Landships II

d_fernetti · Hero

From which tank?

Rectalgia · Legend

That photo is published in the AWM collection as photograph H09572 (www.awm.gov.au/collection/H09572/) from which it can be seen the source is credited as "British Official Photograph L1064". Perhaps there is more information wherever that is held?

Ah, I see it's in the IWM collection as Q 9247 (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205193140 ) and notes there:

"A carrier pigeon being released from a port-hole in the side of a tank near Albert, 9 August 1918. It's a Mark V tank of the 10th Battalion, Tank Corps attached to the III Corps during the Battle of Amiens."

The (partial) list of the tanks fighting on that day (a Friday) is given in https://sites.google.com/site/landships/home/narratives/1918/100days/amiens/10-battalion-9-august-1918

- But I doubt that was an actual "combat" picture and the location is perhaps not quite right for battle that day either ...

Regards,

Steve

d_fernetti · Hero

I suspected so... by the armament and the geometry of the door, I'm tempted to say that the photo shows a portion of the rear door from a Whippet Medium A Tank, but I'm unsure about that. Anyway it's a nice close up shot which are rare from period pictures.

Michael Taylor · Lieutenant-Colonel

But if you look at the less cropped version...

hmm

d_fernetti · Hero

Damn! A Mark IV?

Michael Taylor · Lieutenant-Colonel

Or the well-known silent film star, Gloria Sponson.

d_fernetti · Hero

I was mislead by the fact that Mark IVs were armed with Lewis guns.

Tanker · Field Marshal

Bonjour,

The machine gun is an "Hotchkissette", like on the French Mark V*, received in Bourron, in the last months of the war.

Bonne soirée - Michel

d_fernetti · Hero

So this well could be a French Mark V tank? Mordious!

Tanker · Field Marshal

And, perhaps, a French military photo from SPCA (Service Photographique et Cinématogrphique de l'Armée), who is now ECPA-D.

Every day, the French Army gave official military photos to the British and the American Army, photos now in IWM and Nara collections.

I don't know if this british machine was also on British Mark . . . .

m83 · Sergeant

I have always been curious about the number on the upper hinge of this photo. Is it just the Reg No of the hinge or is it a tank number?

zoom into the photo in this link and you will see the number I refer to...... www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205193140

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Well, I had never spotted that before. This is a Mark IV Male sponson, serial 4069 if I read it correctly. Mark IVs in the block 4001 - 4100 were built by Armstrong Whitworth and unlike Mark IVs built by others were stamped with their serial numbers in three places (at least, three I've found). One is the hull front, and the others are on the upper hinges of the sponson door. Lodestar III displays these stamps, which is where I found them. 4069 served with 1st Battalion between 23 March 1918 and 28 March 1918, but I have no later or earlier history.

HOWEVER, this could still be a Mark V tank of 10th Battalion in August 1918! This is because from April/May 1918, Mark IV Male sponsons were transferred onto Mark V Female hulls to make Composites/Hermaphrodites. As has been noted, it doesn't have the Lewis gun you'd expect on a Mark IV. So, my conclusion is that this is a Mark V Composite possibly of 10th Battalion in August 1918, with its 6pdr sponson being taken from Mark IV Male 4069.

And I always thought this was a bit of a boring picture. How wrong!

Gwyn

d_fernetti · Hero

...and the pigeon has a suspiciously Hunnish face.
The plot thickens, gentlemen!
<insert jarring chords here>

-- Edited by d_fernetti on Thursday 29th of January 2015 01:25:59 AM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

... in fact, after thinking about this further, I have an idea which tank this is. Have to go to the paid job now, but will be back this evening.

Gwyn

thorst · Colonel

It is without a doubt not a Mark IV tank, because of this bolted-on plate.

Thorsten

-- Edited by thorst on Thursday 29th of January 2015 11:09:22 AM

Rectalgia · Legend

Gwyn Evans wrote:
... serial 4069 if I read it correctly.

And I always thought this was a bit of a boring picture. How wrong!

Gwyn

Your eyes are fine Gwyn Tank Detail.png

One of my favourite photos (in fuller form) - if only because a colleague assumed it to show the amazing reflexes of a famished tankie snaring a passing snack. Actually all the ones I knew where rather good on the fang (while alleging the fumes put them off their feed). His experience with the breed was evidently similar.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

thorst wrote:
It is without a doubt not a Mark IV tank, because of this bolted-on plate.

Thorsten

Thank you Thorsten. I agree - it is not a Mark IV hull, it's either a Mark V or V* hull. But it is a Mark IV sponson.

The photo with the pigeon was taken by 2/Lt David McLellan. If you search the IWM site for his photos he took a number of 10th Battalion tanks dated 9 August 1918 so I'm inclined to think that the caption could be right. If so, I'm going to suggest that a candidate for this tank is J18. This photo is of J18, a 10th Battalion tank and is another of McLelland's images dated 9 August 1918. The tank is a Mark V but has a Mark IV sponson on the starboard side, just like the tank in the photo of the pigeon. So, I reckon this tank is possibly the tank from which the pigeon was released (or caught, we shall never know).

Gwyn

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Rectalgia wrote:

Your eyes are fine Gwyn
Thank you. I shall cancel my optician's appointment as soon as I can find my glasses.
G

thorst · Colonel

Gwyn Evans wrote:
thorst wrote:
It is without a doubt not a Mark IV tank, because of this bolted-on plate.

Thorsten

Thank you Thorsten. I agree - it is not a Mark IV hull, it's either a Mark V or V* hull. But it is a Mark IV sponson.
The photo with the pigeon was taken by 2/Lt David McLellan. If you search the IWM site for his photos he took a number of 10th Battalion tanks dated 9 August 1918 so I'm inclined to think that the caption could be right. If so, I'm going to suggest that a candidate for this tank is J18. This photo is of J18, a 10th Battalion tank and is another of McLelland's images dated 9 August 1918. The tank is a Mark V but has a Mark IV sponson on the starboard side, just like the tank in the photo of the pigeon. So, I reckon this tank is possibly the tank from which the pigeon was released (or caught, we shall never know).
Gwyn

Sorry, I should have added that I mean only the hull - I was in a hurry when I wrote it.

Your description makes perfectly sense. It is really astonishing what you can find out about such a picture. My hat is off to you!

Thorsten

m83 · Sergeant

Gwyn Evans wrote:
thorst wrote:
It is without a doubt not a Mark IV tank, because of this bolted-on plate.

Thorsten

Thank you Thorsten. I agree - it is not a Mark IV hull, it's either a Mark V or V* hull. But it is a Mark IV sponson.
The photo with the pigeon was taken by 2/Lt David McLellan. If you search the IWM site for his photos he took a number of 10th Battalion tanks dated 9 August 1918 so I'm inclined to think that the caption could be right. If so, I'm going to suggest that a candidate for this tank is J18. This photo is of J18, a 10th Battalion tank and is another of McLelland's images dated 9 August 1918. The tank is a Mark V but has a Mark IV sponson on the starboard side, just like the tank in the photo of the pigeon. So, I reckon this tank is possibly the tank from which the pigeon was released (or caught, we shall never know).
Gwyn

Gwyn, very interesting; may I ask do you know why the sponson was replaced?..........and why with a MKIV sponson?

Kev

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Hi Kev

In my opinion, had the A7V appeared in numbers from April 1918 the Female Mark V would have been obsolete before it reached the battlefield. Even if the designers didn't acknowledge that (and they didn't), the fighting soldiers did. Although the British are remembered as the victors of Villers-Bretonneux, the A7Vs had run both Mark IV Females and Medium As off the battlefield before Frank Mitchell's Male entered the fray. Heinz Guderian, writing in "Panzer Leader", makes a good case that the tank engagement was a German victory. Following the engagement, the British concluded that all tanks needed guns capable of countering other tanks and began a mass programme of converting Female tanks to Composites (aka Hermaphrodites). Now this could have been done by taking one 6 pdr sponson from a Male and transferring it to a Female and vice versa to make two Composites, but that doesn't increase the number of 6 pdrs available to a tank force; it just redistributes them across the battlefield. The better solution was to take Male sponsons from worn out and battle damaged Mark IV Males (all of which were obsolete anyway) and transfer these to Mark V Females, and this is initially what was done.

I intend writing up a proper study of Composites in the coming months.

Gwyn

Gwyn Evans · Legend

P.S. This is another reason why there's no such thing as a Mark IV Composite/Hermaphrodite!

m83 · Sergeant

Hi Gwyn,

many thanks for your answer. I'm pleased that the number shown on the hinge in the photograph has been helpful in your research, it has certainly shed new light on this much published image and goes to show that images have more to offer than what is apparent at first glance.

Kev

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Kev, many thanks for pointing out the number, which I had completely missed. It's true that familiarity breeds contempt so I had ignored this photo as I thought I had seen all it had to tell me. Very poor of me.

Gwyn