part0026

DURING the many battles and engagements in which the Tank Corps took part many appreciative special orders and letters were received from the Higher Commanders under whose orders the Corps worked. These kindly words, always appreciated, are apt sometimes to be regarded as the inevitable “good chits” which courtesy demands should be addressed to good, indifferent, and bad alike after an operation has been successfully completed. Unsolicited testimonials, and especially such as are not meant for the eyes of those praised, when they do, by chance, come under these eyes, are regarded as more than mere “pats on the back,” especially when they come from those who have fought alongside the commended.

The following letter was written by an infantry officer who took part in the battle of Cambrai, and addressed to a personal friend neither in nor connected with the Tank Corps, who, months later on, showed it to one who was. Not only did this letter come as a pleasant and gratifying surprise to all ranks of the Corps, for it was published as a “Battle Note,” {27} but it shows such an exceptionally clear insight into the value and possibilities of the tanks that, even for this reason alone, it is worth publishing. Who the writer was the Tank Corps never knew, but his sound judgment and kindly appreciation stimulated amongst his readers that high form of personal and collective pride which to soldiers is known as “esprit de corps.” It is on human documents such as these, rather than on orders and instructions, that the moral of an individual or a unit grows strong, and by growing strong places the entire Army one step nearer victory.

“I will first give you the opinion of one of my colonels. In three years of fighting on this front, I have met no battalion commander’ to equal him in power of leadership, rapidity of decision in an emergency, and personal magnetism. I have met no man who would judge so justly what an infantry soldier can and cannot do.

“He considers the tanks invaluable if properly handled, either for the attack or in defence—but he realises, as I think we all do, that until Cambrai, the tactical knowledge shown in their employment was of the meanest order.

“One other valuable opinion I’ve obtained. We have now with the Battalion a subaltern, a man of about thirty —a very good soldier, a resolute, determined kind of fellow who has seen a good deal of fighting. He commanded a platoon in our —th Battalion in the big tank attack at Cambrai and was in the first wave of the attack throughout. He tells me that the tanks covering the advance of his battalion functioning under ideal weather and ground conditions, were handled with marked skill and enterprise in the capture of the first two objectives covering an advance of about 3,500 yards. The moral effect of the support given by tanks on the attacking infantry is very great. He says his men felt the utmost confidence in the tanks and were prepared to follow them anywhere) (The effect of the advancing line of tanks on the enemy infantry was extraordinary. They made no attempt whatever to hold their trenches, and either bolted in mad panic or, abandoning their arms, rushed forward with hands uplifted to surrender As long as the advance of the tanks continued, i.e., over the enemy trench system to a depth of from two to three miles, the total casualties incurred by our —th Battalion (attacking in the first wave) were four killed and five wounded, all by shell fire. “After the fall of the second objective, the advance ceased for some unexplained reason—(they were told some hitch about Flesquières)—the attack seemed to lose purpose and direction. Tanks on the flanks began coming back. The battalion was ordered to attack five different objectives, and before the necessary plans could be communicated to subordinate commanders, orders were received cancelling the previous instructions. In a word, chaos prevailed. The afore-mentioned subaltern cannot speak too highly of the work of the tank commanders—nothing could exceed their daring and enterprise. He says he is absolutely convinced that infantry, unsupported by artillery, are absolutely powerless against tanks and that no belt of wire can be built through which they cannot break an admirable passage for infantry.

“I give you his opinion at some length, because they are the ipsissima verba of a man qualified to speak, from personal practical experience. Personally, I believe the tanks may yet play the biggest rôle in the war, if only the Higher Command will employ them in situations where common-sense and past experience alike demand their use. Two days before the Hun attacked us at Bourlon wood we lost three officers and some seventy gallant fellows trying to mop up a couple of enemy M.G. nests—a bit of work a couple of tanks could have done with certainty without the loss of a man.

“In the situation described after the capture of the second objective, why should there not have been a responsible staff officer—G.S.O.1 say—right forward in a tank to size up the situation and seize opportunity, the very essence of which is rapid decision? In the early days of the war, forgetful of the lessons of South Africa, we put our senior officers in the forefront of the battle—of late, the pendulum has swung the other way—surely the employment of a tank for the purpose outlined would enable us now to strike the happy mean

“Half the casualties we suffer in heavy fighting after the initial attack come from the carrying parties winding slowly in and out through barrage fire, bringing up ammunition to the infantry, the Lewis and Vickers guns—all this could be done much more rapidly, surely, with a minimum of loss, by tanks—for the future the tank should relieve the artillery of all responsibility as regards wire-cutting. You know you can cross a belt of wire over which a tank has passed, you hope you can pass through a wire belt on which the artillery has played for a couple of days. As a business proposition a tank at £5,000 will cut more wire in one journey, even assuming it does nothing else, than 2,000 shells at £5 each, blazing away for a day—add the wear on the life of the gu n

“In attack, one of the most difficult problems of the infantry is to get the Stokes guns far enough forward, with sufficient ammunition, to come into action against machine guns or strong points holding up the advance unexpectedly —all this could be done by means of a tank with ease—whilst not only could the small Stokes gun with a range of 500-600 yards be brought forward, but also the 6 in. Stokes with a range of 1,200-1,600 yards by the same means, and be brought into action firing from the tank.

“I have tried to outline some of the more obvious uses for which the tank is so admirably suitable. There is a well of this information yet untapped, not in staff offices, but in the minds of the platoon and company commanders who have fought in the first waves of the attack with the tank, who have seen the difficulties it has to overcome and how it has met them or failed, and why. Nothing has yet been produced in this war to equal the tank for doing by machinery what has hitherto been done by men; nothing so well fitted to economise our man-power and reduce the appalling wastage which has hitherto characterised our efforts in attack, and with gain instead of loss in efficiency.

“We want thousands of tanks, both light and heavy, ranging from two miles to eight miles per hour, armed with M.G.s, armed with Stokes guns, unarmed and fast-travelling for transport of gun teams to emergency tactical positions, and lastly, a staff of trained minds to define the tactics of the tank—to refute criticism based on ignorance, to collect, classify and investigate all available information and suggestions, so that like an aeroplane—every ‘new edition ‘of the tank is an improvement on the last .