Landships II

velotrain · Lieutenant

Mk IV supply-crane # 466

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Hi

I can help only with the most insignificant parts. Yes, the roof did leak, and "Boddington" is a misquote. You mean "Bovington".

Gwyn

velotrain · Lieutenant

Indeed - I'm not quite sure where that came from.

Tonys · Field Marshal

If you want to use AA tracks - fine, but according to the Dick Harley highly detailed drawings of tank tracks, he gives the pitch as seven and one-half inches - the AA tracks are at eight point six inches.

Use the Emhar that are the correct pitch or scratch build a master and cast the things.� You can of course scratch build the whole lot if it takes your fancy - I'm sure you wouldn't do worse than the Emhar vinyl rubbish.

�

Tony

velotrain · Lieutenant

Tonys wrote:
�
Use the Emhar�. . . Emhar vinyl rubbish.
�
Tony

�This seems a bit contradictory.

Tonys · Field Marshal

All vinyl tracks are rubbish, but at least the Emhar ones are accurate in plan view.

The pitch difference between AA and Emhar might seem to be small, but the difference is immediately noticeable.� Spending good money to buy something incorrect doesn't seem like a good idea.

It seems as if the size and pitch of tracks is something that manufacturers either don't understand or don't care.� As an example, the Zvezda Mk V tank has 23 and one-half inch wide tracks: Mk V tanks had 20 and one half inch or twenty-six and one half inch wide tracks - Zvezda "compromised" and used 23 and one half inches for their tracks!

It would seem as if they all will all have something wrong, so we have to accept it or attempt to make a better job of them by building our own.� Most of the time, it's not worth the effort

I've got a very special tank build coming up - Erica II Male Mk IV that one of my great-uncles died in - that will have scratch-built accurate tracks on it.

Regards,

Tony

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Tony

That is a very special build indeed. Would you be willing to share what you know about your Great Uncle and his tank, please? It might well help to fill in some gaps for those of us trying to document British tanks in the Great War. Rather than me hijack this thread, perhaps you would PM me? Many thanks.

Gwyn

velotrain · Lieutenant

Not a problem Gwyn, as no one seems to have any info anyway.

Hijack away.

Tonys · Field Marshal

The drgs of the original "Weston's purchase" are available on the web, and describe a simple ratchet two-man lifting mechanism.

From photos that I have seen, the same crane would seem to have been fitted on the two Gun Carriers altered to become salvage cranes.

Tony

Tonys · Field Marshal

Gwyn, Not much to tell - I know more about him in death than in life. 2 ANDREW MURRAY a. Date of Birth: Born 1896 (month and day unknown) b. Parish: St Cuthberts c. Joined Army: date unknown d. Entered France with British Expeditionary Force, 27th November, 1914 e. Units: i. 1st Bn Cameron Highlanders ii. E Bn, Tank Corps (cap badge in photo shows Machine Gun Corps badge, but didnt serve in MGC) f. Regimental Nos.: i. Camn Highrs: 9884 ii. Tank Corps: 95535 g. Rank: Corporal h. Killed: 11h45 Friday, 23rd November, 1917, on the plain of Moeuvres, during battle of Cambrai in Mk IV male tank E3 Eclipse II. (One of eleven tanks supporting 107th Infantry Brigade, 36th Division). Death recorded in Units War Diary (Sheet No. 5, 23rd November, 1917). i. Grave: no known grave j. Memorial: Panel 13, Cambrai Memorial, Louverval Nord, France. k. Death Plaque: ownership unknown l. Medals: in possession of Keith Murray. Includes Military Medal won while an Acting Corporal (substantive Lance Corporal) in 1st Bn Cameron Highlanders London Gazette 14th September, 1916 - no citation; Allied Victory Medal; British War Medal; 1914-1915 Star (ribbon round the wrong way). Also Mentioned in Despatches London Gazette 15 June, 1916 He had a brother killed in 1914 - both of them have no grave. Andrew's tank is shown on p 99 of the book "Following the Tanks Cambrai". However, the No. given in that book for E3 Eclipse II as 2798 is incorrect. That was Eclipse of 2/Lt Maitland. The photo of Eclipse II, under the command of Lt Tripe does not show any markings, I met my great-grandmother once as a child - I wonder how she found closure over the deaths when there were no bodies? My Mother's middle name was Andreen in commemoration of Andrew. I am now trying to build WWI tanks like mad for our IPMS SA National Competition in Aug next year. Tanks planned are: Mk IV Male Eclipse II, a Mk IV Female as the first mine-roller fitted vehicle, a Mk IV Female as Beutepanzer Hanni, a Mk IV Male Tadpole - all Emhar, a Mk V Composite - Zvezda, A Mk V* Female - ex Emhar, an A7V - Taurus. If I have time, also Foster's Battle Tank, Flying Elephant Mks A and B, and the final one will be Little Willie - all of these will be scratch built. This Mk V* is taking so long, I don't know if I will finish them all in time. Regards, Tony

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Tony

That is all very interesting and also, of course, tragic. Thank you for posting it. You have noticed that the number 2798 is wrong and you're right about that. I am also going to suggest that the crew number E3 may be wrong. What the authors of "Following the Tanks" have done is that where no complete listing exists for tanks at Cambrai they have taken the most recent complete listing prior to the battle. This has the unfortunate consequence that people and tanks are listed that were never at Cambrai. The book seems to have used as the source for its listing of E Battalion tanks at Cambrai, a listing of E Battalion tanks on 20 September 1917, so two months before the battle. In that listing, Eclipse (not Eclipse II) was 2798 and E3. But I know of no evidence that it's replacement, Eclipse II, was also E3. It might have been, some might argue it probably was, but I'd say there's no evidence one way or the other. The tank was part of 3 Section 13 Company E Battalion at Cambrai (so one might expect a higher crew number).

There is a brief account in the National Archives of what happened to Eclipse II and its crew, which I can post here or send to you by PM if you wish, but I should caution that as a relative you might find it upsetting if you've not already come across it. (It may be in "Following the Tanks" anyway, but I don't have a copy to hand.)

Good luck with your modelling. That's quite a challenge you've set yourself.

Gwyn

velotrain · Lieutenant

Tonys wrote:
The drgs of the original "Weston's purchase" are available on the web, and describe a simple ratchet two-man lifting mechanism.
From photos that I have seen, the same crane would seem to have been fitted on the two Gun Carriers altered to become salvage cranes.
Tony

Tony - I have seen the drawings, but am inclined to think that the "Weston's purchase" was only used on those tanks that were fitted with the jib on the front, but not a full winch.�

�

My original question had to do with the gearing, but think I have sorted that out by enlarging a photo I scanned from the Osprey Mk IV book, and rescanning the poor photo we've been using�- from British & German Tanks of WW1.� I had been confused by the intermediate size gear, not knowing what it interfaced with.

�

crane tank 466 - edited.jpg

466 supposedly at Erin, France.jpg

�

I now believe there is a small spur gear with very few teeth mounted on the shaft with the dual hand cranks on the ends.� �This meshes to the intermediate gear, turning another smaller gear adjacent to it on the same shaft.� This in turn (so to speak) powers the large gear that is mounted on the thick axle which also mounts the drum.� It looks like there could be a ratcheting/braking mechanism on the opposite side of the hand crank shaft.� There are three rods holding the winch assembly together, one at the top and one each at the two bottom corners of the roughly triangular structure.

I think I've answered another of my questions.� The X-braces on the jib now appear to consist of flat steel stock where the middle has been twisted 90 degrees to allow a bolt at the crossing.� The cross-pieces on the jib do look like I-beam.

�

One new question arises�- is the rope draped down the front of the tank likely secured to a corner of the tarp?

Also - does anyone know if the tarps were to a standard size?

One minor mystery�- the Tanks of WW1 book places their photo at Erin, while Osprey sites 466 at Bovington in their image.� It could theoretically have been at both places, but think I read elsewhere that this tank spent it's whole career at the latter location.� For those who have Mk IV data "by the numbers".

This jib is the same as mounted on the field recovery tanks, but not used on the Mk I gun carriers, as they clearly have a proper crane fitted, with integral winching and a much heavier boom�- which has a "hooked" section at the working end.� PanzerShop do a 1:35 resin kit, in either the gun carrier or salvage roles.

Mk I gun carrier kit.jpg

�

Tonys · Field Marshal

Charles,

Thanks for those pics.

It seems that the jib is in a fixed position, but the attached photo shows the jib at a different angle.� Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there is a method of altering the jib's angle PRIOR to lifting any loads so as to be able to reach different places on different tanks.� The extraction process would solely be by vertical movement in the cable via the Weston's purchase.� If you look carefully at your photo, you will see a cable running down from the jib cable anchor point area to the forward shackle in the foremost point of the glacis plates.� By the way, not only has this tank been photographed in "two" different places, it has also morphed between a Mk I and a Mk IV !!

As an ex structural engineer, the cross-bracing steel has me somewhat puzzled

The box construction of the jib does appear to be very substantial, but the cross-bracing does not.

Bear in mind that the weakness in the cross-bracing would be when the one strut is in compression brought about by a swinging load causing movement in the A-frame jib: a flat plate would be of no use unless its length was extremely short.� As it isn't, then one must assume that the flat is in actual fact an angle in the one direction and is a cut-away angle in the other.� Most probably, the angle is in the 3" x 3" size range.

My apologies for referring to the Gun Carrier mechanisms (although there seems to have been a few types) the picture I was remembering was in fact a Whippet ARV - a slightly different jib, but the same winding mechanism.

It is also interesting to note that some pictures show lifting block and tackle to make the job of lifting easier, but a hell of a lot longer to do!

Regards,

Tony

Tonys · Field Marshal

Gwyn,

Thanks for the info, and yes, I would like any other info you have.� The book has two narratives: one from the driver and the official book narrative.

The 5th Bn War Diary and History only mention the casualties and the motivation for Pte Dove's MM.

�

Someone posted a monumental list of tank numbers and names on https://sites.google.com/site/landships/home - is this from the old website?

�As I said earlier, the picture of the tank does not appear to have any markings at all, so presumably it could have been� a brand-new issue?

I don't know if you've ever seen a copy of the death scroll sent to the families?� I attach a facsimile of Andrew's

Regards,

Tony

velotrain · Lieutenant

�

Hi Tony -

>��It seems that the jib is in a fixed position, but the attached photo shows the jib at a different angle.

To me�both 466�images seem�to be right around 45 degrees.� I agree that the photo showing the jib in operation depicts a steeper angle.� I don't know the technical term, but in all the places the cable is doubled back on itself, it appears to be fastened in a manner similar to the lower fitting in this photo; i.e. quite fixed.

cable loop.jpg

�

In terms of provision for adjusting the angle rather than fitting a new cable, the newer photo "possibly" shows it disappearing into the tank as chain, and we can't know what's inside.

>��If you look carefully at your photo, you will see a cable running down from the jib cable anchor point area to the forward shackle in the foremost point of the glacis plates.

If you're speaking of what I think you are, that's what I took as rope, wondering if it was likely attached to a corner of the tarp.� It appears from behind the "jib cable anchor point area" and passes through "the forward shackle in the foremost point of the glacis plates", before disappearing under the bottom of the tank.� My interpretation as rope is based on the drape form as it nears the ground, and what looks like a kink before it disappears.

>� it has also morphed between a Mk I and a Mk IV !!

I'll allow those more experienced to determine this.�

>� The box construction of the jib does appear to be very substantial, but the cross-bracing does not.

I quite agree

>��As it isn't, then one must assume that the flat is in actual fact an angle in the one direction and is a cut-away angle in the other.

I've attached an enlargement of this area, and have a 13.5 MB version of the file that I can send you if you wish. �Looking at the photo, I see very clear evidence of flat stock being twisted 90% in the center�- on both pieces.� While I agree that angle-iron would seem more logical, that is not what my eyes perceive.� I don't know if the distance becomes short enough with the center-bolt considered.� The visual widening at the crossing is what led me to initially propose this as rod stock with turnbuckles -�before I had a better image available.

466 cross-bracing.jpg

�

>�the picture I was remembering was in fact a Whippet ARV�- a slightly different jib, but the same winding mechanism.

Ive read of these being proposed, but thought none were built.� Is this photo in a forum thread, or on Landships II?

>�some pictures show lifting block and tackle to make the job of lifting easier

That image is of one of the field tanks with only the jib and the Weston's purchase, which the winch obviates.� The FSU Mk IV article includes, "Also new was the Recovery Tank of which several variants existed. One version was a normal tank with the guns removed and a front rigged block and tackle. The other version had fitted equipment with twin platforms at the rear for an operator to stand on and operate the winch."� I've seen references elsewhere that the majority were of the former type, and think the only photos I've seen of the latter are these two of 466.

Charles

�

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Charles: 466 / 4536 is definitely a Mark IV. It is a Tender, and was built as such (rather than being converted from an obsolete fighting tank, as some were). It is also definitely not at Erin. Tanks outside the UK didn't sport the large numbers on the horns (i.e. 466 in this case) and so the photo must have been taken in the UK. Bovington is the most likely location.

Tony: Thank you for your post. I will PM you.

Gwyn

PDA · Legend

Tonys wrote:
...
My apologies for referring to the Gun Carrier mechanisms (although there seems to have been a few types) the picture I was remembering was in fact a Whippet ARV - a slightly different jib, but the same winding mechanism.
...

Take a look at this older thread: http://landships.activeboard.com/t8523736/not-a-whippet-arv/

velotrain · Lieutenant

I'm familiar with the older thread - is�this meant to explain why Tony referenced a Whippet ARV?

The winch on #466 is not the same as on the gun carrier crane, although no doubt has similar components.� The gun carrier has a�purpose-built, integrated�crane, while the Mk IV has the commonly fitted jib with the (rarely) added winch.

I've been thinking that the cross-braces I mentioned as flat, could actually have been a quite shallow channel.� Also, I don't have Tony's engineering background, but believe the twists at the center would add torsional strength to them.

Paul Bonnett · Hero

" It looks like there could be a ratcheting/braking mechanism on the opposite side of the hand crank shaft. " You are spot on with this. The ratchet worked fine under load(lifting), but releasing the load was the dangerous operation. The load was released by taking up the tension, flipping the ratchet out and lowering the load by the two crank handles ! Very dodgy if you had the handles at the wrong point.
Paul

Lothianman · Colonel

Velotrain, did you ever find out the birth details of your chap?

The mention of St Cuthberts parish caught my eye as there is a major pain with this (at least for earlier in the C19). Being a sort of half-eaten doughnut arcing a long way around the west and south of the town centre of Edinburgh (which formed the hole) it had to have a separate chapel as well as the main kirk and what they call the 'blotter register' was never very well kept up to date. I had a major hassle with this in chasing up some research in another field because of this.

However, in any case a quick check of www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk shows there is only one Andrew Murray born in Edinburgh city in 1890 and that was in Leith North parish - which however bordered on St Cuthberts. So if he had only a dim memory of where his family lodged he might have got it wrong. May be worth ordering up the birth certificateto see if you can confirm him from the data therein (and find the family on the 1891 and 1901 censuses too ifg you haven't). You can do it online on the spot from that site, don't use any of the commercial operations. You use the same credits as you buy when you start searching. You might want to check in case he got the year of birth wrong as well.

www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_MAP/1_map_edinburghshire_-_1884_cramond_to_portobello.htm

velotrain · Lieutenant

Lothianman - I have no idea what you're talking about, and suspect you have confused the senders of posts.

Lothianman · Colonel

Sorry, I have indeed got my post-senders muddled. My email is in fact intended for Tonys ...

Tonys · Field Marshal

Mike,

I haven't chased up a birth certificate, but have tried looking for the census records.� However, as Murray is a rather common name, the search would be rather expensive to track down the details and would be a real needle in a haystack!

It is a bit of a bugbear, but will get around to it one day.� Andrew was one of nine siblings, about whom I know very little except Thomas (killed 1914) and Neil - my grandfather, whom I used to visit as a small boy and even went to school at Broughton High for a term while my father was doing a course at RAF Leuchars.

Regards,

Tony

Lothianman · Colonel

I can entirely sympathise - plenty of Murrays in my forebears too (but not in that airt). However, if it helps, there is a fair chance the family were still living in the same place in the 1891 census as in the address on the birth cert of 1890 - and remember that Scottish census data is free (but electronic only, you don't get to see the form) on the southron and more commercial equivalent, ancestry.co.uk. I'll PM you ...