The Birth of the Armored Warfare Illustrated

0/5 ( ratings)

In war the main problem to solve is—"How to give blows without receiving them" ; it has always been so and is likely always to remain so, for battles are two-act tragedies : the first act consisting in hitting and the second in securing oneself against being hit.
If we look back on the 4,000 years of the known history of war, we shall find that its problems are always the same : thus in battle the soldier has to think of four main
How to strike his opponent when at a distance from him;
How to move forward towards him;
How to strike him at close quarters ;
How to prevent himself being struck throughout the whole of this engagement.
In these four acts must be sought the origins of the tank, the idea of which is, therefore, much older than the Trojan horse; indeed, it dates back to some unknown period when aboriginal man raised his arm to ward off the blow of an infuriated beast or neighbor. To ward off a blow with the bare skin is sometimes a painful operation ; why not then cover the arm with leather or iron, why not carry a shield, why not encase the whole body in steel so that both arms instead of one may be used to hit with, for then man's offensive power will be doubled?
If we look back on the Middle Ages, we find that such a condition of fighting was actually possible and that knights clad in armor cap-a-pie were practically invulnerable. As regards these times there is an authentic record concerning twenty-five knights in armor who rode out one day and met a great mob of insurgent peasants which they charged and routed, killing and wounding no fewer than 1,200 of them, without sustaining a single casualty themselves. To all intents and purposes, these knights were living tanks —a combination of muscular energy, protective armor, and offensive weapons. Knights in armor remained practically invulnerable as long as the propellant for missile weapons was limited to the bow-string and as long as the knights fought within the limitations which their armor imposed upon them. At Crecy and similar battles, the chivalry of France suffered defeat more through the condition of ground they attempted to negotiate, than through the arrows of the English archers. They, in fact, became " ditched " like a tank in the mud, and being rendered immobile, fell an easy prey to the enemy's men-at-arms.
A fact which proves that it was not the arrow which generally destroyed the knight is that the archers were equipped with maces or leaden hammers by means of which the knight could, when once bogged or " bellied," be stunned, rendered innocuous, his armor opened, and he himself taken prisoner for ransom.
The true banisher of armor was gunpowder, for when once the thickest armor, which human energy would permit of being worn, could be penetrated, it became but an encumbrance to its wearer. Though gunpowder was introduced as a missile propellant on the battlefield as early as the twelfth century, it was not until the close of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries that its influence began to be felt, and it is interesting to note that directly it became apparent that the hand gun would beat armor carried by men, other means of carrying it were introduced.