naxos Posted 16 June , 2007 Share Posted 16 June , 2007 Hello, Just got this original photo, has anyone seen this particular image before, what type of tank is it and what unit did it belonged to? Regards, Hardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 16 June , 2007 Share Posted 16 June , 2007 Nice photo - its a British Mk II Female knocked out at Arras. The camoflaged sponson suggests that this was originally on a Mk I Female Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 16 June , 2007 Share Posted 16 June , 2007 It would either have been with C Bn or D Bn MGC if the picture is from the Arras battlefield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Moore Posted 16 June , 2007 Share Posted 16 June , 2007 The WD number appears to be 586, which belonged to 11 Co., D Bn. HBMGC and was destroyed at the first battle of Bullecourt on 11/4/17. Its company number was D28, and it was commanded by Lt. Clarkson. I believe 586 is likely to be wreck "4" as shown on C.E.W. Bean's map of the Bullecourt wrecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naxos Posted 16 June , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 June , 2007 Thank you all so much for the detailed information Regards, Hardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 16 June , 2007 Share Posted 16 June , 2007 I love this Forum = thanks Gerald Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naxos Posted 16 June , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 June , 2007 Hello, using the info you have so kindly provided I found another Image of the same tank here: http://cas.awm.gov.au/PROD/cst.acct_master...r&bos=Win32 Regards, Hardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Jones Posted 17 June , 2007 Share Posted 17 June , 2007 Very many thanks, especially to Gerald. I have often wondered about this tank. Here is a view of the other side. Note there is camouflage on the hull as well as the sponson. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Jones Posted 17 June , 2007 Share Posted 17 June , 2007 And another before the shell damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 17 June , 2007 Share Posted 17 June , 2007 had seen a reduced version of the last one before but had not realidse the photo was taken from a trench Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Moore Posted 18 June , 2007 Share Posted 18 June , 2007 Simon and Hardy, many thanks for posting these images, which are in better resolution than I've previously seen them - a great aid to identification. Allow me to offer a few more comments. Firstly, Simon, I think what appears to be a band of camouflage on the portside front horn is, in fact, discolouration due to fire. A fuel tank was located right behind the ruptured plate on the front horn. As far as is known, only the MkI tanks received the multi-coloured "Solomon" camouflage; the MkII's received an overall brown scheme except for the sponsons on some of the female tanks which had been exchanged with those from MkI's. I do agree with your interpretation of these photos as "before and after" shots of the same vehicle, also the port and starboard views are of the same tank. The wreck photos show a tank which is resting level on relatively uncratered ground, immediately in front of some sort of excavation (which I think is a forward sap from OG1), with a barbed wire entanglement in the background. The camouflage on the port sponson (which each crew applied in an individual pattern) seems the same in both the before and after photos. According to Bean, following an attack on the second Hindenberg trench (OG2), 586 was returning to the rally point when it was hit by artillery fire after re-crossing the first trench (OG1). The tank seen below is another female MkII, possibly wreck "6". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 18 June , 2007 Share Posted 18 June , 2007 Gerald - where were the pictures of the tank on your post taken? Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Moore Posted 18 June , 2007 Share Posted 18 June , 2007 Stephen, I'm not entirely sure where the photos were taken, and would not rely on the caption to be accurate. Given that the wreck is a MkII fighting tank, the location is almost certainly in the Arras region, as you have previously noted. The landscape has been pulverised by artillery fire, suggesting that it lies near a German trench system. It must have been located on the portion of the Arras/Bullecourt battlefield which was retaken by the Germans in 1918. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malte Znaniecki Posted 19 June , 2007 Share Posted 19 June , 2007 According to Simon these pictures: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malte Znaniecki Posted 19 June , 2007 Share Posted 19 June , 2007 According to Simon this picture: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naxos Posted 19 June , 2007 Author Share Posted 19 June , 2007 Thank you everybody, very interesting info Gerald I found another picture of the 588 tank Regards Hardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naxos Posted 19 June , 2007 Author Share Posted 19 June , 2007 Hallo Malte, ich finde deine Bilder sehr interessant - hast du irgendwelche Information zu den Bildern, wie z.B. Ort oder Zeit der Aufnahmen. Gruss, Hardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Moore Posted 20 June , 2007 Share Posted 20 June , 2007 Does anyone know the purpose of the sign on the portside front horn of 586, perched on the track? It can also be seen planted in front of the tank in one of Malte's photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 20 June , 2007 Share Posted 20 June , 2007 No I don't but I have seen it or something similar in other photos of knocked out/abandoned tanks. I'll have a look through my files but as I don't have a specific knocked out/abandoned folder it may take time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hansen Posted 20 June , 2007 Share Posted 20 June , 2007 Here's a picture of 588 before capture. One small point: The camo pattern on the sponson doesn't look the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 20 June , 2007 Share Posted 20 June , 2007 Here's a picture of 588 before capture. One small point: The camo pattern on the sponson doesn't look the same. Could this in fact be 538? The guy looks as if he'd sticking his head out of a MkI type hatch. This would explain the different camo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hansen Posted 20 June , 2007 Share Posted 20 June , 2007 No, it's definitely a Mk II. You can just make out the loophole below his face. I've included a blowup of the number and the front of the middle '8' is just visible through the mud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naxos Posted 20 June , 2007 Author Share Posted 20 June , 2007 Mark, I placed your 588 besides mine - compare the rivets in relation to the number I think that it is the same tank Hardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 20 June , 2007 Share Posted 20 June , 2007 Lost me there - aren't the rivets the same on all tanks of the same Mk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naxos Posted 20 June , 2007 Author Share Posted 20 June , 2007 Lost me there - aren't the rivets the same on all tanks of the same Mk? Yes of course, that is why we can compare the two numbers The white numbers in size and placement compared to the rivets of the tank gives you a good way of comparing the two tanks. Based on that it seems to me that the numbers on both tanks are exactly in the same place - ergo it must be the same tank. Hardy 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