Baptism of fire, fear and blood
September 15, 2016 4:58 AM Subscribe
"Rushed into battle by desperate generals with barely any testing, its debut was a messy experiment with questionable results. A select group of young men were the first to feel its terrible influence and have their lives changed by it." The Tank (Specifically, the British Mark I) made its battlefield debut 100 years ago this month.
Tanks for the memories... Remember to "Treat'Em Rough"
posted by mfoight at 5:17 AM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mfoight at 5:17 AM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
surely not comparable overall to the influence of combat aircraft in general and the bomber in particular I would have thought?
The rapidity of technical advancement in aircraft engine design and aeronautics in the first World War is astonishing, and not replicated in any field until the introduction of the microcomputer in the late '70s. Tanks were of dubious value until the French fielded the Renault FT in large numbers, and once they hit upon a design that worked, they stuck with it rather than roll out an all-new revolutionary design once every few months like the aircraft designers did.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:12 AM on September 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
The rapidity of technical advancement in aircraft engine design and aeronautics in the first World War is astonishing, and not replicated in any field until the introduction of the microcomputer in the late '70s. Tanks were of dubious value until the French fielded the Renault FT in large numbers, and once they hit upon a design that worked, they stuck with it rather than roll out an all-new revolutionary design once every few months like the aircraft designers did.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:12 AM on September 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
...lesser again in the Middle East...
Not really all that little, quite decisive actually.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 6:21 AM on September 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not really all that little, quite decisive actually.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 6:21 AM on September 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Somewhere in the depths of the 1964 BBC documentary series The Great War there was an interview with an extremely annoyed communications guy explaining how, as the first tanks advanced, they would catch in their treads, tear up, and drag behind them the great network of telegraph and telephone lines that the communications teams had so carefully laid out everywhere.
posted by XMLicious at 7:49 AM on September 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 7:49 AM on September 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
I thought tanks were quite important in the Arab - Israeli wars. There were thousands involved certainly. I think the main problem nowadays with tanks is that rockets that can destroy them have gotten too cheap and effective. I wouldn't disagree that aircraft are more important though.
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:26 AM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:26 AM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Vietnam and most of the COIN wars of the late-20th/early-21st Century would seem to be counter-examples to the singular importance of strategic bombing. (Vietnam actually serving as a good example for the importance of tanks: in the engagements where the US/ARVN forces were actually able to use them, they were decisive.)
And the main effect of strategic bombing in WWII was to prevent the Germans from building and fueling their tanks...
posted by tobascodagama at 9:31 AM on September 15, 2016
And the main effect of strategic bombing in WWII was to prevent the Germans from building and fueling their tanks...
posted by tobascodagama at 9:31 AM on September 15, 2016
Tanks were weapons of terror in WWI. It's hard to imagine how shocking and bizarre they must have been. Perhaps it was yet another way people experienced that war as something from science fiction, with strange new categories of threats appearing.
The terrific WWI blog "Roads" has another solid post today, about tanks.
. Another, by A. A. Milne.
Sassoon, "Blighters":
The House is crammed: tier beyond tier they grin
And cackle at the show, while prancing ranks
Of harlots shrill the chorus, drunk with din;
‘We’re sure the Kaiser loves our dear old Tanks!’
I’d like to see a tank come down the stalls,
Lurching to rag-time tunes, or ‘Home sweet Home’,
And there’d be no more jokes in music-halls
To mock the riddled corpses round Bapaume.
posted by doctornemo at 1:24 PM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The terrific WWI blog "Roads" has another solid post today, about tanks.
. Another, by A. A. Milne.
Sassoon, "Blighters":
The House is crammed: tier beyond tier they grin
And cackle at the show, while prancing ranks
Of harlots shrill the chorus, drunk with din;
‘We’re sure the Kaiser loves our dear old Tanks!’
I’d like to see a tank come down the stalls,
Lurching to rag-time tunes, or ‘Home sweet Home’,
And there’d be no more jokes in music-halls
To mock the riddled corpses round Bapaume.
posted by doctornemo at 1:24 PM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The tank, which would go on to dominate 20th Century warfare ... "
Not sure about that. Half of WWI, big role in WWII, lesser roles in Korea and Vietnam, lesser again in the Middle East ... surely not comparable overall to the influence of combat aircraft in general and the bomber in particular I would have thought?
The thing with warfare is that even with the amazing capabilities of aircraft, missiles, guided munitions, etc. is that sooner or later you are going to have to put boots on the ground to win a war. When you get out on that field, you're probably going to have to contend with tanks. The first and second Iraq wars, and the invasion of Afghanistan featured heavy air support but that would have been moot if it weren't for the enormous amounts of troops and resources that hit the ground and rolled through the terrain to their objectives. That's one thing about a war with China - to win that war without a nuclear exchange (in which case "win" would be a dubious term, because there wouldn't be much left on either side) it would require either us or them to get hundreds of thousands of troops to the other's soil. Doing that without drawing notice, in an age of satellite, radar, night vision and plenty of other technologies that WWII combatants didn't have, would be nigh impossible.
posted by azpenguin at 2:53 PM on September 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not sure about that. Half of WWI, big role in WWII, lesser roles in Korea and Vietnam, lesser again in the Middle East ... surely not comparable overall to the influence of combat aircraft in general and the bomber in particular I would have thought?
The thing with warfare is that even with the amazing capabilities of aircraft, missiles, guided munitions, etc. is that sooner or later you are going to have to put boots on the ground to win a war. When you get out on that field, you're probably going to have to contend with tanks. The first and second Iraq wars, and the invasion of Afghanistan featured heavy air support but that would have been moot if it weren't for the enormous amounts of troops and resources that hit the ground and rolled through the terrain to their objectives. That's one thing about a war with China - to win that war without a nuclear exchange (in which case "win" would be a dubious term, because there wouldn't be much left on either side) it would require either us or them to get hundreds of thousands of troops to the other's soil. Doing that without drawing notice, in an age of satellite, radar, night vision and plenty of other technologies that WWII combatants didn't have, would be nigh impossible.
posted by azpenguin at 2:53 PM on September 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
If, like me, you saw this tank and thought of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, you were close. The tank in the movie was based on the Mark VIII, with an added turret on top. One of the key features of the Mark VIII was that it separated the engine from the passenger compartment.
The thing about tanks is that they brought mobility back onto the battlefield. It was finally possible to advance faster than a man could walk, which meant you could win a war in weeks instead of years for the first time since the horse cavalry became obsolete.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:52 PM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The thing about tanks is that they brought mobility back onto the battlefield. It was finally possible to advance faster than a man could walk, which meant you could win a war in weeks instead of years for the first time since the horse cavalry became obsolete.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:52 PM on September 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older #DreamJournal | At whatever the cost Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Not sure about that. Half of WWI, big role in WWII, lesser roles in Korea and Vietnam, lesser again in the Middle East ... surely not comparable overall to the influence of combat aircraft in general and the bomber in particular I would have thought?
posted by GallonOfAlan at 5:03 AM on September 15, 2016 [7 favorites]