Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7th, 1920. THE TANKS.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 April 1920, Page 2

Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7th, 1920. THE TANKS.

Many have claimed credit for the invention of the tank. Mr H. G. Wells for instance, declares that the genesis of the idea was a story written by him some time before the war, but many years previously he had been anticipated by J|uies iVerne and the writer of the Frank Reade series of “penny dreadfuls” which delighted the youth of the last generation. However, the true and authentic history of the evolution of the landship is told in “Tanks, 1914-1918,” by Lieut.-Col. Sir Albert G. Stern, who was closely associated with their development. Early in the war an armoured car corps was formed, the personnel of which included many distinguished engineers. Units did good work in Russia, Egypt, and elsewhere, but on the Western front, with the coming of stationary warfare in trenches, the armoured car found its .ocieupatibn gone. The experience of the British at Neuve Chapelle and Loos showed the need of some contrivance which could cross broken ground and crush wire entanglements. A small group of inventors, encouraged by Mr Churchill, set themselves to make one. Had they 'but known, plans for such a device were already in existence. Less than three years before, a young Australian, Corporal de Mole, had offered the War Office his design of a tank which is now acknowledged to have been quite as good as those which took the field in 1916. But the authorities were “not interested,” and Colonel Stern and his colleagues had to begin at the beginning. The importance of secrecy was obvious, so they arranged to refer to their machines in corespondence as “wa-ter-carriers,” a name afterwards changed to “tanks.” Colonel Stern describes the mechanical difficulties which were encountered only to be overcome one by one, and the more aggravating difficulties caused by the obstruction of officialdom. The soldiers in the field believed in the possibilities of the tank from the first, hut the opposition came from Whitehall, when, during certain periods of administration, everything novel was suspect. At one time, indeed, an order to build a huge fleet of tanks was actually cancelled, although fortunately the policy was soon afterwards reversed. Everyone remembers the sensational accounts of the tanks’ debut at the Somme. As a matter of fact, the conditions were by no means favourable in a successful first appearance. The tank of 1916 had definite limitations; it was very slow nnd easily bagged. Where, as at the Somme, it advanced after a heavy bombardment over ground pitted by craters, its liability to be held up in a shelT hole or knocked out by a direct hit was great. Its proper employment was illustrated in the battle of Cambrai, 1917, when over 400 tanks attacked without a preliminary bombardment and the going was good. By 1918 specialised types had been evolved, and did tremendous execution right up to the armistice. The Australians owed much to their help at Hamel. Nor have the inventors been idle since; the other day Mr Churchill spoke of a su-per-tank, but warned us that by the natural law of compensation counter-mea-sures have also improved, and a grenade has been invented which will shatter even this Leviathan. Colonel Stern’s book is full of interest; incidentally it mentions one curious episode. At the end of 1916 the Russian Government asked for plans of the tanks ; the author knowing that Russia had not the means of building them was convinced that the request really came from Germany. But the War Office' insisted that the plans should be given and so in consultation with the Minister of Munitions it was decided to supply the Wat Office with “a child’s drawing and incorrect details.”