History HubΒ permalink
Tank Week 18-02/24-02-18
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Saturday, 27th February 2010
From Monday 18th February, until Sunday 24th February 1918, The Fylde, Lancashire, managed to raise Β£1,104.000 during what was known as tank week. This was when the tank 'Julian' came to Blackpool. People, business men, schools etc would all purchase war bonds.
This was the latest in a series of tank weeks, most of the city's of England, Scotland and Wales had similar events. Glasgow is reputed to have raised Β£14,000.000.
I don't believe that all this money was used to purchase tanks (Which cost about Β£5,000 each) but is there any record to show how many tanks Britain actually had in service at the end of the Great War??? -
Message 2
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 27th February 2010
Amphion
Only figure I have is approx 1800, of which a maximum of about 400 fighting tanks (plus supports)could be fielded for major battles.
This figure comes from Paddy Griffith, extrapolated from the OH.
LW -
Message 3
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Monday, 1st March 2010
You may be interested in this 'video' of that very tank (though I suspect they've got the year wrong!)...
Here is 'Julian' visiting Liverpool:
-
Message 4
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Wednesday, 17th March 2010
Excellent film clip, though there seems to be more than one tank. On 17secs we definately see "113 Julian", but then on about 27 secs the tank is numbered 130?
-
Message 5
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Wednesday, 17th March 2010
Having looked at the first link in your post WarsawPact, I am certain that the clip dated 1914, is in fact Blackpool 1918. The clip of the rampart, the tram and the pier suggest this. When Julian visited Blackpool she was parked infront of the Town Hall, close to where Yates Wine Lodge used to be. A number of town officials including the Mayor, A. Parkinson made speeches from ontop of the tank. A Tram car was mocked up to look like a tank and sent around the Fylde coast area. It was named Albert after the Mayor, and numberd 88, which was the Mayor's phone number.
-
Message 6
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 17th March 2010
Amphion
The other thing that suggests it was later than 1914 is that there weren't any tanks in 1914
LW -
Message 7
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Wednesday, 17th March 2010
Very Good point Long Weekend, but it is an important one. Whoever dated these photographs and film clips cannot be relied on for being accurate with regards dates.
I was very pleased to realise that the clip is actually something I have been in search of for quite awhile now, why I never checked out Pathe I don't know... But are there any other film companys which may also have taken films in and around Great Britain at this time...any other websites??? -
Message 8
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Thursday, 18th March 2010
Β£1,104.000 Β
May I just enquire about that figure (and its format) - is that Β£1,104 or is it Β£1.104million? The three zeros at the end confused me! -
Message 9
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Tuesday, 30th March 2010
Sorry, yes it is Β£1. 104 million. I have copied the figure exactly from the newspaper of 1918.
This was still in the days of Imperial coinage, the newspapers of the day tended to be very acurate with regards finacial matters, counting every Pound, shilling and even quarter pence. (Which I understand to be a Farthing)!!!
Actually, the figure would finaly reach Β£1.118.000 (Million) -
Message 10
Posted by David James Wall (U14752090) on Thursday, 24th November 2011
Thursday 24th November, 2011. GMT:1005
Re: Amphion
With respect; the actual cost price of a single 'MOTHER I / MBT' was Β£12.5 million pounds: in 1916. As quoted by the Admiralty Board to Winston Leonard Spencer - Churchill; as First Lord of the Admiralty that year. -
Message 11
Posted by David James Wall (U14752090) on Thursday, 24th November 2011
Thursday 24th November, 2011. GMT:1035
Re: Amphion
With respect; according to the records of the noted 'TANK' manufacturer's; 'William Foster & Co. Ltd. / LINCOLN'; exactly 798 MBT's (Main Battle Tanks) of all types were built between 1915 and 1919: 'bought and paid for' by the 'National Government' of 1917 - 1919. The projected total build as far as the Prime Minister of the day; David Lloyd George: declared to the House of Commons in 1917 (one day after he came to office) was 3000 all told - 'to bring us TOTAL Victory in 1919'.
It is understood by HM Treasury (in the present term) that the total cost to the Exchequer of 'TANK' / 'Design and Build' during the 1st World War; was Β£12 .5 Billion pounds: of which approximately Β£9 Billion pounds was pocketed by 'William Foster & Co. Ltd. / LINCOLN' alone. The balance was probably pocketed by 'VICKERS Ltd. / SHEFFIELD' who supplied the 'sponson mounted' 6pounder QF / 'TANK' gun. -
Message 12
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 25th November 2011
David
A small point of detail. The term Main Battle Tank (MBT) did not come into use until the 1950s. The terminolgy in WI (and up until the late 1930s) was Light, Medium and Heavy. No heavies were produced. I presume your figures relate to the Mediums?
Regards
LW -
Message 13
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 25th November 2011
David,
A Mark IV Tank cost Β£5000 as Amphion said, not Β£12.5 million.
HMS Warspite cost Β£2.5 million and that was a 33,000 ton battleship. -
Message 14
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 25th November 2011
Thursday 24th November, 2011. GMT:1005
Re: Amphion
With respect; the actual cost price of a single 'MOTHER I / MBT' was Β£12.5 million pounds: in 1916. As quoted by the Admiralty Board to Winston Leonard Spencer - Churchill; as First Lord of the Admiralty that year.Β Twaddle. Churchill was forced to resign as First Lord in June 1915. -
Message 15
Posted by David James Wall (U14752090) on Saturday, 26th November 2011
Saturday 26th November, 2011. GMT:1043
Re: Winston Leonard Spencer - Churchill
As far as I am aware Winston Leonard Spencer - Churchill stepped down from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty on the 17th September, 1916; the day after the first 16no. 'MOTHER I / MBT's' went in to action on the SOMME / Northern France. His relationship with the 'Gallipoli Campaign' (in the Eastern Mediterranean) which ended on the 9th January, 1916 certainly compromised him with the new Coalition Government which was founded even as the Campaign progressed in stalemate.
The weird detail is that Arthur Balfour (Churchill's proposed replacement) refused the position of First Lord of the Admiralty the day it was offered to him on the 25th May, 1915 (after four hours of discussion with members of the French Embassy in London); complaining that many of the proposed members of the new Cabinent 'were unknown to him and also to the OLD GUARD / House of Lords'. Churchill soldiered on into 1916, working partly in 'CYPRUS' vis a vis the 'Gallipoli Campaign' and also at the 'WILLIAM FOSTER & Co. Ltd. / TANK Production Works' in BOSTON / Lincolnshire vis a vis 'TANK Production'.
ps. for the record; Henrietta Foster (the grandaughter of William Foster), of 'WILLIAM FOSTER & Co. Ltd.'; who was credited with the idea of the 'RHOMBOID' (at the startlingly young age of 17 years old in 1915) called the 'MOTHER I' a 'Main Battle Tank' or 'MBT' on 1st January, 1916: whilst talking to Winston Leonard Spencer - Churchill on the telephone between Boston and London. -
Message 16
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 26th November 2011
I suppose these postings by David could be leaking in from an alternate universe.
-
Message 17
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 26th November 2011
I suppose these postings by David could be leaking in from an alternate universe.Β Churchill was demoted to the Duchy of Lancater on the formation of the coalition government, and resigned as a minister on 15th November 1915. Balfour served as First Lord from 19th May 1915. Any reference to Churchill as 1st Lord in 1916 is, and remains, absolutely devoid of any credibility in this leg of the Trousers of Time.
-
Message 18
Posted by David James Wall (U14752090) on Monday, 28th November 2011
Monday 28th November, 2011. GMT:0939
Re: Trousers of Time
With respect ; the 'Coalition Government' of the 25th May, 1915 was described by amongst others; including Hugh Bonham - Carter: as a 'PAN'. He thought it amounted to (I quote); 'one man and a dog'. The 'OLD GUARD' in the House of Lords noted that a number of the names quoted in the popular press didn't seem to exist in 'actualite'. The Foreign Office (of the day) certainly couldn't find four names who were purportedly attached to the 'diplomatic CORPS'. This caused a real panic attack with a certain Commander CUMMINGS: RN. As Director General: SS / SIS (Secret Service / Secret Intelligence Service) he 'closed down' for a month and purportedly went on holiday to Scotland (on the West Coast Main Line from Euston to Glasgow) with a copy of the novel 'The 39 Steps' in his briefcase. He eventually made his way to Oban where amongst other details he bought 'a first edition' of the novel 'The Riddle of the Sands'. His real concern was that 'Naval Attache Detail' was compromised at the moment SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) became 'undercover MI6' (Military Intelligence Six). For 'the life of him'; he couldn't stomach the 'CURZON' family detail...
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.