Landships II

Centurion · Legend

May I pick your brains?

Paratus23 · Sergeant

I guess I'll start with the obvious - this sponson looks like it has a double row of rivets along the top and a central division, so at a glance I would identify it as a mk iv.� Now I'll try to enhance the photo to look more closely.

Dave

Centurion · Legend

The only two photos I have of small Mk III female sponsons do also seem to have a central division in that the side plate isn't one piece even though the sponsons don't fold inwards. Thats why I found the photo in question a problem. I wasn't aware of the double rivet row as an identifier. Do you have a nice clear photo of a Mk III female (small) sponson? This would help.

Mark Hansen · Legend

It's definitely a Mk IV sponson. Here's a comparison I made earlier.

Mark Hansen · Legend

One other point I missed in the comparison is that the�Mk III sponson is made up of three panels (side and two folded ends)�and the Mk IV is made up of eight panels (side and six individual plates). Also, if the photo has enough detail, there are clevises on the front and rear of the Mk III sponson to allow it to be lifted off.

Out of curiosity, does your photo appear to show an absent silencer?

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 07:24, 2007-03-17

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 07:31, 2007-03-17

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

The only two photos I have of small Mk III female sponsons do also seem to have a central division in that the side plate isn't one piece even though the sponsons don't fold inwards...

I would be interested in seeing these because the only small Mk III female sponsons I have seen don't have the dividing strip.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

One other point I missed in the comparison is that the�Mk III sponson is made up of three panels (side and two folded ends)�and the Mk IV is made up of eight panels (side and six individual plates). Also, if the photo has enough detail, there are clevises on the front and rear of the Mk III sponson to allow it to be lifted off.

Out of curiosity, does your photo appear to show an absent silencer?

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 07:24, 2007-03-17

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 07:31, 2007-03-17

No

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote:

The only two photos I have of small Mk III female sponsons do also seem to have a central division in that the side plate isn't one piece even though the sponsons don't fold inwards...
I would be interested in seeing these because the only small Mk III female sponsons I have seen don't have the dividing strip.

My photos are not very clear but there seems to be a simple line and not a dividing strip. This is why I'm looking for a clear photo of a Mk III sponson. I could send the burry photos but since they came off a Tank Museum news letter I'll try and see if a better copy exists first.

The original reason for my enquiry is the Britannia story. I've now ammassed a body of evidence showing almost continuous displays, demos, rallies, expos etc in the Eastern seaboard states and provinces of the US and Canada;from Monteal to Washington�starting in Nov 1917 and running through to at least April 1918. Photographs coupled with dates and locations indicate at least two Mk IVs both being called Britannia (obviously a stage name) Reports in contemporary news papers suggest that one (or both) tanks arrived in North America in Nov 1917. However there is some evidence of an earlier tour in the Mid West cities also of a tank called Britannia. Details are proving hard to find but I have some details of at least two such events. Now the dates that may (and I emphasise may) apply are such that whilst it is technically possible for a Mk IV to have been sent out to the US it would seem odd that this would have been done when the deliveries of the Mk IV were small and late and Tank Corp were desperately trying to scrape up all the Mk IVs they could. Sending a surplus Mk III would make sense (and who would notice the difference?). The sponson I'm questioning might be from one of these rallies in the Mid West. Although the detail isn't good it looked as if it only had a line and not a strip down the middle of the sponson - hence my original query. If it does prove to be a Mk IV�I just have a different mystery to solve.

-- Edited by Centurion at 13:18, 2007-03-17

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:
...However there is some evidence of an earlier tour in the Mid West cities also of a tank called Britannia. Details are proving hard to find but I have some details of at least two such events. Now the dates that may (and I emphasise may) apply are such that whilst it is technically possible for a Mk IV to have been sent out to the US it would seem odd that this would have been done when the deliveries of the Mk IV were small and late and Tank Corp were desperately trying to scrape up all the Mk IVs they could. Sending a surplus Mk III would make sense (and who would notice the difference?). The sponson I'm questioning might be from one of these rallies in the Mid West. Although the detail isn't good it looked as if it only had a line and not a strip down the middle of the sponson - hence my original query. If it does prove to be a Mk IV�I just have a different mystery to solve.

-- Edited by Centurion at 13:18, 2007-03-17

The sponson in your original post definitely is from a Mk IV. The strip is there although quite a few bolts are missing from it - perhaps it had only recently been unfolded and had just enough bolts fitted to prevent it swinging back into the tank.
Another point that I first missed is that there appears to be the rear mounting points for the unditching rails, a definite feature of a Mk IV.

Centurion · Legend

Thanks Mark - I must get a bigger magnifyer or some some upgraded eyeballs. I should also bear in mind my own words on captions. The photo was originally said to have been of 'Britannia' in Chicago which might have suggested this being in mid 1917 as part of�the tour that included Chicago, St Louis and Buffalo. I have since found further evidence that places it in Toronto (but when? now there's the rub - its in summer but which summer?).

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Thanks Mark - I must get a bigger magnifyer or some some upgraded eyeballs. I should also bear in mind my own words on captions...

The other thing I had wondered was whether there might have been a touring faux tank in the US. They seem to have been popular elsewhere. Just take one vehicle chassis, pop a timber tank fa�ade on top and you've got yourself a "tank" with which to awe the populace and generate funds.

Centurion · Legend

Although the Americans seem to have built some dummy tanks for training and deception purposes these all appear to have been in France with one exception - a not very convincing dummy tank used in a victory bond rally in California in late 1918. All the photos I have (and will post when I can get the final details of the text right) show substantial real tanks many crushing things, demolishing walls, climbing barriers etc. There are certainly two real Mk IV females one with Britannia painted between the horns on the front plate and one with a blank plate. They appear at a variety of locations and dates that make it unlikely to be the same tank with the name painted out or in. It actually makes sense to have at least two touring as then any mechanical breakdown doesn't wreck the entire effort.

The Australians appear to have been kings of the dummy tank, I have found photos of a whole slew of them used at various events in different states, some are very lifelike others less so as well as some very realistic deception tanks actually used in action in France.