In a few months, Osprey will publish their New Vanguard number 133 about the British Mark IV tank; it's being written by David Fletcher, so it's going to be a must-have for most of us....
Just obtained an early copy of this. I can't really give an independent review of it as I've known David Fletcher for years and I gave him some material for it. Anyway, the text is excellent - packed with info and yet concisely expressed to fit within the confines of the New Vanguard format. Obviously some old ground, but more than enough that's new to make it very worthwhile. I didn't know, for instance, that a Mark IV was exported to Japan. Some stunning pictures, including the best yet published of one of an Operation Hush winch tank and a possible Mark IV Composite/Hermaphrodite, in Ireland of all places.
The slight disappointment, as ever with this series, is the accuracy of some of the illustrations. I am convinced Egbert had (part of) its name painted on what was left of its hull front. And the tank Lodestar should be Lodestar III if it's supposed to represent the tank preserved in Brussels. On the plus side the centrespread (and front cover) showing a tank under construction is a nice change, but then I'm particularly interested in how tank production was organised.
All in all, well worth your money (even if I'm biased!)
Another oddity in the colour plates is that a painting of Britannia in New York (based on the photo with the flags on the tank) has the name "Britannia" painted on the hull front, but when I look at the photo it isn't there.... Also the date given for this event is October 1917, but I'm sure that elsewhere on this forum I've seen this dated September 1918.
Another oddity in the colour plates is that a painting of Britannia in New York (based on the photo with the flags on the tank) has the name "Britannia" painted on the hull front, but when I look at the photo it isn't there.... Also the date given for this event is October 1917, but I'm sure that elsewhere on this forum I've seen this dated September 1918.
As I've said elsewhere, there is ample photographic evidence of there being at least two touring tanks in the US and Canada both referred to as Britannia, at least one with Britannia on the front plate and one without. Its not a case of Britannia being painted in (or out) at a later date as the photos show a number of tank visits to various towns and cities on inter lapping dates so the name would have to be painted in then out then back in then back out etc etc which seems most unlikely. For example the first photographed visit of 'Britannia' to Hamilton Ontario has Britannia on the front plate whilst in photos of 'Britannia' visiting Montreal the following week it isn't there. It is visible on some later photos and again is missing on others. There seem to have been a number (at least four) of seperate New York visits by both Britannias and I suspect we haven't as yet unearthed all the details. I have a feeling that that New York was Britannia's (both of them) base or lair. It would seem, matching contemporary photos and accounts, that there were two crews but neither was particulary linked to a specific Britannia. I suspect that Osprey have conflated a number of different New York appearances of Britannia as have various other publications.
With regard to your previous point re Egbert. As I'm sure your already well aware there appear to be surviving photos of Egbert with no name (or number ) anywhere on the tank - e.g Preston, with only the name Egbert and with both eg South Wales photos. Not having seen the Osprey publication yet (it probably won't reach the remoter Marches bookshops for some time) I can't comment but, given similar errors in other Osprey publications, one wonders if the illustration represents a sort of
composite picture.
I think that Osprey publications can be useful works but one should not leave one's critical facilties unengaged no matter whose name is on the title page - after all the unnamed editor can also have a significant impact.
The illustration I refer to of the Mark IV in New York is based on a photograph, to the extent that the positions of the people in it and the building behind are precisely the same when one compares the photo and the illustration. The only difference is the photo has no name on the tank; the illustration does. When you see the book you'll see what I mean.
I can assure you I keep my critical faculties on at all times. There are probably errors in this book I haven't spotted yet. There certainly are in some of David Fletcher's other work, for instance, in The Great Tank Scandal (I'm happy to pick on that one as I'm credited in it), though to be fair as our knowledge increases it's inevitable that more errors will be found in earlier references, whoever the author is.
The illustration I refer to of the Mark IV in New York is based on a photograph, to the extent that the positions of the people in it and the building behind are precisely the same when one compares the photo and the illustration. The only difference is the photo has no name on the tank; the illustration does. When you see the book you'll see what I mean.
I can assure you I keep my critical faculties on at all times. There are probably errors in this book I haven't spotted yet. There certainly are in some of David Fletcher's other work, for instance, in The Great Tank Scandal (I'm happy to pick on that one as I'm credited in it), though to be fair as our knowledge increases it's inevitable that more errors will be found in earlier references, whoever the author is.
It sounds like the one with the Flat iron building in the background. What I meant was whereas the picture of the tank might be in general be taken from one photo but details added from others. If the illustrator also had some of the other photos of 'Britannia' in New York he or she might have assumed that Britannia was one tank and for some reason the name was obscured in the main photo and just added it in. I think I can lay electronic hands on as many photos with the name on the front as photos without the name on front but if one was working from a limitred set it would be an easy mistake to make.
My point on critical facilties was meant to be general and rhetorical and wasn't meant as a personal comment.
) I can't comment but, given similar errors in other Osprey publications, one wonders if the illustration represents a sort of 
