Landships II

Centurion · Legend

Turrets (cupolas) V & V*

Mark Hansen · Legend

RE: Turrets (cupolas) V & V*

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

In any case if one looks at photos of Mk V*s the beam is often positioned right over the top of the hatch which would make it impossible to use.

I think the beam is usually located just in front of the hatch, level with the leading edge of the rear cupola on most examples (See MkVstar_male_WD10073.jpg). One shot I have seen does have the beam above the hatch; however this possibly could be a tank parked at Bovington post-war and the beam is clearly just resting on the rails with no chains attached (See MkV_star_male_902_WD10047.jpg).

It would be strange if the crew were to block the top hatch with the beam but it is also possible that the beam has worked its way to its position over the hatch due to jostling during travel.

As far as a crew member exposing himself to fire, the hatch would have provided a small degree of protection and the machine gun in the cupola might have been able to give some covering fire but it was probably a case of risk getting shot trying to get moving or sit still and be shelled.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: In any case if one looks at photos of Mk V*s the beam is often positioned right over the top of the hatch which would make it impossible to use. I think the beam is usually located just in front of the hatch, level with the leading edge of the rear cupola on most examples (See MkVstar_male_WD10073.jpg). One shot I have seen does have the beam above the hatch; however this possibly could be a tank parked at Bovington post-war and the beam is clearly just resting on the rails with no chains attached (See MkV_star_male_902_WD10047.jpg). It would be strange if the crew were to block the top hatch with the beam but it is also possible that the beam has worked its way to its position over the hatch due to jostling during travel. As far as a crew member exposing himself to fire, the hatch would have provided a small degree of protection and the machine gun in the cupola might have been able to give some covering fire but it was probably a case of risk getting shot trying to get moving or sit still and be shelled.
Actually I think that even on the first of those two pictures half of the tank hatch might be blocked. One reason for positioning the beam over the hatch might be if the side hull door was used to give access to attaching the beam. If the door was half open it might be possible to reach up to the chains hanging from the beam whilst standing behind the door. The sponson would give some cover from fire from the front and the door from fire from the side and rear. If the beam was in front of or behind the turret it would probably be necessary to step clear of the door to reach. Having the turret hatch blocked would probably seem the lesser of two evils. It does seem particularly poor design and one wonders why the side flaps were eliminated from the turret design. They could have been retained and still have the mg positions.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

One reason for positioning the beam over the hatch might be if the side hull door was used to give access to attaching the beam. If the door was half open it might be possible to reach up to the chains hanging from the beam whilst standing behind the door. The sponson would give some cover from fire from the front and the door from fire from the side and rear. If the beam was in front of or behind the turret it would probably be necessary to step clear of the door to reach. Having the turret hatch blocked would probably seem the lesser of two evils. It does seem particularly poor design and one wonders why the side flaps were eliminated from the turret design. They could have been retained and still have the mg positions.

Sounds like a reasonable idea, although I wouldn't like to fit the beam from the ground or the roof!

As far as the design goes, a poor design never stopped production before or since (Ask any owners of the Ford Pinto). It would have been interesting to see how the Mk V** fared having an unditching beam fitted. The upper side door could also be opened with another mg to provide some more cover.

BTW, do you have some info on Central Workshops building Mk V*'s or converting Mk V's to V*'s? I can't find any references to Central Workshops-built Mk V*'s.

Centurion · Legend

BTW, do you have some info on Central Workshops building Mk V*'s or converting Mk V's to V*'s? I can't find any references to Central Workshops-built Mk V*'s

I know I have some references but they'll need digging out and I am somewhat involved at the moment in putting together a proposal for some potential work (I'm an IT and Change Management consultant). I know for certain that B T White refers to it in his 1970 book (he states tht CW built about a dozen or more) and there are references in one or more of Chambers and Ellis books (also dating from the 1970s). When I've time I'll dig out all the MkV* references from ny home index and open up the filing boxes. I've also seen references on some web sites but again I'll have to dig a bit (unfortunately searching on Mk V* is not easy as the engines think that the * denotes a wild card).

CW certainly had the capability and they did produce supply tank conversions (including I believe at least one Mk V* supply tank). This doesn't of course prove that they produced Mk V*s. I also wonder if CW produced the Mk IV and Mk V* radio tanks that I cannot find any photos of (all I can see are Mk Is). It would be nice to find some history of CW's activites so one can see exactly what they did do

The subject of Mk v*s built by CW was raised in this forum on a number of occasions and no one queried their existance. I remmber that I asked if they would have retained ther Mk V cencus numbers and was told by someone that this was the case but ony about 20 were built! In this case The Devils Chariots figures showing 700 built by Metropolitan are not affected (although there are only serial numbers for 697).

Centurion · Legend

Unfortunately my theory re using the side door as cover for fixing the beam doesn't hold water. I've found a shot with this door open - it opens the wrong way! At the same time I have found a number of shots of different V*s with the beam plumb on top of the hatch (lined up with the rail supports on the sides of the turret) so this does seem to have been a fairly usual position.

Re CW built V*s this appears in a number of forms in various books by Chamberlein and Ellis in the 1970s (basically saying that the first V*s were conversions but V*s built as V*s were all made in the Uk at metropolitan) but there is an earlier reference in a book by Col Rogers of the Tank Regiment published in 1965 so true or not true I guess he's the source.

Finally does anyone out there have any pictures of the cut and shut Mk IV (or would that be Mk IV*)?

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Finally does anyone out there have any pictures of the cut and shut Mk IV (or would that be Mk IV*)?

I would also like to see photos of the CW built MK V*'s. They should be easy enough to identify if the number is visible.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

The relevant passage from Col. Rogers' book is attached.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Thanks for that extract, Rhomboid. In that excerpt, it doesn't actually say that Central Workshops manufactured the tanks. They certainly came up with the idea, which is what John Glanfield and David Fletcher also say.

I think that this is where the confusion has come in over the manufacture of the Mk V*.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Thanks for that extract, Rhomboid. In that excerpt, it doesn't actually say that Central Workshops manufactured the tanks. They certainly came up with the idea, which is what John Glanfield and David Fletcher also say. I think that this is where the confusion has come in over the manufacture of the Mk V*.

It does slightly more in that it says that they built at least one at CW

"An ingenious development of the Mark V was produced in February 1918 by the Tank Corps Central Workshops. The length of the hull was increased from 26 feet 5 inches to 32 feet 5 inches by the insertion of three extra panels on either side of the hull, and an additional door was provided on each side in the new panels. "

I believe that Glanfied and Fletcher say that this was a Mk IV and no Mk V*s were produced at CW. Incidently looking at the preface to Whites' book it appears that most of his asistance in producing his book came from Col Icks and the Curator of the Tank Mueum at Bovingdon (my italics)(presumably David Fletcher's predecessor) As White states that at least a dozen Mk V*s were produced by CW by converting existing MkVs one has to assume that either this information came from one of these sources or was passed as correct by them. I'd be interested to know how and when this view changed and the basis for the change.

Mark Hansen · Legend

It is possible that the reason for the change is a re-interpretation of the records. In The British Tanks 1915 - 19, David Fletcher says that the conversion of some Mk V*'s into supply tanks apparently never made it into the records although photos exist of the tanks.

This work would have been done at CW and may have been the reason for claiming that CW made the Mk V*. However, there may be another reason for the change of view as you say.

Centurion · Legend

It has always been the case that the closer one gets to the front the worse the record keeping gets. As I�ve said elsewhere I once had the interesting task of auditing REME�s systems for tracking and recording the history of all British Army and RAF vehicles. The guys at Woolwich used to get very irked by the lack of returns from some forward workshops and tank recovery units at BAOR, but as one tank recovery man explained to me when they were recovering a tank it was all too often in driving rain and wind and sometimes at night. In a wartime situation people would be firing at them as well, so all they were interested in was doing the job as fast as possible and paperwork came a long way down their list of priorities. Similarly the workshops were most interested in getting the tanks back to their units and keeping the British Army on the Rhine up to strength � forms came a lot later. I�m sure the situation was the same but more so in 1917/18. If I may go off topic a little I�ll give an example of a similar situation that once really upset the historians. �

During WW2 the Heinkel Uhu twin engined night fighter was the only aircraft that the Luftwaffe had in service capable of dealing on any thing like equal terms with the Mosquito night fighters and intruders. Luftwaffe units could not get enough of them but Heinkel was suffering significant production problems for a variety of reasons and the plane was in short supply. Historians looking at the period found that accounts of the numbers of Uhus reported as in service with Luftwaffe units did not tie up with Heinkel�s production and delivery records and explanations such as �you�re getting mixed up with Ju 88 night fighters� or �you�re double counting� (to use some of the more polite expressions) were passed about. Then it was discovered that the officer commanding a major Luftwaffe spares depot had been getting his men to assemble complete Uhus from the spares and issuing them to very grateful front line units. He had not been keeping records for fear of getting into trouble and the units had not been recording the acquisition of the uninspected aircraft for the same reason. He hadn�t produced very many but enough to muddy the historical waters and bamboozle some respected historians.

Now I�m not saying that CW did the same with Mk V*s but if they had done unofficial conversions it wouldn�t surprise me that no records existed.