TankFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Tanks)

This article is about the armoured combat vehicle. For other uses, see Tank

(disambiguation).

Indian T-90 Bhisma with appliqué reactive armor and standard 125 mm (4.9 in) main gun.

[show]

V

 

T

 

E

History of the tank

A tank is a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed forfront-line combat

which combines operational

mobility andtactical offensive and defensive capabilities. Firepower is

normally provided by a large-calibre main gun in a rotatingturret and

secondary machine guns, while heavy armour and all-

terrain mobility provide protection for the tank and its crew, allowing it to

perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield.[1]

Tanks in World War I were developed separately and simultaneously by

Great Britain and France as a means to break the deadlock of trench

warfare on the Western Front. Their first use in combat was by the British

Army on September 15, 1916 at Flers-Courcelette, during the Battle of the

Somme. The name "tank" was adopted by the British during the early

stages of their development, as a security measure to conceal their purpose

(see etymology). While the French and British built thousands of tanks

between them, Germany developed and brought into service only a single

design the A7Vproducing 20 vehicles due to lack of capacities or resources.

Tanks of the interwar period evolved into the designs of World War II.

Important concepts of armoured warfare were developed; the Soviet

Union launched the first mass tank/air attack at Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan)

in August 1939,[2] which later resulted in the T-34, a predecessor of

the main battle tank; this was quickly followed up by Germany on a larger

scale when they introduced blitzkrieg ('lightning war') less than two weeks

later; a technique which made use of massed concentrations of tanks

supported by artillery and air power to break through the enemy front and

cause a complete collapse in enemy resistance and morale.

Tanks in the Cold War advanced to counter greater battlefield threats.

Tanks became larger and their armour became thicker and much more

effective. Advances in manufacturing late in the war allowed the mass

production of composite armor. Aspects of gun technology changed

significantly as well, with advances in shell design.

During the 20th century, main battle tanks were considered a key

component of modern armies.[3] In the 21st century, with the increasing role

of asymetrical warfare and the end of the Cold War, that also contributed to

the increase of cost-effective Russian anti-tank weapons worldwide, the

importance of tanks has waned. Modern tanks seldom operate alone, as

they are organized into armoured units which involve the support of infantry,

who may accompany the tanks ininfantry fighting vehicles. They are also

usually supported by reconnaissance or ground-attack aircraft.[4]

Contents

  [hide] 

1   History

o 1.1   Conception

o 1.2   World War I

o 1.3   Interwar period

o 1.4   World War II

o 1.5   The Cold War arms race

o 1.6   21st century conflicts

o 1.7   Research and development

2   Design

o 2.1   Parts of a tank

o 2.2   Tank design engineering

o 2.3   Offensive capabilities

o 2.4   Countermeasures

o 2.5   Mobility

o 2.6   Crew

3   Command, control and communications

o 3.1   Early

o 3.2   Modern

4   Etymology

5   See also

6   Notes

7   References

8   Further reading

9   External links

[edit]History

Main article: History of the tank

[edit]Conception

Film clip of World War I-era tanks.

The tank is the 20th century realization of an ancient concept: that of

providing troops with mobile protection and firepower. The internal

combustion engine, armour plate, and the continuous track were key

innovations leading to the invention of the modern tank.

Armoured trains appeared in the mid-19th century, and various armoured

steam- and petrol-engined vehicles were also proposed. The first armoured

car was produced in Austria in 1904. However, all were restricted to rails or

reasonably passable terrain. It was the development of a

practical caterpillar track that provided the necessary independent, all-

terrain mobility.

Many sources imply that Leonardo da Vinci and H.G. Wells in some way

foresaw or "invented" the tank. Da Vinci's late 15th century drawings of

what some describe as a "tank" show a man-powered, wheeled vehicle with

cannons all around it.[5] The machines described in Wells's 1903 short

story The Land Ironclads are a step closer, in being armour-plated, having

an internal power plant, and being able to cross trenches. Some aspects of

the story foresee the tactical use and impact of the tanks that later came

into being. However, Wells's vehicles were driven by steam and moved

on Pedrail wheels, technologies that were already outdated at the time of

writing. After seeing British tanks in 1916, Wells denied having "invented"

them, writing, "Yet let me state at once that I was not their prime originator. I

took up an idea, manipulated it slightly, and handed it on."[6] It is, though,

possible that one of the British tank pioneers, Ernest Swinton, was

subconsciously or otherwise influenced by Wells's tale.[7][8]

The "caterpillar" track arose from attempts to improve the mobility of

wheeled vehicles by spreading their weight, reducing ground pressure, and

increasing their adhesive friction. Experiments can be traced back as far as

the 17th century, and by the late nineteenth they existed in various

recognizable and practical forms in several countries.

It is frequently claimed that Richard Lovell Edgeworth created a caterpillar

track. It is true that in 1770 he patented a "machine, that should carry and

lay down its own road", but this was Edgeworth's choice of words. His own

account in his autobiography is of a horse-drawn wooden carriage on eight

retractable legs, capable of lifting itself over high walls. The description

bears no similarity to a caterpillar track.[9]

The first combinations of the three principal components of the Tank

appeared in the decade before World War One. In 1903, a Captain

Levavasseur of the French Artillery proposed mounting a field gun in an

armoured box on tracks. A Major in the British Army's Mechanical Transport

Service suggested fixing a gun and armoured shield on a British type of

track-driven vehicle.[10] In 1911, a Lieutenant Engineer in the Austrian

Army, Günther Burstyn, presented to the Austrian and Prussian War

Ministries plans for a two-man tank with a gun in a revolving turret.[11] In the

same year an Australian civil engineer named Lancelot de Mole submitted a

basic design for a tracked, armoured vehicle to the British War Office.[12] In

Russia, Vasiliy Mendeleev designed a tracked vehicle containing a large

naval gun.[13]

All of these ideas were rejected and, by 1914, forgotten, although it was

officially acknowledged after the War that de Mole's design was at least the

equal of the tanks that were later produced by Great Britain, and he was

voted a cash payment for his contribution. Various individuals continued to

contemplate the use of tracked vehicles for military applications, but by the

outbreak of the War no one in a position of responsibility in any army had

any thoughts about tanks.[citation needed]

[edit]World War I

Main article: Tanks in World War I

British World War I Mark V* tank

Great Britain

From late 1914 a small number of middle-ranking British Army officers tried

to persuade the War Office and the Government to consider the creation of

armoured vehicles. Amongst their suggestions was the use of caterpillar

tractors, but although the Army used many such vehicles for towing heavy

guns, it could not be persuaded that they could be adapted as armoured

vehicles. The consequence was that early tank development in Great

Britain was carried out by the Royal Navy.

As the result of an approach by Royal Naval Air Service officers who had

been operating armoured cars on the Western Front, the First Lord of the

Admiralty, Winston Churchill [14]  formed the Landships Committee, on 20

February 1915. The Director of Naval Construction for the Royal

Navy, Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, was appointed to head the Committee

in view of his experience with the engineering methods it was felt might be

required; the two other members were naval officers, and a number of

industrialists were engaged as consultants. So many played a part in its

long and complicated development that it is not possible to name any

individual as the sole inventor of the tank,[15] though the British Government

later made proportionate cash awards to those it considered to have

contributed. Their first design, Little Willie, ran for the first time in

September 1915 and served to develop the form of the track but an

improved design, better able to cross trenches, swiftly followed and in

January 1916 the prototype, nicknamed "Mother", was adopted as the

design for future tanks. Production models of "Male" tanks (armed with

naval cannon and machine guns) and "Females" (carrying only machine-

guns) would go on to fight in history's first tank action at the Somme in

September 1916.[14][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]

Renault FT tanks, here operated by the US army, pioneered the use of a fully traversable

turret and served as pattern for most modern tanks.

France

Whilst several experimental machines were investigated in France, it was a

colonel of artillery, J.B.E. Estienne, who directly approached the

Commander-in-Chief with detailed plans for a tank on caterpillar tracks, in

late 1915. The result was two largely unsatisfactory types of tank, 400 each

of the Schneiderand Saint-Chamond, both based on the Holt Tractor.

The following year, the French pioneered the use of a full 360°

rotation turretin a tank for the first time, with the creation of the Renault

FT light tank, with the turret containing the tank's main armament. Aside of

the traversable turret another innovative feature of the FT was its engine

located at the rear. This pattern, with the gun located in a mounted turret

and the engine at the back, became the standard for most succeeding

tanks across the world even to this day.[19] The FT was the most numerous

tank of the War; over 3,000 were made by late 1918.

Germany

In contrast to World War II, Germany fielded very few tanks during World

War I, with only 20 of the A7V type being produced during the war.[20] The

first tank versus tank action took place on 24 April 1918 at the Second

Battle of Villers-Bretonneux, France, when three British Mark IVs met three

German A7Vs. Captured British Mk IVs formed the bulk of Germany's tank

forces during WWI; about 35 were in service at any one time. Plans to

expanded the tank programme were under way when the War ended.

Other Nations

The United States used tanks supplied by France and Great Britain during

WWI. Production of American-built tanks had just begun when the War

came to an end. Italy also manufactured two Fiat 2000s towards the end of

the War, too late to see service. Russia independently built and trialled two

prototypes early in the War; the tracked, two-man Vezdekhodand 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, and poor mobility limited the military

significance of the tank in World War I, and the tank did not fulfil its promise

of rendering trench warfare obsolete. Nonetheless, it was clear to military

thinkers on both sides that tanks would play a significant role in future

conflicts.[22]

[edit]Interwar period

Main article: Tanks of the interwar period

French Hotchkiss H-39 light tank of 1939

In the interwar period tanks underwent further mechanical development. In

terms of tactics, J.F.C. Fuller's doctrine of spearhead attacks with massed

tank formations was the basis for work by Heinz Guderian in

Germany, Percy Hobart in Britain, Adna R. Chaffee, Jr., in the U.S., Charles

de Gaulle in France, and Mikhail Tukhachevsky in the USSR. All came to

similar conclusions, but in the Second World War only Germany would

initially put the theory into practice on a large scale, and it was their superior

tactics and French blunders, not superior weapons, that made blitzkrieg so

successful in May 1940.[23] For information regarding tank development in

this period, seetank development between the wars.

Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union all experimented heavily with tank

warfare during their clandestine and “volunteer” involvement in the Spanish

Civil War, which saw some of the earliest examples of successful

mechanised combined arms — such as when Republican troops, equipped

with Soviet-supplied medium tanks and supported by aircraft, eventually

routed Italian troops fighting for the Nationalists in the seven-dayBattle of

Guadalajara in 1937.[24] However, of the nearly 700 tanks deployed during

this conflict, only about 64 tanks representing the Franco faction and 331

from the Republican side were equipped with cannon, and of those 64

nearly all were WWI vintage Renault FT tanks, while the

331 Soviet supplied machines had 45mm main guns and were of 1930s

manufacture.[25] With the balance of Nationalist tanks being machine gun

armed tanks. The primary lesson learned from this war was that machine

gun armed tanks had to be equipped with cannon, with the associated

armor inherent to modern tanks.

The five month long war between the Soviet Union and the Japanese 6th

Army at Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan) in 1939 brought home some better

lessons. In this conflict, and although the Japanese only deployed about 73

cannon armed tanks, the Soviets fielded over two thousand,[26] with the

major difference being that Japanese armor were equipped

withdiesel engines and the Russian tanks petrol ones.[27] Even after

General Georgy Zhukov sounded a bitter defeat on the Japanese 6th Army

with his massed combined tank and air attack, the Soviets had learned a

bitter lesson on the use ofgasoline engines, and quickly incorporated those

newly found experiences into their new T-34 medium tank duringWWII.[28]

[edit]World War II

Main article: Tanks in World War II

Soviet T-34 tank column advancing near Leningrad, 1942

World War II was the first conflict where armoured vehicles were critical to

success on the battlefield and in this period the tank developed rapidly as

a weapon system. It showed how an armoured force was capable of

achieving a tactical victory in an unprecedentedly short amount of time. At

the same time, however, the development of effective anti-tank weaponry

demonstrated that the tank was not invulnerable.

Prior to World War II the tactics and strategy of deploying tank forces

underwent a revolution. In August 1939 Soviet General Georgy

Zhukov utilized 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 formation of the first

independent German tank force, said "Where tanks are, the front is", and

this concept became a reality in World War II.[30] Following the Invasion of

Poland where tanks performed in a more traditional role in close

cooperation with infantry units, in theBattle of France deep independent

armoured penetrations were executed by the Germans, a technique later

called blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg made use of innovativecombined arms tactics

and radios in all of the tanks to provide a level of tactical flexibility and

power that surpassed that of the Allied armour. The French Army, with

tanks equal or superior to the German tanks in both quality and quantity,

employed a linear defensive strategy in which the armoured cavalry units

were made subservient to infantry as "support weapons".[23] In addition, they

lacked radios in many of their tanks and headquarters,[31] which limited their

ability to respond to German attacks.

In accordance with blitzkrieg methods, German tanks bypassed enemy

strongpoints and could radio for close air supportto 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] The defeat of a major military power within weeks

shocked the rest of the world, resulting in an increased focus on tank and

anti-tank weapon development.

Rommel in North Africa, June 1942

The North African Campaign also provided an important battleground for

tanks, as the flat, desolate terrain with relatively few obstacles or urban

environments was ideal for conducting mobile armoured warfare. However,

this battlefield also showed the importance of logistics, especially in an

armoured force, as the principal warring armies, the German Afrika

Korpsand the British Eighth Army, often outpaced their supply trains in

repeated attacks and counter-attacks on each other, resulting in complete

stalemate. This situation would not be resolved until 1942, when during

the Second Battle of El Alamein, the Afrika Korps, crippled by disruptions in

their supply lines, had 95% of its tanks destroyed[32] and was forced to

retreat by a massively reinforced Eighth Army, the first in a series of defeats

that would eventually lead to the surrender of the remaining Axis forces

in Tunisia.

Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle ever fought — with each side employing nearly

3000 tanks.

The German invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, started

with the Soviets having a superior tank design, the T-34.[33] A lack of

preparations for the Axis surprise attack, mechanical problems, poor

training of the crews and incompetent leadership caused the Soviet

machines to be surrounded and destroyed in large numbers. However,

interference fromAdolf Hitler,[34] the geographic scale of the conflict, the

dogged resistance of the Soviet combat troops, and Soviet manpower and

production capability prevented a repeat of the Blitzkrieg of 1940.[35] Despite

early successes against the Soviets, the Germans were forced to up-gun

their Panzer IVs, and to design and build larger and more

expensive Panther and Tiger tanks. In doing so, the Wehrmacht denied the

infantry and other support arms the production priorities that they needed to

remain equal partners with the increasingly sophisticated tanks, in turn

violating the principle of combined arms they had pioneered.[3] Soviet

developments following the invasion included upgunning the T-34,

development of self-propelled anti-tank guns such as the SU-152, and

deployment of the IS-2 in the closing stages of the war.

Sherman tanks joining the U.S. Fifth Army forces in the beachhead at Anzioduring

the Italian Campaign, 1944

When entering World War II, America's mass production capacity enabled

her to rapidly construct thousands of relatively cheap M4 Sherman medium

tanks. A compromise all round, the Sherman was reliable and formed a

large part of the Anglo-American ground forces, but in a tank-versus-tank

battle was no match for the Panther or Tiger.[36] Numerical and logistical

superiority and the successful use of combined arms allowed the Allies to

overrun the German forces during the Battle of Normandy. Upgunned

versions with the76 mm gun M1 and the 17 pounder were introduced to

improve the M4's firepower, but concerns about protection remained.

Tank hulls [37]  were modified to produce flame tanks, mobile rocket artillery,

and combat engineering vehicles for tasks including mine-

clearing andbridging. Specialised self-propelled guns were also

developed: tank destroyers and assault guns were cheap, stripped down

tanks carrying heavy guns, often in a fixed hull mounting. The firepower and

low cost of these vehicles made them attractive but as manufacturing

techniques improved and larger turret rings made larger tank guns feasible,

the gun turret was recognised as the most effective mounting for the main

gun to allow movement in a different direction from firing, enhancing tactical

flexibility.[23]

[edit]The Cold War arms race

Main article: Tanks in the Cold War

At one time, the Soviet T-72 was the most widely deployed main battle tank across the

world.[38]

During the Cold War, tension between the Warsaw Pact countries and

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries created an arms

race that ensured that tank development proceeded largely as it had during

World War II. The essence of tank designs during the Cold War had been

hammered out in the closing stages of World War II. Large turrets, capable

suspension systems, greatly improved engines, sloped armour and large-

calibre (90 mm and larger) guns were standard. Tank design during the

Cold War built on this foundation and included improvements to fire

control, gyroscopic gun stabilisation, communications (primarily radio) and

crew comfort and saw the introduction of laser rangefinders

and infrared night vision equipment.Armour technology progressed in an

ongoing race against improvements inanti-tank weapons,

especially antitank guided missiles like the TOW.

Medium tanks of World War II, evolved into the main battle tank (MBT) of

the Cold War and took over the majority of tank roles on the battlefield. This

gradual transition occurred in the 1950s and 1960s due to anti-tank guided

missiles, sabot ammunition and high explosive anti-tank warheads. World

War II had shown that the speed of a light tank was no substitute for armour

and firepower and medium tanks were vulnerable to newer weapon

technology, rendering them obsolete.[citation needed]

In a trend started in World War II, economies of scale led to serial

production of progressively upgraded models of all major tanks during the

Cold War. For the same reason many upgraded post-World War II tanks

and their derivatives (for example, the T-55 and T-72) remain in active

service around the world, and even an obsolete tank may be the most

formidable weapon on battlefields in many parts of the world.[39] Among the

tanks of the 1950s were the BritishCenturion and Soviet T-54/55 in service

from 1946, and the US M48 from 1951.[40] These three vehicles formed the

bulk of the armoured forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout

much of the Cold War. Lessons learned from tanks such as the Leopard

1, M48 Patton series, Chieftain, and T-72 led to the contemporary Leopard

2, M1 Abrams,Challenger 2, C1 Ariete, T-90 and Merkava IV.

Tanks and anti-tank weapons of the Cold War era saw action in a number

of proxy wars like the Korean War, Vietnam War, Indo-Pakistani War of

1971, Soviet war in Afghanistan and Arab-Israeli conflicts, culminating with

the Yom Kippur War. The T-55, for example, has seen action in no fewer

than 32 conflicts. In these wars the USA or NATO countries and the Soviet

Union or China consistently backed opposing forces. Proxy wars were

studied by Western and Soviet military analysts and provided a grim

contribution to the Cold War tank development process.

[edit]21st century conflicts

Type 10 Japanese main battle tank

The role of tank vs. tank combat is becoming diminished. Tanks work in

concert with infantry in urban warfare by deploying them ahead of the

platoon. When engaging enemy infantry, tanks can provide covering fire on

the battlefield. Conversely, tanks can spearhead attacks when infantry are

deployed in personnel carriers.[41]

Tanks were used to spearhead the initial US invasion of Iraq in 2003. As of

2005, there were 1,100 M1 Abrams used by the United States Army in the

course of the Iraq War, and they have proven to have an unexpectedly high

level of vulnerability to roadside bombs.[42] A relatively new type of remotely

detonated mine, the explosively formed penetrator has been used with

some success against American armoured vehicles (particularly the Bradley

fighting vehicle). However, with upgrades to their armour in the rear, M1s

have proven invaluable in fighting insurgents in urban combat, particularly

at the Battle of Fallujah, where the US Marines brought in two extra

brigades.[43] Britain deployed its Challenger 2 tanks to support its operations

in southern Iraq.

Israeli Merkava tanks contain features that enable them to

support infantry in low intensity conflicts (LIC) and counter-

terrorism operations. Such features are the rear door and rear corridor,

enabling the tank to carry infantry and embark safely; the IMI APAM-MP-

T multi-purpose ammunition round, advanced C4IS systems and

recently: TROPHY active protection system which protects the tank from

shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons. During the Second Intifada further

modifications were made, designated as "Merkava Mk. 3d Baz LIC".[citation

needed]

[edit]Research and development

Graphic representation of the US Army's cancelled XM1202 Mounted Combat System

In terms of firepower, the focus of current R&D is on increased detection

capability such as thermal imagers, automated fire control systems and

increased muzzle energy from the gun to improve range, accuracy and

armour penetration.[44] The most mature future gun technology is

theelectrothermal-chemical gun.[45] The XM291 electrothermal-chemical

tank gun has gone through successful multiple firing sequences on a

modified M8 Armored Gun System chassis.[46]

To improve tank protection, one field of research involves making the tank

invisible to radar by adapting stealth technologies originally designed for

aircraft. Improvements to camouflage or and attempts to render

it invisiblethrough active camouflage is being pursued. Research is also

ongoing inelectromagnetic armour systems to disperse or deflect incoming

shaped charge jets,[47][48] as well as various forms of active protection

systems to prevent incoming projectiles from striking the tank at all.

Mobility may be enhanced in future tanks by the use of diesel-electric or

turbine-electric series hybrid drives 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 in engine 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 increasing sophistication in its electronics and communication

systems.

[edit]Design

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2011)

[edit]Parts of a tank

The three traditional factors determining a tank's capability effectiveness

are its firepower, protection, and mobility. Firepower is the ability of a tank's

crew to identify, engage, and destroy the enemy. Protection is the tank

crew's ability to evade detection, preserve themselves from enemy fire, and

retain full vehicle functionality after combat. Mobility includes the ability of

the tank to be transported by rail, sea, or air to the operational staging area;

from the staging area by road towards the enemy; and tactical movement

over the battlefield during combat, including traversing of obstacles and

rough terrain.

Tank design is a compromise between its technological and budgetary

constraints and its tactical capability requirements. It is not possible to

maximise firepower, protection and mobility simultaneously while

incorporating the latest technology and retain affordability for sufficient

procurement quantity to enter production. For example, in the case of

tactical capability requirements, increasing protection by adding armour will

result in an increase in weight and therefore decrease in mobility;

increasing firepower by installing a larger gun will force the designer team

to increase armour, the therefore weight of the tank by retaining same

internal volume to ensure crew efficiency during combat. In the case of the

Abrams MBT which has good firepower, speed and armour, these

advantages are counterbalanced by its engine's notably high fuel

consumption, which ultimately reduces its range, and in a larger sense its

mobility.

Since the Second World War, the economics of tank production governed

by the complexity of manufacture and cost, and the impact of a given tank

design on logistics and field maintenance capabilities, have also been

accepted as important in determining how many tanks a nation can afford to

field in its force structure.

Some tank designs that were fielded in significant numbers, such as Tiger

I and M60A2 proved to be too complex or expensive to manufacture, and

made unsustainable demands on the logistics services support of the

armed forces. Theaffordability of the design therefore takes precedence

over the combat capability requirements. Nowhere was this principle

illustrated better than during the Second World War when two Allied

designs, the T-34 and the M4 Sherman, although both simple designs

which accepted engineering compromises, were used successfully against

more sophisticated designs by Germany that were more complex and

expensive to produce, and more demanding on overstretched logistics of

the Wehrmacht. Given that a tank crew will spend most of its time occupied

with maintenance of the vehicle, engineering simplicity has become the

primary constraint on tank design since the Second World War despite

advances in mechanical, electrical and electronics technologies.

Since the Second World War, tank development has incorporated

experimenting with significant mechanical changes to the tank design while

focusing on technological advances in the tank's many subsystems to

improve its performance. However, a number of novel designs have

appeared throughout this period with mixed success, including the

Soviet IT-1and T-64 in firepower, and the Israeli Merkava and Swedish S-

tank in protection, while for decades the USA's M551remained the only light

tank deployable by parachute.

Further information: Tank classification

[edit]Tank design engineering

The Indian Arjun MBT's hydropneumatic suspension at work, while moving over a bump

track.

A noted author on the subject of tank design engineering Richard M

Ogorkiewicz[52] outlined the following basic engineering sub-systems that

are commonly incorporated into tank's technological development:

Mobility of tanks (through chassis design)

Tank Engines

Tank Transmissions

Suspensions  and Running gear

Soil-Vehicle Mechanics

Tank guns  and Ammunition

Ballistics  and Mechanics of Tank Guns

Vision and Sighting Systems

Illuminating and Night Vision Systems

Fire Control Systems  for main and auxiliary weapons

Gun Control Systems

Guided Weapons

Armour  Protection

Configuration of Tanks

To the above can be added unit communication systems and electronic

anti-tank countermeasures, crew ergonomic and survival systems (including

flame suppression), and provision for technological upgrading. Most tank

designs have rarely survived their entire service life without some upgrading

or modernisation, particularly during wartime, including some that changed

almost beyond recognition, such as the latest Israeli Magach versions.

The characteristics of a tank are determined by the performance criteria

required for the tank. The obstacles that must be traversed affect the

vehicles front and rear profiles. The terrain that is expected to be traversed

determines the track ground pressure that may be allowed to be exerted for

that particular terrain.[53]

[edit]Offensive capabilities

Main article: Tank gun

Rifling of a 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7 tank gun.

The main weapon of all modern tanks is a single, large-calibre gun mounted

in a fully traversing turret weapon mount. The typical tank gun is

a smoothbore weapon capable of firing armor-piercing kinetic energy

penetrators (KEP), also known asarmour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS),

and/or armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) and high

explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells, and/or high explosive squash

head (HESH) and/or anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) to destroy armoured

targets, as well as high explosive (HE) shells for engaging soft targets

orfortifications. Canister shot may be used in close or urban combat

situations where the risk of hitting friendly forces with shrapnel from HE

rounds is unacceptably high.[43]

A gyroscope is used to stabilise the main gun, allowing it to be effectively

aimed and fired at the "short halt" or on the move. Modern tank guns are

also commonly fitted with insulating thermal jackets to reduce gun-barrel

warping caused by uneventhermal expansion, bore evacuators to minimise

fumes entering the crew compartment and sometimes muzzle brakes to

minimise the effect of recoil on accuracy and rate of fire.

Traditionally, target detection relied on visual identification. This was

accomplished from within the tank throughtelescopic periscopes;

occasionally however, tank commanders would open up the hatch to view

the outside surroundings, which improved situational awareness but

incurred the penalty of vulnerability to sniper fire, especially in jungle and

urban conditions. Though several developments in target detection have

taken place especially recently, these methods are still common practice.

An M1 Abrams firing

In some cases spotting rifles were used confirm proper trajectory and range

to a target. These spotting rifles were mounted co-axially to the main gun,

and fired tracer ammunition ballistically matched to the gun itself. The

gunner would track the movement of the tracer round in flight, and upon

impact with a hard surface, it would give off a flash and a puff of smoke,

after which the main gun was immediately fired. However these have been

mostly superseded by laser rangefinding equipment.

Modern tanks also use sophisticated light intensification and thermal

imagingequipment to improve fighting capability at night, in poor weather

and in smoke. The accuracy of modern tank guns is pushed to the

mechanical limit by computerised fire-control systems. A fire-control system

uses a laser rangefinder to determine the range to the target,

a thermocouple, anemometer and wind vane to correct for weather effects

and a muzzle referencing system to correct for gun-barrel temperature,

warping and wear. Two sightings of a target with the range-finder enable

calculation of the target movement vector. This information is combined

with the known movement of the tank and the principles ofballistics to

calculate the elevation and aim point that maximises the probability of

hitting the target.

Usually, tanks carry smaller calibre armament for short-range defence

where fire from the main weapon would be ineffective, for example when

engaging infantry, light vehicles or aircraft. A typical complement of

secondary weapons is a general-purpose machine gun

mounted coaxially with the main gun, and a heavier anti-aircraft machine

gun on the turret roof. These weapons are often modified variants of those

used by infantry, and so utilise the same kinds of ammunition.

[edit]Countermeasures

The Russian T-90 is fitted with a "three-tiered" protection systems:

1: Composite armour in the turret

2: Third generation Kontakt-5 ERA

3: Shtora-1 countermeasures suite.

See also: Anti-tank warfare

The measure of a tank's protection is the combination of its ability to avoid

detection, to avoid being hit by enemy fire, its resistance to the effects of

enemy fire, and its capacity to sustain damage whilst still completing its

objective, or at least protecting its crew. In common with most unit types,

tanks are subject to additional hazards in wooded and urban combat

environments which largely negate the advantages of the tank's long-range

firepower and mobility, limit the crew's detection capabilities and can restrict

turret traverse. Despite these disadvantages, tanks retain

high survivabilityagainst previous-generation rocket-propelled grenades in

all combat environments by virtue of their armour.

However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tank

survivability against newer-generation tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles is

a concern for military planners.[54] For example, the RPG-29 from 1980s is

able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[55][56] and also

managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[57]

[edit]Avoiding detection

Further information: Military deception

PLA's Type 99 tank with disruptivecamouflage painting

A tank avoids detection using the doctrine of CCD: camouflage (looks the

same as the surroundings), concealment (cannot be seen)

and deception(looks like something else).

Working against efforts to avoid detection is the fact that a tank is a large

metallic object with a distinctive, angular silhouette that emits

copious heatand noise. Consequently, it is difficult to effectively camouflage

a hull-up tank in the absence of some form of cover or concealment (e.g.,

woods). 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

toinfra-red detection due to differences between the thermal

conductivity and therefore heat dissipation of the metallic tank and its

surroundings. At close range the tank can be detected even when powered

down and fully concealed due to thecolumn of warmer air above the tank

and the smell of diesel.

Thermal blankets slow the rate of heat emission and camouflage nets use a

mix of materials with differing thermal properties to operate in the infra-red

as well as the visible spectrum. Camouflage attempts to break up the

distinctive appearance and silhouette of a tank. Adopting a turret-down or

hull-down position reduces the visible silhouette of a tank as well as

providing the added protection of a position in defilade

The Russian Nakidka camouflage kit was designed to reduce

the Optical, Thermal, Infrared, and Radar signatures of a tank, so that

acquisition of the tank would be difficult. According to Nii Stali, the

designers of Nakidka, Nakidka would reduce the probabilities of detection

via "visual and near-IR bands by 30%, the thermal band by 2-3 fold, radar

band by 6 fold, and radar-thermal band to near-background levels.[58] "

[edit]Armour

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)

Main article: Vehicle armour

The British Challenger II is protected by second-generation Chobham armour

To effectively protect the tank and its crew, tank armour must counter a

wide variety of antitank threats. Protection against kinetic energy

penetrators andhigh explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells fired by other tanks

is of primary importance, but tank armour also aims to protect against

infantry antitank missiles, ATGMs, antitank mines, bombs,

direct artillery hits, and (less often)nuclear, biological and chemical threats,

any of which could disable or destroy a tank or its crew.

Steel armour plate was the earliest type of armour. The Germans pioneered

the use of face hardened steel during World War II and the Soviets also

achieved improved protection with sloped armour technology. World War II

developments also spelled the eventual doom of homogeneous steel

armour with the development of shaped-chargewarheads, exemplified by

the Panzerfaust and bazooka infantry weapons which were lethally

effective, despite some early success with spaced armour. Magnetic mines

led to the development of anti-magnetic paste and paint.

British tank researchers took the next step with the development

of Chobham armour, or more generally composite armour,

incorporating ceramics and plastics in a resin matrix between steel plates,

which provided good protection against HEAT weapons. Squash

head warheads led to anti-spall armour linings, and KEPs led to the

inclusion of exotic materials like a matrix of depleted uranium into a

composite armour configuration.

Blazer explosive reactive armour (ERA) blocks on an Israeli M-60

Reactive armour consists of small explosive-filled metal boxes that detonate

when hit by the metallic jet projected by an exploding HEAT warhead,

causing their metal plates to disrupt it. Tandem warheads defeat reactive

armour by causing the armour to detonate prematurely. Modern Reactive

armour protects itself from Tandem warheads by having a thicker front

metal plate to prevent the precursor charge from detonating the explosive in

the reactive armour. Reactive armours can also reduce the penetrative

abilities of kinetic energy penetrators by deforming the penetrator with the

metal plates on the Reactive armour, thereby reducing its effectiveness

against the main armour of the tank.

Grenade launchers which can rapidly deploy a smoke screen that is opaque

to Infrared light, to hide it from the thermal viewer of another tank. The

modern Shtora "soft-kill" countermeasure system provides additional

protection by interfering with enemy targeting and fire-control systems and

jamming of SACLOSguided ATGMs.

[edit]Active protection system

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)

IDF Merkava Mk4 tank with Trophy APS("מעיל רוח") during training

The latest generation of protective measures for tanks are active protection

systems, particularly "hard-kill". The Soviet Drozd, the Russian Arena, the

Israeli TROPHY and Iron Fist, Polish ERAWA (on PT-91), and the

AmericanQuick Kill systems show the potential to dramatically improve

protection for tanks against missiles, RPGs and potentially KEP attacks, but

concerns regarding a danger zone for nearby dismounted troops remain. As

for 2011, only the Israeli Trophy active protection system, installed on

the MerkavaMk4, has been combat-proven, as it successfully

intercepted RPG rocket and various anti-tank missiles during operational

missions on the Gaza Stripborder.

[edit]Mobility

Two German Army Leopard 2s demonstrate their deep-wadingcapabilities

The mobility of a tank is described by its battlefield or tactical mobility, its

operational mobility, and its strategic mobility. Tactical mobility can be

broken down firstly into agility, describing the tank's acceleration, braking,

speed and rate of turn on various terrain, and secondly obstacle clearance:

the tank's ability to travel over vertical obstacles like low walls or trenches or

through water. Operational mobility is a function of manoeuvre range; but

also of size and weight, and the resulting limitations on options for

manoeuvre.

[edit]Strategic mobility

Strategic mobility is the ability of the tanks of an armed force to arrive in a

timely, cost effective, and synchronized fashion. For good strategic mobility

transportability by air is important, which means that weight and volume

must be kept within the designated transport aircraft capabilities.

Nations often stockpile enough tanks to respond to any threat without

having to make more tanks as many sophisticated designs can only be

produced at a relatively low rate. The US Military for instance keeps 6000

MBTs in storage.[59]

[edit]Tactical mobility

M1 Abrams offloading from Landing Craft Air Cushioned vehicle.

Tank agility is a function of the weight of the tank due to its inertia while

manoeuvring and its ground pressure, the power output of the

installedpower plant and the tank transmission and track design. In addition,

rough terrain effectively limits the tank's speed through the stress it puts on

thesuspension and the crew. A breakthrough in this area was achieved

during World War II when improved suspension systems were developed

that allowed better cross-country performance and limited firing on the

move. Systems like the earlier Christie or later torsion-bar suspension

developed byFerdinand Porsche dramatically improved the tank's cross-

country performance and overall mobility.[60]

Tanks are highly mobile and able to travel over most types of terrain due to

their continuous tracks and advanced suspension. The tracks disperse the

weight of the vehicle over a large area, resulting in less ground pressure. A

tank can travel at approximately 40 kilometres per hour (25 mph) across flat

terrain and up to 70 kilometres per hour (43 mph) on roads, but due to the

mechanical strain this places on the vehicle and the logistical strain on fuel

delivery and tank maintenance, these must be considered "burst" speeds

that invite mechanical failure of engine and transmission systems.

Consequently, wheeled tank transporters and rail infrastructure is used

wherever possible for long-distance tank transport. The limitations of long-

range tank mobility can be viewed in sharp contrast to that of

wheeled armoured fighting vehicles. The majority of blitzkrieg operations

were conducted at the pedestrian pace of 5 kilometres per hour (3.1 mph),

and that was only achieved on the roads of France.[61]

In the absence of combat engineers, most tanks are limited

to fording rivers. The typical fording depth for MBTs is approximately 1

metre (3.3 ft), being limited by the height of the engine air intake and

driver's position. Modern tanks such as the Russian T-90 and the

German Leopard I and Leopard II tanks can ford to a depth of 3 to 4 metres

when properly prepared and equipped with a snorkel to supply air for the

crew and engine. Tank crews usually have a negative reaction towards

deep fording but it adds considerable scope for surprise and tactical

flexibility in water crossing operations by opening new and unexpected

avenues of attack.

Amphibious tanks are specially designed or adapted for water operations,

but they are rare in modern armies, being replaced by purpose-

built amphibious assault vehicles or armoured personnel

carriers in amphibious assaults. Advances such as the EFA mobile bridge

and MT-55 scissors bridge have also reduced the impediment to tank

advance that rivers posed in World War II.[62]

The M1 Abrams is powered by a 1,500 shaft horsepower (1,100 kW) Honeywell AGT

1500 gas turbine engine, giving it a governed top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) on paved

roads, and 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country.

The tank's power plant supplies kinetic energy to move the tank,

and electricpower via a generator to components such as

the turret rotation motors and the tank's electronic systems. The tank power

plant has evolved from predominantly petrol and adapted large-

displacement aeronautical or automotive engines during World Wars I and

II, through diesel engines to advanced multi-fuel diesel engines, and

powerful (per unit weight) but fuel-hungry gas turbines in the T-80 and M1

Abrams.

Tank power output in context:

Vehicle Power output Power/weight

Mid-sized car Toyota Camry 2.4L 158 horsepower (118 kW) 106 hp/tonne

Sports carLamborghini

Murciélago 6.5L632 horsepower (471 kW) 383 hp/tonne

Racing car Formula One car 3.0L 950 horsepower (710 kW) 2100 hp/tonne

Main battle tank Leopard 2, M1 Abrams 1,500 horsepower (1,100 kW) 24.2, 24.5 hp/tonne

Locomotive SNCF Class T 2000 2,581 horsepower (1,925 kW) 11.5 hp/tonne

[edit]Crew

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)

Tank commander redirects here. For other meanings see Tank

commander (disambiguation).

Most modern tanks most often have four crew members, this being

reduced to three depending if an auto-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, the driver 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.

During history, crew members have varied from just two to a dozen. For

example pre-WW2 French tanks were noted for having a two man

crew, in which the overworked commander had to load and fire the gun

in addition to commanding the tank. First World War tanks were

developed with immature technologies, in addition to the crew needed

to man the multiple guns and machine guns up to four crewmen where

needed to drive the tank-the driver who acted as the vehicle

commander and who manned the brakes, he would drive through

orders to his gears-men, a co-driver to operate the gearbox and

throttle, two gears-men one on each track who would steer by setting

one side or the other to idle allowing the track on the other side to slew

the tank to one side.

With World War II the multi turreted tanks proved impracticable, and as

the single turret on a low hull design became standard, crews became

standardized around a crew of four or five. In those tanks with a fifth

crew member he was most often seated in the hull next to the driver

and operated the hull machine gun in addition to acting as a co-driver

or radio operator.

Well designed crew stations, giving proper considerations to comfort

and ergonomics, are an important factor in the combat effectiveness of

a tank, as it limits fatigue and speeds up individual actions.

[edit]Command, control and communications

German Army Leopard 2A6M incorporates networked battlefieldtechnology

Commanding and coordinating tanks in the field has always been

subject to particular problems, particularly in the area of

communications, but in modern armies these problems have been

partially alleviated by networked,integrated systems that enable

communications and contribute to enhancedsituational awareness.

[edit]Early

Armoured bulkheads, engine noise, intervening terrain, dust and

smoke, and the need to operate "buttoned up" are severe detriments to

communication and lead to a sense of isolation for small tank units,

individual vehicles, and tank crewmen. Radios were not then portable

or robust enough to be mounted in a tank, although Morse

Code transmitters were installed in some Mark IVs at Cambrai as

messaging vehicles.[63] Attaching a field telephone to the rear would

became a practice only during the next war. During World War I when

these failed or were unavailable, situation reports were sent back to

headquarters by some crews releasing carrier pigeons through

loopholes or hatches[64] and communications between vehicles was

accomplished using hand signals, handheld semaphore flagswhich

continued in use in the Red Army/Soviet Army through the Second and

Cold wars, or by foot or horse mounted messengers.[65]

[edit]Modern

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)

See also: Military communications and C4ISTAR

Merkava Mark 4 main battle tank is equipped with a digital C4IS battle-management

system.

On the modern battlefield an intercom mounted in the crew helmet

provides internal communications and a link to the radio network, and

on some tanks an external intercom on the rear of the tank provides

communication with co-operating infantry. Radio networks employ

radio voice procedure to minimise confusion and "chatter".

A recent[when?] development in AFV equipment and doctrine is

integration of information from the fire control system, laser

rangefinder, Global Positioning System and terrain information

via hardened military specification electronicsand a battlefield

network to display information on enemy targets and friendly units on

a monitor in the tank. The sensor data can be sourced from nearby

tanks, planes, UAVs or, in the future infantry (such as the US Future

Force Warrior project). This improves the tank commander's situational

awarenessand ability to navigate the battlefield and select and engage

targets. In addition to easing the reporting burden by automatically

logging all orders and actions, orders are sent via the network with text

and graphical overlays. This is known as Network-centric warfare by

the US, Network Enabled Capability (UK) orDigital Army Battle

Management System צי"ד (Israel).

[edit]Etymology

The word tank was first applied to the British "landships" in 1915,

before they entered service, to keep their nature secret. Several

explanations of the precise origin of the term have been suggested,

including:

1. It arose in British factories making the hulls of the first battle

tanks: workmen and possible spies were to be given the

impression they were constructing mobile water tanks for

the British Army, thus keeping the production of a fighting

vehicle secret.[22]

2. The term was first used in a secret report on the new

motorised weapon presented to Winston Churchill, thenFirst

Lord of the Admiralty, by British Army Lt.-Col. Ernest Swinton.

[66]

3. Winston Churchill's biography states, "To disguise the device,

drawings were marked 'water carriers for Russia.' When it was

pointed out this might be shortened to "WCs for Russia," the

drawings were relabelled "water tanks for Russia." 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.)

In his autobiography, Albert Stern (Secretary to the Landships

Committee, later head of the Mechanical Warfare Supply Department)

recounted that it was Thomas Macnamara (Parliamentary and

Financial Secretary to the Admiralty) "who suggested for secrecy's

sake, to change the title of the Landships Committee." To Sir Eustace

Tennyson-d'Eyncourt's idea of "Water Carrier" was not popular with

Stern who wrote "In Government offices, committees and departments

are always known by their initials. For this reason I, as Secretary,

considered the proposed title totally unsuitable. In our search for a

synonymous term, we changed the word "Water Carrier" to "Tank," and

became the "Tank Supply" or "T.S." Committee. That is how these

weapons came to be called "Tanks"."[68] Swinton states, "Since the 24th

December, 1915, the Tank has always been known as such; and there

has been no confusion as to its nomenclature."[69] His Notes on the

Employment of Tanks, in which he uses the word throughout, was

published in January 1916.

(* The initials W.C. are a British abbreviation for a water closet; in other

words, a toilet. Unfortunately, later in the War a number of Mk IV Tanks

were fitted with grapnels to remove barbed wire. They were designated

"Wire Cutters" and had the large letters "W.C." painted on their rear

armour.)[70]

Stern says, "we changed the word." Lt.-Col. Swinton also claims he

also suggested the name at that meeting.[71]However, in July

1918, Popular Science Monthly reported, "Because a fellow of

the Royal Historical Society has unintentionally misled the British public

as to the origin of the famous "tanks," Sir William Tritton, who designed

and built them, has published the real story of their name ... Since it

was obviously inadvisable to herald "Little Willie's" reason for existence

to the world he was known as the "Instructional Demonstration Unit". In

the shop orders, "Little Willie's" hull was called a "water carrier for

Mesopotamia"; no one knew the hull was intended to be mounted on a

truck. Naturally, the water carrier began to be called a "tank." So the

name came to be used by managers and foremen of the shop, until

now it has a place in the army vocabulary and will probably be so

known in history for all time." It may be d'Eyncourt was aware of this

practice and therefore suggested the name to the Landships

Committee. In any event, the word was in use by members of the

Committee several months before production orders had been placed.

[72]

Stern says the word tank "has now been adopted by all countries in the

world".[73] This is not entirely correct. The word was adopted in most

languages, including Russian. Some countries, however, use different

names. In France, the use of the English word was rejected in favour

of chars d'assaut ("assault vehicles") or simply chars. In Germany,

tanks are usually referred to as "Panzer" (lit. "armour"), a shortened

form of the full term "Panzerkampfwagen", literally "armoured fighting

vehicle". In the Arab world, tanks are called Dabbāba (after a type

of siege engine). In Italian, a tank is a "carro armato" (lit. "armed

wagon"), without reference to its armour. Norway uses the

term stridsvogn and Sweden the similarstridsvagn ("chariot", lit. "battle

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

usespanssarivaunu (armoured wagon), although tankki is also used

colloquially. The Polish name czołg, derived from verbczołgać się ("to

crawl"), is used, depicting the way of machine's movement and its

speed. In Japanese, the term sensha(戦車?, lit. "battle vehicle") is used,

and this term is likewise borrowed into Korean as jeoncha (전차/戰車);

more recent Chinese literature uses the English derived 坦

克 tǎnkè (tank) as opposed to 戰車 zhànchē (battle vehicle) used in

earlier days.

[edit]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 portal

Tank desant

Tank destroyer

Tankette

The first tank battle

Unmanned ground vehicle

[edit]Notes

1. ̂  von Senger and Etterlin (1960), The World's Armored Fighting

Vehicles, p.9.

2. ̂  Coox (1985), p. 579, 590, 663

3. ^ a b House (1984), Toward Combined Arms Warfare:A Survey of 20th

Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization[page needed]

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."[page needed]

5. ̂  The Art of War: Leonardo's War Machines[self-published source?]

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

7. ̂  Harris, J.P. Men, Ideas, and Tanks. Manchester University Press,

1995.[page needed]

8. ̂  Gannon, Charles E. Rumors of War and Infernal Machines:

Liverpool University Press, 2003.[page needed]

9. ̂  Edgeworth, R. & E. Memoirs of Richard Lovell Edgeworth, 1820, pp

164-6

10. ̂  The Devil's Chariots: The Birth and Secret Battles of the First

Tanks John Glanfield (Sutton Publishing, 2001)[page needed]

11. ̂  Gunther Burstyn Angwetter, D.& E. (Verlag Der Österreichischen

Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 2008)[page needed]

12. ̂  "Australia To The Fore. Invention of the War Tank".

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

13. ̂  Russian tanks, 1900-1970 The Complete Illustrated History of

Soviet Armoured Theory and Design John Milsom (Stackpole Books,

1971)[page needed]

14. ^ a b Churchill, p. 316

15. ̂  Churchill, p. 317

16. ̂  McMillan, N: Locomotive Apprentice at the North British Locomotive

Company Ltd Glasgow Plateway Press 1992[page needed]

17. ̂  Glanfield, Devil's Chariots[page needed]

18. ̂  Regan (1993), The Guinness Book of More Military Blunders, p. 12

19. ̂  Steven J. Zaloga, The Renault FT Light Tank, London 1988, p.3

20. ̂  Willmott (2003), First World War, p. 222

21. ̂  "Легенда о русском танке - 0008.htm" (in Russian).

Vadimvswar.narod.ru. Retrieved 2012-05-13.

22. ^ a b Willmott (2003), First World War[page needed]

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

Dunkirk.

24. ̂  Time (1937), Chewed up

25. ̂  Manrique p. 311, 321, 324

26. ̂  Goldman p. 19

27. ̂  Coox p. 300, 318, 437

28. ̂  Coox 998

29. ̂  Coox p. 579, 590, 663

30. ̂  Cooper and Lucas (1979), Panzer: The Armored Force of the Third

Reich, p. 9

31. ̂  Forty (2004), p.251.

32. ̂  Stroud, Rick (2012). The Phantom Army of Alamein. Bloomsbury.

pp. 219.

33. ̂  Zaloga   et al.   (1997)

34. ̂  Stolfi, Hitler's Panzers East[page needed]

35. ̂  Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of

Dunkirk, p 307

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

37. ̂  Starry pp. 45, 79, 129, 143, 153, etc

38. ̂  "T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93 By Steven J. Zaloga, Michael

Jerchel, Stephen Sewell". Books.google.com. 1993-09-30. Retrieved

2012-05-13.

39. ̂  Steven Zaloga and Hugh Johnson (2004), T-54 and T-55 Main

Battle Tanks 1944–2004, Osprey, 39-41, ISBN 1-84176-792-1, p. 43

40. ̂  von Senger und Etterlin (1960), The World's Armoured Fighting

Vehicles, pp. 61, 118, 183

41. ̂  Dougherty, Martin J.; McNab, Chris (2010), Combat Techniques:

An Elite Forces Guide to Modern Infantry Tactics,

Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-312-36824-1[page needed]

42. ̂  USA Today (2005), Tank takes a beating in Iraq

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

avoided

44. ̂  Pengelley, Rupert, A new era in tank main armament, pp. 1521–

1531

45. ̂  Hilmes, Rolf (January 30, 1999), "Aspects of future MBT

conception". Military Technology 23 (6): 7. Moench

Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh.

46. ̂  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.

47. ̂  Wickert, Matthias, Electric Armor Against Shaped Charges, pp.

426–429

48. ̂  Xiaopeng, Li, et al., Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor,

pp. 460–462

49. ̂  Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications, pp.

132–144

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

30

51. ̂  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

52. ̂  Technology of Tanks, Richard M Ogorkiewicz, Jane's Information

Group, 1991[page needed]

53. ̂  Journal of the United Service Institution of India, Volume 98, United

Service Institution of India, 1968, p. 58, retrieved 4 April 2011

54. ̂  BBC News (2006) Tough lessons for Israeli armour

55. ̂  "Defence chiefs knew 'invincible' tank armour could be

breached", Daily Mail, 24 April 2007

56. ̂  Sean Rayment (May 12, 2007 *). "MoD kept failure of best tank

quiet". Sunday Telegraph.

57. ̂  Michael R. Gordon (May 21, 2008). "Operation in Sadr City Is an

Iraqi Success, So Far". The New York Times.

58. ̂  [1][dead link]

59. ̂  John Pike. "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank". Globalsecurity.org.

Retrieved 2009-06-09.

60. ̂  Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of

Dunkirk, pp. 154

61. ̂  Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of

Dunkirk, p.180

62. ̂  Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of

Dunkirk, pp.234-252

63. ̂  Macksey, K., Tank vs Tank, Grub Street, London, 1999, p. 32

64. ̂  Fletcher, D., British Mark I Tank 1916, Osprey, p. 19

65. ̂  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."

66. ̂  Barris (2007), Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 9–12,

1917, p.116

67. ̂  Gilbert (1991), Churchill: A Life, p.298.

68. ̂  Tanks 1914-1918; The Log Book of a Pioneer. Hodder &

Stoughton, 1919, p.39

69. ̂  Eyewitness; being personal reminiscences of certain phases of the

Great War ... By Ernest Dunlop Swinton, Doubleday, Doran & Co.,

1933, p177

70. ̂  Fletcher, David (introduction); Chamberlain, Peter et al.

(1998). Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, Volume One.

Cannon Publications. pp. 49. ISBN 1-899 695 02 8.

71. ̂  Eyewitness, p161

72. ̂  Eyewitness; being personal reminiscences of certain phases of the

Great War. Ernest Dunlop Swinton[page needed]

73. ̂  Tanks 1914-1918; The Log Book of a Pioneer. Hodder &

Stoughton, 1919, p39

[edit]References

"Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications", Military

Technology (Moench Verlagsgesellschaft mbH) (9/2007): 132–144,

September 2007

Barris, Ted (2007), Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 9–12,

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): 12–15, JSTOR 1988528

Col. Eshel, David (2007), Assessing the performance of Merkava Tanks,

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

Hilmes, Rolf (December 2004), "Arming Future MBTs - Some

Considerations", Military Technology (Moench Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh)

(12/2004): 4

House, Jonathan M. (1984), Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of

20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization, United States

Government Printing, OCLC 464265702, retrieved 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, USA Today, retrieved 2008-05-16

Komarow, Steven (2005-03-29), Tanks take a beating in Iraq, USA Today,

retrieved 2008-05-16

Koschier, Angelo V.; Hagen R. Mauch (2000), "Advantages of the LV100

as a Power Producer in a Hybrid Propulsion System for Future Fighting

Vehicles", Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and

Power 122 (October 2000): 693–698,doi:10.1115/1.1287585

Manrique, Jose; Lucas M. Franco (2006) (in Spanish), Las Armas de la

Guerra Civil Espanola, 28002 Madrid; La Los Libros,ISBN 84-9734-475-8

Marcus, Jonathan (2006-08-15), Tough lessons for Israeli armour, BBC

News, retrieved 2008-05-26

McDonald, Colin F. (1990), "Gas Turbine Recuperator Renaissance", Heat

Recovery Systems & CHP (Pergamon Press) 10 (1): 1–

30, doi:10.1016/0890-4332(90)90246-G

Pengelley, Rupert (1989), "A new era in tank man armament: The options

multiply", Janes International Defense Review(November 1989): 1521–

1531

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. (PDF), The Future Combat

System (FCS): Technology Evolution Review and Feasibility Assessment,

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 , Alexandria, Virginia: Time magazine, 5 April 1937, retrieved

2008-05-16

Tomes, Robert R. (Spring, 2004), "Relearning Counterinsurgency

Warfare", Parameters (US Army War College) Vol. XXXIV,(No. 1,): 16–28,

archived from the original on 2008-05-14, retrieved 2008-05-26

von Senger und Etterlin, Dr. F. M. (1960), The World's Armoured Fighting

Vehicles, London: Macdonald & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.

Wickert, Matthias (January 2007), "Electric Armor Against Shaped

Charges: Analysis of Jet Distortion With Respect to Jet Dynamics and

Current Flow", IEEE Transaction on Magnetics (IEEE) 43 (1): 426–

429, doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887650

Willmott, H.P. (2003), First World War, Dorling Kindersley, ISBN 1-4053-

0029-9;

Wright, Patrick (2002), Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War

Machine, ISBN 978-0-670-03070-5

Xiaopeng, Li; Meng Tao, Zhao Chun and Li Liyi (January 2007),

"Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor", IEEE Transaction on

Magnetics 43 (1): 460–462, doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887581

Zaloga, Steven J. and Grandsen, James (1984), Soviet Tanks and

Combat Vehicles of World War Two, London: Arms and Armour

Press, ISBN 0-85368-606-8

Zaloga, Steven J., Kinnear, Jim, Aksenov, Andrey & Koshchavtsev

Aleksandr (1997), Soviet Tanks in Combat 1941–45: The T-28, T-34, T-

34-85, and T-44 Medium Tanks, Hong Kong: Concord

Publication, ISBN 962-361-615-5

[edit]Further reading

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;

[edit]External links

Find more about tank at Wikipedia's sister

projects

Definitions and translations from

Wiktionary

Media from Commons

Learning resources from Wikiversity

News stories from Wikinews

Quotations from Wikiquote

Source texts from Wikisource

Textbooks from Wikibooks

Travel information from Wikivoyage

Listen to this article (info/dl)

MENU

0:00

This audio file was created from a revision of the "Tank" article dated 2005-

09-11, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

More spoken articles

Articles on Modern tanks

The Burstyn tank  Landships has additional information and a

model ofGünther Burstyn's Motorengeschütz.

OnWar's Tanks of World War II  Comprehensive specifications and

diagrams of World War II tanks.

Achtung Panzer  History of tanks and people of the Panzertruppe.

Tanks of World War I

Allied tank aces of World War II

[show]

V

 

T

 

E

World War I tanks

[show]

V

 

T

 

E

Interwar tanks

[show]

V

 

T

 

E

World War II tanks

[show]

V

 

T

 

E

Cold War tanks

[show]

V

 

T

 

E

Post-Cold War tanks

Categories: 

Tanks

Armoured fighting vehicles by type

English inventions

Armoured warfare

Tracked armoured fighting vehicles

Navigation menu

Create account

Log in

Article Talk Read Edit View history

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

Afrikaans

Ænglisc

العربية Aragonés

Asturianu

Azərbaycanca

Bân-lâm-gú

Беларуская

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)

Български

བོ� ད་ཡི� ག Bosanski

Brezhoneg

Català

Ч ӑ вашла

Česky

Cymraeg

Dansk

Deutsch

Diné bizaad

Eesti

Ελληνικά

Español

Esperanto

Euskara

فارسی Français

Frysk

Gaeilge

Galego

贛語 한국어

Հայերեն हि�न्दी� Hrvatski

Ilokano

Bahasa Indonesia

Interlingua

Íslenska

Italiano

עברית Basa Jawa

Қазақша

Kiswahili

Kurdî

Ladino

Latina

Latviešu

Lëtzebuergesch

Lietuvių

Magyar

Македонски മലയാ�ളം� मराठी� مصرى Bahasa Melayu

Монгол

မြ�န်��ဘသ

Nederlands 日本語 Norsk bokmål

Norsk nynorsk

Occitan

Олык марий

Oʻzbekcha

پنجابی پښتو Piemontèis

Polski

Português

Română

Runa Simi

Русиньскый

Русский

Саха тыла

Scots

Shqip

Simple English

Slovenčina

Slovenščina

Ślůnski

Српски / srpski

Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски

Suomi

Svenska

Tagalog தமி�ழ்

Татарча/tatarça ไทย То ҷ ик ӣ Türkçe

Українська

اردو Tiếng Việt

Walon

文言 Winaray

יִידיש 粵語

Žemaitėška

中文 Edit links

This page was last modified on 22 March 2013 at 15:28.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-

profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile view