Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> Tanks -> The Mark I Tail Wheels.
Post Info TOPIC: The Mark I Tail Wheels.
James H


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3885
Date:
The Mark I Tail Wheels.
Permalink   

In their recent article about the Tritton Papers the Tank Museum says the papers contain "some sketches that appear to indicate that the rear wheels were primarily intended to correct the centre of gravity of the tank, rather than, as previously believed, to aid steering."

I was never able to understand how these wheels were supposed to work, and couldn't see that the whole assembly would move in any direction except up and down. So to see doubt cast on the idea was, I thought, quite welcome news. The whole thing seemed too rigid to move from side to side.

But the chaps at Great War Forum have been discussing this, and it seems there is a way for the wheels to swivel independently. This photo shows how:

TankRearWheels.jpg

See how it works?

And this is how they were operated from the cab:

TankRearWheels2.jpg

I think I understand that.

If this is correct, then the wheels can swivel on this axis to one extent or another.

Two theories. It will be interesting to see which is right. Or maybe both are.

 

 

 



Attachments
__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
CharlieC


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2326
Date:
Permalink   

 

It's always puzzled me how the trailing wheels would work with that array of springs pushing the whole assembly into the ground. On dry, firm ground

the wheels would probably be able to be turned with the cables but I can't see that happening on soft ground with the wheels pushed into the soil.

So - you're saying what we have called the trailing steering wheels acted like the tails on smaller tracked vehicles like the Renault FT and supported and lifted the rear

of a tank when it crossed a trench or similar?

Do you have a URL for Great War Forum discussion?

Charlie

  



__________________
James H


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3885
Date:
Permalink   

Here we are, Charles.

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/78043-tanks-mark-i-wheels-for-the-use-of/

This might help:

Mark1tailwheels.jpg

Then again . . .



Attachments
__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
PDA


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1496
Date:
Permalink   

No, Charles, from what I read (perhaps in A New Excalibur or The Devil's Chariots) the tail wheels shifted the centre of gravity merely because of their mass sticking out at the back. The nose of the tank didn't drop as much when it was crossing a trench.



__________________
Gwyn Evans


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1416
Date:
Permalink   

I was asked by the Tank Museum to review and assess the papers that came to light over the last year or so, prior to their acquisition. That is to say, the blueprint and the final version of the draft patent, and then more recently the larger bundle of papers related to the patent, including earlier drafts of the patent, correspondence etc.

The patent explains the function of the tail wheels, and they are explicitly for altering the centre of gravity of the tank depending on whether it was travelling on a uphill or downhill slope. The tail wheels could be "steered" but only so that they better followed the path of the tank. The tail was designed so that it followed the direction dictated by the tank, not the other way around.

That said, it is claimed by Rossiter, W.M. "Driving a Mark I Tank" - see Pigeon, Trevor (1995) "The Tanks at Flers", Appendix 4 - that the tail was a "wheeled rudder" and was "clearly intended to be the primary means of steering the tank". This, in my view, is nonsense as it is not supported by the comments in the patent. That does not ascribe to the tail any purpose other than altering the CoG, and its function is described in a lot of detail. Rossiter notes that "the tail wheels enabled a turn of fairly wide radius to be made" so one presumes that the tail could have some effect on the direction of the tank but I don't think for a moment it was the intended primary means of steering. If it had any effect, I suspect this came as a surprise to Tritton and Wilson. Besides, Rossiter's is not a contemporary account - it dates from the 1990s - and whilst he had access to relevant papers at the Tank Museum and importantly was able to discuss the question with a veteran, he did not have access to the draft patent. Had he done his account might read somewhat differently.

Gwyn

__________________
CharlieC


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2326
Date:
Permalink   

 

Thank you Gwyn.

It sounds as if the real function of the trailing wheels was to act as a damper on the pitching motion of the tank. With the curvature of the bottom run of the track

I wonder if there was a tendency to rock back and forth on the tracks. I wonder if that was an issue with Mother? 

Was the patent ever applied for or was it only a draft?

Regards,

Charlie

 



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> Tanks -> The Mark I Tail Wheels.
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard