British MK1-MK4 Tank 1916-

[WhiteWhale]

AKA- 'His Majesty's Land Ship Centipede'

The concept of the first 'tank' and the requirements behind it's development differ substantially from what we would consider a tank from Late WW1 on and that is the most important thing to keep in mind as we consider the first 'tank' and how it started a new industry which in many ways defined land warfare for decades to come.

It was very apparent early in WW1 that weapon development had outstripped transport and armour capabilities, this as we all know produced a stalemate amongst the fronts as trenches were dug and progress stalled. The battlefields were a horrific meat-grinder as infantry stood almost no chance of completing any objective, as soon as they went 'over the top' machine guns, artillery and crude fences would make this task almost impossible.

The need for a mechanised vehicle to assist the infantry in travelling to and then taking enemy trenches was obvious to a few and work got under way in developing such a vehicle and trying to convince powerful figure heads in the military and government of it's use. The first prototypes were barely functioning models focused on testing the principals of a tracked armoured vehicle utilising wooden bodies and very basic tracks purchased from the US. Eventually the Mk1 shape was formed, parts were transported as 'water tanks' giving birth to the name of the vehicle and the first true 'Tank' went into testing. The main body was 25 feet long and was designed to be able to travel over a trench 12 feet wide (8 and 9 feet also mentioned as requirements by some sources) although this was rarely possible, a top mounted turret was considered but concerns over a high Centre of Gravity saw that removed and instead replaced with either cannons or machine guns in side mounted sponsons; These were called the male and female versions. The tracks travelled the entire outer distance of the body and were unsprung, the lack of suspension while doing a marginally better job at keeping the tracks mounted made for an awful ride over any terrain. The tracks at the base are actually mounted on a slight curve to improve steering but this ultimately proved self-defeating on soft ground as they sank in and the surface area increased dramatically.

At this time in 1915/1916 the only diesel engines were land mounted and not yet developed enough for vehicle use and the petrol Internal Combustion Engine was very new and not yet engineered into a reliable state. A Daimler 16l 6 cylinder was used developing only 100bhp with which to push the 28t mass at between 3 and 4mph depending on how well it was working at that time. Steering was initially provided via a rear mounted and hydraulically operated tail but this proved useless and was quickly removed from later models, although the mountings remained for some time. Instead the crew learnt to steer via careful altering the track speeds, care was needed to stop the relatively crude gearboxes and shafts sheering apart. In combat navigation was achieved thanks to a delicate periscope system that rarely survived travelling with no suspension and a very sensitive ships compass which for some reason didn't enjoy being inside a metal can with a running engine a few feet away.

The infancy of the internal combustion engine was in many ways the main weakness of the vehicle, asides from it's low power output the Daimler engine (and later Ricardo units) had shocking reliability, frequent fuel and oil leaks made it a fire hazard not to mention the heat and exhaust gasses produced would get trapped inside the body, minor updates over time did little to solve these issues and as crews often trained in bare hulls without the side weapons fitted they didn't truly discover the hot, cramped and toxic conditions until they were on the battlefield.

Protection was provided by 6-12mm armour which was sufficient at stopping most light machine gun fire at moderate distances but was soon outdone by heavier machine guns, the newly developed anti-tank rifle and artillery which had an easy time picking off tanks left stricken by failed engines. Bundles of hand-grenades were also effective forcing the inclusion of top netting which was somewhat effective at rolling the explosives away. Armour plates and improvements were planned but not utilised, probably as the vehicles already suffered greatly with slow speeds, beaching and mechanical wear.

Ultimately the first Tank had mixed results, awful reliability and little experience in how to effectively use them led to their first uses on the battlefields being quite difficult but at times they showed such promise that the Admiralties Landship secured it's place on the table. In time the crews who suffered greatly inside the hot hulls were able to learn how to better use the weapons even if those who gave the orders didn't always know how to better deploy them.

But again it's important to reiterate that the 'Tank' was not what we currently consider a true fighting vehicle, it was developed to assist infantry by breaking through barbwire, machine gun emplacements and breaching trenches which it did... On the occasions that it was pointing in the right direction and the engine was working. It also proved the validity of mechanised warfare and as engines improved so did mobility eventually taking the emphasis away from Trench warfare and changing the face of large scale war.

Type: Tank / Infantry support vehicle
Place of origin: United Kingdom
In service: 1916-1945(?)*
Designer: William Tritton, Major Walter Gordon Wilson, The Landships committee
Manufacturer: Various
Weight: 28t male, 27t female
Length: 7.75 m (25ft)
Width: 4.2 m (13ft 9in)
Height: 2.5 m (8ft 2in)
Crew: 8
Armour: 6-12mm steel, often non-hardened.
Main armament:
6 pounder cannons or 4 0.303 machine gunes
Engine: Daimler 16l 6 cylinder petrol (100bhp) Later Ricardo unit (150bhp)
Power/weight: lol
Suspension: none
Operational range: 40km
Speed: 3-4mph

*Some were found with soviet markings at the end of WW2 in Germany, its a bit of a mystery. We can only presume they broken down there.

[Tony Williams]

Thanks for this.

A couple of points:

None of the "heavier machine guns" saw action during WW1: the first of them, the German 13mm TuF, was in mass production but only in the process of being sent to combat units. The same ammunition was, however, used in the Mauser M1918 anti-tank rifle as you mention, and that was certainly effective.

The 6pdr 8cwt naval gun with which early "male" tanks were fitted proved to be a nuisance as the barrel was so long it kept digging into the ground. So in later vehicles the barrel was shortened drastically to create the 6pdr 6cwt; the ammo was basically the same but a much reduced propellant charge was used. These special low-velocity rounds had the bottom half of the cartridge case chemically blackened for identification purposes.

[WhiteWhale]

Yes just double checked that and does look like the Germany HMG never saw much use, the article I recalled from memory talked about losses under 'heavy machine gun fire' and I now wonder if they meant something closer to 'sustained/numerous machine gun fire'. Although given the thin armour and the questionable nature of it's bullet proofing (I found mention of just soft metal, boiler metal, and 'barely' case hardened being used) I can see even an MG-08 punching through at close/medium range.

[ArmChairCivvy]

We forget how much the cavalry tradition influenced tank development between the wars, producing lightly armoured tanks with the emphasis on mobility (as opposed to lumbering infantry tanks).

As late as in June 1939 there was a competitive shootout between anti-tank rifles using the round TW mentioned and the 20 mm round. The L-39 anti-tank rifle that emerged as the winner did a good job with the heavier round against T-26-, T-38- and T-28 models of the Red Army (Pz1 would have been minced meat, too).
- as a curiosity, the couple of heavy machine gun prototypes that existed were fielded in the Winter War, but failed, despite having been the favourite of generals with infantry background
- of course the 20mm L-39 was only autoloading as nobody's shoulder could have taken the recoil from automatic fire

[WhiteWhale]

We forget how much the cavalry tradition influenced tank development between the wars, producing lightly armoured tanks with the emphasis on mobility (as opposed to lumbering infantry tanks).

Even before then, the slow speed of the Mk1> often meant that either infantry had to wait for them slowing the whole advance or the tank was left behind greatly diminishing their purpose. As the Mk1> wasn't fast enough to make great benefit of the holes in the line that it in itself created a faster tank was desired which in turn led to the comparatively speedy Whippet tank and it's mighty 8mph top end... but that may be it's own thread one day!

Worlds most dangerous Musical Box.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[Tony Williams]

Yes just double checked that and does look like the Germany HMG never saw much use, the article I recalled from memory talked about losses under 'heavy machine gun fire' and I now wonder if they meant something closer to 'sustained/numerous machine gun fire'. Although given the thin armour and the questionable nature of it's bullet proofing (I found mention of just soft metal, boiler metal, and 'barely' case hardened being used) I can see even an MG-08 punching through at close/medium range.

I agree that is the likely explanation, and also that 7.92 mm rifle/MG ammunition might have been effective with a lucky hit - or even without that for the (admittedly uncommon) S.m.K armour-piercing round, which could penetrate up to 11 mm armour plate at 100 m. That was in limited service in 1915, mainly for snipers.

[Tony Williams]

As late as in June 1939 there was a competitive shootout between anti-tank rifles using the round TW mentioned and the 20 mm round. The L-39 anti-tank rifle that emerged as the winner did a good job with the heavier round against T-26-, T-38- and T-28 models of the Red Army (Pz1 would have been minced meat, too).

Yes the L-39 was designed around the German 20 x 139B "Long Solothurn" round, one of the most powerful 20 mm cartridges of WW2. It was also used in the Solothurn S18-1000 anti-tank rifle and various automatic weapons: German and Italian, as well as Finnish.

The photos below from my website (http://quarryhs.co.uk/tankammo.html) give a good idea of the relative power of anti-tank rifles. In the first photo, the first round on the left is the standard German rifle/MG round for comparison.



7.92x57 (for scale), 13.2x92SR (German Mauser M1918 - the original anti-tank rifle), 7.92x86 (Polish experimental case), 7.92x88 (replica of Spanish ATR round, reputedly only one rifle made but used in Spanish Civil War), 7.92x107 (Polish Maroszek service round), 13x94 (replica of German training round, allegedly made to mislead other countries about the high-velocity 7.92x94), 7.92x94 (German Panzerbuchse service round), 13.9x99B (British .55" Boys), 12.7x108 (Soviet HMG round; used briefly in the Sholoklov ATR), 14.5x114 (Soviet PTRD/PTRS), 12.7x99 (.50 Browning for scale).



12.7x99 (for scale), 15.2x114 (US .60" experimental), 20x72RB (Oerlikon SSG), 20x105B (Solothurn S18-100 series), 20x110RB (Oerlikon SSG 36), 20x120 (Madsen), 20x125 (Japanese Type 97), 20x138B (Solothurn S18-1000 and Finnish Lahti L39 - this round is Finnish), 20x144R (Bofors m/40), 20x180R (Carl Gustav m/42 recoilless), 24x139 (Swiss Tb41).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Interesting, Tony.

The round stopped working on Soviet tanks, but because of the accuracy of the gun, it was modified (with a stand) to take down Stormoviks... worked fine again.