Landships II

Centurion · Legend

More de Mole

Roger Todd · Legend

There's an interesting little piece related to this in the Royal Tank Corps Journal of Jan 1937. It notes that while de Mole was in camp on his way to France, he saw Wilson and showed him the model (which was big, over 4 feet long) and explained it workings. To quote the piece:

Capt. Wilson reported adversely upon the design, and later his report was described by the then Colonel (Philip Johnson) in charge of tank experiments, as "not being a reasoned and proper report, and the criticisms (in that report) are not justified."

Surprisingly strong words from Johnson. One wonders whether Wilson saw de Mole's designs as a threat (not so much as a current threat, but in view of their development since before the War); it would be interesting to find his report. And yes, one does wonder about the possible influence of de Mole on Johnson's designs. De Mole appears to have been a very modest fellow, so one doubts if he would have made any issue out of the possible influence of his designs on others'.

-- Edited by Roger Todd at 22:18, 2006-06-04

Centurion · Legend

Roger Todd wrote:

There's an interesting little piece related to this in the Royal Tank Corps Journal of Jan 1937. It notes that while de Mole was in camp on his way to France, he saw Wilson and showed him the model (which was big, over 4 feet long) and explained it workings. To quote the piece: Capt. Wilson reported adversely upon the design, and later his report was described by the then Colonel (Philip Johnson) in charge of tank experiments, as "not being a reasoned and proper report, and the criticisms (in that report) are not justified." Surprisingly strong words from Johnson. One wonders whether Wilson saw de Mole's designs as a threat (not so much as a current threat, but in view of their development since before the War); it would be interesting to find his report. And yes, one does wonder about the possible influence of de Mole on Johnson's designs. De Mole appears to have been a very modest fellow, so one doubts if he would have made any issue out of the possible influence of his designs on others'.-- Edited by Roger Todd at 22:18, 2006-06-04

The more I read about Wilson the more he seems to have been a prickly sort of guy to have had to work with, he seems to have had a tendency to disagree for the sake of disagreeing (or perhaps it was a case of NIBM [Not Invented By Me]). De Mole certainly wasn't a stereotype Australian (not backward incoming forward). It does make the (grudging) award to de Mole much more relevant though - if he had made his suggestion in 1912 and kept on making it but was ignored this gives him a miuch better claim than someone who once put a good idea up before its time and then said no more.

Roger Todd · Legend

Yes, I agree that Wilson does appear to have been a prickly character - I think he had to be, to have got his ideas across. When you look at his career, his motor car business, involvement with Armstrongs before the War, his early armoured car, he had to be quite a strong chap to have survived amongst those hardheaded businessmen. Look at Tritton - he was the managing director of a Northern industrial firm, so he would have been no shrinking violet, yet Wilson held his own in partnership with him.

I don't know how much de Mole pushed his design. It's clear that he didn't simply make the proposal in 1912 and then leave it. According to Glanfield, after his note to the WO in July 1912, consigned to the files, he sent more drawings later that year, which reached the Motor Transport committee (again filed); then he wrote again in April 1913 (more diagrams; this time they didn't file them - they returned the drawings to de Mole). A colleague of de Mole's, Col. G W Breadon, wrote to Kitchener in September 1914 - nothing happened. I didn't know he was involved with Johnson as early as 1916.

As for de Mole's award, it wasn't as grudging as many have supposed. To quote from the Tank Corps Journal piece, the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, Justice Charles Sargant, said in 1919:

"We consider that Mr. de Mole is entitled to the greatest credit for having made and reduced to practical shape, as far back as the year 1912, a very brilliant invention, which anticipated, and in some respects surpassed, that actually put into use in 1916. It was his misfortune, and the misfortune of this country, and not his fault, that his invention was in advance of his time, and failed to be appreciated, and was put aside... We regret exceedingly that under the terms of our Commission we are unable to make any award, but we recommend that expenses be allowed..."

That seems to me a far from grudging statement, in fact a quite considerable encomium! Note that Mr Justice Sargant said, 'a very brilliant invention, which anticipated, and in some respects surpassed, that actually put into use in 1916.' One is hardly surprised if Wilson's nose may have been out of joint earlier; he had the technical background to appreciate those very points.

De Mole received, as I have noted elsewhere, �965. More than half went to two friends who helped him build and submit the model; de Mole kept �430. He'd originally asked for �40.

Centurion · Legend

Yes I'd agree in general but the point I'm making is rather supported by the quote you included

"We consider that Mr. de Mole is entitled to the greatest credit for having made and reduced to practical shape, as far back as the year 1912, a very brilliant invention, which anticipated, and in some respects surpassed, that actually put into use in 1916. It was his misfortune, and the misfortune of this country, and not his fault, that his invention was in advance of his time, and failed to be appreciated, and was put aside... We regret exceedingly that under the terms of our Commission we are unable to make any award, but we recommend that expenses be allowed..."

If de Mole kept on putting forward his idea and it kept on getting 'bounced' it becomes more than "failed to be appreciated " and I suspect that the Royal Commission may have been tactfuly glossing over a degree of NIH and general backwoodsmanship, a tendency still evinced by some commissions(royal or otherwise) to this day.

eugene · Field Marshal

i think de mole is very simular in personality to Burstyn, both are more inventors than businessmen, and that made them more passive, hardly the traits needed to push an idea in a hostile environment, Wilson and Tritton had a much more "business" approach to things. Also one should not overlook that the plans were submited before the war, which made any hope of them being accepted even more slim

just my two cents

Roger Todd · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Yes I'd agree in general but the point I'm making is rather supported by the quote you included "It was his misfortune, and the misfortune of this country, and not his fault, that his invention was in advance of his time, and failed to be appreciated, and was put aside..." If de Mole kept on putting forward his idea and it kept on getting 'bounced' it becomes more than "failed to be appreciated " and I suspect that the Royal Commission may have been tactfuly glossing over a degree of NIH and general backwoodsmanship, a tendency still evinced by some commissions(royal or otherwise) to this day.

I wasn't defending those who had ignored de Mole, that's a whole other issue, and I didn't set out to do that. My point was that the Commission on Awards was far from grudging in its appreciation of his efforts - Sargant could very easily have dismissed de Mole with only the vaguest acknowledgement. I'm inclined to agree that Sargant tacitly acknowledged, through the circumspect wording you underlined, that it was a blunder (or series of blunders) that de Mole's designs weren't looked at more carefully, but that wasn't the point I was making.

-- Edited by Roger Todd at 00:04, 2006-06-05