Overview
Lancelot de Mole's armoured-vehicle proposal was an Australian contribution to the early search for cross-country tracked transport. The account traces the idea to 1911 and an initial submission to the British War Office in 1912. Its distinctive feature was steering by changing the alignment of the track-running gear, rather than a documented production-standard fighting compartment. Sources
The proposal did not lead to a full-size operational tank. The surviving model is nevertheless important physical evidence of the mobility concept. It refer to distinct categories both from a complete powered prototype and from the British tanks later used in the First World War. Sources
Submissions and the surviving model
Accounts describe repeated attempts to interest British authorities in the design. It preserves differing dates for some resubmissions rather than using them to invent separate vehicle models. A clearer fixed point is the construction of a one-eighth-scale model in Melbourne by Williams and Benwell in 1917. Sources
The model was taken to Britain during de Mole's wartime military service. His personal service in the Australian Imperial Force is not service history for the proposed vehicle. The model's consideration and later institutional custody belong to the history of the proposal and its assessment. Sources
Postwar review acknowledged the merit of the idea without establishing that it had caused the development of the British wartime tank. Accounts of the reimbursement awarded to de Mole also differ in the cited sources: £965 and £987 appear in different sources. That disagreement is retained as a research question rather than silently harmonized. Sources
Track geometry and steering
The surviving model represents running gear and a lower hull, not a fully equipped fighting vehicle. Its long track layout was intended to negotiate obstacles, while movement in the bogie and sprocket arrangement allowed the track path to change for steering. Accounts describe this as track warping. Sources
The source discussion identifies eight double bogies and a pivoting front sprocket arrangement, but those features do not prove the design of a complete powered suspension or transmission. Nor does the apparent absence of motorization in the surviving model provide a measured performance result for a full-size machine. Sources
Armor, armament, crew stations, optics, communications, and ammunition stowage remain incompletely documented. A turret or gun arrangement cannot be borrowed from a later tank merely to give the proposal a more familiar appearance. The strongest visual and material evidence concerns mobility, not a finalized weapons installation. Sources
Specifications and scale
The model carries a full-size length marking of 37 feet; this is not the measured length of a tank that was built. Other reconstructed dimensions remain uncertain. Sources
There is no established operating weight, engine output, road speed, range, ammunition capacity, or combat crew for a completed vehicle. Unknown values remain unknown. Sources
The available evidence family includes the original proposal, later correspondence, the model, and index records for evaluation. These are different kinds of evidence about one project, not a sequence of production variants. Sources
Evaluation without operational service
Accounts record model construction and evaluation, but no tank production line, operational unit, or combat deployment. Sources
The incomplete evidence limits direct comparison with operational tanks. The concept can be compared for its approach to steering and obstacle crossing; it cannot be ranked by battlefield reliability, crew effectiveness, or combat results that never existed. Sources
Historical significance and illustration
The proposal illustrates the difference between a promising engineering approach and adoption as a complete weapon system. Its importance does not depend on declaring de Mole the sole inventor of the tank or treating his design as irrelevant because it was not adopted. The account supports discussion of an early tracked-vehicle proposal while reserving direct-influence claims for stronger evidence. Sources
The most useful core illustration is a photograph of the model showing its running gear. A portrait can explain the inventor's story, but it does not count as a second view of the vehicle. Modern color photographs or detailed drawings could add value when their provenance and reuse conditions are established. Sources
Photographs and image credits
Background reading and references. Each photograph has its own source and credit.
Sources and further reading
Background reading and references. Each photograph has its own source and credit.
- AWM-Model. Model prototype De Mole Tank, accession RELAWM01900. Australian War Memorial. Primary museum object page.
- AWM-J00300. Model of a tank, showing interior and side workings, accession J00300. Australian War Memorial. Public-domain contemporary photograph of the model.
- AWM-Portrait. Studio portrait of 7478 Private Lancelot Eldin De Mole, 10th Battalion, accession P10427.021. Australian War Memorial. Public-domain portrait.
- ADB. Chris Clark, de Mole, Lancelot Eldin (1880-1950). Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Authoritative biographical source.
- TE. John Laker, De Mole Armoured Vehicle. Tank Encyclopedia. Specialist secondary reference.
- Trackpads historical compilation, 2026 (unpublished).
- Trove-1920. Awards to Tank Inventors, The Register (Adelaide), 29 January 1920, p. 6. National Library of Australia Trove. Period newspaper report on Royal Commission awards and praise for de Mole
- Trove-1924. Story of the Tanks, The West Australian, 11 August 1924. National Library of Australia Trove. Period retrospective; useful but advocacy-toned.
- WFA. The Design Was Not Passed On. Western Front Association. Secondary narrative.
- Campbelltown. de Mole, Lancelot Eldin. Campbelltown City Council Local History Room. Local-history synthesis with references to ADB, Trove, and AWM.