Identify that Tank/Ship/Plane/Artillery etc

[Sicknero]

Aha the tail of course. That would explain it thanks.
The FT in the first vid just has a dummy gun.

[Greek Firethrower]

Maybe a Whippet?

[Jagdpanzer]

Maybe a Whippet?

Medium Mark A Whippet tank is correct.

Why the Whippet?

The Mark A Whippet was a British medium tank which first saw combat in March of 1918 during the massive German Spring Offensive. They were meant to take advantage of the holes made in the German lines by their much heavier and slower cousins, the Mark IV and Mark V tanks. While hundreds of heavy tanks could achieve such breakthroughs, they were too slow and prone to breakdown to exploit their successes. The dream of massed cavalry pouring through enemy lines and disrupting their rear had been killed early on in the war. Flesh could not stand up against machine guns and fields of barbed wire. The Whippet's job was to act like mechanized cavalry, a job it performed extremely well.


Trench War Stalemate

When the First World War started on July 28, 1914, there was no such thing as a tank. As the conflict stagnated into trench warfare, neither side could make headway against entrenched defenses. Time and again attackers crossed the moonscape of no man's land to be mowed down by concentrated rifle- and machine gun-fire, only to be halted or channeled into killing zones by fields of barbed wire entanglements. A war of attrition developed, with each side trying to kill more of the other than they lost themselves. Since the Germans were also fighting the Russians, they opted for a more defensive posture on the Western Front, a less-costly strategy than constantly sending troops over the top.

Tanks Appear

The first tanks to ever appear in battle were 49 British Mark I tanks during the Battle of the Somme on September 15, 1916. Rifle fire and machine guns could not stop them; they were able to drive right through barbed wire; they could cross trenches 9 feet wide. These first tanks, however, were prone to breaking down and were very slow. The British made improvements and the French also developed their own tanks, deploying them in 1917. As tanks proved their worth against an entrenched enemy, the Allies produced thousands of them. The Germans concentrated on developing anti-tank weapons and armor-piercing bullets, but did use captured Allied tanks. They finally developed their own but only managed to produce 20 tanks late in the war.
While the heavy (more than 30-ton) British tanks, backed by infantry, were able to push the enemy back, the lumbering beasts were too slow to stop the Germans from regrouping in secondary positions, so, while finally making headway in the deadly stalemate of the Western Front, it was still a slow and bloody process.

The Whippet Is Born

The need for a speedier tank was evident as early as 1916 and, thus, the Whippet was born. While various versions of the Mark series of heavy tanks were merely improvements, the Mark A Whippet was a completely new tank. It weighed about 15 tons, had a range of 80 miles, a top speed of 8.3 mph and was the fastest tank in the war. Its predecessors weighed 30 to 36 tons with top speeds of 2.5 to 4.7 mph. While the heavy tanks had a crew of 8, the Whippet required only 3. It was armed with 3 or 4 7.7mm Hotchkiss machine guns, while the heavy tanks, which were either “male” (cannons and machine guns) or “female” (machine guns only), had 2 57mm cannons and up to 6 machine guns (male) or 5 to 10 machine guns (female). The crew compartment for the Whippet was set at the rear of the tank and housed the driver, a gunner and the tank commander, who also manned a machine gun. The four machine guns were placed in the front, the back and both sides, covering 360 degrees; the two gunners would shift around, using the appropriate weapon.

Whippets During the Spring Offensive

When the Germans began their Great Spring Offensive in March 1918 and successfully pushed back the French and British along a huge front, the first Whippets were thrown into battle, where they proved their worth covering retreating infantry. Twelve Whippets near Herbetune in northern France, surprised two German battalions-- approximately 2,000 men-- and turned them back.
On April 24, 1918, seven Whippets came to the aid of a Mark IV, which had just been involved in history's first tank versus tank battle against three German A7Vs. While the heavy tank churned through no man's land, trying to evade artillery fire, two battalions of German infantry formed up to attack it. The Whippets plunged forward and into the soldiers, machine gunning and grinding them under their treads. The attack faltered and failed, with as many as 400 German dead. Only three Whippets returned, gore dripping from their treads. The fate of the missing tank crews was unknown, but, after such slaughter, it is doubtful that any prisoners were taken. Later on, in that same battle, a Whippet was destroyed by a German tank in the second tank versus tank encounter of the war.

The Musical Box

In August 1918, 96 Whippets were used in the Battle for Amiens, where they once again proved themselves on the battlefield against serious opposition. On August 18, 1918, one Whippet, called “Musical Box” went down in the annals of tank lore when its crew of three, commanded by Lieutenant C.B. Arnold, passed the slow Mark Vs, routed a German artillery battery and continued beyond to the rear of the German lines. Cut off and all by itself, the Whippet roamed behind enemy lines, terrorizing the enemy at every opportunity for almost 11 hours. It machine gunned retiring infantry, attacked horse and motor transport, found an aerodrome and destroyed an observation balloon, attacked the camp of an infantry battalion and even rammed a truck into a stream. They constantly drew ferocious fire from infantry and artillery. Bullets penetrated their petrol tanks and fuel sloshed around inside the tank. They had to don their gas masks because the fumes were so thick. Finally, an artillery shell disabled the “Musical Box” and the fuel ignited. The crew stumbled out, on fire; one was shot and killed. Arnold and the other surviving crew member were beaten and kicked and then taken prisoner. They survived the war.

After the War

By war's end, 200 Whippets had been produced. Many subsequently saw action in Ireland, during the Anglo-Irish War; some were sent to the White Russians fighting the Soviet Red Army; some ended up in Japan. Whippets were in use as late as the 1930s. Their success was, of course, partly due to the fact that there were few German tanks on the battlefield, but, in the eight months they were used, they were one of the most successful tanks in the field.

Source: http://unnamedharald.hubpages.com/hu...A-Whippet-Tank

[Greek Firethrower]

Thankyou

Next one:

[Jagdpanzer]

Aha the tail of course. That would explain it thanks.
The FT in the first vid just has a dummy gun.

It´s called a terrain skid, it was added to allow greater trench crossing ability. Without it the tank was only 4.1 meters long. I remember seeing pictures of a Dutch Renault FT-17 using it to carry fascine for crossing ditches and trenches but I don´t know if that was common. Unfortunately I cannot refind them.

[Sicknero]

Yes I knew something like that. I was just wondering to myself why they were (relatively) common on tanks of the period, but not in WW2. I expect there's a good reason for it that will come to me eventually. (Maybe because of less trenches. Seems a little obvious but perhaps that's all it is. *Edit.. probably the existence of more specialised vehicles too.)
There was the Gunther Burstyn tank from Austria-Hungary that DH posted not long ago, which has extensions fore and aft for trench crossing...

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/burstyn_tank.htm

Good Whippet link too, loads of interesting articles there

*Greek Firethrower, is the ship the Kaiser Karl VI?

[KnightsTemplar]

Yes I knew something like that. I was just wondering to myself why they were (relatively) common on tanks of the period, but not in WW2. I expect there's a good reason for it that will come to me eventually. (Maybe because of less trenches. Seems a little obvious but perhaps that's all it is. *Edit.. probably the existence of more specialised vehicles too.)
There was the Gunther Burstyn tank from Austria-Hungary that DH posted not long ago, which has extensions fore and aft for trench crossing...

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/burstyn_tank.htm

Good Whippet link too, loads of interesting articles there

*Greek Firethrower, is the ship the Kaiser Karl VI?

Seems as tanks get larger and longer they no longer need the skid.
It's related to the centre of mass IIRC.

[Sicknero]

*Greek Firethrower, is the ship the Kaiser Karl VI?

After further delving, I think it's SMS Sankt George (Saint George).

[Tankfriend]

Seems as tanks get larger and longer they no longer need the skid.
It's related to the centre of mass IIRC.

As far as I know, the "tail" was there to provide - and be filled with - extra weight to balance out the turret mounted so far to the front of the tank. Without the "tail" and extra weight, the FT had severe problems running in rough terrain because of it. Making the tank longer to allow it to cross trenches was probably a welcome sideeffect.

[Greek Firethrower]

After further delving, I think it's SMS Sankt George (Saint George)

Of course, correct.
This ship class had a thicker main belt than the "SMS Blücher"(!).

Sorry, I can't give you still a rep (I owe now 3 rep).

[Sicknero]

"Of course", he says. Took me ages to find it. Added some great websites to my bookmarks along the way though.

SMS Sankt George was given to the UK along with her sister ship SMS Kaiser Karl VI (and others I suppose) as a part of war reparations in 1920. We sold them to Italy for scrap metal.

Continuing the theme... just the class is fine, unless you know the actual ship of course.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Darkhorse]

I can authoritatively tell you, it is definitely a class of ship. Rep please.

[Greek Firethrower]

It's HMS Black Prince.

[Sicknero]

It's HMS Black Prince.

It certainly is.

HMS Black Prince, Duke of Edinburgh class Armoured Cruiser, commissioned 1906.



She had six 9.2" guns, ten 6", twenty 3-pounders, and three torpedo tubes. She weighed 13,550 tons, and cost £1,150,000 to build.

At the outbreak of WW1, the Black Prince and her sister ship the Duke of Edinburgh were serving in the Mediterranean, but by the time of the Battle of Jutland (1916) they were attached to the First Cruiser Squadron at Scapa Flow.

At Jutland the First Squadron was deployed as a screen ahead of the main force. Around 17.30 the squadron engaged German ships, but at some point the Prince seems to have become separated from the main force. She headed south looking for the battle, but it's possible that in the darkness she became lost and mistook the German fleet for the British. German documents released after the war state that "just before midnight, the Black Prince approached the German lines, possibly thinking their outlines were those of British vessels. At some point, the Captain seems to have realised his mistake and ordered his crew to turn Black Prince round but by that time he had been spotted from the German battleship Thüringen which immediately switched on its powerful spotlights and opened fire. There were five more German ships all within a range of 1000 yards and all of them joined in the bombardment."

She was soon on fire and was destroyed by an explosion at 12.10am, killing all on board; 852 ratings and officers, and 5 civilians.

Sources;
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...ck_Prince.html
http://www.devonheritage.org/Places/...lackPrince.htm
http://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/bri...patch_1916.htm

**************************************************************************************************
"Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

Some opinions suggest that what was wrong with the "bloody ships", was that rate of fire (always a point of pride with the British military) might have been emphasised at the expense of safety procedures and proper handling of ammunition. It's been suggested that in order to maintain the expected rate of fire and reloading, fire doors and curtains were left open, and even that bundles of cordite were routinely stacked up in gun turrets and hatchways. If true, this could explain why so many ships were lost to sudden and devastating explosions that day. There's a pretty good documentary on the subject, where they dive some of the Jutland wrecks. I forget the title but I can find out later if anybody's interested. It's on Youtube in two parts.

**************************************************************************************************

[Greek Firethrower]

Thankyou Anyone else can take my turn.

[Sicknero]

I guess you're all busy I'll just post this wee piccy then...




ID either, or both. You still only get the one Rep though.

(Edit; I guess the one at the back is maybe a little more interesting, so yes ID that one please.)

[KnightsTemplar]

Front: A11 Matilda I Infantry Tank
Back: A39 Tortoise Assault Tank

Both fail tanks. lol

-EDIT for more things?

The Tortoise may make a good Tank Destroyer, but is way too slow to be effective.
Quite similar to T28/T95 of the USA, but it seems the T95 fails even more (with a gun that is not so shining, slow speed and lack of turret)
Both country never bothered to upgrade both design IIRC.
BTW adapting AA-guns for AT duty seems to be a fashion back then.

The Matilda I is just plain fail with slow speed and nonexistant armaments (still MGs? ROFL).
Although the Panzer I is on par with it on terms of armaments, but there are Panzer II and III around when the war starts.

The A12 Matilda II is a much better tank and true to it's name of Infantry Tank.
At least it has a gun and the armor is really good at the starting of the war.

P.S. The thread seems to be back to it's roots where there are discussions and additional informations, more than the names and pictures going on and on some times before.

[Sicknero]

Front: A11 Matilda I Infantry Tank
Back: A39 Tortoise Assault Tank

Both fail tanks. lol

-EDIT for more things?
The Tortoise may make a good Tank Destroyer, but is way too slow to be effective.
Quite similar to T28/T95 of the USA, but it seems the T95 fails even more (with a gun that is not so shining, slow speed and lack of turret)
Both country never bothered to upgrade both design IIRC.

The Matilda I is just plain fail with slow speed and nonexistant armaments.
The armor don't seems to be good, and the tracks are exposed.
The A12 Matilda II is a much better tank and true to it's name of Infantry Tank.

Correct on the ID, but I'd debate your labelling them both "fail tanks".

The A11 was built in the mid-30s with serious financial restrictions, thus it used many existing parts to keep costs down. Even so, it had 60mm frontal armour which did it very well in the Battle of France against smaller calibre artillery and AT guns. Yes it was slow and under-gunned, and the crew were somewhat crippled by the need to multi-task, but it was only put into service as a stop-gap.
I guess it's quite telling though, that although all 23 that were in France in 1940 were destroyed or captured, Germany chose not to re-use them as was common practise with other AFVs.

The A39 as far as I know was intended as an assault gun, so comparing it to TDs isn't entirely fair. Even so it could take out a Panther at 1000 yards.

Anyway I'll shut up as I don't know much about them really

Your go then...

(Edit;

P.S. The thread seems to be back to it's roots where there are discussions and additional informations, more than the names and pictures going on and on some times before.

I enjoy this aspect of it no end.)

[KnightsTemplar]

Correct on the ID, but I'd debate your labelling them both "fail tanks".

The A11 was built in the mid-30s with serious financial restrictions, thus it used many existing parts to keep costs down. Even so, it had 60mm frontal armour which did it very well in the Battle of France against smaller calibre artillery and AT guns. Yes it was slow and under-gunned, and the crew were somewhat crippled by the need to multi-task, but it was only put into service as a stop-gap.
I guess it's quite telling though, that although all 23 that were in France in 1940 were destroyed or captured, Germany chose not to re-use them as was common practise with other AFVs.

The A39 as far as I know was intended as an assault gun, so comparing it to TDs isn't entirely fair. Even so it could take out a Panther at 1000 yards.

Anyway I'll shut up as I don't know much about them really

Wall of text

Well I would still say as 'tanks' they 'fail' pretty much. Much better designs came out around or just after these designs and make them obsolete right on. Guns and protection at the beginning of the War advanced very fast, and those designs in 30s cannot compete. The Brits back then seems to lack the foresight to design 'new' things, but chasing their opponents in vain. The undergunned and un-upgrade-able early Cruiser Tanks are examples. Finally at the end of the war the Brits comes with better designs like Comet and the epic Centurion. The A39, designed as an Assault Gun (StuG?) was like just wrong. The 'Assault tank' concept was never used properly and doesn't seems feasible. Pushing directly against a strongpoint is counter-productive and designing something for that seems just screw up the supply system for these situational moments. Instead (at least for Germany?) the StuGs are used for makeshift TDs IIRC. After the War the Cold War which theoretically the Allies would be on defense of Western Europe while the Soviets attack could let them shine. But like the Germans' Tigers and Elefants and things the mobility may be it's greatest problem. Well I may be plain wrong and those are just my two cents and random thoughts. I await Darkhorse for his insights

Back to the game: a rather simple and easy one.

[Sicknero]

Hey I can do that too, cool :)

Good points. I was only suggesting that for what they were intended to be, they maybe weren't so bad. The A39, I've come across conflicting sources now - one says that it was built to be a TD using APDS rounds, another says Assault Gun for the Seigfreid Line etc. TDs without turrets seem a bit odd to me though, but I don't really know. SUs were used a lot as TDs I think. But you're right Assault Guns also seem a bit pointless with the tactical thinking being to go around or over such strongpoints. I guess there would have been times when it was unavoidable though. I may also be just plain wrong I was going to ask how you did the "Wall of Text" thing, but I sussed it. Neat.