Landships II

fabe · Corporal

A7V Imperator

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

Looks fine to me. Liked the colours!

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

The plate would be:

Kokampf
No.�� 9
Abt.

No Abteilungs-number visible.
The camo looks nice.

wayne · Colonel

Hi.� Since you are re-coloring one of my copyrighted cardmodels, may I ask you to credit my original work, and you not sell them?� If you make it a free model, that is OK; please let me know the URL for your site.� By the way, if you want to change some parts, or make it larger scale let me know.� It looks interesting.� Good luck.� My new website has some freebies: http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~wmccullough/PaperPanzers.html

Thomas Trauner · Corporal

Sorry folks to go deeper into a German tank on this British threat...
I�ve never hear of or seen any photo of this "Imperator" during the German Civil War.
Could someone please let me know a bit more (i.e. a link or something)

Thanks a lot.

Thomas

Peter T · General

The only photo of "Imperator" I know is to be seen at ...

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/A7V3201514612.jpg

Thomas Trauner · Corporal

Thanks a lot Peter. Im very puzzled that this clear photo did not find its way into the "usual" puplications, like Strasheim et.al.
Wonder over wonder.

Astonished in Nuremberg.

Thomas

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

Let's say neither this photograph nor the fact that (at least) one A7V found its way back to Berlin was not known at that time. It came quite as a surprise in 2003 (IIRC).

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

To bump up!

Is any more known about Imperator in KoKampf service in Berlin 1919?

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

What signs on this A7V show that it is in KoKampf service and it is 1919?

Is it the totenkopf (skull & bones)? No, I dont think so!

Is it the piece of paper/poster glued to the side?

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

Well ... it could be seen as an evidence that there are no Iron Crosses as markings. It was a wish of the German artillery that German tanks get a marking that they can devide between freind or foe. But ... hmm ... for me it is not a 100% evidence, but 99.99%.

Btw: At the moment I am reading Major Volckheims (yes, the former tank commander) "Deutsche Kampfwagen im Weltkriege" (German tanks in the great war). He wrote that Germans artillery wanted German tanks in totaly white colour so that they can identify easily.

Coming back on the KoKampf markings: yes, the white square is the KoKampf sign. In a higher resolution you can read KoKampf and a number.

You can assume that it is in 1919, because KoKampf was founded in March (?) 1919 and existed until June or July 1920. In fact they owned some tanks until June/July 1919 and then - due to the orders of the Allies - they were not allowed to have tanks. So they handed them over to some Freikorps, but still the soldiers were under command of KoKampf.

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

Thank you elbavaro. So it is just the resolution of this particular photo that is the problem. And Mad Zeppellin is correct when he states that the poster says:

Kokampf
No.�� 9
Abt.

I believe that I have read on this forum that the gun mount is the early type. Is that correct?

And are there any other pictures of Imperator that can be uploaded, or a better resolution of this one? (the copyright is out of date).

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

Yes philthydirtyanimal, it was me who posted that Imperators gun is early buck mount. As far as I can remember: I guess I have read in Hundlebys / Stra�heims book that all (!) buck mount guns were later replaced by ths socket mounted ones.

So ... this means: 1919 Imperator shouldn't have been there at that time in that place and if he should be there, he should have a different gun mount.

James H · Legend

elbavaro wrote:

Yes philthydirtyanimal, it was me who posted that Imperators gun is early buck mount. As far as I can remember: I guess I have read in Hundlebys / Stra�heims book that all (!) buck mount guns were later replaced by ths socket mounted ones.

So ... this means: 1919 Imperator shouldn't have been there at that time in that place and if he should be there, he should have a different gun mount.

. . . which is most inconvenient. As I asked in the Hedi thread, how can that be?

�

philthydirtyanimal · Commander in Chief

If it is in Berlin, then could Steffens & Noelle's have put it together using a left over body and chassis? Or perhaps it was never sent to the front because it was being used in parades/demonstrations to raise money for the war?

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

Hmmm .... In another thread in this forum someone said it is possible that 1 A7V was sent to Berlin for repair.

But there is one case which has - as far as I know - not been discussed in the forum. There was the "Gel�ndefahrschule" (teritory driving school - could it be translated like this?) in Zossen near Zehrensdorf (thats why it is called the craddle of the German tank weapon).

As I wrote in another posting before, I am reading Major Volckheims book "Die Deutchen Kampfwagen im Weltkrieg" (The German tanks in the Great War). He wrote that the "Gel�ndefahrschule" in Zossen was totaly overstrained and also too less vehicles available.

Maybe .... Imperator was sent there for training? But this again comes back to my - again asked - question: If this happend, then the reports about capturing 9 A7Vs in Wiesbaden Dec. 1918 is wrong. What happend realy there? What did French army capture (if they really did)? And again: maybe rumors about Polish A7V are not that wrong?

@James: Coming back to yur question "How could that be?". As I wrote in another thread: Germany was not occupied! Only a few (small) parts! It was totaly different then 1945. In 1945 every soldier had to surrender, then he got unarmed and set as a POW and then maybe sent home later (remember most of POWs in Russia came home in 1955!). 1918 most of the soldiers were not only going home - they were sent back and marched into their barracks and then officially sent home. There was still an army and an army command existing. There were no Allied soldiers running around in Germany like in 1945 and later.�So how could that be? It was done�just because they did it the way they did it, is the answer.

While discussing the case about Gel�ndefahrschule Zossen, I would like to share soemthing with you. I bet it postcard�is unseen and unknown before! Usualy it wouldn't share such things in other forums (because there are a lot of stupid people they don't have any clue about the whole thing - so why show them the undiscovered?), but with you guys it is welcome. ;o)

Cheers
Chris

James H · Legend

I'm sorry, Chris, you misunderstand my question.

According to Hundleby, the A7Vs that had not already been lost in action returned to Wiesbaden-Erbenheim (between Mainz and Frankfurt) in late October 1918 and were left on the racecourse, presumably with the keys in the ignition. He gives these as 501, 505, 507, 525, 540, 541, 543, and 564. He then says that the French took possession of them in mid-December, and scrapped them. He is adamant that they did not go to Poland.

The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28th, 1919. Until then, as you say, the Germans could do pretty much as they pleased. The Treaty called for tanks and suchlike to be surrendered within two months, which takes us almost to September.

It is, therefore, quite possible that an A7V found its way into Freikorps/Kokampf hands during the 6 weeks Oct-Dec 1918 before the French arrived. They were all in a bad state of repair, but spares could have been taken from the other vehicles to make one serviceable machine. But which one? As far as we know, none of the vehicles that saw service was given the name 'Imperator'. Yet the name is painted in the same style as Mephisto, Hagen, and the rest. That might mean that it was produced at the same time or overpainted in the same style.

But it has a Bocklafette mount, which should not be the case by the end of the War. He says that only four Bocklafetten were made and fitted to 502/5/6/7, later being changed for Sockellafetten by March, 1918 (except for 506, which had already been lost). In a later table he says that 503 also had a Bocklafette, but that was simply 502 renumbered.

Whatever the case, it seems impossible that a vehicle with a Bocklafette could have survived to be commandeered in late 1918. PDA's suggestion is interesting, but the Bocklafette were very ad hoc constructions, and it's hard to imagine that they were kept in storage once they had been replaced.

If you can get sufficient resolution on the pic of Imperator to read the Kokampf number, can you see any other details that might enable us to tell whether she is one of the original 20 machines? Hundleby gives minute details that might help to get a positive identification.

We have no name for 502/3, but it fell into British hands at Charleroi�and there is a picture of it with the bow plates removed and a Sockellafette visible. 526 is unnamed, and Schneider & Strasheim say it was "stripped". 541 and 564 were "with army until war ended", and S&S offer no names for them. Maybe one of them was Imperator, but the Bocklafette remains a mystery.

-- Edited by James H on Friday 20th of March 2009 03:00:37 PM

fomocomav · Corporal

The cut of the mudflaps can also give a hint as which tank Imperator may have been.� Hundleby and Strasheim go into detail about this.� There is no exhaust pipe, either.� 502, 505, 506, 507 only had a hole for exhaust.� Same with 501.� 501 started life as a female (no cannon, only machine guns), but was then transformed and given a gun.� Only 502 had the straight cut of the 2 piece, rear mud flaps AND no exhaust AND no cab applique armor.� In other areas on this site 502 was supposed to become 540, but 540 was Heiland, and 502's armor was put on chassis 503, and called Faust, then Konig Wilhelm.� Maybe Imperator was the name of 502 before it was put onto chassis 503?

-- Edited by fomocomav on Thursday 10th of September 2009 09:40:28 PM

Albert · Brigadier

Yesterday I received the latest book on A7V (A7V�Mephisto: The Last German First World War Tank�by Gregory Czechura and Jeff Hopkins-Weise, published by the Queensland Museum in 2008): http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/organisation/publications/guides/pocket.asp). It is a pocket guide, only 68 pages, but really interesting.
First of all I think it is the first (and only, up to date) publication where that famous�photo of two "Hedis" (http://www.landships.freeservers.com/A7V_Nachbau_mario_doherr.jpg�)�can be found (unfortunately it is small, but it is a pocket guide after all).
There is also an information (I haven't found it�in any of the previous publications) that in the 1930s in Germany there was displayed a A7V replica (its name�was Hummel)! Any info?
The third interesting thing (and a reason I post about this book in this thread) is a table showing all A7V tanks, typical to books on A7Vs. But the information on names of tank 507 is as follows: Cyklop, Prinz Eitel, Friedrich, (Imperator?)
Well, it is the first time I found names of 507 other than Cyklop. And this Imperator is really interesting (again, first publication that mentions this name), unfortunately no more info in the main text (but in the table�it is written that�vehicle survived the end of war and then was captured by French forces in Germany, mid-December 1918. Believed scrapped.)�Is it possible that 507 was in the end named Imperator? I�know some of you know details on all A7Vs (there were no two identical A7Vs)�and can judge if it is possible (photo of Imperator: http://www.landships.freeservers.com/A7V3201514612.jpg)
By the way, A7V had a crew of 18. Is it a world record or do you know�a�tank (used in battle - not including projects or prototypes)�which had more staff?

-- Edited by Albert on Friday 11th of September 2009 08:52:59 AM

-- Edited by Albert on Friday 11th of September 2009 08:57:02 AM

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

I only can say it again and again: until today I have seen NO evidence of the A7Vs in Wiesbaden been scrapped by French army.

fomocomav · Corporal

Albert,
Maybe Prinz Eitel & Friedrich didn't last long as names, as an order was put out by the high command that no vehicles were to have names of the royal family on them, which is why Konig Wilhelm was taken off of one of the A7Vs.� Prinz Eitel Friedrich was one name, in the royal family (second son of Wilhelm).� You have it listed as two different names.� Any chance that was a typo, either by you or the Queensland Museum?�

Also, 18 was the normal crew complement, but I have read that there were often more, upwards of 25, for training purposes, since there were never enough for proper training.� http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/ww1/A7V-diagram.jpg� check this out.� There is BARELY enough room for the 18.� Where did they put the other 7?

-- Edited by fomocomav on Friday 11th of September 2009 09:03:15 PM

Albert · Brigadier

fomocomav wrote:

Albert,
Maybe Prinz Eitel & Friedrich didn't last long as names, as an order was put out by the high command that no vehicles were to have names of the royal family on them, which is why Konig Wilhelm was taken off of one of the A7Vs.� Prinz Eitel Friedrich was one name, in the royal family (second son of Wilhelm).� You have it listed as two different names.� Any chance that was a typo, either by you or the Queensland Museum?�

Also, 18 was the normal crew complement, but I have read that there were often more, upwards of 25, for training purposes, since there were never enough for proper training.� http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/ww1/A7V-diagram.jpg� check this out.� There is BARELY enough room for the 18.� Where did they put the other 7?

-- Edited by fomocomav on Friday 11th of September 2009 09:03:15 PM

You are right, my typo. Prinz Eitel Friedrich is one name.

I know that sometimes there were more than 18 people in A7V. But do you know of any tank in history which had more crew? I guess there was no such tank (used in battle).

-- Edited by Albert on Friday 11th of September 2009 09:32:12 PM

fomocomav · Corporal

Albert,
http://forums.filefront.com/fh-off-topic/184504-most-useless-tank-ever.html

I have no proof that this tank was ever used in battle, although the author is quite certain that more than one was produced.� It was about 30 feet longer, and had a smaller crew of 15 (I don't count the commissar, as they were worthless when it came to doing anything but spout party BS and report on those who were not pro-Soviet enough.� Anyway, I'm assuming that technology has improved enough since 1917 that it will never require that many people to operate a reasonably-sized tank ever again.

Albert · Brigadier

fomocomav wrote:

Albert,
http://forums.filefront.com/fh-off-topic/184504-most-useless-tank-ever.html

I have no proof that this tank was ever used in battle, although the author is quite certain that more than one was produced.� It was about 30 feet longer, and had a smaller crew of 15 (I don't count the commissar, as they were worthless when it came to doing anything but spout party BS and report on those who were not pro-Soviet enough.� Anyway, I'm assuming that technology has improved enough since 1917 that it will never require that many people to operate a reasonably-sized tank ever again.

�

Thanks for the link, very interesting, I haven't heard of this tank. But still it was "only" 16 people, so A7V wins by at least 2 ;)

-- Edited by Albert on Saturday 12th of September 2009 09:08:04 AM

Albert · Brigadier

What do you think - is Imperator one of original 20 A7V's or is it a 21st A7V that did not take part in WW I and, for example,�was used for training?
Do you know any source of information on this tank (article, book or a forum topic)? I first read about Imperator here and this topic is the only source for me.

-- Edited by Albert on Monday 21st of September 2009 02:09:24 PM

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

Its either 507 (my favourite) or 505. In any case, one of Abt. 3's two buck mounts.

elbavaro · Commander in Chief

But I thought all buck mounts were converted to socket mounts later??

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

540 was, 506 (for obvious reasons) wasn't converted. 505 and 507 retained their buck mounts until the very end, and apparently (Imperator) beyond.

The idea that all had been converted came from Volckheim, who claimed they had been. Yet, he was with Abt. 1 - which got 501 and 540, both�re-equipped with socle mounts.
He never saw the Abt. 3 after August 1918. When Abt. 3 returned to Marchienne-au-Pont in October, Volckheim had already been evacuated because of his wounds from October 11th.

Ironsides · Legend

Sorry to say but the KV-VI is a hoax, Odd really because Ive seen much stranger tanks I guess thats what makes it believable.....

Cheers smile

fomocomav · Corporal

Ironsides,
I wasn't sure if it was true or not, but with all of the other odd tanks, I took a shot.� If nothing else, it looks like a good "Soviet Tank Corps '46" type model to build!

Gary Z · Private

My 2 cents:

If this photo of Imperator�was one of 502/505/506/507 taken in early 1918, before these tanks were issued to Abt 1, then it makes no sense for it to be�wearing Kokampf markings. So it must be taken after the Armistice.�Kokampf was part of the Freikorps, was it not, and this didn't exist in 1918.
Imperator cannot be 506, since we know where that is, or 502�since this was later fitted�with�the socle gun mount. That leaves the possibility of�505 or 507, even though it seems to be good reason to accept�that these two kept their early gun mounts and were not converted. On Imperator the side flaps are vertical, and have not been trimmed.�This to me is proof that�it can't be 505 or 507.�If either of these came back from the front after the Armsitice,�nobody is going to restore these flaps, when they would have better things to�do. If Imperator was constructed after the first batch then it should probably have�been fitted with a socle, there were plenty of those�to go around.�Chassis 500 had for a time�a wooden hull, which was no use once production began. This is speculation, but Imperator could have been chassis 500 fitted with an additional Rochling hull once one was available,�and used as a training vehicle. This would explain why there was no need to trim the side flaps, it was never sent to the front and�the uncut flaps weren't getting caught on anything.

Albert · Brigadier

According to a new book by Rainer Strasheim & Max Hundleby Imperator is 507. As I'm waiting to receive this book in a few days I hope someone who already owns it will write something more about this. Hovever I would like to remind you that it is not the first book that connects 507 with Imperator (look at my posts in this topic from September 11, 2009 ).

-- Edited by Albert on Saturday 17th of April 2010 12:22:24 AM