Landships II

A puzzling extract from Weapons of the Trench War 1914-1918 by Anthony Saunders:

"The anti-tank grenade was an unexpected consequence of the invention of the tank. Although the Germans introduced a big-bore anti-tank rifle . . . . the British went for a more explosive answer to German armour. The anti-tank grenade proved to be more effective and more durable than the anti-tank rifle. . . .

Many of the German tanks were captured British models which were built with hard steel. The German design, the A7V was . . . built with mild steel. The British therefore decided to develop a grenade that was capable of destroying their own tanks, and came up with one that was little more than a large tin containing more than 11 ounces of alumatol, which produced a massive explosion.

The grenade, known as the No. 44 anti-tank grenade, had the same percussion mechanism as the No. 35 which allowed detonation to occur on direct contact with the tank. Although this punched a hole in the side of British steel plate it only produced a large bulge in the mild steel of the German tanks. However, this was enough to kill or injure the occupants from the concussion.

Anti-tank engagements took place at short range, so the 8-inch steel rod had little time to stabilize the flight of the grenade, thus a calico tail was fitted to ensure that the grenade flew straight."

Much of this tallies with Centurion's description but I have never come across any mention of A7V or beute Tanks being tackled in this fashion.

Of course, the most interesting aspect is Mr. Saunders's claim that the A7V was built with mild steel. Clearly, it wasn't. I wonder how he came to that conclusion. If he is referring to some behaviour of the A7V armour that might have made it seem to have been different from that of the British Tanks, on what does he base that if the grenades weren't used in combat?