healdav Posted 8 October , 2011 Share Posted 8 October , 2011 How could anyone send anyone to fight in this impossible terrain? Only someone who had never seen it or couldn't care less. Flanders 1918 The morass of the battlefield in March 1918 with a Tank abandoned in the mud possibly from the 3rd Battle of Ypres in 1917. How could the Commanders send Tanks to fight in these conditions. The photo is near to St Jean and is from the German book "Der Weltkrieg im Bild" published late 1930`s Colonel C D Baker-Carr one of the Tank Corps Brigade Commanders said before the 1917 battle: “To anyone familiar with the terrain in Flanders it was almost inconceivable that this part of the line should have been selected. If a careful search had been made from the English Channel to Switzerland, no more unsuitable spot could have been discovered”. How could anyone send anyone to fight in these conditions? Only someone who had either never seen the conditions, didn't listen to reports or couldn't care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 8 October , 2011 Share Posted 8 October , 2011 what calibre would the a/t rifle be and was the round explosive or did it just break up and send shards all about interior of tank.john Almost any round was likely to cause some flaking inside and I believe this was complained of and visors tried. That is not to be compared with the deliberate spalling of a scab in later AT rounds although it may have suggested the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 8 October , 2011 Share Posted 8 October , 2011 How could anyone send anyone to fight in this impossible terrain? Only someone who had never seen it or couldn't care less. The terrain may not have been as bad as this when the tank was deployed. A broken down or abandoned tank usually attracted a fair amount of artillery fire. The photo is taken well after the event as it is safe to walk on the battlefield without weapons and take a photograph so presumably some time after the tank broke down and/or was otherwise disabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 8 October , 2011 Share Posted 8 October , 2011 Battles are not planned on the assumption that rain might stop play. Occasionally, bad weather can delay a start but eventually, off we go. The weather was equally bad for both sides. Really bad weather might hurt men in a trench worse than men attacking it and men using shell holes as temporary shelters to avoid artillery might also find the rain pushing them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 October , 2011 Share Posted 8 October , 2011 Almost any round was likely to cause some flaking inside and I believe this was complained of and visors tried. That is not to be compared with the deliberate spalling of a scab in later AT rounds although it may have suggested the idea. Masks and mail veils more than visors. This was because of bullet splash rather than flaking (although some did occur - mainly of high speed paint flakes). When a relatively soft (non armour piercing) bullet hits hard armour plate the kinetic energy gets converted to heat which causes melting. If the bullet strikes on a joint in the plate (no matter how fine) some molten bullet squirts through the gap. As the Australians would say, get that in your eye it's really gonna smart. The same kinetic energy effect when a solid very high velocity AT round penetrates a tank can mean that the round is very hot indeed and molten armour may be sprayed inside the tank. This is why in WW2 so many tanks hit by solid shot still "brewed up". Many rounds combined the effect having a soft exterior and a very hard core so that the molten exterior material acted as a lubricant to allow the core the penetrate. The spalling of a scab is created differently. The round does not 'attempt' to penetrate but on impact deforms to form a 'poultice' of explosive on the outside. When this explodes a shock wave passes through the metal and causes a large piece to fly off on the inside (it's the same principle as those mind numbing Newton's Balls that dumb executives have on their desks). The first weapon to use this principle was the notoriously dangerous (to the user) Sticky Bomb grenade. It was adapted for the various Burney recoilless guns as these could not develop the velocity needed for conventional AT rounds and this has since given rise to countless squash head systems. I have never found any direct connection (and I've looked) between the development of weapons using this process and the flaking of WW1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 October , 2011 Share Posted 8 October , 2011 The terrain may not have been as bad as this when the tank was deployed. Various contemporary accounts indicate that it was and there are suggestions that the German defences were so organised as to lure or otherwise divert tanks into very soft ground. There were areas of the battle field where the going was relatively hard and tanks used here did quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 8 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 8 October , 2011 Another image from "Der Weltkrieg im Bild" dated 12th October 1917 near St Julien in Flanders. Major Philip Hammomd the commander of 18 Company was trying to get eight tanks from F Battalion forward on the night of 21st August 1917. He described the perils of operating on the notorious “road” to St Julien: “There was an abyss of mud and water on each side if any tank broke down and was knocked out during the approach march, needs must wait on the road until daylight and then be shot like a garden thrush; too easy. The holes in the pave were filled with broken rifles, kit and corpses, the whole overlaid with stinking slime.” From: Band of Brigands by Christy Campbell ISBN 978-0-00-786032-6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 8 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 8 October , 2011 This image dated 15th February 1918 of the Flanders morass is from the same source as above. I see at least four tanks in the mud. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 8 October , 2011 Share Posted 8 October , 2011 This image dated 15th February 1918 of the Flanders morass is from the same source as above. I see at least four tanks in the mud. As I said before - I don't believe the German caption. Tanks in that condition were salvaged one way or another by that date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 8 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 8 October , 2011 The Village of Pozieres - Somme Located on the Bapaume-Albert road this is at the "Le Tommy" cafe and some of the collection. This photo is of WW1 British Tank parts, including a section of track fitted with what I think are "spuds" in an attempt to improve traction over muddy ground. Any thoughts as to where these bits came from and when. Norman Added: The photo in Post 32 shows a tank with the devices fitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 There also appears to be the sponson door for a Mark i female tank. It is impossible to say got certain which tank but the nearest wreck was probably D16 “Dracula” (No 538) which took part in the action at Eaucourt on 1 October Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 9 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Thanks Stephen, I agree that it would be near impossible to identify the actual tank. All the same an interesting collection and the "spuds" must be rare as I have not seen these even in the Tank Museum at Bovington. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 9 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Has any member access to a photo showing a tank complete with the spade track extensions (Post 35) which they are able to post? I have searched Google images and there is just one there of a captured tank, unfortunately there is a problem with the website so I am unable to provide a link. I think that it is possible that the tank parts at Pozieres came from a tank used in the Battle of the Ancre in November 1916 as the ground conditions would seem to warrant such an addition, again this is only a guess. Regards Norman The Tank Museum Bovington The original tank clock from tank D11 commanded by 2nd Lt H G Pearsall at the Battle of Flers - Coucelette in September 1916, the first use of tanks in war. The tank had to be abandoned after being hit by shellfire but Lt Pearsall removed the machineguns and continued to fight from a nearby trench, an action for which he was awarded the Military Cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Has any member access to a photo showing a tank complete with the spade track extensions (Post 35) which they are able to post? I have searched Google images and there is just one there of a captured tank, unfortunately there is a problem with the website so I am unable to provide a link. I think that it is possible that the tank parts at Pozieres came from a tank used in the Battle of the Ancre in November 1916 as the ground conditions would seem to warrant such an addition, again this is only a guess. Regards Norman # A Mk II at Arras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 There also appears to be the sponson door for a Mark i female tank. Or possibly a MkII many of which were certainly fitted with "spades" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 9 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Excellent, thanks Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Good point - the door doesn't have to have been found on the Somme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 9 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Found these three images from a superb set on Flickr which show the extentions: Flickr 1 Flickr 2 Flickr 3 Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 11 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 11 October , 2011 Member James A Pratt 111, your post timed at 10.55 on the 10/10/11 seems to be missing after the latest forum outage. Please repost. Regards Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 11 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 11 October , 2011 I have contacted the Lincolnshire Life Museum to request confirmation that the tank “Flirt” on display there is in fact the original one as depicted in Post 1. The following reply was received today. Thank you for your enquiry. We are happy to confirm that the WWI tank 'Flirt' that can be seen in the Museum is the original. We hope this answers your enquiry. Yours sincerely, Museum of Lincolnshire Life Burton Road Lincoln LN1 3LY Tel: 01522 528448 Fax: 01522 521264 email: Customer_Services@lincolnshire.gov.uk Posts 2 and 18 refer. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 11 October , 2011 Share Posted 11 October , 2011 Museums will often tell you that something is that aint. For example Aberdeen (USA) has a Mk IV Female that it consistently claims was Britannia despite a vast amount of photographic evidence that shows that it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 11 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 11 October , 2011 I have posted the contact details in order that anyone who wishes to can contact the museum. My personal opinion is that if as the museum has confirmed the tank is the original "Flirt" then that is very good news indeed. If for any reason it is not the named tank then the tank is still a remarkable survivor from the early days or armoured warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidearm Posted 11 October , 2011 Share Posted 11 October , 2011 Thanks Seadog, but anyone can tell me a crow is white if they like, but I won't believe it unless they offer evidence. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 12 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2011 No problem, if you have concerns then that is something you will have to address to the museum directly. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 12 October , 2011 Share Posted 12 October , 2011 I have posted the contact details in order that anyone who wishes to can contact the museum. My personal opinion is that if as the museum has confirmed the tank is the original "Flirt" then that is very good news indeed. If for any reason it is not the named tank then the tank is still a remarkable survivor from the early days or armoured warfare. However the tank came from Bovington and they don't confirm that it's definitely Flirt so how the blankety blank can Lincoln do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now