Tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the armoured vehicle. For other uses, see Tank (disambiguation).

Cutaway of an M4A4 Sherman tank, the primary tank used by the United States and a number of the other
western allies during the Second World War.

Tiger II's of Schwere Heeres Panzer Abteilung 503 (s.H.Pz.Abt. 503) 'Feldherrnhalle' posing in formation for the
German newsreel
[show]

History of the tank

A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle with tracks, designed for front-line combat.
Modern tanks are strong mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a
rotating gun turret. They combine this with heavy vehicle armour providing protection for the crew of
the weapon and operational mobility, which allows them to position on the battlefield in
advantageous locations. These features enable the tank to have enormous capability to perform well
in a tactical situation: the combination of strong weapons fire from their tank gun and their ability to
resist enemy fire means the tank can take hold of and control an area of the battle and prevent other
enemy vehicles from advancing, for example. In both offensive and defensiveroles, they are

powerful units able to perform all primary tasks[which?]required of armoured troops on the battlefield.
[1]
The modern tank was the result of a century of development from primitive armoured vehicles, due
to improvements in technology such as the internal combustion engine, which allowed the rapid
movement of heavy equipment required to construct armoured vehicles. As a result of these
advances, tanks underwent tremendous shifts in capability during the World Wars of the 20th
century.
Tanks in World War I were developed separately and simultaneously by Great Britain [2] and France
as a means to break the deadlock oftrench warfare on the Western Front. Their first use in combat
was by the British Army on September 15, 1916 between the villages of Flers and 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 was unconvinced of the tank's
potential, and built only twenty of her own.
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,[3] which later resulted in the T-34, a predecessor of
the main battle tank. Less than two weeks later, Germany began their large-scale armoured
campaigns that would become known as blitzkrieg ("lightning war") massed concentrations of
tanks supported by motorised and mechanized infantry, artillery and air power designed to break
through the enemy front and collapse enemy resistance.
The widespread introduction of HEAT warheads during the second half of WWII led to lightweight
anti-tank weapons with considerable power. This caused major changes in tank doctrine and the
introduction of effective combined arms tactics.Tanks in the Cold War were designed with these
weapons in mind, and led to greatly improved armours during the 1960s, especially composite
armour. Improved engines, transmissions and suspensions allowed tanks of this period to grow
larger. 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.[4] In
the 21st century, with the increasing role of asymmetrical 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 combined arms 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.[5]
Contents
[hide]

1 History
o

1.1 Conception

1.2 World War I

1.3 Interwar period

1.4 World War II

1.5 Cold War arms race

1.6 21st century conflicts

1.7 Research and development

2 Design

2.1 Offensive capabilities

2.2 Protection and countermeasures

2.3 Mobility

2.4 Crew

2.5 Engineering constraints

3 Command, control and communications

o

3.1 Early

3.2 Modern

4 Etymology

5 See also

6 Notes and references

7 Bibliography

8 External links

History[edit]
Main article: History of the tank

Conception[edit]

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.

Model of Leonardo's proposed vehicle.

Many sources imply that Leonardo da Vinci and H.G. Wells in some way foresaw or "invented" the
tank. Leonardo's late 15th century drawings of what some describe as a "tank" show a manpowered, wheeled vehicle with cannons all around it. However the human crew would not have
enough power to move it over larger distance, and usage of animals was problematic in a space so
confined.
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. Major W.E. Donohue, of the
British Army's Mechanical Transport Committee, 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, Gnther
Burstyn, presented to the Austrian and Prussian War Ministries plans for a light, three-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]

World War I[edit]

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. TheDirector 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] However leading roles were played by Major Walter Gordon Wilson who designed the
gearbox and developed practical tracks and by William Trittonwhose agricultural machinery
company, William Foster & Co., built the prototypes;.[16] The committee's 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][17] Great Britain produced about
2,600 tanks of various types during the war.[18]
The first tank to engage in battle was designated D1, a British Mark I Male, during the Battle of FlersCourcelette (part of the wider Somme offensive) on 15 September 1916.[19]

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 Schneider and Saint-Chamond, both based on the Holt Tractor.
The following year, the French pioneered the use of a full 360 rotation turret in a tank for the first
time, with the creation of the Renault FT light tank, with the turret containing the tank's main
armament. In addition to the traversible 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,
has become the standard for most succeeding tanks across the world even to this day.[20] The FT was
the most numerous tank of the War; over 3,000 were made by late 1918.
Germany
Germany fielded very few tanks during World War I, and started development only after
encountering British tanks on the Somme. The A7V, the only type made, was introduced in March
1918. with just 20 being produced during the war.[21] 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 World
War I; about 35 were in service at any one time. Plans to expand the tank programme were under
way when the War ended.
Other nations
The United States Tank Corps used tanks supplied by France and Great Britain during World War I.
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 trialed two prototypes early in the War; the tracked, two-man Vezdekhod and
the huge Lebedenko, but neither went into production. A tracked self-propelled gun was also
designed but not produced.[22]
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 warfareobsolete. Nonetheless, it was clear to military
thinkers on both sides that tanks in some way could have a significant role in future conflicts. [23]

Interwar period[edit]
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 Tukhachevskyin the USSR. Liddell Hart held a more moderate view that all arms
- cavalry, infantry and artillery - should be mechanized and work together. The British formed the allarms Experimental Mechanized Force to test the use of tanks with supporting forces.
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.[24] 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-day Battle of Guadalajara in 1937.[25] However, of the nearly 700
tanks deployed during this conflict, only about 64 tanks representing the Franco faction and 331 from
theRepublican side were equipped with cannon, and of those 64 nearly all were World War
I vintage Renault FT tanks, while the 331 Soviet supplied machines had 45mm main guns and were
of 1930s manufacture.[26] The balance of Nationalisttanks were machine gun armed. 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 bitter lessons. In this conflict, and although the
Japanese only deployed about 73 cannon armed tanks, the Soviets fielded over two thousand,
[27]
with the major difference being that Japanese armor were equipped with dieselengines and
the Russian tanks petrol ones.[28] Even after General Georgy Zhukov inflicted 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 of gasolineengines, and quickly incorporated those newly found experiences into
their new T-34 medium tank during World War II.[29]

World War II[edit]

Main article: Tanks in World War II

Soviet T-34 tank column advancing near Leningrad, 1942

During World War II, the first conflict in which armoured vehicles were critical to battlefield success,
the tank and related tactics developed rapidly. Armored forces proved capable of tactical victory in
an unprecedentedly short amount of time, yet new anti-tank weaponry showed 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 used the combined force of tanks and airpower

at Nomonhan against the Japanese 6th Army;[30] 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.[31] During the Invasion of Poland,
tanks performed in a more traditional role in close cooperation with infantry units, but in the Battle of
France deep independent armoured penetrations were executed by the Germans, a technique later
called blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg used innovative combined 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".[24] In addition, they lacked radios in many of their tanks and headquarters,
[32]
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 support to 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.[24] The defeat of a major military power within weeks shocked the rest of the world,
spurring 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 Korps and 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[33] 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 was the largest tank battle ever fought, with each side deploying nearly 3,000 tanks.

When Germany launched its invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, the Soviets had a
superior tank design, the T-34.[34] A lack of preparations for theAxis 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 from Adolf Hitler,[35] the
geographic scale of the conflict, the dogged resistance of the Soviet combat troops, and the Soviets'
massive advantages in manpower and production capability prevented a repeat of the Blitzkrieg of
1940.[36] Despite early successes against the Soviets, the Germans were forced to up-gun their
Panzer IVs, and to design and build both the larger and more expensive Tiger heavy tank in 1942,
and the Panthermedium tank the following year. 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.
[4]
Soviet developments following the invasion included upgunning the T-34, development of selfpropelled anti-tank guns such as the SU-152, and deployment of the IS-2in the closing stages of the

war, with the T-34 being the most produced tank of World War II, totalling up to some 65,000
examples by May 1945.

Sherman tanks joining the U.S. Fifth Army forces in the beachhead at Anzioduring the Italian Campaign, 1944

Much like the Soviets, when entering World War II six months later (December 1941), the United
States' mass production capacity enabled it 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.[37]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 the 76
mm gun M1 and the 17 pounder were introduced to improve the M4's firepower, but concerns about
protection remained despite the apparent armor deficiencies, a total of some 42,000 Shermans
were built and delivered to the Allied nations using it during the war years, a total second only to the
T-34.
Tank hulls[38] were modified to produce flame tanks, mobile rocket artillery, and combat
engineering vehicles for tasks including mine-clearing and bridging. Specialised self-propelled guns,
most of which could double as tank destroyers, were also both developed by the Germans with
their Sturmgeschtz, Panzerjger and Jagdpanzer vehicles and theSamokhodnaya
ustanovka families of AFV's for the Soviets: such turretless, casemate-style tank
destroyers and assault guns were less complex, stripped down tanks carrying heavy guns, solely
firing forward. 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.[24]

Cold War arms race[edit]

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. [39]

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 tofire
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 in anti-tank weapons,
especially antitank guided missiles like theTOW.
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-tankwarheads.
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 postWorld 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.[40] Among the tanks of the 1950s were the British Centurionand Soviet T54/55 in service from 1946, and the US M48 from 1951.[41] 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 theLeopard 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.

Tankers drive an M1A1 Abrams tank in Germany.

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 ArabIsraeli conflicts, culminating with the Yom Kippur War. The T-55, for example, has seen action in no
fewer than 32 conflicts. In these wars theUSA or NATO countries and the Soviet
Union or China consistently backed opposing forces. Proxy wars were studied by Western and
Soviet military analystsand provided a grim contribution to the Cold War tank development process.

21st century conflicts[edit]

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.[42]
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 theIraq War, and they have
proven to have an unexpectedly high level of vulnerability to roadside bombs.[43] A relatively new type
of remotely detonated mine, theexplosively 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.
[44]
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]

Research and development[edit]

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.[45] The most mature future gun technology is
the electrothermal-chemical gun.[46] The XM291 electrothermal-chemical tank gun has gone through
successful multiple firing sequences on a modified M8 Armored Gun System chassis.[47]
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 invisible through active camouflage is being pursued. Research is also ongoing
in electromagnetic armour systems to disperse or deflect incoming shaped charge jets, [48][49] 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 first used in a primitive, gasoline-engined form with Porsche's Elefant German tank
destroyer of 1943 improving fuel efficiency while reducing the size and weight of the power plant.
[50]
Furthermore, advances in gas turbine technology, including the use of advanced recuperators,
[51]
have allowed for reduction in engine volume and mass to less than 1 m 3 and 1 metric ton,
respectively, while maintaining fuel efficiency similar to that of a diesel engine. [52]
In line with the new doctrine of network-centric warfare, the modern battle tank shows increasing
sophistication in its electronics and communication systems.

Design[edit]
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)

The three traditional factors determining a tank's capability effectiveness are itsfirepower, 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
roughterrain.

Offensive capabilities[edit]
Main article: Tank gun

Rifling of a 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7 tank gun.

The main weapon of modern tanks is a single, large-calibre cannon mounted in a fully traversing gun
turret. The typical modern tank gun is a smoothbore weapon capable of firing a variety of
ammunition, including armor-piercing kinetic energy penetrators (KEP), also known as armourpiercing discarding sabot (APDS), and/or armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS)
and high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells, and/orhigh explosive squash head (HESH) and/or antitank 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.[44]
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 insulatingthermal
jackets to reduce gun-barrel warping caused by uneven thermal 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 through telescopicperiscopes; 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 firedtracer 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 of ballistics 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.

Protection and countermeasures[edit]

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. This is done by a variety of
countermeasures, such as armour plating and reactive defences, as well as more complex ones
such as heat-emissions reduction.
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 newergeneration tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles is a concern for military planners.[53] For example,
the RPG-29 from 1980s is able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II [54][55] and also
managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[56]
Avoiding detection[edit]
Further information: Military deception

PLA's Type 99a tank with disruptivecamouflage painting

A tank avoids detection using the doctrine of countermeasures known as 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 heat and noise. Consequently, it is difficult to
effectively camouflage a tank in the absence of some form of cover or concealment (e.g., woods) it

can hide its hull behind. 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
to infra-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 the column 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.[57]
Armour[edit]
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 and high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells
fired by other tanks is of primary importance, but tank armour also aims to protect against
infantry rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank guided missiles, anti-tank 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 led to the obsolescence of homogeneous steel
armour with the development of shaped-charge warheads, exemplified by
thePanzerfaust and bazooka infantry weapons which were 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. High explosive squash
head warheads led to anti-spall armour linings, and kinetic energy penetrators 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 toInfrared light, to hide
it from the thermal viewer of another tank. The modern Shtora countermeasure systems provides
additional protection by interfering with enemy targeting and fire-control systems.
Active protection system[edit]
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 TrophyAPS (" )" during training

The latest generation of protective measures for tanks are active protection systems, particularly
"hard-kill". The Soviet Drozd, the Russian Arena, the IsraeliTrophy and Iron Fist, Polish ERAWA, and
the American Quick Kill systems show the potential to dramatically improve protection for tanks
against missiles, RPGs and potentially kinetic energy penetrator attacks, but concerns regarding
a danger zone for nearby troops remain. As for 2011, only the Israeli Trophy system, installed on
the Merkava Mk4, has been combat-proven, as it successfully intercepted Rocket-propelled
Grenades and various anti-tank missiles during operational missions on the Gaza Strip border.

Mobility[edit]

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.
Tactical mobility[edit]

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 installed power plantand the tank transmission and track design. In
addition, rough terrain effectively limits the tank's speed through the stress it puts on
the suspension 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-barsuspension developed
by Ferdinand Porsche dramatically improved the tank's cross-country performance and overall
mobility.[58]
Tanks are highly mobile and able to travel over most types of terrain due to theircontinuous
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.[59]

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 electric power 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 and torque in context:[citation needed]

Vehicle

Power output

Power/weight

Torque

Mid-sized car

Toyota Camry2.4 L

118 kW
(158 hp)

79 kW/t (106 hp/t)

218 Nm
(161 lbfft)

Sports car

Lamborghini
Murcilago 6.5 L

471 kW
(632 hp)

286 kW/t (383 hp/t)

660 Nm
(490 lbfft)

Racing car

Formula One car3.0 L

710 kW
(950 hp)

1,600 kW/t (2,100 hp/t)

350 Nm
(260 lbfft)

Main battle
tank

Leopard 2, M1 Abrams

1,100 kW
(1,500 hp)

18.0 to 18.3 kW/t (24.2 to

24.5 hp/t)

4,700 Nm
(3,500 lbfft)

Locomotive

SNCF Class T 2000

1,925 kW
(2,581 hp)

8.6 kW/t (11.5 hp/t)

Strategic mobility[edit]
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.[60]
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
1 and Leopard 2 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. [61]

Crew[edit]
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).

The tank commander's position in an AMX Leclerc

Most modern tanks most often have four crew members, or three if an auto-loaderis 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 allround vision devices rather than the limited ones of the driver and gunner.

Driver - The driver drives the tank, and 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 autoloaders this position is omitted.

A view in a M1A1 Abrams tank of the gunner's station (bottom left) and commander's station (top right)

Historically, crews have varied from just two members to a dozen. For example, preWorld War
II 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 were needed to drive the tank: the driver, acting as the
vehicle commander and manning the brakes, drove via orders to his gears-men; a co-driver
operated the gearbox and throttle; and two gears-men, one on each track, steered 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, usually three were located in the turret (as described above)
while the fifth 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.

Engineering constraints[edit]

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 [62]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. Few tank designs have survived their entire service lives
without some upgrading or modernisation, particularly during wartime, including some that have
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.[63]
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-1 and T-64 in
firepower, and the Israeli Merkava and Swedish S-tank in protection, while for decades the
USA's M551 remained the only light tank deployable by parachute.
Further information: Tank classification

Command, control and communications[edit]

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, integratedsystems that enable communications and contribute
to enhanced situational awareness.

Early[edit]
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, althoughMorse Code transmitters were installed in some
Mark IVs at Cambrai as messaging vehicles.[64] Attaching a field telephone to the rear would
become 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[65] and communications between vehicles was
accomplished using hand signals, handheld semaphore flags which continued in use in the Red
Army/Soviet Army through the Second and Cold wars, or by foot or horse mounted messengers.
[66]

Modern[edit]
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 minimize 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 electronics and abattlefield network to display information on
enemy targets and friendly units on amonitor 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 awareness and 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) or Digital Army Battle Management System ( "Israel).

Etymology[edit]
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.[23]
2. The term was first used in a secret report on the new motorised weapon presented
to Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, by British Army Lt.-Col. Ernest
Swinton.[67]
3. A biography of Winston Churchill states that, to disguise the device, drawings were
marked "water carriers for Russia." When it was pointed out that the title might be
shortened to "WCs for Russia," the drawings were relabelled "water tanks for Russia,"
and eventually the weapon was just called a tank. [68] (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.)
On December 24, 1915, a meeting took place of the Inter-Departmental Conference (including
representatives of the Director of Naval Construction's Committee, the Admiralty, the Ministry of
Munitions, and the War Office). Its purpose was to discuss the progress of the plans for what

were described as "Caterpillar Machine Gun Destroyers or Land Cruisers." In his

autobiography, Albert Gerald Stern (Secretary to the Landships Committee, later head of the
Mechanical Warfare Supply Department) says that at that meeting "Mr. (Thomas J.)
Macnamara (M.P., and Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty) then suggested,
for secrecy's sake, to change the title of the Landships Committee. Mr. d'Eyncourt agreed that it
was very desirable to retain secrecy by all means, and proposed to refer to the vessel as a
"Water Carrier." 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," and
wrongly added, " and the name has now been adopted by all countries in the world." [69]
(* 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]
Colonel Ernest Swinton, who was secretary to the meeting, says that he was instructed to find a
non-committal word when writing his report of the proceedings. He later discussed it with a LtCol W. Dally Jones, and they chose the word 'tank.' "That night, in the draft report of the
conference, the word 'tank' was employed in its new sense for the first time." [71]Swinton's Notes
on the Employment of Tanks, in which he uses the word throughout, was published in January
1916.
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." "Little Willie's" hull was called in the shop
orders a "water carrier for Mesopotamia;" no one knew that 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."[72]
D'Eyncourt's account differs from Swinton's and Tritton's: " . . . when the future arrangements
were under discussion for transporting the first landships to France a question arose as to how,
from a security point of view, the consignment should be labelled. To justify their size we decided
to call them 'water-carriers for Russia' - the idea being that they should be taken for some new
method of taking water to forward troops in the battle areas. Lt.-Col. Swinton . . . raised a
humorous objection to this, remarking that the War Office pundits would probably contract the
description to 'W.C.'s for Russia', and that we had better forestall this by merely labelling the
packages 'Tanks'. So tanks they became, and tanks they have remained." [73]This appears to be
an imperfect recollection. He says that the name problem arose "when we shipped the first two
vehicles to France the following year" (August, 1916), but by that time the name "tank" had been
in use for eight months. The tanks were labelled "With Care to Petrograd," but the belief was
encouraged that they were a type of snowplough.
In saying that the word tank was adopted worldwide, Stern was wrong. In France, the second
country to use tanks in battle, the word tank or tanque was adopted initially, but was then, largely
at the insistence of Colonel J.B.E. Estienne, rejected in favour of char d'assaut ("assault
vehicle") or simply char ("vehicle"). During World War I German sources tended to refer to British
tanks as Tanks[74][75] and to their own as Kampfwagen.[76] Later, tanks became 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 Dabbba (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 similar stridsvagn ("chariot", lit. "battle

wagon"), whereas Denmark uses kampvogn (lit. battle wagon). Finland

uses panssarivaunu (armoured wagon), although tankki is also used colloquially. The Polish
name czog, derived from verb czoga si ("to crawl"), is used, depicting the way of machine's
movement and its speed. In Japanese, the term sensha ( , lit. "battle vehicle") is taken from
Chinese and used, and this term is likewise borrowed into Korean as jeoncha (/); more
recent Chinese literature uses the English derived tnk (tank) as opposed to
zhnch (battle vehicle) used in earlier days.
?

See also[edit]

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 desant

Tank destroyer

Tankette

The first tank battle

Unmanned ground vehicle

Notes and references[edit]

1.

Jump up^ von Senger and Etterlin (1960), The World's Armored Fighting Vehicles, p.9.

2.

Jump up^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25109879

3.

Jump up^ Coox (1985), p. 579, 590, 663

4.

^ Jump up to:a b House (1984), Toward Combined Arms Warfare:A Survey of 20th Century
Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization[page needed]

5.

Jump up^ 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]

6.

Jump up^ Wells, H.G. (1916), "V. Tanks", War and the Future, p. 1

7.

Jump up^ Harris, J.P. Men, Ideas, and Tanks. Manchester University Press, 1995. P38

8.

Jump up^ Gannon, Charles E. Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Liverpool University
Press, 2003. P67

9.

Jump up^ Edgeworth, R. & E. Memoirs of Richard Lovell Edgeworth, 1820, pp 164-6

10.

Jump up^ The Devil's Chariots: The Birth and Secret Battles of the First Tanks John Glanfield
(Sutton Publishing, 2001)[page needed]

11.

Jump up^ Gunther Burstyn Angwetter, D.& E. (Verlag Der sterreichischen Akademie Der
Wissenschaften, 2008)[page needed]

12.

Jump up^ "Australia To The Fore. Invention of the War Tank". Trove.nla.gov.au. 1920-02-12.
Retrieved 2012-05-13.

13.

Jump up^ Russian tanks, 1900-1970 The Complete Illustrated History of Soviet Armoured
Theory and Design John Milsom (Stackpole Books, 1971)[page needed]

14.

^ Jump up to:a b Churchill, p. 316

15.

Jump up^ Churchill, p. 317

16.

Jump up^ Foley, p. 22 and p. 193

17.

Jump up^ McMillan, N: Locomotive Apprentice at the North British Locomotive Company Ltd
Glasgow Plateway Press 1992[page needed]

18.

Jump up^ Glanfield, Devil's Chariots[page needed]

19.

Jump up^ Regan (1993), The Guinness Book of More Military Blunders, p. 12

20.

Jump up^ Steven J. Zaloga, The Renault FT Light Tank, London 1988, p.3

21.
22.

Jump up^ Willmott (2003), First World War, p. 222

Jump up^ " - 0008.htm" (in Russian). Vadimvswar.narod.ru.
Retrieved 2012-05-13.

23.

^ Jump up to:a b Willmott (2003), First World War[page needed]

24.

^ Jump up to:a b c d Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk.

25.

Jump up^ Time (1937), Chewed up

26.

Jump up^ Manrique p. 311, 321, 324

27.

Jump up^ Goldman p. 19

28.

Jump up^ Coox p. 300, 318, 437

29.

Jump up^ Coox 998

30.

Jump up^ Coox p. 579, 590, 663

31.

Jump up^ Cooper and Lucas (1979), Panzer: The Armored Force of the Third Reich, p. 9

32.

Jump up^ Forty (2004), p.251.

33.

Jump up^ Stroud, Rick (2012). The Phantom Army of Alamein. Bloomsbury. p. 219.

34.

Jump up^ Zaloga et al. (1997)

35.

Jump up^ Stolfi, Hitler's Panzers East[page needed]

36.

Jump up^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, p 307

37.

Jump up^ Cawthorne (2003), Steel Fist: Tank Warfare 1939 - 45, p. 211

38.

Jump up^ Starry pp. 45, 79, 129, 143, 153, etc

39.

Jump up^ 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.

40.

Jump up^ 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

41.

Jump up^ von Senger und Etterlin (1960), The World's Armoured Fighting Vehicles, pp. 61,
118, 183

42.

Jump up^ 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]

43.

Jump up^ USA Today (2005), Tank takes a beating in Iraq

44.

^ Jump up to:a b USA Today (2005), Tanks adapted for urban fights they once avoided

45.

Jump up^ Pengelley, Rupert, A new era in tank main armament, pp. 15211531

46.

Jump up^ Hilmes, Rolf (January 30, 1999), "Aspects of future MBT conception". Military
Technology 23 (6): 7. Moench Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh.

47.

Jump up^ 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.

48.

Jump up^ Wickert, Matthias, Electric Armor Against Shaped Charges, pp. 426429

49.

Jump up^ Xiaopeng, Li, et al., Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor, pp. 460462

50.

Jump up^ Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications, pp. 132144

51.

Jump up^ McDonald, Colin F., Gas Turbine Recuperator Renaissance, pp. 1 - 30

52.

Jump up^ 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

53.

Jump up^ BBC News (2006) Tough lessons for Israeli armour

54.

Jump up^ "Defence chiefs knew 'invincible' tank armour could be breached", Daily Mail, 24
April 2007

55.

Jump up^ Sean Rayment (2007-05-12). "MoD kept failure of best tank quiet". Sunday
Telegraph.

56.

Jump up^ Michael R. Gordon (2008-05-21). "Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So
Far". The New York Times.

57.

Jump up^ "Nakidka" kit for protection against surveillance and precision-guided
systems(archive)

58.

Jump up^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, pp. 154

59.

Jump up^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, p.180

60.

Jump up^ John Pike. "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2009-0609.

61.

Jump up^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, pp.234252

62.

Jump up^ Technology of Tanks, Richard M Ogorkiewicz, Jane's Information Group,

1991[page needed]

63.

Jump up^ Journal of the United Service Institution of India, Volume 98, United Service
Institution of India, 1968, p. 58, retrieved 4 April2011

64.

Jump up^ Macksey, K., Tank vs Tank, Grub Street, London, 1999, p. 32

65.

Jump up^ Fletcher, D., British Mark I Tank 1916, Osprey, p. 19

66.

Jump up^ 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."

67.

Jump up^ Barris (2007), Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 912, 1917, p.116

68.

Jump up^ Gilbert (1991), Churchill: A Life, p.298.

69.

Jump up^ Tanks 1914-1918; The Log Book of a Pioneer. Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p.39

70.

Jump up^ Fletcher, David (introduction); Chamberlain, Peter et al. (1998). Armoured Fighting
Vehicles of the World, Volume One. Cannon Publications. p. 49. ISBN 1-899 695 02 8.

71.

Jump up^ Eye-Witness, And the Origin of the Tanks; Major-General Sir Ernest D. Swinton;
Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1933, p161

72.

Jump up^ Popular Science Monthly, July 1918, p7.

73.

Jump up^ A Shipbuilder's Yarn; E.H.W.T. d'Eyncourt, Hutchinson & Co., 1948, p113

74.

Jump up^ Die Tankschlacht bei Cambrai: Dr. Georg Strutz, pub 1929.

75.

Jump up^ [1]

76.

Jump up^ Die deutschen Kampfwagen im Weltkriege; Ernst Volckheim, 1937.

Bibliography[edit]

"Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications", Military Technology (Moench
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH) (9/2007), September 2007: 132144

Barris, Ted (2007), Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 912, 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 0572-02872-5

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 08047-1160-7

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

Foley, Michael (2014), Rise of the Tank: Armoured Vehicles and their use in the First World War, Pen
& Sword Military, ISBN 978-1-78346-393-0

Forty, George (2004), Tank Warfare in World War II, London: Constable & Robinson Ltd, ISBN 184119-864-1

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 200805-18

Hunnicutt, R. P. (1984), Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, Presidio, ISBN 0-89141230-1

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): 693698,doi:10.1115/1.1287585

Manrique, Jose; Lucas M. Franco (2006), Las Armas de la Guerra Civil Espanola (in Spanish), 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): 130,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): 15211531

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., The Future Combat System (FCS): Technology Evolution
Review and Feasibility Assessment (PDF), 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 0-80948609-1, 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,): 1628, 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): 460462, 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 194145: The T-28, T-34, T-34-85, and T-44 Medium Tanks, Hong Kong: Concord
Publication, ISBN 962-361-615-5

Macksey, Kenneth (1976), Tank Warfare, A History of Tanks in Battle, London: Panther, ISBN 0-58604302-0

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