first tanks deployed 100 years ago today during the battle of the Somme

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,311
The French also had better tanks in WW1 and a better rifle, the Chassepot, in the Franko-Prussian squabble.
The Renault FT17 was an excellent tank for its time however the other French tanks of WW1 were very bad designs. The Char d'Assaut Schneider and particularly the Char d'Assaut St Chamond had very poor cross country capability, both had a very short track base relative to their overall length and do they tended to ground very easily. The British Mk1A "Whippet" was a good design, I think some of them saw service here during the War of Independence.
 
Last edited:


silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
17,368
I think the T34 was outclassed towards the end of the war. It had a number of drawbacks not least the poor scopes but also the slowest reload of all tanks. It had no heating and was very cramped for the crew with their heavy clothes. It was peculiar in that the gunner had to walk around with the turret when it was traversing. That it was a game changer when it first arrived is perhaps as much an indication of the level that the Germans were at too. Like all Russian tanks it had one huge plus though-she burned diesel.
yeah they were trying to leapfrog over each other, the US had the Pershing and the Russians were working on the IS to counteract the Tiger and Tiger 2. the Russians had the magic ingredient numbers which overcame a lot of shortcomings
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,311
yeah they were trying to leapfrog over each other, the US had the Pershing and the Russians were working on the IS to counteract the Tiger and Tiger 2. the Russians had the magic ingredient numbers which overcame a lot of shortcomings
The T34 in its '85' upgraded form was still a very effective medium tank at the end of WW2. It's still in service in a few countries today(North Korea)....It was still in service in Europe in the 1990s(The Serbia Army).
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,416
The German policy of building big expensive tanks in the later stages of WW II was disastrous.

They could never build enough of these tanks.

The result was German soldiers on foot trying to stop legions of enemy tanks.

The Russians and Americans had the right production policy.
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
10,185
The Renault FT17 was an excellent tank for its time however the other French tanks of WW1 were very bad designs. The Char d'Assaut Schneider and particularly the Char d'Assaut St Chamond had very poor cross country capability, both had a very short track base relative to their overall length and do they tended to ground very easily. The British Mk1A "Whippet" was a good design, I think some of them saw service here during the War of Independence.
Rashers main input to tank matters up 'til now is to assert that as all tanks available to German forces in WW2 had been diesel powered and that consequently their fumes could not have been used in early gas chambers. He was pointed to the 60 or so captured Renaults. The record on this matter remains uncorrected on Stormfront and some other holocaust denial sites, even though he was handed his arse on it. Youl'd think he would have made moves to inform his denial buddies of this development, but maybe these guys aren't very collegiate.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,311
Rashers main input to tank matters up 'til now is to assert that as all tanks available to German forces in WW2 had been diesel powered and that consequently their fumes could not have been used in early gas chambers. He was pointed to the 60 or so captured Renaults. The record on this matter remains uncorrected on Stormfront and some other holocaust denial sites, even though he was handed his arse on it. Youl'd think he would have made moves to inform his denial buddies of this development, but maybe these guys aren't very collegiate.
That was my victory...my finest hour.
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,755
Having watched many a video from the Syrian conflict I think I'd rather be a low value infantryman than vapourised out the turret of a tank
Yes, but if you look at the statistics from all relevant conflicts you'll find that casualties amongst the Infantry are far higher that those of armoured units, and by that I mean Tank crew-men. I always reckoned that you were better off in a tank simply because there were only so many things flying about on the battlefield that could harm or kill you. If you're an infantryman though, EVERYTHING can kill you.
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,755
One of my forefathers was killed in a tank battle during WW1.
He was unusually unfortunate then, there were very few, if any, actual "Tank battles" in WW1. Or did you mean WW2?
 

Jack O Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
6,850
Another British Invention.
It is said that over 60% of all worthwhile inventions were by British people. This is another amazing statistic. Penicillin,splitting the atom,vaccinations,antiseptics,jet engines, the flush toilet,concentration camps,computers,discovery of DNA and many many more. You really have to hand it to them.
Yes you do , and then like as georgie best said you have to ask "where did it all go so wrong "
 

Jack O Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
6,850
Yes, but if you look at the statistics from all relevant conflicts you'll find that casualties amongst the Infantry are far higher that those of armoured units, and by that I mean Tank crew-men. I always reckoned that you were better off in a tank simply because there were only so many things flying about on the battlefield that could harm or kill you. If you're an infantryman though, EVERYTHING can kill you.
what about the cooks ? wont somebody think of the brave brave cooks like sgt bigot here who put their lives on the line hundreds of miles from any action
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,610
yeah they were trying to leapfrog over each other, the US had the Pershing and the Russians were working on the IS to counteract the Tiger and Tiger 2. the Russians had the magic ingredient numbers which overcame a lot of shortcomings
Yeah-like the airplanes the war hugely accelerated the development. Of course I forgot one thing about the T34. It was way faster than anything the Germans ever had during the war.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,610
The German policy of building big expensive tanks in the later stages of WW II was disastrous.

They could never build enough of these tanks.

The result was German soldiers on foot trying to stop legions of enemy tanks.

The Russians and Americans had the right production policy.
I've often wondered about that. It would have been impossible for them to compete with the allies in the numbers game so presumably they decided that each German tank had to punch harder instead. The Americans were limited in the size of theirs by the necessity to transport them overseas so the behemoths were not for them. The British had fallen behind in the technology and couldn't produce enough anyway. So circumstances led them down the wrong path you might say. If their tanks hadn't been quite as advanced but were more easily produced how much difference would it have made?
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,610
Yes, but if you look at the statistics from all relevant conflicts you'll find that casualties amongst the Infantry are far higher that those of armoured units, and by that I mean Tank crew-men. I always reckoned that you were better off in a tank simply because there were only so many things flying about on the battlefield that could harm or kill you. If you're an infantryman though, EVERYTHING can kill you.
Is this not applying to modern tanks though-with all that fancy protection and that? I mean did the guys in the Shermans come out any better than infantrymen? I think I'd definitely run away screaming if I was asked to get into one at the time. Bomber command would have been more attractive.
 

Dedogs

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
6,278
so this piece of weaponry is 100 years old today. Not a game changer in WW1 but certainly decided a lot of ground battles in WW2. Oddly Russia arguably came up with the best mix of tanks over the period of the war, the Germans were shocked when they met Russian tanks like the KV and T34 at the start.
Since ww2 their importance has probably diminished but they are still an important piece of firepower in any large army.

[video=youtube;vd4Xw_sLZgM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd4Xw_sLZgM[/video]
herself got me a book about them chrismass 2 year ago,,,, did ye know there was male and female english tanks them times???? no ************************tin now thats 100 % true.... i dont think there was any gender fluid ones though.... :(:(:(;)
 

Adam Battersby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2016
Messages
997
Originally Posted by Ex celt
Another British Invention.
It is said that over 60% of all worthwhile inventions were by British people. This is another amazing statistic. Penicillin,splitting the atom,vaccinations,antiseptics,jet engines, the flush toilet,concentration camps,computers,discovery of DNA and many many more. You really have to hand it to them.
I wouldn't put concentration camps in that list.
 

diaspora-mick

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
4,707
Another British Invention.
It is said that over 60% of all worthwhile inventions were by British people. This is another amazing statistic. Penicillin,splitting the atom,vaccinations,antiseptics,jet engines, the flush toilet,concentration camps,computers,discovery of DNA and many many more. You really have to hand it to them.
Not forgetting the Sinclair C5 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,560
I've often wondered about that. It would have been impossible for them to compete with the allies in the numbers game so presumably they decided that each German tank had to punch harder instead. The Americans were limited in the size of theirs by the necessity to transport them overseas so the behemoths were not for them. The British had fallen behind in the technology and couldn't produce enough anyway. So circumstances led them down the wrong path you might say. If their tanks hadn't been quite as advanced but were more easily produced how much difference would it have made?
The British came out with the Centurion just as the War ended - mind you the Soviets came out with the JSIII at the same time

The Germans had great technology and IIRC war production peaked in 1944

- if anything really hampered it was lack of oil supplies from mid/late 1944 onwards
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top