Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Mark IV with bisto kid? logo Cambrai?


Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 427
Date:
RE: Mark IV with bisto kid? logo Cambrai?
Permalink   


Centurion, I believe that the C Bn. order of battle posted by the The Gunners Dream on the GWF was for 21/8/17. G and G's ORBAT was for 20/11/17 (please feel free to e-mail me if you would like a copy of G and G's list - their source was the PRO as well).There are a number of differences in the order of battle between the two dates, in tank names and commanders.Many of the Cambrai tank names have gained the "II" suffix suggesting the loss of their predecessor at Ypres.

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink   

But the relationship between the call sign and the name does not change when the tank is replaced (eg. C47 Conqueror is replaced with C47 Conqueror II) For C23 Cynio to become C23 Crusty would require both the original Cynio and Crusty to be lost at Ypres and the new C23 to be given the name Crusty without adding a II! And what then happened to any new C24? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 427
Date:
Permalink   

I suspect that as tanks were knocked out and replaced that the relationship between the company number and name was not strictly maintained. C26, C29, C41 and C42 seemed to have received completely new names between August and November 1917. C31 and C34 appear to have swapped names in this interval. In August there is no C21 tank listed; C22 is namedCurmudgeon, C23 is Cynio (Cynic?) and C24 is Crusty. In November, C21 is named Curmudgeon II, C22 is Cynic, C23 is Crusty andno C24 tank is listed.

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1408
Date:
Permalink   

I agree that there is no strict 1:1 relationship between a tank's name and the call sign.

Incidentally, I'm not sure that call sign is a good name for these numbers, since it implies that tanks could be contacted using their call sign and I'm not sure that's the case.

The contemporary name for these numbers (seen on numerous WW1 documents at The National Archives and at Bovington) is crew number. I think that the original official intention was the serial identified the tank and the crew number the crew. Commanders and their crews complicated matters by introducing names, so officialdom stamped on that by making sure that from Arras they all started with the company letter. Since crews (or at least their officers) are linked to tank names and the crew numbers are (supposed to be) linked to crews there might appear to be a relationship between crew numbers and names, but I don't think it's that simple.

The crew number system just didn't work well, as crews sustained casualties, or transferred between one tank and another as a result of breakdowns etc. Eventually tank crews didn't realise/remember/care that the crew numbers referred to them and not the tank, since soldiers are not administrators and even if they were they had more pressing things to think about. So everything got confused, and it still is today.

At least, that's my interpretation.

__________________

#RevokeArticle50 - Britain to Stay in the EU. 



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1408
Date:
Permalink   

One other observation: the crew number doesn't signify a tank's position in its company either, so far as I can see.

__________________

#RevokeArticle50 - Britain to Stay in the EU. 



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1608
Date:
Permalink   


HiI might also point out that Conqueror II doesnt seem to have the II on the pic posted earlier.....so why should Crusty II have the II......

It would be appreciated if a link to the relevant post on GWR was posted as I cant find it, many thanks

On another note I just noticed that C41 has a number visible 2395 I think....

Cheers

-- Edited by Ironsides at 01:33, 2007-05-06

-- Edited by Ironsides at 01:54, 2007-05-06

Attachments
__________________

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazggimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"

 



Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 427
Date:
Permalink   

Here is the link : http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=73713&st=20&start=20

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink   

Rhomboid wrote:

...In August there is no C21 tank listed; C22 is namedCurmudgeon, C23 is Cynio (Cynic?) and C24 is Crusty. In November, C21 is named Curmudgeon II, C22 is Cynic, C23 is Crusty andno C24 tank is listed.



I noticed this in the posted list at GWF and thought the same thing especially as C33 is listed amongst the other animal names as Crustagean rather than Crustacean, and C54 is Chaticleer instead of Chanticleer. I think the original name would be Cynic rather than Cynio. A transcription error at any point between then and now would easily explain this.

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1608
Date:
Permalink   

Hi all i think it would be a good idea to have tank numbers added to the list/s wherever available asI believe this is likely to resolve the issue.....

Rhomboid thanks for posting the link...

cheers

__________________

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazggimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"

 



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1608
Date:
Permalink   


Hi all, I just posted this on the GWF and thought it best to post it here as well with a few small changes for clarity.....

Apparantly Crusty C24 broke down and didnt take part in the battle of the 21/23rd August 1917 this refers to an ORBAT for that date posted on GWF...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Steve thanks for the info if "Crusty" survived and it seems likely that is the case, I suspect that the photo of C24 crusty was taken at the time of the differential failure, the tank is positioned astride an obstacle apparantly parked.......
In the absence of visible wd numbers on paper or in pictures there may be one othere explanation to the apparant duplication of names... and Crusty isnt the only tank involved, that would be that by Cambrai several tanks have aquired new "call Signs" apparantly during a battalion reshuffle intended to spread the surviving tanks with experienced crews plus repacements out more evenly bettween the companys or for some other reason not yet clear.... I stress this is a theory ...the following is No 8 company no 5 section on the 20/11/17

CURMUDGEON II C.21 no. 2061 (M) 2/Lt. R.L.N. Cubean-previously C22

CYNIC C.22 no. 2731 (F) 2/Lt. D.F. Brundrit- previously C23

CRUSTY C.23 no. 2021 (M) 2/Lt. H.W. Ashforth-previously C24

Other changed call signs in C Batt are as follows:

CELTIC C.8 no. 2044 (M) 2/Lt. VS. ?adham* illegible on original doc C.8 may be in error as previously C.18

CELE(B)RITY II C.26 no. 2888 (F) Lt. J.H. List - replacement for Celebrity C.29

CENTAUR II C.27 no. 2383 (M) 2/Lt. E.C. Wood - replacement for Centaur C.36

CROCODILE II C.34 no. 2877 (F) 2/Lt. R.J. Rew - replacement for Crocodile C.31?

CATERPILLAR II C.31 no. 2400 (F) 2/Lt. A.D. Adams- replacement for Caterpillar C.34

These may not be all as I havent as yet put together a comparison table but its clear that there is no connection bettween the the name, callsign and commander maybe there was at the begining but not by Cambria at least in C Batt......
Although it should be said that some commanders are still commanding tanks of the same name or/and callsign and there replacements.......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result I would suggest that C 23 and C24 Crusty are one and the same tank.......

Cheers



-- Edited by Ironsides at 22:53, 2007-05-08

__________________

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazggimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"

 



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink   

I know that its said that G&G is based on the Cambrai ORBAT but has anyone actually seen the original document? Presumably its also at Kew.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1608
Date:
Permalink   

Centurion wrote:

I know that its said that G&G is based on the Cambrai ORBAT but has anyone actually seen the original document? Presumably its also at Kew.



Hi CenturionI think that should be documents as the Orbat from G+G seems to be a compilation from an unknown number, perhaps their all listed inan appendix..... I only have the Orbat curtousy of Rhomboid( many thanks again)and the book is unfortunatly as rare as hens teethhmm
I suspect that finding all the original paperwork that went into the Orbat would take a fairly major amount of research in itself.......I have to say I'm impressed

There are however many gaps so still plenty of scope for new info...

curiously enough on the orbat the reserve section for G batt has six tank with names all begining with E then G61-66.....Eldorado II G66 etc

Theres also two tanks named Amazon A.47 no 2840 and Amazon IIA.56 no 2885

Cheers


-- Edited by Ironsides at 02:43, 2007-05-10

__________________

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazggimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"

 

Jean-Luc GIBOT

Date:
Sterile discussion
Permalink   


The ORBAT of C Bn for the battle of Cambrai : Crusty was C23 ( it's what I read at Kew, some 20 years ago) there was no C24 at Cambrai ,the crew of C24 was transferred to C23 after 3rd Ypres.it 's a pity to have such discussion 10 years after the publication of "Following the tanks,Cambrai 1917"

__________________
«First  <  1 2 | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard