Landships II

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

RE: MK IV airship tug

Granty101 · Colonel

If an unpowered airship is basically a 'free floating balloon', why was,

1: The tank 'tug' idea not pursued with?

2: Airships still being built, and used, unto and including WWII??

Is there any official archive material, (that is to say if any was recorded or kept), relating to the towing of airships??

Grant

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

I haven't found any more information Grant on land based tugs but who knows it may be lurking out there somewhere. It does make for an interesting cross over between these two subjects, the tank and the airship. If I come across any further relevant info I will update the thread. Now.........pondering what the next model will be :)

Date: Dec 7, 2015

An A7V towing a Zeppelin anyone ???? :) :)

Pierantonio · Lieutenant-Colonel

Look at the movie "Hindemburg". It is a reconstruction but it may give some idea

https://youtu.be/Huyf1J2M0Wk?t=1469

https://youtu.be/Huyf1J2M0Wk?t=6402

Pierantonio · Lieutenant-Colonel

The airship tug never die!

i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151016084918-goodyear-zeppelin-blimp-parked-super-169.jpeg

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Nice one :) How about an A7V with a tower on top ..............

Granty101 · Colonel

T140 wrote:
Nice one :) How about an A7V with a tower on top ..............

Why not!! If Germany had won the war, or even just forced a stalemate, who knows what might have happened to their old, outdated tanks??

Grant

Lothianman · Colonel

Pierantonio, that is a very nice modern photo. But it can't be a tug. Rather, it is a mobile mooring mast, is it not? Look at the retractable props on each side

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Yes I think it is a mooring mast aswell as the airship is attached by the nose, but an interesting pic none the less. If you look at pics of the old airships the mooring masts were huge. They had to be to reach the nose. Tank 261 therefore I think was a tug only and not a mobile mast as it was far too short. Airship 23 had a diamter of over 50m plus clearance needed below.

Lothianman · Colonel

Quite right. Still, the tank could have been an anchorage point - not a mooring mast as such.

A friend has pointed me to this which might be worth a look - I haven't had time yet (especially as I was distracted by the menu and wine list on the R101 - haute cuisine in one sense only!)

www.airshipsonline.com/index.htm

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Yes I know that site and emailed them a few days ago to see if they had any information. No reply as yet but maybe soon.

Tonys · Field Marshal

I also emailed them but also no reply.

T

Tonys · Field Marshal

I have now had two replies from the airships heritage people, who have been as helpful as they can.

A further lead I have followed up is at the Pulham Pig images on the web and also the Pulham Heritage centre. Of extreme interest is a picture of a Mk V tank!!! It has been stated in many places that RNAS Pulham had asked for a Mk V to replace the Mk IV, but this had been refused - the Pulham webpage has a picture of a Mk V without its sponsons. Have asked if they have a better picture.

The rear turret of the tank looks like it is a Mk. V*, but uncertain as yet. The rear sprockets and track look weird.

Tony

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Excellent! I didn't get a reply so well done. That certainly looks like v* as it seems to have the additional door and mg mount in the middle. As you say the back end is wierd, looks like its been extended. Very odd. As the sponsons have been removed it lends itself to the Meng mk v with interior and moded to make it a v* :)

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

I wonder why there isn't a tower on that one...........

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Looks like the airship in that pic is the R34 and taken in 1919.

Topoff · Sergeant

Hi, Its so hard to belive that it was only 100 years ago & at that time they had really good plans for every thing, so little left and yet today every thing is on computer - |I wonder what will be kept for 100 years, food for thought ????/
Rich Reid

Tonys · Field Marshal

Perhaps they put another set of sprockets outside the body to try and achieve better traction, like some tractors do?

Tony

Tonys · Field Marshal

Have sent the picture to Bovington for comment.

Tony

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Tony, that's a rather small version of that photo - and that may be hiding the fact that the picture is strange, not the tank. I've seen that photo of a Mk.V* and the airship before, and there is nothing unusual about the sprockets; I found a clearer pic by googling 'ww1 tank and airship', just to double check.
The sprockets and track horns look strange because the lower part of the photo has somehow become misaligned, being shifted slightly to the right. If you look at the tank's front track horns and the white-red-white stripes, you'll see the misalignment - it's about halfway up the side.

Lothianman · Colonel

A friend has pointed out to me that the Mark V* in the photo at the end of this thread is the one that Pulham used to open and close their airship hangars' doors. Not as a tug or mooring mast.

There's a caption to that effect in one of the old Royal Museum of Scotland or National Museums Scotland publications about East Fortune, which was an important airship base during and after the Great War and is now the National Museum of Flight of National Museums Scotland. "East Fortune: Museum of Flight and history of the airfield"
by I. T. Bunyan, ‎J. D. Storer, and ‎Christine L. Thompson: "Plate 35 R34 landing at Pulham after return flight from the United States. The tank was used to pull open the doors of the large airship shed."

A similar statement comes up with a number of hits on Google searches for instance on pulham tank doors. It looks as if the, or a, primary source is a paper in the Transactions (or Journal?) of the Society of Engineers for 1922 but it is only snippet view on Google and Ido not have full access to the journal itself on the databases open to me. It's definitely not the Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.

www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/16236 is a painting of a Mark IV (it seems) tank at Pulham - 261 - showing not only the big white number but the brown colour. No red/white/red stripes. And no tower. The painting is dated 1918, however.

-- Edited by Lothianman on Friday 18th of December 2015 08:50:08 AM

-- Edited by Lothianman on Friday 18th of December 2015 09:54:07 AM

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Yes I've seen that painting before. Interesting that the tower is missing. Not sure about brown though, hints on the front maybe but the side looks very grey to me.

Tonys · Field Marshal

Thanks, TCT - makes much more sense now.

Tony

Red truck · Corporal

TinCanTadpole wrote:
Tony, that's a rather small version of that photo - and that may be hiding the fact that the picture is strange, not the tank. I've seen that photo of a Mk.V* and the airship before, and there is nothing unusual about the sprockets; I found a clearer pic by googling 'ww1 tank and airship', just to double check.
The sprockets and track horns look strange because the lower part of the photo has somehow become misaligned, being shifted slightly to the right. If you look at the tank's front track horns and the white-red-white stripes, you'll see the misalignment - it's about halfway up the side.

Not misalignment, aslice of the photo is missing that's why the sponson opening doesn't have a jog in it and the trees tops are missing.

Tonys · Field Marshal

Thanks, Lothianman; Bovington has also replied in the same vein as you. Funny how Pulham couldn't get a Mk V, but East Fortune got a V*!

There was a tractor used at Pulham as a tug, so I suppose the tank was used as a gust of wind and off goes the tractor with the airship.

I have been looking very carefully at the photos of the k. IV and see the following:

1 The legs of the gantry definitely do not come down onto the unditching rail,\;

2 The rear wall of the stowage box has been raised with something pretty substantial; and

3 There also seems to be some structural steelwork running back from the stowage box anchoring the whole thing to the i/s face of the tank's rear bodywork.

On the basis of this rear reinforcement, It's likely that the front end was anchored to the turret.

Thanks for the input.

Tony

Lothianman · Colonel

Not East Fortune - the tank was at Pulham as the text makes clear!

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Will have to agree to disagree on the rails Tony. I've looked at the photos long and hard for this model and I think they do come down to the rails. If not they would have to go inside as outside would clash with the tracks and the tower is no narrower than the rails at there. The storage bin I have extended upwards although unsure what the purpose of that would be, other than holding a large amount of line maybe. Anyway model is built now and I'm happy with how it looks compared to the photos. Custom decals arrived but had been orinted wrong so mow waiting for replacements. Once its all done will post some final pics :)

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Forgot to say that my other thought re the rails is that if they werent serving a purpose it would make no sense to leave them on the tank, as they force you to make the tower narrower which is a less desirable design. I have wondered if the tower came down on to the rails with then a re-inforcer block between the rail and body. Thats pure speculation but would seem logical. Who knows 100 years on with only 3 fuzzy pics to go by.

Tonys · Field Marshal

In actual fact, there is a gap between the rails and the tracks.

When I look at the pics I have, the gantry legs definitely do go past the rails but, hey who cares? If we're happy with our models that's all that counts unless we enter them in competitions!!!!

I hope my model turns out as well as yours.

Tony

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

I've had one lot of decals arrive which look great but were printed too small. The numerals on these are about 6.5/7mm high. I need 12mm high for 1:35 scale. They might well suit a 1:72 scale model so happy to pass these on to anyone interested. Can post foc in the UK but would need the postage cost covering for international.

Date: Dec 24, 2015

Also now have some spare 1:35 decals so can make the same offer on those if anyone wants them.

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Now have some surplus 261 decals in 1:35 scale too so same offer on those if anyone wants some.

Tonys · Field Marshal

Would appreciate a set.

Regards,

Tony

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Hi Tony. If you email me address please will get those off to you. Did you want 72nd or 35th?

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

ian-parker@blueyonder.co.uk

Tonys · Field Marshal

Don't think you are familiar with military storekeepers - if anything is missing, you pay!! If they had been taken off, they would have disappeared into the nearest scrapyard very quickly! Also, Army assets lent to the Navy would have to have come back with every rivet in place or there would have been not only a financial charge but also a disciplinary charge for the loss of government property - believe me, I've been there!!!

Tony

Tonys · Field Marshal

Ian,

PM'd you.

Tony

Pierantonio · Lieutenant-Colonel

The raised storage box seems more like a large bar between rails where legs are anchored with another central bar connecting to hull

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

I dont think its a bar. Looks like the back wall of the box has been extended up to support that bar or rod coming over the middle, as that seems to extend past the box to the rod or whatever it is running up the very rear. The sides and base of the wall extension then have plates to stiffen it up. You can see the side plate in the pic taken from the front quatre.