Uh...not really, at least in terms of "being able to do those things" in 1917 or 1918. I would say that the tank was (at best) in its infancy during WW 1 and didn't attain the majority of the capabilities mentioned by TAH until World War 2.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
The tanks in WW2 were more capable, but there were few "new capabilities," bar the specialist engineer vehicles.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Some insights...
...on armored warfare in WWII: http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/gabel/gabel.asp
I thought it was an interesting article. I don't know how it applies to small wars.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
You may be right on a very, very abstract level, but you're completely wrong on a technical level.
Sure, tanks of WW2 were technically very different, but when used correctly, they did things known to work in WW1. The Conceptual use stayed very coherent.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
...except that they as similar to each other as were medieval knights to Celtic nobles.
The WW2 tanks were - with exception of assault guns, tank destroyers and infantry tanks - an operational enabler while it was merely a moving pillbox for tactical support in WW1. All WW1 tanks - even the Whippet - were either infantry tanks or carrier vehicles.
I fail to see that 'conceptual use' in a Tiger2, Chaffee, Pzkpfw III or T-34.
WWI versus WWII
In WWI, you find some tanks armed only with MGs (the "females"), a mobile pillbox/machine gun next.
This idea/concept carried forward into early (39/40/41) with a number of countries fielding a number of models of tanks armed only with MGs.
The idea/concept of an MBT is an outgrowth from WWII. No more, infantry & cruiser tanks, no more light, medium & heavy tanks.
Today, recon vehicles and IFVs serve in the WWII light tank role, recon, screening etc. medium & heavy are merged into the MBT. The function of infantry support or cruiser now comes from organization not some much from the individual tank itself.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks