CHAPTER XXII

THE ROUT--MORMAL FOREST--THE BATTLE OF THE SAMBRE--THE ARMISTICE

I

“Some greater issue was at stake, some mightier cause, than ever before the sword had pleaded or the trumpet had proclaimed.”

DE QUINCEY.

On November 4, the 1st, 3rd and 4th Armies were to deliver an attack on a combined front of about thirty miles, from the Sambre to the north of Oisy and Valenciennes. The country across which our advance was to be made was exceedingly difficult: in the south, the river Sambre had to be crossed almost at the outset. In the centre the great Forest of Mormal, though here and there thinned by German foresters, still presented a formidable obstacle. In the north lay the strongly fortified town of Le Quesnoy, which was defended naturally by several streams which ran parallel to the line of our advance, offering the enemy repeated opportunities for a successful defence.

On November 2, we fought a small action west of Landrecies. We were anxious to improve our position near Happegarbes before the big attack on the 4th.

Only three Tanks of the 10th Battalion took part.

Unfortunately, although we took all our objectives, the Germans suddenly plucked up heart, launched a surprise attack, and we lost them again before nightfall.

The Battle of Mormal Forest was the last set Tank attack of the War, and for it we could only scrape together just thirty-seven machines.

Tank units were bled almost white. Sections took the place of companies, companies of battalions, and Tanks were parcelled out in such a way that the very most might be made of their scanty numbers.

At dawn, after an intense bombardment, Tanks and infantry moved forward to the assault under a heavy barrage, and it was not long before they had penetrated the enemy’s positions on the whole battle front.

On the right of the attack, zero was at 5.45. The 9th Corps, which, it will be remembered, was supported by four sections of the 10th Tank Battalion, pushed forward and captured Catillon, where the Tanks fought a particularly good action. The infantry were able to cross the Sambre at this place, capturing a lock some two miles to the south of it. By two hours after zero two battalions of infantry were east of the river.

The Tanks with the 13th Corps were also extremely successful, especially in the neighbourhood of Hecq, Preux and the north-western edge of the Forest of Mormal.

An account of the fighting on this central part of the line is given in the Tank Corps Intelligence Summary.

“The early morning was fine and clear, but a dense mist came up with the dawn and persisted until about 8.30. In addition, the country S.W. of Mormal Forest is peculiarly enclosed with thick orchards, quick-set fences and hedgerow trees, confining visibility to no more than fifty yards or so, under the best conditions. The infantry largely depended on the Tanks to give them their direction, and many of the latter had to steer exclusively by compass. By this means they were able to keep approximately to their allotted routes, and were of considerable help to the infantry in breaking through the dense hedges (some wired) and in dealing with machine-guns. In places the enemy barrage came down heavily with a high proportion of gas, whilst elsewhere it was inconsiderable. Resistance also was unusually ‘patchy,’ some few M.G. posts holding out well, whilst many others, though well sited and camouflaged, were found not to have fired a round. A show of resistance was put up at Landrecies bridge by some 300 German infantry and machine-gunners, but they gave in when outflanked by the crossing of the canal on rafts further to the south. The enemy had lined some of the hedges with deep and very well camouflaged rifle-pits, which here and there were held in strength. The main body of the enemy, however, appears to have been withdrawn a kilometre or so in rear of his forward positions just prior to our attack. French inhabitants of the most forward villages state that he started withdrawing at five o’clock this morning. In a number of instances the enemy was found hiding, unarmed, awaiting an opportunity to surrender. In one village over fifty Germans emerged from the house cellars where they had been hiding together with the inhabitants. Other Germans attempted to hide themselves in trees and were dealt with with case shot. A number of anti-Tank rifles were found in rifle-pits, etc., but appear to have been made little or no use of. There were instances of detached field guns being sited to enfilade hedges and cover crests, but so far no reports have come in as to their effect--if any. One Brigade operating with Tanks is reported to have had over 350 prisoners through its cage before 11 a.m., including a Regimental Commander and part of his Staff, whilst one Division reported over 1000 prisoners by 12.30. A German pigeon loft (complete with birds) was captured in Landrecies. Air visibility was nil until after 9 a.m., and communication therefore difficult.

“_Later._--Prisoners now reported 10,000 with 200 guns.”

It was at Landrecies that three supply Tanks managed, despite their almost complete lack of arms or armour, to take a most gallant and effective part in the battle.

These three Tanks were working for the 25th Division, and were carrying up material to rebuild one of the numerous bridges that the Germans had destroyed; as they drew near their rendezvous they found that the enemy was still holding the place in some strength, and had succeeded in stopping the advance of our infantry. As the Tanks approached they began to draw fire and their situation became precarious. With great pluck and resource the Tanks decided to go on, and rely on their appearance (which was similar to that of the fighting Tanks) to drive the enemy from his position. One Tank became a casualty, but the other two went straight for the enemy. Even when the Tanks got close up, the Germans were still under the impression that they were being faced by fighters, and part of the garrison put up their hands, whilst the remainder fled.

With the 5th Corps, the 1st Company of the 9th Battalion encountered stiff resistance, but nevertheless they pushed forward far into the Forest of Mormal.

The Tanks were particularly active in the attack on Jolimetz, just south of Le Quesnoy, when they and the 37th Division took upwards of 1000 prisoners, and later in the afternoon and evening pushed on into the heart of the Forest. North of them the New Zealanders had surrounded Le Quesnoy by 8 a.m. Here also Tanks were operating.

By the end of the day we had made a five-mile advance, reaching the general line Fesny-Landrecies--centre of Mormal Forest--and five miles beyond Valenciennes.

[104]“In these operations and their developments twenty British Divisions utterly defeated thirty-two German Divisions, and captured 19,000 prisoners and more than 450 guns. On our right the French 1st Army, which had continued the line of attack southwards to the neighbourhood of Guise, kept pace with our advance, taking 5000 prisoners and a number of guns.

“By this great victory the enemy’s resistance was definitely broken. On the night of November 4–5 his troops began to fall back on practically the whole battle front.”

II

But the Tank Corps was at last at an end of its resources both in machines and in men.

Pending reinforcements from England, they could at the moment muster but eight machines that could be sent after the flying enemy, and therefore, though the Armoured Cars went on, it was on November 5 that the last Tank action of the War was fought, when eight Whippets of the 6th Battalion took part in an attack of the 3rd Guards Brigade, on the northern outskirts of the Forest of Mormal.

The weather was atrocious and the country most difficult for a combined operation, for it was intersected by numerous ditches and fences, which rendered it ideal for the rearguard actions which the Germans were now fighting all along their front.

[105]“At 10 a.m. on the morning of November 5 the 3rd Guards Brigade, having pushed through the 1st and 2nd Brigades, were ordered to continue the advance by bounds.”

No definite orders had reached the Whippets’ Company Commander as to what part--if any--his machines were to play.

He and the General commanding the 3rd Guards Brigade, however, came to the conclusion that in view of the nature of the ground and the fact that the Bultiaux River would have to be crossed in the first stage of the battle, the Whippets should lead the attack upon the second, third and final objectives only.

Two Tanks proved unfit for action, owing to mechanical trouble. The three Tanks which covered the advance of the Grenadiers found themselves in a country of small orchards divided by extremely high hedges, where it was most difficult to locate the enemy machine-guns whose fire was here considerable.

The Whippets therefore worked up and down the hedges like ratting terriers, being ordered to[106]“fire short bursts along them for moral effect even when no enemy were visible.” This they did, and found a few fleeting targets before returning to get in touch with the infantry.

Two Whippets which were co-operating with the Scots Guards met with a good deal of opposition. Twice had they and the infantry attempted to capture and consolidate high ground beyond the village of Buvignies.

The driver of the first Tank was hit as he was endeavouring to put right a minor mechanical trouble, and the second Tank went on alone.

In attempting to run over an enemy rifle-pit, it ran on to a jagged tree stump and was damaged, finally breaking down in the enemy’s lines beyond Buvignies. [107] From accounts of civilians, who were behind the enemy’s lines, it appears that the crew held out till midnight, the Tank being then blown up.

“They also reported that after the Tanks had been through Buvignies the enemy hurriedly departed, and also vacated the railway, which had been holding up the Grenadiers.”

The 3rd Guards Brigade pushed forward unopposed for a mile and a half during the night, but when darkness came the four remaining Whippets were ordered to rally.

“It was decided not to use these four on the following day, and work was concentrated on getting fit the six Whippets which might be made available to trek or fight.”

For, though that through all this period we knew well enough that the end had come, in these last few days of the War we acquired a new tradition. It became the magnificent custom of the British Army to act as though the War would go on for ever.

The spirit that says, “I’ve been lucky so far. Why tempt Providence with the War won, anyway?” must have reared its head in every man. But it was rigorously kept down, and never among the attacking troops in these last tense days was there found any inclination to spare themselves or to spoil our victory by undue chariness of life and limb. Not only in the racking circumstances of the battlefield, but also behind the lines, this new tradition was manifest, and after the 5th the Tank crews were everywhere feverishly engaged, day and night, in refitting and furbishing up their machines on the complete assumption that they would surely be called upon to fight again. Everywhere, too, the Staffs were busy endeavouring to build up an organised fighting force from the scarred, battle-weary remnants of the Corps.

The Tank Corps’ record since August 8 was indeed a remarkable one. There had been ninety-six days of almost continuous battle since that great Tank attack, and in these ninety-six days about two thousand Tanks and Armoured Cars had been engaged.

Nearly half this number of machines had been handed over to salvage. Of these, 313 had been sufficiently badly damaged to be sent to Central Workshops, who had repaired no less than 204 of them and reissued them to battalions. Of the whole 887, only fifteen machines had been struck off the strength as beyond repair.

The personnel, too, had been lamentably reduced. However, the total strength of the Tank Corps on August 7, 1918, had been considerably under that of a single infantry division, and in the old days of the artillery battles, such as the First Battle of the Somme, an infantry division often sustained 4000 casualties in twelve hours. In comparison, the Tanks’ losses of just 3000 in three months, out of a fighting strength of under 10,000, seem comparatively light. They were heavy enough, however, effectually to cripple the Corps for several weeks.

III

Meanwhile the last act of the great drama was being played out.

Though there were for the moment no Tanks to share in the culminating glories, our forces were pushing forward along the whole front. On November 6 and 7 the enemy’s resistance had very much weakened. Early on the morning of the 7th the Guards entered Bavay; next day Avesnes fell. Six cars of the Tank 17th Armoured Car Battalion here did excellent service in conjunction with “Bethell’s Force,” the cars, “full out,” putting roadside machine-guns out of action and in many cases preventing the flying enemy from blowing up the crossroads behind his rearguards. Hautmont was captured, and our troops reached the outskirts of Maubeuge, the goal upon which our eyes had for so long been fixed. To the north of Mons the enemy was now rapidly withdrawing. All through the night of November 7–8 we could see the glare of burning dumps behind the German lines, and could hear the irregular clamour of their detonations. At Tournai the enemy abandoned his bridgehead without a fight.

On the 9th the enemy was in full retreat on the whole front; the Guards entered Maubeuge at the moment when the Canadians were approaching Mons. The whole of our 2nd Army crossed the Schelde, and next day all five British Armies advanced in line, preceded by cavalry, cyclists and Armoured Cars.

Only round Mons was any opposition met with, and at dawn on November 11 the Third Canadian Division captured the town, killing or taking prisoner the whole of the German garrison.

It was the last of the tasks of slaughter to which our hands were to be forced.

For four days there had been a coming and going of envoys and of messages. For four days men and women in England had listened and waited, restless and sick with expectancy, with a sudden realisation of their longing to emerge from the long nightmare.

On November 11, just after eleven in the morning, the church bells were rung in every town and village at home; and in France the expected message was quietly passed from mouth to mouth. There is no need to describe a moment which no reader of this book will ever forget.

EPILOGUE

I

And what, the reader will ask, is the conclusion of the whole matter?

First, how far did Tanks really contribute to our overthrow of the Germans?

Secondly, what would be the place of the Tank if another war broke out within the next generation; and, thirdly, what place are Tanks going to be given in the reconstituted British Army?

As far as they can be answered, we will reply to these questions in order. For upon the performances of the Tanks in this war, will be--or should be--based the answers to the other questions, and on this point we propose to call the evidence of three or four expert witnesses.

For the rest, the reader has had an opportunity of studying a large mass of evidence for himself.

He has seen how, when the line from Switzerland to the sea had been formed, both armies sought some means of putting an end to the stalemate.

How to both the Allies and the Germans the solution by artillery was the first to occur. How, secondly, we and the Germans each according to our national habits of mind, thought of another solution. The Germans--who were chemists--of gas, used treacherously in despite of signed undertakings to the contrary; we, who were mechanics, of a self-propelled shield, from behind which we could direct an effective fire.

He knows how gas was countered, after the first surprise, by means of various air-filtering devices; but how the Tank gradually revolutionised warfare, because there was no particular specific or antidote to the Tank, which depended not so much upon surprise as on the simple factors of its enormous fire power, and its ability to surmount obstacles. For whether the troops attacked had fought against Tanks before or no, the Tank crushed down wire and smothered machine-gun fire just the same.

Marshal Foch is the first of our witnesses.

He sketches the evolution of the Tank, and describes the circumstances which called it into being, in his foreword to the English translation of his republished _Principles of War_. He has dealt with the old slowness of “digging in.”

We translate his words literally:

“The machine-gun and the barbed-wire entanglement have permitted defences to be organised with indisputable rapidity. These have endowed the trench, or natural obstacle, with a strength which has permitted offensive fronts to be extended over areas quite impracticable until this time.... The offensive for the time was powerless, new weapons were sought for, and, after a formidable artillery had been produced Tanks were invented--_i.e._ machine-guns or guns protected by armour, and rendered mobile by petrol, capable, over all types of ground, to master the enemy’s entanglements and his machine-guns....

“Thus it is the industrial power of nations that has alone permitted armies to attack, or the want of this power has reduced them to the defensive.”

Monsieur Loucheur--in January 1919 French Minister of Munitions--was a strong advocate for Tanks in the French Army.

“There are two kinds of infantry: men who have gone into action with Tanks, and men who have not; and the former never want to go into action without Tanks again.”

Sir Douglas Haig’s summing up in his Despatch, though necessarily conservative, is not therefore the less significant:

“Since the opening of our offensive on _August 8_ Tanks have been employed in every battle, and the importance of the part played by them in breaking the resistance of the German infantry can scarcely be exaggerated. The whole scheme of the attack of _August 8_ was dependent upon Tanks, and ever since that date on numberless occasions the success of our infantry has been powerfully assisted or confirmed by their timely arrival. So great has been the effect produced upon the German infantry by the appearance of British Tanks that in more than one instance, when for various reasons real Tanks were not available in sufficient numbers, valuable results have been obtained by the use of dummy Tanks painted on frames of wood and canvas.

“It is no disparagement of the courage of our infantry or of the skill and devotion of our artillery, to say that the achievements of those essential arms would have fallen short of the full measure of success achieved by our armies had it not been for the very gallant and devoted work of the Tank Corps, under the command of Major-General H. J. Elles.”

Lastly, what is the opinion of the enemy?

Herr Maximilian Harden in a speech upon the causes of the German defeat, gave first place to the “physical shock of the Tank,” at which “Ludendorff had laughed.”

Speaking for the Minister of War in the Reichstag, General Wrisberg said:

“The attack on August 8 between the Avre and the Ancre was not unexpected by our leaders. When, nevertheless, the English succeeded in achieving a great success the reasons are to be sought in the massed employment of Tanks and surprise under the protection of fog....

“The American Armies should not terrify us.... More momentous for us is the question of Tanks.”

The G.O.C. of the 51st German Corps, in an Order dated July 23, 1918, remarks: “As soon as the Tanks are destroyed the whole attack fails.”

On October 23 the German Wireless published the following statement by General Scheuch, Minister of War:

“Germany will never need to make peace owing to a shortage of war material.

“The superiority of the enemy at present is principally due to their use of Tanks.

“We have been actively engaged for a long period in working at producing this weapon (which is recognised as important), in adequate numbers.

“We shall thus have an additional means for the successful continuance of the war, if we are compelled to continue it.”

The following passage occurred in a German Order issued on August 12, 1918:

“It has been found that the enemy’s attacks have been successful solely because the Tanks surprised our infantry, broke through our ranks, and the infantry thought itself outflanked.”

The German Press was also very generally inclined to attribute the German failure to the Allied use of Tanks, and their attitude is well illustrated by the following paragraph which appeared early in October, a time when German journalists seem to have been most carefully instructed from official quarters. It was their task to prepare the German people for surrender.

“The successes which the Allies have gained since the First Battle of Cambrai do not rest on any superior strategy on the part of Foch or on superiority in numbers, although the latter has undoubtedly contributed to it. The real reason has been the massed use of Tanks. Whereas the artillery can only cut wire and blot out trenches with an enormous expenditure of ammunition, the Tank takes all these obstacles with the greatest of ease, and will make broad paths in which the advancing infantry can follow. They are the most dangerous foe to hostile machine-guns. They can approach machine-gun nests and destroy them at close range. The great danger of the Tank is obvious when one considers that the defence of the front battle zone chiefly relies on the defensive value of the machine-guns, and that the armour of the Tank renders it invulnerable to rifle fire, and that only seldom and in exceptional cases is machine-gun fire effective. The infantry is therefore opposed to an enemy to whom it can do little or no harm.”

II

The question of the place of Tanks in the next war has been answered with the greatest emphasis by some enthusiastic advocates of this arm.

The possession of a superior weapon, they say, ensures victory to the army which possesses it. In war, any army, even if led by a mediocre General, can safely meet an army of the previous century, though the old force be led by the greatest military genius of his age.

[108]“Napoleon was an infinitely greater general than Lord Raglan, yet Lord Raglan would, in 1855, have beaten any army Napoleon could have brought against him, because Lord Raglan’s men were armed with the Minie rifle.

“Eleven years after Inkerman Moltke would have beaten Lord Raglan’s army hollow, not because he was a greater soldier than Lord Raglan, but because his men were armed with the needle gun.

“Had Napoleon, at Waterloo, possessed a company of Vickers machine-guns, he would have beaten Wellington, Blücher, and Schwartzenburg combined, as completely as Lord Kitchener beat the Soudanese at Omdurman. It would have been another ‘massacre of the innocents.’”

In every case, they say, the superior weapon would have defeated the great tactician before he had had time to show his mettle. To repeat the words of the German journalist: “Their infantry would be opposed to an enemy to whom it could do little or no harm.”

We shall not discuss here the materialistic argument, except to say that if it were entirely true, savages and badly-equipped Tribesmen would never have completely beaten well-armed civilised troops. Yet they have done so on frequent occasions. Witness the First Afghan War, the Zulu Wars, the American-Indian Wars, and a host of minor actions. Material only wins hands down when the _moral_ of the side possessing it is at least fairly comparable to that of its opponents. Otherwise Byzantium with its “Greek Fire” would have ruled the world.

According to this “material” school of thought, we have in Tanks our superior weapon. They will be developed upon more than one line, and we shall have cross-country equivalents for all arms and services except heavy artillery, the Navy and the Air Force.

Mr. Hugh Pollard, writing in the _English Review_ of January 1919 states the case of the mechanical warfare and Tank enthusiasts, with great vigour and ingenuity.

“Even at present there is no effective answer to Tanks but possibly other Tanks, and in the Tank we have rediscovered a modern application of a very old principle. The Tank is the most economical method of using man-power in war, and it also affords the highest possible percentage of invulnerability to the soldiers engaged.

“The armament problems of the future will be limited to three fleets of armoured machines, in which a very limited highly specialised number of men operate the largest possible number of weapons in the most effective way. Armoured fleets at sea, armoured aeroplanes, and armoured landships, or Tanks--these will be our forces for war.”

Tanks of various speeds and carrying various weapons, will replace both infantry and cavalry, for one full size modern heavy Tank holding eight men has the aggressive power of a hundred infantry with rifles, bayonets, bombs and Lewis guns. The Whippet has about the same speed and radius as cavalry, and one Whippet holding two men “could withstand the onslaught of a cavalry regiment and kill it off to the last man and the last horse without being exposed to the least danger or inconvenience.” We shall soon regard the heroic tale of how men once exposed their defenceless bodies to machine-gun fire and shells, and depended for the élan of their assault upon the weight of human limbs and the endurance of human muscles as almost legendary.

“Most people think of a Tank as a rather ludicrous but effective engine of war. They look upon it as a mechanical novelty, and are content to assume that the Tank of to-day is not much of an improvement upon the earliest Tanks of the Somme battle, and that it is a war implement of indifferent importance. The real facts are entirely different, for the Tank of to-day is simply an infant, a lusty two-year-old, and there is no mechanical limit to its future. This may seem the remark of a fanatic, but it is perfectly true....

“The Tank of to-day is a little thing compared with the obvious developments which will result in the Tank of the future, but even as it stands to-day it is the most economical fighting machine yet devised. A Tank uses petrol instead of muscle, and it extracts the highest possible fighting or killing value out of the men inside it; they can give their blows without being exposed to injury in return, and, above all things, they can fight while moving--a thing outside the powers of the infantry or guns of the land forces.”

The arguments of those who maintain that the Tank must always be dependent upon the older arms are nearly all based upon the assumption that the Tank is already limited. “It is pointed out that they cannot cross rivers, that they are not proof against shell-fire, against mines, against special forms of attack. The answer is that the Tank of to-day may be subject to casualties, but all the skill and resources of the German nation have failed to produce an effective answer to Tanks, that river after river has been crossed, that line after line of ‘impregnable’ defences have fallen, that deeply écheloned artillery particularly arranged to fight Tanks has failed before Tank and aeroplane attack. We come to a war of sea, air, and land fleets acting in co-operation. Anti-Tank artillery is vulnerable to armoured planes. The big commercial freight-carrying planes of the future might even fly light Tanks into the heart of hostile territory. The unprotected men and arms of the present day must disappear.”

And here another question is suggested--a question upon which the civilian ought to satisfy himself. Let us for the moment assume that it is superiority in weapons, not better generalship, not a more stubborn “will to win,” that decides the fate of war.

What reason have we to suppose that it will be superiority in Tanks and not in some other weapon, in aeroplanes for example, that will decide the next conflict?

At present, when we try to imagine war upon a foreign army waged on one side by air alone, we encounter a dozen mechanical difficulties even in our attempted picture of the first stages: the enormous paraphernalia of bases, the ground-staff, fuel, weather conditions, difficulties of landing, and finally, what is perhaps the fundamental difficulty.

The aeroplane alone, like the big gun, is not an engine by whose means it is possible to come into decisive contact with an enemy who chooses to remain on the ground. The rabbits can always go to earth when they see the gliding shadow of the hawk.

Till both sides are equipped solely for air combat, Tanks or infantry will still be needed to play the part of ferret.

But these difficulties will almost certainly some day be overcome.

When they have been solved, then the day of the comparatively cumbersome Tank, with its dependence upon shipping and rail transport will be over. But that will not be in our time we are assured. To us, therefore, “War in the Air” remains of a somewhat academic interest. We have got to see to it that we survive the present.

For can the most optimistic of us truthfully declare, as he casts his eye over the world, as he looks from Middle Europe to the Far East, from Russia to Mexico, from the Balkans to Egypt, or from Asia Minor to the confines of India, that we need not even consider the possibility of a war within his own generation? Alas, no!

Now having for the moment dismissed the purely air war from our calculations, we can be pretty certain that a war between civilised countries fought within that period would not differ utterly from the war which is just over, and that a war between a civilised and an uncivilised country would differ from it only along well-known lines.

We have heard a good deal of evidence which makes it appear certain that, every other factor having cancelled out, the fact that the French and British possessed Tanks and the Germans did not, was just enough to win the last war for the Allies. Let us then sedulously cultivate the grub of the present that we may survive to see the more glorious butterfly of the future--perhaps the aerial Tank. Shall we neglect the Tank because it seems likely that in this (as please Heaven in most other affairs) our sons will go one better?

The British and French led, and in 1919 still lead, absolutely with Tanks.

If we like to carry on, we have such a start both in design and manufacturing experience, that we could easily make it impossible for any other nation to draw abreast of us during the period after which we are assuming the “Tank Age” in military evolution may conceivably be over.

It is, of course, impossible to be too discreet as to the new machines which have already been made and tested, or as to the new projects which exist.

Perhaps the position can be best indicated by saying that progress has been so rapid of late that those who know, would probably be delighted to sell any number of Mark V. Tanks to a prospective enemy.

III

The present writers are ignorant whether we have determined to keep our lead or no. Shall we have the foresight, when it comes to the remodelling of the Army, to give to Tanks the place they ought to hold in it? Shall we be willing to spend money on experiments, money which we must spend if we want to keep that lead? Will the Tanks be given the facilities for both mechanical and tactical training that they ought to have? We may so easily slide back into our old groove. It is always hard to turn to new ways, and to give a preponderating place in the “New Model” to Tanks, would certainly be to effect a very radical change. There does seem to be a certain fear that the Army and the public may feel that the Tanks are all right for War, but hardly the thing for soldiering.

And yet how well the requirements of a strong force of Tanks would in reality fit the kind of framework which the wisest minds seem agreed should be our Army of the future. We ought to have, they say, a small and highly specialised Standing Army, and behind that a vast Citizen Army on the basis of the Territorial system. What weapon could be more suitably added to the gun and the aeroplane than the Tank in the Regular Army? Our Standing Army would thus consist of a nucleus of mechanical experts.

Nor need the question of finance ever rise spectre-like between us and the idea of a strong force of Tanks, for the Tank is an absurdly cheap weapon compared with its co-efficient of infantry.

But there is another direction in which, if it claim any considerable place in our Standing Army, the Tank must make good. That army may at any moment be called upon to undertake police work in any part of the world.

The Tank, even the old Mark I., is, as we saw at Gaza, suitable for desert warfare. The Mark V. and Whippets with General Denikin’s force in Russia have been prodigiously successful, and there are probably few species of campaign against a semi-civilised enemy in which the newer “Medium” Tanks would not do admirably.

Another point is that “minor wars” are fought by us with as much avoidance of bloodshed as is compatible with the bringing of our opponents to reason.

A weapon which admittedly affected the _moral_ even of admirably disciplined troops like the Germans to a phenomenal degree, is particularly well adapted to this purpose.

It is infinitely more humane to appal a rioter or a savage by showing him a Tank than to shoot him down with an inoffensive looking machine-gun.[109]

There is yet one final consideration.

The reader may still very properly object: “Though the Tank may, as it rather begins to appear, have been the decisive factor in the last War, and though it might be very convenient to use it again, before we put our money on it, literally and metaphorically, for the future, are we sure that it is a weapon which suits the British soldier? Time was when at the direction of Military Experts we spent a great deal of money upon the building of forts at home and abroad which were never of the slightest use to any one, because they did not suit our style of fighting. What reason have we to suppose that we shall like the Tank as a permanent addition on a large scale to the equipment of our Army?” The present authors consider this line of criticism a very proper one. They differ from the “hardshell” advocates of the superior weapon in considering it of the greatest importance that the balance and poise of the broadsword should suit the hand that is to wield it. But they believe that the Tank, like the ship and the aeroplane, is a weapon peculiarly suited to the British temperament, and that fundamentally it was for that reason that we, and not some other nation, first evolved it. For good or ill, our Commanders both on land and sea have certain peculiarities. Our men dislike standing on the defensive. They hate digging, and in the present War were beaten by the Germans every time at this particularly unpopular form of activity. Also, almost worse than digging, do they hate carrying things on their backs, and we are noted among all nations as the least tolerant of burdens. All these peculiarities have filled the ranks of the Navy and of the Cavalry, and all these peculiarities are suited by the aeroplanes and the Land Ships. Our Commanders, like their men, prefer to be the attackers, and like a war of movement. Almost the whole creed of Nelson, our most popular fighting-hero, was expressed in his assertion that the first and last duty of an Admiral was to find out the enemy’s fleet and to attack it, and in his famous signal, “Engage the enemy more closely.”

Further, our leaders particularly and temperamentally dislike a large butcher’s bill. It was, indeed, their extreme reluctance to send unprotected men to meet the hail of bullets from German machine-guns, that lay behind most of the ostensible reasons for which the Tanks were first given a trial. It was a deciding factor. We may even perhaps say without seeming fantastic that it was their inhumanity which cost the Germans the War. They had no bowels of compassion, and were just as ready to send the “infantry equivalent” (say seventy unprotected men) over the top as they were to put in seven men enclosed in armour. To them it was the coldest question of military expediency. Purely upon military considerations they decided against the seven clad in armour. Our Commanders, though in theory they were inclined to agree with the German Higher Command, though they recognised the ultimate cruelty of the policy of “cheap war,” and knew, with Nelson, that they had not come to the Western Front to preserve their lives, were yet tempted by the idea of using steel and petrol in place of flesh and blood. More than once in the course of the chequered career of the Tanks it was this consideration which saved the Corps from extinction.

But it is not, of course, enough that the Tank offers protection to those who fight in it. A trench or a hole in the ground will do the same. But the Tank is essentially a mobile weapon of _offence_. It is the weapon for the nation which does not fight willingly, but when it fights, fights to win, and to win quickly with as little bloodshed as possible. It is the weapon for men who, if they must fight, like to fight like intelligent beings still subjecting the material world to their will, and who are most unwillingly reduced to the rôles of mere marching automata, bearers of burdens and diggers of the soil, rôles from which the patient German did not seem averse.

IV

The creed of the present writers can be very briefly summarised. A considerable amount of evidence points to the conclusion that in the phase at which military science has arrived, and at which it will probably remain for at least a generation, a superior force of Tanks can always tip the scales of the military balance of power.

Within the period of a generation, a time may again come when we shall have to defend our lives and our liberties. We lead the world in the design and manufacture of Tanks. Let us not abandon that lead in the production and use of a vital weapon.

We know too well the tragic cost of one day of war, and it has been said that had we been visibly prepared the Germans would not have attacked.

Obviously we cannot be going to fall again so quickly into an old error. We certainly intend to be armed, but who can say that through sheer absence of mind it will not be with arquebuses? Surely not for the sake of Army precedent, for the sake of emphasising our pacific intentions, for the sake of saving a little money, or even--dearest of all--for the luxury of “not bothering” about our Army, must we lose our present unparalleled position of advantage. This advantage is not only a material one. The Tanks are accustomed to win. Do not let us throw away a fine tradition of victory.

Of all that, in our agony of striving we gained by the way, let us lose nothing.