Tanks: 100 years of evolution (General Military)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Tank presents a comprehensive account of the world-wide evolution of armoured vehicles from their inception a century ago to the present day, starting with a detailed reappraisal of the development of tanks and how they evolved during World War I. By the end of that conflict tanks had gained considerable importance. However, this was not sustained in its immediate aftermath and a revival only began when the British Army started in to experiment in the 1920s with a more mobile use of tanks. The subsequent rise of the importance of armoured vehicles was accompanied by and was partly due to the advances in their design and performance achieved in Europe and America before World War II. The enhanced capabilities that tanks consequently acquired enabled them to become the core of combined-arms, mechanized formations.
Professor Ogorkiewicz has worked in the field of armoured vehicle development since the 1970s, and this is a serious, analytical study on the history of tank development and armoured warfare.
military and civilian officials who attended the trials of its potential value, although Lord Kitchener dubbed the tank ‘a pretty mechanical toy’. However, the decision to go ahead with the production of tanks similar to Mother was, curiously, left to the General Headquarters of the British Forces in France. Its representatives attended the trials at Hatfield and recommended the acquisition of tanks, although only 40 were subsequently asked for. On hearing of this ridiculously small number
a 40mm gun 50 calibres long, which could perforate thicker armour than the 37mm Rheinmetall gun, and at about the same time the French Somua S 35 tank was armed with a 47mm gun, which could also perforate somewhat thicker armour, as did the Soviet 45mm gun. The German Army only began to redress the balance in 1941 by arming the PzKpfw III with a 50mm gun 42 calibres long and in 1942 arming it with another 50mm gun 60 calibres long. The latter could perforate thicker armour than all the others, as
Fall of France (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003), p.24. 9. G. Ferré, op. cit., pp.125 and 140. 10. J. P. Harris, Men, Ideas and Tanks (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1995), p.246. 11. B. H. Liddell Hart, The Tanks (London, Cassell, 1959), vol. 1, pp.332–36 and J. P. Harris, op. cit., pp.249–51. 12. J. P. Harris, op. cit., p.262. 13. B. H. Liddell Hart, op. cit., p.341. 14. D. Crow, British and Commonwealth Armoured Formations (1919-46) (Windsor, Profile
sitting alongside the driver, while the main turret was manned by a crew of three. This meant that the configuration of the A.7 was basically the same as that adopted later during the Second World War for most tanks and in advance of that of the Mark III Medium. In other respects, such as armour and main armament, the A.7 did not differ from the Sixteen Tonner and the Mark III. It could therefore have been developed into a medium tank that was as effective as the Mark III but was simpler, lighter
his views with Lieutenant Colonel M. Hankey, the secretary of the influential Committee of Imperial Defence.9 There is no record of what was actually discussed but it seems to have included the possibility of converting tracked tractors into some kind of assault vehicle, and such a vehicle is alluded to in a letter written a month later by Swinton to Hankey.10 A clearer outcome of the contacts is a device described in a memorandum written by Hankey in December 1914 and this, according to