Landships II

The inverted V mud deflector on Mk V* 10128 was fitted to at least one other Mk V* (10069) which appears in "The British Tanks 1915 - 19" on p. 184.

The photo of the tank boarding the Rectank wagon was taken at the Metropolitan works. It has the same building roofline visible behind the tank as that seen in the photo on p. 35 of 9766 boarding a Rectank wagon. The remnants of a cross in a circle similar to the one in your shot also appear on 9766.

P.S.: P. 35 of "Landships" by David Fletcher. Not much good me quoting the page number if I don't give the title

I wouldn't be surprised if 9265 turned out to be a hermaphrodite. It was usually a conversion of a female tank. 9808 is unusual; I don't think there were very many hermaphrodite Mk V*'s but again it is an ex-female so not too strange.

The Mk V* in "A New Excalibur" has mud or oil over the front part of the second digit. I don't think it is 9231 but more likely 9631. It would be best if the original photo could be checked or if the WD number could be checked against that of O42 "Omar" in records.

One other point is that the mud flaps do not appear to be fitted to both sides of the tank.  All the photos of Mk V and V* tanks that I have seen have mud flaps, if fitted, on the port side but not the starboard. These photos are usually not of the same tank. However, the AWM has two photos (E04448 & E04445) of the same tank with the twin mud flaps on the port side but none on the starboard. They do not appear to have been lost due to enemy fire or damage. This tank also has another asymmetry of a sort. It only has one unditching rail.

The reason for having the mud flaps only on one side is probably to prevent the mud being drawn into the tank through the air intake for the radiator. I would hazard a guess that the photos that you have showing mud flaps were taken of the tank's port side. Obviously there will be some port side photos that also show no mud flaps but I think there will be no starboard side mud flaps.

I've taken a hard look at all the photos of Mk V and M V* s I can find. I have only located four cases where there are good views of both port and starboard of the same tank (although not all taken at the same time). One of these is a Mk V* and the others MKV. On the Mk V* and two of the Mk V there is inded a Port/Starboard asymmetry with two mud flaps  on the Port only. The other Mk V has no mud flaps at all. This is indicative but four tanks out of 1,100 built is probably too small a sample to be dogmatic about. Obviously some tanks were asymmetrical and some tanks had no mud flaps at all but we need more photos to be sure about the nature and likely numbers of asymmetric tanks.

I looked at all those one sided views where the apperture is visible. Firstly the overwhelming majority of shots are of the port side! Why I don't know (is there something inbuilt in the human brain that make people prefer to take photos of a tank going from right to left?). On the port side views every combination of mud flap detector is found from none to angled. I have found a number of different tanks (all Mk V*s) with the angled deflector  one of which is at the Metropolitan factory so we now know that the angled deflector at some time becae a factory fitted item (and could always have been). So the production line was altered at least twice (once to add the double flap and once to change to the angled deflector). Looking at the rarer starboard views I find all but one have no flaps - one Mk V* has  two flaps on the starboard side (which muddies the waters). Was this tank symmetrical or perhaps asymmetric but in the opposite way?

It would help to know why the flaps were introduced and why some (if not all) were asymmetric. One possible cause might have been the introduction of fan assisted air venting part way through the Mk V production run. Did this draw air from one apperture or both? If from one was it from one particular side?

With regard to the odd numbers I mentioned. I was unaware that any MK V* composites were built - does any one have any further info on this? Is there a list of composite serial nos anywhere? I cannot 'make' the serial number on Omar a having a 6 for the second digit as this appears to have a straight bottom edge (its the side of the digit thats smeared). Does anyone have access to a record that might identify Omar?

I'm still digging and I'll revise my list and post some more photos after thre Bank Holiday

Centurion wrote:

---

I was unaware that any MK V* composites were built - does any one have any further info on this? Is there a list of composite serial nos anywhere?  

---

David Fletcher in "The British Tanks 1915 - 19" says that there was no hard evidence that any Mk V*'s were converted to hermaphrodites and surviving battle sheets for individual tanks still have them referred to as either male or female. As far as a list of hermaphrodite serial numbers is concerned, I doubt that one exists from WWI. If a list exists, I would think that it has been compiled at a later date from photographic evidence.

Where did that photo of 9808 come from? It would seem to be definite proof of at least one Mk V* hermaphrodite.

P.S.: In the same way that everyone knew there was only one "Hedi" until a photo showed up with 2 "Hedi's" in the same picture.

Centurion wrote:

---

See page 282 of the Devils Chariots. This suggests that the Mk V initially had air ducts but the fan was introduced later and vented through the roof.

---

I said that I’d try and deal with some of the issues after the bank holiday, this is now over (and so it has stopped raining). However I’m still following up some potential sources so this is still not a complete account – more to come I hope – bear with me the following is interim.

Firstly some general observations.

Its clear that with a single mark there could be a number of variations between different individual vehicles. Regardless of any asymmetry issues there were certainly a number of different types of mud flap/deflector in use on Mark Vs and V*s (although the chronology is yet to be established). I have also detected some differences in the arrangement of silencers and exhaust pipes (including the use or not of lagging) and the shape of unditching rail/exhaust support brackets (more on this in a later posting). I have also found some references to internal variations. Given this it is no longer safe to say things like “ I have examined Tank no. xxxxx in museum A and this proves that all tanks of this mark were exactly as follows”. We cannot over generalise from a single example. Indeed I would suggest a degree of healthy scepticism should be applied when using museum examples unless there is a detailed record of any changes etc made to the vehicle during its lifetime (for example the Mk V at the IWM would appear to have had modifications made to its exhaust system at some point as this now has a non standard support bracket and runs along the bottom of the cupola blocking the side hatch). To add to our problems photos of the same tanks get repeated across many publications and web sites. 9752 for example appears in a number of different photos in various publications; as this particular tank was used for experimental purposes and may have had all sorts of things bolted on or taken off at various stages in its life it would be particularly dangerous to use it as a standard. Most photos are from one side only (for some reason most often the port) and good views of the roof (especially that section between the cupola and the driver’s cab) are very rare. The result of all of this is that we should be careful of making definitive statements  (“this proves that……”). In many cases the best we can say are things like “ a number of tanks had ……..”, “it is likely that….”, “this suggests that ……” etc. In this vein the following may help shed some glimmers of light.

In the case of the cooling system on Mk V and V*s the publication ‘The Fighting Tanks’ (Jones Rarey and Icks 1933) states that the Mk V had a “cooling fan to force warm air out through roof”. Given that Captain Rarey had been in charge of the design department of the US Army Tank School (and was recognised as an expert in tank cooling systems – he designed the one for the 6 ton) in the period C1918 –1924 one must grant a significant degree of credence to this statement. Elsewhere in the Fighting Tanks there is further detail that supports Glanville’s description in the Devils Chariots of an fan driven airflow that was blown through a cowl round the exhaust manifolds before exiting roofwards; accounts are given of the extreme heat causing the seals round the exhaust manifolds to expand and leak carbon monoxide into the interior causing crews to become delirious or loose consciousness. This coupled with the German use of gas grenades could be a very serious problem. In one case a tank commander had to point the tank towards the allied lines and evacuate his tank leaving the tank running. He walked between the front horns (to gain protection from enemy fire) until enough fumes had cleared from the tank for him to re enter and regain control. These difficulties appear to have been particularly acute during the battle of Amiens when the weather was particularly hot, thus exacerbating the problem, but they had already been encountered at Baupame. This would also explain the problems that were experienced by machine gun crews carried by some Mk V*s. There are accounts, post Amiens, of Mk V*s successfully ferrying machine gun crews, possibly the mod to the cooling system as described by Glanville, had been introduced by then. The very few photos I have been able to locate showing the roof of Mk V and Mk V*s fail to show any vent. However if, as Glanville states, this cooling feature was introduced part way through the production life of the Mk V (presumably post Amiens) this lack of photos does not prove that it did not exist. The few photos available may be of tanks built before the introduction of this feature. The logical place for such a vent would be under the silencer (which would make it difficult to see in any case). It is not present on the IWM machine, however this has been stated to be a tank that actually saw action at Amiens so that it would have predated the improvements in cooling.

The concept of air being drawn through one side aperture by a fan and exiting through the opposite one is attractive as it would explain the asymmetry in the mud flaps. However there are some problems with this as the apertures are the wrong shape for this to be very efficient (unless the fan was very big but slow moving). If a ducted fan was used one would expect the aperture to be smaller (and possibly round). Certainly the exit aperture would not need to be as big. The apertures are about right if they are merely openings for cooler air to enter the tank. If there was a fan – how big was it and where was it located?

I have attached the photo of a Mk V* with flaps on the starboard side. I’ve also upped the contrast to make it a little clearer and I attach this as well.

One thing appears clear- the cooling on the Mk V and V* was found to be inefficient and the Mk V** and VII reverted to the earlier arrangement.

I think that Phil and Mark are a mite premature in concluding that the photo of 9809 proves that MkV* composites were built. This is certainly a very plausible explanation but others also exist such as:

- The tank was re sponsoned at some point

- The serial no. ranges shown in Glanville (and others) are in error.

Until we have more information (for example a front view or a starboard side view of 9809) we cannot be certain and should not be too dogmatic.

I’ll post again when I’ve finished mustering images

Mark Hansen wrote:

---

The photo of 9602 doesn't show any deflectors on the starboard side. If there were deflectors there, they would catch the sunlight as the tank is almost exactly lined up with the sun coming from the rear. Notice that the crewman's head on the starboard side does pick up sunlight but there is none on the grille area. P.S.: If the air was being drawn in through both sides, why (EDIT) would the designers (END EDIT) only worry about mud ingress on the port side?-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 23:38, 2006-05-30 -- Edited by Mark Hansen at 08:25, 2006-05-31

---

Mark Hansen wrote:

---

Centurion wrote: Well it certainly doesnt show any louvers and you can see the dark line betwen the two flaps. The resolution is not really high enough to see detail that fine. What you take to be a dividing line between the flaps appears to be the louvers themselves. If it is a dividing line between the flaps then each of the flaps would be half the height of the grille area and the flaps would be sitting against the louvers (no sunlight on them or shadows being cast) thereby cutting off air going in or out. P.S.: The "missing louvers" effect can also be seen in this photo.-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 12:00, 2006-05-31

---

can i suggest that we all (as a community) paste pictures of tanks in a central all-accessible archive. post into a holding area first until they are identified with as much info as possible, eg call sign, unit number WD number, and maybe a link to a battle report (officer commanding etc) and anything else.

Then, for example, if tank 9809 (which i dont think i've seen) turns up in 20 different pics with 4 different sponsons, we would soon spot it. (i hasten to add, that i dont think i know anything about tank 9809 ). for example, i have noticed, in the Pathe films (which could be linked to, without worrying about copyright), that the exhaust on a mark 5 often goes over the top (off centre) of the rear cupola in the films after 1918, but flat to the tank body before that date.

i know that i have seen a Yahoo Group with the intention of posting rare pics of WW1 stuff, and i know that i have pasted quite a few pics up in my yahoo photo page (but i think i am the only one who can post there). so i think the technicalities of such a venture would be easy.

i think that we could get tonnes of useful stuff if we only concentrated on the tanks. things like "factory fitted" "central workshops" "field modification" "jury rigged" would soon become apparant.

on a separate note - i havent seen any mark5* composites. i just speculated that it is possible that someone somewhere put one together. and it makes a very interesting model (the shape and strangeness of it). although i confess, i made my first mark5* as a female on both sides!

I think I may have an answer to Phils observations on the exhausts-

It would seem that the unditching rail brackets were not fitted until the tanks arrived in France as they would not pass the British loading gague. There is a lot of photo evidence for this and I hope to post a detailed item on this soon. This also includes the bracket also used to support the exhaust on a Mk V as it passes the port side of the cupola. However it was necessary to be able to run the engine for testing and to get the tank loaded on the railway truck. A temporary exhaust system would have to be fitted and then replaced once the tank was in France. On this basis it would seem to make sense that tanks filmed in the UK might have the temporary 'running' exhaust and not the active service version that allowed the cupola hatch to open.

Phil R wrote:

---

 so, incidentally do bi-planes with the jets from a Me262 (which i am pretty sure did not exist)

---

If these roof louvers were fitted to Mk V's, why do they not appear on Mk V*'s? The image I posted earlier of a later production Mk V* (9649) has a clean roof from front to back. Mk V* 9602 which you posted earlier is likewise clean. At least 2 of the Mk V tanks that were sent to Russia also do not have any louvers in the roof. If it was a retrofitted modification, the Russian tanks should have it as should surviving machines.

Centurion wrote:

---

Re your earlier posting may I say with regard to your interpretation as follows? Flare (where non image forming light enters the camera and hits the film) is actually much rarer in WW1 photography than say late forty years later. Lenses (especially on portable cameras such as might be used for shots such as the one in this case) although uncoated were usually fixed and simple without multiple elements. Such lenses may be lacking in many things (available useable apertures, depth of focus, clarity etc) but are much less susceptible to flare. Moreover the photographer was looking downwards and away from the sun thus again reducing the chance of flare. I find it somewhat strange that the supposed flare should be exactly where the ventilation aperture is. More over this supposed flare is actually split by a dark line – not a characteristic of flare. I just don’t buy flare as an explanation. ( When I have the time I'd like to do a paper on WW1 photography and its limitations etc, as they effect our interpretation of photographs, using some illustrations from cameras in my collection.)

---

If you read the whole explanation, I also pointed out that it could have been a dust speck and after further consideration I felt that was the most likely possibility.

The light area does not cover the aperture fully (check the lower left quadrant of the aperture) and extends past the top and upper right corner of the aperture with a very rounded profile. Louvers would be hard edged and not extend past the apertures top edge.

Dust on the lens will be out of focus and cause a lighter area due to light scatter. It also allows the image to be seen through it. A dust speck doesn't choose where it will land and the fact that it might be just where you need to see is usually Sod's law in effect (possibly the same reason that modified tanks don't turn up in photos). There is still the hard right hand edge of the aperture to consider. If there are flaps there, then they must be sitting flush against the louvers or else they will break the outline of the aperture. See earlier posting with illustration.

If the roof louvers were fitted to very few tanks, then these would fall more in the field of an experimental modification rather than a production modification. And if it were to vent under the silencer, it means approximately 5 metres of ducting for a Mk V* or 3 for a Mk V. It is also possible that the sources are wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, regardless of the experience of the author. In the AWM online photo collection, I have found at least 13 incorrectly described photos. These are just photos of British rhomboids; there may be other errors. I would imagine that other collections may also have errors. There are errors in "The Devil's Chariots" and "A New Excalibur". "Mephisto" repeats the Polish A7V myth. All of these have one feature in common. All of these were written or organised by people and people make mistakes (including me!). The problem comes in when errors are repeated or not corrected or when speculation transforms into hard "fact".