THE NEWEST ARM

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 142, 5 March 1918, Page 5

THE NEWEST ARM

♦- WARNING HIE USE OF TANKS "AN ENGINEER'S WAR" This is largely an' engineer's war, tut'it is still very difficult to get officials to understand that an engineer's advice may be valuable (said Sir W. Tritton, the real inventor of the tanks, in an interview in the London "Weekly Dispatch"). Too often the attitude adopted towards him is that of an' intruder. The more tho engineering sido of war is considered, the less costlv in human life we shall find our progress . to tho Rhine. The tanks should revolutionise war as much as labour-saving appliances have revolutionised industry. The tank has not only corao to stay, j but if I may venture on a prophecy, I more and more it is destined to plav a . predominant part in modern war. Not merely does it guarantee that obstacles holding up infantry will be swept aside, but it allows a close pursuit of the retreating enemy. In this sense the tank is better than cavalry and infinitely less 'vulnerable. Think what a conspiouous and vulnerable a target a man on horseback is, and compare the day's, capacity of a cavalryman with the capacity of a tank 1 Do not believe the ttories about tho wholesale destruction of tanks. The percentage of losses is very small. It is not easy to hit a moving object that zig-zags like a ship evading a submarine. • Tho tank is not afraid of the antitank gun, and-it is much mbre likely that its machine-guns will get tho antitank gun's crew than that they will get her. What is the anti-tank gun? It is a field-gun on a naval mounting turned point-blank against the advancing object. It must be operated from direct observation, and if the gun observer can see theAtank, so the tank man can see the gun. On broad principles, then, I say the tank has nothing , to fear from the gun. Tho day is pur© , to come when there will be great fleets of tanks on both sides. Nothing is more i certain than that the . equipment of every modern army will include masses of land-ships. ! tank Versus Tank. Will a tank be able to fight a tank Why not? ,A cruiser fights a cruiser. The deciding clement will be the calibre of the shell. The tank able to throw the heavier armour-piercing shell will win the day. We are'by no means at the end of tank development, ' lthougb. as showing the merit of the original design the tanks used to-day are praotically identical with those that swarmed over the German lines on September. 15,1916. The chief changes made have • been in regard to fittings and in the direction of increased comfort for the crew. It pays to use tanks. Every seven lives that a tank saves pay for its cost. Calculate tho number of lives that the tanks have saved, and I make bold to say that they have paid for their cost many times over. And 'in proportion to our proficiency in their use will be their life-saving and battlewinning value. The crews are splendid fellows, men of the sporting breed, . just the sort we want—nothing but praise can be said about them. Heaps of people have ideas' about tanks. Many of their suggestions are quite admirable, only they suffer from this defect: they are not practical. Tank development is limited by the railway gauge. You can have the finest tank in tho world, only if you cannot get it to France what good is it ? And/unloss it conforms to the lailway gauge you cannot get it to France. There are tunnels to think of. And if it go by road how many bridges are there that' will bear a load cf 30 tons?

The'tank presents the samo problem as the cruiser. '. Weight is the governing factor.: ' You have to ask yourself whether you will have armour, strength, or speed. We are witnessing on land the same development in offensive weapons that' we have witnessed at sea. In the ojd days, what did the Navy consist of? A number of men in rowboats armed with cutlasses. , What does it consist of today? Men in self-propelled armoured boxes, with means of offence. The tank is to the infantryman what the rowhoat is to the cruiser. It is your self-propelled armoured box, with means of offence for laud. use. It is the natural reply to the. maohine-giui. AVhat good is a nest of machine-guns-against a tank? But how different a nest of against advanc-' ing infantry! The pill-bnx does not worry the tank. Why should it, seeing that the pillbox is nothing more than the old Martello tower which we erected on Ilomney Marsh and other places on the South Coast to defend the country against Napoleon? There is a tank literature, but it is necessary to sift the wheat from the chaff. The story of the origin of the name is much more pioturesque than the several versions published. When we commenced to build them at Messrs. William .'Foster and Co.'s works our men were naturally very curious; so we' told them they were water-carriers for Mesopotamia. That was too much of a mouthful for them, and they shortened the description into "tanks," and "tanks", they aro likely to remain until the world's last battle. In time .we had to tell our workmen the truth, and I do not think sufficient credit has ever been paid to them for the wonderful way in which they kept tbo secret.

Let me add further to tho tank literature. We havo launched a'tank with an eye painted on it. It was presented to tho Government by Mr. Eu Tong Sen, of the Federated Malay States, and that eye stands for hide. Most of our piominent politicians havo had a- ride in a tank. Mr. Lloyd George has driven in one. His Majesty tho King, who has always taken a great interest in the tanks, has been over a 10ft. trench in a tank.