Inhapi Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 What was in your opinion the best tank of WWI, Thanks lot, Helen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Best at what task and best at what location? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inhapi Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) True enough, lets say in the heavyly cratered western front, thow in some mud.and carriing at least a light gun.Helen Edited May 20, 2015 by Inhapi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inhapi Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) 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 May 20, 2015 by Inhapi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim the Tank Nut Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 The FT series was the first modern tank. Everything that came after was derivative in some way. The FT17 and 18 series represented the best of the Great War tanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel2 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 TOG1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) 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 May 28, 2015 by Markus Becker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 A WW1 tank built in 1940. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam_S Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 How did the trench crossing ability of FT-17's or Whippets compare to the rhomboids? Did they have problems coming forward in the second wave after the rhomboids had cleared a hole through the trenches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel2 Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 The FT-17 may not have been able to cross a 10 foot wide trench, but try doing this with a Mk IV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) 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 May 31, 2015 by Ken Estes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Isn't the last one a TOG 2? TOG2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOG2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Yeah, I think it is there because of the book Which brings up memories of Ken trying to get picture of the engine deck of TOG II in Bovington, perched on the pyramid of chairs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 wanders off to amazon.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbo Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Trench crossing: Mk V: 3 metersMk V*: 4 metersWhippet: 2,2 metersA7V: 2,3 metersFT-17: 1,8 metersSchneider: 1,8 metersSt. 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel2 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) . 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 May 31, 2015 by Mikel2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel2 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I can't tell if the springs are for the lower wheels or to maintain track tension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jason L Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) 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 May 31, 2015 by Jason L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now