Talk:BL 15-inch howitzer

Lede

I fear that most of the following is entirely incorrect:

"Winston Churchill describes the events that led to the production of this weapon and its role in the subsequent development of the tank in Chapter IV of The World Crisis, 1915. Churchill concluded the howitzer was difficult to employ since it was transported in eight sections on giant caterpillar tractors. When he saw the tractors, he asked if one could be modified to cross a trench while carrying a mounted gun and troops. According to Churchill, The development of test vehicles using this concept contributed to the development of the tank."

For a start, The World Crisis, Vol. II: 1915 starts at chapter XIV. There appears to be no discussion of the development of the tank or the 15-inch howitzer in this volume, neither does it seem that the phrase "The development of test vehicles using this concept contributed to the development of the tank" appears. The actual fourth chapter in the book, chapter XVII, deals with the aftermath of the Gallipoli landings and the resignation of Lord Fisher over Churchill's insistence on further naval operations. There is, however, a mention of the single 15-inch howitzer intended for the Dardanelles on p. <Edit> 1434 1424. In case the first volume was meant, The World Crisis, Vol. I: 1911-1914 chapter IV relates to events in 1911 and 1912, well before the gun was invented or tracked armoured vehicles were widely considered.

And anyway, as far as I know the 15-inch howitzer was always pulled by the Daimler-Foster artillery tractor, a four-wheeled tractor whose 105 hp Daimler engine powered the first tanks. MinorProphet (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

So, I hunted around the tinternets for a bit: Churchill's involvement in the development of the tank is related in Men, Ideas, and Tanks: British Military Thought and Armoured Forces, 1903-1939 by J. P. Harris, p. 17, but a careless reading could easily result in the mangled account in the lede.

Here is another possible source for the interesting conflation of accounts in the lede: Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact by Spencer Tucker, p. 11. This unreferenced book claims that Bacon produced a design for a "caterpillar tractor" and that 30 of them were constructed and that the War Office tested one in May 1915.

This, however, is itself apparently a mis-reading of the account given by JFC Fuller in Tanks of the Great War, at the start of chapter II:

"While Lieutenant-Colonel Swinton and Captain Tulloch were urging their proposals, a third scheme was brought forward by Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon in connection with which the Secretary of State, in January 1915, ordered trials to be carried out with a 105 h.p. Foster-Daimler tractor fitted with a bridging apparatus for crossing trenches. At about the same time similar trials were made with a 120 h.p. Holt caterpillar tractor at Shoeburyness in connection with Captain Tulloch’s scheme. Both experiments proved a failure."

Therefore: Churchill was involved in the genesis of the tank (as is well-known), but this had nothing to do with the 15-inch gun which was transported on 11 (not 8) trailers pulled by three Daimler-Foster wheeled artillery tractors, and any connection between the tank and the howitzer or its 4-wheeled tractor <edit> (apart from its 105 hp engine and transmission) </edit> appears to be almost certainly entirely mistaken. MinorProphet (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not have access to any of the mentioned text, but you sound like a serious student of history. Please correct the article as you see fit. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I can help here.

The problem is with what some might see as the uncharacteristically imprecise use of words by Churchill.

In the first volume of The World Crisis, in a footnote to page 345, he writes: "The first design of the Tank made at my request by Admiral Bacon in September, 1914, carried a bridge in front which it dropped on arriving at a trench, passed over, and automatically raised behind it." He is using the word 'Tank' retrospectively, but is describing the Tritton Trench Crosser, based on the Foster-Daimler tractor. It was actually Admiral Bacon who suggested the idea to Tritton; the resulting model was shown to Churchill, who approved and told them to go ahead.

In Volume 2 Chapter XIX, The Orgin of Tanks and Smoke, writing about the 15 inch howitzer, Churchill says, ". . . I learned that each one . . . would be moved in the field in sections, by eight enormous caterpillar tractors." Just in case you think he's talking about the Holt, he's not. "The pictures of these vehicles were extremely suggestive, and when Admiral Bacon showed them to me in October, I at once asked whether they would be able to cross trenches and carry guns and fighting men, or whether he could make any that would. As the result of the discussion that followed, Admiral Bacon produced a design for a caterpillar tractor which would cross a trench by means of a portable bridge which it laid down before itself and hauled up after passing over." That is the Trench Crosser; the term 'caterpillar' is a mistake. Churchill goes on: " . . . early in November, 1914, I directed him to make an experimental machine, and to lay the project before both Sir John French and Lord Kitchener. On February 13, 1915, the model showing promise, I ordered thirty to be constructed. It was not until May, 1915, that the first of these engines with the bridging device was tested by the War Office. It was then rejected because it could not descend a four-foot bank and go through three feet of water (a feat not achieved by any tank up to the end of the war) or fulfil other extremely severe and indeed vexatious conditions. My order for the thirty had, however, been cancelled before their trial took place, as by that time we had achieved a better design through an altogether different agency. Thus ended the first and earliest effort to make a trench-crossing vehicle or so-called 'Tank' during the Great War."

I think Churchill rather flatters himself and the Trench Crosser's capabilities, but he is clearly referring to the wheeled Foster-Daimler Tractor and not to a caterpillar-driven vehicle. This is a view on which David Fletcher of the Tank Museum insists. Churchill might even have confused these trials with the "stringent" (Glanfield) trials by the War Office of a Holt caterpillar at Shoeburyness on February 17th, 1915. It is certainly stretching credulity to say that the Trench Crosser "contributed to the development of the tank"; it contributed to no greater extent than did the 'Elephant's Feet' or the Boirault Apparatus - an interesting dead-end.

The lead par certainly needs moderating in tone and the misleading caterpillar reference removed. In any event, the Trench Crosser is two steps removed from the topic of this article. Wouldn't it be better to link from this article to one on the Foster-Daimler which would include the Trench Crosser?

Spencer Tucker merely parrots Churchill's mistake. He is not, in any case, my first port of call when it comes to reliability.

I hope the above is of assistance.

Hengistmate (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Trailer Alert

FYI, the 15 inch was transported as follows:

Each howitzer was carried in sections in a column of 9 trailers towed by 4 tractors (3+2+2+2), followed by a further tractor towing 4 trailers of ammunition. That's five tractors in all, towing 13 trailers.

Each pair of columns was followed by a tractor towing three trailers of spare plaforms, making 11 tractors total. Two pairs of columns constituted a Siege Company (22 tractors), and two Companies a Howitzer Brigade (44 tractors) to which were added two tractors, each towing four "Brigade Reserve Universal Trucks."

Total howitzers in Brigade: 8. Total tractors: 46. Total trailers/carriages: 124. Plus 2 motor lorries per column (total 16), and 1 lorry and 1 motor car at Brigade HQ.

Hengistmate (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not "British Library".

Is it worth pointing out what "BL" stands for? Hengistmate (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)