Landships II

Howdy Centurion,

Nice pic, haven't seen that one before {but then I'm not as learned as most of you}.

I tried to enlarge and focus on the name.....best I can do so far is make out that the last two letters appear to be the letters 'C' and 'K'...hth

Tread

".... Any ideas what was going on....." Looks to me like it hit a mine buried in the sand {hence the hollow} and lost a track.....or, was that your question? .

EDIT: Although I must say, the photo begs the question of; Since the tank is pointing inward from the sea, what dispensed it, and/or from where did it come?

-- Edited by Treadhead at 02:30, 2006-02-18

Treadhead wrote:

---

Howdy Centurion, Nice pic, haven't seen that one before {but then I'm not as learned as most of you}. I tried to enlarge and focus on the name.....best I can do so far is make out that the last two letters appear to be the letters 'C' and 'K'...hth Tread ".... Any ideas what was going on....." Looks to me like it hit a mine buried in the sand {hence the hollow} and lost a track.....or, was that your question? . EDIT: Although I must say, the photo begs the question of; Since the tank is pointing inward from the sea, what dispensed it, and/or from where did it come?-- Edited by Treadhead at 02:30, 2006-02-18

---

As far as I know the only examples of tank landings in WW1 were the trials for operation Hush. This was intended to be a landing on the Belgium coast supported by nine Mk IV tanks (6 male 3 female). The tanks were more examples of WWI funnies being equiped with ramps for crossing the sea wall and spiked tracks to deal with seaweed covered shingle. The females had winches for towing lorries etc off the beach and over the sea wall. If any one has a photo of the winch equiped females I'd be very interested to see it. Hush was cancelled when the Ypres offensive with which it was inteded to link up failed. Most of the lessons learnt in the trials were lost and had to be relearnt in WW2 after the Dieppe landings.

Mark Hansen wrote:

---

There were 8 Mk I tanks in Nutt's command. The names and types are: Sir Archibald (Male) Pincher (Male) Otazel (Male) Ole-Luk-Oie (Male) Nutty (Female) Kia-Ora (Female) War Baby (Female) Tiger (Female) Of the 8 tanks, the last 4 names can be eliminated. The first name can also be eliminated as it starts further rearward than the tank on the beach (see http://www.chakoten.dk/eng_kvg_gaza.html for a photo of Sir Archibald). Of the 3 remaining names, Pincher seems the most likely. Where Treadhead has noticed the "C" and "K", I think would correspond with the "CH" of "Pincher". I may be wrong, but it appears the most likely name.

---

To add a little, Tanks at 2nd Gaza

1. Sir Archibald (Male) assigned 54th div. - KO'd unrecoverable
   
   
2. Pincher (Male) assigned 52nd div - held in reserve
   
   
3. Otazel (Male) assigned 52nd div - ditched
   
   
4. Ole-Luk-Oie (Male) assigned 53rd div - broke down
   
   
5. Nutty (Female) assigned 54th div (Nutt's own tank) - KO'd probably was unrecoverable
   
   
6. Kia-Ora (Female) assigned 52nd div - survived
   
   
7. War Baby (Female) assigned 52nd div - fate unkown (to me)
   
   
8. Tiger (Female) assigned 53rd div. - KO'd

If our beach bather is Pincher (and this looks right) then it is likely that the photo is post 2nd Gaza. The battle was any way inland from the coast and fought on stony desert so the photo cannot be from this battle.

B.H. Liddell-Hart in "The Tanks" (1959) describes the tank action at the 3rd Battle of Gaza, which employed 5 Mk.I's and 3 Mk. IV's: "All eight were allotted to the attack on the network of defenses in the sandhills between Gaza and the sea, though two of them were held in reserve. The six tanks leading the assault were assigned no less than twenty-nine objectives between them, and their task was all the harder because the assault was launched in the dark early on November 2. But two of them forced a way into and through El Arish Redoubt, two stormed Rafa Redoubt and the nearby trenches, while another had a particularly striking run of success-capturing Sea Post, flattening out the wire from there to to Beach Post, and then overcoming Cricket Redoubt. Five were eventually disabled, but not before they made a very effective contribution to the break-in."

As an aside, Frank Mitchell in "Tank Warfare" suggests that some of the Gaza tanks were painted white and sprinkled with sand for a camouflage effect, and some were covered with imitation cactus. Col. Swinton is reported to have suggested painting the tanks with "frightful faces" of "Djinns and Afrits", and with texts from the Koran, in a rather naive attempt at psychological warfare. Mitchell states that the Koran quotations were not applied. Swinton, in "Eyewitness" denies recommending quotations, but states that the faces were actually painted onto some of the tanks! (I have yet to see any photographic evidence for this.)  

Following up this I'm now fairly sure that the tank shown in the photo was the fifth tank in the asault at 2nd Gaza. Out of the six tanks involve 3 rallied (ie managed to return intact) after taking the cricket redoubt, 2 were ditched in trenches in the El Arish redoubt (which looking at the map was  a long way from the sea) and abandoned, Tank number 5 managed to run along the edge of the beach taking no less than five Turkish positions in turn and was right through the Turkish lines and attacking a position beyond Sheikh Hasan and well in the Turkish rear when it shed a track and had to be abandoned by its crew. All three tanks were subsequently recovered and repaired. The track was not blown off and I suspect that the hole in the photo has been dug as part of the recovery operation. It would also seem that the report of one being "seriously damaged, from a round that plunged in from the top" is incorrect (this may be a confusion with the fate of Nutter or Sir Archibald in 2nd Gaza).

I am indebted to an article by Bryan Perrett in Military Modelling June 1980 for most of this information. This includes some very helpful maps.

I think that tank 5 must have been Pincher

Rhomboid wrote:

---

To my rather aged eye, the name on the tank appears to be H.M.L.S. OTAZEL. An interesting feature of this Mk.I is that it looks to have been retro-fitted with a silencer and exhaust pipe, rather like a Mk.IV, in place of the inverted V-shaped baffles typical of the earlier marks. This may suggest that the photo was taken later in 1917, after the 2nd battle of Gaza and the arrival of the Mk.IV replacement tanks. 

---

See earlier postings in this thread re name. I think (after nearly going blind)I agree with Mark Hansen and Treadhead in their interpretation. This would make it Pincher. Else where in this thread (see previous posting and some others) its established that the position on the beach means that it has to be 3rd Gaza (the action in 2nd Gaza was well away).
It would seem that a number of tanks were retro fitted with exhausts. This was not an unmitigated blessing as the Gaza tanks apper to have been also fitted with various vertical rods or poles to allow them to carry supplies on the roof. The two reserve tanks for 3rd Gaza were sent on to carry supplies forward and the hot exhaust pipe caused a fire amongst the stores and both tanks had to be abandoned.