Landships II

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

The LK Tanks

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

The LK was a continous development. It started life as "LK" (that's the one that later became the LK I), which was improved into the LK II machine gun tank, while the LK II gun tank provided a second line of development.
The initial proposal to OHL (29.12.1917) talked of "leichte Kampfwagen (Bauart Vollmer)", which Joseph Vollmer had been developing since mid 1917.
Then followed a period of trials in which LK I and LK II run in parallel and the LK II was finaly chosen. There was heavy interference from Colonel Bauer (OHL OII) who wanted mechanised traction for field artillery guns. The LK II MG was therefore designated "LK-Protze mit MG im Drehturm", while the development of the "LK-Wagen mit 5,7 cm Kanone" just started in mid-1918.
The LK II MG was considered ready for production in mid-1918. The LK II Gun prototype was tested until 28.08.1917 and it was found that the 5,7 cm gun was too� heavy for the vehicle.� No� test vehicle with the now projected 3,7 cm gun ever became� ready.
The final designations were:
"LK II-Wagen mit MG im Drehturm" and
"LK II-Wagen mit 3,7 cm K"

James H · Legend

This is very interesting. I had often thought that the pictures and accounts didn't quite add up but had never gone into it. Now that PDA has mentioned it I've had another look at Schneider & Strasheim and at Chamberlain & Ellis's British and German Tanks of World War I, and there are some peculiarities.

The story as told by S&S isn't clear to me, but it seems that (as with the Schneider and St. Chamond) the Transport Department and the High Command were working separately from each other, partly because the latter didn't have much faith in the former. The Transport Dept suggested a light tank in late 1917, while the OHL were conducting their own project with Krupp. The two bodies did eventually liaise.

Unfortunately I can't make out exactly what S&S are saying in a crucial paragraph, but somehow a vehicle emerged that was designated Leichter Kampfwagen I, and it tested satisfactorily. S&S say that it was intended to carry a 5.7mm gun.

Then an improved model, the LKII, was designed, two tons heavier at 8 tons. This and "the Krupp-Wagen" were trialled together. I'm asuming that what they mean by that is the Krupp light tank with an MG08. They say both machines were to be developed to carry machine-guns only, and the LKII, later, to carry a cannon.

Then they say that Krupp produced another, bigger model that was to carry an MG and a 5.2cm gun. This seems to be different again. I can't remember seeing anything about this elsewhere.

On the other hand, C&E say that Vollmer first produced the LKI prototype as an MG type with revolving turret. After approval, two LKII prototypes were completed, weighing 10.2 tons. These seem to have been designed for a cannon only, with a projected MG version like the LKI.

It might be me, but I can't make these accounts fit together.

Now this is the odd thing. Pics of the LKI, as PDA says, show it without mudchutes and with a front plate sloping forwards and down. The LKII cannon version has the same sloping front but with mudchutes. But the LKII MG version has the mudchutes but a different front panel that slopes downwards and back. No one makes much mention of this.

S&S show an illustration of what they call the "Vollmer LKII power limber". My first thought was that this was V's attempt to produce a tractor/load-carrier, but they were to be unarmed, and this drawing shows an MG fitted.
�
Am I being thick, or were there more prototypes than we have previously thought? Vilkata was kind enough to post some pics from a Russian source that suggest that we are missing a photograph of the LKII MG version (shown below) but there's nothing to account for the change in hull shape (that can also be seen on the Stridsvagn derived from the LKII).

By the way, the nomenclature is German, assigned by Chefkraft. The Allies didn't know of their existence.

-- Edited by James H at 21:15, 2008-05-04

James H · Legend

I've just had a thought. This line appears in the description of the Stridswagn on the FSU site:�Sweden bought 10 tanks in Autumn of 1921. The Strv m/21-29 was a modernised version of the normal m/21. The exterior differences are clearly visible with a new style engine muffler and the hood over the radiator.

What if we've been looking at the wrong picture all along? If the silhouette of the LKII cannon and mg versions were identical, but all the pics that we thought were of the latter are actually of the Swedish model after the modifications described above?

Ironsides · Legend

Hi James,�I would say that�1 and 4 were the same or a very similar tank....
2,3&5 appear to share the same track assembly, however all have different hulls.....
2 seems to have a compartment�that over hangs the�tracks perhaps for additional crew or supplies and a completely different sloped bonnet�to 3&5.....
3 has a much longer engine compartment then 1&4 and the engine is positioned further forward perhaps to counter the extra wieght of the gun compartment on the rear.....
5 appears to have features of 1,2&3 but in suttel variations.....

All in all I would say your looking at 4 prototypes......

Just my observations....

Cheers

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

@Mad Zeppelin: that sounds similar to what happened with the British tanks, eg the Mark II and the Mark III were made at the same time, and the Marks IV and V were also developed simultaneously.

@James H: I think Ironsides is right about 1 and 4 being the same tank (LK I). 3 and 5 are both supposed to be LK II, but you can see the front of the cannon version of the LK II is the same as the front of the LK I. Number 2 is an artillery limber.� I think you are right about the pictures of the LK II MG version; I dont think they are pictures of an LK II, they are the Strv M21, with a 'hood over the radiator'.

Which means that, we dont have any pictures of a LK II female!

Thanks for your help

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

What we're missing is a picture of the LK II MG prototype. - The production version looked like the Strv. M21. It was found that engine ventilation was unsatisfactory, thus a fan had to be added leading to the inverted nose of the production model. This change caused the delay in production that prevented the LK IIs to see action in late 1918.

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

Aaaah! So, if the cannon version (3.7cm/37mm/1pdr) had been built, it too would have had a snout like the strv m21?

And, as the 37mm cannon was the same size as the one used in the FT 17 (which the Germans had encountered), was it proposed to put the cannon into a turret, or a fixed structure (like the one for the 57mm)?

-- Edited by philthydirtyanimal at 13:16, 2008-05-07

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

As the 3,7 cm Krupp gun did not become ready in time, this question is fairly open. The initial idea was to use the fixed structure of the gun prototype. But Vollmer's LK III proposal provided a revolving turret for MG or gun. I guess the LK II gun tank would have had a revolving turret if it had entered production.

Ironsides · Legend

Hi All, to recap�4 prototypes(Built) and at least 1 production vehicle...with the LKII gun and LKIII on paper only....

1-LKI mg revolving turret
2-LKI gun tractor
3-LKII Mg rev turret, no pic
4-LKII fixed turret 57mm gun 2 prototypes built?

5-LKII rev or fixed�turret 37mm gun, no pic. on paper only?
6-LKIII mg or 37mm gun rev turret, no pic, on�paper only?�
�
(production version) 10X Stridsvagn M21 mg turret

Cheers

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

I slightly disagree.

Prototypes:
1 - LK I MG revolving turret
2 - LK II MG revolving turret, no picture
3 - LK II 5,7 cm gun fixed structure
It might be possible that once the LK II MG version had been agreed upon (June 1918) the prototype was altered to carry the gun.

Production: 10 Strv. M21 in Sveden, and 14 LK II MG in Hungary.

Paper only:
1 - LK II gun tractor without turret and armamment
2 - LK II gun tractor without turret with front-MG
3 - LK III
I've so far seen no drawing of the LK II gun tank with 3,7 cm gun.
�

James H · Legend

This is very complicated. The accounts by Schneider & Strasheim and Chamberlain & Ellis don't tally. It looks as if the LKI was commissioned by Chefkraft at the end of December 1917, and the designer was Vollmer. Meanwhile, OHL was collaborating with Krupp on what S&S call the Krupp-Wagen.

Chefkraft's project appears to have become LKI, but they specified (according to S&S) a 57mm gun. Why are all the pics of LKI said to be of an MG vehicle?� There are�pics of the LKI with an�MG�in place. Why should that be when the original spec. was for a cannon?

Anyway, LKI was 6 tons. When it tested satisfactorily in March 1918, work began on the LKII, up-armoured and weighing 8 tons. I assume this is when the chassis with mudchutes appeared that also formed the basis of the "Power Limber" and other proposed variants.

The Krupp machine must have existed, because S&S say that trials took place on June 13th 1918 involving that and what they exasperatingly call "the LK". I can't make this bit out: they say that "the LK was to be produced with a cannon too". According to the above, it was to have a cannon in the first place. I think the�drawing below is the Krupp idea.

On July 23rd Krupp presented the spec for a new Tank bigger than the earlier one and armed with an MG and a 52mm cannon. The next bit doesn't fill me with confidence. They say that the LKII had better cross-country performance since its tracks were first 1.1 metres and then 1.3 metres longer that the Krupp, which had tracks "1.5 metres" long. That's ridiculous - I'm 1.85 metres tall. You can't have a Tank less than five feet long. It must be a misprint. Jones, Rarey, & Icks give the length of the LKII as 16'8" - just over 5 metres - so the Krupp would have been 3.78 metres, about 12.5 feet.

One example of the second Krupp must have been built for testing and 65 ordered, but it was cancelled in October 1918 in favour of the LKII.

Meanwhile, in August test firing was carried out with a 57mm gun in the LKII and it was decided that the body couldn't take it, so OHL changed the spec to a Krupp 37mm. Production of the LKII was planned for December 1918, aiming for 200 per month by April 1919, two thirds with the 37mm and one third with MGs. That suggests to me that all production LKIIs were to have a revolving turret and that the LKII cannon version with the fixed superstructure of which there are so many photos was a dead end. If the FT17 could accommodate a 37mm in a turret, why not the LKII?

I reckon that the plan was for all LKIIs to have a turret, and the only difference would have been the gun, so all the examples that ended up as the Stridswagn (however they got there - see the rather bad-tempered discussion about that here: http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=63528&p=3&topicID=8839935) were the standard production model.� The reason we can't find any pics of the MG prototype is that there wasn't one. JR&I make the interesting comment that the Stridswagn had "male" and "female" versions, the former with a 37mm + MG and the latter with 2 MGs. I think this supports the theory.� There wasn't a hull with the same profile as the Cannon version; they went straight to the hull with the reverse slope on the radiator and all the LKIIs we see are either that or the Stridswagn.

If all this is correct, then the only thing we are missing is a photo or drawing of the second Krupp machine with MG and cannon.

Unhelpfully, S&S have a drawing on the back cover of an LKII Kanonenversion showing an MG protruding through an aperture in the door and they say that one could be used from each of the side doors. The aperture is visible in photos, but no mention of an MG is made in their table of data or by anyone else. This might have been an afterthought. They also describe a pic of the vehicle "showing the 37mm cannon" but it looks more like a 57, as it does in the accompanying drawing.

Feel free to comment.

-- Edited by James H at 15:19, 2008-05-08

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

The Krupp tractor wouldn't qualify as a tank. It was a mechanised means for towing a field cannon and carrying the gun crew. Colonel Bauer knew that German horse supply was dwindling, so he was looking for a different kind of traction.
As he was rather influential with OHL, his ideas collided with the light tank scheme in the struggle for resource allocation.
Thus, the LK was fitted with a towing hook and blueprints were made for turretless LK limbers -� as to prove that the LK would be able to fill this role as well.
In August 1918, Bauer was given control over all German tank development. He now quickly realised that only the LK II was far enough in development and� concentrated resources for it's production, dropping everything else - except work on the new heavy, the Oberschlesien.

eugene · Field Marshal

mad zeppelin wrote:

Production: 10 Strv. M21 in Sveden, and 14 LK II MG in Hungary.

�I remember there was an argument about Lk II's in Hungary a while back on the forum so I am still a bit confused on this.

A)did the hungarians have them?

B)did they buy them or build them themselves?

and when was this exactly?

�

thank you

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

They bought them "very cheaply from German army surplus" (if the translation of the Hungarian text I got is correct) in 1920.

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

Eugene; you illustrate my point! Information about the LK tanks is quite murky and previous discussions have not really helped to clear up the confusion (maybe because of the 'heated' nature of the comments).

Mad Zeppelin; would you please seriously consider writing an article or�booklet about these tanks? I think they were a very interesting production.

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

Just took a look at the article about the LK II that is posted here at Landships. That one certainly needs some improvement and correction. I'll think about it.

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

That's great MZ. Thank you.

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

Mad Zeppelin!

If you edit and rewrite the posted article on the LK I will certainly post it, and put you as the author!

Desert_Erik · Sergeant

Hi!

There is work going on here in Sweden top do an ultimate articke on the "swedish connection" about the LK II.
I will not go on about it now (you know what we have written here before) since it seams to be to infected.
Kjell Svensson and Christer Baadst�e (well known researchers here in Sweden) are in the process of putting everything together but they still want to add the last info from the Swedish archives.
When everything is ready it will be published (either on the internet or in Pansar, Swedish Armour Historical Societies magazine) for everyone interested to read.
It may take some time though, there are a lot of other projects that have priority.
Abouit the Hungarian LK IIs I would like to point towards my thread from Oct 2007 about wich I have unfortunatly not received any answers.

Erik
Sweden

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

Well, at first glance things looked rather straightforward... - Now, it doesn't any more. I've finished the first run, am about to rework and revise it.

Forget the LK II MG prototype, it never existed. They went straight from LK I to LK II gun prototype...

Kjell S · Sergeant

James H wrote:

I've just had a thought. This line appears in the description of the Stridswagn on the FSU site:�Sweden bought 10 tanks in Autumn of 1921. The Strv m/21-29 was a modernised version of the normal m/21. The exterior differences are clearly visible with a new style engine muffler and the hood over the radiator.

What if we've been looking at the wrong picture all along? If the silhouette of the LKII cannon and mg versions were identical, but all the pics that we thought were of the latter are actually of the Swedish model after the modifications described above?

A very interesting discussion this.
I�start with a comment to James H.�

�

The exterior changes that where made on the m/21 was a new exhaust and a muffler on the left side and an slightly bigger protection cup over the radiators filler cap. And we hade two headlights put in, in the front plate. Nothing else is visible.

This is the strv m/21

-- Edited by Kjell S at 01:39, 2008-06-07

Kjell S · Sergeant

I have been thinking about this.
Is this a possible theory ?�

�

1 LKI test vehicle with MG turret

�

Then the LKII prototype is produced with improved running gear.

2 LKII prototype, version with 5,7 cm gun and the new track sides.
3 LKII prototype, version with mg turret ??? If ever produced at all? Drawing ?.

�

The production model is changed slightly, the front gets a better protection with a closed front plate, instead of the grid. And to accommodate the new cooling grid on top, the front had to be extended forward. The running gear is not changed.

4 LKII Production vehicle, version w mg turret. The photo is probably taken at the -Steffen und Heymann- factory in Berlin. It is not a photo of a Swedish strv m/21.
5 LKII �Production version w 3,7 cm gun ??? if ever in production? Drawing ?
6 LKII Limber, project only.

�

Next step in the development is the LKIII

James H · Legend

Does this make things any clearer? It was under our noses all the time, in B.T. White, pages 170 & 182.

"(The LKI prototype) was 18ft long, 6'7" wide, 8'2" high . . . . the armament carried in the small revolving turret was one water-cooled machine-gun with another, unmounted, in reserve. A version of the LKI with a 3.7cm gun was planned but never built because demonstration of the prototype led the War Ministry to issue a new specification for a light Tank which necessitated a complete redesign.

The LKII evolved directly from the LKI . . . there were two prototypes . . .� a somewhat higher degree of accessibility for maintenance - particularly of the track system - was introduced . . . . and the 'turret' was fixed, like that of the British Medium Mk A, which is believed to have influenced the design. The armament was a 5.7cm gun, although a 3.7cm gun of higher velocity was intended for production models, some of which were alternatively to be armed with machine-guns only. 580 were ordered but none completed.

Development of the LKII was continued in Sweden, where the designs were taken after the War. An improved version with a revolving turret, but in most respects very like the German prototype, was put into production for the Swedish Army from 1921."

So, according to this, we are missing the LKI canon version and the LKII MG version. White says the LKII MG was never built, whch makes Kjell's Picture 4 hard to fit in, since the vehicle should have had a fixed turret. The 'higher degree of accessibility for maintenance - particularly of the track system' results in the mudchutes. The reason the Stridswagn looks like a cross between LKI and LKII�could be�that Vollmer used his old idea of the LKI turret when modifying the LKII to create the Stridswagn. (That's leaving aside the argument about how the plans got to Sweden and to what extent Vollmer was involved)

Anyone agree/disagree?

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

I agree!

And I'm sure you've noticed that the LK tanks in Hungary are missing from this explanation.

Centurion · Legend

Unbuilt versions of the LKII

James H · Legend

I have deliberately avoided the Hungarian angle, what with one thing and another. I have re-read�all the posts�and am sorry that Kjell doesn't seem to want to participate any more.

I appreciate that just because B.T. White's account seems to fit doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct, but I lean very much towards it. In which case, I can't agree that Cent's pic No. 1 is an unbuilt LKII. If White is correct and the fixed turret was common to both prototypes, the silhouette on the LKII Kanone and MG versions would be identical except for the gun; in other words, the front plate would slope forwards and down. I think pic 1 is the Stridswagn. The shape of the crew compartment is very similar on all models, and if you decapitate the LKII Kanone and stick the LKI turret in its place, you've got something very close to the Stridswagn.

Happy to be corrected.

Centurion · Legend

All based on 1918 drawings.� By unbuilt I meant intial designs. Its quite possible that Volmer used one of these designs for the� Strid, �As I've said much earlier the proportions of the Strid don't quite match the LK II prototypes and various things like radiator grills (side) and other features are in different places. I've been remaining silent for nearly two years now waiting for our Swedish friends to publish their proofs.

-- Edited by Centurion at 21:53, 2008-10-28

Kjell S · Sergeant

Interesting to see that the discussion is still alive.

�

This book of B.T. White that is quoted, I dont have it, so can somebody tell me in what year it was written. My guess is that it is not resent.

�

Quote:Development of the LKII was continued in Sweden, where the designs were taken after the War. An improved version with a revolving turret, but in most respects very like the German prototype, was put into production for the Swedish Army from 1921Quote.

�

This is incorrect. As said before, Sweden bought parts from Germany, enough to assemble ten tanks, and we made no improvements to it at all.

�

And why are not the Hungarian tanks mentioned in this book?� Could it be that all the facts werent known at that time?

�

The number 4 picture is taken in Germany, and show finished LKII mg-tanks, probably at the company Steffen und Heymann in Berlin, and�this shows�most certainly the tanks that later ends up in Hungary.

�

James H · Legend

Hello again, Kjell. Nice to see you are still with us.

I'm sure no one wants this discussion to be acrimonious. My copy of B.T. White is the 1974 revised edition. We know that books from the 60s and 70s are not perfect - Chamberlain and Ellis said in 1968 that it was "not known" whether any A7Vs were still in existence.

I'm still struggling to follow this. These pictures are from Schneider & Strasheim, showing what they say are the LKII MG and Kanone. As you can see, Centurion's point is correct in that the grilles are in different places (and the doors are necessarily different). And what is that space indicated by the green arrow? It looks as if extra armour might have been fitted as protection for the radiator grille.

Is it possible that Vollmer changed the design yet again for the production version? Are you saying that a number of LKIIs were completed and went to Hungary as the finished product, whilst the ones that went to Sweden were shipped in kit form?

Please put us out of our misery.

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

Hi All!

Just one question:

Did anyone read the completely new article on the German LK Tank series by noted expert Rainer Strasheim?

As far as I can see it answers some of the questions. Especially why is the LK II MG nose different from the LK II Canon? It is because a fan was added. And it answers also James question regarding "And what is that space indicated by the green arrow?" It is the grille for the fan.

Kjell S · Sergeant

Yes I believe that the LKII prototype with gun and back sloping front, that had an open grille, because it was decided that more protection was needed. So it was changed before production started.The front had to be covered with an armour plate and the openings (grille?) for the cooling air then was moved to the top (green arrow) just in front of the radiator and to improve cooling a fan was added. Therefore, to get better protection, the front had to be extended.

Date: Oct 30, 2008

Hi all!

I belive everything have been said about the swedish part of the "LK II story" but I may have some new info from Hungary for you.
This I have achived after visiting Budapest, buying some hungarian books as well as been in mailcontact with some hungarians.�

The hungarians bought some 14 vehicles�(in pieces) from Germnay wich were delivered in 1920, they were not put together though until 1930 when only 6 were put together. They were used by "RUISK" (Police Academy), the reason for this was that they were not allowed to have armoured vehicles in the army.
In 1931 some Fiat 3000b tanks were bought and eventually in 1933 the LK IIs were scrapped, all but one wich was scrapped in 1939.

We have two photos of the hungarian LK IIs.

One is a quite blurry�photo wich shows both LK IIs and Fiat 3000bs, no question about it, this photo was�taken at the Hajmasker barracks (RUISK).

The other one is a more common photo with a soldier in front of it.
This has been said being taken in Sweden but we all agree that�the soldier is NOT wearing a swedish uniform, but hypothetical it could still have been taken in��Sweden even if it seems unlikely to some of us.
I have now got info that this photo is indeed taken in Hungary, again at Haymasker barraks. the photo was taken by a "tank man" named "Jeno Jeszenszky" in 1932.

Hth

Erik
Sweden��

James H · Legend

Christoph; that article by Strasheim sounds v interesting. Have you any more details?

Jones, Rarey, & Icks (1933) make no reference to any inter-war Hungarian Tanks, but then again they say that Poland had 5 A7Vs and some Char 2Cs. They also say that Vollmer designed an appalling wheel/track vehicle called the Kolo Housenka for Czechoslovakia.

Finally, I've been having another look at what Schneider and Strasheim say is the LKII MG. Compare the bow with that of what is said to be the production version that ended up in Hungary.�Is there�a difference or is that an optical illusion? And what is that arrowed on the left-hand drawing; a clue?

-- Edited by James H at 13:06, 2008-10-30

Centurion · Legend

The tank on the left has louvres in the top of the engine compartment which the Strid on the�right does not. However these same louvres can be seen in various photos of the� cannon armed LKII prototypes. The LKII had a forced water cooling system using water under pressure in tubes around the engine to act as a form of heat exchange in addition to the normal radiator. This was vunerable to battle damage and requiresd a much greater air flow round the engine. Hence the need for a fan as described by Strasheim and those louvres in the top of the engine compartment. The Strid had a conventional water cooled engine and so no need for the engine compartment top louvres.

-- Edited by Centurion at 17:19, 2008-10-30

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

@James:

1. Yes it is an optical illusion.
2. The arrow shows to a kind of a name plate. I have that picture in my collection, there you can see it is more in silver colour and maybe the writing on it says "Kleiner Kampfwagen" (small tank) but to be honest it is also possible that it says something different.

btw: you know that this picture only shows a model, not a real tank?

@Centurion:

1. Comparing left to right pictures, you can see that the right picture is not very sharp and somebody did a little bit of "drawing" (like it was often done at that time).
2. Sorry to say, but ..... the swedish Stridsvagn m21 did have top louvres! I have seen movies with Stridsvagn (and downloaded some) on a swedish website, where you can buy old swedish "news movies" (shown in cinema before the main movie). Especially in one movie it shows clearly the two top louvres. And you can also see clearly that it shows a m21 not a m21/29!

Centurion · Legend

No top�vents visible in this photo. Can you post the one you have showing them?

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

@Centurion:

1. Your picture shows clearly a Stridsvagn m21/29 not a Stridsvagn m21. The difference between m21 and m21/29 is: a) the "knob" on the front top and b) the different exhaust on the right side.

But: also the m21/29 has the top louvres, but sometimes - due to the bad quality of fotos or due to light reflections - you can't see them (or not clearly like on your picture or the foto with "drawing"), but they are there. You can see it on a lot of fotos of the m21/29 posted on swedish websites.

2. As�I said before, it is a movie. But�I did try to convert a jpg out of it. I hope that works.

-- Edited by elbavaro at 19:00, 2008-10-30

Centurion · Legend

As the 21/29 was an upgrade of the existing tanks (bigger engine, some improved armour etc) and not physically a new tank at all one assumes that the basic format remains. I'm afraid that your still merely shows a darker area and not vents. Even if these are vents I would assume they are across the tank or they would be very visible. See enclosed photo of LKII clearly showing the vents. I also enclose another shot of a 21/29 in which the vents are invisible - poor lighting again?

Sorry to be a nuisance but could you post a link or links to those sites you mention?

-- Edited by Centurion at 21:58, 2008-10-30

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

@Centurion:

1. No it is not a darker area. You can see it clearly in the movie.

2. I am sorry, but it seems that there are top louvres on your right picture. They are not invisible, please take a lookt at it again. I can see squares there. Of course the top louvres are totaly different to the ones at the sides. They are more "filigree" and that is the reason why you often can't see them clearly. Do you see the square right before the "hood" on the front top? I also can see it on your first postet picture.

But coming back to the discussion: the LK II / Stridsvagn m21 definetly had such louvres. Take a look at one of the Axval�Stridsvagns (this is a m21 not a m21/29!):
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2106455370033538523SWfTmH

3. The left foto shows the Canon version. The Canon version was not built in the final version of the LK II. So maybe they are different.

4. I will post the link when I find it - it is lost at the moment. Sorry.

-- Edited by elbavaro at 00:56, 2008-10-31

-- Edited by elbavaro at 00:58, 2008-10-31