Op 15 september 1916 gebruikten de manschappen van Haig een nieuw wapen: de tank. Die was in 1915 op aandringen van Winston Churchill in het geheim ontwikkeld vanuit een visionair ontwerp van een soort ‘landschepen’, ruitvormige stalen gevaartes op rupsbanden. Maar met de tanks was nog te weinig geoefend, en het aantal van vijftig (waarvan er enkele door defecten snel uitvielen) was lang niet voldoende om een doorbraak te forceren. Bovendien werden de tanks verkeerd ingezet, namelijk afzonderlijk, ter ondersteuning van de infanteristen. Een aantal tanks werd uitgeschakeld door de Duitse artillerie. Het psychologische effect was wél belangrijk: de Duitsers hadden aanvankelijk geen antwoord op dit piepende en knarsende monster dat tot hun grote schrik over hun loopgraven heen kon walsen (http://historiek.net/de-slag-aan-de-somme-1-juli-18-november-1916/38639/).
Al in 1855, en later tussen 1903 en 1915 waren er ideeën over zelfaangedreven gepantserde (rupsband)voertuigen met bewapening, bij o.a. Levavasseur, H.G. Wells, David Roberts, Lancelot de Mole, en Vasily Mendeleev, maar ook bij de Duits-Oostenrijkse zijde:
An engineer in the Austro-Hungarian Army, Lieutenant Gunther Burstyn, inspired by Holt tractors, designed a tracked armoured vehicle in 1911 carrying a light gun in a rotating turret; equipped also with hinged 'arms', two in front and two at the rear, carrying wheels on the ends to assist with obstacles and trenches, it was a very forward-looking design, if rather small. The Austrian government said it would be interested in evaluating it if Burstyn could secure commercial backing to produce a prototype. Lacking the requisite contacts, he let it drop. An approach to the German government was similarly fruitless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_I).
Since World War One, those monstrous armored vehicles have been called "tanks"...but why? Originally, these new armored vehicles were called 'landships' from the H.G. Wells 1904 story, or "land cruisers" or even 'caterpillar machine gun destroyers', but the project was concealed to maintain security prior to their deployment. The story that was sold to the workers on the line in the British factories was that they were constructing mobile water tanks, and the hulls of the landships were labeled "water carriers" and even "little willies". These was shortened, like all things in the military-speak, to "tanks", and the name stuck.While the term "tank" today is more universally adopted for these vehicles, it was not always so. The French, being French, used the term char d'assaut and was shorted to char. The Germans referred to the British war-machines as "tanks", but called their armored vehicles Kampwagen' and later Panzer (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.nl/2013/06/fws-topics-tank.html).
Today it may be difficult to understand why the tank idea found such resistance from the leadership of several armies. Part of the explanation is that the entire automotive industry was in its infancy. Tanks were rightly considered unreliable, troublesome equipment as late as the early 1930s. Weak engines, poor transmissions, and fragile, short-life tracks contributed to this reputation. The otherwise-incomprehensible resistance to tanks from 'traditional' military leadership can be partly understood in this light; a tank battalion that loses most of its vehicles due to mechanical failure on a 50-mile movement is not a reliable asset in combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_the_interwar_period).
Before World War I, motorized vehicles were still relatively uncommon, and their use on the battlefield was initially limited...On August 23, 1914, the French Colonel Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, later a major proponent of tanks, declared: Messieurs, la victoire appartiendra dans cette guerre à celui des deux belligérants qui parviendra le premier à placer un canon de 75 sur une voiture capable de se mouvoir en tout terrain ("Gentlemen, the victory will belong, in this war, to the one of the two belligerents who will be the first to succeed in mounting a 75 mm gun on a vehicle capable of moving in all types of terrain")....The remaining issue was how to utilise and configure a vehicle. Major Ernest Dunlop Swinton RE, was the official British war correspondent serving in France in 1914. He recounts in his book Eyewitness how the idea of using caterpillar tracks to drive an armoured fighting vehicle came to him on October 19, 1914, while he was driving through northern France. In July 1914 he had received a letter from a friend, Hugh Marriott, a mining engineer, drawing his attention to a Holt caterpillar tractor that Marriott had seen in Belgium. Marriott thought it might be useful for transport over difficult ground, and Swinton had passed the information on to the appropriate departments. Now Swinton suggested the idea of an armoured tracked vehicle to the military authorities, by sending a proposal to Lieutenant-Colonel Maurice Hankey. Hankey in turn tried to interest Lord Kitchener in the idea; when this failed he sent a memorandum in December to the Committee of Imperial Defence, of which he was himself the secretary; Winston Churchill the First Lord of the Admiralty was one of the members of the committee. Hankey proposed to build a gigantic steel roller, pushed by tracked tractors, to shield the advancing infantry. Churchill in turn wrote a note on January 5 to the Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, in which he warned that the Germans might any moment introduce a comparable system. A worried Asquith now ordered Kitchener to form a committee, headed by General Scott-Moncrieff, to study the feasibility of Swinton's idea; however, after trials with a Holt 75 h.p. machine the committee concluded in February 1915 that the idea was impractical. Winston Churchill however decided that if the Army wouldn't take up the idea, the Navy should proceed independently, even if it were to exceed the limits of his authority. He created the Landships Committee in February 1915, initially to investigate designs for a massive troop transporter. ...Although landship was a natural term coming from an Admiralty committee, it was considered too descriptive and could give away British intentions. The committee therefore looked for an appropriate code term for the vehicles. Factory workers assembling the vehicles had been told they were producing "mobile water tanks" for desert warfare in Mesopotamia. Water Container was therefore considered but rejected because the committee would inevitably be known as the WC Committee (WC meaning water closet was a common British term for a toilet). The term tank, as in water tank, was in December 1915 finally accepted as its official designation. From then on, the term "tank" was established among British and also German soldiers, but rejected by the French. While in German Tank specifically refers to the World War I type (as opposed to modern Panzer), in English, Russian and other languages the name even for contemporary armoured vehicles is still based on the word tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_I).
France started studying caterpillar continuous tracks from January 1915, and actual tests started in May 1915, two months earlier than the Little Willie experiments. At the Souain experiment, France tested an armoured tracked tank prototype, the same month Little Willie was completed. Ultimately however, the British were the first to put tanks on the battlefield, at the battle of the Somme in September 1916 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tank).
Major Walter Gordon Wilson CMG (1874–1957) was a mechanical engineer, inventor and member of the British Royal Naval Air Service. He was credited by the 1919 Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors as the co-inventor of the tank, along with Sir William Tritton...With the outbreak of the First World War, Wilson rejoined the navy and the Royal Naval Armoured Car Division, which protected the Royal Naval Air Service in France. When the Admiralty began investigating armoured fighting vehicles under the Landships Committee in 1915 20 Squadron was assigned to it and Wilson was placed in charge of the experiments. Wilson worked with the agricultural engineer William Tritton resulting in the first British tank called "Little Willie". At Wilson's suggestion the tracks were extended right round the vehicle. This second design first called Wilson, then the Centipede then "Big Willie" and finally "Mother" became the prototype for the Mark I tank.
Designing several of the early British tanks, he incorporated epicyclic gearing which was used in the Mark V tank to allow it to be steered by a single driver rather than the four previously needed. In 1937 he provided a new steering design which gave a larger turning radius at higher speeds.
He transferred to the British Army in 1916 becoming a Major in the Heavy Branch of the Machine Gun Corps - the embryonic Tank Corps. He was mentioned in dispatches twice and was appointed companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in 1917. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Gordon_Wilson).
The Renault FT, the first "modern" tank
The car industry, already used to vehicle mass production and having much more experience in vehicle layout, in 1916 designed the first practical light tanks, a class largely neglected by the British. It would be Renault's excellent small tank design, the FT, incorporating a proper climbing face for the tracks, that was the first tank to incorporate a top-mounted turret with a full 360° traverse capability. In fact the FT was in many respects the first truly 'modern' tank having a layout that has been followed by almost all designs ever since: driver at the front; main armament in a fully rotating turret on top; engine at the rear. Previous models had been "box tanks", with a single crowded space combining the role of engine room, fighting compartment, ammunition stock and driver's cabin. The FT would have the largest production run of any tank of the war, with over 3700 built, more numerous than all British tanks combined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_I).
The majority of the fifty or so tanks fielded by Germany were captured British vehicles. A7Vs were captured by the Allies, but they were not used, and most ended up being scrapped (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_I).
De A7V is de eerste tank die door Duitsland werd gebouwd en ingezet tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog. Haar naam ontleent ze aan het Abteilung Verkehrswesen A7V, een afdeling van het Duits oorlogsministerie, dat de constructieopdracht op 13 november 1916 gaf....De Duitsers waren in de beginjaren van de Eerste Wereldoorlog niet bijzonder geïnteresseerd in de ontwikkeling van tanks. Men was zich wel bewust van de theoretische mogelijkheid om rupsvoertuigen voor het overwinnen van loopgraven te gebruiken, maar omdat men vanaf eind 1914 toch niet van plan was op het Westelijk Front weer tot de aanval over te gaan, werd de bouw van zulk een geheel nieuw en duur wapenssyteem niet serieus overwogen. Pas toen de Britten op 15 september 1916 tijdens de Slag aan de Somme een tankaanval met de Mark I lanceerden, ontdekten de Duitsers dat de vijand als eerste het nieuwe wapen tot rijping gebracht had. Dat kwam wel als een verrassing maar niet als een schok. Ze waren er niet bijster van onder de indruk: de resultaten van die eerste inzet van tanks waren zeer beperkt en men zag de Mark I dan ook niet als een grote tactische dreiging. Er was echter wel een probleem: de Britten deden in hun propaganda alsof ze nu een wonderwapen bezaten waarmee ze de oorlog konden winnen. Wilde het moreel van het Duitse thuisfront niet ondermijnd worden dan moest men de indruk wegnemen dat Duitsland een fatale achterstand in wapenontwikkeling had opgelopen. En dat kon men het beste doen door zelf een tank te ontwikkelen...De actieradius en de snelheid van dit model was superieur ten opzichte van de geallieerde modellen. Haar hoge constructie gaf de bemanning een goed uitzicht maar ze was tegelijkertijd een gemakkelijk te ontdekken doelwit. Tevens hadden de bestuurder en de commandant door de hoge plaatsing van de commandotoren een 'blinde vlek' van 10 meter naar voren en naar achteren, waardoor zij weinig zicht hadden op het terrein direct rondom de tank. Door het hoge gewicht geraakte ze amper een helling over; de vrije ruimte onder de bodemplaat was klein waardoor de tank zich niet kon verplaatsen over geaccidenteerd terrein. De bemanning werd voorzien van asbest-kledij om zich te beschermen tegen de hoog oplopende temperatuur (86° C). De motoren maakten een oorverdovend lawaai - de commandant gaf opdracht tot vuren door middel van elektrische lichtjes.
Op 24 april 1918 kwamen 14 A7V's in actie bij Villers-Bretonneux (waar Mephisto werd veroverd), daarbij bleek dat ze beter bepantserd en sneller was dan haar tegenstanders. De tank werd maar gedurende 50 oorlogsdagen ingezet, het laatst op 11 oktober. Er werden slechts een twintigtal exemplaren gebouwd waardoor ze geen invloed kon uitoefenen op het verloop van de oorlog (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/A7V).
Following the appearance of the first British tanks on the Western Front, the Allgemeines Kriegsdepartement, 7. Abteilung, Verkehrswesen ("General War Department, 7th Branch, Transportation"), was formed in September 1916.
The project to design and build the first German tank was placed under the direction of Joseph Vollmer, a reserve captain and engineer. It was to have a mass of around 30 tons, be capable of crossing ditches up to 1.5 metres wide, have armament including cannon at front and rear as well as several machine-guns, and reach a top speed of at least 12 km/h. The running gear was based on the Holt tractor, copied from examples loaned by the Austrian Army. After initial plans were shared with the Army in December 1916 the design was extended to be a universal chassis which could be used as a base for both a tank and unarmoured Überlandwagen ("over-land vehicle") cargo carriers.
The first prototype was completed by Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft at Berlin-Marienfelde and tested on 30 April 1917. A wooden mockup of a final version was completed in May 1917 and demonstrated in Mainz with 10 tons of ballast to simulate armour. During final design the rear-facing cannon was removed and the number of machine-guns was increased to six. The first pre-production A7V was produced in September 1917, followed by the first production model in October 1917. The tanks were given to Assault Tank Units 1 and 2, founded on 20 September 1917, each with five officers and 109 NCOs and soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A7V).
The first engagement between tanks occurred on April 24, 1918, three British Mark IV ( two females and one male) were support infantry during the second battle of Villers-Bretonneux in North France, when three rare German A7V tanks were spotted on the battlefield. The Germans had field fourteen of the twenty A7V tanks to the battle, and a pack of three came across the Mark IVs. They crawled towards one another in the mist of the open ground at only a few miles-per-hour. The A7Vs had a small cannon, but only one of the British Mark IVs had a main gun, the male, armed with a six pounder side cannon. Once in machine gun range, they raked each other with fire, and forced the two female tanks to pull back with they were hit with armor-piercing round.
The British male advanced while the A7V was occupied with the females. Cannon fire was exchanged between one advancing A7V and the male Mark IV. One has to remember that these tanks lacked suspension of any kind, bobbing around the gunners, and creating inaccurate fire. However, the Mark IV finally starting to range the German tank, and scored several hits with its six-pounder side cannon, killing five of their 18 crew members. The German crew abandoned their tank, while the other two A7Vs withdrew, and thus ending the global's first tank dual (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.nl/2013/06/fws-topics-tank.html).
A great deal has changed since those days in tank-on-tank engagements.....During Desert Storm, the superior M1 Abrams was able to dispatch old Soviet T-54s, T-62s, and T-72s within one direct hit, while the Abrams took several hits and kept in the fight. This is also a factor of modern tank warfare, having an assassin's mentality (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.nl/2013/06/fws-topics-tank.html).
In 1919, Major General Sir Louis Jackson said: "The tank was a freak. The circumstances which called it into existence were exceptional and not likely to recur. If they do, they can be dealt with by other means." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_I)
Originally, the tank was envisioned as a "machine gun destroyer", able to protect and counter the great hunger beast of war that seemly to eat men for pleasure. The tank was also useful for dislodge barbed wire that hindered the infantry's movement, allowing the machine gun to do its bloody work. It was also designed to move the war of the trenches forward with progress for ending the war. Than changed when the enemy began fielding their own tanks to counter the new threat...and thus began the tank arms race that continues today (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.nl/2013/06/fws-topics-tank.html).
Gen. John J. Pershing, Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), requested in September 1917 that 600 heavy and 1,200 light tanks be produced in the United States. When General Pershing assumed command of the American Expeditionary Force and went to France, he took Lt. Col. George Patton. Patton became interested in tanks. They were then unwieldy, unreliable, and unproved instruments of warfare, and there was much doubt whether they had any function and value at all on the battlefield. Against the advice of most of his friends, Patton chose to go into the newly formed US Tank Corps. He was the first officer so assigned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tank).
In the U.S., J. Walter Christie developed a series of fast tanks, based on his revolutionary Christie suspension system. This was combined with very high power-to-weight ratios achieved by fitting large aircraft engines in his tanks. Although his prototypes were capable of very high speeds, and in some cases designed to be air transportable, disputes with the United States Army Ordnance Corps and a high price (compared with what the US military was willing to pay) meant they were never produced in the USA. Christie's prototypes were however purchased by the Soviet Union, and were to be developed into the BT tanks and eventually, on the eve of World War II, the famous T-34. The success of the BT series, when observed by Fuller, at Russian Army manoeuvres, influenced the British to buy a Christie Tank, imported as a "Tractor", which led to a series of cruiser tank designs such as the A-13 Cruiser Mk IV, Crusader, and others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_the_interwar_period).
After World War I, General Erich Ludendorff of the German High Command praised the Allied tanks as being a principal factor in Germany's defeat. The Germans had been too late in recognizing their value to consider them in their own plans. ...Among the German proponents of mechanization, General Heinz Guderian was probably the most influential. Guderian's 1914 service with radiotelegraphs in support of cavalry units led him to insist on a radio in every armoured vehicle. By 1929, when many British students of armour were tending towards a pure armour formation, Guderian had become convinced that it was useless to develop just tanks, or even to mechanize parts of the traditional arms. What was needed was an entirely new mechanized formation of all arms that would maximize the effects of the tank.
The German tanks were not up to the standards of Guderian's concept. The Panzer I was really a machine-gun-armed tankette, derived from the British Carden-Loyd personnel carrier. The Panzer II did have a 20-mm cannon, but little armour protection. These two vehicles made up the bulk of panzer units until 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tank).
De Duisters namen de techniek over en maakten tanks, die in de tweede wereldoorlog legendarisch waren. Maar toen hadden ook de Britten en Amerikanen tanks:
Zie ook de film Fury.
Fury, the Sherman. Sony Pictures
Recruits were generally sourced through conscription. Every few months a new draft of 18-year-olds were called into the services. The British main tank-training base was at Bovington in Dorset, where the recruits slept on beds made of straw. During training, they were allocated their main tasks based on rudimentary skills they revealed: radio operator, driver, or gunner. Driving skills were tested through initially driving a truck, gunnery skills with an air-gun that fired at small wooden tank models pulled by string. Not exactly high-tech
(www.science20.com/the_conversation/home_workplace_tomb_fury_and_the_reality_of_the_world_war_ii_tank-147667).
While World War One was the birth and early childhood of the tank, World War Two shaped the tank towards adulthood (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.nl/2013/06/fws-topics-tank.html).
In 1926, under a secret annex to the Treaty of Rapallo, the Soviet Union and Germany set up a joint tank school at Kazan, which was illegal under the Treaty of Versailles. Both countries learned much about tank design and tactics in this co-operative venture. The Germans provided advice on mechanisation of Soviet heavy industry, and helped develop a sense of professionalism in the Red Army. From 1929, an experimental Mechanised Brigade was formed, training and developing combined-arms tactics with foreign tanks, armoured cars, tractors, and lorries.
The Soviets also spent tens of millions of dollars on U.S. equipment and technology to modernise dozens of automotive and tractor factories, which would later produce tanks and armoured vehicles.
The multi-turreted T-28 medium tank. The T-28 was the first series-produced modern medium tank.
Based on a mixed force of foreign tanks and imported prototypes, the Soviets developed an impressive domestic design and production capability....The participation by Soviet 'volunteer' tank units in the Spanish Civil War was decisive in forming Soviet tank designs for WWII. Soviet tanks dominated their foreign rivals in Spain due to their firepower, but their thin armor, in common with most tanks of the period, made them vulnerable to the new towed antitank guns being supplied to Infantry units. This finding led directly to a new generation of Soviet tanks. By the eve of World War II, the Soviet Union had some of the world's best tanks (including the T-34 and KV-1, which were basically a generation ahead, coming as a shock to the Wehrmacht). However, the poor training and readiness status of most Red Army units led to a catastrophic defeat of the enormous Soviet Mechanised Corps during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa, Germany's 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_the_interwar_period).
Germany, constrained by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, was not allowed to produce tanks of any kind and only a few armoured cars. In 1926 an unofficial program of tank construction was initiated by Von Seeckt, the commander of the Reichswehr. ...A major boost to German armour came with the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, giving Germany access to the entire Czech arms industry. The Czechs had two light tank designs later used by the Germans, the Škoda LT35 and the Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk (ČKD) TNHP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tanks_of_the_interwar_period).
World War II forced armies to integrate all the available arms at every level into a mobile, flexible team. The mechanized combined arms force came of age in this war. In 1939, most armies still thought of an armoured division as a mass of tanks with relatively limited support from the other arms. By 1943, the same armies had evolved armoured divisions that were a balance of different arms and services, each of which had to be as mobile and almost as protected as the tanks they accompanied. This concentration of mechanized forces in a small number of mobile divisions left the ordinary infantry unit deficient in armour to accompany the deliberate attack. The German, Soviet, and American armies therefore developed a number of tank surrogates such as tank destroyers and assault guns to perform these functions in cooperation with the infantry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tank).
After World War II, tank development continued. ...In the Cold War, the two opposing forces in Europe were the Warsaw Pact countries on the one side, and the NATO countries on the other side.
Soviet domination of the Warsaw Pact led to effective standardization on a few tank designs. In comparison, NATO adopted a defensive posture. The major contributing nations, France, Germany, the USA, and the UK developed their own tank designs, with little in common (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tank).
The Chieftain FV4201 was the main battle tank of the United Kingdom during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. A development of the Centurion and therefore a continuation of the British cruiser series, sharing a substantial commonality of parts with both its predecessor and successor. It was the "most formidable main battle tank in the world" with, at the time of its introduction in 1966...The final Chieftain version, which was used by the British Army until 1995, incorporated "Stillbrew" armour named after Colonel Still and John Brewer from the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chieftain_tank).
During the Cold War years, the main battle tank was the king of land combat, and military planners on both sides obsessed over each others tanks. All of this theorizing was played out in 1991, when NATO tanks and Warsaw Pact tank squared off in those pool table flat deserts of Iraq and Kuwait. Little did we know that moment was the tanks' shining moment, and now, in the era of the War on Terror, the main battle tank seems a little lost and heading for a major redesign of the concept (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.nl/2013/06/fws-topics-tank.html).
During direct assault, tanks move in a line, so that each can engage their targets without risk of friendly fire. This tactic works best in conditions like what was seen in the Gulf War and the War in Iraq...nice open desert....From the streets of Hue, to Baghdad, to the West Bank, tanks have been sucked into military operations in urban territory (MOUT) with varying degrees of success since World War II. Modern main battle tanks are massive creatures that require space to operate, and in their natural hunting grounds, they are the king of the hill...but that is not so in the concrete jungle. Tanks can be led into traps by blocking off or destroying certain streets, especially of the crew doesn't know the city, and spells death if they are unable to turn around. Tanks crews, at times, were emboldened by their layers of steel, and lack of MOUT training, plowed into urban war-zones without any artillery or infantry, causing devastating results. During the 1980's, the prospect of armored combat in built-up urban areas of West Germany loomed as the Cold War continued onward. In order for that possible invasion of Warsaw Pact armor to be resisted, the Army had to engage in MOUT training on a wide scale...Due to issues with losses of heavy armor in the dense streets of Iraq and tank crews having to fend off attackers until help arrives, the US Army developed the Tank Urban Survival Kit (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.nl/2013/06/fws-topics-tank.html).
The tank continues to be vulnerable to many kinds of anti-tank weapons and is more logistically demanding than lighter vehicles, but these were traits that were true for the first tanks as well. In direct fire combat they offer an unmatched combination of higher survivability and firepower among ground-based warfare systems. Whether this combination is particularly useful in proportion to their cost is matter of debate, as there also exist very effective anti-tank systems, IFVs, and competition from air-based ground attack systems....M1A2 TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) came, the finalization of a remote machine gun came into place, and was one of the first main battle tanks to have one. Other examples of this gun have been seen, such as a 20 mm remote cannon on the M60A2. This remote machine gun, under the name CROWS (Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station) has solved the problem of enemy fire threat to the commander, when operating the machine gun. It can also be equipped with an optional grenade launcher.
Possibly one of the main evolution sources for tanks in this century are the active protection systems. Until 15 years ago, armour (reactive or passive) was the only effective measure against anti-tank assets. The most recent active protection systems (including Israeli TROPHY and Iron Fist and Russian Arena) offer high survivability even against volleys of RPG and missiles. If these kinds of systems evolve further and are integrated in contemporary tank and armoured vehicle fleets, the armour-antitank equation will change completely; therefore, 21st century tanks would experience a total revival in terms of operational capabilities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tank).
Dus na 100 jaar bestaat de tank nog steeds, maar... is er bier van?
The tank was a British invention [daar valt dus wat aan af te dingen...] that changed warfare for ever when it was introduced in World War One – and Bovington has been the home of the tank ever since. From the Somme to Tiananmen Square or D-Day to Desert Storm the tank has played a part in shaping history – and it continues to do so today (http://mail.tankmuseum.org/visit_us). To commemorate the centenary of the First World War, and the tanks’ first foray in to battle, The Tank Museum has commissioned its very own beer. Crafted by the local Dorset Brewing Company, ‘Landship’ is a pale gold, clean tasting, medium bodied ale. The bottle is emblazoned with images of the majestic Mark IV tank, which first saw action in the Battle of Messines Ridge in 1917, further adding to this historic brew.
Unveiled just in time for TANKFEST, ‘Landship’ is now available to buy from The Tank Museum gift shop, price £3.50 per bottle (http://mail.tankmuseum.org/ixbin/indexplus?record=ART3974). The Tank museum offers a rich experience for anyone interested in modern land warfare. You can even purchase Tank-themed beer ("Landship") in the gift shop! (http://americanconservativeinlondon.blogspot.nl/2013/10/the-tank-museum.html)
(http://smokesandbooze.blogspot.nl/2013/07/landship-beer-commemorating-tank.html)
Ja, dus, zoals ook blijkt uit Untappd.
Dorset Brewing Company was founded by Giles Smeath in 1996, who restored an 800-year-old brewing tradition to the Dorset port of Weymouth in the heart of the World Heritage Coastline (the Jurassic Coast). Since then, DBC has grown in size and stature, acquiring new premises in December 2010 to accommodate a larger plant and thus satisfying the increasing demand throughout the UK for its award-winning real ales.
With the involvement and support of other family members, the Brewery has become very much a family business; with the emphasis on quality ales and excellent personal customer care.
Dorset Brewing Company, Hybris Business Park, Warmwell Road, Crossways, Dorchester, Dorset, DT2 8BF (www.dorsetbreweries.com/brewery/dorset-brewing-company/) (www.dbcales.com/).
En wist je dat?
Een Duitse Leopard tank kan als ober bier dragen (youtube). Back in 1986 the German military wanted to show off their Leopard 2 main battle tank's fully stabilised main gun. So in traditional style, they did it with a massive jug of beer (or 'stein') (http://forces.tv/43881003). Nothing quite represents Germany more as a culture than golden brown beer sloshing in a glass stein. When German military engineers had to test our the weapon stabilization system on their new tank, they knew beer was the only way to go (https://military.id.me/firepower/german-military-risks-entire-beer-stein-to-test-tank-stabilization/).
In the video, a black beret-wearing member of the German Army's panzer corps pours a beer into a stein mounted on a tank's 120-millimeter gun barrel. The Leopard II main battle tank then rolls across bouncy terrain and doesn't spill a drop (www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18362/tank-carry-beer/). Er zijn overigens ook (Amerikaanse) biersteins met een tank.
IH%20Tiger%20Tank%20Altbier2.pdf).
Ale
Owned by: Family Tobacco Traders LLC
Serial Number: 86391593
Brewery: Port Brewing
Style: Imperial Pilsner
Serving Style: 220z Bomber – Served in a pint glass
ABV: 9.5% ABV
IBU:International Bitterness Units N/A
Aroma: Pronounced malt and slightly floral hop aromas with subtle hints of spice.
Appearance: Pure golden sunshine, hazy, beautiful white head with a good amount of carbonation. Strong lacing on the glass, good head build up that gently settles away.
Flavor: Smooth toasty malts gradually build initial complexity then finishes somewhat dry with a hoppy bitterness and some warm alcohol to taste a while.
Mouthfeel: Medium to heavy warming body, with a dry finish and a lingering bitterness. I <3 it="" p="">Taster’s Notes: A bold pilsner brewed right here in the USA, strong bold aromas and flavors. Complex and balanced for a brew with such a high abv. This one gets the job done right!
(www.corebrewing.com/2009/09/port-brewing-panzer-imperial-pilsner/).
(http://thegooddoctorsaid.blogspot.nl/2010/09/port-brewing-panzer-imperial-pilsner_16.html)
3>
From Wexford, Ireland comes Clever Man Irish Craft Beers. Their range of offerings are named in honor of clever Irish men and their inventions....Little Willie Tank American Pale Ale, named for Walter Gordon Wilson, co-designer of the British Mark I tank (www.ohbeautifulbeer.com/2015/10/clever-man/).
De Slag aan de Somme [waar de tank voor het eerst werd ingezet] figureert in het collectieve geheugen als hét symbool van de zinloze verkwisting van jonge mannenlevens waar de Eerste Wereldoorlog het patent op heeft. De meeste soldaten die sneuvelden kregen de vijand nooit in het vizier. Ze werden neergemaaid door granaatscherven of mitrailleurkogels, of verpulverd door artillerievuur. De ultieme kwetsbaarheid van het menselijk lichaam voor de wonderen der technologie werd aangetoond: de oorlog was een vernietigingsmachine geworden. Toen hun duidelijk werd dat het misliep, wisten de fantasieloze generaals geen alternatieve strategie te bedenken, en besloten zij steeds weer tot hernieuwde aanvallen.
Haig toonde zich na afloop van de slag evenwel niet ontevreden. Al werden zijn doelen bij lange niet gehaald, volgens een groep experts was de slag niet geheel zinloos. De Duitsers moesten manschappen weghalen bij Verdun, zodat de Fransen daar konden standhouden. Bovendien kregen de Russen even lucht. De Duitse militaire kracht was zodanig verzwakt, dat de legerleiding in Berlijn in haar wanhoop in februari 1917 zou besluiten tot de onbeperkte duikbotenoorlog; daarmee haalde Duitsland zich de oorlogsverklaring van de Verenigde Staten op de hals, wier deelname aan de strijd van doorslaggevende betekenis zou zijn. Zo bekeken, zou de Slag aan de Somme nog ergens goed voor zijn geweest (http://historiek.net/de-slag-aan-de-somme-1-juli-18-november-1916/38639/).