This might seem like an entry-level question, but can anyone tell me exacly how many MGs were carried in the Mks I -IV? I have read conflicting accounts.
As I understand it, Males had 1 MG in each sponson and Females 2 in each. AFAIK there was no ball-mount for in the cab until the Mk IV, and no provision for a rearward-firing gun in any of the first 4 Marks.
Where and how were additional MGs carried?
Thanks in advance for help.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Additional MG's could have been spares which may confuse the total - ie do you count the ones intended to be used, or do you count every single one carried? Likewise, i've never seen mention of how many SMLE rifles were carried, but the account of Fray Bentos in 'The Boilerplate War' mentions them being carried
As well as the machine guns in the sponsons there was the machine gun between the driver and commander, for the commander's use (this was the only armament that Baggage tanks had). There was a ball mount for this from Mark III onwards, the Marks I and II just had a flap over the mounting.
I can't recall exactly where I've read it, but in descriptions of equipment carried there always seems to be one too many MGs. For example a female Mark I looks like it should have 4 Vickers in the sponsons, and one Hotchkiss(?) in the cab, but I think I have seen it listed as carrying 6 MGs. Similarly, males are listed as carrying 4 MGs whereas they only had firing positions for 3. I wish I could remember where I read that (it was more than one source); maybe that is also the source of your query, James?
Male: Two 6 pdr QF or 6 pdr 6 cwt QF. Secondary armament : Four .303 in Hotchkiss Machine Guns Female: Four .303 Vickers machine guns. Secondary armament : Two .303 in Hotchkiss machine guns
Duncan Crow, in the Profile series, says the Mk I Male carried "4 x .303 Hotchkiss" and the Female "5-4 x .303 Vickers, 1 x .303 Hotchkiss" (which I'm afraid I don't quite understand) but goes on to say, "some authorities give 3 Hotchkiss for Male and 2 for Female."
He gives the same figures for Mks II & II, and for the Mk IV gives 4 for the Male and 6 for the Female. He seems to return to an even keel with the Mk V, giving 4 (Male) and 6 (Female), which is accounted for by the extra MG at the rear.
I haven't got D. Fletcher's book on the Mk I, but he doesn't specify in his 1915-1918 book, and no other authors are very clear, as far as I can tell.
It seems that, as you say, there is one over in Mks I - IV. It's entirely possible, as Rob says, that spare guns might have been stowed, but, as far as I can make out, Mk I - IV Males were fitted with 1 per sponson and one in the cab (total 3), and Females 2 per sponson and one in the cab (total 5).
Have I got this right?
-- Edited by James H on Sunday 11th of July 2010 08:05:21 PM
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Depending on how clear the plans are, those that are apparently sold by Bovington should show how many - drawings of WW2 British armoured cars i've looked at show all stowed equipment, including weapons
In Landships (the Stationery Office publication) David Fletcher lists 4 MGs for the Mk I - III Male and 5 for the Female.
He lists 4 for Males and 6 for Females in Mks IV to V**, as does Duncan Crow.
However, in the programme for the trials of Mother (which was, of course, Male), dated January 27th 1916, the armament is described as "two 6-pdr. guns and three automatic rifles (1 Hotchkiss and 2 Madsen)." We have discussed elsewhere why the Madsens never happened.
I can't find any reference to that figure being added to, nor can I see any sign of additional mountings or ports in photographs of Mk I - III in service.
There is particular mention in several accounts of the rearward-firing MG being added to the Mk V because of the problem of enemy troops allowing Tanks to pass and then launching an attack from the rear.
I'm becoming convinced that the number of MGs in Mks I-IV is generally overstated by 1.
-- Edited by James H on Monday 12th of July 2010 11:09:19 AM
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
"The original design (of the Mk I) provided for all 100 tanks to have . . . five loopholes or 'ports' for Hotchkiss machine guns. These included one firing forward from the commander's position, one in each sponson behind the 6-pdr and firing out to the flanks, and another in each sponson, firing from a position in front of the 6-pdr. These five machine guns would enable the tank to sweep with fire not only the enemy's trenches on each side and slightly to the rear, but also those in front - in total a very wide arc. However, the two positioned in front of the 6-pdrs were found to obstruct the free traverse of these, especially when engaging targets straight ahead, and were therefore of little use."
The ports in question can be seen in pics 1 & 2, and are the same as that for the commander's MG. So that means 5 MGs in theory, but 3 in practice.
The rear door (pic 3) has only a pistol port, not a loophole designed for a Hotchkiss.
The commander's MG had an arc of only 40 degrees. The Female was designed to increase the field of fire, so the sponson with 2 Vickers replaced the male sponson with its 2 MG ports.
I reckon this all means that the Female had 5 MGs, and not 6. There was nowhere to site a 6th gun. What it means as regards the Male is harder to say - potentially 5, normally 3, and possibly 4, depending on how many MGs were on board.
-- Edited by James H on Tuesday 13th of July 2010 11:18:03 AM
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
All is revealed. In the small print in The Tanks at Flers:
"The Mk I Male carried two 6-pdrs and four Hotchkiss machine guns (three mounted plus one spare). The Female had five Vickers machine guns (four mounted, plus one spare) and one Hotchkiss machine gun."
Therefore, I think it is fair to say that, if the intention is to convey the actual firepower of the Mks I to IV, the spare should be disregarded. The spare seems to have been counted in almost every table of Tank armament and the figures reproduced time after time.
If I'm right, the figures should read:
Mks I-IV: M - 3, F - 5 Mk V: M - 4, F - 6 (including 1 at rear) Mk V*: M - 8, F - 10 (including 1 at rear, 2 in 2nd turret, and 1 in each side door)
-- Edited by James H on Saturday 17th of July 2010 01:44:27 PM
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
All is revealed. In the small print in The Tanks at Flers:
"The Mk I Male carried two 6-pdrs and four Hotchkiss machine guns (three mounted plus one spare). The Female had five Vickers machine guns (four mounted, plus one spare) and one Hotchkiss machine gun."
Therefore, I think it is fair to say that, if the intention is to convey the actual firepower of the Mks I to IV, the spare should be disregarded. The spare seems to have been counted in almost every table of Tank armament and the figures reproduced time after time.
If I'm right, the figures should read:
Mks I-IV: M - 3, F - 5 Mk V: M - 4, F - 6 (including 1 at rear) Mk V*: M - 8, F - 10 (including 1 at rear, 2 in 2nd turret, and 1 in each side door)
-- Edited by James H on Saturday 17th of July 2010 01:44:27 PM
An addition to the above: Mk V: C/H - 5 (including 1 at rear) Mk V*: C/H - 9 (including 1 at rear, 2 in 2nd turret, and 1 in each side door)
