Was the tank a ‘war winner’ for the British during the First World War?
Introduction
During World War 1(from now on referred to as WW1), the British soldiers used cavalry as their primary method of fighting. This method entailed fighting from horseback. On the other hand, the Western soldiers (French soldiers) fought from the trench which is commonly known as trench warfare. This made it very difficult for the British to penetrate through the west due to immobility. This being a major challenge that needed to be addressed the idea of tanks was conceptualised. The introduction of the tanks in WW1 took the war to another dimension seeing that they had not been used before in any other war. Tanks were first witnessed in September 1916 during the Battle of Flers-Courcelette. The British introduced Forty-nine tanks in that battle.
To begin with, this paper looks at the challenges before the introduction of the tanks in the WW1 and their impacts after they were introduced in the war. This is given appreciation for their role in the war. Based on the paper’s findings above, a conclusion will be made on whether tanks were the reason for the British victory in the battle or not.
Challenges before the introduction of tanks.
As noted in the introduction, mobility was a major challenge before the introduction of the tanks in the war. The British soldiers used to fight from horseback and therefore could not penetrate the west. Even though the cavalry tactics are said to have positive impacts due to greater mobility and placing the soldiers in a higher fighting position, the trench warfare by the Western fighters rendered them useless. They could not pass through the trench.
Another challenge encountered by the British in their use of the cavalry tactics was that tactics were impractical seeing that they fought in muddy terrains. They also became extremely expensive from a military point of view (Daly, 2005). Despite this, the commanders were reluctant to use armored vehicles. They thought that vehicles would pose a challenge to the use of cavalry tactics by the soldiers.
This remained the position until 1914 when Lieutenant-Colonel Ernest Swinton saw the need for a new fighting vehicle that could facilitate fighting in extraordinary terrains (History of World War I, n.d.). Before his idea, war vehicles that existed were only useful in normal ‘normal’ terrain. Thus, those vehicles were useless and incapable of facilitating the fight in trenches that dominated the Western Front. Having in mind the fact that cavalry tactics involved the use of live animals (horses), they remained vulnerable to harsh conditions and diseases.
The most significant role played by the tanks was increasing the mobility of soldiers. Through the aid of the tanks, the British soldiers penetrated the Western Front and managed to break the stalemate of trench warfare (The Encyclopedia of Land Warfare in the 20th Century, 1979).
Though history records that the tanks were not very reliable in the world war, there is indeed a consensus as to their effectiveness in ending the horrors of the infamous trench warfare. Before their introduction into the war, the Western Front was a nightmare. It was difficult for the British to penetrate the west front due to the existence of trenches. Thus, even though the impact of tanks in some battles as the Battle of Somme was negligible, their role in improving mobility cannot be underrated (Salvayre and Kuntz, 2006).
The inception of the idea of tanks is attributed to the development of farming machinery that could navigate with ease using caterpillar tracks. At the beginning of WW1, the British soldiers fought in Calvary which made little sense seeing the existence of the trench. Thus, their mobility was incapacitated. Tanks were aimed at addressing the hitches caused by trenches.
The main reason why the western front dug the trenches was to stop the enemy soldiers from advancing. Essentially, trenches were used as a defense mechanism against the enemy. It is worthwhile to note that the trenches were extensive and could cover a few miles. Thus, having in mind that the British army used cavalry tactics as their primary method of fighting, the soldiers couldn't reach their western fighters since the horses could not pass through the trenches. The trenches were extensive with some extending from the North Sea to Belgium and France (Primary Australian History, 2008).
It is projected that 2490 kilometers of trenches were dug during the WW1. They measured between one to two meters wide and three meters deep (United States Army in the World War, 1917-1919, 1948). This means crossing through the trenches would not be possible in the face of an enemy.
How those trenches were dug also made it difficult for the soldiers to lodge attacks. They were built in a systematic that ensured that the impending enemy was kept away from the fighters fighting from the trench. They took a zigzag pattern with numerous levels along the lines, all of which were different. Paths were also dug to facilitate the mobility of soldiers from one level of a trench to another (Ringer, 2006). Trenches also contained embankments and barbed wire fences. They were further reinforced with sacks filled with sand and sturdy wooden beams (Tucker, Wood, and Murphy, 1999).
Having a background on the role that the trenches played in WW1, it is now possible to appreciate the role of tanks in the light of the existing trenches. The paper established how difficult it was for the British to penetrate through the West without the aid of tanks. As opposed to the use of horses and normal terrain war vehicles, tanks were expected to conquer and pass through the trenches with ease. Could they deliver as intended, the use of trench tactics as a defense mechanism would become less effective? The war vehicles used at that time were not useful in solving the trench problem. Most of the vehicles were designed to operate in normal landscapes and muddy environments.
The introduction of the tank
The first tank was known as Little Willie. It was designed and developed by Lieutenant W Wilson and William Tritton. The intention was not to use the tank in a fight but merely to use it for development purposes. Big Willie was thereafter developed. Big Willie was rhomboid in shape and was mounted with guns.
The idea of tanks was well received as the military attributed their failure in the Gallipoli Battle on the Western Front to their inability to penetrate through their enemies’ land due to lack of movement. In Gallipoli Battle, more than twenty thousand men were killed while another thirty-eight thousand were wounded. It is recorded as the largest one-day loss for the British army (Cillis, 2017). The use of the trench tactics by the Western army with no feasible way to counter them was a major nightmare for the British and the invention of tanks was intended to solve the problem.
Did the tanks solve the trench problem?
No other weapon was developed in a more rapid manner than the tank. However, even with their introduction into the war, the issue of trenches still proved to be a problem. When the tanks were first used in a battle, a frustrating failure was recorded. They were first used in the battle of Somme as noted earlier in the paper. History has it that out of 50 tanks that had originally been produced by the British army, only 36 of them remained in good working condition after the Battle of Somme. Most of them did not conquer the terrain. The landscape was harsh due to the churned-up ground which made the tanks break down.
There were multiple challenges with the new era of tanks. The pressure was too much on the tank production team, and unreasonable demands and timelines were occasionally witnessed. For instance, before the attack was lodged on the Somme, Haig demanded the tanks in preparation for the battle. This demand was unrealistic seeing that tanks were not being produced at that moment. Father, there was no trained crew to operate those tanks. On the other hand, those who had skills in operating machinery had zero military skills. One of the tank crews featured in most of the history books lamented the lack of coordination skills mainly due to a lack of relevant military skills. They had no skills in map and compass reading and also no means of signaling each other.
The above signifies that the British development of tanks was never presided by a plan on how to effectively use those tanks in a war scenario. Their main goal was to overcome the trenches but they did not have proper prior preparation. It was more of an arms race than a practical move toward solving a real problem.
The lack of necessary preparations that needed to be considered before an attempt to introduce tanks in the war appears to have been identified as a major challenge. Swinton is recorded to have expressed as below:
“It seems, as the tanks are an auxiliary to the infantry, that they must be counted as infantry and in an operation, be under the same command (Stone, 2000).’’
From the above statement, after the invention of the tanks, there were concerns about the crew members who would operate them. Manpower with relevant skills was inevitable, and the British army didn't pay much attention to this requirement. The tanks were hastily incorporated in the war before they had been developed to maturity and their crew properly trained.
Learning from their mistakes, the British utilized the feedback and focused on the production of newer and more effective tanks. They focused on designing tanks that would impact the war. Thus, individuals like Haig drove for maximum utilization of information and skills in the production of tanks notwithstanding any regulations in the production of tanks.
The new tanks were known as ‘Mark’. They were a bit effective and had significant impacts on the battleground. They would cross in challenging terrains including trenches of up to 2.7 metres. They also penetrated through the barbed wire hence facilitating access to the enemies. Though the Mark version would still get stuck in huge bomb craters, it is admitted that their overall performance in facilitating mobility was remarkable.
It is observed that people like Haig did not appreciate the significance of the tanks and were inclined towards the cavalry. He was a commander in cavalry tactics and the idea of tanks never moved him. Even though tanks received some criticism from some people, it cannot be contended that tanks were significant in solving the trench problems. Even Haig eventually gave in to the idea of tanks and required the production of more tanks. When the British army failed in the battle of Somme Haig ordered for production of 1000 tanks.
The central reason why armies continued to invest in tanks is the existence of trenches and the need to overcome them. As time passed by there were better-designed tanks with improved performance. For instance, in the Battle of Cambrai tanks had a major impact (Stone, 2000). For the first time, the role of tanks in facilitating the penetration to the Western front was vividly witnessed.
The introduction of the tanks in the WW1 did not significantly affect the results of the war as observed in this paper. The effect was more psychological and did not have a major impact on the outcome of the war itself. The only drive for their production was the existence of the trenches which remained a key challenge even with the presence of the tanks. Though there were instances where tanks appeared to have increased the mobility of the British army, their production was unstable as most of them were destroyed as soon as they were deployed on the battlefield. While the British concentrated on the production of tanks their rivals invested in ways of countering those tanks. For example, by 1918 the British and France had 6506 tanks while Germany had produced 20 tanks only. Instead of producing more tanks, Germany advanced its weaponry power to counter them.
The knowledge that Germany had in dealing with tanks frustrated the use of tanks by the British soldiers
Conclusion
Based on the mobility challenges that the British soldiers faced in WW1, the incorporation of tanks in the war had a significant impact. However, their effects on the result of the war were not substantial. The tanks were badly used due to lack of trained crews. In their very nature, they proved to be unreliable. Some would break down and could not pass through the trenches which is the primary reason why they were produced.
Tanks were also effectively dealt with by the British opponents. For instance, in the battle of Amiens, about 75 % of the Allied tanks were destroyed in a period of four days. At the end of WW1, only eight British tanks remained while the other tanks were destroyed. In the end, the mobility problem was not fully solved. Thus, taking all factors into consideration, the impact of the tanks on the British army during WW1 was not very significant. The only problem they seem to have partly addressed is the nobility problem. They facilitated some access to the Western Front. Thus, this paper concludes that tanks were not ‘war winners’ for the British during WW1. However, the fact that they had an impact on the war cannot be dismissed. Even with many instances of failed attacks, they marked the beginning of a new era.
Bibliography
The encyclopedia of land warfare in the 20th century. (1979). London: Spring Books.
Salvayre, L. and Kuntz, J. (2006). Everyday life. Rochester [N.Y.?]: Dalkey Archive Press.
Daly, G. (2005). Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. 1st ed. Routledge.
History of World War I. (n.d.). Tarrytown: Marshall Cavendish Corporation.
Primary Australian history. (2008). Greenwood, W.A.: R.I.C., p.59.
Ringer, R. (2006). Excel HSC modern history. Glebe: Pascal Press, p.10.
United States Army in the World War, 1917-1919. (1948). Washington: Historical Division, Dept. of the Army, p.122.
Tucker, S., Wood, L. and Murphy, J. (1999). The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis, p.692.
Cillis, D. (2017). World War I New Mexico. p.32.
Stone, J. (2000). The tank debate. p.27.
