The Goerz tank periscope system was available from 1930. It used 12 prisims diverting light onto a domed lens to give all round vision. It was however expensive. French experiments with a number of systems in the 20s encountered problems with dust settling on the external glass.
Available is rather different to deployed. I can't think of an earlier completed 'series' machine that had this sort of system, BTs the only others that occur, & the Swedes appear to have pipped them. (Though the Gundlach/Vickers things are coming into use in Poland at about the same time.) Not that anything would surprise me. This whole thread's reminding me how rusty my staring at tanks has become. That there was a technological/tactical debate over whether cupolas or periscopes, or even just slits were the best/most achievable way forward is probably the most interesting aspect. Still that intermediate thing going on.
R & J Beck makers of trench periscopes in 1918 produced the MkIX tank periscope. It had a tubular metal case and used prisms. The eye piece could be adjusted to assist focus. The Mk VIII International (AKA Liberty) tank carried a number as standard equipment
Considerable effort was put in by a number of counties into the development of tank stroboscopic cupolas. These consisted of a pair of multi slotted cylinders revolving at speed around each other so that for the observer whose head was in it there appeared to be no barrier between his eyes and the outside world but a bullet would not be able to pass through the slots in the brief time they were alligned.. The device was tested on the Mk VIII and the Char 2. However it produced all sorts of optical illusions and problems. Depth perception vanished and objects were often perceived as moving in a different direction to reality (much the same effect as wagon wheels in early westerns turning backwards) a lot was learned about how vision works but they never got it to work properly.
A slightly modified handheld field spotting periscope that pokes through a hole, like the Beck, is a rather different thing to a fully mounted rotatable 'system' that allows the tank to be fought while closed down. Shall have to have a look at what Ogorkiewicz has to say. He's usually good on these evolutionary details.
27 The Ft etc. Feeling a tad guilty at not having yet mentioned. Grudgingly, probably the first production tank that bore the full tanky set, from tracks to turret. Oodles of them knocked out by the French, and the US took the design as the core of their future tank force, the M1917. They do like their Ms... Only arrived en masse for the last year of the First War, but made a good account of itself for a wooden-wheeled miniature. An export success (cheap, & logistically uncomplicated), that served into possibly the 80s in Afghanistan, (IIRC it was finally established they were Polish ones given by the Sovs in the 20s). Germany found use for them during the Occupation of France, emplacing them either whole or just their turrets in Todt concrete, and a fair few were used as security runabouts. (As per Empire days, a bit of armour & a machine gun perfectly sufficient vs civilian or paramilitary & paratrooper disruption.) No sense in wasting c.500 collected after France fell. Some of those were prepped for Crete & the East too. (Raises the odd thought that they possibly spent more time in active wartime service under the Swastika than they did with their original owners.) Those clever chaps at the Weald foundation have done a remarkable & accurate rebuild of a Renault one (alongside a TSF command/signals version). Soooo many pictures. Ubiquitous. Sorry. Old Blood & Guts, sadly without his football helmet... Rusty but still a nice shiny gizzit to bring home...
The Italian version also used in WW2 in the Balkans. The origins of the Afghan ones still a matter of some dispute as the Persians supplied some 3rd hand ones during one of the Afghan civil wars
Finnish Army of course had Charioteers (and Comets) sold away most of them in 2007. Some survived, this one in one army training area
28. The Panther. Oh, alright, lets do one of the German 'Big cats'... yawn... etc. Just. Another. Tank. Though, in truth, I still find the bastard fascinating. It's often (I think rather lazily) touted as the dawn of the fully balanced MBT, and I can't deny the sheer technical effort that was put into it, while also having doubts about a feature or two. First major doubt: Ausf D, A, G... And then a projected F - in that order?! Who does that?! Unless it was a ploy to make teenage tank obsessives confused (for which I actually thank them). Yes, I know the assorted arguments as to why it happened, but it's still a mess. Not in ordnung at all. Next major doubt: Interleaved wheels. Now, really. In amongst all the praise heaped on German designs, I always think 'Interleaved wheels'. How many postwar-designed machines can you think of with interleaved wheels? It's something that was cast into the evolutionary slops bucket with good reason. Service accounts carry many complaints about clogged mud, frozen mud, having to remove several to get to damage etc. etc. They were used largely because the Germans became utterly obsessed with mobility as a factor in heavy platform stability during Panther's development. They are a technical tour de force & quite superb at allowing heavy tracked vehicles to move smoothly over rough ground with minimum loss of traction, but they're also a real-world nightmare. In fact, not just AFVs. How many earth movers, diggers or similar civvy tracked vehicles do you see on interleaved platforms? I see Horstmann & Holtish stuff, volutes, even rubber tracks on site gear, but not interleaving, as it's a pain in the arse. To what I like best: Those double torsion bars... I know, they're connected in with the weird wheels, but for the technically interested nerd, those double bars are a sort of impressive work of art. (Modern art, maybe. Daft in many ways but sometimes interesting...) Torsion bars won the postwar tank design wars, as they're a superb form of 'spring' for dealing with the stresses involved & still allowing good crank travel, but contemporary metallurgy & maybe even the local reality of material supply led to the bars being doubled in length. One end fits to the chassis, travels to a pivot (? There's a better word? ) at the other side, then travels back to the crank/wheel. Theoretically almost double the twist from thinner bars. Let's not consider that they disallow floor escape hatches, mean other systems have to sit above, & are another maintenance nightmare (how many wheels we removing to get to that bar, Heinz?), and in practice are subject to greater fragility & decay (Look at wrecked or even un-restored Panthers. Sat slumped/sagging on bars with no spring left is a common feature), they're bloody clever & please my eye. Ok. Panther shit the bed on it's first outing, catching fire all uber der platz, suffered unduly when attacked from the sides or rear (something German counter-attack tactics may well have exacerbated), had all those 'pushing the technical envelope' problems from Engines to welding that dogged some German efforts, & is almost up there with Tiger for something that's praised to the high heavens without quite enough objective examination, but... I have to accept that when viewed through the correct lens of 'it's just another tank', it was a not half bad machine really, bringing a superb BFG to bear in an impressive (if ambitious) technical package. Final shot, though: The French, using them postwar, rated them at a mere 500KM before needing a complete gearbox rebuild. How do you get to the gearbox for maintenance? First: Remove your turret. . Modularity, repair & supply issues solved for complicated machinery: nope. The Gibb Jagpanther (believe a second is in the pipeline. Certainly shared some pics of all the parts & a gun assembly) rumbling past a foot away from you is quite the sight, though. I'd have been leery peeping out of my M4 at one of those. The British had a Bergepanther knocking around the armour school & Bovington postwar, as apparently it's winch was a beast. Got scrapped I think. Unoriginal shot of the famous Cuckoo. I've been living among the M10s, learning their ways, though I fear they have now seen through my disguise Afflicted with Microcephaly: Speaking of which, might as well throw in the 'Schmalturm' saved from the ranges for Bov. Shot trap eliminated, thicker armour, same weight. If the war had dragged on, this might have been seen out & about. Though Paper Panzers can get a bit speculative, at least this one has some material evidence: With apologies for torsion bar rambling.
Of course our Tank Museum in Parola got at least 2 Charioteers and 3 Comets. And of course the army has had also Renault FTs
My major doubt has always been the transmission designers. Imagine doing this on the Russian Front during a blizzard.
In connection with Landsverk L-60, ItPsv 41, alias Landsverk L-62 Anti II, was a Swedish self-propelled anti-aircraft gun construction that was specifically designed for Finland by Landsverk between 1941 and 1942. The chassis was based on the Landsverk L-60 tank but was lengthened with one extra roadwheel per side. One has survived at our AA Museum in Hyrylä
That picture intrigues, though. If, as I'm sure I've read, you have to remove the turret to get to the transmission; what are they doing? I suppose lifting on or off the old/new before/after removing/replacing the turret is possible. It's part of a series, but I've not dug for more. Equally likely I've just completely misremembered the turret thing (maybe from a French mention), or it's an ideal that can be worked around in the field? .: Ah, some mention out there of removing a large roof plate being possible. [TMP] "Was the Tiger really King?" Topic Maybe it is the Tiger I'm thinking of, maybe the turret comes off after inserting to get to the driveshaft beneath the basket, or maybe just addled nonsense.
29. The FIAT 2000 Italy's first indigenous go. Another biggun. I bring it up partly because it rarely gets any sort of mention, but mostly because in the face of no surviving example (other than a rather fine contemporary large scale model), some magnificent loonies are building a replica. And it looks to be not just any replica, but more akin to that A7V done by assorted original German firms for Munster. Re-creating rather than mocking up. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fiat2000/about/ Really worth clicking through to some of the photos etc. www.fiat2000.it Not going to claim to know much about the thing. Mr Hills (he of the TOG book) has done a thorough article for Tanks Encyclopedia Fiat 2000 - Tank Encyclopedia Video of wooden prototype. What's holding its turret on? Bungees? The men inside?
Once scratch built a 1/32 scale model. One Fiat 2000 was sent to N Africa along with a number of Fiat 3000 (copies of the FT17) to deal with a rebellion in Libya so although only 4built one mayhave seen action.
30. Vickers 6 Ton Credit where credit's due. A truly significant machine. After querying the trouble they'd had flogging the Medium C & wheel-cum-track efforts, Vickers began to think smaller. A private venture rejected by the British army, but sold well to assorted nations. 1928, with either two MG turrets, or one 47mm + MG. (Though they announced being fully willing to consider any modification the customer required). Wireless was offered from day one, & various licensing arrangements appear to have been quite encouraged. The T26 sprang from it in Russia, but maybe more significantly it set Vickers on the path to their Light tanks. Compact, reliable, cheap easily transportable & immensely adaptable. Superseded within the decade, but a fine testbed for armoured design concepts. Obviously, the weird Pom-Pom armed one for the Siamese is best. The Bovington one is rather brilliantly displayed in Vickers' 'advertising' camo scheme, with the implication of it being loaded up for export, as so many were. (My pictures of it are crap. though...) T26: Finnish update: 'Dragon IV': Mmmmm. Pom Pom.
I don't recognize this AVF. Perhaps it was an early war prototype? It is parked across the river, about 5 miles from my house. Should I worry about the gun firing on and damaging the house from there? I like the design feature with the engine up front, to absorb impacts and help save the crew.