Posts that violate the guidelines or Terms and conditions
of Use of the Missing-lynx.com discussion groups will be erased,
and repeated violation of this policy may result in termination
of the violator's account.
You've assembled the kit well and with great skill. Unfortunately the kit is just wrong, wrong, wrong in a lot of areas. The unditching rails, the male sponsons, the fuel tank, and lack of rear armour, being the major mistakes. Again; these are errors with the kit and instructions, not the way you have put it together.
I think you've done an excellent job with a bad kit.
(Login kgwings) Missing-Lynx members 184.108.40.206
That explains the missing machine gun
May 3 2010, 5:51 AM
That clears up what I suspected about a rear machine gun.
All references called for 4 MGs and I wasn't sure why the kit only packed 3.
I noticed the rails problem right away which is why I replaced mine
and at least attempted to make them more accurate.
I didn't actually notice the fuel tank and sponson inaccuracies. I'll
have to go back and study some photos.
I'll have to mark this down as one of those times when I'm glad
I didn't know any better... otherwise I would have never finished the kit.
Thanks for the compliment and the information.
(Login coopmik2) Missing-Lynx members 220.127.116.11
May 3 2010, 2:01 AM
Love the mud, and a very neat paint job!
I've got F56 at Passchenadaele Ok, (12 section, No 18 Company F Battalion)but I have her as 2730 and possibly a Female from the serials either side of her.
The War Diaries at this time also give a little oddity about painting.
In addition to instructions about painted markings, crews were to obscure the number with mud or whatever was to hand if the tank ditched, and were to display an 18inch white square made of board instead. This board was to be carried on the roof of the tank face down until it was needed. Its reverse side was to be painted brown, so that it did not show up against the tank.
2341 was presented by the Federation of Malay states, and I don't have her in the War Diaries for Passcehndaele (at least from my notes).
(Login kgwings) Missing-Lynx members 18.104.22.168
My head hurts now
May 3 2010, 5:42 AM
Thanks for all the info Mike. It's entirely possible that some of my "facts" are
incorrect as I found conflicting information at difference sources.
According to "British Mark IV Tank" By David Fletcher, Tony Bryan:
2341 was a Male and served as both "Fly-Paper" and "Fan-Tan" and
"it was hoped to present the tank to present the tank to Malaya
after the war but there is no evidence this ever happened."
That info seems to be conclusive however the kit instructions show
to use the F56 marking with the 2341 serial... maybe this is where the
error lies? Maybe F56 should be 2730? That would explain how I located
it at Passcehndaele.
Oh well, the more I read the more I decide I painted it the wrong color
anyway so what the heck, Ha!
I appreciate the information and compliments, maybe I'll get around to
building a female next time and get it all right.
Keith, if you check page 35 of your reference there's a pretty good pic of the rear showing the additional armour. A little earlier there's a pic of one under construction and from the placing of the radiators it looks like there wasn't room for an MG there either.
If you are going to make Emhar's female Mark IV be warned; she still has the wrong unditching rails and no rear armour. The petrol tank should go on the right way up, not as shown in the instructions. The sponsons are rather good (unlike Emhar's male sponsons with their 90-degree angle) but the machine guns should be Lewis instead of Hotchkiss.
So now that you know (not quite) everything that's wrong with her, you probably won't get around to finishing her!
(Login PatBierter) Missing-Lynx members 22.214.171.124
May 4 2010, 8:05 AM
I appreciate a Female is supposed to give you headaches, but has the Emhar Female really deserved all the flak it is receiving? Both MG types were used if I'm not totally mistaken, and it should be easy to add the armour plate and glue the fuel tank into the right position. Admittedly that leaves us with the rail problem.
Back to topic, a nice model made out of what most consider a bad kit - compliments! Regards, Pat
This message has been edited by PatBierter from IP address 126.96.36.199 on May 4, 2010 8:06 AM
I've just completed the 1/35th MkIV Female more or less OOB.
The fuel tank is shown correctly in the instructions with the hatch on top, hinges rearwards. I did add the extra armour but I'm not 100% happy with the upper section yet.
The unditching beams are still incorrect, but I didn't bother changing them. [shrug]
I'm just waiting for a few addons to arrive like chain for the homespun unditching beam and flimsies for top stowage. The chain's on the way but the flimsies will have to wait a while as holiday inturruptus.
Keith - I'm amazed your wife let you get away with cannibalising her 24 carat necklace for the chain!!! Mine would kill me so I invested 1 euro for a suitable one from JB Models.
This message has been edited by DutchyHolland from IP address 188.8.131.52 on May 4, 2010 9:48 AM
I haven't seen any photos of a Mark IV female using Hotchkiss MGs, only Lewis guns. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but, you'd think amongst all the hundreds of photos there would be one with Hotchkiss MGs, if they were used. If anybody has one, I'd love to see it.
Ken Holland (Login DutchyHolland) Missing-Lynx members 184.108.40.206
Re: Hotchkiss or Lewis
May 4 2010, 1:25 PM
I can't find exactly where I read it but I know I read very recently that the switch was made during production of the MkIV. Damn this old memory!
Edit: Found it!
An obscure publication from July 1993 - Museum Ordnance, The Magazine for the U.S. Army Ordnance Museum
Mk IV - A Photo Essay
The British Mk. IV. an improved version of earlier variants. went into combat for the first time at the Battle of Messines Ridge. in France on June 7 1917. The U.S. Anny Ordnance Museum has one of only three remaining examples left in the world (the British and Australians have the others).
As with others within Its type. the Mk. IV came in two versions; a male and female. The male was armed with two Hotchkiss short 6 pdr.. 23 cal. QF guns mounted in the forward cradles of the side sponsons. They were also armed With four Lewis .303 in. machine guns. one mounted in the rear cradles of the sponsons. one in the forward position and one spare.
The Female was similarly armed with the exception that the 6 pdrs. were replaced with machine guns. Proving unsuitable, the Lewis guns were later replaced by Hotchkiss makes.
This message has been edited by DutchyHolland from IP address 220.127.116.11 on May 4, 2010 2:50 PM
Thanks Paul and Ken. Up until Ken's post, the only place where I'd read that Mark IV tanks were allegedly equipped with Hotchkiss was on the Landships site. I haven't seen any photo evidence for it, and David Fletcher hasn't mentioned it in any of his books (although I was quite drunk when I read his Mark IV one). I assumed the Landships article was trying to excuse the errors in the Emhar kit. Ken's article says there are only 3 surviving Mark IV tanks, so it doesn't sound too reliable either (No offense meant, Ken).http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_WW1_Tanks.pdf from one of our good friends, Pierre, shows all 7 surviving Mark IV tanks (5 females and 2 males).
I'm quite happy to be proven wrong. That would be great. I'm just saying that all the photos I've seen show the Mark IV female armed with Lewis.
I remember quite distictly when in 1985 the BBC filmed her in a mock battle run with David Fletcher at the sticks for the series "Soldiers"
Mr Fletcher later wrote an article about it in Wheels and Tracks magazine.
Anyway. There were a few interior scenes showing the crew members at their respective stations and there were shots of them firing the Hotchkiss with the strip clearly going into the breech.
Yet the M.G. at the front is a Lewis as the crew commander (George Forty if I recall correctly) Goes through the correct drills prior to firing her up which included ensuring the magazine is secure and the weapons moves freely in the ball mount.
Now, this particular Mk IV was rebuilt to operational standards in the late 60's. whether this included removing/replacing fittings mounts or other parts with accurate but non genuine items, who knows?
Re: Bovington's operational Mk IV has Hotchkiss guns.
May 5 2010, 5:12 AM
Yes, Shane, that's all correct. I have seen that documentary, and it is still to be found on youtube. But as you say, 'Excellent' (Bovington's male Mark IV) has been tinkered with.
'Flirt', in the Museum of Lincolnshire Life, has been rebuilt with Lewis guns (or facsimiles thereof), so too has '245' in Ashford, Kent. 'Grit', in Australia, I'm sure you know has Lewis. America's female Mark IV is in bad condition after years of being left outside, she is currently not fitted with guns although blanking off plates in the mounts are Lewis gun shaped. I haven't seen guns on 'Deborah', but they were probably removed before burying her.
But going by museum exhibits is risky. That is the main reason why the Emhar kit is so annoyingly good and bad; they followed the example of the wrong museum exhibit. If they had just got on the train to Brussels and copied 'Lodestar' we would have had a good kit! The painting instructions and artwork would have been the right colour as well.
I've also checked my copy of 'Pictorial History of Tanks of The World 1915 to 1945'. On page 70 it says that later Mark IV were fitted with Hotchkiss, so maybe that is the source for the statement on Landships. However the photo of a Mark IV shows Lewis. At the bottom of page 70 is the famous Mark IV composite (or hermaphrodite), source of another myth. Except the photo clearly shows a Mark V!
On page 69 there is a photo of a Mark I with squared off track adjuster apertures; except it isn't! It is Bovington's Mark II when it was dressed up as a Mark I (they didn't have a real Mark I at the time). This tank (Bovington's Mark II dressed up as a Mark I) was measured up by Airfix, and is the reason why their kits of Mark Is are also bad.
The one and only good kit (in braille scale) of a rhomboid is Cromwell's Mark V*. It is supplied with a plethora of Hotchkiss. The Airfix kits can be easily made into Mark IV tanks. So too can the Emhar kits. But neither one is accurate, and my fumble fingers are not as good as everyone else's at converting.
I really hope everyone is checking wartime photos of Mark IV tanks. I really would like to be proven wrong with a photo of a Mark IV fitted with Hotchkiss. I'd also like to see the Polish A7V tanks.
(Login PatBierter) Missing-Lynx members 18.104.22.168
thanks for clearing that up
May 5 2010, 10:49 AM
Thanks to the valuable information several of you contributed to this thread, I think we all can agree now that Hotchkiss guns were the rare exception if ever fitted in a wartime vehicle, and Lewis guns were the norm.