Landships II

Arch Dornan · Private

Found wooden mockup of Mark X tank

James H · Legend

Sorry, that's not the Mark X. It's the Mark V that was never built.

PDA · Legend

Which moderators would you like to contact; the ones on the site where you found the photo, or the ones on this forum, or somewhere else?

Tonys · Field Marshal

I think both could be correct! The last iteration of the MkV was provisionally called the MkV***. However, this got renamed to Mk X. Attached is an artist's impression of the standard MkX - looking a lot like the wooden mock-up. Apparently there was some insane talk about making a tadpole version!

James H · Legend

Hmmm. Every time I read this I come to a different conclusion.

http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles.html?load=/landships/tank_articles/Tank_Projects_1917_1919.html

All the IWM photos I can find describe this photo as the rejected Mark V.

D. Fletcher (The British Tanks 1915-19, 2001, p86) The Mark V which Ricardo mentions as being designed in 1916 and ordered by Lloyd George that Christmas was not the Mark V that entered production. Rather it was an alternative and somewhat more radical design, drawings of which were dated 9 June, 1917. A full size wooden mock-up of this tank, and another, designated Mark VI, were rolled out from the Metropolitan works on 23 June, 1917, and again on 13 July.

(p167) Mention might also be made of a Mark X, described as an improved Mark V in which particular attention had been paid to manoeuvrability, crew comfort and reliability. This also apparently reached the design stage at the time of the Armistice.

Centurion's article on Landships states: In the meantime there was yet a third revision of the original Mk V design, this being the Mk V***. This appears to have been insurance against a failure to reach agreement on the construction of the Mk VIII International. The MK V*** introduced so many changes that it could effectively be classed as an entirely new tank and it was eventually renumbered as the Mk X. It appears that this vehicle was to have been produced, in male form only, with a new design of sponson. As it happened the Mk VIII was approved and the Mk V***/Mk X never made it past the full-sized mock-up stage.

In the Osprey book on the Mk V, Fletcher says that the virtual end of trench warfare meant that the long Mk V* and V** became unnecessary, and an order for 2,000 of the existing Mk V, which was faster, was placed with Metropolitan in August 1918. However, Wilson et al wanted numerous alterations to be included, which Metropolitan said they couldn't accommodate. Bertie Stern calmed things down. Metropolitan relented, but only on condition that they could treat the result as a new model. (I don't know enough to see why this was important, but one assumes that it was to Metropolitan.) DF says Under the existing system it should have been classified as Mark V***, but this was seen as a clumsy arrangement likely to cause confusion, so the designation Mark X was adopted instead. Outwardly it would look like the original Mark V [1] and be powered by the same engine, but since none were built and no drawings appear to have survived, it is impossible to say exactly what it might have looked like.

[1] By that does he mean the original Mk V that was rejected or the original production Mk V? Complicated, isn't it?

Can anyone join the dots?

Also, some interesting illustrations here:http://www.wardrawings.be/WW1/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/UK/1-Tanks/Mark-10.htm

-- Edited by James H on Sunday 25th of April 2021 11:52:22 AM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

I can join these dots. It really isn't difficult.

First point: David Fletcher is right. Well, almost entirely right - see below.

Second point: I have never seen the Mark X described as Mark V*** in any official documentation from the time (and I've read a lot). So I think Centurion is wrong about this.

Third: the Mark V (the one we all know, being the second iteration of which 400 were built), was belatedly realised to have been the excellent tank it was and better than the Mark VIII as a production possibility, and so there was a decision to restart production. However, more and more changes were introduced into the design, so much so that reusing the Mark V designation would have been too confusing so the Mark X designation was adopted. Centurion is right about the Mark X being a development of the original Mark V but wrong about it being abandoned because the Mark VIII was a success. It wasn't.

Fourth: I have never seen any evidence of a full-sized mock-up of the Mark X, so I disagree with Centurion on this but agree with him it was Male only (Females were obsolete - that's why they were being converted to Composites). The photo of the wooden mock-up at the top of this thread is not a Mark X. It's the first, abandoned, version of the Mark V. The location is Saltley, by the way. The building behind was known as the Light Varnishing Room and it's standing on the traverser.

Fifth: Although production of actual Mark X tanks never happened, by the end of the war components were being produced as were jigs. After the Armistice these were dumped on the Metro testing ground at the rear of the Oldbury works. There is therefore plenty of evidence that had the war continued the Mark X would have entered production.

So, by the original Mark V that was rejected Fletcher means that mock-up that started this thread. By the production Mark V he means the second iteration being the only one that entered production. The only sensible interpretation of the quote is that the Mark X would have looked like the production Mark V (why would it look like the rejected design the Mark X wasn't based on??)

I hope that clears it up for everyone.

Gwyn

-- Edited by Gwyn Evans on Sunday 25th of April 2021 12:16:34 PM

-- Edited by Gwyn Evans on Sunday 25th of April 2021 12:21:24 PM

CharlieC · Legend

I've been trying to figure out when the decisions to build the rhomboid tanks were made and

what was the context of the decisions. In this case there seem to be two strands of development running in

parallel - an improved Mark V tank and the stretched Mark V* and Mark V**.

Has anyone constructed a timeline to show when the key events/decisions occurred and when they occurred in relation to

other strands of development?

Charlie

James H · Legend

I was thinking that. A family tree would be nice. I'm still struggling, even if Gwyn isn't.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

That's a little unfair James. A different question has now been asked, and just because I don't struggle with the tale of the Mark V doesn't mean I understand everything.

I also don't think it is as simple as mapping out the dates decisions were made. Those decisions took time to implement, and by the time they were implemented it was found that some decisions no longer made sense, or the key personalities had changed, or the war situation had changed. Let's take some examples.

- Mark V*. An expediency brought about by the need to cross larger trenches rather than a new design. Found to be underpowered (obviously, because it had the same engine as the Mark V) and unsteerable (less obviously). But why so many ordered - and built?
- Mark V**. First order place in January 1918 (before the Mark VIII) but the pattern tank not completed until end October. There do seem to be two strands of tank policy here and I don't pretend I fully understand this.
- Mark VIII. 1040 ordered from NBL for the British Army in July 1918. Further 335 to be ordered from Beardmore. By October the order was significantly reduced, partly at least because they were difficult, and therefore slow to build. The Mark V (or X) was regarded as a better production possibility.
- Mark VIII*. Twenty ordered specifically to cross canals. All cancelled because mobile bridges became available.
- North British Locomotive - the firm's champion was Moore, as he felt MCWF had a monopoly that was not in the country's interest. Moore's replacement Maclean saw NBL was better employed making locomotives and tank work was reduced.
- Medium D. How this fits in when Medium C was the Medium for Plan 1919 I am unclear.

Gwyn

James H · Legend

No offence meant, Gwyn. I was being, as my grandmother used to say, "self-defecating." I am getting slower on the uptake as the years pass by.

I would love to see answers to all of the above. I've never understood why Moore, an admiral, was involved in proceedings at all.

Here's an interesting work: World War 2 in Review No. 26: American Fighting Vehicles. Despite the title, there's quite a bit about WWI worth reading. Includes the claim that Stern pretended there was a new tank in the pipeline when there wasn't, to get the Americans interested.

Tonys · Field Marshal

The comments posted have been very interesting, However. I I find one thing puzzling: if the original MkV (i.e. not built) was so good. Why did an inferior, later, version get built instead?