Landships II

CharlieC · Legend

"Lighthorsemen" Replica - More Info.

James H · Legend

Discussed the replicas used in the film here

Found new photos of surviving vehicle, appearing to show that the acquisition was rather more legitimate than has been suggested. I've found out who BHP are, but can one of our Aussie friends throw any light on what the "Long Products Division" was and how the company was involved in the creation of the tanks?

Rob · Legend

Interesting, I thought it was the same Tank that used in 'ANZACs', which i've just finished watching for the first time today - although looking at the 'Lighthorsemen' replica, that's a different one, and 'ANZAC's' came earlier?

Ironsides · Legend

Hi James Long Products would I think be steel bar etc, BHP is or was a mining company presumably with their own steel works and fabrication shops...

Cheers

James H · Legend

Much obliged, citizens. Had forgotten about ANZACS. A Mk V-ish replica can be seen from 15' 45" here

A gent on Great War Forum says: "The WWI tank used in the TV series Anzacs was made up from a tractor or bull dozer and not a real tank. I saw this tank and had a look inside when it was loaned to the 1st Armoured Regt (Australian) at Puckapunyal in the 80's for our Cambrai day celebrations and it drove in front of our Lepard tanks."

Btw: Aussies training Americans in tank-infantry cooperation. Did that happen?

Rectalgia · Legend

James H wrote:
... Btw: Aussies training Americans in tank-infantry cooperation. Did that happen?

Most assuredly - le Hamel 4 July 1918, US companies from the 33rd Infantry Division of their II Army Corps were "embedded" in Australian battalions - the outraged US GOC, Gen Pershing, may have withdrawn some before the battle but in any case the preliminary planning was long and famously detailed and notably integrated armour (and air) in attack, suppression and re-supply roles within "combined arms" tactics that became the text-book example of that art and science for many years to follow.� The Australians had not been overly-fond of tanks before that, their earlier experiences being infelicitous.� Their training before Hamel made sure past mistakes were not repeated - and the Americans were shoulder-to-shoulder during training and during battle.

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Friday 22nd of March 2013 05:29:46 AM

James H · Legend

Thank you, Stephen.�

Rectalgia · Legend

You're welcome - though review of the sources makes it clear that "training", at least that at the small-unit level, would be rather a grand label for what actually happened. See:
http://archive.org/stream/historyof33rddiv02huid#page/350/mode/2up
Two companies (C and E, 131st Inf.) were sent to report to the Commanding General, nth Brigade, Australian Corps, and two companies (A and G, 132nd Inf.) were sent to report to the Commanding General, 4th Brigade, Australian Corps.
2. These companies were filled to war strength and reached the Australian Corps on the night of June 29th, and on June 30th and July 1st were given a rehearsal in the proposed formations to be used in the attack. On July 2nd, they were taken up to the front line trenches, and, after a reconnaissance by the officers, were moved to their proper sectors. The objectives and main features of the ground were also pointed out to the men. Co. C, 131st Inf. was assigned to the 42nd Battalion, Co. [E] 131st Inf. to the 43rd Battalion, Co. A, 132nd Inf. to the 13th Battalion and Co. G, 132nd Inf. to the 15th Battalion, Australian Corps, one platoon being assigned with each of the four companies of each battalion. In each company, about forty men were taken out and sent to the rear to form a nucleus for a new company in case the rest of the company should be wiped out, just as the Australians did with all of their own organizations.
Still, it clarifies that all four companies participated in the battle and specifies their disposition by platoon within the Australian host units. And it details (on further reading) how it was the additional six companies sent separately on 30th June and not yet moved forward which were subsequently withdrawn from action on the orders of "the British Commander-in-Chief". The assumption that Gen. Pershing threw a wobbly fit over American troops being placed under foreign command is not substantiated from this source. The Australian 42nd Battalion, 43rd Battalion, 13th Battalion and 15th Battalion War Diaries are all available on-line (http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/awm4/class.asp?levelID=91) and may provide more detail. As also are the diaries of their 11th Brigade and 4th Brigade higher echelons.

Earlier in that 33rd Division source there are details of higher-level training undertaken with British forces and it is possible that involved some of Maj. Gen. Monash's planning and briefing sessions which were supposedly very detailed (scale mock-ups and all) - but again there is no substantiation from this source that I can see in a brief skim of the material.

Sorry I can't tie up some of those additional details/lines of enquiry at the moment ...

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Saturday 23rd of March 2013 06:36:54 AM