Steely Dan Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 September 6: General Interest 1915 : First tank produced On this day in 1915, a prototype tank nicknamed Little Willie rolls off the assembly line in England. Little Willie was far from an overnight success. It weighed 14 tons, got stuck in trenches and crawled over rough terrain at only two miles per hour. However, improvements were made to the original prototype and tanks eventually transformed military battlefields. The British developed the tank in response to the trench warfare of World War I. In 1914, a British army colonel named Ernest Swinton and William Hankey, secretary of the Committee for Imperial Defence, championed the idea of an armored vehicle with conveyor-belt-like tracks over its wheels that could break through enemy lines and traverse difficult territory. The men appealed to British navy minister Winston Churchill, who believed in the concept of a "land boat" and organized a Landships Committee to begin developing a prototype. To keep the project secret from enemies, production workers were reportedly told the vehicles they were building would be used to carry water on the battlefield (alternate theories suggest the shells of the new vehicles resembled water tanks). Either way, the new vehicles were shipped in crates labeled "tank" and the name stuck. The first tank prototype, Little Willie, was unveiled in September 1915. Following its underwhelming performance--it was slow, became overheated and couldn’t cross trenches--a second prototype, known as "Big Willie," was produced. By 1916, this armored vehicle was deemed ready for battle and made its debut at the First Battle of the Somme near Courcelette, France, on September 15 of that year. Known as the Mark I, this first batch of tanks was hot, noisy and unwieldy and suffered mechanical malfunctions on the battlefield; nevertheless, people realized the tank's potential. Further design improvements were made and at the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917, 400 Mark IV’s proved much more successful than the Mark I, capturing 8,000 enemy troops and 100 guns. Tanks rapidly became an important military weapon. During World War II, they played a prominent role across numerous battlefields. More recently, tanks have been essential for desert combat during the conflicts in the Persian Gulf. Another interesting example of how things improve over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 a British army colonel named Ernest Swinton and William Hankey Mr Hankey? Howdy Ho! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I love tanks My favorite from WW2 PZKW6 The dreaded Tiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 And now for the new stuff... This seems cool, but is probably too pricey at a guess. Remote controlled tank (well sorta) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I love tanks My favorite from WW2 PZKW6 The dreaded Tiger. A or B? And have you ever read about Michael Wittman at Villers-Bocage? Always preferred the Panther, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 A or B? And have you ever read about Michael Wittman at Villers-Bocage? Always preferred the Panther, myself. Panther was a great tank, the tiger was a piece of crap, really. Slow, expensive, constantly breaking down their reputaion was based on the fact that if they got into a fight they were very difficult to KO - especially when facing much lighter tanks such as the Sherman and the T-34. However getting to the fight was always the Tigers problem (and even more so for the Konigstiger), their lack of mobility often made them less tanks and more mobile strongpoints. If the war lasted another year the Centurion would have made an appearance, the first really good tank to come from these shores since, well, the first ones. Personally I have a fondness for the Ha-Go, a Japanese 30s piece of poo which was heavily used in the Pacific. It looked like a toy compared with contemporary fighting machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 A or B? And have you ever read about Michael Wittman at Villers-Bocage? Always preferred the Panther, myself. I'd have to say the Panther is my number 2. If the Germans had concentrated on mass producing the Mk4 who knows how things would have turned out. The Tiger Ausf B would punch holes in just about anything the allies could throw at it, of course the US could expend 3-4 Shermans so the 5th could attempt a rearshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Panther was a great tank, the tiger was a piece of crap, really. Slow, expensive, constantly breaking down their reputaion was based on the fact that if they got into a fight they were very difficult to KO - especially when facing much lighter tanks such as the Sherman and the T-34. However getting to the fight was always the Tigers problem (and even more so for the Konigstiger), their lack of mobility often made them less tanks and more mobile strongpoints. I read a book on Korsun-Shychevska a few months ago...one of the most startling features of the battle was how few first-line tanks (Panthers and Tigers) were lost directly to combat - they were getting kill rations of 15- or 20-1 against T-34s and KV's - but SO many were lost to simply not having any recovery vehicles. Report after report would have one or two Tigers destroyed in combat...and 15 to 20 left on the battlefield inable to move (either with easily repairable damage like a broken drive sprocket, or simply stuck in the mud). I have no doubt, given the hideous logistics problems they faced in France, the same thing happened in Normandy. The Germans would actually have had more tanks available if they'd produced fewer, and produced more tracked support vehicles. The Tiger Ausf B would punch holes in just about anything the allies could throw at it, of course the US could expend 3-4 Shermans so the 5th could attempt a rearshot. It was also less mobile than Jamie Nails. Thing couldn't get out of its own way, and ate drive trains like they grew on trees. The Ausf A was bad enough - one recommended manner for dealing with them in Normandy was to coax them out on to a paved road, then try to ricochet an AP round off the road-bed into the belly armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 And now for the new stuff... This seems cool, but is probably too pricey at a guess. Remote controlled tank (well sorta) They aren't too pricey. I have two. This does bring up a question for me. How long until all wars are completely automated? Remote controlled armaments bombing automated factories making automated armaments. I read a book on Korsun-Shychevska a few months ago...one of the most startling features of the battle was how few first-line tanks (Panthers and Tigers) were lost directly to combat - they were getting kill rations of 15- or 20-1 against T-34s and KV's - but SO many were lost to simply not having any recovery vehicles. Report after report would have one or two Tigers destroyed in combat...and 15 to 20 left on the battlefield inable to move (either with easily repairable damage like a broken drive sprocket, or simply stuck in the mud). I have no doubt, given the hideous logistics problems they faced in France, the same thing happened in Normandy. The Germans would actually have had more tanks available if they'd produced fewer, and produced more tracked support vehicles. It was also less mobile than Jamie Nails. Thing couldn't get out of its own way, and ate drive trains like they grew on trees. The Ausf A was bad enough - one recommended manner for dealing with them in Normandy was to coax them out on to a paved road, then try to ricochet an AP round off the road-bed into the belly armor. Sort of like playing quarters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 This does bring up a question for me. How long until all wars are completely automated? Never. The most important part of a war hasn't changed since the dawn of time - occupying territory. Doesn't matter how many toys you have on the battlefield without the human element On a somewhat related note, i'm sitting here watching Band of Brothers marathon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Never. The most important part of a war hasn't changed since the dawn of time - occupying territory. Doesn't matter how many toys you have on the battlefield without the human element On a somewhat related note, i'm sitting here watching Band of Brothers marathon Fantastic series. Can't wait to see The Pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Never knew why they called them "tanks" - T'anks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Never. The most important part of a war hasn't changed since the dawn of time - occupying territory. Doesn't matter how many toys you have on the battlefield without the human element On a somewhat related note, i'm sitting here watching Band of Brothers marathon Terrific series. Really made you feel like you were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Terrific series. Really made you feel like you were there. If you liked BoB you should read 'Pegasus Bridge' also by Ambrose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Never. The most important part of a war hasn't changed since the dawn of time - occupying territory. Doesn't matter how many toys you have on the battlefield without the human element On a somewhat related note, i'm sitting here watching Band of Brothers marathon Yup. The thing to remember about warfare is that it an extension of politics [von Clausewitz]. The entirety of the nations armed forces exist to support the soldier (or Marine) in the task of saying, "Ummm... we're here and you folks are going to do what we say." Think about that. Another thing: Usually when we win a war, we set up shop to remind people of that. Cuba, Germany, Japan, Korea, Kuwait. I wonder what the Pentagon has planned for Iraq? Band of Brothers is fantastic. I think my favorite is "The Last Patrol", but they're all pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 my personal fav. from that time is the Panther Ausf. G. it is the best all around tank from the war, and it looks how a tank should look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts