For female sponsons, the main features are identical. The main differences are the ball mounting for the Hotchkiss and the shape of the mounting aperture. Some are shorter and squared off at the top and bottom instead of being rounded as on the Mk IV.
For male sponsons, the size and shape as well as the armament are identical. The differences here are some rivet details and an extra pistol port on top of the sponson.
Thanks, Mark, I was hoping you'd spot this and give an answer. You're the fella who taught me the difference between a Mark III and a Mark IV female sponson!
Couple of follow-on questions:
is it the Mark V male sponson that has the extra pistol port in the roof? And how noticeable is the different rivet detail (do you have any of your excellent diagrams)?
Yes, the Mark V has the pistol port. The rivet detail is not too noticeable, depending on scale. In 1/72, only noticed by rivet counters . 1/48, you might get away with it. 1/35, you will have to add it. Here's 2 photos (Bovington Mk V and Brussels Mk IV) showing the difference. On the front panel below the second line of rivets there is a vertical line of 3 rivets. On the angled side panel there is another vertical line of 3 rivets. 6 rivets and the pistol port on top of the sponson are all the external differences.
Incidentally, not all Mk V's had Mk V sponsons. Attached is a picture of a ditched Mk V with a Mk IV sponson.
The main difference in the Male sponson is internal. Unlike the Mark I, the Mark IV Male has no ammunition stowage beneath the gun. The Mark V returned to Mark I practice and this is the reason for the rivet changes. The photo of tank I8 posted by Mark isn't a standard Mark V Male - it's a Composite or Hermaphodite. The Mark IV Male sponson probably indicates that this tank was originally a Female and has been converted by the addition of a sponson from a Mark IV Male. The proof of this would be the serial number, but unfortunately it's not known. It would appear that this is why in 1918 you start seeing Mark IV Males with Female sponsons (some saw service with 12th Battalion) - their Male sponsons having been removed to convert Female Mark Vs into Composites.
Just a thought, are the Emhar Male sponsons mirror images of each other, or are the rectangular appertures for the 6 pounder of differing lengths as they should be?
__________________
ChrisG
The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity(Dorothy Parker)
I've attached your photos, Mark, with scribble on them. Have I circled the correct distinguishing rivets? And did either of the Mark IV or the Mark V sponsons have lifting handles on the roof?
Gwyn, I got all excited then! Thought you had tracked down the source of the Mark IV composite myth. But then I realised you meant they took both male sponsons off the Mark IV male and gave "him" two Mark V female sponsons - not just one sponson. But could that explain why some people think that some Mark IV tanks had Hotchkiss MGs?
-- Edited by PDA on Monday 15th of August 2011 10:16:05 PM
A personal opinion: Mark IV Composites never existed. Another personal opinion: Mark IVs with Hotchkiss guns definitely did exist, but photos of them don't. There is documentary evidence of a number of Hotchkiss armed Mark IVs being used for training by the Tank Corps Gunnery School at Merlimont. However I don't believe that any Hotchkiss armed Mark IVs served with the fighting battalions.
Gwyn: There are photos of Mk IV's with Hotchkiss MG's. However, these are supply tanks and not fighting tanks. If I didn't mention it, someone else would have and probably said "But what about this tank?"
PDA: Your first photo is correct with the front rivets circled. The second photo is of a Mk IV sponson. The line of 3 rivets is more visible in the attached photo of "Baby Doll".
Just found the reference and I was referring to Females only: "6 Mark IV Females fitted with Hotchkiss mounts are being sent to Merlimont on 12 April 1918. They are being taken on the strength of the Gunnery School. Two Mark IV Females already at Merlimont are fitted with Hotchkiss mounts."
Just found another reference to Mark IV Females with Hotchkiss (probably the same ones as mentioned in the previous post). It's in the Central Workshops War Diary entry for 8 April 1918 and reads: "6 Mark IV Machines (Female) Lewis Gun Turrets converted to Hotchkiss Machine Gun Turrets."
Just a thought, are the Emhar Male sponsons mirror images of each other, or are the rectangular appertures for the 6 pounder of differing lengths as they should be?
I take it that it's a yes or a no then :)
__________________
ChrisG
The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity(Dorothy Parker)
. 1/48, you might get away with it. 1/35, you will have to add it. Here's 2 photos (Bovington Mk V and Brussels Mk IV) showing the difference. On the front panel below the second line of rivets there is a vertical line of 3 rivets. On the angled side panel there is another vertical line of 3 rivets. 6 rivets and the pistol port on top of the sponson are all the external differences.
