Landships II

PDA · Legend

Mendeleev Tank(s)

James H · Legend

I think the lime-green one might be the Reno-Russkiy 20 ton Tank of 1915. More of an SPG,� really. The gun was rear-facing. I knew one had been designed, but didn't know it had been built. Very nice.

P.S. If you save the photo, the title thing (whatever it's called) comes up as "tank of rybinski factory", which is where it was built, according to John Milsom (Russian Tanks 1900-1970).

-- Edited by James H on Tuesday 2nd of November 2010 11:46:53 AM

PDA · Legend

Thanks, James. I added the titles based on what I could see of the previous titles. Also, these are "artist's impressions", and my understanding is that neither were built.�The pictures are from an old (2007)�thread on the Axis History Forum, here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=117007

There is another picture (a Plan) of the tank from Rybinski:

One of the contributors states, "One of the projects was armored fighting vehicle with framed box-liked hull based on tractor chassis - so called tank of Rybinsk factory (1915). The tank arrangement was quite similar to French medium tank St. Chamond. The project of "armored tractor of high power" was given to the General military technical directorate of Russian Army on 10 August 1916, but didn't get necessary support.
Specifications (project): weight - 20 tons; dimensions - 5 m x 2 m x 2 m; armament - 107mm gun + heavy-caliber machinegun (in the rear); armor - 10-12 mm; gasolene engine - 200 hp; speed - 7 km/h; crew - 4 men. Tank should have elastic suspension.

Also the 2nd project was developed in the end of 1916 by engineers from Rybinsk factory ["Russian Renault", produced aircraft engines and shells during WWI] - 12 tons; 12 km/h; 75mm gun + MG; tractor chassis." and, "20-tons tanks by Rybinsk factory ["Russian Renault" in Rybinsk on Volga river] armed with 107mm gun."

However, the tanks look so similar to my eye, that I wonder if there was some "cross-pollination" of ideas. Or, perhaps, an armoured brick-like shape is not that original and it's simply a case of convergent evolution.

How reliable is Milsom's book?

James H · Legend

Well, Milsom's book is packed with info about pre-1918 projects, which is not to say that it is necessarily accurate, but there is so much detail that I'm inclined to trust it.

However, if you look closely at the axishistory page it says that the Reno-Russkiy is a modern reconstruction. Where, when, how, and why I've no idea.

The passage you quote is pretty much what Milsom says. He says his source is someone called Watyn-Watyniecki, about whom I haven't been able to find anything.

That's the best I can do at the mo.

Rectalgia · Legend

James H wrote:
The passage you quote is pretty much what Milsom says. He says his source is someone called Watyn-Watyniecki, about whom I haven't been able to find anything.

J. Watyn-Watyniecki, "Tank Development in the Red Army", Przeglod Woiskowo Techniczny, 1934 No. 6

The author (probably) and (almost certainly) the editor of that distinguished journal (Military Technical Review) are buried in the Katyn Wood.� Yet there must be copies of it somewhere for Milsom to cite it (or some other publication) as a primary source.

P.S. Watyn-Watyniecki is also referenced by "Max Werner" (Aleksandr Shfrig) in his 1938 book The MILITARY STRENGTH of the POWERS, originally TOWARDS the SECOND WORLD WAR.� Churchill (pre-war) was not inclined to place much credence in either in terms of their over-all assessments (the Red Army's supremacy in mechanisation and the great benefit accruing to Germany through associated clandestine development in aviation and armour):

Churchill letter to Schifrin.� But history showed them to be right. More or less.

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Wednesday 3rd of November 2010 05:11:24 AM

James H · Legend

Ta for info, Rectalgia.

axishistory seem to have taken their info from this site: http://www.waronline.org/write/his-magesty-tank/chapter5.html And Edwin Dyer's drawing of it has been around for as long as I can remember.

The caption to the green machine translates, clumsily, as: "And so it could look like. Modern-valued reconstruction." That could mean that it's an artist's impression rather than an actual replica.

Milsom does, indeed, quote a great many primary sources: Col. Mostovenko, Artilleriyskiy Zhurnal, A.S. Antonov, and many more, so I think we can have a good deal of confidence.