Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Saturday 9 August 1924, page 6


STORY OF THE

DE MOLE'S TRAVELLING CATER-

PILLAR FORT.

REMARKABLE LETTER FROM

PERTH IN 1914.

By E. DWYER GRAY.

The neglect of great war inventions is un-

fortunately frequently followed by a fear-ful loss of human lives. On February 28, 1921, "The Argus" remarked editorially:— "The inventor of the Pomeroy anti-Zep-pelin bullet, for instance relates on his return to Australia that he placed his in-vention, which had been tested and proved, with the British War Office 16 months before it was adopted, then only because Mr. Lloyd George intervened personally.

In the meantime 37 Zeppelin raids were made on different parts of England, with terrible results that are too well known to need recalling." The consequences were indeed of a cemetery character. Neglect had cost human lives. "The Argus"

continued by a reference to the disclosures at the proceedings of the British Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors of November, 1919. "The commission sat to decide who was the inventor of the tank used on the West front with such wonder-ful results. It was learned then that another Australian inventor, Corporal de Mole, had lodged plans and models of a tank, which were found lying covered with dust in a War Office pigeon-hole long after the device was first used in France. A much more useful purpose would be served if commissions were appointed to allot blame for such neglect." A certain letter from Perth (W.A.), addressed to the British Minister for War on September 19, 1914, is available for publication for the first time to-day, and gives particular point to the last sentence of the comment quoted. The neglect of Lancelot E. de Mole's ideal tank may have, and probably did, prolong the Great War for years, thus causing a preventable loss of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of human lives, in-cluding an incalculable number of heroic

Australians.

APPEAL TO WAR OFFICE.

The writer of the letter in question was a civil engineer by profession, and a man of repute and capacity. Shortly after writing it he became a commissioner for munitions in India. This amazing letter not only informed the British Minister for War, in a time of war, that the archives of his own department contained the neglected plans for an ideal tank, or "travelling caterpillar fort," but quite miraculously foretold exactly what tanks could do, almost exactly two years before the belated Somme tanks appeared on the Western front battlefields. The following was the text of the letter, and it is most unfortunate that it was not available at the date of the British Royal Commis-

sion:—

"Perth, Western Australia, 19/9/14.—To the Hon. the Minister for War, War Office, London. Re Travelling Caterpillar Forts.—Sir,—The question of armaments being of paramount importance to armies engaged in this Great War, may I suggest your placing the plans, specifications, and models, submitted by Mr Lancelot de Mole in 1912, before a committee of ex-perts, with a view to the adoption of travelling forts against the German forces? ln my humble opinion no deadlier or more efficient war engine could be used than de Mole's caterpillar fort, which can travel over broken ground, climb em-bankments, span canals, streams and trenches with the greatest of ease, and which, if armoured and manned with small quick firing guns and maxims, will quickly turn the most stubborn of armies, even if they be strongly entrenched. A line of moving fortresses—no dreamer's fancy but an idea which can be actually materialised—adequately supported by artillery, will carry everything before it, and save the infantry. I sincerely trust that you will appreciate the value of my suggestion. Should you require the ser-vices of Mr. L. de Mole, kindly request the W.A. Government to communicate with Mr. R. J. Anketell, resident engineer, Department of Public Works, Perth. I am, Sir, yours, &c., G. W. D. Rreadon."

That most striking letter of 1914 accuses

the British Minister for War, or his agents, to-day. It had no effect whatever, and apparently went into the some sort of

pigeon-hole as de Mole's plans in 1912. Now observe that on November 17, 1919, the British Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, presided over by Mr. Justice Sargant, declared" "De Mole made and reduced to practical shape, as far back as the year 1912, a very brilliant tank inven-tion, which anticipated and in some respects surpassed, that put into use in the year 1916." Mr. Trevor Watson, coun-sel for the Ministry for Munitions, made the very definite admission: "In the opin-ion of present advisers de Mole's sugges-tions would have made a better article than those that went into action." The chairman said to de Mole, "Your sugges-tion is sent to the Government in 1912 and 1915. Then it gets pigeon-holed. That is your misfortune, but not your fault." But nothing was said about his country's misfortune, or the consequent calamities to mankind. Yet it is proper to ask both what would have occurred if Britain had had tanks at the beginning of the war, and, also, by how many years the war would have been shortened if the British Minister for War, or his agents had acted with any common sense on the receipt of Breadon's remarkable letter in October, 1914? De Mole told the 1919 commission: "My chief regret about my tank is that we hadn't them in 1914." If Britain had developed de Mole's invention in 1912 and 1913 it might be too much to say that there might never have been any retreat from Mons. It is not too much to say that the war would almost certainly never have become static, and might have been open, sharp and short, with a vast saving in human lives. The stupidity shown by some responsible person in London in October, 1914, is al-most unimaginable. In spite of Breadon's letter, Britain was destined to spend mil-lions in the slow evolution of "mother" and the inferior "Somme tanks" of two years later.

WINSTON CHURCHILL'S MOVE.

On January 5, 1915, or about two months after the arrival of Breadon's letter in

London, Mr. Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, addressed his celebrated communication to Mr. Asquith on the subject of mechanical warfare.

He remarked:—

"The question to be solved is not the long attack over a carefully prepared glacis of former times, but the actual getting across 100 or 200 yards of open space and wire entanglements. All this was apparent more than two months ago, but no steps have keen taken and no preparations made. It would be quite easy in short time to fit up a number of steam tractors with small armoured shelters, in which men and machine guns could be placed, which would be bulletproof. The caterpillar system would enable trenches to be crossed quite easily, and the weight of the machine would destroy all wire entanglements.

These engines tould advance quite certainly into the enciu) s trenches, smash away nil ol stmctionB and sweep the trencher) with their maeliuie-gim fire'

At Uic moment Mr Winston Churchill wrote that letter Mie V»ar OlUce pigeon holes containeil -ireadim h letter to his c« 1

league, I lie Munster fir AVar H had ii 1 ready collected the dust of tit o months au I the plans for a perfect tank on the « itcr jullul system had collecte I the dust of over two »ears Mr Winston t burchill tool up kui conuneudablc tunk uctiuttcs in 1 practical way lnitncdiattdy ufter 1 dinner given by the Duke of Westminster on Hkruarv 15 1915, when Maji r Metier

ingtou mid utiles suggested rollu c, uirs with »»lit 1 Is the suie of the Great Vi hu! at 1 arl s Court But Ins li Mer to Mr As qnith of Innuur "i, IHK shows quite elearl» that there wus it ] nor source of 111

(miration Ile formed lus histoire Lind ship Committee ' of »»huli the present Sir Albert Stern destined to become director of (he Mechóme il Wnrfare ¡bupnl) depart ment was nn original member i he lound ship Committee ' of 1015 was so detested bv the War d« partment that it woul 1 not even accord to its memberi the aee-ommo dation of au uiitenantel room Sir vii* it Sterns Innks 191118 (published ho»em her 10111) is the classic »»oik on the sub j«(t of the history of the wir tank In tint« hook Sir Albert Stern v« rites -

Vlr IJmrnirt tin cal dun » propose-1 tra k u( ItaluU llrltlt <r ni 1 m ce more uur I opes sark Tht-n u '-e|teinbcr « ljlr I reef It ii tie (oil »lie. (rl traill (rom 1 iuctlu - Mern lila, 11 I..I ¡U I ill Mall lUliita Mci 01 trstteut-1 juslcrli) in r 1 Vw armai Ir Tr tton t ot I n-ssfal I lal« I Igt t 1 1 clgl t I ut rrrt

K Ml lol [ «II thai li jou ItouJ r la - TI la us the ! irlh o( Hie tall

Hit st lim nt is 11 it wirriut 1 I» ti

fita Ho tr 1 h tehv un f <«o| t nier

lill siMie 1 1 rou 1 1 nrent1- w is nut

tho "hirth of the tank " It waa only me urti) of Mark I. tank, ufterwardB known on the battlefields as "Mother," and its adap-tations 'Ihe "butti of the tank" toeik place in Wt stern A -'u in the yea:

1012 But fair Albct' -a not to be blamed De Molo ii -oned in his book, but that is or ' o did not know anything what - , de Mole's tank when he wrote . is, however, exceedingly remarkable t the director of the Mechanical Warfare Supply depart ment should have been ignorant of de Mole's tank. This is just one of those mysteries winch should have been probed, and never was It must not he imagined that de Mole's plans were just received and pigeon-holed. They were, on the con trary, examined and deliberately rejected at least tlirec times once before the war, and twice during the war, or. to bo uc curate, in 191 i, 1010, and 1918 In addition, a largo model, one-cightli natural bifo, was »ont to London, where it did no more than the ni inB. and was cvtntuallv discovered

in what tlic British press of 1919 desenbed as "the neglected cellar of a Government department," Those who would like to know tile- details of the occurrences in eon ncction with do Moles '"Jravelling Cater pillai Port" will lind them set out in the current Issue of the "Australian Motor Owner" In 1910 do Mole's tank was re jocted by "The Committee of tlic Panel ol Advisory Scientilic Experts" It can only be concluded that the members of that com uuttce, and of several others, exercised some expert science in keeping the director of the" Sleehamcal Warfare Supply depart-ment ignorant of the fact that anything ot the kind was ui t__sti_.ee on Hie planet

'lho tank's that went into action so be Iatedly in 1910 were not us good as di MoIc'b tank, but they did great work Jn September, 1910, Lord Haig reported

"Where the tonks advanced we took our

objectives, where the tunks did not ud ! \unce we did not take our objectives " In May, 1017, he wrote, "The tanks arc won deful life savers" Britain owed those "wonderful life savers" not to the Wai Oihcc, and the "military iiiithontitH," who, with sonio notable exceptions, per Eistently ridiculed all ideas of "landsnips," or tanks, but to the sagacity, the jicrsever ance, and the courage of Sir Albert Stern and the Naval department It is regret table to have to add that Mr. Winston Churchill, to whose "driving force" the commission of 1919 paid a high-tribute in connection with tanks, marred his record by weakly dismissing Sir Albert Stern from the headship of the Mechanical Warfare Supply department on Octobt r 10, 1917, at the bidding of British generals, whose arrant stupidity about tanks lio luid dared to oppose and expose, replaced lum by Admiral Mooro, who up tn date of his appointment li id never even seen a tank, and actuallv rt ferret! istr Albert Stern to

America for a proper development of tanks on ft large serait But Sir Albert Stern won tlirongh in the md. and Britain constrnotcd some 5,000 tanks for the 1018 campaign.

S-iT-rATHT, BliT hO REWAlcD

De Mole's tank was intended to be 37ft. la-mg, with ii wheel base of 25ft. travelling on a caterpillar trark of steel plâtra This tank could hale crossed a trench 16ft- wide

with ease, either forwards or bukwards, ns it hid a double (kinking face, enukkng it to lovum «iver the rough«bt ground It had» a high undi r boil» clcuinnee, ti» pre venl hogging Hie ihiinliack «»as full» protttltd, tiaxt lillie; inside the armour in st«ad ut ox«r the top lb« homme tank« were vet» imiicrfcctl» steered b» moving the ilium trick itistcr on one side than on the other, windi meant that the.» «ould not lie httora al at all if mide over a strict!» limited kngth In do Mole's tank jtcrfcet steering was t-i-tiutil. foi th« chain track lould be moved Ink rill) to tonfnrm to ali) eurie 'lhere was thus no limit to bi/o, except that imposed bj weight and the horse jtower ul the motor engine touttmiilatcd to be used It is small wonder that the "Illustrated London Nous" published on November 2B, 1019, ti full pag. ut illustra lions ot de Moles tank, headed Bitter 'lhan the »Somme Tanks of 11)10-A 1912 Model " '1 he model «an be seen at the Melbourne \\ ar Museum to da>

'Ihe Hi it lah Ho» ii ( nmniiKniin of Vn»em bcr, 1Ü1!), aciorded the brilliant Atutlrnli in inventor credit and rommisirition 'Ike contrn<rs of an infertoi tink »vere awarded i. l8 000 in i.ish It v» is not the (onimis smilers' fault lltij were lud li) (he terms ot Mun upimintmi nt, and e mid on!» make a»»aids for 'tinks atttnllv usid bv i (..nu uni, nt department,' that is for 'Mother and it* snksequinl nd ipta ttons, or to those who «mild pi ovo

a (isual ( (ililli ctioti" betwein thor ««iiKcplinits and those (ontrnaneei I lins the Aiuttriliin nnentoi gut nothing, cxcipt what ti British jiaper

a,uii«.liriill} MiiniiH'.l up us "lli-iiiuoup tanks and the neglcd of Ins invention," tu xvlueli ti grutefiil Htiijilre subi-equfuM) ndded the three sustaining lettets, I" II K. The Somme nu m tier« vteio (¡enerul bin luton, Kir L. d'Mytii'ourl, rur \V. Tritton, Mumr Wilson, Lieutenant Mil'ie, mid Mt. is. Neslleld. A reitilieil verbatim io))) of the inuiuussinn proeccdtiigs on N'ov einher ,'l, 1019, shows that mo of thoMi ¡Somme u\»ardi'iB bud, whilst in (-nntiiilhng olluitil positions, otfcii'd t-iiliiiHtiiH m ti,- Mole's tank, »»huh «oumul for tlie Miuisti) ni Munitiuns stud "hu (elt ho (ould nut pioporl) put Imwutil kcloru the iiniimiKsiuii u» a reasoned und proper icpoit upon lite position us il thnn »vas," siiite (lie saul), "1 nut nil»weil Mint Min «Titi«tsniiH in Illili réunit me iritieisms Miat tiru not jiuliheil." J lui l'oiiuiiissiiinein «lid their liest. Tiley made a confidential loeommendutiiin foi the teiinkiirsenu'iit ol «In Mole's px|K'itH«'s, »vin«li, being a iccoin mondatjon outside the miiim of their com-mission, they requested the press not to publish. The facts were, however, stated in tim ( «imiiHinwinilli I'tnlitimi'iil De Mule luid HIU'Ul iilmiit I 1,0011. ol wini h lu owed »li,nu halt lo a loiiuadi' lu khaki, who had helped to limmen Mm cxim'iuiivu walking liiodi'l of Ins tank, and received

£083. V) but l« Mutt kui nolhiiit;!