26 DECEMBER 1925, Page 15

WAR AND MECHANISM

[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Considerable prominence has been given lately to the origin of the Tank. Perhaps the most interesting revela- tion is Lord Kitchener's belief in the Tank's futility, especially at a time when the world at large appears to be convinced that the wars of the future will be determined in favour of that nation which possesses the greatest number of mechanical infernal machines.

This great General's view that the Tank is " a pretty mechanical toy," and his assertion that it " would be shot down by artillery," is treated as the opinion of a tired man in the presence of superior intelligence. Some of us, whether professional men or laymen, who followed the recent Army manoeuvres in detail, or who have studied with extreme care the somewhat astonishing operations in Morocco and Syria, cannot but feel that Lord Kitchener may have had a clearer perception of the first principles of warfare than his highly placed critics of the Material School. The recent Army manoeuvres most assuredly gave evidence of the power of the juggernauts to ruin the roads, to endanger villages and to play havoc generally with the surrounding country, but their ability to perform a demonstrably useful military service was not so apparent. That any new weapon, be it a Tank, gas, aeroplane, airship or what not, may achieve a measure of success, if its employment is a surprise, may be taken for granted. Its subsequent use, however, must always become a mere addition to the paraphernalia of war, provoking automatically a satisfactory counter.

It would appear that an army or navy which has the self- reliance to provide itself with the counter, foregoing the em- ployment of these inherently indecisive weapons, and eoncen- tasting on those few arms which eventually settle the issue, will have an immeasurable advantage. It will be enabled to put its whole effort and all its financial resources into those factors which enable it to take and hold positions. It has passed into common currency that the Tank, gas, and aero- planes played a great and decisive part in the late War. A close and careful consideration of the facts, however, would appear to warrant no such conclusion.

The armies faced one another month by month without any change in their relative positions beyond small local fluctuations. It is significant that the present craze for mechanical speed in the supposed interests of increased mobility has had precisely the opposite effect, by producing, instead of mobility, congestion. This increasing immobility, an immobility to which the French have definitely attributed their misfortunes in Morocco and Syria, has to be paid for dearly by the civilized tax-payers. The gigantic cost of the Services, with a greatly reduced personnel since 1914, is very largely accounted for by the misplaced belief in machines versus men and matter versus mind.

Is it not possible that European civilization has something to learn from races whom we presume to call backward, but who, with little save courage, simplicity and native wit, rifles and a moderate artillery, have taught the mechanicalized armies and air forces of great European Powers a lesson which they are unlikely to forget ?—I am, Sir, &c., X.