Tank use in the Second Battle of Gaza

[iain mchenry]

During the second battle of Gaza in April 1917, six out of eight tanks were used by the British to support this battle. Would anyone know which unit these tanks came from and or have the war diary pertaining to that unit?

Regards

Iain

[michaeldr]

Iain,

the following from the AWM may be of help

http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/P08401.004

Note the caption: Australian light horseman looking over a British Mk 1 female tank , HMLS (His Majesty's Land Ship) Kia Ora, prior to the Second Battle of Gaza (19 April 1917). This tank from E Battalion, armed with Vickers machine guns, was commanded by 2nd Lieutenant (2Lt) Roy Ansted Winder, formerly of the Middlesex Regiment and later a Captain in the Tank Corps. During the Second Battle of Gaza this tank supported the British 155 Brigade and 2Lt Winder was awarded the Military Cross (MC) during this action

A second pre-battle photograph is

http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/B02944

elsewhere the same photograph has a slightly different caption:

A row of Mark IV Female tanks which arrived from Britain waiting to be used in the second battle of Gaza which was fought on 19 April 1917. The attack failed, costing the British and Australian troops over 6,000 casualties

regards

Michael

[michaeldr]

Iain,

Looking at this old thread http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16062&hl=tanks&st=0

I think that Steve Becker may have the information which you seek

[iain mchenry]

Hi Michael,

Many thanks for the info and the link to the past thread - most interesting.

Best regards

Iain

[Ian Riley]

Iain,

I know a man with a dissertation on tanks in Palestine. He is not on GWF. Separate PM to follow

Ian

[centurion]

Iain,

the following from the AWM may be of help

http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/P08401.004

on:

A row of Mark IV Female tanks which arrived from Britain waiting to be used in the second battle of Gaza which was fought on 19 April 1917. The attack failed, costing the British and Australian troops over 6,000 casualties

regards

Michael

AFAIK all the MK I tanks involved in 2nd Gaza were taken from training establishment and not from serving battalions (although the crews would have been). It had been intended to send Mk IVs but there was some error. There was a mixture of male and female - so on both counts the caption above is somewhat inaccurate. 2 Mk IVs were sent out as replacements for the Mk Is destroyed in 2nd Gaza (most were recovered and refurbished) and played a small part in 3rd Gaza along with the Mk Is.

[iain mchenry]

Thankyou all for the help so far, much appreciated.

Iain

[markcook]

The 8 tanks came from ‘E’ Company Heavy Section Machine Gun Corps (later ‘E’ Company Tank Corps). Originally 12 new tanks were to be sent, but a mistake on dispatch from England meant that 8 warn out former training machines were sent.

They were:

Mark I Males - HMLS Pincher (named after the destroyer that escorted the men of the detachment to Egypt), HMLS Ole-Luk-Oie (named after the pseudonym of Colonel Sir Ernest D. Swinton, commander of the Heavy Section Machine Gun Corps from February to November 1916), and HMLS Otazel (the corrupted phonetic spelling of ‘Hot as Hell’!);

Mark I Females - HMLS Tiger, and HMLS War Baby (War Baby was slang for a new soldier, especially a young officer)

Mark II Male - HMLS Sir Archibald (named after General Sir Archibald Murray, GOC Egyptian Expeditionary Force (January 1916 – June 1917))

Mark II Females - HMLS Nutty (named after OC Palestine Tank Detachment, Major N. H. Nutt), and HMLS Kia Ora (presumably, owing to the lemon and orange citrus fruits grown in Palestine, this tank was named after the drink ‘Kia-Ora’ (which was introduced to Britain in 1917))

HMLS War Baby, HMLS Sir Archibald, and HMLS Nutty were destroyed in the Second Battle of Gaza. 3 replacements were sent out, which fought in the Third Battle of Gaza, namely:

Mark IV Male - HMLS Sir Reginald (named after Sir Reginald Wingate, Governor General of the Sudan and Sirdar of the Egyptian Army (1899 – 1916), and British High Commissioner in Egypt (1917 – 1919))

Mark IV Females - HMLS Lady Wingate (named after the wife of Sir Reginald Wingate), and HMLS Revenge (the tank commander for this tank was formerly the commander of the destroyed HMLS War Baby; in some pictures a tank called War Baby II can be seen, apparently, so there has been some speculation that either the name was changed at some point or that both names were used)

[centurion]

The 8 tanks came from ‘E’ Company Heavy Section Machine Gun Corps (later ‘E’ Company Tank Corps). Originally 12 new tanks were to be sent, but a mistake on dispatch from England meant that 8 warn out former training machines were sent.

No the men came mainly from E company but the tanks did not, they came from the training ground at Thetford complete with Thetford mud. The original plan of Swinton's had been to send Mk IIs straight from the factory as these would be mechanically more reliable. The crews and support staff and equipment sailed from Devonport in mid December 1916 and it was intended that 12 Mk IIs would follow from Avonmouth a week later. However a batch of 8 Mk Is intended for Bovington arrived at Avonmouth by mistake and were loaded into the bottom of the hold along with workshop lorries and a couple of Holt tractors. Tons of cargo was then packed above them. The mistake was discovered before the ship sailed but permission for the ship to be unloaded was refused and so it sailed with the wrong tanks. It took over a week in Egypt for the Thetford mud to be chipped away so that the tanks could move. After Gaza 2 eight Mk IVs were shipped as reinforcements and replacements but most were lost when one of the ships carrying them was torpedoed.

Thus all the tanks at 2nd Gaza were Mk Is from the training school (it has been stated that Sir Archibald was a Mk II but photos clearly show the tank with the Mk I track tensioning apertures) and only some of the men were from E company (there were 22 officers and 226 OR)

[centurion]

Some of the Mk I and Mk IV tanks in Egypt (there is a female Mk IV in the front row)

[markcook]

No the men came mainly from E company but the tanks did not, they came from the training ground at Thetford complete with Thetford mud. The original plan of Swinton's had been to send Mk IIs straight from the factory as these would be mechanically more reliable. The crews and support staff and equipment sailed from Devonport in mid December 1916 and it was intended that 12 Mk IIs would follow from Avonmouth a week later. However a batch of 8 Mk Is intended for Bovington arrived at Avonmouth by mistake and were loaded into the bottom of the hold along with workshop lorries and a couple of Holt tractors. Tons of cargo was then packed above them. The mistake was discovered before the ship sailed but permission for the ship to be unloaded was refused and so it sailed with the wrong tanks. It took over a week in Egypt for the Thetford mud to be chipped away so that the tanks could move. After Gaza 2 eight Mk IVs were shipped as reinforcements and replacements but most were lost when one of the ships carrying them was torpedoed.

Thus all the tanks at 2nd Gaza were Mk Is from the training school (it has been stated that Sir Archibald was a Mk II but photos clearly show the tank with the Mk I track tensioning apertures) and only some of the men were from E company (there were 22 officers and 226 OR)

Swinton says all the tanks were Mark I's in his book "Eyewitness" (page 307), but "Tanks in the Great War" by J. F. C. Fuller (which, importantly, was written with the assistance of Major O. A. Forsyth-Major, the second in command of the Palestine Tank Detachment - see page xii) states on page 102 that these were Mark I's and II's. Furthermore this book, on page 98, states that: "The detachment, under the command of Major N. Nutt, consisted of 22 officers and 226 other ranks drawn from the original E Company, and together with its tanks, workshops and transport, it embarked at Devonport..."

"The Tank in Action" by Captain D. G. Browne, on page 72, goes into the most detail on the embarkation problems (8 old training machines instead of 12 new machines, Thetford mud etc). I am not sure at what point the tanks officially became E Company's but as I said they were former training machines, and the Fuller book says "its" (ie E Company's) tanks. I suspect this is a slightly looking at the same thing from different perspectives.

I am more than happy to stand corrected as regards Sir Archibald, but the Danish Military History Society website has an article that states the tanks was a Mark II Male (see http://www.chakoten.dk/cgi-bin/fm.cgi?n=724 ) Similarly, the article which it refers to the erroneously titled "The 5th RTR in WW1", also call Sir Archibald a Mark II Male. However, there is a good picture of Sir Archibald on the website in any event which may help clear things up!

[centurion]

A photo of Sir Archibald

- the track tensioner is that of a MK 1. Indeed I have seen I think photos of all the original tanks - all have the Mk 1 tensioner and/or the round hatch in the roof.that marks a Mk 1. Moreover AFAIK no Mk IIs had been issued to training establishments at the time the tanks sailed for Egypt so if the tanks loaded in error were a batch moving from Thetford to Bovington they would have to be Mk Is. I've seen the Danish article some time ago - I think its just plain wrong.

The unit assembled for Gaza were to be issued with MK IIs on arrival in Egypt - it would be a remarkable coincidence if the batch of tanks delivered to Devonport in error from the Thetford training ground had had any previous association with E company.

The Gaza unit were not officially E company although that's where most (not all) of them came from

[markcook]

A photo of Sir Archibald

- the track tensioner is that of a MK 1. Indeed I have seen I think photos of all the original tanks - all have the Mk 1 tensioner and/or the round hatch in the roof.that marks a Mk 1. Moreover AFAIK no Mk IIs had been issued to training establishments at the time the tanks sailed for Egypt so if the tanks loaded in error were a batch moving from Thetford to Bovington they would have to be Mk Is. I've seen the Danish article some time ago - I think its just plain wrong.

The unit assembled for Gaza were to be issued with MK IIs on arrival in Egypt - it would be a remarkable coincidence if the batch of tanks delivered to Devonport in error from the Thetford training ground had had any previous association with E company.

The Gaza unit were not officially E company although that's where most (not all) of them came from

I'm sorry, I disagree on the last point you make - the war diary for the unit at The National Archive (WO 95/4407), for example, is titled "General Headquarters troops: Detachment Tank Corps (formerly ‘E’ Company Heavy Section Machine Gun Corps) (January 1917 – April 1918)" - the formerly relates to the Heavy Section Machine Gun Corps subsequently becoming the Tank Corps (see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=-2247228&CATLN=7&Highlight=%2CE%2CCOMPANY&accessmethod=0 )

Also, as you can see, the quote from source I highlighted (written with the second in command of the unit) implies all were drawn from E Company. I doubt anyone has done a man by man analysis of the service history of all 248 men of the contingent which would be definitive "proof" (I haven't in the course of my research on the subject - presumably the 2 i/c of the detachment who was there from the start would know?). Moreover, the same source (again, written with the second in command of the unit) refers to Mark II tanks being used.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree!

[centurion]

I'm sorry, I disagree on the last point you make - the war diary for the unit at The National Archive (WO 95/4407), for example, is titled "General Headquarters troops: Detachment Tank Corps (formerly ‘E’ Company Heavy Section Machine Gun Corps) (January 1917 – April 1918)" - the formerly relates to the Heavy Section Machine Gun Corps subsequently becoming the Tank Corps (see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=-2247228&CATLN=7&Highlight=%2CE%2CCOMPANY&accessmethod=0 )

Also, as you can see, the quote from source I highlighted (written with the second in command of the unit) implies all were drawn from E Company. I doubt anyone has done a man by man analysis of the service history of all 248 men of the contingent which would be definitive "proof" (I haven't in the course of my research on the subject - presumably the 2 i/c of the detachment who was there from the start would know?). Moreover, the same source (again, written with the second in command of the unit) refers to Mark II tanks being used.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree!

There is conclusive photographic evidence that all tanks were Mk Is or Mk IVs - possibly the confusion arose because they were supposed to have been issued with Mk IIs

[markcook]

There is conclusive photographic evidence that all tanks were Mk Is or Mk IVs - possibly the confusion arose because they were supposed to have been issued with Mk IIs

I'm not convinced re the Mark I argument, but lets call it a day on that!

Can you post the photos on the GWF? I certainly don't have good photos of all the tanks - it would be good, for me at least, to get a complete set if you have them!

[centurion]

I'm not convinced re the Mark I argument, but lets call it a day on that!

Can you post the photos on the GWF? I certainly don't have good photos of all the tanks - it would be good, for me at least, to get a complete set if you have them!

Sir Archibald still had the fittings for the MkI steering wheels had MkI round ended track tensioner openings and did not have the Mk II wedge shaped roof hatch

Nutty had MkI round ended track tensioner openings and did not have the Mk II wedge shaped roof hatch

Kiora had MkI round ended track tensioner openings and did not have the Mk II wedge shaped roof hatch

Otazel still had the fittings for the MkI steering wheels and MkI round ended track tensioner openings

Tiger had MkI round ended track tensioner openings and had the MkI drivers cab (The Mk II cab was narrower and did not have evenly spaced rivets across the top)

Pincher still had the fittings for the MkI steering wheels and MkI round ended track tensioner openings

War Baby still had the fittings for the MkI steering wheels and did not have the Mk II wedge shaped roof hatch

Ol Luk Oie had MkI round ended track tensioner openings

I've gleaned this from examination of some 25 plus photos some of which do not belong to me so you have to take me on trust on this but I'll try and post links to some if not all photos in later posts

Some of the tanks were modified during the campaign to have MK II appurtenances such as silencers on the exhaust

[Sidearm]

I agree - all the tanks were Mark Is or Mark IVs. There were no Mark IIs in Gaza. I shan't enter the wider debate.

Gwyn

[markcook]

I agree - all the tanks were Mark Is or Mark IVs. There were no Mark IIs in Gaza. I shan't enter the wider debate.

Gwyn

Tanks in the Great War by Brevet-Colonel J. F. C. Fuller DSO (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, W., 1920)

page xii - "I have to thank... Major O. A. Forsyth-Major, Second in Command of the Palestine Tank Detachment, for the reports relative to the second and third battles of Gaza, upon which Chapters XI and XVII are based..."

page 102 - "In spite of the fact that this battle was unsuccessful, the work carried out by the Tank Detachment constitutes a remarkable feat of arms. The tanks engaged were Mark I's and II's, which, by the time the battle was ended, had covered on average some 40 miles of country..."

My money is on the guy who was 2 i/c of the unit knowing what tanks he had under his command (and remembering this accurately when he assisted Fuller three years later). However, lets see what Centurion's photos throw up by way of contrary evidence.

[17tankman]

I currently own the medals for Major Forsyth-Major and would be interested in hearing any mention of him in any books.

Haven't found his service records yet

17tankman

[SteveE]

Major Forsyth-Major

<snip>

Haven't found his service records yet

I suspect his papers are still with the MOD as he ceased to belong to the Reserve of Officers in 1936.

Steve

[Sidearm]

However, lets see what Centurion's photos throw up by way of contrary evidence.

If anyone has a photo of a Mark II at Gaza I shall be delighted, because it will be a photo I have never seen. All the photos I have seen, and there are many of them, show Mark Is or IVs.

Gwyn

[Sidearm]

I should explain why there could be no Mark II tanks at Gaza.

The first battle in which E Company used their tanks started on 17 April 1917, though the tanks had been in the Middle East since January 1917. This is approximately the same date that Mark IIs were in action at First and Second Bullecourt. Bear that in mind for a moment.

Only 50 Mark IIs were ever built. These were serial numbers 576 to 600 inclusive, which were the 25 Females, and the 25 Males 776 to 800 inclusive. Here’s what each of the Females was doing in April 1917:

576-577 Lost whilst serving with D Battalion in France, 23 April

578 C Battalion, lost 11 April

579 Retained in the UK and fitted with experimental transmission

580 Fought with C Battalion at First and Second Bullecourt. Subsequently became a tender and served at Third Ypres.

581 Served with C Battalion; Subsequently 3rd Battalion signal tank at Third Ypres

582 C Battalion, damaged in action on 9 and 23 April

583 C Battalion, lost 10 April

584 C Battalion, broke down 9 April

585-586 D Battalion, lost 11 April

587 C Battalion, ditched 9 April

588 C Battalion, lost 23 April

589 D Battalion, bogged 9 April (destroyed 3 May during Second Bullecourt)

590 D Battalion, lost 11 April

591-592 Fitted with experimental transmission

593 D Battalion, lost 11 April

594 Experimental transmission

595 D Battalion, ditched 9 April subsequently converted to tender and served at Third Ypres.

596 D Battalion, ditched 9 April. Lost on 3 May.

597 C Battalion, burnt out 11 April

598 D Battalion, ditched 9 April, destroyed on 3 May

599 C Battalion, lost 9 April

600 C Battalion, lost 11 April

Thus there were no Mark II Females that could have been in Gaza because all can be accounted for either in France or as one of the four Mark IIs with experimental transmissions demonstrated at Dollis Hill on 3 March 1917. Therefore all the Female tanks in Gaza in April 1917 must have been Mark Is. I can also demonstrate that all Mark II Males were in France at this time and the same logic holds, i.e. all Male tanks in Gaza at April 1917 were Mark Is.

So, if anyone has a photo of a Mark II in Gaza I’ll be hugely surprised. Myth debunked, I hope.

Gwyn

[markcook]

I should explain why there could be no Mark II tanks at Gaza.

The first battle in which E Company used their tanks started on 17 April 1917, though the tanks had been in the Middle East since January 1917. This is approximately the same date that Mark IIs were in action at First and Second Bullecourt. Bear that in mind for a moment.

Only 50 Mark IIs were ever built. These were serial numbers 576 to 600 inclusive, which were the 25 Females, and the 25 Males 776 to 800 inclusive. Here’s what each of the Females was doing in April 1917:

576-577 Lost whilst serving with D Battalion in France, 23 April

578 C Battalion, lost 11 April

579 Retained in the UK and fitted with experimental transmission

580 Fought with C Battalion at First and Second Bullecourt. Subsequently became a tender and served at Third Ypres.

581 Served with C Battalion; Subsequently 3rd Battalion signal tank at Third Ypres

582 C Battalion, damaged in action on 9 and 23 April

583 C Battalion, lost 10 April

584 C Battalion, broke down 9 April

585-586 D Battalion, lost 11 April

587 C Battalion, ditched 9 April

588 C Battalion, lost 23 April

589 D Battalion, bogged 9 April (destroyed 3 May during Second Bullecourt)

590 D Battalion, lost 11 April

591-592 Fitted with experimental transmission

593 D Battalion, lost 11 April

594 Experimental transmission

595 D Battalion, ditched 9 April subsequently converted to tender and served at Third Ypres.

596 D Battalion, ditched 9 April. Lost on 3 May.

597 C Battalion, burnt out 11 April

598 D Battalion, ditched 9 April, destroyed on 3 May

599 C Battalion, lost 9 April

600 C Battalion, lost 11 April

Thus there were no Mark II Females that could have been in Gaza because all can be accounted for either in France or as one of the four Mark IIs with experimental transmissions demonstrated at Dollis Hill on 3 March 1917. Therefore all the Female tanks in Gaza in April 1917 must have been Mark Is. I can also demonstrate that all Mark II Males were in France at this time and the same logic holds, i.e. all Male tanks in Gaza at April 1917 were Mark Is.

So, if anyone has a photo of a Mark II in Gaza I’ll be hugely surprised. Myth debunked, I hope.

Gwyn

Gwyn

Thanks so much for this. This is really interesting and an excellent way of proving this once and for all. Thank you for sharing it with us - I am convinced by your evidence (and no doubt hard research).

All the best

Mark

[pukman]

A couple of photos from my collection. An unknown ''British tank 'put out of action at Gaza . New Zealand soldiers pose with it . And HMLS Pincher 

[pukman]

First photo has been published before.