Landships II

Pzkpfw-e wrote:

---

Some more info here. www.farmcollector.com/tractors/tractors-company-history/military-tractors-manufacturers-zmlz17novzhur

---

 I was going to post that link, but I thought I'd do a bit of digging first. Some things about this reminded me of something.

This is what Sam Moore's article says:

Col. Newton was one of several brothers who ran an engineering firm in Derby, and the original tractors were built there, first with Ford Model T engines and then with Fordson F tractor skid units for power. All manufacturing capacity was in short supply in England, so American auto builders were enlisted. The order was split between Buick (5,000 units), Studebaker (5,000 units), and Willys-Overland (10,000 units).The Americans were to provide only skid units, consisting of an engine, clutch, transmission and rear axle. The skid units were to be shipped to a factory in Manchester, England, where they were to be assembled into completed machines. 

By coincidence, we were talking about the Ford factory in Manchester the other day, and we know that Model T engines were manufactured there. I am given to wonder whether that was where the American parts were sent.

Then I remembered this. I posted it a couple of years ago, but nobody took much notice:

Colonel Robert J. Icks, Ret'd. writing in a journal called AFV-G2 Magazine, in 1975. The article was actually about how steam power can be used with tanks, but he begins with several paragraphs on the origins and early use of tanks in general, and includes this:

The Allied plans for using tanks in large numbers in 1919 included provisions for keeping up the momentum of attack by means of thousands of unarmed tracklaying tractors. The British took up the responsibility for furnishing these and adopted a British Ford design known as the Newton Tractor. In addition to production in England, the British contracted with Buick and Studebaker in the United States to build these tractors, known here incorrectly as Buick and Studebaker tanks. Only the Studebakers could have been so called, because that firm also built for the British an experimental armoured cover which could be dropped over the tractor and bolted to it. The resulting vehicles resembled a miniature British heavy tank.

A couple of snags here. The Newton Tractor wasn't "a British Ford design". obviously. Is that confusion with the American components being assembled at the Ford factory?

The other thing is this: an experimental armoured cover which could be dropped over the tractor and bolted to it. The resulting vehicles resembled a miniature British heavy tank.

The Studebaker tank did look quite a bit like a miniature British heavy tank. Certainly, the cab was very reminiscent. But it looked as if it had been designed and built as a complete unit, not like a cover that could be bolted on. That description fits the vehicle at the top of this post, the "original Newton", supposedly with two Ford car engines. The cover seems to cover the top and extend down the sides, with what looks like a door. Judging from the man in the photo, it must have been only 4 or 5 foot high. Where did any driver or crew go?

So which tank is which? The matter is further complicated by the fact that Percival Perry, the head of Ford in Manchester, was also a member of the British Tank Mission in Washington, and so might well have offered his factory to produce the tractors.

Discussion invited.

The Studebaker Corporation's War Record states (page 54):

"In the spring of 1918, the British War Ministry asked the corporation to design a military caterpillar tractor equipped with a Studebaker Special-Six motor, and its engineers, working with engineers from the Ministry, at Detroit, completed and tested a caterpillar tractor which was accepted. An order was received for 5,000 of these caterpillar tractors, which were to be used in the 1919 spring drive on to Berlin. A number of these machines were shipped before the order was canceled in December because of the armistice."

Studebaker's Stockholder letter of March 14, 1919, reiterates this:


"...When the armistice was signed, we were manufacturing at our Detroit plants, gun carriages for 4.7" guns, shell parts, artillery wheel hubs, mine anchors, military tractors for the British Government and sundry other war supplies...By the latter part of December, all of these war contracts were cancelled."



Attached is a bad view of the Studebaker Military Tractor Model A on display at the old Studebaker museum (current existence of vehicle is unknown) and of the Buick tractor undergoing trials. As you see, the Studebaker is a bit different from the Buick version in that it has two seats as opposed to the Buick's one.

The illustration below of the tractor hull shows it without the power unit, seats, and steering controls bolted in place.



And the single Super Six engine and drive train:

This view of the Studebaker taken in England looks like it might have  the hint of an armored cab (or is that just something parked on the other side of the Studebaker tractor?):

And finally, I don't have a CLUE what this is but it appears to have been made at a Studebaker factory on one of the tractor chassis. Perhaps this is the "bolted on armor?" 

!

The Studebaker is a perplexing vehicle!  I do appreciate James' efforts to sort it all out :)

John

Hi Gwyn,

The first one is from The History of the Studebaker Corporation by Albert Russell Erskine, published in 1924 by the Studebaker Corporation (page 54)

The second is just from the Studebaker Archives in South Bend, Indiana.  It is a letter "To the Stockholders" dated South Bend, Indiana, March 9th, 1918.

The diagrams are from "General Instructions for Drivers and Mechanics: Studebaker Military Tractor Model A," published by Studebaker (n.d., but appears to be 1918). 

Here is illustration 27: 

I have an old photocopy of it that I obtained in a book purchase.  I don't know the sources of it.  I would be happy to make a pdf of the copy I have and send it to you.

John