Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> References -> Retrospective corrections
Post Info TOPIC: Retrospective corrections
Centurion


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Retrospective corrections
Permalink   

I thought that it might be useful and a guide to newer members if we had a thread to highlight those places in otherwise impecable reference books where either captions are incorrect or photos are possibly mis leading. As a starter here is an first review of Tanks of the World 1915 -1945.


Page 69 item 5 captioned Mk I Female is actually a Tank Museum 'fake' and is a Mk II with wheels added.
Page 70 item 15 captioned Mk IV Hermaphrodite is probably a Mk V Hermaphrodite as the crew to the rear appear to be sitting on a raised part of the tank (the commanders cuppola) and there is a hatch in the roof of the drivers cab. Incidently I've never seen a genuine photo of a Mk IV Hermaphrodite
Page 72 item 21 captiones as a Mk V with unditching spars but is either a Mk II or Mk III (see rivets on cab and Mk Vs did not use unditching spars
Page 72 item 23 Warning this tank is number 9752 which was 'experimental' - ie a trials machine to which all sorts could be bolted or unbolted. There are many shots of this tank in many poses but it would be unwise to draw any conclusions about anything from them.


 


In addition I have doubts about Page 76 item 34 captioned as Whippet prototype as various texts suggest that the first prototype had a turret.



__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions
Aleksandr


Captain

Status: Offline
Posts: 83
Date:
Permalink   

Yes, in is very interesting, but where we can take this review?

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Centurion wrote:

Page 70 item 15 captioned Mk IV Hermaphrodite is probably a Mk V Hermaphrodite as the crew to the rear appear to be sitting on a raised part of the tank (the commanders cuppola) and there is a hatch in the roof of the drivers cab. Incidently I've never seen a genuine photo of a Mk IV Hermaphrodite.
If there is a clear view of the cab front, check the vision flaps. I've attached a picture showing the differences in cab fronts between the two. I don't have "Tanks of the World" but I suspect that picture is the same as the one on the TANKS! website which is also identified as a Mk IV hermaphrodite.
Another point of identification is the forward towing point. The Mk V has a shackle fitted instead of the two triangular plates seen on earlier Mk's.
The cab roof hatch was installed on some Mk IV's and could be the same size as a Mk V cab roof hatch.

Attachments
__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Centurion wrote:

Page 72 item 21 captiones as a Mk V with unditching spars but is either a Mk II or Mk III (see rivets on cab and Mk Vs did not use unditching spars
This photo is probably a Mk III but check against the attached picture of cab front differences. This photo is probably the same one that appears on the TANKS! website which is also described as a Mk V. I think that "Tanks of the World" was the source of most of the photos on that website.

Attachments
__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Some corrections for "A New Excalibur"



  1. Page 97: Tank captioned as a Mk I is a Mk III.
  2. Page 103: Same tank as above.
  3. Page 169: Tank captioned as a Mk V is a Mk IV.
  4. Page 206 centre: Tank captioned as a Mk IV is a Mk I.
  5. Back end-paper: Tank captioned as a Mk I is a Mk III.

The back end-paper tank by its profile alone could be either a Mk II or a Mk III. The identifying feature is the WD number 804.


Unidentified tanks in this book are:



  1. Page 139: Tank is a Mk V.
  2. Page 170: Tank is a Mk V*.
  3. Page 184: Tanks are Mk V's.
  4. Page 185: Tank is a Mk IV.

P.S.: These corrections are only for British rhomboids.



-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 12:01, 2006-06-12

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

The AWM also has photos of rhomboids that have an incorrect designation.
The photo number with the corrected designation follow:



  1. A00226. Mk IV is actually a Mk I.

  2. A02855. Mk IV is actually a Mk II.

  3. C01379. Mk II is actually a Mk I. †

  4. E03100. Mk IV is actually a Mk V.

  5. E03883. Mk V is actually a Mk V*.

  6. E03915. Mk IV is actually a Mk V.

  7. E04922. Mk V is actually a Mk V*.

  8. H02113. Mk II is actually a Mk I.

  9. H02114. Mk IV is actually a Mk V.

  10. H02132. Mk II is actually a Mk I.

  11. P00743.016. Mk II is actually a Mk V.

Two more photos are described as being British Army Tanks attacking German positions. These are German A7V's in mock attacks against Germans. The photo numbers are:



  1. H13451.

  2. H13456.

These photos probably exist in other museums but whether they are correctly described there I do not know.


† = This photo cannot be viewed online but the description says "A Mark II tank, possibly female, lies abandoned east of Pozieres, damaged by shell fire. The wheels at the back were designed to aid in steering but were not very effective." The only tank type to have tail wheels is the Mk I. As pointed out by Centurion above, Bovington's Mk II was fitted with a set of tailwheels to make it into a Mk I.



__________________
Centurion


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink   

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: Page 70 item 15 captioned Mk IV Hermaphrodite is probably a Mk V Hermaphrodite as the crew to the rear appear to be sitting on a raised part of the tank (the commanders cuppola) and there is a hatch in the roof of the drivers cab. Incidently I've never seen a genuine photo of a Mk IV Hermaphrodite. If there is a clear view of the cab front, check the vision flaps. I've attached a picture showing the differences in cab fronts between the two. I don't have "Tanks of the World" but I suspect that picture is the same as the one on the TANKS! website which is also identified as a Mk IV hermaphrodite. Another point of identification is the forward towing point. The Mk V has a shackle fitted instead of the two triangular plates seen on earlier Mk's.The cab roof hatch was installed on some Mk IV's and could be the same size as a Mk V cab roof hatch.

Thanks Mark - its definitely a Mk V (and apparently driving down a sunlit German city street so in 1919) I'll check the tanks site but I think its a different photo (but I suspect the same street) 


So I still have not seen a photo of a genuine Mk IV hermaphrodite



__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

The IWM doesn't have a lot of their photos available to view online, at least not that I could find. Of the photos I could check, there were only 2 that had mistaken designations:



  1. Q 3545: Mk VI is actually a Mk IV.

  2. Q 6285: Mk III is actually a Mk II.

The first photo is more than likely the result of a typographical error. The second photo is definitely a Mk II and not a Mk III. The WD number, located near the shadow cast by the barrel of the 6 pounder is 787.



__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

One more to add to the AWM list. H02128. 2 Mk II females is actually 1 Mk I male and 1 Mk I female.

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

The TANKS! website in the British heavy tank section has a few misnamed rhomboids:



  1. In the Mark I section, the photo labelled Mark I (female) is actually the Bovington Mark II with tailwheels.

  2. In the Mark IV section, the photo labelled Mark IV hermaphrodite is actually a Mark V hermaphrodite.

  3. In the Mark V section, the photo labelled Mark V with unditching spars is actually a Mark III.

 



__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Unfortunately, there are also a few misidentified tanks in the Landships site. (Sorry Peter)


On the Contemporary photos page:


mk1bw2.jpg is actually a Mk II


On the More contemporary photos page:



  1. Mk1_1.jpg (captioned as Mk I) is actually a Mk II.

  2. Mk1_2.jpg (captioned as Mk I) is actually a Mk II.

  3. Mk1_3.jpg (captioned as Mk I) is actually a Mk II.

  4. Mk4_6.jpg (captioned as Mk IV) is actually a Mk V.

  5. MkX.jpg (captioned as Mk IX) is actually the American steam tank.


__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

A few more probable errors at the AWM website:



  1. A01921. Mk IV is probably a Mk V (WD number quoted for tank is 9034 which is a Mk V WD number)

  2. B02945. Mk IV is probably a Mk I (The description fits the Mk I which was used as a strong point by the Turks)

  3. E04923. Mk V is probably Mk V* (Tank is named as "Odysseus" which was a Mk V*)

  4. E04938. Mk IV is probably a Mk V (Description is the same as E04937 which is a Mk V)

  5. E04941. Mk IV is probably a Mk V* (WD number quoted for the tank is 9890 which is a Mk V* WD number)†

These must remain probables for now because they are currently not available to view online.


† = This photo is also described as being of a male tank. The WD number is for a female tank so either the number has been misread or the tank is a possible hermaphrodite. Alternatively, the number may not be the WD number.



__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   


Mark Hansen wrote:



3. C01379. Mk II is actually a Mk I. †



† = This photo cannot be viewed online but the description says "A Mark II tank, possibly female, lies abandoned east of Pozieres, damaged by shell fire. The wheels at the back were designed to aid in steering but were not very effective."

This photo has since been put online and definitely is a Mk I (D13 "Delilah"). Unfortunately the description has not been updated. Thanks to Rhomboid for pointing this one out.

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

A few corrections for "British Mark I Tank 1916":



  1. Plate B. Colour illustration of "Mother" does not have the angle iron fitted to the sponson roof.

  2. Plate C. Colour illustration of A13 "We're All In It" is incorrectly captioned as A11

  3. Plate D. Colour cutaway of male tank 742 does not have the angle iron fitted to the sponson roof.

  4. Plate F. Colour illustration of male Mk III has Mk I type track adjuster.

  5. Plate G. Colour illustration of Mk I supply tank "Dodo" has incorrect battalion number B58 instead of B57. Compare with the photo of "Dodo" supplied by Centurion in The early supply tanks.

In addition to the above, there is a probable error on page 35 as pointed out by Rhomboid in Identifying Gaza wrecks.



__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

A photo that isn't incorrectly described as such but the accompanying text certainly does imply that it is a Mk IV rather than a Mk III. This picture is from "Landships: British Tanks in the First World War" by David Fletcher.


The identifying feature is the 3 baffles outlined under the canvas. The missing sponsons also point towards it being a Mk III rather than a Mk IV, due to the sponsons not needing removal for rail transport on a Mk IV. Unlike the Mk IV, the sponsons on a Mk III could not be folded into the tank and would need to be removed.



-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 00:50, 2006-08-08

Attachments
mk3_68.JPG (178.9 kb)
__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

A small error on An Unfortunate Region. The tank described as a Mk VI is actually a Mk VIII.

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

A few corrections for "The Landships of Lincoln":



  1. Page 38. Tank captioned as a Mk I is a Mk II.

  2. Page 76. Tank captioned as a Mk II is a Mk I.

  3. Page 101. In the table of survivors, the Mk II survivor is listed as a female. As originally built it was a male WD No. 785.

  4. Page 101. In the table of survivors, the Mk IV at the AWM, Canberra is listed as a male. It is definitely a female

 



__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

A small error on http://www.1914-1918.net/tanks.htm. The tank photo (mkVtank.jpg) captioned as a Mk V is actually a Mk V*.

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Mark Hansen wrote:


The AWM also has photos of rhomboids that have an incorrect designation.
The photo number with the corrected designation follow:



  1. H02114. Mk IV is actually a Mk V.
  2. H02132. Mk II is actually a Mk I. 



The above two photos have been corrected. Also, D13 "Delilah" (C01379) has had it's caption corrected. Unfortunately P00743.016 has had it's caption altered from a Mk II to a Mk IV which is closer but still wrong. It's still a Mk V.

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

My email to the AWM must have been taken seriously! Nearly every single photo has had it's caption corrected. There are only 4 that have incorrect captions; these are as follows:



  1. A00226. Mk IV is actually a Mk I.
  2. B02945. Mk IV is actually a Mk I.
  3. E04938. Mk V* is actually a Mk V.
  4. P00743.016. Mk IV is actually a Mk V.

and both the A7V photos described as British tanks have been corrected.


P.S.: Posted too soon: Photo P05093.027 has also been posted with an incorrect caption. It's a Mk I female, not a Mk IV.



-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 14:44, 2006-09-18

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Another photo has appeared on the AWM website with an incorrect description. Photo G01534J is described as a Mk IV male tank. It is actually a Mk II female tank WD No. 586.

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Mark Hansen wrote:


E04941. Mk IV is probably a Mk V* (WD number quoted for the tank is 9890 which is a Mk V* WD number)†


† = This photo is also described as being of a male tank. The WD number is for a female tank so either the number has been misread or the tank is a possible hermaphrodite. Alternatively, the number may not be the WD number.



This photo has been put online with the corrected caption and the WD number is also correct. This is quite possibly a Mk V* hermaphrodite. Of course, being unable to see the other side it cannot be definitely confirmed unless a photo turns up showing the port side of 9890.

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

One photo at www.gwpda.org captioned as "British Mark IV tanks, lead tank is Mark V, designed to carry supporting infantry" is in fact of a Mk V tank flanked by Mk V*'s. All three tanks are also hermaphrodites.

__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Mark Hansen wrote:

Another photo has appeared on the AWM website with an incorrect description. Photo G01534J is described as a Mk IV male tank. It is actually a Mk II female tank WD No. 586.


And has since been corrected. A longer description has also been added.



__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Mark Hansen wrote:

E04938. Mk IV is probably a Mk V (Description is the same as E04937 which is a Mk V)


This has been corrected but by too much! The tank is now incorrectly described as a Mk V* instead of a Mk V.



__________________
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Another AWM mistake: Photo number P05093.027 is listed as a MK IV when it is in fact a Mk I.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> References -> Retrospective corrections
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard