# Tank recovery at Cambrai (Film)



## CharlesBronson (Apr 20, 2016)

Recovery and post battle use by the German army of british heavy tanks (mark V ?) november 1917, subtitles created by me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 20, 2016)

Very interesting footage ... seems there was great interest in pushing over big trees.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 20, 2016)

michaelmaltby said:


> Very interesting footage ... seems there was great interest in pushing over big trees.



Indeed, and they have some difficulty with the big ones, with that you can see how underpowered were this ugly beast of WW1.


----------



## Wurger (Apr 20, 2016)




----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2016)

what a terrific find.

ive always been led to believe that cambrai was a battle without hope for the british, coming so hot on the heels after the carnage on the Somme. Just not enough men to hold and consolidate any gains they might gain from th tank corps


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 21, 2016)

parsifal said:


> what a terrific find.
> 
> ive always been led to believe that cambrai was a battle without hope for the british, coming so hot on the heels after the carnage on the Somme. Just not enough men to hold and consolidate any gains they might gain from th tank corps




In my opinion the Tank was the key....for failure, you cant espect to break the german artillery lines with only 15mm of poor quality armor and at 6,5 kilometers per hour,the Germans achieved much larger penetration in march 1918 using advanced infantry tactics and almost no tanks.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 21, 2016)

Cambrai was lost by the British, not just because the tanks were unreliable, in fact the initial breakthrough managed to drive so far into German held territory that more ground was taken in the first push than what had been taken in the previous three years combined. The failure was as much with the British infantry; its commander did not grasp the concept or the opportunity to capitalise on the fact that the tanks had gained so much ground and that he really needed his men to follow up the action as swiftly as possible. When the Germans realised this, they took advantage of the tanks' frail position and the plan was doomed to fail, sadly.

Magnificent clip, by the way, CB.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 22, 2016)

Fascinating!

What's the purpose of that girder/railway sleeper(?) on top of the tank seen in the first half of the film?


----------



## Wurger (Apr 23, 2016)

One of the main problems for the WW1 tanks was the mud and minefield of the battle field. These tanks were getting stuck often. The girder ( wood reinforced with steel metal as memo serves ) with these two guiding railways on the hull top was a self-help system for pulling out of the kind of the ground. The "railway sleeper" was attached to the both of the tank tracks with chains and then the tank started to run. The girder was dragging beneath the tank tracks and around the hull top on the top rails. And again going under the tank providing grip until getting the firmer ground.

Mark IV male with unditching beam deployed.







The unditching beam was stored across the hull top on the set of parallel rails usually...


----------



## Graeme (Apr 23, 2016)

Thanks Wurger!


----------



## Wurger (Apr 23, 2016)

My pleasure.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 23, 2016)

"...One of the main problems for the WW1 tanks was the mud and minefield of the battle field"

In Charles Bronson's video, note the spade ends on every 3rd or 4th track link which were I assume to provide lateral bite, a feature I had never heard of


----------



## Wurger (Apr 24, 2016)

These tank track ' Spuds ' were attached in order to improve the tank traction while moving over the soft ground. Also it seems that these spuds were very helpul with climbing while crossing the trenches or shell holes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 24, 2016)

The beams were used also to transport and roll down fascine in order to surpass deep wide trenches.

_Cambrai was lost by the British, not just because the tanks were unreliable, in fact the initial breakthrough managed to drive so far into German held territory that more ground was taken in the first push than what had been taken in the previous three years combined._

I know that it was the first tank operative but I always felt that romboidal design could be improved aniway, the speed for example should be improved at list for 1917, I mean came on, *you should put more power in it* ,use two aviation engines or something like that.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 26, 2016)

Great find !


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 26, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> ...I know that it was the first tank operative but I always felt that romboidal design could be improved aniway, the speed for example should be improved at list for 1917, I mean came on, *you should put more power in it* ,use two aviation engines or something like that.


The problem is, at the time, engines were woefully underpowered, producing far less horsepower than we are accustomed to, 100 years later.
The most powerful engines of that time period were steam engines and would not be practical in an AFV.

For example, the British Mark V had a 150hp engine (110kw) driving 29 tons, the Mark I through Mark IV was 105 hp (same weight). the Mark IV had a top speed of 4mph (6.4kph) and the Mark V was 5mph (8kph).

On the other hand, the German A7 weighed 33 tons and had two engines that had a combined horsepower of 200hp (149kw) with a shattering top speed of 9mph (15kph) on a roadway.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 26, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The problem is, at the time, engines were woefully underpowered, producing far less horsepower than we are accustomed to, 100 years later.
> The most powerful engines of that time period were steam engines and would not be practical in an AFV.
> 
> For example, the British Mark V had a 150hp engine (110kw) driving 29 tons, the Mark I through Mark IV was 105 hp (same weight). the Mark IV had a top speed of 4mph (6.4kph) and the Mark V was 5mph (8kph).
> ...



Lack of power in british tanks is legendary at leat until the 1941 Crusader, but they could use the solution employed in the Matilda, 2 bus engines , diesel each of 105hp, of course the Matilda came later than the Mark IV but the solution is simple enough even for 1917.


----------



## soulezoo (May 9, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> In my opinion the Tank was the key....for failure, you cant espect to break the german artillery lines with only 15mm of poor quality armor and at 6,5 kilometers per hour,the Germans achieved much larger penetration in march 1918 using advanced infantry tactics and almost no tanks.



You make a valid point. One that is supported in WW II, with the faster and more powerful tanks of the Wehrmacht during the Blitzkrieg. In fact, the amount of ground gained in a daily/weekly basis in Poland (and France) at the outset of WW II was very close to the rate of advancement you allude to in your post regarding March 1918 (also 1914).

This is documented in a book "The Blitzkrieg Myth". The book as a whole must be taken with a large grain of salt; however, the timelines of advancement are accurate enough to allow this point of view.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 9, 2016)

soulezoo said:


> You make a valid point. One that is supported in WW II, with the faster and more powerful tanks of the Wehrmacht during the Blitzkrieg. In fact, the amount of ground gained in a daily/weekly basis in Poland (and France) at the outset of WW II was very close to the rate of advancement you allude to in your post regarding March 1918 (also 1914).
> 
> This is documented in a book "The Blitzkrieg Myth". The book as a whole must be taken with a large grain of salt; however, the timelines of advancement are accurate enough to allow this point of view.



The tank in WW1 , at list the tank in the british view, was a machine to break trhough the barbed wire, after the the infantry and even sometimes the cavalry was more mobile.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 9, 2016)

Tanks have 3 things that limit speed.
1, engine power
2, transmissions (includes clutches and steering gear)
3. Suspension. 

Taking the last first few, if any, WW I tanks used springs on the road wheels. Ride is best described as rough even at 4-5mph. 

WW I automotive (including heavy trucks) transmissions were rather crude. synchronized gears were extremely uncommon if available at all. Getting transmissions that could stand up to the weight of the large tanks and even a relatively low powered engine without breaking gear teeth was a challenge. And please remember that the engine used in the British MK IV tank was a 16 liter (976 cu in ?) six cylinder. It may have been only 105hp but 105hp at 1000rpm means 551 ft lbs of torque. putting that kind of twisting force on the input shaft and trying to move 27-29 tons even at a walking speed needs some heavy duty gears. 

Decent aircraft engines were in short supply in 1917-18 (some license built Hispano V-8s weren't even lasting 20 hours) and the 150hp Hispano was only 11.7 liters. less torque than the Diamler. 

BTW the British Whippet "light" tank




did use two bus engines. But Bus engines in WW I were closer to 45 hp than the 80-90hp of the late 30s. 
Whippit could do a blistering 8.3mph but the tracks were still unsprung.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 9, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Tanks have 3 things that limit speed.
> 1, engine power
> 2, transmissions (includes clutches and steering gear)
> 3. Suspension.
> ...



Your points are worthy but I feel like in they never used the best available technology for tanks in ww1, certaily not the british, some french tank like the Saint-Chamond were as heavy but faster (although not so good crossing trenches) and better armed with 75mm guns.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 9, 2016)

Fully agree, SR.

Folks seem to forget that technology in the early 20th century was nothing like it was approaching mid-century. Engines were large, bulky, heavy and low-compression. The drive-drains were large, bulky, heavy and lacked the later alloy technology that would allow stronger drive components, preventing catastrophic failure under load.

The Renault FT was an impressive leap in AFV design and technology during the war, being a little over 7 tons (6,589kg) but managing a top speed of 5mph (7.7kph) with a 35 horsepower engine. It also had a 

It was also one of the few WWI vintage tanks that actually saw active combat in WWII and served in various capacities as late as 1949.


----------



## soulezoo (May 11, 2016)

Agreed on the Renault FT series. It was rather revolutionary and was a good first tank. If memory serves, the FT introduced both suspension for the wheels and a rotating turret.

It was the FT-17 that George Patton learned his stock in trade in WW I. Got him shot in the backside as I recall as well.

The one thing about the early tanks that was a common theme was that many more tanks were lost to mechanical breakdown than to enemy action.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

The FT had a well designed vertical-sprung suspension that was far more effective than contemporary designs. Most tanks had been using suspension designs more suited to heavy equipment, like road repair machines or farm tractors.

Patton's tanks used during the war were on loan from the French. The U.S. manufactured FT, the M1917, arrived in Europe too late to see any combat, however.


----------

