Daniel Giangrande 11/26/13 Science and Technology Fall 2013

Retrieved From http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/tiger-tank.htm

Warfare has changed many times since man has created the concept of war. Warfare has evolved time after time again throughout history. Tank warfare changed the way in which wars were fought and thus changing history as we know it. Tank warfare changed the way old wars used to be fought by the creation of innovative technological advancement, their ability and use of speed and mobility, and their ability to be combined with other military assets. In 1914 the world entered into a new age of war, where the entire world would be involved. The First World War as it was known became a war of innovation, which changed warfare forever. At the start of the war both the Central Powers and Allies meet each other in France for a series of battles that would be held in northern France. After the Germans successful attack through Belgium, their army had to stop just 25 miles short of Paris due to low supplies. After the German offensive came to a halt the French counter attacked, which ended up in a failure. Though the French Attack was broken, it did force the German forces to dig into defensive positions. While the German defensives in northern France were being resupplied the French built a defensive line of its own that was equally as formidable as the Germans defensive line. These two massive trench lines that opposed each other slowed the war to a halt, leaving victories to small gains in territory that never really added up. These trench lines forced the Central and Allied Powers to think of a way of getting through the enemy defensives, since cavalry and infantry were seen as ineffective. This problem was attempted to be solved by the invention of armored vehicles called tanks. The

sole purposes of these tanks were to get through the enemy defensives without massive casualties1. The tank from a technological standpoint brought the 20th century into the modern warfare age. The name "tank" comes from the British. When the first tanks were being built, they were kept hidden under giant tarpaulins. The British decided that, when under the tarpaulins, they looked like motorcycle fuel tanks, so to keep their project a secret, they said were developing a new kind of "tank"2. The first tank, the British Mark I, was designed in 1915 and first saw combat at the Somme in September 1916. The French soon followed suit with the Renault FT, which established the classic tank look (turret on top). Despite their later prowess in tank combat in WWII, the Germans never got around to large-scale tank production in WWI, although they did produce about 90 or so. Few German tanks saw combat3. During the first tank battles, the power of tanks often came not from their armor or weapons, but from the fact that they induced terror in infantrymen who had never seen anything like them before. The appearance of a tank as a technological marvel could cause enemy infantrymen to flee long before they were within the tank's firing range. So the technological advancement of the tank was feared by all when it was first developed and eventually made trench warfare obsolete. Though tanks during the First World War were a technological advancement, they would not truly change warfare until the Second World War due to a lack of large scale production during the First World
1

Richard Orgkiewicz. Armor: A History of Mechanized Forces (New York: Frederick A. Praeger Inc.,1960), pages 7-10 2 Orgkiewicz, A History of Mechanized Forces, 11-13 3 British mark 1, page 12

War. Even though production was not originally large scale, the idea of the tank and its possible military application were seen and put to use during the interwar periods 4. Tanks were a major technological advancement for its time due to their components. Early tanks can be split into 3 sections: The driving component in the front, the fighting section in the middle, and the engine in the back5. The driving section is the simplest of all 3 sections. The section is where the steering column and the driver are. This section also includes small slits in the armor for the driver to see during battle. Early tanks made from 1915-1945, depending on the model, may also have a hatch and or a periscope of some sort, allowing for different types of visibility for drivers. Though the idea of a driver and driving column in a tank seems completely obvious, at the time it was a significant idea and invention. During the First World War most modes of transportation dealt in some way with horses. Cars did exist and they were certainly used in the early 1900s, but they were expensive and not safe in a combat zone filled with trenches. Thus the idea of having an armored vehicle with a driver that was protected by metal was in its self an invention rather than some simple idea. This idea of armored fighting vehicles helped lead to the historical changing of warfare with eventually leading to the invention of the tank 6. The second section in a tank is the weapon system. Once again it seems obvious that a tank has guns, but one must remember that it had to be invented and implicated in a practical form at some point. Some believe the weapons system to be
4

Reginald Townsend. "Tanks And The Hose Of Death". The World's Work: A History of Our Time, December 16, 1914, 195-207 5 Orgkiewicz. A History of Mechanized Forces, 321 6 Orgkiewicz. A History of Mechanized Forces, 283-284

the most import invention to the tank; it is part of why tanks changed warfare forever. The first weapon system used in a tank was the machinegun, in the Mark 1 British tank. The British would soon incorporate two small cannons into the Mark 1 tank. The French, after putting their heads together, soon after the release of the Mark 1came out with the Renault, which is considered the tank that resembles the first real modern tank with a rotating turret with a cannon. The idea of creating a heavy weapons system with the combination of an armored vehicle is essentially the creation of the tank7. The last section of the tank is the back where the engine was held. The engines during the time of the first tanks were unreliable when it came to moving large machines. The engines were as important as any other part of the invention of the tank. The purpose of the engine was to move the tank, without it was just a piece of artillery in a metal container. The engine had been around for a while, as it was being used in cars, but its purpose was now more important to military history than ever. Cars were a mode of transportation where tanks were a mode of death. The ability to move artillery across the battlefield while being covered by metal was only possible with the combustion engine. It is safe to say that without the combustion engine the idea of the tank is useless8. The technological aspects of the tank are a main reason tanks have changed modern warfare forever, but tanks ability to move with speed and mobility are just as important as the technological advancements that went into them. One of the main purposes of the tank is transporting firepower across the battlefield with speed and

7 8

Orgkiewicz. A History of Mechanized Forces, 301-307 Orgkiewicz. A History of Mechanized Forces, 330-331

mobility. Early tanks like the Mark 1 and the Renault were slow and cumbersome, maybe early tanks were not really a game changer. Though early tanks had technical problems and were far from perfect they were a game changer. These early vehicles fixed some of the problems armies faced during wars9. One of the problems solved by early tanks dealt with mobility in rough terrain. Conventional vehicles prior to the tank had wheels, and wheels dont do so well in rough terrain. So an invention had to be made to outdo the wheel. Caterpillar tracks would be created and used on the first tank (Mark 1) and would become standard. Though caterpillar tracks were standardized as an idea for tank, they were not standardized across all models of tanks. It is important to remember that there are many variations of tanks, so it would be good to be mindful about the many variations of tracks on tanks10. Another problem soldiers faced that tanks solved was the problem of the trench. During the First World War, both the Central Powers and Allies built a series of trench defenses that slowed the exchange of territory during the war to a halt. Many men were wasted attempting to cross No Mans Land to take enemy trenches. With the invention of the machine gun, open field charges became practically useless or it would be successful with large casualties. The mobility of the tank partially fixed the problem of crossing open battlefields like No Mans Land. The tanks were slow but they could cross the terrain while bringing heavy firepower to the enemy11.

Orgkiewicz. A History of Mechanized Forces, 7-10 David Fletcher. British Mark I Tank 1916 (New Vanguard: Osprey Publishing. 2004), page 12 11 Reginald Townsend. "Tanks And The Hose Of Death". The World's Work: A History of Our Time, December 16, 1914, 195-207
10

Enemy artillery was always a problem to infantry since the invention of artillery. The only way to really outmaneuver artillery was with large numbers of infantry or cavalry that moved quickly, but the invention of the tank fixed that problem as well. Artillery placed correctly was a deadly weapon against infantry that were exposed. Tanks with their speed were mobile enough to dodge indirect artillery fire. Before the invention of seeker missile, tanks were unstoppable to indirect artillery, making them an essential military asset that changed modern warfare forever12. The tank has accomplished many great feats while being used in the military. It was able to solve the problems of open field fighting against machine guns and indirect artillery fire. Though the tank itself has been an innovative technological advancement, the use of those advancements and their use with other military assets have proven more important to the creation of tank warfare. The original use of the tank during the First World War was that of the unknown. Many of the Generals just threw the tanks onto the battlefield during an engagement and hoped they would work. This was the age of trial and error for the tank, allowing the tank to show off its strengths and weaknesses. The generals of this era were able to get ideas of what to do with tank but nothing major had been concluded yet. Tanks really didnt have a proper use and involvement in strategy until the Second World War13.

12

Reginald Townsend. "Tanks And The Hose Of Death". The World's Work: A History of Our Time, December 16, 1914, 195-207 13 Tom Wintringham. The Story of Weapons and Tactics (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943), 23

Some Generals and armies saw a purpose for the tank as a military asset and others saw its use but not its ability to be an asset. As Murray Williamson once said
The

fact that the British Army failed to establish a committee to examine the war's

lessons until 1932 magnified the lack of clarity in its understanding of World War I's lessons. The French and the British During the interwar period had their tanks left over from World War One and continued to use those same tank with little to no new innovation to the new tank warfare. The lack of innovation and invention within tank warfare put the French and English behind and is one of the main reasons they were defeated time after time during the early parts of World War Two 14. The Germans had a completely different understanding of tank tactics and tank innovation. After the Great War, General Erich von Ludendorff of the German High Command praised the Allied tanks as being a principal factor in Germany's defeat. Of course most historians would contribute the Central Powers loss of World War One to something such as a two front war; General Erich von Ludendorff saw the potential of the tank and was able to bring the idea of the new war machine into his vision15. Though the Germans lacked a tank inventory in World War One, they quickly saw promise from the new technology. After the treaty of Versailles the German army was limited to only 100,000 men, so they saw a need for mechanization and mobility to compete in the world with military might. While doing their own secret studies during the early 1920s the Germans decided that armored divisions needed to be a decisive element of their ground warfare. They also concluded that the new armored divisions
14

Williamson Murray. Military Innovation in the Interwar Period (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 20 15 Orgkiewicz. A History of Mechanized Forces, 206-207

would be based mainly on tanks but would also include infantry and other military assets. So in the 1920s the German army came up with incorporating all military elements into divisions with a focus on a specific one, thus they came up with a revolutionary change to warfare. Warfare would now be contingent on tactics rather then marching across open fields and dying16. General Heinz Guderian developed and advocated the strategy of concentrating armoured formations at the point of attack for deep penetration, also known as Blitzkrieg. Guderian believed that there were essential elements for a successful panzer attack/tank attack. There were three elements he believed in, surprise, deployment in mass, and suitable terrain. He proposed and created armored divisions whose motorized infantry and artillery supported the armored units to achieve a decisive success17. In his book Panzer Leader he wrote:

I became convinced that tanks working on their own or in conjunction

with infantry could never achieve decisive importance. My historical studies; the exercises carried out in England and our own experience with mock-ups had persuaded me that the tanks would never be able to produce their full effect until weapons on whose support they must inevitably rely were brought up to their standard of speed and of cross18 country performance.

It was General Heinz Guderian who purposed the idea of tanks being the spearhead of a formation rather then just supporting infantry. This tactic of spearheading an attack with tanks became the major reason that the Germans defeated the Polish, French, Belgians, Russians, and English so badly during 1939 and 1940. No one could stop the fast German advance. The other main militaries in Europe just had not seen the

16 17 18

Orgkiewicz. A History of Mechanized Forces, 206-208 Heinz Guderian, Panzer Leader (New York: First Da Capo Press. 1996), 205 Guderian, Panzer Leader , 15

potential of the tank like the Germans and they suffered for it. This strategy shaped the Second World War into a battle of technology and tactics, rather then a battle of infantry and numbers19. General Heinz Guderian was not the only successful German to standardize tank warfare in World War Two. The 7th Panzer-Division was later nicknamed GespensterDivision or the "Ghost Division", because of the speed and surprise it was consistently able to achieve. Rommel and his men were so fast that even the German High Command at times lost track of their whereabouts. He and his men also set the record for the most ground covered in one day than anyone previously, covering nearly 200 miles20. Rommel and his men were able to accomplish feats that other simply had not had accomplished before. After Rommels success in France he was given command of the Africa corps. This would be one of his greatest achievements, and would solidify the importance of mobile tank warfare. In 1941 General Rommel and his Africa corps were ordered to help the Italians defend the Italian part of Libya21. After disregarding his order Rommel went on the offensive against the British forces in Libya. Rommel saw a moment of opportunity during this time and decided it was time to strike. The British had driven the Italians back for 3 months and had crippled what was left of the Italian forces in Libya. After intercepting messages describing the future attack of Greece and the defense of Libya, the British weakened their forces in Libya in order to strengthen

19 20

Guderian, Panzer Leader, 15 Ronald Lewin. Rommel As Military Commander (New York: B&N Books. 1998), 16 21 Erwin Rommel. The Rommel Papers (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. 1953), 106

their foothold in Greece.22 Rommel and his mobile light tank forces sprung into action and broke through the British lines in Libya and forced then into a retreat. After only 3 weeks of fighting, Rommel and his men were able to push the British back into Egypt. After this amazing feat Rommel was given complete freedom to command his troops, an unusual honor. Rommel was able to accomplish major victories and territorial gains with his ability of using the tank as a fast, mobile, offensive weapon 23. The Germans had shown the usefulness of the tank, thus allowing other armies to adopt their military strategies and production of tanks. The British General and Field Marshal Montgomery had noticed the effectiveness of the tank and he would change the British tactics and give the Germans a run for their money. General Montgomery saw his first action of the Second World War in France as part of the British expeditionary force. The British expeditionary force was driven from France almost as quickly as it was formed; partly due to the new Blitzkrieg strategy the Germans were using with their tanks. While Montgomery retreated at Dunkirk he was able to first hand see the new strategies using tanks and he brought that information back to Britain with him24. After General Montgomerys ability to tactically retreat from the Germans without heavy losses, he was given command of the British 2 nd Corps. After continuing to show his tactical abilities Montgomery was given the command of the British 8 th Army in North Africa. After gaining control of the 8th Army Montgomery started building his defenses
22 23

Lewin, Rommel As Military Commander, 32 Lewin, Rommel As Military Commander, 35-36 24 Bernard Montgomery, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery (London: Colins Clear-Type Press. 1958), 62-65

against the soon to be attacking Germans. Whilst building his defenses Montgomery was also retraining and re-outfitting his troops for a large-scale fight against Rommel and his well trained Africa Corps25. When Montgomerys 8th Army was ready he went on the offensive, and this offensive would be known as the battle of El Alamein. While preparing for this battle, Montgomery consolidated his armor and gathered more by gaining some American Shermans creating the first real British Armor Corps. His plan consisted of a spearhead of armor with mobilized infantry support, which would break a hole into the German lines and would then spread out creating chaos in the German army. This battle would be the first major allied victory in World War Two and it was due to the heavy involvement of tank warfare26. The British General Montgomery was not the only Allied commander that saw major success using tank warfare. American General Patton would become one of the greatest tank commanders of the Second World War. On December 16, 1944, the Germans massed 29 divisions totaling 250,000 men at a weak point in the Allied lines. This battle would be known as the Battle of the Bulge, which proved the effectiveness of tank warfare27. General Von Rundstedt had broken through the American lines in the Ardennes forest so quickly no one knew what was happening. The Germans made such a fast push that it took the Allied General staff 3 days to call a meeting to figure out how to deal with the situation. During this major German offensive the 101st Airborne was surrounded at Bastogne. On December 19th 1944 General Patton was put in charge of
25 26 27

Montgomery, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery, 99-105 Montgomery, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery, 116-121 Patton George. War As I Knew It (New York: Bantam Books. 1980),184

breaking through the German lines and stopping the German offensive while also liberating the 101st from Bastogne. It sounds like an impossible feat but Patton took the job. After mustering the 4th Armored Division and two infantry divisions, Patton made his push. Patton used is armor as a spearhead to push to Bastogne while his infantry ran support and clean up. This quick attack cut off the supply routes of many German
divisions causing a halt in the German offensive and it allowed him to save the 101 st at Bastogne. Pattons ability to combine his tanks with infantry support plus his eye for tactics made him one of the best tank commanders of the war. This also allowed Patton to leave his mark on the importance of tank warfare28. There are some that believe that tanks have not really changed warfare due to a short historical life and that they are also obsolete. Major Ralph L. Schutte of the Canadian Army thinks so. The Major believes that technology has surpassed the tank in many field including missiles and hand held weapons that can destroy tanks with ease. The Major does bring up a point, warfare is always changing and new devices in innovations tend to top the charts when it comes to importance to the battlefield. The major is not right when it comes to the idea that tank warfare was obsolete. Tanks originally were support weapons when they were created and that is still a possible roll for them in the future. The usages of the tank may change in the coming years but the fact remains that the tank is a part of modern warfare and it will remain there even if its roll in the military changes29. Throughout history there have been many innovations in technology and tactics that have changed warfare. The innovations in tanks, their speed and mobility, and

28 29

Patton, War As I Knew It, 184-217 Major Ralph L. Schutte. The Boy Who Cried Wolf : The Death Of the Tank, 1990, page 1-2.

their ability to be used in conjunction with other military assets have changed what was pre 20th century warfare into something new. The 21st century has been effected and the future will be affected by the changes in warfare due to the invention, the innovation, and the usage of tanks in what is now modern warfare.

Bibliography 1) Murray, Williamson. Military Innovation in the Interwar Period. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996, page 20. 2) Townsend, Reginald T. "Tanks And The Hose Of Death". The World's Work: A History of Our Time, December 16, 1914, Accessed November 25, 2013, pages 195 207. 3) Rommel, Erwin. The Rommel Papers. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. 1953, page 106. 4) Orgkiewicz, Richard M. Armor: A History of Mechanized Forces. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Inc.,1960, pages 7-13, 206-208, 283-284, 301-307, 321, 330-331.

5) George, S. Patton. War As I Knew It. New York: Bantam Books. 1980, pages 184217. 6) Fletcher, David. British Mark I Tank 1916, New Vanguard: Osprey Publishing. 2004, page 12. 7) Lewin, Ronald. Rommel As Military Commander. New York: B&N Books. 1998, pages 16, 32, 35-36. 8) Montgomery, Bernard. The Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery. London: Colins Clear-Type Press. 1958, pages 62-65, 99-105, 116-121. 9) Guderian, Heinz. Panzer Leader. New York: First Da Capo Press. 1996, pages 15, 205. 10) Wintringham, Tom. The Story of Weapons and Tactics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943, 23. 11) Major Ralph L. Schutte. The Boy Who Cried Wolf : The Death Of the Tank, 1990, page 1-2.