Landships II

diorama1914 · Lieutenant-Colonel

info about Mk II Female

PDA · Legend

Regarding camo - there was none. By Arras (April 1917) all British tanks were painted that dull brown, similar to Humbrol 29.

The most quoted female Mark II must surely be C21 "The perfect Lady" number 578. Female tanks had numbers in the 500s, I believe.

http://landships.activeboard.com/t5363532/the-perfect-lady/

https://sites.google.com/site/landships/home/lists/tanksatarras

http://landships.activeboard.com/t34204793/c21c22-arras/

http://landships.activeboard.com/t15868905/tank-mark-ii/

�

Gwyn Evans · Legend

No camouflage unless the tank had been fitted with an (armoured) Mark I sponson, which some were. These sponsons may have had the remnants of the Solomon camouflage scheme still visible.

Gwyn

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Try this photo on the Landships II site,, which clearly shows a Mk II female with camouflaged (Mk I) sponsons - you can see the pattern of the Solomon scheme. The serial number is largely obscured by mud, but may well be 598?

I'd also suggest looking at the video on the Mk II on the Landships II article on Mks I-III tanks; you'll see the back of a Mk II female, C21, which if I remember correctly was named The Perfect Lady (or A Perfect Lady?). The serial number is clearer, and looks like 598, so it is likely the same tank pictured in the photo linked to above.

These serial numbers and name do need checked by someone else, though - Gwyn, perhaps?

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

I agree that the MkII female in the photo above is probably 598, a 12 Co., D Bn. tank. The photo was likely taken immediately before or after going into action at Vimy Ridge on 9/4/17. This tank�also took part in the Second Battle of Bullecourt on 3/5/17. While at least some of the D Bn. tanks had names, I don't know if this one did. The tanks of C Bn. had their company number painted in white on the storage box between the rear horns, but this does not appear to have been the practice in D Bn.

"The Perfect Lady" was 578 (C21).

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:
I agree that the MkII female in the photo above is probably 598, a 12 Co., D Bn. tank. The photo was likely taken immediately before or after going into action at Vimy Ridge on 9/4/17. This tank�also took part in the Second Battle of Bullecourt on 3/5/17. While at least some of the D Bn. tanks had names, I don't know if this one did. The tanks of C Bn. had their company number painted in white on the storage box between the rear horns, but this does not appear to have been the practice in D Bn.
"The Perfect Lady" was 578 (C21).

You don't need me when you have Rhomboid.

Gwyn

diorama1914 · Lieutenant-Colonel

Gents, thanks for your answers. I have another couple of questions:

First: I see on Landships II the pictures from Bovington and I can see a square hatch on top of the roof of the drivers cabin. Is it accurate for a Mk II? How was actually the roof? In fact, was it a plane steel plate or not?

Second: There was a couple of metal slings to secure the rear box, between the rear horns. �Matador Models says they were fixed on a bar on the rear hull. Really? How were those slings fixed on top of the hull?

�

-- Edited by diorama1914 on Saturday 21st of December 2013 07:32:23 PM

-- Edited by diorama1914 on Saturday 21st of December 2013 07:33:57 PM

-- Edited by diorama1914 on Saturday 21st of December 2013 08:34:59 PM

PDA · Legend

diorama1914 wrote:
Gents, thanks for your answers. I have another couple of questions:
First: I see on Landships II the pictures from Bovington and I can see a square hatch on top of the roof of the drivers cabin. Is it accurate for a Mk II?

�

No. It should be a plain flat roof.

�

diorama1914 wrote:
Second: There was a couple of metal slings to secure the rear box, between the rear horns. �Matador Models says they were fixed on a bar on the rear hull. Really? How were those slings fixed on top of the hull?

�

Don't know for sure, but I'd guess at a couple of bolts or rivets.

MK1 Nut · Hero

The drawing appears to be showing the triangular exhaust deflectors going in the wrong direction, they should be the same as the MK1.� confuse

Helen x

�

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

I agree with PDA - the support straps for the storage box appear to be bolted to the rear edge of the roof using the pre-existing bolt holes for the roof plate. I haven't noticed the support bar illustrated in the instructions in any photo.

This photo of the rear of 781 shows the attachment points for the straps fairly well, since the box appears to have been broken up on this tank.

andiS · Captain

Can I piggy back a question on this one?

I'm working with the same Matador conversion set and those plans show 'location of small back plate, bolt heads outermost', and it's square on the plan. In the back is a round small plate with bolt heads which is about the right size, is that the right bit and they've drawn it wrong..or does that go somewhere else and I'm supposed to scratch build a square one?

�

Think I may have answered the last part of that one, the photo of C21 here shows what looks like a square plate..damn, I'll have to make one now..

http://landships.activeboard.com/t34204793/c21c22-arras/

-- Edited by andiS on Thursday 2nd of January 2014 10:40:50 AM

PDA · Legend

In my Matador MkII kit the small square plate was provided. It is shown in the plans that diorama1914 posted; it is off to the side, labelled "Note: small back plate stands proud of Airfix part 24".

TeeELL · General

If I may 'muddy the waters a little', In Vol 1 of Dick Taylor's 'WARPAINT - Colours and Markings of British Army Vehicles 1903-2003', Page 34, Second para (which starts: 'The Soloman scheme did ......') explains the camouflage of the MkII, final sentence I quote: 'In this case then, we can reasonably assume that if the sponsons were not repainted, then neither were the hulls, which remained Grey.'

If nothing else, it suggests that in a collection of 'soloman' and 'tank brown' models the grey might add a touch of colour? So to speak.

andiS · Captain

Thanks PDA - found it alright (don't know how I missed it the first time...

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

TeeELL, I suspect that a variety of colour schemes might have been seen on the tanks during the Arras battles. At least one MkI male tank was photographed in France in June 1917 still in the monochrome, presumably grey, "works" scheme with "Petrograd" inscription visible. Frank Mitchell, in "Tank Warfare", mentions that the multi-coloured paint scheme was abandoned during the winter of 1916/17, but he doesn't overtly state that any tanks were repainted. Indeed, some of the MkI males and females�knocked out at Arras in April 1917 were still in an overall "Solomon" scheme. However, some MkI male tanks at Arras are seen in an overall monochrome colour, without the "Petrograd" inscription visible, which would imply that they had been repainted in France.

Most, if not all, of the MkII female tanks at Arras appear to have been retro-fitted with MkI sponsons, presumably from broken down tanks,�which are still in the "Solomon" colours. (Tank 587 may not have received MkI sponsons.) I haven't seen any documentation regarding�whether the MkII's were�supplied from�the factory in an overall brown or grey colour. Mitchell implies that the overall brown scheme came into effect during the period in which the MkII tanks were being delivered, but, as mentioned, his statement is somewhat vague.