FROM ELEPHANTS TO TANKS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 5, Issue 114, 29 August 1941, Page 7

FROM ELEPHANTS

TO TANKS

Written for " The Listener" by

ROBERT H.

NEIL

late Captain, Royal Scots oe —

HE battle was over and the issue decided. The victory had been gained by an arm somewhat new to the force that had employed it, and the time for decorating the victorious commander had arrived. He, however, strenuously declined the rewards, exclaiming: "We ought rather to blush that we owe our victory to these brutes!" This was the remark of Antiochus after he had won a victory for the Syrians against the Galatians in 275 B.C. by means of sixteen elephants. The tank of that day had proved itself the dominating factor. The modern tank has often been compared with the chariot and with the knight in armour, but the analogy between it and the war elephant is much closer, and it is very interesting to notice that the evolution of tank and anti-tank tactics are almost identical in the case of the elephants, General History Elephants were undoubtedly used for war purposes in the East from a very early period. Those fabulous persons, King Amoraeus of the Indians, and also Semiramis, are both reported to have had 10,000 elephants in their armies, but the period of real interest from the point of view of such a comparison with | modern tactics dates from about 327 B.C., when Alexander first encountered the elephants of Porus at the crossing of the Hydaspes. The military era of the elephant, so far as European military affairs are concerned, was thus started by Alexander, and was ended by another great leader of antiquity, Caesar. From the time of Alexander, one sees the gradual introduction of this new engine of war into western armies, in spite —

of considerable prejudice against it. Even the Romans, who stood out the longest against the elephant, largely, it is conjectured, because of the difficulty of obtaining the animals, were eventually forced to adopt them, and it is of interest to note that, in the treaty signed by Carthage with Rome after the Second Punic War, the former bound itself never to employ elephants again in war, Brigades and Divisions Directly the great importance of elephants for war purposes was realised, there apparently came the usual swing of the pendulum of public opinion, and it was soon considered, except in Rome, that they were really the only essential victory-winning weapon. The standard of infantry deteriorated, while the "elephant corps," or its equivalent of those days, became very powerful. The head of this corps, the "elephant arch" or "magister elephantorum,’ became a man of great importance, and was in most cases of the highest rank. An elaborate organisation or war establishment was gradually built up, again almost exactly similar to that of the modern tank. Their training was difficult, as the number of men accustomed to look after them and to drive them was small, and yet the training of the animals was of supreme importance, They had one great disadvantage not possessed, fortunately, by the modern tank-if they were illtrained, or if the attacks were beaten off, they would probably turn and break their own side. To try to prevent this, the usual method of training was as follows: The elephants were drawn up and made to advance against men with slings, etc. The latter fired at the animals as they advanced, but only sufficiently strongly to irritate and pain them, but not to damage them. The animals then tried to turn round. Immediately from other troops stationed ‘behind them, a volley of a much more painful nature was poured into them, and thus they were gradually taught that it was less painful to go straight on at their enemies in front of them than to turn round and go back! Offensive Armament In using elephants for offensive purposes, the soldiers of the day employed them in almost the identical manner in which tanks were used. They relied on — 7

the moral effect on the opposing personnel and horses, on the crushing power of the elephant itself, on its mobility, and on the fire effect from the tower carried on its back, From these towers a continuous fire of arrows, stones, and javelins was kept up on the enemy as the elephants advanced, At times, elephants were used without these towers simply for their breaking effect on the lines of the enemy. In addition, everything possible was done to arm the elephants themselves. Their faces and ears were painted white, blue, or red, to make them more fearful; points of steel, swords, poisoned daggers, and so on, were added to their tusks, which were usually protected by iron plates; swords or small scythes were fastened to their trunks; spikes and long lances were fixed sticking out from their breasts and bellies, and finally, before going into battle, they were often given their "tot of rum," i.e., intoxicating drinks or heating drugs. In addition to all this, elephants were favoured by nature; their odour and their trumpeting are apparently naturally terrifying to horses and it is only with the greatest difficulty that the latter can be trained to face them, The Romans fought long against employing elephants, but, though they succumbed to their use in the end, they were also’ responsible for showing that they could be rendered useless in war in Europe. Caesar sounded their death knell at the battle of Thapsus in 47 B.C., when his forces completely repulsed and drove back on their own ranks the elephants of Juba and Scipio, although these animals were completely armoured. Defence Against Elephants The analogy between the evolution of the tactics of employing elephants and that of employing tanks is much closer in the case of defence than in that of attack. From the point of view of the defence, the elephant was an almost exact counterpart of the tank, whereas from that of the attack, the elephants differed most unfavourably by being a living being, with the temper and behaviour of such.

The evolution of ariti-elephant defensive methods follows exactly that of anti-tank, and can be best shown under two headings: (1) Moral: Whenever elephants appeared against troops who had no experience of them, they were immediately successful. Both men and animals were completely overcome with terror at their appearance, and it was the first task of commanders of the day to attempt to make all ranks and animals so accustomed to this weapon that they would stand their ground if attacked by them. (2) Anti-elephant weapons: This was the next most important-factor, and, as to-day, it developed along several different lines: (a) The reproduction of a very mobile chariot armed with scythes, etc. (b) The production of the field "ballista," or artillery’ to attack elephants. (c) The production of light antielephant weapons in the hands of the infantry. The production of the chariot was rather interesting. In the Carthaginian armies, they abandoned the chariot almost entirely in favour of the elephant; in the Roman armies, they reintroduced the chariot as eminently suitable for an anti-tank weapon because of its mobility. The field "ballista’" was, however, not very successful; it was really not suitable for a moving target. It was the production of light antitank weapons for the infantry that proved the real downfall of the elephant. The best forms of these light anti-ele-phant weapons had an inflammatory composition as their basis, as it was found that flames terrified the animals more easily than anytfing else. Torches, tarred tow, oil, sulphur balls-all were employed at times. . -_--