Landships II

Mark Hansen · Legend

Mark III males

Vilkata · Brigadier

I believe that if there are pictures of a Mk.III with short 57's then it will probably be mislabeled in a book. A Mk.III with short guns would look quite a lot like a Mk.IV at first glance. So, there might be pictures of one in any number of our books, simply mislabeled, but it'd be quite hard to pick them out I think.

---Vil.

Mark Hansen · Legend

The photos of tanks that I've seen with a short 6 pounder have always been either Mk IV or later. If anyone has a photo of a male tank they believe is a Mk III, I would be grateful to see it. I think the Mk III equipped with a short 6 pounder is like the boilermaker-girdermaker pitch argument on Mk I & II tanks, in that the photos just don't agree with the theory.

Centurion · Legend

The Mk III was seen as a transitional machine so that Mk IV features would naturally be added to some. Certainly the early Mk III males had the typical Mk I sponsons with Vickers mgs whilst later Mk IIIs had the Mk IV type sponson with Lewis mgs. The same could have been applied with the Male sponsons.with the shorter gun. In such a case these later Mk IIIs would have been almost identical to Mk IVs the main differences (armour thickness and some minor variations in some area of rivets) being very difficult if not impossible to detect from photos. I think that Vilkatas point is well made therefore. I would suspect that any such Mk IIIs masquerading as Mk IVs would be limited to training establishments (mainly Wool).

Mark Hansen · Legend

Vilkata may well be right. However, I would like a "Missouri" proof. John Glanfield asserted that Fosters-built Mk I and II's were riveted at boilermaker's pitch. He was wrong and can clearly be demonstrated to be wrong with photographic evidence (Ironically, the proof can be found in "The Devil's Chariots"). The photos that I have seen do not support the short 6 pounder being fitted, nor do they show the Mk IV type male sponson being fitted. The females also did not have the Mk IV sponson fitted either but had one of a very similar pattern. Most of the differences (i.e. rivet patterns) can be readily checked because Mk III photos, being taken under training rather than combat conditions, are a lot clearer.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

The females also did not have the Mk IV sponson fitted either but had one of a very similar pattern.

Can you define the differences?

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote: The females also did not have the Mk IV sponson fitted either but had one of a very similar pattern. Can you define the differences?

Not a problem. The attached picture shows the differences. The rivet pattern at the top of the sponson is a single row on a Mk III and a double row on a Mk IV. The sponson side on a Mk III is a single piece, whereas a Mk IV sponson is divided vertically to allow it to be folded into the tank. See the photo of "Auld Reekie" on p. 104 of "The British Tanks 1915 - 19" to see a sponson which has been partially folded into the tank. Also p. 35 of "Landships" which has a photo of a Mk V* with a sponson ready to be folded (i.e. central riveted strip removed).

P.S.: Missed one other point of identification. The Mk III sponson is made up of three panels and the Mk IV is made up of eight panels.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 13:16, 2006-04-28

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 13:21, 2006-04-28