Landships II

Drader · Lieutenant

Mark II 799 revisited

Treadhead · Major

How about posting a pic Mr. Drader sir

Tread.

Drader · Lieutenant

Sadly, no scanner.....

Hopefully someone else with the book and a scanner might save us.

eugene · Field Marshal

drader, thanks a lot, I might have that photo, ill see if I do, if not can anyone please scan it?

Thanks

Centurion · Legend

I'd be interested to see this as it was the last but one MkII Male built and so might tell somethiong about the degree of 'design drift' if any.

Mark Hansen · Legend

There's a pic of 799 on the Landships site in the "More contemporary photos" area http://www.landships.freeservers.com/new%20catalog%20data/29.html.

P.S.: It's captioned as a Mk I however.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 09:34, 2006-01-27

Drader · Lieutenant

That's the one! - the picture in Pullen's book is a little less grainy than that. Definitely not a Mark I

Mark Hansen · Legend

Not wanting to be excessively picky, but there are a few photos that have been mislabelled in that section. One is the MkIV fitted with a crane; it's actually a MkV (check the detail at the rear of the sponson).

P.S.: By section, I mean on this website, not the book (which I don't have)

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 21:55, 2006-01-27

Mark Hansen · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Not wanting to be excessively picky, but there are a few photos that have been mislabelled in that section. One is the MkIV fitted with a crane; it's actually a MkV (check the detail at the rear of the sponson)

D'oh! Not the sponson. I meant the rear horn. And I forgot to mention the rear cupola on top of the tank. It looks like the number "M14" is not the original number. The area underneath it looks scrubbed.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 21:29, 2006-01-27

Mark Hansen · Legend

I think I may have found a shot of 799 from the other side (of the tank; not the afterlife!). There is a picture on this site at http://www.landships.freeservers.com/Mk1_1.jpg which shows the spuds at the same position as the shot of 799. By itself, this may not mean much but look at the track closest to the camera. Notice the way it is sitting away from the tank? Look again at 799. It has its track sitting away from the tank in the same position. I have also found a shot of the same tank in "Tanks and Trenches" with the same tank after capture by the Germans. They have propped up the 6 pounder with a block of wood. Notice the stick(?) leaning against the spud? Check http://www.landships.freeservers.com/Mk1_1.jpg. It has the same stick(?) lying on the ground in front of the tank. There is no 799 on this side of the tank but it could be due to obscuring mud, paint, or just plain missing.

Date: Jan 30, 2006

Note also that it appears to have a Hotchkiss mounting in the front of the cab.

Drader · Lieutenant

Anonymous above is me, forgot to log in.

Mark Hansen · Legend

It's a bit hard for me to make out. I assumed it should have been fitted with Lewis guns, but on re-reading chapter 2 of "Tanks and Trenches", it seems that the males carried the Hotchkiss. Quote: "All female machines were now equipped with the air-cooled Lewis gun which, although highly effective as an infantry weapon, did not function well in tanks and caused even more problems." End Quote:

However, in "The British Mark I Tank 1916", it states that female and male tanks carried the Lewis! Quote: "Central Workshops in France record converting 62 tanks - both Male and Female - to accept the Lewis gun." End Quote:

OK then, which statement is right? Both statements were made by David Fletcher so it isn't a difference of opinions between two authors. The first statement doesn't actually say that the males weren't fitted with the Lewis but it implies that they weren't (at least, it does to me). Possibly Robert (Centurion) has the correct explanation (see opening statement in Mks I to V - variations) in that it might have been a tank that was missed but recorded as being done! Or a later reversion to the Hotchkiss that wasn't recorded, especially if the Lewis performed poorly. P.S.: Not a case of "if"; it did perform poorly in tanks.

Sure makes it hard to get a guide together!

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 08:26, 2006-01-31

Mark Hansen · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

There is no 799 on this side of the tank but it could be due to obscuring mud, paint, or just plain missing.

Obscuring mud as opposed to clarifying mud, I suppose, as in "It's as clear as mud!" I really must read what I write before I post!

Drader · Lieutenant

David Fletcher also comments on the changeover to the Lewis gun in The British tanks 1915-1919, there he only mentions the replacement of the Vickers gun in Female sponsons and nothing about the gun in the front of the cab. The section is a little opaque and I read it a few times before it made sense.

Later on in The British Mark I Tank 1916 he describes the changeover to the Lewis happening during the production of the Mark III which fits quite nicely with the shot of the training tanks (which must be Mark IIIs as the Mark IIs all went to France) with Lewis gun apertures in the front of the cab. It's possible there may be problems with the text, some Osprey New Vanguards are really badly edited, and his book on the Crusader suffered in some respects (though not as badly as the one on German destroyers)

Mark Hansen · Legend

Thanks David. I saw that bit about the changeover in The British Mark I Tank 1916 and in the battle of Arras section about the Mk II's it says that the Lewis was selected to replace the Vickers and the Hotchkiss. The book definitely states that male and female tanks had Lewis guns fitted.

Possibly some tanks retained the Hotchkiss if there weren't enough Lewis guns to go around. Quite a few females in photos are short of the sponson mounted Lewis guns and not all of them are ditched tanks (599 and The Perfect Lady are two that come to mind).

Drader · Lieutenant

It's possible the tanks seen without guns had them dismounted while 'trekking'. This certainly happened later on.

Mark Hansen · Legend

I think Robert (Centurion) did find another photo of 799. The picture in Mks I to V - variations (GermanphotowithEnglishTank.jpeg) looks like it shows 799 just after capture. It still has the two vision flaps whereas the other shots show the drivers flap missing. It has a "Christmas tree" against the drivers side inner horn as in the MkII_maybe_799.JPG picture. It also seems to have the same camouflage traces on the 6 pounder barrel as the other photos. The spuds are all in the same position in all the shots which makes it more likely (but by no means certain) that it is the same tank. A similar point is the dirt on top of the sponson. It appears to be piled up the same way as the other photos taken from the commanders side.

I think I've worked out a chronology for the shots taken from the commanders side of the tank:

GermanphotowithEnglishTank.jpeg. This photo has the least amount of equipment taken from the tank. The commanders side track is still attached to the tank.
MkII_maybe_799.JPG. The commanders side track is hanging away from the tank. The drivers vision flap has been removed. A block of wood is propping up the 6 pounder barrel.
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/Mk1_1.jpg.

Of course, the last two photos may be reversed in order. The third photo is a bit too low res for me to clearly check details and I think it may have been retouched around the cab area.

P.S.: Still haven't learned to proofread before I post

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 03:12, 2006-02-02

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 03:13, 2006-02-02

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 03:15, 2006-02-02