History of the tank
From Freepedia
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 of 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, first built 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.
World War I: dawn of the tank
Main article: Tanks in World War I
The tank was developed by the British in World War I as a solution to the stalemate trench warfare had brought to the western front. The first prototype of the Mark I tank 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".
While the British took the lead in tank development, the French were not far behind and fielded their first tanks in 1917. The Germans on the other hand were slower with tank development, concentrating on anti-tank weapons rather than 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.)
For the characteristics of tanks used in World War I see Comparison of World War I tanks.
Between the wars
Main article: Tanks (1919-1939)
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.
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 firepower. It was in their tactical employment that German tanks dominated all rivals early in the war. German doctrine stressed the use of combined-arms involving mobile infantry and air support, and, after its surprising succes during the execution of Fall Gelb, the tactic of the Blitzkrieg (lightning warfare). This doctrine required the Germans to equip their tanks with radios, which provided unmatched command and control. In contrast, most light French tanks lacked radios, partially because their battle doctrine was based on a more slow-paced, deliberate conformance to planned movements. French tanks generally outclassed German tanks in firepower and armor in the 1940 campaign, but their poor command and control doctrine made these advantages irrelevant to the final outcome.
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. The trend towards heavier tanks was unmistakable as the war proceeded. In 1939, most tanks had maximum armor of 30mm or less, with guns no heavier than 37-47mm. Medium tanks of 1939 weighed around 20 tons. By 1945, typical medium tanks had maximum armor over 100mm thick, with guns in the 75-85mm range and weights of 30 to 45 tons. Light tanks, which dominated most Armies early in the war, gradually faded out and were used only in very limited roles.
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 designs such as the Soviet T-35, US M3 Lee, or British A-9 Cruiser slowly became less common during World War II. It was recognized that the fire of several weapons could not effectively be controlled by a tank crew; also, newer dual-purpose guns eliminated the need for multiple weapons. Most tanks still retained a hull machine gun to protect them from infantry.
It was during this war that tanks began to be normally equipped with radios, vastly improving their command and control. By 1943, two-way radio was nearly universal. 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. Turreted vehicles are expensive to manufacture compared to nonturreted vehicles. One trend seen in WW2 was the usage of older, lighter tank chassis to mount larger weapons in fixed casemates as tank destroyers or assault guns. For example, the Soviet T-34 could mount an 85 mm gun in the turret, but the same chassis could carry the much more effective 100 mm gun in a fixed casemate as the SU-100.
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 cannon-armed light tanks from Czechoslovakia. As the war proceeded, production of the heavier tanks ramped up.
During the Operation Barbarossa, the German 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 defeat most German weapons, 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 long-barrelled, high velocity 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 ("King Tiger").
United Kingdom
Britain had been the worldwide trend-setter in tank development from 1915, but ironically lost its leadership position as the war approached. The British Army entered the war with an array of poor designs and hobbled by poor doctrine. British tank use focused on Cavalry-type missions and Infantry support, without the focus on combined-arms tactics that saturated German and Soviet thinking. The result was a series of under-armed, mechanically unreliable designs such as the A-9, A-10 and Crusader cruiser tanks, the Matilda I and II Infantry tanks, and a series of deathtrap light tanks suitable for recconaisance work only. The few bright spots of British tank design included the Valentine, Churchill, Cromwell, and Comet. The Valentine was a reliable, heavily-armored Infantry-support tank used successfully in the desert and by the Red Army as a light tank. The Churchill had heavy armor and good off-road capability. The Cromwell was in most respects the equal of the US Sherman or German Pzkw-IV, but was fielded only in small numbers beginning in 1944. The Comet was an excellent design fielded in the final months of the war.
Beginning about mid-1942, most British tank units were equipped with US-supplied vehicles such as the M3 Stuart light tank, the M3 Lee (or the Grant variant therrof) and the M3's replacement the M4 Sherman.
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. Image:M551 Sheridan.jpg 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 man-portable wire guided missiles (ATGMs), fired by enemy infantry. Subsequent analysis showed that Israeli forces had underestimated their opponents during the first phases of the war; their all-tank tactics ignored the newfound ability of Infantry armed with cheap AT weapons to stop tanks. The solution to this new battlefield environment was both tactical and technical. Tactically, there was renewed recognition for the need for combined-arms tactics. Tanks alone were vulnerable to Infantry, but a combined team of tanks, mechanized Infantry, and mechanized artillery could still win in the new environment.
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
The ongoing development of the tank is covered in more detail in the Tank research and development article.
Image:FCS2HOW.jpg Image:Expeditionary Tank.jpg
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 considered eliminating tanks completely, 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.
Media
| Image:FilmRoll-small.png |
|
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
- Peter Wollen: Tankishness London Review of Books Vol. 22 No. 22, 16 November 2000. (A review of the book Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine by Patrick Wright, covering in detail some topics like the development of the first tank in Britain or the influence of the tank in culture)
