Eltf177 wrote:
He felt that his designs, (and theory of armored warfare) were so far ahead of everyone else that he felt most people would not understand his genius. So why bother explaining things to morons and just come out and tell them they ARE morons and should buy his designs. What’s not to like about that kind of sales pitch?
In context if the US had ‘accepted’ his designs he would have avoided selling them to others as he felt they were “too” superior for other nations to have. Meanwhile the Soviets already planned to STEAL the designs if they couldn’t buy them but by then Christie needed the money enough he actively helped them export the prototypes by labeling them as ‘farm equipment’
It was actually a similar story with all his foreign sales beings that he’d been ‘rejected’ by the US so it was on their heads when the US was overrun by all these foreign nations wielding his invincible tank force! He got rather snippy when they had the audacity to change and modify his designs, always claiming the ‘originals’ were vastly better. He pointed to the terrible speed of the foreign 'designs' but also used them to try and drum up renewed US interest.
IIRC while interested in the general suspension principles the actual designs weren’t really as useful as Christie claimed and both nations already had investments in vehicles for their preferred roles and doctrine. (Having a vehicle that can drive 40mph over ‘rough’ terrain is well and good but how fast an you really go in a jungle or city when your ‘task’ and purpose is to support walking infantry?) Most nations found armored cars and trucks with a sprinkling of tankette’s more suited to the role.
The latter first but when your ‘tank’ is sheet-metal and wood it’s VASTLY cheaper than the real thing
Citing the above “Christie M3” model I’d agree but it might have been worth it to develop. Of his designs the hardest one it seems to get good information on is his Marine tank which is described as being more of a “floating” 75mm gun carriage than an actual tank which makes sense. I’ve found some pictures on the web:
http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.com/2015/10/christie-tanks-part-1.html
http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.com/2015/10/christie-tanks-part-2.html
Which show it as an open topped vehicle with minimum armor, (none in the model 1 since it was mostly sheet steel and balsa flotation stuffed everywhere) and large water props. It’s still pretty narrow and even the second and third models had issues reaching the beach but it was actually a really good start. Of course I’m also one of “those guys” who liked “The Beast” in Indiana Jones so …
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw3fRzRoKYNmRa1g7Io9kd2c&ust=1547777182317920
And to stir things up a bit:
Robert Goddard had been contracted by the Army to develop a man-portable weapon that could be used to defeat these new-fangled “tanks” and he developed a deployable, self-propelled armor piercing rocket propelled projectile launcher, (mouthful but I don’t think the comic that inspired ‘bazooka’ was around yet) which looked like a section of stovepipe. In OTL the Army thanked him and promptly sealed his patent and tossed the whole thing into a closet, ( warehouse :::grin:::
) since no one was going to study war no more. This torqued Goddard off who then proceeded to have nothing to do with the Army for the next couple of decades. (Stiffing him on the final payments for the work may have been a small factor) The Navy had to beg to get him back in the saddle for WWII and the Army went frantically searching the closet/warehouse to find those plans.
Anyway, one of the main problem with Christie’s vehicles was mounting an actual armor and bunker killing weapon on it. Someone who knows about the ‘Stovepipe” weapon and (assuming the Army doesn’t piss Goddard off and someone sits on Christie) they experiment around with a rocket armed light tank in the late 20s and early 30s… (Here some might see an mid-30s version of the Ontos but I’m leaning towards a more streamlined Sheridan)
Driftless wrote:
Oddly Christie pioneered front wheel drive for vehicle in the US and I look as some of his designs and wonder why he never considered moving the engine forward and opening up the aft space of his designs? They tended to be rather narrow which would preclude use as an APC but making them a bit wider seems quite plausible. Much like using the M3 medium as a basis for an APC actually.
I’d in fact never heard of either of those so again; Learning!
Randy
From everything I've read Christie was a rather antagonistic individual and not much of a salesman. His designs all had flaws and technical issues that needed work before being ready for series production.
He felt that his designs, (and theory of armored warfare) were so far ahead of everyone else that he felt most people would not understand his genius. So why bother explaining things to morons and just come out and tell them they ARE morons and should buy his designs. What’s not to like about that kind of sales pitch?
Russia did produce the BT series from his M1928 (which later became the A-20, T-32 and eventually the T-34). Both the T-26 and T-28 had variants with Christie suspension but were only built as prototypes (T-46 and T-29 respectively). The UK used his suspension on their Cruiser Tanks. Poland was to buy a pair but defaulted on the deal, their later (unbuilt) 14TP design was a close copy of the UK Crusader and thus had Christie influence.
In context if the US had ‘accepted’ his designs he would have avoided selling them to others as he felt they were “too” superior for other nations to have. Meanwhile the Soviets already planned to STEAL the designs if they couldn’t buy them but by then Christie needed the money enough he actively helped them export the prototypes by labeling them as ‘farm equipment’
It was actually a similar story with all his foreign sales beings that he’d been ‘rejected’ by the US so it was on their heads when the US was overrun by all these foreign nations wielding his invincible tank force! He got rather snippy when they had the audacity to change and modify his designs, always claiming the ‘originals’ were vastly better. He pointed to the terrible speed of the foreign 'designs' but also used them to try and drum up renewed US interest.
I'm rather surprised Japan and France didn't purchase any of Christie's designs.
IIRC while interested in the general suspension principles the actual designs weren’t really as useful as Christie claimed and both nations already had investments in vehicles for their preferred roles and doctrine. (Having a vehicle that can drive 40mph over ‘rough’ terrain is well and good but how fast an you really go in a jungle or city when your ‘task’ and purpose is to support walking infantry?) Most nations found armored cars and trucks with a sprinkling of tankette’s more suited to the role.
If the US built his designs I see stronger armor being included which makes the design larger and slower. OTOH the original version was cheap which would thrill Congress...
The latter first but when your ‘tank’ is sheet-metal and wood it’s VASTLY cheaper than the real thing
http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.com/2015/10/christie-tanks-part-1.html
http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.com/2015/10/christie-tanks-part-2.html
Which show it as an open topped vehicle with minimum armor, (none in the model 1 since it was mostly sheet steel and balsa flotation stuffed everywhere) and large water props. It’s still pretty narrow and even the second and third models had issues reaching the beach but it was actually a really good start. Of course I’m also one of “those guys” who liked “The Beast” in Indiana Jones so …
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw3fRzRoKYNmRa1g7Io9kd2c&ust=1547777182317920
And to stir things up a bit:
Robert Goddard had been contracted by the Army to develop a man-portable weapon that could be used to defeat these new-fangled “tanks” and he developed a deployable, self-propelled armor piercing rocket propelled projectile launcher, (mouthful but I don’t think the comic that inspired ‘bazooka’ was around yet) which looked like a section of stovepipe. In OTL the Army thanked him and promptly sealed his patent and tossed the whole thing into a closet, ( warehouse :::grin:::
Anyway, one of the main problem with Christie’s vehicles was mounting an actual armor and bunker killing weapon on it. Someone who knows about the ‘Stovepipe” weapon and (assuming the Army doesn’t piss Goddard off and someone sits on Christie) they experiment around with a rocket armed light tank in the late 20s and early 30s… (Here some might see an mid-30s version of the Ontos but I’m leaning towards a more streamlined Sheridan)
Driftless wrote:
A couple of questions:
- Could a Christie suspension personnel carrier have been a useful interwar alternative line of development?
- The mention of the Timken live rubber track brings this thought to mind: did anyone other than the French use the Kegresse rubber-band track on military vehicles?
Oddly Christie pioneered front wheel drive for vehicle in the US and I look as some of his designs and wonder why he never considered moving the engine forward and opening up the aft space of his designs? They tended to be rather narrow which would preclude use as an APC but making them a bit wider seems quite plausible. Much like using the M3 medium as a basis for an APC actually.
I’d in fact never heard of either of those so again; Learning!
Randy