Talk:Tanks in World War I

Good move

Pulling this out into a new article was a good move, Wisse. Tank and tank history have needed to be trimmed down. What would you think of a gallery of tank pictures at the bottom of the article? —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 16:58 Z

I started making a sample gallery, but it would take up way too much space in the article. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 17:51 Z

Photos

I rearranged a lot of the photos on this page because of poor formatting. Should be better now. Darthveda (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikify Tag

I removed the {{wikify}} tag. I feel the article no longer needs to be wikified, however could probably still use some cleanup. If you disagree feel free to re-add the tag or drop me a message. Bvlax2005 (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claim about tanks destroyed at Amiens

In the last section of the article, it is claimed:

By 1918, the Germans had learned to deal with tanks. At the Battle of Amiens (1918)72% of the Allied Tank Corps was destroyed in the first 4 days. 41.4% of all British tanks had been destroyed by the 64th day. On November 5th, there were only 8 tanks left in the British tank corps.[3]

Reference 3 resolves to "Blitzkrieg, pages 109-10", but Blitzkrieg does not receive a proper book reference on the page.

I am highly dubious of this claim. According to Battle of Amiens (1918), only about 532 tanks took part in the battle. By this time, the British had about 150 Mk I, 200 Whippets, and were well on their way to finishing the main order of over 1,000 Mk IV. So 532 tanks means only about 1/3 of the Tank Corps participated in the battle, making 72% destruction impossible. Secondly, the main component of the fighting at this battle only lasted 3 days, with some subsequent smaller actions up to the 27th August (19 days), so talk of how many tanks were destroyed by the 64th day is rather mysterious.

Additionally, while many sources agree that only a handful of the original ~500 tanks were still fighting at the end of the battle, I don't find other sources claiming that this is because they were all destroyed. Tanks were still mechanically unreliable vehicles and usually a substantial fraction broke down during the advance -- and this battle was the longest unaided advance the tanks had made so far to date. Very probably many of the ~520 hors de combat tanks were easily repairable and would soon be back in action. Lt. Arnold's report of the epic action of Musical Box in this battle makes it clear that many tanks got ditched: the reason he attacked so aggressively was that his tank was the only one out of 4 sections of Whippets still running, but none of the rest were hit, they were just bogged.

Arnold's report also puts the lie to the claim that "Germans had learned to deal with tanks". Cut off behind German lines, his tank was totally surrounded by several battalions of infantry and at least two artillery batteries, who attacked with every weapon at hand. Yet he ran amok for 9 hours, destroying an artillery battery, an observation balloon and its support equipment, a battalion cantonment, several vehicles and horses, and killing scores of men before being knocked out. Even then, it was a bit of a lucky hit for the Germans. Musical Box carried spare petrol cans on the outside of the tank, and they drove around for quite a while with these punctured and burning, and some of the burning petrol running down the inside of the door, so they were forced to wear their gas-masks to overcome the fumes. Eventually they were directly hit by a shell. This failed to seriously damage Musical Box -- no-one inside was wounded by the shell -- but it blew more burning fuel inside the tank and forced them to abandon it. -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just been skimming through Band of Brigands for relevant info on this. It says the Tank Corps committed all its "available" strength. After four days this was down 75% to "all causes", by the 10th, "the numbers engaged had dropped by four-fifths" and that oeprations were 75% unsuccessful. It also refers to the offical history. contemporary research is ascribed to the statemtn that "Only 120 were knocked out by enemy action". Other tanks were available but not effective because of minor breakdowns or crew exhaustion. Also that from the 8th to the Armistice 800 tanks were salvaged and brought back into action. There is another bit in the text on crew performance - in easy conditions they could manage 8 hours, in hard ones much less, and that in some cases it took 36 hours recuperation for the crew to be back in action. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Band of Brigands" wouldn't be my first port of call for accurate information. Mr. Campbell states confidently that "FT" stands for "Faible Tonnage."

Tanks available at Amiens: Mk V - 288; Mk V* - 72; Whippet - 96; Total fighting tanks - 456, less 36 kept in general reserve = 420 deployed. Add: Gun Carriers - 22; Supply Tanks - 96.

It is difficult to calculate losses with any great precision. Some tanks were disabled, some broke down, some were recovered completely, some destroyed completely. Some were repaired with parts from both failed and disabled vehicles, and some might have failed or been hit after being put back into service. However, Major-General N.W. Duncan offers the following figures for fighting tanks available and casualties from hostile guns: August 8th - 420/120; August 9th - 145/40; August 10th - 67/30; August 11th attack halted.

Hengistmate (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Peugeot Tank

I have amended the claim that the Peugeot Tank "lost out to the Renault FT". The prototype wasn't trialled until April 1918, a year after the Renault, by which time the Army had taken delivery of its first FTs.Hengistmate (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Cambrai Section

The Battle of Cambrai was planned by General Sir Julian Byng, incorporating proposals by Brigadier General Hugh Tudor (Royal Artillery) and an adapted version of an earlier plan by Fuller.

The Americans used Renaults, but did not produce any. They made only a few of the M1917, an almost identical copy of the Renault, and none reached the Front before the War ended.

Hengistmate (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bewildered Subordinates?

Churchill set up the Landships Committee "against the objections of his bewildered subordinates." Tanks_in_World_War_I#The_Landships_Committee I don't understand this. Who were the bewildered subordinates? What were their objections? Is there any verification?

Hengistmate (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda?

The photograph now described as "A German photograph showing a British tank destroying a tree" is a still from a film of a captured British tank being trialled by German troops. Whether it can be described as propaganda is an interesting question. The word is defined on Wikipedia as "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position", and other definitions are along the same lines. The word now tends to have pejorative connotations, but that was not necessarily always the case. It simply meant "propagation of the faith". The German attitude towards tanks was complicated - they were sometimes derided as virtually useless, sometimes prized when captured or used against the Allies, in each case to boost morale. It could be argued that this film was propaganda in that it sought to maintain or propagate belief in the prowess and superiority of the German Army, amongst the population at large and/or the Army itself. Without knowing the intentions of the people involved we cannot be absolutely sure of the film's purpose, but logic would suggest that it was intended to boost morale, and was therefore, arguably, "propaganda". Hengistmate (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Fire and 9 Bn., Norfolk Regiment.

The reference, More Military Blunders by Geoffrey Regan, says that the machine-gun fire (from Tank C22, commanded by Lt. Basil Henriques) killed "dozens of helpless men." The Official History says that C22 fired briefly on the Norfolks, but there is no record of any such losses in the War Diary of the 9th Norfolks, of the 71st Brigade, or of the 6th Division. Authoritative sources believe that the firing was brief and accidental, and that no losses were sustained. Hengistmate (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As a single instance in the fog of war, it sounds like inclusion would be disproportionate. If it had been illustrative of a common problem often repeated that would be different. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the reference to the Norfolks is already there, immediately after the bit you've, coincidentally, just been editing. I was trying to prevent people being directed to the less than scholarly work by Mr. Regan and believing the nonsense in it. That happens rather a lot with Wikipedia. In any event, the episode is so insignificant that its removal would be an improvement. I think I shall do that. Thank you for inspiring me. Hengistmate (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Footage of WWI tanks correction.

That clip comprises mostly footage of British tanks shot for a 1927 feature film called "The Somme". The opening title is from the same film. The brief footage of a Renault FT has been cut in. It might have been shot at Langres, where the American light tank training school was, but there's nothing to confirm that. The rest of the footage was shot on Salisbury Plain. I have tried to make the new caption as uncontentious as possible. Hengistmate (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit August 3rd, 2013.

Da Vinci's design was not a tank and was not the first attempt at a workable concept. There were workable concepts before it, and they worked. It was never built, and modern trials have shown that it didn't work. It didn't influence anyone any more than any other wheeled shelter did. I don't know why this machine is constantly given a significance it doesn't merit. The Boydell Wheel was not the forerunner of the caterpillar track. Diplock abandoned the Pedrail Wheel and designed the Chaintrack in 1911. http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/f/f8/Er19170921.pdf Also tidied up misplaced participle re Palmerston.Hengistmate (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits April 21st, 2014.

• At the time of his visit to Stockton, Swinton was a Brevet-Colonel. He didn't become Major-General until 1919.

• He could not have thanked Holt for helping to win the War, since the Allies were in headlong retreat and in danger of losing it.

• Hugh F. Marriott (not Merriot) was a Londoner.

• Scott-Moncrieff's committee was not called the Inventions Committee; Lloyd George formed the M.I.D. (Munitions Inventions Department) in 1917.

Hengistmate (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Tanks vs Trench Warfare

It's cited in History of the tank#Development that Trench warfare in WWI propelled the development of the tank:

1. The tank was originally designed as a special weapon to solve an unusual tactical situation: the stalemate of the trenches on the Western Front. "It was a weapon designed for one simple task: crossing the killing zone between trench lines and breaking into enemy (defences)."[2]
2. Numerous concepts of armoured all-terrain vehicles had been imagined for a long time. With the advent of trench warfare in World War I, the Allied French and British developments of the tank were largely parallel and coincided in time.[3]

This is not reflected in this article. I made a small edit to add this in the lede, but it was reverted.

It's true that trench warfare got worse from it's start in 1914, but even the beginnings of it were enough to shock military leaders to look for something to counter it. As noted in this article, the first tanks were designed to cross large trenches. If there are no other sources provided to counter noting trench warfare in the lede, I'll put it back.

I also welcome any suggestions on improving the wording.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you will put it back; past events strongly suggest that. Where do we start with this one?

First of all, you offer Wikipedia as a source, which is not permitted. So prolific an "editor" might be expected to know that.

Now, if I read things correctly, you previously brought us the news, almost a year ago, that the first use of tanks was "few" at the Third Battle of Ypres, in 1917. When, after a month or so, that was removed, on the grounds that it was comically incorrect, it was actually restored for a short time. Then it was corrected to show that the first tank action took place during the Battle of the Somme, an offensive that lasted 141 days, which is not exactly pinpointing it. It occurs to me that an interested reader might like something more specific, such as the date and the location, which the better-informed sources usually give as September 15th, 1916, at Flers-Courcelette. Even better, we then enjoyed a refinement of the number of tanks employed, from "few" to 32, one of several available estimates of the actual figure. As if to demonstrate the fact, the figure is later amended to 49. One gets the feeling that someone is making it up as they go along. A propos of which, in September 2016, Mr. Monroe takes the trouble to remove a reference to the sum of money awarded to Corporal Lancelot de Mole, saying that he was "not given a cash award." He was.

Anyway, the list of "Tank Milestones" remains, as imprecise and contested as any reference to Major General J.F.C. Fuller, with dubious claims and few citations, one of which is a reference to a book that takes as its premise the fact that Cambrai wasn't a tank battle at all. Astonishingly, this table actually has its defenders.

What is the point of the above? Well, I think it demonstrates that Mr. Monroe's contributions are not really Premier League material when it comes to constructing articles on this and related subjects. Bearing that in mind, let us consider his most recent contention, which is that "Although vehicles that incorporated the basic principles of the tank . . . had been projected in the decade or so before the War, it was the heavy casualties sustained in the first few months of hostilities that stimulated development." be replaced by "Although vehicles that incorporated the basic principles of the tank . . . had been projected in the decade or so before the War, it was the heavy casualties of its trench warfare that stimulated development." We'll come back to the grammar later.

One can produce sources to support anything on Wikipedia if one puts one's mind to it: for example; that Joseph Hawker invented the tank (it's generally acknowledged) or that Captain George S. Patton of the US Army was in charge of the offensive at Cambrai. And one can simply recycle the misapprehensions of other writers. The problem arises, of course, when the facts are presented.

So here are my supporting sources:

Open warfare took an even higher toll than the trench campaigning that succeeded it, and the 1914 casualty rates were proportionately among the worst in the war. The French army suffered 528,000 killed, wounded, and missing between August 1914 and January 1915, higher than during its murderous 1915 offensives or the 1916 battle of Verdun. Its total dead numbered 265,000. The Belgian army lost half its combat strength, and BEF losses to 30 November were 89,969. Of the British troops who landed in August, one third were dead. Only the Germans' losses were lower in 1914 than in the later years of the war, though they too suffered some 800,000 casualties (or close to half their field army), of which 116,000 were deaths and 85,000 of those deaths came on the Western Front. Stevenson, David, 2004. 1914-1918: The History of the First World War; Penguin; Chapter 2: The Failure of the War of Movement, Summer-Winter 1914.

1914 was the bloodiest year for the French Army with an average of 2,200 deaths per day. http://www.france-pub.com

The first battles were the bloodiest. Soldiers had no actual knowledge of what heavy guns and machine guns did; they did not anticipate their firepower. In addition, they had been trained for another kind of war, where victory would come from infantry charges, not from artillery shelling. They ran towards the enemy’s guns and machine guns in open fields, without sufficient precautions. The result was a massacre. During the four first months of the war, the French army lost 310,000 soldiers killed, much more than during the ten months of the battle of Verdun (160,000). https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net

Let's look at some of the things we must consider. French deaths were higher in 1915 than in 1914. But what is often overlooked is the simple matter that the war didn't start until August, so to give a true reflection of the lethality, the figure must be divided by 5, not 12 or 10. We find that French dead in 1914 numbered 60,000 per month. In 1915 it was 29,000 per month. In 1916, 20,000; in 1917, 14,000, and in 1918 (10 months, four of which were a return to a war of movement) 23,500. So the more trench warfare there was, the fewer dead. That's because the trenches were dug to protect the soldiers, which they did. Trench warfare very much mitigated the losses.

At this point, let us examine the claim that "the first tanks were designed to cross large trenches". I don't know what is meant by "large", but Little Willie, according to some "the first tank", could cross a trench of 4 feet, as it so happened. That was coincidence. On August 26th 1915, the War Office stipulated a trench-crossing ability of 5 feet. Trench warfare was by then a reality. By 1918 the German trenches were being widened to 12 feet and more, to stop tanks as well as to provide shelter for troops.

Swinton (who usually gets more credit than he deserves) says he had his "tank idea" in October 1914. Estienne seems to have begun putting his idea forward in December 1914. A colleague of Lancelot de Mole wrote to Kitchener, urging him to put de Mole's "travelling forts" before a committee of experts, in mid-September 1914. And so on. Men both military and civilian were thinking about armoured vehicles before trench warfare. It was the losses inflicted in open warfare by artillery, machine guns, and magazine rifles that prompted them. Trench warfare was barely a consideration, and certainly not the type of trench warfare that I suspect Mr. Monroe has in mind.

The opening paragraph as it is worded is an accurate reflection of events. To introduce the concept of trench warfare would tend to distort the understanding of it, especially since a powerful image of a very specific type of trench warfare exists in the public mind. That did not exist in the second half of 1914. Hengistmate (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

So is this "tank idea" (in this early period) a device for crossing trenches, or a device for cutting wire? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR.

Please, in a talk discussion, let's not start off by attacking editors. That undermines any argument one might make.

The Wikipedia entries above noting trench warfare and first tanks are cited. That disagrees with this article; one or the other is wrong. No cites are given that the first tanks deployed were not influenced by trench warfare; only ones that say it was. Are there sources to counter this? If we have sources (not opinions and SYNTH) showing that the Mk I was not designed to counter trenches, can we use those to fix the History article? If not, shouldn't we fix this one?

--A D Monroe III (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Without any sources found stating otherwise, I've reinstated trench warfare as WWI's motivation for stepping up tank development, per sources given, consistent with History of the tank#Development. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

tank development photos

Who can tell us what this found serie of unusual tanks is about?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyedot/sets/72157693350971724/ --Kyopy (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a collection of British "tanks" assembled at Dollis Hill in London, prior to their inclusion in the display at the original Imperial War Museum. Photo 1919 or 1920. See your flikr album for details.

Thanks for the Info of the Experimental Depot for Tanks at Dollis Hill--Kyopy (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It isnt an experimental depot. It's just where some vehicles were stored after the war while the War Museum was being organised. Some of them were indeed experimental models, but this was really just a car park. Some of these were scrapped when the museum moved to the Crystal Palace, because there wasn't enough room there.

An interesting new article on this topic adds some insights

In Canada's national news magazine

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-first-world-war-brought-the-end-of-cavalry-and-the-advent-of-the-tank/

REMEMBRANCE The First World War brought the end of cavalry and the advent of the tank The British invented the tank: an armoured vehicle that could roll over both wire and trenches. The problems, however, were many. by J.L. Granatstein Nov 6, 2018

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

With respect, Mr. Burian, I'm not sure what insights the article offers. The French, of course, also invented the tank at the same time as the Britsh, and attempts to carry a section of troops ended in failure. I can't see anything here that a reasonably well-informed person wouldn't know. Sorry. Hengistmate (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

problems

I have only just started going through this, and I already have noted some problems. It boldly brags about how France "built more tanka than all the other powers combined". Factually accurate, but totally ignoring the fact that this was because France was building tiny FT tanks, mostly because their heavy tanks were expensive and rubbish. It says that Germany failed to develop tanks except in response to the Allies, as if this was some negligence or failing on the part of the Entente, but gives no context whatsoever. Germany was on the defensive, it was the Allies who were pouring their men into assaults trying to break the German lines. That is what tanks were designed for. Germany was perfectly content to just hold their seized territory as negotiating material. What would Germany want or need tanks for? Even after they appeared, Germany obviously didn't bother much with developing them, except as a morale booster. What they needed was weapons for destroying tanks, not tanks of their own. Anti-tank guns are what you need to destroy tanks. And tanks were called what they were in an attempt to disguise them as tracked water carriers for bringing water to the front lines, rather than combat vehicles. I read these claims about how the factory workers "thought they looked like water tanks", but no one has explained to me what sort of water tanks are rhombiodal with tracks and engines and machine gun ports. As far as water tanks have any particular shape or appearance, British tanks don't look anything like them. They DO look vaguley like they could be tractors designed to carry heavy loads of water across rough terrain however.

64.222.160.104 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say these are tweaks to context already given in the article. I don't see "bragging" on behalf of rhe French. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't boldly bragging when I wrote that section in May, 2012. Why would I? - I'm British. But that point is worth making, since many Anglocentric accounts fail to mention French tank development at all.

You clearly feel there are flaws in the article, so why not edit it to reflect that, and we can see what other people think? I quite agree that the article's contact with historical fact is, shall we say, intermittent, but I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree in several instances. In particular, the origin of the name "tank" is not as you describe it. The actual events are widely and easily accessible, but I'll explain briefly. At a meeting of the (British) Inter-Departmental Conference on December 24, 1915, Lt-Col Ernest Swinton (the secretary of the meeting) was asked to devise a code name for the new weapon, for security purposes. In the evening, he and a fellow officer, Lt-Col Walter Dally Jones, decided on the term "tank." It was accepted as the official code name from then on. Swinton states that they considered words like "cistern" and "reservoir," without explaining why they chose this theme of things-that-contain-water as their starting point. It could be that they were influenced by the Director of Naval Construction and Chairman of the Landship Committee, Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, who regularly visited the factory in Lincoln where the prototypes were under construction. He observed that the workers building the first prototype, which was later named Little Willie, were in the habit of referring to the hull as "the tank," because it did look like a water tank. Then again, Swinton first visited Foster's on September 19th, and he might have picked it up then. What's important is that the track assembly was a separate matter; the running gear of what would become Little Willie was known as "the Instructional Demonstration Unit." The workers building the hull didn't know it was to have holes drilled in it and to be mounted on caterpillar tracks - they just considered it a steel box, and thus took to calling it "tank" for short. In fact, d'Eyncourt seems to have suggested as early as November 4th, 1915 the use of "Water Carrier" as an alternative to "Landship" or "Machine Gun Destroyer." The use of the word in the factory was "not discouraged."

Certainly, the second prototype, Mother, looks less like a simple water tank and more like a tractor of some kind, but you would have to take that up with Swinton and Jones. The fact remains that that's the name they chose. I'm not really sure what your argument is, but if you disagree with the conclusions in the article, you are welcome to state the view you prefer. Now you have had it explained to you.

The Germans weren't on the defensive between March and July 1918. Quite the contrary; they were advancing at a considerable rate on several fronts, and using A7Vs and captured Mark IVs. After July, the tide had undeniably turned, but the Germans continued to support counter-attacks with tanks; captured Mark IVs were used as late as early November, 1918. And if the Germans didn't need or want tanks, why did they propose to build 4,000 LK II tanks in 1918 and 1919?

Your point about anti-tank measures is perfectly correct, but it doesn't negate the fact that Germany required, designed, constructed, and deployed tanks.

You might find these useful:

https://landships.activeboard.com/t64686224/the-most-exciting-phrase-in-science-is-not-eureka-but-thats-/?page=1

https://landships.activeboard.com/t64704696/how-the-tank-got-its-name/

Hengistmate (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)