KC One of the first questions people ask is why was the machine called a tank, and who invented the things, anyway. Can you give an explanation of your diagram on the Chain of Causation of the Tank? Sir B L-H Writing in the Daily Telegraph in 1926, I produced the diagram after careful review of the evidence and findings of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors (which sat at Lincoln Inn Hall from October 7, 1919, onwards, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Sargeant). The diagram aimed to disentangle the main as distinct from the subsidiary links of this chain, and to crystallize, following as far as possible the narrative of the Counsel for the Crown as modified by the witnesses evidence. In establishing such a chain the first, and dominating, essential is to be clear as to the real purpose of the original tanks, in other words to frame a tactical definition for it. In those post-war days the improvements in design led to a development of the original conception and military opinion was slowly coming to regard the tanks as the modern successor of the cavalry, the heir to the cavalry's historical role. Looking to the future, I wrote, we sense the coming of tank armies, which will have swallowed all the traditional arms of the service. But in its early years the tank was fundamentally an antidote to machine guns, a means of restoring to the offensive the power to combat the superiority with which the mass growth of these weapons had endowed the defence. Thus, the acid test of the links in this chain is whether they were based on the conception of a bullet-proof trench-crossing machine gun destroyer. Following this test the first definite link stands to the credit of Colonel (later Major-General Sir Ernest) Swinton, who, on October 20, 1914, when back from France, saw Colonel (later Sir Maurice) Hankey, and after describing the situation-the dominance of the machine gun based defenceoutlined his proposals for an antidote. These were, in brief to develop the existing machine, the Holt tractor, into such a trench-crossing machine gun destroyer, armed with one or more small quickfiring guns. A further discussion the next day led to an understanding that Col Hankey would take up the matter at home and Col Swinton in France, where he was the official 'Eyewitness'. The seed thus planted at the War Office from two sources fell on stoney ground, and after some attention finally languished on other soil, for Mr Churchill in February, 1915, formed a committee at the Admiralty which later became known as the Landships Committee. Eventually on September 19, 1915, an inspection was held at Lincoln of a provisional machine, but this was rejected by Col Swinton as failing to conform to the War Office requirements. He was then shown a full size wooden model, as mock up, of a larger machine which had been specially designed by Mr Witton and Lt W G Wilson, to meet the latest Army specifications. The two machines thus standing side by side gave rise to the nickname 'Little Willie' for the smaller of the tarpaulin-covered heap of metal, and 'Wilson' for the larger machine. The later machine was accepted and finally on February 2, 1916, at Hatfield was held the official trial of this machine which had been christened 'Mother' or 'Big Willie', and as a result 150 of the machines were ordered and on September 15, 1916, these tanks went into action for the first time. KC Your diagram shows how General Swinton must be given the first halo for instituting the tank idea but the Chain of Causation is linked throughout with the name of Sir Winston Churchill. What part did he have to play in originating the Tank? Sir Winston Churchill in 1941 Sir B L-H The idea which changed World War I and later became the Blitzkreig of World War II began in a small way and, by an extraordinary coincidence, at Dunkirk, the port from which the British Army were evacuated in 1940. The BEF of 1914 also had a narrow escape and at this point Winston Churchill became involved. He was the First Lord of the Admiralty and was very quick to realise the state of deadlock reached on land. His mind was more receptive to the ideas of those who conceived the original idea, and since the very beginning of the Great War Churchill did much to foster the tank in its early days. Whatever office he was holding his interest and enthusiasm encouraged the pioneers. The experimental process started in various ways, some of them rather odd, but one step, the first in time, arose from a letter which Mr Churchill received a few days after the outbreak of war, when Rear Admiral R H S Bacon said that he had designed a 15in howitzer which could be transported by road. Winston. Churchill had many claims to have been one of the originators of the tank but, in fact, Admiral Bacon's machine was not a caterpillar tractor. It had large wheels and looked like a familiar steam roller. In 1924, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill then had the duty of putting the brake on expenditure and the continual paring down of the Army Estimates led me to point out in the Daily Telegraph that: 'by contrast, every important foreign power has made startling, indeed ominous, increases of expenditure on its army'. However, during the summer Of 1927 the first organized trial of the Mechanised Force took place and Tim Pile (the energetic commander of the 3rd Tank Battalion) was given a turn to take charge of the whole force in an exercise that was specially arranged as a demonstration for Winston Churchill. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer's convenience the demonstration was very curtailed, but within its limits showed the kind of high-speed indirect approach and encircling manceuvre that I had long urged as the right tactical method of using such a force. Churchill was enthusiastic, and the War Office were shaken by his demand that the cavalry as a whole should be mechanised or else abolished and replaced by an expansion of the Royal Tank Corps. The ultimatum was, however, staved off, but it was evident from a discussion I had had with him at No 10 Downing Street that he was favourably inclined to the suggestions made to hasten the modernisation of the Army. KC You have already been calling the machines 'tanks' -- can you say why? Is it not true that early in 1916 all the machines were called 'Willies'? Sir B L-H It seems that the name 'tank' was derived from two sources. In the factory the interior machinery which was almost identical with that of the FosterDaimler tractor, was described as 'One Demonstration and Instructional Chassis', destined, it was said, for the Royal Marines at Southsea. The hull was described as 'One water-carrier for Mesopotamia' which was quite as likely as anything else-and this soon became christened by the workmen into 'that tank thing' . Also the hull had an inscription painted on the side, in Russian letters, 'with care to Petrograd'. We have a photograph of one in my library. Later, when the queer machine had obtained official recognition, a name was necessary, a name for preference which would in no way suggest its true purpose. Lt-Col Swinton and Major Stern talked it over and as the hull looked like a water-carrier the name was conveniently reduced to Tank. It is of interest to note that the word 'tank' which came to us long ago from the Portuguese through India (originally meaning a pool, as it still does in India) has in a new sense obtained a more world-wide currency than perhaps any other word has done in such a short time since language first began. KC My own regiment (the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment) were involved in a demonstration to King Amanulla in 1928, what do you remember of that occasion? Sir B L-H Reports of King Amanulla's aggressive attitude and trouble-making activities had preceded him. When I lunched with Churchill, he pungently described Amanulla as a 'nuisance' The value of the Armoured Force was demonstrated as a means of taming Amanulla. The plan was to put the King at the front of the small 'Royal enclosure' and launch the tanks to sweep down on him in a massed charge, halting at the last moment. But the War Office authorities became anxious that the brakes of some tank might fail, or its driver misjudge the distance, resulting in the King being squashed flat, and also the British generals accompanying him. So the plan was modified to ensure that the charging tanks, instead of braking suddenly, swerved past the enclosure in their onrush. It is reported that Churchill's remarks afterwards were even more 'pungent'. KC Churchill's exploits are well known, what can you tell me about the Second World War? Sir B L-H The next outstanding event in connection with your Regiment was when 'Hobo' had been removed from his command of the Armoured Division in Egypt during the war. He was only brought back at Winston Churchill's insistence after the Germans had demonstrated the effectiveness of the new technique in 1940. The following year, in 1941, during a tank demonstration which Churchill saw, he went for a ride in one of the tanks and spoke by wireless to the CIGS (Sir John Dill) who was in another tank. When he emerged from the tank Mr Churchill was wearing one of the famous Tank Corps berets and a white coat to protect his clothes during the ride. To sum up, although I have frequently opposed him, there is no statesman or general who showed so quick and acute an understanding of the conditions of success as Sir Winston Churchill. In those masterly volumes, The World Crisis, he shows most clearly and vividly how the power of the offensive was paralysed, to the stupefaction of the General Staff, by 'the defensive power of barbed wire and entrenched machine guns'. Furthermore, Churchill repeatedly emphasised that the success of an attack depended on two processes: (a) blasting power, and (b) moving power. The first was provided by heavy artillery. The second, thanks largely to Sir Winston Churchill's insight, by heavy tanks. More Liddell-Hart Interview Prologue Why Call It a "Tank" and not a "Landship?" Ernest Swinton and the Development of the Tank Lt-Gen Sir G le Q Martel Major-General Sir Hugh J. Elles Lieutenant General Sir Charles Broad, KCB, DSO Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter #146 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1974 by Donald Featherstone. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com