Pages

Mar 19, 2013

Kupchak Landship

Source: http://aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/canada/kupchak_landship.htm
Source origin: comrad_34 (RU server) - Спасибо, товарищ!

This particular vehicle might serve as a lowtier premium UK (Canadian) tank destroyer. Behold, the T15, also known as the Kupchak landship!

 
This was a late WW1 design for an armored tracked vehicle, proposed by Ing.Stephen Kupchak. It was to be based on the Holt tracked tractor chassis, but with some significant improvements. The construction was simple - really - a box-like hull (the sides had no slope whatsoever). The crew combat compartment was situated in the front and in the middle, there was the engine and transmission compartment. The fuel tanks were situated on the sides - one big on the left and two smaller on the right. 




The frontal part was shaped like a dull wedge and was designed to hold a long-barrelled gun. The ammo rack was placed in the nose, on the right side of the gun (it's visible on the top view). The vehicle was also armed with multiple machineguns for protection against infantry assaults. The vehicle was entered and exited via doors, installed on the left side and on the roof, there was a copula (presumably for the vehicle commander) for looking outside. The suspension - parts of which were "borrowed" from the Holt tractor - was of Kupchak's design however. It was a simple design - three small roadwheels connected with vertical springs, which were attached to a beam, which in turn was attached to the vehicle hull. The propeller wheel was the rear one.

Kupchak introduced his project by the end of 1918 to the British War Office. It was too late - the war was already almost over and the Allied soldiers had better vehicles back then. Mr.Kupchak even requested to build a prototype, but was denied. Some time after the war, the War Office contacted Mr.Kupchak and asked him to build a prototype vehicle, but offered no financial aid to accomplish that whatsoever.

As for the design itself, Mr.Kupchak didn't submit his design with any particular engine selected, so the powerplant remains a mystery. The same goes for its gun - the design doesn't mention any particular type and caliber that might have been used - this was because Mr.Kupchak thought that he'd get that provided by the War Office (along with funds) if they approved his design. There is also the concern that the vehicle would be too heavy (30-40 tons projected) for its suspension. 

Weight: cca 30 tons
Crew: 6-8
Length: cca 7 meters
Width: cca 3 meters
Height: cca 3,5 meters
Weapons: one 75-100mm gun and two 7,62-8mm machineguns
Transmission: mechanical

34 comments:

  1. Pics do not load.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Horrible.
    After playing the Churchill Gun Carrier for two weeks, I never want another box on tracks. It put me off my Tog as well.
    All the same, thanks for the interesting piece.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is the biggest shit ive seen....

    ReplyDelete
  4. canadians and brits should be banned from ever constructing tanks...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was made at a time when only 4 nations on this planet were constructing tanks. Us "Brits" since then have produced some of the best tanks and most innovative designs compared to other nations, so go fuck yourself.

      Delete
    2. If by "innovative" you mean "ugly", then by all means you are right. ;)
      I'm not debating that British tanks are technologically advanced, but the looks make my eyes bleed.

      Delete
    3. Again, it was WW1. Tanks back then were slow, heavy, thinly armoured slugs. They weren't pretty, they were meant to cross trenches, house weapons and breach through the lines. How the tank looks is pointless if the tank isn't going to work. I'd rather take a tank that works, than one that looks good.

      Delete
    4. TOG is the most goddam beautiful beast in the game. Brit tanks are designed to be functional, this isn't a pinanfarina design house but a method of killing your enemies. This landship is far less odd than many European designs or the monstrosities being designed in the USA.

      Delete
    5. I'm not talking about this landship here, I know perfectly well what WWI designs looked like.

      But as time moved on, other countries realized that they can make tanks AND make them look fearsome or kickass and contribute to psychological warfare.

      The British decided that they will make good tanks dressed up as clowns. The purpose of this is unknown ;)

      Delete
    6. Sadly, the early ones didn't really work either, but that's beside the point. No early tanks looked good from any nation.
      And Mr Meizner, if you think the Conqueror is ugly, I pity you. It's the most pleasing on the eye in game imo.

      Delete
    7. Of course, there are always exceptions... but you know the thing with exceptions :)

      I even admit that I like their TD designs, but this is as far as I can get.

      Delete
    8. So wait, you like the TD designs? Huh, so what else do you describe as good looking tanks?

      Delete
    9. Pershing, Super Pershing, Patton I-III, Chaffee with first (historical) turret, KV-1, KV-1S, IS-series, Tiger series, Panthers, E-50M, all the Types, M7 MT, T29, T32... just to name a few.

      Delete
    10. Yeah because all those tanks look scary. Whenever I see a stock Chaffee I run in fear.

      And the KV's, yay for bulging bland armour and a turret with a face thats horribly hideous. Where as the Black Prince smiles at you as its killing you, whilst rolling along looking sexy with its curved track covers. And don't forget about the Matilda's curves and sloped arse.

      And as for practicality, the SuperPershing has its recoil dampeners on the top of its turret, and you still find a tank that isn't even still more attractive than the British tanks.

      No offence mate, but you have a bad sence of style when it comes to picking out tanks.

      Delete
    11. Ah, I missed a bit out there. Hate Laptops.

      And as for practicality, the SuperPershing has its recoil dampeners on the top of its turret, and you still find a tank that isn't even holding its inner workings together exposing weakspots still more attractive than the British tanks.

      Delete
    12. Anonymus#93245678, I never said a Chaffee is fearsome. It looks kickass though (and i have mentioned both words in my earlier post).

      The Black Prince in my opinion is anything but sexy, you would think that British designers should know the term "curved", but judging by the bulky, squared turrets they design, that seems not to be the case. But you are probably right, as there are people who like to bang big chicks with bulgy fat bellies, there are those who prefer skinny sticks with visible ribs, and there are those who say that there's nothing prettier than a horse's behind.

      That doesn't change the fact that they are the minoriy.

      As for the Matilda, I don't really get excited about its "arse" as for me a tank is not a sex object. Its turret looks like a face full of zits, though.

      Delete
    13. Implying that people who think British tanks look good is the same as people who find fat chicks attractive? That's racist. You sir can go fuck yourself, because if you think that a sleek Black Prince is fat, but a T29 isn't, you clrealy don't understand beauty and are better off alone.

      Even better an example is the SuperPershing. If the turret of the tank is a face, then the SuperPershings face is falling off. Not to mention the huge 'belly' sticking out in front.

      Delete
    14. Hold on, hold on. Where the hell did I say that the BP is fat?
      The T29 is a big tank, but at least it has some character...although with the second turret it looks like Mickey Mouse.

      Delete
  5. Behold, the mighty Bathtub.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The mendeleed tank has a brother finally!
    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/b/bf/Mendeleev_tank.jpg[/IMG]

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not to mention the Rybinsk:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/7/7c/Rybinsky_tank_possible_view.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  8. dafuq is this shit?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Looks like the new German Aufklärungs Panther (Tier7) to me :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. at the slightest slope this thing will tip on its side HARD.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What's wrong with just using the Flying Elephant at tier 3? At least that had some curves to hopefully bounce a shot despite having rather thin armor.

    ReplyDelete
  12. DEAR GOD it's ugly!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10TP

    This tank could be a nice Polish premium tank with the top speed of 75 km/h or, just a tank that could be in the future EU tank tree.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Am i the only one who read Cupcake Tank?

    ReplyDelete
  15. ...is it just me or does this have "cheap Saint-Chamond copy" written all over it? What it wins in reduced hull overhang it loses in being pointlessly tall and probably worrisomely prone to tipping over...

    ReplyDelete
  16. the designers of this tank were probably smoking something, but it could be used as a tier 2 TD.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.