Flying Elephant
| Flying Elephant | |
|---|---|
Development project |
|
| General properties | |
| crew | 6th |
| length | 8.36 m |
| width | 3 m |
| height | 3 m |
| Dimensions | approx. 100 t |
| Armor and armament | |
| Armor | 50-75 mm |
| Main armament | 75mm cannon |
| Secondary armament | 4-6 machine guns |
| agility | |
| drive | Daimler Motor Company 2 × 77 kW (2 × 105 PS) |
| suspension | unsprung |
| Top speed | approx. 3.4 km / h (estimate) |
| Power / weight | PS / t |
| Range | km |
The Flying Elephant was a UK project during World War I to build a super heavy tank. The plans were taken up, but ultimately not implemented.
history
After a final order for 50 copies of the Mark I tank was placed in April 1916 , further production of these vehicles was initially questioned, as all expectations of success were based on the tanks that were already in use.
William Tritton, co-developer and co-producer of the very first tank, quickly recognized the serious shortcomings of the vehicles in combat and the urgent need for improvement. None of the combat vehicles in existence at the time could survive a direct hit by artillery . This was one of the main reasons for attacking tanks to withdraw from areas under dense artillery fire. As a result, Tritton decided in April to build a tank that would withstand medium artillery.
Since Tritton was completely inexperienced in this area, he was initially unsure how thick the armor had to be to offer adequate protection. Lieutenant Kenneth Symes, however, had already begun firing attempts at a 51 millimeter thick armor plate, for which he used various captured German guns . In June, the firing program was expanded, as various armored steel plates from the manufacturer Beardmore were now available.
The Tank Supply Committee initially approved the production of a prototype on June 19, 1916 , but by the end of August 1916 the construction plans were far from complete.
It can be safely assumed that construction has started. How far the work progressed is not known. Albert Gerald Stern, head of the Tank Supply Department , later wrote that the War Office ordered the cessation of work at the end of 1916, as greater mobility was preferred to stronger armor protection. Historians doubt whether these were the real reasons, but they are obvious. Due to the far too weak engine power, a top speed of only about 2 mph (approx. 3.4 km / h) would have been possible. A vehicle stuck in the mud would also have been difficult to free itself due to this inadequate drive force and its high weight. Although the failure was already looming, Tritton tried again to improve the vehicle and increase its mobility. To do this, he reduced the overall thickness of the armor by half and thus reduced the total weight (purely arithmetically) to 50–60 tons, without changing the external appearance.
Although no vehicle had yet been completed, the classification was already being changed from the role of an attack tank to that of a tank destroyer , as there was fear in England of the accelerated development of a German tank weapon.
Before the project was discontinued for the reasons mentioned above, a production rate of 20 pieces was planned.
There is only speculation about the reasons for Tritton's involvement. However, there were suspicions that the upcoming replacement of the Mark I Tritton could have moved to this action - in the hope of receiving an order for the production of the successor model.
description
Some of the original drawings are still there and show an armored vehicle, around 8.36 meters long, 3 meters wide and 3 meters high. These dimensions did not differ significantly from the Mark I, but the enormous weight was due to the enormous armor for the time - 75 millimeters in the front area, 50 millimeters on the sides. The roof of the vehicle should consist of a semicircular armor plate 50 millimeters thick over the entire length.
Most sources state that the nose gun was a standard 57 millimeter six pounder . However, John Glanfield points out in his book The Devil's Chariots that it was supposed to have been a 76.2-millimeter, or twelve / thirteen-pounder cannon. The latter would be more plausible, however, since it would certainly have looked strange if such a compact and massive device had only had half the armament of the lighter tanks that are already in use.
The original blueprints , which are in the Albert Stern Archives of King's College in London , show two six-pounders on each side of an onion-shaped front section, two machine guns on the left and right on the flanks and two more on the rear.
This arrangement can be clearly seen in Foster's original drawings, but when reproduced in David Fletcher's book British Tanks 1915-1919 it appears that the two rear-mounted machine guns were not intended.
The original name should just be Heavy Tank or Forster's Battle Tank . Where or from whom the nickname Flying Elephant came from remained unknown, but it is undoubtedly due to the external appearance of the vehicle.
The tracks were similar to those of the Mark I, but were flatter and 61 cm wide. The combat weight should be around 100 tons. In order to be able to move the vehicle on soft ground, two additional chains were provided under the hull. The outer chains were driven and connected to the two inner chains by coupling brackets, which were then forcibly carried along. It was powered by two Daimler motors with 105 hp each, which were arranged one behind the other in the middle of the vehicle. Each machine had its main gearbox, which was connected upstream of a common differential gear . From this differential, in turn, the power was fed into two further gearboxes , each of which sat on one of the driven chains. This differs from the later Whippet , in which the variant was chosen to assign each machine its own chain.
literature
- John Glanfield: The Devil's Chariots. The Birth & Secret Battles of the First Tanks. (2006)
- David Fletcher: British Tanks 1915-1919. (2001)