Everything I've ever seen says that the Mk II only got as far as a mock-up. Now there's a claim from someone who's usually reliable that it was partly constructed. Anyone know if there's any truth in it?
PS: As with the tanks, wouldn't it have been the case that the first Gun Carrier wouldn't have been called the Mk I until there was a Mk II? I think it's a case of retrospective naming (and I'm sure there's a much better word for that).
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
James, regarding your PS remark about numbering - perhaps it was not numbered until the supply model came along and therefore was numbered as Mk I to differentiate?
