Tanks

[ErikViking]

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.

Been thinking the same thing - but at some point things have sped up? We seem so quick to evolve military technology. Almost as if civil technologies are surplus from the military development.

 

[forkup]

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?

Yes actually. The problem is that most of the time a general staff prepares to win the previous war. For instance. Tanks more then likely won't have a place on a modern battlefield. Drones, GPS, attack helicopters, not to mention very powerful hand held anti tanks weapons, more than likely would make a tank nothing more then a coffin. On the other hand it doesn't stop the US military to purchase more. Fighter planes might become obsolete in the face of advanced drones that can turn better and take nothing more then someone who's good at playing the playstation to beat a 100 million dollar plane. It's hard to predict the impact of weaponry on the balance of war.

 

[fncceo]

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

The battlefield is an ever evolving place. Tanks were practically useless in Afghanistan. The Russians learned that the hard way.

 

[ErikViking]

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

Yeah, but given an equivalent technological opportunity? I don’t think command would hesitate today. New evaluation, new pieces on the play field. New game.

 

[forkup]

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.

Been thinking the same thing - but at some point things have sped up? We seem so quick to evolve military technology. Almost as if civil technologies are surplus from the military development.

Yes I think I just mentioned the turning point. The American civil war was the first conflict were the entire economy was geared for the waging of war. Plus the weaponry became so efficient that the idea of a standup battle became suicidal.

 

[ErikViking]

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

The battlefield is an ever evolving place. Tanks were practically useless in Afghanistan. The Russians learned that the hard way.

US seemed pretty well prepared though, fighting asymmetrically without heavy armour, adopting brand new technology. Although a hard fight to win nevertheless.

 

[fncceo]

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

Yeah, but given an equivalent technological opportunity? I don’t think command would hesitate today. New evaluation, new pieces on the play field. New game.

Rejecting new technology because it doesn't conform to strategic doctrine happens every day. We just don't hear about it until strategic doctrine evolves to utilize the new technology. Then we wonder, 'Why didn't we use this technology earlier?'.

You have no idea how committed the Military / Arms Industry are to their strategic doctrine. They don't give it up without (losing) a huge fight -- usually at the cost of many, many lives.

 

[ErikViking]

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.

Been thinking the same thing - but at some point things have sped up? We seem so quick to evolve military technology. Almost as if civil technologies are surplus from the military development.

Yes I think I just mentioned the turning point. The American civil war was the first conflict were the entire economy was geared for the waging of war. Plus the weaponry became so efficient that the idea of a standup battle became suicidal.

Yes, f*ck. need to read some more about that. My first thought was gatlin guns. Guess it’s more to it...

 

[ErikViking]

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?

Yes actually. The problem is that most of the time a general staff prepares to win the previous war. For instance. Tanks more then likely won't have a place on a modern battlefield. Drones, GPS, attack helicopters, not to mention very powerful hand held anti tanks weapons, more than likely would make a tank nothing more then a coffin. On the other hand it doesn't stop the US military to purchase more. Fighter planes might become obsolete in the face of advanced drones that can turn better and take nothing more then someone who's good at playing the playstation to beat a 100 million dollar plane. It's hard to predict the impact of weaponry on the balance of war.

You don’t think this is in the past? Seems to me that the US in particular is very broad - from war in space to cyber war. Already anticipating their next possible battle field.

 

[ErikViking]

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

Yeah, but given an equivalent technological opportunity? I don’t think command would hesitate today. New evaluation, new pieces on the play field. New game.

Rejecting new technology because it doesn't conform to strategic doctrine happens every day. We just don't hear about it until strategic doctrine evolves to utilize the new technology. Then we wonder, 'Why didn't we use this technology earlier?'.

You have no idea how committed the Military / Arms Industry are to their strategic doctrine. They don't give it up without (losing) a huge fight -- usually at the cost of many, many lives.

You set me up for a new line of thought here.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Been thinking the same thing - but at some point things have sped up? We seem so quick to evolve military technology. Almost as if civil technologies are surplus from the military development.

Military R&D is off the charts

Not just tanks but armor piercing projectiles

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yeah, but given an equivalent technological opportunity? I don’t think command would hesitate today. New evaluation, new pieces on the play field. New game.

I think they are more open to technology today

More money in the game

 

[fncceo]

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

Yeah, but given an equivalent technological opportunity? I don’t think command would hesitate today. New evaluation, new pieces on the play field. New game.

I think they are more open to technology today

More money in the game

More money, to be sure. But, military doctrine is still focused around fighting World War 2/3. Big battles, big (easily identifiable) enemies, big (expensive) weapons. We build Billion dollar bombers to bomb thousand dollar targets.

I was involved in a very small example of this when I left the Navy. In the late '70s, early '80s, US intelligence was evolving from on the ground intelligence gathering (high risk) to electronic intelligence gathering (low risk). It was the perfect for gathering intel on the Soviets, who used electronic communications and crypto systems similar to our own.

We saw just how dangerous this thinking was when a new enemy evolved using a completely different, non-electronic command and control hierarchy that went undetected by ELINT. We had to build a HUMINT capacity from scratch, after the war had already been started.

Too much is invested in the current strategic thinking to even consider diverting major resources to a new order of battle.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Tanks

You're welcome.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yeah, but given an equivalent technological opportunity? I don’t think command would hesitate today. New evaluation, new pieces on the play field. New game.

I think they are more open to technology today

More money in the game

More money, to be sure. But, military doctrine is still focused around fighting World War 2/3. Big battles, big (easily identifiable) enemies, big (expensive) weapons. We build Billion dollar bombers to bomb thousand dollar targets.

I was involved in a very small example of this when I left the Navy. In the late '70s, early '80s, US intelligence was evolving from on the ground intelligence gathering (high risk) to electronic intelligence gathering (low risk). It was the perfect for gathering intel on the Soviets, who used electronic communications and crypto systems similar to our own.

We saw just how dangerous this thinking was when a new enemy evolved using a completely different, non-electronic command and control hierarchy that went undetected by ELINT. We had to build a HUMINT capacity from scratch, after the war had already been started.

Too much is invested in the current strategic thinking to even consider diverting major resources to a new order of battle.

Agree

Tank warfare may be a thing of the past

 

[fncceo]

Do you think the equivalent decision would have been taken today?

We have kind of learned how to use tanks

Yeah, but given an equivalent technological opportunity? I don’t think command would hesitate today. New evaluation, new pieces on the play field. New game.

I think they are more open to technology today

More money in the game

More money, to be sure. But, military doctrine is still focused around fighting World War 2/3. Big battles, big (easily identifiable) enemies, big (expensive) weapons. We build Billion dollar bombers to bomb thousand dollar targets.

I was involved in a very small example of this when I left the Navy. In the late '70s, early '80s, US intelligence was evolving from on the ground intelligence gathering (high risk) to electronic intelligence gathering (low risk). It was the perfect for gathering intel on the Soviets, who used electronic communications and crypto systems similar to our own.

We saw just how dangerous this thinking was when a new enemy evolved using a completely different, non-electronic command and control hierarchy that went undetected by ELINT. We had to build a HUMINT capacity from scratch, after the war had already been started.

Too much is invested in the current strategic thinking to even consider diverting major resources to a new order of battle.

Agree

Tank warfare may be a thing of the past

One of the most frequent uses of tanks since World War 2 isn't on the battlefield. They have been used quite frequently, and effectively, to suppress civilian populations.