Churchill's Land Hovercrafts

Churchill wanted land battleships. Unfortunately, since soil and rock tends to lack the consistency of seawater, what he got was a land Baseplate; famously named to trick wielders into thinking they were making super-gun artillery baseplates.

The Mark 1 Baseplate weighed 200 tons, half of which was the double engine 5,000hp steam turbine power plant, carried four 6 pounder guns, and 10 machine guns. The thirty man crew could manoeuvre it over rough ground (and even water!) at a speed of 15 MPH, while the armour plate was capable of standing up to even heavy german machine gun fire. The shear size also gave limited protection from light artillery, since any given hit was often ten yards away from anything else.

Sadly mechanical defects, notably related to the steam safety valve and governor system, impeded the success of their first use during the battle of the Somme. Of 12 deployed units, 7 experienced technical problems, and all experienced pressure losses due to machine gun damage to their kilts. This was anticipated, and repairs proved remarkably easy, even in enemy territory due to overwhelming covering fire provided by each Baseplate's guns.

The Mark 1 was limited to a mere 4 hours of operation due to the size of its coal bunkers, but this was remidied in the Mark III design onwards by a switch to heavy fuel oil. (This allowed for some experimentation with flame throwers, which was soon abandoned as ineffective.)

Though the Mark 1s became a symbol of the Western Front, and later of Victory on the Western Front, credit is more properly applied to the Mark IV Dragoon carrier. Fitted with a single engine, machine gun nest, and little armour, it could carrier a whole platoon of soldiers 200 miles at 40mph across all terrain. Quickly named the Hurricane by Imperial troops, riding in one at top speed was described as an unforgettable experience, and soldiers were sometimes uncertain whether it did more damage to the enemy, the land it rode over, or the poor tommies who had to ride inside it.

By the end of the war both Germany and France were working on their own versions of Baseplate and Hurricane, but starvation on the German Homefront brought the war to a close before they could see active service. After the war the technology fell into disfavour with the British & French, under intense lobbying from the cavalry, who didn't want to be replaced or supplemented, and was barred to the Germans. At least until the 1930s when Hitler came to power, and demonstrated the devastating combination of high speed mechanised dagoons combined with the ruthless professionalism of stormtrooper tactics, during the invasions of 1939.

One final footnote in the early history of Baseplate technology should go to a little known machine called Little Willie (abandoned due to unresolvable CoG problems) which was in many ways a fore runner of the modern (1970s onwards) American GPTP (Gun Platform Track Propelled) family of armoured cars. Military historians will knowingly roll their eyes and calmly label this yet another example of innovative technology wasted upon the British government.

It would be interesting to consider what might have been if the British had been able to successfully deploy GPTP technology during the war in addition to, or instead of Baseplate technology. Though such speculation is, of course, beyond the scope of this article.
 

sharlin

Banned
Intersting idea! Although pushing the tech for the time a hovercraft would be useful against the terrain of the war, but I dunno how they would deal with barbed wire etc.
 
Intersting idea! Although pushing the tech for the time a hovercraft would be useful against the terrain of the war, but I dunno how they would deal with barbed wire etc.

Glad you liked it. Yes, the tech is marginal. But just on that edge of uncertainty that I can claim it's not quite ASB. :p

Insidentally, the Mark I Baseplate is based on a combination of the Moutbatten class hovercraft and the Turbomotive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR.N4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Turbomotive
With little advances in steam technology after about 1910, and assuming about half the weight of the train-engine had nothing to do with the actual steam-engine (if that makes sense) I think something vaguely similar to the Baseplate could have been built (and just about worked) in 1915. Though an unarmoured one could certainly have worked very well as a dragoon raider.

I'm pretty sure it would just ride over barbed wire. Even if not, it would certainly be able to kill any germans trying to bother a small team of combat engineer wire cutters.
 
But can it kill them before they get any shots off, all of the time? I would have thought that gunfire and artillery bombardment would rip the skirt of the hovercraft to shreds thereby stranding it. I know that various militaries nowadays have hovercraft mostly in the air cushioned landing craft role but trying to use them in a western front kind of environment seems like asking for trouble to me. I would of course be pleasantly surprised to find out otherwise. :)
 

Flubber

Banned
Yes, the tech is marginal...


The tech is complete nonsense. We can't even build a 200 ton armored hovercraft now with the engine power densities and materials available in 2012.

Waving away the half the weight of a steam locomotive because it has "nothing to do" with the locomotive's steam engine betrays a complete ignorance of the necessary components which any steam-driven craft would need like structural strength, fuel bunkers, water tankage, and the like.

The technological and engineering blindspots constantly exhibited on these fora continually sadden me. How can a group who can intelligently discuss the minutae of politics, religions, laws, cultures, and a dozen other subjects across dozens of different time periods be so completely ignorant when it comes to basic science and engineering?
 
The tech is complete nonsense. We can't even build a 200 ton armored hovercraft now with the engine power densities and materials available in 2012.

We can get close with a fully loaded, LCAC-1 at 187 tons. Would an armored hovercraft be feasible, if not necessarily practical today?

Torqumada
 
The tech is complete nonsense. We can't even build a 200 ton armored hovercraft now with the engine power densities and materials available in 2012.
Have you seen the Zubr Class? 555 tons at full load (340 tons empty), and at that it's capable of negotiating a 5° incline or a wall of 1.6m. Of course that's a 1988 machine, so you're right on one thing, it would be totally unachievable 50 years earlier.
 

Flubber

Banned
We can get close with a fully loaded, LCAC-1 at 187 tons. Would an armored hovercraft be feasible, if not necessarily practical today?


Perhaps. The Russian Zubr class is rather capable, but even it isn't as well armored as the OP's ludicrous, WW1 tech, steam driven "idea". Among other inanities, the OP claims his hovercraft are proof against heavy machine guns and light artillery.

I'd love to read how the OP thinks his locomotive steam turbine is going to drive the many ducted fans a hovercraft needs.
 
Among other inanities, the OP claims his hovercraft are proof against heavy machine guns and light artillery.
Well I can imagine the Zubr surviving HMG fire readily enough, but the only way it could survive any sort of artillery is not to get hit, never mind anti-tank missiles.
 
The tech is complete nonsense. We can't even build a 200 ton armored hovercraft now with the engine power densities and materials available in 2012.

The IRL SN4 is a 10,000HP 200ton machine and can go like a bat out of hell. I've given the Baseplates 5,000HP and a very low top speed.

Waving away the half the weight of a steam locomotive because it has "nothing to do" with the locomotive's steam engine
Do you understand than in a 60 ton diesel locomotive, the actual diesel engine inside the locomotive doesn't actually weigh 60 tons? That things like drivetrain, superstructure, gearboxes, weatherproofing, crashprotection, wheels and bogies, and the whole 'build it to last for 40 years' actually contributes quite a significant bit to the weight of the locomotive vehicle. Would it surprise you to know that steam locomotives are built exactly the same way for exactly the same reason?
 
But can it kill them before they get any shots off, all of the time? I would have thought that gunfire and artillery bombardment would rip the skirt of the hovercraft to shreds thereby stranding it.
In modern times I'd agree with you - but going up against WWI trenchlines it's a differnt matter.

At WWI ranges, artillery couldn't hit the broad side of a barn door, and couldn't be summoned instantly. A medium or heavy shell would certainly kill it, but I don't think they'd get the coordination to hit it (at all!) before it was on top of the german trenches.

Armour was intended to be comparison to a Mark I tank, so an inch at most on the sides, and next to nothing above and below. That's enough to be bullet broof. A WWI light shell coming in the roof simply lacks the explosive force to kill everyone in a box the size of an SN4, unless it scores a direct hit on one of the boilers.

The skirt ("It's a kilt I tells ya! A kilt!") would be vaulnerable to a wide varity of things. However heavy cloth does not automatically tear due to a few small holes, or even lots of small holes. I did refer to pressure loss in the origonal post, and it was due to precisely this form of damage.
 
Last edited:

Flubber

Banned
The IRL SN4 is a 10,000HP 200ton machine and can go like a bat out of hell.


The SR.N4 uses four gas turboprop engines each driving separate lift and drive fans and I'm still waiting to read how a steam turbine will drive the lift/drive fans aboard your "idea".

I've given the Baseplates 5,000HP and a very low top speed.
You should have given them a basis in reality instead.

Do you understand than in a 60 ton diesel locomotive, the actual diesel engine inside the locomotive doesn't actually weigh 60 tons?
My comment was in response to this sentence from you own post #4:

With little advances in steam technology after about 1910, and assuming about half the weight of the train-engine had nothing to do with the actual steam-engine...
Half the weight of a locomotive does have "nothing" to do with the actual steam engine but it does have everything to do with "unimportant" things like fuel, water, structural supports, and the mechanisms which transfer power from the actual engine to the drive wheels.

I'd still love read how and what sort of transmission(s) will supposedly connect your steam turbine with the lift/drive fans.

Also, your contention that WW1 couldn't hit the broadside of a barn and couldn't be directed on targets rapidly is complete horseshit. The Germans destroyed UK tanks with direct fire from field pieces as early as Flers-Courcelette in September of 1916.

You have no understanding of the engineering and technologies involved so your idea does not work.
 
Last edited:
True, I hadn't thought of that. Still, there'd be no response for quite a distance on either side, trying to move in gale-force winds wouldn't be easy.
 
Last edited:
Or any kind of a hill unless you're not prepared to stop for anything... :D
Ah. Yes. Hills are probably going to present a problem.
...
Which given that the Germans famously held the high ground in several important battlefields might be a show stopper.:p

@Dathi THorfinnsson
Hovercraft can cross trenches as long as they are fairly quick about it, or have excess power. Skirts aren't meant to be air tight, and there's usually a gap around the bottom. Cross a trench, one big gap briefly replaces the long thin gap all around the circumfurence.
 
Top