Cheers,
EggMan
Hosted by Darren Baker
What was the first tank ever?
EggMan
Joined: March 07, 2007
KitMaker: 103 posts
Armorama: 101 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 01:16 PM UTC
Is it russian Tsar tank or british Mark I?
Cheers,
EggMan
Cheers,
EggMan
gremlinz
Joined: February 07, 2009
KitMaker: 795 posts
Armorama: 743 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 02:17 PM UTC
Pretty sure that the first actual tank to be used which would meet the definition of "tank" as we know it would be the British Mark 1, though there were varying degrees of tracked armoured vehicles with guns up to 20 years earlier than that.
GeraldOwens
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 05:04 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Is it russian Tsar tank or british Mark I?
Cheers,
EggMan
The rather ridiculous Russian "Tsar Tank" was never completed, despite the spending of a vast amount of money on the project. "Little Willie" was the first British prototype, followed by "Mother." They led to the development of the Mark I in 1916. The French projects were developed separately, using components of the American Holt Caterpillar tractor, culminating in the St. Chamond and Schneider, which appeared shortly afterward.
alanmac
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 3,033 posts
Armorama: 2,953 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:14 PM UTC
Hi
Go back a few hundred years to the work of the great Da Vinci
Although never built in his time apparently the Discovery Channel had a crack at building it. I apologises in advance for the "style" of presentation in the program. To much whooping and false razzamataz for my tastes.
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/doing-davinci-tank-test.html
Alan
Go back a few hundred years to the work of the great Da Vinci
Although never built in his time apparently the Discovery Channel had a crack at building it. I apologises in advance for the "style" of presentation in the program. To much whooping and false razzamataz for my tastes.
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/doing-davinci-tank-test.html
Alan
M4A2Sherman
Joined: December 29, 2008
KitMaker: 316 posts
Armorama: 264 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2009 - 07:48 AM UTC
I think it was China that built a wooden tank a long time ago...
Blood_Raven117
Joined: July 05, 2009
KitMaker: 13 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2009 - 08:45 AM UTC
Without all the wooden historical examples, the first 'proper' combat tank as we know them to be today was the British Mark 1 that helped the Allies win WW1 and changed modern land warfare forever. The Tsar Tank was a joke which never made it past testing. What came before them like little motor cars with machine gun turrets on top of them were just as laughable lol
Otherwise, it'd be like saying "No, the HMS Ark Royal was not the first modern aircraft carrier, it was the HMS Pallas in 1806 which flew kites to drop anti-Napoleon leaflets", just because it was the earliest recorded example of a ship conducting air ops.
Otherwise, it'd be like saying "No, the HMS Ark Royal was not the first modern aircraft carrier, it was the HMS Pallas in 1806 which flew kites to drop anti-Napoleon leaflets", just because it was the earliest recorded example of a ship conducting air ops.
alanmac
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 3,033 posts
Armorama: 2,953 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2009 - 10:25 PM UTC
Hi
I remember reading that when the British Army planned the first use of these "new weapons" in WW1 they transported them to the front covered and disguised, and to ensure the Germans did not get any idea what they were the British Army called them "Tanks" to imply these large bulky objects were possible water tanks etc .....and it seems the name stuck
Alan
I remember reading that when the British Army planned the first use of these "new weapons" in WW1 they transported them to the front covered and disguised, and to ensure the Germans did not get any idea what they were the British Army called them "Tanks" to imply these large bulky objects were possible water tanks etc .....and it seems the name stuck
Alan
Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2009 - 10:38 PM UTC
Not wishing to be pedantic (well, I have not had any coffee yet, and a rather crummy night sleep..lol), but I thought that the definition of a Tank is 'an armoured vehicle, with a fully enclosed turret capable of 360 degree rotation'. Eg. the M10 (open top turret) and various StuGs et al being classed as Tank Destroyers, rather than Tanks. That would make the Wippeth (sp, I know.. I will get my coffee now...lol) the first tank?
Going to hide under the table
Going to hide under the table
alanmac
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 3,033 posts
Armorama: 2,953 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2009 - 11:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Not wishing to be pedantic (well, I have not had any coffee yet, and a rather crummy night sleep..lol), but I thought that the definition of a Tank is 'an armoured vehicle, with a fully enclosed turret capable of 360 degree rotation'. Eg. the M10 (open top turret) and various StuGs et al being classed as Tank Destroyers, rather than Tanks. That would make the Wippeth (sp, I know.. I will get my coffee now...lol) the first tank?
Going to hide under the table
Hi Henk
You come out from under the table yet ? You must have done to edit your post a bit
Anyway according to your definition " Tank is 'an armoured vehicle, with a fully enclosed turret capable of 360 degree rotation'. whats this then.... 
It's armoured, it's got a turret capable of rotation etc.
Alan
Dog's under the table so I'll go and hide in the garage..
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2009 - 11:45 PM UTC
Doesn't the definition of "tank" also include "and be capable of firing on the move"? That would exclude most if not all SP artillery.
The presence of a rotating turret must be optional or the Strv 103 coldn't have been classified as an MBT. I suppose it could be described technically as a tank destroyer but the Swedes seem never to have made that distinction.
I don't recall the Whippet having a fully rotating turret - or any, come to that ...
The presence of a rotating turret must be optional or the Strv 103 coldn't have been classified as an MBT. I suppose it could be described technically as a tank destroyer but the Swedes seem never to have made that distinction.
I don't recall the Whippet having a fully rotating turret - or any, come to that ...
Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 01:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Henk
You come out from under the table yet ? You must have done to edit your post a bit
It's armoured, it's got a turret capable of rotation etc.
Alan
Dog's under the table so I'll go and hide in the garage..
well, I kind of walked into that one I suppose
still, the howitzer is not designed to fire direct, which makes it an Artillery piece. And they are SPG's, never tanks. Ever. Period... says the experten... (this is tongue in cheek, before I get quartered... 
) And yes, I know that you can, if you have to, fire an artillery piece over open sights, but that doesn't make it an AT gun. Quoted Text
The presence of a rotating turret must be optional or the Strv 103 coldn't have been classified as an MBT. I suppose it could be described technically as a tank destroyer but the Swedes seem never to have made that distinction.
The Strv 103 is an oddball machine, almost in the realm of the German super and paper panzers. The idea may look clever or impressive on paper, but in reality it is a no-no. It does not even have a turret at all. There is a very good reason why the concept of the Tank Destroyer did not survive very long after WWII. The reliance on turning the whole vehicle to lay the gun is to cumbersome, and potentially impossible (tracks with banks , impossible to hide in a hull down position and still having a full arc of fire etc.) The wear and tear on the drive train, and tracks, must have been potentially horrendous, with all the constant turning on the spot...
Quoted Text
I don't recall the Whippet having a fully rotating turret - or any, come to that ...
Whippet...
more egg on face. I was probably thinking of the Renault FT 17, which has a fully rotating turret, tracked propulsion, and full armour potection.
Crewchief
Joined: July 01, 2009
KitMaker: 154 posts
Armorama: 146 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 02:03 AM UTC
Really Interesting discussion going on here. If any vehicle having a turret that would revolve 360 degee were a tank, wouldn't that make the USS Monitor the first tank? The USS Monitor was the first vehicle made of steel that had a revolving turret (actually it had 106 patented designs).
mmeier
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 02:25 AM UTC
Some late model SPH can fire on the move and have a targeting system for it.
muchachos
Joined: May 21, 2008
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 439 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 02:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I thought that the definition of a Tank is 'an armoured vehicle, with a fully enclosed turret capable of 360 degree rotation'. Eg. the M10 (open top turret) and various StuGs et al being classed as Tank Destroyers, rather than Tanks. That would make the Wippeth (sp, I know.. I will get my coffee now...lol) the first tank?
Going to hide under the table
According to Merriam Webster, a tank is "an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks." So, by this definition, the Mark I is a tank. Here's some more definitions (though they are not by anally retentive armour modellers
)SCOTT
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 06:22 AM UTC
All of this is rubbish!
The first tank was "Little Willie" built by Fosters in the UK in 1914-15. It was intended as a combat vehicle, notwithstanding that it never saw service. The other "definition" balderdash is meant for more modern vehicles to distinguish between the many flavours that have developed since 1915. However, it is universally recognised that Little Willy, or "the Fosters Machine" was the first tank. End of story.
On top of all that, at the start, Little Willie was supposed to have a rotating turret and has a round opening in the hull roof for the fitting of same, so it even meets the rotating turret "definition".
The first tank was "Little Willie" built by Fosters in the UK in 1914-15. It was intended as a combat vehicle, notwithstanding that it never saw service. The other "definition" balderdash is meant for more modern vehicles to distinguish between the many flavours that have developed since 1915. However, it is universally recognised that Little Willy, or "the Fosters Machine" was the first tank. End of story.
On top of all that, at the start, Little Willie was supposed to have a rotating turret and has a round opening in the hull roof for the fitting of same, so it even meets the rotating turret "definition".
Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 05:14 PM UTC
Ahh, we are including proto-types and 'should have' and 'what ifs' into the discussion..
I need to check my references, but I'm sure that there are a few earlier designs and prototypes than Little Willy. Some of those even have tracks...
and turrets... 
IIRC Little Willy was only a design prototype, without a gun, and made of steel, not armour plate?
** off to hide under the duvet ..***
I need to check my references, but I'm sure that there are a few earlier designs and prototypes than Little Willy. Some of those even have tracks...
and turrets... IIRC Little Willy was only a design prototype, without a gun, and made of steel, not armour plate?
** off to hide under the duvet ..***
gremlinz
Joined: February 07, 2009
KitMaker: 795 posts
Armorama: 743 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 11:53 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I need to check my references, but I'm sure that there are a few earlier designs and prototypes than Little Willy. Some of those even have tracks
How about Lance De Mole's design which he had the unfortunate luck to submit to the British War Office where it was rejected by the man who then coincidentally put forward the same design himself and sold the idea which went on to be the first tank as we know it ?
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 01:38 AM UTC
The First TANK - e.g. vehicle to carry the name TANK was the British Mk 1 - period. That is the vehicle the name TANK as outlined above came from and was the first to take to the battlefield. The first tank to lay down the modern foundation was the Renault 17 with a rotating turret.
The definitions you guys are using are modern definitions which ignore the fact that the first tank had none of those features but it is the one they are all classed as - TANKS.
Cheers
Al
The definitions you guys are using are modern definitions which ignore the fact that the first tank had none of those features but it is the one they are all classed as - TANKS.
Cheers
Al
Dutchy3RTR
Joined: June 28, 2009
KitMaker: 340 posts
Armorama: 337 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 01:43 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The First TANK - e.g. vehicle to carry the name TANK was the British Mk 1 - period. That is the vehicle the name TANK as outlined above came from and was the first to take to the battlefield. The first tank to lay down the modern foundation was the Renault 17 with a rotating turret.
The definitions you guys are using are modern definitions which ignore the fact that the first tank had none of those features but it is the one they are all classed as - TANKS.
Cheers
Al
Well said that man. None of the 'prototypes', Little Willie or whatever were TANKS as the name hadn't been given to them then. If they had been, then my capbadge would have had Little Willie on it.
jon_a_its
Joined: April 29, 2004
KitMaker: 1,336 posts
Armorama: 1,137 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 03:11 AM UTC
The 'Whippet' didn't have a turret, & was armed with mg's
see: http://www.amv-lilliput.org/modelli/mezzi/lunardi/whippet/whippet.htm
Neither did Little Willy, Mother, or the MK1 which had Naval 6pdrs in Barbettes
I think Wikis' definition hits the nail on the head & doesn't include turrets, so I'd agree that the MK1 wins!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank
The Da-Vinci was an... interesting idea, but since wasn't built & couldn't be moved without being hitched to horses....
see: http://www.amv-lilliput.org/modelli/mezzi/lunardi/whippet/whippet.htm
Neither did Little Willy, Mother, or the MK1 which had Naval 6pdrs in Barbettes
I think Wikis' definition hits the nail on the head & doesn't include turrets, so I'd agree that the MK1 wins!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank
The Da-Vinci was an... interesting idea, but since wasn't built & couldn't be moved without being hitched to horses....
Damraska
Joined: October 06, 2006
KitMaker: 580 posts
Armorama: 499 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 01:12 PM UTC
From The British Tanks 1915 - 19 by David Fletcher (page 45):
"Quite when the word was first coined, and by whom, is a matter of some argument. Swinton and Stern both make the claim, explaining that they believed the term landship to be too descriptive, but once again Stern tells the better story. By his account they cast around for a term which was descriptive of what the thing looked like but far removed from its true purpose and finally hit upon the term Water Carrier. This, indeed was a reasonable description of a large, riveted steel structure but it still would not do for Bertie Stern. Bearing in mind the military practice of reducing everything to sets of initials he felt that there was little merit to be gained in being known as secretary to the WC Committee and selected the shorter, and even more ambiguous word Tank instead."
"On 8 February (1915) the King came up to Hatfield and watched a repeat demonstration (of HMS Centipede), as a result of which Tennyson D'Eyncourt wrote an enthusiastic account for Winston Churchill in which he referred to the new machine as a 'Tank'"
The very first vehicle called a 'Tank' was HMS Centipede, otherwise known as Mother. The word did not exist in the lexicon prior to that point, disqualifying previous machines of a similar nature. One can make the argument that there were earlier armored fighting vehicles, but Mother was the first 'Tank'.
I should add that Little Willie remains a viable contender since the exact date of coinage remains unknown. Written use puts Mother as the first 'Tank'.
-Doug
"Quite when the word was first coined, and by whom, is a matter of some argument. Swinton and Stern both make the claim, explaining that they believed the term landship to be too descriptive, but once again Stern tells the better story. By his account they cast around for a term which was descriptive of what the thing looked like but far removed from its true purpose and finally hit upon the term Water Carrier. This, indeed was a reasonable description of a large, riveted steel structure but it still would not do for Bertie Stern. Bearing in mind the military practice of reducing everything to sets of initials he felt that there was little merit to be gained in being known as secretary to the WC Committee and selected the shorter, and even more ambiguous word Tank instead."
"On 8 February (1915) the King came up to Hatfield and watched a repeat demonstration (of HMS Centipede), as a result of which Tennyson D'Eyncourt wrote an enthusiastic account for Winston Churchill in which he referred to the new machine as a 'Tank'"
The very first vehicle called a 'Tank' was HMS Centipede, otherwise known as Mother. The word did not exist in the lexicon prior to that point, disqualifying previous machines of a similar nature. One can make the argument that there were earlier armored fighting vehicles, but Mother was the first 'Tank'.
I should add that Little Willie remains a viable contender since the exact date of coinage remains unknown. Written use puts Mother as the first 'Tank'.
-Doug
Dutchy3RTR
Joined: June 28, 2009
KitMaker: 340 posts
Armorama: 337 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 12:00 AM UTC
Well if David says it's Mother then that's good enough for me.
aussiemodeler
Joined: May 23, 2007
KitMaker: 266 posts
Armorama: 212 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 01:40 PM UTC
amen to that brother!!!! although i'd liked to have seen DeMole's ''tank'' as the first, being an aussie and all. hahahahahaha
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.