Tank vs Tank

[Gareth Davies]

On 24 April the Germans sent thirteen A7V tanks into action in support of the 228th, 4th Guards, and 77th Reserve Infantry Divisions. Their tanks were split into three groups of three, six, and four tanks each.

 

Group 1 began their advance at 6.50am and crossed the German front line at 7am. One A7V worked through Villers-Bretonneux along the north of the railway until it reached the Roman Road on the west of the village. By 8.45am the visibility had improved and the three tanks met in front of the Brickworks and engaged the British defenders. Two of the A7Vs then moved along the east side of the village, setting fire to the hangers and reaching the Roman Road. All three tanks rallied at Midday. 

 

Group 2 crossed the German front line just after 7am. One tanks advanced with the first wave of infantry before it ditched on its side SSE of Villers-Bretonneux. Two tanks advanced along the railway embankment towards Villers-Bretonneux, subdued a strongpoint, passed westwards though the Railway Station, engaged enemy reinforcements and reached the Roman Road below the Railway Crossing at 1am. The tanks then fired on British reinforcements in the Bois d’Arquenne.

 

The other three A7Vs were all to advance on the fortified Monument farm. The fourth reached the front line at 7.10am, successfully suppressed the farmhouse, and then with the other two advanced on Bois d’Arquenne and pushed back a BEF counterattack. One got lost in the mist and advanced too far to the north where it was hit by heavy MG fire which wounded the driver. The crew dismounted and advanced with the infantry. The sixth A7V in this group broke down 30m from the BEF line, was partially repaired and eventually limped back to its rallying point.

Group 3 started at 6.40am.  One A7V, ‘Elfriede’, got lost and went too far north. It cleared the British front line trenches and then advanced on a fortified farm and subdued enemy resistance south of the Railway Station capturing 175 prisoners. The tank broke down, was repaired but then fell onto its side in a shellhole.  ‘Nixe’ advanced towards Cachy silencing several MGs and enabling the infantries advance.

 

At 8.30am No. 1 Section A Coy 1st Bn Tank Corps under Captain JC Brown MC was ordered by GOC 23rd brigade to take his tanks forward and patrol the Cauchy Switch. They arrived at around 9.30am and immediately spotted German infantry attacking, supported by three A7V tanks. One of these tanks, A7V ‘Nixe’ commanded by Lt Blitze, opened fire on Brown’s two female tanks which were hit and forced out of action. The third tank in the section, a male, was commanded by 2Lt Mitchell. This left Mitchell in command of the sole remaining British tank. He immediately engaged the three enemy Tanks and at 10.15 am obtained a direct hit on their leader ‘Nixe’. This he followed with two more hits in quick succession and he succeeded in putting it out of action. The German crew abandoned ship. 2Lt Mitchell continued to manoeuvre whilst firing on the four enemy tanks that were now visible and two of them, commanded by Lt Muller Albert and Lt Bitter, thought discretion the better part of valour and withdrew.

 

This was the first occasion on which Tank had met and fought Tank

 

But the encounter wasn’t over. Mitchell watched as seven 3rd Battalion Whippet Tanks attacked and routed two German infantry Battalions forming up 1000yds east of Cachy. Out of his sight however A7V ‘Siegfried’ engaged the Whippets and claimed to knock out three. Mitchell continued to patrol after the Whippets withdrew and was fired on by an A7V, presumably ‘Siegfried’ which remained on the field until 3:45pm although its main gun had broken whilst engaging the Whippets. A 4th German Guards Division field gun battery also claimed all 4 whippets as kills. The British were aware they were being fired on by a German tank in U10d but claim they withdrew once the infantry had scattered.

 

Edit:

 

I originally wrote a final line that said "Mitchell stayed in action until just before 1am on 25 April when his tank was hit and knocked out by a German artillery shell."  While this is stated in a number of accounts it is not supported by the appendix to the WD which says that "At about 12 noon 2Lt Mitchell's Tank received a direct hit from enemy artillery."

Edited 24 April , 2018 by Gareth Davies

[WW1 Obsessed]

nice info. I know almost nothing about German tanks, did they have the male/female varieties same as the British?

[Guest]

There was only one British tank crewman of 1 Bn Tank Corps killed in that battle.  My grand-father's brother - Charles Goodwin.  He is buried at Villers-Bretonneux.

 

\Paul

[Gareth Davies]

That's not quite correct Paul.  Four tankies died on 24 April 1918 and two of them were from A Bn; Pte Charles Goodwin and Pte H Burns.  The latter is buried at Blangy-Tronville.  

[pjwmacro]

27 minutes ago, WW1 Obsessed said:

nice info. I know almost nothing about German tanks, did they have the male/female varieties same as the British?

 

No.  Some were originally built with a second forwards firing MG arrangement, in place of the cannon.  However, the A7V had a standard armament arrangement of a 57mm in the front (noting that it could actually be driven in either direction with equal ease; driver and commander sat in the raised conning tower and had seats which could be reversed) and 6 MGs (2 per side and 1 front and rear).  Generally, they were not a success.

 

The Germans did put back into action a number of captured British MkIV (captured at Cambrai) during the course of 1918.  I think these included both male and female variants.

 

Paul

[Gareth Davies]

I have just gone back to the War Diary and the account above doesn't tally with the WD appendix.  The account above has a discrepancy of over 12 hours!

[Regulus 1]

Something I've written a long time ago on the German side of the story :

 

Tank against tank, the first tank battle in history

On 24 April 1918 all three tankgroups of the Germans were prepared to see action in service of the 2nd German Army against the small city of Villers-Bretonneux, especially against the area of a wood, the Bois d’Arquenne as it was known, to the south west of it and against the village of Cachy. The whole rea was defended by British troops.
Tank 540 of Group 2 was already out before it got off the train, and Tank 503 of the 3rd Group had one of it’s cylinders broken and was also out of order before things actually started.

The German command decided to use the remaining 13 tanks in three tank groups and with the following goals :
Group 1 was under the command of Oblt. Stopnik, and in service of the 228th Infantry Division against Villers-Bretonneux itself, and had 3 tanks for this job.

Group 2 was under the command of Oblt. Uihlein, who was to attack the southern border of Villers-Bretonneux and of the Bois d’Arquenne with 4 A7V tanks from the 3rd Tank Group and 2 of the 1st Tank Group

Group 3 was under the command of Oblt. Steinhardt, who was to use the remaining 4 A7V tanks of the Tank Group 2 in cooperation with the 77th Reserve Division they were to take the village of Cachy.

Thanks to the use of the tanks of the 1st Group, which were 526, 527 and 560, it was possible for the 228th Infantry Division to get hold of Villers-Bretonneux by noon the same day.

In support of the 4th Garde Infantry Division, the second Group was devided into two separate groups, Troup 1 was using the tanks 505, 506 and 507 against the sourthern edge of Villers-Bretonneux. During the attack tank 506 got in trouble with chopped nozzles and was halted, when the problem was solved it finally ended up on it’s side in a large grenade crater.

Troup 2 with the tanks 541 and 562 from Tank Group 1 and with the 501 were used against the Bois d’Arquenne. 501 suffered an overheated engine and was halted due to this in front of the first British trenches. Afterwards it had no other possiblity then to turn back.
The driver of the 562 was wounded and due to this he got the breaks not overheated but even they were burned so hard that they couldn’t move any more, and above this the transmission was damaged. We found no further details but it seems that due to an attack of a Stormtroop also part of the crew got lost. After reparing the transmission of tank 562, he was actually moving against the Bois d’Arquenne. The serious British resistance in a hamlet south of Villers-Bretonneux was broken by tank 541, after which the tanks 505 and 507 were joined by the 541 to guard the entering of the infantry into the bois d’Arquenne.

Troup 3 had to go around a very seriously shot and destroyed wood to the north. The tank 542 went due to this to far north and a sandpit was to become it’s doom. Tank 542 ended up on it’s side. On the road towards Cachy, tank 561 was also gone to far to the north and in the fog it was all of a sudden confrotned with three British tanks ! The two British tanks, armed with MG’s were both seriously damaged by the 561.

The Germans were convinced that they had long destroyed the remaning anti tank canon, but all of a sudden this one became active again ! After some 25 shells from this one, it was able to hit tank 561 in the area of the right front hatch. Due to this the gun crew was taken out. The tank commander decided to abandon the tank, and this seems to have been a good decision, as the tank was hit two times more on the right flank. The British anti tank gun, which seems to have been a motorised canon, was after this taken out by a German minethrower. As the engine of the 561 was still running, the crew decided after this to get back in and try to get the tank towards the back. They were able to keep the tank running for another 2 km before the engines gave up.

According to plan the tanks 504 and 525 reached their starting point at the east of Cachy. The 77th Reserve Division was a unit with not a lot of experience in battle, and was not able to do it’s attack as planned. Fact was that they had ran into an attack by seven British Whippet tanks, which leftt them in serious choas it seems. Tank 525 went without hesitation in the attack against the British tanks. The flanking fire from the forward battery of the 4th Guard Infantry Division was able to set four of the tanks on fire, and only three of them were able to retreat.

During the night there was a counter attack by two Australian brigades, and the tank 561 could still be recuperated by the Germans, but tank 542 was to be destroyed by a ‘Sprengkommando’, but these made a serious mistake and destroyed tank 506 instead of it ! In the morning of the 25th April 1918 tha tank 542 was also standing in no men’s land and tank 506 was no longer usuable and was standing behind the German lines.

In May the British and French towed the tank 542 behind their own lines, and as the tank was still in good shape, they decided to test it very intensively.

When the German lines were slowly but certainly driven back, the Australians were able to confiscate the tank 506 in the month of July. It was transported to Australia, where it still can be seen today.

Till 1919 the 542 was exhibitioned at Paris and afterwards it was scrapped. Tank 561 was no longer serviceable and everything that was still possible was recuperated by the Germans.

[Gareth Davies]

For info 542 was rescued/captured/towed back by tanks from 1st Bn Tank Corps.  There is a thread on that elsewhere on the forum.

[Gareth Davies]

A small memorial on the D168 NE of Cachy records the action.

[WhiteStarLine]

Thanks for an interesting thread and a question for the learned posters - are there any photographs of the Mark IV tanks that participated in this action?  My interest is this heavily damaged Mk IV taken by my grandfather.  Like all deeply speculative quests, the only known facts are:

 

• Australian signallers roamed the woods around Villers-Bretonneux in May and June 1918, salving cable etc from old trench lines;
• He took a number of photos that have been identified as Bois l'Abbe;
• Australian forces didn't seem to work with Mark IVs after June 1918; and
• The trees seem to be subtly different from most other woods he photographed (drawing a long bow I know ...).

The easiest way to end the speculation would be if someone already had a photograph of one or more of the tanks in this tank battle.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

 

[Gareth Davies]

There is a painting:

[28juni14]

Excellent  tread!   Finally, some "meat and potatoes" to feast upon!  I, for one, Gareth, appreciate your entries.

[bierast]

Here's a more detailed narrative, complete with maps:

https://sites.google.com/site/landships/home/narratives/1918/kaiserschlacht/german-tanks-24-april-1918

[Sidearm]

8 hours ago, WhiteStarLine said:

Thanks for an interesting thread and a question for the learned posters - are there any photographs of the Mark IV tanks that participated in this action?  My interest is this heavily damaged Mk IV taken by my grandfather.  Like all deeply speculative quests, the only known facts are:

 

• Australian signallers roamed the woods around Villers-Bretonneux in May and June 1918, salving cable etc from old trench lines;
• He took a number of photos that have been identified as Bois l'Abbe;
• Australian forces didn't seem to work with Mark IVs after June 1918; and
• The trees seem to be subtly different from most other woods he photographed (drawing a long bow I know ...).

The easiest way to end the speculation would be if someone already had a photograph of one or more of the tanks in this tank battle.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

 

Thanks for posting the photo.  It's new to me.  The ammunition stowage shows this is a Male. The damage is peculiar as it seems to have been hit square on its rear hull, quite an unusual place to be hit.  The armour protecting the radiator is completely missing, as is the air outlet louvre and the end of the exhaust pipe.  Also the port unditching beam rail is slightly buckled, but neither this nor that on the starboard side are broken.  Somehow the stowage box has escaped unscathed.  There seems to be ash and debris under the petrol tank so possibly this was set alight.  The serial number (unreadable unfortunately) on the starboard front horn is a typical 1918 marking.  

[bierast]

10 hours ago, pjwmacro said:

 

No.  Some were originally built with a second forwards firing MG arrangement, in place of the cannon.  However, the A7V had a standard armament arrangement of a 57mm in the front (noting that it could actually be driven in either direction with equal ease; driver and commander sat in the raised conning tower and had seats which could be reversed) and 6 MGs (2 per side and 1 front and rear).

 

The 'male' configuration consisted of one 5.7cm Maxim-Nordenfelt QF fortress gun (of captured Belgian or Russian origin) in the front, two MGs on each side and two in the rear. The 'female' A7V had two MGs in the front, two in each side and two in the rear. The 5.7cm gun had not actually been part of the original design, which was a 'unisex' one with eight dual-purpose gun ports for an armament of six MGs and two 2cm Becker semi-automatic cannon arranged as desired - the Becker cannon however performed disappointingly in preliminary tests. Originally only one vehicle in each Abteilung of five tanks was to be 'male', but plans quickly changed due to the obvious threat of British and French tanks. The legacy of the original plans was that many of the tanks ended up with a slightly different front plate configuration due to being begun as 'female' but completed as 'male' (there were also two different types of mounting for the 5.7cm gun and a bunch of other variations, so that almost no two vehicles were the same - experts can often identify individual machines by photo analysis). Only one vehicle (501 'Gretchen') ever saw action as a 'female', on 21st March (with Abteilung 1) and then on 24th April in the Villers-Bretonneux operation (with Abteilung 3) - it was then refitted as a 'male'. All other A7Vs only ever saw action in 'male' configuration. There were a total of three Abteilungen, each (as noted) of five machines and numbered 1-3; all three fought at Villers-Bretonneux.

 

Quote

Generally, they were not a success.

 

According to (WW1 tank officer) Major Ernst Volckheim's study Die deutschen Kampfwagen im Weltkriege the German tank crews greatly preferred the A7V to the Mk.IV, despite its numerous problems (such as the over-heavy nose due to the late addition of the 5.7cm piece, the low ground clearance and the way the interior tended to fill with carbon monoxide). It could not of course operate on seriously broken ground, but in open terrain they reckoned it was preferable to the Mk.IV in every way. It was roomier, faster, slightly more comfortable (as it actually had sprung suspension!), less flammable, easier to escape from in an emergency and supposedly impervious to enemy infantrymen climbing on the roof to plant explosive charges (no A7V was ever lost this way). Another advantage was that the machine-guns were armoured, unlike the Lewis Guns on German Mk.IVs which were often knocked out by enemy fire. This verdict appears justified by the combat record of A7V units, which was definitely better than that of those equipped with captured British machines.

 

The A7V's impact was limited due to its very small numbers, but to my mind the waste of allied resources on anti-tank measures which the tiny German tank arm provoked was quite sufficient to consider it a success. Those A7Vs which did exist saw a great deal of use until thoroughly worn out!

 

Quote

The Germans did put back into action a number of captured British MkIV (captured at Cambrai) during the course of 1918.  I think these included both male and female variants.

 

German-refurbished Mk.IVs (Beute-Tanks) were rearmed with the 5.7cm gun and with rechambered Lewis Guns (as the MG08 would not fit). From August 13mm anti-tank rifles were provided and could be mounted in place of Lewis Guns as required. Each Abteilung of MK.IVs consisted of three female and two male machines. A total of six 'Beute' Abteilungen ultimately saw action (numbered 11-16)

 

[28juni14]

Excellent input,  Bierast.   Too often writers tend to pass the A7V off as just so much junk metal; failing to see any positives to the design.

[bierast]

13 minutes ago, 28juni14 said:

Excellent input,  Bierast.   Too often writers tend to pass the A7V off as just so much junk metal; failing to see any positives to the design.

 

Thanks! The following is the most up-to-date source on the subject in English, including exhaustive analysis of all of the available German source material:

https://www.tankograd.com/cms/website.php?id=/en/sturmpanzer-A7V.htm

 

The same publisher has also put out a two-volume work by Rainer Strasheim on captured tanks in German service which is equally thorough.

[pjwmacro]

3 hours ago, bierast said:

The 'male' configuration consisted of one 5.7cm Maxim-Nordenfelt QF fortress gun (of captured Belgian or Russian origin) in the front, two MGs on each side and two in the rear. The 'female' A7V had two MGs in the front, two in each side and two in the rear.

 I happily stand corrected - although as you say, almost no two vehicles were the same, and only one "female" ever saw action.  

 

3 hours ago, bierast said:

This verdict [German crews preferring A7V] appears justified by the combat record of A7V units, which was definitely better than that of those equipped with captured British machines.

A superior combat record (superior in what way?) can be attributed to a whole variety of reasons (numbers faced, terrain, training, morale of own and enemy troops, maintenance, logistics et al et al et al).  You point out many of the A7Vs disadvantages, as well as some of its better features.  As with many things I don't think it's black and white that one or other of the MkIV or an A7V was a superior tank - they both have strengths and weaknesses - but personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I`d pick the MkIV (although I`d want a Male!).  And if I could, I`d take a MkV over both of them!

3 hours ago, bierast said:

The A7V's impact was limited due to its very small numbers, but to my mind the waste of allied resources on anti-tank measures which the tiny German tank arm provoked was quite sufficient to consider it a success. Those A7Vs which did exist saw a great deal of use until thoroughly worn out!

I accept the crews favourable opinion of the A7V, but I don't think the majority of the German High Command or Army viewed tanks as a success - or as a worthwhile investment. The fact that there were very few of them, and that those few were used until worn out, doesn't make them a success.

 

3 hours ago, bierast said:

German-refurbished Mk.IVs (Beute-Tanks) were rearmed with the 5.7cm gun and with rechambered Lewis Guns (as the MG08 would not fit). From August 13mm anti-tank rifles were provided and could be mounted in place of Lewis Guns as required. Each Abteilung of MK.IVs consisted of three female and two male machines. A total of six 'Beute' Abteilungen ultimately saw action (numbered 11-16)

Thank you - Beute Abteilungen are a subject on which I know very little.

 

Best, Paul

[pjwmacro]

3 hours ago, 28juni14 said:

Too often writers tend to pass the A7V off as just so much junk metal; failing to see any positives to the design.

 

Not sure I agree with this statement. I think most writers are pretty balanced, as bierast has been, on the strengths and weaknesses of the A7V.  And not withstanding the favourable opinion of the crews, when you consider A7V in terms of the Holy Trinity of AFV design (firepower, protection and mobility), it's firepower was about half that of a British Male (I accept much superior to a British Female), and with restricted arcs, although it would almost certainly have had superior optical sighting systems; its armour protection was superior to a British tank , but it was a bigger and less agile target; and its mobility, certainly across rough terrain, inferior.  But from what bierast has said its crews clearly liked it - and that counts for much! It certainly has its good points.

As I said above, I don't think it's black and white that one or other of the MkIV or an A7V was a superior tank - they both have strengths and weaknesses - but personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I`d pick the MkIV, or prefferrably a MkV.

Best, Paul 

[bierast]

On 24/04/2018 at 23:38, pjwmacro said:

A superior combat record (superior in what way?) can be attributed to a whole variety of reasons (numbers faced, terrain, training, morale of own and enemy troops, maintenance, logistics et al et al et al). 

 

I don't have the time to crunch the data in details, but in terms of losses incurred against objectives achieved the A7V Abteilungen were consistently more effective than those equipped with Beute tanks. The second volume of Strasheim's two-volume work on Beute-Tanks has accounts of all missions conducted by those units, which are highly instructive to compare with the equivalent section of his book on the A7V. Captured Mk.IVs were lost in significantly greater numbers and more of their missions seem to have ended with none of the vehicles reaching their objectives (due to loss, mechanical failure etc.). 

 

It must of course be admitted that Beute-Tanks were 1.) all 'second-hand' machines recovered from the battlefield and rebuilt by cannibalisation of 'write-offs' and 2.) generally considered relatively expendable (due to the steady supply of machines coming from the refitting workshops of BAKP 20 at Monceau-sur-Sambre); less effort was put into recovering damaged or otherwise unserviceable machines compared to the scarce A7V.

 

Quote

You point out many of the A7Vs disadvantages, as well as some of its better features.  As with many things I don't think it's black and white that one or other of the MkIV or an A7V was a superior tank - they both have strengths and weaknesses - but personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I`d pick the MkIV (although I`d want a Male!).  And if I could, I`d take a MkV over both of them!

 

I'd go with the A7V purely due to its high crew survivability, which really is the overriding consideration if you're actually inside one of these terrible things!

 

Quote

I accept the crews favourable opinion of the A7V, but I don't think the majority of the German High Command or Army viewed tanks as a success - or as a worthwhile investment. The fact that there were very few of them, and that those few were used until worn out, doesn't make them a success.

 

My view is that the minor expenditure of resources on the tiny German tank arm produced disproportionate results. Simply by demonstrating that German tanks existed it produced a valuable boost to German morale and forced the Entente to expend their own resources in planning for the potential appearance of German tanks in large numbers. The actual (quite respectable, for their size) combat value of the available tank detachments was just a bonus, and the maximum possible use was made of it.

 

This was not of course what OHL was aiming for - they appear to have changed their minds several times on what they were actually trying to achieve, and could have got a significantly larger (though still tiny by Entente standards) tank force into the field if they had committed earlier to a practical mass-production tank design like the LK II. Like many other nations they also wasted resources on an impractical super-heavy design (the K-Wagen) which was actually permitted to reach the production stage (two machines near complete by the end of the war). They were however quite aware that no matter what they did, they could not hope to produce (or refurbish) enough tanks to attempt anything with the strategically significant proportions of the Cambrai offensive  - the verdict was that tanks were a 'rich man's weapon' requiring a diversion of industrial resources and a level of wastage which were simply impossible for Germany.

[bierast]

On 24/04/2018 at 23:57, pjwmacro said:

 

Not sure I agree with this statement. I think most writers are pretty balanced, as bierast has been, on the strengths and weaknesses of the A7V.  And not withstanding the favourable opinion of the crews, when you consider A7V in terms of the Holy Trinity of AFV design (firepower, protection and mobility), it's firepower was about half that of a British Male (I accept much superior to a British Female), and with restricted arcs, although it would almost certainly have had superior optical sighting systems; its armour protection was superior to a British tank , but it was a bigger and less agile target; and its mobility, certainly across rough terrain, inferior.  But from what bierast has said its crews clearly liked it - and that counts for much! It certainly has its good points.

 

If you consider the firepower of the unit as a whole, an A7V Abteilung had 5 x 5.7cm and 30 x MG08, as against the Beute-Abteilung with 4 x 5.7cm and 21 x Lewis Gun (or T-Gewehr). Obviously if the original armament scheme for the A7V units had been followed, the balance would have been quite different.

 

Cross-country mobility was a significant issue, and simply dictated that the units were only deployed at all where the ground was not seriously broken. In severely cratered terrain where the Mk.IV was perfectly serviceable the A7V simply could not be used, as Volckheim freely acknowledges in his book. Under the conditions of mobile warfare in 1918 however this wasn't enough of an issue to cause the cancellation of many A7V operations.

[Marilyne]

Thanks for the info !! 

Excellent thread. I was just recently searching for info about this topic while reading Passingham's book on the German offensive of 1918... 

Here's some sites I found that might contain other info. 

Sorry... they are in French: http://www.picardie1418.com/fr/decouvrir/monument-au-premier-combat-de-chars-villers-bretonneux.php

http://www.g1914-18.com/vbreton.html

 

M.

[David_Blanchard]

In Peter Pedersen’s book on  Villers-Bretonneux page 94 he identifies a A7V tank named ‘Herkules’ which attacked as part of Group II but can find no reference to this tank attacking on 24 April ( it did take part in later actions) in the book on the German A7V  by Hundleby and Strasheim. Any explanation for this discrepancy would be appreciated.

Edited 4 May , 2019 by David_Blanchard
Mistake

[Keith Woodland]

Nobody has mentioned what sort of ammunition was being fired by either side. I am supposing there was no such thing as an armour piercing round for the 6pdr or the 57mm and that they would have used HE to engage opposition tanks. Did this penetrate the armour? Was damage caused by parts being blown off by the blast? Finally was the experience gained used in the MK 5 or was that to far along to be altered before delivery to units?

[RobertBr]

I am part way through "Tank Hunter" by Craig Moore which lists ammo as

 

6pdr Q : HE,  Solid Shot and Case

AV7 57mm: HE, Armour Piercing and Grapeshot

 

Tank development was ongoing with the MkV* (longer and 150Hp engine), MkV**(225 Hp engine, MkV Composite (one Male and one Female sponson), MkVI and MkVII neither entered service, MKVIII which was intended for use in 1919, MkIX Infantry Carrier or 10 tons of Supplies).