Tank Boxes

[NigelS]

This wonderfully worded advert appeared in The Times during 1922; It's not totally clear, at least to me, whether by saying 'BUT WERE NEVER used' they mean none were ever used, or whether that statement just relates to those being sold.

Does anybody know for certain, or have a good idea as to what the 'particular use in the tanks' might have been? The dimensions are difficult to read even in the original, but look like 16¾ x 8¼ (possibly ¾) x 3¼ (weight 4¼ lbs), which, to my unknowledgable eye, looks impracticable for sensible storage of m/c gun ammunition with the individual compartments too small (?) for that for 6 pounders. It's possible that they might have had absolutely nothing at all to do with tanks, the seller, without the modern day restrictions imposed by advertising standards, using the popularity of tanks as a convenient selling point.

They certainly appear useful for any number of domestic storage applications (the advert still works well!) and I wonder, if any still survive today; has anyone seen, or even have, one?

NigelS

[Andrew Upton]

It's an ammunition box for a Hotchkiss machine gun - they used short jointed/belted sections which would fit in the seperate area in the box. A nice original can be seen at the following website, listed under "Small Arms & Accessories", on page 4 of 9:

http://www.wdmilitaria.co.uk/shop/shop.php

http://www.wdmilitaria.co.uk/shop/viewphoto.php?shoph=13404&phqu=5

[NigelS]

Thanks Andrew. They wouldn't be so rare if someone discovered a batch made up into a cabinet as suggested by the advert; although that in itself would doubtless be a valuable collector's piece

NigelS

[TonyE]

A couple more images of the Hotchkiss ammo box.

Regards

TonyE

[RobL]

Used to have one myself, lovely little boxes

[NigelS]

Thanks Tony & Rob. could someone explain to the uninitiated the format of these belts; from the label which gives '...long clip (ie the clip containing the first 6 rounds for insertion into the breech)... do I gather that first clip, to facilitate loading, was different from those followed?

NigelS

[TonyE]

The articulated tank belt held the rounds in linked strips of three rounds, but the starter link held six rounds. Since the gun was normally used with rigid feed strips the longer starter strip made it easier to feed a new "belt".

Belt from the collection of my good friend Jean-Francois.

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

Hotchkiss tank gun with articulated belt and case catcher bag fitted. Skeleton stock for use in dismounted role if crew abandoned their tank.

Regards

TonyE

[NigelS]

Thanks Tony, most helpful.

Were the belts reloaded and the boxes reused, or did use and the logistics involved in doing so make it generally impractical? I'm aware that with heavy ammunition shell cases were reused, but what was the situation with small arms' ammunition (also clips, & similar); although, unlike their bigger brothers, cases couldn't be refilled the materials must have still been of value, if salvage was possible (obviously not always the case), was it carried out or, again, were the logistics against it?

NigelS

[TonyE]

Belts would have been re-used, as factory belted ammunition was not in use until the very end of the war, by which time the Hotchkiss was no longer being used in tanks to any great extent having been replaced by the Lewis. Ammunition was supplied in either ten round paper bundles or fifty round boxes for the units to belt themselves. They would have had hand operated belt/strip filling machines for this.

It was certainly possible to reload small arms cases, and several countries did so, but Britain preferred to melt down the old cases and add a percentage of this recovered brass to new smelt when making fresh cases. Certainly efforts were made to recover brass whenever possible.

When one considers how relatively little .303 ammunition was fired from the trenches compared to the millions of rounds expended by machine guns in barrage fire from behind the front line one can see that it was possible to recover quite a large proportion.

Regards

TonyE

[NigelS]

Thanks again Tony

NigelS

[calibre792x57.y]

Er, Tony. I think you may have it the wrong way round. In fact the Hotchkiss tended to replace the Lewis Gun in tanks during the last part of the War. E.G. Mark V, and Whippets were all equipped with Hotchkiss, as were most of the early post-War designs - SW

[Andrew Upton]

Er, Tony. I think you may have it the wrong way round. In fact the Hotchkiss tended to replace the Lewis Gun in tanks during the last part of the War. E.G. Mark V, and Whippets were all equipped with Hotchkiss, as were most of the early post-War designs - SW

I think it's a mixture of both - Miller's "Tanks of the World", 2000, for the MkIV on page 306 gives:

"The armament was not a happy story. Because of a shortage of Hotchkiss machine-guns Lewis guns were substituted, and this proved to be a mistake... Later Mk IV's reverted to the Hotchkiss, much to the relief of the crews."

[calibre792x57.y]

Without going into great detail, the main armament on the Mark I was either 6 pounders or Vickers MGs, depending sex!. Hotchkiss were provided as secondary armament only, in both male and female. Those female Mk IIs which saw service were fitted with Mk 1 sponsons with the Vickers replaced by Lewis. In the Mark IV m.gs were indeed all Lewis. The problem was that these tanks drew air into the crew compartment to cool the engine. This caused air to be drawn through the cooling jacket on the Lewis gun from muzzle to breech, (the reverse of normal intended operation) and during firing would blow cordite fumes into the gunners eyes. Further the unarmoured jacket left a vunerable spot in the ball mounts. Thereafter the Hotchkiss became THE tank m.g. and was used on the Mark V series, The Whippet (Medium A), Medium B, Medium C and the Vickers Mediums. My point was that far from being phased towards the end of the War as Tony indicated, Hotchkiss had become the chief m.g. in use by the Tanks. Cheers - S.W.

[MikB]

I think the SAA distribution box of today has taken the place of the 'Tank Box' in the modern tinkerer's tool kit rather well, with its watertight gasket, cam-locking and removable hinged lid - a more useful product in most ways.

Regards,

MikB

[TonyE]

Er, Tony. I think you may have it the wrong way round. In fact the Hotchkiss tended to replace the Lewis Gun in tanks during the last part of the War. E.G. Mark V, and Whippets were all equipped with Hotchkiss, as were most of the early post-War designs - SW

Official History of the Ministry of Munitions, Volume XI, Part V Machine Guns, p.15, speaking of the production of Hotchkiss guns:

"The abandonment of the Hotchkiss gun in favour of the Lewis gun for arming tanks in November, 1916, still further increased the prospective surplus, so that at the end of 1916, the total British demand was likely to be met at the end of February, 1917."

In fairness, my reply was badly phrased. Production of the Hotchkiss gun was continued as an insurance against any accident that interferred with Lewis production at Birmingham, so there was a continuing surplus that it was intended to provide to the Allies. However, as you say, later in 1917 the Hotchkiss was again approved for tanks and continued to be used until the end of the war.

Regards

Tonye

[MikB]

In the Mark IV m.gs were indeed all Lewis. The problem was that these tanks drew air into the crew compartment to cool the engine. This caused air to be drawn through the cooling jacket on the Lewis gun from muzzle to breech, (the reverse of normal intended operation) and during firing would blow cordite fumes into the gunners eyes.

Cheers - S.W.

Thank you for that. I've known for decades that the substitution of Lewis for Hotchkiss in the Mk.IV was regarded by many as a 'retrograde step', but not why.

Regards,

MikB

[Andrew Upton]

Thank you for that. I've known for decades that the substitution of Lewis for Hotchkiss in the Mk.IV was regarded by many as a 'retrograde step', but not why.

The Lewis also required a larger hole to be made in the armour, increasing its vulnerability, and the cooling casing was more exposed to damage from shell-fire and similiar. Not an ideal solution...

[MikB]

The Lewis also required a larger hole to be made in the armour, increasing its vulnerability, and the cooling casing was more exposed to damage from shell-fire and similiar. Not an ideal solution...

If the size of the ball-mounting was the same, the larger jacket diameter might also restrict the field of fire, quite significantly...? If so, that could be the most serious objection.

Regards,

MikB