Landships II

Pzkpfw-e · Commander in Chief

Ryde Memorial Tank - New Image

SID · Sergeant

Hi all,

Not posted on here for some time! But following on from my interest in tracing the history of the two memorial tanks here on the Isle of Wight (Ryde & Newport). I recently discovered this site�http://woottonbridgeiow.org.uk/towill/rydeboat.php�which has a rare postcard image of the Ryde Tank, before it was repainted in the 1920's. I cannot reproduce the image here, but clicking on the link will take you to it. Points of interest are that it is in its original paint scheme and looks to have been taken when the tank was presented in 1919 and it clearly has the correct stripes on the track horns and no sign of its serial number painted on the rear, although it is noticabley reproduced on a front inner track horn.

There is also a sign of a name painted on the side which looks to be an original feature, although it is frustratingly unclear as to what it reads! The Tank was renamed Louise at its unveiling ceremony and a newspaper report of the time says that this name was chalked upon the tank until such time as a brass plaque could be mounted (which it eventually was on one of the Sponsons). Information kindly provided by Landships members suggested that the tank was originally named Dragonfly...however from what I can make out on this new image the lettering does not look like either Louise or Dragonfly?!? (I have attached a shot of the tank post repaint, showing those stripes and serial number :D)

Regards Sid

SID · Sergeant

Top work sir, for some reason I was unable to save the image in order to post it on here!

Also, good to see a rare shot of a Female MkVII clearly in an excellent state of preservation well into the 1960's ;)

Would be good to know what finally became of the tanks engine, but I can tell you I live on a fairly new housing estate that was built on the former site of Valvona's scrapyard, So the yard is no more.
Sid

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Thanks Sid. Have you thought of digging up your garden, just in case?

Gwyn

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Not sure where the name "Dragonfly" comes from. 8050 was "Dragon III" when it fought at Cambrai. It's history between then and it's presentation to Ryde isn't known so it may well have served with another Battalion and been given a different name, which is what we see in the new photo. I have tried to alter the contrast and brightness so I can read it but it's not revealing itself at present (unlike the Mark VII Female...). Perhaps someone with more sophisticated software can work on it? If we can get that name we'll get some more of the history of this tank. I think it's only six letters, certainly ending in an "O", and possibly something like ?OARDO. But that's not a word I know.

Gwyn

Pzkpfw-e · Commander in Chief

Here's a few of the Newport tank.

http://wildprojects.co.uk/wildmap/projects/victoria_recreation_ground_isle/
"September 1919 A WW1 tank was presented to Newport. There was a procession through the town and the tank took its place in the north east corner of the recreation ground. Children used to play in and on the tank until it was removed in 1939 for scrap metal for WW2"

SID · Sergeant

Hi Gwyn,

I am tempted to hire a metal detector� biggrin �as there is a small plot of land on the edge of the estate that is as yet undeveloped!

The Valvona family are still on the island and still in the scrap metal business, albeit on a smaller scale. Watch this space for any future developments!

Sid

Lothianman · Colonel

Looks more like *OAROO or *OARUO to me - the last but one letter seems to have a straight upright at the top but I'm not sure of this.

The first letter seems to have a diagonal and if so could be N M or W or even K. A quick check of Google throws up nothing very much except that Noaroo is a rare woman's name (Facebook: possibly not in 1916 anyway).

It could always be an Oriental name transliterated in a manner not usual today.

Is there room for an I as an initial 7th letter?

SID · Sergeant

Pzkpfw-e

Thats a new picture (to me!) of the Newport tank with the gent leaning on it... (perhaps a tank corp veteran?) I've seen the other before, but I would imagine that pictures of the Newport tank are rarer than the Ryde one, as the Victoria Park Recreation Ground isn't exactly on the typical tourist itinerary, or a popular subject for postcards...� aww

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Looks like NOARUO to me. Why the "Mk VII" designation in the earlier posts?

PDA · Legend

The photo shows a Mk IV with unditching rails and W-R-W recognition stripes. Assuming the stripes to be authentic, could we say that the tank comes from one of 3 places: 7th Battalion (G), 12th Battalion (L), and Supply? The rails suggest the tank actually went to France. The stripes suggest it was used after June 1918 (according to Landships), possibly as a fighting tank, possibly as a Supply tank (the sponsons could have been swapped before it was presented to Ryde).

I can only see "805" in the photo, not "8050". Is it possible that that number is not the serial, it's just a number? Painting the serial in that location seems odd to me.

Looking on the googlesites Landships website, I can see no tank name�beginning with G and ending with O, and no 7th Batt tank with "805" in its number. On that same site I can see no 12th Batt. tank with "805" in its number, and the only name beginning with L and ending with O is "Limited Loo" serial 2041 (excluding the beutepanzer Lo III).

I know it's scant evidence, but to my eyes the sponson appears to be a different colour (or tone or hue or shade) to the body. Could this once have been a Supply tank that had its sponsons swapped to female before being presented?

EDIT: Another option might be to assume the WRW stripes are not authentic. That lays the field wide open, especially if the stripes have been painted over part of the name.

-- Edited by PDA on Monday 8th of April 2013 04:24:52 PM

TinCanTadpole · Legend

SID - I realised the "Mk VII" reference meant the woman, I just wondered why that number was chosen?

PDA - do you mean the first photo? The 8050 is clear in that one, and the location is not particularly strange. Had you a different pic in mind? I can see no such number in any of the other photos.

As for the paint mismatch you ask about, I was reading about US army colourschemes on the military modelling website just a couple of days ago, and the article there said that with the paint used in the thirties (and probably before) it was very difficult to match new paint with old, the result tending to be patchy - so if the sponsons look fresher than the hull, it may indicate that they had needed painting but not the hull.

EDIT - the stripes are not the usual width or location, so PDA may be correct. Stripes did vary a bit, but were normally much wider and painted close to the radius of the track horn.

-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Monday 8th of April 2013 04:42:50 PM

SID · Sergeant

Pay no heed, the MKVII female reference is just a joke refering to the young lady sat on the wall in the final picture...� biggrin � � I have tried enlarging the image and it looks as though there may also be a letter 'i' or number 1 after the 'o' on the end - obscured by grease, or dirt (or its a full stop!) �There is some battle damage around the name where it appears that paint has been scraped off down to the bare metal and someone has gone over the scrapes with a brush loaded with thin paint, oil or grease.

Sid

Lothianman · Colonel

Blowing it up and bringing up the contrast and adjusting the brightness, I'm inclined to feel that the number is 805 or 808. I would add to that a possible final 4th digit 3 though the latter is obscured by muck/being painted over a plate and may just be an optical illusion anyway. The numbers are hastily painted on by hand, hence the odd sizes.

Kangaroo is certainly worth looking at - the G could well be there to give NGAROO, and a little variation/carelssness �in lettering size would easily allow the penultimate O. And is that a partly obscured A showing only its right hand part?

[edit] Ah - new photo just up! Number is 8050 after all. Presumably that 3 is in fact a 0 thanks to the vagaries of hand painting, muck and glaur.

But I can't see evidence for the dark base for the name extending under the first stripe. One does sometimes get strong differential weathering of paint depending on the undercoat, but why should the 1st white stripe be more persistent? I am thinking that someone started repainting the tank in the base area and only got as far as the first white stripe. It does look rather like it - see the contrast in the density with the second white stripe. In which case it may be Kangaroo after all! The number may have been put on inside the horn to guide the painters when they overpainted the serial and had to paint a new one on - saved having to go inside the tank to check the plate (if it still had one). The paint is not fresh enough to be Ryde Council effort, unless they started and then gave up. Handmarks and football marks by small boys on top?

-- Edited by Lothianman on Monday 8th of April 2013 06:09:25 PM

-- Edited by Lothianman on Monday 8th of April 2013 06:10:51 PM

-- Edited by Lothianman on Monday 8th of April 2013 07:04:47 PM

Pzkpfw-e · Commander in Chief

How about "KANGAROO" ? the first letter & a half overpainted?

PDA · Legend

TinCanTadpole wrote:
...PDA - do you mean the first photo? The 8050 is clear in that one, and the location is not particularly strange. Had you a different pic in mind? I can see no such number in any of the other photos...

I can see "805". However, the "8" could be a "3". And all 3 numbers are different sizes. I definitely cannot see "8050", and I've not seen another Mk IV with the serial painted in that location.

SID · Sergeant

Here is a further picture of the Ryde Tank taken from the otherside (Port, Starboard? biggrin �)�which does show the serial number although it looks to be post repaint. On the original posts on this tank, Gwyn pointed out that going by the serial number, this tank would have been made as a Male, but had female sponsons fitted at some point later in its service life.

�

My use of the MKVII designation was totally random...� biggrin

TinCanTadpole · Legend

PDA wrote:
TinCanTadpole wrote:
...PDA - do you mean the first photo? The 8050 is clear in that one, and the location is not particularly strange. Had you a different pic in mind? I can see no such number in any of the other photos...
I can see "805". However, the "8" could be a "3". And all 3 numbers are different sizes. I definitely cannot see "8050", and I've not seen another Mk IV with the serial painted in that location.

�OK, we were indeed meaning different photos. It is a strange place for the serial. I agree there's the possibility of it being a "3", but the digit is most likely an "8" with the left side fainter or half-disappearing in the lighting conditions.

Of the "0" that may or may not be on the end, it's hard to tell. It may be some of the darker blotches to the right of the dark vertical line (beside the "5"), they could possibly be part of a "0".

SID - that's starboard. From what you say Gwyn has said, the tank may have been a sponson donor for composites, since it obviously has female sponsons in these photos.

Pzkfw-e: yes, Kangaroo is a very good suggestion.

PDA · Legend

SID wrote:
...�which does show the serial number although it looks to be post repaint...

Definitely after it was repainted, so there's reason to doubt the "8050" is correct.

Are people looking at the later "8050" and then making the numbers on the earlier photo conform to that idea? I still can't see 8050 on the photo we are assuming is the earlier one. The numbers on presentation tanks seem to be random to me (or at least, their�method of assignment is unknown). 245 in Ashford, for example, should we assume "she" is 2450 or should we assume that "her" serial really was "T1234" (both numbers would put "her" outside the range of Mk IV serial numbers, as I understand them).

Or are we saying that Dragon III (8050) survived past June 1918 in 7th or 12th Batt. underwent a sex change, or changed to a Supply tank, survived the war in that role, and then had a sex change?

�

SID · Sergeant

Just a quick note and not totally related... but on Ebay with just under three hours left to run (and so far no bids) is an original sample of Albert Sterns signature

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1WW-British-Army-Tanks-Albert-Stern-Director-Tank-Supply-Signature-/370786871776?ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:GB:1123

Sid

TinCanTadpole · Legend

PDA wrote:
Or are we saying that Dragon III (8050) survived past June 1918 in 7th or 12th Batt. underwent a sex change, or changed to a Supply tank, survived the war in that role, and then had a sex change?
�

�That sounds likely to me. In probability it received the female sponsons when Mk V females were being converted to composites, or perhaps as you say it may have served in supply and been fitted with some spare sponsons for presentation purposes.

PDA · Legend

TinCanTadpole wrote:
...In probability it received the female sponsons when Mk V females were being converted to composites, ...

That prompted me to look at the MG mounts in the sponson. I'm no expert, but they look like Lewis mounts, not Hotchkiss mounts. If they are indeed�Lewis mounts, the sponson must surely have come from a Mark IV, not a Mark V (unless they changed the mounts in a Mark V sponson; which doesn't sound likely).�

Would they have used old Mark IV sponsons at the end of the war?�Or maybe the sex change occurred before the Mark V arrived?

�

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Yep, though I'm no expert either, I must agree those mountings have round holes for the jacket of a Lewis, rather than a narrower slot for a Hotchkiss. So, if it has Mk IV sponsons then either:

1) the tank was originally male, but had its sponsons swapped because it became a supply tank; after the war, chosen for presentation, it needed some proper sponsons and these ones came to hand?

2) originally male, but becoming knackered, so the male sponsons were removed to repair other more serviceable vehicles; female sponsons fitted after the war as they came to hand, presentation tanks not needing to be serviceable (other than managing to drive into position)?

3) the number 8050 is wrong and the tank was built as a female?

I don't think the change would occur before the Mk V appeared, as composites were not used - there would be little point in changing the sponsons over, unless the tank was worn out and it was felt the male sponsons could better be employed on a front-line tank?

Lothianman · Colonel

Gwyn Evans sends his apologies: temporarily, he cannot get at his home computer, and can't post to fora from work, so he has asked me to post some comments for him.

Gwyn says:

"In the case of Ashford, we know from contemporary photos that the tank had the training or Home Service number 245. This has been replicated even after the repaints. What we dont know is its serial number, so T1234 is just a fiction, and Id say that its obviously a fiction so as not to mislead anyone it might be right.

"When I saw the photo of the Ryde tank before repainting I did wonder if 8050 was also a fictional number, but that didnt make sense to me because:

� Why choose 8050 if there wasnt good reason to think it was associated with the tank?

� What chance of choosing a random number that happens to be a valid Mark IV serial?

� The number 805x is painted on it perhaps it was copied. If it was copied, why fake the last digit?

� I dont believe no inquisitive soul went inside the tank. This happened up and down the land, so if the plate was there Im sure it was seen.

"I would also qualify the assumption that this tank must have ended its days with either 12th or 7th Battalion. It is true that only these two Battalions used Mark IVs up to the end of the war but why assume the tank came from one of them? It could just as easily have been a runner from any number of Schools or even one from Central Stores.

"I had been toying with the idea that this was a 11th Battalion tank (i.e. a name starting with K) just because the style of the marking reminds me of my memory of my only photo of a 11th Battalion Mark IV (I havent looked it up yet, since I cant get to use a computer at home). This is why I like the name Kangaroo so much."

For my own part I would add one thought to what Gwyn says, and that is to wonder whether the number 805X inside the frame was quickly painted for stores staff convenience - to save having to go round the back to see what the number is - not easy if the tanks were stored parked very close together (perhaps even without sponsons). What made me think of this is the fact that naval aircraft, which tend to be pushed very close together with folded wings, sometimes have/had the last few digits of the serial or some other identifier painted somewhere on the front end so people can see which is which quickly, even if this is not part of the official scheme.

PDA · Legend

Lothianman wrote:
Gwyn Evans sends his apologies: temporarily, he cannot get at his home computer, and can't post to fora from work, so he has asked me to post some comments for him...

"I would also qualify the assumption that this tank must have ended its days with either 12th or 7th Battalion. It is true that only these two Battalions used Mark IVs up to the end of the war but why assume the tank came from one of them? It could just as easily have been a runner from any number of Schools or even one from Central Stores. ...

I thought of 7th, 12th, or Supply, because of the WRW stripes. Would one from schools or stores have the WRW stripes?

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Tanks from Central Stores would be quite likely to have WRW stripes if they'd them when they were handed into Central Stores. This tank definitely didn't come from 7th Battalion. 7th Battalion adopted a unique pattern of markings in 1918. Suffice to say that these included a small stylised "G" painted in black on the hull side with the crew number inside it, and no name on the hull side. For an example see the tank on the cover of Richard Pullen's "The Landships of Lincoln" (2nd edition). 12th Battalion tanks carried names on the horns, but so far as I know these were painted in modest sized characters, unlike here (see Lyric, for example).

Gwyn