First British tank captured by Germans

[J Banning]

Does anyone know when the first British tank was captured by the Germans and, if so, which tank it was?

With thanks

[delta]

As ever it depends on what you means by "captured".....

I would suggest that C14 and C16 "Corunna" were both captured by the Germans but only after they had been abandoned by the crews, on 15 Sep 1916 - http://www.firsttankcrews.com/tanknosc13toc18.htm

Others may disagree.

Stephen

[centurion]

I'd agree with Stephen - you need to define your terms. Do you mean captured in a runnable condition, repairable condition or just in scrap condition?

[J Banning]

You are quite right, I should have clarified what I was after.

I have some sketches made by German soldiers of the first tanks used on 15 Sept 1916 from the Bayerisches Haupstaastsarchiv, Munich. The variation in these is amazing and they make fascinating viewing. However, none of them bear any resemblance to a Mark I tank. I understand that these sketches were distributed to illustrate this new weapon of warfare. However, my original question was directed to see when the Germans would have had a captured tank in their possession that they could use to correct these rather fanciful drawings with.

[delta]

Suggest you read Trevor Pidgeon's book The Tanks at Flers Chapter 16 for a very detailed answer

I would not wish to reduce it to a simple answer

[Gerald Moore]

The first British tanks available for detailed examination by the Germans were two MkII machines damaged during the 1st battle of Bullecourt in April 1917. A female tank, 586, was immobilised on the edge of the front Hindenberg line trench, and abandoned in the retirement at the end of the battle. Photographs show the tank being cautiously examined by German officers shortly thereafter. The position of this tank was probably too exposed to view from the Australian lines to permit more extensive examination, particularly after the second battle in May. Indeed, the Germans appear to have made unsuccessful attempts to destroy this wreck, probably to prevent it being used for artillery registration.

A male MkII, 799, went off course and was put out of action between the front and second-line German trenches near Queant. Numerous photos show large groups of Germans examining the wreck (which was fairly intact), suggesting that it's location was not in direct view of the Australian lines. There is some debate as to whether the Germans removed this wreck from the battlefield. Photos demonstrate that parts of this wreck were removed, probably for ballistic testing (ultimately misleading, since the MkII's were training tanks without case-hardened armour plate). "Seven derelicts were visible in front of the line, and two lay behind the first trench. Parties came from afar to inspect them; their mechanism was studied, the bullet holes counted, and staff monographs written suggesting improvements in defense against them." (Bean, in the Australian OH, quoting a German account of 1st Bullecourt).

[centurion]

You are quite right, I should have clarified what I was after.

I have some sketches made by German soldiers of the first tanks used on 15 Sept 1916 from the Bayerisches Haupstaastsarchiv, Munich. The variation in these is amazing and they make fascinating viewing. However, none of them bear any resemblance to a Mark I tank. I understand that these sketches were distributed to illustrate this new weapon of warfare. However, my original question was directed to see when the Germans would have had a captured tank in their possession that they could use to correct these rather fanciful drawings with.

The Germans were aware of the Allied development of tanks prior to Flers as warning were issued to some troops but they were expecting French made vehicles (doubtless a leak from Schnieder). Possibly this played a part in confusing matters. Photos from US papers of Mk Is would have been available to the Germans long before they laid hands on those Mk IIs at Arras

[phil@basildon]

The Germans had become aware that the British were developing the tank but that was about all. It was not until the first British tank attack in September 1916 that the German War Ministry began to make active efforts to develop tanks. By December 1917 the Germans had 7 tank companies, 3 equiped with the A7V and 4 equiped with captured British Mk IV's! As the A7V's numbered only about 20 tanks this would put the number of captured tanks at about 30 at the most. Most of the British tanks were captured at Cambrai and the Germans had a depot at Charleroi to repair captured British tanks.

The captured tanks were re-armed by the Germans, the males with Sokol 57mm guns as used in the A7V and the females with '08 model maxim's. These were the same weapons as used in the A7V.

One other German tank company was formed equiped with Whippet Mk. A medium tanks in 1918.

There is no record of the Germans using French tanks except possibly for training during the Great War but they used Renault light tanks during the occupation of the Channel Isles in 1940!

The Germans had become aware that the British were developing the tank but that was about all. It was not until the first British tank attack in September 1916 that the German War Ministry began to make active efforts to develop tanks. By December 1917 the Germans had 7 tank companies, 3 equiped with the A7V and 4 equiped with captured British Mk IV's! As the A7V's numbered only about 20 tanks this would put the number of captured tanks at about 30 at the most. Most of the British tanks were captured at Cambrai and the Germans had a depot at Charleroi to repair captured British tanks.

The captured tanks were re-armed by the Germans, the males with Sokol 57mm guns as used in the A7V and the females with '08 model maxim's. These were the same weapons as used in the A7V.

One other German tank company was formed equiped with Whippet Mk. A medium tanks in 1918.

There is no record of the Germans using French tanks except possibly for training during the Great War but they used Renault light tanks during the occupation of the Channel Isles in 1940!

[centurion]

I have seen no evidence that the Germans were aware that the British were developing the tank, however a German officer who was present at Flers did state that the German intelligence service had issued warnings that such vehicles were being developed in French factories and K rounds had been issued in anticipation. Do you have any evidence that they knew about the British development as well?

The Germans had been toying with various forms of what we would call tanks well before Flers but the German High Command could never be convinced. It took Cambrai to do that by which time Germany lacked the resources (thin armour plate and suitable engines) to develop a tank force of any practical size without depriving other vital arms of service (primarily the air force and the heavy artillery). The Germans may have had as many as 40 plus renovated Mk IV tanks. Although a few Medium As were restored none were used in action (except by the friekorps after the war).

[phil@basildon]

The information came from "British and German tanks of World War One" by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis. Arms and Armour press 1969. The Germans pressed ahead with their tank production after September 1916 when they saw the British tanks in action. The first A7V was ordered in January 1917. In some respects the A7V was better than the British Tanks, it had a better more reliable engines (it was fitted with two 100hp engines), and suspension which the British tanks lacked but it was a poorer vehicle in so many other ways in particular cross country ability.

The Mk. A Medium tanks were captured by the Germans during their push in early 1918 and they formed the first company using these tanks in October 1918 so there was no chance of using them in action.

[bob lembke]

I think that the Germans had many more than 30 "captured tanks". I have seen a photo of a dump that seemed to have 30 tanks awaiting rehab just in the range of the lens, and the dump seems to have had more out of the range of the lens. I also saw a photo of the Bavarian depot to rehab the Mark IVs, and it was a big establishment. They planned to establish a corps of 200 rehabbed Mark IVs in 1919, so I think that they had a good number of repairable tanks. My reading of tank attacks indicate that a lot had to be left ditched or otherwise disabled but not destroyed. I believe that they built 20 A7Vs, put 15 into Abteilung 1 thru 3, rest spares, etc; and established 6 Abteilungen, 11 through 16, of Mark IVs.

The A7V was really a different type of vehicle, it really was a APC; it was boxy to carry the basic crew plus a squad of 10 infantry, supposedly including a flamethrower. (When I heard that it had a crew of 13 or 15 I thought they were nuts, and the boxy design did not seem to make sense just as a tank.) Clearly if they had a force of say 60 or 100 they could perhaps really rupture a static front, but of course they could never develop such a force.

Bob Lembke

[Jack Sheldon]

I wonder if we could go a little deeper into the evidence that the German High Command was converted to the concept of the tank as a result of Cambrai. I looked at this question during the writing of my latest book and it seems to me that the situation was far from clear cut at the end of 1917. Here, for example, is a statement taken from a letter written in early December 1917 by General der Infanterie Georg von der Marwitz, Commander German Second Army, whose men fought the battle:

'I was back in Bourlon today. In one place five [knocked out] tanks were right next to each other and three or four [more] were quite close by. Two had caught fire and the men inside them were burnt to death - a dreadful sight! I cannot help it, I do not regard these things in their current form as battleworthy. Of the approximately 300 which attacked us, seventy five were knocked out and are still within our lines and a further thirty are located to our front. A large number also ditched but were subsequently towed away. If when deployed, over one third of them are knocked out, this becomes unsustainable in the long term. If we were to lose one third of our artillery in every battle, we simply could not continue. However, perhaps they can be improved.'

If anyone can direct me to evidence that Marwitz's view was atypical, I should be most interested.

Jack

[SiegeGunner]

I have not yet read my copy of Heinz Guderian's "Achtung - Panzer", but suspect that the chapters (in English translation) 'The Genesis of the Tank' and 'The Birth of a New Weapon' will offer an alternative perspective, but perhaps with the benefit of hindsight. Can someone who has read the book tell us whether Guderian's view (or that of others he cites) differed radically from von Marwitz's verdict at the same time? I presume that technically-minded German officers will have pointed to the rapid development of aircraft and the obvious potential of tanks when they worked well. So perhaps the key criterion was the German perception of how much longer the war would/could last. Is there any evidence of the Germans making improvements to Beutepanzer ?

[centurion]

Marwitz's view may be coloured by the German economic position. The British tank was designed with a potential life of 50 miles. It was in some respects regarded as highly probable that it would not survive more than one battle. Britain could afford this Germany could not. Evidence of the conversion to the tank idea was provided by the officer responsible for liason between the German High Command and the A7V committee. After Cambrai a scheme was devised to build 300 copies of the Mk IV with some improvements (mainly in the area of transmission). This had to be shelved because of competing demands for the engines (which was won by the fliegertruppen and the heavy artillery) and also probably because of an inability to produce thin armour plate (because of a lack of suitable alloying metals thanks to the blockade). By this time the value of the tank was appreciated by some but Germany just couldn't produce them. I'll post the relevant stuff when I get home tonight.

[phil@basildon]

Bob, Yes I agree but I was talking about the number of tanks that the Germans had made serviceable. To get a third or maybe more of those tanks back into service was quite a remarkable achievement in the circumstances. If you take into account Marwitz's comments it would have been a very unpleasant job as well.

There was also a supply problem with the Sokol cannon, the A7V was intended to have two such guns but one was deleted because of shortages.

Another problem for the Germans was their crews manning the tanks were made up of a hotch potch of engineers, infantry and artillery instead of specially trained crews like the British and only acquired the neccessary cohesion too late in the war to have any affect.

Yes I agree that the A7V was more useful as an APC and some of the chassis were used as an unarmoured supply wagon, but this was perhaps down to supply problems. The APC role may have come about because of the deletion of the rearward facing Sokol cannon.

[phil@basildon]

Is there any evidence of the Germans making improvements to Beutepanzer ?

The Germans actually built a prototype called the A7V/U that had the rhomboid shape of the British tanks but only one had been completed at the time of the armistice. U = Umlaufende Ketten (circumrotatory tracks). It also was too heavy at 40 tons.

The main reason for the slow pace of German tank developement was a lack of materials. The British blockade was really begining to bite by the time developement began.

[phil@basildon]

If anyone can direct me to evidence that Marwitz's view was atypical, I should be most interested.

Jack

There was I believe a report submitted by a young artillery officer, a certain Erwin Rommel!

[Tom W.]

Yes I agree that the A7V was more useful as an APC and some of the chassis were used as an unarmoured supply wagon, but this was perhaps down to supply problems. The APC role may have come about because of the deletion of the rearward facing Sokol cannon.

Actually, it was a Belgian Nordenfelt cannon, not a "Sokol."

From Maxwell Hundleby and Rainer Strassheim's The German A7V Tank and the Captured British Mark IV Tanks of World War I (Sparkford, Nr. Yeovil, Somerset: Haynes Publishing Group, 1990), p. 69:

"Nobody in this period mentioned Sokol and no gun manufacturer of that name has ever been found, neither has anybody ever produced any documentary or photographic evidence. The explanation lies in a mistaken translation from German to English.

"Two mountings were made for the 5.7 cm Nordenfelt gun, a buck or trestle mount called Bocklafette and a pedestal, pyramid or socle mount called Sockellafette. The tonal similarity between Sokol and Sockel is obvious, while the German habit of writing adjectives such as belgische (Belgian) with a small letter causes them to be missed."

Pages 69-75 go on to say that the Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company became Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. in 1891. It sold the 57 mm gun to Belgium and Russia before the war. The Germans captured large quantities of Nordenfelt guns in Belgium in 1914 and in Russia in 1918. The Belgian Nordenfelt guns were used on the A7V, and the Russian Nordenfelt guns on the captured British Mark IV tanks.

As for the flamethrower, two were initially supposed to be mounted on the "female" A7V, but this idea was abandoned in late 1917. The next plan was to have the tank carry two portable flamethrowers that would be used by the crew, but this idea was also abandoned as too dangerous. In the end all A7V crews of Sturmpanzerkraftwagenabteilung Nr. 1 were trained as assault troops by Sturmbataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr), the pioneers among them instructed in how to operate small flamethrowers.

On March 21, 1918, the dismounted crews of Tanks 505 and 507 used hand grenades and flamethrowers to roll up a British trench at St. Quentin. The sources don't say where the tank crews obtained the flamethrowers, but presumably they were supplied by either Sturmbataillon Nr. 5 or the 9th Company of the Garde-Reserve-Pionier-Regiment, both of which took part in the assault. Instead of flamethrowers, the tanks carried large boxes of hand grenades.

[phil@basildon]

The Sokol cannon was a Russian weapon similar to the 6-pounder fitted to the British tanks and all other references to German WW1 tanks refer to the Sokol being fitted. The Germans had captured a large number of these guns, sufficient for them to produce ammunition for them.

[Jack Sheldon]

Phil

Is this the same Erwin Rommel who was an infantryman fighting in the Italian mountains on foot in November 1917 and writing about it later in Infanterie Greift an: Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen?

Jack

[phil@basildon]

Phil

Is this the same Erwin Rommel who was an infantryman fighting in the Italian mountains on foot in November 1917 and writing about it later in Infanterie Greift an: Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen?

Jack

Oops sorry! I think I got him mixed up with someone else

[centurion]

The Germans actually built a prototype called the A7V/U that had the rhomboid shape of the British tanks but only one had been completed at the time of the armistice. U = Umlaufende Ketten (circumrotatory tracks). It also was too heavy at 40 tons.

The main reason for the slow pace of German tank developement was a lack of materials. The British blockade was really begining to bite by the time developement began.

This was not an improvement to the beutepanzer but effectively a development of the A7V using the same Holt type track units with a rhomboid shape. Trials proved what the British had already realised would happen - the suspension quickly clogged with mud. 'Improvements' to the beutepanzers included an extra gunners position in the front cab. Some female beutes apparently carried an anti tank rifle in one sponson instead of a machine gun. I have heard that an AT rifle was also carried instead of the cab mg but I've seen no corroboration of this

[phil@basildon]

The book I quoted above also stated that some captured Mk. IV's were equiped with anti tank rifles.

[SiegeGunner]

The Sokol cannon was a Russian weapon similar to the 6-pounder fitted to the British tanks and all other references to German WW1 tanks refer to the Sokol being fitted. The Germans had captured a large number of these guns, sufficient for them to produce ammunition for them.

Tom W's explanation of the misunderstanding leading to the description of the 57mm Nordenfelt as a Sokol cannon sounds entirely plausible to me, and I cannot find any reliable German references to Sokol or Russian references to Сокол that relate to guns of the WW1 era suitable for use in a tank. Nevertheless, Sokol/Сокол is a Russian word – it means falcon or hawk.

[centurion]

Re the German tank expectations in 1916, Otto Scholz, a Captain in the Westphalian infantry stated "We had heard rumours about a new Allied weapon and our intelligence sent us notes about a vehicle which they believed was being built in certain French factories. The rumours said it was a sort of armoured car and we had been given supplies of armour piercing bullets of the type usually used for shooting at snipers loopholes in pillboxes. But when we saw the first real tank it was like nothing we had ever imagined."