Tanks in Palestine

[peter_suciu]

I recently rewatched the film The Lighthorsemen, and then read about the battle for Jerusalem. How did the tanks get to Palestine? And how many were actually dispatched to the campaign?

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

We talked about this some time ago, do a search and these will come up.

I think during out talk on 2nd Gaza.

S.B

[Stebie9173]

Here's a link to the Topic Steve is referring to (I think)

[Broken link removed]

 

Steve.

P.S. Unfortunately the posted pics are no longer attached. Happened when the Forum moved URLs.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

While the AMD was at rest at Deir el Bellah during the period January to March 1918, a popular spot to visit and have a snap taken was at the remains of HMLS "Nutty" outside of Gaza between Tank Redoubt and Jack and Jill Redoubt.

This pic was taken by one such fellow. If you have a look at the shell holes that surround the tank, you can visualise the terrible time had by this tank and its crew.

The tanks arrived by ship and rail just in time for the Second Battle of Gaza.

Cheers

Bill

[peter_suciu]

Great stuff Bill! And Steve, thank you for the link.

This is fascinating stuff. Funny thing in the movie Lion of the Desert there is the reference that the Italians were the first to put tanks in the desert. But clearly the British beat them to the punch!

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Confirm this is a photo of the HMLS Nutty as its not like the ones I've seen in Camel Corps books.

The tank was knocked out after entering the Tank Redoubt which it was knocked out.

Photos show her face down in the ditch or trench she ended up in.

It appears one of the many others KO'ed that day, see the name on the tank side which appears longer that "Nutty". A closer look may give us its name.

Cheers

S.B

[Gerald Moore]

Thanks Bill, for the nice photo of a wrecked Mk.I female in Palestine - I hadn't seen it before. This topic was recently under discussion at the Landships forum. Like Steve, I suspect the photo is not of Nutty, but rather War Baby, knocked out on Outpost Hill, also on April 19. Three tanks were destroyed during the 2nd Battle of Gaza: Sir Archibald (male), Nutty (female) and War Baby (female). By the time their positions were retaken after the 3rd Battle of Gaza, one of the female wrecks was in a nose down position, as seen in the attached photo - I think the name NUTTY can be partially made out on this tank.

[michaeldr]

Quote from Steve’s post 3 above: ‘Here's a link to the Topic Steve is referring to (I think) [Broken link removed]

Steve.

P.S. Unfortunately the posted pics are no longer attached. Happened when the Forum moved URLs.’

 

And if it helps - my own post in that other thread:

‘Chris,

I have revived this old thread of yours to add the picture below

Looking at the shape of the hole in the tank’s front right-hand side

[just to the left of the soldier in your picture]

Then I would say that this seems to be the same tank,

but that the picture below was taken at an earlier time before more damage was done.

The picture comes from the collection of Fritz Groll who was the head of the photography and survey unit with the German Squadron 300 in Palestine. It belongs to Benjamin Z. Kedar and was reproduced by him in his book ‘The Changing Land between the Jordan & the Sea’

Here is the picture once again

Regards

Michael D.R.

[delta]

This topic was recently under discussion at the Landships forum

Can you give the link to that forum - its a new one to me

thanx

Stephen

[Gerald Moore]

The "Landships" mainpage address is www.landships.freeservers.com - there is a link to the forum.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Steve

G'day mate

We have two tanks to choose from here:

Nutty and War Baby.

Since the lettering is indestinct - even when blown up - we have to make a guess.

Here's a guide - the tank at the AWM with its name:

So we have the right spot for the name.

Now we look at the number of letters:

5 and 8 respectively.

Yeah I know War Baby has only 7 letters but there is a white letter between War and Baby.

So on that basis with the best guess, it is too large for War Baby and it does not have a white letter but as you correctly say, possibly too small for Nutty.

Toss you for the difference.

Cheers

Bill

[delta]

The "Landships" mainpage address is www.landships.freeservers.com - there is a link to the forum.

Thanx Gerald

Stephen

[T8HANTS]

I think that must be Nutty, because I have a picture of War Baby, and it is not damaged in that manner, but can I find the photo, no luck I will try again

Gareth

[T8HANTS]

Found it, this is the photograph of what I have always believed to be War Baby, the picture was given to me by a sergeant who fought 2nd Gaza with the Isle of Wight Rifles (8th Hants), so it is his recollection I am relying on.

[Gerald Moore]

Thanks Gareth. The attachment shows what I think is a starboard view of the same vehicle. The eight tanks at the 2nd Battle of Gaza were all Mk.I's, the males being named Sir Archibald, Ole-Luke-Oi, Otazel and Pincher. The females were Kia-Ora, Nutty, Tiger and War Baby. The 6-pounder guns on this tank identify it as a male. While this vehicle is not as visibly damaged as the female wrecks above, I suspect that it is the wreck of Sir Archibald, which was knocked out by artillery fire on April 17 during the approach to the Turkish positions. The pattern of damage which can be seen in the photos corresponds to that described as being received by Sir Archibald: 3 hits by shells, including a hit to the port track which caused the tank to take fire. Due to the placement of the petrol tanks, hits to front horns of the Mk.I frequently resulted in fire. The discolouration seen on the starboard front horn, along with the absence of a visible name suggest that this tank has suffered an internal fire which has damaged the paint.

[FAAAEd]

Found it, this is the photograph of what I have always believed to be War Baby, the picture was given to me by a sergeant who fought 2nd Gaza with the Isle of Wight Rifles (8th Hants), so it is his recollection I am relying on.

I have that same picture (but without the white blob) on my web site.

Please note, this site was started in 1995 when HTML was considerably more limited than now and the first tool was a simple text editor (although one substantially better and more sophisticated than even the latest version of Notepad), if it doesn't look right in MSIE then that is MSIE's fault.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Steve

G'day mate

After extensive research, and here the research was done by Jeff, I have in my hands, conclusive evidence that the tank in the picture I have provided is HMLS War Baby - I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

Mea culpa on the guess.

Cheers

Bill

[Gerald Moore]

Bill;

I would be very interested to hear the evidence which identifies the tank in your photograph - would you kindly comment further?

Many thanks.

Gerald

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Gerald

G'day mate

It is quite simple. I have been given a photograph by someone which is in aspects the same tank. The tank was destroyed but in newer condition. The name on the tank in the photograph is very clear. That says it all for me.

As to the other photograph, since it is not mine to use and as yet I have no permission to use it except for confirmation purposes, that is all I can do.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Just found this description of the fight near Tank Redoubt.

This is the text:

A section of a Territorial Division and the Australian Camel Corps, were fiercely attacking the Tank Redoubt. A British tank presently emerged and was seen climbing over the broken country towards the Tank Redoubt. High explosive shells were literally rained down on the tank, which concentrated fire accounted for hundreds of casualties amongst the British storming troops. Shortly afterwards, a shell bursting underneath the tank put it completely out of action but its brief run had greatly added to our casualties without inflicting any serious loss amongst the enemy.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

The question that arises from this is quite simple -

Judging from this assessment were the tanks effective or did they just attract unwanted artillery fire which crippled the attacking units nearby the tanks?

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Here is another exerpt which appeared on a thread relating specifically to Gaza 2:

"The shell, rifle, and machine gun fire was very severe, particularly on the sector covered by the Infantry and the I.C.C., both of whom were suffering heavily. A tank which was supporting the Infantry was, no doubt, the responsible factor in drawing most of this fire, for after it was put out of action (which happened very speedily) more attention was paid to the adjacent sectors."

Again, no praise for the tanks.

Cheers

Bill

[Robert Dunlop]

Thanks Bill. General Harper is often derided for his plan to push tanks ahead of his beloved 51st Division infantry in their attack at Cambrai. This is precisely the reason why he did it. Subsequently, in the Battle of Amiens, tanks were deliberately kept some distance from infantry as they attracted so much fire. Not just shellfire but also machine gun fire too.

Robert

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Robert

G'day mate

Thanks heaps for that comment. Not having any particular knowledge of the boilerplate war save in the most general of terms, your specific comment is worth more than the volumes of generalities I have read.

Cheers

Bill

[Gerald Moore]

You've raised an interesting question, Bill. The decision to employ individual, widely-spaced tanks on a battlefield nearly devoid of cover, and without effective counter-battery fire ensured that the tanks would draw heavy fire. This resulted in heavy loss to the accompanying infantry at Outpost Hill as well as Tank Redoubt. In retrospect, if the tanks were to be dispersed in this way, they may have been more effective in a diversionary role. It has also been suggested that if the tanks were concentrated against a single objective, a local success may have been achieved.

After HMLS Nutty penetrated the Tank Redoubt and was knocked out, a comparatively small force of about 50 Australian and British soldiers was able to rout the Turkish garrison of over 500. This was one of the few episodes during Second Gaza in which a major Turkish position was taken, albeit temporarily. It could be argued that the shock effect of the tank, and the volume of anti-tank fire directed at the Redoubt, unnerved the garrison, and was a major factor in the Redoubt's capture.

The situation seems analagous to First Bullecourt, a nearly contemperaneous action where a small number of tanks was supposed to compensate for a deficiency of artillery, with similar dire results. Were the Australian infantry assisted in capturing the nearly intact Hindenburg line trenches because the tanks drew so much fire onto themselves?

I've attached another photo of War Baby on Outpost Hill, looking south I think, mainly to show the tremendous observation the Turks enjoyed from the Ali Muntar positions.