I can't recall ever seeing a Tank mark I with an MG in the forward mounting. I think it would have been a Hotchkiss, regardless of whether or not the tank was male or female; am I mistaken?
There is this photo (from a previous discussion in this forum) of a Hotchkiss in place in a male sponson:
But does anybody have a photo of a Mark I with an MG in the front?
A very interesting question, mon ami. This pic of Dinnaken after Flers shows what appears to be a Hotchkiss protruding from the flap. How it is held there I can't say; I'm not sure that there was anything to hold it in position. Perhaps someone else has info. Another, less clear, photo shows something similar on Deborah. I shall peruse some interior shots for a clue, but the photos of Bovi's Mk II in The Tanks at Flers are frustratingly inconclusive.
An otherwise wildly inaccurate German sketch of a Mk I does indicate an MG position in the cab, so one might assume that they had observed it in situ.
I'm trying to recall if its use is mentioned in any accounts of the battle, but no luck so far.
P.S. Something I can't believe I have never noticed before - the MkI, at least, had headlights fitted, one inside each of the horns.
-- Edited by James H on Monday 18th of April 2011 01:25:32 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.
" Bell could do nothing, for a Carrier tank possesses only one Hotchkiss gun to fire ahead, and, as his tank had turned to provide cover for the unloading party, that gun would not bear. " Pg 119
"The fighting tanks had already withdrawn. The Carrier tank with soft sponsons, and its solitary Hotchkiss gun, decided to attack, " pg 121
from "Tanks in the great war, 1914-1918" Fuller... MKI male
"Mark I tanks were divided into two categories : male and female. The former carried an armament of two 6-pounders and four Hotchkiss machine-guns, the latter of five Vickers and one Hotchkiss machine-guns." pg 49
from " The tank in action" MKI male
" In addition, there was a port in each sponson for a Hotchkiss machine-gun or automatic rifle. The tank commander also was provided with one of these weapons, to be fired (with extreme difficulty*) through a port in the cab." page 18
Bear in mind, Ivor, that Fullers MG totals include a spare.
__________________
"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.
Ironsides, I remember reading, probably in Tanks and Trenches, accounts of supply tanks taking prisoners even though the tank only had the commander's position MG. But, as you point out, they might have been Mark IV. I'm sure there is an account of a commander, of a Mark I, using first the Hotchkiss and then, when that was damaged, he used his revolver.
James, I thought you meant some tank other than Deborah - I'm sure there was a Mark I Deborah, but the famous one, the Mark IV they dug up, is the one I brought to mind when you said "Deborah". I also thought of that photo you post, but to my eyes that MG looks suspect; it looks more like a Lewis than a Hotchkiss, but not a convincing Lewis at that. I wonder if it is the haft of an entrenching tool or a spade handle or something; it just doesn't say "Hotchkiss" to me!
I'd guess that the Hotchkiss was mounted in the same way in the cab as the ones in the male sponson were, ie a flap covered a vertical slot, and the gun was pushed through when needed (I suspect that that is why the gun has a bar running on top of the barrel - to push the flap up out of the way). But that's pure guesswork; it never ceases to amaze me how much knowledge we have already lost about these tanks, even though they are not yet 100 years old.
...I'm sure there is an account of a commander, of a Mark I, using first the Hotchkiss and then, when that was damaged, he used his revolver...
The Force serves you well... the account you were probably thinking of was D16 "Dracula" where the commander attempted to use the Hotchkiss and then, after finding it damaged, used the revolver. The account appears in "Tanks and Trenches".
That's actually quite helpful, Helen, thank you. That's what it might look like on the inside, and it reminded me of this early thread started by Centurion, that shows some Mark Is with the flap missing. I'm not sure if the second image (of HMLS Pincher) shows a Hotchkiss poking out, or not. What do you think?
-- Edited by PDA on Thursday 21st of April 2011 09:21:55 PM
Somehow I missed Centurion's thread when I've been looking through the records for info. It's really interesting stuff, and the info on how photos can actually distort what we are seeing, could have saved me a lot of time when I first started on my plans.
When I first went to Bovi to get info, I took with me a 10cm square card I made to avoid having to take lots of measurements.... it worked for only those parts VERY close to my measure.
Photos distort towards the edges, and light and shade can make something appear different in every photo.
I am sure it's a Hotchkiss gun protruding from the cab front, but the best pic I can find is also unclear. In the classic top view of D7, it is possible to make out something that 'appears' to be a thin gun barrel.
I seem to remember some movie footage of a couple of MK1 ones being cleaned and the guns moved, as the camera pans past them... maybe, just maybe, it will show the cab gun?
Helen x
-- Edited by MK1 Nut on Sunday 24th of April 2011 06:28:25 PM