Landships II

Ironsides · Legend

World War One, American Heavy Tanks Questions

Bunkermeister · Lieutenant

While I have a little bit of knowledge, about WWI US Army heavy tanks, I am thirsting for more.

As I understand it:

The US Army had two tank battalions of British Mark V* tanks, with 45 tanks per battalion.� The tanks included both male, female and composite tanks.

Once the war was over, the US Army scrapped the MK V* tanks and replaced them, right away with Mark VIII Liberty / International heavy tanks.

The MK VIII stayed in active service in two battalions until 1932 or 1934 when they were declared obsolete and placed in storage.

There were 100 MK VIII manufactured and 10 were retained for training and experimentation.� The remaining 90 were divided up into two battalions of 45 tanks each.

The tanks were turned over to the Canadians for the scrap value of them metal in 1940 as a way to avoid neutrality laws for shipping tanks to a combatant.

The tanks were used to train Canadians to use tanks until 1943 when the remaining ones were really scrapped.

The US Army did not use any other heavy tanks in combat besides the MK V*, although individual US servicemen may have helped crew British tanks for training or liaison purposes.

�

Is any of what I have written correct?� Please feel free to direct me to better information or to correct any of these statements.

Thanks.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
http://bunkermeister.blogspot.com/

BC312 · Colonel

A question i would like to ask you, is about the Renault FT and six ton tanks which the Canadians were also issued during WW2, i wondered if any were shipped to England as part of their continued training. The reason i ask, is the Canadian tank units were stationed in Bordon and Headley Hampshire and i wondered if any MkIV, Mk V and Renaualts six ton tanks were used there or even disposed of there.

James H · Legend

Bunkermeister wrote:
The US Army had two tank battalions of British Mark V* tanks, with 45 tanks per battalion.� The tanks included both male, female and composite tanks. 301st Tank Bn. (previously 41st Heavy) formed June 8, 1918. 303rd formed August. 301st sailed France Aug 23rd and was assigned Mk V & V* (M, F, & Comp). 303rd remained training in England. 301st received 45 tanks nominally. I think 40 was max used in single operation.
Once the war was over, the US Army scrapped the MK V* tanks and replaced them, right away with Mark VIII Liberty / International heavy tanks. The tanks weren't the US's to scrap - they were handed back to British, apart from couple of trophy tanks taken to USA. Liberty production just under way at end of War. US Tank Corps equipped with them on return.
The MK VIII stayed in active service in two battalions until 1932 or 1934 when they were declared obsolete and placed in storage.
There were 100 MK VIII manufactured and 10 were retained for training and experimentation.� The remaining 90 were divided up into two battalions of 45 tanks each. That seems about right.
The tanks were turned over to the Canadians for the scrap value of them metal in 1940 as a way to avoid neutrality laws for shipping tanks to a combatant.The tanks were used to train Canadians to use tanks until 1943 when the remaining ones were really scrapped. Whilst M1917s certainly ended up as you describe, there seems to be considerable doubt about the Mk VIII. One theory is that they were part of the deal but were found to be in poor condition and were either left in USA or taken to Canada but never used for training, and scrapped.
The US Army did not use any other heavy tanks in combat besides the MK V*, although individual US servicemen may have helped crew British tanks for training or liaison purposes. Mk V - see above.
Here's a good source of info: ctober-1918">https://sites.google.com/site/landships/home/narratives/narratives-by-battalion/301-us-tank-battalion/301-us-tank-battalion-ctober-1918
Hope this helps, Bunkers. Always happy to be corrected.

-- Edited by James H on Wednesday 25th of July 2012 02:47:11 PM

-- Edited by James H on Wednesday 25th of July 2012 05:47:28 PM

-- Edited by James H on Wednesday 25th of July 2012 05:48:03 PM

CharlieC · Legend

�

According to Landships II there was a single US tank battalion (the 301st) in France equipped with Mark V and V* tanks.

At least one Mark V* was shipped back to the US but this seems to have been a memorial tank. The Mark VIIIs were

US built and weren't delivered until after the Armistice.

Regards,

Charlie

James H · Legend

Sorry, don't know why that link won't work. Can't get rid of that emoticon. Cut and paste this: https://sites.google.com/site/landships/home/narratives/narratives-by-battalion/301-us-tank-battalion/301-us-tank-battalion-%38%2Doctober-1918

In reply to your supplementary questions: A) Male sponson usually on starboard side; B) No. None saw action.

Just checked, and acc to D. Fletcher, USA took 5 Mk V* home with them. One survives, in Kentucky.

[Edit - fixed]

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Wednesday 25th of July 2012 08:03:58 PM

Bunkermeister · Lieutenant

Okay, working now, thanks.

�

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
http://bunkermeister.blogspot.com/

-- Edited by Bunkermeister on Wednesday 25th of July 2012 08:06:25 PM

Ironsides · Legend

Hi Mike Search the Forum for 301st Tank Battalion theres a few threads including these two

301st tank battalion composite

301st tank battalion progress

Cheers wink

Bunkermeister · Lieutenant

Thanks for all the help so far.

�

Two more things have popped up.

�

On composite tanks, is there any way to know which side is male and which side is female?� Was there a standard or at least a standard distribution?

�

Did the USA ever use the Mark 9 supply tank?

�

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
http://bunkermeister.blogspot.com/

"As our nation's forefathers would likely agree, the beguiling problem with quotes seen on the Internet is that you can never be certain they're genuine."
-- Abraham Lincoln

�

James H · Legend

Thanks for fixing that link, Stephen. Baffled at this end. Nothing new there.

Rectalgia · Legend

Worse by far than bafflement James, would be to be a sad old geezer who's spent far too many of his diminishing stock of heartbeats to sufficiently though still vaguely comprehend such esoteria and have a table of ASCII to hexedecimal codes always available (or, worse, memorised) but no ale, cider, wine or spirits.� Ah well, I can recover from one of those circumstances.

Steve

Gwyn Evans · Legend

There is no standard side for the Male or Female sponson to be carried on a Composite / Hermaphrodite tank. You can find Composites with the Male sponson on the right (Female on the left), and other Composites with the Male sponson on the left (and so Female sponson on the right).

Gwyn

James H · Legend

Ah. I thought I'd seen a discussion somewhere (possibly here) that said it was usually the starboard side. Obviously, it would make more sense to do a straight swap so each M-F pair would produce 2 Comps, but I was sure I'd seen something to the contrary.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Composites are more complicated than people realise. For one thing there were two phases of Composite conversions, one after the shock of the first tank versus tank action in April 1918 when Females were converted to Composites. In this phase at least some of the Male sponsons came from unwanted Mark IV Males, so one Mark IV Male would produce two Mark V Composites and one Mark IV Female. 12th Battalion used some Mark IV Females that had been through this conversion. Note that at this time Males were not converted to Composites because they were needed to counter the threat of German tanks on the battalefield. The second phase was post-war when both Mark V Males and Females were converted to Composites, and they started to show up in Germany, Silesia and Russia.

One day I'll write the definitive work on Composites, I hope. I just have a little more research to do.

Gwyn

PDA · Legend

Gwyn Evans wrote:
...�one Mark IV Male would produce two Mark V Composites and one Mark IV Female. ...

Interesting. So a tank that was originally a Mark IV male could become a Mark IV female with female sponsons from two Mark Vs. Could this explain Mark IV females fitted with Hotchkiss MGs? Perhaps the sponsons transferred with the Hotchkiss MG that was fitted (to Mark Vs) and did not have the standard (for a 'normal' Mark IV)�Lewis gun fitted?

Gwyn Evans · Legend

I think not. The evidence is that the Hotchkiss ball mounts were mounted in the Composites and the Mark IVs continued to carry Lewis guns. As I said this is more complicated than it looks. It's not just a case of transferring the sponson, but also of transferring the ball mount so you get the Lewis mount in the Mark IV and the Hotchkiss mount in the Mark V. (Also bear in mind that some Mark V Composites were created from Mark V Females by transferring over Mark V Male sponsons).

The only Mark IV Females with Hotchkiss guns that I am aware of are six used by the School of Gunnery at Merlimont Plage for training.

Gwyn

PDA · Legend

Pzkpfw-e wrote:
There's a MkV* at Fort Benning, Georgia. Currently it's not on display.
If there is a MkV in Kentucky, please tell us where it is!

�

If you are referring to this post by James H...

�

James H wrote:
...Just checked, and acc to D. Fletcher, USA took 5 Mk V* home with them. One survives, in Kentucky.

�

...then James is referring to the Mark V* that used to reside at the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor in Fort Knox, Kentucky, USA, but which has been moved to Fort Benning, Georgia, USA.

This thread warned us of the move.

-- Edited by PDA on Monday 30th of July 2012 02:53:59 AM

-- Edited by PDA on Monday 30th of July 2012 02:59:12 AM

Pzkpfw-e · Commander in Chief

There's a MkV* at Fort Benning, Georgia. Currently it's not on display.
If there is a MkV in Kentucky, please tell us where it is!

PDA · Legend

Gwyn Evans wrote:
I think not. The evidence is that the Hotchkiss ball mounts were mounted in the Composites and the Mark IVs continued to carry Lewis guns. As I said this is more complicated than it looks. It's not just a case of transferring the sponson, but also of transferring the ball mount so you get the Lewis mount in the Mark IV and the Hotchkiss mount in the Mark V. (Also bear in mind that some Mark V Composites were created from Mark V Females by transferring over Mark V Male sponsons).

The only Mark IV Females with Hotchkiss guns that I am aware of are six used by the School of Gunnery at Merlimont Plage for training.

Gwyn

�Thanks, Gwyn. Now, how about them Mark IV composites... only kidding!

Gwyn Evans · Legend

I don't believe in ghosts, Santa or Mark IV Composites.

Gwyn

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Gwyn Evans wrote:
As I said this is more complicated than it looks. It's not just a case of transferring the sponson, but also of transferring the ball mount so you get the Lewis mount in the Mark IV and the Hotchkiss mount in the Mark V. (Also bear in mind that some Mark V Composites were created from Mark V Females by transferring over Mark V Male sponsons).

�There's also the matter of ammo stowage; I've noticed, particularly from pics taken during construction, that the stowage provisions for male and female tanks were different - large rectangular slots in the track frames to take ammo cans in the female tanks, rows of holes (rather like a wine rack) for the 6pdr shells in the males. Adding a male sponson to a female tank would require provision to be made for stowing 6pdr shells. IIRC, Mk V males had a stowage rack underneath the 6pdr pedestal, so transferring a sponson would automatically give a limited amount of space for shells; Mk IV males don't seem to have had this, so racks would have to be fitted.

It's possible also that some conversions used male tanks as the starting point, as there's a photo around showing inside a male tank that has had part of the track frame shell rack cut away to form larger holes - as if to accept ammo cans for MGs.

Bunkermeister · Lieutenant

Okay, so to recap what I have learned so far,

The US Army had two tank battalions equipped with British Mark V and Mark V* tanks, with about 45 tanks per battalion. The tanks included both male, female and composite tanks.

The tanks were all owned by the British, and once the Great War was ended they were returned to the British.

The US Army replaced them right away with Mark VIII Liberty / International heavy tanks.

The MK VIII stayed in active service in two battalions until 1932 or 1934 when they were declared obsolete and placed in storage.

There were 100 Mark VIII's manufactured and 10 were retained for training and experimentation. The remaining 90 were divided up into two battalions of 45 tanks each.

The majority of the Mark VIII's tanks were turned over to the Canadians for the scrap value of the metal in 1940 as a way to avoid neutrality laws for shipping tanks to a combatant, apart from a few kept as monuments and museum pieces. Many of those Mark VIII's shipped to the Canadians were not operational.

The tanks were used to train Canadians to use tanks until 1943 when the remaining ones were really scrapped.

The US Army did not use any other heavy tanks in combat besides the Mark V, and Mark V*, although individual US servicemen may have helped crew British tanks for training or liaison purposes.

While French St. Chamound and Schneider tanks supported American units, they were never crewed by Americans.

In October, 1918 the 301st US Tank Battalion had:
20 Mark V Male,
2 Mark V Female,
24 Mark V Composite tanks and
32 Mark V* Male,
8 Mark V* Female,
8 Mark V* Composite tanks,
as well as an FT-17 radio tank and / or a Mark V* radio tank in the HQ.

The Mark V tanks carried fascines. Were these the crib fascine or the bundle of sticks type?

Okay, is the above correct?

Additional questions:

What other vehicles and equipment did the 301st have on hand? How many men? What about trucks? Is there a photo or drawing of a Mark V* radio tank? Is it externally different from a standard Mark V*? Would these British tanks on loan to the Americans have any specifically American colors, or markings? Did they fly flags from the tanks? Did they use the semiphore system to communicate?

I thought there were TWO US Army Heavy Tank Battalions in WWI. Is that correct or no?

Was there a radio version of the Mark VIII International tank?

Thanks for all your help.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
http://bunkermeister.blogspot.com/

CharlieC · Legend

�

Only the 6-ton tanks were used for training in Canada - the Mark VIIIs were found to be too much effort to bring up to operational status and were scrapped.

I think the driving characteristics of the Mark VIII would have been totally dissimilar to other tanks and wouldn't have been useful in training. The 6-ton tanks,

although slow, were much closer to driving WW2 tanks.�

The fascines made of bundled sticks were only used at Cambrai - they were too labour intensive to make to use on a regular basis. In 1918 cribs only

were used.

Regards,

Charlie

Bunkermeister · Lieutenant

Thanks Charlie!

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
http://bunkermeister.blogspot.com/

�

James H · Legend

Hello, Creekers.

Just to clarify: I thought there were TWO US Army Heavy Tank Battalions in WWI. Is that correct or no? The 301st was the only operational one. The 303rd wasn't allocated any tanks. It remained at Bovington, training on the Mk V along with the British and, eventually, Canadian tankers. So, strictly speaking, there were two, but only one completed training and was deployed.

I'm not aware that the incidence of freelance Americans was any higher amongst tank troops than in any other unit. By the time of the events we're discussing, there would be no reason for US citizens to sneak into the British Army (as some did early in the War) since there was an army of their own to join. It's possible that there was a certain amount of cross-fertilisation and mucking-in, but only the British had any experience of driving tanks, so I suspect the flow of information was almost entirely one way.� There is a book called Borrowed Soldiers that covers this aspect of the War. http://www.amazon.com/Borrowed-Soldiers-Americans-Campaigns-Commanders/dp/0806139196 Perhaps worth mentioning that IIRC US tank troops wore a modified uniform. Will try to dig out the details.

You are correct that American troops were supported by Schneider and Saint-Chamond (not St. Chamound) tanks with French crews. BTW, the use of the nomenclature "FT-17" is somewhat frowned upon on Landships.

Bearing in mind that Mk VIII production fell disastrously short of estimates, the organisation of US tank forces began in earnest only once the War was over and the 301st and 303rd returned to Camp Colt, where other Heavy Battalions had been formed. Best source of info is Treat 'Em Rough! by Dale E. Wilson. Extracts from it can be found in various guises on the Net. His account also forms part of a work called Camp Colt to Desert Storm, which is worth a google.

As I said earlier, the question of the Canadian Mk VIIIs is a moot one. This exchange reveals some of the current thinking on the subject. http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/emagazine-3/tanks/MKVIIIs_to_Canada.htm

As regards a breakdown of types of tank allocated to the 301st, I bow to Gwyn on this occasion, as on many occasions in the past.

I don't think we have a resident expert on inter-war US tanks who can answer all your other questions in one go, but if you're doing a bit of research, anything you unearth will be much appreciated.

This has every appearance of some sort of written article in the making. It would be very nice to see the finished product.

Hope the info supplied so far has been useful.

Bunkermeister · Lieutenant

Hello James H,

Rather than Creekers, I prefer "Bunkermeister" as a nickname. One of the guys in my WWII miniature wargame group began calling me that nearly 30 years ago. Since D&D had Dungeon Masters, he reasoned that a WWII wargame would have a "Bunkermeister."

I put Borrowed Soldiers on my Amazon Wish List. I have Treat 'em Rough, but have not read it recently.

You mention FT-17 is frowned upon, but provided no alternative.� The small French tank that shall not be named?

As for an article, I am working on potential miniature wargame scenarios where the MK VIII might be used in combat.� The most obvious is the First World War continues beyond November, 1918 for some reason.� The US supports France in 1940 and sends a second AEF with the outdated but on hand MK VIII to France.� Since the French and others were still using the small French tank that shall not be named, I suppose it would be possible for the US to have used the MK VIII if there was a significant number of them operational.� If they were withdrawn from service and still functioning in 1934, then sitting in a weed field for six years would seem to be a long enough time that some would be out of service, but taking the example of the small French tank that shall not be named, then at least half of them should have been able to be repaired reasonably quickly.� Then moving farther afield, the 1938 Orsen Wells War of the World broadcast was feared by some as a real event, rather than fictional.� Had the Martians actually invaded in October, 1938, then perhaps the venerable MK VIII might have awaited them.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
http://bunkermeister.blogspot.com/

�

CharlieC · Legend

�

French historians pointed out to us a while ago that the Renault light tank is known as the "FT" in all the documents

they've unearthed in the Vincennes archive. FT was a Renault designation which had no particular meaning but was a

project designation. This was Renault standard practice - other examples are the "FB" - tracked artillery portee vehicle and

"EG" - heavy 4-wheel drive artillery tractor. The FT-17 designation appears to be a creation of English speaking authors

post-WW1. The case made for the light tank to be known as "Renault FT" appeared to me, and others, to be very strong so

it has been adopted on this forum and the Landships II website.

Regards,

Charlie

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Hi Mike,

what James means is that it should be "FT", without the "-17"; the numbers are apparently a postwar addition that did not appear on the official documents of the day, but have become entrenched (excuse the pun) in common parlance.

TCT

James H · Legend

Charlie and TCT speak the truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT#Nomenclature One or two people were rather unreceptive in this matter, but good sense prevailed.

If you visit http://www.criticalpast.com/ you'll find some very striking footage of M1917 and Liberty tanks taking part in manoeuvres in the 1920s at Camp Meade. Daytime and some rather dramatic nighttime shots, accompanied by airships, searchlights, and suchlike. That might help in your visualising.

On the subject of nicknames, I can only explain that since, perhaps inevitably, there is a preponderance on the Forum of correspondents from the cricket-playing nations, we frequently use the traditional "Oxford -er" when addressing each other. Sadly, the USA after a promising start relinquished her Test Match status, but to be referred to in such fashion is considered in many circles to be an honour.

Bunkermeister · Lieutenant

Thanks James for both the link and the clarification.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
http://bunkermeister.blogspot.com/