Landships II

IIRC, Charlie C observed some time ago that the recovery of Mephisto could be characterised as "instigated by Australian local command, executed by the British (1st GC Co.) with help from Australian infantry," and that such a description was unlikely to go down well in certain quarters. It seems, though, that he has some powerful allies, not least Jeff Hopkins-Weise and Greg Czechura, authors of books both big and small on the subject.

They say, "The operation to recover Mephisto was unquestionably a joint operation involving the British Tank Corps’ 1st Gun Carrier Company (part of the 5th Tank Brigade), the Australian 26th Infantry Battalion, and various supporting units." Memory, Commemoration and World War I: Mephisto, Queensland's unique 'war prize' . May 2019, p72

In addition, it seems that the more one reads about the episode, the less the Australians appear to have contributed.

Much can be gleaned from my treasured copy of Hopkins-Weise & Czechura's big Mephisto book (2018). https://www.shop.qm.qld.gov.au/default/books/military/mephisto-technology-war-and-remembrance-paperback-edition.html  but also a lot of cross-referencing and double checking.

26 Bn War Diary for July 14th, 1918 states: "During the attack the 26th captured the derelict German tank No. 506 Mephisto."

On the night of July 15-16, Lt Harold Ford Pearson (26 Bn, AIF) took three officers of the Gun Carrier Company to inspect the site. In his report of November13th (reproduced in the book) he states that an attack by the 26th on 17/18 July "pushed the enemy far enough away to enable the Tank Corps to remove the tank."

He goes on to say that "26th Battalion was relieved (by 23 Bn) on 18/19 July, but nightly after that date, until the tank was removed, working parties were sent up from the Battalion, filling in shell holes, etc. to facilitate the removal of the tank."

The authors point out that by this date the ground around Monument Farm was much more heavily cratered than it had been on April 24th when Mephisto became stuck.

Page 248: "The daring operation was to be conducted under cover of darkness, and the 26th Battalion were to be supported by crews and vehicles of the British 1st Gun Carrier Company. After liaising with Tank Corps and artillery officers, the recovery attempt was set for the night of 22/23 July along a route selected by officers from the Gun Carrier Company and prepared by working parties from the 26th. The Reconnaissance Officer for the Gun Carrier Company, Lt A.J. Mutton was heavily involved in the planning and preparations for the tank's recovery . . . . Mephisto was successfully dragged from its shell hole by the British tanks."

[I hadn't heard of Lt Mutton, but it's gen. He's on the roll, and the authors include a letter he wrote to his parents while recovering in hospital from the effects of gas sustained during the operation.]

Page 250, from the 1st Gun Carrier Company War History: "The ground was reconnoitred in advance by the Reconnaissance Officer (Mutton) and the route selected by him was carefully filled in during the two nights preceding the attempt." - by working parties from 26 Bn.

Now some oddities start to appear. The sergeant in charge of the Australians, Frank Roy Hanson says, "We proceeded along with three (sic) British tanks to where the enemy tank was stationed . . . my party coupled the enemy tank to the British tanks and removed the former to appx 3 miles in rear of this front line." Why does he say 'three'? Is it just a typo? I have sometimes wondered how they managed to attach more than one "tank" to Mephisto.

But maybe they didn't. On page 261, from the Queensland Museum archive: "In 1968 James A. Robinson (ex commander of 26 Bn) recalled that two British tanks had been involved with the retrieval of the disabled vehicle. 'One tank took Mephisto in tow while the remaining tank brought in the damaged caterpillar track.'"

What are we to make of that? First of all, we must address the question of whether the recovery vehicles were Gun Carriers or tanks, about which there is some argument. Unfortunately, even the Gun Carrier Company diary itself refers to both "tanks" and "Gun Carrier tanks," which is unhelpful. But they seem to have distinguished them by describing fighting tanks as "battle tanks." I can't see that the Gun Carrier Company would use anything but Gun Carriers, although there isn't enough concrete evidence to prove it beyond doubt. What is the caterpillar track to which Robinson refers? I've never seen any evidence of or reference to Mephisto losing a track. Everything looks fine in all the photographs. Certainly, if Mephisto had cast a track, then a Gun Carrier would be much more suitable for carrying it away than a Mark IV or V. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence. The Mephisto book shows a photo of a slightly damaged track shoe, but it's still attached to the others.

Robinson was speaking 50 years after the event and was 80, which might mean his recollection was inaccurate. It's got me beat.

The Gun Carrier Company's war diary indicates that its involvement was:

19/7/18 Reconn. of German Tank in Monument Wood
22/7/18 Reconn. of German Tank
23/7/18 German Tank pulled out and left in Bois l'Abbaye (sic)*
24/7/18 Taken to Amiens (precise location not stated)
26/7/18 German Tank towed to Vaux

* Probably a misprint. The western part of this wood is more often written as "Bois l'Abbé." That was Mephisto's first stop. The eastern part is the Bois d'Aquennes.

Gun Carriers moved their base several times during 1918: Anvin, Le Treport, Pierremont, Humeroeuille, and by May, Querrieu Wood. (GC diary.)

Next: Was Mephisto ever in No Man's Land? Probably not, or only briefly. It was abandoned while still behind the German advance, and remained there after the Front stabilised, the orchard still being in German hands. Mephisto wasn't between the traditional two lines of trenches. Two days after the Armistice, the aforementioned Lt. Pearson drew a map of the area, showing the Allied movements on July 13th, during which Mephisto was "captured."

The front line is shown here in red(ish). It appears that the Allies took over three sections of trench between 5pm and 10pm.  A patrol moved south until reaching the junction of two trenches (A to B), then turned left and bombed their way eastwards, along Syria Trench (B to C) to the main road that runs roughly north/south. Then 26 Bn moved forward to a line running north-east from there (C to D) and finally the line C to E.

That placed Mephisto, according to Lt. Pearson, "about 50 or 60 yards inside our line of posts." It would seem that Mephisto changed hands without any appreciable stay in No Man's Land - if there was such a thing. There are some extremely detailed accounts and maps of these actions in the Official History. This is one of the accompanying maps:

So in studying the acquisition (I shall not use a stronger term) of Mephisto, beginners' level is "Some cheeky Larrikins pulled the tank out of a shell hole in No Man's Land and sneaked it to Australia." Some accounts aren't far from that. The harder you look at it, the further from that it becomes. I remember a conversation, some time ago and before I had read up about the Gun Carrier involvement, in which I said it seemed odd that Australian infantrymen should have the skills required to operate a tank or Gun Carrier. Of course, they didn't. Some accounts say that the tank crews "supported" the Australians; others make no mention of them at all. I think it's fair to say that the men of 26 Bn provided valuable but largely unskilled labour. Tank Corps officers provided the expertise. Everything was done through the proper channels, up to Brigade level, the cooperation of artillery, the Tank Corps, and the RAF secured, and so on. And without the Gun Carriers none of it would have been possible.

I must, of course, stress that this assessment is in no way meant to detract from the contribution, courage, and sacrifice of Australia's soldiers in the War. It's merely to get the story straight.

I'll close with the words of C.E.W. Bean, Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918. Referring to the recovery of Mephisto, a footnote on page 366:

It had been disabled on April 24 ( J C C Vol. V , pp. 552, 632n). It was now salved on the night of July 22 by British tanks in conjunction with a working party of Queenslanders.


P.S. Amongst the documentation there are frequent references to "the railhead at Poulainville." There was no Poulainville station, but there was a station roughly equidistant between Poulainville and Bertangles, and a siding/passing point where loading and unloading could take place. This seems to bear out the conclusion we came to in an older thread that there was no broad gauge railway between there and Vaux-en-Amiénois, so Mephisto must have made that short trip by road. The railway is disused but still there.