Landships II

Centurion · Legend

The early supply tanks

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Early supply tanks It is a commonly repeated view that supply tanks were conversions of obsolete marks. This is incorrect insofar as the Mk IV supply tanks are concerned. The record of tank orders show that 180 Mk IV s were ordered from the factory as supply tanks at a time when the Mk IV was in production and use as a fighting tank. However the earlier supply tanks were true conversions (or improvisations as an early source describes it) by Central Workshops in France. The number of such tanks was very small, their time in service short and actual photographs are rare. However having looked at what shots can be found and having read what accounts of the use of such tanks exist I offer some observation and ask a few further questions. The first use of supply tanks was at the Battle of Messines in May 1917. These tanks were �converted� from some of the surviving Mk I (and possibly Mk II) males. Given that only 60 such tanks (both male and female) could be assembled for Arras and heavy losses were experienced (for example 11 tanks, mainly Mk IIs, lost at Bullencourt alone) the number of surviving male tanks available for conversion is unlikely to have much exceeded 20, if that, and the number of Mk II conversions, if any, very few. At Messines no more than 12 supply tanks were available. It is not known if any of these were lost in that action. The three clear photos of Mk I supply tanks cover two of the tanks (712 and 746) known to have been at Messines. Of particular interest are two views of 712 (which belonged to B company) as they show that some the old assumption about the design of these early supply tanks are incomplete. The general assumption about the first supply tanks was that this was merely about removing the armament and plating over the gun ports. It has also been stated that a Mk IV like exhaust system was also fitted (indeed this has been said to �prove� that the Bovingdon Mk II was once a supply tank). However all three photos show that the Mk I supply tanks had also been fitted with a large deep box like frame or baggage container fitted at the rear of the roof. The rear view of No 712 shows that this stretched the width of the tank between tracks, blocking any path for an exhaust pipe. This rear view also shows that a second substantial storage box was fitted between the rear horns more than filling the space originally filled by the rear wheels springs and effectively extending the roof rearwards. It would be interesting to know if the Bovington Mk II has any signs showing that such boxes were once fitted and subsequently removed. Whatever the case in its current condition without them it cannot be said to be representative of an early supply tank.

There definitely was at least one Mk II supply tank with photographic proof of it. The Bovington Mk II is likely to have had a box between the rear horns from the start of its career as did most Mk II's. It would have been removed sometime before its "conversion" to a Mk I. The external changes were not the only difference made. The internal stowage was changed which is another indication that it was a supply tank.

The silencer may not have had an extended exhaust pipe which would mean that the rear storage box could be any width.

It seems almost unfortunate that 785 did survive because it has been so chopped and changed about that it isn't really representative of anything except for some details such as the supply tank style cab roof hatch.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

Those are nice photos of 712, Centurion. I wonder how the radiator exhaust fan could have worked in this configuration.

Exhaust smoke seems to be rising directly from the roof, suggesting no exhaust pipe was fitted to the silencer.

Do you know the meaning of the designations painted onto the front horn?

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

There definitely was at least one Mk II supply tank with photographic proof of it. The Bovington Mk II is likely to have had a box between the rear horns from the start of its career as did most Mk II's. It would have been removed sometime before its "conversion" to a Mk I. The external changes were not the only difference made. The internal stowage was changed which is another indication that it was a supply tank. The silencer may not have had an extended exhaust pipe which would mean that the rear storage box could be any width. It seems almost unfortunate that 785 did survive because it has been so chopped and changed about that it isn't really representative of anything except for some details such as the supply tank style cab roof hatch.

Take another look.The box on most Mk IIs is a piffling thing compared to the large box on the supply tank, open topped and only going up as say the fuel tank on a Mk IV. If thats all that was on the Bovingdon machine then it DEFINITELY wasn't a supply tank! A silencer without an extended exhaust doesn't work! The supply type hatch is typical of Mk IV supply tanks!

Mark Hansen · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

Those are nice photos of 712, Centurion. I wonder how the radiator exhaust fan could have worked in this configuration. Exhaust smoke seems to be rising directly from the roof, suggesting no exhaust pipe was fitted to the silencer. Do you know the meaning of the designations painted onto the front horn?

The designations on the front horn, as far as I can make them out, are:

BS above B above 57 or 37 (can't decide which)

DODO (which almost looks like 4 O's in the photo)

The same tank is illustrated in "British Mark I Tank 1916" but with the number B58. Whatever the first number is, it's definitely 7 as the second number. There are a couple of other mistakes in the colour centre section. The Mk III male has the early type track adjuster and A13 "We're All In It" is labelled as A11. Picky, picky, picky...

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Take another look.The box on most Mk IIs is a piffling thing compared to the large box on the supply tank, open topped and only going up as say the fuel tank on a Mk IV. If thats all that was on the Bovingdon machine then it DEFINITELY wasn't a supply tank! A silencer without an extended exhaust doesn't work! The supply type hatch is typical of Mk IV supply tanks!

You have information on the exact dimensions of the rear box of a supply tank?

And it was the same for all supply tanks?

And the original rear box on a Mk II couldn't be replaced with a larger box?

And if a tank had a small rear box there was a rule that it could not be made into a supply tank?

If there is information or photos proving this, please show me.

P.S.: The photos of 746, clearly a Mk I supply tank, do show a silencer atop the tank (see attached photos). There doesn't appear to be a tailpipe on this tank either. These photos are from the AWM online collection.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 08:19, 2006-07-18

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 08:21, 2006-07-18

Mark Hansen · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

Those are nice photos of 712, Centurion. I wonder how the radiator exhaust fan could have worked in this configuration.

Something I hadn't noticed at first but which applies to both 712 and 746. Not only does the large box cover the radiator exhaust vents but the small rear door as well.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Because none of them have submitted any proof and all the evidence I have seen against still stands so far (read my threads)

What exactly is the evidence against it being a supply tank? Your impression that all the damage would have been repaired? The impression that because it had been changed so often post-war, it could not be a supply tank during the war? It's non-appearance in battalion histories which, as you pointed out yourself, is not proof? (refer An easy Braille scale conversion). Are there photos of 785 taken during the war that prove it could not have been a supply tank?

The evidence for it being a supply tank is physical, not conjectural. It had a silencer of a type fitted to at least one other supply tank (746). It has a hatch of a type fitted to a Mk II supply tank (no. unknown). The internal stowage had been rearranged as pointed out by David Fletcher in an email to me (available on request). The fact that it is now not displayed as a supply tank does not mean it never was a supply tank.

If you do have evidence that it wasn't a supply tank, by all means, please show us all.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: Because none of them have submitted any proof and all the evidence I have seen against still stands so far (read my threads) What exactly is the evidence against it being a supply tank? Your impression that all the damage would have been repaired? The impression that because it had been changed so often post-war, it could not be a supply tank during the war? It's non-appearance in battalion histories which, as you pointed out yourself, is not proof? (refer An easy Braille scale conversion). Are there photos of 785 taken during the war that prove it could not have been a supply tank? The evidence for it being a supply tank is physical, not conjectural. It had a silencer of a type fitted to at least one other supply tank (746). It has a hatch of a type fitted to a Mk II supply tank (no. unknown). The internal stowage had been rearranged as pointed out by David Fletcher in an email to me (available on request). The fact that it is now not displayed as a supply tank does not mean it never was a supply tank (or that it ever was one either - this isn't evidence its rhetoric). If you do have evidence that it wasn't a supply tank, by all means, please show us all.

The silencer was also fitted to Mk Is that were not converted to supply tanks so this proves nothing

What is this internal stowage? I've seen it refered to but no details. Is there any example of internal stowage in another early supply tank that this can be validated against? A photo maybe?

But what needs to be answered is - is there any evidence that the Bovingdon tank was actually fitted with the large storage boxes on the rear roof and between the horns?

I'm not saying that the Bovingdon tank was never a supply tank (it seems to have been almost everything else) but that it seems unlikely and I've not seen any real hard evidence that proves that it was. Now I have suggested a way that the proposition could be proved - ie does it have evidence of those external modifications visible on 712 and partly visible on others in the form of the wide roof box. I would think it highly unlikely that Central Workshops would apply different kinds of conversions.

BTW do you have a dating for the QM photos? Only one of these opens for me.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

The fact that it is now not displayed as a supply tank does not mean it never was a supply tank (or that it ever was one either - this isn't evidence its rhetoric). If you do have evidence that it wasn't a supply tank, by all means, please show us all.
The silencer was also fitted to Mk Is that were not converted to supply tanks so this proves nothing.
What is this internal stowage? I've seen it refered to but no details. Is there any example of internal stowage in another early supply tank that this can be validated against? A photo maybe?
But what needs to be answered is - is there any evidence that the Bovingdon tank was actually fitted with the large storage boxes on the rear roof and between the horns? I'm not saying that the Bovingdon tank was never a supply tank (it seems to have been almost everything else) but that it seems unlikely and I've not seen any real hard evidence that proves that it was.
Now I have suggested a way that the proposition could be proved - ie does it have evidence of those external modifications visible on 712 and partly visible on others in the form of the wide roof box. I would think it highly unlikely that Central Workshops would apply different kinds of conversions.
BTW do you have a dating for the QM photos? Only one of these opens for me.

Quote

"The fact that it is now not displayed as a supply tank does not mean it never was a supply tank (or that it ever was one either - this isn't evidence its rhetoric)."

Unquote

That was an editing error on my part. That should have gone in a new paragraph to seperate it from the evidence for.
It proves that silencers, regardless of what type of tank they were fitted to, could operate quite happily with or without a tailpipe.
The internal stowage change is when compared to a regular Mk I or II. Or even a Mk IV, there being little real change internally.
Really?
Quote
"Take another look.The box on most Mk IIs is a piffling thing compared to the large box on the supply tank, open topped and only going up as say the fuel tank on a Mk IV. If thats all that was on the Bovingdon machine then it DEFINITELY wasn't a supply tank! A silencer without an extended exhaust doesn't work! The supply type hatch is typical of Mk IV supply tanks!"
Unquote

What hard evidence would suffice?
No roof box now doesn't prove no roof box then. No tail box now doesn't prove no tail box then. Those are both easily removed modifications. They wouldn't necessarily leave evidence of their previous existence. For an example, Flirt currently has no roof stores box. Does this mean that it never had one? The Bovington Mk II has the same type of cab hatch that another Mk II supply tank has, it has the same type of silencer that a Mk I supply tank has. This duck is quacking loud and clear.
The photos are from the AWM and a search on the photo number gives a date of 7 June 1917. The dates at the AWM have been wrong before however.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 11:23, 2006-07-18

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 12:06, 2006-07-18

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

. It proves that silencers, regardless of what type of tank they were fitted to, could operate quite happily with or without a tailpipe.

But has no relevance either way to it being a supply tank or not

The internal stowage change is when compared to a regular Mk I or II. Or even a Mk IV, there being little real change internally.

So what is it ? Its doesn't sound very convincing if its "little real change" and how does one know that it applies to a supply tank if there are no dtails as to how other supply tanks were equiped internally?

No roof box now doesn't prove no roof box then. No tail box now doesn't prove no tail box then. Those are both easily removed modifications. They wouldn't necessarily leave evidence of their previous existence.

No bolt holes old welds etc etc? Come on did they glue them on? These are failrly substantial structures that had to carry loads.

It has the same type of silencer that a Mk I supply tank has. This duck is quacking loud and clear.

See above, proves nothing. The only real distinguishing item so far appears to be the hatch. Looking into that (not literally)

Centurion · Legend

Queen Mary visited Erin in July 1917. There is a film clip available from the British Film Institute as follows

"Topical Budget 319-1: Queen Mary Among the Tanks (1917)

Wonderful picture of Her Majesty inspecting a Tankodrome in France". British officers pointing out a tank from a row of tanks to Queen Mary. Group of soldiers demonstrate how a ramp may be pulled out from the front of the tank."

Unfortunately their download streaming is not working at the moment

There are still shots somewhere of her looking at a Mk I wireless tank

Centurion · Legend

There's something odd about that Mk II with Q Mary. It has the brackets for unditching rails fitted between the front horns. The first shipments of unditching gear arrived in France in late July 1917 (too late to catch F battalion before they shipped out for Ypres and they had to fit the gear at the front). But you couldn't use unditching rails with all the stuff loaded on the roof (including that big box) so why fit the brackets to a Mk II supply in the first place? Its also slightly puzzling that the steel sheet blocking the side gun apparture is missing (much as in the Female wireless tank). I just wonder if this machine could be a sort of Central Workshops at Erin test bed to which various alterations might be added and removed as necessary before applying them to a Mk IV or other tanks. The mild steel hull would certainly facillitate this (much easier to drill holes in).

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

No roof box now doesn't prove no roof box then. No tail box now doesn't prove no tail box then. Those are both easily removed modifications. They wouldn't necessarily leave evidence of their previous existence. No bolt holes old welds etc etc? Come on did they glue them on? These are failrly substantial structures that had to carry loads.

The bolts at the rear of the body of the Mk II aren't enough?

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 15:38, 2006-07-18

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

There's something odd about that Mk II with Q Mary. It has the brackets for unditching rails fitted between the front horns.

That would be because those brackets were for the headlights.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

I just wonder if this machine could be a sort of Central Workshops at Erin test bed to which various alterations might be added and removed as necessary before applying them to a Mk IV or other tanks. The mild steel hull would certainly facillitate this (much easier to drill holes in).

Come on, that really is clutching at straws. Let's apply a little Occam's razor here. It has supply tank features, it has stores on top of it (note the flimsies); why on earth go for a complicated explanation that has no backing? The simple explanation is that it really is a supply tank.

If we're going to indulge in flights of fancy, why not call it the testbed for the Mk XXXIV? Can you prove it wasn't??

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: I just wonder if this machine could be a sort of Central Workshops at Erin test bed to which various alterations might be added and removed as necessary before applying them to a Mk IV or other tanks. The mild steel hull would certainly facillitate this (much easier to drill holes in). Come on, that really is clutching at straws. Let's apply a little Occam's razor here. It has supply tank features, it has stores on top of it (note the flimsies); why on earth go for a complicated explanation that has no backing? The simple explanation is that it really is a supply tank. If we're going to indulge in flights of fancy, why not call it the testbed for the Mk XXXIV? Can you prove it wasn't??

So explainn the unditching brackets

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: No roof box now doesn't prove no roof box then. No tail box now doesn't prove no tail box then. Those are both easily removed modifications. They wouldn't necessarily leave evidence of their previous existence. No bolt holes old welds etc etc? Come on did they glue them on? These are failrly substantial structures that had to carry loads. The bolts at the rear of the body of the Mk II aren't enough?-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 15:38, 2006-07-18

I don't know - got a picture?

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

The photos of the Bovington MkII posted elsewhere on this site show that a portion of the portside storage rack for 6-pounder shells has been cut away, presumably to increase internal storage capacity.

Courtesy of Phil's Yahoo site, the photo attachment shows the area between the MkII's rear horns. Remnants of it's conversion to a MkI display can be seen. I can't see any definite evidence of fittings for a large box, however I suspect that the bolted construction of the hull would have provided adequate points of attachment for the box.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

I don't know - got a picture?

The Landships website has one under the Mk I-III section.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

So explainn the unditching brackets

If you look at the starboard horn you can see that the bracket is set further back from the track adjuster than an unditching bracket was. In fact it's just at the right position for the headlight mount, which is what it is as I pointed out earlier.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 21:44, 2006-07-18

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Its also slightly puzzling that the steel sheet blocking the side gun apparture is missing (much as in the Female wireless tank).

Puzzling but not inexplicable. You've got a royal visitor coming so you want to give her something to see. A supply tank, just like any other rhomboid, isn't the easiest thing to see into especially if you're coming from a better lit area. Your eyes take time to adjust. If you remove one plate, she gets a good look in and doesn't get dirty entering the tank. Replacing the plate wouldn't be an onerous task. Notice also the top edge of a plate at the bottom of the opening. It could be that it is the plate ready to be put back into position after the visit.

True, I don't have documents proving this happened, nor a sequential series of photos showing the removal of the plate and its subsequent restoration. But a possibility it is and one that doesn't require a whole lot of other assumptions to work.

JamesH · Major

Calm down, calm down.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

It has supply tank features, it has stores on top of it (note the flimsies); why on earth go for a complicated explanation that has no backing?

One wonders why it has flimsies etc loaded when it is in Erin way away from the front line - where would it deliver them to? If the inside was loaded up as well then her Majesty would not be able to see anything through that open plate

My idea of a general tank hack* onto which various things could be tried doesn't mean that it couldn't be fitted with supply tank gear and then loaded up for the royal visit. It could even have been a prototype for the supply tanks at some point. I was just pointing out some inconsistencies no need to get too excited. Given that CWS had spare MkIs (with armour) that were not converted to supply tanks (see below) I just find it difficult why anyone would convert an unarmoured Mk II unless it was as some form of trial (when as I said the mild steel would be an advantage).

* CWS appears to have had a number of spare tanks that were used for a variety of tasks, trials etc etc as one would expect. For example 18 of these were pressed into service to fix chains onto fascines. A number of photos show Ml I 's with sponsons removed parked in between Mk IVs. One suspects that these were also hacks (perhaps used as tractors?)

-- Edited by Centurion at 23:30, 2006-07-23

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

I was just pointing out some inconsistencies no need to get too excited.

When the inconsistencies are pointed out with such vehemence and an obstinacy against accepting that there were Mk II supply tanks, it isn't unusual to see a certain amount of excitement in the return replies.

The stores on the roof may have been there to give a better idea of how it would look in action. It doesn't have to have been fully loaded internally, which would have reduced the view considerably as you point out. And it would be just as unusual for the stores to be on the roof of a prototype or test vehicle if it wasn't actually doing any testing work.

An unarmoured Mk II as a supply tank? Is it so much harder to accept than an unarmoured (apart from the sponsons) but fully armed Mk II going against German troops? There are photos of both and remaining physical evidence of a Mk II supply tank with at least 2 of its modifications still in place.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

There are still shots somewhere of her looking at a Mk I wireless tank

Here is the tank in question with the Mk II supply tank in the background.

I wonder if the side panels of the sponsons on both the supply tank and the wireless tank were removed to let Queen Mary see into the tanks. It would be almost impossible to enter a male or supply tank with her dress and definitely impossible with a female or wireless tank.

Centurion · Legend

The side panel was usually left off on the Mk I wireless tank on the side where the operator could be handed messages for transmission and give out communications to runners. As the early wireless tanks followed up well behind the fighting tanks and the first waves of infantry the risk was probably regarded as acceptable. Doubtless it would be parked with this side away from the front.

At the date of QM's visit the Mk I wireless was probably no longer used for anything other than training (and possibly development). I've seen a reference to it being dragged out and given a brand new paint job just for the visit. Indeed given the proximity of her visit to the opening of Third Ypres one would be surprised to find any genuinely operational tanks for her to inspect.