Mendelejev 1911 heavy tank, 1/72 cale

[ct ertz]

Heres one more before I go back to the shipyards of the South. This one was well designed but never wen into production. All of the wheels were on pneumatic cylinders, for a smooth leavel drive over trenches and this also allowed the crew to lower the tank down over the running gear, effectively making it an armored pill box. Also, the turret can be lowered down inside the shell proof box during an artillery bombardment. The gun was to be a 120mm! And, to make it extra special, the thing would have been built with Rail road fittings so it could move (under it's own power) along rail. It held 53 shells and a crew of eight.

My model is quite simple, as Mr. Mendelejev obviously was designing a tank that would be extremely paper model friendly. The scale will be 1/72. Look for it soon.
CT

[cjwalas]

Great! I actually really like this tank for its simple shape. Looking forward to seeing your model.
Chris

[CharlieC]

Thank you for delaying your return to floating things of the Civil War.

It's hard to see how the Mendeleyev tank would have been used - it doesn't make sense as an SPG perhaps it was intended as a mobile fortress to reinforce an advance.

For those who stayed awake during Chemistry class you might have noticed that this tank's designer was Mendeleyev - same family name as the periodic table guy. The tank was designed by Vassily Mendeleyev, a naval architect and son of Dimitri Mendelyev - the periodic table guy.

Regards,

Charlie

[ct ertz]

If these were used in force, say a few dozen every mile or so, and transported to the lines by rail, they could of had an effect. A creeping advance on the enemy, and the guns would be in a different location every hour. However, I see trenches and soft ground being a major issue.
CT

[charleswlkr54]

Well, it looks to me like it would have had the same problem crossing trenches that the Saint Cahmond and the Scnider had-too much over hang in front and back of the tracks. Plus it doesn't look like that canno had any travese or elevatio unless there is something that dosen' show up in the photos.

[CharlieC]

Well, it looks to me like it would have had the same problem crossing trenches that the Saint Cahmond and the Scnider had-too much over hang in front and back of the tracks. Plus it doesn't look like that canno had any travese or elevatio unless there is something that dosen' show up in the photos.

There are Russian drawings of the Mendeleyev tank on Landships II (Landships II (http://www.landships.info)) which suggest the gun had 15 deg. traverse. I'd guess it could be elevated to 15 - 20 deg or so since it seems to have based on a Naval gun.

The overhang is only part of the mobility problem - with the front idler in line with the roadwheels the step height the vehicle could climb over would been very limited. All the tanks based on the Holt track system (Schneider CA1, St Chamond, A7V) had this problem.

Regards,

Charlie

[Paperwarrior]

This looks like another great model. Thanks for the postponement back to the shipyards.

As a SPG this could have been used to good effect, however, as Charlie has pointed out, the cross country mobility would have been quite an issue.

With a 120mm gun (large for a time when most infantry support guns were in the 70-90mm range) this could have made for a good set of mobile fortresses.

Naval gun? What do we think, Navy guys on it (Like the US rail gun) or good old Army Artillerymen?

Again, thanks Corey. You're models always do bring up great discussions in history. Always remember to look at history through the glasses of that era in order to truely understand the "why" and sometimes how.

Jeff

[CharlieC]

With a 120mm gun (large for a time when most infantry support guns were in the 70-90mm range) this could have made for a good set of mobile fortresses.

Naval gun? What do we think, Navy guys on it (Like the US rail gun) or good old Army Artillerymen?



Jeff

WW1 had some seriously heavy guns often converted from old Naval guns. The British 60 pounder (15cm) and 8" howitzer were guns converted from the secondary armament of obsolete and (often) scrapped ships. The Russians had a 120mm Naval gun M1892 designed by Canet which they used extensively in coastal defence and army support roles. There were even heavier guns used (12" and 15") but these most often used in railway artillery.

The British built the Gun Carrier Mark 1 which had a 4.5" howitzer - it didn't get used much in its intended role mostly because the local commanders couldn't figure out how to use it.

Regards,

Charlie

[ct ertz]

It's up in the downloads. Enjoy.

[ct ertz]

Here are some attempts at camo for the tank. Winter and general.
CT

[cjwalas]

Thanks Corey! I've fallen behind with my builds of your tanks. I better hurry up and get them going again! Will the camo versions be available too?
Chris

[ct ertz]

The camo version is up. Better get to it!

[ct ertz]

Winter version is up. Enjoy.

[ct ertz]

One more with a mouth! Fictional but fun!

[Vermin_King]

Way too funny

[Paperwarrior]

Corey, many thanks for these great kits! Your work is very much appreciated.

I just downloaded these fine examples. I especially like the one with the mouth. I was pleasantly surprised, as I scrolled down, to see a mustache on it (as I sport a mustache).

Again, thanks. I look forward to building these when I get back.

Jeff

[Paperwarrior]

[Quote]:
WW1 had some seriously heavy guns often converted from old Naval guns. The British 60 pounder (15cm) and 8" howitzer were guns converted from the secondary armament of obsolete and (often) scrapped ships. The Russians had a 120mm Naval gun M1892 designed by Canet which they used extensively in coastal defence and army support roles. There were even heavier guns used (12" and 15") but these most often used in railway artillery.

The British built the Gun Carrier Mark 1 which had a 4.5" howitzer - it didn't get used much in its intended role mostly because the local commanders couldn't figure out how to use it.

Regards,

Charlie
------------------------------------
Agreed. There were many naval guns utilized on all sides for use on land. Why not? There were not as many naval engagements as planned and as we say, 'no artillery in reserve'.

It is a disappointment about the British built the Gun Carrier Mark 1. This system could have been used to great effect in the combined arms role. I note that many were used in the supply role. There were many other vehicles that could have been used for supply vehicles that would have had the same mobility leaving the Gun Carrier free to do its intended job.

Jeff

[ct ertz]

OK, the complete kit I will soon offer at ecardmodels will contain seven versions, the ones already posted here, plus a gray one with Russian markings, a captured German War prize with the early war German cross, and a post war tank with 1920 Soviet stars. Now I need to build one for pictures.

[Paperwarrior]

Corey,

I look forward to the additions. I'll keep an eye out on ecardmodels. Thanks.

Jeff

[ct ertz]

104307Here are some pictures of the models available.

[charleswlkr54]

Just noticed something about the original tank (Not your model!) Seems to me this would have had the same problem with the main gun as tghe British Mark I Male had, and that is in crossing the trenches the muzzle would bet ja,,ed in the mud and get plugged up, which is why the British had to shorten the barrles of the 6 pounders the later ones had. Barrel obstructions are not good news!

[CharlieC]

Just noticed something about the original tank (Not your model!) Seems to me this would have had the same problem with the main gun as tghe British Mark I Male had, and that is in crossing the trenches the muzzle would bet ja,,ed in the mud and get plugged up, which is why the British had to shorten the barrles of the 6 pounders the later ones had. Barrel obstructions are not good news!

With a 120mm gun - range about 10000m - the tank probably wouldn't have to try to cross trenches under fire. The war on the Eastern front didn't degenerate into the trench based defensive struggle as it did on the Western front. If this device had been built and deployed my guess is that would have been used like a heavy SPG with additional troops to prepare the ground for movement by filling in trenches, etc.

Regards,

Charlie

[ct ertz]

Yes, true, but remember, when this was designed some French troops still wore baggy red pants and red fez's and short blue and red jackets, and horse cav was still thought a viable field arm. Trench war was not on any ones mind, except for maybe a few old Americans who survived Vicksburg or Petersburge fifty some years earlier. Great field battles were the line of thought. Old style trenches meeting new fangled tech, well there were bound to be difficulties.

Charlie beat my post!

[CharlieC]

Trench warfare was certainly part of military thinking at the end of the 19th century. The Boer war had shown that small numbers of troops well dug in could prevail against much larger forces. The German army had worked out standards for field fortifications in the 1880s and went on the figure out the best type of gun to demolish them. The superiority of the 15cm German howitzer at the start of WW1 was a direct result of years of study and experiment. However, the officer corps of most armies in WW1 seem to have been ill-educated and ill-equipped to fight a modern war. The results, in terms of the grotesque casualty count was almost predictable given the example of the US Civil War some 50 years earlier.

Regards,

Charlie

[ct ertz]

And sadly, the blue-print was there for all. At the battle of Franklin, Tennessee, Union soldiers had breastworks, ditches, and instead of barbed wire they had shrubs of Osage-orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osage-orange)to do the same work. Instead of machine guns they had cannon loaded with double canister. And many of the union men had seven shot Spencer rifles, five shot Colt rifles, or 16 shot Henry rifles. When the Confederates tried to do a frontal attack across open ground, the result was not that much different then some WW1 battles, just on a smaller scale. The South suffered 6200 causalties to the Norths 2300. But a closer look is even more shocking. The death toll for the South was 1750 to the Norths 189. The South lost six Generals killed that day. Although some of the equipment changed, I think many a Civil War vet could have related real well to the WW1 vets.

[Paperwarrior]

...and lets not forget the lessons learned about trench warfare during the Russo-Japanese war. There were some hard lessons learned there. Funny thing is there were many western European observers there, but nobody thought it more than a sideshow....nothing to learn there.

[rebelatsea]

The Russo Turkish war was even more a pointer to things to come at least on land.

[ct ertz]

The new tank supporting the troops at the front!

[Gerald43]

Thank you for model!

http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/80/53/22/imag1012.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=1458&u=14805322)

http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/80/53/22/imag1013.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=1459&u=14805322)

http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/80/53/22/imag1014.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=1460&u=14805322)

[ct ertz]

Thanks for sharing Gerald! It looks like it turned out great!

[Gerald43]

Thank you! You're welcome, it was the least I could do.

[Gerald43]

http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/80/53/22/imag1029.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=1477&u=14805322)

[ct ertz]

Awesome snowy diorama!

[Gerald43]

the little diorama I have built with your tank is finished.
Turkish infantry guarded the captured tank.
The Turks has painted Aydin Guido for me.

I hope you like it

http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/80/53/22/pict0036.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=1542&u=14805322)

http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/80/53/22/pict0037.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=1543&u=14805322)

http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/80/53/22/pict0038.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=1544&u=14805322)

[Vermin_King]

Very nice. Thanks for sharing

[ct ertz]

That's pretty cool!