Tank
description
Transcript of Tank
TankFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Tanks)
This article is about the armoured combat vehicle. For other uses, see Tank
(disambiguation).
Indian T-90 Bhisma with appliqué reactive armor and standard 125 mm (4.9 in) main gun.
[show]
V
T
E
History of the tank
A tank is a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed forfront-line combat
which combines operational
mobility andtactical offensive and defensive capabilities. Firepower is
normally provided by a large-calibre main gun in a rotatingturret and
secondary machine guns, while heavy armour and all-
terrain mobility provide protection for the tank and its crew, allowing it to
perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield.[1]
Tanks in World War I were developed separately and simultaneously by
Great Britain and France as a means to break the deadlock of trench
warfare on the Western Front. Their first use in combat was by the British
Army on September 15, 1916 at Flers-Courcelette, during the Battle of the
Somme. The name "tank" was adopted by the British during the early
stages of their development, as a security measure to conceal their purpose
(see etymology). While the French and British built thousands of tanks
between them, Germany developed and brought into service only a single
design the A7Vproducing 20 vehicles due to lack of capacities or resources.
Tanks of the interwar period evolved into the designs of World War II.
Important concepts of armoured warfare were developed; the Soviet
Union launched the first mass tank/air attack at Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan)
in August 1939,[2] which later resulted in the T-34, a predecessor of
the main battle tank; this was quickly followed up by Germany on a larger
scale when they introduced blitzkrieg ('lightning war') less than two weeks
later; a technique which made use of massed concentrations of tanks
supported by artillery and air power to break through the enemy front and
cause a complete collapse in enemy resistance and morale.
Tanks in the Cold War advanced to counter greater battlefield threats.
Tanks became larger and their armour became thicker and much more
effective. Advances in manufacturing late in the war allowed the mass
production of composite armor. Aspects of gun technology changed
significantly as well, with advances in shell design.
During the 20th century, main battle tanks were considered a key
component of modern armies.[3] In the 21st century, with the increasing role
of asymetrical warfare and the end of the Cold War, that also contributed to
the increase of cost-effective Russian anti-tank weapons worldwide, the
importance of tanks has waned. Modern tanks seldom operate alone, as
they are organized into armoured units which involve the support of infantry,
who may accompany the tanks ininfantry fighting vehicles. They are also
usually supported by reconnaissance or ground-attack aircraft.[4]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
o 1.1 Conception
o 1.2 World War I
o 1.3 Interwar period
o 1.4 World War II
o 1.5 The Cold War arms race
o 1.6 21st century conflicts
o 1.7 Research and development
2 Design
o 2.1 Parts of a tank
o 2.2 Tank design engineering
o 2.3 Offensive capabilities
o 2.4 Countermeasures
o 2.5 Mobility
o 2.6 Crew
3 Command, control and communications
o 3.1 Early
o 3.2 Modern
4 Etymology
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links
[edit]History
Main article: History of the tank
[edit]Conception
Film clip of World War I-era tanks.
The tank is the 20th century realization of an ancient concept: that of
providing troops with mobile protection and firepower. The internal
combustion engine, armour plate, and the continuous track were key
innovations leading to the invention of the modern tank.
Armoured trains appeared in the mid-19th century, and various armoured
steam- and petrol-engined vehicles were also proposed. The first armoured
car was produced in Austria in 1904. However, all were restricted to rails or
reasonably passable terrain. It was the development of a
practical caterpillar track that provided the necessary independent, all-
terrain mobility.
Many sources imply that Leonardo da Vinci and H.G. Wells in some way
foresaw or "invented" the tank. Da Vinci's late 15th century drawings of
what some describe as a "tank" show a man-powered, wheeled vehicle with
cannons all around it.[5] The machines described in Wells's 1903 short
story The Land Ironclads are a step closer, in being armour-plated, having
an internal power plant, and being able to cross trenches. Some aspects of
the story foresee the tactical use and impact of the tanks that later came
into being. However, Wells's vehicles were driven by steam and moved
on Pedrail wheels, technologies that were already outdated at the time of
writing. After seeing British tanks in 1916, Wells denied having "invented"
them, writing, "Yet let me state at once that I was not their prime originator. I
took up an idea, manipulated it slightly, and handed it on."[6] It is, though,
possible that one of the British tank pioneers, Ernest Swinton, was
subconsciously or otherwise influenced by Wells's tale.[7][8]
The "caterpillar" track arose from attempts to improve the mobility of
wheeled vehicles by spreading their weight, reducing ground pressure, and
increasing their adhesive friction. Experiments can be traced back as far as
the 17th century, and by the late nineteenth they existed in various
recognizable and practical forms in several countries.
It is frequently claimed that Richard Lovell Edgeworth created a caterpillar
track. It is true that in 1770 he patented a "machine, that should carry and
lay down its own road", but this was Edgeworth's choice of words. His own
account in his autobiography is of a horse-drawn wooden carriage on eight
retractable legs, capable of lifting itself over high walls. The description
bears no similarity to a caterpillar track.[9]
The first combinations of the three principal components of the Tank
appeared in the decade before World War One. In 1903, a Captain
Levavasseur of the French Artillery proposed mounting a field gun in an
armoured box on tracks. A Major in the British Army's Mechanical Transport
Service suggested fixing a gun and armoured shield on a British type of
track-driven vehicle.[10] In 1911, a Lieutenant Engineer in the Austrian
Army, Günther Burstyn, presented to the Austrian and Prussian War
Ministries plans for a two-man tank with a gun in a revolving turret.[11] In the
same year an Australian civil engineer named Lancelot de Mole submitted a
basic design for a tracked, armoured vehicle to the British War Office.[12] In
Russia, Vasiliy Mendeleev designed a tracked vehicle containing a large
naval gun.[13]
All of these ideas were rejected and, by 1914, forgotten, although it was
officially acknowledged after the War that de Mole's design was at least the
equal of the tanks that were later produced by Great Britain, and he was
voted a cash payment for his contribution. Various individuals continued to
contemplate the use of tracked vehicles for military applications, but by the
outbreak of the War no one in a position of responsibility in any army had
any thoughts about tanks.[citation needed]
[edit]World War I
Main article: Tanks in World War I
British World War I Mark V* tank
Great Britain
From late 1914 a small number of middle-ranking British Army officers tried
to persuade the War Office and the Government to consider the creation of
armoured vehicles. Amongst their suggestions was the use of caterpillar
tractors, but although the Army used many such vehicles for towing heavy
guns, it could not be persuaded that they could be adapted as armoured
vehicles. The consequence was that early tank development in Great
Britain was carried out by the Royal Navy.
As the result of an approach by Royal Naval Air Service officers who had
been operating armoured cars on the Western Front, the First Lord of the
Admiralty, Winston Churchill [14] formed the Landships Committee, on 20
February 1915. The Director of Naval Construction for the Royal
Navy, Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, was appointed to head the Committee
in view of his experience with the engineering methods it was felt might be
required; the two other members were naval officers, and a number of
industrialists were engaged as consultants. So many played a part in its
long and complicated development that it is not possible to name any
individual as the sole inventor of the tank,[15] though the British Government
later made proportionate cash awards to those it considered to have
contributed. Their first design, Little Willie, ran for the first time in
September 1915 and served to develop the form of the track but an
improved design, better able to cross trenches, swiftly followed and in
January 1916 the prototype, nicknamed "Mother", was adopted as the
design for future tanks. Production models of "Male" tanks (armed with
naval cannon and machine guns) and "Females" (carrying only machine-
guns) would go on to fight in history's first tank action at the Somme in
September 1916.[14][16] Great Britain produced about 2,600 tanks of various
types during the War.[17]
The first tank to engage in battle was designated D1, a British Mark I Male,
during the Battle of Flers-Courcelette (part of the wider Somme offensive)
on 15 September 1916.[18]
Renault FT tanks, here operated by the US army, pioneered the use of a fully traversable
turret and served as pattern for most modern tanks.
France
Whilst several experimental machines were investigated in France, it was a
colonel of artillery, J.B.E. Estienne, who directly approached the
Commander-in-Chief with detailed plans for a tank on caterpillar tracks, in
late 1915. The result was two largely unsatisfactory types of tank, 400 each
of the Schneiderand Saint-Chamond, both based on the Holt Tractor.
The following year, the French pioneered the use of a full 360°
rotation turretin a tank for the first time, with the creation of the Renault
FT light tank, with the turret containing the tank's main armament. Aside of
the traversable turret another innovative feature of the FT was its engine
located at the rear. This pattern, with the gun located in a mounted turret
and the engine at the back, became the standard for most succeeding
tanks across the world even to this day.[19] The FT was the most numerous
tank of the War; over 3,000 were made by late 1918.
Germany
In contrast to World War II, Germany fielded very few tanks during World
War I, with only 20 of the A7V type being produced during the war.[20] The
first tank versus tank action took place on 24 April 1918 at the Second
Battle of Villers-Bretonneux, France, when three British Mark IVs met three
German A7Vs. Captured British Mk IVs formed the bulk of Germany's tank
forces during WWI; about 35 were in service at any one time. Plans to
expanded the tank programme were under way when the War ended.
Other Nations
The United States used tanks supplied by France and Great Britain during
WWI. Production of American-built tanks had just begun when the War
came to an end. Italy also manufactured two Fiat 2000s towards the end of
the War, too late to see service. Russia independently built and trialled two
prototypes early in the War; the tracked, two-man Vezdekhodand the
huge Lebedenko, but neither went into production. A tracked self-propelled
gun was also designed but not produced.[21]
Although tank tactics developed rapidly during the war, piecemeal
deployments, mechanical problems, and poor mobility limited the military
significance of the tank in World War I, and the tank did not fulfil its promise
of rendering trench warfare obsolete. Nonetheless, it was clear to military
thinkers on both sides that tanks would play a significant role in future
conflicts.[22]
[edit]Interwar period
Main article: Tanks of the interwar period
French Hotchkiss H-39 light tank of 1939
In the interwar period tanks underwent further mechanical development. In
terms of tactics, J.F.C. Fuller's doctrine of spearhead attacks with massed
tank formations was the basis for work by Heinz Guderian in
Germany, Percy Hobart in Britain, Adna R. Chaffee, Jr., in the U.S., Charles
de Gaulle in France, and Mikhail Tukhachevsky in the USSR. All came to
similar conclusions, but in the Second World War only Germany would
initially put the theory into practice on a large scale, and it was their superior
tactics and French blunders, not superior weapons, that made blitzkrieg so
successful in May 1940.[23] For information regarding tank development in
this period, seetank development between the wars.
Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union all experimented heavily with tank
warfare during their clandestine and “volunteer” involvement in the Spanish
Civil War, which saw some of the earliest examples of successful
mechanised combined arms — such as when Republican troops, equipped
with Soviet-supplied medium tanks and supported by aircraft, eventually
routed Italian troops fighting for the Nationalists in the seven-dayBattle of
Guadalajara in 1937.[24] However, of the nearly 700 tanks deployed during
this conflict, only about 64 tanks representing the Franco faction and 331
from the Republican side were equipped with cannon, and of those 64
nearly all were WWI vintage Renault FT tanks, while the
331 Soviet supplied machines had 45mm main guns and were of 1930s
manufacture.[25] With the balance of Nationalist tanks being machine gun
armed tanks. The primary lesson learned from this war was that machine
gun armed tanks had to be equipped with cannon, with the associated
armor inherent to modern tanks.
The five month long war between the Soviet Union and the Japanese 6th
Army at Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan) in 1939 brought home some better
lessons. In this conflict, and although the Japanese only deployed about 73
cannon armed tanks, the Soviets fielded over two thousand,[26] with the
major difference being that Japanese armor were equipped
withdiesel engines and the Russian tanks petrol ones.[27] Even after
General Georgy Zhukov sounded a bitter defeat on the Japanese 6th Army
with his massed combined tank and air attack, the Soviets had learned a
bitter lesson on the use ofgasoline engines, and quickly incorporated those
newly found experiences into their new T-34 medium tank duringWWII.[28]
[edit]World War II
Main article: Tanks in World War II
Soviet T-34 tank column advancing near Leningrad, 1942
World War II was the first conflict where armoured vehicles were critical to
success on the battlefield and in this period the tank developed rapidly as
a weapon system. It showed how an armoured force was capable of
achieving a tactical victory in an unprecedentedly short amount of time. At
the same time, however, the development of effective anti-tank weaponry
demonstrated that the tank was not invulnerable.
Prior to World War II the tactics and strategy of deploying tank forces
underwent a revolution. In August 1939 Soviet General Georgy
Zhukov utilized the combined force of tanks and airpower
at Nomonhan against the Japanese 6th Army;[29] Heinz Guderian, a tactical
theoretician who was heavily involved in the formation of the first
independent German tank force, said "Where tanks are, the front is", and
this concept became a reality in World War II.[30] Following the Invasion of
Poland where tanks performed in a more traditional role in close
cooperation with infantry units, in theBattle of France deep independent
armoured penetrations were executed by the Germans, a technique later
called blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg made use of innovativecombined arms tactics
and radios in all of the tanks to provide a level of tactical flexibility and
power that surpassed that of the Allied armour. The French Army, with
tanks equal or superior to the German tanks in both quality and quantity,
employed a linear defensive strategy in which the armoured cavalry units
were made subservient to infantry as "support weapons".[23] In addition, they
lacked radios in many of their tanks and headquarters,[31] which limited their
ability to respond to German attacks.
In accordance with blitzkrieg methods, German tanks bypassed enemy
strongpoints and could radio for close air supportto destroy them, or leave
them to the infantry. A related development, motorized infantry, allowed
some of the troops to keep up with the tanks and create highly mobile
combined arms forces.[23] The defeat of a major military power within weeks
shocked the rest of the world, resulting in an increased focus on tank and
anti-tank weapon development.
Rommel in North Africa, June 1942
The North African Campaign also provided an important battleground for
tanks, as the flat, desolate terrain with relatively few obstacles or urban
environments was ideal for conducting mobile armoured warfare. However,
this battlefield also showed the importance of logistics, especially in an
armoured force, as the principal warring armies, the German Afrika
Korpsand the British Eighth Army, often outpaced their supply trains in
repeated attacks and counter-attacks on each other, resulting in complete
stalemate. This situation would not be resolved until 1942, when during
the Second Battle of El Alamein, the Afrika Korps, crippled by disruptions in
their supply lines, had 95% of its tanks destroyed[32] and was forced to
retreat by a massively reinforced Eighth Army, the first in a series of defeats
that would eventually lead to the surrender of the remaining Axis forces
in Tunisia.
Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle ever fought — with each side employing nearly
3000 tanks.
The German invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, started
with the Soviets having a superior tank design, the T-34.[33] A lack of
preparations for the Axis surprise attack, mechanical problems, poor
training of the crews and incompetent leadership caused the Soviet
machines to be surrounded and destroyed in large numbers. However,
interference fromAdolf Hitler,[34] the geographic scale of the conflict, the
dogged resistance of the Soviet combat troops, and Soviet manpower and
production capability prevented a repeat of the Blitzkrieg of 1940.[35] Despite
early successes against the Soviets, the Germans were forced to up-gun
their Panzer IVs, and to design and build larger and more
expensive Panther and Tiger tanks. In doing so, the Wehrmacht denied the
infantry and other support arms the production priorities that they needed to
remain equal partners with the increasingly sophisticated tanks, in turn
violating the principle of combined arms they had pioneered.[3] Soviet
developments following the invasion included upgunning the T-34,
development of self-propelled anti-tank guns such as the SU-152, and
deployment of the IS-2 in the closing stages of the war.
Sherman tanks joining the U.S. Fifth Army forces in the beachhead at Anzioduring
the Italian Campaign, 1944
When entering World War II, America's mass production capacity enabled
her to rapidly construct thousands of relatively cheap M4 Sherman medium
tanks. A compromise all round, the Sherman was reliable and formed a
large part of the Anglo-American ground forces, but in a tank-versus-tank
battle was no match for the Panther or Tiger.[36] Numerical and logistical
superiority and the successful use of combined arms allowed the Allies to
overrun the German forces during the Battle of Normandy. Upgunned
versions with the76 mm gun M1 and the 17 pounder were introduced to
improve the M4's firepower, but concerns about protection remained.
Tank hulls [37] were modified to produce flame tanks, mobile rocket artillery,
and combat engineering vehicles for tasks including mine-
clearing andbridging. Specialised self-propelled guns were also
developed: tank destroyers and assault guns were cheap, stripped down
tanks carrying heavy guns, often in a fixed hull mounting. The firepower and
low cost of these vehicles made them attractive but as manufacturing
techniques improved and larger turret rings made larger tank guns feasible,
the gun turret was recognised as the most effective mounting for the main
gun to allow movement in a different direction from firing, enhancing tactical
flexibility.[23]
[edit]The Cold War arms race
Main article: Tanks in the Cold War
At one time, the Soviet T-72 was the most widely deployed main battle tank across the
world.[38]
During the Cold War, tension between the Warsaw Pact countries and
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries created an arms
race that ensured that tank development proceeded largely as it had during
World War II. The essence of tank designs during the Cold War had been
hammered out in the closing stages of World War II. Large turrets, capable
suspension systems, greatly improved engines, sloped armour and large-
calibre (90 mm and larger) guns were standard. Tank design during the
Cold War built on this foundation and included improvements to fire
control, gyroscopic gun stabilisation, communications (primarily radio) and
crew comfort and saw the introduction of laser rangefinders
and infrared night vision equipment.Armour technology progressed in an
ongoing race against improvements inanti-tank weapons,
especially antitank guided missiles like the TOW.
Medium tanks of World War II, evolved into the main battle tank (MBT) of
the Cold War and took over the majority of tank roles on the battlefield. This
gradual transition occurred in the 1950s and 1960s due to anti-tank guided
missiles, sabot ammunition and high explosive anti-tank warheads. World
War II had shown that the speed of a light tank was no substitute for armour
and firepower and medium tanks were vulnerable to newer weapon
technology, rendering them obsolete.[citation needed]
In a trend started in World War II, economies of scale led to serial
production of progressively upgraded models of all major tanks during the
Cold War. For the same reason many upgraded post-World War II tanks
and their derivatives (for example, the T-55 and T-72) remain in active
service around the world, and even an obsolete tank may be the most
formidable weapon on battlefields in many parts of the world.[39] Among the
tanks of the 1950s were the BritishCenturion and Soviet T-54/55 in service
from 1946, and the US M48 from 1951.[40] These three vehicles formed the
bulk of the armoured forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout
much of the Cold War. Lessons learned from tanks such as the Leopard
1, M48 Patton series, Chieftain, and T-72 led to the contemporary Leopard
2, M1 Abrams,Challenger 2, C1 Ariete, T-90 and Merkava IV.
Tanks and anti-tank weapons of the Cold War era saw action in a number
of proxy wars like the Korean War, Vietnam War, Indo-Pakistani War of
1971, Soviet war in Afghanistan and Arab-Israeli conflicts, culminating with
the Yom Kippur War. The T-55, for example, has seen action in no fewer
than 32 conflicts. In these wars the USA or NATO countries and the Soviet
Union or China consistently backed opposing forces. Proxy wars were
studied by Western and Soviet military analysts and provided a grim
contribution to the Cold War tank development process.
[edit]21st century conflicts
Type 10 Japanese main battle tank
The role of tank vs. tank combat is becoming diminished. Tanks work in
concert with infantry in urban warfare by deploying them ahead of the
platoon. When engaging enemy infantry, tanks can provide covering fire on
the battlefield. Conversely, tanks can spearhead attacks when infantry are
deployed in personnel carriers.[41]
Tanks were used to spearhead the initial US invasion of Iraq in 2003. As of
2005, there were 1,100 M1 Abrams used by the United States Army in the
course of the Iraq War, and they have proven to have an unexpectedly high
level of vulnerability to roadside bombs.[42] A relatively new type of remotely
detonated mine, the explosively formed penetrator has been used with
some success against American armoured vehicles (particularly the Bradley
fighting vehicle). However, with upgrades to their armour in the rear, M1s
have proven invaluable in fighting insurgents in urban combat, particularly
at the Battle of Fallujah, where the US Marines brought in two extra
brigades.[43] Britain deployed its Challenger 2 tanks to support its operations
in southern Iraq.
Israeli Merkava tanks contain features that enable them to
support infantry in low intensity conflicts (LIC) and counter-
terrorism operations. Such features are the rear door and rear corridor,
enabling the tank to carry infantry and embark safely; the IMI APAM-MP-
T multi-purpose ammunition round, advanced C4IS systems and
recently: TROPHY active protection system which protects the tank from
shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons. During the Second Intifada further
modifications were made, designated as "Merkava Mk. 3d Baz LIC".[citation
needed]
[edit]Research and development
Graphic representation of the US Army's cancelled XM1202 Mounted Combat System
In terms of firepower, the focus of current R&D is on increased detection
capability such as thermal imagers, automated fire control systems and
increased muzzle energy from the gun to improve range, accuracy and
armour penetration.[44] The most mature future gun technology is
theelectrothermal-chemical gun.[45] The XM291 electrothermal-chemical
tank gun has gone through successful multiple firing sequences on a
modified M8 Armored Gun System chassis.[46]
To improve tank protection, one field of research involves making the tank
invisible to radar by adapting stealth technologies originally designed for
aircraft. Improvements to camouflage or and attempts to render
it invisiblethrough active camouflage is being pursued. Research is also
ongoing inelectromagnetic armour systems to disperse or deflect incoming
shaped charge jets,[47][48] as well as various forms of active protection
systems to prevent incoming projectiles from striking the tank at all.
Mobility may be enhanced in future tanks by the use of diesel-electric or
turbine-electric series hybrid drives improving fuel efficiency while reducing
the size and weight of the power plant.[49] Furthermore, advances in gas
turbine technology, including the use of advanced recuperators,[50] have
allowed for reduction in engine volume and mass to less than 1 m3 and 1
metric ton, respectively, while maintaining fuel efficiency similar to that of a
diesel engine.[51]
In line with the new doctrine of network-centric warfare, the modern battle
tank shows increasing sophistication in its electronics and communication
systems.
[edit]Design
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2011)
[edit]Parts of a tank
The three traditional factors determining a tank's capability effectiveness
are its firepower, protection, and mobility. Firepower is the ability of a tank's
crew to identify, engage, and destroy the enemy. Protection is the tank
crew's ability to evade detection, preserve themselves from enemy fire, and
retain full vehicle functionality after combat. Mobility includes the ability of
the tank to be transported by rail, sea, or air to the operational staging area;
from the staging area by road towards the enemy; and tactical movement
over the battlefield during combat, including traversing of obstacles and
rough terrain.
Tank design is a compromise between its technological and budgetary
constraints and its tactical capability requirements. It is not possible to
maximise firepower, protection and mobility simultaneously while
incorporating the latest technology and retain affordability for sufficient
procurement quantity to enter production. For example, in the case of
tactical capability requirements, increasing protection by adding armour will
result in an increase in weight and therefore decrease in mobility;
increasing firepower by installing a larger gun will force the designer team
to increase armour, the therefore weight of the tank by retaining same
internal volume to ensure crew efficiency during combat. In the case of the
Abrams MBT which has good firepower, speed and armour, these
advantages are counterbalanced by its engine's notably high fuel
consumption, which ultimately reduces its range, and in a larger sense its
mobility.
Since the Second World War, the economics of tank production governed
by the complexity of manufacture and cost, and the impact of a given tank
design on logistics and field maintenance capabilities, have also been
accepted as important in determining how many tanks a nation can afford to
field in its force structure.
Some tank designs that were fielded in significant numbers, such as Tiger
I and M60A2 proved to be too complex or expensive to manufacture, and
made unsustainable demands on the logistics services support of the
armed forces. Theaffordability of the design therefore takes precedence
over the combat capability requirements. Nowhere was this principle
illustrated better than during the Second World War when two Allied
designs, the T-34 and the M4 Sherman, although both simple designs
which accepted engineering compromises, were used successfully against
more sophisticated designs by Germany that were more complex and
expensive to produce, and more demanding on overstretched logistics of
the Wehrmacht. Given that a tank crew will spend most of its time occupied
with maintenance of the vehicle, engineering simplicity has become the
primary constraint on tank design since the Second World War despite
advances in mechanical, electrical and electronics technologies.
Since the Second World War, tank development has incorporated
experimenting with significant mechanical changes to the tank design while
focusing on technological advances in the tank's many subsystems to
improve its performance. However, a number of novel designs have
appeared throughout this period with mixed success, including the
Soviet IT-1and T-64 in firepower, and the Israeli Merkava and Swedish S-
tank in protection, while for decades the USA's M551remained the only light
tank deployable by parachute.
Further information: Tank classification
[edit]Tank design engineering
The Indian Arjun MBT's hydropneumatic suspension at work, while moving over a bump
track.
A noted author on the subject of tank design engineering Richard M
Ogorkiewicz[52] outlined the following basic engineering sub-systems that
are commonly incorporated into tank's technological development:
Mobility of tanks (through chassis design)
Tank Engines
Tank Transmissions
Suspensions and Running gear
Soil-Vehicle Mechanics
Tank guns and Ammunition
Ballistics and Mechanics of Tank Guns
Vision and Sighting Systems
Illuminating and Night Vision Systems
Fire Control Systems for main and auxiliary weapons
Gun Control Systems
Guided Weapons
Armour Protection
Configuration of Tanks
To the above can be added unit communication systems and electronic
anti-tank countermeasures, crew ergonomic and survival systems (including
flame suppression), and provision for technological upgrading. Most tank
designs have rarely survived their entire service life without some upgrading
or modernisation, particularly during wartime, including some that changed
almost beyond recognition, such as the latest Israeli Magach versions.
The characteristics of a tank are determined by the performance criteria
required for the tank. The obstacles that must be traversed affect the
vehicles front and rear profiles. The terrain that is expected to be traversed
determines the track ground pressure that may be allowed to be exerted for
that particular terrain.[53]
[edit]Offensive capabilities
Main article: Tank gun
Rifling of a 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7 tank gun.
The main weapon of all modern tanks is a single, large-calibre gun mounted
in a fully traversing turret weapon mount. The typical tank gun is
a smoothbore weapon capable of firing armor-piercing kinetic energy
penetrators (KEP), also known asarmour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS),
and/or armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) and high
explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells, and/or high explosive squash
head (HESH) and/or anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) to destroy armoured
targets, as well as high explosive (HE) shells for engaging soft targets
orfortifications. Canister shot may be used in close or urban combat
situations where the risk of hitting friendly forces with shrapnel from HE
rounds is unacceptably high.[43]
A gyroscope is used to stabilise the main gun, allowing it to be effectively
aimed and fired at the "short halt" or on the move. Modern tank guns are
also commonly fitted with insulating thermal jackets to reduce gun-barrel
warping caused by uneventhermal expansion, bore evacuators to minimise
fumes entering the crew compartment and sometimes muzzle brakes to
minimise the effect of recoil on accuracy and rate of fire.
Traditionally, target detection relied on visual identification. This was
accomplished from within the tank throughtelescopic periscopes;
occasionally however, tank commanders would open up the hatch to view
the outside surroundings, which improved situational awareness but
incurred the penalty of vulnerability to sniper fire, especially in jungle and
urban conditions. Though several developments in target detection have
taken place especially recently, these methods are still common practice.
An M1 Abrams firing
In some cases spotting rifles were used confirm proper trajectory and range
to a target. These spotting rifles were mounted co-axially to the main gun,
and fired tracer ammunition ballistically matched to the gun itself. The
gunner would track the movement of the tracer round in flight, and upon
impact with a hard surface, it would give off a flash and a puff of smoke,
after which the main gun was immediately fired. However these have been
mostly superseded by laser rangefinding equipment.
Modern tanks also use sophisticated light intensification and thermal
imagingequipment to improve fighting capability at night, in poor weather
and in smoke. The accuracy of modern tank guns is pushed to the
mechanical limit by computerised fire-control systems. A fire-control system
uses a laser rangefinder to determine the range to the target,
a thermocouple, anemometer and wind vane to correct for weather effects
and a muzzle referencing system to correct for gun-barrel temperature,
warping and wear. Two sightings of a target with the range-finder enable
calculation of the target movement vector. This information is combined
with the known movement of the tank and the principles ofballistics to
calculate the elevation and aim point that maximises the probability of
hitting the target.
Usually, tanks carry smaller calibre armament for short-range defence
where fire from the main weapon would be ineffective, for example when
engaging infantry, light vehicles or aircraft. A typical complement of
secondary weapons is a general-purpose machine gun
mounted coaxially with the main gun, and a heavier anti-aircraft machine
gun on the turret roof. These weapons are often modified variants of those
used by infantry, and so utilise the same kinds of ammunition.
[edit]Countermeasures
The Russian T-90 is fitted with a "three-tiered" protection systems:
1: Composite armour in the turret
2: Third generation Kontakt-5 ERA
3: Shtora-1 countermeasures suite.
See also: Anti-tank warfare
The measure of a tank's protection is the combination of its ability to avoid
detection, to avoid being hit by enemy fire, its resistance to the effects of
enemy fire, and its capacity to sustain damage whilst still completing its
objective, or at least protecting its crew. In common with most unit types,
tanks are subject to additional hazards in wooded and urban combat
environments which largely negate the advantages of the tank's long-range
firepower and mobility, limit the crew's detection capabilities and can restrict
turret traverse. Despite these disadvantages, tanks retain
high survivabilityagainst previous-generation rocket-propelled grenades in
all combat environments by virtue of their armour.
However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tank
survivability against newer-generation tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles is
a concern for military planners.[54] For example, the RPG-29 from 1980s is
able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[55][56] and also
managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[57]
[edit]Avoiding detection
Further information: Military deception
PLA's Type 99 tank with disruptivecamouflage painting
A tank avoids detection using the doctrine of CCD: camouflage (looks the
same as the surroundings), concealment (cannot be seen)
and deception(looks like something else).
Working against efforts to avoid detection is the fact that a tank is a large
metallic object with a distinctive, angular silhouette that emits
copious heatand noise. Consequently, it is difficult to effectively camouflage
a hull-up tank in the absence of some form of cover or concealment (e.g.,
woods). The tank becomes easier to detect when moving (typically,
whenever it is in use) due to the large, distinctive auditory, vibration and
thermal signature of its power plant. Tank tracks and dust clouds also
betray past or present tank movement. Switched-off tanks are vulnerable
toinfra-red detection due to differences between the thermal
conductivity and therefore heat dissipation of the metallic tank and its
surroundings. At close range the tank can be detected even when powered
down and fully concealed due to thecolumn of warmer air above the tank
and the smell of diesel.
Thermal blankets slow the rate of heat emission and camouflage nets use a
mix of materials with differing thermal properties to operate in the infra-red
as well as the visible spectrum. Camouflage attempts to break up the
distinctive appearance and silhouette of a tank. Adopting a turret-down or
hull-down position reduces the visible silhouette of a tank as well as
providing the added protection of a position in defilade
The Russian Nakidka camouflage kit was designed to reduce
the Optical, Thermal, Infrared, and Radar signatures of a tank, so that
acquisition of the tank would be difficult. According to Nii Stali, the
designers of Nakidka, Nakidka would reduce the probabilities of detection
via "visual and near-IR bands by 30%, the thermal band by 2-3 fold, radar
band by 6 fold, and radar-thermal band to near-background levels.[58] "
[edit]Armour
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)
Main article: Vehicle armour
The British Challenger II is protected by second-generation Chobham armour
To effectively protect the tank and its crew, tank armour must counter a
wide variety of antitank threats. Protection against kinetic energy
penetrators andhigh explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells fired by other tanks
is of primary importance, but tank armour also aims to protect against
infantry antitank missiles, ATGMs, antitank mines, bombs,
direct artillery hits, and (less often)nuclear, biological and chemical threats,
any of which could disable or destroy a tank or its crew.
Steel armour plate was the earliest type of armour. The Germans pioneered
the use of face hardened steel during World War II and the Soviets also
achieved improved protection with sloped armour technology. World War II
developments also spelled the eventual doom of homogeneous steel
armour with the development of shaped-chargewarheads, exemplified by
the Panzerfaust and bazooka infantry weapons which were lethally
effective, despite some early success with spaced armour. Magnetic mines
led to the development of anti-magnetic paste and paint.
British tank researchers took the next step with the development
of Chobham armour, or more generally composite armour,
incorporating ceramics and plastics in a resin matrix between steel plates,
which provided good protection against HEAT weapons. Squash
head warheads led to anti-spall armour linings, and KEPs led to the
inclusion of exotic materials like a matrix of depleted uranium into a
composite armour configuration.
Blazer explosive reactive armour (ERA) blocks on an Israeli M-60
Reactive armour consists of small explosive-filled metal boxes that detonate
when hit by the metallic jet projected by an exploding HEAT warhead,
causing their metal plates to disrupt it. Tandem warheads defeat reactive
armour by causing the armour to detonate prematurely. Modern Reactive
armour protects itself from Tandem warheads by having a thicker front
metal plate to prevent the precursor charge from detonating the explosive in
the reactive armour. Reactive armours can also reduce the penetrative
abilities of kinetic energy penetrators by deforming the penetrator with the
metal plates on the Reactive armour, thereby reducing its effectiveness
against the main armour of the tank.
Grenade launchers which can rapidly deploy a smoke screen that is opaque
to Infrared light, to hide it from the thermal viewer of another tank. The
modern Shtora "soft-kill" countermeasure system provides additional
protection by interfering with enemy targeting and fire-control systems and
jamming of SACLOSguided ATGMs.
[edit]Active protection system
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)
IDF Merkava Mk4 tank with Trophy APS("מעיל רוח") during training
The latest generation of protective measures for tanks are active protection
systems, particularly "hard-kill". The Soviet Drozd, the Russian Arena, the
Israeli TROPHY and Iron Fist, Polish ERAWA (on PT-91), and the
AmericanQuick Kill systems show the potential to dramatically improve
protection for tanks against missiles, RPGs and potentially KEP attacks, but
concerns regarding a danger zone for nearby dismounted troops remain. As
for 2011, only the Israeli Trophy active protection system, installed on
the MerkavaMk4, has been combat-proven, as it successfully
intercepted RPG rocket and various anti-tank missiles during operational
missions on the Gaza Stripborder.
[edit]Mobility
Two German Army Leopard 2s demonstrate their deep-wadingcapabilities
The mobility of a tank is described by its battlefield or tactical mobility, its
operational mobility, and its strategic mobility. Tactical mobility can be
broken down firstly into agility, describing the tank's acceleration, braking,
speed and rate of turn on various terrain, and secondly obstacle clearance:
the tank's ability to travel over vertical obstacles like low walls or trenches or
through water. Operational mobility is a function of manoeuvre range; but
also of size and weight, and the resulting limitations on options for
manoeuvre.
[edit]Strategic mobility
Strategic mobility is the ability of the tanks of an armed force to arrive in a
timely, cost effective, and synchronized fashion. For good strategic mobility
transportability by air is important, which means that weight and volume
must be kept within the designated transport aircraft capabilities.
Nations often stockpile enough tanks to respond to any threat without
having to make more tanks as many sophisticated designs can only be
produced at a relatively low rate. The US Military for instance keeps 6000
MBTs in storage.[59]
[edit]Tactical mobility
M1 Abrams offloading from Landing Craft Air Cushioned vehicle.
Tank agility is a function of the weight of the tank due to its inertia while
manoeuvring and its ground pressure, the power output of the
installedpower plant and the tank transmission and track design. In addition,
rough terrain effectively limits the tank's speed through the stress it puts on
thesuspension and the crew. A breakthrough in this area was achieved
during World War II when improved suspension systems were developed
that allowed better cross-country performance and limited firing on the
move. Systems like the earlier Christie or later torsion-bar suspension
developed byFerdinand Porsche dramatically improved the tank's cross-
country performance and overall mobility.[60]
Tanks are highly mobile and able to travel over most types of terrain due to
their continuous tracks and advanced suspension. The tracks disperse the
weight of the vehicle over a large area, resulting in less ground pressure. A
tank can travel at approximately 40 kilometres per hour (25 mph) across flat
terrain and up to 70 kilometres per hour (43 mph) on roads, but due to the
mechanical strain this places on the vehicle and the logistical strain on fuel
delivery and tank maintenance, these must be considered "burst" speeds
that invite mechanical failure of engine and transmission systems.
Consequently, wheeled tank transporters and rail infrastructure is used
wherever possible for long-distance tank transport. The limitations of long-
range tank mobility can be viewed in sharp contrast to that of
wheeled armoured fighting vehicles. The majority of blitzkrieg operations
were conducted at the pedestrian pace of 5 kilometres per hour (3.1 mph),
and that was only achieved on the roads of France.[61]
In the absence of combat engineers, most tanks are limited
to fording rivers. The typical fording depth for MBTs is approximately 1
metre (3.3 ft), being limited by the height of the engine air intake and
driver's position. Modern tanks such as the Russian T-90 and the
German Leopard I and Leopard II tanks can ford to a depth of 3 to 4 metres
when properly prepared and equipped with a snorkel to supply air for the
crew and engine. Tank crews usually have a negative reaction towards
deep fording but it adds considerable scope for surprise and tactical
flexibility in water crossing operations by opening new and unexpected
avenues of attack.
Amphibious tanks are specially designed or adapted for water operations,
but they are rare in modern armies, being replaced by purpose-
built amphibious assault vehicles or armoured personnel
carriers in amphibious assaults. Advances such as the EFA mobile bridge
and MT-55 scissors bridge have also reduced the impediment to tank
advance that rivers posed in World War II.[62]
The M1 Abrams is powered by a 1,500 shaft horsepower (1,100 kW) Honeywell AGT
1500 gas turbine engine, giving it a governed top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) on paved
roads, and 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country.
The tank's power plant supplies kinetic energy to move the tank,
and electricpower via a generator to components such as
the turret rotation motors and the tank's electronic systems. The tank power
plant has evolved from predominantly petrol and adapted large-
displacement aeronautical or automotive engines during World Wars I and
II, through diesel engines to advanced multi-fuel diesel engines, and
powerful (per unit weight) but fuel-hungry gas turbines in the T-80 and M1
Abrams.
Tank power output in context:
Vehicle Power output Power/weight
Mid-sized car Toyota Camry 2.4L 158 horsepower (118 kW) 106 hp/tonne
Sports carLamborghini
Murciélago 6.5L632 horsepower (471 kW) 383 hp/tonne
Racing car Formula One car 3.0L 950 horsepower (710 kW) 2100 hp/tonne
Main battle tank Leopard 2, M1 Abrams 1,500 horsepower (1,100 kW) 24.2, 24.5 hp/tonne
Locomotive SNCF Class T 2000 2,581 horsepower (1,925 kW) 11.5 hp/tonne
[edit]Crew
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)
Tank commander redirects here. For other meanings see Tank
commander (disambiguation).
Most modern tanks most often have four crew members, this being
reduced to three depending if an auto-loader is installed, these are the:
Commander - The commander is responsible for commanding the
tank, most often in conjunction with other tanks and supporting
infantry, the commander is provided with all round vision devices
rather than the limited ones of the driver and gunner
Driver - The driver drives the tank, the driver often also serves as
the tank's day-to-day mechanic
Gunner - The gunner is responsible for laying the gun
Loader - The loader loads the gun, with a round appropriate to the
target. In tanks with auto-loaders this position is omitted.
During history, crew members have varied from just two to a dozen. For
example pre-WW2 French tanks were noted for having a two man
crew, in which the overworked commander had to load and fire the gun
in addition to commanding the tank. First World War tanks were
developed with immature technologies, in addition to the crew needed
to man the multiple guns and machine guns up to four crewmen where
needed to drive the tank-the driver who acted as the vehicle
commander and who manned the brakes, he would drive through
orders to his gears-men, a co-driver to operate the gearbox and
throttle, two gears-men one on each track who would steer by setting
one side or the other to idle allowing the track on the other side to slew
the tank to one side.
With World War II the multi turreted tanks proved impracticable, and as
the single turret on a low hull design became standard, crews became
standardized around a crew of four or five. In those tanks with a fifth
crew member he was most often seated in the hull next to the driver
and operated the hull machine gun in addition to acting as a co-driver
or radio operator.
Well designed crew stations, giving proper considerations to comfort
and ergonomics, are an important factor in the combat effectiveness of
a tank, as it limits fatigue and speeds up individual actions.
[edit]Command, control and communications
German Army Leopard 2A6M incorporates networked battlefieldtechnology
Commanding and coordinating tanks in the field has always been
subject to particular problems, particularly in the area of
communications, but in modern armies these problems have been
partially alleviated by networked,integrated systems that enable
communications and contribute to enhancedsituational awareness.
[edit]Early
Armoured bulkheads, engine noise, intervening terrain, dust and
smoke, and the need to operate "buttoned up" are severe detriments to
communication and lead to a sense of isolation for small tank units,
individual vehicles, and tank crewmen. Radios were not then portable
or robust enough to be mounted in a tank, although Morse
Code transmitters were installed in some Mark IVs at Cambrai as
messaging vehicles.[63] Attaching a field telephone to the rear would
became a practice only during the next war. During World War I when
these failed or were unavailable, situation reports were sent back to
headquarters by some crews releasing carrier pigeons through
loopholes or hatches[64] and communications between vehicles was
accomplished using hand signals, handheld semaphore flagswhich
continued in use in the Red Army/Soviet Army through the Second and
Cold wars, or by foot or horse mounted messengers.[65]
[edit]Modern
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)
See also: Military communications and C4ISTAR
Merkava Mark 4 main battle tank is equipped with a digital C4IS battle-management
system.
On the modern battlefield an intercom mounted in the crew helmet
provides internal communications and a link to the radio network, and
on some tanks an external intercom on the rear of the tank provides
communication with co-operating infantry. Radio networks employ
radio voice procedure to minimise confusion and "chatter".
A recent[when?] development in AFV equipment and doctrine is
integration of information from the fire control system, laser
rangefinder, Global Positioning System and terrain information
via hardened military specification electronicsand a battlefield
network to display information on enemy targets and friendly units on
a monitor in the tank. The sensor data can be sourced from nearby
tanks, planes, UAVs or, in the future infantry (such as the US Future
Force Warrior project). This improves the tank commander's situational
awarenessand ability to navigate the battlefield and select and engage
targets. In addition to easing the reporting burden by automatically
logging all orders and actions, orders are sent via the network with text
and graphical overlays. This is known as Network-centric warfare by
the US, Network Enabled Capability (UK) orDigital Army Battle
Management System צי"ד (Israel).
[edit]Etymology
The word tank was first applied to the British "landships" in 1915,
before they entered service, to keep their nature secret. Several
explanations of the precise origin of the term have been suggested,
including:
1. It arose in British factories making the hulls of the first battle
tanks: workmen and possible spies were to be given the
impression they were constructing mobile water tanks for
the British Army, thus keeping the production of a fighting
vehicle secret.[22]
2. The term was first used in a secret report on the new
motorised weapon presented to Winston Churchill, thenFirst
Lord of the Admiralty, by British Army Lt.-Col. Ernest Swinton.
[66]
3. Winston Churchill's biography states, "To disguise the device,
drawings were marked 'water carriers for Russia.' When it was
pointed out this might be shortened to "WCs for Russia," the
drawings were relabelled "water tanks for Russia." Eventually
the weapon was just called a tank.[67] (In fact, the prototype
was referred to as a water-carrier for Mesopotamia [see
below]. The Russian connection is that some of the first
production Tanks were labelled in Russian "With Care to
Petrograd," as a further security measure.)
In his autobiography, Albert Stern (Secretary to the Landships
Committee, later head of the Mechanical Warfare Supply Department)
recounted that it was Thomas Macnamara (Parliamentary and
Financial Secretary to the Admiralty) "who suggested for secrecy's
sake, to change the title of the Landships Committee." To Sir Eustace
Tennyson-d'Eyncourt's idea of "Water Carrier" was not popular with
Stern who wrote "In Government offices, committees and departments
are always known by their initials. For this reason I, as Secretary,
considered the proposed title totally unsuitable. In our search for a
synonymous term, we changed the word "Water Carrier" to "Tank," and
became the "Tank Supply" or "T.S." Committee. That is how these
weapons came to be called "Tanks"."[68] Swinton states, "Since the 24th
December, 1915, the Tank has always been known as such; and there
has been no confusion as to its nomenclature."[69] His Notes on the
Employment of Tanks, in which he uses the word throughout, was
published in January 1916.
(* The initials W.C. are a British abbreviation for a water closet; in other
words, a toilet. Unfortunately, later in the War a number of Mk IV Tanks
were fitted with grapnels to remove barbed wire. They were designated
"Wire Cutters" and had the large letters "W.C." painted on their rear
armour.)[70]
Stern says, "we changed the word." Lt.-Col. Swinton also claims he
also suggested the name at that meeting.[71]However, in July
1918, Popular Science Monthly reported, "Because a fellow of
the Royal Historical Society has unintentionally misled the British public
as to the origin of the famous "tanks," Sir William Tritton, who designed
and built them, has published the real story of their name ... Since it
was obviously inadvisable to herald "Little Willie's" reason for existence
to the world he was known as the "Instructional Demonstration Unit". In
the shop orders, "Little Willie's" hull was called a "water carrier for
Mesopotamia"; no one knew the hull was intended to be mounted on a
truck. Naturally, the water carrier began to be called a "tank." So the
name came to be used by managers and foremen of the shop, until
now it has a place in the army vocabulary and will probably be so
known in history for all time." It may be d'Eyncourt was aware of this
practice and therefore suggested the name to the Landships
Committee. In any event, the word was in use by members of the
Committee several months before production orders had been placed.
[72]
Stern says the word tank "has now been adopted by all countries in the
world".[73] This is not entirely correct. The word was adopted in most
languages, including Russian. Some countries, however, use different
names. In France, the use of the English word was rejected in favour
of chars d'assaut ("assault vehicles") or simply chars. In Germany,
tanks are usually referred to as "Panzer" (lit. "armour"), a shortened
form of the full term "Panzerkampfwagen", literally "armoured fighting
vehicle". In the Arab world, tanks are called Dabbāba (after a type
of siege engine). In Italian, a tank is a "carro armato" (lit. "armed
wagon"), without reference to its armour. Norway uses the
term stridsvogn and Sweden the similarstridsvagn ("chariot", lit. "battle
wagon"), whereas Denmark uses kampvogn (lit. battle wagon). Finland
usespanssarivaunu (armoured wagon), although tankki is also used
colloquially. The Polish name czołg, derived from verbczołgać się ("to
crawl"), is used, depicting the way of machine's movement and its
speed. In Japanese, the term sensha(戦車?, lit. "battle vehicle") is used,
and this term is likewise borrowed into Korean as jeoncha (전차/戰車);
more recent Chinese literature uses the English derived 坦
克 tǎnkè (tank) as opposed to 戰車 zhànchē (battle vehicle) used in
earlier days.
[edit]See also
Armored car (military)
Armoured warfare
Hobart's Funnies
Hull-down
Infantry fighting vehicle
Lancelot de Mole
Light tank
Lists of armoured fighting vehicles
Main battle tank
Military engineering vehicle
Narco tank
Skid steer
Super-heavy tank
Tank classification Tank portal
Tank desant
Tank destroyer
Tankette
The first tank battle
Unmanned ground vehicle
[edit]Notes
1. ̂ von Senger and Etterlin (1960), The World's Armored Fighting
Vehicles, p.9.
2. ̂ Coox (1985), p. 579, 590, 663
3. ^ a b House (1984), Toward Combined Arms Warfare:A Survey of 20th
Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization[page needed]
4. ̂ Tranquiler, Roger, Modern Warfare. A French View of
Counterinsurgency, trans. Daniel Lee, "Pitting a traditional combined
armed force trained and equipped to defeat similar military
organisations against insurgents reminds one of a pile driver
attempting to crush a fly, indefatigably persisting in repeating its
efforts."[page needed]
5. ̂ The Art of War: Leonardo's War Machines[self-published source?]
6. ̂ Wells, H.G. (1916), "V. Tanks", War and the Future, p. 1
7. ̂ Harris, J.P. Men, Ideas, and Tanks. Manchester University Press,
1995.[page needed]
8. ̂ Gannon, Charles E. Rumors of War and Infernal Machines:
Liverpool University Press, 2003.[page needed]
9. ̂ Edgeworth, R. & E. Memoirs of Richard Lovell Edgeworth, 1820, pp
164-6
10. ̂ The Devil's Chariots: The Birth and Secret Battles of the First
Tanks John Glanfield (Sutton Publishing, 2001)[page needed]
11. ̂ Gunther Burstyn Angwetter, D.& E. (Verlag Der Österreichischen
Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 2008)[page needed]
12. ̂ "Australia To The Fore. Invention of the War Tank".
Trove.nla.gov.au. 1920-02-12. Retrieved 2012-05-13.
13. ̂ Russian tanks, 1900-1970 The Complete Illustrated History of
Soviet Armoured Theory and Design John Milsom (Stackpole Books,
1971)[page needed]
14. ^ a b Churchill, p. 316
15. ̂ Churchill, p. 317
16. ̂ McMillan, N: Locomotive Apprentice at the North British Locomotive
Company Ltd Glasgow Plateway Press 1992[page needed]
17. ̂ Glanfield, Devil's Chariots[page needed]
18. ̂ Regan (1993), The Guinness Book of More Military Blunders, p. 12
19. ̂ Steven J. Zaloga, The Renault FT Light Tank, London 1988, p.3
20. ̂ Willmott (2003), First World War, p. 222
21. ̂ "Легенда о русском танке - 0008.htm" (in Russian).
Vadimvswar.narod.ru. Retrieved 2012-05-13.
22. ^ a b Willmott (2003), First World War[page needed]
23. ^ a b c d Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of
Dunkirk.
24. ̂ Time (1937), Chewed up
25. ̂ Manrique p. 311, 321, 324
26. ̂ Goldman p. 19
27. ̂ Coox p. 300, 318, 437
28. ̂ Coox 998
29. ̂ Coox p. 579, 590, 663
30. ̂ Cooper and Lucas (1979), Panzer: The Armored Force of the Third
Reich, p. 9
31. ̂ Forty (2004), p.251.
32. ̂ Stroud, Rick (2012). The Phantom Army of Alamein. Bloomsbury.
pp. 219.
33. ̂ Zaloga et al. (1997)
34. ̂ Stolfi, Hitler's Panzers East[page needed]
35. ̂ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of
Dunkirk, p 307
36. ̂ Cawthorne (2003), Steel Fist: Tank Warfare 1939 - 45, p. 211
37. ̂ Starry pp. 45, 79, 129, 143, 153, etc
38. ̂ "T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93 By Steven J. Zaloga, Michael
Jerchel, Stephen Sewell". Books.google.com. 1993-09-30. Retrieved
2012-05-13.
39. ̂ Steven Zaloga and Hugh Johnson (2004), T-54 and T-55 Main
Battle Tanks 1944–2004, Osprey, 39-41, ISBN 1-84176-792-1, p. 43
40. ̂ von Senger und Etterlin (1960), The World's Armoured Fighting
Vehicles, pp. 61, 118, 183
41. ̂ Dougherty, Martin J.; McNab, Chris (2010), Combat Techniques:
An Elite Forces Guide to Modern Infantry Tactics,
Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-312-36824-1[page needed]
42. ̂ USA Today (2005), Tank takes a beating in Iraq
43. ^ a b USA Today (2005), Tanks adapted for urban fights they once
avoided
44. ̂ Pengelley, Rupert, A new era in tank main armament, pp. 1521–
1531
45. ̂ Hilmes, Rolf (January 30, 1999), "Aspects of future MBT
conception". Military Technology 23 (6): 7. Moench
Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh.
46. ̂ Goodell, Brad (January 1, 2007), "Electrothermal Chemical (ETC)
Armament Integration into a Combat Vehicle". IEEE Transaction on
Magnetics, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 456-459.
47. ̂ Wickert, Matthias, Electric Armor Against Shaped Charges, pp.
426–429
48. ̂ Xiaopeng, Li, et al., Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor,
pp. 460–462
49. ̂ Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications, pp.
132–144
50. ̂ McDonald, Colin F., Gas Turbine Recuperator Renaissance, pp. 1 -
30
51. ̂ Koschier, Angelo V. and Mauch, Hagen R., Advantages of the
LV100 as a Power Producer in a Hybrid Propulsion System for Future
Fighting Vehicles, p. 697
52. ̂ Technology of Tanks, Richard M Ogorkiewicz, Jane's Information
Group, 1991[page needed]
53. ̂ Journal of the United Service Institution of India, Volume 98, United
Service Institution of India, 1968, p. 58, retrieved 4 April 2011
54. ̂ BBC News (2006) Tough lessons for Israeli armour
55. ̂ "Defence chiefs knew 'invincible' tank armour could be
breached", Daily Mail, 24 April 2007
56. ̂ Sean Rayment (May 12, 2007 *). "MoD kept failure of best tank
quiet". Sunday Telegraph.
57. ̂ Michael R. Gordon (May 21, 2008). "Operation in Sadr City Is an
Iraqi Success, So Far". The New York Times.
58. ̂ [1][dead link]
59. ̂ John Pike. "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank". Globalsecurity.org.
Retrieved 2009-06-09.
60. ̂ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of
Dunkirk, pp. 154
61. ̂ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of
Dunkirk, p.180
62. ̂ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of
Dunkirk, pp.234-252
63. ̂ Macksey, K., Tank vs Tank, Grub Street, London, 1999, p. 32
64. ̂ Fletcher, D., British Mark I Tank 1916, Osprey, p. 19
65. ̂ Wright 2002, Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine, p.
48, "To the extent that they communicated at all, the tank crews did
so by squeezing carrier pigeons out through a hole in a gun sponson,
by brandishing a shovel through the manhole,mili or by frantically
waving coloured discs in the air."
66. ̂ Barris (2007), Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 9–12,
1917, p.116
67. ̂ Gilbert (1991), Churchill: A Life, p.298.
68. ̂ Tanks 1914-1918; The Log Book of a Pioneer. Hodder &
Stoughton, 1919, p.39
69. ̂ Eyewitness; being personal reminiscences of certain phases of the
Great War ... By Ernest Dunlop Swinton, Doubleday, Doran & Co.,
1933, p177
70. ̂ Fletcher, David (introduction); Chamberlain, Peter et al.
(1998). Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, Volume One.
Cannon Publications. pp. 49. ISBN 1-899 695 02 8.
71. ̂ Eyewitness, p161
72. ̂ Eyewitness; being personal reminiscences of certain phases of the
Great War. Ernest Dunlop Swinton[page needed]
73. ̂ Tanks 1914-1918; The Log Book of a Pioneer. Hodder &
Stoughton, 1919, p39
[edit]References
"Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications", Military
Technology (Moench Verlagsgesellschaft mbH) (9/2007): 132–144,
September 2007
Barris, Ted (2007), Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 9–12,
1917, Thomas Allen Publishers, p. 116, ISBN 0-88762-253-4;
Cawthorne, Nigel (2003), Steel Fist: Tank Warfare 1939-45, London:
Arcturus Publishing Ltd., ISBN 0-572-02872-5
Churchill, Winston (1992), The World Crisis (Abridged), Canada & New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-684-19453-8
Cooper, Matthew and Lucas, James (1979), Panzer: The Armoured Force
of the Third Reich, Book Club Associates
Coox, Alvin D. (1985), Nomonhan; Japan against Russia, 1939, Stanford
University Press, ISBN 0-8047-1160-7
Deighton, Len (1979), Blitzkrieg: From the rise of Hitler to the fall of
Dunkirk, Fakenham: Fakenham Press Limited, ISBN 0-224-01648-2
DiNardo, Richard L. (January 1986), "The First Modern Tank: Gunther
Burstyn and His Motorgeschutz", Military Affairs (JSTOR: Society for
Military History) 50, No.1 (1): 12–15, JSTOR 1988528
Col. Eshel, David (2007), Assessing the performance of Merkava Tanks,
Defense Update, retrieved 2008-05-16
Forty, George (2004), Tank Warfare in World War II, London: Constable &
Robinson Ltd, ISBN 1-84119-864-1
Forty, George (2006), The World Encyclopedia of Tanks & Armoured
Fighting Vehicles, Lorenz Books, ISBN 0-7548-1741-5
Gilbert, Sir Martin (1991), Churchill: A Life, Thomas Allen Publishers,
p. 298, ISBN 0-7624-2081-2
Goldman, Stuart D. (2012), Nomonhan 1939; The Red Army's Victory That
Shaped World War II, Naval Institute Press,ISBN 978-1-59114-329-1
Goodell, Brad (January 2007), "Electrothermal Chemical (ETC) Armament
System Integration Into a Combat Vehicle", IEEE Transaction on
Magnetics (IEEE) 43 (1): 4, doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887524
Hilmes, Rolf (December 2004), "Arming Future MBTs - Some
Considerations", Military Technology (Moench Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh)
(12/2004): 4
House, Jonathan M. (1984), Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of
20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization, United States
Government Printing, OCLC 464265702, retrieved 2008-05-18
Hunnicutt, R. P. (1984), Patton: A History of the American Main Battle
Tank, Presidio, ISBN 0-89141-230-1
Komarow, Steven (2005-03-29), Tanks adapted for urban fights they once
avoided, USA Today, retrieved 2008-05-16
Komarow, Steven (2005-03-29), Tanks take a beating in Iraq, USA Today,
retrieved 2008-05-16
Koschier, Angelo V.; Hagen R. Mauch (2000), "Advantages of the LV100
as a Power Producer in a Hybrid Propulsion System for Future Fighting
Vehicles", Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power 122 (October 2000): 693–698,doi:10.1115/1.1287585
Manrique, Jose; Lucas M. Franco (2006) (in Spanish), Las Armas de la
Guerra Civil Espanola, 28002 Madrid; La Los Libros,ISBN 84-9734-475-8
Marcus, Jonathan (2006-08-15), Tough lessons for Israeli armour, BBC
News, retrieved 2008-05-26
McDonald, Colin F. (1990), "Gas Turbine Recuperator Renaissance", Heat
Recovery Systems & CHP (Pergamon Press) 10 (1): 1–
30, doi:10.1016/0890-4332(90)90246-G
Pengelley, Rupert (1989), "A new era in tank man armament: The options
multiply", Janes International Defense Review(November 1989): 1521–
1531
Regan, Geoffrey (1993), The Guinness Book of More Military Blunders,
London: Guinness Publishing, ISBN 0-85112-961-7
Sharoni, Asher H. and Bacon, Lawrence D. (PDF), The Future Combat
System (FCS): Technology Evolution Review and Feasibility Assessment,
GlobalSecurity.org, retrieved 2008-05-26
Starry, Donn A. GEN: Mounted Combat in Vietnam. Vietnam
Studies; Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. 1978.
Thompson, William J. and Sorvig, Kim (2000), Sustainable Landscape
Construction: A Guide to Green Building Outdoors, Island Press,
p. 51, ISBN 1-55963-646-7
Time Life Books editors (1990), The Armored Fist, Alexandria, Virginia:
Time-Life Books, ISBN 0-8094-8609-1;, ISBN 0-8094-8704-7
Chewed Up , Alexandria, Virginia: Time magazine, 5 April 1937, retrieved
2008-05-16
Tomes, Robert R. (Spring, 2004), "Relearning Counterinsurgency
Warfare", Parameters (US Army War College) Vol. XXXIV,(No. 1,): 16–28,
archived from the original on 2008-05-14, retrieved 2008-05-26
von Senger und Etterlin, Dr. F. M. (1960), The World's Armoured Fighting
Vehicles, London: Macdonald & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.
Wickert, Matthias (January 2007), "Electric Armor Against Shaped
Charges: Analysis of Jet Distortion With Respect to Jet Dynamics and
Current Flow", IEEE Transaction on Magnetics (IEEE) 43 (1): 426–
429, doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887650
Willmott, H.P. (2003), First World War, Dorling Kindersley, ISBN 1-4053-
0029-9;
Wright, Patrick (2002), Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War
Machine, ISBN 978-0-670-03070-5
Xiaopeng, Li; Meng Tao, Zhao Chun and Li Liyi (January 2007),
"Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor", IEEE Transaction on
Magnetics 43 (1): 460–462, doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887581
Zaloga, Steven J. and Grandsen, James (1984), Soviet Tanks and
Combat Vehicles of World War Two, London: Arms and Armour
Press, ISBN 0-85368-606-8
Zaloga, Steven J., Kinnear, Jim, Aksenov, Andrey & Koshchavtsev
Aleksandr (1997), Soviet Tanks in Combat 1941–45: The T-28, T-34, T-
34-85, and T-44 Medium Tanks, Hong Kong: Concord
Publication, ISBN 962-361-615-5
[edit]Further reading
Macksey, Kenneth (1976), Tank Warfare, A History of Tanks in Battle,
London: Panther, ISBN 0-586-04302-0
Macksey, Kenneth and Batchelor, John H. (1970), Tank: A History of the
Armoured Fighting Vehicle, New York: Scribner,ISBN 0-345-02166-
5;, ISBN 0-684-13651-1
Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. (1968), Design and Development of Fighting
Vehicles, London: MacDonald, ISBN 0-356-01461-4
Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. (1970), Armoured Forces: A History of Armoured
Forces and Their Vehicles, Arms & Armour Press,ISBN 0-85368-049-3
Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. (1991), Technology of Tanks, Coulsdon, Surrey:
Jane's Information Group, ISBN 0-7106-0595-1
Weeks, John (1975), Men Against Tanks: A History of Anti-Tank Warfare,
New York: Mason Charter, ISBN 0-88405-130-7;
[edit]External links
Find more about tank at Wikipedia's sister
projects
Definitions and translations from
Wiktionary
Media from Commons
Learning resources from Wikiversity
News stories from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Source texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Travel information from Wikivoyage
Listen to this article (info/dl)
MENU
0:00
This audio file was created from a revision of the "Tank" article dated 2005-
09-11, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
More spoken articles
Articles on Modern tanks
The Burstyn tank Landships has additional information and a
model ofGünther Burstyn's Motorengeschütz.
OnWar's Tanks of World War II Comprehensive specifications and
diagrams of World War II tanks.
Achtung Panzer History of tanks and people of the Panzertruppe.
Tanks of World War I
Allied tank aces of World War II
[show]
V
T
E
World War I tanks
[show]
V
T
E
Interwar tanks
[show]
V
T
E
World War II tanks
[show]
V
T
E
Cold War tanks
[show]
V
T
E
Post-Cold War tanks
Categories:
Tanks
Armoured fighting vehicles by type
English inventions
Armoured warfare
Tracked armoured fighting vehicles
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article Talk Read Edit View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages
Afrikaans
Ænglisc
العربية Aragonés
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
Bân-lâm-gú
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
Български
བོ� ད་ཡི� ག Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Català
Ч ӑ вашла
Česky
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Diné bizaad
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی Français
Frysk
Gaeilge
Galego
贛語 한국어
Հայերեն हि�न्दी� Hrvatski
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית Basa Jawa
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Kurdî
Ladino
Latina
Latviešu
Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuvių
Magyar
Македонски മലയാ�ളം� मराठी� مصرى Bahasa Melayu
Монгол
မြ�န်��ဘသ
Nederlands 日本語 Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Олык марий
Oʻzbekcha
پنجابی پښتو Piemontèis
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русиньскый
Русский
Саха тыла
Scots
Shqip
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Ślůnski
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog தமி�ழ்
Татарча/tatarça ไทย То ҷ ик ӣ Türkçe
Українська
اردو Tiếng Việt
Walon
文言 Winaray
יִידיש 粵語
Žemaitėška
中文 Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 March 2013 at 15:28.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-
profit organization.
Contact us
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Mobile view