Last year I bought (second-hand) a copy of "British and American Tanks of World War II" by Chamberlain & Ellis, Arms & Armour Press, which has some technical data for the vehicles covered and lots of photos of unusual variants.
On the back of the dust jacket, this book advertised another book entitled "British and German Tanks of World War I", also by Chamberlain and Ellis. My question is, has anyone read this other book? Appearing to be in the same/similar series to the WW2 book gives me hopes that it may have a similar layout, with plenty of interesting photos and stats for each tank; is it one to look out for?
It was published in 1969, I've only retained paper copies of the part covering the German tank projects - and flipping through them, I've to say YES it's worth looking out for it.
Can't lay my hands on my copy at the mo, but it's . . . OK. No great revelations, and, like the Profile series, quite dated in some respects, and rather overtaken by more recent research. The German section has some nice drawings of Krupp and Daimler (IIRC) prototypes. What will possibly surprise you is the authors' statement that "it is not known whether any A7Vs survive."
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Thanks gentlemen. TeeELL, Please post your thoughts when your copy arrives, any comments you can make on whether there are interesting photos, or on which vehicles are covered, would be welcome.
James - yes, that's a little surprising, it's not as though Australia is on the moon! One would have thought it would be known at the time that Mephisto had been shipped down under, but perhaps, communications not being what they are today, it was unknown whether the vehicle had been scrapped in the fifty years since then; we would think the idea of scrapping such a machine ludicrous, but sometimes these things happen - such as the scrapping of the old battlecruiser Yavuz, ex-Goeben, in the seventies after Germany decided not to purchase it for preservation. I suppose there must come a time after a certain number of years elapses, when old vehicles etc start to be seen as heirlooms, but exactly when that happens would be hard to discern; the Americans scrapped some WW1 relics during WW2, and the old USS Oregon, veteran of the Spanish-American war, which had survived as at least a hulk, perhaps as a dormitory ship (don't remember exactly) until WW2, was scrapped in the fifties. Considering such things, it may not be so surprising if Chamberlain & Ellis didn't know if an A7V had survived - it would be surprising if they never knew that the Australians bagged one and shipped it home, but if they knew that much and were unsure whether it had survived fifty years later, that is less shocking. Certainly less shocking than that the IWM in its early days (circa 1923-24) scrapped some exhibits it was unable to move from the Crystal Palace to its new site - including, as I understand it, the last Tadpole and the last Gun Carrier Mk 1.
I suppose nowadays it should be easier to check with other museums, etc, to see what vehicles survive, but unfortunately it also means that it's likely to be more certain that particular old tanks have not been preserved.
Having a liking for the Medium D, I could say that there's a possibility that one of the two sent to India for trials in 1922 might have been tucked away in a corner out of the way, been forgotten, and survived; far more likely, however, is that both vehicles were either returned to Britain and scrapped, or more likely still, scrapped in India. The fate of the two tanks was apparently unknown twenty or thirty years ago, and likely still is, but the town/city they broke down at, Ahmednagar, has a tank museum - so if a medium D (or part of one) had survived, it likely would have ended up in the museum, and someone would surely have known before now.
As a further note on the old USS Oregon (BB-3), I've just remembered that it was preserved as a museum/memorial ship until about 1942, but was put back into use as a storage hulk perhaps, during WW2, before being scrapped in the fifties - a shame, as it was a fine-looking little vessel in its day. Now the only surviving pre-Dreadnought is the Japanese "Mikasa", which is encased to the waterline in concrete! -- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Wednesday 5th of February 2014 03:47:54 AM
-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Wednesday 5th of February 2014 04:30:51 AM
-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Wednesday 5th of February 2014 04:37:44 AM
It's very easy in these days of the internet to forget that before its advent it was far more difficult to get obscure information. Australia may not be on the moon physically but, frankly, when C&E were writing in the 1960s it may as well have been culturally.
As for the disposal of what we consider historically interesting artifacts, conservation is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Depending on your sphere of interest we could bemoan hundreds of instances of what we regard as cultural vandalism which, in their day, were perfectly rational. The Americans have only preserved as many battleships as they have, for example, because they were assigned states' names and so their namesake states often 'adopted' them after decommissioning (save the Iowas which were kept for possible use). There are occasional other vessels preserved for particular historical reasons. But Britain has been the worst - not a single dreadnought from the country that gave them to the world. Our sole preserved ironclad, HMS Warrior, was a fluke, having lingered as an oil storage tank for decades! The Mary Rose only exists today because she sank! Japan preserved the Mikasa because she is, to them, the equivalent of HMS Victory to us (about the only warship I can think of that was preserved intentionally before the modern vogue for conservation, in which category I place the Belfast).
And if you look at Great War armour and AFVs, probably the worst example is the Americans scrapping not one but two (TWO!) Big Berthas, at different times! For God's sake...
The Internet is a decidedly mixed blessing. Whilst what Todders says is true, it's thanks to the Net that we can learn that Joseph Hawker is generally considered to be the father of the tank, and that the first time tanks were used was when George S. Patton Jr. and his Americans won the Battle of Cambrai. At one time, such nonsense would have spread very slowly; now it can go round the world in seconds, and even when corrected remain visible indefinitely.
The case of the A7V article on W********: a little while ago someone came across the 40-year-old Profile Publication, and, thinking he'd stumbled on a lost source, began replacing the existing, more recent, and far better-informed information. The reeducation process was tiresome and time-consuming, and traces of the damage still circulate.
What a misbegotten concept Wikipedia is. The only encyclopaedia that knows less than you do.
-- Edited by James H on Friday 7th of February 2014 01:02:07 AM
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Hmmm, yes. As far as buildings go, the concept of conservation seems to have been around by the 1880s, according to what I've gleaned from the programmes on BBC4, with the establishment of either English Heritage or the National Trust (can't remember which) occurring just after the Great War ended. The notion of conservation in those days was rather different from our concepts today though, and picturesque ruined castles, abbeys and monasteries were stripped of their ivy cladding, whilst crumbling walls were filled with concrete!
Ship-wise, it is not only Britain that scrapped all Dreadnoughts: there are none left at all - unless one considers the Super-Dreadnought USS Texas, although it is in a modified condition. I could say that there is the odd Dreadnought surviving, but only when one considers sunken vessels, such as the three Koenig-class (or is it Kaiser-class?) vessels (Markgraf is the one name I recall) scuttled at Scapa in 1919, which proved impossible or uneconomical to salvage when other vessels of the High Seas Fleet were raised in the twenties and thirties. With three ships of the same class present, it would be nice to imagine that one complete Dreadnought could be salvaged and preserved from among them (since they are not war graves), but sadly the condition of all three is too poor, with large parts of their frames exposed because in decades past access was sought to the engine and boiler rooms to salvage copper/brass fittings - or some such excuse which seems offensive to modern ideas.
As for Profile Publications, the only one I know I've looked at was Chamberlain and Ellis' volume on the Medium Tanks, A-D: I cannnot comment on the data given for the first three, but the info on the Medium D is not accurate.
My copy has been dispatched so I should receive it tomorrow or Saturday. I may not be able to give an opinion on content too quickly though as I am off to sunnier climes for a fortnight - Cuba rocks!!
__________________
Regards TeeELL
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.
Cuba? Spare a thought for those of us "enjoying" yet more wind and rain! I'll look forward to any comments you can make, as and when you can. Enjoy your hols!
Well the book arrived today and I've had a flick through it. It is slightly larger than A5 with 80 pages. First 19 cover BIG wheel options and early tracked experiments culminating in a drawing of de Mole's 'landship' of 1912. 2 pages on and No 1 Lincoln and Little Willie are covered a photo and half page description each. Page 24 and on covers the development of the UK rhomboid tanks culminating on pg 37 with the MkV* and V**. A couple of photos that I've not encountered before a MkIV with a trials drive system on the rear and a MkIV salvage tank. All the other photos are available on-line and the information superseded by more current books. 3 pages of Mk Vi thru' Mk VIII with photos and we are on to the Gun carrier 2 pages and 2 photos plus a photo of the mock-up GC MkII. Pg 44 on covers Flying Elephant, MkIX, experimants, Whippet (plus photo of RR Eagle powered variant), Medium Mk B, Hornet, Medium Mk D and concluding with a photo of an American MkV of US 301st Tank Battalion.
Pg 53 starts with German Tanks and projects such subjects as Burstyn's Motorgeschutz (with diagram), Goebel Landpanzerkreuzer (with photo), Treffas Wagen (with photo), Orion Wagen (with 2 photos), Bremer Marien Wagen Uberpanzert (with photo). Pg 60 starts the A7V, Pg 64 the Uberlandwagen. Two pages on captured MkIV and whippet then A7V/U (with photo). Pg 68 - 72 various uncompleted projects and prototypes.
The remaining pages cover Data various.
All in all, not worth going to the bother of acquiring as more up to date information is available. The only reference to preserved tanks are clearly stated as 'Preserved British Tanks of World War 1' - the Bovington 'Mk 1' declared, at that time, as a 'hybrid'. (The book published in 1969).
Hope that has given you an insight.
__________________
Regards TeeELL
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.
Thanks, that's pretty comprehensive. More up-to-date info may be available, but since I've acquired a reasonable knowledge of rhomboids already (largely thanks to Landships), my interest in the book would be dependent on the photos rather more than the data; the MkIV you mention with the trial drive system on the back sounds like it may be the one fitted with a chain-driven unditching beam, which I think interesting. I expect there will be nothing unfamiliar on the Medium D, which I have struggling to draw a basic model-making plan of for the past year. It's not the basics that are the problem, more getting the finer details of proportions right - a real difficulty with this particular tank, because the side armour is recessed and the wobbly track shoes easily corrupt the outline of the tracks.
The book would be correct in denoting the Bov "Mk 1" of that time as a hybrid, since it was only in that year that the museum acquired the real Mk 1 on display today; the machine they had until 1969 was the Mk II with the steering tail grafted on.
Ah! If the photo in question shows a three radiator setup, rather crude, between the rear track horns, with a Ford Model T radiator included, and no sponsons, then the tank in question is not a MkIV, it's a Mk II that was fitted with Williams-Janney hydraulic transmission for a trial of various transmission systems that took place in 1917 (I think). The Oldbury trials? Some name like that, anyway. The winner was Walter Wilson's epicyclic secondary gearbox, which was then selected for the Mk V.
I can't look see at present as I am not at 'my place'. If I pop over later I will have a look at the photo and caption. Please bear in mind I only gave the book scant attention for my report as I am in 'going away on holiday' mode.
__________________
Regards TeeELL
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.
OK, I've taken some time out to read the captions more carefully - Although reference is made to Mk IVs with Westinghouse Petrol-Electric and Daimler Petrol-Electric, the photo is a Mk1 with the Williams-Janney Hydraulic system with, as mentioned, a Ford Model T radiator employed for oil cooling.
__________________
Regards TeeELL
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.
On the subject of scrapping - the British National Maritime Museum scrapped steam paddle tug 'Reliant' of 1907 as recently as 2002....
I presume such an organisation would have a good reason for it, but still a shame when these things happen. I read somewhere online that a 70ft CMB that had been converted to a houseboat was scrapped in 2005 or 2006; it might have been the last one of that size - the more common 40ft and 55ft boats are not exactly plentiful.
