metropolitan (25 males and 25 females in all). The males still had the long barrel
naval gun and all shared the heavy barbette model. The females had four (two per side)
Vickers water-cooled 0.303 cal. (7.62 mm) machine guns.
~ 774 ~
Captured Tank Mark II no. 799, near Arras, on 11 April 1917.
Specifics
The Mark IIs were essentially similar to the Mark I, with one of the few actual
differences being the slightly narrower central section, meant to allow the use of wider
tracks. However, this never came to be. Five Mark IIs were used in experiments with
improved powerplants and transmissions.
An open competition provided the opportunity for many firms to improve the design.
Comparative demonstrations were held in March 1917 on a realistic testing ground, but
only three Mark IIs completed, together with the Mother, refitted with a Daimler
petrol-electric system. Wilsons epicyclic gear system replaced the secondary gear and
proved to clearly be superior. As a result, it became standard in later designs.
~ 775 ~
The Mark II in action
Twenty were shipped to France and twenty-five remained at the training ground at
Wool, Dorset in Britain. The remaining five males were kept as testing vehicles. Since
the Mark IV had not arrived by early 1917, it was decided to ship the twenty-five
training vehicles remaining in Great Britain to France.
They joined twenty other Mark IIs and fifteen Mark Is at the Battle of Arras in April
1917. Their armor proved vulnerable (as was that of the Mark Is) to the armor-piercing
machine gun ammunition used by the Germans.
~ 776 ~
The Flying Scotsman at Bovington.
The female Mark IIs also had a fatal flaw for its crew. The hatch in the back of the
sponsons, which was used to access and escape the vehicle, was quite small and, when
the petrol tanks (located at the front) caught fire, not all of the crew made it. There was
also an additional hatch above the drivers compartment, and another one in the back,
which were not large, nor easier to access. Surviving Mark IIs were used as supply
tanks until the end of the war.
As of today, the sole surviving Mark II on record is a female, F53, famously named
The Flying Scotsman, displayed in static mode at the Bovington Tank Museum,
showing battle damage sustained at the Battle of Arras in April 1917. Another one was
reconstituted from surviving parts (from no. 799), which can be seen at the Muse Jean
et Denise Letaille, Bullecourt (Artois, France).
Mark II specifications
Length 26ft (7.92m).
Width 8ft 4in (2.53m).
Dimensions
Height 8ft (2.44m)
Total weight 27.5 (female) 28.4 (male) tons
Crew 8
Propulsion British Foster-Daimler, Knight sleeve valve, water-

cooled straight six 13-litre petrol engine, 105 hp at
~ 777 ~
1,000 rpm
Armament Male Tank 2x Hotchkiss QF 6 pdr (57 mm) gun (1.4m long
barrel)
machine guns
Armament Female Tank 4x 0.303 inch (7.62mm) Vickers water-cooled

machine guns
machine gun

Track links
Length 2ft (61cm)

Sponson Hatch

Rear Hatch
Total production 50
~ 778 ~
The Flying Scotsman at Bovington
Tank Mark II The Flying Scotsman, now in Bovington, as it was painted when it was
sent to France, battle of Arras, april 1917. Most were knocked-out relatively easily by
German troops already trained and equipped with the K armor-piercing rifle bullets.
Most obvious of the various changes were a revised hatch with raised triangular-shaped
coaming on the hull top, a narrower cabin, and wider track shoes called "grousers" at
every sixth link (in most vehicles) to give improved traction. Internally there were
several stowage modifications. They were made in mild steel because they were never
intended for combat. Produced in early 1917, they supplemented the Mark I's and were
used in all the earlier tank actions of 1917 at Arras, Messines and Ypres. In combat they
were death-traps, because they were unarmoured (except for the sponsons, which had
been taken from Mark I tanks); even rounds fired from an ordinary rifle could pass
through the mild steel hulls. The female tanks had their Vickers machine-guns replaced
with the smaller Lewis machine-gun; a sleeve was used to fit the new guns into the old,
larger, apertures.
~ 779 ~
The tank in the photos below is the Mark II on display in the Tank Museum, Bovington,
England. This tank actually finished her wartime career as a supply tank with F
Batallion at Third Battle of Ypres, and was later re-engineered back to this female
status. But note that the sponsons have Vickers machine-guns installed, so they are
more typical of a Mark I than a Mark II. Many years ago, before the Tank Museum got
a real Mark I, this tank was displayed as a Mark I and had tail wheels fitted somehow.
Airfix based their venerable 1/76 scale kit on it. The photos were taken by Knut Erik
Hagen and P Radley and are used here with their permission.
~ 780 ~
Tank Mark III
Development of the Mark III
~ 781 ~
Like the Mark II, the Mark III was essentially a stopgap tank used for training, waiting
for the arrival of the upgraded Mk.IV, the true successor of the Mark I. There are no
extensive records of how much they were modified compared to the Mark I or II, and
few photos survived to bring other clues to the table, if any at all.
Design
Essentially, the Mark III was identical to the Mark I and II with the same supposed use
of soft armor, but hard evidence for this is plainly missing. Females used lighter Lewis
machine guns in smaller and lighter sponsons, which are the only way to clearly
distinguish the type. This batch of 50 vehicles was designed to incorporate all the
Mk.IV improvements when ready, so as to train new recruits for the Mark IV/V series.
However, the development of these features took such time that the Mark IIIs were
apparently delivered as is. None ever left Great Britain.
Like the Mark I and II, some had broader links every five links for better grip.
Other differences with previous models included a thicker armour at the front, 16 mm
(0.63 in), while the side armour was pushed to 12 mm (0.47 in) and the roof was
protected by 8 mm (0.31 in). The barrels of the Hotchkiss guns were also shortened
significantly, as they often got stuck in the uneven terrain or got clogged in obstacles.
This is also the easiest way to distinguish them from other early rhomboid tanks. The
Mark IIIs had ninety 53 cm broad links which ran on two rails on ten upper return
rollers made of bronze. The lower part rolled on 26 road-wheels of which one out of
three was clamped.
The Mark III in action
~ 782 ~
Contrary to the Mark II, of which at least 25 were sent in France to see action, no Mark
III left Great Britains shores. These tanks were used for training until the end of the
war, a task which became more important as more tanks were fielded by the Army each
month, culminating with prospects of 3,500 tanks by the time of the armistice. Two
managed to survive until WW2, to be dismantled, scrapped and recycled for other uses.
The Mark III was also built only in mild steel, but the plates were thicker. The machine-
gun mounting in the front of the cab was changed to accomodate the Lewis machine-
gun. The male sponsons were slimmed down. But the most noticeable of the changes
was the female sponsons; these could be shrunk substantially because the Lewis
machine-gun was so much smaller than the Vickers. The new, smaller, female sponsons
made room for much larger doors underneath, which greatly improved the crews
chances of successfully escaping a fire on board. The shape of the new sponsons was
kept in subsequent Marks. The Mark III tanks were used only for training and none left
England.
A Male Mark III tank seen here during manoeuvres.
Mark III specifications

Dimensions 25.98 x 14.2 x 8 ft (7.92 (9.92 tail) x 4.33 x 2.44 m)
Total weight, battle ready 27.5 (female) 28.4 (male) tons
Crew 8
Propulsion Foster-Daimler Knight sleeve valve petrol engine,

105 hp
~ 783 ~
Range 45 km (27.96 mi)
Armament Male: 2 Hotchkiss 6 pdr (57 mm) QF and 3 7.7 mm

(0.303 in) Hotchkiss machine guns
Female: Four 7.7 mm (0.303 in )Vickers machine
guns and one 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Hotchkiss machine
gun
Total production 50
Tank Mark III. Notice the light female sponson and the light Lewis machine-guns (also
used by the RAF).
~ 784 ~
~ 785 ~
Supply Tanks
Once replaced in first-line service by later Marks, the tanks Mark I and II were used
either for training or for "special purpose" roles. Foremost of these were those converted
to Supply Tanks. Guns were removed and the embrasures plated in so that stores could
be carried.
~ 786 ~
Wireless Tanks
Another role of redundant Mark Is was as wireless tanks. These were unarmed but had
an "office" built into one sponson and wireless (radio) equipment in the other. They had
a pole-mast and spreaders for the aerial. Wireless tanks were used at Cambrai to send
back messages, the first time wireless was used in action from tanks.
~ 787 ~
Tank Mark IV
The Mark IV (pronounced "Mark Four") was a British tank of World War I. Introduced
in 1917, it benefited from significant developments on the first British tank (the
~ 788 ~
intervening designs being small batches used for training). The major improvements
were in armour, the re-siting of the fuel tank, and easier transportation. A total of 1,220
were built: 420 "Males", 595 "Females" and 205 Tank Tenders (unarmed vehicles used
to carry supplies), which made it the most numerous British tank of the War.
The Mark IV was first used in mid 1917 at the Battle of Messines Ridge. It remained in
official British service until the end of the War, and a small number served briefly with
other combatants afterwards.
Development
The director of the Tank Supply Department, Albert Gerald Stern, first intended to fit
the Mark IV with a new engine and transmission. Production of battle tanks was halted
until the new design was ready, necessitating the use of the Mark II and III as interim
training tanks. Failing to complete development soon enough to start production in time
to have 200 tanks ready for the promised date of 1 April 1917, Stern was ultimately
forced to take a Mark IV into production in May 1917 that was only slightly different
from the Mark I tank.
The Mark IV Male carried three Lewis machine guns one in the cab front and one in
each sponson[nb 1] and a QF 6 pdr 6 cwt gun in each sponson, with its barrel shortened
as it had been found that the longer original was apt to strike obstacles or dig into the
ground. The sponsons were not mirror images of each other, as their configuration
differed to allow for the 6 pdr's gun-layer operating his gun from the left and the loader
serving the gun from the right. The guns had a 100 degree arc of fire but only the
starboard gun could fire straight ahead.[2] The Female had five machine guns. Two of
the machine guns were operated by the gun loaders.
The decision to standardise on the Lewis gun was due to the space available within the
tanks. Despite its vulnerable barrel and a tendency to overheat or foul after prolonged
firing, the Lewis used compact drum magazines which could hold up to 96 rounds. The
Hotchkiss was fed from a rigid strip which was trimmed down to only 14 rounds for
tank use; no sooner had the machine gunner guided the fall of shot onto the target then it
was time to change the strip and the process repeated.[3] It was not until a flexible 50
round strip was fully developed in May 1917 that the Hotchkiss would become the
standard machine gun for tanks again. The changes caused delays, such as adapting the
design for the bulky Lewis cooling barrel, and later, problems when the Hotchkiss strips
had to be stored in positions designed for Lewis gun magazines.[3]
This tank introduced the use of the fascine, a bundle of brushwood, bound with chains,
about 10 ft (3.0 m) long and 4.5 ft (1.4 m) in diameter carried on the front. It was
dropped into trenches to allow the tank to cross over more easily.[4]
A large number of these tanks were also used for development work. In an attempt to
improve trench-crossing capability, the tadpole tail, an extension to the rear track horns,
was introduced. However, it proved insufficiently rigid and does not appear to have
been used in combat. Other experimental versions tested radios, mortars placed between
the rear horns, and recovery cranes. Some of these devices were later used on
operational tanks. Mark IVs were also the first tanks fitted with unditching beams by
field workshops. A large wooden beam, reinforced with sheet metal, was stored across
~ 789 ~
the top of the tank on a set of parallel rails. If the tank became stuck, the beam was
attached to the tracks (often under fire) and then dragged beneath the vehicle, providing
grip.
Crew: 8
Combat weight:
o Male: 28 tons (28.4 tonnes)
o Female: 27 tons (27.4 tonnes)
Armour: 0.250.47 in (6.112 mm)
Armament: Three MG and two 6-pdrs (Male), Five .303 Lewis MG (Female)
Ammunition storage: 6 pounder: 180 HE rounds and remainder Case
Production
The Mark IV was built by six manufacturers: Metropolitan (the majority builder),
Fosters of Lincoln, Armstrong-Whitworth, Coventry Ordnance Works, William
Beardmore and Company and Mirrlees, Watson & Co., with the main production being
in 1917. The first order was placed for 1,000 tanks with Metropolitan in August 1916. It
was then cancelled, reinstated and then modified between August and December 1916.
The other manufacturers, contracted for no more than 100 tanks each, were largely
immune to the conflict between Stern and the War Office.[5]
Service
The Mark IV was first used in large numbers on 7 June 1917, during the British assault
on Messines Ridge. Crossing dry but heavily cratered terrain, many of the 60-plus Mark
IVs lagged behind the infantry, but several made important contributions to the battle.
By comparison, at the Third Battle of Ypres (also known as Passchendaele) from 31
July, where the preliminary 24-day long barrage had destroyed all drainage and heavy
rain had soaked the field, the tanks found it heavy going and contributed little; those
that sank into the swampy ground were immobilized and became easy targets for enemy
artillery.[6]
~ 790 ~
Nearly 460 Mark IV tanks were used during the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917,
showing that a large concentration of tanks could quickly overcome even the most
sophisticated trench systems.
In the aftermath of the German Spring Offensive on the western front, the first tank-to-
tank battle was between Mk IV tanks and German A7Vs in the Second Battle of Villers-
Bretonneux in April 1918.[nb 2]
About 40 captured Mark IVs were employed by the Germans as Beutepanzerwagen (the
German word Beute means "loot" or "booty") with a crew of 12. These formed four tank
companies from December 1917.[7] Some of these had their six pounders replaced by a
German equivalent.[8]
The last Mark IV to see service was Excellent, a Mark IV male retained by the naval
gunnery school on Whale Island, HMS Excellent. In the early years of the Second
World War it was restored to operational status and driven to the mainland, where its
new career was allegedly brought to an early end after a number of cars were damaged.
Type Tank
British Army
Imperial German Army
Used by
Reichswehr
Imperial Japanese Army
First World War

Wars German Revolution of 1918
19
Designer Major Walter Gordon Wilson
Manufacturer see text
Unit cost about 5,000 [1]
Produced May 1917 end 1918
Number built 1,220
29 tons (28.4 tonnes)

Weight
Female: 27 tons (27.4 tonnes)
Width Male: 13 ft 6 in (4.12 m)
~ 791 ~
Crew 8
0.25 0.47 inches (6.1

Armour
12 mm)
Male: Two 6-pounder (57-

Main mm) 6 cwt QF guns with 332
armament rounds
Female: five .303 Lewis guns
Secondary Male: Three .303 in Lewis

armament guns
Daimler-Foster, 6-cylinder
in-line sleeve valve 16 litre
Engine
petrol engine
105 bhp at 1,000 rpm
Primary: 2 Forward, 1
Transmission Reverse
Secondary 2 speed
Fuel capacity 70 Imperial gallons
Operational 35 mi (56 km)

range
United Kingdom (1917) Heavy tank 1,220 built
The Mark IV was a greatly improved version of the first British tank, the Mark I. It was
better protected and the fuel tank was relocated. It was, numerically, the most important
tank of the First World War, with 1220 built: 420 male, 595 female and 205
tenders.
A Mark IV showing the proper use of the unditching beam. Before that, an early
solution was the use of a wide 3.5 m (11ft 5in) wide fascine.
A New, Enhanced Model
The Mark I had proved to be far from perfect on the battlefield. Attrition rate was
enormous. The Mark II and III, both training machines, featured many modifications to
the original Mk.I.
~ 792 ~
This culminated with the final Mark IV, a joint product of William Tritton and Major
Walter Gordon Wilson. Basically, the Mark IV was a modified Mark I, taking into
account all the war experience acquired on the front.
The director of the Tank Supply Department, Albert Gerald Stern, was also instrumental
in this process. He argued for the adoption of a new, more powerful engine and an
improved transmission.
But this project was ambitious, and the deadline of 1 April 1917 was never attained.
Instead, to speed up production, as many parts as possible were borrowed from the
Mark I. The early production version was armed with three (male) up to five (female)
compact, light and reliable Lewis machine-guns (later Hotchkiss Mk.I), mounted in
sponsons and the front of the hull.
However the Hotchkiss, although sturdier and more affordable, was criticized for its
lack of magazine capacity (14 rounds compared to 96 for the Lewis). Later this issue
was solved with a new flexible 50 rounds ammunition strip. The QF 6pdr (57 mm) guns
on the male tanks were now short-barreled.
Another improvement was to carry a large fascine, made of brushwood bundle with
chains, carried at the front. Later it was replaced by a chained unditching beam,
reinforced with sheet metal, stored on two parallel rails running the entire length of the
roof.
~ 793 ~
This provided better trench crossing capabilities, and became a trademark of the Mark
V. Another attempt was the tadpole tail, a large extension of the rear tracks horns. But
rigidity quickly proved an issue on trials and it was apparently never mounted on
operational tanks.
~ 794 ~
The main improvements were an increase of armor, up to 12 mm (0.47 in), and the
relocation of the fuel tank. The later has enough room for 265 l (70 gallons), for an
operational range of 56 km (35 mi).
The Mark IV was propelled by the Daimler-Foster, 6-cylinder in-line sleeve valve petrol
engine, which developed 105 bhp at 1,000 rpm, allowing a speed of 6.4 km/h (4 mph).
Transmission had 2 forward and 1 reverse primary gears and 2 speed secondary gears. It
was still relatively complex for the driver, but an improvement over the previous
models.
~ 795 ~
Production and Variants
Due to the urgent need for tanks the production of the Mark IV was dispatched to
Metropolitan, Fosters of Lincoln, Armstrong-Whitworth, Coventry Ordnance Works,
William Beardmore & Co and Mirrlees, Watson & Co. An initial order of 1000 tanks
was issued by the War Office in August 1917.
The last were delivered after the armistice in November 1918. They had been converted
to armored tank tenders (205 in all). Standard production was 420 male and 595
female. Normal weight, in battle order, was 28.4 tons (male) and 27.4 tons (female).
~ 796 ~
Ammunition provision for the males consisted of 180 HE rounds. Unit cost was about
about 5,000.
Two variants of the design appeared. One equipped with a tadpole tail, never to be
used on the battlefield. The other was the mass-produced tank tender, which was
identical to the regular female, but unarmed. They carried gasoline and ammunition.
The Mark IV in Action
First blood for the Mark IV came on June 7th, 1917, with the attack of Messine Ridge.
The terrain was very rugged, heavily cratered, but cold and dry, which allowed some
sixty plus tanks some success, although lagging behind the infantry. Later, during the
third battle of Ypres (31st of July), most of the Mark IVs committed literally sank in
the mud.
The power to weight ratio was such that in a heavily cratered terrain and swampy
ground, the Mark IVs frequently bogged down and the overheating and overused
engines usually broke down in the process of bailing out. Most fell prey to German
artillery or were captured afterwards. Their contribution was insignificant. However in
November 1917, at Cambrai, a large concentration of Mark IVs (460) proved decisive
despite a complicated and well-defended trench system.
During the German spring offensive, British officers discovered in surprise some
German assault troops were accompanied by captured Mark I and IV. These
Beutepanzer sightings rose so often that encounters with the German-built A7V were
rare in comparison. This led the War Office to order the modification of the armament
of some Mark Vs into hermaphrodites, fitted on one side with a female sponson, and
the other side a male sponson, to give these tanks a way to deal with enemy armor
should they come across it.
~ 797 ~
However, the first tank-to-tank duel involved one of these German A7V during the
second battle of Villers-Betonneux, in April 1918. Two British Mark IV female and one
male spotted and engaged the A7V. But after several miss-hits, the two Females,
useless, retired. After many shots and two hits, both tanks retired in a draw.
When the Mark V, better protected, with a better engine and greater speed came into
service, the production of the Mark IV was phased out and the last converted as supply
tanks. No Mark IV seemed to have been sent to the Whites in Russia. However, a few
Beutepanzer Mark IV took part in the revolutionary events in 1919, on the armys side.
Seven Mark IV have survived. The Female Flirt II is displayed at Museum of

Lincolnshire Life, and another one is at Ashford (Kent). One male, Lodestar III is
hosted in Belgium, at the Royal Museum of the Army in Brussels, while another, a
female Grit is on display at the Australian War Memorial. The Deborah, a female,
was excavated at the village of Flesquires in France. It is now been restored, possibly
for display at Saumur.
A former war bond tank, the Liberty, is under restoration at the United States Army
Ordnance Museum, Aberdeen, Maryland, after decades of decay. A male, the
Excellent, which later became HMS Excellent, was used at a Royal Navy shore
establishment training camp, and later kept fully functional for the Home Guard in
1940. It is now an exhibit at the Bovington tank museum and the only one in the world
in running condition.
~ 798 ~
One of the few Mark IV experimentally fitted with a tadpole tail, to help with the
crossing of large trenches, like those of the Hindenburg line. This added part never
shown enough sturdiness and production never materialized. The idea of a longer hull
was realized by the Mark V*, a variant of the former, at the end of the war.
A Mark IV converted as supply tank, in 1918, at Villers-Bretonneux. 205 of these were

built or converted on the stocks when the Mark V came to replace older models.
~ 799 ~
A captured Mark IV in Berlin, during the military repression of the Spartacus league,
within the German revolution, 1919. Nearly forty Mk. IV were captured during the
course of the war, and pressed in service as Beutepanzer Wagen by the Germans, with
big Malta crosses to prevent friendly fire. In some case, British armament was replaced
by German guns and machine-guns, and the crew boosted to twelve.
Mark IV specifications
Length 26ft 5in(8.05m).
Length with tail 32ft 6in (9.92m)
Dimensions Width 8ft 4in (2.53m).
Height 8ft (2.44m)
Total weight 27.5 (female) 28.4 (male) tonnes
Crew 8
Propulsion British Foster-Daimler, 6-cylinder in-line sleeve

valve petrol engine, 105 hp at 1,000 rpm
Road Speed 4 mph (6.4 km/h)
Armament Male Tank 2x Ordnance Quick Firing 6-pounder (57 mm) six
hundredweight Mark I 23 calibre guns
3x 0.303 inch (7.62mm) Lewis air-cooled light
machine guns
~ 800 ~
Armament Female Tank 5x 0.303 inch (7.62mm) Lewis air-cooled light
machine guns
Cab Armor 12 mm
Side Armor 8 mm
Rear Armor 6 mm

Track links

Sponson Hatch

Rear Hatch
Total production 1220 (595 Female, 420 Male, 11 testing, 54 reserve)
Mark IV Male of an unknown unit, St Omer, May 1918. regular dark khaki livery.
Notice the three white and red bands and the crew symbol (the red hand).
Modifications compared to the Mark I included reinforced armor, a relocated fuel tank,
an extra front machine-gun and better trench crossing equipment.
~ 801 ~
Mark IV Female, equipped with Lewis machine-guns, Ypres, July 1917. Trench
crossing capabilities were relatively good due to the very large rhomboid tracks, but the
power-to-weight ratio was so feeble that big slopes and deep craters proved impassable,
and various solutions were tested. Among them a pair of very large arms (attached to
the front), each fitted with a roller and a long tadpole tail at the rear, but both
solutions proved costly and unpractical. A simpler idea proved successful: a pair of
parallel rails, running over the roof, sustaining a very large fascine or an unditching
beam. The fascine were also used to assault the antitank trenches of the Hindenburg
line.
Mark IV Female, equipped with five Hotchkiss Mk.I machine-guns and fitted with a
large grenade deflector (large frame with iron wiring). This feature was adopted because
the roof armor was not thick enough to hold against grenade fragments and mortar
shrapnel. It was also useful in urban combat.
~ 802 ~
Mark IV Male Kellys Heroes, Palestinian campaign, battle of Megiddo, 21
September 1918. Around 200 Mark IV were sent by order of General Allenby to this
sector to help the breaking through of the Turkish lines towards Jordan. As the
conditions in the desert were largely different than those in Europe, the rail and
unditching beam were dismounted. The flat ground allowed better speed, but because of
the scorching heat the engine overheated and crew comfort suffered.
Supply Mark IV Auld Reekie, somewhere on the Belgian front, October 1918.
Many Mark IVs, now considered obsolete, were converted to supply tanks, having their
armament removed and apertures closed. Others were factory built, for a total of around
205 such units.
Beutepanzer Mark IV Male. During the summer offensive the Germans recaptured 40
Mark IV tanks, formerly disabled, ditched or broken down in no-mans land. They were
quickly modified, camouflaged, sometimes rearmed, and pressed back into service, with
a crew of 12. However the lack of ammunition and spare parts proved an issue.
~ 803 ~
~ 804 ~
On 19 September 1916 - four days after the first tanks went into action - the British
Commander-in-Chief, Sir Douglas Haig, gave an order for 1000 further tanks to be
constructed immediately. (This order was rescinded three weeks later by the Army
Council, but immediately reinstated by Mr Lloyd George, Secretary of State for War,
who had more foresight).
Several faults had revealed themselves in the Tank Mark I and it was desired to improve
the design to eliminate some of these before going into mass production of the 100 new
tanks. A small bridging order for 100 tanks of the original type, in which some
improvements could be introduced during the course of production, was sanctioned by
Lloyd George. This order would ensure that the factories, which were then still
completing the last of the Mark Is, would be kept going until the new standard pattern
was settled. These interim vehicles, designated Tanks Mark II and III (fifty of each)
were delivered between about January and March 1917. It was understood that these
100 tanks would be used only for training purposes and soft plate was used in their
construction instead of armour plate. This was the cause of unfair criticism of the
Mechanical Warfare Supply Department when some Tanks Mark II were hurriedly
gathered together for use in action in March. (Tanks Mark I, II and III are the subject of
another article on Landships, and are covered in greater depth there.)
The first of the tanks of the new design, Mark IV (again principally the work of Major
W G Wilson in conjunction with Tritton of William Foster & Co) were delivered to the
Army towards the end of April 1917. Although superficially very much the same in
appearance as the Mark Is and using the same engine and transmission, they
incorporated many changes suggested by battle experience. The armour protection was
improved - although the maximum thickness of 12 mm was the same, plates of this
dimension were used in more locations about the hull. The armament in the Male tanks
was changed from the 40 calibre ("long") 6-pdrs to 23 calibre ("short") 6-pdr guns.
These were mounted in modified sponsons which could (in both Male and Female
~ 805 ~
version) be swung inwards for rail transport (on the Mark I the sponsons had to be
unbolted and loaded onto special trolleys; a time-consuming and heavy task).
Another armament change, although requested by the Army, turned out to be a

retrograde step. This was the introduction of the Lewis machine-gun in both Male and
Female tanks. This weapon had given good and reliable service with the infantry but
turned out to be unsuccessful when used in tanks because the cooling jacket could not
be protected and was very vulnerable to small arms fire, and the Lewis cooling system
sucked dust into the gunners eyes. The mounting was more liable to penetration than
that of the Hotchkiss and in some tanks a Hotchkiss was substituted for the Lewis in the
front plate between the driver and commander. In later tanks the Hotchkiss (in a
modified form with belt feed and pistol grip) was re-introduced in place of all the Lewis
guns (Editors note: There are no known contemporary photographs of Tanks Mark IV
fitted with Hotchkiss machine-guns).
The crew conditions were improved by the introduction of better emergency escape
hatches, better vision arrangements and a more effective cooling and ventilation system.
The petrol supply for the engine was now by means of a vacuum feed system, which
obviated the disadvantage in the Mark Is gravity feed, which frequently ceased to work
when the tank was ditched. The petrol was carried in an armoured container at the rear
outside the main hull in the Mark IV where it was less of a fire risk. The exhaust system
was fitted with a silencer (which was absent in the earlier tanks). Steering tail wheels
were not used on Mark IV - they had been dropped in Marks II-III and were also
removed eventually from Mark Is.
~ 806 ~
The 105 bhp Daimler engine was kept in use for the Mark IV to simplify production,
although it was realized that the tank was under-powered. An uprated version, speeded
up from 1000 rpm to 1250 rpm and giving 125 bhp was introduced and was used for the
later Mark IVs. It was found unreliable in the hands of the troops, however, and for this
reason the tanks fitted with this type of engine were among those selected for
conversion to tank tenders; supply-carrying tanks. To overcome the problem of the tank
ditching, "torpedo spuds" were devised - a cylindrical beam attached to each track,
which gave the track a better purchase on the ground and helped it to pull the tank out of
the hole. This was only partly successful and was replaced by a single wide beam
attached to both tracks by chains. Twin rails over the top of the hull carried the beam
clear of the drivers cab. This device worked well and was continued in subsequent
patterns of wartime heavy tanks.
1220 Mark IV tanks were built: 420 Male, 595 Female, and 205 Tenders. Roughly two
thirds (820) of all Mark IV tanks were built by the Metropolitan Carriage Wagon &
Finance Co. The rest were split between William Foster & Co. (100), Sir W G
Armstrong Whitworth Co. Ltd. (100), The Coventry Ordnance Works Ltd. (100),
Mirlees Watson Co. (50, all female) and William Beardmore Co. (50).
~ 807 ~
Mark IVs were first used in action in June 1917 and by November formed the greater
part of the strength of the Tank Corps at the battle of Cambrai - commemorated as the
~ 808 ~
first really successful battle for the tanks. Some continued in use until the end of the
war, although by then later models with better mechanical performance and trench-
crossing ability had been produced. As an experiment in trench crossing, however, a
Mark IV was fitted with a "Tadpole Tail" - a mild steel extension of the rear horns
which increased the span which could be traversed from 10 ft to about 14 ft. This device
lacked rigidity, however, and was dropped in favour of extending the main hull of the
tank, as was done in the Mark V*. A "Tadpole Tail" Mark IV was later fitted with a 6-
in. trench mortar between the rear horns to experiment with close support for tanks in
the attack.
~ 809 ~
Official designation: Heavy Tank Mk.VI
Start design: 1916
Stage of completion: 1220 built tanks used in 1917-1920.
There is no doubt that the appearance of a heavy tank Mk.I was a real event, and turned
not only the tactics and strategy of the Army. However, like many other "pioneers", this
tank had a weight of structural defects and shortcomings that had hampered him more
fully unfold on the battlefield. The idea to modernize the Mk.I, as they say, has long
been in the air. Especially big problem was the transmission and control system - the
proposal of Lieutenant Walter Wilson, first of all, comes down to this step, but the
superior of him, Major Albert Stern (Head of Mechanical Warfare Department) proved
too much caution, delaying the appearance of a modified heavy tank almost 18 months.
Unfortunately, completely solve the problem of control of "Lozenge" tanks did not
succeed, but reservations have increased markedly. Now forehead body had a thickness
of 16 mm, the bead - 12 mm, the roof - 8 mm. This allowed us to fully protect the crew
and vital units against armor piercing bullets and small fragments, however, for the
artillery shells and anti-tank guns, it did not save bullets. Among other improvements
should be noted beveled bottom sponsons that can get out on the sled into the housing,
and increased to 900h500 mm size doors in them. However, modernization of sponsons
~ 810 ~
also had a negative effect - on the battlefield or at the big bank sponsons frustrated with
clamps and they mutilated crew.
Modernization has undergone and powerplant. Due to the use of aluminum pistons and
dual carburetors engine power could be increased to 125 hp In addition, a set low speed
regulator, muffler and Vacuum supply type fuel system. The problem of insufficient
power reserve partially solved by more capacious fuel tanks.
The chassis radical change was not, however, track rollers, idlers and drive began to be
made of cast steel alloyed with nickel. On every third or sixth ninth track began to put
the "Spurs". There gryazeochistiteli and protection of the chain of transmission from
clogging.
The composition of the weapons remained virtually unchanged, but the trunks of 57-
mm guns was shortened from 40 to 23 gauge, so they do not rest against the ground in
overcoming obstacles (guns pointing angle is 100-110 ). On the "male" further
establishes four Lewis machine gun caliber 7.71 mm, including two spares carried in the
installation. On the "female" had six guns, too, including two spares. Subsequently, in
May 1917, a special commission recommended to install tanks tank guns Hotchkiss
Mk.I.
The first prototype of the tank, the designation Mark IV (Mk.IV) went to landfill in
Oldbury in March 1917. The tests were quite successful and as soon became apparent
the prospect of improved design, General Haig decided to cancel the order for tanks
Mk.II and Mk.III, and instead begin to build better Mk.IV. For mass production has
been launched in April, shortly brought to 20 cars per week with the hope to increase
this number by half. However, the next contract Mk.IV 1000 was not confirmed until
the Prime Minister's direct intervention, and the total number of ordered tanks was
1,400.
Fulfills the contract were ready to tank prototypes Mk.V, which again has made
adjustments in the mass production process. Prior to 1918 were collected in 1220 tanks,
~ 811 ~
of which 950 were military, 205 turned into a support tanks, 11 were used for various
tests and experiments, and the remaining 54 were in reserve. According to other sources
RTC fighting units received 1015 cars (420 "male" and 595 "females").
In relation to Mk.IV could easily apply the definition of Main Battle Tank (main battle
tank), because these machines have made the bulk of the RTC in 1917-1918. In general,
the combat effectiveness of this machine was significantly higher than that of the first
models of tanks, but the operational reliability still left much to be desired - to overhaul
Mk.IV required after 100-112 km run. To improve throughput and at the same time to
strengthen the offensive potential Mk.IV, elongated aft caterpillar bypass was developed
for this tank. For the characteristic shape it was called Tadpole (tadpole), and pop the
back seat of the housing mounted platform with mortar Stokes. Refinement was carried
Headquarters RTC workshops forces. Prototype quite successfully running tests in mid-
1917 and even decided to start remaking series of tanks already arrived at the front, but
almost at the last moment this idea was abandoned in favor of mass production Mk.V.
June 7, 1917 For the first time in combat Mk.IV were applied, when the British army
launched a major offensive in Flanders in Messina and to the west of Courtrai and
Roulet. Been transferred to the front section of the tanks in the amount of 76 units broke
through the German defenses, although this success was more due to the excellent work
of sappers and artillery. In August Mk.IV in large quantities used at Ypres, but even that
failed to reach after a 16-day training success. The attack was carried out on marshland,
where the tanks were buried on the sponsons. Next, in the period from August 20 th to 9
th October, 1st Tank Brigade held 11 fights.
To apply smashing blow to the rear of the German defense Allied command had
planned amphibious operation in Middelkerke. According to the plan, Tacna Mk.IV
were delivered to the 200-meter pontoons under the cover of a smokescreen and naval
artillery. However, carefully weighing all the "pros-cons", the Allies decided to abandon
it.
~ 812 ~
Particularly successful were applied during Mk.IV famous breakthrough at Cambrai,
where the command of the RTC was able to collect a total of 378 combat and auxiliary
tanks 98 and 1009 guns and 1,000 aircraft. The attack began in the early morning of
November 20, 1917, and in the evening the British troops succeeded in advancing on a
narrow section of the front width of only 12-13 km to 10 km deep into the German
defense. Tanks have completed all the tasks, but the losses were very substantial - were
destroyed or put out of action 280 trucks, and only 60 of them were shot down in
combat. The following day, RTC managed to get into the fight just 75 tanks of
consolidated mouth, losing another 35 (10 - for technical reasons). During November
23-24, unsuccessful attempts were made to take Burlon, and on November 27 of the 32
tanks were able to return back only 13. When November 30 the Germans launched a
counter-attack armored units withdrawn to the rear to re-form, but in the fight still
managed to introduce 73 cars.
In January 1918, the RTC connection is located on the Peron-Bethune line in

anticipation of the new German counterattack. By this time there were 320 heavy and
50 medium Mk.IV Mk.A, and another 200 tanks were being repaired. However, by
March, the total number was reduced to 216, and in the March battles attended only
180. Tankers as they could, the Germans down, and in the counter especially
distinguished more maneuverable Mk.A. However, some success has fallen and the
share Mk.IV, since it took three such machines in the history of the first tank battle with
the German A7V and proved to be quite worthy.
When we started to supply Mk.V and Mk.V tanks * in May 1918, older Mk.IV in no
hurry to remove from service. On the Western Front, they were used until the end of the
war. For example, 21 August two Mk.IV battalion operated in Bapaume and helped the
newer tanks to move to the second line of defense, and on August 24 October Mk.IV
battalion from the "L" in conjunction with the 3rd Armored Division captured the
village Gominkur. The next day, when the second battle of Arras, the battle went Mk.V
two battalions, one battalion and a battalion Mk.IV Mk.A.
~ 813 ~
In early October, when Germany was agonizing, the Allies conducted a repeated
offensive at Cambrai. During one of the attacks on October 8, near Nirni place in the
history of tank battle tank Four Mk.IV from the company "A" battalion "L" were faced
with the same number of captured tanks from the German assault units (one "male" and
three " female "). During the battle the Germans brought down three British tanks, and
lost themselves only "male", which by coincidence was hit from the 77th trophy guns.
It was possible that the tanks to war and overseas terrioriyah. In 1917, Egypt came three
Mk.IV, which are used during the Third Battle of Gaza. Together with tanks Mk.II these
machines, on the night of 1 to 2 November, went on the attack on the Turkish positions,
moving in a dusty curtain behind the barrage. Some of the crew got lost and came back,
and 4 more have failed for various reasons. However, some tasks performed tanks. Later
Mk.IV used sporadically, and in early 1918, the crews went to the Western Front.
After the war, the remaining tanks Mk.IV quickly replaced by the more numerous Mk.V
*, but the old machines have been used. During the 1919-1920 biennium. Mk.IV used to
train personnel and part of the tanks used for civilian purposes. For example, one of the
tanks equipped with special equipment to tow the airship , and several other
"demobilized" Mk.IV used for "walking uvesilitelnyh" setting on their roof platform
~ 814 ~
with sides for transporting the public. Subsequently, almost all the tanks of this type
went for scrapping, but survived to our days, seven Mk.IV.
With export sales Mk.IV situation, to put it mildly, did not work. In the civil war in
Russia, these tanks were not included, as the production is already Mk.V. But some cars
managed to sell the Union at the time of Japan, which is closely interested in the army
of the British technology. The exact number of tanks produced by the Japanese, is not
specified. Mainly Japanese Mk.IV used to test and become familiar with the new
technology, but there is a photo in which the captured tank, allegedly sent to China.

CREW, pers. 8
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 6050
Width 4120
Height mm 2700
Clearance, mm ?
Female: two 57-mm guns in the sponsons and four 7.71-mm
WEAPONS machine gun Hotchkiss Mk.I
Male: five to six 7.71-mm machine gun Hotchkiss Mk.I
allowance of
And 332 shots? rounds
ammunition
aiming DEVICES
roof - 8 mm
the bottom - 6.1 mm
Daimler-Foster, carburetor, 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 125 hp,
ENGINE
fuel capacity of 70 gallons
TRANSMISSION mechanical type: 4-speed gearbox
CHASSIS steering wheel, rear wheel drive, the top been supporting rail;
krupnozvenchataya caterpillar truck with a width of 750 mm
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m 1.20
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
~ 815 ~
Tank Mark V
Type Tank
In service 1918 (last known)1945[1][2]
First World War

Russian Civil War
Wars
Second World War
(minimal)
Designer Major Walter Gordon Wilson
Designed 1917
Metropolitan Amalgamated
Railway Carriage and Wagon
Manufacturer
Company Ltd., Birmingham,
UK.
Produced 1917 June 1918
Number built 400
Male: 29 tons "battle weight"

Weight
Female: 28 tons[3]
Length 26 ft 5 in (8.5 m)[3]
Male: 12 ft 10 inch[3]
Width
Female: 10 ft 6 in
Height 2.64 m (8 ft 8 in)[4]
~ 816 ~
8 (commander, driver, and
Crew
six gunners)
16 mm (0.63 in) maximum

front
Armour
12 mm sides
8 mm roof and "belly"[3]
Male:
Two 6-pounder (57-mm) 6
cwt QF guns with 207
rounds;
four .303 in (7.7-mm)
Main Hotchkiss Mk 1 Machine
armament Gun
Female:
Six .303 in Hotchkiss Mk 1

Machine Gun
19 litre six cylinder in-line

Engine Ricardo petrol engine
150 hp (110 kW) at 1200 rpm
Power/weight Male: 5.2 hp/ton[3]
4 forward 1 reverse, Wilson

Transmission
epicyclic in final drive
Fuel capacity 93 imperial gallons (420 l)[3]
45 mi (72 km) radius of

Operational action[3] about 10 hours
range
endurance
Speed 5 mph (8.0 km/h) maximum
Steering Wilson epicyclic steering

system
The British Mark V tank[note 1] was an upgraded version of the Mark IV tank, deployed
in 1918 and used in action in the closing months of World War I, in the Allied
intervention in the Russian Civil War on the White Russian side, and by the Red Army.
Thanks to Walter Wilson's epicyclic gear steering system, it was the first British heavy
tank that required only one man to steer it; the gearsmen needed in earlier Marks were
thus released to man the armament.
~ 817 ~
History
The Mark V was, at first, intended to be a completely new design of tank, of which a
wooden mock-up had been completed; however, when the new engine and transmission
originally planned for the Mark IV became available in December 1917, the first, more
advanced Mark V design was abandoned to avoid disrupting production. The
designation "Mark V" was switched to an improved version of the Mark IV, equipped
with the new systems. The original design of the Mark IV was to have been a large
improvement on the Mark III, but had been scaled back due to technical delays. The
Mark V thus turned out very similar to the original design of the Mark IV i.e. a greatly
modified Mark III.
In early 1917, some British tanks were tested with experimental powerplant and
transmissions ordered by Albert Stern. These included petrol-electric schemes,
hydraulic systems, a multiple clutch system, and an epicyclic gearbox from Major W.G.
Wilson. Though the petrol-electrics had advantages, Wilson's design was capable of
production and was selected for use in future tanks. Wilson then worked on the design
of the tank that would use his gearbox.
The Mark V had more power (150 bhp) from a new Ricardo engine (also ordered by
Stern). Use of Wilson's epicyclic steering gear meant that only a single driver was
needed. On the roof towards the rear of the tank, behind the engine, was a second raised
cabin, with hinged sides that allowed the crew to attach the unditching beam without
exiting the vehicle. An additional machine-gun mount was fitted at the rear of the hull.
Production of the Mark V started at Metropolitan Carriage and Wagon at the end of
1917; the first tanks arrived in France in May 1918. Four hundred were built, 200 each
of Males and Females; the "Males" armed with 6-pounder (57 mm) guns and machine
guns, the "Females" with machine guns only. Several were converted to
Hermaphrodites (sometimes known as "Mark V Composite") by fitting one male and
one female sponson. This measure was intended to ensure that female tanks would not
be outgunned when faced with captured British male tanks in German use or the
Germans' own A7V.
The Mark V was first used in the Battle of Hamel on 4 July 1918, when 60 tanks
contributed to a successful assault by Australian units on the German lines. It went on to
take part in eight major offensives before the end of the War. Canadian and American
troops trained on Mk Vs in England in 1918, and the American Heavy Tank Battalion
(the 301st) took part in three actions on the British Sector of the Western Front in late
1918. The Canadian Tank Corps, however, did not see action and was disbanded after
the war's end. Approximately 70 were sent to support the White Russian forces in the
Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and in the British North Russia Campaign.
Most were subsequently captured by the Red Army. Four were retained by Estonian
forces, and two by Latvia.
The Mark V was to be followed by the more advanced Tank Mark VI, but this was
abandoned in December, 1917, to ensure sufficient production by British, American and
French factories of the Tank Mark VIII for a planned 1919 offensive. The war ended in
November, 1918, and few Mark VIIIs would be built (most of those completed in
Britain were immediately scrapped). The Mark V was also the basis of the Mk IX Troop
~ 818 ~
Carrier, a dedicated Armoured Personnel Carrier, but only 34 were completed by the
end of the war. After the war most of the British Army's tank units were disbanded,
leaving five tank battalions equipped with either the Mark V or the Medium Mark C.
The British Army's interest focused more on lighter tanks, and the Mark V was partially
replaced by the Vickers Medium Mark I during the mid-1920s. Although the heavier
Vickers A1E1 Independent reached prototype stage in 1926, it was abandoned for lack
of funds. The remaining Mark Vs appear to have been replaced by medium tanks by the
end of the decade. [5]
Variants
Mark V*
In an attempt to stop the tanks, the Germans began making their trenches too wide to be
crossed. For example, trenches in the Hindenburg Line were widened to 11 or 12 feet,
more than the British tanks' 10 feet trench-crossing ability. To counter this, Sir William
Tritton developed the Tadpole Tail, an extension of the tracks to be fitted to the back of
a tank and lengthen it by about 9 feet. However, it proved to be insufficiently rigid, and
although several hundred were manufactured, the idea was abandoned. Then a Major
Philip Johnson of the Central Tank Corps Workshops heard of this project and devised a
plan of his own. He cut a Mark IV in half and inserted three extra panels, lengthening
the hull by six feet. (It was believed for a long time that most Mark V* had been field
conversions made by Johnson. It is now known that they were all new, factory-built to a
new design). The V* had a reshaped rear cupola, incorporating 2 extra machine-gun
mounts, and a door in each side of the hull, also with an extra machine-gun mount. The
weight was 33 tons. Of orders for 500 Males and 200 Females, 579 had been built by
the Armistice the order was completed by Metropolitan Carriage in March 1919.[6]
A British Mark V* tankon the roof the tank carries an unditching beam on rails, that
could be attached to the tracks and used to extricate the vehicle from difficult muddy
trenches and shell craters
~ 819 ~
It was also hoped that this longer tank might carry a squad of infantry with Vickers or
Lewis machine guns, but the conditions inside were so extreme that the men became ill,
and after some early experiments, the idea was abandoned.
Shortly before the end of the War, Britain supplied France with 90 Mk V*. They were
not used in action, but remained in French service throughout the 1920s and 30s.
Note: the asterisk (*) in early British tank designations was usually pronounced as
"star" when spoken, e.g., Mark Five-star, or Mark Five-star-star, etc.
Mark V**
A British Mark V** tank
Because the Mark V* had been lengthened, its original length-width ratio had been
spoiled. Lateral forces in a turn now became unacceptably high causing thrown tracks
and an enormous turn circle. Therefore, Major Wilson redesigned the track in May
1918, with a stronger curve to the lower run reducing ground contact (but increasing
ground pressure as a trade-off) and the tracks widened to 26.5 inches. The Mark V
engine was bored out to give 225 hp and sited further back in the hull. The cabin for the
driver was combined with the commander's cabin; there now was a separate machine
gun position in the back. Of a revised order for 700 tanks (150 Females and 550 Males)
only 25 were built and only one of those by the end of 1918.[6]
Mark V***
See: Mark X.
Combat history
The Mk V made its combat debut at the Battle of Hamel on 4 July 1918, successfully
supporting Australian troops in an action that repaired the Australians' confidence in
tanks, which had been badly damaged at Bullecourt.[7] Thereafter Mk Vs were used in
eight major actions before the end of the war.
During the Battle of Amiens in August 1918, 288 Mark V tanks, along with the new
Whippet and Mk V*, penetrated the German lines in a foretaste of modern armoured
warfare. This battle was also the Mk V*'s combat debut.
~ 820 ~
The American 301st Heavy Tank Battalion was equipped with 19 Mark V and 21 Mark
V* tanks in their first heavy tank action against the Hindenburg Line on 27 September
1918. Of the 21 Mark V* tanks, 9 were hit by artillery rounds (one totally destroyed), 2
hit British mines, 5 had mechanical problems, and 2 ditched in trenches. The battalion,
however, did reach its objective.
Mark V tanks supplied by Great Britain to the White Russian Army and subsequently
captured by the Red Army in the course of the Russian Civil War were used in 1921
during the Red Army invasion of Georgia and contributed to the Soviet victory in the
battle for Tbilisi.[8]
The last known use of the Mk V in battle was by units of the Red Army during the
defence of Tallinn against German forces in August 1941. The four Mk Vs previously
operated by Estonia were used as dug-in fortifications. It is believed that they were
subsequently scrapped.[9]
In 1945, Allied troops came across two badly damaged Mk V tanks in Berlin.
Photographic evidence indicates that these were survivors of the Russian Civil War and
had previously been displayed as a monument in Smolensk, Russia, before being
brought to Berlin after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.[1] Accounts of
their active involvement in the Battle of Berlin have not been verified.[2]
United Kingdom (1917-18) Heavy tank Built Mk V 400, Mk V* 645, Mk

V** 25
The Tank Mark V was the last and largest British tank produced during the war. Born as
a very advanced project, it ended up as an enhanced Mark IV. Together with its
derivatives, the Mark V* and V**, around 1,070 were completed by March 1919.
~ 821 ~
A brand new design
The Mark IV was an efficient model, but many issues shown by war experience had still
to be solved by mid-1917. A new design, studied by William Tritton, was ready within
days, incorporating a set of brand new features, including a new hull, improved
transmission, engine and steering system. But while a wooden mock-up was built,
industrial priorities dictated a radical turn.
When it appeared that the new transmission and steering system originally planned for
the Mark IV were ready for production, the War Cabinet decided to urgently built this
improvement of the Mark IV, renamed Mark V. Some features of the original new
design will be implemented in the post-war variants of the Mark V.
Design of the Mark V
The Mark V kept all the external features of the Mark IV including the hull, rollers and
tracks in order not to disrupt production. However a new, more powerful drive-train and
transmission were ready at the beginning of 1917 and tests ordered by William Stern
were conducted on modified Mark IVs.
These systems included petrol-electric schemes, hydraulic systems, a multiple clutch

system (a single driver was needed), and Wilsons own epicylcic gearbox design (4
forward gears, one reverse). A new, more powerful 19 liter six cylinder in-line Ricardo
engine (150 bhp) was chosen (giving a power/weight ratio of 5.2 bhp/ton). Autonomy
was 70 km (45 mi) with 450 liters fuel capacity (93 gallons), or enough for
approximately 10 hours on a rugged terrain.
The hull was fitted with a second rear cabin with observation slits and hinged sides
allowing the fitting of an unditching wooden beam. The rear part of the hull also
received an additional machine-gun mount.
Production of the Mark V started at the Metropolitan Carriage and Wagon factory in the
fall of 1917. The first batch arrived in France in May 1918, and total production was
400, of which 200 were male and 200 were female. The last were delivered by mid-
1919.
The Mark V in Action
Only available in small quantities by mid-1918, the impact of the Mark V was not
significant, but three months later, they were numerous enough to make a difference.
The first major engagement was the battle of Hamel, on 7 July 1918, when 60 tanks led
the victorious offensive of the Australian troops against the German lines.
Later, in August, 288 Mark V and V*s were involved, together with numerous Mark A
Whippet, in the battle of Amiens, a complete success. The Mark V took part in eight
major offensives until the armistice. At the same time, Canadian and US Army troops
trained on Mark Vs. The 301st American Heavy Tank Battalion was entirely equipped
with these, and were thrown in action from September to November 1918 against the
Hindenburg line with heavy losses (18 of 21 were lost or disabled).
~ 822 ~
After the armistice, 70 Mark Vs were given by the British government to the White
Russian faction fighting against the Bolsheviks. But as the situation worsened, a
growing number of captured Mark Vs took action under the red flag. There is no record
of duels between red and white Mark Vs, but they ended as a substantial part of the
Red Army and were thoroughly studied. They took part in several actions in 1921,
including the battle of Tbilissi. Lithuanian and Latvian Mark Vs were still active in
1939.
Mk.V variants
Four variants were built during and after the war. The first was the famous
hermaphrodite, a bunch of modified females to include a male artillery sponson.
Apparently, some of the soldiers also called these bastards.
These mix type tanks were conceived in response to the growing number of captured
German Mark I and IV tanks. The giant A7V was very rare at that time. The Mark V*
or star was a lengthened (by six feet) version designed by Tritton during the fall of
1917, to deal with the Hindenburg line, and its very wide trenches (3.47 m/11.39 ft).
Major Philip Johnson of the Central Tank Corps Workshops took leadership of this
project. The pre-serie tanks were conversions of regular, stretched Mark Vs with
reinforced heavy girders. 400 male and 200 female were ordered, of which 579 were
built by March 1919. Some arrived in time for the last offensives of November 1918.
They were fitted with guidance rails for the unditching beam, two extra machine-guns in
their rear cupola, two side doors with extra machine-gun mounts and a total weight of
33 tons. The extra space was thought to be best used for troop transport, but the internal
conditions were still unbearable.
The Mark V** was proposed by Major Wilson to cope with the main limitation of the
Mark V*, a cruel lack of agility. Turning circle was enormous and the added weight and
length caused enormous tensions on the steering system.
It included new widened tracks (67.3 cm/26.5 in) with a stronger curve on the lower run
reducing contact (but increase ground pressure), a bored out engine, pushed to 225 bhp,
relocated further back in a lower position, and better compartmentalization. Out of an
initial order of 700, only 25 were delivered by January 1919.
The Mark V*** was a paper project, a largely improved version, part of a contingency
plan in case the Liberty (Mark VIII) would fail. Improved protection, speed and crew
comfort, while using as many parts as possible from the Mark V were the main
objective. Prospective production for 1919 was 2000 units.
~ 823 ~
Mark V tank wooden mock-up ready for inspection 23rd June 1917 at the factory (IWM
Q14522)
The easy way to identify a Mark V tank from a MkIV tank is that it has a rear
commanders cab. This is missing from the wooden Mk V tank mock-up but a machine
gun has been mounted in a smaller cab at the rear. (IWM Q14565)
~ 824 ~
Mark V on the Western Front (Imperial War Museum). Many Mark Vs were also seen
in action in the sands of Palestine and the Middle East and in the snow of Russia, in
1921.
A Mark V*, the main, lengthened variant of the Mark V, stretched by 1.82 m (6 feet) to
cope with the large antitank trenches of the Hindenburg Line. Its lack of agility was a
big issue.
A Mark V**, featuring improved tracks, engine and other minor improvements. Only
25 were completed after the war.
Mark V specifications
Length 26ft 5in (8.05m).
Width 8ft 4in (2.53m).
Dimensions
Height 8ft 8in (2.64m)
Total weight 27.5 (female) 29 (male) tons
Crew 8
~ 825 ~
Propulsion Ricardo crosshead valve, water-cooled straight six
petrol engine 150hp @ 1250rpm
Range 45 miles (72.42 km)
Trench Crossing ability 10ft (3.04m)
Armament Male Tank 2x Hotchkiss QF 6 pdr (57 mm) gun (64.7cm short
barrel)
machine guns
Armament Female Tank 6x 0.303 inch (7.62mm) Hotchkiss air-cooled

machine gun
Armor From 8 to 16 mm

Track links
Length 3ft 1in (94.9cm)

Sponson Hatch
Mark V = 400
Total production Mark V* = 645
Mark V** = 25
The Mark V was the last evolution of the Mark I lineage, the brainchild of William
Tritton and Major Wilson. Here is a standard Mark V male, early production, May
1917. Notice the factory standard dark olive livery and the eye painted on the front, a
reference to the eyes of ancient ships .
~ 826 ~
A camouflaged late Mark V hermaphrodite. On the other side, a machine-gun sponson
was fitted. Multi-pattern liveries were applied on site, with provisional, regulated colors.
White, pale blue, brown, dark grey, black, were commonly used in spotted patterns,
with or without black borders (French 1918 standard livery). The last Mark Vs were
delivered well after the armistice.
A Mark V*. The star, or Mk.V*, and double star, or Mk.V**, were lengthened versions
designed to assault the Hindendurg line, presenting very large antitank trenches.
Attempts to use the larger hull to transport some infantry were doomed to fail due to the
extreme conditions inside. It was hot, extremely noisy and filled with poisonous gases,
not counting the shrapnel produced at every impact. The soldiers started feeling ill long
before the tanks reached their destination. The Mark V** was equipped with a new
engine and new tracks, but none were completed before the war ended.
Mark V
~ 827 ~
The worst fault in the early Tanks, Marks I-IV, lay in the clumsy and inefficient driving
system, which required the services of no less than four men - the driver, the tank
commander (who acted as brakesman) and two other men, one on each side, who
engaged the secondary gears for steering, on the instructions of the driver. Steering for
turns of around 50 meters radius in good conditions could be managed by use of the tail
wheels alone, but these were omitted after the Mark I because of failures in the mud of
France. Otherwise, turns were made by the use of the brakes on one or the other side or
the use of high or low gear on either side or by a combination of brakes and gears.
Even before the Mark IV was built, it was realized that a better form of transmission
was necessary and experiments were put in hand to determine the best of alternative
systems. The most likely of these were demonstrated at Oldbury on 3 March 1917 -
when the Mark IV was already in production - before a large audience of interested
parties. The competing transmission systems for the heavy tank shown were the
Williams-Janney Hydraulic, Wilson Epicyclic, Daimler Petrol-Electric, Westinghouse
Petrol-Electric and Wilkins Multiple Clutch. All were linked with the Daimler six-
cylinder engine; although in the case of the Daimler Petrol-Electric it had aluminium
pistons, a lighter flywheel and ran at 1400 r.p.m. instead of 1000 r.p.m. The engine with
the Westinghouse transmission ran at 1200 r.p.m.
~ 828 ~
All the systems could be operated by one man but Major Wilsons epicyclic was the
most successful and it was adopted for Mark V, the heavy tank to follow Mark IV. The
Mark V was little changed in external aspect, but internally in addition to the new
transmission it had a new engine specially designed for tank use by Mr H. Ricardo. This
was a six-cylinder unit, developing 150 b.h.p. at 1250 r.p.m. It proved very reliable in
service and was used for most of the other British tanks built during the war.
The increased power gave the Mark V a higher speed of 4.6 m.p.h. The average speed
of the Mark V was, however, even greater than the average of the Marks I-IV because
the difficulty of changing gear in the earlier tanks meant that often this was neglected
and an inferior performance resulted. Although performance was better and driving
easier and the armour thickness increased to 14 mm not all progress is upwards and the
Mark V was less well ventilated than earlier tanks. The louvres on the hull sides near
the rear are a feature which, together with the addition of a fixed conning tower in the
centre of the hull, most readily distinguishes the Mark V from the Mark IV. All Mark
Vs used Hotchkiss machine-guns, but, otherwise the armament corresponded with that
of Mark IV Male and Female respectively.
Four hundred Mark Vs equally divided between Male and Female were built during
1918 and the first time they were in action was in July of that year. To help Mark Vs
tackle the wide trenches of the Hindenburg Line in the attack at the end of September
1918, "cribs" were carried. This was a braced cylindrical framework which, dropped in
the trench from the nose of the tank as a form of stepping stone, helped the machine to
cross it. Cribs served the same purpose as the fascines (large bundles of chestnut
palings) which had been used in the same fashion at Cambrai in 1917. However,
whereas the fascine weighed 30 cwt. the crib weighed only 12 cwt.
~ 829 ~
During the war, the Mk V was used by the British, and, in small numbers, by the
Americans. After the war, some Mk V tanks were used in the British sector, in the
vicinity of Cologne, as part of the Allies occupying forces in Germany. Mk Vs were
also employed in the Russian Civil War, where they were first given to the "Whites" as
military aid. Many of these were captured by the Soviets, and used well into the 20s by
them.
~ 830 ~
Six Mk V Composite heavy tanks were sent to Estonia in 1919 from the UK. They were
named "Brown Bear", "Brown Bear II", "Captain Cromie", "Deliverance", "First Aid"
and "White Soldier". Estonians transferred and renamed 5 of them; Plik, Rae, Uku,
Wahtula, Waldaja. (The Estonian names do not relate to the British ones.) Estonia kept
4 tanks ("Uku", "Vahtula", "Valdaja" and "Plik"), while the 2 remaining vehicles
were handed over to Latvia. Latvia gained one more Mk V tank, so that in late 1919
they had 3, all of them composites; #9116, "Minstr. Pres. Ulmanis", #9369 "Generalis
Balodis" and #9147 "Generalis Burts". Some of these tanks were obviously still
running at the outset of WW2 and were taken over by the Soviets when they occupied
the Baltic States in 1939, and at least one of these were put to the road when the
Germans attacked in 1941 - to what use is doubtful.
~ 831 ~
There are some recurring rumours of the Germans in their desperation using Mk Vs
during the final battle in Berlin, but the true story seems to have been, that there were
one or two museum tanks in Berlin at this time (actually taken from from the Soviet
Union) and these static objects were shot up by suspicious Soviet Tankers.
~ 832 ~
~ 833 ~
British Tank Mark V*
Tanks were made to overcome the German trenches. Once the Germans got over the
shock of the new tanks they started to devise ways of defending against tank attacks.
One method of countering tank attacks was to increase the width of trenches. To meet
this contingency, the British at first used fascines, and then cribs. These were effective
but were labour intensive to make and could only be used once. The "Tadpole Tail"
tried on Tanks Mark IV and Mark V was not really successful (it flexed too much) and a
much better way of modifying standard tanks was worked out in February 1918 by the
Central Workshops of the Tank Corps in France. A Tank Mark IV was cut in two, just
behind the sponsons, and extra panels inserted, lengthening the tank by some six feet.
The transmission was similarly extended. This stretched Mark IV was the inspiration for
the Mark V* (spoken as, 'Mark five star'). The Mark V* tanks were built by the
Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon & Finance Company in Birmingham, England, the same
company that built the Mark V tank. Six hundred and thirty-two were built, although by
the Armistice only 579 had been completed.
~ 834 ~
The Mark V* was mechanically the same as the Mark V, apart from the extended
transmission. It used Ricardo's petrol engine, delivering 150 bhp at 1250 rpm. The
engines were built by various different companies, many of whom were located in and
around Manchester, England. Because the modifications were not accompanied by any
upgrades to the motor and drive train, the increased weight (4 tons heavier) made for a
more sluggish performance, and the lengthened hull (32 ft 5in) reduced
manoeuverability considerably. The protection and armament were the same as that of
the standard Mark V. Maximum thickness of armour was 12mm, minimum 6mm. Male
tanks had 2 6-pounder 23 calibre cannons and 4 Hotchkiss machine guns, females had 6
Hotchkiss machine guns (but many vehicles were made into composites, or
'hermaphrodites'). The new side panels had doors in them, with a machine gun ball-
mounting above. The commander's cabin (the rearward of the two) was a different
shape to that on the Mark V, being bevelled or sloped. This may have been designed
this way to give the tank some way of combating enemy soldiers using the upper floors
of houses. Most of these new tanks used the 26.5in wide tracks instead of the 20.5in
ones. The standard Mark V could cross a trench about 10 ft wide, but the Mark V*
could deal with a 14 ft trench.
~ 835 ~
"The extra space, created in these longer machines, proved adequate to carry either two
Vickers guns with ammunition, one officer and fourteen other ranks, or three Lewis
guns with ammunition plus the same number of personnel. Further supplies of small
arms ammunition were carried on a rack at the rear of each tank." (D Fletcher, The
British Tanks 1915-19, 2001). The idea was that these machine gun teams, carried into
the attack by the tanks, could be set down in forward positions to hold captured ground
and support the advance. At the Battle of Amiens the extra machine-gunners were taken
up in the way proposed. Unfortunately, the Mark V* had the same poor ventilation as
that of the ordinary Mark V. The passengers were unaccustomed to conditions inside
tanks and were overcome by fumes and heat and the lurching motion. They were not fit
to be of much immediate use when disembarked, and the tactic was not used again. One
eye-witness describes other problems of the new tank, "The heavy machines showed a
tendency to slip their tracks and also to slide backwards if resting on a slight incline,
and owing to this slipping about, their great length and weight, and their quickness in
turning, they wrought much havoc, knocking down and crushing many a slender tree,
until it looked as if a herd of clumsy elephants had stampeded through the wood" (F
Mitchell, Tank Warfare, 1933).
Mark V*s spearheaded the decisive Allied offensive around Amiens on August 8th,
1918 - "The Black Day of the German army". They took part in most tank actions from
then until the war's end.
One hundred Mark V* tanks were provided to the French army in late 1918. The French
army did not have time to train the crews and bring the tanks into action before the
Armistice. These tanks soldiered on after the war in a training role, but were all retired
by July, 1931.
~ 836 ~
French camouflage painted Tank Mark V*, captured by German forces in WW2
The American 301st Tank Battalion was equipped with some 46 tanks, a mix of Mark V
and Mark V*. The tanks carried no markings that would identify them as being
American rather than British.
The tank in the pictures below is the sole surviving Tank Mark V*. The pictures were
generously provided by the curator of the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor in Fort
Knox, Kentucky, USA. He also kindly provided the following commentary:
"Our surviving Mk V* has its correct registration number on it and was issued to
Company A, 301st Heavy Tank Battalion. It saw its only American combat action
~ 837 ~
against the Hindenburg Line, 26 Sept 1918, where it was knocked out with a single
artillery round that pierced the frontal armor of the right sponson. The resulting
shattering of the round threw large pieces of shrapnel into the engine and effectively
"killed" the vehicle. It was repaired, but apparently too late for further action."
~ 838 ~
"(There is) one shot in this series (that) shows the plugged hole where the (round from
a) 57mm gun penetrated the hull armor. The cracks were welded shut after the war
when the vehicle became a monument. The plug, however, is the original repair to the
armor. The surface-hardened armor could not be welded for fear of losing its
hardening."
"It became a monument vehicle around 1920 and has been one ever since. It was
rescued from outside monument duty in the 1970s - but there has been severe structural
damage to the lower support braces and beams due to corrosion. We had to install a
sheet metal floor to keep the vehicle sound. The main guns have been gone since 1920 -
but some nice dummy tubes make it look pretty complete."
A battlegraph, dated (in the American format) 29 September 1918, shows that 9591 was
commanded by Lieutenant Hobbs and suffered a 'direct hit' that put it out of action
between the 'British Front Line' and the 'Starting Point'.
~ 839 ~
Official designation: Heavy Tank Mk.V
Alternative notation: Mark V
Stage of completion: built Mk.V 400, 632 and 25 * Mk.V Mk.V ** tanks used in the
1918-1931 biennium.
The most significant event in the early days of the British tank development, not
including the emergence of heavy tanks Mk.I, was to demonstrate new models of
tracked vehicles produced before senior military commanders and representatives of the
British government of the 3rd March 1917. On this day at the site in Birmingham, it has
been shown just 8 cars, of which 7 were fighting. Time to show it was not chosen by
chance - tanks Mk.I and Mk.II had a huge number of structural shortcomings, the main
ones are the power plant and transmission. Both problems were solved in parallel, but
the second one was most acute.
~ 840 ~
More autumn of 1916 the Chairman of the mechanical arms supplies Department
Colonel Stern became closely study the various options for solutions, also visit France,
where he had to learn from the experience of foreign colleagues. It should be noted, the
French had a lot to learn, even though they themselves are developing tanks Saint-
Chamond and Schneider CA-1, made a lot of mistakes and miscalculations. British
developers, in turn, offered 5 powertrain options. Thus, thorough background have been
created for a radical modernization of heavy tanks.
For the experiments it has been allocated 6 Mk.II series of tanks that are installed
prototypes transmission. These machines were, as well as two prototypes of other
machines, presented on March 3, 1917, almost all of them have their own names:
Mk.II with a manual transmission - was the prototype for the series tank Mk.IV,
launched in the spring of 1917 production
Mk.II "Wilson Epicyclic Tank" - a prototype of a manual transmission and the

planetary rotation mechanisms.
Mk.II "Wilkins Multiple Clutch Tank" - a prototype of a mechanical transmission,

without the main gearbox, with two 3-speed airborne transmissions with constant mesh
gears.
Mk.II "Foster-Daimler Petroil Electric Tank " - the prototype was built under the
influence of the French experience and was equipped with an electric powertrain. The
engine was equipped with an electric generator, which feeds two traction motors with
series excitation, which through the worm pairs connected with the final drive.
Mk.II "Westinghouse Petroil Electric" - a prototype with an electric powertrain. In

this tank, the engine has been shifted to the stern and two electric rotated successively
mounted on a single shaft. Generators rotated inboard motors and speed (range from 0
to 6.4 km \ h) was controlled by means of a rheostat. To enable reverse gear required a
special key.
Mk.II "William-Jenney Hydraulic" - a prototype of a hydraulic transmission, a

revised version of which was used on the tank Mk.VII.
Tritton Chaser Tank - prototype "tank persecution" Tritton, which went into
production under the designation Mk.A "Whippet".
Gun Carrier - a prototype guns conveyor mistakenly believe as the world's first self-
propelled guns.
According to the results of tests all the tanks with electrical transmissions were rejected,
and for a modernized tank called Mk.V, development engineer Wilson was chosen. At
that time, the appetite from the British command were very impressive and the initial
order for 1918 amounted to 4,000 vehicles. Mk.V assembly planned to establish in
August-September 1917, but after a heavy defeat in the battle of Ypres plan suffered a
serious correction. After the report of the Minister of Supply Churchill Mk.V number of
tanks was reduced to 1350. It should be noted that this order was carried out almost in
full, but not all of the tanks were able to get to the front.
~ 841 ~
Structurally heavy tank Mk.V retained many elements and units from an earlier tank
Mk.IV. The case had riveted construction and going from sheets of rolled armor steel
with a thickness of 6 to 12 mm. The front cabin has been increased and gained the upper
hatch. Also, the rear cabin was made, which greatly improved visibility. Devices were
limited to only monitoring observation slits, but instead of mesh or glass in them began
to put triplexes. Communications were limited to only a semaphore signaling. You can
still use samovytaskivaniya beams, and for towing the failed machine installed hinge
earring.
The tank was installed a specially designed engine 150 hp Ricardo at 1250 \ min, which
had the same dimensions as the Daimler. The engine had a valve distribution, and
improved lubrication system has been adapted to work with the Williams transmission
type. Two exhaust pipes to be displayed on the roof and connected to a single silencer.
Feeding tank divided into three compartments, which reduced the fire hazard. Power
transmitted from the engine to the transmission 4-speed planetary gear box via a drive
shaft, and from there, through the bevel gears on cross shafts. Rotate the tank is now
carried out by only two levers on the sides of the driver, which significantly simplify
management. Transmission speed range provided by the following:
1st - 1.37 km \ h
2nd - 2.20 km \ h
3rd - 3.96 km \ h
4th - 7.0 km \ h
Reverse - 1.37 km \ h
Chassis retained 26 twin track rollers on each side with a stiffer suspension, front and
rear leading guide wheels and the rails that support the upper branch of the caterpillars.
Caterpillar consisted of 90 Shoe width 673 mm and 197 mm increments. Onboard
~ 842 ~
sponsons with minimal modifications passed by Mk.IV, but arming "male"
strengthened: in each sponson was one 57-mm cannon QF6 pounder and one 8-mm
machine gun Hotchkiss. More one 8-mm machine gun placed in the feed and the front
body armor plates. The total ammunition amounted to 207 shells and 5,700 rounds of
ammunition. Armament "female" consisted of six 8-mm machine guns with ammunition
cartridges 14100.
Deliveries of tanks Mk.V managed to start only in May 1918, when the situation on the
Western front for the Allies was formed not the best way. There were collected 400
"female" and "male" (equal), the first tank 200 maintained broadened release tracks,
while the others received Mk.V 521 mm wide tracks.
By this time, it became clear that for the heavy tanks purely machine-gun armament is
not adequate, and after the fight on April 24 in Villers-Bretonneux with German A7V
tanks, it was decided to equip part of the "female" sponsons with 57-mm cannon. This
modification is called "Composite", although the tankers often called them
"germofroditami".
In place Mk.V come modification tanks Mk.V * which used the lengthened chassis and
body. Alteration was caused by the use of the German trenches and ditches on the
defensive line, "Siegfried", the width of which sometimes reaches 4 meters. We
intended to solve this problem using an additional section of 1.83 meters in length,
which is inserted behind sponsons. This allowed not only to add a door to the cabinet
with two more 8-mm machine guns, but also to transport 20-24 infantryman.
The total length of the tank increased from 8.06 to 9.89 meters, which made it possible
to overcome the 4-meter ditches, but also plenty of "male" has increased from 29,47 up
to 33 tons, and 28.45 to 32 tons at the "female". However, variant Mk.V * was adopted
for mass production in May 1918, and the first tanks took part in the summer battles. As
if on a conveyor belt more were earlier Mk.V carried them to completion Mk.V *
standard. Total now Metropolitan Carriage 200 "male" were collected and 432 "female"
part of which is subsequently converted into a "composite".
~ 843 ~
The last modification was the tank Mk.V **. Outwardly, he was like Mk.V *, but was
equipped with Ricardo engine uprated to 225 hp and transferred to the back of the
housing. Rear cabin was dismantled, and the front modernized, received two ball
machine gun. Tracked back of the perimeter has become more angular. Total built only
25 Mk.V **, who in the fighting did not participate. But in 1919-1920. these tanks
periodically used during the maneuvers. Two serial Mk.V ** was transferred to the
Royal sappers, where one of them is equipped with a crane-boom.
The first fight took Mk.V July 4, 1918, n \ n Hamel, supporting the counter-offensive of
the British troops, but was particularly successful attack July 23 in the area Soviller
Monzheval and villages, when British tanks backed attack 3rd, 15 th and 152 th infantry
division of the French. The German positions were taken, but it was worth the 15
destroyed tanks, 11 were killed and 45 wounded soldiers.
The largest transaction involving Mk.V became hit the 4th British Army at Amiens. In
the period from July 31 to August 5, relocated here 11 tank battalions, including 324
heavy tanks and Mk.IV Mk.V. The attack was carried out on a section of the front
length of 28 km, where the average density was 22.6 per 1 km of the tank. On the
morning of August 8, went into battle 415 tanks, being able to break through the
German defenses. The important role played Mk.V *, had delivered a machine-gun
crew a last ditch attack. During the day, it managed to move 11 km, 7000 to capture
prisoners and 400 guns. However, the losses were too big - it was put out of action more
than 100 tanks, about half of them had broken a direct hit.
The morning of August 9, went into battle 145 tanks. This time there was no element of
surprise, and the Germans were able to organize a tighter defense. As a result it was lost
39 machines, but light Mk.A and FT-17 were very helpful cavalry and infantry, and
those, in turn, released a few settlements. In total, during the period from 8 to 13 August
1918, in the fighting involved 688 tanks, of which 480 were lost Literally a week later,
on August 21, began the battle of Bapaume. Here, various types of tanks built in several
levels - go ahead Mk.IV, which task was to reach the second line of defense of the
enemy. Then we had to act and Mk.V Mk.V * consisting of two battalions. The attack
was successful, although 27 of the 190 tanks received a direct hit.
As you can see, the losses were very impressive, but the tasks were carried out in most
cases. In addition, operations support, and repair shops tanks allow quick return into
operation a large number of out-of machine failure. To reduce the level of losses often
resorted to setting smoke screens, but rather to overcome ditches fascines used special
prismatic metal frames. However, not all acts of tanks have been successful. For
example, on September 21, a group of 9 tanks Mk.V *, two of which carried infantry,
could not suppress the German machine guns and troops remained inside the machine.
Two days later, 9 tanks tried to attack the enemy in a gas curtain, hardly advancing
forward.
Attack of September 29 also led to heavy losses. In the offensive zone of the 4th British
Army went into battle 175 tanks, which assisted in the liberation of towns Magny, Nora
and Bellicourt. The success of this operation would be more complete if the infantry
followed the tanks permanently, but at the final stage of the offensive tanks operated in
isolation, leading to the conclusion of the system a significant number of machines.
~ 844 ~
Fighting also took place in October, with varying success. For example, 5 October
began a new offensive at Cambrai, where the 25th Infantry Division of the British
Army, with the support of 12 Mk.V, tried to "hack" the German defenses. In the area of
Beaurevoir attack was unsuccessful, but about Monbren Australian infantry and 12
Mk.V * managed to complete the task. It is worth noting the attack on October 17,
undertaken on the river Celle by two battalions Mk.V * ( "R" and 301 American) and
one Mk.V ( "A"). Tankers had to make himself a ford in the river off his specially made
basket. Three days later the tanks Mk.V from the battalion "K" crossed the river on rails
laid by sappers night. However, further Allied offensive "stalled" because the tank
battalions suffered heavy losses, and the German defense at times exerted a strong
resistance.
Last tank battle took place the 4th November 1918. The band attacks the 3rd and 4th
British armies entered into battle 37 tanks, distributed on this sector of the front. The
story Mk.V use of tanks as part of the Royal Tank Corps ended on the Western Front.
Meanwhile, in September 1918 with their presence were noted Americans. Own
attempts to create tanks on the tractor success based not met, and the original design
nazhdalis to be improved, so as early as the beginning of 1917 an agreement was
reached to transfer the batch of US Army tanks. The result of this collaboration was the
creation of 301 th Heavy Tank Battalion, were armed with tanks Mk.V.
The first attack was made on September 20 th, when the tanks supported the offensive
of the 27th and 30th American divisions to the east of Bellikurskogo tunnel. Error ended
tragically for the battalion - just one tank reached safely given position, while 10 others
were in the old British minefield. Worse, from the tank 34 to the assembly point came
only 10. Nevertheless, on October 8, the command has allocated 23 tanks for a new
offensive - to battle out of 20, and before the appointed overseas reached 11 career 301
combat battalion completed 23- October, when the 9 tanks supported attack the 1st and
the 6th British divisions in Bazyuelya area. Despite the shelling gas shells losses
avoided, but after that the American tanks in battle is no longer introduced. Up until
February 1919 301 th battalion was given the RTC.
~ 845 ~
In anticipation of their own heavy tanks in 1918, France acquired (or to be more precise
- traded on the light FT-17) 77 Mk.V *. While the training of crews conducted the 1st
World War ended and French tankers on "Diamonds" in the fight and did not. In
connection with the reduction of the military budget Mk.V * remained in service during
the next 10 years, and in 1921-1923. their partially completed the heavy tanks FCM 2C.
Discarded machines were subsequently dismantled.
With the British heavy tanks are closely involved in the efforts of the Russian command
to create the armored units equipped with including light FT-17 and a variety of
armored vehicles. The initial plan was approved in January 1917, and in the spring at
the Allied conference it was determined that 350 Russian tanks need. It is interesting
that when it came to the acquisition of the French Schneider CA-1, rather than the
British Mk.II or Mk.IV, because they were considered more suitable for mobile warfare
that was fought on the Eastern Front. However, in September 1917, priorities have
changed, and instead of the SA-1 interim government intended to buy British
"improved" tanks. To bring the matter failed to end - October revolution abruptly
changed all the plans, but judging from the surviving documents Mk.V order has
already been partially paid.
For some time the British government still pondering how to deal with former Russian
contract until it is not interfered by representatives of the former Tsarist army. In 1918 it
was awarded a contract with the White movement, in which the allies promised to
provide all possible military aid, including armored vehicles. At the end of December in
Odessa the first FT-17 arrived, and six Mk.V and six Mk.V unloaded in Novorossiysk
until the end of March 1919. British tanks entered as part of the Armed Forces of South
Russia (VSYUR), where, in April, of which formed the 1st Division tanks under the
command of Colonel Gilevich. As part of the battalion had three tank unit: the 1 st and
4 th - three heavy Mk.V, 2nd and 3rd - two medium Mk.A each. During May 1919 the
tanks was successfully operated on the southern front, having in the meantime at least
four fights. Several "red" machines out of action, but the irretrievable losses was not.
Since the beginning of June until mid-July battalion tried to attract the assault Tsaritsyn,
~ 846 ~
but then tankers actions were more cautious in nature and did not achieve great success.
Then tanks were sent to repair Taganrog.
At this time in Novorossiisk arrived six more cargo vessels on board which brought a
total of 73 tanks. This allowed to form the 2nd division of tanks consisting of the 5th,
6th, 7th and 8th groups, but they are not used within the same compound, but
separately, in different armies. In general, it has predetermined them not too successful
combat use. Departing for the onslaught of the Red Army armies "white" have thrown a
huge amount of machinery and equipment, including 50 tanks.
When committed by the autumn of 1919 pogrom VSYUR command together with the
remnants of the defeated armies were evacuated to the Crimea. Order dated 19th March
1920, both divisions were disbanded, 1st Division was re-established their place, but the
new state consisting of four armored units with different numbers of tanks. As of the
2nd June 1920 the number of armored units was as follows: 1st and 3rd units have six
Mk.V, 2nd and 4th units - four Mk.A. All tanks have been named. Base Division was in
Sebastopol, but this does not prevent VSYUR command to launch an offensive in the
brand with the active participation of armored vehicles.During May-September 1920,
"white" part of the tasks performed, what important role played by the 1st Tank
Division, but in early October, the Red Army launched a powerful counter-offensive in
the area of the Kakhovka bridgehead defeated enemy. In this case, it took place at least
one battle tanks, armored cars from the "red", in which one wheel car was hit. The most
violent attack involving Mk.V took place in the early morning of October 14 - at the
first line of defense managed to break through, lost 7 tanks, which were the trophies of
the Red Army. Further VSYUR defeat was only a matter of time, and in the capture of
the Crimea in October-November 1920, the "red" captured 14 more tanks of various
types.
Meanwhile, in the North in July 1919 he landed a British detachment under the
command of Major Lewis-Brown, as part of which there were three and three Mk.V
Mk.B (according to other sources of heavy tanks were only two). On the appointment of
these tanks do not have a precise definition. Presumably, they would like to convey to
Kolchak, but in fact they remained in Arkhangelsk and perform security functions. In
September 1919, when the British held the evacuation of personnel and materiel in the
presence there for one Mk.V and Mk.A. To these machines do not fall into the hands of
"red" in February 1920, both tanks were loaded onto a barge and sank in the Dvina.
Nevertheless, they managed in a short time to pick up and send to Moscow for repair.
Another British detachment under the command of Major Carson at the beginning of
August 1919 landed in Reval (Tallinn). With four tanks Mk.V and 48 personnel of the
British intended to provide assistance to South-Western Army of General Yudenich.
Having subsequently two more Mk.V was formed Tank Shock Battalion, which was
thrown into battle on September 11 under Gdov. During the fighting, three tanks were
destroyed, but the attack on Petrograd quickly run out of steam, and in late October the
battalion was sent to Narva. To deal with the evacuation of the British art made a
decision to transfer the rest of the "white" tanks Baltic countries. Thus, by chance, two
Mk.V went to Latvia and the other four gave Estonia.
History of Latvian Mk.V ended quite banal - after receiving the new equipment the old
British "diamonds" was removed from service and sent to razbronirovku. But Estonians
~ 847 ~
fared much worse, and to update its tank fleet over the next 10 years they have managed
to far from complete. Together with French tanks FT-17 armored cars and Crossley
M1928 they have long formed the backbone of the armored forces, but in 1938
managed to get six in Poland tankettes TKS. By this time, heavy tanks are in stock and
they are also going to cancel reservation, but the inclusion of Estonia into the USSR
delayed the process for two more years. It so happens that the Estonian Mk.V again go
into battle, but this time against the Germans. During the defense of Tallinn Soviet
command used all reserves, including the remaining Mk.V. The tanks were armed with
a 7.62 mm machine guns such as Maxim and towed for use as a fixed gun
emplacements. Precise data on their combat use are not available, but the car was the
German trophies already in a damaged condition.
However, as part of the Red Army tanks Mk.V began to fight much earlier. Having
received the first trophy in the Revolutionary Military Council clearly decided as soon
as possible to enter the tanks into battle. In early 1920, three armored troop was formed,
and the 2nd immediately sent to the Western Front. The first fight, which took place on
June 4, 1920, for Mk.V crews formed not too successfully - to support armored vehicles
near the village Stolpische not fully succeeded, during which the two-wheeled vehicles
have been lost.
The next battle took place only on July 4th in the region shaky station. Three tanks
tasked to support the offensive of the 33rd Infantry Division, and to suppress the Polish
firing points, but the attack was developed on marshland at constant shelling. Two tanks
out of order due to technical reasons, but the third managed to break through the barriers
and reach the first-line trenches. After receiving information about a breakthrough
cavalry "red" on the other section of the front Poles left their positions.
In August, the tanks being transferred to the Southern Front for action against VSYUR.
Meet with their "colleagues" Soviet tanks Mk.V failed, and what's more, after a long
march to the Kakhovka bridgehead all 15 tanks (14 heavy and one medium) had put on
a repair. Also, it had to abandon the use of tank troops in the storming of Perekop, as
~ 848 ~
defenses were they obviously "too tough". As a result, Mk.V "red" used for evacuation
Mk.V "white", padded at Kakhovka.
Re tanks were put into action during the battle for Tbilisi in February 1921. More
poorly equipped Georgian troops defended the city from 16 to 25 February, but against
the forces of tanks and armored vehicles have been enough. Tiflis was captured parts of
the Red Army, and several tank received the Order of the Red Banner.
After the Civil War in Russian armored formations reorganized several times, until the
tank regiment of two battalions was not formed in September 1924. By this time,
captured tanks Mk.V were classified as "B" (Great) and received the name "Ricardo",
Lines for the motor used. Operation of these machines continued for more than 10
years. Thus, as of 30 January 1931, there were 44 formal Mk.V, of which 6 were in
navigating state and 9 decommissioned.
Standing for much of the tank was disassembled in storage until 1938. There was a
question - what to do with the remaining 15 Mk.V? Order of the Chief ABTU
D.Pavlova 14 tanks were to pass as museum exhibits in the city of Arkhangelsk,
Rostov-on-Don, Smolensk, Kharkov, Leningrad, Kiev and Voroshilovgrad. Last tank
was transferred to the landfill NIIBT. Subsequently, part of the "museum" of tanks was
captured by German troops, but the most unusual way fate tanks left in Smolensk.
In September 1941, when the city was captured by the Germans, two Mk.V some time
remained in place until it was decided to send them to the Berlin Museum.
transportation operation was carried out successfully, but in April 1945 the German
command for the protection of Berlin took all armored vehicles, including slow-moving
(in all things went, including a captured T-35). Based on the orders received by German
tanks were armed with machine guns and displayed on the area where they took their
last stand. About how he passed the information apparently did not survive, but judging
by the photos of trophies tanks were smashed by artillery (perhaps, itself a fight did not
take place at all).
Male: 29470 kg
Combat weight
Famale: 28450 kg
CREW, pers. 8
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 8060
Male: 4110
Width
Famale: 3300
Height mm 2640
Clearance, mm 420
Male: two 57-mm cannon l / 23 in the sponsons, four 8-mm
WEAPONS machine gun Hotchkiss Mk.I
Famale: six 8-mm machine guns Hotchkiss Mk.I
allowance of Male: 207 shots and the cartridge 5700
ammunition Famale: 14100 cartridges
telescopic gun sight,
aiming DEVICES
~ 849 ~
roof - 6mm
the bottom - 6 mm
Of Ricardo, carburetor, 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 150 hp, fuel tank
ENGINE
422 liters
mechanical type: the main 2-speed gearbox, gearbox side, the main
TRANSMISSION
differential band brake
steering wheel, rear wheel drive, the top been supporting rail; 90
CHASSIS
krupnozvenchatyh shoe teeth meshing width 673 mm and 197 mm
pitch
Cruising on the
72 km
highway
overcome obstacles
Tank Mark V**
The Tank Mark V** was a fundamental redesign by Major WG Wilson of his basic
Mark V to produce the same trench-crossing ability as the Mark V* but at the same time
to introduce improvements and eliminate the faults which had shown up in trials of that
earlier machine.
The overall length of the Mark V** was identical to that of the Mark V* (32ft 5in or
9.88 metres) and the gap it could span was also about 14 ft (4.27 metres). The general
appearance was also much the same, although the chief external difference, the
commander's fixed turret immediately behind and raised above the driver's position,
gave the clue to the main feature of the internal rearrangement. The engine was placed
further back, permitting the command turret to be brought forward and also improving
the balance and the transmission arrangement.
The engine used was a six-cylinder Ricardo, but uprated to produce 225 hp, and this
gave a better top speed of 5.2 mph (8.4 kph). Handling qualities, compared with the
Mark V*, were also improved as a result of the better balance and a redesign of the hull
contour which, among other things, gave about 6 in (15 cm) longer track contact with
~ 850 ~
the ground. The ventilation system was rearranged and the grilles in the hull sides,
characteristic of Marks V and V*, were eliminated.
Large orders for Tanks Mark V** were cancelled at the end of the war and, after the
Armistice, only a few were completed in 1918-1919. These were used for several years
after the war for various experiments with equipment such as tank bridges. The 20 ft
(6.1 metres) tank bridge of the type that would have been used in action (in Plan 1919,
if The War had not ended with the Armistice) is shown in one of the photos below. It is
hinged at the front of the vehicle and is raised and lowered by means of a mechanical
winch located behind the driver's cab. The whole operation of bridging a 20-foot gap
took only two minutes.
~ 851 ~
~ 852 ~
Mark VI (tank)
Wooden mockup of the proposed Mark VI, 1917
The Mark VI was a British heavy tank project from the First World War.
After having made plans for the continued development of the Mark I into the Mark IV,
the Tank Supply Committee (the institute planning and controlling British tank
production) in December 1916 ordered the design of two new types: the Mark V and the
Mark VI. The Mark V should embody the most advanced features that could still be
incorporated into the Mark I hull. The Mark VI should abandon the old hull entirely,
reflecting only some general principles of the older tank.
On 13 July 1917 Metropolitan, the firm associated to Sir William Tritton, had a wooden
mock-up ready of both types each. As no design drawings of the Mark VI have
survived, the pictures made on that date (and on an earlier occasion on 23 June of the
still partly unfinished models) form our major source of information.
The Mark V design still looked a lot like the Mark I. It had many detail changes
however, including smaller sponsons with cylindrical machine gun mounts, lengthened
hull, larger cabin and a machine gun position at the back. This design was ultimately
abandoned due to enormous delays in the development of the Mark IV. The tank taken
in production under that name was not the Mark IV as originally planned but basically a
slightly changed Mark I. When at last in December 1917 the desired new engine and
transmission could be built in, it was this type that was now called the Mark V.
The Mark VI design had a completely different hull, much higher with rounded tracks
on front. It had no sponsons; the side doors replacing them having machine gun
positions. The main armament is a single 57 mm gun low in the front of the hull. The
~ 853 ~
driver is sitting in a square superstructure much further back, the corners of which each
had a machine gun. We know from a surviving text that the hull was to be
compartimentalised with a separate engine room on one side containing also in line the
drive gears of both tracks, the drive shaft for the track of the opposite side crossing the
hull. Wider tracks (75 cm) were to be used.
When in September 1917 US headquarters in France decided to create a separate

American Tank Corps with 25 battalions, among which five were to be Heavy Tank
Battalions, Major James A. Drain ordered 600 of the most advanced British tank, being
at the time the Mark VI. However this endangered the plans of Albert Gerald Stern, then
coordinating allied tank production, to produce a common Anglo-American tank, the
Mark VIII. In December 1917 he ordered to halt the project. Not even a prototype was
built.
Official designation: Heavy Tank Mk.VI

Alternative notation?
Date of construction of the first prototype: not built
Stage of completion: summer of 1917 built a full-size mock-up, the program will be
canceled in view of the current inadequacies.
Even before the appearance of a medium tank Mk.B, which contrasted with the lack of
onboard sponsons, British engineers have designed it designed a similar heavy tank
Mk.VI. This was another attempt to reduce the weight while maintaining the same
power of weapons and ride quality, which ended only a partial success. The project was
presented on 9 June 1917, which was followed by an order for the construction of a full-
sized wooden model. Work was carried out on the Metropolitan enterprise.
Contours of the chassis tank noticeably rounded, giving them a more aesthetic
appearance and slightly increased length. The main armament consisted of a 57-mm
cannon with 130 rounds ammunition, placed in the front of the chassis next to the
driver's seat. This decision seemed somewhat controversial, as is now the artillery could
fire only in a very narrow sector on the right course.
In the middle of the tank on the roof of the fighting compartment was set high
superstructure with two 8 mm machine guns Hotchkiss. Ahead of her were placed
immediately two fixed cabin with viewing slots, intended for the driver and tank
commander. Onboard sponsons, in the usual "rhombus" form, is now gone. However, to
completely abandon their British and could not. Instead, on both sides, with an offset to
the front of the tank, there were small "pockets" ball machine gun. Total ammunition for
small arms ammunition was 10,000.
Internal kopmonovka also podverglast changes. such as Ricardo engine was moved to
the side, and the fighting compartment raised a little higher, more compact by placing
the crew. Now, however, the driver had to work together with the gunner serving tools
that did not like the military. Full tank crew was 8 people.
According to calculations of the heavy tank Mk.VI had to have a mass of 33,000 kg and
a speed of 6.3 ravivat km \ h. The thickness of the booking has been the frontal part of
~ 854 ~
the body was increased to 14 mm, side and feed protected 10-mm armor, the roof and
the bottom - 6 mm. It was expected that a power reserve of at Mk.VI be 80.5 km (72 km
in against Mk.V) with comparable characteristics in overcoming obstacles. It was also
planned to improve the permeability of the tank, use the caterpillar Chiron 750 mm.
The first performance of the heavy tank project Mk.VI took place on 23 June and again
- 13 July, 1917. Prototyping Commission, after some deliberation, concluded
inappropriate launch of this tank in serial production. It found several reasons. First of
all, confused unusual appearance and layout Mk.VI. Further unsuccessful installation of
the main armament was noted. Doubts are also caused reliable operation of the power
plant and transmission. In the end, it was concluded that Mk.VI will have decisive
advantages over Mk.V and construction of even a single prototype did not take place.
DESIGN tactical and technical totalizer heavy tanks

Heavy Tank Mk.VI sample 1918
CREW, pers. 8
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 8110
Width 3200
Height mm 2750
Clearance, mm ?
one 57-mm Hotchkiss cannon in front of the chassis and four 8-mm
WEAPONS
machine gun Hotchkiss
allowance of ammunition 130 rounds of ammunition and 10,000
aiming DEVICES
roof - 6mm
the bottom - 6 mm
Of Ricardo, carburetor, 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 150 hp at 1250 on. \
ENGINE
min, fuel tank 454 liters
~ 855 ~
(On one side) 28 of rollers with a blocked suspension, front steering
CHASSIS wheel, rear wheel drive, the top been supporting rail; krupnozvenchataya
caterpillar truck with a width of 750 mm
Cruising on the highway 80.5 km
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m 1.20
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION not installed
Heavy Tank Mk.VII
Official designation: Heavy Tank Mk.VII

Home Design: October 1917
Date of construction of the first prototype: iyull 1918
Stage of completion: 4 tanks constructed including a prototype in the fighting have not
been applied.
Simultaneously with the appearance of a heavy tank Mk.IV British designers is actively
working on further modernization of its design. To strengthen the security of the tank
without the threat of a sharp increase in its weight while it was not possible, and
therefore the main efforts were focused on two areas: improving governance and
improving ride quality. So, in October 1917, there was a heavy tank project Mk.VII,
which tried to combine the design of serial Mk.IV and new developments. Project work
and post-rock prototype laid on firm Brown Brothers of Edinburgh. In the future, for
mass production expected to connect the company Kitsons yl Leeds.
~ 856 ~
To increase the mobility of the tank on the ground could be several ways, but the
summer of 1917, British engineers have concluded that the best option would be a
lengthening of the chassis. Fortunately, this experience already had - a few months
earlier successfully tested a prototype Mk.IV tank, called "Tadpole" ( "Tadpole"). From
the serial car it differed lengthened by 9 feet (2.74 meters), the tail section, which
allowed not only to overcome the wider trench, and placed between the two sections of
the chassis 6-inch trench mortar. However, increasing the length of the negative effect
on the stiffness of the structure and the general mobility of the tank, as the ratio of the
length and width of the body (without sponsons) is now defined as 2.5: 1. Accordingly,
it also increased weight - increased not only the size but also the number of trucks each
track, which was 28 more. After weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the
British still decided to start upgrading series of tanks, but this work was never finished.
Instead completion Mk.IV Mk.VII project was adopted. The length of its running gear
was slightly less than that of "Tadpole", that it is guaranteed to overcome the broader
field of obstacles. Now, on each side there were 28 road wheels with a blocked
suspension. Location of leading and guiding the wheels remained unchanged (front and
rear, respectively). Caterpillars krupnozvenchatye, with steel tracks.
The tank was installed Mk.VII 6-cylinder engine with a carburetor Ricardo liquid
cooling system. The powerplant develops power of 150 hp at 1250. \ min. Fuel capacity
was 454 liters and placed in two tanks of 50 gallons (227 liters) at the stern. The main
highlight was the use Mk.VII controlled hydrostatic transmission Williams-Jenny, better
known as a regulator of speed guidance in marine tower installations. Gear drive
through gear drives two hydraulic pumps, each of which was connected with a
hydraulic motor hoses on each side. The output shaft gidromomtora was connected to
the final drive. The driver got a steering wheel and spend less effort to operate.
Hydraulic transmission allowed smoothly and over a wide range to adjust the speed and
turning radius, preventing the engine stop during gear changes. Among other things, the
tank was equipped with an electric starter.
Mk.VII housing design has not changed much compared to Mk.IV. As before, it is
based lay a steel frame, which, with the help of bolts and rivets, armor plates were
attached differentiated thickness. Immunity tank was sacrificed to the best terrain and
remained at the level of Mk.VI. The frontal part of the hull and the sponsons had a
thickness of 14 mm, depth - 10 mm, the roof and the bottom - 6 mm.
~ 857 ~
The main armament consisted of two 57-mm guns with a barrel length of 23 caliber,
was installed in the sponsons, the design of which is also borrowed from Mk.IV. In
addition, the add-ins and body board broneliste sponsons was one 8-mm machine gun
Hotchkiss. Ammunition consisted of 207 shells and 7,800 rounds of ammunition.
As often happens, a prototype heavy tank Mk.VII in July 1918 passed the sea trials, but
when it came to the deployment of mass production revealed a number of unpleasant
nuances. First of all, the tank potyazhelel - its combat weight rose to 33 tons, and in
some istochinka this figure was adjusted to 37 tons. Then it turned out that the
hydrostatic transmission Williams-Jenny is too expensive and complex to manufacture.
Furthermore, transmission was too cumbersome and had lower efficiency was
susceptible to wear. Another problem was the constant overheating of the power plant
and transmission, which required an additional radiator. I had to endure grilles on the
roof to reduce the dust and fouling.
As a result, in autumn 1918, an initial order for 74 tanks (all in the version "male" - that
is, equipped with cannon and machine gun armament) was canceled, but to the complete
cessation of the production of the time managed to collect three more Mk.VII. All tanks
remained in the UK for some time been used as a part of 20th Squadron RNAS for
secondary purposes. After the armistice Mk.VII one was sent to Bovington as a visual
aid. The fate of the tank remains quite vague. Probably, during the Second World War it
was to cut the metal.

Heavy Tank Mk.VII sample 1918
CREW, pers. 8
DIMENSIONS
~ 858 ~
Length mm 9120
Width 3890
Height mm 2620
Clearance, mm 530
two 57-mm gun Hotchkiss L / 23 and four 8-mm machine

WEAPONS
gun Hotchkiss
teleskopicheskit orudiynyt pritsels

aiming DEVICES
roof - 6mm
the bottom - 6 mm
Of Ricardo, carburetor, 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 150 hp at

ENGINE
1250 on. \ min, fuel tank 454 liters
TRANSMISSION hydraulic with hydrostatic transmission and gear reducer

caterpillar krupnozvenchataya
Cruising on the highway 80.5 km
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m 1.20
MEANS OF not installed
~ 859 ~
COMMUNICATION
Tank Mark VIII
United Kingdom, United

Place of origin
States
Designed 1917
UK: North British

Manufacturer Locomotive Company
US: Rock Island Arsenal
Produced 19181920
Number built 125
37 long tons (38 t) (dry

Weight
weight)
11 ft 8 in (3.56 m)
Width
9 ft (2.7 m) sponsons in
12 British tanks
Crew
10 US tanks
~ 860 ~
Armor 16 mm maximum
Main two QF 6 pdr 6 cwt

armament Hotchkiss (57 mm) guns
seven 7.92 mm Hotchkiss

Secondary machine guns or five M1917
armament
Browning machine guns
V-12 Liberty or V-12

Engine Ricardo
300 hp (220 kW)
Power/weight 7.89 hp/tonne (5.79 kW/t)
Suspension unsprung
Operational 50 mi (80 km)

range
5.25 mph (8.45 km/h)

Speed governed to 6.25 mph
(10.06 km/h) maximum
The Tank Mark VIII also known as the Liberty or The International was an Anglo-
American tank design of the First World War intended to overcome the limitations of
the earlier British designs and be a collaborative effort to equip France, the UK and the
US with a single heavy tank design.
Production at a site in France was expected to take advantage of US industrial capacity

to produce the automotive elements, with the UK producing the armoured hulls and
armament. The planned production levels would have equipped the Allied armies with a
very large tank force that would have broken through the German defensive positions in
the planned offensive for 1919. In practice manufacture was slow and only a few
vehicles were produced before the end of the war in November 1918.
After the war, 100 vehicles assembled in the US were used by the US Army until more
advanced designs replaced them in 1932. A few tanks that had not been scrapped by the
start of World War II were provided to Canada for training purposes.
Early development
As the First World War progressed, the industrial production capacity of the Entente
was taxed to the limit. Of the Allies, only Great Britain and France had been major
industrial nations in 1914 and the latter had lost 70% of its heavy industry when the
Germans overran that part of Lorraine that they had not already occupied in 1871. The
~ 861 ~
output in Britain was limited by labour shortages due to the manpower demand of the
armed forces and a rocketing national debt.[citation needed]
When the United States of America declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917, many in
Britain hoped this event would solve all these problems. The two men directly
responsible for British tank production, Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt and Lieutenant-
Colonel Albert Gerald Stern, initially considered sending a delegation to the United
States immediately, to convince the new ally to start production of a British tank design.
After some reflection they decided it was best to leave the initiative to the Americans.
Stern did contact the American Military Attach in London immediately after war was
declared.[1] In June 1917 the first American approaches were made, but not by the US
Army as they had expected. The US Navy wanted the most modern tanks for its US
Marine Corps. At that moment the current British tank project was the Mark VI. It was
designed with existing British industrial capacity in mind, posing limits that might be
overcome by larger American production facilities. Stern therefore pretended that an
even more advanced project had already been in existence which he called the Mark
VIII (there was also a much more conventional Mark VII project). He invited the
Americans to participate and contribute as much as they would like to its design. The
Navy was on the brink of sending a team of engineers to Britain when the American
Department of War was informed of developments by the US Military Attach in
London. It ordered the project to be shifted to the Army and selected Major H. W.
Alden in peacetime he had been an industrial expert to go to the UK to work with
the Mechanical Warfare Department design team at Dollis Hill on the first drawings of
the new tank. He arrived in London on the 3 October, to discover that a lot of design
work had already been done by Lieutenant G J Rackham, who had been sent to the
Front to see for himself how the current designs performed in the dismal conditions then
encountered at the battlefield in Flanders.[1]
~ 862 ~
"International Tank"
The US Army had set up headquarters in France. In September it decided to form its
own tank corps with 25 tank battalions including five heavy tank battalions. To equip
the heavy units, Major James A. Drain a staff officer to General Pershing and
responsible for initial planning of the tank force provisionally ordered 600 Mark VI
tanks (then under development) from the British in October 1917.[2] The Army tried to
convince the Department of War to divert all available tanks to the Army, leading to a
conflict with the Navy (the first of many to come over this issue). This posed serious
problems for the British government. It now seemed that American involvement in the
war would mean a lesser number of tanks available for the British forces. Also on 4
February 1917 binding agreements had been made with the French about tank
production. These had to be renegotiated.
Winston Churchill, the new Minister of Munitions, had just been forced to fire Stern as
director of the Mechanical Supply Department (Controller of the Mechanical Warfare
Department) because of his mistakes in handling the Mark IV project, leading to
enormous production delays. In pushing production through in the early days he had
upset civil and military authorities.[2] Stern was appointed in September to the new
position of "Commissioner for Mechanical Warfare (Overseas and Allies Branch)" in
order to coordinate tank production with the US and France.[2] Stern went to France to
meet the French Minister of Munitions, Louis Loucheur and the American commander-
in-chief, John Pershing. Loucheur made it clear from the beginning that France had
nothing to offer in terms of existing production facilities. This came as no surprise to
Stern who had already prepared an "International Plan" of ten points (in fact a bilateral
agreement between the USA and Britain) that he now managed to get accepted by the
Americans. He submitted this to Churchill on the 11 November. Its main points
included (using the original terminology):
The incorporation of a partnership between the USA and Great Britain for the
production of 1,500 heavy tanks to be erected in France.
The supply of a number of these tanks to France to further the higher purpose of
Allied unity, should she require them.[2] (Britain hoped France would produce its
own Char 2C in sufficient numbers, Loucheur already knew this was unlikely to
happen[citation needed]).
~ 863 ~
France might supply an erecting shop, if convenient; in any case it might be
wiser to build a new one (so a completely new factory would have to be built in
France[citation needed]).
A joint supply of components. Britain would supply guns, ammunition, and
armour; the USA engines, transmissions, forgings, and chains (employing US
car industry).
The design would be based on British experience and American ideas and
resources, and eliminate most of the faults in current tanks in power, loading,
and trench crossing.[1]
Major Alden would collaborate to finish the working drawings before Christmas
enjoying full cooperation of the British; the design was to be approved by both
nations.
Unskilled labour might be provided by imported Chinese; the French
government ensured their local accommodation.
Production would begin in April 1918 and finally reach 300 a month (so the
number of 1,500 was only preliminary).
The project would have high priority in regards raw materials, labour, factories,
and transport.
Management would be in the hands of two Commissioners, one British (Stern
himself) and one American; but the French could appoint their own if their
interests were concerned.
The plan already contained a specification: the tank should have a 300 hp (220 kW)
engine, weigh 38.8 tons[citation needed] (39.5 tonnes) and have a trench crossing capacity of
14 feet (4.3 m). The 11 November briefing included the first use of the word "Liberty"
for the tank which was taken from the engine chosen.[1]
The first design conference took place on 4 December at GHQ in France[2] and
Churchill approved the plan soon afterwards. It was made into a formal treaty signed by
the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour and the US Ambassador Walter Hines
Page on 19 January 1918. The treaty specified the programme in great detail. The first
1,500 tanks had to be made by the end of the year and the factory should be capable of
~ 864 ~
expansion to 1,200 a month. Both goals were very ambitious given the fact there was
neither a completed design nor a factory and that British tank production would in fact
be 150 a month during 1918.
The United States would supply: the engine; radiator; fan; piping; silencer; lighting;
dynamo; battery; propeller shaft; transmission, including gearbox; brakes; roller
sprockets; gear shift and brake control; track links and pins; rear track sprockets, hub
and shafts; front idler hub and shafts; track roller, track spindles and bushings.[1]
Britain would supply: bullet and bomb-proof plates; structural members; track shoes
and rollers; guns, machine guns and mountings; ammunition racks and ammunition.[2]
The agreed price was to be 5,000 per vehicle. In December 1917 the Mark VI order
was cancelled[2] ensuring that the Mark VIII would be the new standard Allied weapon.
Description
The internal fittings of the Mark VIII
The Mark VIII kept many of the general features of the Mark I-V series: it had their
typical high track run and no revolving turret but two sponsons, one on each side of the
tank, armed with a 6-pounder (57 mm) gun. But it also resembled the Mark VI-project
in that it had more rounded and wider tracks and a large superstructure on top directly
beneath the front of which the driver was seated. An innovative feature was the
departure from the concept of the box tank with its single space into which all
accessories were crammed. The Mark VIII was compartimentalised with a separate
~ 865 ~
engine room at the back. This vastly improved fighting conditions as a bulkhead
protected the crew against the deafening engine noise, noxious fumes and heat.
There were no machine guns in the sponsons, only the 6-pounders each manned by a
gunner and loader. The side machine guns were to the rear of the sponsons mounted in
the hull doors. Major Alden had designed the sponsons to be retractable (they could be
swung in at the rear by the crew, being pivoted at the front), to reduce the width of the
vehicle if enemy obstacles were encountered. Five more machine guns were in the
superstructure: two at the frontleft and right next to the driverand one on each of
the other sides. As there was no machine gun position covering the back of the tank
there was a dead angle vulnerable to infantry attack. To solve this problem a triangular
steel deflector plate was attached. The rear superstructure machine gunner could use it
to deflect his fire down into that area behind the tank. The tank carried 208 shells and
13,848 machine gun rounds, mostly in a large ammunition locker in the centre which
formed a platform on which the commander stood behind the driver observing the
battlefield through a cupola with four vision slits. Later the side superstructure guns
were removed on US tanks.
The twelfth crew member was the mechanic, seated next to the 300 hp Liberty V-12 (or
in British tanks Ricardo V-12) petrol engine) cooled by a large horizontal radiator.
Three armoured fuel tanks at the rear held 200 Imperial gallons (240 US gallons, or 909
litres) of fuel giving a range of 89 km. The transmission used a planetary gearbox
giving two speeds in either forward or reverse. Top speed was 5.25 mph (8 km/h).
To improve its trench crossing ability to 4.88 m the vehicle had a very elongated shape.
The track length was 34 ft 2 in (10.42 m) but even though the hull width was an
impressive nominal 3.76 m, the actual length-width ratio of the tracks was very poor as
that width included the sponsons. Combined with wide tracks it proved difficult to turn
the tank. During testing many tracks twisted and broke in a turn and it was decided to
use longer, stronger 13.25 inch (337 mm) links made of hardened cast armour plate,
stiffened by webs formed by recesses in the track plate. Another effect of the narrow
hull was that the fighting compartment was also very narrow. This was made worse by
~ 866 ~
the fact that now the gap between the double track frames at each side was very wide;
earlier types had only the tracks themselves widened. Nevertheless the tank was
supposed to accommodate another twenty infantry men in full gear if necessary. In
absolute terms the vehicle was very large: at 10 ft 3 in (3.13 m) tall the Mark VIII was
the second largest operational tank in history, after the Char 2C. However its weight
was only 38.3 long tons (38.9 t)[3] fitted for battle as the armour plate was thin with a
thickness of 16 mm on the front and sidesa slight improvement over the Mark V but
very thin by later standards. The roof and bottom of the hull were protected by only
6 mm thick armour plate, leaving the tank very vulnerable to mortar shells and
landmines.
Production
The French government hoped to receive 700 Mark VIIIs for free, as the French
superheavy tank, the Char 2C, could not be produced in sufficient numbers, if at all.
However, suffering from a lack of manpower and raw materials the French were not
forthcoming in providing any facilities for the production of the International Tank.
Soon the Americans decided to build a brand new assembly factory at Neuvy-Pailloux
200 miles south of Paris, contracting a British company. Far from producing its first
tank in April, the factory was not even finished by June. In August they contracted
another British firm. It finished the factory in November, by which point the war had
already ended; not a single tank would be built there.
There were also serious delays in the production of the components. The Liberty aero
engine with its expensive drawn-steel cylinders was redesigned with cheaper cast iron
cylinders.[4] These redesigned engines were only produced in October. In spite of these
delays, there were plans to produce a further 1,500 tanks in the United States on top of
the shared production in France. This was not possible due to lack of armour and guns
so the extra production was to be in France as well.[5]
The British finished the prototype hull, made of unhardened steel, in July and sent it to
the United States.[6] On arrival it transpired that no mass-produced parts were ready to
~ 867 ~
finish the prototype, so the Locomobile Automobile Company in Bridgeport,
Connecticut made these all by hand, completing the first vehicle on the 28 September.
Testing began on 31 October.[7] Only then was the armament shipped from Britain, and
two guns and ten Hotchkiss machine guns were fitted.
Testing was finished after the war and it was decided to build 100 vehicles in the USA;
these were constructed in 1919 and 1920 by the Rock Island Arsenal for $35,000 each.
The US bought 100 complete sets of parts for the hull from the British, the whole
amount that had been completed.
Meanwhile the British government had decided to start their own production in Britain.
One thousand, four hundred and fifty vehicles were ordered from the North British
Locomotive Company, William Beardmore and Company and Metropolitan, to use a
300 hp (220 kW) V12 Ricardo engine instead of the Liberty. Only the first managed to
produce anything by the end of the war with seven vehicles built.[6] The mild steel
prototype with a Rolls-Royce engine[6] was tested on 11 November, the day of the
Armistice.
From parts already produced a further 24 vehicles were completed after the war. Five
were sent to the training centre at Bovington in Dorset, and the others went straight to
the scrap dealer.
Mark VIII*
During 1918, the then prevalent preoccupation with trench crossing capabilities led to
preparations being made for the production of an even longer tank: the Mark VIII*
(Star). The hull was to be lengthened a full three meters: four feet (1.2 m) at the front
and six feet (1.8 m) at the back. This way it should be able to cross a trench 18 feet (5.5
m) wide. To ensure that the tank could turn at all, despite its critically high length-width
ratio, the bottom profile of the tracks would be more strongly curved, so that a smaller
part of the track would touch the ground. Ground pressure would have increased
however, as total weight reached 42.5 tons (43.2 tonnes). If the tank had sunk into soft
~ 868 ~
ground somewhat, it's questionable whether it would have been able to make a turn. No
prototype was built.
Operational history
The American Liberty tanks equipped a single unit: the 67th Infantry (Tank) Regiment,
based in Aberdeen, Maryland. The curious designation of the unit had its origin in the
fact that since 1922 by law all tanks had to be part of the Infantry. The two machine gun
positions at the sides of the superstructure were eliminated, so the crew could be
reduced to ten. Water-cooled M1917 Browning machine guns were used. Despite many
modifications the vehicles suffered from overheating and poor reliability, causing a
prejudice in the Army against the use of heavy tanks. From 1932 onward they were
phased out; all were in storage in 1934. In 1940 Canada had a lack of training tanks and
bought most vehicles at scrap value.
Mark VIII "The International"

After the United States entered the war against Germany in April 1917, arrangements
were put in hand so that the great manufacturing resources of the U.S.A. could be linked
with British experience in tank design and operation to produce tanks in quantity for the
use of both countries. The "Allied" or "Liberty" tank or, more prosaically, Mark VIII
Tank, was the result, although the intervention of the Armistice put an end to the plans
for mass production.
A broad specification for the heavy tank likely to be needed for the battles on the
Western Front in 1918-1919 was produced in France and given to an Anglo-American
tank committee under the joint chairmanship of Lieut-Col. Albert Stern (U.K.) and
Major J. A. Drain (U.S.A.) and comprising Sir Eustace dEyncourt and Captain A.
Green (a Tank Corps officer) as British members and Major H. W. Alden, U.S.A. Under
the guidance of this committee, Lieutenant G. J. Rackham, then at the beginning of a
distinguished career in A.F.V. and more general automotive engineering, produced the
detailed drawings for the Mark VIII.
~ 869 ~
The new tank was recognizably an extension in design of earlier British tanks in layout
and general appearance but it included many improvements suggested by earlier
experience. The most fundamental of these was the complete separation of the engine
compartment from the crew compartment by a bulkhead. This reduced the fire risk for
the crew and furthermore the ventilating system kept the crew compartment at a slightly
higher atmospheric pressure and so prevented fumes or heat from the engine entering.
The armour protection was increased, compared with earlier British tanks, to a 16mm.
maximum, although the armament, two 6 Pdr guns and seven machineguns, was
comparable. The trend of increasing length to meet ever wider trenches and tank
obstacles was continued in the Mark VIII, which was 34 ft 2 in. long and could cross a
gap of about 15 ft. Although the Mark VIII at 37 tons was several tons heavier than
previous tanks, performance was improved by the use of a 300hp power unit and
decrease in track ground pressure through the adoption of 26.5" wide tracks. The engine
intended for use in Mark VIIIs was the American "Liberty" aero engine, with the
alternative of a new 300hp Ricardo engine, although an epicyclic transmission and
steering system was employed in either case.
As mentioned, the Armistice put an end to the large scale production plans for the Mark
VIII, the first of which had been completed only just before fighting ceased. This was a
hull shipped from England in July 1918 to the United States where a "Liberty" engine
and the transmission were added. The first tank to be completed in Britain (where only
seven in all were built by the North British Locomotive Co. Ltd., Glasgow) - was at first
fitted with a Rolls-Royce aero engine. All the later tanks (and subsequently the first one
also) were powered by the 300hp Ricardo twelve-cylinder engine, which was made up
of two six-cylinder units.
In the United States it was decided to complete 100 tanks and these were built during
1919 by the U.S. Ordnance Department. One of the American tanks is shown in the
drawings. This differed externally from the British tanks in the armoured jackets for the
Browning machineguns used instead of the Hotchkiss guns used by the Tank Corps, and
in other details, notably in the raised commanders/drivers superstructure.
Official designation: Heavy Tank Mk.VIII

Alternative notation: "The International", "Liberty"
Home Design: Summer 1917
Stage of completion: built 124 tanks (100 collected in the United States), in the fighting
were not used.
~ 870 ~
The first "intenatsionalny" tank
The history of the heavy tank Mk.VIII
The history of the last diamond-shaped tank Mk.VIII began in the summer of 1917,
when the onset of the Anglo-French troops near Cambrai completely petered out and the
Entente troops began to hand so hard busy position. It was obvious that the allies need a
more perfect machine, equipped with powerful weapons and enhanced reservation. It
also aims to address broader obstacles, because the serial Mk.IV Mk.V and were not
able to pass anti-tank ditch width of more than 4 meters. All this led to the army
command believes that the new tank should also be built on the diamond-shaped
pattern, but with an elongated body and a more rational layout as the main units, and
jobs of the crew. Help in the development of the tank expressed a desire to have the
American and the French side, but their role in the direct design process was quite
modest.
By this time in the depths of Staff had a plan a new offensive on the Western Front,
scheduled for spring 1919. The basic idea was as follows - in certain parts of the front
tank focused groups which, with air support, the task was to crack the enemy's defenses
and clear the way for the infantry and cavalry. On the edge of the main attack was to go
heavy tanks, followed by medium and light tanks and trimmed the enemy's position, and
the thunder of his rear. In theory, it came out everything is simple, but at the first stage
of the Allies there were some discrepancies.
Thus, according to the Marshal Foch, "Plan 1919" for the supply of 10,000 tanks in two
basic types, that was clearly not feasible. More appropriate would offer the British
Fuller, who for a breakthrough of the German defense had planned to use 2592 and
2400 heavy medium tanks. The main role as a "breakthrough tank" was assigned to the
British and American command was Mk.VIII, support that should have provided the
middle class tanks "Medium" (Mark B, Mark C, and Mark D). In turn, the French relied
on heavy tanks 2C, the production of which was then a big question, and the light FT-
17.
~ 871 ~
The mutual agreement was reached in November 1917, after the approval of
"international project" with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The requirements
put forth in the plan provides for Mk.VIII the following characteristics:
- Weight of 30 tons
- The engine type Liberty 350 hp
- Overcoming the trenches more than 14 feet (4.27 meters)
During the development process it became clear that France would not be able to
provide the required amount of human and material resources, in connection with which
the project has remained mainly within the Anglo-American cooperation. Design was
carried out under the direction of the committee, headed by Albetom Stern (Albert
Stern, controller Mechanical Warfare Supply Department - Department of Mechanical
Supplies Weapons) and Major James Drane (James A.Drain, an officer at the
headquarters of General Pershing). Also in the design of the tank was attended by Major
Alden and Sir Eustace dÌnkurt of MWSD, as well as captain of the Green Tank Corps.
heavy tank Mk.VIII project was presented to the General Staff of the 4th December
1917 and received a good evaluation. After another negotiation of the 19th January
1918 a new contract at a high level was signed, providing for the supply of the initial
stage of 300 tanks per month and subsequently to bring production up to 1,200 tanks per
month. Production had to be deployed on the territory of France, which she wanted to
get 700 cars (until it is launched production of 2C). In other words, until the end of 1918
the troops of the Entente were to receive 1,500 heavy tanks. Distribution of supplies
agreed as follows:
US - engines with starter and clutch, drive shafts, transmissions transmissions, radiators,
fans, ducts, silencers, electric lights, dynamos, batteries, brakes, tensioning mechanisms,
tracks, road wheels, leading and guiding wheels;
~ 872 ~
United Kingdom - rolled armor, tracks, cannon and machine guns, along with
installations, ammunition, other ammunition.
Thus, the main burden for the production of Mk.VIII fell on the American side.
Construction of the plant began in 200 km from Paris in a town Nuvi-Paley (Neuvy-
Peuloux), where there is enough area for the enterprise and for the test site. The choice
of location was not accidental - as supplied from the United Kingdom and the United
States, walked through the Saint-Nazaire and Bordeaux.
While there were preparatory work Allies suffered bad news - at the beginning of March
1918 the Germans launched a major offensive, to break in a matter of days the position
of the allies in several places. Abandoned in a counterattack tanks allowed only delay
but not stop the enemy, leading to huge losses in materiel. The situation has become so
critical that the US has decided to start production of 1,500 tanks on its territory. In turn,
the British Army has scheduled 1450 delivery more tanks for their own needs.
However, despite the strongly decided to get even 1,500 tanks by December 1918 it was
absolutely impossible. Deliveries of components from British firms began only in
August and factory construction was delayed until November. In the end, the French
decided to completely withdraw from the project, requesting two or three samples of the
tank strictly for testing.
Features and analogies
The design of the heavy tank Mk.VIII
The design of the heavy tank Mk.VIII had no innovation or engineering frills - it was
the aggregation of all the best that was possible to collect in the design and operation of
the "rhombus".
Chassis retained the overall similarity with the earlier versions of the diamond-shaped
tanks, but had higher rates of patency by terrain. With reference to one side, it included
~ 873 ~
29 of rollers with a blocked suspension, one upper idler roller, front drive and rear
wheel steering. Track Shoe Width, compared with Mk.V, increased to 673 mm, the
truck move - 283 mm. Each track is composed of 78 tracks. Top tracked branch
supports a special guide rails.
Housing tank was assembled from sheets of rolled armor steel metal frame using bolts
and rivets. In addition to the extension of the housing developers have decided to reduce
the frontal projection, which was important, given the high density of fire on the front of
the front edge. Even taking into account the width of the track and sponsons Now it
does not exceed 3.66 meters - for comparison, the total width of the tank Mk.V was
4.10 meters. The bulk of the armor plates are joined at right angles. A slight slope had
only the roof of the engine compartment, front underbody armor plates and two frontal
armor plate, forming a "brand" for the diamond-shaped tanks "wedge". It remained the
same arrangement as that of the "five". In front of the case were controls a tank, and a
driver. To improve the visibility of the driver's head to install a small superstructure
with three observation slits. Next is the commander of the place, and three gunners
serving the machine guns mounted in the superstructure. Superstructure itself was a
box-like shape and to ensure an acceptable review was equipped with five observation
slits: two on each side and one in the front part. In addition, the add-in to install a small
roof commander's cupola. On the march the tank commander can control the movement
through the open hatch in the roof of the superstructure, leans up.
On the sides, in the middle of the hull sponsons located, clean up inside the tank during
transport. Construction sponsons had a fairly complex form - the developers have tried
to reduce their size without sacrificing the comfort of the crew and preservation of the
maximum angle pointing guns over the horizon, partly succeeded. Inside they find a
place for the two gunners, for which housed space for minder. In total Mk.VIII crew of
11 people, almost I caught up on this indicator German A7V.
Engine-transmission compartment occupied nearly 50% of the hull length, and placed at
the stern. One of the main differences was the introduction of barriers between MTO
and fighting compartment, which has a positive impact on the work of the tank. As
~ 874 ~
previously mentioned, the tank Mk.VIII installed 12-cylinder gasoline engine capacity
of 338 hp Liberty at 1400 \ min. This powerplant was interesting because it had two
separate camshafts for each 6-cylinder sections with overhead valves. Nearby mounted
cooling system with fans and water pump, carburetor Zenith and Delco ignition system.
Fuel was in three tanks total volume of 200 gallons (757.25 liters) and was applied to
the engine by a separate pump. The transfer of power from the engine is handled by a
transmission with gear and planetary gearbox provides two speeds forward and two
reverse speeds.
Radio tanks Mk.VIII not installed. Communication inside the tank was arranged only
between the commander and the driver via intercom. Lamps lighting, pumps, fans
receive power from the power supply voltage of 12V.
Although the work carried out to improve the fighting capacity of the tank and the
problem remained unsolved total security. Head-to book in the 12-16 mm thick protects
only against small-arms fire and completely saved from the fire of field artillery. Worst
of all was the fact that technological progress in the creation of anti-tank weapons and
not standing still. German designers of the Mauser company during 1918 was adjusted
to the level of mass production of 13-mm anti-tank rifle , the bullet punched a 18-mm
vertical armor plate from a distance of 500 meters. Although later its effectiveness
against tanks was found to be insufficient due to low outboard effects, the effect of the
appearance of the rifle was impressive. But the Germans did not stop and at the end of
the war by Ehrhardt was established anti heavy machine gun . With the caliber of 20
mm and a weight of about 35 kg of these weapons could well turn into a sieve any tank.
But the real danger still remained artillery - in 1917, in addition to the widely used 77-
mm field guns in 1916 sample year, as the anti-tank weapons have been widely used
and other artillery system. In particular, if in the beginning the process touched
protivoaerostatnyh and naval guns, then in 1918 on the chassis of trucks and wheeled
tractors began to establish gun type 7.5cm Flak 14 . Needless to say that the capacity of
their release to "allied" tank became quite enviable.
~ 875 ~
For the design of the tank capacity Mk.VIII thickness booking meant only one thing -
the increase in ground pressure and deterioration of the tank running qualities.
Therefore, it was concluded that "break tank" must do bulletproof armor and take the
most amount. As a result, book frontal part of the body was only 10-12 mm, sides and
stern - 10mm sponsons - 12 mm, add-ins - 16 mm. The only thing that could be done to
improve bulletproof armor plates is to apply the reinforcing bars in the overhead areas
of their joints.
The main armament of tanks Mk.VIII consisted of two 6-pounder (Hotchkiss 6 pounder
Mk. II Gun, a metric caliber 57 mm) guns mounted on pedestals in the sponsons.
Putting guns on the horizon in the range of 100 , which was a very decent rate.
Ammunition 208 rounds housed in laying under tables, in the sponsons and niches in
the fighting compartment under the superstructure. Light small arms consisted of five 8-
mm machine gun Hotchkiss in armored housings: three in the superstructure (two front
and one rear) and two in the side door of the enclosure. The total ammunition for
machine guns - 15,100 rounds of ammunition.
The first prototype tank Mk.VIII decided to collect using mild steel armor instead.
Housing for the prototype was ready in July 1918 and sent by sea to the US, where it
planned to build c using American components. Since neither the engine nor the
transmission were not yet ready to have their order at the company Locomobile
Automobile (g.Bridzhport, CT). The final assembly process was completed on 29
September and only on October 31 prototype tank without armament arrived at the
training ground. It failed to meet the required 30 tonnes, but the army command was
under such a strong impression that the limit is exceeded by almost 30% considered
acceptable.
In tests conducted in the first week of November 1918, it was attended by two officers
from the Anglo-American Commission - Major Holden (Holden) and Lieutenant
Robertson (Robertson), who were to assess Mk.VIII for its combat use. Based on the
report, which was granted by the US military department Stern, all tests passed
successfully the tank. The report stated the following: "... has no structural defects
developing machine 6 miles per hour on the last transmission has enough power to
overcome obstacles was overcome several times 13 pound test trench during engine
problems did not arise...."
Among the shortcomings we noted a good job is not enough controls overheating and
high-powered propulsion system. In terms of ride quality Mk.VIII surpassed the earlier
~ 876 ~
models, mainly due to the upgraded chassis - now the tank could overcome trenches and
trench width of 4.88 meters, which was even more than was envisaged in the terms of
reference. With a length of 10.43 meters was full turning radius of 12 meters and a
maximum speed when driving on paved roads reached up to 8.9 km \ h. However,
Mk.VIII engine was quite voracious, consuming 0.25 gallons of gasoline to 1 mile, so
that the travel distance does not exceed 68 km.
The fate of the last of the "rhombus"
Operation Mk.VIII tanks in the period 1919-1940 gg.
While Mk.VIII prototype passed comprehensive tests on the Western Front, there were
several key events that will affect the fate of the heavy tank. The last German offensive
in Picardy, which began on the 27th May, led to the Battle of the r.Ena and further
defeat of Germany. The Germans did not have enough reserves for a decisive thrust to
Paris and from the beginning of July 1918, they are constantly retreating, losing barely
occupied positions. In fact, it became clear in August that Germany in the best case will
last several months, which eventually happened. Resources from the Entente, with the
help of the US, is now missing from the reserve, and a lead role in the offensive
operations of the allies began to play light tanks FT-17 and heavy Mk.V. The war ended
without a new Mk.VIII.
Thus, to January 1919, production of the great mass of heavy tanks was considered
totally unacceptable. By this time in the UK, North firms forces British Locomotive Co.
(Glasgow), managed to build seven tanks, with 5 of them - to the armistice. Also 100
assembly kits have been prepared. As the need for more Mk.VIII British army did not
feel all kits were shipped to the US.
The first US prototype designed to test only been assembled in early 1919 as mild steel
and equipped with engines Rolls-Royce. The rest of the party was issued with a full
booking of local production, which speeds up the assembly process. The cost of each
tank was estimated at $ 85,000 in 1919 prices.
~ 877 ~
Almost all the cars arrived at equipping the 67th Infantry (tank) regiment, and up until
1942 they were the only heavy tanks adopted by the US Army. Of course, their
operation was completed much earlier, but during this period Mk.VIII career has been
very eventful.
First of all, heavy tanks were widely used during the maneuvers of the US Army from
1920 to 1932 inclusive. At the same time the technical condition of vehicles was
maintained at a very high level. In addition, Mk.VIII served as a good base for a variety
of tests and experiments. In particular, on one of the tanks tried a new internal and
external ventilation system (developed by Heat Controlled Motor Company of
Minneapolis). Tests carried out successfully, but the system proved to be very
expensive and in the postwar period, funds for its implementation have not identified.
On the other tank on a trial basis was installed strobe dome with a circular rotation,
similar to the French tank 2C. The advantages of this innovation are evident, but the
actual installation was unsuccessful, and on its use declined.
The last of the diamond-shaped tanks had become Mk.VIII * ( "with an asterisk").
Development of this variant was carried out during 1918, according to the designers, the
improved "eight" different to the extended chassis and, accordingly, changed body.
Overall length was increased to 44 feet (13.41 m). As you might guess, the Allies once
again tried to create a tank that can overcome the anti-tank ditches and trenches width of
18 feet (5.49 m). Empty weight Mk.VIII *, with preliminary estimates, was about 42.0 -
42.5 tons, and with a full combat load - about 50 tons. Of course, the movement of such
a bulk and heavy machine to the front line by rail could be no question - the tank just
did not fit into the rail dimensions. In this case, it was assumed that Mk.VIII * will
deliver dismantled into sections and carry out the assembly of the front-line forces
workshops. However, check in reality it is not possible - 11th November 1918 Germany
surrendered and the need for a modernized heavy tank, even the best-in-class, fully
disappeared.
Operation Mk.VIII tanks in the US Army ended in 1932. Decommissioned tank

gradually razukomplektovyvalis and went to the "temporary parking" in Aberdeen,
where they planned to completely disassemble the passage of time. However, no case
the old "diamonds" stood for long.
September 1939 showed an overwhelming advantage in the Wehrmacht armored

vehicles. But if the production of tanks is gradually increasing in the UK, in the colonies
and dominions to the presence of production capacity was very tight. First Army was
worried Guide Canada, has only a few dozen armored vehicles and light tanks Mk.VI.
While the production of tanks unfolded in local businesses, Canadians decided not to
waste time and start the preparation tank in advance. Since the technology for this
purpose is not enough, it was decided to purchase the residual value of the old game of
tanks in the United States. Request from the Canadian administration included 500 light
tanks (meaning 6-ton M1917) and 98 heavy. As it turned out, so many armored
Americans simply did not have - in August 1940 failed to agree on the purchase of 250
M1917 total cost of $ 240 per share, and in September attended by the representatives
of Canada Tank Cemetery in Aberdeen, where a further operation considered fit only 15
Mk.VIII . However, even these tanks were incomplete - they completely lacked arms
and a piece of equipment. Sometimes it indicated that American Mk.VIII sponsons were
removed, which is not true. Further, there is no clear evidence about the fate Mk.VIII in
~ 878 ~
Canada. According to some sources, the tanks went to the Fort Garry Horse, on the
other - to the landfill in Camp Borden. But in any case the last "diamonds" transferred
to Canada were used only for training a driver.
The fate of the British machines, equipped with 300-horsepower engine of Ricardo, was
more sad. In total, the companies North British Locomotive Company and William
Beardmore and Company managed to collect 24 machines. Against the backdrop of
post-war euphoria Mk.VIII served as a good demonstration of the subject of the military
power of the Entente, but without any practical benefit. In early 1919, five tanks by rail
were sent to Wool (Wool). The only time a British Mk.VIII had to go on their own,
became the road to Bovington Camp (Bovington Camp), they did not go without
problems. Later they were used as teaching aids and no precise information about their
use has not been preserved. The British Army has refused to take them into service, and
by 1920 almost all Mk.VIII were dismantled. The only remaining tank for a long time
stood in the open air, and only in the 1930s. he was sent to the museum exhibition,
along with other rarities preserved.
Currently, only three survived heavy tank Mk.VIII, two of which are in the US and one
in the United Kingdom:
Fort Meade (Maryland) - the tank with the Liberty engine, previously belonged to
301-th and 17-th Tank Battalion, during 1921-1922. its commander was Major Dwight
D.Aynsover;
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Maryland) - the tank with the Liberty engine, in 2010,
the tank was transferred to the exposition of National Armor and Cavalry Museum in
Fort Benning (Georgia);
Bovington Tank Museum - the tank with the engine Ricardo, the only surviving car of
this type.
Was history Mk.VIII such an interesting case. In 1989, when were shooting the film
"Indiana Jones. Last Crusade", the director needed a tank, symbolizing the military
might of the German army. From the American point of view on the role of such a
machine is quite approached Mk.VIII - a strange choice, especially considering the fact
that "Liberty" had to fight against Germany. Apparently, some of the crew had the
opportunity to see a museum piece from the First World, and suggested the idea
Dzh.Lukasu. The result was built a full-scale model "German tank" , successfully used
in the film. In fairness it should be noted that the tank was very authentic (not taking
into account the design of the frontal part of the body and the "small" track shoes).
Moreover, the Americans have gone further and set up a tower instead of the
superstructure with a circular rotation, outwardly resembling a tower from the British
"Churchill" with a 57-mm gun. It is possible that this idea came developers Mk.VIII
much earlier, but its implementation has been fraught with many difficulties, including
installation tools and a general increase in weight. However, this method of improving
the diamond-shaped tanks fighting qualities still was in demand in 1939, when the
development of the famous TOG.
~ 879 ~
Mk.VIII "International" of the sample in 1919
CREW, pers. eleven
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 10430
Width 3658
Height mm 3124
Clearance, mm 528
two 6-pounder (57 mm) gun Hotchkiss and four 7.62-mm

WEAPONS
machine gun M1919 Browning in globular plants
allowance of 208 shots

ammunition 15,000 rounds of ammunition
telescopic gun sights

aiming DEVICES
add-on - 16 mm
RESERVATIONS housing forehead (top) - 12 mm
housing forehead (bottom) - 9.9 mm
~ 880 ~
food body - 12 mm
sponsons - 12 mm
roof - 6.1 mm
the bottom - 6.1 - 7.8 mm
Liberty 12, carburetor, 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 338 hp

ENGINE
power at 1400 rev. \ min, fuel tank 908 liters
mechanical type: 2-speed planetary transmission, mechanical

TRANSMISSION
brake
(On one side) 29 of rollers with a blocked suspension, one

upper tension roller, front steering wheel, rear wheel drive, the
CHASSIS top been supporting rail; Caterpillar krupnozvenchataya
number of trucks - 78 of track width - 673 mm, pitch truck -
283 mm
Cruising on the
68 km
highway
overcome obstacles
The angle of ascent,

54
hail.
Wall height, m 1.40
The depth of the ford,

0.86
m
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
~ 881 ~
Tank Mark IX
United Kingdom (1918) Armored personnel carrier 34 built
The worlds first APC
In late 1917, after studying reports of previous tank actions, the British general staff
agreed that the Tank Corps lacked a specialized supply model, which could also
function as a tracked armored personnel carrier. This was the tank Mark IX, based on
the long Mk.V* (star) for simplicity of design. It was originally intended to be quickly
fitted with armed sponsons if needed.
~ 882 ~
The idea of an APC was not new however. Colonel Estienne had already envisioned
that the Schneider CA-1 would carry four men plus its crew right to enemy the trenches;
and the Daimler Guinness Armored Trucks had been put into service a year earlier. But
what is amazing is that there will be no tracked APCs until 1944, when the Allies
experimented with turretless tanks, the kangaroo, which showed the need for
specialized tracked, heavily armored and well armed vehicles for troop transport. This
concept was fully developed during the Cold War.
Design
As its first task was to carry troops at least to the first line of enemy trenches, engineers
had to rework the Mk.V extensively. In itself the roomy Mk.V* was able to carry up to
10 infantrymen. However, they were confined in a highly gassy and extremely noisy
fighting compartment. By the time they disembarked through the small doors not really
suited for the task, they would have lost most of their combat abilities. But worst of all
was that only ten infantrymen, even with full ammunition, would not last long as a
fighting unit in itself when casualties amounted to hundreds in small spots.
The new requirement of the army command was the ability to carry no less than fifty
infantrymen, or 10 tons of payload. A freight which could be placed either inside or
outside, as part of the ammunition could be fixed in a roof housing for the
superstructure. Another option was towing three carriages. Thus, the tank hull would
have been significantly lengthened, while retaining almost the same height and width.
The variant chosen had two large oval doors on the sides, fitted for effective mass
landing and many pistol ports to fire from inside when approaching. Accordingly, the
sponson idea was dropped and standard weapons restricted only to two 8 mm (0.31 in)
Hotchkiss machine guns mounted on the sides.
~ 883 ~
The internal layout largely differed from the Mk.V*. In the process obtaining the largest
compartment possible, the engine was shifted forward and the the gearbox backwards.
Installed on the roof of the driver compartment was a low cylindrical commanders
cupola. The size of the central troop compartment was 13ft by 8 ft (4m x 2.45m). There
was only 5ft 4inches (1.62m) of head room. Cramming fifty infantrymen inside was
even in theory extremely difficult, so it was decided to accommodate only 30 men with
full equipment.
The most important innovation was the installation of two roof exhaust fans to extract
engine fumes. General protection remained similar to the Mk.V*. Enhanced armor
protection could only be added at the expense of ride comfort (since it was unsprung),
speed and mobility in general on soft terrain. As a result the frontal, sides and stern
plates thickness did not exceeded 10 mm (0.39 in).
The wheeltrain consisted of 24 doubled rollers with blocked suspension, and front and
rear guide wheel drive. Configuration was, as usual, of the rhomboid type, with metal
links having a 521 mm (20.5 in) length shoe, and 194 mm (7.64 in) pitch. The upper
part of the guide tracks was maintained by two tension rollers on each side.
Production of the Mark IX
Construction of the first prototype, dubbed The Pig, began at Marshall, Sons & Co.
factory, Gainsborough, in June 1918 and completed in October. In tests the maximum
speed was about 6.5 km/h (4.04 mph) but on rough terrain, this fell to just 1.3 km/h (0.8
mph). It could overcome trenches up to 3.8 meters (12.47 ft) large, and had a ground
pressure of 1.95 kg/cm2.
~ 884 ~
According to other data, the maximum speed on road was 13.5 km/h (8.39 mph) and the
range 89 km (55.3 mi). During trials several changes were ordered, one of which was
the installation of a muffler near the fans. Nevertheless the Mk.IX failed to completely
get rid of all the disadvantages of rhomboid tanks. The still uncompartmented engine
and excessive weight caused poor mobility in the field. Nevertheless, the Mk.IX was
produced since the Allies were determined to implement Plan 1919, the large-scale,
heavily mechanized final assault on Germany.
~ 885 ~
Among other things, it called for supply and transport tanks. As a result before the
armistice only two tanks had been ready for field tests on the Western Front, and only
one of the first three then assembled was ready during October and November 1918.
This sole Mk.IX was used in France as a sanitary conveyor. The remaining 34 Mk.IXs
were finished after the war, and none would see actual combat although they
participated in some exercises.
The worlds first amphibious APC
~ 886 ~
Shortly before the end of the war the first Mk.IX tested the ability to install floats for
wading. As such, it was emptied, and reinforced on the flanks and fore part of the hull.
The landing doors were sealed and gaskets used for pumping air.
Movement in water was provided by the rotation of the tracks, but special blades
attached to the links were added for extra grip. In addition, a roof compartment housed
part of the gear-cutting equipment, and the exhaust went through it. The amphibious
Mk.IX was unofficially called The Duck and began a test series in November 11,
1918, conducted at Dolly Hill.
These were considered successful, although the tank was very slow and had low water
buoyancy. In addition, this configuration precluded placement of access doors and the
installation of a powerful weaponry. In November 1918 the tests were terminated.
The only amphibious Mk.IX was subsequently scrapped, but the data obtained in the
tests helped later in the construction of more advanced amphibious tanks by Vickers.
So far, only one Mk.IX, noted IC 15, survived, which is now exhibited at the Bovington
Tank Museum.
Mark IX specifications
Length 31ft 11in (9.07m).
Dimensions Width 8ft (2.44m).
Height 8ft 8in (2.64m)
Total weight 37 tons
Crew 4 + 30 infantry men
Propulsion Ricardo crosshead valve, water-cooled straight six

petrol engine 150hp @ 1250rpm
Road Speed 4 mph (6.4 km/h)
Range 45 miles (72.42 km)
Armament 2x 0.303 inch (7.62mm) Hotchkiss air-cooled

machine guns
Armor Max 10 mm
Length 8 inches (21.4cm)

Track links
Side Hatch Length 4ft (1.21m)
~ 887 ~
Total production 34
Mark IX in its regular livery, Somme sector, October 1918.
Camouflaged Mark IX Pig in 1919.
Amphibious Mark IX Duck during tests, Devon.
~ 888 ~
The need for armoured cross-country troop and supply carriers was recognized when the
first tanks were built. In practice this was carried out by standard or slightly modified
heavy tanks - satisfactorily in the case of the supply carriers which were converted
Tanks Marks I-IV or Gun Carriers, but very unsuccessfully for carrying men
unaccustomed to travelling in the confined, poorly ventilated and rocking interior of a
tank. It was decided in 1917, therefore, to produce a tank specially as a supply or
infantry carrier. The design was entrusted to Lieutenant G. J. Rackham: work was
commenced in September and the prototype of Tank, Mark IX completed by Sir. W. G.
Armstrong, Whitworth & Co. in the following year. Full-scale production (which was
undertaken by Marshall Sons & Co. of Gainsborough, Lincolnshire) started too late for
Mark IXs to be used in action, although thirty-five were completed by the end of 1918.
The Tank, Mark IX could carry up to fifty infantrymen or ten tons of supplies. The hull
was an elongated version of the lozenge profile of the Mark V, etc. but without the
sponsons, which were replaced by two large oval doors on each side. The fixed
armament consisted only of two Hotchkiss machine-guns, but a row of loopholes was
provided on each side of the hull to allow infantry being carried to use their own light
weapons. Mechanically, the Mark IX was based on the Mark V. In order to give a large
clear space in the middle of the tank, the Ricardo 150-h.p. engine was placed
immediately behind the drivers/commander's compartment although the gearbox and,
~ 889 ~
of course, final drive was at the rear of the tank. This left the centre compartment (13 ft
6 in. long and 5 ft 3 in. wide) clear except for the Cardan shaft running through the
centre.
The Mark IX had a loaded weight of 37 tons and the same engine as the Mark V so, not
surprisingly, the top speed was low (only 4 m.p.h.) compared with contemporary British
heavy tanks. However, it would have played a useful part had the war continued longer
and development of this type of machine - which was then neglected for the next twenty
years - would have been followed.
An experimental amphibious version of the Mark IX, fitted with long cylindrical air
drums each side, was first tried out on the Welsh Harp at Hendon, near London, on
Armistice Day, 1918.
The nicely preserved Mk IX in the fine photos here can be seen in the splendid Tank
Museum in Bovington, in the UK. The photos have been taken by Knut Erik Hagen, an
old friend to this site.
Official designation: Heavy Tank Mk.IX

Alternative notation: Mark IX Armoured Personell Carrier, Mk.IX Heavy Infantry
Carrier
Start design: 1918
Stage of completion: built 36 tanks including 2 prototype in the fighting were not used.
At the end of 1917, after summing up the previous tank battles, the British agreed that
the Tank Corps in the lack of specialized tank supply, which could also serve as a
tracked armored personnel carriers. So there was a tank Mark IX (we have it is better
known as Mk.IX), is a deep streamlined design series Mk.V *.
Since the priority was put service landing, at least to the first line of enemy trenches, the
engineers had to properly recycle the body. Generally the same Mk.V * was able to
carry up to 10 people inside, good size of the tank is allowed. However, in the process
of transporting the soldiers were constantly in highly gassy fighting compartment at the
time of landing and lost combat capability. In addition, the embarkation and
disembarkation of tanks carried out through the doors sponsons, which was not very
comfortable for the rest of ekipzha. But worst of all was the fact that 10 people, even
with a full ammunition in the enemy's defenses have lasted long. The new requirement
from the army command was the ability to transfer 50 (!) People, or 10 tonnes of
payload. Freight can be carried out both within the body and outside - of the
ammunition can be mounted on the roof of the superstructure body. Another option
assuming tow three wagons. Thus, the tank corps had significantly lengthen retaining
almost the same height and width. The sides were performed by two large oval door
(opened during the forward dvzhieniya), which greatly simplifies the landing, and
hatches to fire the rifles. Accordingly, it was necessary to dismantle the sponsons and
standard weapons restricted by only two 8-mm machine guns mounted on the sides of
Hotchkiss.
The layout of the body is not much different from Mk.V *. In the process of finalizing
the engine shifted forward, and the troop compartment placed between it and the
~ 890 ~
gearbox. On the roof of the cabin installed a low nadostoyku and cylindrical
commander's cupola. Gear lever and reversing moved upward. To facilitate the
conditions of stay in the tank installed in the housing water tank. The length of the troop
compartment was 4 meters, width - 2.45 m. With such volumes of placement of 50
people it has been extremely difficult, so we decided to limit ourselves to only 30 Solat
with full equipment. The most important innovation was the installation on the roof of
the two exhaust fans. Reservations and overall security remained at MK.V * level.
Increase armor protection was only possible at the expense of ride quality of the tank,
which is already expected low. As a result, the front of the book, and the sides of the
stern hull does not exceed 10 mm.
Chassis tank consisted of 24 road wheels with a blocked suspension, front rails and rear
wheel drive. Caterpillar, as well as on other "diamond-shaped" tanks were metal,
krupnozvenchatoy engagement with Zubov. The width of the truck was 521 mm, the
truck move - 194 mm. The upper branch of the caterpillars kept directing zhelobomi
two tension rollers on each side.
Construction of the first sample, which was the original name of "The Pig" ( "pig")
began at the Marshall factory in Gensbro ( "Marshall, Sons & Co." , Gainsborough) in
June 1918 and completed in the autumn. In tests this interesting transport tank
developed a speed in the range of 1.3 to 6.5 km \ h, good overcame the trench to a width
of 3.80 meters and had a ground pressure of the order of 1.95 kg \ sm.kv.. According to
other data, the maximum speed was 13.5 km \ h, power reserve - 89 km away. During
tests in the design of the tank was introduced a number of changes, one of which was
the installation of the silencer near the fan. Nevertheless, Mk.IX failed to completely get
rid of all the drawbacks of a diamond-shaped machines. Still adversely affected the
close placement of the power plant, which was not separated from the troop
compartment, high gas content in the body and low mobility on the ground.
Construction Mk.IX tanks in other circumstances would not have taken place, but the
Allies are determined to implement the "1919 Plan". Among other things, it provided
for the supply of desantanyh tanks. As a result, before the armistice was fully prepared
only two tanks. On the Western Front has got only one of the three first assembled cars
- during October-November 1918 that Mk.IX used in France as a sanitary belt. The
remaining 34 Mk.IX collected after the war, but in actual combat conditions, none of
them unused. In fact, their construction was not necessary.
Shortly before the end of the war Mk.IX tank became the first British armored vehicles,
which tested the ability to install the floats to overcome water obstacles. As such, we
use an empty tank, reinforced on the sides and in the fore part of the body. Side doors
sealed gaskets for air swap used fur. The movement of the water carried by the rotation
of the tracks for which they have established special blades. In addition, the add-on has
been set high, which houses part of the Furniture Unit, and through the exhaust pipes
were pulled her roof.
In tests floating Mk.IX called "The Duck" ( "Duck") entered November 11, 1918 on
the basis of tests conducted in Dolly Hill (Dollis Hill) were deemed successful, even
though the tank is very weak control on the water and have a low reserve buoyancy . In
addition, this configuration eliminates placement landing inside the enclosure and install
powerful weapons. Ending the war in November 1918, did not allow the promotion of
~ 891 ~
work in this area further. The only example of a floating Mk.IX later scrapped for metal,
but the data obtained in the tests then it helped in the construction of more advanced
amphibious tanks. So far, only one survived Mk.IX Skid source IC 15, which is on
display at the Bovington Tank Museum.
SPECIFICATIONS amphibious HEAVY TANK

Heavy Tank Mk.IX sample 1918
CREW, pers. 4 tanker and 30 soldiers
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 9720
Width 2460
Height mm 2640
Clearance, mm 550
WEAPONS two 8-mm Hotchkiss machine guns in airborne units
roof - 6mm
the bottom - 6 mm
Of Ricardo, carburetor, 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled,

ENGINE
150 hp at 1250 on. \ min
TRANSMISSION mechanical type: 4-speed planetary gearbox
(On one side) 24 bearing roller with a blocked

suspension, 2 upper tension roller, front steering
CHASSIS wheel, rear wheel drive, the top been supporting rail;
krupnozvenchataya caterpillar, truck width - 521
mm, pitch truck - 194 mm
~ 892 ~
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Heavy Tank Mk.X
Official designation: Heavy Tank Mk.X

Start design: 1918
Date of construction of the first prototype: not built
Stage of completion: 1918 built a full-size mock-up, the program will be canceled in
view of the current mismatch requirements.
If Mk.VIII heavy tank was the last of the "rhombus", the implementation of which has
been brought to serial production, among numerous heirs Mk.V final project, known as
Mk.V *** (three stars) or Mk.X.
It was planned that construction serial Mk.V be upgraded so much that happens in a
new tank. Among the changes, in addition to a longer body, figured enhanced weapons -
the on-board part of the sponsons improved design was installed on one additional
machine gun, which increased the crew for another two people. Among other
innovations planned to apply the improved filtration system and air cooling inside the
crew compartment with the use of exhaust fans a new type. In addition, for protection
against gas attacks the same system would create a positive pressure inside the
enclosure.
~ 893 ~
However, the basic design has not changed. Chassis tank, applied to one side, included
26 road wheels with a stiffer suspension, front steering and rear drive wheel and guide
rail for supporting the upper branch of the caterpillars krupnozvenchatoy. The hull was
riveted, and going on a metal frame. Thickness reservation apparently does not exceed
6.12 mm.
Layout heavy tank Mk.X, submitted for consideration in mid-1918, has received a good
grade, but from its implementation abandoned. By the time mass production was
already running a more advanced model Mk.VII and the need for a modernized Mk.V
disappeared by itself.
DESIGN tactical and technical totalizer heavy tanks

Heavy Tank Mk.X sample 1918
Combat weight about 33000-35000 kg

CREW, pers. 10
DIMENSIONS
Length mm about 9000
Width about 3200
Height mm about 2750
Clearance, mm ?
two 57-mm cannon and six Hotchkiss 8 mm machine gun
WEAPONS
Hotchkiss
aiming DEVICES
roof - 6mm
the bottom - 6 mm
Of Ricardo, carburetor, 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, 150 hp at
ENGINE
1250 on. \ min, fuel tank 454 liters
caterpillar krupnozvenchataya
SPEED about 6 km \ h on the road
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m 1.20
MEANS OF not installed
~ 894 ~
COMMUNICATION
Little Willie
United Kingdom (1915) Prototype 1 built
Genesis of the Concept
The very first British tank (and the first in the world at the same time) derived from a
number of projects dating back to the early 1915 stalemate. Then the first ideas
advocated less for an armored fighting vehicle and more for a way to clear up barb wire,
which was usually covered by direct, accurate machine gun fire. The alternative at the
time were night operations by small detachments, but these were tricky. A noise (tin
cans were often attached to the supports of the barb wire), a flare, and then heavy fire
caused havoc on the raiding party.
Later, other experiments included the reintroduction of the armour, various man-carried
protections, but each time they were shown to be of little use against bullets, prone to
concussions and the legs and arms of the operators were not protected. A big wheel with
spinning hooks mounted on the front of a Holt tractor was the preferred concept at the
time. But the need to protect the driver and the evolution of military thinking led to the
land cruisers, which ultimately never left the drawing board.
Origins
Despite its seemingly cute name the Little Willie was in fact a impressive war
machine conceived to punch a hole in the German lines. It was officially named a
tank to deceive any enemy intelligence on the project.
The Little Willie was the origin of all the British tank development during World War
One. In fact, the original project initiated by the Landships Committee was picturing a
vehicle capable of crossing any kind of trenches and destroying barb wire in the
process.
The Landships Committee was established in February 1915 as a small British War
Cabinet commission, headed by the first Lord of Admiralty, Sir Winston Churchill, and
composed of various politicians, engineers and officers, with the goal of producing the
first armored vehicle before the end of 1915.
The original idea, which provided the basis for the project, came from Col. Ernest
Swinton and was promoted by Col. Maurice Hankey. The whole project was later
supported by Churchill himself, whom was aware that such a concept could turn the tide
of trench warfare in favor of the side which possessed the landships (H. G. Wells
writings had provided inspiration).
~ 895 ~
The Navy also had interests in the project, not only because of Churchill, but because
this was a development for enclosed guns. Among those who took some early interest
were Thomas Hetherington and Col. Wilfred Dumble of the Royal Brigade.
Testing the Lincoln Machine
The track was indeed the major source of trouble throughout the test campaign. The first
version was directly inspired only a strengthened tractor track. But due to the sheer
weight of the hull and the mud, traction resistance of the plain, flat track was just too
much for the tiny engine, which also led to poor steering. Other tracks were tested until
Lt. Gordon Wilson ultimately delivered the right solution.
A combination of new, hard-steel plates riveted to links with guides to be firmly kept in
place, and connected to the hull with large spindles. This was done by the end of
September, and ultimately proven by far the most reliable system. It was kept for every
British tank in the war, although it limited speed. The motor was a powerful 105 bhp
Daimler Benz at the back of the hull (the basis was the Foster-Daimler tractor), fed by
one internal and two external fuel tanks.
Armament was designed to be made up of one standard Vickers 2-pounder gun with
800 rounds and no less than six Madsen 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Machine guns. A dummy
turret was tested and plans included large openings to laterally aim the gun, which was
mounted on a rail system. Intended crew was six at least, and protection was assumed
by 10 mm bullet-proof riveted plates.
Pre-production
Wilson, whom headed the project, felt the first prototype did not satisfy his expectations
and built a second one, the HMLS Centipede, Mk. I. It included a rhomboid track frame
with the armament mounted on sponsons in the hull after the removal of the turret.
The first prototype was also rebuilt, with a longer track and other minor modifications.
In December, the first prototype was renamed Little Willie after the yellow press
mocking the German Imperial Crown Prince Wilhelm, and the second Big Willie
after his father. But after popular reception and further extensive tests, only the concept
of Big Willie was retained for production (although the first British tank series differed
in many aspects).
It was, in January 1916, the worlds first pre-production tank prototype, one month
before the French Schneider CA-1 made its debut.
~ 896 ~
Little Willie specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h) 5.872.862.51 m (19x9x8 feet)
Crew 6
Propulsion Foster-Daimler Knight sleeve valve petrol

105 hp
Speed 3.22 km/h (2 mph)
Range/consumption 30 km/800 liters (18.64 mi)
Armament Vickers 2 Pdr (40 mm) Mk. II

6 Vickers 7.7 mm (0.303 in) machine guns
Armour From 10 to 15 mm (0.39-0.59 inches)
Total production One prototype
Design
Thomas Hetherington, supported at first by Churchill, proposed a real land ironclad,

weighing about 300 tons, equipped with a large range of guns and machine guns. But
while the idea was attractive on paper, not even naval-grade engines could match up to
~ 897 ~
such a monster. But the idea of a heavy cross-country vehicle made its debut. An
artillery tractor was soon envisioned as the basis for a more practical design.
In July 1915, after many discussions, a specification was issued for a war engine able to
cross a 1.5 m (5 feet) trench. This was the start of a project rush and, in the end, the
winner was William A. Tritton of the agricultural William Foster & Co of Lincoln. He
had given an order to produce a double tracked prototype based on a design by Trittons
chief engineer, William Rigby. This was to be based on the Creeping Grip Tractor of
the Bullock company from Chicago, a fairly crude, but sturdy system.
In just a month (beginning in mid-August), the first prototype, called N1 Lincoln

Machine, was ready for tests, already fitted with a wheeled tail for better steering. On
the 5th of September the Lincoln machine was tested at the Wellington foundry yard.
Many improvements for the tracks and suspension were done during the process.
The N1 Lincoln Machine on trials, September 1915. This first design incorporated,
almost without changes, the original Daimler tracks, which came from an artillery
tractor and proved too flimsy and short for the large hull. The dummy turret (here
covered) was assumed to use the light, naval, quick firing Vickers 2 pounder (40 mm),
against machine gun nests, but was never fitted in this configuration. Later tests were
made with the gun mounted in a sponson, another naval feature.
Fate and Further Development
Little Willie (now at the Bovington museum) was the basis for the Medium Mk. A
Whippet as well as for the tracks of the production Mk. I. As the length of the tracks
proved so important to cross obstacles, subsequent trials on the new Mk. I tank led to
the famous lozenge design, where the tank had its tracks run the whole length and
height.
~ 898 ~
There was not yet any concept of separating tanks with guns and tanks with machine
guns (male and female), as the prototype was a male, combining six machine guns
and a gun in a sponson (also a naval feature). The crew would probably have been made
of seven persons, in a confined, dark, hot, steamy and noisy environment. It had no
suspensions at all, so any bumps on the ground were fully resented.
The dummy turret preceded the Renault FT-17 concept by a year at least, but the
steering system was not yet even conceived. Many considered the tank too high and an
easy target for enemy guns. The relatively lightly armored hull was largely considered
sufficient, but the Germans later proved that a single K armor-piercing bullet* could
be lethal against tanks.
As there were no antitank guns at the time, a direct hit by a 75 mm or larger shell would
have been lethal as well. There was a long way to go before sloped armor and more
refined protections.
Little Willie with its tailwheel mounted for tests in December 1915.
~ 899 ~
Lincoln Machine number one
The Little Willie, as it appeared after its final modifications, in December 1915. Since
the first Lincoln machine trials it was fitted with an extra tail-wheel to enhance steering
and for crossing large trenches. This feature was successful and retained for the
subsequent Mk.I British tank. The specially designed track system was also considered
a success. Unlike the previous design, the longer tracks made it better able to cross all
kind of difficult, muddy ground, especially trenches and the removal of the turret added
some stability.
Little Willie was a prototype in the development of the British Mark I tank.
Constructed in the autumn of 1915 at the behest of the Landships Committee, it was the
first completed tank prototype in history. Little Willie is the oldest surviving individual
tank, preserved as one of the most famous pieces in the collection of The Tank
Museum, Bovington, England.
Number 1 Lincoln Machine
Work on Little Willie's predecessor was begun in July 1915 by the Landships
Committee to meet Great Britain's requirement in World War I for an armoured combat
vehicle able to cross a 8-foot (2.4 m) trench. After several other projects with single and
triple tracks had failed, on 22 July William Ashbee Tritton, director of the agricultural
machinery company William Foster & Company of Lincoln, was given the contract to
develop a "Tritton Machine" with two tracks. It had to make use of the track assemblies
- lengthened tracks and suspension elements (seven road wheels instead of four) -
~ 900 ~
purchased as fully built units from the Bullock Creeping Grip Tractor Company in
Chicago.
On 11 August actual construction began; on 16 August Tritton decided to fit a wheeled

tail to assist in steering. On 9 September the Number 1 Lincoln Machine, as the
prototype was then known, made its first test run in the yard of the Wellington Foundry.
It soon became clear that the track profiles were so flat that ground resistance during a
turn was excessive. To solve this, the suspension was changed so that the bottom profile
was more curved. Then the next problem showed up: when crossing a trench the track
sagged and then would not fit the wheels again and jammed. The tracks were also not
up to carrying the weight of the vehicle (about 16 tons). Tritton and Lieutenant Walter
Gordon Wilson tried several types of alternative track design, including balat belting
and flat wire ropes. Tritton, on 22 September, devised a robust but outwardly crude
system using pressed steel plates riveted to cast links and incorporated guides to engage
on the inside of the track frame. The track frames as a whole were connected to the
main body by large spindles.[1] This system was unsprung, as the tracks were held
firmly in place, able to move in only one plane. This was a successful design and was
used on all First World War British tanks up to the Mark VIII, although it limited speed.
Description
The vehicle's 13 litre 105 bhp Daimler-Knight engine, gravity fed by two petrol tanks,[2]
was at the back, leaving just enough room beneath the turret. The prototype was fitted
with a non-rotatable dummy turret mounting a machine gun; a Vickers 2-pounder
(40 mm) Maxim gun ("Pom-pom") was to have been fitted, with as many as six Madsen
machine guns to supplement it.[3] The main gun would have had a large ammunition
store with 800 rounds. Stern suggested to Tritton that the gun could be made to slide
forward on rails, giving a better field of fire, but in the event the turret idea was
abandoned and the aperture for the crew plated over. In the front of the vehicle two men
sat on a narrow bench; one controlling the steering wheel, the clutch, the primary gear
box and the throttle; the other holding the brakes. Overall length of the final version
with the lengthened tracks and rear steering wheels in place was 8.08 m (26 ft 6 in). The
length of the main unit without the rear steering wheels installed is 5.87 m (19 ft 3 in).
Most mechanical components, including the radiator, had been adapted from those of
the Foster-Daimler heavy artillery tractor. As at least four men would have been
required to operate the armament, the crew could not have been smaller than six. The
maximum speed was indicated by Tritton as being no more than two miles per hour.
The vehicle used no real armour steel, just boiler plate; it was intended to use 10 mm
plating for production.
Little Willie and Big Willie
Wilson was unhappy with the basic concept of the Number 1 Lincoln Machine, and on
17 August suggested to Tritton the idea of using tracks that ran all around the vehicle.
With d'Eyncourt's approval[4] construction of an improved prototype began on 17
September. For this second prototype (later known as "HMLS [His Majesty's Land
Ship] Centipede", and, later still, "Mother"), a rhomboid track frame was fitted, taking
the tracks up and over the top of the vehicle. The rear steering wheels were retained in
~ 901 ~
an improved form, but the idea of a turret was abandoned and the main armament
placed in side sponsons.
Number 1 Lincoln Machine was rebuilt with an extended (90 centimetres longer) track
up to 6 December 1915, but merely to test the new tracks in Burton Park, near Lincoln;
the second prototype was seen as much more promising. The first was renamed Little
Willie, the scabrous name then commonly used by the British yellow press to mock the
German Imperial Crown Prince Wilhelm; Mother was for a time known as Big Willie,
after his father Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany. That same year the cartoonist William
Kerridge Haselden had made a popular comic anti-German propaganda movie: The
Adventures of Big and Little Willie. Although Little Willie was demonstrated alongside
Mother in January 1916, it was by then peripheral to the development of British tanks.
Though it never saw combat, Little Willie was a major step forward in military
technology, being the first tank prototype to be finished.[note 1] During the remainder of
World War I, some tank crews continued to informally refer to their vehicles as
"Willies" or "buses". In 1922 the Royal Tank Regiment adopted a folk song called My
Boy Willie as its regimental march.[5]
Today
Little Willie was preserved for posterity after the war, saved from being scrapped in
1940, and is today displayed at the The Tank Museum at Bovington. It is essentially an
empty hull, without an engine, but still with some internal fittings. The rear steering
wheels are not fitted and there is damage to the hull plating around the righthand
vision slit, possibly caused by an attempt at some point to tow the vehicle by passing a
cable through the slit. This would have torn the tank's comparatively thin steel plating.[6]
Type Prototype tank
Designed July 1915
Produced AugustSeptember 1915
Number built 1
Weight 16.5 tonnes
19 ft 3 in (5.87 m)
Length 26 ft 6 in (8.08 m) inc. rear
steering wheels
~ 902 ~
hull
Height
turret
Crew (Projected) 6
Main (Projected) Vickers 2-

armament pounder gun
(Projected) Various
Secondary suggestions of Maxim,
armament Hotchkiss, Lewis, or Madsen
machine guns
Foster-Daimler Knight sleeve

Engine valve petrol
105 hp (78 kW)
Two-speed forwards, one

Transmission reverse
final drive by Renolds chains
Suspension Unsprung
The 'Little Willie' 1st Tank
This WW1 British first prototype tank called Little Willie. It was an Armoured Personel
Carrier. It can be found at the Tank Museum, Bovington, Dorest, BH20 6JG, England.
Their website is tankmuseum.org.
~ 903 ~
WW1 British First tank called Little Willie.
We need an armoured landship destroyer!
The Allies need something that would enable them to break out of the stalemate of
trench warfare. Lieutenant-Colonel Ernest Swinton, a Royal Engineer Officer submitted
a paper to the British Army General Headquarters GHQ on 1st June 1915 advocating
the use of Armoured Machine Gun Destroyers to overcome the impasse.
He went on to specify that the Destroyers would utilise petrol tractors on the
caterpillar principle that were already used on farms and building site. Swinton went on
to insist that they be armoured with hardened steel plates proof against German steel-
cored, armour piercing and reversed bullets. He suggested that they be fitted with two
maxims and a 2pdr gun. The intent was for this vehicle to directly engage with opposing
enemy machine gun posts on advantageous terms.
~ 904 ~
The 1915 WW1 British First tank Little Willie was not fitted with guns.
The Royal Artillery were already using caterpillar tracked vehicles to tow heavy
artillery guns in France. Lieutenant-Colonel Maurice Hankey read Swintons paper and
shared his view that this was the weapon that could be the solution to the break
through problem. He the secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence and was very
influential. He knew the people to talk to.
They submitted a joint paper to the War Office on Boxing Day 1914. Some dismissed it
as a work of fancy but the paper came to the attention of the First Sea Lord at the
Admiralty, Winston Churchill. He saw the merits of this idea. He endorsed Swinton and
Hankey's memo and sent it to Prime minister Asquith at the end of 1914. Churchill had
also been approached by officers of the Royal Naval Air Service Armoured Car
Squadron, which was under his jurisdiction, to set up a Landship Committee in
February 1915, to look into the matter. He diverted the necessary funds to pay for the
development. It is strange that the development of the Army tank has the Navy to thank.
~ 905 ~
WW1 British First tank called Little Willie.
By June 1915 a War Office specification was issued for a machine armed with two
machine-guns and a quick firing light gun crewed by ten men, capable of crossing
broken ground and barbed wire. A top speed of not less than ten miles an hour on flat
ground with a sharp turn and reverse capability was needed. The machine had to climb
five foot earth parapets and travers eight foot gaps.
In short, the War Office wanted a machine that could cross a shell cratered no-mans
land and drive over enemy trenches whilst shooting machine guns and shells at the
enemy positions. William Fosters of Lincoln was awarded the contract on 24th July
1915.
The Royal Navy offered the use of 6pdr guns and ammunition. Sources of armour plate
and machine guns were identified. A 105hp Damiler engine was chosen as it was
already in production. The big problem for the development team was the shape of the
vehicle and where to find a caterpillar track and suspension system that could cope with
the heavy weight, the difficult terrain and trench crossing.
Within three weeks of being awarded the contact a tracked metal box prototype called
Little Willie was produced. After a number of trials, shortfalls were identified with the
box design. Major Walter Wilson was heavily involved in solving some of the early
mechanical teething problems such as minimal ground clearance, top as well as front
heaviness and insufficient track length. This meant that in trials the Little Willie tank
would crash down into trenches and not have enought length of body to bridge enemy
trenches. He went on to design the rhomboidal shape that became the Mark I tank.
Tritton Chaser Whippet prototype
~ 906 ~
Inspiration
The tank concept itself was new to war having been unleashed on the Germans on the
15th of September 1916 at Flers-Courcelette. William Tritton (knighted February 1917
for his services relating to tanks) was at the front in person less than a week after this
first use of tanks. No doubt seeing first hand the appalling conditions through which his
larger rhomboid (male and female) tanks were having to proceed caused Tritton a
great deal of thought.
By November 1916, less than two months after this visit, work on this light tank
formally began and actual construction of a prototype was started on the 21st of
December 1916. This remarkably short design and development time is both a tribute to
the skill of the designers; William Tritton and William Rigby, and the factory staff but
was also to cause problems with the vehicle. Tank warfare was a brand new concept and
the trailblazers in any field will make mistakes so some of these faults can be excused to
a certain extent.
~ 907 ~
The Whippet nickname already applied to the flat front of the Tritton Chaser would
later stick as an official name. The small hole below it is for the engine starting handle.
~ 908 ~
Layout of the Tritton Chaser machines twin engines.
The First Machine
The first machine, known by the 3rd of February 1917 as the Tritton Chaser, was
already able to move under its own power and for the first time featured a fully rotating
turret for a single .303 calibre Lewis machine gun on a similar appearance to that of the
Austin armored car of the period. It sported the name The Whippet already and the
name would stick.
This first vehicle had problems however, the front was a single vertical plate covering
the engine and the driver offset to the right had a very limited field of vision. The fuel
tank was at the rear and was unarmored and the machine had no exhausts on either side,
meaning the crew would be directly exposed to engine exhaust gases.
This vehicle completed a running trial first of the 11th of February, and then formally
on the 3rd of March at Oldbury, near Birmingham where it was demonstrated to
representatives of the Ministry of Munitions. At this time the machine was Trittons
Chaser but was officially noted as being Trittons Light Machine (EMB)
~ 909 ~
[Experimental Machine B] and given No.2 as it was the second vehicle tested that
day. During the tests, this vehicle sported a single horizontal green painted band running
all around the hull just above the level of the tracks, as each vehicle tested was color
coded with green being vehicle number 2 that day as this color coding would help the
senior British and French officers present to tell apart which of the vehicles was being
tested.
The suspension consisted of 16 sets of Skefco roller bearings on each side above which
are the very distinctive holes in the side through which mud picked up across country
would be discharged and which also doubled as an additional layer of armor and
reduced the weight of the machine. This arrangement was patented by Tritton in a filing
dated the 2nd of February 1917 clearly showing the outline of what was to become the
layout of the Whippet albeit with just four mud chutes and not the 5 initially used on
this first machine.
~ 910 ~
Images: Patent GB126,671 filed 2nd of February 1917
Despite the flaws in the machine it managed just over 8 mph (12.9 kph) as a top speed
from its twin 45hp Tylor JB4 petrol engines which was nearly double the speed of the
Mark IV and V tanks. Tritton had preferred a more powerful engine to take the tank to
over 10mph but the War Office (WO) had supply problems for engines so the 45hp
Tylor was all there was for the tank. Sir William Tritton was later to remark that the
choice of the 45hp engines had spoiled an otherwise useful machine. The drive system
was unusual and difficult to master. Each engine drove a separate track and steering was
~ 911 ~
effected by way of the driver adjusting the throttle control on each engine but it did have
the advantage of only requiring one driver.
Many of the initial design features of the Chaser tank did eventually make it into the
production vehicle but this initial machine was first rebuilt with the top of the machine
stripped back. The turret was removed and a much large polygonal superstructure built
instead. An exhaust was added to each side of the engine and but it retained the fuel
tank at the rear. Machine gun ports were cut into the new polygonal superstructure and
at least one ball mount fitted in the right hand side but the front of the engine bay lacked
any additional vents.
Rebuilt Tritton Chaser pictured on trial on the William Foster and Co. test field. Photo:
IWM
In this form it was envisaged to now take up to four Hotchkiss .303 calibre machine
guns, one in each face of the superstructure covering each side of the vehicle. The crew
had increased from 2 to now as many as four (driver, commander and two machine
gunners). Further work was then done to this machine with additional engine vents cut
into the sides of the engine bay at the front and the moving of the fuel tank to the front
under a rounded cover. It is speculated that this may have been to adjust the centre of
gravity for the vehicle to improve its trench crossing ability.
~ 912 ~
The rebuilt Tritton Chaser with its trailing wheels
Close up the the Hotchkiss machine gun mount as preserved on A259 Caesar II at
Bovington. Photo: tank-hunter.com
~ 913 ~
Rebuilt Tritton Chaser showing the holes cut for the vents and the new forward
placement of the fuel tank. In this photo the vehicle is also using prominent track spuds
to obtain additional traction in soft ground. In practice these were used very rarely.
~ 914 ~
~ 915 ~
Rebuilt Tritton Chaser with a rudimentary canvas track guard fitted presumably in an
attempt to limit the amount of mud being thrown up onto the vehicle. Machine gun
ports have been cut but no armament is fitted. Photo: IWM
Rebuilt Tritton Chaser with experimental wheels fitted (the vehicle in the foreground is
a gun carrier).
~ 916 ~
This prototype vehicle remained at the testing grounds of the Mechanical Warfare
Supply Department at Dollis Hill, London where it was later tested with trailing wheels
and even a rear tail-skid (presumably akin to that of the Renault FT) to try and improve
trench crossing. No photo of this skid fitted seems to have survived and there is only
one poor quality shot of the wheels fitted. It was eventually moved to the Imperial War
Museum and later scrapped.
The wheels were found to be more effective than the tail skid. Trench crossing trials
were held in May 1918 without either wheels or a tail-skid fitted. It was found that the
effective trench crossing limit of the production Whippet tank to be 10 feet (3.05m)
although the official figure was 8.5 feet (2.59m). Trench crossing ability was to plague
the mind of the British military in not just WW1 but well into the next war too. The
Army had their lighter faster tank design ready now to go into production.
Specifications Tritton Chaser Rebuilt Tritton Chaser

2 (driver, commander/machine 4 (driver, commander,
Crew
gunner) 2xmachine gunners)
2 x 7.72 litre 45hp Tylor JB4 petrol 2 x 7.72 litre 45hp Tylor JB4
Propulsion engines, 33 kW each @1200/1250 petrol engines, 33 kW each
rpm @1200/1250 rpm
Speed 8 mph (13 km/h) 8 mph (13 km/h)
16 Skefco roller bearings each

Suspension 16 Skefco roller bearings each side
side
4 x .303 calibre Hotchkiss

.303 calibre Lewis machine gun in a
Armament machine guns, (1 forward, 1 left,
360 degree rotating turret
1 right and 1 to the rear)
Most likely mild steel unarmored, 5- Most likely mild steel

Armor
14 mm unarmored, 5-14 mm
The Whippet Tank, capable of speeds up to 14km/h, was named after the whippet dog.
Two hundred Whippet tanks, numbered between A200 and A 400, were manufactured
by William Foster & Co Ltd of Lincoln, England, from October 1917. Armed with four
Hotchkiss machine-guns, they were designed to exploit break-through situations created
by the heavy tanks. Their first action was in France on 26 March 1918.
~ 917 ~
The Whippet had two, four-cylinder, 45hp Tylor petrol engines. The interior was hot,
noisy and cramped. The tank was difficult to drive and steer as each engine drove one
track and the driver faced the task of controlling two engines and two gearboxes
simultaneously.
Eight members of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th South African Infantry, who were in England at
the end of the First World War, served as the two crews of the Whippet during its five-
month long tour of the Union of South Africa in 1919. The four men on the left,
Privates Stuckey, Lang and Brown, and Second Lieutenant I Rees, formed one crew.
The second crew comprised Sergeant Fraser and Privates Mackenzie and Hubbard,
commanded by Lieutenant K Mackenzie.
When the First World War ended in November 1918, tank technology was new and of
great public interest. The Union of South Africa requested a tank to assist with raising
funds for the Governor General's Fund. This fund, initiated in August 1914 by Mrs
Annie Botha, the wife of the Prime Minister of South Africa, aimed to assist all soldiers
and their families affected in any way by the war. Lord Buxton, Governor-General,
representing King George V in South Africa, strongly supported the fund.
~ 918 ~
Throughout the Union, about 120 local committees headed by mayors or magistrates
held numerous fundraising events. People of all races contributed what they could
afford. In Natal, many Indian flower merchants co-operated by not selling flowers on
fund-raising days. The first black South African in Natal to express his support and
loyalty to the Union was Chief Mgqoma, who donated 40 on behalf of his people on 8
October 1914. Other chiefs followed and, by 10 April 1916, Chief Steven Mini,
President of the Natal Native Congress of Edendale, had donated the huge sum of 1
102 to the fund. Others sent livestock to the local magistrate.
The Whippet Tank A387 was shipped aboard the SS Umvuma from England and
arrived at Simon's Town in January 1919. After a trial run it was renamed HMLS (His
Majesty's Land Ship) UNION by Lord Buxton. Starting on its countrywide tour in Cape
Town on Friday, 31 January, the Whippet Tank drew huge crowds at the major towns of
the Union of South Africa. In Pietermaritzburg, businesses closed and residents donated
nearly 1 000 towards the Governor-General's Fund. Large amounts were also collected
in Durban, Johannesburg and Pretoria. In July 1919, after the fund-raising drive, the
Whippet was stored in Pretoria.
Citizens of Johannesburg clamour for a closer look at HMLS Union

as the tank makes its way along Pritchard Street on 9 May 1919.
When the miners' strike on the Witwatersrand turned to armed revolt on 10 March 1922,
HMLS UNION was despatched from the Aircraft and Artillery Depot in Pretoria to help
eject the entrenched and barricaded strikers from their headquarters in Fordsburg,
Johannesburg. The Whippet's track became jammed on a tram track. While attempting
unsuccessfully to free the tank, one crew member, Corporal Johns, was killed, and
Private Richards was injured by sniper fire.
~ 919 ~
On Tuesday, 14 March 1922, at about 12.00, after an hour long artillery bombardment,
HMLS Union drove down the 'Fordsburg Dip' in support of the final infantry assault on
the Rand Strikers' headquarters. This photograph shows its recovery by a municipal
truck after a track became jammed in a municipal tram line.
The Whippet, having broken a drive shaft, was recovered by a Johannesburg municipal
steam truck and returned to Pretoria. In 1934 it was repaired. At the start of the Second
World War (1939-1945), it was again used in fundraising and recruitment drives before
being retired to serve as a memorial at the South African Military College in Pretoria.
Today, the Whippet Tank stands as a memorial at the South African Military College
'In proud memory of past students who, in response to the call of duty, gave their lives
during the Great War, 1914-1918'.
Tank Projects 1917 1919
Introduction
After the first British Mark I tanks went into action in 1916 there followed a period of
comparatively rapid development ending with the Mark IX and the Medium D tanks. As
~ 920 ~
well as those cases where tanks were built, trialled and, in most cases, entered service
there were others in which a projected tank existed only on the drawing board, in mock
up form or as a single prototype that did not exist long enough to leave any
photographic record of its existence. It is possible to use surviving diagrams, photos of
mock ups and descriptions to attempt the production of drawings illustrating what these
tanks might have looked like.
Mark V* Tadpole
The tadpole tail was an attempt in 1917 by Tritton to solve the problem created by the
Germans digging wider trenches and anti tank ditches. The idea was to replace the rear
horns of Mk IV and Mk V tanks with longer tails thus increasing the length of the tank
by over 11 feet. A large number of conversion kits were delivered to the Central
Workshops in France. A number of Mk IV and Mk V Tadpole tanks were built.
However in practice this proved to be an ineffective solution as the new structure
suffered from flexing (the strain imposed when turning must have been considerable). It
is also probable that the extra weight of the tadpole extension was insufficient to move
the centre of gravity sufficiently rearward to extend the trench crossing capability as far
as the extra length would suggest (the tank would tip forward when too little of its
length had crossed the lip of the trench).
A better solution was found in November 1917 in the shape of the Mk V* tank which
effectively increased the length by six feet by adding extra sections in the middle of the
main body of the tank. This was structurally more rigid and also ensured that the heavy
fuel and water tanks were still to the rear of the extended vehicle. This would
significantly move the centre of gravity rearward. Some 700 Mk V* tanks were built by
mid March 1919. They equipped British, American and French tank units (serving with
the French throughout the 1920s) and played an important role in the battles that broke
the German army at the end of 1918. However the Mk V* proved to be difficult to turn
due to the "drag" of the extra length of flat track in ground contact.
The tadpole conversion units were equally compatible with the rear of the Mk V and
Mark V*. As an experimental project sometime during 1918 the staff of Central
Workshops converted a Mk V* to a tadpole configuration. This produced a tank of over
44 feet long, not only the longest tank completed in World War 1 but also the longest
tank ever built.
~ 921 ~
The resulting tank proved to be almost impossible to drive in anything other than a
straight line! The "drag" of the track in ground contact was too much to allow turning.
There was also no rail vehicle extant that was capable of transporting the beast to the
front. The Mk V* Tadpole was clearly unworkable, what happened to it is unclear. It is
quite possible that the tadpole tail was removed and the original horns replaced so that it
reverted back to an ordinary Mk V* and was shown as such in the Central Workshops
records.
Mark V***/Mark X
In order to overcome the turning problems of the Mk V* the Mk V** was produced.
This remodelled the shape of the hull to reintroduce the flattened curve so characteristic
of the rhomboid tank. Improvements were also made in the siting of the commanders
cupola and in the cooling/ventilation system. A shortage of armour plate delayed the
introduction of this tank until after the end of the war. In the meantime there was yet a
third revision of the original Mk V design, this being the Mk V***. This appears to
have been insurance against a failure to reach agreement on the construction of the Mk
VIII International.
The MK V*** introduced so many changes that it could effectively be classed as an

entirely new tank and it was eventually renumbered as the Mk X. It appears that this
vehicle was to have been produced, in male form only, with a new design of sponson.
An advanced filter and fan system was to be used for the radiator cooling and air inside
the fighting compartment would have been maintained at a positive pressure to prevent
the ingress of gas. As it happened the Mk VIII was approved and the MV***/Mk X
never made it past the full-sized mock-up stage.
Mark VI
This was a British project intended to produce a tank to meet the expressed needs of the
American Army. Although a "rhomboid" design, the large sponsons of both male and
female tanks were eliminated in favour of a nose mounted heavy gun firing from
between the horns and much smaller machine gun sponsons in the hull sides. The field
of fire for the heavy gun would have been very limited.
~ 922 ~
The engine was to be in a separate compartment on one side of the tank. It would be
interesting to know if this implied an asymmetric weight distribution and what impact
this might have had on the tanks steering. The US Tank Board ordered the Mk VI in
some numbers but this was later cancelled in favour of the MK VIII (possibly on the
advice of George Patton). The Mk VI only existed in the form of a full sized mock up.
Mark VIII*
In 1918 the Mark VIII was intended to be a joint effort between Britain, France and the
USA to produce a breakthrough heavy tank for the planned Allied 1919 offensive. Most
of the design work was done in the UK which would also undertake some construction.
France and the USA would, between them, build the majority in 1919. This was
enshrined in an international treaty. However France did not abide by her commitment
~ 923 ~
under the treaty, and never produced the tank manufacturing facilities required
(deciding instead that the home grown Char 2c should be the 1919 breakthrough tank
for France).
In Britain there were concerns that the Germans might produce even wider trenches and
anti tank ditches. Accordingly a Mk VIII* was designed, this was an extended tank
(much as was the Mk V*) having no less than five additional hull panels added, two
before and three after the sponsons. The result was the design of a tank that would have
been 44 feet long (10 ft longer than the standard VIII and 2ft longer than the German K
Wagen). If built it would have equalled the Mk V* Tadpoles record of being the
longest tank ever constructed.
The Mk VIII* would have weighed about 42 tons empty and probably 50 tons with
equipment. As with the Mk V* Tadpole there was no railway vehicle capable of
transporting one intact to the front. Like the German K Wagen it would have had to be
moved in sections and re assembled in the battle area. The end of the War in November
1918 effectively removed the need for extended production of the Mk VIII much less
the development of the Mk VIII* so it remained a "paper" tank.
Medium B Male
The Medium B was designed by Wilson (whilst the Mediums A and C were Tritton
designs). Missing WW1 proper it did see action in Russia. All production Medium Bs
were machine gun armed but there was a design for a Male version mounting a long 6
pounder (57mm) gun in a fixed superstructure.
~ 924 ~
It has been reported that one Medium B male was actually built but no photos are
known to exist. The Medium B Male would probably have made an effective tank killer
but in 1919 there were no potential enemies of Britain with an effective tank force. It
was probably killed itself by a cost conscious "Whitehall warrior".
"Ark" Engineering machine
Alternative notation: "Ark"
Start design: 1919
Stage of completion: project closed in favor of the crawler.
~ 925 ~
In 1919, the second version, code-named "Ark" ( "Ark") was proposed by British
engineers. It involves the installation of a bridge truss with ramps for wheel-tracked (!)
Chassis. Apparently, the design was carried out with the direct participation of French
experts group FAMH, who at that time actively engaged in the development of wedges
with the same chassis.
It was assumed that the car will go into a small ditch or river, then lowered it with two
ramps on which could cross light armored vehicles, infantry and artillery. In connection
with this case "Ark" was made symmetrical to facilitate passage over it. Bridgelayer
layout was similar to the classic, with the front-office management and rear engine. In
the front part of the body was placed on the left one machine gun caliber infantry.
Tracked Undercarriage, apparently consisted of 8 track roller on each side with a stiffer
suspension, front rails and rear drive wheels. Wheel part included four single wheel
with lifting gear and suspension on the leaf springs.
Despite the fact that the wheel-tracked chassis only becomes fashionable and popular
among the military "Ark" project was rejected by the British army. A more rational use
of recognized when a tank chassis from production models.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS bridgelayer

"Ark" of the sample in 1919

CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS -
aiming DEVICES -
RESERVATIONS ?
~ 926 ~
ENGINE petrol
Tracked portion (on one side): 8 track roller, peredneee
steering and rear wheel drive, suspension - blocked with
CHASSIS vertical springs;
wheelset of the 4 single wheel automotive type suspension
with leaf springs
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
-
COMMUNICATION
Vickers Light Tank
Alternative notation: Vickers Light Tank No.1, Vickers Light Tank No.1
Start design: 1919
Stage of completion: two prototypes built, the works were stopped due to non-
compliance.
~ 927 ~
What could be better than diamond-shaped tank? If this question is asked in the light of
the events of World War I and the answer will be given the Lords of the British arms of
the Ministry, the answer is obvious - it is a diamond-shaped tank with a tower of
circular rotation.
It would not have criticized the "diamonds" of their overwhelming advantage in

overcoming the wide trenches and anti-tank ditches in front of other tanks were
overwhelming. In the famous "Plan 1919", among other things, new weapons, have
focused on "internationalist" tank Mk.VIII purely British Medium D, has a number of
innovations. Also take into account that will need replacing light tanks Mk.A "Whippet"
- their place were to take in the Medium and Medium C. Despite the significant
improvement in the design, "rhombus" none of the machines were not equipped with a
tower. Nevertheless, it is through these "monsters" of the Entente troops planned to
finally crack the German defenses and complete the victory march in Berlin. However,
to a large extent the events in November 1918 reduced the performance of "Plan 1919".
And yet, interest in "Diamonds" from the arms of the Ministry has not died away after
the war finished. Suffice it to say that during the years 1919-1923. The main tank of the
Royal Tank Corps was still heavy Mk.V. as equivalent replacement tankostroitelny
department firm Vickers has developed a draft of a new tank, which took the name
Vickers Light tank 1921 (although it is referred to as the Vickers Light tank D in a
number of armored vehicles sources), that is not quite right, or Vickers Infantry tank).
by and large, the new tank is a smaller Mk.V variant, designed for higher dynamic
qualities and installation of the tower with a circular rotation. Booking tank was 12.7
mm on vertical body armor plates. In general, these indicators allow to carry Vickers
Light tank 1921 sample year, a medium tank, although specification it was light infantry
support tank.
Chassis, with reference to one side, consisted of five dvuhkatkovyh carts, rear drive
wheel, the front of the steering wheel and four support wheels. Suspension trolley with
support rollers has a cushioning spring, it was a step forward. Krupnozvenchataya
caterpillar consisted of 57 steel shoe, the design of which was borrowed from the tank
~ 928 ~
Medium Mark B. Thus, the chassis Light Tank D was somewhat more progressive than
the earlier "rhombus" issue 1916-1918. At the same time, the structure without cast
Track shoe lug remained almost unchanged.
The body of the tank was designed based on the received combat experience. The bow
of the going of several armor plates, and her top section has become more smooth
shape. By virtue of the design of diamond-shaped tanks side having carried vertically at
the same time is a rear wall on which were mounted chassis components. As before, the
crew of the landing and landing was made by two rectangular doors in the sides, and to
reset going on Track shoe dirt were made by three on each side of the notch with the
bent plates inside.
At the stern of the hull was placed petrol engine capacity of 86 hp and equipped with
liquid cooling system. The tank was installed hydraulic transmission such as Williams-
Jenney, which was also a step forward. The upper aft armor plates (in which cuts have
been made under the fan, exhaust pipes and manholes technological access to the power
plant) had a slope of about 40 . Lower broneliste, where there were two rectangular
cutout ventilation grilles with armored shutters, installed vertically.
The fighting compartment compose like tanks Medium Medium B and C, but with a
difference. For example, low superstructure made in front of the received form a
semicircle, while the back smoothly into the aft sloping armor plates. In order to review
the driver in the front section with the observation made five bulletproof. The crew
consisted of five members: the commander, a driver and three machine-gunner.
On the roof of the superstructure was placed hemispherical tower, equipped with a top
commander's cupola hatch and six two-step observation slits. The diameter of the tower
was 67 inches (170 cm) and almost equaled the superstructure width korupsa. As during
the war, worked out two variants of the tank - "male" and "female", so that the
prototypes had to make two pieces:
~ 929 ~
Vickers Light Tank No.1 - model "female" with three Hotchkiss guns in the tower.
Originally solved the issue of placement of weapons. According to new trends, it was
decided that the best option would be to "explode" the location of the machine guns:
two front and one rear-mounted Hotchkiss in separate ball mount, which theoretically
allows more efficiently to hit multiple targets. Ammunition was 6000 rounds.
Vickers Light Tank No.2 - model of "male", equipped with a 3-pound (57-mm) gun.
Formally three machine guns were kept, but actually on the second prototype was
mounted only anti-aircraft machine gun. Ammunition for the guns of 50 shots for the
number of rounds of machine guns is not changed.
The first prototype, as you might guess, was a machine-gun option Vickers Light Tank
No.1 and entered service in early 1921. The second prototype was ready in five and a
half months. On tanks tests showed a maximum speed of 24 km \ h when driving on
paved roads, making them the fastest of all the "rhombus". As part of the cross-question
also almost did not arise - Vickers Light Tank crossing the trench up to 3 meters wide
and able to overcome the vertical wall height of more than 1 meter. But in all this there
was a barrel of honey, several spoonfuls of tar.
The main reason for failure was that the Vickers company experts have been unable to
ensure the normal operation of the power plant as a whole, and in particular
transmission. On prototypes periodically broke down the different units, it is not the
best way affected the test results. In addition, higher priority was the Medium Tank
Mk.I project, on which were pinned great hopes. Taken together, this has led to the
cancellation of all work on the Vickers Light Tank in 1922, after which both the
prototype was dismantled.
Despite such an early completion of the project we can say that as a British Vickers
Light Tank engineers managed to bring to life the very "sweet spot" diamond-shaped
tanks, combining a good cross from the more rational deployment of weapons. If this
tank appeared three years earlier, his story could have ended very differently ...

Vickers Light Tank sample 1921
~ 930 ~
CREW, pers. 5
DIMENSIONS
Length mm 2134
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
prototype 2: three 8-mm machine gun Hotchkiss Mk.I

WEAPONS prototype 1: one 57-mm cannon and four 7.71-mm
machine gun Vickers
allowance of ammunition 50 rounds and 6,000 rounds of ammunition
aiming DEVICES optical machine-gun sights and telescopic gun sight Vickers

board body - 12.7 mm
food body -?
RESERVATIONS
Tower -
roof - 4 mm
the bottom - 4 mm
ENGINE The Vickers, carburetor, power 86 hp
TRANSMISSION Williams-Jenney hydraulic type
(On one side) of rollers 10, upper support rails, front guide
CHASSIS wheels, rear wheel drive, krupnozvenchataya caterpillar of
57 steel shoe
SPEED 24 km \ h
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
~ 931 ~
MEANS OF
not installed
COMMUNICATION
Armored Ivel Tractor traktor
Created in 1903 by Iver. Two-wheel drive large diameter located behind and between
the tractor Agricultural Motors was one of the first specialized agricultural machinery,
constructed in the UK and had commercial success. With enough wait Ivel tractor
design proved to be excellent, not least due to the high reliability of the main
components and assemblies.
three-wheeled chassis design was selected for this machine. Two large diameter drive
wheels placed behind, and was located between the driver's seat and controls. The front
wheel is intended only to rotate the tractor. As the power plant was used 20-horsepower
gasoline engine mounted in the rear of the chassis.
Good reviews enabled the company Ivel to develop and implement the project of an
armored tractor, which could be used as a prime mover. To this end, fully armored
body, including the driver and the motor. Because of this, aft appeared boxy
superstructure with double doors, in addition to the driver which could accommodate
another two people. So theoretically bronetraktor can be used as an ambulance to
evacuate the wounded from the battlefield. At the same time, adopt this car was
missing.
~ 932 ~
Bronetraktor company Ivel was built in 1910, but oddly enough, are overlooked by the
army. Some interest was expressed to him by the Royal Marines for use as a sanitary
armored vehicle or tractor, but soon this idea was abandoned.
Armored Ivel Tractor obr.1910 city
CREW, pers. 2
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS -
aiming DEVICES -
RESERVATIONS ?
ENGINE Carburetor
wheel formula
CHASSIS
3x2
~ 933 ~
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION not installed
Killen-Strait Armored Tractor traktor
Killen-Strait was neither the most numerous nor especially the most popular tractor, but
he became the first armored tracked vehicles, not "Little Willy", as the count is taken
now. After the failure that befell projects Pedrail Landship, in early 1915 the military
department has paid more attention to the tractor chassis, the benefit of, at that time
there was a good choice. Of course, the greatest interest is Holt design, but the use of
the steering wheel is clearly not favorable to overcome the obstacles on the ground.
Worst of all was the fact that almost all the tractors that can be adapted for combat
vehicles, and it is this sin. Nevertheless, the idea seemed tempting, especially when
there is an alternative in the form of American engineer Strait tractor design. In fact,
William Strait did not offer anything radically new. The main purpose is to improve the
permeability and the possibility of overcoming vertical obstacles than they could boast
of other car companies. Tractors crawler received three sections, two of which
accounted for the bulk of the chassis, and the third is manageable.
Patent for a straight engine was issued on March 2, 1915 and has its first prototype in a
short time. According to the initial draft of the 1914 steering section consisted of two
wheels, and mainly include only the leading and steering wheel. In addition, a separate
patent was issued on crawler tracks of the original design. tractor is controlled by levers.
~ 934 ~
After a few months, the project has undergone changes - the main section added two
road wheels of the same size with the steering wheel (the engine was located in the
building above them), and sloth greatly reduced in size and lifted up. In addition, a
steering section began using three one-dimensional road wheels. I drive a tractor by
means of a conventional steering wheel.
Running and tractor tests were quite successful, and after some time he was brought to
the UK. The British also were satisfied with driving characteristics of the machine,
which at that time was called as the Killen-Strait Tractor. As a result, it approved the
proposal to establish a tractor armored corps, which was done in the summer of 1915.
The body had pronounced wedge-shaped "ship" shape. The layout has not changed
since the works were experimental. It is noteworthy that work was carried out by
experts RNAS (Royal Naval Air Service), which at that time was engaged in the
development and construction of armored vehicles for different purposes. Most foreign
sources this maschinu called Killen-Strait Armored Tractor.
~ 935 ~
The last milestone was the installation of the tower from the armored car Lanchester. To
name this experience can be successful with large conventions. Even taking into
account the fact that the machine gun turret served by only one person (the commander
of the machine), the tower was placed exactly over the place of the driver. Generally, as
to what kind of tower has been installed, there are several opinions. So, in the book of
Murray Suter "Tanks Evolution" (Murray Sueter "The Evolution of the Tank") claimed
that the demonstration bronetraktora Lloyd George on June 30, 1915, Tower of Austin
armored car was set on it. But this image of the "modification" is not included.
According to another version, the elements of the hull and turret of the armored car
Lanchester were used. In the third version states that the armor for bronetraktora was
removed from serial armored car Delaunay-Belleville.
For their driving performance Killen-Strait was highlighted by Colonel Crompton, a

representative of the Committee on land the ships, but the story was over. Killen-Strait
on the experience worked out new technological methods, which are then useful when
creating a tank - of course, did not set out to create a full-fledged fighting machine in
combat this arrangement was not acceptable, but the creators bronetraktora.
Subsequently the prototype was shipped to the store and pulled.
Killen-Strait sample 1915
CREW, pers. 2-3
DIMENSIONS
Length mm ?
~ 936 ~
Width ?
Height mm ?
Clearance, mm ?
WEAPONS one 7.71-mm machine gun, the Vickers obr.1912
housing forehead -
board housing -
RESERVATIONS feed -
roof -
bottom -
Front Section: three supporting rollers and

krupnozvenchataya caterpillar
CHASSIS rear section (on one side): front-wheel and two road
wheels, raised supports and one guide roller caterpillar
krupnozvenchataya
SPEED ?
overcome obstacles
Wall height, m ?
MEANS OF
missing
COMMUNICATION
~ 937 ~
~ 938 ~
German Anti-tank Weapons, Techniques and Organisation in 1918
Introduction
Although slow (and inhibited by already stretched industrial resources) in the

development of tanks, by 1918 the German Army had, of necessity, developed a
plethora of anti tank approaches. This article is intended to outline what these were.
Weapons
K rounds
These were armour tipped bullets that could be fired from otherwise conventional
infantry weapons. They had been developed to deal with armoured sniper positions and
infantry shields well before the advent of the first tanks. Leaks about the French tank
development programme had already caused an increase in both production and the
issue of such ammunition, originally to designated marksmen. They proved relatively
effective against the very thinly armoured Mk I British tanks and the French Schneider
and St Chamond vehicles, especially when used at short range. They were lethal against
the Mk IIs, that only had boiler plate, having something like a 50 percent chance of
penetration. However by 1918 they were proving less effective when used against the
relatively better armoured Mk IV, V and V*s except when used in heavy machine guns.
Anti-tank Rifle
This is another weapon that was not originally developed for use against tanks. The
German Mauser 13.1 mm anti tank rifle of 1918 (sometimes known as the T rifle) was
in fact a militarised version of a pre WW1 elephant gun produced for big game hunters,
~ 939 ~
ivory poachers and the like. Looking very much like an oversized infantry rifle this was
a single shot weapon. At 120 yards it could penetrate 12mm thick armour plate if it hit it
at right angles (dead on). However if the impact was angled or glancing the gun was
much less effective. A round striking at 45 degrees would fail to penetrate 7 mm armour
even from as close as 60 yards. No more than 20 rounds could be fired in succession
before the barrel became too hot and had to be allowed to cool. Its biggest defects were
its extremely heavy recoil (that could sometimes break a mans shoulder) and its general
size and weight. It was 5.5 feet long and weighed 37 pounds, without ammunition.
Effectively a two man crew was required, one to carry and fire the gun and the second
to lug the bulk of the ammunition (112 rounds). The second man also acted as a
replacement firer when the primary gunners shoulder couldnt take any more. Some
guns were carried on light man pulled carts, this allowed more ammunition to be carried
and the gun could be fired using the cart and its trail as a miniature gun carriage (saving
a few bruised or broken shoulders).
These guns were originally issued in the ratio of two per infantry regiment but by the
end of the war this had been increased to two per company.
~ 940 ~
Due to the increased use of tanks on the western front, the German High Command,
somewhat belatedly, after Cambrai, sought a suitable defensive weapon for use by
infantry. This resulted in the development by Mauser in 1917/18 of this heavy 13mm
Anti-tank rifle, the so called T-Gewehr: Tank Gewehr ("Tank Gun").
It was a single shot bolt action rifle and was mounted on a tripod for firing. The heavy
bullet was a 52.5g scaled up version of the 7.92mm bullet with steel mantle and lead
core. The muzzle velocity was 785 m/sec and was, at least in theory, capable of
penetrating 22mm armour at a range of 200 metres, and 20mm at a range of 500 metres.
The first copies were manufactured in January 1918. An order for 30,000 rifles was
~ 941 ~
placed, and they were rushed to the front as they were produced. They were employed
on the front in ever increasing numbers from the end of March 1918.
On the battlefield it was carried in a special harness. It was not a success. Firstly, the
recoil was very heavy, and it was foolhardy to try to fire it from the shoulder. Secondly,
it just was not effective enough. The troops soon found out that it was ineffective
against the French Renault FT light tank with its many sloped armour plates: the bullet
required a hit at a 90 angle to penetrate. (The same 13mm ammunition was also used in
the dual purpose AT/AA "Tank und Flieger" (TuF) MG18 machine gun. However, the
Armistice was completed before this much more potent weapon was put into mass
production.)
Anti-tank Machine Gun
In 1918 Germany was developing a 13mm multi purpose machinegun or light cannon
that could be used as an aircraft gun, be mounted in tanks or serve as an infantry anti
tank weapon. This was known as TUF (Tank und Flieger). The infantry version looked
like a Maxim on steroids, right down to the wheeled carriage. Although it appears to
have reached the prototype stage it is doubtful (but not impossible) that any reached the
front. The Allies destroyed all the TUF anti-tank machine guns in 1919.
Heavy Machine Guns
~ 942 ~
A number of standard infantry heavy machine guns were assigned as anti tank weapons.
They used belts of K rounds. A German document of September 1918 shows that it was
the intention that all heavy machine guns would be armed with K rounds and their
priority changed from acting as anti infantry weapons to providing a defence against
tanks. (Presumably light machine guns would have to shoulder most of the anti infantry
role). Various divisional orders show that this policy was being implemented in some
areas as early as August 1918. The heavy machine gun could be fairly effective as an
anti-tank weapon as the kinetic effect of multiple hits in the same place could turn the
armour red hot and soft allowing further rounds to penetrate.
~ 943 ~
Minenwerfer/light trench mortars
A revised wheeled carriage of the 7.58cm leichtes Minenwerfer n.A. was adopted in
1918 that allowed a flatter trajectory (and greater accuracy). The accurate range of these
weapons was 500 metres. In September 1918 an instruction was issued to the effect that
half of every battalions light trench mortars should be dedicated to anti-tank work. The
192nd division of the German Army had already pioneered this approach in August.
They proved very effective but limited by a shortage of horses for the transport of
ammunition. During this trial British tank crews had described the use of light trench
mortars in this role and from September onwards German light trench mortar crews
reported that tank gunners were paying them particular and unwanted attention. With
their relatively short range if operating in the mobile anti-tank role (in the open) they
were highly vulnerable to machine gun fire from tanks.
~ 944 ~
Specialised anti-tank artillery
The 3.7cm TAK Rheinmetall was a simple design intended to replace the
Minewerfer/light trench mortars in the anti-tank role. They had a lower profile than the
latter but no greater range and would still have been vulnerable to counter fire. Some
600 had been issued by the end of the war but the number reaching the front and seeing
action is unclear.
Other guns
The German Army pressed almost anything relatively light and easily manhandled by
infantry into anti tank service. This included various infantry support weapons including
the Austro-Hungarian 7.5cm Gebirgskanone M15 (which was originally a mountain
gun). These do not appear to have been very successful.
~ 945 ~
Flammenwerfer
~ 946 ~
Flame throwers were used against tanks but the degree and success of this is not known.
The German back pack flamethrower had a short range and would have had to be used
as an ambush weapon. The user would have little chance of survival if the tank was
supported by others or by infantry squads.
~ 947 ~
Grenades
Infantry attacks on tanks at close quarters often used grenades. Single grenades made
little impression and originally small sacks of grenades (usually using empty sand bags)
provided a crude solution. These were difficult to use and by 1918 a neater solution was
often adopted. This was to unscrew the heads from a number of "potato masher"
grenades from their handles and tape or wire them around the head of a single complete
grenade. The result could be lobbed (by a strong man) onto the roof of a tank or under a
track, either would disable the tank. An identical solution was re-invented in 1942 for
use against Soviet tanks. In both periods the lobber was in much danger from fire from
supporting tanks or tank protection squads. Some use was made of tear gas grenades
although so foul was the atmosphere inside Mk Vs with their ill designed ventilation
systems that one wonders to what extent the crews were affected.
Anti-tank mines
The original German anti tank mines were fairly crude improvisations being, typically,
an artillery shell with its nose fuse removed and replaced with a cartridge case, a piece
of wood with a nail driven through it was attached so that pressure would cause the nail
to fire the percussion cap on the cartridge. The whole thing was sunk in a concealed pit
over which a tank might drive. (In 1945 the Japanese produced an even simpler version
the pit being bigger and the plank and nail replaced by a soldier with a hammer). By
1918 purpose made anti tank mines were available. These were box shaped (14 x 16 x 2
inches) and weighed about 12 pounds. They were buried 10 inches below ground. The
firing mechanism was based on that of a grenade and the mine could be set off by
~ 948 ~
pressure from the tank (requiring about 900 pounds) or fired by a nearby observer - a bit
like the IEDs used by the insurgents in Iraq. Similar mines were still in use in 1945.
Aircraft
Although some successful (and semi successful) attacks were made by German aircraft
on tanks there seems to have been little coordinated use of aircraft against tanks. The
German CL and J classes of two seaters were primarily held in reserve to plug holes in
the line made by Allied infantry advances. In any case by mid to late 1918 the Allies
were gaining air superiority (although never supremacy) over the battlefields. A crisis in
the production of in-line liquid cooled engines also meant that Germany could not
produce enough aircraft of any type let alone ground attack.
Techniques and tactics
Obstacles
The Germans made significant use of constructions such as trenches, anti tank ditches
and concrete "dragons teeth" to halt, trap or funnel tanks into anti tank ambushes.
One obvious anti tank tactic was to dig wider trenches that the tanks could not cross.
However the British had built a replica of a typical section the German Hindenburg line.
With the use of aerial photography this was kept up to date so that solutions to these
could be found. In the case of the wider trenches this spawned fascines, cribs and the
longer Mk V*s. The Germans widened the trenches further and the British fitted Mk
V*s with cribs. There was a limit on how wide a trench could be before the increased
vulnerability of its defenders to overhead artillery bursts, heavy mortars and air attack
out weighed any advantages in improved defence against tanks.
~ 949 ~
The unmanned anti tank ditch was the alternative to the wide trench. Some of these
were very much like enlarged versions of the ha ha that often surrounded 18th century
stately homes in order to repulse the great unwashed peasantry and their livestock.
These were much larger (what Terry Pratchet has called a ho ho). Others were water
filled (often utilising existing canals and streams). In practice effective air
reconnaissance and pre-attack briefings seemed to have rendered most of these mere
inconveniences (they could also be in part nullified by a few large railway guns or other
super heavy artillery blasting down and levelling out the sides). Such devices are only
likely to be completely effective if one can deny ones enemy free access by photo recce
aircraft, by mid 1918 the Germans could no longer do this.
Tank Traps
These were used in some quantities and were much the same as those animal traps used
to capture or kill big game. A large pit was dug, often filled with water, and covered
with a light wood or thin metal covering. Earth was then laid thinly on the cover. More
visible obstacles (for example piles of rocks) were sometimes placed to channel the
tanks into the traps (this technique was also used to force tanks into mine fields). Tank
traps had some success but being a static defence that took some time and effort to
prepare their effectiveness became much less once the Hindenburg line was breached.
Targeting tactics
Diagrams and tables were produced to guide German infantry on how to target tanks.
The light trench mortars were to concentrate on the petrol tank and the tracks with the
drivers cab as a secondary target. Antitank rifles and other weapons firing K rounds
were to aim at specific areas behind which a crew member would be positioned, the
driver being the prime target and machine gunners being second. Ordinary rifle fire was
to be specifically aimed at vision slits. Grenades (in sacks or clusters) were to be used to
blow off tracks.
Organisation
Tank killing squads
~ 950 ~
These were first organised on a somewhat ad hoc basis in 1917 but by 1918 most if not
all infantry battalions on the western front had dedicated anti tank squads. Their task
was to actively hunt tanks and they tended to operate where they would be most
effective, that is in heavily trenched areas or in street fighting where there was cover to
allow them to get near to their targets. They do not appear to have carried anti tank rifles
but rather relied on using clustered grenades or demolition charges. Typical tactics
appear to have used rifle and light machine gun fire against the vision slits to provide
enough cover for "bombers" to get close enough to lob a charge under the tracks. Big
men were delegated for this task. However even when a tank was disabled it was still
dangerous as its crew would usually continue to fight on as a pillbox or strong point
until artillery could be targeted on to it.
Disposition of anti-tank weapons
By August 1918 the German Army had learnt that anti tank weapons widely dispersed
and used in "penny packets" were largely ineffective. The following organisation was
adopted.
Anti tank rifles were positioned in the front trenches and just to their rear. They were in
groups of between four and six.
Heavy machine guns and light trench mortars assigned to anti tank duties were not to be
used singly but always positioned in groups of at least two. They were also to be
positioned were two or more groups could provide each other with supporting fire. They
were to be echeloned in depth behind the front line being concentrated where tank
breakthroughs were most likely.
~ 951 ~
Field guns in anti tank role were placed in batteries between the front lines and the main
artillery zone. They were placed where they would have a line of clear direct fire and, if
possible, they could be concealed. In effect they were to be used as ambush weapons.
In addition anti tank forts were built at places that were thought to be particularly
vulnerable to tank attack. Initially these had a mixture of weapons but increasingly each
fort specialised in one weapon type so that there would be an anti tank rifle fort, a trench
mortar fort, a field gun fort etc. Anti tank forts were well dug in and positioned so that
groups of forts had overlapping fire zones.
Allied anti-tank measures in 1918
Introduction
The Allies on the Western Front did not have as widespread, unified or organised an
approach to anti tank measures as did the German Army. They did not face the same
threat. The number of tanks available to the German forces (indigenous A7Vs and
beutepanzers combined) was but a meagre tithe of the Allied tank force. Moreover it
was a wasting asset as the forward momentum of the Allies in the latter half of 1918
meant that much fewer damaged British heavy tanks (if any) fell into enemy hands. The
evacuation of the Charlroi tank overhaul and refit facility back to Germany in the face
of the Allied advance would only make matters worse. Nevertheless the German tanks
could pose a tactical threat if not a strategic one. Moreover there was always the
possibility that the Germans might start to produce tanks on a large scale.
Allied troops do not appear to have had formal anti tank training and appear to have
been initially taken by surprise by the appearance of German tanks. This was probably
exacerbated by Allied propaganda that exaggerated the tanks superiority against
infantry.
Whilst there are records of some anti tank measures being ordered at a senior level most
accounts of Allied anti tank actions have more than a whiff of "ad hocery" (otherwise
known as "make it up as you go along") and were probably organised at battalion or
even company level. Certainly after the first appearance of German tanks at St Quentin
(March 21st 1918) little or no information or instruction about German tanks had been
passed to British tank crews so that when Frank Mitchells tank came up against an
A7V over a month later he was unaware of what an A7V looked like or how it was
armed. It is probable that the infantry and artillery were equally uninformed. Given this
it is hard to be prescriptive, what was used in one place or by one unit was not
necessarily used by others. What I have attempted to do in the following paragraphs is
to indicate what weapons and techniques were available to the Allies and provide
instances (if any) where these are known to have been used.
In describing such instances one is handicapped in that many of the original accounts do
not specify whether the tank being attacked was an A7V or a beutepanzer and, given the
German habit of often using both types in the same action the time and place cannot be
used as a distinguishing feature. It should therefore be taken that whenever the term
"German tank" is used this could be either kind.
~ 952 ~
If all of this sounds bitty and piecemeal then its because thats just what the Allied anti
tank approach was.
Armour piercing bullets
The British government adopted armour piercing .303 inch rounds in 1915, for much
the same reason as the K round was put into service in the German Army (dealing with
sniper shields). A number of varieties were produced, including; Armour Piercing Mks
W Mk 1 and W Mk 1 IP (these continued in production up until and through WW2).
Such ammunition was also available to Australian, Canadian, Indian and New Zealand
troops, Indeed it was also manufactured in Australia, Canada and India during WW1.
The bullets had a hardened steel core in a lead jacket. All armour piercing rounds in
service with British and Commonwealth forces had a green tip. It would appear that
Remington made an armour piercing round for use by American forces, this had a black
tip. Atelier de Construction de Puteaux in France is known to have produced armour
piercing rounds in 1918.
The Allies certainly had armoured piercing bullets available and there are reports of a
British issue of such rounds in 1918 during the great German offensive of that year. The
performance of such ammunition is not known but one must assume it to be comparable
with the German K round. It is not known if Allied infantry actually engaged German
tanks with this ammunition.
Anti tank rifles
The Allies did not manufacture anti tank rifles at this time but British troops are
recorded as using captured German AT rifles against Beutepanzers (at Niergenies in
October 1918). This was a situation where British troops were firing captured German
guns at Germans in captured British tanks! The Australians were familiar enough with
this weapon to give it a nickname (peashooter) so that it is possible that some of their
units also had these available. American troops are known to have captured a significant
number of German AT rifles but what use, if any, was made of these remains unknown.
Use of German AT rifles would have been somewhat unofficial as captured weapons
were supposed to be "turned in" Consequently there are unlikely to be any formal
records of their use by Allied troops. There may be further detail in individuals
accounts, diaries and letters.
Rifle grenades
In 1918 Britain produced an anti tank rifle grenade, the No 44 grenade, this was
cylindrical tin with a domed top and a steel rod on the base for fitting down a standard
SMLE rifle. It had a contact fuse and was fired using a blank cartridge. The charge was
11.5 ounces of amatol. The grenade was steadied in flight by a canvas skirt, which
ensured that it struck contact fuse first. Between 15,000 and 20,000 were made and less
that 10,000 were in stores when the grenade was taken out of service in 1919 which
indicates that it was issued in some numbers. There are no records of its use and
effectiveness, however given the lack of success of the single German "potato masher"
grenade against MK IVs it does seem too light a charge to have been effective against
beutepanzers.
~ 953 ~
The French produced at least 3 types of anti tank rifle grenades; 30mm, 40 mm and 75
mm, all fin stabilised. The 75 mm (3 inch) model resembling a miniature version of the
German WW2 device intended to give extra punch to the 35mm anti tank gun. It
certainly looks heavy enough to give a tank trouble but one wonders about the range
(and accuracy).
The Americans also had an antitank rifle grenade the M9 AT (not to be confused with
todays M9 grenade launcher) that looked very similar to the French grenades but I have
not been unable to determine if was actually in service in 1918.
Trench guns
The French decided that the 37 mm Puteaux trench gun would also suffice as an anti
tank gun. At Reims on June 1st 1918 a concealed battery of such guns knocked out a
German tank. In the same battle a second concealed battery drove off a second German
tank. The French appear to have adopted the tactic of surrounding some heavy machine
gun positions with dug in and concealed trench guns. The machine gun positions were
designated targets for the German tanks and so became the bait in a tank ambush. Apart
from its relatively low muzzle velocity this gun had many of the attributes of an infantry
anti tank gun; a low profile, easy portability and a small crew. It was also adopted by
the American Expeditionary Force but it is not known if it was used in an anti tank role
by US troops.
~ 954 ~
Field guns
Field guns using direct fire were a (if not the) major killer of German tanks. All Allied
divisional artillery had anti tank work as one of their general roles (amongst many
others) but some guns were specifically tasked for this job alone. The diary of Bert Cox,
a gunner in the Canadian horse artillery (60th Battery Canadian field artillery 14th
Artillery Brigade, 5th Canadian Division under the British 2nd Army ), reveals that for
part of 1918 he was part of a five man anti tank gun crew in a position near Vimy. The
gun may have been a 13 pounder firing a 3-inch calibre (76mm) 12.5-lb (5.7kg) shell . It
had a maximum range of 5,900 yards (5.4km), with this distance being covered in a
little over 10 seconds. There is no indication that Bert Coxs gun ever saw action
against German tanks.
Accounts of German tank actions suggest that a significant number were knocked out
by Allied horse artillery (British 13 or 18 pounders, French 75s). Unfortunately there is
insufficient information as to the degree to which these were specifically dedicated anti
tank guns as opposed to general field artillery that happened to be in the right place.
It is possible that some (or even most) of the Allied anti tank actions were purely
reactive, field guns being temporally assigned a specific anti tank task. 2/Lt Frank
Mitchell describes how 2 hours after his tanks duel with an A7V ( April 23rd 1918) a
British 18 pounder arrived to deal with the German tank (by then capsized and
evacuated). The following extract describes the conversation that took place between
Mitchell and the artillery officer:
The youthful officer on horseback addressed them (Mitchell and his crew)
excitedly
"I say old man, Ive been sent forward to knock out a German tank. Is that the
blighter over there?" he pointed in the direction of the knocked out tank.
"Youre a bit late," Frank replied laconically. "Its already been knocked out."
~ 955 ~
"Oh," said the horseman. "I see. Well ... thank you very much." And turning his
team about he galloped back the way he had come.
This does not suggest a high degree of anti tank preparation in the British Army even
though the existence of German tanks had been revealed a month earlier (at St Quentin
on March 21st 1918).
When German tanks attacked French positions for the first time (Soissons and Riems
June 1st 1918) French horse artillery appear to have responded with commendable
rapidity. This coupled with the fact that the French had prepared tank traps (see below)
and tank ambushes (see Trench Guns above suggest a degree of French preparedness.
Heavy artillery
Unlikely as it would seem, Allied heavy artillery was used against German tanks with
forward artillery observers calling down fire on the tanks. At Soissons (June 1st 1918) a
German tank (probably a beutepanzer) approaching Fort Pompelle came under fire from
artillery directed by a spotter plane circling overhead. The tank crew abandoned ship
whereupon the aircrafts crew assumed that the tank had been destroyed and ceased
directing fire upon it. After the plane had buzzed off the German crew reoccupied the
tank and continued their attack although later having to abandon their vehicle again for
reasons that are not clear.
Aircraft
Crews of Allied contract patrol aircraft (mainly RAF and US Air Corps ) were
instructed that on spotting approaching German tanks they were to alert the troops in
their path ( by dropped messages and klaxon signals) and then inform the divisional HQ
by the same means so that artillery fire could be laid down.
I can find only one account of an Allied aircraft attacking a German tank directly. This
was at Soissons where a German tank (probably an A7V) was attacked after its crew
had already abandoned it, removing its machine guns. However tank attack was one of
the roles envisaged for the Sopwith Salamander armoured trench fighter. This aircraft
was intended to enter squadron service in late 1918 or early 1919 but in the event only
two Salamanders were in France undergoing squadron evaluations (i.e. trying them out
in action) before the war ended.
~ 956 ~
Grenades and anti tank mines
There appears to have been only one Allied anti tank grenade in service, this being the
French MLE anti char 18. Moreover this was sufficiently large and of such an odd
shape as to be more a portable mine. It would appear to have been designed to thrust
under the tracks of an oncoming tank, rather like the Japanese lunge mines of 1945, an
extremely risky excise. There is no evidence of it having been used (although it is
unlikely that any valiant soldat doing so would have been able to report back on the
result).
Several anti-tank minefields were laid on the British front, using modified "Toffee
Apple" trench mortar bombs as mines (the Toffee apple mortar) had been rendered
obsolete and replaced by the Stokes); one of these fields around Gouzeaucourt was
never properly cleared at the end of the war and killed many French farmers in the
1930s when they first started using tractors; it was known locally as le tillage du mort.
Other improvised anti tank mines were reportedly made from artillery shells and pipe
bombs. I can find no record of their deployment (which is not necessarily proof that
there was not some ad hoc use of these).
~ 957 ~
Tank traps and anti tank ditches
The A7V was particularly susceptible to falling in holes. On a number of occasions the
deployment of individual A7Vs had to be aborted or delayed as the machine had driven
into a hole (in one instance a pond) and had to be dragged out. The front half of the tank
obscured the drivers view forward and downward. This made the use of concealed tank
traps a tactic likely to succeed. The French certainly used tank traps as two German
tanks (probably A7V) drove into the same trap, directly in front of the French front line
trenches, at Soissons. Although they managed to back out, under artillery and machine
gun fire, only one succeeded in making it back to the start line, the other was destroyed
by shell fire.
British forces are known to have dug some extra wide anti-tank trenches/ditches in the
5th army sector as part of the "elastic defence" principle. The troops felt (probably
correctly) that they were vulnerabile to artillery bombardment while performing this
task. This must have been sometime between the end of March 1918 (when German
tanks first became known to the Allies) and mid August of the same year. Thereafter the
British army was moving forward so that digging a static AT ditch would have been a
lot of hard work for something that was goung to be left in the rear in any case. I have
not been able to discover the extent of such fortifications. The Germans were certainly
aware of the risks of the AT ditch as photos appear to show training execises on how to
extract ones beutepanzer (the A7V was a hopeless case) from such a predicament.
~ 958 ~
~ 959 ~

Wwi Tanks FR Uk Pak

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Wwi Tanks FR Uk Pak

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WW I ARMOURS

Tanks and armoured carsAround 4,000 armoured military vehicles by September

Charron model 1905 armored car

The Schneider CA-1

The best-seller, Renaults miracle

WWI French medium tanks

Schneider CA-1 (1916)

Saint Chamond (1917)

WWI French light tanks

WWI French heavy tanks

WWI French armored cars

Charron armoured car (1905)

around 16 built, one Hotchkiss 8 mm (0.31 in) M1902 machine gun.

Automitrailleuse Peugeot (1914)

Automitrailleuse Renault (1914)

Peugeot Tank (Prototype)

Charron Armoured Car

Combat weight 3200 kg

Charron-Girardot-Voigt 1906 army armored vehicle

Combat weight 2950 kg

Schneider-Brillie Army armored car transporter

Official designation: absent

Combat weight 5500 kg

CREW, pers. 5-6

WEAPONS two 7-mm machine gun Hotchkiss sample 1909

aiming DEVICES optical machine-gun sights

Brillie, Petrol, 4-cylinder with a capacity of 40 Lucy at

mechanical type with a 3-speed manual transmission (3

4x2: dual rear axle wheels, tubeless tires, suspension

SPEED 18 km \ h on the highway

Cruising on the highway 100 km

The angle of ascent, hail. ?

The depth of the ford, m ?

The width of the den, m ?

Hotchkiss mle 1909

France (1909) Armored car 4 built

The Hotchkiss mle 1909

The 1917 Danish HtK46

Hotchkiss 1909 Specifications

Total weight, battle ready Unknown

Crew 2+2 (driver, co-driver, machine-gunner, loader)

Propulsion 6 cylinder, gasoline (9.5 liters), 75 hp (55 kW) @ 1150

Suspension 42 leaf springs

Est. speed (road) 64 km/h (40 mph)

Armament 7.9 mm (0.3 in) Hotchkiss Machine Gun

Armor 3 mm (0.12 in)

Total production 4 in 1909

Combat weight ~ 2000 kg

CREW, pers. 2-3

WEAPONS one 7.9-mmpulemet Hotchkiss

aiming DEVICES machine-gun sight

Carburetor, in-line, 6-cylinder, 75 hp at 1150 on \

TRANSMISSION mechanical type: 3-speed Gearbox

4x2: single wheels, tubeless tires, suspension leaf

Cruising on the highway ?

The angle of ascent, hail. ?

The depth of the ford, m ?

Automitrailleuse Panhard Mle 1914 Machine-gun armored car

SPECIFICATIONS armored vehicles

WEAPONS one 7.9-mm machine gun Hotchkiss

TRANSMISSION mechanical type

4x2: single wheel, pneumatic tires, suspension leaf

Cruising on the highway ?