PROTECTIVE ARMOUR FOR INFANTRY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF TEl SPECTATOR."] Pm—Regarding your attitude—viz., that it is " wrong to criticize the Government "—I should like you to devote your attention to one example only, the question of light protective armour for infantry when advancing against machine-gun fire. This idea is one which you yourself have approved of, I believe ; and it is now a year or eighteen months since the matter was first mooted, but, with the exception of helmets, nothing, of course, has been done by the ineffable " brass hats" who sit in the seats of office. Nothing on earth would convince any ordinary sensible person that there was anything impracticable in providing sufficient protection, in the form of light steel coverings for the vital parts, to those regiments who are relegated to the attack versus machine-guns, both for officers and men. However, according to your theories, the public must be " mum," and say not a word.—I am,
fir, &c., FRANK B. POWNAEL. Arnwood, The Warren, Crowborough.
Previous page
