Landships II

R Simmie · Lieutenant

Some more on 301st American tank Battalion

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Hi

Could you check the link given please - can't seem to get it to work.

Thanks

Gwyn

R Simmie · Lieutenant

Hello Gyn,

I knew this would happen...

try this

https://www.infantry.army.mil/monographs/content/wwi/index.htm

scroll down a bit to find the two articles.

Reread Wilson's "Treat 'em rough" He states that A company was outfitted with Mark V*s.
9 males, 2 females and 4 composites(hermaphrodites). So these photos on AWM do not appear to be of the 301st tanks blown up on the minefield. The Mark V male tank with the 4 is not an A company tank. However an earlier unsuccessful attack by the 106th Regt, 27th US Div on 26th September to secure the Hindenburg outpost zone was supported by tanks from a British tank battalion. Anyone know which battalion and did they lose tanks on the minefield?

One photo (E04939) shows a Mark V female with H41? on the rear and B22 on the horns.
I cannot make out the WD number but it looks like 928?

RSimmie

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Sorry, can't get at that website. Nevertheless I'll try to look at this to see whether I can help.

Gwyn

R Simmie · Lieutenant

Hello Gwyn,

I tried the link and its OK for me...there are two security pop-ups that I just click OK.
The two pdf have been scanned at high res (why I don't know as they are simple typed documents). One is 12.1MB and the other is 28MB.

There is also a monograph there for the 108th Infantry Regt that was supported by A Coy 301st. Mentions that A Coy tanks were all Mark V* but does not detail their actions during battle. It does give more detail as to why the action was a disaster.

Also forgot to mention that the previous British 74th Division in this sector had been trying to capture the Outpost line too before the American 27th Division replaced them. They may have had tank support in 3 attempts against positions known as "The Knoll", Quennemont and Guillemont Farms on Sept 18, 21 and the night of the 21-22.

Just remembered that one of the AWM pics of a MarkV* number 9890 (AWM E04941) has what looks like a Mark IV in the background. Both sponsons are missing (blown off?) so�I cannot tell if it was a supply Tank. This tank is also shown at another angle in "Treat 'em rough" but it is captioned as being a mark V.

Another thought!�Both Lt Mitchell's and Gutkowki's tanks are listed as 9893 in the Landship Google document.�Obviously they cannot be both. So one number is a typo.� There are a range of Tanks in the A coy with numbers 9891 to 9895 mentioned in the Landship google document. Possibly one of the 9893 numbers should be 9890? Unfortunately both tanks were knocked out in the action, which leaves open the question: is AWM E0491 of Mark V* 9890�Mitchell's or�Gutkowski's Tank or a tank from another battalion?

R Simmie

-- Edited by R Simmie on Monday 28th of September 2009 09:04:59 AM

-- Edited by R Simmie on Monday 28th of September 2009 09:20:39 AM

-- Edited by R Simmie on Monday 28th of September 2009 09:26:11 AM

-- Edited by R Simmie on Monday 28th of September 2009 09:50:22 AM

Mark Hansen · Legend

Gwyn,
I'm downloading the doc's as I type (fingers crossed) and once I have them, I can email them to you if you like.

P.S.: Do you know how hard it is to type with crossed fingers? biggrin

P.P.S.: I think I know why these were scanned at high res. There are a lot of handwritten corrections which may not have been as legible if scanned at a lower resolution.

-- Edited by Mark Hansen on Monday 28th of September 2009 10:01:49 AM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Mark: That's very kind - you really are a hero!

R: I can explain why both Mitchell and Gutkowski's tanks are listed as 9893 - and it's not a typo! Will explain once I can get online from home and I have my notes available to me.

Gwyn

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Right, here goes! The information you have from the Landships Google site comes from a battlegraph contained in file WO95/94 at The National Archives, Kew. This document lists the tanks of A, B and C Companies of the 301st on 29 September 1918, and shows how they fared in the action - how far they progressed, their fate and whether they rallied. It also gives their commanders names. Battlegraphs vary in quality. Some are works of art and contain all the information one might wish, others are more rudimentary. This one is marked out by the poor way it's been completed. The ink is very blotchy, the handwriting small and unclear, and sometimes squeezed into spaces too small to make the result legible. Whilst it identifies by serial number the tanks in each Company, it doesn't make clear which are in each platoon, although it appears that the last five of the fifteen tanks listed under A Company are those in 3rd Platoon. This gives us, from my reading of the original document:
9892 Dean - didn't proceed far beyond British front line, but rallied.
9604 Webb - rallied after reaching Hindenburg line.
9593 Hart - ditto
9893 Gutkowski (impossible to read - I have seen it interpreted as Gutkowiski) - mined.
9894 H. Taylor - direct hit but rallied

I don't think that 9004 as on the website is correct. I think it says 9604 and in any case 9004 would be a Mark V not a Mark V*. The same document shows 9893 as Mitchell's tank, but the writing of 9893 is clear in the case of Gutkowski's and less so in the case of Mitchell's. In fact in Mitchell's case the 8 appears to have the upper half filled in, as though someone has tried to change it to a 6, except I know that it can't be 9693 either. The mystery won't be solved without more evidence.

Haven't got round to looking at the photos yet. Hope this helps.

Gwyn

R Simmie · Lieutenant

Hello Gwyn,

thanks for the info regarding the battlegraph. I hope the monographs are of some interest. Thanks to Mark Hansen for passing them along to you. My old 'pooter has an attack of the vapours sending such large files.
Gutkowski's certainly helps tie down the 5 tanks in 3rd platoon A company anyway. The map is interesting at the end, although I'm not sure that 9604 and 9593 actually got as far as crossing over the covered canal. The battlegragh says they "almost reached the Cont tunnel".

Unfortunately the map of the same battle in Major Harrison's monograph is missing, it might have added some extra detail...

R Simmie

jagjetta · Brigadier

Greetings,

Attached is a copy of the 301st progress during the attack on the Hindenburg line. This copy was included when I acquired Lt. Charles Gordon MacDonald's uniform (he commanded Company B tank 9352 (Mk V) which apparently was knocked out by a direct hit).

I do not know the original source of this page, however. I suspect it is the same document to which Gwyn has referred.

Hopefully, the pdf opens for you. It is a very interesting study of the progress of all the 301st tanks on Sept. 29, 1918

John A-G

-- Edited by jagjetta on Wednesday 30th of September 2009 04:36:06 AM

-- Edited by jagjetta on Wednesday 30th of September 2009 04:42:33 AM

R Simmie · Lieutenant

Hello John,

I try to download your file but it says it is damaged....sob!

R Simmie

R Simmie · Lieutenant

anyone else having a problem downloading John's file?

James H · Legend

No, fine at this end.

R Simmie · Lieutenant

Hello,

well I still get a locked up pdf file and/or a message saying the file is damaged and cannot be repaired.

Can anyone send a NON PDF version?

Ironsides · Legend

Works fine for me too, unfortunatly I dont know how to convert PDFs......

Ahh I used the image grab and pasted it in a word doc......

Checked it and it works..

Cheers smile

-- Edited by Ironsides on Saturday 3rd of October 2009 12:58:25 PM

R Simmie · Lieutenant

Hello Ironsides,

thanyou very much for your help in creating the word doc. And also to John for putting up the original file. I must admit to never seeing this way of depicting an action, but then again I have not seen many after action reports!
I wonder if different military organisations have their standard procedures for writing up after action reports or is it up to the individual/s doing the task?

Thanks to everyone again

Gwyn Evans · Legend

These battlegraph are a very common way of showing what happened in British tank actions during WW1. The earliest I've seen date from April 1917, and they're incredibly useful, especially when they're completed fully. As this was used by all Tank Corps battalions and the practice was then adopted by the Americans it wasn't just an individual's whim.

The document posted here is very, very similar to that which I referred to in an earlier post. The only change is in the heading, but the poor legibility of mine is repeated in this!

Gwyn

joerhatfield · Private

R Simmie wrote:
The second is Operations of the 3^rd Platoon Company A, 301^st American Tank Battalion in the attack on the Hindenburg Line September 26September 29,1918

The second I will talk about here. It is written by Captain Joseph Gutkowski who was a Lieutenant commanding a tank in this Platoon. In Landships Google website 301^st after action report he is listed as Gutkowitsu.
R Simmie
�
His name was Joseph John Gutkowski. He was my grandfather. When I was growing up, he told me stories about fighting in WWI in the tanks, including surviving the explosion that destroyed the tank he was in.
�

-- Edited by R Simmie on Sunday 27th of September 2009 02:04:32 AM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Thanks for posting. Always good to hear from a veteran's relative. Welcome to the forum.

Gwyn

Date: Apr 8, 2017

I have a picture of my grandfather, who was a Sergeant in the 301st, Company A, posing with Lieutenant Gutkowski in front of a Mark V tank, which I can't identify. I will scan it and post when I can get to a scanner.

I also have a copy of a picture of the entire Company A at Camp Meade. That one might be tough to scan...there are about 125 men in it.

Lajoste · Private

I am attaching a picture of Lt Gutkowski and some of the Company A troops. I have known the name Gutkowski from my Grandfather since I was a kid, unfortunately I no longer have the original of this pic, which listed everyone by name.

The sergeant standing behind and slightly to the left of Gutkowski was my Grandfather, Joseph J Gillespie of 641 Sedgewick St., Phila, PA. He passed away in 1972. He told me that he wound up in tanks because he was one of the few experienced auto mechanics in the new enlisted ranks, and the Tank Corps wanted him for that reason.

My Grandfather was a gentle man, who (they tell me) could go missing for a few hours if he were startled by a loud noise like a backfire. (Anyone remember when cars backfired?) He and my father, a WWII soldier who landed in D-Day PLUS 7 or so, would tease each other about who had it worse in France.

Although I remember seeing this picture with my Grandfather several times when I was a boy, he never identified the tank itself. The number on the right looks like "9_79," the number on the left...I can't make it out. "I__" or possibly "J__." I suspect it was not their tank; just a convenient backdrop for the pic, but I have no way of knowing.

chopsm1 · Lieutenant

I am working on my Mk V 9376, it was transferred from the 10th to the 301st Battalion, 9376 was previously marked as J19, I have decided to leave it as J19 whilst under Lt Vernons command.

John

jagjetta · Brigadier

Lajoste:
GREAT image of your Grandpa and fellow 301st

The Battlegraph for Sept. 27-29 gives Gutkowski's tank as serial number as 9893 but that number also appears to be written under the command of Lt Mitchel on the same battlegraph. Other period accounts put Lt. Leroy Mitchell in command of 9893, not Gutkowski.9890 was photographed disabled, apparently in a minefield. This fits the description of what befell Gutkowski's tank at this conflict.

On October 8, Gutkowski is listed as commanding 9890 and again on October 17. So, I am inclined to believe he was commanding 9890 on Sept 27-29, though the battlegraph lists him as commanding 9893

Your Grandpa and Co. A men are photographed in front of 9279 (Williard's tank). It seems the photographer was in camp for a few days and photographed groups of men in front of this tank, 9604, and 9595. 9279 was marked I2 or J2, as you noted.

FYI, Your Grandpa is listed as a member of Co. A's "Mechanical Staff" of "CO A Treat 'em Rough" (the history of Co A, 301st Tank Bn), page 16
John

jagjetta · Brigadier

FYI: The photo you posted appears in the Co. A history. The caption is as follows:

Rowland, Toms, Flannery, Martin, Gillespie, Kestler, Singer, Silver
Fuge, Dougherty, J.A. Magilo, Lt. Gutkowski, Quay, Stanton

John

Lajoste · Private

John,

Thanks so much for the missing info. I will try to find History of Company A online.

Joe