Landships II

Robert

Good eye on the tensioning mechanism shape. I shall be piling books up in the front room this weekend, I can tell

Mark Hansen wrote:

---

Two questions about the picture of the track adjuster: where and when was the photo taken? Nothing minute precise, naturally, just approximate year if known and place. Also, do you know which tank it is? The pictures of the forward machine gun port do vary but none look the same as the circular port on the Mk III. It is identical to the port on a Mk IV. The port on the Mk III & IV has 6 bolts around the rim and is significantly larger, occupying almost the whole area between the flaps. Sources for pictures: Armoured fighting vehicles of World War One Volume 1 & British Mark I Tank 1916-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 16:28, 2006-01-20

---

Unfortunately I have no information as to the place and date. The tank has a wheeled tail and Vickers mg which should give a not later than date. When were the Mk Is detailed? That there was such a specific exercise is known but I can't find an exact date other than earler than March 1917.
The round gun port was for the Hotchkis mounted in a 'ball and socket' . The rounded port on the Mk I that  I show is for the Lewis. The odd thing is that the MkII and III were supposed to be Lewis armed replacing the Hotchkiss which was not reinstated until the time of the MK IV after the Lewis had proved unsuitable for tank use. I enclose a photo of a MkI (still wearing its anti bomb roof) with a round(er) port in the front - presumably for a Hotchkiss.

 

I have found another page with the same photo and a caption saying that this is in fact 799 which does make this a MkII. There is no corrroborating evidence of course to make things easy. Note however how similar it is to the Mk I

 

I've also found a note suggesting that the Mk IIIs were used as test beds for the Mk IV being subject to various modifications  during their life span. So late Mk IIIs would look remarkably similar to Mk IVs

 

 

 

Another distinguishing feature of the female Mk II's was the use of Lewis guns in the old sponsons, originally manufactured to carry the Vickers gun.

Source: Tanks and Trenches

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 01:28, 2006-01-21

Mark Hansen wrote:

---

  It is definitely a Mk II. The rivet pattern on the narrower cab is the clue. The narrower cab was first fitted to MK II's.

---

For clarification please. In the attached photo of two cabs the first of which is clearly from a mark I, can you describe the difference in the riveting and how you tell which is narrower? They look pretty much the same to me but I may be missing something.

-- Edited by Centurion at 11:56, 2006-01-21

Centurion wrote:

---

This tank had Vickers Mgs in the sponsons so unless Bovingdon also retro fitted these I guess it has to be a Mk I

---

The Mk II tank at Bovington still has Vickers in the sponsons. See photos on the "Mk I-III" article http://www.landships.freeservers.com/mark1-3_info_walkaround.htm at the bottom of the page.

There is also the narrow cab on the tank in your scan. Your scan also shows a small upright plate on top of the tank ahead of the top hatch with two holes drilled near the top of the plate. This same plate is on the Bovington Mk II photos on the same page referred to above. This, of course, may have been a modifcation made to many tanks; however there is one final detail that I think shows that your scan and the Bovington photos show the same tank.

Can you see the hatch on top of the drivers compartment? Check the Bovington Mk II. It has the same hatch. I think your scan shows the Bovington Mk II fitted with tail wheels to "convert" it to Mk I standard. As soon as (if) I get a reply from Bovington, I'll paste the body of the email in this thread. Even though we would like to think a book or museum wouldn't get this wrong, it's not the first instance (and probably won't be the last, unfortunately). Check photos of the "Wotan" replica at the Deutsches Panzermuseum Munster. The side flaps are fitted with 3 hinges instead of 2. There are 3 hinges on "Mephisto" which the Panzermuseum used as the basis for their replica; unfortunately "Wotan" did not have 3 hinges.

P.S.: Further to the part about the hatch on top of the drivers compartment. It is also faithfully reproduced on the Airfix kit, as well as the narrow cab. Airfix used the Bovington Mk II as the basis for their kit.

BIG P.P.S.: It IS the same tank!! The hatch could be a common modification, the metal plate could be a common modification, but is battle damage a common modification? Look at the rear of the tank in the scan. It has 2 holes near the gear covers. Now check the Bovington tank; same location, same holes!! This is definitely the Bovington Mk II fitted with tail wheels.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 14:01, 2006-01-21

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 14:02, 2006-01-21

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 15:22, 2006-01-21

Centurion wrote:

---

But given that some Lewis armed Female Mk IIs had sponsons from MK Is when was the necessary modification carried out to the gun mounts and ports?

---

When the mod's were done, I don't know but they seem to be pretty basic judging from the photos.

 

Sorry I've answered these three questions in reverse order but I read them in reverse order due to simply skipping to the bottom of the page. Bad habit but at least I've managed to cover all the questions (I hope).

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 15:02, 2006-01-21

Mark Hansen wrote:

---

It has 2 holes near the gear covers. Now check the Bovington tank; same location, same holes!!

---

Can't do this as the walkround shows the starboard rear side and the photo the port. Do you have a shot of the port at Bovingdon?

Does this mean that not all Mk IIs were fitted with Lewis guns?

I'll put together a "birdwatchers" type document with as many differences as I can find to distinguish the Mk I through to the Mk V**. I'll use line drawings with arrows to point out the distinguishing points. This may take a while as it's my first effort at something like this.

P.S.: Any scans of tanks, regardless of Mk., from anyone will be greatly appreciated. I would like it to make this guide as accurate as humanly possible. Only scans of photos please. Line drawings can have omissions or guesses.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 06:14, 2006-01-22

".....Had a fun trip to local hospital due to food allergy!....."

Hope you are feeling better there Mark , and I most definitely look forward to your finished work since I would really like to get to know the difference's betwix the Mark's myself.

Tread.

Robert, I received a reply from David Fletcher at Bovington tonight.

Quote:

Mark

Yes, our Mark II was fitted up to look like a Mark I not long after WWI, but with one male and one female sponson and remained that way until at least the sixties. When we finally acquired the only original Mark I from Hatfield Park around that time the tail was switched and now it is displayed as a Mark II, albeit an odd one since it only carries the female sponson but during the latter part of WWI probably served as a supply tank, which is why it also has a cab roof hatch and at one time a silencer on the exhaust.

DavidF

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have checked too carefully if I had seen that photo beforehand. I'd look at it, see the tailwheels and think "Tail wheels, gotta be a Mk I". I've borrowed a copy of "Armoured Fighting Vehicles of World War One" and on page 26, there is a photo of a Mk II identified as a Mk I. On page 27, same tank but now identified as a Mk II! Either an "I" was dropped or the tank has been misidentified. Curiously enough, the tank itself is "The Perfect Lady"!!

P.S.: BTW, I'm compiling a small reference on distinguishing features (see post somewhere above) and need more photos to cross check features, especially the later Mks but shots of any Mks welcome. Any chance you'd have some scans there? TIA Mark Hansen.

P.P.S.: The sponson question: Which one did they replace? I've only seen Mk I's as supply tanks myself and then only tanks that were formerly males (should they be classified as eunuchs?). It would make more sense to use a male tank for a supply tank, due to the larger sponson door. Makes you wonder what "The Flying Scotsman" once was. Unfortunately the name isn't always a reliable guide to the "sex" of the tank. The name of Mk I female tank D16 was "Dracula"!

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 14:55, 2006-01-23

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 15:04, 2006-01-23

At the danger of reopening old discussions could others please check my interpretation of this photo of a MKI. By its the number (528) it was a relatively early Female. I'm trying to make out by the pitch of the rivets wether it was Fosters built (boiler makers pitch) or Metropolitan (same pitch as on MK IVs) but I'm unclear.

Now look at the tensioning - do my eyes deceive me or is the appature a variation from the round ended variety? I've pasted in a round ended one for comparison and also blown it up in the second picture as much as I can.

-- Edited by Centurion at 18:29, 2006-01-23

Centurion wrote:

---

At the danger of reopening old discussions could others please check my interpretation of this photo of a MKI. By its the number (528) it was a relatively early Female. I'm trying to make out by the pitch of the rivets wether it was Fosters built (boiler makers pitch) or Metropolitan (same pitch as on MK IVs) but I'm unclear. Now look at the tensioning - do my eyes deceive me or is the appature a variation from the round ended variety? I've pasted in a round ended one for comparison and also blown it up in the second picture as much as I can.-- Edited by Centurion at 18:29, 2006-01-23

---

 It appears all the production machines used girdermakers pitch. I've put together a scan of 743 being loaded at Fosters and Mother which definitely did have boilermakers pitch. Note that for clarity I've flipped the scan of 743 (or perhaps it's being sent west not east!). The difference is very noticeable.

A comparison of small scale difference is available by putting the Airfix kit and the Emhar kit side by side. Airfix used boilermakers on their model; Emhar girdermakers. The difference in scale (1/76 & 1/72) and Mk's (tailed Mk II & Mk IV) is irrelevant for the purposes of comparison. Airfix for some reason used photos of Mother as well as measurements from Bovington, most notably the hatch in the driver's cab and the silencer. Perhaps they felt the photos of Mother were better for side detail due to it having never been in combat.

As an aside, the Germans in the photo with the Mk II further up this page seem to have known pretty well what "TANK" meant. Either their espionage was good or captured infantry/tank crew had let them know, probably inadvertantly; I cast no aspersions on anyone's relatives. Anyone that was in one of these things in battle gets my utmost respect.

The photos of the various cabs I will work on. The shot of the Mk I at Gaza(?) has quite a few bits of angle iron or similar welded onto the roof, doesn't iit?

P.S.: I think the apparent difference in apertures is caused more by differences in angles from which the shots were taken than differences in shapes themselves. It is also possible that the apertures were slightly different between the inner and outer horns. The inset shot is of an inner horn tensioner.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 00:24, 2006-01-24

Centurion wrote:

---

I enclose a variety of pictures of cabs Mks I to IV. There seem to be a number of varieties of MK I cabs and I've red ringed the different variations. Note the numbering of variations is purely arbitary and does not imply any sequence.

---

The variations in the forward machine gun port are mostly due to the covering flap. In some cases it is missing and in the case of the scan of "C3", so are the vision flaps; stripped for parts perhaps? "C3" also shows an unusual distorted shape for the machine gun port, however this may well be due to battle damage or damage while removing parts.  The port on the wireless tank has apparently been modified. It may have had something to do with its new role.

I think the flap may have been a weak part of the design, especially if the sight on the Hotchkiss caught on the edge. The shot of the captured Mk II in an earlier post shows the flap starting to hang unevenly. Where the flap is missing, it is usually easy to make out the two mounting holes above the port for the flap.

The Mk I male "HMLS Pincher" at what appears to be Gaza has had studs or angle iron fitted to the roof of the cab to help hold stores in place.

I like the shot of the male Mk III. Nice and clear and either new build sponsons or very clean old Mk I sponsons. Cleanliness is almost another identifying characteristic of the Mk III. Any idea what the hole underneath the cab was for?

The Mk IV is another brilliant photo. Any idea when and where this was taken? I'm not sure what the two vertical plates atop the cab are for. They don't appear to be the right shape for supports for unditching rails. They also appear on Mk IV male 2341 at an early stage. This tank was later named "Flypaper" and named "Fan Tan". Anyone know if it still had these plates when it bore either of these names?

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 06:08, 2006-01-24

Mark Hansen wrote:

---

The variations in the forward machine gun port are mostly due to the covering flap. In some cases it is missing and in the case of the scan of "C3", so are the vision flaps; stripped for parts perhaps? "C3" also shows an unusual distorted shape for the machine gun port, however this may well be due to battle damage or damage while removing parts.  The port on the wireless tank has apparently been modified. It may have had something to do with its new role. I think the flap may have been a weak part of the design, especially if the sight on the Hotchkiss caught on the edge.

---

The flap is of different shapes The holes below the flap are of different shapes and in one case it looks as if there never was a flap to start with. I'll put notes against each picture and repost.

I think that some of the variations are due to differnt fittings for the machine gun. The hole on the wireless tank is specifically for a Lewis gun rather than a Hotchkiss. One of the other  slots if examined closely has a shield inside it presumably for a Hotchkiss. Others are of differnt widths, possibly in an atempt to allow more travers for the gun. I'll annotate and repost.

Annotated shots enclosed. Re the Gaza tank this sort of luggage rack appears on more than one but not all the tanks sent to the Middle East - a localised variation? But see also the gun slot and flap

 

Drader wrote:

---

The Mark I fitted with the later track adjustment gear is indeed an oddity. I searched the spare room for my copy of Tanks of the world 1915-45 on Sunday to check as the book is occasionally wrong (specially on Soviet tanks). And the tank in the picture does  look to have the wider cab of a Mark I.

---

It's definitely the Mk II from Bovington (with tail wheels added). Apart from the email from David Fletcher, it has the narrower cab (see the rivets at the left hand top edge of the cab; the first 2 are closer to each other than the next rivets) with the vision flaps having the raised metal surrounds. There is the raised hatch fitted to the cab, just like Bovington's. But most of all, it has the hole damage at the rear of the tank, exactly the same as Bovington's. Not too many tanks would have identical damage.

This is the problem with books and photos. There's a fair degree of Murphy's Law at work. To take the example of "Tanks of the World", whoever had to make the decision to show a picture of a Mk I decided to use the best looking shot they had. They used one of a tank that was a) clean and b) readily identified as a Mk I because of the tail wheels. As I mentioned a lttle earlier, I would probably have seen the wheels and immediately assumed it was a Mk I. It's only when you look closer that it doesn't look right.

Drader wrote:

---

The hatch in the cab roof of 'Flying Scotsman' is a strange addition, some Mark IVs had a hatch too, like 'Britannia' the tank sent to the USA

---

A lot of the Mk IV's ended up with hatches on the cab. The Germans equipped Beutepanzers with them and so did the British. The hatch on "Brittania" looks almost the size of the hatches fitted to Mk V's. According to David Fletcher, the supply tanks were fitted with them. The one on "The Flying Scotsman" faces in the opposite direction than the ones on the Mk IV's. I don't know if supply tanks all had theirs fitted this way or if this was a one-off (and if I guess, I'm sure to be wrong).

Drader wrote:

---

The curved shield show in the Variation 1a pic is a very rare view of the outside of the gimballed mount for the Hotchkiss. I have a feeling that the picture is Mother, which is why it lacks the flap seen on Mark Is and IIs. Looks like the underside is painted white, just like in the shots of Mother being demonstrated.  

---

I've got to go with you on this one, David. There are a few other details that I think shows it is Mother. The background looks similar to that of the shots of Mother at Hatfield Park. There is a trimmed lawn surface around the tank, again like Hatfield Park, rather than chewed up soil. The tank itself is exceptionally clean, with only small amounts of soil adhering to the tracks. I have only seen the small hooks on both the inner horns below the cab on Mother. The rivets along the top and bottom of the cab are more numerous (15 at the top and 17 at the bottom; Mk I, 11 rivets at the top and 13 at the bottom), the sort of thing that you would expect with boilermakers pitch. If this is Mother, and I see no reason to think otherwise, at least now I know what the front looks like!