Landships II

Tim R · Hero

Looking for a comprehensive list of British Tank names per company

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

An older reference is "British Tank Markings and Names, the Unit Markings, Individual Names and Paint Colours of British Armoured Fighting Vehicles, 1914-1945" by B.T. White, Arms and Armour Press, 1978, out of print but listed for sale by Abebooks. Trevor Pidgeon's "The Tanks at Flers" (Fairmile, 1995) lists the known tank names for that engagement, as do Gibot and Gorczynski for Cambrai in "Following the Tanks" (1999). A number of unit histories and war diaries of various tank companies and battalions are available from the Bovington Tank Museum.

As an aside, if any of the forum members have a copy of White's book, I would be most interested to hear his description of the "Solomon" camouflage scheme.

Centurion · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

As an aside, if any of the forum members have a copy of White's book, I would be most interested to hear his description of the "Solomon" camouflage scheme.

Its isn't a lot

"The first British Mark I tanks rolled off the assembly line in a standard grey finish and it was left to Lt.Col Solomon (who was a peace time artist) of the Royal Engineers, to design and, with the aid of a detachment of men, paint a camouflage scheme on the tanks. Solomon's system consisted of patches of red, green, blue and brown and was used on the first tanks in action on the Somme in 1916. Hereafter, this scheme fell by the wayside and in most cases the tanks were left in Plain grey. Towards the end of the Great War a type of Khaki -green (probably similar to the Admiralty's Daimler Khaki -green) or khaki-brown described as 'a neutral brown colour' came into use."

Centurion · Legend

White lists all the tanks for F (6th Bat) Tank Corps

I've typed up one of the companies

F (6th) Bat Tank Forps Aug - Nov 1917
No 16 coy
F1- Firespite
F2- Frivolous
F3- Frolic
F4- Flirt
F5- Firefly/Fervent
F6- Feu d'Artifice
F7- Feu de Ciel
F8- Freemason
F9- Feu Follet
F10- Feu d'Efer
F11- Fizyama
F12- Friar Tuck
F13- Falcon
F15- Fifinella
F16- no name (wireless tank)
F17- Follow the Crowd (supply Tank)
F19- Fill Up (supply tank)

The thread 'On the Beach' in this forum lists all the tanks available at Gaza

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

Thanks for the excerpt from White's book,Centurion. White's description of the Solomon scheme differs from other accounts which I have read, but this is a rather obscure subject.

Send me an e-mail, Tim, if you would like the info from the appendices of Pidgeon's or Gibot/Gorczynski's books.

Tim R · Hero

Rhomboid

Sorry, My wife cleaned my email address out, I have to rebuild my collection. But I am very interested.

Just email me, I will place you address in my address book.

All the Best

Tim R

ww1nut1918Atyahoo.com

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

The thread 'On the Beach' in this forum lists all the tanks available at Gaza

An addition to the tanks available at Gaza. The names of the Mk. IV replacement tanks are:

HMLS Sir Reginald (Mk. IV male), replaced HMLS Sir Archibald (Mk. I male)
HMLS War Baby II (Mk. IV female), replaced HMLS War Baby (Mk. I female)
HMLS Lady Wingate (Mk. IV female), replaced HMLS Nutty (Mk. I female)

This information is from http://www.chakoten.dk/eng_kvg_gaza.html. Some of the tanks in the table on that site are described as being Mk. II's. The photo on that site of Sir Archibald clearly shows it to be a Mk. I, identifiable by the track adjusting aperture size. There is a photo of HMLS Kia-Ora in "British Mark I Tank 1916" by David Fletcher, and has the same track adjusting aperture as the Mk. I tank. The only tank left is HMLS Nutty which was most likely a Mk. I as well.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 01:47, 2006-02-28

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 01:54, 2006-02-28

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: The thread 'On the Beach' in this forum lists all the tanks available at Gaza An addition to the tanks available at Gaza. The names of the Mk. IV replacement tanks are: HMLS Sir Reginald (Mk. IV male), replaced HMLS Sir Archibald (Mk. I male) HMLS War Baby II (Mk. IV female), replaced HMLS War Baby (Mk. I female) HMLS Lady Wingate (Mk. IV female), replaced HMLS Nutty (Mk. I female) This information is from http://www.chakoten.dk/eng_kvg_gaza.html. Some of the tanks in the table on that site are described as being Mk. II's. The photo on that site of Sir Archibald clearly shows it to be a Mk. I, identifiable by the track adjusting aperture size. There is a photo of HMLS Kia-Ora in "British Mark I Tank 1916" by David Fletcher, and has the same track adjusting aperture as the Mk. I tank. The only tank left is HMLS Nutty which was most likely a Mk. I as well.-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 01:47, 2006-02-28 -- Edited by Mark Hansen at 01:54, 2006-02-28

The following photo is probably Nutty (although could be Tiger or War Baby) and is Mk I

Centurion · Legend

Here also is Sir Reginald (photo some times mis captioned as Nutty but Nutty was female). Again a Mk I

Mark Hansen · Legend

Actually, that tank is a female. In the remains of the sponson, you can see where the two machine gun turrets would have been fitted.

Tim R · Hero

Thanks every body, I really appreciate the kind help.

All the Best

Tim R

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Actually, that tank is a female. In the remains of the sponson, you can see where the two machine gun turrets would have been fitted.

No its a male. Look at the shape of the sponson - the top can be clearly seen and the rear end is straight across(I've ringed it on the enclosed picture) which is characteristic of Male tanks. Females had symetrical sponsons with a bevel shape at both ends.

Centurion · Legend

Just to add to the above post I made

Both photos are of tanks destroyed in the bastion in 2nd Gaza. records show that only two tanks were destroyed here Nutty and Sir Archibald. As these two photos are clearly of different tanks (one is nose down the other nose up) and the first (nose up) is very clearly female one has to assume that the second (nose down) must be Sir Archibaldand and therefore male. If this is not the case then we have a whole new mystery.

Michel Boer · Brigadier

Speaking of Sir Archibald: does anyone have clear pictures of this vehicle? I've seen on one picture that it had some construction fixed on the roof.
I'm also not sure if it had any other markings (numbers?) apart from the vehicle's name on the sides and front.

Michel.

Centurion · Legend

Michel Boer wrote:

Speaking of Sir Archibald: does anyone have clear pictures of this vehicle? I've seen on one picture that it had some construction fixed on the roof.I'm also not sure if it had any other markings (numbers?) apart from the vehicle's name on the sides and front.Michel.

Most (if not all) of the Gaza tanks appear to have had some vertical poles fitted to the roof. As these tasks were tanks were tasked with carrying forward supplies as well as having a fighting role one can only assume that these were extemporised 'luggage racks'

Mark Hansen · Legend

It's the shape of the sponson that shows it's a female. It has a squared off front, which is a female characteristic. The male tapers towards the hull. It also has the 2 positions for the MG turrets. And the sponson is divided all the way to the back. Males very clearly have only the forward half open. The tank in that shot, even allowing for shell damage, has no armour at the rear of the sponson.

P.S: Forgot to mention the rivet pattern. It divides the female in two equal sections top to bottom. On the male, there is a large section towards the front and a small section to the rear.

P.P.S.: Male sponsons, except Mother also had a length of angle iron fixed across the top of the sponson. This can be often covered by mud. Females had a flat sponson top.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 22:35, 2006-02-28

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 22:37, 2006-02-28

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 22:45, 2006-02-28

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Females had symetrical sponsons with a bevel shape at both ends.

The female sponson was wider at the rear, to allow for some forward firing arc for the rear turret and to fit a door, albeit small, into the sponson.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Michel Boer wrote:

Speaking of Sir Archibald: does anyone have clear pictures of this vehicle? I've seen on one picture that it had some construction fixed on the roof.I'm also not sure if it had any other markings (numbers?) apart from the vehicle's name on the sides and front.Michel.

There is also the shield that once covered the hydraulic jack for the tail wheels. It had "Sir Archibald" on it as well. This shield was also fitted to "Pincher". Why the shields were kept is unclear; they certainly didn't need to protect the jack as it had been removed, along with the tail wheels, before the tanks had arrived at Gaza. And not all Mk. I's appear to have had the shield fitted even if they did have tail wheels.

P.S.: The studs on the rear roof section are most likely for burster plates (never fitted).

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 23:16, 2006-02-28

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: Females had symetrical sponsons with a bevel shape at both ends. The female sponson was wider at the rear, to allow for some forward firing arc for the rear turret and to fit a door, albeit small, into the sponson.

Maybe and maybe not but they weren't square ended as the one in the photo is. Looking at a photo of the rear of a Mark I sponson (fitted to our old friend the perfect lady) I can see no door however small in the sponson and this sponson has the same beveled corner as the front.

Mark Hansen · Legend

I've attached a close-up scan of "The Perfect Lady" and D13 "Delilah" showing where the rear sponson door is in the case of "The Perfect Lady" and where it was in the case of D13.

There is an almost perfect shot showing the top of a female sponson at http://www.landships.freeservers.com/mark1-3_info_walkaround.htm. The picture in question is at the bottom of the article, showing Bovington's Mk. II. It is in the fourth row from the top, in the right hand column. The sponson definitely does widen towards the rear.

Mark Hansen · Legend

The bottom portion of the sponson in your photo has the beveled shape. It also has no armour between it and the top of the sponson which it should have if it was a male. There is still the matter of the two MG turret positions.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

Here are two further views, from the port side this time, of the nose-down wreck, from the AWM collection. I think the last 3 letters of "Nutty" can be made out in one of them. The odd straightened appearance of the rear edge of the starboard sponson roof is likely due to deformity from blast damage - notice that the line of rivets along this edge is not visible.

"The A.I.F. in Sinai and Palestine" by H.S. Gullett gives the following accounts of the tank casualties at 2nd Gaza: 1) ...on the morning of the 17th...one tank..which was in support of a brigade of the 54th Division on the right came under heavy artillery fire soon after dawn, and after receiving three direct hits was set on fire and put out of action. 2) ...on the morning of April 19th...one tank in front of the 52nd Division was boldly driven forward and reached Outpost Hill; but the infantry was unable to follow, and the tank, after demoralizing the enemy and causing considerable losses in his trenches, was set on fire by his artillery and burnt out. 3) ...on the morning of the 19th...when the leading men were about 1200 yards from the (Tank) redoubt, a British tank, "The Nutty", took up the lead...and going on surely and boldly, quickened the pace of the battalions that followed it. But no sooner did it appear than every enemy gun within range switched, as though automatically, on to it, and in a few minutes it was obscured by dozens of bursting shells...Meanwhile the tank had been in difficulties in a patch of broken ground; after getting clear, it's crew temporarily lost direction...Discovering his error, the dashing officer in charge returned over his tracks. This movement took place on top of the little ridge; the vast, cumbersome machine, silhouetted on the skyline...was swallowed up in a barrage of shell-fire...the tank recovered it's position and was heading again for the redoubt...Two enemy batteries of four guns each were now shooting point-blank at the tank at a range of only about 400 yards, but with miraculous luck the great vehicle rolled on...through the wire entanglements, over the outer circle of trenches, until it reached the centre of the redoubt...There, hit several times in quick succession by the enemy gunners, it broke down and burst into flames.

Centurion · Legend

If the nose down tank is 'Nutty' what is the nose up tank? Only two tanks were knocked out in the 'tank redoubt' which is were both photos were said to have been taken.

Mark Hansen · Legend

It's possible that one or both photos have been mis-captioned. Wouldn't be the first time and it probably won't be the last.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

David Fletcher, in "The British Tanks, 1915-19", writing about 2nd Gaza, states that Sir Archibald was the tank knocked out on April 17, and that War Baby was destroyed in the attack on Outpost Hill on the 19th. I suspect that the "nose-up" female wreck is War Baby, and that the "nose-down" wreck is Nutty at the Tank redoubt. The damaged tanks at the Third Battle of Gaza were both said to be repairable, but the two female wrecks in the above photos appear beyond repair, suggesting that they date from 2nd Gaza.

Mark Hansen · Legend

I goofed a little . Mother did have the angle iron on the cab roof. Rechecked photos and had eyes rechecked today.

P.S.: Cab roof? CAB ROOF?? I meant sponson roof!! . Eyes good, typing bad.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 12:14, 2006-03-02

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

It's possible that one or both photos have been mis-captioned. Wouldn't be the first time and it probably won't be the last.

There was quite a bit of correspondance on the subject in the Great War Forum. It would appear that the photo of the nose up tank might have been taken by a German official photographer (Fritz Groll, the head of the photography and the survey unit of the German Squadron 300, who served in Palestine from 1916 to 1918) and therefore taken just after 2nd Gaza. It would seem that he was the source of the indication that this was one of the tanks that reached the Redoubt and one would have thought that he would have been in a position to know. The photo of the nose down tank has a British soldier in shot and therefore is likely to have been taken post 3rd Gaza when the position was finally taken from the Turks. I wonder if these might actually have been of the same tank, the difference of position and extra damage being caused by the British artillery bombardment of the redoubt at the begining of 3rd Gaza. Unfortunately I can now only access the relevant page and thread in a cached version and threrefore can't reexamine all the photos contained therin.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

It would appear that the photo of the nose up tank might have been taken by a German official photographer (Fritz Groll, the head of the photography and the survey unit of the German Squadron 300, who served in Palestine from 1916 to 1918) and therefore taken just after 2nd Gaza. It would seem that he was the source of the indication that this was one of the tanks that reached the Redoubt and one would have thought that he would have been in a position to know. The photo of the nose down tank has a British soldier in shot and therefore is likely to have been taken post 3rd Gaza when the position was finally taken from the Turks. I wonder if these might actually have been of the same tank, the difference of position and extra damage being caused by the British artillery bombardment of the redoubt at the begining of 3rd Gaza. Unfortunately I can now only access the relevant page and thread in a cached version and threrefore can't reexamine all the photos contained therin.

If the nose up photo was taken first, then they cannot be of the same tank. In the nose up photo, the left track adjuster (as viewed from the front of the tank) has been destroyed. In the nose down shot, it is intact.

If the nose down photo was taken first, then the artillery bombardment must have pushed the tank uphill and pushed the roof back down onto the tank. These photos cannot be of the same tank in either case.

Centurion · Legend

So two different females. As only one female reached the redoubt one is misplaced - but which one? If Fritz Groll really did take the nose up picture it has to be the earlier photo and taken when the position was still in Turkish ownership but idf so was he accurate in positioning it?