On quite a few surviving heavy tanks, the internal WD numbers, found above the secondary gear position on Mk IV and earlier or above the forward ammunition storage on Mk V's (and possibly V*'s), are missing. I imagine a few were souvenired by the Germans when they captured tanks but I wonder also if removal by the original crews was also responsible? After reading "A Company of Tanks", I wonder if any were used by the crews for "the decoration of their huts" (Ch. VI P. 51, or P. 108 in the original).
Could I point out that the Brussels Mark IV (4093) has its WD number stamped on its hull front. I've marked the position on the attached photo, which I've pinched off the main Landships site. (I don't know who the photo belongs to, and I apologise sincerely if I've infringed any copyright.) Fact is, I don't have a photo that shows this more clearly, and I don't expect to be in Brussels again till October.
The inscription reads (top line) Reg No (bottom line) 4093. So that's another name for these numbers - registration number.
Anyone know if other preserved Mark IVs carry similar stampings? Or if other Marks do?
I've checked the photos I took of the AWM Mk IV but it doesn't appear to have any number stamped in the same location. It's very hard to make anything out though. The tank has had a hard display life. The area where the Brussels tank has it's number has a hammered appearance on the AWM Mk IV. The interior shots of the Brussels Mk IV show the numbers to be missing and what looks like a darker area where they should be. Perhaps the Brussels example was given a non-removable number.
Hi The hammered finish might indicate the reg no in this location has been delibrately removed...and that the angle iron is not hardened steel.....however I would be suprised if there was a regulation location for this and think it may be possible that such numbers and their locations would be at the discretion of the manufacturer or even the guy or gal given the task of applying the number, also these numbers could be to identify components during manufacture given the difficulty in drilling new holes in armour ......however given the state of tolarences in engineering at this time(it fits where it touches) I think its quite possible that such numbers would be dublicated on othere components..... this is the kind of thing that I was trying to get across in a previous post (reg no)....
I did wonder if the implication of this stamping was that the angle iron wasn't hardened. Not being a metallurgist I couldn't say, but it did occur to my simple brain that perhaps the metal was stamped and then face hardened - would that work?
I also agree that it seems likely that other components would have this stamp, and that manufacturer's discretion is likely. I believe that the Brussels Mark IV was built by Metropolitan. Perhaps other manufacturers didn't stamp, or didn't do it in that place. And perhaps on some preserved vehicles there's just too much paint to see the stamp(s).
Hi Gwyn, the piece in question looks like folded metal to me rather then angle iron which is usually rolled in that form and generally has a sharper edge, I think its unlikely to be hardened steel for that reason but also because its very difficult to prevent distortion occuring during the reheating and quenching of the metal....I think its likely that only the flat plates are face hardened nickel steel....in any case the carborising process which is the main element of f/h steel takes place during the manufacture of the plates and takes probarbly days rather then hours....do you know what type of armour plate was used?
How appropriate you should know all that, Ironsides!
No, I have no idea what type of armour plate is used. I might have it in a book somewhere, but I can't even think where to start looking. I will bow to your knowledge on the difference between angle iron and folded metal, though I note that David Fletcher describes it as angle iron in his recent Osprey.
Meant to add, on a more bureaucratic note, these numbers can't really be described as WD (War Department) numbers. That's because I think I'm right in saying they were allocated to tank orders by the Statistical Branch of the Mechanical Warfare Department of the Ministry of Munitions - nothing to do with the War Office (or department) at all.
"though I note that David Fletcher describes it as angle iron in his recent Osprey."
the curve looks to great for this to be angle iron, strickly speaking, if its an even thickness then it would be folded plate, the whole point of producing angle iron is it varies in thickness and is thickest at the angle making a much more rigid piece..... take a look at mark hansens pic the two fittings either side of the " angle " are folded plate all though not as much (dont ask me how I know, put it down to experience) but all these are probarbly folded with the same type if not the same machine......
if what you say about the numbers is correct then that would make them production numbers......
