FG Mark IV WWI Tank

[Don Boose]

Thanks for stopping by Ken, Flyboy, Uyraell, and Jeff.

Charlie - I have a friend who is post commander at Aberdeen (but not responsible for the armor on display), who gave me a current Tank and Artillery Park site map. The Mark IV is listed as still being present, along with the Whippet, Vickers Medium, and Japanese Type 89 medium and Type 95 light. The T1E1 and other early U.S. tanks are no longer listed. No info on the condition of any of the tanks. Later this summer, I hope to make a visit to see for myself.

Uyraell - You are absolutely right about the gun barrels being too long. I did not take the time to measure due to time constraints at the end of the 7-hour build.

Jeff - I THINK that a female could be fabricated from this kit without too much trouble, since the major difference is in the armament of the sponsons. However, I am saying this off the top of my head without checking and that's how I got in trouble with the length of the 6-pdrs!

Incidentally, and on the general subject of WWI armor, Karl Warner (who was the Paper Modelers' case officer during Army Heritage Days, got bitten by the paper modeling bug, and is the latest member of the paper armor builders guild) and I took a look at the Renault at the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center last Friday. Based on the shape of the front hull plates and single vision slits, the wooden idler wheels, and starboard-mounted muffler, we conclude that the hull is of a Renault FT, but the faceted turret with external mantlet may well be from a U.S.-built M1917 Six-ton tank. There is a serial number stamped into the side frame of the suspension, but it is partially illegible: "50022[A?]."

Don

[rockpaperscissor]

Great looking model DonI can't fathom how you can work with such precision while working so quickly. I move in slo mo in comparison. Nice work!

[Don Boose]

Thanks, Don Prime! There's praise from Caesar!

(The other) Don

[Uyraell]

On the subject of differences between the female and male models of Mks I through V:
The chief differences apart from armament are that the sponsons of the males have the crew entry hatches (which are each one piece of plate) on the rear of the sponsons, whereas the crew entry hatches (which are in fact two-piece plate doors) of the female vehicles are under the sponsons. This was because in the male the main armament points forwards, whereas in the female the main armament points both forwards and rearwards.
While there is generally some variation of the number of hatch locking bars employed in each Mk, it is generally between 4 and 6 for hatches on the males, and usually only 2 or 4 for each hatch on the females. Hardly a noticeable detail at anything under about 1:33 scale, so probably not of great note, particularly when it is not immediately externally obvious.

The holes the sponsons , or sponsons and doors fill are pretty much the same dimensions after the Mk II, but there is evidence to suggest the location of the sponson hole was shifted some 6 inches rearward from where it had been in the Mk I and Mk II. Charlie will likely have better references available to him that I do here.

Thus, anyone building a female version of a Mk I through Mk V will probably wish to bear these factors above in mind.
For myself, though I know the females were more numerous, I've always preferred the males, believing the females to be under-armed, and less good-looking tanks.

Hope the info helps,

Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

[CharlieC]

Originally Posted by Don Boose

Jeff - I THINK that a female could be fabricated from this kit without too much trouble, since the major difference is in the armament of the sponsons. However, I am saying this off the top of my head without checking and that's how I got in trouble with the length of the 6-pdrs!


Don

Would be nice if it were true. The female sponsons are a different shape and a lot shallower than the male sponson. The females also have escape doors below the sponson - these were introduced because it was found the door at the rear of Mark I female sponson was too small for the machine gunners to exit if the tank caught fire. I think the Mark I would have been known as the "mobile crematorium" except that the Schneider CA1 was even worse for trapping the crews in burning tanks and the French tankers were more inventive in their descriptions.

Edit - actually no - there were equal numbers of Mark IV males and females produced. Not sure about the Mark Vs - this is complicated because of the number of hermaphrodite tanks created in the field.


Regards,

Charlie

[cardist]

Hi Don,

7 hours to complete! Wow. I've had my eye on this one for a while, so I think I'll add it to the collection.

Another snippet about the sponsons. I remember reading somewhere that the gun sponsons on the Male versions were hinged at the top and swung in-boards for ease of transportation.

Thanks for sharing.

Bernie

[CharlieC]

Originally Posted by cardist

Hi Don,

7 hours to complete! Wow. I've had my eye on this one for a while, so I think I'll add it to the collection.

Another snippet about the sponsons. I remember reading somewhere that the gun sponsons on the Male versions were hinged at the top and swung in-boards for ease of transportation.

Thanks for sharing.

Bernie

Mostly correct - the sponsons for both the male and female Mark IV were designed to swing inwards into the hull. The problem was that the rhomboid tanks were too wide for the British rail gauge (the max. size load that can be transported by rail). The Mark Is had to have the sponsons removed for transport to France - this was very time consuming and difficult work. There is a video of the removal of a sponson on Grit, the Mark IV female at Canberra - it's linked off the same URL I noted earlier.

Regards,

Charlie

[Paperwarrior]

Originally Posted by CharlieC

Would be nice if it were true. The female sponsons are a different shape and a lot shallower than the male sponson. The females also have escape doors below the sponson -

Charlie, help me out, it seems to me I've seen some pictures that show the female sponsons "folded" inward in the center to make the tank thinner for rail transportation (unlike the male version that had to have the entire sponson removed). Have you seen this?

Jeff

[Don Boose]

Jeff - David Fletcher, who seems to be a reliable source on British armored fighting vehicles, says ". . . if there was one chore the crews cordially hated it was having to remove and re-attach these sponsons everey time tanks had to be moved by rail, which was the normal method. Thus the new sponson [on the Mark IV] was designed to be slightly smaller all round and more bevelled on the lower surfaces to avoid close contact with the mud. This improvement, and the adoption of the shorter gun, meant that for rail journeys the sponsons could be closed up, inside the tank, in order to reduce the width." [David Fletcher, British Mark IV Tank, New Vanguard 133, illustrated by Tony Bryan, Oxford, UK: Osprey Publications, 2007, p. 9] Photos on pages 20 and 21 show Mark IVs with the sponsons closed up loaded on flatcars. Fletcher makes the same point in Landships: Britsh Tanks in the First World War, London: HMSO, 1984, p. 21.

And the article in Charlie's forum, Landships notes: "These [guns] were mounted in modified sponsons which could (in both Male and Female version) be swung inwards for rail transport - on the Mark I the sponsons had to be unbolted - a time-consuming and heavy task." British Mk IV
with photos by Philippe Massin, Knut Erik Hagen and Bryan Foster, in Landships, available at Photos of MK IV Survivors

Don

PS: For some reason, Bernie's and Charlie's post hadn't shown up when I posted this info that duplicates Charlie's response.

[cjwalas]

Great job, Don! Nice gift as well. And don't worry about rushing the Breda on my account; I've got plenty to keep me busy till then.
Interesting about the sponsons being able to swing in for transport!
Chris