In the past, sketches have shown the size and position of the White-Red-White stripes on the tanks. However, the official notification (attached) only refers to the top stripes and not the side or rear stripes. Did these come in on a different date and for a different purpose?
I'd suggest that as that document is for RFC pilots only the cab top markings were relevant to the audience. The side stripes came in for at the same date and for the same purpose (i.e. identification to friendly forces). I can't immediately recall seeing rear stripes, but then my memory is getting worse.
Yes, it's just that I can't think of a photograph that shows the back end of a Mark IV painted like this (though there is a hint of red on Lodestar III).
In the past, sketches have shown the size and position of the White-Red-White stripes on the tanks. However, the official notification (attached) only refers to the top stripes and not the side or rear stripes. Did these come in on a different date and for a different purpose?
Tony
Hi
As I put the sets of drawings on the Forum I thought I should respond. The notification is for the RFC as they needed to know the new markings that had been decided upon in the early 1918 trials, they needed to know who and who not to attack. These were undertaken so that air and ground forces would be able to identify 'friendly' tanks from those that were expected to be used by the Germans, which would have been mainly captured British ones. The full set of drawings were from HQ Tank Corps and were to show their personnel how to paint their tanks, the drawing dated 29 April 1918, although some tanks may have been painted before this as they would have known about the trials and its results earlier. There may have been some variation in how they were applied (some Whippets I think were painted with white/red/white over the engine compartment) it all depends on the 'human' factor. Reference the rear painting, I suspect that 'lack' of photos of markings may or may not be due to lack of enough photos of the period to get an accurate view of the situation or experience showing the rear marking was not necessary in action. However, the markings were for all the same purpose to identify your own tanks from those of the enemy and came in at the same time.
David Fletcher's "Landships" p32 shows a Mk V with WRW stripes on the rear "turret", as does the cutaway on p26 and rear view on p11 of his "Mark V Tank".
My post wasn't about Mark V and their rear turrets. I can think of lots of such photos of Mark Vs, but I couldn't (and can't) think of any of Mark IVs marked with WRW stripes on the spaced armour on the petrol tank.
Paintings don't count as references. I am away from my references at the moment but IIRC the cutaway is demonstrably wrong, as it has a Female serial number but internal 6 pdr ammunition stowage at the hull rear.
Your previous post didn't mention any specific mark of tank. However, we now are aware that Mk Vs had the rear markings and the Mark IVs mightn't have.
Your previous post didn't mention any specific mark of tank. However, we now are aware that Mk Vs had the rear markings and the Mark IVs mightn't have.
Tony
Tony, I wrote: "Yes, it's just that I can't think of a photograph that shows the back end of a Mark IV painted like this (though there is a hint of red on Lodestar III)."
Yes, it's just that I can't think of a photograph that shows the back end of a Mark IV painted like this (though there is a hint of red on Lodestar III).
UI wonder why the rear position for painting on Mk IVs was totally different from Mk Vs - Whitehall madness?
Why shouldn't they be different? They are different shapes.
There is no rear turret of any size on the Mark IV so painting a Mark IV like a V wouldn't be effective, and painting a Mark V like a Mark IV wouldn't make any sense as the stripes would be obscured by any stores carried on the rear stowage frame.
