Landships II

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Mark III Males

Mark Hansen · Legend

The photos I have seen of Mk III males, and there aren't many, show that they had the early type sponson so there should be no chance of confusion between a Mk III and IV. If, however, there is a photo supposed to be of a Mk III with a Mk IV style sponson, you can pick the difference at the front by the Mk III having the same uneven rivet pattern on the cab roof edge as the Mk II. If the photo is of the rear of the tank, the Mk III has no external fuel tank. If the photo�shows the roof, the Mk III had no silencer. If the photo is of the underside of the tank, the cameraman was too slow.

P.S.: The roof box is also a distinguishing feature of the Mk IV.

P.P.S: Not forgetting the mounting points for the unditching rails.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 00:19, 2007-03-22

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 08:03, 2007-03-22

Mark Hansen · Legend

A quick set of comparison sketches of the cab fronts Mk I - V**. Please note these are not to scale.

Rhomboid · Field Marshal

Here's a nice study of a MkIII male showing how not to cross a trench.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Thanks very much - all's much clearer.

Mark Hansen · Legend

There are some photos at ML posted by Phil R that show the Ashford Mk IV female tank. The rear shot shows the fuel tank is missing, possibly leading someone to confuse it with a Mk III female. It looks as though the rear plate is a more recent replacement as where the rear door�should be is a blank plate. All the other features common to the Mk IV are there.�

Woody · Private

Those are great sketches, you wouldn't by chance have a comprehensive set for any of the marks would you? Something to scale perhaps? I am trying to compile/ create/ draft a set of scaled drawing which I could possibly build a model from.

Rob

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

It looks as though the rear plate is a more recent replacement as where the rear door�should be is a blank plate.

The entire rear and floor were cut away when the tank was gutted so the current rear plate is reconstructed (apparently using advice from Bovington!)

Alpha Six · Lieutenant-Colonel

Can anyone help with information?
Do we know the serial numbers of Mk.III tanks?

Where did the information that these tanks were manufactured in a series of 50 ones?

R39 · Corporal

This link gives you a lot of information like sérial numbers and names of WWI tanks.

sites.google.com/site/landships/home/generaltankinformation

Philippe.

Alpha Six · Lieutenant-Colonel

R39 wrote:
This link gives you a lot of information like sérial numbers and names of WWI tanks.

sites.google.com/site/landships/home/generaltankinformation

Philippe.

Philippe, thank you, I know this excellent site wery well.

But:

Note: Prototype tanks, Mk III tanks and types that didn't fight in WW1 will not normally be referred to on this site.

)))

Serial numbers noted as 601 - 625 and 801 - 825, but I want to get more accurate information.

-- Edited by Alpha Six on Monday 12th of December 2016 01:00:25 PM

R39 · Corporal

Ok Alpha six, but it is only the single information I have.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Alpha Six wrote:

Serial numbers noted as 601 - 625 and 801 - 825, but I want to get more accurate information.

-- Edited by Alpha Six on Monday 12th of December 2016 01:00:25 PM

Hi

I'm a bit puzzled by what is meant by "more accurate information", as this information is accurate. Mark III Females were numbered 601 to 625 and Males 801 to 825. Don't be confused by tanks such as 803, the Worksop presentation tank or 815 the Ashton-under-Lyne presentation tank. These are Mark III Males fitted with Female sponsons. (Nine years on, I know a lot more than when I started this thread!)

Gwyn

Alpha Six · Lieutenant-Colonel

Thank you for reply, Gwin.

"More accurate information" - it's my bad English. Maybe I was supposed to write "more detailed information"?

I mean, I did not see any pictures, which would display the serial number. What do you think, why is so little known photos of the Mk.III? 50 pieces it's not a small series, is the same as Mk.II.

We know a few pictures, but for some reason we are sure that they depicted Mk.III, as we think, not Mk.II with late female sponsons?

For example:

or https://yadi.sk/i/_8fj6QaC33Hpnv

Gwyn Evans · Legend

All Mark IIs went to France with the exception of a few used for experimental purposes. You see Mark II tanks in France with Mark I sponsons but never Mark IIs with late Mark III Female sponsons. No Mark IIIs and no Mark III sponsons went to France, at least not so far as I know.

You do see photos of Mark IIIs with their serial numbers painted but sometimes you can't see them or they're not there, just like Mark IVs.

I think that 50 tanks is quite a small series and as they didn't see action they didn't get photographed often, except those few used as presentation tanks.

Gwyn

Alpha Six · Lieutenant-Colonel

Excellent picture, Gwyn, thank you.
I have many questions and ideas about Mk.III, but I can not tell it in English as detailed as I would like, unfortunately, but I will try.

I think that 50 tanks is quite a small series and as they didn't see action they didn't get photographed often, except those few used as presentation tanks.

I understand your point. However, there is also the opposite argument. The lifetime of Mk.II in France was not long, it is clear, and retained a lot of it images. However, training tanks what considered Mk.III, as I think, should have been to exist for much longer and also be fixed in many photographs in various stages: during manufacturing, during exercise, during recycling. So, 50 pieces is quite a lot.
My main question is: is it absolutely accurate and confirmed information that 50 tanks were produced? Is it possible that there 50 serial numbers were reserved, but made much less?

I got interested in the differences between Mk.III and Mk.II hulls. Usually it indicates that a circular cut-out in front of the cab for MG ball mount and more thicker mild not tempered steel plates. But I do not understand why a soft body armor to do thicker, especially for training tanks? It is in any case will break any bullets and tanks for training at all does not matter.

You see Mark II tanks in France with Mark I sponsons but never Mark IIs with late Mark III Female sponsons.

But I know of at least one photo, which depicts Mk.II numbered 81 with this female sponson, not in France, of course. Do you know this picture?

-- Edited by Alpha Six on Wednesday 14th of December 2016 10:17:12 AM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Hi Denis

This is an interesting question. Certainly it is the case that serial numbers were allocated to Mark V**, VIII and IX and the tanks not built. At the present time I see no clear reason to think that the Mark III order was terminated before completion. I would expect to see something in records I'm presently studying as Metropolitan would have insisted on some kind of compensation, and I have found nothing - yet. Nevertheless this is relevant to my present researches and so I shall keep an open mind and look for evidence.

The Mark III was a gradual improvement on the earlier types but still not considered good enough for fighting. The impression I have is that it was designed for battle, but once built relegated to training. This may have been because the Mark IV was such a big improvement. I am not clear whether all Mark IIIs were built with mild steel plate, or only some.

The picture you refer to is attached. It is very difficult to say from this side view whether the hull (ignoring the sponsons for the moment) is those of a Mark II or a Mark III. There are simply no differences visible. The sponsons are definitely late Mark III, so without any other indication I'd say it was a Mark III. However there is a number, 591, on the side doors and a partial serial is visible that appears to be 59x, quite possibly 591. We know that Mark II Female 591 never went to France so what we have here could well be a Mark II hull with Mark III sponsons - well done!

Gwyn

-- Edited by Gwyn Evans on Wednesday 14th of December 2016 10:09:05 PM

MK1 Nut · Hero

Hi Guys,

The MKIII is one of those marks of WW1 Tanks I am still very unsure off. I believe but don't have the access to photos I can trust to be totally what they say they are, that the MKIII had even spacing of it's rivets around the edge of the front & rear horns. As in the MKIVs. But had the same top to bottom rivet spacing as the MKIIs, which is one less on the MKI&II than on the MKIV.

Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

Helen x

-- Edited by MK1 Nut on Thursday 15th of December 2016 11:31:47 AM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Hi Helen

Could I just check my understanding of your comment, before I run off to count rivets? I'll focus on the front horns, of which I have better photos. When you say the spacing of rivets around the edge of the horn, I take it you're looking at the outer horn, and not the inner? Then I assume I'm looking at Part D which is the L-section structural steel that runs from the front switch plate, curves around the edge of the front horns and then continues rearwards ending below the cab (looking square on)? If so, on which part of Part D am I to count the rivets? Is it the whole of the Part, or just a part of it?

Then, when you say the same top to bottom rivet spacing as the Mark IIs, do you mean the top rivets are vertically above the bottom rivets?

Thanks

Gwyn

MK1 Nut · Hero

Hi Gwyn,

Yeah it's not easy to explain... sooo... photoshop time! :)

Basically on the MK1 tank they reduced the number of rivets and played with the spacing all over the tank. It was probably a way of saving construction time while not effecting greatly the strength of the hull. On the MKIV they seemed to have tidied everything up and gone for a more even and closer rivet spacing than seen on the earlier marks of tanks.

The MKIII is incredibly hard to spot and I am hoping that they have a mixture of the wider spacing on the main body plates of the MK1&II, with the narrow rivet spacing around the horn edging of the MKIV.

Hope that helps

Helen x

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Here's two more photos. Both these are definitely, unquestionably Mark IIIs (although 815 is a Male with Female sponsons). You can see that where Part D bends around the front of the horn the rivets are tightly packed, but more evenly spaced as the steel straightens. Then on the joint between plate 10 and plate 11A there are three rivets, like the Mark II but unlike the Mark IV.

At the moment I'm having some difficulty working this out, so this post is just to give others something to work on while I go on puzzling (and doing a few other things I must do).

Gwyn

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Not sure why that post has appeared like that... Can people get these images?

Gwyn

chopsm1 · Lieutenant

Both Pics open fine Gwyn and are really great pics, Thanks for posting.

Alpha Six · Lieutenant-Colonel

Gwyn Evans wrote:

The picture you refer to is attached. It is very difficult to say from this side view whether the hull (ignoring the sponsons for the moment) is those of a Mark II or a Mark III. There are simply no differences visible. The sponsons are definitely late Mark III, so without any other indication I'd say it was a Mark III. However there is a number, 591, on the side doors and a partial serial is visible that appears to be 59x, quite possibly 591. We know that Mark II Female 591 never went to France so what we have here could well be a Mark II hull with Mark III sponsons - well done!
Gwyn

Hello Gwyn, thank you for reply and your researches. Yes, I had meant it photo. Here it is in a larger size:

https://yadi.sk/i/PGC9ViUi34GYGV

I think that number 591 is decisive argument that would have to think that this is Mk2 hull.

What do you think that refers numbering above road wheels mounts?

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Hi

Sorry for delay in responding - I have been away.

Yes, the larger photo is much better and I agree this is a unusual case of a Mark II Female hull with Mark III Female sponsons.

I'm not sure what to make of the white marks above the positions of the road rollers. I'm not sure whether they are numbers or something else. Another interesting point is that someone has painted their right hand (red?) and pressed it against the hull - look at the top half of the number eight.

Gwyn

MK1 Nut · Hero

I'm sure somewhere I have seen a photo of what I think was a MKIV being assembled in a factory, with all its rollers and wheels yet to be fitted. This tank had similar numbering above the roller holes and on different parts of the side plates. Could this tank simply be showing it was rolled straight out of the factory for testing?

It's just an idea, unfortunately I can't seem to find the photo to see if I'm remembering it correctly.

Helen x