Transcriber’s note: Cover created by Transcriber, using a photograph from the original book, and placed in the Public Domain.

TANKS IN THE GREAT WAR

BIG WILLIE, MOTHER OF CENTIPEDE, ORIGINAL MARK I TANK.

TANKS
IN THE GREAT WAR
1914–1918

BY
Brevet-Colonel J. F. C. FULLER, D.S.O.
(Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry)

NEW YORK
E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY
1920

DEDICATIONS

I

I dedicate this book to the modern military scientists, that small company of gentlemen who, imbued with a great idea, were willing to set all personal interest aside in order to design a machine destined to revolutionise the science of war.

II

I dedicate this book to the modern armourers of the British factories, those men and women whose untiring patriotism and indomitable endurance in the workshops produced a weapon whereby the lives of many of their comrades were saved.

III

I dedicate this book to the modern knights in armour, the fighting crews of the Tank Corps; those Officers, Non-commissioned Officers and Men, who, through their own high courage and noble determination on the battlefield, maintained Liberty and accomplished Victory.

INTRODUCTION

The following work is the story of a great and unique adventure as heroic as the exploits of the Argonauts of old, and, though the time perhaps has not yet arrived wherein to judge the part played by tanks in the Great War, I feel that, whatever may be the insight and judgment of the eventual historian of the British Tank Corps, he will probably lack that essential ingredient of all true history—the witnessing of the events concerning which he relates.

I, the writer of this book, first set eyes on a tank towards the end of August 1916. At this time I little thought that I should eventually be honoured by becoming the Chief General Staff Officer of the Tank Corps, for a period extending from December 1916 to August 1918. The time spent during this long connection with the greatest military invention of the Great War, it is hoped, has not been altogether wasted, and the story here set forth represents my appreciation of having been selected to fill so intensely interesting an appointment.

Besides having witnessed and partaken in many of the events related, those who have assisted me in this book have all been either closely connected with the Tank Corps or in the Corps itself, they one and all were partakers in either the creation of the Corps or in the many actions in which it fought.

So much assistance have I received that I can at most but consider myself as editor to a mass of information provided for me by others. Those I more especially wish to thank amongst this goodly company are the following:

Captain the Hon. Evan Charteris, G.S.O.3, Tank Corps, for the accurate and careful records of the Corps which he compiled from the earliest days of the tank movement in 1914, to the close of the battle of Cambrai. Many of these were written under, shall I say, far from luxurious circumstances, for Captain Charteris, I feel, must have often found himself, in his shell-blasted estaminet, less well cared for than the rats of Albert and as much out of place as Alcibiades in a Peckham parlour.

When Captain Charteris forsook the “cabaret sans nom,” for some ill-disposed shell had removed half the signboard, Captain O. A. Archdale, A.D.C. to General Elles, took up the difficult task and, from March 1918 onwards, kept the Tank Corps Diary upon which Chapters [XXIX], [XXXIII], [XXXV], and [XXXVII] are founded.

Taking now the chapters seriatim, I have to thank Major G. W. G. Allen, M.C., G.S.O.2, War Office,[1] for parts of [Chapter I], and also the editors of The American Machinist and The Engineer for allowing me to quote respectively from the following admirable articles: “The Forerunner of the Tank,” by H. H. Manchester, and “The Evolution of the Chain Track Tractor”; Sir Eustace Tennyson D’Eyncourt, K.C.B., Director of Naval Construction, the Admiralty, and Major-General E. D. Swinton, C.B., D.S.O., both pioneers of the tanks, and indefatigable workers in the cause, for much of the information in Chapters [II] and [IV]; Major H. S. Sayer, G.S.0.2, War Office,[2] for [Chapter III]; Major O. A. Forsyth-Major, Second in Command of the Palestine Tank Detachment, for the reports relative to the second and third battles of Gaza, upon which Chapters [XI] and [XVII] are based; Major S. H. Foot, D.S.O., G.S.O.2, War Office,[3] my close friend and fearless assistant, for suggestions generally, and particularly in [Chapter XVI]. My thanks are also due to some unknown but far-sighted benefactor of the Tank Corps for [Chapter XX]; to Lieutenant-Colonel D. W. Bradley, D.S.O., and Brigadier-General E. B. Mathew-Lannowe, C.M.G., D.S.O., G.O.C. Tank Corps Training Centre, Wool, for information regarding the Depot in [Chapter XXI]; to the relentlessly inventive Lieutenant-Colonel L. C. A. de B. Doucet, O.C. Tank Carrier Units, and so commander of the first supply fleet which ever “set sail” on land, for information to be found in [Chapter XXII]; to Lieutenant-Colonel J. D. M. Molesworth, M.C., A.D.A.S., Tank Corps, who in spite of the scholastics gave the lie to the tag Ex nihilo nihil fit, for parts of [Chapter XXIV]; to Major R. Spencer, M.C., Liaison Officer, Tank Corps, whose unfailing charm and insight always succeeded in extracting from our brave Allies not only the glamour of great adventures but the detail of truthful occurrences, for the events described in Chapters [XXV] and [XXXVI]; to Major F. E. Hotblack, D.S.O., M.C., G.S.O.2, War Office,[4] my friend and companion, who unfailingly would guide any one over wire and shell-hole immune and unscathed, for Chapters [XXVIII], [XXXI], and [XXXIV]; to Lieutenant C. B. Arnold, D.S.O., Commander of Whippet Tank “Musical Box,” for the simple and heroic exploit related in [Chapter XXX]; to Major T. L. Leigh Mallory, D.S.O., O.C. 8th Squadron, R.A.F., whose energy resulted not only in the cementing of a close comradeship between the two supreme mechanical weapons of the age but of a close co-operation which saved many lives in battle, for much of [Chapter XXXII]; to Lieutenant-Colonel E. J. Carter, O.C. 17th Tank Armoured Car Battalion, who was as great a terror to the German Corps Commanders as Paul Jones was to the Manchester merchantmen and who had the supreme honour to break over the Rhine the first British flag—the colours of the Tank Corps—for [Chapter XXXVIII].

It was a great brotherhood, the Tank Corps, and if there were “duds” in it there certainly were not old ones, for the Commander of the Corps, Major-General H. J. Elles, C.B., D.S.O., was under forty, and most of his staff and subordinate commanders were younger than himself. Youth is apt, rightly, to be enthusiastic, and General Elles must frequently have had a trying time in regulating this enthusiasm, canalising it forward against the enemy and backward diplomatically towards our friends.

We of the Tank Corps Headquarters Staff knew what we wanted. Realising the power of the machine which the brains of England had created, we never hesitated over a “No” when we knew that hundreds if not thousands of lives depended on a “Yes.”

Modestly, looking back on the war from a comfortable armchair in London, I see clearly, quite clearly, that we were right. The war has proved it, and our endeavours were not in vain. We were right, and youth generally is right, for it possesses mental elasticity, its brains are plastic and not polarised. The mental athlete is the young man: the Great War, like all other wars, has proved this again and again. We have heard much of Hindenburg and Ludendorff, but they scoffed at the tank just as Wurmser and Alvinzi scoffed at the ragged voltigeurs of the Army of Italy with which the Little Corporal was, in 1796, about to astonish Europe. We have also astonished Europe, we who wandered over the Somme battlefield with dimmed eyes, and over the Flanders swamps with a lump in our throats.

There was Colonel F. Searle, C.B.E., D.S.O., Chief Engineer of the Corps, a true civilian with a well-cut khaki jacket and lion-tamer’s boots. He could not understand the military ritual, and we soldiers seemed never to be able to explain it to him. Throughout the war, in spite of his immense mechanical labours, I verily believe he had only one wish, and this was to erect a guillotine outside a certain holy place. There was Major G. A. Green, M.C., Colonel Searle’s deputy, the father of terrible propositions, the visitor of battlefields, the searcher after shell-holes, the breather of profane words. The Corps owed a lot to Green; a firm believer in seeing things before criticising them, he was a very great asset.

The “King of Grocers,” this was Colonel T.J. Uzielli, D.S.O., M.C., D.A. and Q.M.G. of the Corps, business-like, and an administrator from boot to crown. Suave yet fearless, tactful yet truthful, the Corps owed much to his ability. It was never left in want, his decision gave it what it asked for, his prevision cut down this asking to a minimum. Ably seconded by Major H. C. Atkin-Berry, D.S.O., M.C., and Major R. W. Dundas, M.C., the “A” and “Q” branches of the Tank Corps Staff formed the foundation of the Corps’ efficiency.

On the “G” side there was myself. Under me came Major G. le Q. Martel, D.S.O., M.C., very much R.E. and still more tanks, the man who “sloshed” friend or foe. One day, in March 1918, I was at Fricourt, then none too healthy. Martel walked down the road: “Where are you going?” I shouted. “To Montauban,” he answered. “I hear it is full of Boche,” I replied. “Well, I will go and see,” said Martel, and off he moved eastwards. There was Major F. E. Hotblack, D.S.O., M.C., lover of beauty and battles, a mixture of Abelard and Marshal Ney. Were Ninon de l’Enclos alive he would have been at her elbow; as she is dust, he, instead, collected “troddels”[5] off dead Germans—a somewhat remarkable character. As G.S.O.2 Training, Major H. Boyd-Rochfort, D.S.O., M.C., from West Meath, his enthusiasm for tanks nearly wrecked a famous corps; yet Boyd only smiled, and his smile somehow always reminded one of Peter Kelly’s whisky, there was a handshake or a fight in it. The two G.S.O.s3 were Captain the Hon. E. Charteris and Captain I. M. Stewart, M.C. Charteris was the “Arbiter Elegantiarum” of our Headquarters. He kept the Corps’ records, as already stated, and without these it would scarcely have been possible to write this history. He was our maître d’hôtel; he gave us beach nut bacon and honey for breakfast, kept his weather eye open for a one-armed man, elaborated menus which rivalled those of Trimalchio, and gave sparkle to us all by the ripple of his wit. Lastly, Ian Stewart of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. In kilts, no girl between Hekla and Erebus has ever been known to resist him; but his efforts, whilst in the Tank Corps, did not lie in conquering hearts but in perpetually worrying my unfortunate self to become party to his own suicide—for nothing would keep him from the battlefield.

The first three brigadiers of the Corps were all remarkable men. Brigadier-General C. D’A. B. S. Baker-Carr, C.M.G., D.S.O., commanding the 1st Tank Brigade, started the war as a gentleman chauffeur, a most cheery companion, the Murat of the Corps, ever ready for a battle or a game. I remember him at Montenescourt, during the battle of Arras 1917, fighting with the telephone, at Ypres fighting with the mud, at Cambrai fighting with a comfortable, vacant, rotund little man, but ever cheerful and prepared to meet you with a smile and a glass of old brandy. Commanding the 2nd Tank Brigade was Brigadier-General A. Courage, D.S.O., M.C. He possessed only half a jaw, having lost the rest at Ypres; yet at conferences he was a host in himself, and what a “pow-wow” must have been like before the Boche bullet hit him is not even to be found in the works of the great Munchausen. No detail escaped his eye, no trouble was too great, and no fatigue sufficient to suggest a pause. The successes of Hamel and Moreuil in 1918 were due to his energy, and on these successes was the battle of Amiens founded. The last of the original Brigadiers was Brigadier-General J. Hardress-Lloyd, D.S.O., commanding the 3rd Tank Brigade. He started the war as a stowaway. This resulted in no one ever discovering what his substantive rank was; by degrees a myth as to his origin was cultivated by innumerable “A” clerks both in France and England; these lived and throve on this mystery, which no doubt will at a distant date be elucidated by some future Lemprière. Hardress-Lloyd was one of the main causes of the battle of Cambrai. He, I believe, introduced the idea to General Sir Julian Byng, this away back in August 1917. Hardress-Lloyd was a man of big ideas and always kept a good table and a fine stable—in fact, a beau sabreur. I will leave Hardress at that.

Above are to be sought the real foundations of the Corps’ efficiency under its gallant Commander, Major-General H. J. Elles, C.B., D.S.O., who endowed it with that high moral, that fine esprit de corps and jaunty esprit de cocarde which impelled it from one success to another. These foundations no future historian is likely to be so intimately acquainted with as I—and now for the story.[6]

The history itself is purposely uncritical, because any criticism which might have been included is so similar to that directed against the introducers of the locomotive and the motor-car that it would be but a repetition, tedious enough to the reader, were it here repeated.

Human opinion is conservative by instinct, and what to mankind is most heterodox is that which is most novel: this is a truism in war as it is in politics or religion. It took 1000 years for gunpowder to transform war. In 1590, a certain Sir John Smythe wrote a learned work: “Certain discourses concerning the forms and effects of divers sorts of weapons, and other very important matters militarie, greatlie mistaken by divers of our men of warre in these daies; and chiefly, of the Mosquet, the Caliver, and the Long-bow; as also of the great sufficiencie, excellencie and wonderful effects of Archers,” in which he extols an obsolete weapon and decries a more modern one—the arquebus. “For the reactionaries of his time George Stephenson with his locomotive was the original villan of the piece; he was received with unbridled abuse and persecution. Most of Stephenson’s time was spent in fighting fools.”[7] At the beginning of the present century nearly every English country gentleman swore that nothing would ever induce him to exchange his carriage for a motor-car—yet the locomotive and the motor-car have triumphed, and triumphed so completely that all that their inventors claimed for them appears to-day as hostile criticism against their accomplishments.

So with the tank, it has come not only to stay but to revolutionise, and I for one, enthusiastic as I am, do not for a minute doubt that my wildest dreams about its future will not only be realised but surpassed, and that from its clumsy endeavours in the Great War will arise a completely new direction in the art of warfare itself.

That the Tank had, and still has, many doubters, many open critics, is true enough; but there is no disparagement in this, rather is it a compliment, for the masses of mankind are myopic, and had they accepted it with acclaim how difficult would it have been for it even to come, let alone stay and grow.

The criticism directed against this greatest military invention of the war was the stone upon which its progress was whetted. Without criticism we might still have Big Willie, but we enthusiasts determined that not only would we break down this criticism by means of the machine itself, but that we would render our very machine ridiculous by machines of a better type, and it is ridicule which kills. So we proceeded, and as type followed type, victory followed victory. Then our critics tacked and veered: it was not the tank they objected to but our opinions regarding it; they were overstatements; why, we should soon be claiming for it powers to boil their morning tea and shave them whilst still in bed. Why not? If such acts are required, a tank can be built to accomplish them, because the tank possesses power and energy, and energy is the motive force of all things.

It is just this point that the critics missed; their minds being controlled by the conventions of the day. They could not see that if the horse-power in a man is x, that the circumference of his activities is a circle with x as its radius. They could not see that if the horse-power of a machine is 100x; its circumference will be vastly greater than that of man’s; neither could they see that whilst in man x is constant, provided the man is supplied regularly with beef, bread and beer, in a machine x may be increased almost indefinitely, and that if a circle with n as its circumference will not embrace the problem, probably all that is necessary is to add more x’s to its radius. Indeed, the science of mechanics is simplicity itself when compared with that of psychology, and as in war mechanics grow so will psychology, in comparison, dwindle, until perhaps we may see in armies as complete a change from hand-weapons to machine-weapons as we have seen in our workshops from hand-tools to machine-tools, and the economy will be as proportionate.

Before the Great War I was a believer in conscription and in the Nation in Arms; I was an 1870 soldier. My sojourn in the Tank Corps has dissipated these ideas. Today I am a believer in war mechanics, that is, in a mechanical army which requires few men and powerful machines. Equally am I a disbeliever in what a venerable acquaintance, old in ideas rather than years, said to me on the afternoon of November 11th, 1918. These are his words, and I repeat them as he exclaimed them: “Thank God we can now get back to real soldiering!”

J. F. C. F.

Langham Hotel, London, W.1.
November 20, 1919.

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

TANKS IN THE GREAT WAR

CHAPTER I
THE ORIGINS OF THE TANK

In war the main problem to solve is—“How to give blows without receiving them”; it has always been so and is likely always to remain so, for battles are two-act tragedies: the first act consisting in hitting and the second in securing oneself against being hit.

If we look back on the 4,000 years of the known history of war, we shall find that its problems are always the same: thus in battle the soldier has to think of four main acts:

(i) How to strike his opponent when at a distance from him;

(ii) How to move forward towards him;

(iii) How to strike him at close quarters;

(iv) How to prevent himself being struck throughout the whole of this engagement.

In these four acts must be sought the origins of the tank, the idea of which is, therefore, much older than the Trojan horse; indeed, it dates back to some unknown period when aboriginal man raised his arm to ward off the blow of an infuriated beast or neighbour.

To ward off a blow with the bare skin is sometimes a painful operation; why not then cover the arm with leather or iron, why not carry a shield, why not encase the whole body in steel so that both arms instead of one may be used to hit with, for then man’s offensive power will be doubled?

If we look back on the Middle Ages, we find that such a condition of fighting was actually possible and that knights clad in armour cap-à-pie were practically invulnerable. As regards these times there is an authentic record concerning twenty-five knights in armour who rode out one day and met a great mob of insurgent peasants which they charged and routed, killing and wounding no fewer than 1,200 of them, without sustaining a single casualty themselves. To all intents and purposes, these knights were living tanks—a combination of muscular energy, protective armour, and offensive weapons.

Knights in armour remained practically invulnerable as long as the propellant for missile weapons was limited to the bow-string and as long as the knights fought within the limitations which their armour imposed upon them. At Crécy and similar battles, the chivalry of France suffered defeat more through the condition of ground they attempted to negotiate, than through the arrows of the English archers. They, in fact, became “ditched” like a tank in the mud, and being rendered immobile, fell an easy prey to the enemy’s men-at-arms. A fact which proves that it was not the arrow which generally destroyed the knight is that the archers were equipped with maces or leaden hammers[8] by means of which the knight could, when once bogged or “bellied,” be stunned, rendered innocuous, his armour opened, and he himself taken prisoner for ransom.

Diagram 1. Scottish War Cart, 1456.

The true banisher of armour was gunpowder, for when once the thickest armour, which human energy would permit of being worn, could be penetrated, it became but an encumbrance to its wearer. Though gunpowder was introduced as a missile propellant on the battlefield as early as the twelfth century, it was not until the close of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries that its influence began to be felt, and it is interesting to note that directly it became apparent that the hand gun would beat armour carried by men, other means of carrying it were introduced. These means took the form of battle cars or mobile fortresses.[9] Conrad Kyeser,[10] in his military manuscript, written between 1395 and 1405, pictures several “battle cars.” Some of these are equipped with lances, whilst others are armed with cannon. A few years later, in 1420, Fontana designed a large “battle car,” and the following year Archinger another, to enclose no fewer than 100 men. All these cars were moved by means of muscle power, i.e. men or animals harnessed inside them. A picture of one of these is to be found in Francis Grose’s Military Antiquities, vol. I, p. 388 (see [Diagram 1]). Its crew consisted of eight men, the same as the Mark I Tank. The following extract concerning these carts is of interest:

“Another species of artillery were the war carts, each carrying two Peteraros or chamber’d pieces; several of these carts are represented in the Cowdry picture of the siege of Bullogne, one of which is given in this work; these carts seem to have been borrowed from the Scotch; Henry, in his History of England, mentions them as peculiar to that nation, and quotes the two following acts of parliament respecting them; one A.D. 1456 wherein they are thus described: ‘it is tocht speidfull that the King mak requiest to certain of the great burrows of the land that are of ony myght, to mak carts of weir, and in elk cart twa gunnis and ilk one to have twa chalmers, with the remnant of the graith that effeirs thereto, and an cunnard man to shute thame.’ By another Act, A.D. 1471, the prelates and barons are commanded to provide such carts of war against their old enemies the English (Black Acts, James II, Act 52, James III, Act 55).”

With all these war carts the limitations imposed upon them by muscular motive force must have been considerable on any save perfectly firm and level ground, consequently other means of movement were attempted, and during the last quarter of the fifteenth century the battle car enters its second phase. In a work of Valturio’s dated 1472, a design is to be found of one of these vehicles propelled by means of wind wheels (see [Diagram 2]). Ten years later we find Leonardo da Vinci engaged in the design of another type of self-moving machine. Writing to Ludovico Sforza he says:

“I am building secure and covered chariots which are invulnerable, and when they advance with their guns into the midst of the foe, even the largest enemy masses must retreat; and behind them the infantry can follow in safety and without opposition.”

Diagram 2. Valturio’s War Chariot, 1472.

What the motive force of this engine of war was is unknown, but the above description is that of the tank of today, in fact so accurate is this description that Leonardo da Vinci, nearly 350 years ago, had a clearer idea of a tank operation than many a British soldier had prior to the battle of Cambrai, fourteen months after the first tank had taken the field.

Diagram 3. Holzschuher’s Battle Car, 1558.

A somewhat similar self-moving wagon was designed for Maximilian I and in 1558 Holzschuher describes a battle car a picture of which shows it in action preceded by infantry and flanked by cavalry (see [Diagram 3]).

In 1599 Simon Stevin is supposed to have constructed for the Prince of Orange two veritable landships; these consisted in small battleships fully rigged, mounted upon wheels (see [Diagram 4]).

Diagram 4. Simon Stevin’s Landship, 1599.

“The earliest English patent for a self-moving wagon which could, if desired, be used in war, was probably that taken out by David Ramsey in 1634. In 1658 Caspar Schott designed one to inclose 100 men and to be employed against the Turks.”[11]

All the users of these inventions were destined to disappointment, for the science of mechanics was not sufficiently advanced to render self-movement practical and it was not until the middle of the eighteenth century that a fresh attempt was made to reintroduce so essential a weapon as the war cart. The following account of this reintroduction is quoted from Mr. Manchester’s most interesting article:

“After the practical application of steam by Watt in 1765 we find an early attempt to apply it to land transportation in what must be considered the first steam automobile. As early as 1769 Cugnot in France set a steam boiler upon the frame of a wagon and succeeded in making the wagon go. His idea was that this invention could be used in war, and on this presumption he was the next year assisted by the government to construct an improvement. The speed, however, was scarcely more than 2½ miles an hour, and the machine would run only twenty minutes before it had to stop for fifteen minutes to get up more steam. In his first public trial he had the ill-luck to run into and knock down part of a stone wall. This led to his being temporarily cast into jail, and his experiments were abandoned. Napoleon must have visualised the possibilities of Cugnot’s machine for military purposes, for when the great general was selected a member of the French Institute, the subject of his paper was ‘The Automobile in War.’”

The “battle car” had now, at least experimentally, evolved into the steam wagon which could run on roads; the next step was to invent one which would move in any direction across country, in other words to replace the wheels by tracks. The evolution of the caterpillar tractor brings us to the fourth phase in the evolution of the “battle car.”

The idea of distributing the weight of a vehicle over a greater area than that provided by its own wheels is by no means a novel one; one year after Cugnot produced the first steam automobile Richard Lovell Edgeworth patented a device whereby a portable railway could be attached to a wheeled carriage; it consisted of several pieces of wood which moved in regular succession in such a manner that a sufficient length of railing was constantly at rest for the wheels to roll upon. The principle of this device was but a modification of that upon which the tracks of tanks now depend, and all subsequent ideas were founded on this basis.[12]

The endless chain track passed through various early patents. In 1801 Thomas German produced “a means of facilitating the transit of carriages by substituting endless chains or a series of rollers for the ordinary wheels.” This definitely cut adrift from the idea of wheels and replaced it by that of tracks. In 1812 William Palmer produced a somewhat similar invention, and in 1821 John Richard Barry patented a contrivance consisting of two endless pitched chains, stretched out and passing round two chain wheels at the end of the carriage, one on each side, which formed the rails or bearing surface of the vehicle.

Footed wheels were not, however, abandoned, and in 1846 a picture of the Boydell engine shows the wheels of this machine fitted with feet. In 1861 an improved wheel-foot was patented by Andrew Dunlop which was modified by other inventors and by degrees evolved into the pedrail, trials of which were carried out at Aldershot under the War Office in 1905.

In 1882 Guillaume Fender of Buenos Aires suggested and John Newburn patented certain improvements to endless tracks. Fender realised that the attempts to produce endless travelling railways had not met with great success owing to the shortness of the rails or tracks employed; he, therefore, proposed that their length should be the same as the distance between the vehicle’s axles. If it were desired to have short links the number of wheels must be increased; furthermore, should the tractor be used for hauling a train of wagons, the endless track should be long enough to embrace all the wheels. This is the original idea of the all-round track.

Diagram 5. The Applegarth Tractor, 1886.

Among the many interesting patents of about this date were the Applegarth tractor of 1886 (see [Diagram 5]) and the Batter tractor of 1888. In the former the forward portion of the track was inclined and suggests the contour of the track as applied to the front of tanks. The track being raised in front gives an initial elevation when an obstacle is met with and very greatly assists in surmounting banks and other irregularities.

[Diagram 6] depicts the Batter tractor and it clearly shows the basic ideas which have been employed in tank transmission and tank design. This tractor was patented in the U.S.A., it was furnished with two tracks, their contour very closely resembling those of the Medium Mark “A” (Whippet) and gun-carrier machines (see Plates [III] and [VII]) The motive power was steam, and two separate engines, fed by one boiler, were used, one to drive each track; apparently provision was made, if desired, for the crankshafts of these engines to be clutched together. Each track consisted of two endless belts, an inner and an outer; the outer belt, that which impinges on the ground, was composed of shoes arranged transversely and coupled together. Between the outer belt and the rollers ran the inner belt. The inner belt or link was of much less width than the outer and thus allowed the latter to swivel and adapt itself to irregularities of the ground, whilst the working of the rollers was not interfered with. A system almost identical with this one has recently been adopted for tank tracks.

The rollers were alternately flanged and plain, as on tanks. Two tails for steering and balancing the machine were fitted; a similar idea was adopted on Mark I machines and gun carriers, but subsequently discarded.

The general introduction of the internal-combustion engine and petrol as a fuel gave a further impetus to the tracked machine. In 1900 Frank Bramond patented a track which could be applied to pneumatic-tyred vehicles, either to single wheels or to two pairs of wheels. In 1907 a Rochet-Schneider was fitted with a track by Roberts and tested at Aldershot. This car was exhibited together with a 70 h.p. Hornsby chain-track tractor and took part in the Royal Review at Aldershot in May 1908. This same year Hornsby fitted up a 75 h.p. Mercedes motor-car with a track to demonstrate its advantages for high-speed work on sand. “This car was run daily for five months at Skegness, on loose sand, and it is understood that a speed of twenty miles an hour was obtained.”[13]

Of later years, American inventors and manufacturers have made great progress in chain-track tractors, but practically all the principles of design were originally applied in Great Britain. The Holt caterpillar is the outstanding American design for tractors which has been adopted during the war.

The Engineer.]

Diagram 6. The Batter Tractor, 1888.

The Engineer.]

Diagram 6a. The Batter Tractor, 1888.

It is interesting to note with reference to the above inventions that neither Germany nor Austria ever appears to have contributed any basic suggestion relating to track-driven machines.

To return now to the military aspect of our subject, gunpowder did away with armour, for if armour can be pierced its defensive value is lost and it only becomes an encumbrance to the wearer by reducing his mobility and exhausting his muscular energy. Did this change the main problem in the art of war? Not at all, for “the giving of blows without receiving them” remains the unchangeable object of battle irrespective of the change of weapons, and all that happened was, that the soldier, no longer being able to seek protection by body-armour, sought it elsewhere—by manœuvring, by covering fire and entrenchments as typified in the drill of Frederick the Great, the cannonades and sharpshooters’ fire of Napoleon, the fortifications of Vauban, and later on the use of ground by Wellington as cover from fire.

The opening of the war in 1914 saw all sides equipped with similar weapons and in comparatively similar proportions. The great sweep of the Germans through Belgium was followed by the battle of the Marne, a generic term for a series of bloody engagements which raged from Lorraine to Paris. Then came the great reaction—the German retreat to the Aisne, the heights along which had been hastily prepared for defence. The battle swayed whilst vigour lasted and then stabilised as exhaustion intervened. At first cautiously, then rapidly, did the right flank of the German Armies and the left flank of those of the French and British seek to out-manœuvre each other. This led to the race for the coast. Meanwhile came the landing of the British 7th Division at Zeebrugge and then the First Battle of Ypres, which closed the German offensive on the British front for three years and four months.

The quick-firing field-gun and the machine-gun, used defensively, proved too strong for the endurance of the attackers, who were forced to seek safety by means of their spades, rather than through their rifles. Whole fronts were entrenched, and before the end of 1914, except for a few small breaks, a man could have walked by trench, had he wished to, from Nieuport almost into Switzerland.

With the trench came wire entanglements—the horror of the attack, and the trinity of trench, machine-gun, and wire, made the defence so strong that each offensive operation in turn was brought to a standstill.

The problem which then confronted us was a twofold one:

Firstly, how could the soldier in the attack be protected against shrapnel, shell-splinters, and bullets? Helmets were reintroduced, armour was tried, shields were invented, but all to no great purpose.

Secondly, even if bullet-proof armour could be invented, which it certainly could, how were men laden down with it going to get through the wire entanglements which protected every position?

Three definite solutions were attempted—the first, artillery; the second, gas; and the third, tanks—each of which is a definite answer to our problem if the conditions are favourable for its use. Thus at the battle of the Dunajec, in the spring of 1915, the fire of Mackensen’s massed artillery smashed the Russian front; this success being due as much to the fewness of the Russian guns as to the skill of that great soldier. At the Second Battle of Ypres the German surprise gas attack succeeded because the British and French possessed no antidote. At the First Battle of Cambrai, the use of tanks on good firm ground proved an overwhelming success, whilst at the Third Battle of Ypres, on account of the mud, they were an all but complete failure.

All armies attempted the first method by increasing the number of their guns, the size of their guns, and the quantity of their ammunition. So thoroughly was this done that whole sectors of an enemy’s front were blasted out of recognition. This, however, was only accomplished after all surprise had been sacrificed by obvious preparation during which notice and time were given to the enemy to mass his reserves in order to meet the attack. Further than this, though the enemy’s wire and trenches were destroyed all communications on his side of “No Man’s Land” were obliterated, with the result that a new obstacle, “the crumped area,” proved as formidable an antagonist to a continuous advance, by hampering supply, as uncut wire had done to a successful assault, by forbidding infantry movement.

Instead of solving the problem: “How could mobility be reintroduced on the Western Front?” the great increase in artillery, during 1915 and 1916, only complicated it, for, though the preliminary bombardment cut the wire and blew in the enemy’s trenches and the creeping barrage protected the infantry in a high degree, every artillery attack during two years ended in failure due to want of surprise at its initiation and the impossibility of adequate supply during its progress.

The Germans attempted the second method—gas, and from the Second Battle of Ypres the chemist fell in alongside the soldier. That gas might have won the war is to-day too obvious to need accentuation. Two conditions were alone requisite—sufficient gas and a favourable wind. Fortunately for us the German did not wait long enough to manufacture gas in quantity; unfortunately for them the prevailing wind on the Western Front is westerly, consequently when we and the French retaliated they got more than they ever gave us.

The introduction of gas still further complicated the problem, for, whilst it is easy for the defender to launch gas clouds, it is difficult for an attacker to do so, consequently once soldiers had been equipped with respirators the defence gained by this method of fighting and warfare became still more immobile.

As regards the British front the opening day of the First Battle of the Somme, July 1, 1916, showed, through the terrible casualty lists which followed, how far the defence had become the stronger form of war. At no date in the whole history of the war was a stalemate termination to all our endeavours more certain. The hopes of nearly two years were shattered in a few hours before the ruins of Thiepval, Serre, and Gommecourt, where our men fell in thousands before the deadly machine-gun fire of the enemy. Eleven weeks later, on September 15, a solution to the problem became apparent, a solution due to the efforts of a small band of men, of whose energy and endeavours the next chapter will relate.

CHAPTER II
THE INVENTION OF THE LANDSHIP

It is not proposed in this chapter to give an answer to the question: “Who first thought of the tank?” The idea of combining mobility with offensive power and armour, as the previous chapter has shown, is a very old one, so old and so universal throughout history that, when the Great War broke out in 1914, many soldiers and civilians alike must have considered ways and means of reintroducing the knight in armour and the battle car by replacing muscular energy by mechanical force—in other words, by applying petrol to the needs of the battlefield.

During August and September 1914, armoured cars had been employed with considerable success in Belgium and north-western France. This no doubt brought with it the revival of the idea. Be this as it may, in October of this year Lieutenant-Colonel (now Major-General) E. D. Swinton put forward a suggestion for the construction of an armoured car on the Holt tractor or a similar caterpillar system, capable of crushing down wire entanglements and crossing trenches.

At the same time, Captain T. G. Tulloch, manager of the Chilworth Powder Company, was also devoting his attention to the possibility of constructing a land cruiser sufficiently armoured to enable it to penetrate right up to the enemy’s gun and howitzer positions. In November the idea was communicated by Captain Tulloch to Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton and to Lieutenant-Colonel (now Colonel Sir Maurice) Hankey, Secretary to the “Committee of Imperial Defence,” and later on to Mr. Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, who, in January 1915, wrote his now historic letter to Mr. Asquith:

“My Dear Prime Minister,

“I entirely agree with Colonel Hankey’s remarks on the subject of special mechanical devices for taking trenches. It is extraordinary that the Army in the field and the War Office should have allowed nearly three months of warfare to progress without addressing their minds to its special problems.

“The present war has revolutionised all military theories about the field of fire. The power of the rifle is so great that 100 yards is held sufficient to stop any rush, and in order to avoid the severity of the artillery fire, trenches are often dug on the reverse slope of positions, or a short distance in the rear of villages, woods, or other obstacles. The consequence is that the war has become a short-range instead of a long-range war as was expected, and opposing trenches get ever closer together, for mutual safety from each other’s artillery fire.

“The question to be solved is not, therefore, the long attack over a carefully prepared glacis of former times, but the actual getting across 100 or 200 yards of open space and wire entanglements. All this was apparent more than two months ago, but no steps have been taken and no preparations made.

“It would be quite easy in a short time to fit up a number of steam tractors with small armoured shelters, in which men and machine-guns could be placed, which would be bullet-proof. Used at night they would not be affected by artillery fire to any extent. The caterpillar system would enable trenches to be crossed quite easily, and the weight of the machine would destroy all wire entanglements.

“Forty or fifty of these engines, prepared secretly and brought into positions at nightfall, could advance quite certainly into the enemy’s trenches, smashing away all the obstructions and sweeping the trenches with their machine-gun fire, and with grenades thrown out of the top. They would then make so many points d’appui for the British supporting infantry to rush forward and rally on them. They can then move forward to attack the second line of trenches.

“The cost would be small. If the experiment did not answer, what harm would be done? An obvious measure of prudence would have been to have started something like this two months ago. It should certainly be done now.

“The shield is another obvious experiment which should have been made on a considerable scale. What does it matter which is the best pattern? A large number should have been made of various patterns; some to carry, some to wear, some to wheel. If the mud now prevents the working of shields or traction engines, the first frost would render them fully effective. With a view to this I ordered a month ago twenty shields on wheels, to be made on the best design the Naval Air Service could devise. These will be ready shortly, and can, if need be, be used for experimental purposes.

“A third device, which should be used systematically and on a large scale, is smoke artificially produced. It is possible to make small smoke barrels which, on being lighted, generate a great volume of dense black smoke, which could be turned off or on at will. There are other matters closely connected with this to which I have already drawn your attention, but which are of so secret a character, that I do not put them down on paper.

“One of the most serious dangers that we are exposed to is the possibility that the Germans are acting and preparing all these surprises, and that we may at any time find ourselves exposed to some entirely new form of attack. A committee of engineering officers and other experts ought to be sitting continually at the War Office to formulate schemes and examine suggestions, and I would repeat that it is not possible in most cases to have lengthy experiments beforehand.

“If the devices are to be ready by the time they are required it is indispensable that manufacture should proceed simultaneously with experiments. The worst that can happen is that a comparatively small sum of money is wasted.

“Yours, etc.”

At about the time that the above letter was written, Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton again brought the matter forward and urged the desirability of action being taken, but as it was stated that the design and building of Captain Tulloch’s machine would take a year to complete it appears that this led to the proposals being shelved for the time being.

On June 1, 1915, Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton, who had then returned to France, submitted an official memorandum on the above subject to G.H.Q., which was passed to Major-General G. H. Fowke, Engineer-in-Chief, for his expert opinion. This memorandum may be summarised as follows:

The main German offensive was taking place in Russia; consequently, in order to attain a maximum strength in the east, it was incumbent on the Germans to maintain a minimum one in the west; and, in order to meet the shortage of men on the Western Front, the Germans were mainly basing their defence on the machine-gun.

The problem, consequently, was one of how to overcome the German machine-gunners. There were two solutions to this problem:

(i) Sufficient artillery to blast a way through the enemy’s lines.

(ii) The introduction of armoured machine-gun destroyers.

As regards the second solution Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton laid down the following requirements: Speed, 4 miles per hour; climbing power, 5 ft.; spanning power, 5 ft.; radius of action, 20 miles; weight, about 8 tons; crew, 10 men; armament, 2 machine-guns and one light Q.F. gun. Further, he suggested that these machines should be used in a surprise assault having first been concealed behind our own front line in specially constructed pits about 100 yards apart. In this paper it was also pointed out that these destroyers would be of great value in a gas attack, as they would enable the most scientific means of overcoming gas to be carried.

The above memorandum was favourably considered by Sir John French, then Commander-in-Chief in France, and, on June 22, was submitted by him to the War Office with a suggestion that Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton should visit England and explain his scheme more fully.

While Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton and Captain Tulloch were urging their proposals, a third scheme was brought forward by Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon in connection with which the Secretary of State, in January 1915, ordered trials to be carried out with a 105 h.p. Foster-Daimler tractor fitted with a bridging apparatus for crossing trenches. At about the same time similar trials were made with a 120 h.p. Holt caterpillar tractor at Shoeburyness in connection with Captain Tulloch’s scheme. Both experiments proved a failure.

The position, therefore, in June, so far as the Army was concerned, was as follows: Proposals had been put forward by Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton, Admiral Bacon, and Captain Tulloch, and submitted to the War Office. Certain trials had been made, the result of which, in the view of the authorities, was to emphasise the engineering and other difficulties to be overcome. It was only in June 1915 that Major-General Sir George Scott-Moncrieff, Director of Fortifications and Works, War Office, who, throughout the initial period, had shown a strong interest in the development of the idea, ascertained that investigations on similar lines were being carried out by the Admiralty; he at once proposed that a “Joint Naval and Military Committee” should be formed for the purpose of dealing with the subject generally. This Committee was constituted on June 15.

The work done by the Admiralty had so far been independent. In February 1915, Mr. Churchill sent to Mr. E. H. T. (now Sir Eustace) D’Eyncourt, Director of Naval Construction, a copy of the notes embodying the proposals set forth by Major T. G. Hetherington (18th Hussars), R.N.A.S., for a new type of war machine. This machine may be described as a veritable Juggernaut, heavily armoured, highly offensive, and capable of moving across country.

It consisted of a platform mounted on three wheels, two driving wheels in front and the steering wheel behind. It was to be equipped with three turrets each containing two 4-in. guns and its motive power was to be derived from a 800 h.p. Sunbeam Diesel set of engines.

The problem of design was examined by the Air Department engineers and the following rough data, worked out at the time, are of interest:

The cross-country qualities of the machine it was considered would prove good. It could not be bogged in any ground passable by cavalry; it could pass over water obstacles having good banks and from 20 ft. to 30 ft. width of waterway; it could ford waterways 15 ft. deep if the bottoms were good, and negotiate isolated obstacles up to 20 ft. high. Small obstacles such as banks, ditches, bridges, trenches, wire entanglements, and ordinary woodland it could roll over easily.

Mr. D’Eyncourt considered this proposal, but coming to the conclusion that the machine would weigh more than 1,000 tons, it became apparent to him that its construction was not a practical proposition.

Mr. D’Eyncourt pointed this out to Mr. Churchill and suggested that Major Hetherington’s machine should be replaced by one of a smaller and less ambitious type. To this Mr. Churchill agreed, and to deal with this question a “Landships Committee” was formed consisting of the following gentlemen:

Chairman.
Mr. D’Eyncourt.
Members.
Major Hetherington, Colonel Dumble, Mr. Dale
Bussell (appointed later).
Consultant.
Colonel R. E. Crompton.
Secretary (appointed later).
Lieutenant Stern.

Prior to the formation of this Committee another proposal had been set on foot. About November 14, 1914, Mr. Diplock of the Pedrail Company had put forward certain suggestions for the use of the pedrail for the transportation of heavy guns and war material over rough ground. After interviewing Lord Kitchener, who saw no utility in the suggestion, Mr. Diplock was referred to the Admiralty and there saw Mr. Churchill, who, taking up the matter with interest, suggested that a one-ton truck should be brought to the Horse Guards Parade for his inspection. Major Hetherington undertook to arrange this, and on February 12, 1915, a demonstration of the Pedrail machine took place.

This so impressed Mr. Churchill that he decided that a pedrail armoured car should be built.

The “Landships Committee” communicated with Messrs. William Foster, Ltd., of Lincoln, who were already making heavy tractors for the Admiralty, and Mr. (now Sir William) Tritton, their manager, was asked to collaborate in evolving two designs:

The first of the wheel tractor type.

The second of the pedrail type—
the latter being the alternative recommended by the chairman and the Pedrail Company.

Both these designs seemed to have some promising features. The First Lord, on March 26, approved of an order being placed for twelve of the pedrail type and six of the wheel type.

The design of the pedrail machine was produced by the Pedrail Company; its length was 38 ft., its width 12 ft. 6 in., and height 10 ft. 6 in. The most interesting feature connected with this machine was that it was mounted on two bogies one behind the other, steering being rendered possible by articulating these bogies in the same horizontal plane, which gave an extreme turning radius of 65ft.

After Mr. Churchill’s resignation from the Admiralty the production of the twelve pedrail cars was abandoned in spite of the fact that the engines and most of the material had been provided.

The design work was, however, continued under the direction of the “Landships Committee,” and, a little later on, caterpillar tractors for experimental purposes were obtained from America. In the meantime the question of design was discussed with Mr. Tritton, and at the same time Lieutenant (now Major) W. G. Wilson, an experienced engineer, was brought in as consultant, and a design was evolved which eventually embodied the form finally adopted and adhered to for tanks. Thus it was through the “Landships Committee,” at a moment when the military authorities were inclined to regard the difficulties connected with the problem as likely to prove insuperable, that the landship or “tank,” as it was later on called, was first brought into being.

After the formation of the “Joint Naval and Military Committee” on June 15, it was agreed, as the result of correspondence between the Admiralty and War Office, that the experimental work on the landship should be taken over as a definite military service in the department of the Master-General of Ordnance. It was further agreed that the Director of Fortifications and Works should be president of the Committee, that the chairman and members of the existing “Landships Committee” should continue to serve as long as their assistance was required, and that the late First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Churchill, should remain in touch with the design and construction of the machines during their experimental stage. The members nominated for the Committee by the War Office were Colonel Bird of the General Staff, Colonel Holden, A.D.T., and Major Wheeler of the M.G.O.’s Department.

Early in July, Mr. Lloyd George, Minister of Munitions, discussed with Mr. Balfour, now First Lord of the Admiralty, the transference of the production of the machines from the Admiralty to the Ministry of Munitions. It was, however, subsequently decided that the Admiralty should be responsible for the production of the first trial machine, the Director of Naval Construction being responsible for the completion of the machine. This was strongly urged by Sir George Scott-Moncrieff.

In July 1915, Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton returned to England to take over the duties of assistant secretary to the “Committee of Imperial Defence.” He at once took in hand the co-ordination of the various private and official efforts which were being made at this time in relation to the design of caterpillar tractors. Early in September he visited Lincoln and inspected a machine known as Little Willie, and on the 10th of this month wrote to Major Guest, Secretary of the “Experiments Committee” at G.H.Q., as follows:

“The naval people are pressing on with the first sample caterpillar ... they have succeeded in making an animal that will cross 4 ft. 6 in. and turn on its own axis like a dog with a flea in its tail....”

In spite of its agility this machine was rejected in favour of Big Willie, a model of which was being constructed under the direction of the “Joint Committee” on the lines of the machine designed by Mr. Tritton and Lieutenant Wilson and the requirements of which had been outlined by Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton in his memorandum of June 1.

As regards these requirements, on the day following the above letter the “Experiments Committee” G.H.Q. sent the following tactical suggestions, arising out of Colonel Swinton’s original proposal, to the secretary of the “Committee of Imperial Defence.” They are worth quoting as they embody several of the characteristics which were introduced in the Mark I tank.

(1) The object for which the caterpillar cruiser or armoured fort is required is for employment in considerable numbers in conjunction with or as an incident in a larger and general attack by infantry against an extended front.

(2) As a general principle, it is desirable to have a large number of small cruisers rather than a smaller number of large ones.

(3) The armour of the cruiser must be proof against concentrated rifle and machine-gun fire, but not proof against artillery fire. The whole cruiser should be enclosed in armour.

Plate I

LITTLE WILLIE.

MARK IV TANK (FEMALE).

(4) The tactical object of the cruiser is attack, its armament should include a gun with reasonable accuracy up to 1,000 yards, and at least two Lewis guns, which can be fired from loopholes to flank and to rear.

(5) The crew to consist of six men—two for the gun, one for each Lewis gun, and two drivers.

(6) The caterpillar must be capable of crossing craters produced by the explosion of high-explosive shell, such craters being of 12 ft. diameter, 6 ft. deep, with sloping sides; of crossing an extended width of barbed-wire entanglements; and of spanning hostile trenches with perpendicular sides and of 4 ft. in breadth.

(7) The cruiser should be capable of moving at a rate of not less than 2½ miles per hour over broken ground, and should have a range of action of not less than six hours consecutive movement.

(8) The wheels of the cruiser should be on either the “Pedrail” system or the “Caterpillar” system; whichever is the most suitable for crossing marshy and slippery ground.

Most of these requirements had already been embodied in the wooden model of Big Willie, which, when completed, was inspected at Wembley on September 28. This model was accepted as a basis on which construction was to proceed, it was in fact the first “mock up” of the eventual Mark I machine.

Big Willie was about 8 ft. high, 26 ft. long, and 11 ft. wide without sponsons, and 3 ft. wider when these were added. His armament consisted in two 6-pounder guns and two machine-guns, and the crew suggested was 1 officer and 9 other ranks.

On the following day the “Joint Committee” assembled at the Admiralty and decided that the following specifications should be worked to: weight 22 tons, speed 3½ miles per hour, spanning power 8 ft., and climbing power 4½ ft.

On December 3, Mr. Churchill addressed a paper to G.H.Q., entitled “Variants of the Offensive,” in which he accentuated the necessity of concentrating more than we had done on “the attack by armour,” the chief purpose of armour being to preserve mobility. He suggested the combined use of the caterpillar tractor and the shield. The caterpillars were to breach the enemy’s line and then turn right and left, the infantry following under cover of bullet-proof shields. It was further suggested that the attack might be carried out at night under the guidance of searchlights. The rest of this paper dealt with “Attack by Trench Mortars, Attack by the Spade, and The Attack on the First Line.”

On Christmas Day 1915, Sir Douglas Haig, who had recently taken over command of the Expeditionary Force in France, read this paper, and wishing to know more about the caterpillars mentioned, Lieutenant-Colonel H. J. Elles (later on G.O.C. Tank Corps) was sent to England to ascertain the exact position. On January 8 this officer reported in writing to G.H.Q., as follows:

“There are two producers of landships:

“(a) Trench Warfare working alone.[14]

“(b) The Admiralty Landship Committee working with the War Office.

“The first have not yet made a machine, but its proposed size is 10 ft. high, 14 ft. 6 in. wide, and 36 ft. long; the second was in process of being made” (i.e. Big Willie).

Up to December 20, 1915, the whole cost of the experimental work had been defrayed by the Admiralty, which had also provided the personnel in the shape of No. 20 Squadron, R.N.A.S., for carrying out the work. The Admiralty had in fact fathered and been responsible for the landship since its first inception.

On December 24 the following recommendations were formulated at a Conference held at the offices of the “Committee of Imperial Defence”:

“Supply of Machines

“(1) That if and when the Army Council, after inspection of the final experimental land cruiser, decide that such machines shall be entrusted to a small ‘Executive Supply Committee,’ which, for secrecy, shall be called the ‘Tank[15] Supply Committee,’ and shall come into existence as soon as the decision of the Army Council is made.

“(2) That this Committee shall be responsible for the supply of caterpillar machine-gun destroyers or land cruisers of the approved type; complete in every respect for action, including both primary and secondary armament. That it shall receive instructions as to supply and design direct from the General Staff, War Office, the necessary financial arrangements being made by the Accounting Officer, War Office.

“(3) That, in order to enable the committee to carry out its work with the maximum of despatch and minimum of reference, it shall have full power to place orders, and to correspond direct with any Government department concerned. To be in a position to do this, it should have placed to its credit, as soon as its work commences, a sum equivalent to the estimated cost of fifty machines, which sum should be increased later if necessary by any further amount required to carry out the programme of construction approved by the General Staff. The committee should also be authorised to incur any necessary expenditure in connection with experimental work, engagement of staff, travelling and other incidental expenses during the progress of the work.

“(4) That as the machines are turned out and equipped they shall be handed over to the War Office for the purpose of training the personnel to man them.

“(5) That the Committee be reconstituted with Lieutenant A. G. Stern as chairman.

“(6) That since the officers of the R.N.A.S. will cease to belong to that service as soon as the ‘Tank Supply Committee’ is constituted, arrangements shall be made now for their payment from the same source that will bear the cost of constructing the land cruisers and for their appointment as military officers with rank suitable to the importance of their duties.”

The experimental machine was completed towards the end of 1915 and its preliminary trials gave most promising results.

On January 30, 1916, Mr. D’Eyncourt, as head of the “Admiralty Committee,” entrusted with the design and manufacture of the trial machine, wrote to Lord Kitchener and informed him that the machine was ready for his inspection and that it fulfilled all the conditions laid down by the War Office, viz.—that it could carry guns, destroy machine-guns, break through wire entanglements, and cross the enemy’s trenches, whilst giving protection to its own crew. Mr. D’Eyncourt also recommended that a number should be ordered immediately to this model, without serious alteration, and that whilst these were being manufactured the design of a more formidable machine could be developed.

On February 2 the first official trial of the new machine was held at Hatfield and was witnessed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. McKenna, and various representatives of the War Office and Ministry of Munitions. Following this trial G.H.Q., France, on February 8 signified their approval of the machine and asked that the Army might be supplied with a certain number.

Arising out of the Hatfield trial it was decided to form a small unit of the Machine-Gun Corps, to be called the “Heavy Section,” and Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton was appointed to command it with his Headquarters in London, a training camp being first opened at Bisley and later on moved to Elveden near Thetford.

As the “Admiralty Committee,” with the Director of Naval Construction as chairman, had finished their work and produced an actual machine complete in all respects and fulfilling all requirements, it was then decided that the Ministry of Munitions should take over the production of the machines. On February 10 the Army Council consequently addressed a letter to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty requesting them to convey “the very warm thanks of the Army Council to Mr. E. H. T. D’Eyncourt, C.B., Director of Naval Construction, and his Committee, for their work in evolving a machine for the use of the Army, and to Mr. W. A. Tritton and Lieutenant W. G. Wilson, R.N.A.S., for their work in design and construction.”

Two days later, on February 12, the “Joint Committee” was dissolved and a new committee, closely following the lines laid down at the Conference held in the offices of the “Committee of Imperial Defence,” was formed under the Ministry of Munitions, and known as the “Tank Supply Committee.”

Chairman.

Lieutenant A. G. Stern, R.N.A.S., Director of Naval Constructions Committee.

Members.

E. H. T. D’Eyncourt, Esq., C.B., Director of Naval Construction.

Lieutenant-Colonel E. D. Swinton, D.S.O., R.E., Assistant Secretary, Committee of Imperial Defence.

Major G. L. Wheeler, R.A., Director of Artillery’s Branch, War Office.

Lieutenant W. G. Wilson, R.N.A.S., Director of Naval Constructions Committee.

Lieutenant K. P. Symes, R.N.A.S., Director of Naval Constructions Committee.

P. Dale-Bussell, Esq., Director of Naval Constructions Committee, Contract Department, Admiralty.

Consultant.

Captain T. G. Tulloch, Ministry of Munitions.

On February 14, 1916, Mr. D’Eyncourt wrote the following letter, which we quote in full, to Lieutenant-Colonel W. S. Churchill, commanding 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers, B.E.F., France, whose initiative and foresight were the true parents of the tank as a war machine:

“Dear Colonel Churchill,

“It is with great pleasure that I am now able to report to you that the War Office have at last ordered 100 landships to the pattern which underwent most successful trials recently. Sir D. Haig sent some of his staff from the front.

“Lord Kitchener and Robertson also came, and members of the Admiralty Board. The machine was complete in almost every detail and fulfils all the requirements finally given me by the War Office. The official tests of trenches, etc., were nothing to it, and finally we showed them how it could cross a 9 ft. gap after climbing a 4 ft. 6 in. high perpendicular parapet. Wire entanglements it goes through like a rhinoceros through a field of corn. It carries two 6-pounder guns in sponsons (a naval touch), and about 300 rounds; also smaller machine-guns, and is proof against machine-gun fire. It can be conveyed by rail (the sponsons and guns take off, making it lighter) and be ready for action very quickly. The King came[16] and saw it and was greatly struck by its performance, as was every one else; in fact, they were all astonished. It is capable of great development, but to get a sufficient number in time, I strongly urge ordering immediately a good many to the pattern which we know all about. As you are aware, it has taken much time and trouble to get the thing perfect, and a practical machine simple to make; we tried various types and did much experimental work. I am sorry it has taken so long, but pioneer work always takes time and no avoidable delay has taken place, though I begged them to order ten for training purposes two months ago. I have also had some difficulty in steering the scheme past the rocks of opposition and the more insidious shoals of apathy which are frequented by red herrings, which cross the main line of progress at frequent intervals.

“The great thing now is to keep the whole matter secret and produce the machines altogether as a complete surprise. I have already put the manufacture in hand, under the ægis of the Minister of Munitions, who is very keen; the Admiralty is also allowing me to continue to carry on with the same Committee, but Stern is now Chairman.

“I enclose photo. In appearance, it looks rather like a great antediluvian monster, especially when it comes out of boggy ground, which it traverses easily. The wheels behind form a rudder for steering a curve, and also ease the shock over banks, etc., but are not absolutely necessary, as it can steer and turn in its own length with the independent tracks.

“E. H. T. D’Eyncourt.”

Between its institution in February and the following August the “Tank Supply Committee” underwent certain slight changes of organisation, the distribution of its duties rightly tending more and more towards centralisation. Shortly after its formation a “Tank Supply Department” was created in the Ministry of Munitions to work with the “Tank Supply Committee.” This Supply Department was concerned with and was responsible for the initial output of the tanks which figured in the Battle of the Somme.

On August 1, 1916, the following resolutions were come to by the “Tank Supply Committee,” and agreed to by the Minister of Munitions:

“That the ‘Tank Supply Committee’ should in future be named the ‘Advisory Committee of the Tank Supply Department.’

“That a Sub-Committee consisting of Mr. D’Eyncourt, Mr. Bussell, and the Chairman, should be appointed to decide in questions of design and policy.”

On August 22, the Committee was dissolved on the ground that the organisation for Tank Supply must be assimilated to that of the other Departments of the Ministry of Munitions, and the outcome of this was the formation of the “Mechanical Warfare Supply Department,” with Lieutenant Stern as Chairman. This department continued in existence from now on until the end of the war. Its powers were wide, embracing production, design, inspection and the supply of tanks, and its energy was unlimited.

Whilst all these changes were in progress the tanks were being produced, and the personnel assembled and trained, and on August 13, 1916, the first detachment of thirteen tanks, being the right half of “C” Company, left Thetford for France, to be followed on August 22 by twelve tanks to complete the complement of “C” Company. On August 25 the right half of “D” Company entrained at Thetford for France, and on August 30 the remainder of the company followed. Tanks on arrival in France were transported to Yvrench, near Abbeville, where a training centre had been established under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Brough, who had proceeded to France on August 3, to make the necessary arrangements. On September 4, Colonel Brough, having organised the training, returned to England, and Lieutenant-Colonel Bradley took over command of the Heavy Section.

It was now decided by G.H.Q. that tanks should take part in the next great attack in the Somme battle on September 15, so, on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of this month, “C” and “D” Companies moved to the forward area, and established their headquarters at the Loop, a railway centre not far from the village of Bray-sur-Somme.

CHAPTER III
MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TANKS

The following very brief account of the mechanical characteristics of tanks, it is hoped, will prove sufficiently simple and complete to give to the non-mechanical reader some idea of the tank as a machine.

The Mark I Tank (see [Frontispiece])

The first British tank made, and to be used, was the heavy machine, already described in the previous chapter, the Mark I tank, the general outline of which remained the standard design for the hulls of all British heavy machines up to the end of the war. As will be shown later, many mechanical improvements, making for higher efficiency and greater simplicity of control, were introduced from time to time, but the fact remains that the profile of the Mark V tank of 1918 was to all intents and purposes that of the Mark I of 1916, and surely this is a striking tribute to the genius of the designers who, without much previous data upon which to base their work, produced the parent weapon.

It is not proposed here to enter upon the general arrangement of the Mark I tank, but reference to two important points in design is of interest. The first is that this machine was fitted with a “tail,” consisting of a pair of heavy large-diameter wheels, mounted at the rear of the machine upon a carriage, which was pivoted to the hull in such a manner that the wheels were free to follow the varying contours of the ground. A number of strong springs normally kept the wheels bearing heavily upon the ground, whilst a hydraulic ram, operated by an oil pump driven from the engine, was intended to enable the carriage to be rocked upon its axis, in order to raise the wheels well clear of the ground on occasions when it was necessary to “swing” the tank.

The object of this “tail” device was to provide means of steering the machine and, to this end, the driver was provided with a steering wheel which, operating a wire cable over a bobbin or drum, altered the path of the “tail” wheels, and allowed the tank to be steered, under favourable conditions, through a circle having a diameter of about sixty yards. The disadvantages of this fitting far outweighed any virtues it may have possessed. Countless troubles were experienced with the ram and its pump; the wire steering cable was constantly stretching or slipping through the bobbin, thus affecting the “lock” of the tail wheels; the driver was subjected to great physical strain in overcoming the tremendous resistance offered by the road wheels; the whole device was very prone to be damaged by shell-fire in action. Against these indictments should be recorded the fact that the possession of a “tail” enabled the Mark I tank successfully to span and cross a wider trench than the later “tailless” machines of the same dimensions could negotiate, owing to the fact that as the wheels supported the rear of the tank over the point of balance, the risk of “tail dive” was considerably reduced. However, at the close of the operations of 1916, all tanks were shorn of their tails, and no subsequent models were fitted with them.

The second point of interest regarding this early machine relates to its sponsons. These, on both the male and female machines (armed with full length 6-pounder and Vickers machine-guns respectively) were planted upon and bolted to the walls of the hull and, for entraining purposes, these had to be removed and carried upon special trolleys which could be towed behind the tanks. It will readily be seen that this arrangement involved a considerable amount of labour, and rendered the process of entraining an extremely lengthy one; this led to an improved form of sponson being produced for the Mark IV machine.

The chief outstanding weaknesses of the Mark I machine, disclosed during the first appearance in action, were:

That the engine was provided with no silencer, consequently the noise, sparks, and even flames, which proceeded from the open exhaust pipes, passing through the roof of the tank, constituted a grave danger during the latter stages of an approach march. Many ingenious tank crews fitted to their machines crude types of silencers made out of oil drums, or adopted the plan of damping out the sparks by using wet sacks in relays, or covering the exhaust pipe with clay and mud.

That the observation from the inside of the machine was bad, and efficient fire control was, therefore, impossible.

That the means provided for entering and leaving the tank were unsatisfactory, and, in the case of the female machine, speedy evacuation in the event of fire was difficult.

That the whole of the petrol supply was carried inside the machine, and in a vulnerable position—a circumstance which added to the risk of fire in the event of a hit in the petrol tank by armour-piercing bullet or shell. Furthermore, gravity was the only means for transferring petrol from the main petrol tanks in the front of the machine to the carburetter, and, therefore, it frequently happened that when a tank “ditched” nose downwards, the petrol supply was cut off, and consequently the dangerous practice of “hand-feeding” had to be resorted to.

The Mark II and Mark III Tanks

These machines were produced in small numbers, and their difference from Mark I lay in various minor improvements, none of a radical nature.

The Mark IV Tank ([Plate I]—see [p. 26])

In 1917 this tank became the standard fighting machine of the Tank Corps, and it was used in battle throughout this year and the following. As already stated, in outline it corresponded so closely with the Mark I machine that a study here of the main features of this tank will serve generally as an illustration of what had taken place in tank development up to this date.

The machine was 26 ft. 5 in. long over all, whilst the width of the female over its sponsons was 10 ft. 6 in., and of the male, 13 ft. 6 in. The height of the machine was 8 ft. 2 in., and its weight, equipped, was 28 tons. The armament consisted, in the case of the male, of two 6-pounder guns and four machine-guns, and in that of the female of six machine-guns; it was fitted with a 105 h.p. Daimler 6-cylinder sleeve-valve engine which, at a later date, was replaced in a limited number by one of 125 h.p. This increased power was obtained by the use of aluminium pistons, twin carburetters, and by speeding up the engine.

Generally speaking, these engines gave very little trouble, although somewhat under-powered for the work they had to perform. They were, it may be added, particularly suitable from the maintenance point of view, owing to their “fool-proof” nature, due chiefly to the absence of the usual poppet-valve gear, with its attendant risk of maladjustment.

Power was transmitted from the engine flywheel, through a cone-type clutch and a flexible coupling, to a two-speed and reverse gear-box, known as the primary gear, this being under the direct control of the driver, who could thus obtain first and second speeds, or reverse, without other assistance.

The tail-shaft from the gear-box carried a worm which drove the crown wheel of a large reduction gear, this gear also serving as a differential to enable the track driving wheels to rotate at different speeds, as when steering the tank on its track brakes. A device was provided, under the driver’s control, for locking the differential when it was desired to steer a dead-ahead course, or when negotiating a trench or other obstacle. With the differential locked, the gear became, so to speak, “solid” and obviated the risk of one of the tracks slipping in bad ground, a condition very apt to cause a tank to slip sideways into a trench and become ditched.

Some trouble was caused through breakages of this locking muff in the earlier days, but latterly the arrangement was considerably improved and strengthened.

The gear-box tail-shaft terminated in a brake drum, the band of which was operated by means of a pedal at the driver’s foot. It may be of interest to point out here that the whole of the items so far referred to, i.e. engine, gear-box, and differential, formed the standard power unit of the pre-war Foster-Daimler tractor, and thus provided a known quantity around which the rest of the detail was designed. This greatly facilitated production.

On either side of the differential case projected cross-shafts, the outer ends of which were supported in bearings mounted upon the outside wall of the tank, and, between the inner and outer walls of the hull, two sliding pinions were carried on a splined portion of the cross-shaft, one pair of pinions on each of the right and left hand sides of the tank.

In describing the remainder of the transmission, it will suffice to deal only with one side of the machine, the detail on either side being identical.

The sliding pinions, already alluded to, were operated by means of short levers by two gearsmen, whose sole duty it was to assist the driver, who signalled to them his requirements from his seat in the front of the tank, the two gearsmen being accommodated towards the rear of the machine on seats placed over the primary gear-box. The sliding pinions were of two sizes, known as the high-speed and low-speed pinions, and immediately in their rear was mounted another pinion assembly, also carrying two gear-wheels of different dimensions, with which the sliding wheels could be engaged at will—in other words, on each side of the tank there existed what were known as secondary gear-boxes, each offering a choice of two speeds.

Thus it will be seen that the whole arrangement provided a range of four speeds. Assuming the secondary gears to be at “low,” the driver had the option of using either first or second speed by manipulating the control to the primary gear-box, whilst in order to obtain third or fourth (top) speed it was necessary for him to signal the gearsmen to alter their gears to “high,” and to assist them in the process by a great deal of intelligent clutch work. It need hardly be pointed out that this arrangement was exceedingly clumsy, and often involved much loss of time and temper. It might also be mentioned here that the reverse gear, already alluded to, was considerably higher than the lowest forward speed, so that there was little possibility of driving backwards, clear of any obstruction which might have ditched the tank.

Hand-operated brakes, under the control of the tank commander in the front of the tank, alongside the driver, were incorporated with the secondary gear-box. These brakes, by checking one or other track, enabled the tank to be steered in some measure with the differential unlocked, whilst, by locking the differential and placing, say, the right-hand secondary gear in “neutral,” the machine could be swung to the right, practically upon its own axis, by applying the right-hand brake. To swing to the left, the right-hand secondary gear was engaged, the left-hand being placed in “neutral,” the differential locked and the left-hand brake applied.

From the secondary gear-box a Coventry chain transmitted the power to an assembly, at the rear of the hull, which carried, on either side of the chain sprocket, two heavy pinion wheels, in constant mesh with the final sprocket wheels, which in turn, engaging with the links of the track plates, drove the hull along the track.

Each track was composed, normally, of ninety plates or road shoes, the separate plates being coupled together by means of links (two per plate) and link pins, the links themselves being recessed so as to engage with the driving wheels as shown above.

The weight of the machine was carried upon the track by means of rollers, whilst the track was supported on the top of the hull by skids or rails.

Adjustment of track was effected by the movement of an “idler” wheel, which guided the track over the nose of the hull.

Refinements to the transmission were introduced in the shape of guards to protect the driving chains from mud, and also means were provided to lubricate the secondary gear-wheels with oil. It is recalled that, prior to the introduction of the chain-guard, the inside deck of the tanks was often covered with a layer of liquid mud, several inches deep, carried in by the chains, and delivered through the secondary gears.

Petrol was supplied to the engine in the earlier days of the Mark IV machine by a pressure-fed system which gave a great deal of trouble, and, being also considered dangerous, was finally discarded in favour of the Autovac system, which sucked the fuel from the main supply in a tank outside of the machine and delivered it to the carburetter by gravity.

Cooling of the engine was primarily effected by a copper envelope radiator, which gave some trouble and was finally superseded by a tubular type.

An efficient silencer, with a long exhaust pipe carried right to the rear of the machine, considerably reduced engine noise and rendered the approach march a far less hazardous undertaking than was the case with the earlier models.

Sponsons were designed to collapse into the interior of the machine when necessary, and the cumbersome practice of detaching them from the hull came to an end. Short 6-pounder guns were introduced to render this change possible.

Detachable “spuds,” to provide a grip for the tracks on difficult soil, were first introduced for this machine, as also was a highly efficient unditching gear. The latter consisted of a beam, rather longer than the overall width of the tank hull, which was fastened by clips and chains to each track, and, in passing round under the machine, actually took a purchase from the obstruction under the belly of the tank.

Detail improvements to give easier entrance and more rapid egress in case of emergency, as well as better and safer vision and fire control, were also introduced.

The Mark V Tank ([Plate V]—see [p. 204])

With the introduction of the Mark V tank, which represents the standard British heavy tank of to-day, great progress was made in all-round speed, ease of manœuvre, radius of action, simplicity of control and feasibility of observation.

The dimensions and weight of this tank were approximately the same as those of the Mark IV, whilst the design of the hull still closely followed the lines of the original Mark I. Equipped with the 150 h.p. Ricardo 6-cylinder poppet-valved engine, specially designed for tank work, the advent of the Mark V machine called for the introduction of new courses of instruction for the personnel of the Corps, very few of either officers or other ranks having, at this time, any experience of the care and adjustment of the valve gear.

This Ricardo engine, of somewhat unorthodox design, was highly efficient and, with proper care and attention, gave very little trouble. From the engine, power was transmitted through a plate clutch in the flywheel to a four-speed gear-box, immediately in rear of which was the reverse gear, providing “reverse” on all speeds. The cross-shaft, incorporated with the reverse gear, carried at either end (in the same relative position as the secondary gears, explained in dealing with the Mark IV machine) an epicyclic gear. It is not within the scope of this chapter to describe this gear in detail, but it may be regarded as serving the double purpose of a reduction gear and clutch, combined in one unit.

From these epicyclic gears, the transmission of the drive through to the tracks followed the principle of the Mark IV machine, except that there was no second-line pinion assembly as in the secondary gear of the earlier tank, the Coventry chain on the Mark V passing direct from the single-unit epicyclic gear to the pinion assembly operating the track driving wheels.

All the items enumerated above were under the direct control of the driver, who was therefore enabled to perform, single-handed, all the operations which previously required the work of four men. Hand levers controlled the epicyclic gears, primary gear-box, and reverse gear, whilst the clutch and gear were foot-operated.

To steer the tank at any speed, the driver had merely to raise the epicyclic gear lever on the side on which he wished to turn. This had the effect of interrupting the drive to that track, so that, being driven by the remaining track, the machine would turn upon the “idle” side.

Where a sharp “swing” was necessary, application of the foot brake would automatically check the “idle” track, this being allowed for by means of a single compensating link motion with which the controls were interconnected.

The engine was petrol-fed by the autovac system, as fitted to the later Mark IV machines. Cooling of the engine was effected by means of a tubular type radiator, the water therein being itself cooled by air drawn from outside the tank, through louvres in the left-hand wall of the hull, and finally expelled through similar louvres in the right-hand wall.

Further, the engine was completely enclosed in a sheet-iron casing, from which the hot foul air was exhausted through the roof of the tank by means of a Keith fan.

The Mark V armament corresponded with that of the Mark IV, whilst the sponsons were of similar design to those fitted to the latter type.

The absence of the large differential gear, as fitted on the earlier models, gave accommodation for a machine-gun in the rear wall of the tank, and also allowed for large entrance doors in the back portion of the roof.

A greatly improved type of rear cab was fitted, and thus provided excellent all-round vision, and also rendered possible the fitting of the unditching beam to the tracks from the inside of the machine. This was accomplished through the side flaps of the rear cab of the Mark V, whereas on previous models it had been necessary for members of the crew to expose themselves to hostile fire, in the event of the tank becoming ditched in action, as the beam could only be attached and detached from outside.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BRITISH TANKS USED DURING THE GREAT WAR

Note.—(i) The Mark V star tank could carry twenty men in addition to its crew.
(ii) The Gun-carrier could carry 10 tons weight of stores.
(iii) Radii of Action are only approximate; they depend on the nature of the ground, efficiency of the crew, etc.

The Mark V One Star Tank ([Plate VII]—see [p. 220])

The Mark V star machine was 6 ft. longer than the Mark V, and the weight of the male, equipped, was approximately 33 tons. There was no change in the nature of the armament, or in the number of the crew, which consisted of eight all told. In addition to the crew, the machine was capable of carrying twenty to twenty-five other troops and would cross a 14 ft. trench, as against 10 ft. for the Mark V.

The general mechanical arrangement of this tank corresponded with that of the Mark V, the same engine and transmission system being adopted, with the addition of a Cardan shaft between the flywheel and gear-box, which was rendered necessary by the additional length of the machine.

The Mark V star was relatively slow to manœuvre, owing chiefly to the amount of track-bearing surface on the ground.

The Medium Mark A or “Whippet” Tank ([Plate III]—see [p. 176])

The Medium A tank, known also as the “Chaser” and “Whippet,” was the British standard light-type machine, and it differed altogether from its heavier relatives. Its weight, equipped, was about 14 tons, whilst it was 20 ft. long, 9 ft. high, and 8 ft. 7 in. wide, carrying a crew of three. It could attain a maximum speed of about 8·3 m.p.h., and could span a trench approximately 7 ft. in width.

On this machine the tracks were not carried “overhead” as in the case of the heavy tanks, but the two trackways existed as such only, and formed the road members of what may be described as the chassis upon which the engine-room and fighting cab were mounted. There were no sponsons, and the tank was driven and fought from the cab at the rear of the machine, provision being allowed for an armament of three machine-guns.

Each machine was fitted with two 45 h.p. 4-cylinder Tyler engines with an autovac petrol feed, and cooled by means of a tubular radiator provided with two fans driven by chains from each crankshaft.

The power of each engine was transmitted through separate cone clutches, leather flexible couplings, and four-speed and reverse gear-boxes, to a casing, at the rear of the machine, containing two worm gears.

The two worm-wheel shafts of these gears were in line, with their inner ends nearly touching, and each carrying the keyed-on half of a jawed coupling, one of which could be slid along at will, to engage with the other, thus locking the two shafts together.

One of the shafts carried a friction-clutch arrangement, designed to limit the power transmitted from one shaft to the other to about 12 h.p.

It will be seen, therefore, that either worm-wheel shaft could be driven independently by its own engine, or the two could be locked together so as to rotate at the same speed, driving the tank straight ahead, provided that there was not more than 12 h.p. difference between the developed powers of the engines. Extensions of each worm shaft carried a band brake, as well as a fan for forcing air into the cab of the machine.

Returning to the details of the transmission system, each cross-shaft from the worm case terminated in a “driving chain pinion shaft,” the outer ends of which were supported by ball bearings mounted upon the sides of the track frames. The chain pinion carried by this shaft transmitted the drive, through a roller chain, to the final track-driving wheels, which, engaging with the slots in the track links, drove the tank along the track. Each track consisted normally of sixty-seven plates or shoes, and rollers served to support the weight of the tank upon the track, as well as to carry the track over the top of the trackway. Adjustment of the track was effected by movement of the front “idler” wheel as in the case of the heavier machines.

The Whippet tank called for particular skill in driving, and a great deal of practice was usually necessary to produce a really efficient driver. “Stalling” of one or both engines was a common occurrence during the earlier stages of training. Steering was effected by varying the speed of either engine, and the radius of movement was proportional to the difference in the speed of the two engines, this difference being controlled by means of a steering wheel connected to the two carburetter throttles, movement of the wheel producing acceleration of one engine and deceleration of the other simultaneously.

The Gun-carrying Tank ([Plate VII]—see [p. 220])

Originally designed for carrying a 60-pounder gun or 6-in. howitzer and ammunition into action, these machines during 1918 were chiefly used for the transport of supplies across country. The engine, a 6-cylinder 105 h.p. Daimler, was placed right at the rear of the machine, and the general lay-out of the transmission corresponded with that of the Mark IV modified to suit the engine position, the primary and secondary gears, etc., being mounted forward of the engine in the case of this G.C. tank. The final drive to the track was at the rear, and exactly followed the Mark IV practice, whilst the track itself was carried on track frames, in this respect somewhat resembling the Medium A machine.

Four men were required to control the G.C. tank, the driver and brakesman being separately housed in two small independent cabs mounted one over each track towards the front of the machine, whilst the secondary gearsmen travelled in the body of the machine.

A system of signalling by signs from driver to other members of the crew was adopted.

Situated between the inner walls of the hull at the front of the tank was a “skid” or platform which could be drawn out, and its front lowered to the ground, forming an inclined runway up which the gun was hauled, by means of a winding gear operated from the engine, to its travelling position on the machine.

Drums for carrying ammunition for the guns were supported on platforms over the tracks immediately in rear of the two control cabs.

The first G.C. tanks were fitted with “tails,” similar to those on the Mark I machines, but these were later on discarded.

The above includes the brief mechanical summary of the various types of British tanks used during the Great War, and though, undoubtedly, the future will bring with it many improvements and may radically change the whole form of the present-day tank, it is doubted if ever, in the whole history of mechanics—let alone warfare, a novel machine has been produced which has proved so efficient on first use and required in the long run of two years of war so few changes.

CHAPTER IV
THE MARK I TANK AND ITS TACTICS

The Mark I tank was the direct produce of the experimental machine which was officially tested on February 2, 1916. It may be defined as “a mechanically-propelled cross-country armoured battery,” the maximum thickness of its armour being 12 mm.[17]

The main tactical characteristics of all tanks may be placed under the headings of—mobility, security, and offensive power, and as regards the Mark I machine the following is a general description of these characteristics:

(i) Mobility.—The Mark I tank could move over flat ground at 100 to 120 yards a minute, over ground intersected by trenches at 30 to 40 yards a minute, and at night time at 15 yards a minute. It could cross all forms of wire entanglements, crushing down two paths through them which were passable by two single files of infantry. It could span a trench 11 ft. 6 in. wide, surmount an obstacle 5 ft. high, and climb a slope of 1 over 2.

(ii) Security.—The Mark I tank was proof against ordinary bullets, shrapnel, and most shell-splinters.

(iii) Offensive Power.—Mark I tanks were divided into two categories: male and female. The former carried an armament of two 6-pounder guns and four Hotchkiss machine-guns, the latter of five Vickers and one Hotchkiss machine-guns. The normal amount of ammunition carried was for males 200 rounds and 10,000 rounds S.A.A., and for females 12,000 rounds S.A.A.

The chief limitations of the tank are connected with its mobility. For the Mark I type these limitations were as follows:

Its circuit in action was about 12 miles, and the fighting endurance of its crew 8 to 12 hours. It was not suited for traversing swamps, thick woods, streams with marshy banks, or deep sunken roads. It could be expected to cross shelled dry ground at a slow pace, but should this ground become sodden with rain it would find difficulty in doing so, and might frequently become ditched.

A tactical paper on the employment of this machine was put forward officially in February 1916 by Colonel Swinton, entitled “Notes on the Employment of ‘Tanks.’” This document is of special interest as it is the first tactical note published on the use of tanks. The following are certain extracts taken from it:

“The use made by the Germans of machine-guns and wire entanglements—a combination which has such power to check the advance of infantry—has in reply brought about the evolution of the ‘caterpillar bullet-proof climbing motor, or tank,’ a machine designed for the express purpose of assisting attacking infantry by crossing the defences, breaking through the obstacles, and of disposing of the machine-guns. It is primarily a machine-gun destroyer, which can be employed as an auxiliary to an infantry assault....”

“Hostile machine-guns which it is impossible to crush (i.e. by running over them) will be attacked by gunfire. It is specially for the purpose of dealing with these weapons ensconced in houses, cellars, amongst ruins, in haystacks, or in other concealed positions behind the enemy’s front line, where they may not be knocked out by our artillery, and whence they can stop our infantry advances, that the tanks carry guns. Being covered with bullet-proof protection, and therefore to a great extent immune from the hostile machine-guns, they can approach sufficiently close to locate the latter, and pour in shell at point-blank range....”

“As ... it is proposed that the tanks should accompany the infantry,” they should carry forward the following signalling apparatus, “small wireless sets ... an apparatus for laying a field telephone cable either on the surface of the ground or possibly buried 12 in. deep ...” also visual signalling apparatus and smoke rockets.

“The tanks will be destroyed by a direct hit of any type of howitzer shell. They will probably be put out of action by all except the most glancing hits of high-explosive shell fired by field-guns.... They may also be blown up by mines or land-mines....”

“Since the chance of success of an attack by tanks lies almost entirely in its novelty, and in the element of surprise, it is obvious that no repetition of it will have the same opportunity of succeeding as the first unexpected effort. It follows, therefore, that these machines should not be used in driblets (for instance, as they may be produced), but that the fact of their existence should be kept as secret as possible until the whole are ready to be launched, together with the infantry assault, in one great combined operation....”

“The sector of front where the machines can best operate should be carefully chosen to comply with their limitations, i.e. their inability to cross canals, rivers, deep railway cuttings with steep sides, woods and orchards....”

Tanks should remain at the position of assembly “sufficiently long for the crews to reconnoitre, ease and mark out the routes up to the points where they will actually cross the front defences, and to learn all that can be discovered of the German front-line trenches, and the defence zone behind it over which they have to advance....”

“The tanks, it is thought, should move forward together, say, by rocket signal, sweeping the enemy’s first-line parapet with machine-gun fire; and after they have proceeded some three-quarters of the way across ‘No Man’s Land,’ and have succeeded in attracting to themselves the fire of the German infantry and machine-guns in the front line, the assaulting infantry should charge forward so as to reach the German defences soon after the tanks have climbed the parapet and begun to enfilade the trenches....”

“... unless expectations are falsified, if the machines accompany the assaulting infantry, moving with it, or just ahead of it ... both will be across the enemy’s front line and on their way to the second before the curtain of fire descends, and the latter will be behind them. It is hoped similarly that, owing to the prevention of the usual checks to the advance, which the action of the tanks will ensure, by the time the German gunners shorten the range in order to provide a second curtain in front of their second line, our assault will have already swept beyond the line.

“The above anticipations are admittedly sanguine; but if the tanks are employed and are successful, it is thought that they will enable the assault to maintain most of its starting momentum, and break through the German position quickly,” a condition which up to the present it has not been possible to attain, “even after immense sacrifice of life.”... “Not only, however, does it seem that the tanks will confer the power to force successive comparatively unbattered defensive lines, but ... the more speedy and uninterrupted their advance, the greater the chance of their surviving sufficiently long to do this. It is possible, therefore, that an effort to break right through the enemy’s defensive zone in one day may now be contemplated as a feasible proposition.... This being the case, it appears that when the tanks are used the contingency of such an extended bound forward being made should be most carefully legislated for in the way of preparation to send forward reinforcements, guns, ammunition, and supplies....”

“The necessity for the co-ordination of all arms to work together in the offensive generally requires no remarks here, but the desirability of the specially careful consideration of the subject in the case of an operation by tanks, requires some emphasis, since the orchestration of the attack will be complicated by the introduction of a new instrument and one which somewhat alters the chain of interdependence of all. A recapitulation of this chain will make the matter clear. The tanks cannot win battles by themselves. They are purely auxiliary to the infantry, and are intended to sweep away the obstructions which have hitherto stopped the advance of our infantry beyond the German first line, and cannot with certainty be disposed of by shell fire. It follows, therefore, that the progress of the attack, which depends on the advance of the infantry, depends on the activity and preservation in action of the tanks.

“The weapons by which the tanks are most likely to be put out of action are the enemy guns. The only means by which we can at the earlier stages of an attack reduce the activity of the enemy’s guns, are by our own artillery fire or by dropping bombs on them from the air.

“It follows, therefore, that in order to help our infantry in any operation in which tanks take part ... the principal object of our guns should not be to endeavour to damage the German machine-guns, earthworks, and wire, behind the enemy’s first line, a task they cannot with certainty carry out, and which the tanks are specially designed to perform. It should be to endeavour to help the infantry by helping the tanks, i.e. by concentrating as heavy a counter-fire as possible on the enemy’s main artillery position, and on any field or other light guns whose situation behind the first line is known....”

“In order to increase the confusion which it is hoped will be caused amongst the enemy by an attack by tanks, and to assist in concealing the exact nature and the progress of these machines, it would be of advantage if their advance were heralded by clouds of smoke....”

The above quotations need no comment, and if comment is to be sought for, the most suitable places to seek it are the battles in which tanks eventually took part, for in these, and the great number of lesser actions, some eighty-five in all, it will be found that not only were Colonel Swinton’s speculations, made seven months before the first tank crossed “No Man’s Land,” not mere “flights of imagination,” but “solid facts,” the value of which these battles have proved again and again.

CHAPTER V
THE BATTLES OF THE SOMME AND ANCRE

On July 1, 1916, the battle of the Somme opened with a successful advance on the British right between Maricourt and Ovillers, and a check on the British left between Ovillers and Gommecourt. From that day on to the commencement of the battle of the Ancre, in November, no further attempt was made to push forward the British left, all available troops being required to maintain the forward movement of the right flank.

The ground which separates the rivers Somme and Ancre is split up into valleys by pronounced ridges, most of which form natural lines of defence for an enemy and could, in 1916, only be stormed after having been subjected to a heavy artillery bombardment. The ground had consequently become severely “crumped” in places; but as the weather, up to September 15, had been fine and dry, it offered no insuperable difficulty to the movement of the tanks, which were allotted to the Fourth and Reserve Armies as follows:

On September 11 operation orders were received from the Fourth Army, and on the 13th a conference was held, at which Lieutenant-Colonel Bradley attended, to discuss the forthcoming attack. During the 14th “A” Company arrived at Yvrench, and at 4.30 p.m. on that day the headquarters of “C” Company moved to the Briquetterie near Trones Wood, and the headquarters of “D” Company to Green Dump.

The frontage of the Fourth Army attack extended between the Combles ravine and Martinpuich, the intention being to break through the enemy’s defensive system and occupy Morval, Les Bœufs, Gueudecourt, and Flers. Simultaneously with this attack the Reserve Army was to attack on the left of the IIIrd Corps, and the French on the right of the XIVth Corps. The attack was to be pushed with the utmost vigour, and was to be followed by the advance of the Cavalry Corps, which was to seize the high ground about Rocquigny-Villers au Flos-Riencourt-lez-Bapaume.