The tank is 100 years old on the battlefield this week. The Great War YouTube Channel has some great videos.
A while back I created a post about the American tank design and development strategy.
Having looked at the winning side, I thought that I would look at the losing side and show why, in the end the Germans strategy comes down to “how to do it the wrong way.”
Germany’s design strategy was rather different from the evolutionary development strategy pursued by it’s enemies. The Wermacht started the war with tanks that, while small were adequate for the jobs they called upon to do.
This interesting article on the M6 tank showed up on my Facebook timeline.
The M6 is one of those military options that the US Army pursued and then dropped. Through 1940 and the beginning of the war the US Army initiated these various armored vehicle and self propelled gun project as stopgaps and in response to evolving doctrine. As the war progressed and these various vehicles proved to be redundant, the programs were reduced to a barely sustained level and then canceled altogether. So if the question is ever asked why the US didn’t design a heavy tank, the answer is that they did. Then the Armored forces decided that the gains were not worth the resources.
All you need to know.
In Russian. At the the tank biathlon.
More tanks. This looks fun.
The Renault FT17 was the first tank where all the feature that we have come to define as “tank” came together. All in all a very successful design.
Rhinebeck Aerodrome in NY has an FT17 that runs. You can see at the end after all the WW1 airplanes.
If you see any discussion about the US Army during WW2 you will quickly hear that the US Army couldn’t pour sand out of a boot with instructions on the heel. The choices of just about every piece of equipment will be bitterly criticized aggressively. You would honestly come to the conclusion that the US Army was just able to win the war because of accident or sheer overwhelming production. The Chieftan debunks much of that here.