The term you are looking for is "A ruling is confidently expected at some point before the heat death of the Universe, but possibly not significantly before"
The Forge of Weyland
- Thread starter Astrodragon
- Start date
Likely an improved bogie suspension which shouldn't cost much in terms of maximum speed compared to what the Brits had OTL (most Cruisers did 48-51 kph tops). Doesn't take as much space, springs are easy to access, possibly less oscillations at high speeds, more stable firing platform but arguably worse vertical wheel travel and somewhat heavier. The major advantage is that it's less sensitive to weight increases and is not limited to 35 tons so combined.
Torsion bars might be used in the long run but it was only used on Assault Tank designs of the Tortoise family, and even then it was a really weird layout. Vickers did it postwar so it's still possible they use that in WW2 by 1943 or so.
Most likely an improved Horstman. That will be adequate, the fast speeds Christie allowed were fairly useless in a real battle. It worked for the Sherman and Centurian, after all. Note that Carden et al have already gone with a Horstman type due to it's weight on their proposed Infantry tank. They may also look at horizontal/vertical volute, its the end of 1936 so they do have time to experiment a bit. Torsion bar is in use in Swedish tanks, they may look at that too. But it's only been implemented on light tanks, scaling may well be a problem (the Germans didn't exactly get it working fast and on time).
Horstman will give them more space in the tank for a given width (useful with railway limits), and is easier to fix in the field.
Horstman will give them more space in the tank for a given width (useful with railway limits), and is easier to fix in the field.
I'd agree they go with a Horstman suspension variant. They're scrambling for new tanks and wouldn't wish to take a chance with a novel system that they have no experience with.
They're coming to take him away ho ho
They're coming to take him away he he
"... make sure you don't do anything we wouldn't approve of."
Oh, I don't disagree. I'm just acting as an agent of chaos/pointing out that "Tracks" and "Military Vehicle" aren't entirely synonymous.
(If memory serves, the Landship committee imported a tracked tractor from the USA during the design work for the first tanks.)
That's true, but I'm not sure there's really a market for a 70mph farm tractor in the UK...
They already had some Holt artillery tractors, which were the basis of the first tank tracks. And the Holt was an American version, and slight improvement IIRC, on the Hornsby track system that they had turned down pre-war.
Depends on if you ask the farmers kids or not.
marathag
Banned
Israeli Merkava use a leading/trailing arm with coil spring, and then just trailing with the III
So that's either half a Horstmann or Christie with smaller wheel and unit not behind armor
This is Centurion
The big difference?
Christie uses longer arms, allowing more travel, and is protected by outer armor plate
Comet
where it had improved Christie with a shock absorber, and at an angle
T-34
marathag
Banned
both developed independently, Holt was a better businesman, selling the crawlers all over Europe. That's why it was the basis for UK, French, and German Tank development in WWI
AIUI Hornsby sold his patents to Holt in 1912/1913. The complicated Hornsby tracks were not of much use to Holt, but the differential, controlling the vehicle by applying power to one side or the other, became the standard on tracked vehicles. So, yes, Holt being an improved Hornsby is incorrect, but they were not totally independent in design.
Those are interesting photos, I knew the Christie suspension took up room, but I didn't realise it was as dramatic as that!Israeli Merkava use a leading/trailing arm with coil spring, and then just trailing with the III
View attachment 610294
View attachment 610295View attachment 610296
So that's either half a Horstmann or Christie with smaller wheel and unit not behind armor
This is Centurion
View attachment 610297
The big difference?
Christie uses longer arms, allowing more travel, and is protected by outer armor plate
Comet
where it had improved Christie with a shock absorber, and at an angle
T-34
View attachment 610301
IIRC the only tanks that have individual road wheels independently sprung by coil springs are the Merkava and the Vickers Valiant.
I think Christie's best bet to sell his suspension would be as a high-speed manure or fertilizer spreader. Such a vehicle would need a good payload (in place of armor and a turret), off-road mobility provided by tracks, and high road speed to reduce cycle times.
I think Christie's best bet to sell his suspension would be as a high-speed manure or fertilizer spreader. Such a vehicle would need a good payload (in place of armor and a turret), off-road mobility provided by tracks, and high road speed to reduce cycle times.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
going from 'Little Willie' to the Mk I, something got lost as they went to independent crash gearbox transmissions for each side, shifting gears to get the difference in speed for the tracks in each side.
So it steered more like a Naval Vessel, rather than every other crawler, that used a differential to split power and to steer.
That why the WWI rhomboids had half the crew set aside for steering the damn thing
Landship, indeed.