Landships II

Centurion · Legend

Tank gun Idenity help wanted

Drader · Lieutenant

That's D17 Dinnaken, Lt Hastie's tank. Not sure what the object pushed through the slot is. Since the tank was abandoned and left there until the war's end, it need not be a gun at all.

Centurion · Legend

Drader wrote:

That's D17 Dinnaken, Lt Hastie's tank. Not sure what the object pushed through the slot is. Since the tank was abandoned and left there until the war's end, it need not be a gun at all.

But why then is it numbered J17 and not D17? see enclosed detail. If you could see the whole picture it is clear that if the tank had been abandoned at this stage it was only very shortly before the photo was taken. One of the soldiers in the group (not shown in my detail) appears to be a tank crewman.

Oh the add a file facility has stopped working!

I'll post the shot when this is working again

Centurion · Legend

Working again - here is that detail.

Drader · Lieutenant

I see a D, either partly overpainted during covering the Solomon scheme, or with the paint flaked off as a result of a hit. The style is right for D company, J (10th) battalion was formed far too late to get Mark Is and the tank is undoubtedly the one that walked down the street at Flers. It either broke down or ditched soon after and was left where it lay until the end of the war when it was scrapped. There are pictures of the scrapping in either the Osprey book or The British tanks 1915-1919.

D company tanks didn't sport the anti-grenade roof which was restricted to C and A companies.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

I've found an enormous photo that claims to be of a Mk I femail at Flers. Its too big to scan the whole thing (it covers two pages in a coffee table sized book) but I've enclosed a section showing the front of the tank and another showing the gun flap in the cab. I hope there is enough detail - its very clear in the big copy in the book (pages 72-73 in Wars of the "20th Century by Everett). It looks right - the tank has the early camoflage pattern and the right sponsons.

Are you sure that the book describes the tank as a female? I only ask because I have a copy of that photo in a book (World War I in photographs) and it's very clearly a male tank. It is, as David pointed out , D17 "Dinnaken" which was a male. Of course, the photo I have has been positioned across the spine (I'm sure it's done deliberately!!) which makes scanning somewhat difficult, but there is another photo of the same tank on the same page. I think the apparent lack of tail wheels is due to the crowd around the back of the tank obscuring them. Quite often, the wheels are raised off the ground which makes them easier to spot in photos. When lowered, they're shorter than the average height of a soldier and easily hidden, especially when there's a crowd.

As far as the "D" itself, it could be mud, paint, or flaked off paint removing the left hand section of the "D". It looks, as far as it is possible to determine, to be a different colour from the camo colours around the same area. P.S.: And now that I've had a closer look at it, it's probably not a different colour. Hard to pick colours on B&W shots.

P.P.S.: According to the caption, it was used as brigade HQ for a time.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 01:58, 2006-01-28

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 02:00, 2006-01-28

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

The first attachment shows a detail of a still photo (dated Nov. 12, 1916) from Geoffrey Malins' film "Battle of the Ancre" (IWM film 2043). The sponson Hotchkiss of D.20 "Daphne" is visible. Within the limits of the photo's resolution, this appears to be the same weapon seen in the cab of D.17. The purpose of the rod mounted above the barrel is obscure, especially as it is not generally seen on Hotchkiss machine guns mounted in ball mounts in later vehicles. Perhaps the rod prevented the aperture flap from resting directly on top of the barrel, which would interfere with aiming. According to Mike Chappell, when modified for British tank use, the Hotchkiss machine gun was designated a Mark 1*, No. 2 gun. The second attachment shows what may be a portion of such a rod hanging inside the sponson above the aperture (a spare perhaps?).

Centurion · Legend

Mark and Rhomboid

Thanks - yes its a Male of course - on my photo there are so many standing in front of the sponson its difficult to tell. It seems to be a different (and bigger) crowd than in the photo that Mark includes (most of the second page of the shot is just crowd) all wearing helmets etc and looking as if they've just come out of battle with the exception of one guy wearing a soft cap and a very non uniform scarf - I suspect that he might be one of the crew, possibly the tank has only just come to the end of its run and not yet been abandoned (which would explain why the gun is still in position in the cab front) I guess that it must be a Hotchkiss but why the rod? There is a second rod along the side of the barrel which can't have anything to do with the hatch.

Mark your second photo doen't display properly

28juni14 · Hero

...the protruding object looks suspiciously like an entrenching spade handle with a bayonet scabbard strapped to it.

Centurion · Legend

28juni14 wrote:

...the protruding object looks suspiciously like an entrenching spade handle with a bayonet scabbard strapped to it.

Its a very big entrenching tool and a very thin bayonet then. Thats definitely a rod along the top (you can see through the space between it and the barrel) and it does match Rhomboids picture from another tank in the same action. What still puzzles me is the other rod that shows on my picture but not on Rhomboisa suggesting that its only fitted to the right hand side of the barrel

Mark Hansen · Legend

That's odd, it loads ok here. Anyway, I'll try again.

Fiona · Private

I see that someone has already pointed out that the tank is D17, not J 17. That was my stepfather's tank (Stuart Hastie).