Is there not something from the RE on this issue?Ģ - has a quote from Gandy, Paul. A national survey of such width and height restrictions would be perfect anytime up to 1945 would suffice. for the areas between tank factories (and Lincolnshire in particular) and the docks for loading vehicles. I am particularly concerned in this query with the railbridges and tunnels of Southern England and as I know very little of train related things I need some assistance.īest as I can find relating to gauge is this (online)īut I know of 10'3" or 10' being an acceptable maximum width by 1940 and the WW1 'Rhomboids' are in the 10' to 12' wide rangeġ- Is there a survey of bridges/tunnels etc. How important really was railgauge in constraining tank design in WW1? So in WW1 we have tanks with sponsons which can 'retract' to reduce width and I've seen mention of the idea of transporting a vehicle with the turret removed etc. They literally wanted it ready for action off the train. At the battle of Hamel, for example, four tanks took forward loads that would have required 1,250 men to carry.Obviously tanks have to be moved to the front and the most usual way of long distance movement is by rail for a variety of reasons.ĭuring some research I have had constant mention of rail gauge being the limiting factor for a tank design and that the British Army in WW2 (certainly early on) were not happy with the concept of moving a vehicle in parts to be assembled after offloading. Tanks were used in a variety of roles: to protect infantry, to attack and fire on the enemy front line, to cut through wire entanglements, and to carry ammunition and supplies. To Monash's credit, he did, and he was rewarded. Since earlier models had proven ineffective in previous battles, many Australian soldiers were reluctant to try them again. Major General John Monash was one of the main supporters of tanks and their potential in 1918. ![]() Lightweight "Whippets" and special troop-, supply- and gun-carrying tanks were also used. Most were armed with 6-pounder guns or machine-guns. Over 500 tanks were used in the British-Canadian-Australian attack at the Battle of Amiens. Crews had also improved: they were now better trained and more experienced. It was more reliable, mobile and easier to control. It had a powerful purpose-built engine, as well as a new steering mechanism. The Mark V tank was a great improvement on its predecessors. By 1918, many battles such as Hamel and the Battle of Amiens were planned with Mark V tanks as an integral part of the operation. They were also used in Palestine from 1917.Īt the battle of Cambrai in 1917, the further developed Mark IV tanks were said to have been the decisive factor in the Allied victory. By September 1916, 49 tanks were in use on the Somme. They provided greater mobility and cover for infantry on the battlefield, and they could be used as carriers for supplies. However, tanks gradually gained respect as tactical weapons. Initially, commanders and men found it difficult to adjust to these bulky monsters with their cumbersome design. The tank which resulted from the trials, the 'Mark I', was used in battle for the first time at Flers-Courcelette on the Somme battlefield on 15 September 1916. The very first tank prototypes were developed in secret trials in late 1915 and early 1916. However, it is commonly accepted that it derived from the term "water carrier" - the innocent name tanks were initially given to divert any enemy attention from this new war project. ![]() There is some debate about the origin of the word "tank". In the earlier years of the war, there was some doubt as to their effectiveness and worth. The evolution of their use was a long process. ![]() It would be impossible to discuss the warfare of 1918 without mentioning the immense impact of "landships" or tanks.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |