CHURCHILL AND THE TANK (1)...lem and various solutions. Try something, try anything!was its basic cry. Even so, <strong>Churchill</strong> devoted a good dealof the manuscript to “Caterpillars,” as most peoplecalled them at the time. In the document he revealed toFrench that such machines were already being built inBritain and would soon be ready for service—jumpingthe gun a bit since Fosters of Lincoln were still playingaround with the prototype.What makes this appeal interesting is the fact that<strong>Churchill</strong>, now that he was an Army officer, was solicitingthe Commander-in-Chief’s support. Months earlierhe got very upset when one of the Landships Committeerevealed the project to General Smith-Dorrien since, atthat time, the First Lord wished his Landships to be anaval responsibility.Douglas Haig saw <strong>Churchill</strong>’s paper when hereplaced Lord French as commander of the BritishExpeditionary Force in December 1915. A far moreresponsive officer, despite his undeserved reputation asan unimaginative “blunderer and butcher,” Haig sentone of his officers to see <strong>Churchill</strong> and then proceededto England to witness a prototype demonstration. Thisofficer, Colonel Hugh Elles, Royal Engineers, would takecommand of the Tank Corps for the duration of the war<strong>Churchill</strong> missed the first demonstration of a tank,which took place in the grounds of Hatfield Park,Hertfordshire at the end of January 1916; he was inFrance. He also missed the second demonstration onFebruary 2nd, which was laid on especially for theMinister of War, Lord Kitchener, but at least <strong>Churchill</strong>was spared hearing Kitchener refer disparagingly to a“pretty mechanical toy” as he strode off, halfway throughthe performance.<strong>Churchill</strong> returned to the government fold inthe summer of 1917, as Minister of Munitionsunder Lloyd George. By this time the tankprogramme was in full swing and there was noneed for him to become involved. In any casethere was more than enough to do; the supply of steelalone was getting beyond the critical state and, with theUnited States as the main source, there was conflict withthe French.That first tank attack was not a great success, butat least it was sufficient to convince Field Marshal Haigof the tank’s efficacy and cause him to order 1000 more.Basking in a certain amount of reflected glory, <strong>Churchill</strong>wrote a paper on “The Greater Application ofMechanical Power to the Prosecution of an Offensive onLand,” at the behest of the Prime Minister, for theCommittee of Imperial Defence and the War Cabinet.As Mr. Frost explains, 1917 was a bad year fortanks, notably during the summer offensive when theyoften floundered in the Flanders mud. Thus it is interestingto note that in a memo to the War Cabinet on themunitions programme for 1918, written in October1917, <strong>Churchill</strong> places tanks fifth in a list of six desirablefactors, with artillery at the top and even transportation(road and rail) above tanks. The irony is that just amonth later, on 20 November 1917 at Cambrai, thetanks turned in a performance that changed virtuallyevery mind.Not that it was all plain sailing at home. In hisnew position, <strong>Churchill</strong> came under increasing pressure,particularly from senior officers, to get rid of Stern, whohad trodden on far too many toes. In an acrimoniousinterview in August 1917, a transcript of which has survived,<strong>Churchill</strong> gave Stern the dressing down of his life.Stern stood accused of wasting public money on uselesstanks, of failing to anticipate future requirements andtechnical developments and failing to create an experimentaldepartment to work on new tanks.None of this really stands up to close investigation,but <strong>Churchill</strong>’s anger matched the mood of the time andit was enough to see Stern kicked out of his post, albeitwith the promise of a knighthood and a new position aschairman of an Anglo-American tank committee.<strong>Churchill</strong>’s demand for an experimental departmentseems to have sparked new thoughts and, about a monthlater, in a paper entitled “Special Tanks,” he suggestedamphibious and mine-clearing tanks. This revealsremarkable prescience, and work on such projects wasactually in progress when the war came to an end. Itcame into its own twenty-seven years later when adaptedtanks, referred to as “specialised armour,” cleared theway off the Normandy beaches.Tanks made a major contribution to British successin the Great War, more than justifying <strong>Winston</strong><strong>Churchill</strong>’s initial leap of faith. Yet that was not the endof <strong>Churchill</strong>’s association with tanks. As Chancellor ofthe Exchequer in the interwar years, <strong>Churchill</strong> made apoint of being photographed at significant demonstrationsand, of course, his involvement in World War IIresulted in the famous <strong>Churchill</strong> Tank; but that is anotherstory.Endnotes1. Broad, Lewis, <strong>Winston</strong> <strong>Churchill</strong> (London: Hutchinson,1941), 163.2. <strong>Churchill</strong>, <strong>Winston</strong>, The World Crisis, vol. 2, 1915(London: Thornton Butterworth, 1923), 77.3. Ibid., 86.4. <strong>Churchill</strong>, <strong>Winston</strong>, The World Crisis, vol. 3, part II, 1916-1918 (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1927), 302.See also Glanfield, John, The Devil’s Chariots (London: SuttonPublishing, 2001); Fletcher, David, War Cars (London: HMSO,1987; and The British Tank 1915-1919 (London: Crowood Press2001). ,FINEST HOUR 135 / 44
<strong>Churchill</strong> and the Tank (2):In for the DurationBY MARCUS FROSTBy 1915, the bloodbath of World War I seemed endless. The Central Powers,Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey, were pitted against Britain,France, Italy and Russia, and the slaughter among their soldierswas intense. The battle lines were frozen on everyfront and no advances were being made bypressing chests against bullets.But <strong>Winston</strong> <strong>Churchill</strong> had an idea.BRITISH TRIBUTE TO A WORLD WAR I ALLY: A British Mark IV tank at Caterpillar, Inc. in Peoria, Illinois, presented “in appreciationof the great service rendered Great Britain by the Holt Manufacturing Company during the war.” (Caterpillar, Inc.)In these solemn days we mourn every life lost inbattle, but perhaps we have lost sight of what itwas like for our forbears. Ninety years ago in theage of static trench warfare, men were moweddown by machine guns if they rose from theirparapets and tried to advance. Each side pummeled theother with deadly artillery fire; shrapnel shredded bodieson both sides. In the battles of Verdun and the Sommebetween July and November 1916, almost a million werekilled, an average of 6600 per day, 277 per hour, five perMr. Frost, of Mexia, Texas, is a <strong>Churchill</strong> Centre Governor, Trusteeand Associate (the only individual who is all three). He is active inboth our Dallas and San Antonio affiliates, and sponsored the recentteacher seminar in March at Baylor University.minute. By war’s end Germany and Russia would lose1.75 million men each, France and Austria-Hungaryabout 1.4 million each, Britain 750,000, Italy 615,000. 1A 42-year-old doctor, John M. McCrae of the RoyalCanadian Army Medical Corps, wrote the most frequentlyquoted English-language poems of the war afterdays of being surrounded by the human wreckage:In Flanders fields the poppies blowBetween the crosses, row on row,That mark our place; and in the skyThe larks, still bravely singing, flyScarce heard amid the guns below. 2Could anything be done to stop the death and carnage?In London, Prime Minister Herbert Asquithreceived a suggestion from a colleague: “It would be >>FINEST HOUR 135 / 45
Change language