Macfie went further. He claimed to have invented the concept of the tank as a weapon, its use of chaintracks, its tail steering, the angled track contour for climbing, its ability to ford rivers and its tactics at Cambrai. He asked for 7½ per cent of the value of all tanks ordered. At costs averaging £5,750 for each of the 2,704 heavy machines built to date and £4,240 for 316 medium tanks, this would net him over £1.25m – approximately £375m in today’s terms.6
Sir E. Tennyson D’Eyncourt’s Claim
This is a claim with regard to which we have found much difficulty. This claimant undoubtedly rendered exceptional services … in the selection and elimination of the various forms of design proposed … and he was acting outside his duties as Director of Naval Construction. On the other hand he was acting within the general scope of his duties as Chairman of the [Landships] Committee … on the whole, we recommend the award of £1,000.
D’Eyncourt had claimed £100,000 in recognition of his responsibility as Chairman of the Landships Committee for the control and approval of all design and construction of the first tank, this being work entirely outside his normal duties. Tritton countered in his statement to the Commission that the DNC contributed nothing to the tank’s design and only once gave him instructions when he was asked verbally to build a machine based on the Bullock tracks. He said that d’Eyncourt never approved his drawings in any meaningful sense, never signed off a drawing as approved, though it was standard naval practice to do so, and gave no expert criticism or assistance when shown drawings. D’Eyncourt cannot have anticipated the rigour of the inquiry and was perhaps unwise to have put in a claim.
Joint Claim of Col Crompton and Mr Legros
These claimants were employed for some six months as Consulting Engineers to the DNC Committee at a substantial agreed remuneration. In the discharge of their duties they worked loyally and very hard, and no doubt supplied the Committee with useful data and sound advice. But they did not, in the result, invent or discover the special features subsequently incorporated in the tanks, and we cannot consider their services as of such an exceptional or extraordinary character as could alone justify an award in addition to their agreed salaries.
Crompton and Legros had jointly claimed the greater of £100,000 or 1 per cent of the value of all tanks produced, plus £455 6s 2d for Crompton’s later costs in designing his Emplacement Destroyer. At a subsequent hearing the two shared an award of £1,550 for a steering system applied through the twin engines of the Emplacement Destroyer.
Joint Claim of Sir Tritton and Maj Wilson
It is to these two claimants that we attribute the credit of designing and producing … the ‘Tank’ and it is to them that in our judgement by far the largest award should be made, though allowance has to be made for the special opportunities afforded to Major Wilson by his official position.
It was objected on behalf of the Crown that Sir William Tritton at any rate had been sufficiently remunerated by the contracts placed with his company. But it is to be observed … that the principal contracts were placed with another Company who were supplied with the working drawings of Sir William Tritton and Major Wilson without any separate payment, and who fixed a price which was subsequently accepted without any addition by Sir William Tritton’s Company. It was also objected on behalf of the Crown that some considerable defects in the design were discovered when the tanks were originally used… But it would seem that the conditions of actual user of the machines were much more stringent and protracted than those stipulated for by the Government when ordering them. And further, the defects in question appear to us to have been no greater than those ordinarily discovered in … any novel mechanical contrivances. Indeed, the fact that within a few weeks of the first use of the Tanks on the Somme the Government ordered a very large additional number of the machines is the best proof of their generally satisfactory character.
We recommend that there be awarded to these claimants jointly the sum of £15,000.
Tritton and Wilson had jointly claimed £100,000 to be equally divided between them. Counsel for the Crown chose to challenge the design head-on, putting it to Tritton that the Mk I was ‘an entire failure’ which left tanks derelict on the Somme from defective track rollers, bad final drive design, liability to ditching, and speeds reduced to less than 1mph as track systems choked with mud. Tritton told him he could put it any way he liked, but the army had ordered 1,000 more of the same. Mr Justice Sargant agreed, but gave Tritton no comfort on another matter. Before the war Foster’s had collaborated with Daimler’s in the design of the 105hp engine, as a result of which Foster’s received commission of £90 per unit on sales to third parties, half going to Tritton personally. When Tritton adopted the engines for tanks he had voluntarily surrendered his commission to the Treasury. It totalled £115,000 and he asked the Commission to take this into account. It was a praiseworthy act to ensure there could be no taint of self-interest in his decision, but it obviously failed to impress the Commissioners.
Claim of Cpl de Mole, Australian Army
The Commission also heard the claim of a man whose invention amounted to a ‘near miss’ through no fault of his. When Lancelot Edin de Mole was doing road survey work in 1911 in Western Australia he noted the superiority of chaintracks over wheels in rugged terrain; he also noted their limited steering and a tendency to shed tracks. He devised a steering system acting on the front ends of the two track frames which were vertically hinged so as to pivot left or right, causing flexible tracks to lay a curve. De Mole submitted a sketch to the War Office in London in July 1912. He claimed his design would steer caterpillar machines at any speed as easily as four-wheeled vehicles, without riding off the tracks. The letter was passed to the Director of Artillery, Gen Stanley von Donop of imperishable memory. His aide informed de Mole that the army had ‘no intention of making further purchases of chain rail tractors’, but invited him to send further details. By then de Mole had built a model armoured crawler with upturned tracks at bows and stern to facilitate climbing in forward or reverse gear. Its hull and track layout was far in advance of any tank for years to come. He sent drawings of the model to the War Office and offered to submit it for local inspection in Australia. De Mole’s material reached the one department with any knowledge of and interest in chain traction – Maj Donohue’s Motor Transport Committee. Capt Davidson, its secretary, minuted in December ‘[de Mole’s] further particulars do not throw much light on the subject. Failing willingness of the inventor to enlighten us further, we must wait till the model blossoms into a full sized vehicle.’7 It was a truly lamentable reaction.
De Mole wrote again in April 1913 enclosing three diagrams:
which I believe show all the main features of a serviceable vehicle which, when in use as an armoured gun-carriage mounting several machine guns, will have sufficient bearing surface to enable it to carry heavy armour across country and over trenches etc. at a good speed, and therefore get right up among an advancing enemy and cut them up…8
The MT Committee concluded that the design was no improvement on the Hornsby system and de Mole’s drawings were returned to him. One of his colleagues, Col G.W. Breadon, wrote to Kitchener in September 1914 earnestly requesting that de Mole’s designs be put to a committee of experts ‘with a view to the adoption of Travelling Forts … which if armoured and manned with small quick-firing guns and Maxims will quickly turn the most stubborn of armies’.9 Nothing happened. Years later Col Johnson said that the first tanks were ‘for all practicable purposes to de Mole’s design’. The Royal Commission was sympathetic but stymied. It recommended payment of his expenses. De Mole asked for £40 but was persuaded by Johnson that £1,000 was more realistic. He was awarded £987. He became a CBE in 1933 following an outcry in the Australian Press alleging mean treatment.
The Commission’s almost forensic investigations had confirmed the tank’s inventors. Tritton and Wilson were justly acclaimed in the newspapers which had been reporting the hearings daily. To visuali
ze the value of the awards relative to British house prices then and now in the Home Counties, the sums should be multiplied by 300 or more.
There remain the prime originators, the half dozen or so visionaries whose efforts opened the way for the inventors and gave them direction. Swinton and Tulloch contributed indirectly but to considerable effect. Their success in winning over Donald Hankey started a chain reaction which ran through his Boxing Day memorandum highlighting their scheme, Churchill’s explosive reaction, and Hetherington’s wheeled juggernaut idea which led Churchill to form the Landships Committee and give the project all-out Admiralty support. Churchill can fairly be honoured as the true father of the tank despite his infatuation with big wheels. Without his courage in sponsoring what was at that stage a wildly improbable scheme, the weapon would undoubtedly have remained a discredited theory in military circles until French tanks appeared in April 1917.
It was Macfie who secured the inclusion of chain traction in the landships experimental programme. He ‘sold’ the system to the committee at its first meeting. Crompton had arrived that day with plans for a wheeled machine in his briefcase. He left determined to redesign for tracks. Whatever Hetherington maintained later, he was also a ‘wheels’ man. D’Eyncourt and Dumble held no views favouring tracklayers. Later, the committee in turn imposed chaintracks on a still sceptical Tritton, but the credit must go to Macfie for setting them on the right course at the outset.
After Hatfield, Swinton and Stern had shared the heavy responsibility for producing tanks, tactics and trained crews. Their achievements were stunningly successful yet both men were rewarded with dismissal. Stern towers over the scene, ruthlessly autocratic, contemptuous of dissenters and indecision, and with the diplomatic finesse of a blunt shovel when obstructed. It progressively dug him and his department into a bunker mentality. Yet for all that, Col Stern managed the near impossible and delivered a great fleet of fighting tanks in 18 months from a standing start. The achievement was underpinned by d’Eyncourt’s powerful support and unshakeable confidence in Stern who had drifted into the RNAS by chance, having badly broken an ankle in 1913 which resulted in his rejection for military service. It was a lucky break in all senses. Stern’s friendship with the Duke of Westminster brought an invitation to join the division.
Of the 2,470 fighting tanks built by the Armistice, Walter Wilson was responsible for the design of 2,120 and the co-design with Sir William Tritton of a further 150 Mk I types. The other 200 were Tritton’s Medium A Whippets. Wilson also designed the Mk V Two Star, the Medium B, the Mk IX supply/troop carrier jointly with George Rackham, and the Mk I gun carrier with John Greg of Metro. His epicyclic transmission transformed the heavy tank’s manoeuvrability and economy of manpower. Wilson was twice mentioned in despatches, and was appointed CMG in 1917, but he never received the full measure of recognition and honour which he so richly deserved. The indifference of the military and the wider establishment to such outstanding achievement on the part of a junior officer ensured that he remained a major and never received a knighthood. History at this distance can at least record that virtually every tank crew and unnumbered thousands of infantrymen had good reason to salute Wilson – and Tritton – for their engineering genius.
POSTSCRIPT
Gen ‘Boney’ Fuller’s stint at the War Office ended in mid-1922. He had fought harder than anyone else to secure the future of the Tank Corps, but was less successful in his efforts to persuade the General Staff to adapt to the new machine warfare. On Fuller’s departure Gen Ironside, the Commandant of the Staff College, called for him and made him a chief instructor, enabling Fuller to illuminate the thinking of a future generation of commanders. When he was refused permission to publish his lectures in book form he appealed to Lord Cavan, the CIGS, who told him that as a matter of principle no officer should be permitted to publish any book on a military subject as it may disagree with the manuals and disturb the minds of young officers.10 Fuller’s critical essays and books left him with few friends at court, though in 1925 he could count Gen Milne, the new CIGS, among them. Following promotion to major-general in 1930, Fuller was put on half-pay before being offered, and refusing, a third-rate posting to Bombay. The army Council wanted his resignation. When that failed he was ignored until it imposed retirement on him in 1933. The army acknowledged much later that it had discarded a military genius.
Gen Hugh Elles unaccountably kept his head down during the years of controversy following the Armistice, leaving the fight to Fuller. Elles had taken command of the Bovington Centre on his return from France. He was appointed to the new post of Inspector of the Tank Corps in May 1923, but was transferred away from tanks to command of an infantry brigade that October, just four weeks after the permanent formation of the Corps. So ended his connection with the force which he had so magnificently led. Gen Capper was appointed the first colonel-commandant of what became the Royal Tank Corps on 18 October.
Sir Eustace Tennyson d’Eyncourt left the Admiralty in 1924, returning to Armstrong, Whitworth, his old firm. He moved on to join the board of Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company before his retirement in 1948, having designed numerous merchant ships between the wars.
Albert Stern received a knighthood in 1918 and returned to the banking world. He was recalled in 1939 to assist in the revival of tank design. He chaired a Special Vehicle Development Committee at the Ministry of Supply which was required to design and build a heavy tank for evaluation. Stern assembled a team of old hands including d’Eyncourt, William Tritton, Gen Swinton, Walter Wilson, Kenneth Symes and Harry Ricardo. They produced several designs for a machine that would approach 100 tons in fighting trim. The series was prefixed ‘TOG’ – ‘The Old Gang’. Almost inevitably, Wilson resigned on a policy issue. Stern ruefully observing, ‘Major Wilson has always been on the verge of resigning since I have known him.’ When Germany’s Panzer blitzkrieg of 1940 pointed away from super-heavy machines to lighter, faster types of more advanced design, the TOG team disbanded. Bertie Stern once again threw his great energies into tank production and development, harrying ministers and not excluding Churchill from his advice and criticism. He eventually became ignored, a thorn in the Ministry’s side, and departed in 1942. He was High Sheriff of Kent (1945–6) and a deputy lieutenant of the county from 1952.
Sir William Tritton took over Gwynne’s of Hammersmith and formed Gwynne’s Pumps of Lincoln in 1927. He was appointed a Justice of the Peace, and became Chairman of Foster’s in 1939. He built the TOG experimental tanks for Bertie Stern’s Design Committee in the Second World War.
Col Crompton’s electrical engineering firm merged in 1927 to become Crompton, Parkinson & Company, in which he retained a directorship. A dinner was held in his honour in 1931 which was attended by what was believed to have been the largest assembly of leading scientists and engineers ever recorded at such a function; he was made an honorary member of the principal bodies governing civil, mechanical and electrical engineering. Crompton was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1933. A much respected and much loved man, he died in 1940 aged 95.
Walter Wilson returned to motor engineering after the war, designing and patenting a revolutionary four-speed preselective epicyclic gearbox in 1919 which remained the basis for advanced gears for the next 50 years. It was taken up by Armstrong-Siddeley in 1927 and a joint company, Improved Gears Ltd (later, Self-Changing Gears) was formed with Wilson and John Siddeley as controlling directors. Wilson’s gearbox was fitted as standard in Armstrong-Siddeley cars and was soon adopted by other manufacturers. He continued to develop tank transmissions, including geared steering. Many British tanks before, during and after the Second World War directly stemmed from his work, including Cromwell, Crusader, Churchill, Centurion and Conqueror. Wilson pursued numerous pet wartime projects including anti-aircraft explosive charges suspended from barrage balloons (not adopted), and directionally controlled bombs using a form of jet propulsion. After the war his gearboxes were built into aircraft, diesel-elect
ric rail cars, marine craft and road transport. Wilson was made an Honorary Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in 1947 aged 73. He died ten years later.
Maj Gen Sir Ernest Swinton retired from the army in 1919. He remained a director of the Citroën Company for many years after joining the board in 1922. Three years later he was elected Chichele Professor of Military History at Oxford, and Fellow of All Souls College, holding the chair until 1939. His most cherished honour was to have been saluted as ‘The Father of the Royal Tank Corps’, becoming its colonel-commandant from 1934 to 1938.
Maj ‘Tri-Nitro Tom’ Tulloch supported Philip Johnson in promoting mechanized cross-country transport in place of the horse, but Tulloch favoured a multi-wheel type as having better commercial potential. He briefly rejoined Chilworth Gunpowder after the war, the company ceasing to trade in 1920. He had a deep affection for the Holy Land and spent much of the rest of his life assisting the development of its mineral resources, joined by his brother Col Stephen.
Rear Adm Sir Murray Sueter became Superintendent of Air Construction in September 1915 until his ‘banishment’ to Italy for holding unorthodox views in advocating a separate air service. He was recalled home in having incurred the further displeasure of the Admiralty Board in appealing over their heads to the King for an investigation into the role of the RNAS in the origination of the tank. Sueter was put on half-pay and given no further naval employment. He was appointed rear admiral and retired in 1920, becoming MP for Hertford from 1921 until 1945. Sueter was instrumental in developing Empire air mail services
The Devil's Chariots Page 35
