Landships II

Centurion · Legend

Supply tanks

eugene · Field Marshal

there is also a theory proposed by Johnathan Walker in the Blood Tub

that a Mk.II 799 was captured by the Germans, fixed and then used as a supply tank for the Germans, now he is the only person that claims this, and I am trying to contact him so he can eleborate a bit more on that.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

1. Mark I supply tanks - were these all ex male with steel sheets over the gun ports on the sponsons?

2. Were any Females converted?

3. Did any Mk Is have mild steel supply sponsons fitted (as per the mark IVs)?

4. Mark II supply tanks. I can find plenty of accounts of MK Is being returned to Central Workshops for conversion into supply tanks but none of Mk IIs or (heaven forfend) Mk IIIs in this role and yet I have seen it said that Bovingdon's Mk II at one time served as a supply tank. Is this true?

5. Were any other Kk IIs also converted? (interestingly if it is true then neither of the sponsons on the Bovingdon tank can have been original (the original male sponsons would either have been removed or modified).

6. Naming of supply tanks. In most lists of tank battalion/company numbers and names the supply tanks (and wireless tanks)have only numbers and no names. Most noteable amongst these lists is the 'F' series that appears in a number of publications. However there are some indications that supply tanks may have been given 'unofficial' names in the same aiphabetical series as the company with which they were working. Does any one have any info to support this or otherwise? Agian there is an implication for the 'Airfix/Bovingdon' tank - could Dragonfly have been an unofficial name attached when it was a supply tank (if it was)?

7. Mild steel sponsons - were these removeable for transportation?

I've split the questions up a bit to try and answer them:

From the few photos available it would appear that Mk I supply tanks were all ex-male tanks. This would make sense due to the male sponson having a larger access door.

Females could be used by attaching male sponsons. However there was a problem with the frames flexing when tanks were transported without their sponsons and fitting different sponsons could have been even more troublesome. Not impossible though; see 5. below.

Don't know.

Bovington's Mk II did serve as a supply tank. It looks identical with the Mk II supply tank in "The British Tanks 1915 - 19" and may even be the same tank. In the photo below, note the height of the vision slits and the rivet pattern on the cab front showing it to be a Mk II.

Probably. It would be odd if other Mk II males weren't converted but not impossible. 785's current starboard sponson is from elsewhere but its original male sponson could have been the supply tanks sponson without the sheet steel covering the opening.

According to an email I received from David Fletcher, the original name for 785 was "The Flying Scotsman". The name appears (very faintly) in a photo in "Chariots of Fire". Unfortunately, I don't remember the page number. When Bovington restored 785, F53 was the number they found under the newer paint scheme which had the "HMLS Dragonfly" name. If "The Flying Scotsman" was an unofficial name, it tends to fit in with F Battalion's naming practice.

The mild steel sponsons for Mk IV tanks were able to be pushed inside for transportation just like the Mk IV males. See photo below.

I hope these answer the questions (except 3.).

Mark Hansen · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

4. Mark II supply tanks. I can find plenty of accounts of MK Is being returned to Central Workshops for conversion into supply tanks but none of Mk IIs or (heaven forfend) Mk IIIs in this role and yet I have seen it said that Bovingdon's Mk II at one time served as a supply tank. Is this true?

A quick addendum to question 4. This is probably one of those occasions where the photos are a much needed supplement to the written records. The Mk II and the Mk V supply tanks only appear in photos and not records.

Centurion · Legend

Thanks Mark - very helpful. If all Mk I supply tanks were ex male it would explain why all MkI wireless were apparently all ex female (no males left to convert).

As ever answers often raise new questions. I think Flying Scotsman was an official name issued whilst the tank was still male. There are some chronological inconsistencies to be cleared up.

- 6th Battalion did not become 'F' Battalion until late Dec 1916.
- F Battalion drew its first combat tanks (Mk IVs) on June 16th 1917. No supply tanks were issued at this time
- 'F' numbers and names were allocated and painted on the tanks in the following two weeks
- Supply tanks did not join the Battalion until 6th July 1917 after it had left Auchy (the Tankodrome) for the front and they arrived just before the battalion went into action.
- When did F53 then get painted on the Bovingdon tank?
- It would look as if having a Mk I with a name starting with an F being allocated to F Battalion as a supply tank was a coincidence (the name came before the the F)

(Source 6th Battalion war history)

-- Edited by Centurion at 15:35, 2006-07-09

Centurion · Legend

Addition to my queries above

If one looks at the list of 3rd Batt names and numbers on this site

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/british_tank_names.htm

F53 does not appear named or otherwise

Centurion · Legend

Yes except that the list also gives the numbers of the unnamed Supply tanks as well and F53 isn't there!
Flying Scotsman was a name allocated to a Mk II male at Flers before supply tanks were thought of. As far as I can tell other coversions to supply tank didn't carry the name on and either got renamed or just had a number. (the earlier naming convention reflected the company id and not the battalion so carrying the names forward would have mixed two standards). Very peculiar. And I'd still like to know when the number was added to the tank given the dates in the 6th (F) Batt history (see my anti penultimate posting).

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Addition to my queries above If one looks at the list of 3rd Batt names and numbers on this site http://www.landships.freeservers.com/british_tank_names.htm F53 does not appear named or otherwise

Quite correct. David Fletcher also mentioned this in the email. He mentioned that 6th Battalion's history was the most thorough and that neither name nor number showed up there.He did speculate that, when restoring the tank, perhaps what they saw as "F53" may have been "FS3". This also does not show up but was a possibility.

It's possible that it did keep it's old name. Not only would it fit in with the naming practice but also with the style of names for the supply tanks ("Fill Up" and "Follow the crowd"). Having such a fast name may have been ironic considering it's speed but would certainly appeal to Tommy humour, especially considering the "Flying Elephant"!

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

In their OOB for Nov.20, 1917, Gibot and Gorcynski list F53 as F.S.1, a supply tank which was captured on Nov.30. A photo shows it to be a MkIV female.

The "F53" seen on the Bovington MkII was not present when it was on display at Chertsey in the 1940's, nor after arrival at the RAC Museum in the 1960's.

Centurion · Legend

I'm sure that this tank was Flying Scotsman and took part at Arras and received damage there but this only makes it more unlikely that it was a supply tank with F Battalion which didn't arrive in France until May (after Arras) recieve tanks until June (but no supply tanks) and only got its supply tanks in early July on the eve of battle. Its just possible that it got shipped back to Erin in May and repaired and converted in time to be shipped off to F Battalion in early July but if it had unrepaired damage from Arras this seems unlikely and one still has to wonder by whom and when its number was allocated and added. Given that this tank has had bits added and taken off (female sponson, Mk I wheels),at various stages in its life to allow it to be presented as something else its always possible that the number is another early addition in this vein. The F might have been added because its name was Flying Scotsman not the other way round. A number of the Mk IIs at Arras had names that were inconsistent with the names following company initials.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

The Bovington MkII was retro-fitted with a cab hatch and silencer, which suggest that it served as a supply tank at some point in it's career. Whatever the nature of the damage sustained at Arras, the fact that it was returned to the UK after the war suggests that it remained in running order.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

In their OOB for Nov.20, 1917, Gibot and Gorcynski list F53 as F.S.1, a supply tank which was captured on Nov.30. A photo shows it to be a MkIV female. The "F53" seen on the Bovington MkII was not present when it was on display at Chertsey in the 1940's, nor after arrival at the RAC Museum in the 1960's.

The "F53" or "FS3" on the side above "The Flying Scotsman" is visible in the book "Chariots of Fire" ISBN: 0760317240 . Unfortunately I don't have the book myself nor do I know exactly when or where the photo was taken but it was probably the same time and location as the photo in "Tanks of the World" as the grass and general appearance look the same.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

In their OOB for Nov.20, 1917, Gibot and Gorcynski list F53 as F.S.1, a supply tank which was captured on Nov.30. A photo shows it to be a MkIV female. The "F53" seen on the Bovington MkII was not present when it was on display at Chertsey in the 1940's, nor after arrival at the RAC Museum in the 1960's.

Wouldn't using a female as a supply tank be awkward at best? They did have better access than earlier female tanks but not by very much. Or is this possibly a case of mixed identity?

Centurion · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

The Bovington MkII was retro-fitted with a cab hatch and silencer, which suggest that it served as a supply tank at some point in it's career. Whatever the nature of the damage sustained at Arras, the fact that it was returned to the UK after the war suggests that it remained in running order.

The Bovingdon tank has been fitted with so many different and anchronistic bits and pieces in its lifetime that its general provenance is somewhat murky. Can one say that the hatch and silencer prove that it was a supply tank any more that its one time wheels prove it was a Mk I or the Male Female sponsons that it was a composite? Do we actually know when it was shipped back to the UK? Most Mk I supply tanks appear to have been 'retired' by 1918 when Mk IV supply tank were available in greater numbers and a Mk II supply tank would probably not have outlasted them. It could have been shipped back to Bovingdon right after Arras for example.

My point about the damage is that if the tank was returned to Erin for conversion to a supply tank then surely any damage would have been repaired at the same time.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

The "F53" or "FS3" on the side above "The Flying Scotsman" is visible in the book "Chariots of Fire" ISBN: 0760317240 . Unfortunately I don't have the book myself nor do I know exactly when or where the photo was taken but it was probably the same time and location as the photo in "Tanks of the World" as the grass and general appearance look the same.

And given that the photo in Tanks of the World show a tank that has already been 'tampered' with (faked as a Mk1 with wheels) how much reliance can we have in a photo produced at the same time?

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

My point about the damage is that if the tank was returned to Erin for conversion to a supply tank then surely any damage would have been repaired at the same time.

Not necessarily. The damage was mostly cosmetic considering the fact that it wasn't armoured anyway. It probably improved things for the crew by allowing more air in. And there is the case of "Egbert", a Mk IV male which was still a runner even though it had fairly extensive shell damage and was delivered to West Hartlepool still in its damaged state.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Can one say that the hatch and silencer prove that it was a supply tank any more that its one time wheels prove it was a Mk I or the Male Female sponsons that it was a composite?

It wasn't just the external appearance that was changed. According to David Fletcher the internal stowage of the tank was also rearranged which would accord with it being used as a supply tank.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

Mark, I agree that Gibot and Gorcynski may have misidentified the photo of "FS1" - the photo is not crystal clear, and it could easily be F51, a known female fighting tank deployed at La Vacquerie and Fontaine. (Under a magnifying glass, however, it does look closer to "FS"). Their OOB does list other female supply tanks.

The Bovington MkII certainly has been extensively modified, as you have noted Centurion. It would not have been necessary to add a cab hatch and silencer if the only intention was to display it as a MkI, and I think these are more likely remnants of its' career as a supply tank. The observable damage which it sustained appears to be the two penetrations of a few inches diameter, in the portside rear hull. The damage is not obviously crippling, but doesn't look easy to repair. It may have been judged unnecessary to repair this damage in a non-fighting machine. I don't know when this MkII was returned to the UK, but it just seems unlikely that there would have been any good reason to do so until after the Armistice. Indeed, it is perhaps remarkable that this obsolete, damaged tank was ever returned, rather than being scrapped in France.

Centurion · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

Mark, I agree that Gibot and Gorcynski may have misidentified the photo of "FS1" - the photo is not crystal clear, and it could easily be F51, a known female fighting tank deployed at La Vacquerie and Fontaine. (Under a magnifying glass, however, it does look closer to "FS"). Their OOB does list other female supply tanks. The Bovington MkII certainly has been extensively modified, as you have noted Centurion. It would not have been necessary to add a cab hatch and silencer if the only intention was to display it as a MkI, and I think these are more likely remnants of its' career as a supply tank. The observable damage which it sustained appears to be the two penetrations of a few inches diameter, in the portside rear hull. The damage is not obviously crippling, but doesn't look easy to repair. It may have been judged unnecessary to repair this damage in a non-fighting machine. I don't know when this MkII was returned to the UK, but it just seems unlikely that there would have been any good reason to do so until after the Armistice. Indeed, it is perhaps remarkable that this obsolete, damaged tank was ever returned, rather than being scrapped in France.

Yes but given that its whole history is murky it could have been used to represent almost anything at some stage or other. The supply tanks were not non fighting - they frequently had to undergo hostile fire. Certainly those that accompanied F Battalion at Ypres did. Supply tanks usually retained one or two mg and at least one has been recorded as using these to clear a German trench and take prisoners. It seems strange that a tank with holes in its hull and a non armoured hull at that would have been committed to battle a second time, at Ypres. If as has been stated Arras was where it saw action then it would not have been with F Battalion.

I can think of one extremely good reason for shipping it back to the UK after Arras - Bovingdon was desperately short of training tanks - many of them having been shipped off for Arras in the first place (and as far as I can tell most of them being destroyed either at Arras or Bullencourt (11 destroyed in this action alone)). If the tank was still a goer then it might well have gone back to be a trainer again.

Its always possible that it was converted to supply in the UK (possibly again as a trainer).

Before WW2 there were plenty of WW1 and just post WW1 tanks in the UK many of them still in running order (Bovingdon had quite a collection themselves) but almost all were scrapped as part of a scrap metal drive. I believe Bovingdon only saved some odd vehicles by hiding them. Cosequently in post WW2 Britain any WW1 tank capable of moving might well have been used to represent almost any Mk from I to V. Its quite possible that at one time it could have been used to represent an F Battalion tank and had the F number added.