The headline just turns me off. It is, quite frankly, an insult. Not something I would read and I wouldn't even click on it as that gives earns them cash through their advertising.
Thanks for those links, Ned and Charlie C. The article was considerably more reasonable than the headline, although still rather misleading. In particular, I don`t believe that there was a real dispute about the movements or position of Lt. Skinner`s tank, in the aftermath of the battle. The wreck is clearly seen in multiple aerial photos taken days after the action, and it was well behind British lines following the second battle of Bullecourt in May 1917. The Australian war diaries, and Major Watson`s postwar account in A Company of Tanks largely agree with respect to this particular tank, although Skinner was clearly in error in believing that he had entered Bullecourt when, in fact, his tank was stopped at the edge of the village. As far as I am aware, no specific criticisms of Lt. Skinner`s actions were levelled in the Australian war diaries, in contrast to the crew of Lt. Birkett`s tank (797) who were reported to have fled their tank in a panic. The only tank whose position was unknown following the battle was Lt. Davies`799, which was put out of action behind the German lines, and whose crew was killed or captured. Its true position was unknown until the final advance of 1918.
In any case, here`s a photo of the wreck of 796 which clearly shows the deep shell hole which stopped the tank.
