I have a mystery I cannot resolve. Im posting this on both GWF and Landships to spread the coverage in the hope that some one out there can cast some light. Let me first give a little background. Ive been researching into the tour made by the Mk IV tank Britannia in Canada and the USA in 1917 and 18. Text and photos lead me to believe that there were in fact two tanks, both given the publicity name Britannia (although only one actually bore the name on its front hull). The appear to have first arrived in Canada in Oct 1917 and appeared in parades in a number of Eastern Canadian cities before moving down to the Boston /New York area in Nov 1917 where they appeared in a number of demonstrations and parades in both cities and in surrounding US army camps. Sometime (either late Dec or Jan 1918 it was announced that Britannia would tour the USA and its possible to track the progress of this tour through newspaper reports, diaries, letters etc with quite a few photos. Again two tanks appear to have taken part but both appearing under the stage name Britannia (indeed Britannia could well be considered as applying to the act rather than one specific tank). After visiting cities on the eastern seaboard Britannia moved on to the mid west appearing in a number of cities there in the late spring/ summer of 1918. Eventually a Britannia made it to the western seaboard. Now here is the mystery:
When first doing my research I came across a description of the history of Forest Park St Louis. It indicated that the British tank Britannia had been driven through Forest Park doing a demonstration sometime between April and September 1917 (the event was sandwiched between two other military parades in those months. Now as this didnt fit the general story I assumed that this was an error and actually referred to a visit in 1918. By pure serendipity when looking for something completely different I came across a report written in 2004 by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers about Forest Park. It appeared that between 1980 and 2004 various routine excavations in the park had uncovered evidence of chemical warfare in the shape of an unexploded 3 inch Stokes phosphorous round, several Stokes 3 and 4 inch mortars and a Livens projector and the Corp of Engineers had done a study on the options for public safety. In the report they list the various times that military activity took place in the park. In the 1917 1918 period they list some events not in the original history (for example the landing of eight British aircraft in the park in 1918) but repeat that Britannia appeared there in mid 1917 (they never did determine where the Stokes and the Livens came from). Given that in the circumstances one assumes that the Corps would have verified their facts then I am faced with a completely anomalous event. Was the 1917 St Louis Britannia a different tank from the later Britannias? Why if a tank was sent to North America pre Oct 1917 is there no other reference to it (surely one would have expected a New York or Washington visit before St Louis)? Why St Louis only?
My inclination would be not to assume that the Corps verified their facts. I suspect that they too found an account, as you did, that Britannia had appeared in the park between April and Sept 1917 and took that at face value. April 1917 would be incredibly early for a Mark IV to appear in the States anyway, given the first only chugged off the production line at the beginning of that month.
There is nothing I can find that ids the St Louis tank as a Mk IV (or indeed any mark) so a mk III would fit the bill for example if there was a tank there in 1917
My reasoning was that your source states the tank's name was Britannia. The only two tanks we know of in the States referred to as Britannia were Mark IVs. I agree that it is just possible that a Mark III may have gone to the States but there is no evidence whatsoever for this. Even if one did, and it preceded the Britannia Mark IVs, why should it be referred to as Britannia? Why not some other name?
The simple point is that it is unsafe to assume that the Corps verified their information against primary sources, and that the most likely explanation is the date is wrong. The same point has been made on the GWF. I am strongly of the view that as evidence the Corps report carries very little weight, if any at all.
