Wars and Conflicts permalink
the tank
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by King Hornet (U3595230) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
cuold someone please give me a short history of the tank
i know it started in WW1 but dont know any of the details,
Thanks, -
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
cuold someone please give me a short history of the tank
i know it started in WW1 but dont know any of the details,
ճ,
Tank, WW1, British. Somme. Badly used. Cambrai, well used. Mechanical breakdowns. Fuller, Lidell Hart, Hobart, De Gaulle, Guderian.
Somua, Charbee?, Panzer,
Just a brain dump.
Cheers AA. -
Message 3
Posted by King Hornet (U3595230) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
Cheers, KH
-
Message 4
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
It started out in the Chu dynasty when this lil Chinese guy wanted to bring his wee fishy into his hut.
-
Message 5
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
Charbee?
Presumably you mean the Renault Char B1 bis, originally French but after the Fall of France taken into German service for use in the Channel Islands, as well as various conversions (training tanks, flamethrower tanks etc). -
Message 6
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
cuold someone please give me a short history of the tank
i know it started in WW1 but dont know any of the details,
ճ,
Tank, WW1, British. Somme. Badly used. Cambrai, well used. Mechanical breakdowns. Fuller, Lidell Hart, Hobart, De Gaulle, Guderian.
Somua, Charbee?, Panzer,
Just a brain dump.
Cheers AA.
can u now give me a history of england LOL
st -
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
Easy Everybody conquered us, then we conquered everybody else. Then we joined the E E C and got stuffed by the French.
-
Message 8
Posted by King Hornet (U3595230) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
Easy Everybody conquered us, then we conquered everybody else. Then we joined the E E C and got stuffed by the French.
couldnt have put it better myself -
Message 9
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Easy Everybody conquered us, then we conquered everybody else. Then we joined the E E C and got stuffed by the French.
Thanx - can I quote u on that !!
ST -
Message 10
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
King Hornet,
First off apologies, we’re a suspicious paranoid lot here (well at least I am) and I’m afraid I must have misunderstood the first few posts you made.
Anyway, in answer to your question it would help if you were a little more specific. To cover 90 years of tank development in one post would tax peoples interest.
Anyway, more detail WW1. Armoured cars existed prior to WW1, armed with machine guns, they were used in WW1 in 1914 by the RNAS to protect their airfields during the brief (in terms of the length of the war) manoeuvre phase of the Western front.
It was a Lt Col. E.D. Swinton who as an official observer in September 1914 saw that the war was going to stagnate into a type of siege warfare. The traditional method to bring a siege to an end is a form of siege engine. In a flash of brilliance he saw that the agricultural caterpillar tractor could provide the locomotion for an armoured, gunned siege engine to support the infantry.
He brought his ideas back to London and on 25th December Maurice Hankey (Secretary of the Committee for Imperial Defence wrote a paper advocating the development of such a machine.
The War Office did buy and test a number of tractors but the matter may have rested there except for the support of the First Sea Lord, one Winston Churchill. (No doubt inspired by H G Wells “The Land Ironclads”.) Unlike a lot of Churchill’s enthusiasms this one had some merit and by June 1915 a joint army – navy body had been set up. Foster’s of Lincoln were the engineering firm chosen to build the worlds first purpose designed tank “Little Willie”, which underwent trials on the 19th September 1915. During trials it was noted there was a severe design flaw. When crossing trenches Little Willie consistently threw a track.
Fortunately a sister machine called the “Wilson” after its designer Major W G Wilson, then the “Centipede” and finally “Big Willie” was under development at the same time, having the classic rhomboid shape associated with British WW1 tanks. At Big Willies trials on 29th January 1916 it proved more reliable and robust. Further demonstrations brought round the politicians and generals and on 11th February the War Office agreed to the construction of 100 models, later increased to 150.
(Oh and if you think British WW1 tanks look odd, check out the German competition, the A7V. )
Cheers AA.
P.S. The word tank was introduced as a cover during the prototype builds and was apparently chosen by Swinton. -
Message 11
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
Of course you can quote me. I should have used those words many years ago while doing my history exam. I would have earned a first. LOL
-
Message 12
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
At Big Willies trials on 29th January 1916 it proved more reliable and robust.
Hur hur hur...
P.S. The word tank was introduced as a cover during the prototype builds and was apparently chosen by Swinton.
I was led to believe that the name came about because they were shipped over to France in crates labelled as water tanks? -
Message 13
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
<quote user='Sabre-Wulf ' userid='2142937'>
Hur hur hur... </quote>
Have I said something funny? I just knew I was going to get into trouble no matter how I phrased it. </quote>
<quote>I was led to believe that the name came about because they were shipped over to France in crates labelled as water tanks?</quote>
Possibly, but I think "tank" was coined even earlier during the development.
Cheers AA. -
Message 14
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
Sorry AA, saw the words "Big Willie" and reverted to my Viz reading days.
Apologies for lowering the tone of the board.
-
Message 15
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
Nothing wrong with a bit of tone lowering now and again. Or is tone lowering a euphenism for something else in the Profanasaurus?
Going to check, AA. -
Message 16
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
And you were of course correct about the name tank (or at least Wiki agrees with you). The workers who were constructing them were told they were "mobile/tracked water tanks" as a cover story. Presumably the guns were some form of pipe/funnel system?
Sorry I doubted you. -
Message 17
Posted by jimaitch (U1894942) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
the guns (which were in pods bolted to the side of the tank body) would have been added later, so that the tank hulls were narrow enough to be carried by train (I think)
-
Message 18
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Thursday, 4th May 2006
jimaitch,
Yes, I suspect (though I don't know for certain) the guns wouldn't have been put in by Fosters.
Cheers AA. -
Message 19
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 5th May 2006
DL,
JAVELIN ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE. Can you believe this.
Matt. -
Message 20
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 5th May 2006
It has two warheads, one for the tank armor and another for the tank. 8000F temps inside.
Lock on to target, shoot, move. The rest is fully automatic.
Matt. -
Message 21
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 5th May 2006
It has two warheads, one for the tank armor and another for the tank. 8000F temps inside.
Lock on to target, shoot, move. The rest is fully automatic.
Matt.
BS
Watch this - impressive
ST -
Message 22
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 5th May 2006
BS
Watch this - impressive
ST
Unreal, absolutely unreal. Now ask, what is the future of armor. Bear in mind. This is a shoulder-fired weapon. Unreal. -
Message 23
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 5th May 2006
The question should be after watching this was. "O K, who stole the tank????? LOL. As you say, frightening, but does not the British Choppam armour stop that. I remember watching a programe the other week, and an old tanker saying that when you tank was hit, you had less than 12 seconds to get out. In real life, the crew of that one would have never had cleared it.
-
Message 24
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 5th May 2006
The question should be after watching this was. "O K, who stole the tank????? LOL. As you say, frightening, but does not the British Choppam armour stop that. I remember watching a programe the other week, and an old tanker saying that when you tank was hit, you had less than 12 seconds to get out. In real life, the crew of that one would have never had cleared it.
Actually if you look carefully the Chobham armour IS undamaged - unfortunately its 2 miles away from the rest of the tank :O) -
Message 25
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 5th May 2006
The question should be after watching this was. "O K, who stole the tank????? LOL. As you say, frightening, but does not the British Choppam armour stop that. I remember watching a programe the other week, and an old tanker saying that when you tank was hit, you had less than 12 seconds to get out. In real life, the crew of that one would have never had cleared it.
Hi Grumpy,
That is why it has two warheads, one for the armour and one for the tank. The first one actually explodes the tanks armor, the second kills the tank. DL could help us here but I think the way modern tank armor works is, it explodes when hit and destroys the warhead?
I cant believe that missile. No wires, just fire and the missile does the rest. It has a soft launch to avoid being detected by heat. Anyway its shoot and scoot.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 26
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Makes me glad the uniform I wore was Air Force Blue. You know, that of all the services, only the air force knows how to fight a war. We send our officers and senior N. C. O.s(Who are better paid than us) off to war, while we lower ranks stay home. Much better system
-
Message 27
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 5th May 2006
The question should be after watching this was. "O K, who stole the tank????? LOL. As you say, frightening, but does not the British Choppam armour stop that. I remember watching a programe the other week, and an old tanker saying that when you tank was hit, you had less than 12 seconds to get out. In real life, the crew of that one would have never had cleared it.
Hi Grumpy,
That is why it has two warheads, one for the armour and one for the tank. The first one actually explodes the tanks armor, the second kills the tank. DL could help us here but I think the way modern tank armor works is, it explodes when hit and destroys the warhead?
I cant believe that missile. No wires, just fire and the missile does the rest. It has a soft launch to avoid being detected by heat. Anyway its shoot and scoot.
Cheers, Matt.
AND according to the info site u posted - a 30s first fire period and a 20sec reload rate - so if u are facing an armoured division and u have a few lads with javelins - your divisional time in combat would be about 20 mins
after looking at that video it doesnt matter what armour you have as it is a LOOOOONG way from the tank
ST -
Message 28
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 5th May 2006
sorry - i meant it would end up a long way from the tank
-
Message 29
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Impressive stuff, I want one. No I want loads of them.
Anyway, what I wanted to ask was about naming of Tanks. The USA names tanks after Generals. So why no Eisenhower tank? I thought it may have been because he was also a President, but then there was the Lee-Grant.
Any ideas why no Eisenhower tank?
Cheers AA. (Looking forward to the Schwarzkopf). -
Message 30
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 8th May 2006
Ouch!
Glad to be an EX-tankie! Things have obviously gone downhill since my day, I remember (pulls out pipe and slippers) when everything the enemy chucked out you just made a nice rattling noise as it bounced off the Chobham armour, much more comfortable!! Seems a little bit unfair for people to have nasty missiles that will put holes in it! Might mess up the paintwork somewhat!
It has two warheads, one for the tank armor and another for the tank. 8000F temps inside.
Lock on to target, shoot, move. The rest is fully automatic.
Matt.
BS
Watch this - impressive
ST -
Message 31
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 8th May 2006
The question should be after watching this was. "O K, who stole the tank????? LOL. As you say, frightening, but does not the British Choppam armour stop that. I remember watching a programe the other week, and an old tanker saying that when you tank was hit, you had less than 12 seconds to get out. In real life, the crew of that one would have never had cleared it.
Hi Grumpy,
That is why it has two warheads, one for the armour and one for the tank. The first one actually explodes the tanks armor, the second kills the tank. DL could help us here but I think the way modern tank armor works is, it explodes when hit and destroys the warhead?
I cant believe that missile. No wires, just fire and the missile does the rest. It has a soft launch to avoid being detected by heat. Anyway its shoot and scoot.
Cheers, Matt.
AND according to the info site u posted - a 30s first fire period and a 20sec reload rate - so if u are facing an armoured division and u have a few lads with javelins - your divisional time in combat would be about 20 mins
after looking at that video it doesnt matter what armour you have as it is a LOOOOONG way from the tank
ST
Not really too sure on how armour works, but what you're talking about is "reactive" armour (as in it responds when hit). I don't think anyone has that capability, If they do, then it's a closely guarded secret! Chobham (the British invention used as armour on the Challenger (1 and 2), the Warrior IFV and the US M1 Abrams) IS a closely guarded secret so could be? Doubt it though, I've been in vehicles armoured with Chobham which were hit by Russian made RPGs, and there were no signs of exploding armour on the thing afterwards, just a lot of burnt paint, no real damage, so I'd doubt it is reactive. We always thought it was just composite ceramic, titanium and plastics, like a laminate type material.
Interesting to see how the double warhead system works, but couldn't find anything detailed. I'd think probably a combination of sabot round and HESH (High explosive squash head). For those not aware of such things, the sabot is an inert metal dart which is exposed after firing (usually DU nowasays). Nicknamed the "Silver Bullet" by tank crews as its fins burn as it flies through the air, giving a tracer effect. A could kinetic energy round, excellent for piercing armour. The HESH round is more of a crew killer, it is similar in effect to the old "shaped charge" that the Germans invented for knocking out Eben Emael. It basically explodes on the surface, and the heat and shock causes "spalling". Spalling is when flakes and fragments of metal are blown off the inside of the tank by the force of the explosion. Basically you get lumps of very hot, sometimes even molten metal flying about the inside of the hull at ridiculously high speed. It doesn't do that much damage to the vehicle, but chops the crew to pieces and causes fires. The two combined, maybe the HESH warhead hitting just after the sabot penetrator, well, I'd say they'd go through anything.
So, the idea of a few lads with these things holding up a tank division is feasible! However, they are just a few lads, so if you had good recon (UAVs) and good air cover (Apaches, and lots of em!), then you could destroy them easily enough. However, in terrorist hands, what a weapon! You just pop up, blow the tank, then disappear. I'd always thought the tank would become obsolete due to air power and precision guided weapons, but this is just another nail in the coffin. Shame, as they're such fun things! -
Message 32
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
Chobam armour doesnt explode to disrupt the warhead. The israili's did develop a reactive armour which was fitted to tanks that didnt benifit from Chobham plate that looks like loads of tiny little boxes bolted onto the outside of the tank. That did explode and disrupted the shaped charge effect ofthe missile enough to prevent it penetrating the standard hull armour underneath.
During world war two the Germans accomplished the same thing by fitting a second skin of mild steel held far enough away from the hull that the charge dissapated before cutting through the hull.
Hence all the plates hanging off the pzkwIV. -
Message 33
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
Afternoon Mr Darkplace,
There was a lot of that "bolting on" stuff going on with the Germans, I think the most common recipient was the Panzer IV. You usually see photos of them with bolted on armoured skirting to protect the road wheels, and also they were fond of welding bits of broken track on to the glacis and turret to add a bit more protection. Don't know how effective it was, but every one who has ever done a track-bash will tell you that track segments are very heavy, sturdy bits of metal, so they probably had some benefit. -
Message 34
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
posted by backtothedarkplace,
Chobam armour doesnt explode to disrupt the warhead.
Hiya dark,
Tell us how it works.
Thanks, Matt. -
Message 35
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
The core armor is a variation on the British Chobham armor -- an arrangement of metal plates, ceramic blocks and open space. HEAT and Sabot rounds may make it through the outer layer of the armor, but they won't make it all the way into the crew compartment. The ceramic material can absorb a lot of heat, as well as heavy physical blows. The rest of the hot gases or metal pieces spread out in the empty air pockets.
Updated M1 tanks have extra layers of steel and depleted uranium that supplement the Chobham-style armor. -
Message 36
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
Is surounding yourself with Depleated Ur. safe????
Fred -
Message 37
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
Message posted by GrumpyFred
Is surounding yourself with Depleated Ur. safe????
Fred
Dunno, It sure beats waltzing with a hellfire missile.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 38
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
True, but people are lining up to sue the U S and U K gov. for the effects of U R shells, so in a few years time will tank crews be doing the same.
Fred -
Message 39
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
Fred, I don't even know what depleted uranium is for sure. I do know it has many uses. It doesn't sound very healthy. Uranium is a strange substance. I'm not even sure if D/U would register on a geiger counter.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 40
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
We have people from Iraq saying that they have suffered from Rad. sickness caused by all the D. U. shells fired by us and the U S during the war.
-
Message 41
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
Yes, I know that but I don’t understand it. I recall something about a Polish? CBR team getting readings of nerve agents. I'm not sure what conclusions they came to with that. Our Vietnam vets were ridiculed when Agent Orange was the common denominator with many illnesses. So who knows.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 42
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Matt,
I already posted what I think of Chobham, what it is actually made from is something they certainly don't tell Army NCOs!! It works, and that's good enough for me!
Are we drifting into the whole DU/Gulf War syndrome debate here? Personally I'm not convinced. My own health has been unaffected by any exposure to DU, and considering I was present throughout the ground war, and at the Basra Road after the ceasefire, where the A10s had chopped up the retreating Iraqis, I must have been exposed to a considerable amount of DU.
Personally I think the illnesses experienced after the war were due to low-level exposure to chemical weapons. We KNOW Iraq had them, and if they had them they deployed them, and if they deployed them, then we dropped bombs on them. A lot of veterans seem to have suffered chromosome damage, nerve damage and the like. I personally think that it was due to leaked nerve agent. Anyone who was out there will tell tales of the Gas detection equipment we had going off from time to time for apparently "no reason". Strangely enough this started a few hours after the air campaign began. Coincidence? Or maybe the bombs blew a load of chemical weapons up (say artillery shells maybe), and the cloud of vapour, though not concentrated enough to deliver a dose large enough to kill or incapacitate, or even show symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, but minute doses can cause nerve damage over time, and the chemicals are so toxic they will cause chromosome damage.
Anyhow, getting off topic. If I were going into battle, I'd want the strongest possible armour around me, and if DU makes the best armour, then I'd like a few inches of that please! -
Message 43
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Not drifting into G W S. But more of what can I get legal aid from the brit. Government to sue the same government for shooting at me with nasty weapons when we were at war. But that is a whole new ball game. Today we have a Health tourist being granted legal aid because a health athority will not put her at the top of the heart transplant list Perhaps we should grant her the aid to take action against her own country were she isn't even on the transplant list
Strange world -
Message 44
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
That's a good reason to be grumpy, Fred.
The whole compensation culture thing really does make me sick if I'm honest. All these adverts for "I was walking along, and I slipped over a piece of gravel, so I sued the council for £10000" people. They really do make me want to puke! If you're walking along and you fall over, or you fell of the "wrong sort of ladder", then you should have been more careful then shouldn't you! MUPPETS!!! Wrong sort of ladder my a**e! Then we all complain that our council tax is going up, and our insurance premiums go up every year! This is why!!! Because some muppet fell off a ladder and a smart a**e solicitor convinced a judge that it wasn't his fault, it was someone elses! Pathetic! The "No win no fee" brigade should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes! Parasites, the lot of em!
Rant over.
Cheers -
Message 45
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
No no no. Let us get back to the theme. they can try out the armour on new tanks.
Fred -
Message 46
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Hi DL,
When a person sues against the county or in your case it would be local government I guess, what they forget is that they are in fact suing their own community. If bad or flawed workmanship puts someone in a wheelchair or knocks them off work for a few months, then I have no beef. But what happened to accountability? The person, supervisor, and/or product that was responsible for the damage.
Bear in mind the big companies that put out faulty products, or the Dr. that kills or maims a patient through negligence, has insurance with teams of full time lawyers on staff to fight for them. Their sole purpose in life is to screw the dead patients kids or disabled victim out of every penny they can. If a law firm takes on a case and works it for six months and loses, guess what? That is their tough luck. Over here it takes seven years of university education to become qualified to even sit the exams to become a lawyer. Not to mention all the pro bono a private law firm is expected to do.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 47
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Hi Matt,
My rant (and I am in a ranting mood today!) was aimed against those who see compensation in every little mishap (such as the TV ad in the UK where the man falls off "the wrong kind of ladder"-seriously, that is on an ad over here!) and where the "victim" just seems to have shown no personal common sense or initiative! That's what I'm moaning about! Not cases of medical negligence or even people hit by drunk drivers, that is a totally different case. I'm talking about things where you have a serious inkling that the "victim" knew full well what they were doing and was purely out to get some money.
We've had many instances in the UK where people will literally have a car full of people, and they then slam on their brakes in the hope that the car behind will hit them, and hey presto, they all claim for "injuries". The most well documented case here was a very big injuries claim company (who have now been closed down) who were in the news for representing 45 people in a road accident involving a bus which was hit by a truck. They put forward 45 claims for personal injury, then the police revealed that there had only been 21 people (including the driver) on the bus!!!! That's what I'm talking about!! -
Message 48
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
There is an old joke in Liverpool about the bus ruinning empty back to depot being involved in a prang. By the time the police arrived, there was 40 people suffering from whip lash.
Fred -
Message 49
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Hi Matt, sorry its taken so long to get back to you Ive no PC at home so Im having to sneak time at work to reply.
As I understand it theres a combination of factors involved. Chobham plate's made up of a series of layers a thick outer plate and "several" i cant find exactly how many other layers of various metals and ceramics.
The Thick outer plate takes care of the APDS, and the like. Missiles use a hollow charge effect were the explosive is focused onto an area of the armour about the size of a coin. The result is that the hole in the hull is cut in a fashion similar to welding but in micro seconds. The blast then blows a jet of molten metal arround the fighting compartment. This is not good.
In Chobham plate the ceramic absorbs the heat so fast that it cant generate the temprature needed to cut through the hull. Its the same sort of stuff used on the space shuttle.
HOpe this answers your query. -
Message 50
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Mr Darkplace,
I really hope that it isn't the same stuff they use on the space shuttle! We saw what happened to that when it got hit by a bit of ice!!!!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.