Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

There were not that many tank types, really, but I would say with regards to WWI logistics and other realities, Renault FT would be the best available combination.

 

But all in all, there is seldom "the best" - TANSTAAFL, Rhomboids would be better for crossing trenches, French tanks for their powerful gun... etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the rhomboids best for crossing heavy terrain. But i Always wondered for all its good points wether the FT was suitable for the task of crossing terrain and (widened) trenches at the western front

 

greetings,

 

Helen

Edited by Inhapi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who besides Britain/Commonwealth (and white/red Russia) used WWI rhomboid tanks after the war? I suspect Whippets had a wider career.

 

If post war sales are an indicator of success, I guess nothing touches the FT-17. Is there a region of the world that hasn't had those at one time or another? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who besides Britain/Commonwealth (and white/red Russia) used WWI rhomboid tanks after the war? I suspect Whippets had a wider career.

 

If post war sales are an indicator of success, I guess nothing touches the FT-17. Is there a region of the world that hasn't had those at one time or another? :-)

Japan purchased 1 female model and it reached Yokohama in 1918 and from there, it was transported around in Japan, and was inspected and did experiment runs. During WW2, it was kept at Yasukuni Shrine but after the war, it's not known what happened to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who besides Britain/Commonwealth (and white/red Russia) used WWI rhomboid tanks after the war?

The USA?! Some wartime ordered rhomboid tanks were made after the war and used up during the inter war years.

 

Ken, how does the TOG fit into this? It was a late 30 prototype for a big trench crossing tank with a 3" gun in a turret, wasn't it?

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhomboid tanks and similar where niche machines and required significant support to move, etc. The FT-17 really allowed the tank to try new and different challenges and were logistically more efficient, The Whippet with turret(s) would also have been a versatile design, but lacked suspension and a reliable steering method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting a turret on top of a rhomboid [2 pdr on TOG1] does not make the tank any less rhomboid. We should also add to TOG1 (1940), the FCM Char 2C(1919), the German Grosstrakto/Neubaufahrzueg (1926ff), even the Rus T35.

 

Markus, the 3-inch turret was carried on TOG2, which had a peculiar suspension taking it out of the rhomboid class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken just advancing that design to it's logical conclusion, adding turrets is about the only thing you can do to the whippet without a major redesign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting a turret on top of a rhomboid [2 pdr on TOG1] does not make the tank any less rhomboid. We should also add to TOG1 (1940), the FCM Char 2C(1919), the German Grosstrakto/Neubaufahrzueg (1926ff), even the Rus T35.

 

Markus, the 3-inch turret was carried on TOG2, which had a peculiar suspension taking it out of the rhomboid class.

So I remembered the wrong TOG. Any pics of the TOG1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots to be found. The 75mm is in the hull and it is still not capable of meeting the specs for the "Land Battleship" issued by the British Army.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ken Estes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trench crossing:

 

Mk V: 3 meters

Mk V*: 4 meters

Whippet: 2,2 meters

A7V: 2,3 meters

FT-17: 1,8 meters

Schneider: 1,8 meters

St. Chamond: 2,5 meters

 

AFAIK a firetrench would be somewhere in the region of 1 to 2,5 meters wide at the top, narrower at the bottom. But once the tank starts to push into the trench, I suppose it might start to cave in, making it less of an obstacle?

 

Anti-tank trenches were wider, probably beyond even the capabilities of the Rhomboid tanks? For those, you needed fascines and the little FT-17 could carry those as well as the larger machines:

 

 

Given the advantages of the FT-17 over the Rhomboids (size, weight, rotating turret, transportability etc.), it looks like a prime candidate for Top WWI Tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

The FT17 was an impressive design. But as far as a best tank for WW1, it would arguably have to be the Liberty Tank. It didnt arrive till it was all over is the problem. So that really leaves the MKV, which had the first 'modern' driving system in that all the controls were in the hands of one driver.

 

Doesn't the little FT predate the Mk V in having a single driver?

 

Was the FT the first production tank to have a suspension? I don't recall if the Schneider or St Chamond had one.

Edited by Mikel2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jason L

Were there ever any dedicated engineering FT-17 variants, or just fascine carriers?

 

It seems rather more logical in retrospect to build engineering/assault tanks with bridging equipment than take things to their logical conclusion and build this massive, super long tanks to cross AT trenches. The prototyped Mk VIII Star was supposed to be some whopping 14 meters long. I don't think it would have even been able to turn in soft terrain.

Edited by Jason L
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...