You need to be more specific. C29 and C36 would be crew numbers. To link these to a specific tank you need to provide the date. For example, C29 on 13 July 1917 was the number of a Mark I Tender. C29 on 15 November 1917 was a Mark IV, almost certainly a Male.
C256 is not a number format I recognise. Have you typed it correctly? Do you mean C25?
Thanks for your response. Sorry for the vagueness of my post. These tanks are from Monchy Le Preux April 11, 1917. According to my source C.256 is Jack Harris' tank, but I could have mistaken that for a chasis, or manufacturers number.
C29 on 11 April 1917 was a Mark II Female, serial 597 of 8th Company C Battalion commanded by 2/Lt T. Toshack. It was hit by artillery and burnt out with the loss of the entire crew.
C36 was also a Mark II Female of the same unit, serial 600. It was commanded by 2/Lt C. Ambrose. It was pierced by AP bullets, bombs exploded under one track and a direct hit blew in a sponson.
C256 is not a chassis or manufacturer's number either. Your source must be wrong.
Andrew, is your source "The Boilerplate War"? That number is vaguely familiar, I think it has been brought up on here some time ago...
P.S. I was right. It was brought up previously and the reference was in "The Boilerplate War". I would say that it was a training vehicle number and most probably a Mk IV female. Gwyn has more knowledge of the numbering system and may be able to show if this hypothesis is plausible.
-- Edited by Mark Hansen on Thursday 5th of August 2010 11:19:21 PM
-- Edited by Mark Hansen on Thursday 5th of August 2010 11:20:51 PM
Well, 256 would make it a Mark IV Female tank used in the UK, probably for training but C256 is meaningless. I don't know what Foley had in mind as I don't have a copy of his book here (anyone want to donate one to this poor researcher? No, thought not). Is anyone able to quote the context of the reference to C256 in the book? Even better, Lincolnshire Archives has an annotated copy that might have a helpful explanatory note.
Thanks for your posts. Yes C256 is supposedly a Mark II trainer that was used in battle with Mark I sponsons. I could definitely be misguided by this so please feel free to comment on any possibilities.
Seeing this WW1 tanks documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y0ZHESxVEc) lieutenant Jack Harris is named as the only crew member that survivor the tank raid on Monchy-le-Preux. I am curious as of what happened to this brave man so I started searching the web. This is the only page I found that mentions his name. Does anyone of you know what happened to lt. Jack Harris..?
Apologies for addressing such an old topic, but I've been playing around with the Monchy battle and might be able to provide a scenario to explain the Jack Harris story. Â
Harris' version of events was recorded many years after the fact and it is possible that he made an error in numbering. Â The most likely scenario (put together from his description of where he was on the 9th of April, witnesses from the 10th Fusiliers, other tankers recollections in Beyond the Green Fields, Tanks and Trenches, German accounts etc) make it likely that Harris was, in fact, in Toshack's tank (C 29) Â There were survivors but they were evacuated separately and never reunited. Â The sequence suggested by Harris indicates that his was the lead tank in the southern group. Â Two from this group entered the town (Ambrose's tank (C 30) was disabled at the southern edge) and Salter's tank (C 21) had driven further south to the Cambrai Road crossroad before turning back up to Monchy. Â Harris insists that there were three tanks fighting in Monchy, so the third was Johnson, which had entered from the north. Â Accounts become confusing because some versions record only the northern group's effort (15th Scottish, for example) and state that "a" tank captured Monchy since Johnson's C 26 was the only tank they saw coming from that end.Â
Harris description of driving through town, turning around and driving back through also explains the awkward reports of the infantry that they followed a tank through Monchy only to see it blow up as they reached the east side. Â The tanks had moved forward hours before most infantry because, famously, the tanks never received word of the delayed Z Hour. Â The infantry were watching the second run of the tank. Â The tank the Fusiliers witnessed burn was unlikely Salter's since Salter himself turned up in their location having abandoned his tank before it was destroyed. Â Although the tankers insisted that the British artillery barrage knocked them out, the Germans made a compelling case that their guns on Infantry Hill took them with direct fire.
