I ask because of conflicting explanations. Swinton says he came up with the idea because he feared that masses of infantry could get close enough to a Male to overwhelm and disable it, so a Female, with 4 Vickers, was better placed to keep infantry at bay. Ideally, tanks would operate in pairs, Male and Female offering mutual suppor.t
However, I've just read a claim by no less than David Fletcher that it was just that there weren't enough 6-pounders to equip all of the first 150 tanks ordered.
Although one must treat with caution many of Swinton's claims to have thought of things, it occurs to me that if the Female tank was merely an expedient, why did they carry on designing and building them up to the Mk V and beyond?
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
I wonder if there isn't a guiding doctrine behind the decision to keep producing female tanks. Patton said (famously?) that the machine
gun was the weapon of the breakthrough - he was so convinced of the truth of this shibboleth interwar US tanks were festooned with MGs at his insistence.
I suspect there may have been a breakthrough doctrine even though the British Army never achieved a breakthrough until the end of the war.
Whether this emphasised the use of mobile MGs to expand a breakthrough and frankly slaughter retreating troops is a matter for research but it
I can quite believe the 6 Pounder shortage, also the mass swamping of the slow moving tanks is very feasible, the Female tanks were fine until the appearance of the A7V and later the German manned British tanks, but I think the best combination was the Mark V/V* along with the much more mobile Whippets.
A pity Swinton cannot answer our questions,
But warfare totally changed in a couple of years, suddenly we had Fighters and Bombers, then the Tank, up until then it had been the same style of warfare for Hundreds of years, Balaclava, Waterloo, US Revolutionary war, Civil War, War of the Roses and so many more. Things changed quickly,
Not everyone took to the Tank with open arms, The US disbanded it's tank corps and when the Germans used them to such devastating effect in WW2, it became the flavor of the month.
According to Stern in "Logbook of a Pioneer", the plan in October 1915 was to arm the tanks with 2.95" mountain guns, but these were unavailable in quantity, and the 6-pounder naval gun was selected as an alternative. In February 1916 the Admiralty was requested to transfer 200 guns with which to arm the initial order for 100 tanks. In the event, the navy was only able to provide 100 guns, and it was necessary to place an order with Armstrong Whitworth for a further 100 guns. The MkI production run was increased to 150 tanks on April 3, 1916, and it was decided to arm 50 tanks with 6-pounders and the remaining 100 with machine guns. A week later, the order was amended to 75 tanks of each type.
Therefore, if the order for Males was increased to 75, there must have been at least 150 available 6-pdrs. Swinton is highly detailed in his account of his decision to create the Female - see p184 of Eyewitness. Each "destroyer" (Male) should be accompanied by a "man-killing" (Female) tank (whether the men were retreating or otherwise).
So I'm still not clear who's right - Swinton, who says the decision was tactical, or Fletcher, who says it was forced on them.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Charlie - there is a book called Rumors of War and Infernal Machines by a gent called Charles E. Gannon. He is normally a science fiction writer, but this book is about "Technomilitary Agenda-setting in American and British Speculative Fiction", in other words how much science fiction writing about war came true.
Step forward, not surprisingly, H.G. Wells, and perhaps less obviously, Ernest Dunlop Swinton.
Gannon makes a number of points, supporting them with research that is meticulous and, in a number of instances, spectacularly misunderstood. For example, he reproduces Wells's detailed description of the Land Ironclads' Pedrail wheels, says it is "atypically awkward and unclear", and declares them to be caterpillar tracks. He says that the semi-automatic rifles in the Ironclads were years ahead of the modern tank's "self-loading main gun".
Swinton gets very special treatment. "One cannot inquire very deeply into the origins and development of the tank without encountering the name of Enest D. Swinton." Indeed. I suggest that that's because a lot of writers have failed to look beyond him. One needs to go only a little further to encounter the Landships Committee, but Mr. Gannon doesn't. Swinton's claim to have invented the tank is justified, the Awards Commission should have recognised that, and Paul Harris (in Men, Ideas, and Tanks) is wrong. In Gannon's account, when Swinton is shown Little Willie and the wooden model of Mother, he expresses no curiosity as to how they came to be there, and the very strong implication is that he ordered them.
Then, just when you think Swinton is going to emerge from this with even more unwarranted credit, Gannon shoots him down. Swinton stole the idea from a short story written by a friend and colleague, a fellow officer in the Royal Engineers, in 1908. It was actually about an armoured trench digging machine, and there is no mention in the story of caterpillar tracks, or of armament, but Gannon weaves together fact and speculation to produce the desired result.
But to the bit that matters here:
Gannon says, "Whereas the first tanks were designed to breach enemy lines and either suppress or destroy machine guns, Wells's Ironclad is deployed in the systematic destruction of enemy troops, driving parallel along the line of entrenchments and gunning down the defenders. To give Wells his due, this may have been caused by too much foresight rather than too little. Shortly after its inception, the tank began eovlving into a more generalised infantry and vehicle killer." Well, dur. Its war. And in any case, this is what Wells says on the subject, in its entirety: "For a moment the big black monster crawled with an accelerated pace towards the furiously active gunners. Then, as if moved by a generous impulse, it turned its full broadside to their attack, and scarcely forty yards away from them. The war correspondent turned his field-glass back to the gunners and perceived it was now shooting down the men about the guns with the most deadly rapidity." That's it. Nothing about moving parallel at all. What Gannon describes is, as most people reading this will know, the tactics devised for the action at Cambrai, 14 yeas later. Gannon gets so many blindingly obvious things wrong that I fear for his wellbeing.
So one thing Swinton did originate (if he is to be believed) was the idea of using machine guns, in tanks, to kill or suppress enemy infantry. Or, as I would still like to know, did he just not have enough 6-pdrs?
-- Edited by James H on Thursday 6th of April 2017 01:23:55 PM
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Interesting viewpoint - a bit weird - but interesting.
I think the linkages to existing military doctrines might be somewhat informative. As far as I can see the military mind of the time worked
by making incremental changes to existing doctrine. My thought was that existing doctrine informed/influenced
the weapon choices on the Mark Is. Regardless of what the builders and production organisers of the first tanks thought it was the military which made
the final decisions about the tanks. As a first hypothesis the military were drawing on the doctrine of the only mobile forces they knew - the cavalry. By the time of WW1
the cavalry had integrated the machine gun into their doctrine. During the breakthrough MGs were to be carried to the flanks to protect the cavalry from
flanking attacks. Artillery seems to have been regarded in a much more static role in cavalry doctrine - to open, extend and hold breakthroughs and provide cover during
retreats. It's possible that mobile guns in the form of the Male tanks were an unknown quantity in terms of doctrine. Perhaps the compromise was to build half the tanks
with MGs, half with guns.
As an aside Cambrai might be viewed as a cavalry engagement with tanks - a lot of the plan looks like it's lifted from the cavalry playbook.
Swinton, on page 189 of "Eyewitness" goes so far as to hint that it might have been better to not build any male tanks, presumably because experience was to show that female tanks were more effective. However, in his February 1916 memorandum "Notes on the Employment of Tanks", he described their principal role as the destruction of machine gun emplacements in trenches, buildings and ruins using their 6 pounder guns. He also states that the most serious vulnerability of the tank was to direct fire from German artillery. He makes no mention of vulnerability to infantry assault, or the need for a machine gun armed "defender" tank. The decision to build female tanks appears to have been made in April 1916, after the realization that there would be insufficient guns to arm 100 male tanks.
Fuller and Liddell-Hart, however, do support Swinton's account. The decision to build female tanks seems to have been a good one, whether it resulted from foresight or expediency.
This is a bit odd. On p180 (and allowing for his modesty) Swinton says:
". . . my initial conception of a Tank was a machine gun destroyer. It was for this reason that 'Mother' had been provided with 6-pdr. guns and that the whole of the Tanks on order were to have the same armament. But, excellent as this might be for its special purpose, after considerable thought as to the powers of self-defence of a machine so armed, I came to the conclusion that with its two 6-pdrs. and three Hotchkiss machine guns, it would have great difficulty in protecting itself against a rush of large numbers, for against men 6-pdrs. are practically useless. Some more wholesale close-range man-killing weapon was requisite. I proposed, therefore, that each 'destroyer' Tank should for its protection be accompanied by a consort, or "man-killing" Tank, armed with four Vickers machine guns . . . the simplest way would have been to order another hundred Tanks as consorts to the hundred being made; but it was decided to limit the total to 150 machines. The supply of engines(my emphasis) was a source of difficulty."
But, as Rhomboid points out, nine pages later Swinton says:
"The Admiralty had promised to furnish (the 6-pdrs.) since the Army could spare none. The actual number which could be supplied was one hundred. This offer was gratefully accepted, an order for the additional pieces required being placed with the armament firms . . . the Navy had again come to (the Army's) aid with armament. Had it not been for its broadminded co-operation at this stage the Heavy Section would have had no guns until much later than was actually the case, and no male Tanks could have taken the field in September, 1916. Whether, in the long run, this might not have been a blessing in disguise is another matter."
What does that mean? That the tanks would have been just as useful without the 6-pdrs? That doesn't fit with Swinton's eagerness to claim credit for things.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
After reading this passage again, I think that Swinton is perhaps suggesting that it would have been better if the introduction of the tank had been delayed until 1917, when more tanks would have been available.
But he says "no male tanks could have taken the field in Sept 1916 . . ."
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Swinton wasn't high enough in the food chain in 1916 to really influence the decisions made. He, at that time, was a Lieutenant-Colonel, and, unless
the British army of WW1 was quite different from most armies, that isn't a rank which signs off on decisions involving serious expenditure. Swinton, in
my opinion, is an awful historian. He quite cleverly describes events but rarely nominates the actors in the usual cycle of proposal, authorisation and execution.
One is left with the impression, perhaps intentionally, he had a major role in all the events he describes. The reality is that we don't know from his text who to
ascribe responsibility to for most of the decisions made.
My guess is that if there is an answer to the original question "Why female tanks?" it may likely be in the minutes of the Landships Committee or its successors.
Whether the minutes are still around is another question.
Shrewdly observed and somewhat overdue, Charlie. Swinton's self-promotion knew no bounds, and some of his utterances (for example, his speech to the Holt workers in 1918) are outrageous. I even think the adoption of the word "tank" owes more to d'Eyncourt than Swinton acknowledges.
The notion that Swinton invented the tank has many adherents, quite apart from Mr. Gannon's theory that he stole it. I fear it is taking a stranglehold on the Internet, which is very disturbing.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Sir Eustace Henry William Tennyson d'Eyncourt was the Churchill appointee as chairman of the Landships committee. His day job as Director of Naval Construction from 1912 would have placed him at the centre of resource allocation during WW1.
Swinton marvels at the cooperation of the Navy in supplying 6 Pounder guns for the tanks - one wonders if Swinton was aware of the people on the Landships Committee and their permanent responsibilities.
Regards,
Charlie
-- Edited by CharlieC on Wednesday 12th of April 2017 10:55:16 AM
The notion that Swinton invented the tank has many adherents, quite apart from Mr. Gannon's theory that he stole it. I fear it is taking a stranglehold on the Internet, which is very disturbing.
Unfortunately not only on the Internet - a 2007 thesis for the US Army C & G Staff College by Brian Peterson states "Arguably, the tank was the brainchild of Swinton, the first acknowledged champion of tank development" p.11. This thesis has been recycled into a 2014 book titled "What Kept The Tank From Being The Decisive Weapon Of World War One?".
The original thesis is available from www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a475594.pdf - although you may have to use a web proxy to access it.
J.P. Harris points out in his book "Men, Ideas and Tanks: British Military Thought and Armoured Forces, 1903-1939" that Swinton did not discover the existence of the Landships Committee until after he had been posted to London in July 1915. Swinton's contribution to the development of the tank until that date seems to have been a proposal on Machine Gun Destroyers made to GHQ in October 1914 which elicited no response by high command.
I think Harris' comment is right on about Swinton "Swinton's claim to be the "originator" (singular) of the tank is an outrageous piece of conceit. Coming from a man of Swinton's knowledge and intelligence it smacks of intellectual dishonesty".
Another thought has struck me about the male vs female tanks. The 6 Pounder gun was an old design - it originally was an anti-torpedo boat gun dating from the 1880s. The fact it was still around in WW1 was probably due to the Navy's parsimony with guns rather than any technical attributes. The use of the 6 Pounders in light naval craft was probably more guilt avoidance (we can't send people out in unarmed vessels) than an expectation the armament would be in any way effective. It would be interesting to know when the last production order for 6 Pounder guns had been completed by Vickers - I suspect it was well before the start of WW1. I can't see Vickers being enthusiastic about restarting the production of 6 Pounder guns especially in the small numbers required for the first tank orders.
Good grief. We digress a little, but Major(!) Pederson's account truly is a pile of pants. I remember reading if not this then something very like it in the last year or two, and marvelling at the possibility that it might have been passed by the distinguished members of the committee. There is a growing need for an anti-bibliography, a list of publications that should not be read by anyone intent on acquiring a knowledge of the subject. It might seem a little mean-spirited, but there's a growing catalogue of terrible books, blogs, websites, and what have you. People make money out of such nonsense and misrepresent history. Alternative facts are here to stay.
Unfortunately, rather earlier in the book Harris makes the gulp-inducing statement, "Colonel Ernest Dunlop Swinton is, perhaps, the individual most commonly regarded as the father of the tank." I would have thought that most punters have no idea who the father of the tank was, unless they find an old quote from Wikipedia that says it was Joseph Hawker. Harris goes on to say, "Whether this reputation is really justified will be explored below," but the damage could have already been done, and I wouldn't be surprised to see offered as a citaion on you-know-where.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Before the war, Swinton had been employed as historian to the Committee of Imperial Defense, and he had the ear of one of the most influential men in the British government, Sir Maurice Hankey, the Secretary of the Committee. It would be fair to say that Swinton's correspondence with Hankey in the latter half of 1914 was highly influential in the eventual establishment of the Admiralty Landships Committee in Feb. 1915.
Albert Stern's papers are held at King's College, and may shed some light regarding the Tank Supply Committee's decision to build female tanks.
I think that's what Swinton would like us to believe, even if it's not necessarily exactly what he believes himself. His memo was endorsed by Churchill, and we shall never know what might have happened if it hadn't been for the dinner with Hetherington et al. We're wandering into "Who Invented The Tank?" territory here, but the fact remains that Swinton was still flogging a dead horse when he heard about the Landships Committee and was presented with the prototypes. His significance seems to stem from his administrative position which enabled him to bring things under one roof. "Notes on the Employment of . . . " was very astute, but if he was so good a tactician, why was he replaced by Elles?
I'd suggest that Swinton was unlucky, but nowhere near as unlucky as he believed. And don't forget what was going on in France without any assistance from him.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, rather earlier in the book Harris makes the gulp-inducing statement, "Colonel Ernest Dunlop Swinton is, perhaps, the individual most commonly regarded as the father of the tank." I would have thought that most punters have no idea who the father of the tank was, unless they find an old quote from Wikipedia that says it was Joseph Hawker. Harris goes on to say, "Whether this reputation is really justified will be explored below," but the damage could have already been done, and I wouldn't be surprised to see offered as a citation on you-know-where.
It's academic code - you can't say "I'm going to grind Swinton's bones to make my bread" in an academic text (no matter how justified) but you can set someone up and later on show that they really are unworthy of the previously attributed character. That's exactly what Harris does in his book. Harris delivers the most cutting insult he can by referring to Swinton as "intellectually dishonest". For an academic that's worse than galloping paedophilia in a priest. I agree that for many people the code is pretty opaque and they don't see it.
