Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: 3-ton M1918
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2022
- The Ford 3-Ton (It's much easier than saying the full name) was designed to be the American equivalent of the FT, but even smaller and lighter. For better or worse, not so many were built, and two remain. This is the better one.
Thanks to the US Army's Ordnance Collection and the financial support from Patreons, merchandise purchasors, or other direct donations for making the trip possible.
Merchandise (The carousel below seems dodgy)
the-chieftains-retail-hatch.c...
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Financial donations:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal: paypal.me/thechieftainshat
A few observations from a Ford Model T owner/driver (whatever that is worth) who has looked into the tank more after seeing the video:
The three pedals do what the Chieftain says they do; the gas pedal is linked to a single carburetor that serves both engines, the two brake pedals control a band type brake in each transmission. Of the four levers, the two closest to the seat on either side control what forward gear each transmission is in (high or low). They have ratchets released by a lever on the handle to hold them in position. Pulling these levers up puts each transmission in low, moving them level with the floor should be neutral and released all the way to the floor is high. Pulling the outer levers up should put each transmission in reverse.
Minute 13:53 shows a great shot of the front of the engines. The square opening in the center of the shot is meant to receive the mechanical starting handle. The starting handle should be kicked forward and disengaged automatically once the engine catches. The big round thing with the cable coming out above the square opening should be the electric starter. The unpolished metal item to the right of the starter is the sediment collection bulb for the fuel system above which should be the fuel tank. Directly below the sediment bulb should be a lever for adjusting ignition timing, this should be linked to both engines by the wire passing under the starting handle. The two black boxes on either side of the starting handle each hold the four ignition coils for their respective engine. The lever on the front of each box controls where electricity for spark ignition comes from; right for battery, left for magneto, center is off.
One thing I am not seeing is how the two engines are mechanically connected, I'm thinking this would be needed since I can't see a way to change the speed of each engine independently. Having the engines mechanically linked would ensure the tank goes straight when both transmissions are in the same gear.
Pinning this one. I'm not in a position to say he's wrong about the levers. In the video, I gave my understanding at the time.
Makes me wonder if the "Bad drum in trans" is actually a lack of a transmission band, or otherwise the need for a replacement. good thing you can find all those parts aftermarket for the Model T. Greetings from a 1919 touring owner!
@@TheChieftainsHatch you to big for tank .
It’s a combat car I think
I always thought the transmissions were linked with some sort of differential in the middle. I guess they could be linked with a literal linkage from the levers or something of that nature.
i'm glad 1918 tank designers and 1st grade me had the same design philosophy
Every solution to an immediate issue can be described in one word with an exclamation point. Trenches too wide. Skis! Engine's not powerfull enough. Two!
Yours was better…
I wonder if they issued a spatula amongst the tool kit. I'm thinking a spatula would be handy to remove whats left of the crew after action.😂
And around the same amount of experience in designing tanks as you at 1st grade...
@@TheArklyte well, if you think about it rationally, the dual-engine setup was quite logical in it's design. saves the need for complex machining for a differential transmission, and metallurgy back then was very primitive, so more breakdowns and a long R&D time would be necessary for it to mature. it's also what many advanced designs in armored vehicles still do, specifically diesel electric ones. it's one or two engines driving two electric motors/transmissions. hell, Tesla still uses multiple electric motors for their newest cars, one per wheel. I don't see how that is so different. think of it this way, can you keep a Model T running? it's surprisingly easy if you learn how to drive one. can you keep two running? with the minor assistance from another fella with the same training? the answer is yes. I've got a 1919 Model T touring. I've daily driven it for shits and giggles before. it starts easier than some other vehicles I've had.
This is the most fascinating time of tank design for me. It was a complete wild west with different designs being used, some for too long.
Today designers have so much info to work with and back then they had basically none
"Basically none" means they were free to let their creative side run amok. If only more thought to crew ergonomics and that steering mechanism had been lavished on the project. Even back then, Ford certainly had the engineering knowhow to solve the problems and mass produce a great tank. Unfortunately they gave the world this pile of junk. It's sad really.
@@gusgone4527 to be fair, I think if you went to the government with 2 almost identical designs, but one with great crew ergonomics, but 5 km/h slower, I think the government would choose the other one. So not all of the faults lie with designers imo
@@cvetomirgeorgiev9106 The problem was they ignored the primary rule. "Try before you buy." Instead, placing very few target guarantees and penalties on General Dynamics. For a massively modified ASCOD (Austrian Spanish Cooperation Development) vehicle they could not test!
CV90 by comparison was ready to go, tried and tested. The new Mk.V vehicle currently being bought by Norway, should have been ours. Built here in the UK at Vickers Scotswood plant on Tyneside.
CV90 has been and still is constantly developed. New engines, new electronic systems and new turrets. Numerous variants there to be tried and field tested by potential buyers. It's a no brainer if the playing field had not been booby trapped by plans for an EU army.
If the allies had hit the beaches with a few hundred of ^these on D Day, the war would've certainly been over within a week or so! There would've been newsreel film footage of entire German divisions surrendering almost as soon as they saw ^several of these advancing on them... 😉👍
Makes the TKS look luxurious doesn't it!
The TKS *is* luxurious. I'm not sure there's a better designed tankette.
Those videos of archive footage are an amazing way to add a better understanding of the way tanks like this moved! I especialy love the tiny details like the guy using his foot to let the hatch come down slower at 17:35. And of course the tank falling into the trench at 9:06 is a hilarious video.
When I saw that 3-ton go backwards into the trench I winced for the driver
You can almost hear the crew laughing at 9:06.
"You're not gonna make it!"
"We'll make it."
*crashes into trench backwards*
9:06 I wonder how they got the crew out before the fuel leaked onto the hot engine with catastrophic results.
That one had me rolling. Had to watch it several times. Also the one dropping dead after "climbing" the "mound" at 18:07. The original "Rush B", I guess.
I absolutely love the rare WW1 era videos. I'd love to see you cover the Mark V*, Mark VIII or Skeleton tank for examples. Thanks for doing this
i spy a skeleton tank in the background so i suspect that videos "in the loop" as it were.
Seconded. This video is excellent.
Was the Skeleton tank armed with a Ghost Gun? 💀👻
I appreciate the way the audio peaks at times in this one because it is representative of the pain you must have felt getting inside the tank
'Pretzel-in-a-can', a form of Irish origami; however, modern midwifery has yet to accept it & Pillsbury want to sue.
Gharstley!
The only tank in the history of tanks that an single crew could push start!!!
But seriously, it's hard to fathom that in the space of 50 years, tanks went from this to something like an S-Tank.
I appreciate the dedication to historical accuracy by using a mic from WWI
The tailpiece also prevented the hull from digging in against obstructions when the tank was backing up. Watched it's value in an original Ft video. Model T's did not have fuel pumps so either they made one for this tank or mounted the fuel tank high or that may be the reason that one stalled out crossing that berm. A model T low on fuel often had to be backed up steeper hills to maintain fuel flow.
I'm guessing that the original tank was part of or mounted just under that triangular hunk of armor that he lifted to be able to pull the side armor on the engines down.
I imagine the original fuel tank was mounted in the center above the engines and the center cover was raised up to access the filler neck with cap.
Even then you didn't normally require to back a model T up a steep hill unless it was a driveway or something where you intended to go very slowly regardless. Otherwise you sloshed the fuel by slowly veering off towards one side of the road and abruptly jerking back to the other. The issue also only existed because the fuel was at opposite end of the vehicle, had the tank been in passenger footwell (not a good idea for other reasons of course) you'd need to be essentially empty before even the steepest slope required the driver to act to keep mixture from leaning out... so in 3ton (2,700kg) "tractor" its probably was not an issue that required extra parts to solve.
@@SheepInACart The T had a number of oddities, including the coils. There were one for each spark plug. They were mounted under the dash board. My father told me that if your coils were bad, you (not him, of course) could easily switch your for another set at night at a barn dance. You took a chance of ending up with another set which were also bad, but if yours were shot, you might end up with a good set. He said it only took a couple of minutes( or so he was told). The guy with the good set probably couldn't figure out why T was running so poorly all of a sudden.
My father grew up in Oklahoma, and was 11 when the Depression hit in 1929. He had a lot of stories about that era. It was fascinating to listen to, but I'm sure glad I grew up in the 40's instead (I was born in 1942).
@@williamromine5715 My dad and his two college roommates at Texas A&M 1941-42 bought a Model A. It laid down a blue smoke screen as they drove and you had to add a quart of oil every 50 miles, but they had wheels, Dad went on to the USN in WW2, his two roomies became Infantry Lieutenants in the Texas Guard's 36th Infantry Division. One died in its infamous attempt to cross the Rapido. "Lieutenant General Mark Clark, commanding general of the United States Fifth Army, in an attempt to break through the German defenses of the Winter Line (also known as the Gustav Line), tried to cross the Gari River, south of Monte Cassino, with two regiments (the 141st and 143rd Infantry) of the U.S. 36th Infantry Division, commanded by Major General Fred Walker. After crossing the river in boats, the Americans were cut off from reinforcements and support and subjected to heavy fire and counterattacks from elements of the German 15th Panzergrenadier Division stationed on the west bank of the river. The Americans suffered very high losses, and after two days of fighting the survivors retreated back across the river."
The footage at 17:30 is great. It's funny seeing the tankers of the time being well over a foot shorter than he is. A mix of people generally being shorter back then plus shorter people getting tanker jobs. The top of their heads were just above the cupola whereas Nick's shoulders are higher than the cupola.
Today we ask the age old question: does the Chieftain fit in a Ford 3-Ton?
The answer is: kind of? But not really.
No, I want a "Bugger, the tank is on fire" episode
@@colbeausabre8842 that's cruel and unusual punishment
Chieftain in tank yoga 😀
@@colbeausabre8842 Getting out actually wasn't that bad for him. His primary issue was more just hesitance to put his hands on that bar. If you really had to get out in a hurry you'd essentially just do a pull up while pulling your feet over the edge and then letting go and sliding down the front armor. It wouldn't be pleasant going over the edge of the armor plate and the axle but it would be quick and easy, if bruising. At least not if he wasn't wearing such tight jeans.
I actually love seeing the Chieftan fit in such historical units. Ive also been a current world example of a couple of Museum tours.
One minor correction 15:38 - the pilot tanks had the .30 Browning. 'Production series' vehicles like the two survivors have mounts for the Marlin tank MG. Hunnicutt's 'Stuart' includes a nice side by side comparison. The M1918's Marlin MG mount is also very similar to the early M1917 tank's
As a very tall (6'9") person, to me that thing looks more like a medieval torture device than a tank!
I realize this is an unfair comment due to the benefit of hindsight, but I love that the Americans basically took the FT... and removed its revolutionary trait that basically defines the tank as a concept, the fully rotating turret.
When I was in an armor battalion in the '80s, the unofficial motto was "Why walk when you can ride!" After seeing the crew facilities and the video of the Ford 3 ton in action, there is something to be said for walking!
One of the really cute early tanks that needs to be taken home, wrapped in a blanket and fed until it grows up enough to look after itself.
Cute but not very useful.
This tank occupies a special place for me as it was the earliest US tank in the only tank book available at my primary school library, the first book on tanks that I ever read. Other memorable vehicles from that book were the M56 Scorpion, T95 Gun Motor Carriage, and the MBT-70.
The apparent hinges on the rear edge of the panel above the MG mount suggest that there is a separate hatch for the gunner. If there actually is a gunners' hatch, it might have been an easier port of entry/exit.
You would also need a hatch to physically get the machine gun in and out for maintenance…
Particularly if they ever fitted the M-1921 (later known as the M2) that was designed in parallel which was specifically designed for tank / antitank use.
@@allangibson2408 Have you heard of that being planned for future armament?
It probably was used by both crewmen to enter the fighting compartment with the driver's hatch used to evacuate the tankette when under enemy fire. I bet the gunner's top hatch also had a provision to be held slightly open to allow the MG fumes to escape and fresh air be drawn inside.
I've only seen the picture and I already know I'm going to love this episode.
Although the French thought the 3-ton tank inferior to their Renault FT tank they ordered several hundred as artillery tractors for the 75mm Mle 1897 field guns. The Armistice intervened and the order was cancelled before any were sent to France.
That would make sense. The M1918 was originally meant to be a tractor, and it meant that the French didn't need to interrupt FT production. As a tank, though, I think the FT with an MG in a rotating turret would be better than the mounting in this thing.
Honestly at this time of tank developpement, i do understand engineers who asked themselves good questions and got interesting answers to them !
Thinking "outside the box" was a special exercice when there was no real "box" to begin with ! :D
They were working out how to build the box later thinkers could think outside of. 😄
Back in 1973 when I was going through basic training at Ft. Knox, some 49 years ago, there was one of these at the Patton Tank Museum. It was located at the entrance to the museum, out side in the weather. I’ve always been fascinated with this little tank (I have photo of it somewhere) but I couldn’t find much Information about it. I want to thank you for the video you have made of this tank.
Do you happen to know where it is? I'd love to see it I heard there may be a 3rd survivor.
The one formerly at the Patton Museum is now located in Fort Benning.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Oh thanks for the clarification! Do you know specifically about its evaluation before the war ended in France? Like what it intailed exactly? Is combat testing a possibility?
Love these early tanks, some are so steampunk!!
The incredible folding Chieftain. Lol. Great video and an interesting vehicle. Thanks.
I've been waiting to see this tank for years; I didn't even know any examples existed. It's a great experiment for the time and a lesson on what wasn't going to work.
Glad it was never used in combat.
If your interested I have a pinterist board with extensive photos and documents. Also I'm not entirely sure it wasn't used in combat. It was at least deployed to a race riot once from camp Polk.
The US Army planned on using existing British and French tanks if the USA got involved in the war so didn't bother to design and make their own. Once there, the Army discovered that the British and French didn't have any to spare but could make the Renault FT under license in the states and ship those over. The Army wanted to avoid that cost so drew up specs for a lighter and cheaper tankette then got Ford to design and build 15 for testing. Henry got that done in record time with one sent to France for evaluation by the Army where it was found to be unsuitable to use. The Army told Henry Ford they would need 15,000 so royally pissed him off when they cancelled the contract after only 15 were made to make the Renault FT instead. Henry Ford refused to produce the FT so the Army used 3 different manufacturers to make the FT's. The three experienced delays getting those into production so didn't have any ready until the war had ended.
The Army tried to make Ford happy by considering using his tankette to tow the French 1897 75mm field artillery guns they planned to make after the war but had to cancel that due to treaty limitations.
@@billwilson3609 Nice explanation 👍. Do you have sources for some of the specific details such as Henry's reaction and such? I would love to read up on that!
"How can we make the FT worse" "Watch me"
No turret?
Just driver?
The ft was a really quite good tank for the time though
Excepting how much space there was for each crewman, the commander being the driver doesn’t seem like that bad of a compromise for a 2 man tank; especially given they allowed him the cupola that elevated for more vision in driving & observation.
I was half expecting the second leg to not make it in, or a worried museum employee having to rush out to extract Mr. Moran. Luckily, he seems to be quite flexible.
To tension the track they had to invent the "Tank Bar"
Would like to know more about the collection, museum. So many interesting items in the background.
The Patton museum 3 ton was a great runner. Really fun to drive around.
Thanks Nick, your videos are always extremely welcome!
I lost a bet with myself thinking The Chieftain couldnt possibly get into it
The old archive footage was a real treat.........
A chicken in every pot and a tank for every home. A personal tank for each soldier.
this thing look factory fresh....the museum did a great job
The video of the failed trench crossing at 9:09 is hilarious ... well ... Unless you were in the tank. Thanks for another great video.
My immediate thought when hearing about how much of a pain these tracks would be to tension is that you should grab two guys to sit on the track above the leaf springs. The springs compresses, loosing the track enough to adjust the tension and then hopefully the whole thing is properly set once they jump off.
Assuming you man it with the shortest men in the army a self-propelled machine gun nest isn't bad. But for the purpose I'd want a water cooled machine gun in a turret on top.
They did appear to have reasonable cross country capability.
I'm glad that the Chieftain also gave us a lil insight into how a 1918 audio recording would sound like 😆
UNDERRATED COMMENT
Made my day chieftain. Thanks
Got to give the designers an A+ for creativity!
This tank is adorable.
It is always fascinating to see Chieftain react to entering and exiting armored vehicles and verbalize his thoughts while doing so. The most captivating parts to every well done video
What an amazing machine. Thanks for telling us about this one :)
Thank you for sharing this.
One way this sets itself apart from early tanks is that it looks like it wouldn't gas or burn the crew with engine exhaust or exposed components.
the ft wasnt supposed to either.
Still no firewall, so the engines (including the crankcase breathers) and exhaust pipes (which would leak somewhat) where inside the metal box with you when "buttoned up". The fuel system was also on the crew side, so in event of any issue you got covered in gas, and you'd need to be fairly careful of the starters behind your elbow because they DO spin when the engines are turning.
IMO it'd have made a lot more sense to mount the engines the other way around so the starters where against rear of the tank, and crew contacted the gearbox housings only (due to lower height than the engines you could even have the seats reclined to be partially overtop of them, but ford elected to have neither the 2x 1m driveshafts or alternately use a front sprocket, probably because it was faster to develop for such a war expedient (and honestly not very good, see choice for none of them serving in combat) design.
@@SheepInACart Huh. OK not as good as I thought but still much better than early british tanks
Watching the machineguns waving about as the vehicle moved (in the last snippet of the video) suggests that you could recognise the gunner from one of these by their pair of black-eyes, broken nose and lack of teeth.
Sounds like an excellent reason to keep a grip on the gun so it doesn't wave around like that. Although I believe that was just the mount and the gunner was not in the vehicle, as we had previously seen just the drivers getting in when the vehicles were in line.
@@kemarisite This☝
@@kemarisite Maybe they couldn't find two people short enough to be both driver and gunner. Or hard to find two people who know each other well enough to be pretty much sitting in each other's lap whilst bouncing around a muddy field.
As for adjusting the track tension from the front. I believe you nailed it with that Towing eyelet in the front. When I served in the mechanized artillery in the US Army we had long "crowbars", which were simply straight steel shafts, about 4 and 1/2 ft long. They were referred to as "Tankers bars". That's probably exactly what you would do to hold that in place while adjusting the bolts.
You’re a very brave man to squeeze into that contraption…sitting in a museum. I can’t imagine being either of the two men crammed in there as they tried to make war!
I've looked forward to you doing this one someday.
Wow that thing is cramped!
Dear Chieftain, Would you also be able to kindly do a high speed tour of this museum. Lots of interesting stuff in the back ground there. Keep up the good work. Best regards Ian
Not gonna lie, the primary point of curiosity for me clicking this video is seeing a big dude like you go in a teeny tiny tank.
Great video as always, audio through a Boss Metal Zone unconventional!
4:56 damn that was a smooth turnover.
Definitely not one for an 'Oh Bugger, the tank is on fire.' moment.
Would have been quite hilarious for us to watch :)
The Road Not Taken. Great vid! Cheers!
The film clip as you wrap up the video shows a group smoothly getting into the tank. So that demonstrates the proper method. Of course, another factor may be that those men were significantly shorter than you are Chieftain.
And probably had more practice.
And quite a lot younger. It really makes a difference. I am not even old yet, but I still can't do the things i did when I was 19 or 20. I used to be able to clamber up a tree, leap over brooks, I could climb all over buildings when we were working on them. Crawling into small spaces didn't seem very hard at all. Now I feel older and stiffer and heavier and weaker.
@@justforever96 I hear you. I had that realization a few years back when I flew in one of the last B-24 Liberators.
Amazing history lesson!
17:35
That one dude on the left using his foot on the driver's hatch cracked me up.
Track tensioning looks like it could be done with a car-jack [or something similar] placed between the axle and the angled front plate, and then loosening the 2 bolts.
Mom can we have STUG?
No we have STUG at home.
STUG at home:
thanks! this made me laugh more than it had any right to lol.
Good review. I had never heard of or saw one of these before.
I'm betting the ride in that thing would have been....interesting, to say the least. Especially watching those clips of them charging up that little embankment or ripping along over a trench. Neither the suspension or the seat looks particularly good at damping, lol. And since seat belts were yet to be a thing, I can imagine the crew ending up in some rather uncomfortable positions after a good rip across bumpy ground. Anyway, really neat to see it still around. The early tanks are really interesting as you get to see so many ideas being tossed together as no one really knew what was going to work yet.
2 actual exhausts? No fake exhaust? That tañk is better than most modern cars! (In that respect, at least)
"Floong" is indeed a word.
Kudos for its proper use!👍
This was fascinating. I've watched a lot of Chieftain's reports, and this is one of the most interesting. Usually I'm left thinking that "I wouldn't want to be in that thing in combat". With this tank, I'm thinking that I wouldn't want to try to drive it around if surrounded by friends.
Love the b/w film showing it motion.
During an Armed Forces Day ceremony in the early 1960s, they had one similar to this at A.P.G. The tank came out firing at a bunch of balloons, Then an M60 came out fired a single round of Flechette out of the main gun. Took out more balloons than the machine gun on the little tank. M.C said product improvement.
I want to yell out "the tank is on fire"
We live next to Fort Lee and I knew they had moved the tanks there but didn't know they were on display. My father retired from Fort Lee in 1969 after Viet Nam, it's changed a lot. Now I know they're there, I'll have to visit, maybe we'll see you there doing your next video.😁 Thanks for the great videos.
I like this little tank.
I like the way you used a period microphone.
Great video 👍
Thank you for doing this chat. I never heard of the Ford3ton before. Amazed they still had a video testing. Interns of Information this was you best yet.
I think this sort of vehicle is important historically for an entirely different reason: to illustrate how far removed even the most basic of tanks are from modern manufacturing capability. Even the most dedicated home machinist, casting non-performance critical parts via lost 3D-printed plastic, with modern engines and transmissions, will find it extraordinarily difficult if not outright impossible to manufacture even a single tank of the M1918's capability in under 2 years. With a hundred years' advance in construction... It still takes a factory and a lot of industrial capacity.
That’s the way to fit a heavy bolter in that micro Leman Russ tank.
It would definitely be a handful trying to tighten up the track against the tension of that idler spring
I expected the last scene to be an EMT Team rushing up with the jaws of life to cut you out!
It's just so darned cute!
The Chieftain Representing my Neck of the Woods.
Neat little tankette. A little bigger, with more room inside, and mounting a small cannon, it could have been the earlier incarnation of the Stug.
AS LONG AS NO ONE GOT INJURED THAT COUNTS AS A GOOD DAY , VERY WELL DONE 😊.
Hoorah! Well worth the wait. 😁😎
I imagine some of the tankers pushing cotton batting into their ears for the noise.
I think you are a very brave man keeping that lapel microphone so close to your body that obviously had an angry wasp carrying a kazoo.
The time period between this tank and the Chieftain tank is less than that of the Chieftain and now.
Don't forget that includes a world war and at least five big ones in the Mideast to concentrate muinds
I saw this tank 45 years ago at Fort Knox Patton Museum when I was a young soldier!
this makes me feel cramped just watching it!!!!
I had never heard of this tank. I do know the engine. Dad has one in his 1931 Model A Ford Coupe. Thank You for the History Lesson.
Watching the footage of the tank driving in the field gave me the chills. Even with a strudy stomach, I think I would have tossed my cookies.
That and RIP those lads spines.
The tankette's glory lives forever
Holy crap, I've only ever seen this thing once in a visual encyclopedia on WWI I enjoyed when I was 7. I forgot it existed, frankly, I can't wait to get a good look at it.
I like the bit near the end where the commanders just hop on in the tank. Of course they were a bit shorter in stature.
"antique tank yoga with the Chieftain!"
I imagine, if the vehicle were ever fielded, the crew would, while tensioning the track, have mates sit on top of the track over the return rollers to depress the leaf spring and make it easier to pull the big idler forward.
The best part, i was recently at fort lee (now Gregg Adams). The first day of class tor AIT i got to see this tank. I have pictures of it too
I love the DIY sheet metal brake project construction. A Popular Mechanics weekend project, the Sten Stug :).
One things this 'Tank' demonstrated was the need for ergonometric testing of the seating and controls. Soldiers had to fit inside, and safely operate the tanks/armored cars - in combat! - for hours/days at a time.
If a strapping six foot doughboy couldn't fit, then what good was the tank?
Army Ordinance learned that lesson early.
And they fixed that problem by insisting on a height limit. A limit which to this day technically still exists.
You have to consider the average height of people back then. My mom said her mother's brothers - both coal miners from the hard coal region around Shamokin PA were only 5' 8"is but powerfully built. People didn't ear as well as we do, generally didn't take vitamins and were victims of childhood diseases all of which stunted growth. Having said that, the Europeans always commented on how big US, Canadian and ANZAC soldiers were. BTW, one of the features of the war were the "Pals" battalions, composed of volunteers from one particular area - "Go to war with your friends"" - (terrible idea, when a whole community would be shattered when "their:" battalion was shot off the battlefield). Anyway, the British newspapers gushed at the sight of units of Welsh coal miners - "Midgets go to war". Many of these men eventually ended up as Tunnellers in the Royal Engineers. ua-cam.com/video/Vc9s3ZMYIec/v-deo.html Imagine a giant flamethrower popping out of a tunnel to blast your trench ua-cam.com/video/Mtyt2Gj9BK8/v-deo.html Livens would go onto to invent the Livens Projector, a crude mortar used in batteries of up several thousand to heave whole canisters of poison gas into German trenches ua-cam.com/video/_I7qRn8R0_Y/v-deo.html creating an instant lethal concentration and, recalled to the colors, was the primary developer of the flame fougasse (NOT Foo Gas as some of my fellow vets think) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_fougasse and what is a fougasse en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fougasse_(weapon)
Neat little tank. Big enough for two child size adults. I need to visit this place some day and Fort Benning.
I love these early tanks.