Did Churchill invent the Tank and where did the name come from ?

[Tony Ring]

Watched the History Channel last night concerning Winston Churchills Scotland Yard "minder". They showed Churchill inspecting a tracked vehicle that was climbing over what appeared to be crates. He thought it could carry a large gun and be a handy weapon in the front lines. There was a discussion about the first tanks used in WW1 and that it was Churchill's idea. The name TANK possibly came from it looking similar to a water tank.

True or false ?

Tony

[delta]

A number of people were involved in the invention of the tank - http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Overviews/WW...ksOverview.html

its development was actively supported by Churchill.

The term tank was used to disguise the purpose of the machine

Stephen

[truthergw]

Churchill was certainly in favour of new ideas and the tank was one of them. Many people claimed to have ' invented ' the tank. It was an idea that was in the air. There was nothing new about it. The tracked tractor existed and the idea of an armoured vehicle was far from new. Putting them together in a machine which worked, was the trick. One of the people involved in pushing the idea, arranging trials and so on, was Col. M. Hankey who not only was enthusiastic but also had the ' clout' to see that it happened. As stated, they were called tanks as a cover for large objects being transported under tarpaulins on railway trucks.

[gem22]

Tony

The idea for using an ironclad caterpillar tractor was proposed in November 1911 by a gentleman from Leeds called John Corry. His machine was designed to carry a 4.7in gun and he demonstrated a working model to the press. The proposals were sent to Churchill who passed them on to the War Office. The War Office turned down the idea.

Austrian, Gunther Burstyn, offered his ideas to both Austrian and German governments with similar results to Corry.

It wasn't until late 1914 that Col. Swinton re-invented the idea based on the American Holt's tractors. The idea was well supported by Churchill who had been concerned with the use of armoured cars by the R.N.A.S during the early part of the war.

The name tank, as others have said, comes from the use of the term 'water tank' to describe large items of equipment that were transported by rail towards the front. I suspect that the Germans would have had better warning of what was coming if the 'tanks' had been called 'iron-clad landships or 'armoured gun carriers'.

A good book on this subject, one of many, is Trevor Pidgeons "The Tanks at Flers". A more recent book that gives an interesting account is "Poelcapelle 1917" by Robert Baccarne. This latter book deals with a specific area of the battlefied and lacks Pidgeons detail; but, nonetheless it is an interesting read.

Garth

ps Got the email-will reply separately

[tanks3]

Tony,

Try also Landships of Lincoln by Richard Pullen. Readily available off a most popular auction website!

Tanks3

[Sidearm]

John Glanfield's book's the one for me!

Gwyn

[Tony Ring]

John Glanfield's book's the one for me!

Gwyn

Thank you everyone.

Some heavy reading coming up.

Tony

[per ardua per mare per terram]

There have been several threads on tanks on the forum here's another one:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...howtopic=133574

Churchill (as First Lord of the Admiralty) instigated the landship committee, which progressed the development of the tank. This was independent of Swinton's failed attempts to push ahead with an armoured Holt tractor.

Also try David Fletcher Landships: British Tanks in the First World War

[MikB]

Getting sufficient clean water to the troops was always a problem. The idea of a mobile water tank as a scheme to solve that was an ideal cover story.

Regards,

MikB

[Tony Ring]

Getting sufficient clean water to the troops was always a problem. The idea of a mobile water tank as a scheme to solve that was an ideal cover story.

Regards,

MikB

That makes sense.

A "Trojan Horse" of sorts.

Tony

[ianw]

Of course it should be said that Churchill espoused a lot of mad schemes in both wars that never got very far - but I suppose that is the nature of the beast. Some of these ideas will deliver the goods - tanks being one of them. His invention somewhat bit him in the backside during WWII given general German tank superiority.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Churchill's prime contribution for the development of the tank was to form the Landship Committee, as this included the Director of Naval Construction and several very able naval officers the tank was developed. It was not his invention.

British tanks in WW2 suffered from the army's chronic blind spot when it comes to artillery that has plagued them through almost every modern war I've read about. Just in the life span of WWI soldiers: they had to be helped out in the Second Boer War by the Navy landing ships guns of up to 6”, a larger calibre than the original BEF took with them to France in 1914. In WWI the naval Landship Committee provided 6 pounder guns (the War Office requirements didn’t alter that). In WW2 the army fielded the Matilda II with a 2pounder! With a better gun it would have been more effective, the armour was good for the time. It was not until they started modifying Shermans to produce the Firefly that they appear to have grasped the idea.

To be fair to them in WW2, if they had followed Churchill's warnings maybe they would have been better prepared. Germany had been planning and rearming since 1933.

Edited 10 October , 2009 by per ardua per mare per terram

[Rob Connolly]

"WW2 the army fielded the Matilda II with a 2pounder!"

This is getting wildly OT, but the German panzer crews at Arras and in North Africa hated and feared the Matilda - it was immune to anything less than an 88mm in the anti-tank role, and could knock out anything they brought to the table until late 1941. There is the tale of a mixed Panzerkeil of 40 German and Italian tanks encountering 3 Matildas - and losing ...

"Of course it should be said that Churchill espoused a lot of mad schemes in both wars that never got very far"

Another anecdotal analysis had it that Winston dreamed up ten schemes a day, only one of which was any good, and even he didn't know which one it was. This made Alanbrooke's job a rather difficult one.

[Tony Ring]

"WW2 the army fielded the Matilda II with a 2pounder!"

This is getting wildly OT, but the German panzer crews at Arras and in North Africa hated and feared the Matilda - it was immune to anything less than an 88mm in the anti-tank role, and could knock out anything they brought to the table until late 1941. There is the tale of a mixed Panzerkeil of 40 German and Italian tanks encountering 3 Matildas - and losing ...

"Of course it should be said that Churchill espoused a lot of mad schemes in both wars that never got very far"

Another anecdotal analysis had it that Winston dreamed up ten schemes a day, only one of which was any good, and even he didn't know which one it was. This made Alanbrooke's job a rather difficult one.

Thanks for that. I can remember when I was about 12 years old and staying with my Grand Parents. I made the mistake of calling Churchill a "fool". I was sent straight to bed so he was popular down under.

Thanks for the info

Tony

[per ardua per mare per terram]

This is getting wildly OT, but the German panzer crews at Arras and in North Africa hated and feared the Matilda - it was immune to anything less than an 88mm in the anti-tank role, and could knock out anything they brought to the table until late 1941. There is the tale of a mixed Panzerkeil of 40 German and Italian tanks encountering 3 Matildas - and losing ...

I did stress the good armour; if that had been coupled with a better gun it would have been even more effective.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I made the mistake of calling Churchill a "fool".

He was an ideas man and needed to be harnessed with people who could reject the poor ideas, but bring the good ideas to fruition. His contributions via his time at the Admiralty showed both: under his guidence the RNAS launched long range bombing raids and put out the contracts for a multi engined heavy bomber; they also launched the first (sea plane) carrier raid. The adoption of oil fueled capital ships not only altered naval warfare, but also Britain's entire geo-stategical situation. Set against that is the failure of anyone to quash the Dardanelles plan after the Naval attempt to force the Straits had failed; leading to Gallipoli.

[Tony Ring]

He was an ideas man and needed to be harnessed with people who could reject the poor ideas, but bring the good ideas to fruition. His contributions via his time at the Admiralty showed both: under his guidence the RNAS launched long range bombing raids and put out the contracts for a multi engined heavy bomber; they also launched the first (sea plane) carrier raid. The adoption of oil fueled capital ships not only altered naval warfare, but also Britain's entire geo-stategical situation. Set against that is the failure of anyone to quash the Dardanelles plan after the Naval attempt to force the Straits had failed; leading to Gallipoli.

I know that Gallipoli lost him a few brownie points with both Aussies & Kiwis as this action plus some of the later WW1 decisions by the British Military Generals resulted in a huge loss of life.

By the time WW2 arrived he was the golden boy.

Tony

[MikB]

I did stress the good armour; if that had been coupled with a better gun it would have been even more effective.

Still OT, but the gun was fine in 1940 - 41, when Jerry was still using 37s, short 50s and even shorter 75s. The issue was that it couldn't be upgunned. The Valentine lasted longer because the 6 pdr. and even the 75 could just about be shoehorned in, even though with the 2 pdr it was inferior to the Matilda.

Regards,

MikB

[Terry_Reeves]

Somewhere I have on tape a BBC documentary about the birth of the tank, dating from the 1980s. Many of the women building the original vehicles kept asking management what they were for. To disguise their true purpose they were told they were "Water carriers for Mesopotamia." The girls shortened that to water tanks which of course became ........

TR

[truthergw]

One of the men who knew about tanks from the earliest days was Hankey. In his book, " Supreme Command", he says that the few who saw them in development called them armoured caterpillars. He adds a footnote(Vol. II P.496) .

" The designation 'tank' was part of an ingenious system of camouflage adopted to conceal the real purpose of these engines not only from the enemy's spies, but even from those engaged on their construction. The machines were known as ' tanks for Russia' and had this written on them in English and Russian. This was Swinton's idea."

This was at a stage when all reference was hand written ( no secretary to type) by Hankey himself and not even the Cabinet knew of their existence. Swinton had spoken to Hankey who had sent a memorandum to Churchill, recommending the evolution of technical devices to solve the problem of machineguns and barbed wire and mentioning tanks. That was Boxing Day 1914.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Hankey’s footnote credits Swinton with the idea of painting ‘tanks for Russia’ (illustrated as ‘with care to Petrograd’ in AFV 1914-19 edited by Duncan Crow) it neither credits him with adopting the nickname, let alone creating the vehicle it was painted on. By Boxing Day 1914, when Hankey issued his memorandum, the RNAS (which Churchill strongly supported) had already amassed considerable knowledge of Armoured Fighting Vehicles having developed armoured cars, with the first turreted Rolls Royce cars being produced that month. Samson had been sending back reports on the use of armoured cars for over 3 months. He had lamented that his heavier vehicles could not operate off road as early as September. The RNAS had also assembled several gifted officers some of whom (particularly the later Sir, Albert Gerald Stern and Walter Gordon Wilson) were crucial in the development of the tank. The Admiralty supply network had not only secured contracts for thin (in naval terms) armour plate, the supplier had developed plate that could be shaped and bent. This had led to the extremely successful Rolls Royce armoured car, in addition to other versions plus armoured lorries and embryo self propelled guns. Another of their suppliers, William Tritton, was crucial in the development of practical tracks and early production; he had experience of building tracked vehicles before the war. The Director of the Admiralty Air Department, Murray Seuter, had previously recommended the use of tracked vehicles to Captain Robert Falcon Scott before the war. He had received Samson’s reports and organised the improved armour cars; just as he set in train the contract that led to the Handley Page bombers (again in response to Samson’s experience). Seuter was a major advocate for tracked vehicles.

Churchill’s direction was crucial for the Admiralty’s Landship Committee calling on proposals that were instigated before Swinton demonstrated his idea to the War Office in February 1915. This was nothing like a tank; it was a tracked tractor pulling a trailer loaded with weights to simulate the weight of the armour. The tow bar sheared off and the War Office rejected the idea. Swinton was so far adrift that he couldn’t even come up with armour for a test! Fortunately Churchill’s formation of the Landship Committee was not dependent on the War Office decision and the tank was created. For the Landship Committee’s armoured demonstration they had an armoured body on their tracked chassis – the Killen-Strait combined with an armoured shell from one of their previous armoured cars. Swinton might have been inspired by seeing a tracked vehicle, but he didn’t have practical proposals and didn’t advance the design. Neither did Churchill, but he did facilitate its creation.

[truthergw]

Here is a quotation from " The First World War 1914-1918", Col. Repington. Volume 1, p340.

" Thursday September 21 1916. ............We had a great discussion about the famous Tanks, which had made their first appearance in the field in last Friday's battle. Winston said that though he had in his mind H.G. Well's predictions about them, they really developed from the armoured motor car, which trench warfare had rendered useless. They were taken up by the Admiralty. He found that he had some money to spare , and he applied it to this purpose. To that extent the initiative and responsibility rested with him. Winston had wanted to wait until there was something like a thousand Tanks, and then to win a great battle with them as a surprise, but , as Northcliffe said the other day, nothing keeps whether in journalism or in war. "

[per ardua per mare per terram]

they really developed from the armoured motor car, which trench warfare had rendered useless.

As noted in my previous post. These were another of the RNAS developments.

[truthergw]

I rather doubt if Winston knew about that when he said what he did. I am not trying to make a point or win an argument or indulge in any other kind of competition. I have simply posted what I took to be relevant pieces of information as to whether Churchill invented the tank.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I rather doubt if Winston knew about that when he said what he did.

I am confused about this comment. If Churchill was speaking in 1916, why would he be ignorant of the armoured cars developed by the Admiralty during his time as First Lord? He took an active interest in their development and use. He would also have known that the RNAS cars had served: on the Western Front, in Gallipoli, Egypt, Russia and East Africa by 1916.