Science Fair Project Encyclopedia
History of the tank
This article deals with the history of the tank.
| Contents |
Early vehicles in warfare
The problem of advancing to attack while under fire is as old as warfare itself. The idea of using some kind of moving construction for protection seems to be almost as old. The Assyrians had moveable barriers for archers. The Roman Empire had shielded towers on wheels armed with catapults. The Poles and Czechs had wheeled metal-plated war-wagons in the Middle Ages. Leonardo da Vinci designed a man-powered fighting vehicle with wheels.
Most of these older ideas focused on sieges, where the more common tactics of manoeuvre and formation had less impact. Many advances in technology of the Industrial Revolution threatened to turn all warfare into a giant siege; this was the stalemate of trench warfare.
Armoured trains could carry a lot weight but only go where tracks took them. Aircraft could relatively easily penetrate and attack defensive lines, but they could not actually take or defend ground by themselves. Armoured cars, also first deployed by the British, did prove useful in warfare but were not very good at crossing challenging terrain such as trenches or gullies. The primary limitation was the poor ratio between the area of ground contact by the wheels and the vehicle's weight.
The British solved the problem by putting together a host of technologies to create a new class of weapon. It combined caterpillar tracks arranged with a climbing face, weapons mounted in turrets, and all-around bullet-proof armour. They named this tracked, armoured, and armed vehicle the tank.
The dawn of the tank
The first prototype of the Mark I was tested for the British Army on September 6, 1915. Although initially termed "land ships" by The Admiralty, to preserve secrecy the initial vehicles were referred to as "water-carriers" which was then shortened to "tanks".
Initial results with tanks were mixed, with problems in reliability causing considerable attrition rates when getting the tanks into combat and on the move. The heavily shelled terrain was hard going, and only very mobile tanks such as the Mark I and FTs performed reasonably. The Mark I's rhomboid shape meant it could navigate larger obstacles, especially long trenches, better than many modern armoured fighting vehicles.
The tank would eventually make the trench warfare of World War I obsolete, and the thousands of tanks fielded by French and British forces made a significant contribution to the war.
Along with the tank, the first self-propelled gun, the first armoured personnel carrier, and the first fully-tracked armoured personnel carrier were also used in WWI (the Mark V tank was built with space inside for a small squad of infantry.)
Roots of the concept
H. G. Wells wrote in 1903 a short story called The Land Ironclads, in which tanks overcome a well-entrenched defender by surprise and speed. These tanks did not carry large guns, but instead had mechanically operated and sighted rifles, operated by men sitting in rooms that formed camera obscura.
In 1912, A South Australian named Lance De Mole submitted a proposal, to the British War Office, for a "chain-rail vehicle which could be easily steered and carry heavy loads over rough ground and trenches". The British War Office later developed a very similar tank themselves. The War Office’s "Big Willie" design had Holt Caterpillar tracks and a "climbing face" like the De Mole proposal. Inquiries from the government of Australia, after the war, yielded polite responses that Mr De Mole’s ideas had unfortunately been too far advanced for the time to be properly recognised at their just value.
Before World War I, motorised vehicles were still relatively uncommon, and their use on the battlefield was initially limited, especially of heavier vehicles. Armoured cars soon became more commonplace with most belligerents, especially in more open terrain. In fact in August 1914, the French Colonel Estienne, later a major proponent of tanks, declared la victoire appartiendra à celui qui réussira à monter un canon sur une voiture capable de se mouvoir en tous terrains ("Victory will belong to the one who succeeds in mounting a large gun on an all-terrain car").
Armoured cars did indeed prove useful in open land such as in deserts, but were not very good at crossing obstacles (e.g. trenches, barriers) or in more challenging terrain. The other issue was that it was very hard to add much protection or armament.
The main limitation was the wheels, which gave a high ground pressure for the vehicle's weight. This could be solved by adding more wheels, but unless they also were driven, the effect was to reduce traction on the powered wheels. Driving extra wheels meant more drive train weight; in turn requiring a larger and heavier engine to maintain performance. Even worse, none of this extra weight was put into an improvement of armour or armament carried, and the vehicles were still incapable of crossing very rough terrain.
The invention of modern caterpillar tracks by the Holt company offered a new solution to the problem. The tracks spread the weight of the vehicles over a much greater area, which was all used for traction to move the vehicle. The limitation on armour and firepower was no longer ground pressure but the power and weight of the power-plant.
The remaining issue was how to utilise and configure a vehicle, which would be figured out first by the Landship Committee and Inventions Committee. A variety of other concepts would be combined, such as special steel for armour, a climbing face for the tracks, and weapons mounted in rotating turrets.
Development
The British led the way in the development of tanks. Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, created a Landship Committee in February 1915, initially to investigate designs for a massive troop transporter. As a truer picture of front-line conditions was developed the aims of the investigation changed. Together with the older Inventions Committee a requirement was formulated for an armoured vehicle capable of 4 mph (6 km/h), climbing a 5 feet (1.5 m) high parapet, crossing an 8 feet (2.4 m) wide gap, and armed with machine guns and a light artillery piece. A similar proposal was working its way through the Army GHQ in France and in June the Landship Committee was made a joint service venture between the War Office and the Admiralty (the Naval involvement was through the RNAS Armoured Car Division).
The early work on protecting heavy gun tractors appeared promising. Early 'big wheel' designs soon proved deficient but adapting the existing Holt Company caterpillar designs into a fighting machine proved difficult. While armour and weapon systems were easy to acquire, existing caterpillar and suspension units were too weak and existing engines were notably underpowered for the armoured behemoths that the designers had in mind. Despite these problems a contract was placed with Foster in late July to produce a proof-of-concept vehicle. Construction work began three weeks later.
Although landship was a natural term coming from an Admiralty committee, it was considered too descriptive and could give away British intentions. The committee therefore looked for an appropriate code term for the vehicles. Water Container was considered but rejected because the committee would inevitably be known as the WC Committee. (WC meaning water closet was a common British term for a toilet). The term tank, as in water tank, was finally accepted. Hence factory workers assembling the vehicles were told they were producing "mobile water tanks" for desert warfare, and the vehicles would arrive at the French front in sealed crates bearing the simple inscription "tank". From then on, the term "tank" was established among British and also German soldiers. While in German Tank specifically refers to the World War I type (as opposed to modern Panzer), in English, Russian and other languages the name even for contemporary armoured vehicles is still based on the word tank.
Fosters of Lincoln produced the 14 ton "Little Willie". Powered by a 105 hp (78 kW) Daimler engine, the ten-foot high armoured box was fitted with a low Bullock caterpillar. A rotating top turret was planned with a 57 mm gun but abandoned due to weight problems, leaving the final vehicle unarmed and little more than a test-bed for the difficult track system. The next design shared few common features with "Little Willie". In order to achieve the demanded gap clearance a rhomboidal shape was chosen—stretching the form to improve the track footprint and keep a low centre of gravity. The rotating turret design was dropped in favour of sponsons on the sides of the hull fitted with Naval 57 mm guns. A final specification was agreed on in late September for trials in early 1916, and the 30 ton "Big Willie" (and also "Little Willie") underwent trials at Hatfield Park on January 29 and February 2. Attendees at the second trial included Lord Kitchener, Lloyd George, McKenna and other political luminaries. On February 12 an initial order for 100 "Big Willie" type vehicles was made.
The first fifty were delivered to France on August 30. They were 'male' or 'female', depending upon whether their armament was the 57 mm guns or multiple smaller Hotchkiss or Vickers machine guns. The crew was eight, four of whom were needed to handle the steering and drive gears. The tanks were capable of 4 mph (6 km/h), matching the speed of marching infantry with whom they were to be integrated to aid in the destruction of enemy machine guns.
After the war, The Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors decided that the inventors of the Tank were Sir William Tritton, managing director of Fosters and Major W G Wilson.
Trial by fire and introduction of French types
The first use of tanks on the battlefield was the use of 49 British Mk.I tanks at the Battle of the Somme (1916) on September 15, 1916, with mixed, but still impressive results as many broke down but nearly a third succeeded in breaking through. Of the forty-nine tanks shipped to the Somme, only thirty-two were able to begin the first attack in which they were used, and nine made it across "no man's land" to the German lines. The tanks had been rushed into combat before the design was mature enough, and the number were small, but their use gave important feedback on how to design newer tanks, the soundness of the concept, and their potential to effect the course of the war.
The Mark I's were capable of performing on the real battlefield of WWI, some of the most difficult battlefield terrain to have existed. They did have reliability problems, but when they were working they could cross trenches or craters of 9 feet (2.7 m) and drive right through barbed wire. It was still possible for them to get stuck, especially in larger bomb craters, but overall the rhomboid shape allowed for extreme terrain mobility.
WWI tanks could travel only at about a walking pace at best. Their steel armour could stop small arms fire, but not artillery shells. Among the traits they shared with later tanks were a vulnerability to artillery fire and being bombed by aircraft. On the move they were hard to hit however, although the first anti-tank weapons and grenades thrown by infantry posed a threat.
Engine power was a primary limitation on the tanks; the roughly one hundred horsepower engines gave a power-to-weight ratio of 3.3 hp/ton (2.5 kW/ton). By the end of the 20th century, power-to-weight ratios exceeded 20 hp/ton (15 kW/ton).
Many feel that because the British Commander Field Marshal Douglas Haig was himself a horse cavalryman, his command failed to appreciate the value of tanks. In fact, horse cavalry doctrine in World War I was to "follow up a breakthrough with harassing attacks in the rear", but there were no breakthroughs on the Western Front until the tanks came along. Despite this view of Haig, he approved an order for 1,000 tanks shortly after the failure at the Somme.
The French were quick to complete development of their own tracked AFVs, though their first designs lacked the climbing face and turret-mounted weapons of the British tanks. The first, the Char Schneider CA1, had very poor mobility due to overhanging bodywork and short tracks. It was unreliable as well; a maximum of only about 100 of the 400 ever became operational. The Char St Chamond mounted much more impressive weaponry, but repeated many of the CA1's faults and retained the large overhanging body. It would be Renault's FT-17 excellent design (which won out over a Peugeot model), incorporating a proper climbing face for the tracks, that was the first to incorporate a top-mounted turret with a full rotation. This type of placement of a turret-mounted main gun would become ubiquitous on later tanks. The super-heavy Char 2C, though too late for service in WWI, would become the first tank with a three-man turret and the heaviest to enter service until late in WWII.
The French used tanks for the first time on 16 April, 1917, during the Nivelle offensive . It was a major failure; the Schneiders and chars St Chamond (which saw their first action on the 5th May) didn't have the ability to cross trenches as the British could and were torn to pieces by concentrated German artillery fire.
Battle of Cambrai
The first really successful use of tanks came in the Battle of Cambrai in 1917. British General J.F.C. Fuller, chief of staff of the Tank Corps, planned the battle. The tanks made an unprecedented breakthrough but, as ever on the Western front, the opportunity was not exploited. Ironically, it was the soon-to-be-supplanted horse cavalry that had been assigned the task of following up the motorised tank attack.
Tanks became more effective as the lesson of the early tanks was absorbed. The British produced the Mark IV in 1917. Similar to the early Marks in appearance, its construction was considered to produce a more reliable machine, the long-barrelled Naval guns were shortened (the barrels of the earlier, longer, guns, being prone to digging in the mud when negotiating obstacles) and armour was increased just enough to defeat the standard German armour-piercing bullet.
The continued need for four men to drive the tank was solved with the Mark V in 1918. Also in 1918 the French produced the Renault FT-17, the result of a co-operation between Estienne and Louis Renault. As mentioned before, it had the innovative turret position, and was operated by two men. At just 8 tons it was half the weight of the Medium A Whippet but had nearly the same, if not more firepower. It was conceived for mass production, and the FT would become the most produced tank of WWI by a wide margin with several thousand made, and was also used by the Americans.
In July 1918, the French used 480 tanks (mostly FTs) at Soissons, and there were even larger assaults planned for 1919.
Villers-Bretonneux: Tank vs. tank
The German General Staff did not have enthusiasm for the tank, but allowed the development of anti-tank weapons. Regardless, development of a German tank was underway. The only project to be produced and fielded was the A7V, although only twenty A7Vs were built. The majority of the roughly hundred or so tanks fielded by Germany were captured British and French vehicles. A7Vs were captured by the Allies, but they were not used, and most ended up being scrapped.
The first tank-versus-tank battles took place 24 April 1918. It was an unexpected engagement between three German A7Vs and three British Mk. IVs at Villers-Bretonneux.
Fuller's Plan 1919 involving massive use of tanks for an offensive, was never used because the blockade of Germany and the entry of the US brought an end to the war. The plan itself would become the inspiration for German blitzkrieg tactics in World War II. As a military planner and later journalist, Fuller continued to develop his doctrine of using tanks supported by infantry to break through enemy lines to attack communications in the rear.
For the characteristics of tanks used in World War I see Comparison of World War I tanks.
Between the wars
Between the two world wars, with the tank concept now established, several nations designed and built tanks. Many sizes of tank were considered, and a lot of development effort went into light tanks that would be useful primarily against infantry. However, with tank-versus-tank engagements now being a major consideration, it became clear that future tanks would need to be heavily armoured and carry large guns. Tank shape, previously guided purely by considerations of obstacle clearance, now became a trade-off, with a low profile desirable for stealth and stability.
The final tank designs of 1918 showed a number of trends. The British produced the Mark VIII with the Americans. The pinnacle of the rhomboid design, the 34 ft long, 37 ton machine was powered by a 300 hp (224 kW) V-12 engine and capable of 7 mph (11 km/h) cross-country. It was clear from the designs of other nations that the rhomboidal shape was not going to dominate future development, tanks with lower track profiles, more compact hulls and turrets were produced by the Italians, French and Germans.
Beyond the designs tanks became a political issue. In Britain, military opinion was divided on the future of tank warfare. J.F.C. Fuller was convinced that only the tank had a future on the battlefield. Basil Liddell Hart foresaw a war where all arms, infantry, tanks and artillery, would be mechanised, resembling fleets of 'land ships', and experiments in these fields did take place but were not adopted. Liddell Hart would be proved right, but it would not be for sixty years that even the wealthiest countries could make his ideas a reality.
In the U.S., J. Walter Christie developed a series of fast tanks, based on his revolutionary Christie suspension chassis. Although his prototypes were capable of high speeds, and in some cases designed to be air transportable, disputes with the Ordnance and a high price (compared with what the US military was willing to pay) meant they were never produced. His prototypes were however purchased by the Soviet Union, and were to be developed into the BT tanks and T-34.
See also Comparison of early World War II tanks
Germany
Germany, constrained by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, was not allowed to produce tanks of any kind and only a few armoured cars. In 1926 an unofficial program of tank construction was initiated by Von Seeckt, the commander of the Reichswehr. Built by Rheinmetall-Borsig the first grosstraktor was similar to the existing British Mk II medium tank, 20 tons with a 75 mm gun. This, and other designs, were tested with Soviet co-operation at a tank school in the Russian Urals. In Germany proper dummy tanks were used in training, apparently at the instigation of then-Major Heinz Guderian, a staff tactical instructor. Guderian had read Fuller, Liddell-Hart and other tank warfare theorists and he had the support of his commanders to develop his theories into reality.
In 1931 the German General Staff accepted a plan for two types of tank, a medium tank with a 75 mm gun and a lighter vehicle with a 37 mm gun. While design and then construction work was carried out, the German army used a variety of light tanks based on the British Carden-Lloyd chassis. The early tanks were code-named Landwirtschaftlicher Schlepper (La S), a designation that lasted until 1938. The first of these light tanks ran in early 1934. It was a five ton Krupp design which was dubbed the LKA1. The new government approved an initial order for 150 in 1934 as the 1A La S Krupp. Around 1500 of these light tanks were built.
Later German tanks received a new designation, Panzerkampfwagen (PzKpfw or PzKw), which means "Armoured Fighting Vehicle". The first machine to use this was the two-man PzKpfw I Ausf A based on the British Vickers-Carden-Loyd tanks , and was a 5.4 ton machine with a 3.5 litre 60 hp (45 kW) petrol engine. It had 13 mm of armour and was armed with twin 7.92 mm machine guns. The more common Ausf B was a little larger to accommodate a 100 hp (75 kW) Maybach engine. Both models were sent to the Spanish Civil War for testing, along with other new German weapons. From the experiences in Spain it quickly became clear that the next generation of tanks would need better armour, greater range and much heavier weapons. The PzKpfw II was around 50% heavier than the PzKpfw I. It had a 20 mm Solothurn antitank gun as main armament, as well as improved armour of up to 30 mm. Also sent to Spain from 1937, the PzKpfw II proved more capable against light infantry, but no better when faced with capable anti-tank guns or other tanks. Despite these weaknesses, production continued until 1941. At the outbreak of war, the German Army had 955 PzKpfw IIs and almost 4000 were built in total.
A major boost to German armour came with the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, giving Germany access to the entire Czech arms industry. The Czechs already had two main tank designs, the Skoda LT35 and the Cesko-moravska Kolben Danek (CKD) TNHP. The Skoda was a 10 ton machine with a 37 mm main gun and excellent cross-country capabilities; the CKD was 8.5 tons and also fitted with a 37 mm gun—due to extensive tests it was an extremely reliable machine with a top quality chassis. Both were taken into the German panzer forces, as the PzKpfw 35(t) and the PzKpfw 38(t), and further production was ordered. CKD was renamed Boehmisch-Maehrische Maschinenfabrik AG (BMM) in 1940 and continued production until 1942, providing the Wehrmacht with 1,168 PzKpfw 38(t) tanks. In 1940, Czech tanks made up around a quarter of the entire German panzer force.
While lighter tanks formed almost the entirety of the German forces, heavier tanks were at least at the prototype stage. In 1934, a number of heavy prototypes were constructed, based around either 75 or 105 mm main guns. Designated Neubaufahrzeug (NbFz) and very similar to contemporary Soviet and British designs, six were built by Rheinmetall and Krupp. Although they were mainly useful for propaganda purposes because only a handful of the tanks were made, three were actually used in combat in Norway. The knowledge of the NbFz and the experiences of the lighter tanks in Spain aided in designing the next generation of tanks, the PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV. The PzIII was the lighter of the two and was intended for use in anti-tank operations, whereas the heavier PzIV was armed with a short-barrel gun and intended for supporting infantry.
The Panzer III's 37 mm gun was considered underpowered. It was used in the interests of standardisation with the infantry. Contracts for the Zugkraftwagen were issued late in 1936. Its weight was limited to a maximum of 24 tons, because it was required to be able to cross existing bridges. Development work continued until 1938 when the Ausf D went into limited production. This 19 ton machine was powered by a 12 litre 320 hp (239 kW) engine. It had a top speed of 25 mph (40 km/h) and was fitted with 30 mm armour all round. By the outbreak of war, around fifty had been completed and some saw service in Poland. Full-scale production did not begin until October 1939 as the Ausf E. Around 350 PzKpfw IIIs in D and E variants were ready by the invasion of France.
France
The French used a very wide range of tanks, including many unique types. Their cavalry tank class filled the role of what are now called MBTs. They also fielded a heavy tank design, and several lighter types for scouting and infantry support. In addition to these types, they were also working on super-heavy breakthrough tanks. The French didn't have an independent Tank Corps. All tanks belonged to either the Infantry or the Cavalry.
- Infantry Tanks (Chars)
- Light Tanks (Chars Légers), generally similar to other nations' light tanks, though they were intended to be used more for infantry support rather than scouting, and as such were better armoured but slower than many other light tanks.
- Medium Tanks (Chars de Bataille), these were in fact meant to be specialised breakthrough tanks.
- Heavy Tanks (Chars Lourds); only the WWI-vintage Char 2C was ever operational in this class, being the reason why the breakthrough role was delegated to the Chars de Bataille.
- Cavalry Tanks, this class has focus on speed in addition to the power and protection of other tank designs, and was intended for both anti-tank and anti-personnel work. As by law all tanks (Chars) had to be part of the Infantry, the Cavalry called all its tanks Automitrailleuses.
- Armoured Combat Tanks (AMC's or Automitrailleuses de Combat), a medium tank that sacrificed speed for armour, and had similar armament to the infantry tanks.
- Armoured Reconnaissance (AMR's or Automitrailleuses de Reconnaissance), essentially light tanks (AMR-33;AMR-35), but specifically intended for general reconnaissance and maintaining a security screen. Specialised reconnaissance however would be carried out by AMD's or Automitrailleuses de Découverte, typically armoured cars or half-tracks.
The Renault FT-17 had a long life and saw use in WW2 and even later in Indochina. It was utilised as far away as in China, during the Chinese Civil wars, and versions of the tank were used both against and by the Japanese during the invasion of China. A large number found their way into both Republican and Nationalist hands during the Spanish Civil War. They were used in the Russian Revolution by both sides; by the Finns against the Soviets. The Germans used them as Police vehicles during the occupation of France in World War Two, in combat against allied forces in the battle for Paris, and around D-Day. The Vichy French also used some in Syria and North Africa.
Despite the views of Estienne and later Charles de Gaulle, the French general staff failed in defining an effective military doctrine regarding their use, due to the division of labour between infantry and cavalry tanks. In the Battle of France, despite an advantage in number and armouring against the Germans, the French tanks were not used to good enough effect. The infantry tanks were only effective in executing the breakthrough phase of a battle; and thus useless as a mobile reserve. Ironically, cooperation with the infantry was poor.
After the fall of France, work on new designs halted. The next tank to be introduced would be the ARL-44 heavy tank, which came too late to participate in WWII, but was used post-war for a time.
United Kingdom
Following the Great War, many experiments involving armoured vehicles were conducted in Great Britain. Particularly many advances were made in the areas of weaponry, tracks, and the use of these vehicles on the battlefield.
In the 1920s, a number of influential tank designs were developed. One especially notable one was the Vickers Medium Mk II , a pivotal design which combined some of the best traits of WWI tanks into a much faster tank. It had a 360 degree turret on top like the FT, but mounted a dual-use 3-pounder gun (that could fire both high-explosive and anti-tank shells) with a coaxial machine gun. It also had a radio, a hull machine-gunner, and sloped armour. Some of these tanks would go on to serve in WWII, though most of the significance of the design lies in the amount of features that were copied (or at least also used) in later tank designs.
A perhaps less significant but also notable design was the Vickers A1E1 Independent , which was a large heavy tank that was built in 1925. It had a large main turret and multiple smaller turrets. This design concept was later used by the Soviet T-28 and T-35 tanks.
Exponents of the replacement of the cavalry function by armoured vehicles were Liddell Hart and Fuller. Their opponents misinterpreted (either mistakenly or deliberately) them as proponents of an all-tank fighting force, though their views did specify that artillery and infantry should be mechanised to make them as fast and manoeuvrable as the tanks they advocated, and experiments were curtailed.
Eventually, by the 1930s, this led to a tank development programme to cover two approaches. On one hand there were to be Infantry tanks, with maximum speed matched to infantry on foot, and on the other hand there were Cruiser tanks which could work independently of infantry. This led to tank designs where Cruisers were fast but consequently lightly armoured, whereas Infantry Tanks could carry much heavier armour due to lower speed requirements, although firepower was neglected.
United States
After World War I, the United States Tank Corps was reduced in size. The Defense Act of 1920 restricted tanks to infantry use only; as a result, the Tank Corps was disbanded, with the remaining tanks distributed among the infantry.
In 1928, at the request of Secretary of War Dwight F. David , the Army formed the Experimental Mechanized Brigade. It consisted of a heavy tank battalion, a light tank battalion, a motorised infantry battalion, a motorised artillery battalion, an engineer company, and a signals company. Due to the use of obsolete equipment, the experiment failed, and the force was disbanded after three months.
In 1934–35, at the request of the Cavalry, three prototype tanks, the T2, T2E1, and T2E2 were produced. To get around the Defense Act, these tanks were called "combat cars". The T2, inspired by the British Vickers 6-Ton, was standardised as the M1 combat car. The T2E1, a single-turret tank armed with three machine guns, was standardised as the M2A1. The T2E2, a two-turret tank with two machine guns, was standardised as the M2A2.
Immediately before and during World War II, U.S tanks and many other Allied tanks were powered by radial aircraft-type engines. However, the massive production of aircraft caused a shortage of these engines. Because of this, many tanks, particularly the Sherman and the Lee, were powered by as many as five different power-plant arrangements. In addition to Wright and Continental radials, they were powered by Ford V8s, GM truck diesels, and the Chrysler A57 multibank (an arrangement of five 6-cylinder automobile engines that ran as a single unit). After the war, diesel truck-type engines replaced the gasoline-burning radials.
Soviet Union
The Soviet Union initially had only a mix of imports and a few domestic tanks developed from the FTs in the 1920s, but Stalin's enthusiasm for industrialisation and mechanisation drove an aggressive military development program, resulting in by far the largest and broadest tank inventory of all nations by the late 1930s.
In 1926, under a secret annex to the Treaty of Rapallo, the Soviet Union and Germany set up a joint tank school at Kazan in the Urals, which was illegal under the Treaty of Versailles. Both countries learned much about tank design and tactics in this co-operative venture. The Germans provided advice on mechanisation of Soviet heavy industry, and helped develop a sense of professionalism in the Red Army. From 1929, an experimental Mechanised Brigade was formed, training and developing combined-arms tactics with foreign tanks, armoured cars, tractors, and lorries.
The Soviets also spent tens of millions of dollars on U.S. equipment and technology to modernise dozens of automotive and tractor factories, which would later produce tanks and armoured vehicles.
Based on a mixed force of foreign tanks and imported prototypes, the Soviets developed an impressive domestic design and production capability. The T-26 light tank was based on the Vickers E (as were many other tanks of the period), chosen after it beat a Soviet FT derivative in trials. The Soviets purchased some U.S. Christie M1930 tank prototypes, from which they developed the BT series of fast tanks. They also developed the heavier multi-turreted T-28 medium tank and the massive T-35, which followed the design premise of the Vickers A1E1 Independent . Of the tanks produced between 1930 and 1940, 97% were either identical copies of foreign designs, or very closely-related improvements.
According to Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen, by 1935 the Red Army "... possessed more armoured vehicles, and more tank units than the rest of the world combined." (p. 107 of Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, 1984. Arms and Armour Press, London. ISBN 0-85368-606-8)
But from 1937 to 1941, the Red Army's officer corps, the armour design bureaux, and leadership of the factories were gutted by Stalin's Great Purge. Tens of thousands were executed. Military knowledge completely stagnated and armoured vehicle production dropped drastically (though still remaining the world's largest). Nevertheless, by the eve of World War II, the Soviet Union had some of the world's best tanks (including the T-34 and KV-1, which were basically a generation ahead, coming as a shock to the Wehrmacht). However, the ill-advised decision in 1940 to imitate German tactics led to a catastrophic defeat of the enormous Soviet Mechanised Corps during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa, Germany's 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, as the Red Army's operational capabilities and motorised logistic support were very inferior.
Japan
In 1925, the Japanese army decided to produce a tank to satisfy its own requirements. Before that year, all tanks in Japanese service had been of foreign manufacture. The first tank of Japanese design, the type 87 Chi-I, was produced in 1927 at the Osaka Arsenal. This tank was compared with an English Vickers Mark C; the type 87 was considered too heavy and too slow, and it was decided to create a new design. The Japanese were among the first to use diesel engines in some of their tank designs. They used light tanks and tankettes heavily in Manchuria and China during the 1930s.
The Type 89 Chi-Ro tank was lighter (9.8 tonnes) and shorter than the type 87. It contained increased armour (6 to 17 mm) and an improved water-cooled engine. After success in initial tests, the type 89 became the first mass-produced Japanese tank. The type 89 had a crew of four, and was armed with a 57 mm type 90 gun and two 6.5 mm type 91 machine guns.
In 1935, the Japanese began production of a new light tank. The type 94 weighed 3.4 tonnes and was generally used as either a tractor to tow an ammunition trailer, or as a patrol/reconnaissance tank. With a crew of two and a single 6.5 mm type 91 machine gun, the type 94 was produced in large numbers and saw widespread service as late as 1945.
In 1935, Japan also began producing the Type 95 Ha-Go tank. Over twice as large as the type 94 (7.4 tonnes), the type 95 had a crew of three, a 37 mm gun and the same 6.5 mm type 91 machine gun. Over one-thousand vehicles were built by Mitsubishi, and production continued until 1943.
The 1930s were the last time that the Japanese military focused on production and design of tanks. After that period, they were largely preoccupied with establishing naval control. Furthermore, land battles were typically fought in terrain that was unsuitable for tank warfare (e.g. jungle). In the end of WWII, the focus on tanks returned when the Japanese military prepared for the defense of the mainland. In between, their focus on production was in ships and aircraft.
World War II
During World War II, the tank reached new heights of capability and sophistication. The early tanks of Nazi Germany were technologically inferior to many of their opponents' tanks in the areas of armour and weaponry. However, the tanks were used most skillfully to achieve surprising strategic victories early in the war. The German doctrine stressed the use of combined-arms involving infantry and air support, and the tactic of the Blitzkrieg (lightning warfare). Furthermore, the Germans were quick to supply their tanks with radios, which provided unmatched command and control.
- It was true that nothing larger than machine guns could be mounted in any turret that this vehicle could carry. But with this disadvantage, it could be made ready for action by 1934 and it would at least serve as a training tank until our real combat tanks began to appear. [...] Nobody in 1932 could have guessed that one day we should have to go into action with this little training tank.
- —Heinz Guderian, Chief of German Army General Staff, on the Pz I.
The Panzer I was intended for training tank drivers and commanders, and was never meant to go into combat. The Panzer II was also designed as a training vehicle. Despite this, the Panzer I and Panzer II both saw service in the Spanish civil war, and were the primary tanks used in the invasion of France.
Just as in WWI, there was an experimentation with effective tank sizes. On the heavy side, the United States experimented with the T-28 at 95 tons and Nazi Germany developed the 188-metric ton Maus, though neither entered service.
Turrets, which had always been considered, but were not previously a universal feature on tanks, were recognised as the way forward. It was appreciated that if the tank's gun was to be used to engage armoured targets, then it needed to be as large and powerful as possible, making one large gun with an all-round field of fire vital. Multiple-turreted vehicles (e.g. the Soviet T-35) slowly became less common during World War II, but never died out entirely. For example, the post war M60 MBT, which is still in service with a few countries, had a small turret for the Commander's Cupola. Most tanks still retained a hull machine gun.
It was during this war that tanks began to be normally equipped with radios, vastly improving their command and control. Tanks were adapted to a wide range of military jobs, including mine clearance and engineering tasks. Specialized models, such as flame-thrower tanks, recovery tanks for towing disabled tanks, and command tanks with extra radios and dummy turrets were also used. Some of these tank variants live on as other classes of armoured fighting vehicle, no longer called "tanks". All major combatant powers also developed tank destroyers and assault guns - armoured vehicles carrying large calibre guns, but often no turrets.
Nazi Germany
Main article: German tanks in World War II
The Third Reich's Panzer force was not especially impressive at the start of the war. Plans called for two main tanks: the Panzer III medium tank and the Panzer IV infantry tank. However, by the beginning of the invasion of Poland, only a few vehicles were available. As a result, the invasions of Poland and France were carried out primarily with the inferior Panzer I and Panzer II light tanks, with some medium tanks from Czechoslovakia. As the war proceeded, production of the heavier tanks ramped up.
During the invasion of the USSR in 1941, it was discovered that the Soviet T-34 tank outclassed the Panzer III and IV. Its sloped armour could deflect or stop most 50 mm projectiles, and its 76 mm gun could penetrate the armour of the German tanks. The Panzer III could not carry a heavier gun, so the Panzer IV was converted into a medium tank with a 75 mm gun. A new tank, the Panzer V Panther, was developed, incorporating lessons learned from the T-34. The Nazis' traumatic experiences against the Soviet heavy tanks, with cases of single KV tanks holding up entire German tank units, spurned them to develop even heavier designs including the Tiger and Tiger II (Königstiger).
United Kingdom
Immediately before and during the war, the British produced an enormous array of prototype tanks and modified tanks for a variety of specialist tasks (see Hobart's funnies . For example, the Churchill AVRE mounted a 290 mm (11.4") direct-fire mortar which was used for destroying buildings and clearing obstacles.
The Cold War
In the Cold War, the two opposing forces in Europe were the Warsaw Pact countries on the one side, and the NATO countries on the other side. The Warsaw Pact was seen by the West as having an aggressive force outnumbering the NATO forces.
Soviet domination of the Warsaw Pact led to effective standardization on a few tank designs. In comparison, NATO adopted a defensive posture. The major contributing nations, France, Germany, the USA, and the UK developed their own tank designs, with little in common.
After World War II, tank development continued largely as it had been because of the Cold War. Tanks would not only continue to be produced in huge numbers, but the technology advanced dramatically as well. Tanks became larger and their armour became thicker and much more effective. Aspects of gun technology changed significantly as well, with big advances in shell design and terminal effectiveness. However, nowadays most tanks in service still have manually breech-loaded guns, a trait of the earliest tanks which is shared with most self-propelled and field guns.
Many of the changes in tank design have been refinements to targeting and ranging (fire control), gun stabilisation, communications and crew comfort. Armour has evolved to keep pace with improvements in weaponry, and guns have got bigger. There have been no fundamental changes.
The design and budgeting of tanks has known severe ups and downs. Right after the war, tank design budgets were cut and engineering staff was often scattered. Many war planners believed that the tank was obsolete, now that nuclear weapons were on the scene. It was felt that a tactical nuclear weapon could destroy any brigade or regiment, whether it was armoured or not. The Korean war proved that tanks were still useful on the battlefield, given the hesitation of the great powers to use nuclear weapons. In the 1950s, many nations' tanks were equipped with NBC defensive equipment.
The medium tanks, which had come to be known as Main Battle Tanks in reflection of their role, would become the heaviest fielded direct-fire weapons with the end of heavy tanks. Therefore vehicles that could carry and protect infantry resulted in widespread fielding of combination tank and armoured personnel carriers, such as the M2 Bradley, which fills some of the roles of a light tank and APC.
Heavy tanks continued to be developed and fielded along with medium tanks until the 1960s and '70s , the development of anti-tank guided missiles rendered them ineffective in their role. The combination of large HEAT warheads, with a long effective range relative to a tank gun, and with high accuracy meant that heavy tanks could no longer function in the stand-off, or ambush role. Medium tanks were just as vulnerable, but could be fielded in greater numbers and had higher battlefield mobility. Furthermore, the value of light tanks for scouting was diminished greatly by helicopters, although many light tanks continued to be fielded.
There was also talk that medium tanks were obsolete and budgets dived a bit after the Yom Kippur War of 1973 when Israeli tanks were destroyed in unheard of quantities by wire guided missiles (ATGMs), fired by enemy infantry. Subsequent analysis showed, over the years, that Israeli forces had underestimated their opponents during the first phases of the war, but had developed tactics to lessen the importance of wire guided missiles during the last phases of the war. In 1974, the United States initiated an impressive programme to modernise its existing tank fleet and start real mass production of the M60A1, and later the M60A3; at the same time the M1 was developed. Budgets for tank design and production picked up during the administration of president Ronald Reagan, as the cold war threatened to get hot.
In response to infantry-portable and vehicle-mounted ATGMS, ever more capable defences were developed. Spaced armour, composite, explosive reactive armour, and active protection systems —like the Russian Shtora, Drozd , and Arena—were added to old and new tanks. Despite these improvements the larger missiles remained highly effective against tanks. This was demonstrated in 1991 when in a friendly fire incident, Hellfire anti-tank missiles destroyed one of the latest M1 Abrams tanks.
During the latter half of the 20th century, some tanks were armed with ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) which could be launched through a smoothbore main gun barrel. In the U.S., the M60A2, M551 Sheridan, and prototype MBT-70, with 152 mm barrel/launchers used the Shillelagh infrared-guided missile. The MBT-70 was cancelled prior to production due to high cost, and superseded by the M1 Abrams, which used a conventional gun. The M551 and the M60A2 were widely considered failures due to problems with the Shillelagh, though the Sheridan would serve into the 1990s before finally being withdrawn. The M60A2 however were replaced by M60A3s (using conventional guns). In the 1980s the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradleys became the main US fighting vehicles.
While U.S. experiments with gun-launched missiles led to a dead end, the Soviet Union put this technology into service in the mid-1970s, and it continues to be used in CIS forces. Tanks capable of firing gun-launched missiles in Russian service include the T-72, T-90, and upgraded T-55 (T-55AM2). Ukraine also employs missile-armed T-64, T-80, and T-84 tanks.
Entering the twenty-first century
With the end of the Cold War in 1991, questions once again started sprouting concerning the relevance of the traditional tank. Over the years, many nations cut back the number of their tanks or replaced most of them with lightweight armoured fighting vehicles with only minimal armour protection.
This period also brought an end to the superpower blocs, and the military industries of Russia and Ukraine are now vying to sell tanks worldwide. India and Pakistan have upgraded old tanks and bought new T-84s and T-90s from the former Soviet states. Both have demonstrated prototypes that the respective countries are not adopting for their own use, but are designed exclusively to compete with the latest western offerings on the open market.
Ukraine has developed the T-84-120 Oplot, which can fire both NATO 120 mm ammunition and ATGMs through the gun barrel. It has a new turret with auto-loader , but imitates western designs with an armoured ammunition compartment to improve crew survivability.
The Russian Chiorny Oriol ("Black Eagle ") is based on a lengthened T-80 hull. An early mock-up, shown for the first time at the second VTTV-Omsk-97 International Exhibition of Armaments in 1997, appears to have dramatically heavier armour, and a completely new modern turret separating crew and ammunition. The prototype has a 125 mm tank gun, but is said to be able to mount a new 152 mm gun. Russia is also rumoured to be developing the Obiekt 775 MBT, sometimes called T-95 , with a remote-controlled turret, for domestic service.
The Italian C1 Ariete MBT was among the latest all-new MBTs to to be fielded, with deliveries running from 1995 to 2002. The tank is nearly the same size of the very first tank, both being 8 feet (2.5 m) high. The Mark I had a ~9.9 m long (hull) and the Ariete as a 7.6/9.52 m long (hull/hull+gun). However, the Ariete weighs over double and can travel ten times faster, 54,000 kg vs. 25,401 kg and 40 mph vs. 4 mph (60 v 6 km/h).
A number of armies have thought of eliminating tanks completely, and reverting to a mix of wheeled anti-tank guns and IFVs, though in general there is a great deal of resistance because all of the great powers still maintain large numbers of them, in active forces or in ready reserve. There has been no proven alternative, and tanks have had a relatively good track record in recent conflicts.
The tank continues to be vulnerable to many kinds of anti-tank weapons and is more logistically demanding than lighter vehicles, but these were traits that were true for first tanks as well. In direct fire combat they offer an unmatched combination of higher survivability and firepower among ground-based warfare systems. Whether this combination is particularly useful in proportion to their cost is matter of debate, as there also exist very effective anti-tank systems, infantry fighting vehicles, and competition from air-based ground attack systems.
See also
References
- Kenneth Macksey and John H. Batchelor, Tank: A History of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970
- Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1984. ISBN 0-85368-606-8
External links
- Achtung Panzer - The history of tanks and people of the Panzertruppe.
- OnWar's Second World War Armour
The contents of this article is licensed from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. Click here to see the transparent copy and copyright details