StAubyns Posted 19 November , 2005 Share Posted 19 November , 2005 I have just come across this photograph. Does anyone know the history behind this tank? Regards Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham-McAdam Posted 19 November , 2005 Share Posted 19 November , 2005 Ghurka was one of the tanks in G Battalion, 21st Company, No. 12 Section, commanded by Capt. C H Kinnison. There are no records of who made up her crew. She was destroyed 300m from the hunting lodge in Bourlon Wood on November 23rd 1917, the fourth day of the Battle of Cambrai. There are several German photos like this of the wrecked tanks. (Data from Philippe Gorczynski - Following the Tanks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 20 November , 2005 Share Posted 20 November , 2005 There are no records of who made up her crew. She was destroyed 300m from the hunting lodge in Bourlon Wood... She? Could be wrong if the lower blanking plate's shot away, but from the size of what's left of the sponson aperture, I'd think it was a male... Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAubyns Posted 21 November , 2005 Author Share Posted 21 November , 2005 Thanks for that informatio Graham & MikB Here is another photograph that I think must be of the same Tank. The photographs are from a German officers photo album. Your info helps to date the album Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAubyns Posted 21 November , 2005 Author Share Posted 21 November , 2005 Sorry, here's the photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 22 November , 2005 Share Posted 22 November , 2005 She? Could be wrong if the lower blanking plate's shot away, but from the size of what's left of the sponson aperture, I'd think it was a male... I understood that all tanks (like Her Majesty's ships) are referred to as "she" - even though some tanks with female names (e.g. Dolly II, Daphne III, Hyacinth at Cambrai) were male whilst others (with female names) were male. Confused - me too - but at least "hermaphrodites" were never sent into battle ........... or was one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted 23 November , 2005 Share Posted 23 November , 2005 Anyone know what those two wheels were you see attached to the back of the early tanks were? One book called it a steering tail, but didn’t explain what it was for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 23 November , 2005 Share Posted 23 November , 2005 Anyone know what those two wheels were you see attached to the back of the early tanks were? One book called it a steering tail, but didn’t explain what it was for? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As the name suggests, they were supposed to help with the steering. Presumably they didn't do a great deal of good, as they soon vanished - wonder what the theory was? Most tracked vehicles use differential braking - slow left track down, faster right track pushes vehicle to left and vice versa. I THINK the early tanks actually had a seperate gearbox for each track which had to be disengaged to turn towards that side, which was another reason they were so cumbersome. Not really an answer, but perhaps helpful? Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 23 November , 2005 Share Posted 23 November , 2005 That's my understanding as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 23 November , 2005 Share Posted 23 November , 2005 From "The Devils Chariots" by John Glanfield; There were 4 steering options; all with drawbacks. The first employed the stereing tail alone, with the tanks differential unlocked. The simple frame of the 1.5 ton tail was mounted between the tracks at the rear, trailing two 4ft 6in iron wheels. They were steered by the driver via cables to a hand wheel in his cab. The pivoting tail could be riased hydraulically if the tank were to steer by its tracks alone. When lowered, 8 powerful coil springs exerted lift to the fore end of the pivoting frame, imposing an opposite downard force on the flanged wheels at the rear to maintain grip over rough terrain. In the event the tail was almost useless on soft ground and was largely ignondred as a steering aid (it was also highly vulnerable to artillery fire - several tanks lost their tails at the Battle fo Flers-Courcellette). The secondary function was as a counterbalance when crossing trenches keepign the nose up for another foot or so of travel to the far side. Similalry, when breasting a ridge,the extended tail allowed the tank to rock forward rather than crash down (on its nose)." I can add more if you wish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 24 November , 2005 Share Posted 24 November , 2005 Similalry, when breasting a ridge,the extended tail allowed the tank to rock forward rather than crash down (on its nose)." Mitchell, who drove tanks in the war, commented on why this function was not needed. He noted that tanks balanced on one specific point. The weight of a tank was not distributed evenly along the section of track that was in contact with the ground at any one time. Thus, when preparing to enter a steep ravine, which is the example he used to illustrate this, the driver would edge forward to just past the balance point and then the tank would 'gently' rock forward. This was taught at Bovington during training. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian turner Posted 24 November , 2005 Share Posted 24 November , 2005 Robert Quite correct - on a much smaller scale, but same principle, my father recounts tales of bren gun carrier driving in WW2. It was possible to balance the carrier on the edge of a ravine and rock it back on forth on the point of contact (incidentally scaring the whatsitsname out of the passengers, especially when he went haring down the slope at full tilt afterwards!) Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 25 November , 2005 Share Posted 25 November , 2005 Not arguing (on the balancing bit) as I have done it myself. However the Mark I drivers (in Sep 1916) were not that experienced and certainly did not have that level of training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 25 November , 2005 Share Posted 25 November , 2005 (Data from Philippe Gorczynski - Following the Tanks) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Graham, FTT doesn't state which tanks the 11th Essex would presumably have followed into Ribecourt and beyond, does it? Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham-McAdam Posted 25 November , 2005 Share Posted 25 November , 2005 Using Gibot/Gorczynski and Horsfall/Cave ('Flesquieres') it seems that 11th Essex followed 23rd Coy. (a third of 'H' battalion) up to the right of Ribecourt. The tanks were H21-32, commanded by Capts Grounds, Gerrard, Hickey and Edwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 26 November , 2005 Share Posted 26 November , 2005 Not arguing (on the balancing bit) as I have done it myself. However the Mark I drivers (in Sep 1916) were not that experienced and certainly did not have that level of training. I quite agree. My comment related to the disappearance of the wheels (for other reasons) at a later date. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian Kay Posted 26 November , 2005 Share Posted 26 November , 2005 could someone please enlighten me as to what sort of weapon could inflict this damage Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 26 November , 2005 Share Posted 26 November , 2005 A Tank Corps gunner I chatted to said his war ended when a shell went in at the front, right through, and out the back, taking the 2/Lt tank commander with it. I got the impression that frontal armour was minimal and that it didn`t take a big shell to go through. My informant dived out and reached a shellhole 3 MG bullet hits later! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 26 November , 2005 Share Posted 26 November , 2005 The plate was about 12 mm, designed to keep out shrapnel and small arms fire (which it did) but not direct artillery fire (which it couldn't) That said, very few tanks today can keep out artillery rounds used in the direct fire role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 27 November , 2005 Share Posted 27 November , 2005 could someone please enlighten me as to what sort of weapon could inflict this damage Brian <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Favourite would have to be the standard German 77mm light fieldpiece - possibly several hits. Or once it was immobilised, perhaps someone called in a 15cm SchwIG. Certainly the subtitle 'damaged tank' seems a bit of an understatement - it looks rather comprehensively destroyed to me.... Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 29 November , 2005 Share Posted 29 November , 2005 Thanks, Graham, I have the Horsfall/Cave book - how the hell did I miss that I wonder? Anyway, that seems to confirm my father's reminiscence of his father's reminiscence! I wonder if any photos of these tanks survive? Anyway, 'nuff speculation - with the names I have some extra things to research so you never know... Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 29 November , 2005 Share Posted 29 November , 2005 A Tank Corps gunner I chatted to said his war ended when a shell went in at the front, right through, and out the back, taking the 2/Lt tank commander with it. I got the impression that frontal armour was minimal and that it didn`t take a big shell to go through. My informant dived out and reached a shellhole 3 MG bullet hits later! Phil B Can you remember the name of the gunner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 29 November , 2005 Share Posted 29 November , 2005 Can you remember the name of the gunner? George Blake from Blackburn. He had previously served in about 4 Scottish Regiments, being held back as underage, but volunteered for the Tank Corps as a means of getting to France. I believe he, like other tank gunners, trained in gunnery with the RN at Gosport? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 29 November , 2005 Share Posted 29 November , 2005 Thanks for that - as here are two George Blakes listed on the National Archives, I will try to find out more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 5 December , 2005 Share Posted 5 December , 2005 The book with "Panorama's of the Western Front" (or whatever it's called) includes a note that G12 and two other tanks were destroyed having stuck on tree stumps. Given that "Gurkha" would have been a G... tank, would it be presumtious to assume that that is what has happened in the photo? IE the tank has grounded, unable to move, and become a sitting duck... Adrian 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