Tanks

ErikViking

VIP Member
Apr 26, 2006
1,389
135
85
Stockholm - Sweden
Don’t you think it took remarkably long time to invent the first tank?

Wouldn’t the first combustion engine almost immediately result in a tank?

Has the concept of warfare fundamentally changed?

Was it due to the idea of armies should be fighting each other on a battlefield that postponed the invention? As if peace time should not be used to win a future war?

The first tanks saw action well into WWI, long after every component was already at hand.
 
The first 'Big Willie' British tank, used semi-successfully in the Battle of the Somme in 1916, had a 105-hp petrol engine. One of the more powerful petrol engines available at the time. It could only move the tank along at less than 4MPH, barely above walking speed.

Before it's production in 1915, several designs were submitted to various War Departments in Europe, including Germany, Austria, France, and Britain... none of those designs were approved because military doctrine at the time didn't deem them necessary.

It wasn't until the advent of Trench Warfare in World War I that the need for a tank was even considered.

Just having the technology to do something isn't enough. There has to be a pressing reason as well as the resources to do so.
 
Don’t you think it took remarkably long time to invent the first tank?

Wouldn’t the first combustion engine almost immediately result in a tank?

Has the concept of warfare fundamentally changed?

Was it due to the idea of armies should be fighting each other on a battlefield that postponed the invention? As if peace time should not be used to win a future war?

The first tanks saw action well into WWI, long after every component was already at hand.
Actually the idea of the tank has been around well into antiquity. War Elephants being a good example. The problem was that early combustion engines couldn't generate enough power to drive an object sufficiently well armored to repel the weaponry available in WW1.
 
Don’t you think it took remarkably long time to invent the first tank?

Wouldn’t the first combustion engine almost immediately result in a tank?

Has the concept of warfare fundamentally changed?

Was it due to the idea of armies should be fighting each other on a battlefield that postponed the invention? As if peace time should not be used to win a future war?

The first tanks saw action well into WWI, long after every component was already at hand.
Actually the idea of the tank has been around well into antiquity. War Elephants being a good example. The problem was that early combustion engines couldn't generate enough power to drive an object sufficiently well armored to repel the weaponry available in WW1.
So... the shear weight of the armour was the problem then?

I’m curious though, wasn’t tanks somewhat out of sync? Or is it just modern way of thinking? Like “good thing - how can I use this militarily?”

Syrian cavalry was back then, the antiquities, almost a one-man-tank with 1hp. That should just have been extrapolated.

Perhaps offensive weapons scaled out faster then defensive countermeasures...
 
no need for it
n 1892, John Froelich invented and built the first gasoline/petrol-powered tractor in Clayton County, Iowa, US.[8][9][10]
1892 to what? 1916??
no, I don't think it took that long
remember wars speed up technology in MANY areas:
manufacturing
farming
food processing--etc
radar
electronics
shipping-ship building
etc etc

...they had every component for recon drones '''at hand''' during the Korean War--but they were not ''invented''
..in WW2, the US had every component ''at hand'' for ballistic missiles, but they were not ''invented'' by the US
....also, as we saw what the French did in 1940, some countries fight new wars with old wars ideas..so we see the Germans using new battlefield tactics [ and tanks ] to win a phenomenal victory over 2 great powers---''quickly''--with France fighting WW2 as it was WW1

Tractor - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Don’t you think it took remarkably long time to invent the first tank?

Wouldn’t the first combustion engine almost immediately result in a tank?

Has the concept of warfare fundamentally changed?

Was it due to the idea of armies should be fighting each other on a battlefield that postponed the invention? As if peace time should not be used to win a future war?

The first tanks saw action well into WWI, long after every component was already at hand.
Actually the idea of the tank has been around well into antiquity. War Elephants being a good example. The problem was that early combustion engines couldn't generate enough power to drive an object sufficiently well armored to repel the weaponry available in WW1.
So... the shear weight of the armour was the problem then?

I’m curious though, wasn’t tanks somewhat out of sync? Or is it just modern way of thinking? Like “good thing - how can I use this militarily?”

Syrian cavalry was back then, the antiquities, almost a one-man-tank with 1hp. That should just have been extrapolated.

Perhaps offensive weapons scaled out faster then defensive countermeasures...
The last sentence hits it right on the nose, but reversed. WW1 was a period were defensive countermeasures outpaced the offensive capability to deal with them. The tank was an attempt to redress that balance. And yes it was a purely technical problem. The engines to drive an object armored to be capable of stopping machine gun bullets were not available until WW1 was well underway.
 
Last edited:
Don’t you think it took remarkably long time to invent the first tank?

Wouldn’t the first combustion engine almost immediately result in a tank?

Has the concept of warfare fundamentally changed?

Was it due to the idea of armies should be fighting each other on a battlefield that postponed the invention? As if peace time should not be used to win a future war?

The first tanks saw action well into WWI, long after every component was already at hand.
Actually the idea of the tank has been around well into antiquity. War Elephants being a good example. The problem was that early combustion engines couldn't generate enough power to drive an object sufficiently well armored to repel the weaponry available in WW1.
So... the shear weight of the armour was the problem then?

I’m curious though, wasn’t tanks somewhat out of sync? Or is it just modern way of thinking? Like “good thing - how can I use this militarily?”

Syrian cavalry was back then, the antiquities, almost a one-man-tank with 1hp. That should just have been extrapolated.

Perhaps offensive weapons scaled out faster then defensive countermeasures...
The last sentence hits it right on the nose, but reversed. WW1 was a period were defensive countermeasures outpaced the offensive capability to deal with them. The tank was an attempt to redress that balance.

Of course! The tank was an offensive weapon. But personal armour was out - defensive capability reduced to trenches. I got too fixated on the personal protection of the tank. Good.

Also, the only “victim” of tank warfare was the first to integrate them into combined arms. The Germans knew what to do with this new weapon. But then, WWII, it became only a race of technology - concept in place.
 
Don’t you think it took remarkably long time to invent the first tank?

Wouldn’t the first combustion engine almost immediately result in a tank?

Has the concept of warfare fundamentally changed?

Was it due to the idea of armies should be fighting each other on a battlefield that postponed the invention? As if peace time should not be used to win a future war?

The first tanks saw action well into WWI, long after every component was already at hand.
Actually the idea of the tank has been around well into antiquity. War Elephants being a good example. The problem was that early combustion engines couldn't generate enough power to drive an object sufficiently well armored to repel the weaponry available in WW1.
So... the shear weight of the armour was the problem then?

I’m curious though, wasn’t tanks somewhat out of sync? Or is it just modern way of thinking? Like “good thing - how can I use this militarily?”

Syrian cavalry was back then, the antiquities, almost a one-man-tank with 1hp. That should just have been extrapolated.

Perhaps offensive weapons scaled out faster then defensive countermeasures...
The last sentence hits it right on the nose, but reversed. WW1 was a period were defensive countermeasures outpaced the offensive capability to deal with them. The tank was an attempt to redress that balance.

Of course! The tank was an offensive weapon. But personal armour was out - defensive capability reduced to trenches. I got too fixated on the personal protection of the tank. Good.

Also, the only “victim” of tank warfare was the first to integrate them into combined arms. The Germans knew what to do with this new weapon. But then, WWII, it became only a race of technology - concept in place.
The Germans actually had little choice but to adapt their tank to operate in concentrated groups. Their operational plans in the antebellum quickly recognized that they didn't have the manpower or the material to defeat the allies force on force. In essence they were forced to be creative in the use of their tanks. People nowadays don't know how uncertain the concept of Blitzkrieg was when the Germans used it in France. The French had more and better tanks and the Germans left their flanks wide open. If not for the novelty of the tactics it would have never worked.
 
...during peace, inventions can sometimes take a looong time
I worked in an engineering department for 14 years--research and development
..even using computers it's not easy inventing or even re-designing existing ideas
..some engineers are IDIOTS
..I work with some now that are IDIOTS--
 
Don’t you think it took remarkably long time to invent the first tank?

Wouldn’t the first combustion engine almost immediately result in a tank?

Has the concept of warfare fundamentally changed?

Was it due to the idea of armies should be fighting each other on a battlefield that postponed the invention? As if peace time should not be used to win a future war?

The first tanks saw action well into WWI, long after every component was already at hand.
Actually the idea of the tank has been around well into antiquity. War Elephants being a good example. The problem was that early combustion engines couldn't generate enough power to drive an object sufficiently well armored to repel the weaponry available in WW1.
So... the shear weight of the armour was the problem then?

I’m curious though, wasn’t tanks somewhat out of sync? Or is it just modern way of thinking? Like “good thing - how can I use this militarily?”

Syrian cavalry was back then, the antiquities, almost a one-man-tank with 1hp. That should just have been extrapolated.

Perhaps offensive weapons scaled out faster then defensive countermeasures...
The last sentence hits it right on the nose, but reversed. WW1 was a period were defensive countermeasures outpaced the offensive capability to deal with them. The tank was an attempt to redress that balance.

Of course! The tank was an offensive weapon. But personal armour was out - defensive capability reduced to trenches. I got too fixated on the personal protection of the tank. Good.

Also, the only “victim” of tank warfare was the first to integrate them into combined arms. The Germans knew what to do with this new weapon. But then, WWII, it became only a race of technology - concept in place.
The Germans actually had little choice but to adapt their tank to operate in concentrated groups. Their operational plans in the antebellum quickly recognized that they didn't have the manpower or the material to defeat the allies force on force. In essence they were forced to be creative in the use of their tanks. People nowadays don't know how uncertain the concept of Blitzkrieg was when the Germans used it in France. The French had more and better tanks and the Germans left their flanks wide open. If not for the novelty of the tactics it would have never worked.
This is fascinating.
 
Leonardo came up with the idea long before WW1
main-qimg-f5144bc5ac0346ec76149d5aad02a118.webp
 
no need for it
n 1892, John Froelich invented and built the first gasoline/petrol-powered tractor in Clayton County, Iowa, US.[8][9][10]
1892 to what? 1916??
no, I don't think it took that long
remember wars speed up technology in MANY areas:
manufacturing
farming
food processing--etc
radar
electronics
shipping-ship building
etc etc

...they had every component for recon drones '''at hand''' during the Korean War--but they were not ''invented''
..in WW2, the US had every component ''at hand'' for ballistic missiles, but they were not ''invented'' by the US
....also, as we saw what the French did in 1940, some countries fight new wars with old wars ideas..so we see the Germans using new battlefield tactics [ and tanks ] to win a phenomenal victory over 2 great powers---''quickly''--with France fighting WW2 as it was WW1

Tractor - Wikipedia
Yeah, I get the idea - it’s more about mindset - how to actually integrate technology into the fighting force...
 
Actually the idea of the tank has been around well into antiquity. War Elephants being a good example. The problem was that early combustion engines couldn't generate enough power to drive an object sufficiently well armored to repel the weaponry available in WW1.
So... the shear weight of the armour was the problem then?

I’m curious though, wasn’t tanks somewhat out of sync? Or is it just modern way of thinking? Like “good thing - how can I use this militarily?”

Syrian cavalry was back then, the antiquities, almost a one-man-tank with 1hp. That should just have been extrapolated.

Perhaps offensive weapons scaled out faster then defensive countermeasures...
The last sentence hits it right on the nose, but reversed. WW1 was a period were defensive countermeasures outpaced the offensive capability to deal with them. The tank was an attempt to redress that balance.

Of course! The tank was an offensive weapon. But personal armour was out - defensive capability reduced to trenches. I got too fixated on the personal protection of the tank. Good.

Also, the only “victim” of tank warfare was the first to integrate them into combined arms. The Germans knew what to do with this new weapon. But then, WWII, it became only a race of technology - concept in place.
The Germans actually had little choice but to adapt their tank to operate in concentrated groups. Their operational plans in the antebellum quickly recognized that they didn't have the manpower or the material to defeat the allies force on force. In essence they were forced to be creative in the use of their tanks. People nowadays don't know how uncertain the concept of Blitzkrieg was when the Germans used it in France. The French had more and better tanks and the Germans left their flanks wide open. If not for the novelty of the tactics it would have never worked.
This is fascinating.
To me that's what makes history so interesting. We watch war movies. The more committed among us read history books. But, and here is the interesting bit, these books are all colored a certain way. Quite often they use tainted sources or color their conclusions one way or another. In fact it's rarely ever as straightforward as one might imagine. I can recommend a guy on youtube called Tik. He has very detailed and very contrary viewpoints on the official history of WW2. In my viewpoint he does brilliantly at dissuading some preconceptions. And even better he does well to give actual humanity to the people we have read and heard about.
 
Last edited:
So... the shear weight of the armour was the problem then?

I’m curious though, wasn’t tanks somewhat out of sync? Or is it just modern way of thinking? Like “good thing - how can I use this militarily?”

Syrian cavalry was back then, the antiquities, almost a one-man-tank with 1hp. That should just have been extrapolated.

Perhaps offensive weapons scaled out faster then defensive countermeasures...
The last sentence hits it right on the nose, but reversed. WW1 was a period were defensive countermeasures outpaced the offensive capability to deal with them. The tank was an attempt to redress that balance.

Of course! The tank was an offensive weapon. But personal armour was out - defensive capability reduced to trenches. I got too fixated on the personal protection of the tank. Good.

Also, the only “victim” of tank warfare was the first to integrate them into combined arms. The Germans knew what to do with this new weapon. But then, WWII, it became only a race of technology - concept in place.
The Germans actually had little choice but to adapt their tank to operate in concentrated groups. Their operational plans in the antebellum quickly recognized that they didn't have the manpower or the material to defeat the allies force on force. In essence they were forced to be creative in the use of their tanks. People nowadays don't know how uncertain the concept of Blitzkrieg was when the Germans used it in France. The French had more and better tanks and the Germans left their flanks wide open. If not for the novelty of the tactics it would have never worked.
This is fascinating.
To me that's what makes history so interesting. We watch war movies. The more adept among us read history books. But and here is the interesting bit, these books are all colored a certain way. Quite often the use tainted sources or color their conclusions one way or another. In fact it's rarely ever as straightforward as one might imagine. I can recommend a guy on youtube called Tik. He has very detailed and very contrary viewpoints on the official history of WW2; In my viewpoint he does brilliantly at dissuading some preconceptions.
Will do. Sounds very interesting! Thanks!

Still, if I today invented something... like, I can transport 2 tons of anything, anywhere in a second. I’m planning to what... for the environment or shipping food to starving people or what not. This invention would instantly be turned into a weapon and put to use. We seem to be more “open” about how to conduct war. Less tradition and honour. So perhaps tanks evolved in a paradigm shift?
 
The first 'Big Willie' British tank, used semi-successfully in the Battle of the Somme in 1916, had a 105-hp petrol engine. One of the more powerful petrol engines available at the time. It could only move the tank along at less than 4MPH, barely above walking speed.

Before it's production in 1915, several designs were submitted to various War Departments in Europe, including Germany, Austria, France, and Britain... none of those designs were approved because military doctrine at the time didn't deem them necessary.

It wasn't until the advent of Trench Warfare in World War I that the need for a tank was even considered.

Just having the technology to do something isn't enough. There has to be a pressing reason as well as the resources to do so.

Command rejected the need for tanks while embracing infantry charges
 
Problems with WWI tanks was the lack of a powerful engine, poor reliability and no idea on armor tactics
 
The first 'Big Willie' British tank, used semi-successfully in the Battle of the Somme in 1916, had a 105-hp petrol engine. One of the more powerful petrol engines available at the time. It could only move the tank along at less than 4MPH, barely above walking speed.

Before it's production in 1915, several designs were submitted to various War Departments in Europe, including Germany, Austria, France, and Britain... none of those designs were approved because military doctrine at the time didn't deem them necessary.

It wasn't until the advent of Trench Warfare in World War I that the need for a tank was even considered.

Just having the technology to do something isn't enough. There has to be a pressing reason as well as the resources to do so.

Command rejected the need for tanks while embracing infantry charges
Do you think the equivalent decision would have been taken today?
 
The last sentence hits it right on the nose, but reversed. WW1 was a period were defensive countermeasures outpaced the offensive capability to deal with them. The tank was an attempt to redress that balance.

Of course! The tank was an offensive weapon. But personal armour was out - defensive capability reduced to trenches. I got too fixated on the personal protection of the tank. Good.

Also, the only “victim” of tank warfare was the first to integrate them into combined arms. The Germans knew what to do with this new weapon. But then, WWII, it became only a race of technology - concept in place.
The Germans actually had little choice but to adapt their tank to operate in concentrated groups. Their operational plans in the antebellum quickly recognized that they didn't have the manpower or the material to defeat the allies force on force. In essence they were forced to be creative in the use of their tanks. People nowadays don't know how uncertain the concept of Blitzkrieg was when the Germans used it in France. The French had more and better tanks and the Germans left their flanks wide open. If not for the novelty of the tactics it would have never worked.
This is fascinating.
To me that's what makes history so interesting. We watch war movies. The more adept among us read history books. But and here is the interesting bit, these books are all colored a certain way. Quite often the use tainted sources or color their conclusions one way or another. In fact it's rarely ever as straightforward as one might imagine. I can recommend a guy on youtube called Tik. He has very detailed and very contrary viewpoints on the official history of WW2; In my viewpoint he does brilliantly at dissuading some preconceptions.
Will do. Sounds very interesting! Thanks!

Still, if I today invented something... like, I can transport 2 tons of anything, anywhere in a second. I’m planning to what... for the environment or shipping food to starving people or what not. This invention would instantly be turned into a weapon and put to use. We seem to be more “open” about how to conduct war. Less tradition and honour. So perhaps tanks evolved in a paradigm shift?
Sorry to tell you but tradition and honour have never really been a part of war. In essence it's always been about killing the other side as efficiently as possible. The difference being that a nuke is so efficient that actually using it is unthinkable. The American civil war for instance was between people who grew up together in the case of a lot of the officer corps. It didn't stop them from developing the concept of total war in order to win it. They might have called each other sir but that did not stop them from killing hundreds of thousands, including woman and children. Developing trench warfare and so called total war.
 
The first 'Big Willie' British tank, used semi-successfully in the Battle of the Somme in 1916, had a 105-hp petrol engine. One of the more powerful petrol engines available at the time. It could only move the tank along at less than 4MPH, barely above walking speed.

Before it's production in 1915, several designs were submitted to various War Departments in Europe, including Germany, Austria, France, and Britain... none of those designs were approved because military doctrine at the time didn't deem them necessary.

It wasn't until the advent of Trench Warfare in World War I that the need for a tank was even considered.

Just having the technology to do something isn't enough. There has to be a pressing reason as well as the resources to do so.

Command rejected the need for tanks while embracing infantry charges
Do you think the equivalent decision would have been taken today?
We have kind of learned how to use tanks
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top