Tank Transport, WWI

[Jim Martin]

Today I was laying around watching a docu on WWI tanks, and the thought occured to me, given their speed of 5-8 mph, and their horrid unreliability, how did these things make it to the front? Simply offloaded at a rail terminus and then driven all the way to the assembly area?? Were there any transporter trucks??

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Not 100% sure about the case in WWI, but in the 20s when the Spanish army used their Renault FT17 in Spanish Morocco the tanks were transported by truck to the departing line. They were too slow and unreliable to make long road marches.

[Argus]

Just of the top of my head, something like the FT-17 could be porteed on a heavy truck, they had ten tonners back then. BUt for the bigger stuff I think rail is about the only viable option. On the posisitve side the rail networks were pretty well developed so it probably wasn't that much much further then from where you'd have to off load from heavy transporter. And for pre-planned attacks there was probably a day or three to do the road march, and they'd probably need it too.

 

As far as I remember all the accounts from WWI I'm familiar with followed a pattern like this, but then I've hardly been looking for this sort of thing - good call.

 

shane

[DemolitionMan]

Reading this article, it seems they were driven: http://www.landships.freeservers.com/new_p...o_the_front.htm

[irregularmedic]

IIRC somewhere I've got a pic of WWI Allied tank transporters, I'll look...

[Mikel2]

IIRC somewhere I've got a pic of WWI Allied tank transporters, I'll look...

 

 

Looks like FT17's were a lot easier to move around

 

 

 

Spanish FT in Spanish Morocco, 1921.

 

[irregularmedic]

Found it!

 

 

Was it that size (sans sponsons) to fit standard rail gauge for England?

Edited May 7, 2007 by irregularmedic

[Mikel2]

Found it!

 

 

Was it that size (sans sponsons) to fit standard rail gauge for England?

 

 

Wow... THAT is impressive. The tractor doesn't appear to have brakes in the front wheels and I bet my little Honda Civic has more power

 

Doesn't look like the trailer has a lot of tires. I wonder how well it would do on an unpaved road. Thanks for the picture.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Mikel2

[irregularmedic]

Wow... THAT is impressive. The tractor doesn't appear to have brakes in the front wheels and I bet my little Honda Civic has more power

 

Doesn't look like the trailer has a lot of tires. I wonder how well it would do on an unpaved road. Thanks for the picture.

 

 

Sure.

 

Somewhere I've seen a pic of a truck towing one tank on a trailer with another in the bed of the truck. Can't remember if they were FT-17 or Italian tanks (L6/40?)

[whyhow]

Found it!

 

 

 

Was it that size (sans sponsons) to fit standard rail gauge for England?

 

Pickfords' website says "The Ministry of Munitions uses Pickfords heavy vehicles to move airframes and other war material."

 

http://www.pickfords.co.uk/html/about/pickfords_history.htm

Edited May 7, 2007 by whyhow

[rmgill]

Found it!

 

 

Was it that size (sans sponsons) to fit standard rail gauge for England?

 

And it's a Pickfords. What heavy hauling in the UK wasn't done by Pickfords?

[KingSargent]

And it's a Pickfords. What heavy hauling in the UK wasn't done by Pickfords?

During the Dark Days after Dunkirk a British division was told to deploy to the coast. They had no prime movers for the artillery. Some LT suggested they call Pickfords. "Sure mate, we'll move you. Saturday OK? Oh, no charge." Not just the artillery but the whole division's equipment was deployed within 24 hrs.

 

Italians moved M13s by truck, one in the bed and one towed on a trailer. The US Army carried M1917s (US made FT-17) in Mack trucks.

 

The rhomboid's sponsons swung in for travel, mainly to avoid the gun hitting anything.

[Richard Lindquist]

During the Dark Days after Dunkirk a British division was told to deploy to the coast. They had no prime movers for the artillery. Some LT suggested they call Pickfords. "Sure mate, we'll move you. Saturday OK? Oh, no charge." Not just the artillery but the whole division's equipment was deployed within 24 hrs.

 

Italians moved M13s by truck, one in the bed and one towed on a trailer. The US Army carried M1917s (US made FT-17) in Mack trucks.

 

The rhomboid's sponsons swung in for travel, mainly to avoid the gun hitting anything.

 

For many years, US tank design requirements specified a max weight of 5 tons for light tanks to enable them to be carried in the bed of a 5 ton truck. Icks has pictures of M1917 and various experimental lights being loaded or unloaded from trucks.

[Latausnuija]

Finnish army had some tank transport trailers for the Renault Ft-17s. One of those is now at the armour museum in parola, a picture can be found here: http://www.saunalahti.fi/veijju/tankit/tank1.html.

[rmgill]

What a facinating find, is there a date for the picture? On the positive side, it does look like a Scammel.

 

Is it a Six-Wheeler?

 

 

This site says they were made in 1920.

[irregularmedic]

What a facinating find, is there a date for the picture? On the positive side, it does look like a Scammel.

 

Sorry no info. I tried to track it down, but I think I found the image on a Spanish language site about WWII. I don't recall seeing any date, I assumed it was during WWI, but it could easily be shortly after the Great War as well.

 

That 6 wheeler looks similar, were each of the cabs essentially scratchbuilt?

[Colin Williams]

In The Great Tank Scandal, Fletcher has a photo of the second M4A1 "Michael", that was sent to Britain in 1942. It is sitting on an identical Pickford's "low loader", possibly even the same one!

[wallaby bob]

Finnish army had some tank transport trailers for the Renault Ft-17s. One of those is now at the armour museum in parola, a picture can be found here: http://www.saunalahti.fi/veijju/tankit/tank1.html.

[/quote

 

LATAUSNUIJA. Nice pictures. Just what is that odd projection on the, I'm assuming it's rear, of the FT17. Looks like an abbreviated derrick for a lifting crane. WB

[Mikel2]

Does anyone have any export figures on the FT-17 following WWI? It is one of the largest export successes of all times. Who DIDN'T have an FT of some sort or another after WWI?

[ABNredleg]

LATAUSNUIJA. Nice pictures. Just what is that odd projection on the, I'm assuming it's rear, of the FT17. Looks like an abbreviated derrick for a lifting crane. WB

It's an extension to improve trench-crossing capabilities. Many FT17's were so modified .

Edited May 9, 2007 by ABNredleg

[Latausnuija]

QUOTE(wallaby bob @ Tue 8 May 2007 1901)

LATAUSNUIJA. Nice pictures. Just what is that odd projection on the, I'm assuming it's rear, of the FT17. Looks like an abbreviated derrick for a lifting crane. WB

 

It's an extension to improve trench-crossing capabilities. Many FT17's were so modified .

 

Yep, what ABNredleg said. Btw, that is not my website so credit of the pics goes to the site author.

[whyhow]

here is the google translation of the page where the pic is found.

 

caption for the photo says the transporter is American. weird

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...=en&ie=UTF8

[rmgill]

here is the google translation of the page where the pic is found.

 

caption for the photo says the transporter is American. weird

 

Pickfords is MOST certainly a British outfit.

[Colin Williams]

Pickfords is MOST certainly a British outfit.

 

But Mary Pickford was America's Sweetheart.

[DougRichards]

Just looked in Fletchers 'Mechanised Force' book, and it has an interesting caption. 'The original Scammel tank transporter' is shown carrying a A6E1 experimental tank, circa 1928. Its not clear what Fletcher is refering to here, whether that is supposed to be the first Scammel ever to carry a tank (which is obviously wrong from the photo) or that this was the first purpose built transporter for the British army. Its clearly different from the one illustrated, and has rubber tires. Its obviously the direct ancestor to those used in WW2.

 

The vehicles look similar dont they? Perhaps this implys the Female is being carried postwar. I dont know what it is but something about that first photo implies that to me. Maybe is the people of military age on the streets, and the complete lack of horses (we ate a lot of them in WW1 apparently).

There is a much better clue than that, see the bus in the background?Now, consider this paragraph:

 

In 1925 the Metropolitan Police gave permission for buses to have covered top decks. There had previously been concerns that this would make them too top-heavy and unstable. The open-top NS-types were the first to have covered top decks. They were also the first buses to have pneumatic tyres, although only on single deck versions (the double deck version was allowed pneumatic tyres in 1927).

The speed limit for those buses fitted with the new tyres was raised in 1928 from 12 to 20 mph. NS-types remained in service until 1937, by which time there were 2650 of the newer STL-type operating.

 

from

 

http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/learning/online_...pg/1919b.htm#75

 

So, this photo has to be, if taken in London, post 1925.

 

Enuff said, but still a great photo.