Landships II

Centurion · Legend

At the Tankodrome

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

...but it almost looks like the worlds first armoured mobile canteen.

They wouldn't have had any trouble keeping the food hot!

Mark Hansen · Legend

I've scanned the picture from "The Devil's Chariots" and it looks like they are probably Mk I's. They don't appear to have the raised rear roof hatch. At the distance they are from the camera, however, it's pretty hard to determine very much at all about them. According to the book, the original photo is listed as "TM, 887/C2" which, I think, makes it a Bovington museum photo.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

I've scanned the picture from "The Devil's Chariots" and it looks like they are probably Mk I's. They don't appear to have the raised rear roof hatch. At the distance they are from the camera, however, it's pretty hard to determine very much at all about them. According to the book, the original photo is listed as "TM, 887/C2" which, I think, makes it a Bovington museum photo.

I think I'd agree on the 1st tank but I'm not sure about the second as there appears to be some clutter on the roof that would obscure the view of the hatch. I've tried scanning at a higher resolution (results enclosed) and the tensioners do look square ended. Appropos of nothing I notice that this tanks port tracks appear to be broken.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

The tank with the long 6-pounders appears to still have a "Petrograd" inscription behind the sponson, which suggests that the hull, at least, may still be in its factory grey finish (though the sponson may show some traces of camouflage). It would be atypical for a tank in France not to have received either a Solomon or overall brown paint scheme by June 1917, however, I have seen one other photo of a tank in France still bearing the inscription.

eugene · Field Marshal

why was that tank inscribed with care to Petrograd, was that a way to decieve the enemy like the word "tank" or was it actually meant to be sent to Russia?

Centurion · Legend

As has been discussed in another thread the inscription is a bit weird as a) its mis spelt b) the tanks were all covered over with sheeting when shipped from the factory so no one could see it and c0 it would have been covered up by the camoflage. As a piece of mis direction it would therefore seem singulary ineffectual. It has been suggsted it was one of Swintons peculiar attempts at phsycological warfare!

Roger Todd · Legend

True, the tanks were covered with sheeting when aboard transport trains, but there are various photos of them trundling about the yards at Foster's sans sheeting (I don't know what the situation was at Metropolitan, where most were built). Whatever one may think about the absurdity of the inscriptions, there were certainly times when the machines were not under cover, fleeting though they may have been, thus presenting apparent opportunities for spies to see them before shipping. Paranoid it may have been, but it was a secret weapon after all. Of course, as to the likelihood of our putative German spy being able to read Russian, well... Irrespective, the whole thing certainly has Swinton's stamp all over it. As you say, it could have been one of his idiosyncratic efforts at psychological warfare, like the misspelt signs he proposed to distract German snipers. Anyway, here's a photo of a Mk I at Foster's with the infamous inscription:

EDIT: Oh for goodness' sake, a couple of photos have attached themselves to my post...

-- Edited by Roger Todd at 23:26, 2006-08-13

Mark Hansen · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

The tank with the long 6-pounders appears to still have a "Petrograd" inscription behind the sponson, which suggests that the hull, at least, may still be in its factory grey finish (though the sponson may show some traces of camouflage). It would be atypical for a tank in France not to have received either a Solomon or overall brown paint scheme by June 1917, however, I have seen one other photo of a tank in France still bearing the inscription.

Nice spotting! I missed that one myself. Of course once someone points it out to you, it's as plain as day. That would lend a bit of weight to it being a Mk I. It looks like there are markings near the track tensioner on the tank next to it but what they are, if they are in fact markings, is anyone's guess.

Centurion · Legend

Has any one been able to sharpen the picture enough to ensure that its actually the Petrograd inscription? I only ask because I've only seen this in front of the sponson and not behind.

Centurion · Legend

Looking closer, if that is the Petrograd inscription then it must be a variation. In the versions I've seen elesewhere (see Rogers posting in this thread for example) the top line overlaps the ends of the bottom line. I've red lined the inscription on the tankodrome tank and they are level.

I've red circled two other parts - are these shell holes?

I've tried scanning with much greater pixel density (until my machine ran out of memory) but its the definition on the original plate thats the limiting factor. The granularity on that is just too coarse - unless some one has access to NASA's image enhancement software.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Has any one been able to sharpen the picture enough to ensure that its actually the Petrograd inscription? I only ask because I've only seen this in front of the sponson and not behind.

Check the picture Rhomboid posted in Solomon's camouflage of a Mk I female being broken up by POW's. The inscription could be used ahead of or behind the sponsons. The inscription on the female also ends / starts at the same point on the top and bottom lines.

This raises another question. Did the inscription only appear on tanks from Foster's? Or is there too little information available on where it was used?

Roger Todd · Legend

In Richard Pullen's interesting little book The Landships of Lincoln, appears this drawing:

Okay, it's not primary evidence, but it's pretty accurately drawn overall so presumably the placement of the Russian inscription is accurate too. In any case, with the tank's number in hand, perhaps a note to David Fletcher asking to have a quick look in Bovington's photo archive might be in order...?

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

I would agree that the inscription is impossible to read at this resolution, however it's length, size of lettering and configuration seem consistent with that seen in other photos. It might be readable in a large scale print from the original negative. Glanfield seems to imply that only the Lincoln machines carried the inscription, however he does not reference this assertion. Stern says the Tank Supply Committee decided upon this inscription, so it seems likely that it was intended for the Metropolitan machines to carry it as well - perhaps there was some variation in the inscription between the factories. I've also heard it asserted that the inscription was ahead of the sponson in males, and behind in females, but I think there are too few photos to reach any conclusion about this; again, this may be a variation between factories.

I would interpret the dark spots seen near the inscription in the photo as shadows or oil stains from the upper rear roller unit and gearshaft covers.

As an aside, Glanfield also makes an unreferenced remark that the later tank types were supplied with brown painted sides and grey roofs - has anyone heard any other reference to this?

Roger Todd · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:
Did the inscription only appear on tanks from Foster's? Or is there too little information available on where it was used?

Good question. I've only ever seen it on tanks built at Foster's, but that's not to say it didn't appear on those from Metropolitan.

Forgive the size of the image, but I thought some of you might be interested in the following pair of photos of the same tank, at delivery still with the Russian lettering, and later in action after repainting; the second photo is very well known, and I find it interesting to see the vehicle before going into action:

Centurion · Legend

Roger Todd wrote:

In Richard Pullen's interesting little book The Landships of Lincoln, appears this drawing: Okay, it's not primary evidence, but it's pretty accurately drawn overall so presumably the placement of the Russian inscription is accurate too. In any case, with the tank's number in hand, perhaps a note to David Fletcher asking to have a quick look in Bovington's photo archive might be in order...?

Which is a different position from that on the Tankodrome tank which has it (whatever it is) higher up the hull. and the photos you posted (hull front end). Are we postulating that there were at least three possible positionings for the inscription and at least two different styles (odd length and even length lines)? Anything is possible but it sems a lot of permutations for a relatively small production run. Methinks the spirit of Swinton still attemps to bestow confusion!

Centurion · Legend

Re my post above. Checking my copy of the (very staged) POWs breaking up a MKI I note that the position of the inscription is the same as on the Tankodrome tank. Perhaps that drawing isn't accurate?

Centurion · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

I would interpret the dark spots seen near the inscription in the photo as shadows or oil stains from the upper rear roller unit and gearshaft covers.

Very sharp edged and angular oil stains and what would cast the shadows?

Roger Todd · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Which is a different position from that on the Tankodrome tank which has it (whatever it is) higher up the hull. and the photos you posted (hull front end). Are we postulating that there were at least three possible positionings for the inscription and at least two different styles (odd length and even length lines)? Anything is possible but it sems a lot of permutations for a relatively small production run. Methinks the spirit of Swinton still attemps to bestow confusion!

True, it is in yet another position. But - I speculate - the drawing does seem to be based on a specific, numbered tank, so if Bovington have any photos of 742, it will be easy to check. As for the different positions, well, I can only speculate (again!) that different workmen might have done the stencilling of the letters at different times. And as they would likely have used individual letter stencils, rather than whole words, we need not necessarily be surprised if the words ended up in different places on different tanks lettered at different times. After all, we're not talking about robot production lines painting the same thing in the same place without fail time over time.

So, who will ask David for a wee favour...?

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

I've ordered a large print of the photo from the Tank Museum. Perhaps, with better resolution, a few Cyrillic letters might be picked out. I'll scan and post it when received, in an updated thread. Thanks for posting this photo Centurion; I believe it is the only direct evidence that Mk.I's in a factory grey finish were ever seen in France. (The tank with the inscription being broken up by POW's looks to have been at least partially camouflaged.) By the way, have a look at the other tanks in that row - a number of them have shadows in the same position on the rear hull.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Roger Todd wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:

Did the inscription only appear on tanks from Foster's? Or is there too little information available on where it was used?

Good question. I've only ever seen it on tanks built at Foster's, but that's not to say it didn't appear on those from Metropolitan.

I should have checked the production figures a little more closely before asking. According to the ones in "The Devil's Chariots", Foster's built no female Mk I's. The photo that rhomboid posted is clearly a female so the inscription must have been used by both factories.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Rhomboid wrote:

I would interpret the dark spots seen near the inscription in the photo as shadows or oil stains from the upper rear roller unit and gearshaft covers.

Very sharp edged and angular oil stains and what would cast the shadows?

The shadows are in some cases caused by the POW's. I've pointed out some of the shadow sources in this modified picture. Especially note the shadows created by the rivets. The sun must have been at a fairly high angle when this was taken.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 03:01, 2006-08-15

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote:

Rhomboid wrote:

I would interpret the dark spots seen near the inscription in the photo as shadows or oil stains from the upper rear roller unit and gearshaft covers.

Very sharp edged and angular oil stains and what would cast the shadows?

The shadows are in some cases caused by the POW's. I've pointed out some of the shadow sources in this modified picture. Especially note the shadows created by the rivets. The sun must have been at a fairly high angle when this was taken.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 03:01, 2006-08-15

Wrong picture - I'm refering to the 'holes' I redlined on the male tank in the Tankodrome photo and assumed that this was what Rhomboid was refereing to as well

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:

The shadows are in some cases caused by the POW's. I've pointed out some of the shadow sources in this modified picture. Especially note the shadows created by the rivets. The sun must have been at a fairly high angle when this was taken.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 03:01, 2006-08-15

Wrong picture - I'm refering to the 'holes' I redlined on the male tank in the Tankodrome photo and assumed that this was what Rhomboid was refereing to as well

OK, now I'm up to speed on which photo. I would agree that the upper one is the upper rear roller unit. The lower one I think is the gearshaft opening without the cover in place, which would make it a hole but not an enemy action type hole.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

Apologies for the confusion, gents - I was referring to the shadows in Centurion's tankdrome photo. I would agree that a missing gearshaft cover is the probable cause of the lower of the two holes.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Rhomboid wrote:

Apologies for the confusion, gents - I was referring to the shadows in Centurion's tankdrome photo. I would agree that a missing gearshaft cover is the probable cause of the lower of the two holes.

No apologies necessary - confusion at this end most likely due to early a.m. shift work. Most times I'm lucky if I can get my own name right.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

I've finally obtained a large print of the tankdrome photo, and looked at the inscription under good magnification. The "OCTTTOPO" (apologies for the lack of cyrillic characters) in the upper line of the inscription can be made out without too much resort to the imagination. I've tried a high-res scan of this area of the photo, but the results are not very clear.

Pody · Lieutenant

Gentlemen!

Just take three steps back from your screen and have a look at the enhanced photograph..........things start to get clearer by now,

Best regards,