How many of the Mk I males at Gaza were disabled by enemy action? I recently obtained a fairly poor photo which shows a disabled Mk I male at Gaza and would like to be certain of which one it is. The tank itself has had it's rear roof panels removed.
I'd be interested in knowing how you know this is a photo from Palestine.
I'm not sure how many tanks were knocked out out 2nd Gaza, but I think two females (Nutty and War Baby) and one male (Sir Archibald?) were destroyed. These three were replaced by three Mark IVs (the females Lady Wingate and War Baby II/Revenge, the male Sir Reginald).
I've seen a photo of the left side of a male Mark I (that David Fletcher identifies as Pincher) with what appears to be small penetrations of the upper hull and sponson. The damage is nothing like that shown in your photo. This might actually be Sir Archibald, of which there is another photo of its right side after being knocked out, but with little visible damage.
There is also a photo of Otazel on the beach with its right track peeled up on to the top the front horn - not the normal way of breaking the track for maintenance. Otazel was damaged but recovered I believe, but I'm not sure where.
So a match for the damage shown in your photo isn't obvious (if it was of course, you would have known which tank it is!). I hope other forum members might be able to shed more light.
I'd be interested in knowing how you know this is a photo from Palestine...
A fair question. The truth is I don't know. All I have to go on is the inscription on the rear {Damaged by the Turks} and the ebay description. The other photos in the group are of some of the EEF tanks. From the photo itself the only certainties are that it is a male (shell holders) and a Mk I (no wedge shaped roof hatch).
...There is also a photo of Otazel on the beach with its right track peeled up on to the top the front horn - not the normal way of breaking the track for maintenance. Otazel was damaged but recovered I believe, but I'm not sure where...
I had considered that it may be Otazel after recovery. The damage in this photo has destroyed about 6 rollers, which I would imagine would affect it fairly badly on rough ground but on a reasonably even surface shouldn't cause too much trouble.
I have added one of the other shots. I had to adjust the contrast to show it better. It's a Mk I female from Gaza (or so I'm told) with the trestles often seen on "Sir Archibald". It also has the roof studs often seen on the Gaza tanks. P.S.: Forgot to mention that the hydraulic jack is also just visible.
I don't think that tank can be one of the three destroyed at 2nd Gaza as the various photos of those in various stages of disintegration have their sponsons in place. On this photo someone has been able to remove them and move them a little distance away away - not something easily done on the battlefield. Nor do I think its the one on the beach (I'm still not wholy convinced with the interpretation of the name as Otazel) as the various photos of that do not show damage to the same extent.
Nice photos, Mark. I would agree with your guess that the damaged tank is HMLS Otazel after recovery and repair. According to the war diary, the "No.5" tank attacked along the beach at 3rd Gaza until it was put out of action and abandoned. The Turks then attempted to further damage it with an explosive charge. There was some doubt as to whether the tank could be restored to running condition, but both of the tanks damaged in this battle were recovered. The fractured plates seen in Mark's photo seem to be in the same location as the site of the explosion which blew off the beach tank's starboard track. Does the photo of the tank on the beach show the No.5 tank? I think it most likely does, since the other tanks seem to have been used somewhat more inland, and the only other damaged tank received a shell through the roof. Is the tank on the beach HMLS Otazel? With respect to your doubts, Centurion, I do think the name "Otazel" can just be made out in the beach photo. You may also recall a thread on the Great War Forum which was joined by a descendant of one of Otazel's crew, who stated that he recognized the photo. Dave, I think that Mr. Fletcher has probably mis-captioned his photo as Pincher when it is, in fact, Sir Archibald. The tank in his photo appears to have been burnt out, as happened to Sir Archibald. There is no mention in the war diary that Sir Archibald was ever recovered.
However the picture on the beach, which is clearly after the battle (soldiers strolling along the beech etc), does not show the damage shown on Mark's original photo. Even with the shadow if you magnify the beach photo you can see the bottom of the plates intact with rivets and all. Are you suggesting the Turks came back later and blew it up?
Centurion, I would agree that the beach photo was likely taken after the Turkish withdrawal from Gaza, and that the damage seen in Mark's photo is not obvious in the beach photo. The area is somewhat obscured by shadow, but no large pieces of plate are missing. I would speculate that the force of the explosion fractured the brittle armour plate, and that this part of the side plate either fell out when the tank was moved during recovery, or was removed when it was repaired. Regarding the No.5 tank, the war diary mentions that the force of the explosion was sufficient to badly shatter and distort the front plates, smash the crankcase, bend the crankshaft and break the vibration damper. The intention after recovery was to refurbish this tank as a supply or instruction vehicle.
