Landships II

Vilkata · Brigadier

Christie M1919 - A thorn in J. Walter Christies memory?

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

Fantastic! This design must surely compete with the FT-17 as the real ancestor of all modern tanks!

Centurion · Legend

The Christie M1919 was abandoned not through any fault of design nor through a dislike by some army officers of Christie (although by accounts he was a difficult man to get along with) but because of Federal bureaucracy. The Department of Transport managed to get a ban on the building of tanks over a certain weight (I can look up the exact weight if necessary). This scuppered several medium tank designs and put a complete block on heavy tank design. The Christie with its nice heavy cast armour and turret fell foul of this fiat. It apparently took the Department of Defense some time (years) to get the restriction lifted.

As it happens the British Ministry of Department imposed a not disimilar restriction by getting clauses inserted in some railway bill that imposed a legal limit on the diameter of a turret ring. It proved incredibly dificult to get this anulled (1941 I believe) which is the reason why so many otherwise good British tank s were undergunned.

theburk · Captain

well considering that christie invented his tank of the 30s which lead to the t-34 and was the real inspiration for modern tanks all round esspecialy when concerned with suspension, i think christie alreayd has plenty of claim. but ya, christie came up with a ton of crazy designs during that era, several prototype tanks that were intentionaly futuristic, including one that looked like a giant metal turtle shell! as well as a flying tank design. which was recently featured in the book "my tank is fight"

theburk · Captain

Centurion wrote:

The Christie M1919 was abandoned not through any fault of design nor through a dislike by some army officers of Christie (although by accounts he was a difficult man to get along with) but because of Federal bureaucracy. The Department of Transport managed to get a ban on the building of tanks over a certain weight (I can look up the exact weight if necessary). This scuppered several medium tank designs and put a complete block on heavy tank design. The Christie with its nice heavy cast armour and turret fell foul of this fiat. It apparently took the Department of Defense some time (years) to get the restriction lifted.

As it happens the British Ministry of Department imposed a not disimilar restriction by getting clauses inserted in some railway bill that imposed a legal limit on the diameter of a turret ring. It proved incredibly dificult to get this anulled (1941 I believe) which is the reason why so many otherwise good British tank s were undergunned.

yes, also it was made impossible for the calvary to have tanks, so when the calvary did finaly start building tanks, they called them "combat cars" which is why the christie which was the inspiration for the bt series of tanks was built it was (if i remember correctly) called the T1 combat car. i think that the ban was lifted very late in the 30s, it might not have even been lifted in 1940!

theburk · Captain

and now for some of those amazing christie armored weapons from the 20's and 30's

the 1921 christie amphibious:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieAmphib1921a-IonFonosch.jpg

the 1922 christie amphibious:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieAmphib1922b-IonFonosch.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieAmphib1922-IonFonosch.jpg

and the 1923 christie amphibious tank:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieAmphib1923c-IonFonosch.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieAmphib1923b-IonFonosch.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieAmphib1923a-IonFonosch.jpg

the christie t1 "combat car":

the christie t2 (various models):

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieT2E1.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieT1-combatcar.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieT1-combatcar-a.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieT1-combatcar-b.jpg

the christie M1936:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieM1932-IonFonosch.jpg

the christie M1935A:

the christie M1935B:

the christie M1936:

apparently the brits bought a few of these as tractors!

the M1937:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieM1937.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-M1938.jpg

various christie mechanations from the 40's:

some of these are touched up pictures, and the TANKS! website has this disclaimer to offer about the dates of these vehicles:
"To further confuse everyone, the Christie "M" series date is not always acurate. Christie determined that his designs were so futuristic that he would "guess" at a future date when he thought that the rest of the industry would catch up with him."

not a christie but still fun,some crazy holt tanks:

the holt '75' a mockup built in 1916:

the best '75':

the holt G9 basicly just a heavily armored tractor:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/usmt-HoltG9-a.jpg

more not christie but fun tanks:
the stanley steamer steam tank:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-Steam-Tank-Tracklaying-a.jpg

and unknown WWI era us SPG:

a bizzare christie 1918 spg:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/selfpropelledguns/usspg-Christie-8inch-a.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/selfpropelledguns/usspg-Christie-8inch-b.jpg

enjoy!

-- Edited by theburk at 21:29, 2006-11-15

-- Edited by theburk at 21:30, 2006-11-15

eugene · Field Marshal

theburk,

Thank you very much for posting these; some of them I am seeing for the first time, the more I see Christie's work the more respect I have for him, look at the these prototypes they may be smaller and weaker but dont they look so simular to the greats of wwII? The Germans and the Russians took alot of ideas that the man had and made some great tanks.

theburk · Captain

eugene wrote:

theburk,

Thank you very much for posting these; some of them I am seeing for the first time, the more I see Christie's work the more respect I have for him, look at the these prototypes they may be smaller and weaker but dont they look so simular to the greats of wwII? The Germans and the Russians took alot of ideas that the man had and made some great tanks.

i wouldnt say the germans, infact i dont think the germans ever saw any of his tanks and seemed more inclined to follow the more traditional tank designs of the era, (lots of wheels and bogies and spring leaf suspensions, eventualy torsion bar suspensions but never the free christie leg system) the russians on the other hand produced the BT-2 within around 6 months of buying 2 M1931's! they loved the thing! it was their addition of all round sloped armor and a good gun that made the T-34 such a good tank, and made the russians years ahead of anyone else, and they still are. i contend that this is because the russians at the time were willing to take chances to develop world beaters, which is why their armament industry became so advanced, they still make the best aircraft guns around.

now another interesting thing is how few pedrail tanks there are, i know of only one, i cant remember the name but there is only one left in existance, it was a mine proof tank, and had 2 pedrails in a big wheel layout, a couple were fielded during the kursk offensive, one was destroyed the other captured, it now resides at kubinka. im sure someone here knows of the tank im speaking of. now, i did see some tractors outfitted with pedrail, it was one of these that inspired HG wells to write "the land ironclad" (which reminds me, there should be a page dedicated to those early thinkers who predicted the tank) but i suppose because of the complexity involved, and the distrobution of weight they would sink pretty fast in mud if heavily armored.

Vilkata · Brigadier

Most of us here are very familiar with the TANKS! site TheBurk, but thank you for taking the time to post that message. It provides a concise easy visual-encyclopedia of Chisties work.

If one calls the Russian T-34 and the German Panther the greatest tanks of WWII, primarily because of their advanced armor sloping, then one actually can back-track and call the Christie M1919 the grandfather of modern-style tanks.

The Russians had been giving armor sloping to many tanks ever since they started producing the BT tanks based on Christies M1931, which had prominent armor sloping on the front of the hull. And, of course, Christie had started armor-sloping with the M1919. The Russians derived their T-34 from endless work on improving the BT tank. The Germans built their Panther based on the principles of the T-34.

So, in fact, more than any other tank, the M1919 really can have the distinction of being the ancestor to the T-34 and Panther, and in turn, advanced modern armor.

By selling the Russians the plans and manufacturing rights to his tanks, Christie may have had a huge part in contributing to Russias victory over Germany in WWII. That is, if you accept that the T-34 had a massive part to play in defeating the German Army.

---Vil.

theburk · Captain

Vilkata wrote:

Most of us here are very familiar with the TANKS! site TheBurk, but thank you for taking the time to post that message. It provides a concise easy visual-encyclopedia of Chisties work. If one calls the Russian T-34 and the German Panther the greatest tanks of WWII, primarily because of their advanced armor sloping, then one actually can back-track and call the Christie M1919 the grandfather of modern-style tanks. The Russians had been giving armor sloping to many tanks ever since they started producing the BT tanks based on Christies M1931, which had prominent armor sloping on the front of the hull. And, of course, Christie had started armor-sloping with the M1919. The Russians derived their T-34 from endless work on improving the BT tank. The Germans built their Panther based on the principles of the T-34. So, in fact, more than any other tank, the M1919 really can have the distinction of being the ancestor to the T-34 and Panther, and in turn, advanced modern armor. By selling the Russians the plans and manufacturing rights to his tanks, Christie may have had a huge part in contributing to Russias victory over Germany in WWII. That is, if you accept that the T-34 had a massive part to play in defeating the German Army. ---Vil.

very true, but i dont think that in the m1919 that it was as much intentional as coincidental that the armor was sloped, just like how it was sloped in the schneider. either way, being the predicessor of the m1931, it can therefore be seen as the start in a long line of tank development leading to modern tanks. and of course it is impossible to refute the role the t-34 played in WWII, it scared the crap out of the germans, because their shells would just glance off it, and it was more then a match for their panzer 3's, infact originaly the panzer 4 was supposed to just be a direct copy of the t-34.

theburk · Captain

and now the flying christie, which is now featured in the book "my tank is fight!!!" by zack parsons, available from amazon.com, or www.somethingawful.com its a book about the bizzare inventions of WWII, including railguns mounted in tracked carrages, german nuclear bombers, and trained squids to be used against shipping.

eugene · Field Marshal

theburk wrote:

eugene wrote:

theburk,

Thank you very much for posting these; some of them I am seeing for the first time, the more I see Christie's work the more respect I have for him, look at the these prototypes they may be smaller and weaker but dont they look so simular to the greats of wwII? The Germans and the Russians took alot of ideas that the man had and made some great tanks.

i wouldnt say the germans, infact i dont think the germans ever saw any of his tanks and seemed more inclined to follow the more traditional tank designs of the era, (lots of wheels and bogies and spring leaf suspensions, eventualy torsion bar suspensions but never the free christie leg system) the russians on the other hand produced the BT-2 within around 6 months of buying 2 M1931's! they loved the thing! it was their addition of all round sloped armor and a good gun that made the T-34 such a good tank, and made the russians years ahead of anyone else, and they still are. i contend that this is because the russians at the time were willing to take chances to develop world beaters, which is why their armament industry became so advanced, they still make the best aircraft guns around.

now another interesting thing is how few pedrail tanks there are, i know of only one, i cant remember the name but there is only one left in existance, it was a mine proof tank, and had 2 pedrails in a big wheel layout, a couple were fielded during the kursk offensive, one was destroyed the other captured, it now resides at kubinka. im sure someone here knows of the tank im speaking of. now, i did see some tractors outfitted with pedrail, it was one of these that inspired HG wells to write "the land ironclad" (which reminds me, there should be a page dedicated to those early thinkers who predicted the tank) but i suppose because of the complexity involved, and the distrobution of weight they would sink pretty fast in mud if heavily armored.

that would be the Minenraumer, there is actually a kit of it done by RPM in 1/35

Centurion · Legend

Its unlikely that the Germans were unaware of the Christie designs given the interchange with the Soviets at Kazan. They obviously took a decision to adopt a different approach. The Germans may have been right in the long run. One needs to consider the way in which tanks like the first Centurian abandoned Christie inspired suspension in favour of something that looks more like that used on the Tiger and Panther tanks

theburk · Captain

thank you eugene thats the one exactly, the name had escaped me. and yes the rpm kit is supposed to be quite good. they sell it on squadron. (i still havent gotten a hold of one :/)

theburk · Captain

Centurion wrote:

Its unlikely that the Germans were unaware of the Christie designs given the interchange with the Soviets at Kazan. They obviously took a decision to adopt a different approach. The Germans may have been right in the long run. One needs to consider the way in which tanks like the first Centurian abandoned Christie inspired suspension in favour of something that looks more like that used on the Tiger and Panther tanks

true, i didnt mean to imply the germans were unaware of it, as i know they certainly were as they knew of the BT tanks from their usage in both spain and norway (or was it finland who the soviets fought the winter war with?) whats also interesting is the brits produced their own christie tanks, they bought a couple of his patents and produced their own tanks, it could however be said that the germans were more inspired by the british designs involving leaf spring and torsion bar suspensions, compare the valiant to the panzer 3 for instance, the fronts of german and british tanks are also similar in layout, its no secret hitler loved england, anyway it seems that most of the cruiser tanks had christie suspension, but the suspensions of the other tanks were similar, the first centurion had a suspension quite different from that of the tiger and panther, the centurion had 3 sets of twin sprung wheels on each side, no torsion bar, but the panther, tiger, and panzer 3 all had torsion bar suspensions, the challenger it could be said is sort of a mix between the christie suspension and the older british bogie system. unless im mistaken, because the christie tanks didnt have the torsion bars correct? they were sprung with springs right? and in any event, the wheels of the tiger and panther were all independantly sprung, not in grouped units.