Tank - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

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

TankFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle withtracks, designed for front-line combat. Modern tanks arestrong mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a rotating gun turret. They combinethis with heavy vehicle armour providing protection forthe crew of the weapon and operational mobility, whichallows them to position on the battlefield inadvantageous locations. These features enable the tankto have enormous capability to perform well in a tacticalsituation: the combination of strong weapons fire fromtheir tank gun and their ability to resist enemy fire meansthe tank can take hold of and control an area of thebattle and prevent other enemy vehicles from advancing,for example. In both offensive and defensive roles, theyare powerful units able to perform all primary tasks

required of armoured troops on the battlefield.[1] Themodern tank was the result of a century of developmentfrom primitive armoured vehicles, due to improvementsin technology such as the internal combustion engine,which allowed the rapid movement of heavy equipmentrequired to construct armoured vehicles. As a result ofthese advances, tanks underwent tremendous shifts incapability during the World Wars of the 20th century.

Tanks in World War I were developed separately andsimultaneously by Great Britain [2] and France as ameans to break the deadlock of trench warfare on theWestern Front. Their first use in combat was by theBritish Army on September 15, 1916 between thevillages of Flers and Courcelette, during the Battle of theSomme. The name "tank" was adopted by the Britishduring 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 thetank'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 armouredwarfare 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. Lessthan two weeks later, Germany began their large-scale armoured campaigns that would become known asblitzkrieg ("lightning war") massed concentrations of tanks supported by motorised and mechanizedinfantry, 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-tankweapons with considerable power. This caused major changes in tank doctrine and the introduction ofeffective combined arms tactics. Tanks in the Cold War were designed with these weapons in mind, and ledto greatly improved armours during the 1960s, especially composite armour. Improved engines, transmissionsand suspensions allowed tanks of this period to grow larger. Aspects of gun technology changed significantlyas well, with advances in shell design.

Tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tank&printable=yes

1 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

During the 20th century, main battle tanks were considered a key component of modern armies.[4] In the21st century, with the increasing role of asymmetrical warfare and the end of the Cold War, that alsocontributed to the increase of cost-effective Russian anti-tank weapons worldwide, the importance of tankshas waned. Modern tanks seldom operate alone, as they are organized into combined arms units whichinvolve the support of infantry, who may accompany the tanks in infantry fighting vehicles. They are alsousually supported by reconnaissance or ground-attack aircraft.[5]

Contents

1 History

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

3.1 Early

3.2 Modern

4 Etymology

5 See also

6 Notes and references

7 Bibliography

8 External links

History

Conception

The tank is the 20th century realization of an ancient concept: that of providing troops with mobileprotection and firepower. The internal combustion engine, armour plate, and the continuous track were keyinnovations leading to the invention of the modern tank.

Armoured trains appeared in the mid-19th century, and various armoured steam- and petrol-engined vehicleswere also proposed. The first armoured car was produced in Austria in 1904. However, all were restricted to


2 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

Film clip of World War I-era

tanks.

Model of Leonardo's proposed

vehicle.

rails or reasonably passable terrain. It was the development of a practicalcaterpillar track that provided the necessary independent, all-terrainmobility.

Many sources imply that Leonardo daVinci and H.G. Wells in some way foresawor "invented" the tank. Leonardo's late15th century drawings of what somedescribe as a "tank" show a man-powered,wheeled vehicle with cannons all aroundit. However the human crew would nothave enough power to move it over larger distance, and usage of animalswas problematic in a space so confined.

The machines described in Wells's 1903 short story The Land Ironclads area 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 thatlater 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, Wellsdenied 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 tankpioneers, 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 theirweight, reducing ground pressure, and increasing their adhesive friction. Experiments can be traced back asfar as the 17th century, and by the late nineteenth they existed in various recognizable and practical forms inseveral countries.

It is frequently claimed that Richard Lovell Edgeworth created a caterpillar track. It is true that in 1770 hepatented a "machine, that should carry and lay down its own road", but this was Edgeworth's choice ofwords. 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 firstcombinations 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 boxon tracks. Major W.E. Donohue, of the British Army's Mechanical Transport Committee, suggested fixing agun and armoured shield on a British type of track-driven vehicle.[10] In 1911, a Lieutenant Engineer in theAustrian 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 namedLancelot de Mole submitted a basic design for a tracked, armoured vehicle to the British War Office.[12] InRussia, 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 theWar that de Mole's design was at least the equal of the tanks that were later produced by Great Britain, andhe was voted a cash payment for his contribution. Various individuals continued to contemplate the use oftracked vehicles for military applications, but by the outbreak of the War no one in a position ofresponsibility in any army had any thoughts about tanks.

World War I

Great Britain

From late 1914 a small number of middle-ranking British Army officers tried to persuade the War Office andthe Government to consider the creation of armoured vehicles. Amongst their suggestions was the use of


3 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

British World War I Mark V* tank

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.

caterpillar tractors, but although the Army used many suchvehicles for towing heavy guns, it could not be persuaded thatthey could be adapted as armoured vehicles. The consequencewas that early tank development in Great Britain was carried outby the Royal Navy.

As the result of an approach by Royal Naval Air Service officerswho had been operating armoured cars on the Western Front,

the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill[14] formedthe Landships Committee, on 20 February 1915. The Director ofNaval Construction for the Royal Navy, Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, was appointed to head theCommittee in view of his experience with the engineering methods it was felt might be required; the twoother members were naval officers, and a number of industrialists were engaged as consultants. So manyplayed a part in its long and complicated development that it is not possible to name any individual as thesole inventor of the tank,[15] though the British Government later made proportionate cash awards to those itconsidered to have contributed. Their first design, Little Willie, ran for the first time in September 1915 andserved to develop the form of the track but an improved design, better able to cross trenches, swiftlyfollowed and in January 1916 the prototype, nicknamed "Mother", was adopted as the design for futuretanks. 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]

France

Whilst several experimental machines were investigated in France, it was acolonel of artillery, J.B.E. Estienne, who directly approached theCommander-in-Chief with detailed plans for a tank on caterpillar tracks, inlate 1915. The result was two largely unsatisfactory types of tank, 400 eachof the Schneider and Saint-Chamond, both based on the Holt Tractor.

The following year, the French pioneered the use of a full 360 rotationturret in a tank for the first time, with the creation of the Renault FT lighttank, with the turret containing the tank's main armament. In addition to thetraversible turret, another innovative feature of the FT was its enginelocated at the rear. This pattern, with the gun located in a mounted turretand the engine at the back, has become the standard for most succeeding

tanks across the world even to this day.[19] The FT was the most numeroustank 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 encounteringBritish tanks on the Somme. The A7V, the only type made, was introduced in March 1918. with just 20 beingproduced during the war.[20] The first tank versus tank action took place on 24 April 1918 at the SecondBattle of Villers-Bretonneux, France, when three British Mark IVs met three German A7Vs. CapturedBritish Mk IVs formed the bulk of Germany's tank forces during World War I; about 35 were in service atany 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.


4 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

French Hotchkiss H-39 light

tank of 1939.

Production of American-built tanks had just begun when the War came to an end. Italy also manufacturedtwo Fiat 2000s towards the end of the war, too late to see service. Russia independently built and trialed twoprototypes 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.[21]

Although tank tactics developed rapidly during the war, piecemeal deployments, mechanical problems, andpoor mobility limited the military significance of the tank in World War I, and the tank did not fulfil itspromise of rendering trench warfare obsolete. Nonetheless, it was clear to military thinkers on both sides thattanks in some way could have a significant role in future conflicts.[22]

Interwar period

In the interwar period tanks underwent further mechanical development. Interms of tactics, J.F.C. Fuller's doctrine of spearhead attacks with massedtank 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 Gaullein France, and Mikhail Tukhachevsky in the USSR. Liddell Hart held amore moderate view that all arms - cavalry, infantry and artillery - shouldbe mechanized and work together. The British formed the all-armsExperimental Mechanized Force to test the use of tanks with supportingforces.

In the Second World War only Germany would initially put the theory into practice on a large scale, and itwas their superior tactics and French blunders, not superior weapons, that made blitzkrieg so successful inMay 1940.[23] For information regarding tank development in this period, see tank development between thewars.

Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union all experimented heavily with tank warfare during their clandestine andvolunteer involvement in the Spanish Civil War, which saw some of the earliest examples of successfulmechanised combined arms such as when Republican troops, equipped with Soviet-supplied mediumtanks and supported by aircraft, eventually routed Italian troops fighting for the Nationalists in the seven-day

Battle of Guadalajara in 1937.[24] However, of the nearly 700 tanks deployed during this conflict, only about64 tanks representing the Franco faction and 331 from the Republican side were equipped with cannon, andof those 64 nearly all were World War I vintage Renault FT tanks, while the 331 Soviet supplied machineshad 45mm main guns and were of 1930s manufacture.[25] The balance of Nationalist tanks were machinegun armed. The primary lesson learned from this war was that machine gun armed tanks had to be equippedwith 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 onlydeployed about 73 cannon armed tanks, the Soviets fielded over two thousand,[26] with the major difference

being that Japanese armor were equipped with diesel engines and the Russian tanks petrol ones.[27] Evenafter General Georgy Zhukov inflicted a bitter defeat on the Japanese 6th Army with his massed combinedtank and air attack, the Soviets had learned a bitter lesson on the use of gasoline engines, and quicklyincorporated those newly found experiences into their new T-34 medium tank during World War II.[28]

World War II

During World War II, the first conflict in which armoured vehicles were critical to battlefield success, thetank and related tactics developed rapidly. Armored forces proved capable of tactical victory in anunprecedentedly short amount of time, yet new anti-tank weaponry showed that the tank was notinvulnerable.


5 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

Soviet T-34 tank

column advancing near

Leningrad, 1942

Rommel in North Africa, June

1942

Battle of Kursk was the largest

tank battle ever fought, with

each side deploying nearly

3,000 tanks.

Prior to World War II, the tactics and strategy of deploying tank forces underwenta revolution. In August 1939, Soviet General Georgy Zhukov used 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 formationof the first independent German tank force, said "Where tanks are, the front is",and this concept became a reality in World War II.[30] During the Invasion ofPoland, tanks performed in a more traditional role in close cooperation withinfantry units, but in the Battle of France deep independent armouredpenetrations were executed by the Germans, a technique later called blitzkrieg.Blitzkrieg used innovative combined arms tactics and radios in all of the tanks toprovide a level of tactical flexibility and power that surpassed that of the Alliedarmour. The French Army, with tanks equal or superior to the German tanks inboth quality and quantity, employed a linear defensive strategy in which thearmoured 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 theirability to respond to German attacks.

In accordance with blitzkrieg methods, German tanks bypassed enemy strongpoints and could radio for closeair 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.[23] Thedefeat of a major military power within weeks shocked the rest of the world, spurring tank and anti-tankweapon development.

The North African Campaign also provided an important battleground fortanks, as the flat, desolate terrain with relatively few obstacles or urbanenvironments was ideal for conducting mobile armoured warfare. However,this battlefield also showed the importance of logistics, especially in anarmoured force, as the principal warring armies, the German Afrika Korpsand the British Eighth Army, often outpaced their supply trains in repeatedattacks and counter-attacks on each other, resulting in complete stalemate.This situation would not be resolved until 1942, when during the SecondBattle 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 bya massively reinforced Eighth Army, the first in a series of defeats thatwould eventually lead to the surrender of the remaining Axis forces in Tunisia.

When Germany launched its invasion of the Soviet Union, OperationBarbarossa, the Soviets had a superior tank design, the T-34.[33] A lack ofpreparations for the Axis surprise attack, mechanical problems, poortraining of the crews and incompetent leadership caused the Sovietmachines to be surrounded and destroyed in large numbers. However,interference from Adolf Hitler,[34] the geographic scale of the conflict, thedogged resistance of the Soviet combat troops, and the Soviets' massiveadvantages in manpower and production capability prevented a repeat of

the Blitzkrieg of 1940.[35] Despite early successes against the Soviets, theGermans were forced to up-gun their Panzer IVs, and to design and buildboth the larger and more expensive Tiger heavy tank in 1942, and thePanther medium tank the following year. In doing so, the Wehrmacht

denied the infantry and other support arms the production priorities that they needed to remain equalpartners with the increasingly sophisticated tanks, in turn violating the principle of combined arms they hadpioneered.[4] Soviet developments following the invasion included upgunning the T-34, development ofself-propelled anti-tank guns such as the SU-152, and deployment of the IS-2 in 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


6 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

Sherman tanks joining the U.S.

Fifth Army forces in the

beachhead at Anzio during the

Italian Campaign, 1944

At one time, the Soviet T-72

was the most widely deployed

main battle tank across the

world.[38]

1945.

Much like the Soviets, when entering World War II six months later(December 1941), the United States' mass production capacity enabled it torapidly construct thousands of relatively cheap M4 Sherman medium tanks.A compromise all round, the Sherman was reliable and formed a large partof the Anglo-American ground forces, but in a tank-versus-tank battle was

no match for the Panther or Tiger.[36] Numerical and logistical superiorityand the successful use of combined arms allowed the Allies to overrun theGerman forces during the Battle of Normandy. Upgunned versions with the76 mm gun M1 and the 17 pounder were introduced to improve the M4'sfirepower, but concerns about protection remained despite the apparentarmor deficiencies, a total of some 42,000 Shermans were built anddelivered to the Allied nations using it during the war years, a total secondonly to the T-34.

Tank hulls[37] were modified to produce flame tanks, mobile rocket artillery, and combat engineeringvehicles for tasks including mine-clearing and bridging. Specialised self-propelled guns, most of which coulddouble as tank destroyers, were also both developed by the Germans with their Sturmgeschtz,Panzerjger and Jagdpanzer vehicles and the Samokhodnaya ustanovka families of AFV's for theSoviets: such turretless, casemate-style tank destroyers and assault guns were less complex, stripped downtanks carrying heavy guns, solely firing forward. The firepower and low cost of these vehicles made themattractive 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]

Cold War arms race

During the Cold War, tension between the Warsaw Pact countries andNorth Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries created an arms racethat ensured that tank development proceeded largely as it had duringWorld War II. The essence of tank designs during the Cold War had beenhammered out in the closing stages of World War II. Large turrets, capablesuspension systems, greatly improved engines, sloped armour and large-calibre (90 mm and larger) guns were standard. Tank design during the ColdWar built on this foundation and included improvements to fire control,gyroscopic gun stabilisation, communications (primarily radio) and crewcomfort and saw the introduction of laser rangefinders and infrared nightvision equipment. Armour technology progressed in an ongoing race againstimprovements in anti-tank weapons, especially antitank guided missiles likethe TOW.

Medium tanks of World War II, evolved into the main battle tank (MBT) ofthe Cold War and took over the majority of tank roles on the battlefield. This gradual transition occurred inthe 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 firepowerand medium tanks were vulnerable to newer weapon technology, rendering them obsolete.

In a trend started in World War II, economies of scale led to serial production of progressively upgradedmodels of all major tanks during the Cold War. For the same reason many upgraded post-World War II tanksand 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] Amongthe tanks of the 1950s were the British Centurion and Soviet T-54/55 in service from 1946, and the US M48


7 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

Tankers drive an M1A1 Abrams

tank in Germany.

Type 10 Japanese main battle

tank

Graphic representation of the

US Army's cancelled XM1202

Mounted Combat System

from 1951.[40] These three vehicles formed the bulk of the armoured forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pactthroughout 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 andMerkava IV.

Tanks and anti-tank weapons of the Cold War era saw action in a numberof proxy wars like the Korean War, Vietnam War, Indo-Pakistani War of1971, Soviet war in Afghanistan and Arab-Israeli conflicts, culminatingwith the Yom Kippur War. The T-55, for example, has seen action in nofewer than 32 conflicts. In these wars the USA or NATO countries and theSoviet Union or China consistently backed opposing forces. Proxy warswere studied by Western and Soviet military analysts and provided a grimcontribution to the Cold War tank development process.

21st century conflicts

The role of tank vs. tank combat is becoming diminished. Tanks work inconcert with infantry in urban warfare by deploying them ahead of theplatoon. When engaging enemy infantry, tanks can provide covering fire onthe 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 of2005, there were 1,100 M1 Abrams used by the United States Army in thecourse of the Iraq War, and they have proven to have an unexpectedly highlevel of vulnerability to roadside bombs.[42] A relatively new type ofremotely detonated mine, the explosively formed penetrator has been usedwith 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] Britaindeployed 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 tocarry infantry and embark safely; the IMI APAM-MP-T multi-purpose ammunition round, advanced C4ISsystems and recently: TROPHY active protection system which protects the tank from shoulder-launchedanti-tank weapons. During the Second Intifada further modifications were made, designated as "MerkavaMk. 3d Baz LIC".

Research and development

In terms of firepower, the focus of current R&D is on increased detectioncapability such as thermal imagers, automated fire control systems andincreased muzzle energy from the gun to improve range, accuracy andarmour penetration.[44] The most mature future gun technology is the

electrothermal-chemical gun.[45] The XM291 electrothermal-chemical tankgun has gone through successful multiple firing sequences on a modifiedM8 Armored Gun System chassis.[46]

To improve tank protection, one field of research involves making the tankinvisible to radar by adapting stealth technologies originally designed foraircraft. 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


8 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

Rifling of a 105 mm

Royal Ordnance L7 tank

gun.

disperse or deflect incoming shaped charge jets,[47][48] as well as various forms of active protection systemsto 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.[49] Furthermore, advances

in gas turbine technology, including the use of advanced recuperators,[50] have allowed for reduction inengine 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 increasingsophistication in its electronics and communication systems.

Design

The three traditionalfactors determining atank's capabilityeffectiveness are itsfirepower, protection, andmobility. Firepower is theability of a tank's crew toidentify, engage, anddestroy the enemy.Protection is the tankcrew's ability to evade

detection, preserve themselves from enemy fire, and retain full vehicle functionality after combat. Mobilityincludes the ability of the tank to be transported by rail, sea, or air to the operational staging area; from thestaging area by road towards the enemy; and tactical movement over the battlefield during combat, includingtraversing of obstacles and rough terrain.

Offensive capabilities

The main weapon of modern tanks is a single, large-calibre cannon mounted in afully traversing gun turret. The typical modern tank gun is a smoothbore weaponcapable of firing a variety of ammunition, including armor-piercing kinetic energypenetrators (KEP), also known as armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS),and/or armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) and highexplosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells, and/or high explosive squash head (HESH)and/or anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) to destroy armoured targets, as well ashigh explosive (HE) shells for engaging soft targets or fortifications. Canister shotmay 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 aimedand fired at the "short halt" or on the move. Modern tank guns are also commonlyfitted with insulating thermal jackets to reduce gun-barrel warping caused by uneven thermal expansion,bore evacuators to minimise fumes entering the crew compartment and sometimes muzzle brakes tominimise the effect of recoil on accuracy and rate of fire.

Traditionally, target detection relied on visual identification. This was accomplished from within the tankthrough telescopic periscopes; occasionally, however, tank commanders would open up the hatch to view the


9 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

An M1 Abrams firing

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.

outside surroundings, which improved situational awareness but incurred the penalty of vulnerability tosniper fire, especially in jungle and urban conditions. Though several developments in target detection havetaken place especially recently, these methods are still common practice.

In some cases spotting rifles were used confirm proper trajectory and rangeto a target. These spotting rifles were mounted co-axially to the main gun,and fired tracer ammunition ballistically matched to the gun itself. Thegunner would track the movement of the tracer round in flight, and uponimpact 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 beenmostly superseded by laser rangefinding equipment.

Modern tanks also use sophisticated light intensification and thermalimaging equipment to improve fighting capability at night, in poor weather and in smoke. The accuracy ofmodern tank guns is pushed to the mechanical limit by computerised fire-control systems. A fire-controlsystem uses a laser rangefinder to determine the range to the target, a thermocouple, anemometer and windvane 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 movementvector. This information is combined with the known movement of the tank and the principles of ballistics tocalculate 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 weaponwould be ineffective, for example when engaging infantry, light vehicles or aircraft. A typical complement ofsecondary weapons is a general-purpose machine gun mounted coaxially with the main gun, and a heavieranti-aircraft machine gun on the turret roof. These weapons are often modified variants of those used byinfantry, and so utilise the same kinds of ammunition.

Protection and countermeasures

The measure of a tank's protection is the combination of its ability to avoiddetection, to avoid being hit by enemy fire, its resistance to the effects ofenemy fire, and its capacity to sustain damage whilst still completing itsobjective, or at least protecting its crew. This is done by a variety ofcountermeasures, such as armour plating and reactive defences, as well asmore complex ones such as heat-emissions reduction.

In common with most unit types, tanks are subject to additional hazards inwooded and urban combat environments which largely negate theadvantages of the tank's long-range firepower and mobility, limit the crew'sdetection capabilities and can restrict turret traverse. Despite thesedisadvantages, tanks retain high survivability against previous-generationrocket-propelled grenades in all combat environments by virtue of theirarmour.

However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tanksurvivability against newer-generation tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles isa concern for military planners.[52] For example, the RPG-29 from 1980s is

able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[53][54] and also managed to damage a M1Abrams.[55]

Avoiding detection

A tank avoids detection using the doctrine of countermeasures known as CCD: camouflage (looks the same


10 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

PLA's Type 99a tank with

disruptive camouflage painting

The British Challenger II is

protected by second-generation

Chobham armour

as the surroundings), concealment (cannot be seen) and deception (lookslike something else).

Working against efforts to avoid detection is the fact that a tank is a largemetallic object with a distinctive, angular silhouette that emits copious heatand noise. Consequently, it is difficult to effectively camouflage a tank inthe absence of some form of cover or concealment (e.g., woods) it can hideits 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 conductivityand therefore heat dissipation of the metallic tank and its surroundings. At close range the tank can bedetected even when powered down and fully concealed due to the column of warmer air above the tank andthe smell of diesel.

Thermal blankets slow the rate of heat emission and camouflage nets use a mix of materials with differingthermal properties to operate in the infra-red as well as the visible spectrum. Camouflage attempts to breakup the distinctive appearance and silhouette of a tank. Adopting a turret-down or hull-down position reducesthe 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 Radarsignatures of a tank, so that acquisition of the tank would be difficult. According to Nii Stali, the designers ofNakidka, 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.[56]

Armour

To effectively protect the tank and its crew, tank armour must counter awide variety of antitank threats. Protection against kinetic energypenetrators and high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells fired by other tanksis of primary importance, but tank armour also aims to protect againstinfantry rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank guided missiles, anti-tankmines, bombs, direct artillery hits, and (less often) nuclear, biological andchemical threats, any of which could disable or destroy a tank or its crew.

Steel armour plate was the earliest type of armour. The Germans pioneeredthe use of face hardened steel during World War II and the Soviets alsoachieved improved protection with sloped armour technology. World War II

developments led to the obsolescence of homogeneous steel armour with the development of shaped-chargewarheads, exemplified by the Panzerfaust and bazooka infantry weapons which were effective, despite someearly 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 generallycomposite armour, incorporating ceramics and plastics in a resin matrix between steel plates, which providedgood protection against HEAT weapons. High explosive squash head warheads led to anti-spall armourlinings, and kinetic energy penetrators led to the inclusion of exotic materials like a matrix of depleteduranium into a composite armour configuration.

Reactive armour consists of small explosive-filled metal boxes that detonate when hit by the metallic jetprojected by an exploding HEAT warhead, causing their metal plates to disrupt it. Tandem warheads defeatreactive armour by causing the armour to detonate prematurely. Modern Reactive armour protects itselffrom Tandem warheads by having a thicker front metal plate to prevent the precursor charge from detonatingthe explosive in the reactive armour. Reactive armours can also reduce the penetrative abilities of kineticenergy penetrators by deforming the penetrator with the metal plates on the Reactive armour, thereby


11 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

Blazer explosive reactive

armour (ERA) blocks on an

Israeli M-60

IDF Merkava Mk4 tank with

Trophy APS (" ") during

training

Two German Army Leopard 2s

demonstrate their deep-wading

capabilities

M1 Abrams offloading from

Landing Craft Air Cushioned

vehicle.

reducing its effectiveness against the main armour of the tank.

Grenade launchers which can rapidly deploy a smoke screen that is opaqueto Infrared light, to hide it from the thermal viewer of another tank. Themodern Shtora countermeasure systems provides additional protection byinterfering with enemy targeting and fire-control systems.

Active protection system

The latest generation of protectivemeasures for tanks are active protectionsystems, particularly "hard-kill". The Soviet Drozd, the Russian Arena, theIsraeli Trophy and Iron Fist, Polish ERAWA, and the American Quick Killsystems show the potential to dramatically improve protection for tanksagainst missiles, RPGs and potentially kinetic energy penetrator attacks, butconcerns regarding a danger zone for nearby troops remain. As for 2011,only the Israeli Trophy system, installed on the Merkava Mk4, has beencombat-proven, as it successfully intercepted Rocket-propelled Grenadesand various anti-tank missiles during operational missions on the Gaza Stripborder.

Mobility

The mobility of a tank is described by its battlefield or tactical mobility, itsoperational mobility, and its strategic mobility. Tactical mobility can bebroken 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 trenchesor through water. Operational mobility is a function of manoeuvre range;but also of size and weight, and the resulting limitations on options formanoeuvre.

Tactical mobility

Tank agility is a function of the weight of the tank due to its inertia whilemanoeuvring and its ground pressure, the power output of the installedpower plant and the tank transmission and track design. In addition, roughterrain effectively limits the tank's speed through the stress it puts on thesuspension and the crew. A breakthrough in this area was achieved duringWorld War II when improved suspension systems were developed thatallowed better cross-country performance and limited firing on the move.Systems like the earlier Christie or later torsion-bar suspension developedby Ferdinand Porsche dramatically improved the tank's cross-countryperformance and overall mobility.[57]

Tanks are highly mobile and able to travel over most types of terrain due to their continuous tracks andadvanced suspension. The tracks disperse the weight of the vehicle over a large area, resulting in less groundpressure. A tank can travel at approximately 40 kilometres per hour (25 mph) across flat terrain and up to 70kilometres per hour (43 mph) on roads, but due to the mechanical strain this places on the vehicle and thelogistical strain on fuel delivery and tank maintenance, these must be considered "burst" speeds that invitemechanical failure of engine and transmission systems. Consequently, wheeled tank transporters and railinfrastructure is used wherever possible for long-distance tank transport. The limitations of long-range tankmobility can be viewed in sharp contrast to that of wheeled armoured fighting vehicles. The majority of


12 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

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.

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.[58]

The tank's power plant supplies kinetic energy to move the tank, andelectric power via a generator to components such as the turret rotationmotors and the tank's electronic systems. The tank power plant has evolvedfrom predominantly petrol and adapted large-displacement aeronautical orautomotive engines during World Wars I and II, through diesel engines toadvanced multi-fuel diesel engines, and powerful (per unit weight) butfuel-hungry gas turbines in the T-80 and M1 Abrams.

Tank power output and torque in context:

VehiclePoweroutput

Power/weight Torque

Mid-sizedcar

Toyota Camry2.4 L

118 kW(158 hp)

79 kW/t(106 hp/t)

218 Nm(161 lbfft)

Sports carLamborghiniMurcilago

6.5 L

471 kW(632 hp)

286 kW/t(383 hp/t)

660 Nm(490 lbfft)

Racing carFormula One

car 3.0 L710 kW(950 hp)

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

350 Nm(260 lbfft)

Main battletank

Leopard 2,M1 Abrams

1,100 kW(1,500 hp)

18.0 to18.3 kW/t (24.2

to 24.5 hp/t)

4,700 Nm(3,500 lbfft)

LocomotiveSNCF Class T

20001,925 kW(2,581 hp)

8.6 kW/t(11.5 hp/t)

Strategic mobility

Strategic mobility is the ability of the tanks of an armed force to arrive in a timely, cost effective, andsynchronized fashion. For good strategic mobility transportability by air is important, which means thatweight 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 manysophisticated designs can only be produced at a relatively low rate. The US Military for instance keeps 6000

MBTs in storage.[59]

In the absence of combat engineers, most tanks are limited to fording rivers. The typical fording depth forMBTs is approximately 1 metre (3.3 ft), being limited by the height of the engine air intake and driver'sposition. Modern tanks such as the Russian T-90 and the German Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks can ford toa depth of 3 to 4 metres when properly prepared and equipped with a snorkel to supply air for the crew andengine. Tank crews usually have a negative reaction towards deep fording but it adds considerable scope forsurprise and tactical flexibility in water crossing operations by opening new and unexpected avenues ofattack.

Amphibious tanks are specially designed or adapted for water operations, but they are rare in modernarmies, being replaced by purpose-built amphibious assault vehicles or armoured personnel carriers inamphibious assaults. Advances such as the EFA mobile bridge and MT-55 scissors bridge have also reducedthe impediment to tank advance that rivers posed in World War II.[60]

Crew


13 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

The tank commander's position

in an AMX Leclerc

A view in a M1A1 Abrams tank

of the gunner's station (bottom

left) and commander's station

(top right)

The Indian Arjun MBT's

hydropneumatic suspension at

work, while moving over a

bump track.

Tank commander redirects here. For other meanings see Tank commander (disambiguation).

Most modern tanks most often have four crew members, or three if anauto-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, 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 auto-loaders

this position is omitted.

Historically, crews have varied from just two members to a dozen. Forexample, preWorld War II French tanks were noted for having a two-mancrew, in which the overworked commander had to load and fire the gun inaddition to commanding the tank. First World War tanks were developedwith immature technologies; in addition to the crew needed to man themultiple guns and machine guns, up to four crewmen were needed to drivethe tank: the driver, acting as the vehicle commander and manning thebrakes, drove via orders to his gears-men; a co-driver operated the gearboxand throttle; and two gears-men, one on each track, steered by setting oneside or the other to idle, allowing the track on the other side to slew thetank to one side.

With World War II the multi-turreted tanks proved impracticable, and asthe single turret on a low hull design became standard, crews became standardized around a crew of four orfive. 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 inaddition to acting as a co-driver or radio operator.

Well designed crew stations, giving proper considerations to comfort and ergonomics, are an important factorin the combat effectiveness of a tank, as it limits fatigue and speeds up individual actions.

Engineering constraints

A noted author on the subject of tank design engineering Richard MOgorkiewicz[61] outlined the following basic engineering sub-systems thatare 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


14 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

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, crewergonomic 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 latestIsraeli Magach versions.

The characteristics of a tank are determined by the performance criteria required for the tank. The obstaclesthat 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.[62]

Tank design is a compromise between its technological and budgetary constraints and its tactical capabilityrequirements. It is not possible to maximise firepower, protection and mobility simultaneously whileincorporating the latest technology and retain affordability for sufficient procurement quantity to enterproduction. For example, in the case of tactical capability requirements, increasing protection by addingarmour will result in an increase in weight and therefore decrease in mobility; increasing firepower byinstalling a larger gun will force the designer team to increase armour, the therefore weight of the tank byretaining same internal volume to ensure crew efficiency during combat. In the case of the Abrams MBTwhich has good firepower, speed and armour, these advantages are counterbalanced by its engine's notablyhigh 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 manufactureand cost, and the impact of a given tank design on logistics and field maintenance capabilities, have alsobeen 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 toocomplex or expensive to manufacture, and made unsustainable demands on the logistics services support ofthe armed forces. The affordability of the design therefore takes precedence over the combat capabilityrequirements. Nowhere was this principle illustrated better than during the Second World War when twoAllied designs, the T-34 and the M4 Sherman, although both simple designs which accepted engineeringcompromises, were used successfully against more sophisticated designs by Germany that were morecomplex 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, engineeringsimplicity has become the primary constraint on tank design since the Second World War despite advancesin mechanical, electrical and electronics technologies.

Since the Second World War, tank development has incorporated experimenting with significant mechanicalchanges to the tank design while focusing on technological advances in the tank's many subsystems toimprove its performance. However, a number of novel designs have appeared throughout this period withmixed success, including the Soviet IT-1 and T-64 in firepower, and the Israeli Merkava and Swedish S-tankin protection, while for decades the USA's M551 remained the only light tank deployable by parachute.

Command, control and communications


15 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

German Army Leopard 2A6M

incorporates networked

battlefield technology

Merkava Mark 4 main battle

tank is equipped with a digital

C4IS battle-management

system.

Commanding and coordinating tanks in the field has always been subject toparticular problems, particularly in the area of communications, but inmodern armies these problems have been partially alleviated by networked,integrated systems that enable communications and contribute to enhancedsituational awareness.

Early

Armoured bulkheads, engine noise, intervening terrain, dust and smoke,and the need to operate "buttoned up" are severe detriments tocommunication and lead to a sense of isolation for small tank units,individual vehicles, and tank crewmen. Radios were not then portable orrobust enough to be mounted in a tank, although Morse Code transmitters were installed in some Mark IVsat Cambrai as messaging vehicles.[63] Attaching a field telephone to the rear would became a practice onlyduring 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] andcommunications between vehicles was accomplished using hand signals, handheld semaphore flags whichcontinued in use in the Red Army/Soviet Army through the Second and Cold wars, or by foot or horsemounted messengers.[65]

Modern

On the modern battlefield an intercom mounted in the crew helmetprovides internal communications and a link to the radio network, and onsome tanks an external intercom on the rear of the tank providescommunication with co-operating infantry. Radio networks employ radiovoice procedure to minimize confusion and "chatter".

A recent development in AFV equipment and doctrine is integration ofinformation from the fire control system, laser rangefinder, GlobalPositioning System and terrain information via hardened militaryspecification electronics and a battlefield network to display information onenemy targets and friendly units on a monitor in the tank. The sensor datacan be sourced from nearby tanks, planes, UAVs or, in the future infantry(such as the US Future Force Warrior project). This improves the tankcommander's situational awareness and ability to navigate the battlefieldand select and engage targets. In addition to easing the reporting burden by automatically logging all ordersand 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

The word tank was first applied to the British "landships" in 1915, before they entered service, to keep theirnature secret. Several explanations of the precise origin of the term have been suggested, including:

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]

1.

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.[66]2.


16 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

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.[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.)

3.

On December 24, 1915, a meeting took place of the Inter-Departmental Conference (includingrepresentatives 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 thatat that meeting "Mr. (Thomas J.) Macnamara (M.P., and Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to theAdmiralty) 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 thevessel as a "Water Carrier." In Government offices, committees and departments are always known by theirinitials. For this reason I, as Secretary, considered the proposed title totally unsuitable.* In our search for asynonymous 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."[68]

(* The initials W.C. are a British abbreviation for a water closet; in other words, a toilet. Unfortunately, laterin 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.)[69]

Colonel Ernest Swinton, who was secretary to the meeting, says that he was instructed to find anon-committal word when writing his report of the proceedings. He later discussed it with a Lt-Col W. DallyJones, 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." [70] Swinton's Notes on the Employment of Tanks, in which heuses the word throughout, was published in January 1916.

In July 1918, Popular Science Monthly reported, "Because a fellow of the Royal Historical Society hasunintentionally misled the British public as to the origin of the famous "tanks," Sir William Tritton, whodesigned and built them, has published the real story of their name ... Since it was obviously inadvisable toherald "Little Willie's" reason for existence to the world he was known as the "Instructional DemonstrationUnit." "Little Willie's" hull was called in the shop orders a "water carrier for Mesopotamia;" no one knewthat 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 armyvocabulary and will probably be so known in history for all time."[71]

D'Eyncourt's account differs from Swinton's and Tritton's: " . . . when the future arrangements were underdiscussion for transporting the first landships to France a question arose as to how, from a security point ofview, the consignment should be labelled. To justify their size we decided to call them 'water-carriers forRussia' - the idea being that they should be taken for some new method of taking water to forward troops inthe battle areas. Lt.-Col. Swinton . . . raised a humorous objection to this, remarking that the War Officepundits 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."[72] Thisappears to be an imperfect recollection. He says that the name problem arose "when we shipped the first twovehicles to France the following year" (August, 1916), but by that time the name "tank" had been in use foreight months. The tanks were labelled "With Care to Petrograd," but the belief was encouraged that theywere a type of snowplough.


17 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

In saying that the word tank was adopted worldwide, Stern was wrong. In France, the second country to usetanks in battle, the word tank or tanque was adopted initially, but was then, largely at the insistence ofColonel 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[73][74] and to their own asKampfwagen.[75] Later, tanks became referred to as "Panzer" (lit. "armour"), a shortened form of the fullterm "Panzerkampfwagen", literally "armoured fighting vehicle". In the Arab world, tanks are calledDabbba (after a type of siege engine). In Italian, a tank is a "carro armato" (lit. "armed wagon"), withoutreference 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 verbczoga si ("to crawl"), is used, depicting the way of machine's movement and its speed. In Japanese, theterm sensha (, lit. "battle vehicle") is taken from Chinese and used, and this term is likewise borrowedinto 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

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

^ von Senger and Etterlin (1960), The World's Armored Fighting Vehicles, p.9.1.

^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-251098792.

^ Coox (1985), p. 579, 590, 6633.

^ a b House (1984), Toward Combined Arms Warfare:A Survey of 20th Century Tactics, Doctrine, and

Organization

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."

5.

^ Wells, H.G. (1916), "V. Tanks", War and the Future (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1804/1804-h/1804-

h.htm#2H_4_0011), p. 1

6.

^ Harris, J.P. Men, Ideas, and Tanks. Manchester University Press, 1995. P387.

^ Gannon, Charles E. Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Liverpool University Press, 2003. P678.

^ Edgeworth, R. & E. Memoirs of Richard Lovell Edgeworth, 1820, pp 164-69.

^ The Devil's Chariots: The Birth and Secret Battles of the First Tanks John Glanfield (Sutton Publishing,

2001)

10.


18 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

^ Gunther Burstyn Angwetter, D.& E. (Verlag Der sterreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 2008)11.

^ "Australia To The Fore. Invention of the War Tank" (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/65020239).

Trove.nla.gov.au. 1920-02-12. Retrieved 2012-05-13.

12.

^ Russian tanks, 1900-1970 The Complete Illustrated History of Soviet Armoured Theory and Design John

Milsom (Stackpole Books, 1971)

13.

^ a b Churchill, p. 31614.

^ Churchill, p. 31715.

^ McMillan, N: Locomotive Apprentice at the North British Locomotive Company Ltd Glasgow Plateway Press

1992

16.

^ Glanfield, Devil's Chariots17.

^ Regan (1993), The Guinness Book of More Military Blunders, p. 1218.

^ Steven J. Zaloga, The Renault FT Light Tank, London 1988, p.319.

^ Willmott (2003), First World War, p. 22220.

^ " - 0008.htm" (http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut9801/RuTLe

/RuTLe008.htm) (in Russian). Vadimvswar.narod.ru. Retrieved 2012-05-13.

21.

^ a b Willmott (2003), First World War22.

^ a b c d Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk.23.

^ Time (1937), Chewed up24.

^ Manrique p. 311, 321, 32425.

^ Goldman p. 1926.

^ Coox p. 300, 318, 43727.

^ Coox 99828.

^ Coox p. 579, 590, 66329.

^ Cooper and Lucas (1979), Panzer: The Armored Force of the Third Reich, p. 930.

^ Forty (2004), p.251.31.

^ Stroud, Rick (2012). The Phantom Army of Alamein. Bloomsbury. p. 219.32.

^ Zaloga et al. (1997)33.

^ Stolfi, Hitler's Panzers East34.

^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, p 30735.

^ Cawthorne (2003), Steel Fist: Tank Warfare 1939 - 45, p. 21136.

^ Starry pp. 45, 79, 129, 143, 153, etc37.

^ T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93 By Steven J. Zaloga, Michael Jerchel, Stephen Sewell

(http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_jCD6i0iccC&pg=PA3&dq=t-72+tank+soviet&lr=&as_brr=3&

ei=WORMSq6gFYnmM7SFtTI&client=firefox-a). Books.google.com. 1993-09-30. Retrieved 2012-05-13.

38.

^ Steven Zaloga and Hugh Johnson (2004), T-54 and T-55 Main Battle Tanks 19442004, Osprey, 39-41, ISBN

1-84176-792-1, p. 43

39.

^ von Senger und Etterlin (1960), The World's Armoured Fighting Vehicles, pp. 61, 118, 18340.

^ Dougherty, Martin J.; McNab, Chris (2010), Combat Techniques: An Elite Forces Guide to Modern Infantry

Tactics, Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-312-36824-1

41.

^ USA Today (2005), Tank takes a beating in Iraq42.

^ a b USA Today (2005), Tanks adapted for urban fights they once avoided43.

^ Pengelley, Rupert, A new era in tank main armament, pp. 1521153144.

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

Moench Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh.

45.


19 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

^ 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.

46.

^ Wickert, Matthias, Electric Armor Against Shaped Charges, pp. 42642947.

^ Xiaopeng, Li, et al., Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor, pp. 46046248.

^ Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications, pp. 13214449.

^ McDonald, Colin F., Gas Turbine Recuperator Renaissance, pp. 1 - 3050.

^ 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

51.

^ BBC News (2006) Tough lessons for Israeli armour52.

^ "Defence chiefs knew 'invincible' tank armour could be breached" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages

/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450477&in_page_id=1770), Daily Mail, 24 April 2007

53.

^ Sean Rayment (2007-05-12). "MoD kept failure of best tank quiet" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews

/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html). Sunday Telegraph.

54.

^ Michael R. Gordon (2008-05-21). "Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far"

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21sadr.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). The

New York Times.

55.

^ "Nakidka" kit for protection against surveillance and precision-guided systems (http://web.archive.org

/web/20090707002753/http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/nobron_en.htm#7)(archive)

56.

^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, pp. 15457.

^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, p.18058.

^ John Pike. "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground

/m1-specs.htm). Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2009-06-09.

59.

^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, pp.234-25260.

^ Technology of Tanks, Richard M Ogorkiewicz, Jane's Information Group, 199161.

^ Journal of the United Service Institution of India, Volume 98 (http://books.google.com

/books?id=iZI8AQAAIAAJ&q=%22while+the+terrain+limits+the+unit+track+pressure%22&

dq=%22while+the+terrain+limits+the+unit+track+pressure%22), United Service Institution of India, 1968, p. 58,

retrieved 4 April 2011

62.

^ Macksey, K., Tank vs Tank, Grub Street, London, 1999, p. 3263.

^ Fletcher, D., British Mark I Tank 1916, Osprey, p. 1964.

^ 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."

65.

^ Barris (2007), Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 912, 1917, p.11666.

^ Gilbert (1991), Churchill: A Life, p.298.67.

^ Tanks 1914-1918; The Log Book of a Pioneer. Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p.3968.

^ 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.

69.

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

1933, p161

70.

^ Popular Science Monthly, July 1918, p7.71.

^ A Shipbuilder's Yarn; E.H.W.T. d'Eyncourt, Hutchinson & Co., 1948, p11372.

^ Die Tankschlacht bei Cambrai: Dr. Georg Strutz, pub 1929.73.

^ [1] (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/8666)74.


20 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

^ Die deutschen Kampfwagen im Weltkriege; Ernst Volckheim, 1937.75.

Bibliography

"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 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): 1215, JSTOR 1988528

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/1988528)

Col. Eshel, David (2007), Assessing the performance of Merkava Tanks (http://www.defense-update.com

/analysis/lebanon_war_3.htm), 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 (https://dx.doi.org

/10.1109%2FTMAG.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 (http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/resources/csi/House/House.asp), United States Government

Printing, OCLC 464265702 (https://www.worldcat.org/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 (http://www.usatoday.com

/news/world/2005-03-29-tank-inside_x.htm), USA Today, retrieved 2008-05-16

Komarow, Steven (2005-03-29), Tanks take a beating in Iraq (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world

/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm), USA Today, retrieved 2008-05-16


21 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

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 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1115%2F1.1287585)

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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east

/4794829.stm), 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 (https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2F0890-4332%2890%2990246-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 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1997/5fcs97.pdf) (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 0-8094-8609-1, ISBN 0-8094-8704-7

Chewed Up (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757549,00.html), Alexandria, Virginia: Time

magazine, 5 April 1937, retrieved 2008-05-16

Tomes, Robert R. (Spring 2004), "Relearning Counterinsurgency Warfare" (http://web.archive.org

/web/20080514095825/http://www.army.mil/prof_writing/volumes/volume2/march_2004/3_04_1.html),

Parameters (US Army War College), Vol. XXXIV, (No. 1,): 1628, archived from the original

(http://www.army.mil/prof_writing/volumes/volume2/march_2004/3_04_1.html) 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): 426429,

doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887650 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1109%2FTMAG.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 (https://dx.doi.org

/10.1109%2FTMAG.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


22 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

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 0-586-04302-0

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

External links

OnWar's Tanks of World War II (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm) Comprehensive

specifications and diagrams of World War II tanks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tank&oldid=649777999"

Categories: Tanks Armoured fighting vehicles by type English inventions Armoured warfare

Tracked armoured fighting vehicles

This page was last modified on 4 March 2015, at 02:51.Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms mayapply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registeredtrademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.


23 od 23 04/03/2015 18:25

Tank - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Documents

Transcript of Tank - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia