The Armored Tortoise Fails, 1915

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Reported in Scientific American, This Week in World War I: July 17, 1915

By July 1915 World War I had been raging for almost a year. Nearly two million soldiers had died and another four million had been wounded. The vast scale of the casualties was shocking but continued with no end in sight. Many of the deaths in trench warfare came from massive attacks by waves of soldiers trying to advance on foot across a no-man’s-land, against machine-gun, rifle and artillery fire. Any ground lost by a defender was regained through equally costly attacks.

I can’t fault the inventor of a bullet-proof tortoise (see illustration) for trying to devise some device for reducing the sheer scale of the carnage. But the average infantryman would have been most displeased if he were ordered to crawl into a wide open battle shoving this heavy, cumbersome shield over the muddy, broken moonscape of the battlefield (in addition to lugging the usual infantryman’s burden). One strand of barbed wire would have ended the advance; in addition, any odd shape lumbering slowly across a battlefield would have attracted much unpleaseant attention from artillery, mortars, grenades and other weaponry.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Another design for hand-carried armor, portable in sections. The idea was completely unrealistic for a modern battlefield.
Image: Scientific American, May 8, 1915

Armored cars, body armor, shields and other protective gear was tried in various forms sporadically, but except for the steel helmet, little of it was of much use on the muddy fields of the Western Front where most of the casualties were happening. But the development of armored vehicles with caterpillar tracks—engine powered, heavily armed, and capable of crossing a battlefield—was proceeding, behind the scenes and in great secrecy. In July 1915 the British Landships Committee started building the first experimental tanks. French development would produce the first prototype in January 1916. When these tanks lumbered into the fray on a massive scale in November 1917 at the Battle of Cambrai, warfare was changed forever.

-

Our full archive of the war, called Scientific American Chronicles: World War I, has many articles from 1914–1918 on the economic aspects of the war. It is available for purchase at www.scientificamerican.com/products/world-war-i/

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe