Landships II

Just because there are some differences between old data collected from different sources just so it will fit your statement, do not convince me.

It is not so hard to find a third or even a fourth example of say for instance length of the two vehicles. I do not believe that many of the authors have measured the real thing. So if any of you readers, find a third measurement, it is not enough evidence that there ever was a third type of LKII.

Then you compare the LKII 57mm gun tank, with strv m/21, and I do agree with you, there are big obvious differences between the two.  One has a 57mm gun, and the other a mg turret.

Then I quote from Robert J Icks Encyclopedia of Tanks “-completion of LKII tanks from parts shipped from Germany to Sweden”  

The tank parts that we bough did not come from Daimler, they came from a company in Berlin.  

The wall of the assembly shop at Landsverk (not Landswerk) looked like this, I do not think it has any resemblance at all, with the wall on the LKII photo. By the way, the old assembly hall is still standing so you can even have a look for you’re self.

The assembly of the strv m21 was not done at the Landsverk factory, it was done in Stockholm.

It is of no interest to compare LKII 57mm gun tank with the LKII with mg turret. We all can see that there are several small and big differences even from looking at the few photos available.

The real discussion is, where there ever any LKII mg tanks completed in Germany.

I have no distinct evidence if there were or not, the photo of the row of tanks against the wall could be that evidence, if we could say with some certainty where it was taken.

What I do know, is that we imported the tank parts to Sweden from a company in Berlin called "Willhelm Ugè GmbH".

And the delivered parts where assembled at “Stockholm tygstation” this was the main workshop for the artillery in Stockholm, and probably the only place the Swedish Army had with sufficient knowledge and resources in 1921.  

Centurion wrote:

---

However there weren't enough of these to make ten Strv M21s and anywaythey wouldn't build into Strv M21s without so much modification as to amopunt to a complete rebuild.

Now you must be guessing. No facts published of how many part to the LKII where under production, or is there.

 

 

As I said in my first posting they could, together with the detailed design drawings, and some reverse engineering, have formed the basis for the design of the Strv M21.

This is also a guess of yours, you do not know what model of the LKII was under production, nor how many.  

 

 

In such as case there would be no contradiction in the LK IIs being assembled in Stockholm and the Strv M21s at Landswerk.

This is so totally wrong and just another wild guess, where do you get all these things from?

We got parts enough to complete 10 tanks and they where assembled in Stockholm as I have said several times before, and nothing else. And, for the fifth time, Landsverk (not Landswerk) had no part what so ever in this.

 

Centurion wrote:

Contrary to some general assumptions it was not a breach of the Versailles Treaty for Sweden to buy arms from Germany.





From the text of the Versailles treaty (online at: http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versa/versa4.html)

ARTICLE 170.

Importation into Germany of arms, munitions and war material of every kind shall be strictly prohibited.

The same applies to the manufacture for, and export to, foreign countries of arms, munitions and war material of every kind.

The text, as well as the spirit of the law seem crystal clear to me.



You can play the XXXXX XXX barrister with that and say that it does not say that a third country is not allowed to buy weapons from Germany if she starts the operation, but I dobut that would hold in a court...

I think it's all in the dates. If the date when the German Gov purchased something like the 50% of the shares in AB Landsverk was -correct me if I'm wrong here- 1920, it could be interesting if that was after or before the signing of the Treaty by Germany. Also, if the famous LK IIs, or parts of them, it's the same, were purchased before the signing, then, well... it was just free market, right?

I suspect the same might hold true for the Hungarian batch. Which, BTW, was delivered before  21 July 1921, when Trianon went into effect, right?

Returning to Sweden, of course if they got the shares before they signed the treaty and were aware of its content -which I think was pretty much open source, or at least known to high circles in the German military-industrial complex-, then the whole AB Landsverk affair was a ruse to circumvent Versailles from the very begining.

Besides, your whole point of the size differences between LK II/Strvn m/21 is clever, but I don't think it's so decisive. The differences you note are measured in inches in almost manufactured machines, hardly a proof of different origins or designs.

Also, not attacking your sources, but it would be necessary to check where did they got their numbers and so on... Lets say simply that I became stat-esceptic a long ago. And, anyway, there could be a very simple explanation to the diferences on the haphazard manufacture history of German tanks. The A7V were almost manufactured, with lots of minor differences between examples of the same batchs. If the LKs were mounted the same way, and certainly they were produced under similar industrial conditions, there could have been differences between examples, and even more added when assembled in a foreign country.

I would accept the argument if the Germans had been able to standarize component production, which I suspect they were unable to do so. If they simply sold hulls in different stages of completion, plus miscelaneous components and parts -and the whole LK idea was about recycling after all- I wouldn't be surprised if the completed examples had minor diferences due to non-standar parts plus some "local flavour" by the assemblers.

Also, the Swedish LKs had hardened armor? I seem to recall that a great disavantage of the German LKs was a "soft" steel armor. The OHL rejected them on that basis in December 1917, right? Was that fixed in the LK II and Swedish derivatives?

Would like to hear what do you guys think about that.

Cheers!

-- Edited by Gustavo on Friday 2nd of November 2012 01:08:18 AM

-- Edited by Gustavo on Friday 2nd of November 2012 01:14:40 AM

-- Edited by Gustavo on Friday 2nd of November 2012 01:28:15 AM

Pzkpfw-e wrote:

---

We've two, known, surviving Strv M21/29, one at Axval, one at Munster.

---

 Actually, there are two tanks in Sweden. If I remember correctly, one of them is an M/21 and the other a M/21-29.

I saw both of them this spring. One of them is located in the new military vehicle museum "Arsenalen", outside Strängnäs. The other one is standing outside the museum's garage, under a tarp.

Re LK.II article on Landships II, is anyone able to tell me which of the forward-sloped-nose tanks in the photos is LK and which is Strv?

Prior to reading the article, the only info I had on the M/21 suggested a fairly different vehicle from the reverse-sloped LK.II I was familiar with, and what similarity there is between the two was accounted for in a book by the claim that Joseph Vollmer designed both and moved to Sweden after the war.

The understanding I gained from the Landships II article suggested that LK.II was modified with a forward-slope nose for the MG variant, leading to great similarity between the two tanks.

So is it known with certainty that the MG variant of LK.II was built (some sources say it wasn't), in order that it could be possible for Sweden to have bought existing vehicles, or is it just the case that Vollmer reproduced the design (with or without having the original plans) after moving abroad?

Coming back to the Landships II photos, I note that one photo shows the engine vents in a forward position, identical to that on the 57mm variant of LK.II: is this evidence that the MG version was indeed built, with further-back vents indicating a Swedish M/21? There's also the matter of the track frames, which in one of the photos (which I've seen described in a book as an M/21) are raised slightly in height - whether for sprung bogies or not is unclear.

I note that M/21 is described as a four-man tank, whilst LK.II was three-man: could the design have been lengthened to create space for the fourth crew member, accounting for the considerable difference in length, whilst width and height remained similar (an inch is negligible, and a few inches can easily be gained or lost if someone is converting between metric and imperial and makes a mistake).

Hope my queries are understood, I'm not trying to repeat the basic question of the thread, but it may seem like it.

PS - probably should have posted this on the new thread...