TankFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about the armoured vehicle. For other uses, seeTank (disambiguation).

Cutaway of anM4A4 Shermantank, the primary tank used by the United States and a number of the other western allies during theSecond World War.

Tiger II's ofSchwere Heeres Panzer Abteilung503 (s.H.Pz.Abt. 503) 'Feldherrnhalle'posing in formation for the German newsreel[show] v t eHistory of the tank

Atankis a large type ofarmoured fighting vehiclewithtracks, designed forfront-linecombat. Modern tanks are strong mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibrecannonin a rotatinggun turret. They combine this with heavyvehicle armourproviding protection for the crew of the weapon andoperational mobility, which allows them to position on the battlefield in advantageous locations. These features enable the tank to have enormous capability to perform well in atacticalsituation: the combination of strong weapons fire from theirtank gunand their ability to resist enemy fire means the tank can take hold of and control an area of the battle and prevent other enemy vehicles from advancing, for example. In bothoffensiveanddefensiveroles, they are powerful units able to perform all primary tasks[which?]required of armoured troops on thebattlefield.[1]The modern tank was the result of a century of development from primitive armoured vehicles, due to improvements in technology such as the internal combustionengine, which allowed the rapid movement of heavy equipment required to construct armoured vehicles. As a result of these advances, tanks underwent tremendous shifts in capability during the World Wars of the 20th century.Tanks in World War Iwere developed separately and simultaneously by Great Britain[2]and France as a means to break the deadlock oftrench warfareon theWestern Front. Their first use in combat was by the British Army on September 15, 1916 between the villages of Flers and Courcelette, during theBattle of the Somme. The name "tank" was adopted by the British during the early stages of their development, as a security measure to conceal their purpose (seeetymology). While the French and British built thousands of tanks between them, Germany was unconvinced of the tank's potential, and built only twenty of her own.Tanks of the interwar periodevolved into thedesigns of World War II. Important concepts ofarmoured warfarewere developed; theSoviet Unionlaunchedthe first mass tank/air attack at Khalkhin Gol(Nomonhan) in August 1939,[3]which later resulted in theT-34, a predecessor of themain battle tank. Less than two weeks later,Germanybegan their large-scale armoured campaigns that would become known asblitzkrieg("lightning war") massed concentrations of tanks supported bymotorisedandmechanized infantry,artilleryandair powerdesigned to break through theenemy frontand collapse enemy resistance.The widespread introduction ofHEAT warheadsduring the second half of WWII led to lightweight anti-tank weapons with considerable power. This caused major changes in tank doctrine and the introduction of effectivecombined armstactics.Tanks in the Cold Warwere designed with these weapons in mind, and led to greatly improved armours during the 1960s, especiallycomposite armour. Improved engines, transmissions and suspensions allowed tanks of this period to grow larger. Aspects of gun technology changed significantly as well, with advances in shell design.During the 20th century,main battle tankswere considered a key component of modern armies.[4]In the 21st century, with the increasing role ofasymmetrical warfareand the end of theCold War, that also contributed to the increase of cost-effective Russian anti-tank weapons worldwide, the importance of tanks has waned. Modern tanks seldom operate alone, as they are organized intocombined armsunits which involve the support ofinfantry, who may accompany the tanks ininfantry fighting vehicles. They are also usually supported byreconnaissanceorground-attack aircraft.[5]Contents[hide] 1History 1.1Conception 1.2World War I 1.3Interwar period 1.4World War II 1.5Cold War arms race 1.621st century conflicts 1.7Research and development 2Design 2.1Offensive capabilities 2.2Protection and countermeasures 2.3Mobility 2.4Crew 2.5Engineering constraints 3Command, control and communications 3.1Early 3.2Modern 4Etymology 5See also 6Notes and references 7Bibliography 8External linksHistory[edit]Main article:History of the tankConception[edit]

Film clip of World War I-era tanks.The tank is the 20th century realization of an ancient concept: that of providing troops with mobile protection and firepower. Theinternal combustion engine,armour plate, and thecontinuous trackwere key innovations leading to the invention of the modern tank.Armoured trains appeared in the mid-19th century, and various armoured steam- and petrol-engined vehicles were also proposed. The firstarmoured carwas produced in Austria in 1904. However, all were restricted to rails or reasonably passable terrain. It was the development of a practicalcaterpillar trackthat provided the necessary independent, all-terrain mobility.

Model of Leonardo's proposed vehicle.Many sources imply thatLeonardo da VinciandH.G. Wellsin some way foresaw or "invented" the tank. Leonardo's late 15th century drawings of what some describe as a "tank" show a man-powered, wheeled vehicle with cannons all around it. However the human crew would not have enough power to move it over larger distance, and usage of animals was problematic in a space so confined.The machines described in Wells's 1903 short storyThe Land Ironcladsare a step closer, in being armour-plated, having an internal power plant, and being able to cross trenches. Some aspects of the story foresee the tactical use and impact of the tanks that later came into being. However, Wells's vehicles were driven by steam and moved onPedrail wheels, technologies that were already outdated at the time of writing. After seeing British tanks in 1916, Wells denied having "invented" them, writing, "Yet let me state at once that I was not their prime originator. I took up an idea, manipulated it slightly, and handed it on."[6]It is, though, possible that one of the British tank pioneers,Ernest Swinton, was subconsciously or otherwise influenced by Wells's tale.[7][8]The "caterpillar" track arose from attempts to improve the mobility of wheeled vehicles by spreading their weight, reducing ground pressure, and increasing their adhesive friction. Experiments can be traced back as far as the 17th century, and by the late nineteenth they existed in various recognizable and practical forms in several countries.It is frequently claimed that Richard Lovell Edgeworth created a caterpillar track. It is true that in 1770 he patented a "machine, that should carry and lay down its own road", but this was Edgeworth's choice of words. His own account in his autobiography is of a horse-drawn wooden carriage on eight retractable legs, capable of lifting itself over high walls. The description bears no similarity to a caterpillar track.[9]The first combinations of the three principal components of the Tank appeared in the decade before World War One. In 1903, aCaptain Levavasseurof the French Artillery proposed mounting a field gun in an armoured box on tracks. Major W.E. Donohue, of the British Army's Mechanical Transport Committee, suggested fixing a gun and armoured shield on a British type of track-driven vehicle.[10]In 1911, a Lieutenant Engineer in the Austrian Army,Gnther Burstyn, presented to the Austrian and Prussian War Ministries plans for a light, three-man tank with a gun in a revolving turret.[11]In the same year an Australian civil engineer namedLancelot de Molesubmitted a basic design for a tracked, armoured vehicle to the British War Office.[12]In Russia,Vasiliy Mendeleevdesigned a tracked vehicle containing a large naval gun.[13]All of these ideas were rejected and, by 1914, forgotten, although it was officially acknowledged after the War that de Mole's design was at least the equal of the tanks that were later produced by Great Britain, and he was voted a cash payment for his contribution. Various individuals continued to contemplate the use of tracked vehicles for military applications, but by the outbreak of the War no one in a position of responsibility in any army had any thoughts about tanks.[citation needed]World War I[edit]Main article:Tanks in World War I

British World War I Mark V* tankGreat BritainFrom late 1914 a small number of middle-rankingBritish Armyofficers tried to persuade the War Office and the Government to consider the creation of armoured vehicles. Amongst their suggestions was the use of caterpillar tractors, but although the Army used many such vehicles for towing heavy guns, it could not be persuaded that they could be adapted as armoured vehicles. The consequence was that early tank development in Great Britain was carried out by theRoyal Navy.As the result of an approach by Royal Naval Air Service officers who had been operating armoured cars on the Western Front, theFirst Lord of the Admiralty,Winston Churchill[14]formed theLandships Committee, on 20 February 1915. TheDirector of Naval Constructionfor the Royal Navy,Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, was appointed to head the Committee in view of his experience with the engineering methods it was felt might be required; the two other members were naval officers, and a number of industrialists were engaged as consultants. So many played a part in its long and complicated development that it is not possible to name any individual as the sole inventor of the tank.[15]However leading roles were played by MajorWalter Gordon Wilsonwho designed the gearbox and developed practical tracks and byWilliam Trittonwhose agricultural machinery company,William Foster & Co., built theprototypes;.[16]The committee's first design,Little Willie, ran for the first time in September 1915 and served to develop the form of the track but an improved design, better able to cross trenches, swiftly followed and in January 1916 the prototype, nicknamed "Mother", was adopted as the design for future tanks. Production models of"Male"tanks (armed with naval cannon and machine guns) and"Females"(carrying only machine-guns) would go on to fight in history's first tank action at the Somme in September 1916.[14][17]Great Britain produced about 2,600 tanks of various types during the war.[18]The first tank to engage in battle was designatedD1, a BritishMark IMale, during theBattle of Flers-Courcelette(part of the wider Somme offensive) on 15 September 1916.[19]

Renault FTtanks, here operated by the US army, pioneered the use of a fully traversable turret and served as pattern for most modern tanks.FranceWhilst several experimental machines were investigated in France, it was a colonel of artillery,J.B.E. Estienne, who directly approached the Commander-in-Chief with detailed plans for a tank on caterpillar tracks, in late 1915. The result was two largely unsatisfactory types of tank, 400 each of theSchneiderandSaint-Chamond, both based on theHolt Tractor.The following year, the French pioneered the use of a full 360 rotationturretin a tank for the first time, with the creation of theRenault FTlight tank, with the turret containing the tank's main armament. In addition to the traversible turret, another innovative feature of the FT was its engine located at the rear. This pattern, with the gun located in a mounted turret and the engine at the back, has become the standard for most succeeding tanks across the world even to this day.[20]The FT was the most numerous tank of the War; over 3,000 were made by late 1918.GermanyGermany fielded very few tanks duringWorld War I, and started development only after encountering British tanks on the Somme. TheA7V, the only type made, was introduced in March 1918. with just 20 being produced during the war.[21]The first tankversustank action took place on 24 April 1918 at theSecond Battle of Villers-Bretonneux,France, when three BritishMark IVsmet three GermanA7Vs. Captured British Mk IVs formed the bulk of Germany's tank forces during World War I; about 35 were in service at any one time. Plans to expand the tank programme were under way when the War ended.Other nationsThe United StatesTank Corpsused tanks supplied by France and Great Britain during World War I. Production of American-built tanks had just begun when the War came to an end. Italy also manufactured twoFiat 2000stowards the end of the war, too late to see service. Russia independently built and trialed two prototypes early in the War; the tracked, two-manVezdekhodand the hugeLebedenko, but neither went into production. A tracked self-propelled gun was also designed but not produced.[22]Although tank tactics developed rapidly during the war, piecemeal deployments, mechanical problems, and poor mobility limited the military significance of the tank in World War I, and the tank did not fulfil its promise of rendering trench warfareobsolete. Nonetheless, it was clear to military thinkers on both sides that tanks in some way could have a significant role in future conflicts.[23]Interwar period[edit]Main article:Tanks of the interwar period

FrenchHotchkiss H-39 light tank of 1939.In theinterwar periodtanks underwent further mechanical development. In terms of tactics,J.F.C. Fuller's doctrine of spearhead attacks with massed tank formations was the basis for work byHeinz Guderianin Germany,Percy Hobartin Britain,Adna R. Chaffee, Jr., in the U.S.,Charles de Gaullein France, andMikhail Tukhachevskyin the USSR.Liddell Hartheld a more moderate view that all arms - cavalry, infantry and artillery - should be mechanized and work together. The British formed the all-armsExperimental Mechanized Forceto test the use of tanks with supporting forces.In theSecond World Waronly Germany would initially put the theory into practice on a large scale, and it was their superior tactics and French blunders, not superior weapons, that made blitzkrieg so successful in May 1940.[24]For information regarding tank development in this period, seetank development between the wars.Germany,Italyand theSoviet Unionall experimented heavily with tank warfare during their clandestine and volunteer involvement in theSpanish Civil War, which saw some of the earliest examples of successful mechanised combined arms such as whenRepublicantroops, equipped with Soviet-supplied medium tanks and supported by aircraft, eventually routed Italian troops fighting for theNationalistsin the seven-dayBattle of Guadalajarain 1937.[25]However, of the nearly 700 tanks deployed during this conflict, only about 64 tanks representing theFrancofaction and 331 from theRepublicanside were equipped with cannon, and of those 64 nearly all wereWorld War IvintageRenault FTtanks, while the 331Sovietsupplied machines had 45mm main guns and were of 1930s manufacture.[26]The balance ofNationalisttanks were machine gun armed. The primary lesson learned from this war was that machine gun armed tanks had to be equipped with cannon, with the associated armor inherent to modern tanks.The five-month-long war between theSoviet Unionand the Japanese 6th Army atKhalkhin Gol(Nomonhan) in 1939 brought home some bitter lessons. In this conflict, and although the Japanese only deployed about 73 cannon armed tanks, the Soviets fielded over two thousand,[27]with the major difference being that Japanese armor were equipped withdieselengines and theRussiantankspetrolones.[28]Even after GeneralGeorgy Zhukovinflicted a bitter defeat on the Japanese 6th Army with his massed combined tank and air attack, the Soviets had learned a bitter lesson on the use ofgasolineengines, and quickly incorporated those newly found experiences into their newT-34medium tank duringWorld War II.[29]World War II[edit]Main article:Tanks in World War II

SovietT-34tank column advancing nearLeningrad, 1942DuringWorld War II, the first conflict in which armoured vehicles were critical to battlefield success, the tank and related tactics developed rapidly. Armored forces proved capable of tactical victory in an unprecedentedly short amount of time, yet newanti-tankweaponry showed that the tank was not invulnerable.Prior to World War II, the tactics and strategy of deploying tank forces underwent a revolution. In August 1939, Soviet GeneralGeorgy Zhukovused the combined force of tanks and airpower atNomonhanagainst the Japanese 6th Army;[30]Heinz Guderian, a tactical theoretician who was heavily involved in the formation of the first independent German tank force, said "Where tanks are, the front is", and this concept became a reality in World War II.[31]During the Invasion of Poland, tanks performed in a more traditional role in close cooperation with infantry units, but in theBattle of Francedeep independent armoured penetrations were executed by the Germans, a technique later called blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg used innovativecombined armstactics and radios in all of the tanks to provide a level of tactical flexibility and power that surpassed that of the Allied armour. TheFrench Army, with tanks equal or superior to the German tanks in both quality and quantity, employed a linear defensive strategy in which the armoured cavalry units were made subservient to infantry as "support weapons".[24]In addition, they lacked radios in many of their tanks and headquarters,[32]which limited their ability to respond to German attacks.In accordance with blitzkrieg methods, German tanks bypassed enemy strongpoints and could radio forclose air supportto destroy them, or leave them to the infantry. A related development,motorized infantry, allowed some of the troops to keep up with the tanks and create highly mobile combined arms forces.[24]The defeat of a major military power within weeks shocked the rest of the world, spurring tank and anti-tank weapon development.

Rommel in North Africa, June 1942TheNorth African Campaignalso provided an important battleground for tanks, as the flat, desolate terrain with relatively few obstacles or urban environments was ideal for conducting mobile armoured warfare. However, this battlefield also showed the importance oflogistics, especially in an armoured force, as the principal warring armies, the GermanAfrika Korpsand theBritish Eighth Army, often outpaced their supply trains in repeated attacks and counter-attacks on each other, resulting in complete stalemate. This situation would not be resolved until 1942, when during theSecond Battle of El Alamein, the Afrika Korps, crippled by disruptions in their supply lines, had 95% of its tanks destroyed[33]and was forced to retreat by a massively reinforcedEighth Army, the first in a series of defeats that would eventually lead to the surrender of the remaining Axis forces inTunisia.Battle of Kurskwas the largest tank battle ever fought, with each side deploying nearly 3,000 tanks.When Germany launched its invasion of the Soviet Union,OperationBarbarossa, the Soviets had a superior tank design, theT-34.[34]A lack of preparations for theAxissurprise attack, mechanical problems, poor training of the crews and incompetent leadership caused the Soviet machines to be surrounded and destroyed in large numbers. However, interference fromAdolf Hitler,[35]the geographic scale of the conflict, the dogged resistance of the Soviet combat troops, and the Soviets' massive advantages in manpower and production capability prevented a repeat of the Blitzkrieg of 1940.[36]Despite early successes against the Soviets, the Germans were forced to up-gun their Panzer IVs, and to design and build both the larger and more expensiveTigerheavy tank in 1942, and thePanthermedium tank the following year. In doing so, theWehrmachtdenied the infantry and other support arms the production priorities that they needed to remain equal partners with the increasingly sophisticated tanks, in turn violating the principle of combined arms they had pioneered.[4]Soviet developments following the invasion included upgunning the T-34, development of self-propelled anti-tank guns such as theSU-152, and deployment of theIS-2in the closing stages of the war, with the T-34 being the most produced tank of World War II, totalling up to some 65,000 examples by May 1945.

Shermantanks joining theU.S. Fifth Armyforces in the beachhead atAnzioduring theItalian Campaign, 1944Much like the Soviets, when entering World War II six months later (December 1941), the United States'mass productioncapacity enabled it to rapidly construct thousands of relatively cheapM4 Shermanmedium tanks. A compromise all round, the Sherman was reliable and formed a large part of the Anglo-American ground forces, but in a tank-versus-tank battle was no match for the Panther or Tiger.[37]Numerical and logistical superiority and the successful use of combined arms allowed the Allies to overrun the German forces during theBattle of Normandy. Upgunned versions with the76 mm gun M1and the17 pounderwere introduced to improve the M4's firepower, but concerns about protection remained despite the apparent armor deficiencies, a total of some 42,000 Shermans were built and delivered to the Allied nations using it during the war years, a total second only to the T-34.Tankhulls[38]were modified to produceflame tanks, mobilerocket artillery, andcombat engineeringvehicles for tasks includingmine-clearingandbridging. Specialised self-propelled guns, most of which could double astank destroyers, were also both developed by the Germans with theirSturmgeschtz,PanzerjgerandJagdpanzervehicles and theSamokhodnaya ustanovkafamilies of AFV's for the Soviets: such turretless,casemate-styletank destroyersandassault gunswere less complex, stripped down tanks carrying heavy guns, solely firing forward. The firepower and low cost of these vehicles made them attractive but as manufacturing techniques improved and larger turret rings made larger tank guns feasible, thegun turretwas recognised as the most effective mounting for the main gun to allow movement in a different direction from firing, enhancing tactical flexibility.[24]Cold War arms race[edit]Main article:Tanks in the Cold War

At one time, the SovietT-72was the most widely deployed main battle tank across the world.[39]During theCold War, tension between theWarsaw Pactcountries and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries created anarms racethat ensured that tank development proceeded largely as it had during World War II. The essence of tank designs during the Cold War had been hammered out in the closing stages of World War II. Large turrets, capable suspension systems, greatly improved engines,sloped armourand large-calibre (90mm and larger) guns were standard. Tank design during the Cold War built on this foundation and included improvements tofire control,gyroscopicgun stabilisation, communications (primarily radio) and crew comfort and saw the introduction oflaserrangefinders andinfrarednight vision equipment.Armour technologyprogressed in an ongoing race against improvements inanti-tank weapons, especiallyantitank guided missileslike theTOW.Medium tanks of World War II, evolved into themain battle tank(MBT) of the Cold War and took over the majority of tank roles on the battlefield. This gradual transition occurred in the 1950s and 1960s due toanti-tankguided missiles,sabotammunition andhigh explosive anti-tankwarheads. World War II had shown that the speed of a light tank was no substitute for armour and firepower and medium tanks were vulnerable to newer weapon technology, rendering themobsolete.[citation needed]In a trend started in World War II,economies of scaleled to serial production of progressively upgraded models of all major tanks during the Cold War. For the same reason many upgraded post-World War II tanks and their derivatives (for example, theT-55andT-72) remain in active service around the world, and even an obsolete tank may be the most formidable weapon on battlefields in many parts of the world.[40]Among the tanks of the 1950s were the BritishCenturionand Soviet T-54/55 in service from 1946, and the USM48from 1951.[41]These three vehicles formed the bulk of the armoured forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout much of the Cold War. Lessons learned from tanks such as theLeopard 1,M48 Patton series,Chieftain, and T-72 led to the contemporaryLeopard 2,M1 Abrams,Challenger 2,C1 Ariete,T-90andMerkava IV.

Tankers drive an M1A1 Abrams tank in Germany.Tanks and anti-tank weapons of the Cold War era saw action in a number ofproxy warslike theKorean War,Vietnam War,Indo-Pakistani War of 1971,Soviet war in Afghanistanand Arab-Israeli conflicts, culminating with theYom Kippur War. The T-55, for example, has seen action in no fewer than32 conflicts. In these wars theUSAor NATO countries and theSoviet UnionorChinaconsistently backed opposing forces. Proxy wars were studied by Western and Sovietmilitary analystsand provided a grim contribution to the Cold War tank development process.21st century conflicts[edit]

Type 10Japanesemain battle tankThe role of tank vs. tank combat is becoming diminished. Tanks work in concert with infantry in urban warfare by deploying them ahead of the platoon. When engaging enemy infantry, tanks can provide covering fire on the battlefield. Conversely, tanks can spearhead attacks when infantry are deployed in personnel carriers.[42]Tanks were used to spearhead the initial US invasion of Iraq in 2003. As of 2005, there were 1,100M1 Abramsused by theUnited States Armyin the course of theIraq War, and they have proven to have an unexpectedly high level of vulnerability toroadside bombs.[43]A relatively new type of remotely detonated mine, theexplosively formed penetratorhas been used with some success against American armoured vehicles (particularly theBradley fighting vehicle). However, with upgrades to their armour in the rear, M1s have proven invaluable in fighting insurgents in urban combat, particularly at theBattle of Fallujah, where the US Marines brought in two extra brigades.[44]Britain deployed itsChallenger 2tanks to support its operations in southern Iraq.IsraeliMerkavatanks contain features that enable them to supportinfantryinlow intensity conflicts(LIC) andcounter-terrorismoperations. Such features are the rear door and rear corridor, enabling the tank to carry infantry and embark safely; theIMIAPAM-MP-Tmulti-purpose ammunition round, advancedC4ISsystems and recently:TROPHY active protection systemwhich protects the tank from shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons. During theSecond Intifadafurther modifications were made, designated as "Merkava Mk. 3d Baz LIC".[citation needed]Research and development[edit]

Graphic representation of the US Army's cancelledXM1202 Mounted Combat SystemIn terms of firepower, the focus of current R&D is on increased detection capability such asthermal imagers, automated fire control systems and increasedmuzzle energyfrom the gun to improve range, accuracy and armour penetration.[45]The most mature future gun technology is theelectrothermal-chemicalgun.[46]The XM291 electrothermal-chemical tank gun has gone through successful multiple firing sequences on a modifiedM8 Armored Gun Systemchassis.[47]To improve tank protection, one field of research involves making the tank invisible to radar by adaptingstealthtechnologies originally designed for aircraft. Improvements tocamouflageor and attempts to render itinvisiblethroughactive camouflageis being pursued. Research is also ongoing inelectromagneticarmour systems to disperse or deflect incoming shaped charge jets,[48][49]as well as various forms ofactive protection systemsto prevent incoming projectiles from striking the tank at all.Mobility may be enhanced in future tanks by the use ofdiesel-electricor turbine-electricseries hybriddrives first used in a primitive, gasoline-engined form with Porsche'sElefantGerman tank destroyer of 1943 improving fuel efficiency while reducing the size and weight of the power plant.[50]Furthermore, advances in gas turbine technology, including the use of advancedrecuperators,[51]have allowed for reduction in engine volume and mass to less than 1 m3and 1 metric ton, respectively, while maintaining fuel efficiency similar to that of a diesel engine.[52]In line with the new doctrine ofnetwork-centric warfare, the modern battle tank shows increasing sophistication in its electronics and communication systems.Design[edit]This sectiondoes notciteanyreferences or sources.Please help improve this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(October 2011)

The three traditional factors determining a tank's capability effectiveness are itsfirepower,protection, andmobility. Firepower is the ability of a tank's crew to identify, engage, and destroy the enemy. Protection is the tank crew's ability to evade detection, preserve themselves from enemy fire, and retain full vehicle functionality after combat. Mobility includes the ability of the tank to be transported by rail, sea, or air to the operational staging area; from the staging area by road towards the enemy; and tactical movement over the battlefield during combat, including traversing of obstacles and roughterrain.Offensive capabilities[edit]Main article:Tank gun

Rifling of a 105 mmRoyal Ordnance L7tank gun.Themain weaponof modern tanks is a single, large-calibrecannonmounted in afully traversinggun turret. The typical modern tank gun is asmoothboreweapon capable of firing a variety of ammunition, includingarmor-piercingkinetic energy penetrators(KEP), also known asarmour-piercing discarding sabot(APDS), and/orarmour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot(APFSDS) andhigh explosive anti-tank(HEAT)shells, and/orhigh explosive squash head(HESH) and/oranti-tank guided missiles(ATGM) to destroy armoured targets, as well ashigh explosive(HE)shellsfor engaging soft targets orfortifications.Canister shotmay be used in close or urban combat situations where the risk of hitting friendly forces withshrapnelfrom HE rounds is unacceptably high.[44]Agyroscopeis used to stabilise the main gun, allowing it to be effectively aimed and fired at the "short halt" or on the move. Modern tank guns are also commonly fitted withinsulatingthermal jackets to reduce gun-barrel warping caused by uneventhermal expansion,bore evacuatorsto minimise fumes entering the crew compartment and sometimesmuzzle brakesto minimise the effect ofrecoilon accuracy andrate of fire.Traditionally, target detection relied on visual identification. This was accomplished from within the tank throughtelescopicperiscopes; occasionally, however, tank commanders would open up the hatch to view the outside surroundings, which improved situational awareness but incurred the penalty of vulnerability to sniper fire, especially in jungle and urban conditions. Though several developments in target detection have taken place especially recently, these methods are still common practice.

AnM1 AbramsfiringIn some casesspotting rifleswere used confirm proper trajectory and range to a target. These spotting rifles were mounted co-axially to the main gun, and firedtracer ammunitionballistically matched to the gun itself. The gunner would track the movement of the tracer round in flight, and upon impact with a hard surface, it would give off a flash and a puff of smoke, after which the main gun was immediately fired. However these have been mostly superseded bylaser rangefindingequipment.Modern tanks also use sophisticatedlight intensificationandthermal imagingequipment to improve fighting capability at night, in poor weather and in smoke. The accuracy of modern tank guns is pushed to the mechanical limit by computerisedfire-control systems. A fire-control system uses a laser rangefinder to determine the range to the target, athermocouple,anemometerandwind vaneto correct for weather effects and a muzzle referencing system to correct for gun-barrel temperature, warping and wear. Two sightings of a target with the range-finder enable calculation of the target movementvector. This information is combined with the known movement of the tank and the principles ofballisticsto calculate theelevationandaim pointthat maximises the probability of hitting the target.Usually, tanks carry smaller calibre armament for short-range defence where fire from the main weapon would be ineffective, for example when engaginginfantry,light vehiclesoraircraft. A typical complement of secondary weapons is a general-purpose machine gun mountedcoaxiallywith the main gun, and a heavieranti-aircraftmachine gun on the turret roof. These weapons are often modified variants of those used by infantry, and so utilise the same kinds of ammunition.Protection and countermeasures[edit]

The RussianT-90is fitted with a "three-tiered" protection systems:1:Composite armourin the turret2:Third generationKontakt-5ERA3:Shtora-1 countermeasures suite.See also:Anti-tank warfareThe measure of a tank's protection is the combination of its ability to avoid detection, to avoid being hit by enemy fire, its resistance to the effects of enemy fire, and its capacity to sustain damage whilst still completing its objective, or at least protecting its crew. This is done by a variety of countermeasures, such as armour plating and reactive defences, as well as more complex ones such as heat-emissions reduction.In common with most unit types, tanks are subject to additional hazards in wooded and urban combat environments which largely negate the advantages of the tank's long-range firepower and mobility, limit the crew's detection capabilities and can restrict turret traverse. Despite these disadvantages, tanks retain highsurvivabilityagainst previous-generationrocket-propelled grenadesin all combat environments by virtue of their armour.However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tank survivability against newer-generationtandem-warheadanti-tank missiles is a concern for military planners.[53]For example, theRPG-29from 1980s is able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[54][55]and also managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[56]Avoiding detection[edit]Further information:Military deception

PLA'sType 99atank withdisruptivecamouflage paintingA tank avoids detection using the doctrine ofcountermeasuresknown as CCD:camouflage(looks the same as the surroundings), concealment (cannot be seen) anddeception(looks like something else).Working against efforts to avoid detection is the fact that a tank is a large metallic object with a distinctive, angularsilhouettethat emits copiousheatand noise. Consequently, it is difficult to effectively camouflage a tank in the absence of some form of cover or concealment (e.g., woods) it canhideits hull behind. The tank becomes easier to detect when moving (typically, whenever it is in use) due to the large, distinctive auditory, vibration and thermal signature of its power plant. Tank tracks and dust clouds also betray past or present tank movement. Switched-off tanks are vulnerable toinfra-reddetectiondue to differences between thethermal conductivityand thereforeheat dissipationof the metallic tank and its surroundings. At close range the tank can be detected even when powered down and fully concealed due to thecolumn of warmer airabove the tank and the smell of diesel.Thermal blankets slow the rate of heat emission and camouflage nets use a mix of materials with differing thermal properties to operate in the infra-red as well as thevisible spectrum. Camouflage attempts to break up the distinctive appearance and silhouette of a tank. Adopting a turret-down orhull-downposition reduces the visible silhouette of a tank as well as providing the added protection of a position indefilade.TheRussianNakidkacamouflage kit was designed to reduce theOptical,Thermal,Infrared, andRadarsignatures of a tank, so that acquisition of the tank would be difficult. According to Nii Stali, the designers of Nakidka, Nakidka would reduce the probabilities of detection via "visual and near-IR bands by 30%, the thermal band by 2-3 fold, radar band by 6 fold, and radar-thermal band to near-background levels.[57]Armour[edit]This sectiondoes notciteanyreferences or sources.Please help improve this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2013)

Main article:Vehicle armour

The BritishChallenger IIis protected by second-generationChobham armourTo effectively protect the tank and its crew, tank armour must counter a wide variety of antitank threats. Protection againstkinetic energy penetratorsandhigh explosive anti-tank(HEAT) shells fired by other tanks is of primary importance, but tank armour also aims to protect against infantryrocket-propelled grenades,anti-tank guided missiles,anti-tank mines,bombs, directartilleryhits, and (less often)nuclear, biological and chemicalthreats, any of which could disable or destroy a tank or its crew.Steel armour platewas the earliest type of armour. The Germans pioneered the use offace hardenedsteel during World War II and the Soviets also achieved improved protection withsloped armourtechnology. World War II developments led to the obsolescence of homogeneous steel armour with the development ofshaped-chargewarheads, exemplified by thePanzerfaustandbazookainfantry weapons which were effective, despite some early success withspaced armour. Magnetic mines led to the development ofanti-magneticpaste and paint.Britishtank researchers took the next step with the development ofChobham armour, or more generallycomposite armour, incorporatingceramicsandplasticsin aresinmatrix between steel plates, which provided good protection against HEAT weapons.High explosive squash headwarheads led toanti-spallarmour linings, and kinetic energy penetrators led to the inclusion of exotic materials like a matrix ofdepleted uraniuminto a composite armour configuration.

Blazerexplosive reactive armour(ERA) blocks on an Israeli M-60Reactive armourconsists of small explosive-filled metal boxes that detonate when hit by the metallic jet projected by an exploding HEAT warhead, causing their metal plates to disrupt it.Tandem warheadsdefeat reactive armour by causing the armour to detonate prematurely. Modern Reactive armour protects itself from Tandem warheads by having a thicker front metal plate to prevent the precursor charge from detonating the explosive in the reactive armour. Reactive armours can also reduce the penetrative abilities ofkinetic energy penetratorsby deforming the penetrator with the metal plates on the Reactive armour, thereby reducing its effectiveness against the main armour of the tank.Grenade launcherswhich can rapidly deploy asmoke screenthat is opaque toInfraredlight, to hide it from the thermal viewer of another tank. The modernShtoracountermeasure systems provides additional protection by interfering with enemy targeting and fire-control systems.Active protection system[edit]This sectiondoes notciteanyreferences or sources.Please help improve this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2013)

IDFMerkavaMk4 tank withTrophyAPS(" ") during trainingThe latest generation of protective measures for tanks areactive protection systems, particularly "hard-kill". The SovietDrozd, the RussianArena, the IsraeliTrophyandIron Fist, PolishERAWA, and the AmericanQuick Killsystems show the potential to dramatically improve protection for tanks againstmissiles,RPGsand potentially kinetic energy penetrator attacks, but concerns regarding adanger zone for nearby troopsremain. As for 2011, only theIsraeliTrophy system, installed on theMerkavaMk4, has been combat-proven, as it successfully intercepted Rocket-propelled Grenades and various anti-tank missiles during operational missions on theGaza Stripborder.Mobility[edit]

TwoGerman ArmyLeopard 2s demonstrate theirdeep-wadingcapabilitiesThe mobility of a tank is described by its battlefield or tactical mobility, its operational mobility, and its strategic mobility. Tactical mobility can be broken down firstly into agility, describing the tank's acceleration, braking, speed and rate of turn on various terrain, and secondly obstacle clearance: the tank's ability to travel over vertical obstacles like low walls or trenches or through water. Operational mobility is a function of manoeuvre range; but also of size and weight, and the resulting limitations on options for manoeuvre.Tactical mobility[edit]

M1 Abramsoffloading fromLanding Craft Air Cushionedvehicle.Tank agility is a function of the weight of the tank due to its inertia while manoeuvring and itsground pressure, the power output of the installedpower plantand the tanktransmissionandtrackdesign. In addition, rough terrain effectively limits the tank's speed through the stress it puts on thesuspensionand the crew. A breakthrough in this area was achieved during World War II when improved suspension systems were developed that allowed better cross-country performance and limited firing on the move. Systems like the earlierChristieor latertorsion-barsuspension developed byFerdinand Porschedramatically improved the tank's cross-country performance and overall mobility.[58]Tanks are highly mobile and able to travel over most types of terrain due to theircontinuous tracksand advanced suspension. The tracks disperse the weight of the vehicle over a large area, resulting in lessground pressure. A tank can travel at approximately 40 kilometres per hour (25mph) across flat terrain and up to 70 kilometres per hour (43mph) on roads, but due to the mechanical strain this places on the vehicle and the logistical strain on fuel delivery and tank maintenance, these must be considered "burst" speeds that invite mechanical failure of engine and transmission systems. Consequently, wheeled tank transporters andrail infrastructureis used wherever possible for long-distance tank transport. The limitations of long-range tank mobility can be viewed in sharp contrast to that of wheeledarmoured fighting vehicles. The majority of blitzkrieg operations were conducted at the pedestrian pace of 5 kilometres per hour (3.1mph), and that was only achieved on the roads of France.[59]

TheM1 Abramsis powered by a 1,500 shaft horsepower (1,100kW)HoneywellAGT 1500gas turbine engine, giving it a governed top speed of 45mph (72km/h) on paved roads, and 30mph (48km/h) cross-country.The tank's power plant supplieskinetic energyto move the tank, andelectricpower via ageneratorto components such as theturretrotationmotorsand the tank's electronic systems. The tank power plant has evolved from predominantly petrol and adapted large-displacement aeronautical or automotiveenginesduring World Wars I and II, throughdiesel enginesto advancedmulti-fueldiesel engines, and powerful (per unit weight) but fuel-hungrygas turbinesin theT-80andM1 Abrams.Tank power output andtorquein context:[citation needed]

VehiclePower outputPower/weightTorque

Mid-sized carToyota Camry2.4L118kW (158hp)79kW/t (106hp/t)218Nm (161lbfft)

Sports carLamborghini Murcilago6.5L471kW (632hp)286kW/t (383hp/t)660Nm (490lbfft)

Racing carFormula One car3.0L710kW (950hp)1,600kW/t (2,100hp/t)350Nm (260lbfft)

Main battle tankLeopard 2,M1 Abrams1,100kW (1,500hp)18.0 to 18.3kW/t (24.2 to 24.5hp/t)4,700Nm (3,500lbfft)

LocomotiveSNCF Class T 20001,925kW (2,581hp)8.6kW/t (11.5hp/t)

Strategic mobility[edit]Strategic mobility is the ability of the tanks of an armed force to arrive in a timely, cost effective, and synchronized fashion. For good strategic mobility transportability by air is important, which means that weight and volume must be kept within the designated transport aircraft capabilities.Nations often stockpile enough tanks to respond to any threat without having to make more tanks as many sophisticated designs can only be produced at a relatively low rate. The US Military for instance keeps 6000 MBTs in storage.[60]In the absence ofcombat engineers, most tanks are limited tofordingrivers. The typical fording depth for MBTs is approximately 1 metre (3.3ft), being limited by the height of the engine air intake and driver's position. Modern tanks such as the RussianT-90and the GermanLeopard 1andLeopard 2tanks can ford to a depth of 3 to 4 metres when properly prepared and equipped with asnorkelto supply air for the crew and engine. Tank crews usually have a negative reaction towards deep fording but it adds considerable scope forsurpriseand tactical flexibility in water crossing operations by opening new and unexpected avenues of attack.Amphibious tanksare specially designed or adapted for water operations, but they are rare in modern armies, being replaced by purpose-builtamphibious assault vehiclesorarmoured personnel carriersinamphibious assaults. Advances such as theEFAmobile bridge andMT-55scissors bridge have also reduced the impediment to tank advance that rivers posed in World War II.[61]Crew[edit]This sectiondoes notciteanyreferences or sources.Please help improve this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2013)

Tank commanderredirects here. For other meanings seeTank commander (disambiguation).

The tank commander's position in anAMX LeclercMost modern tanks most often have four crew members, or three if anauto-loaderis installed. These are the: Commander - The commander is responsible for commanding the tank, most often in conjunction with other tanks and supporting infantry. The commander is provided with all-round vision devices rather than the limited ones of the driver and gunner. Driver - The driver drives the tank, and often also serves as the tank's day-to-day mechanic. Gunner - The gunner is responsible forlaying the gun. Loader - The loader loads the gun, with a round appropriate to the target. In tanks with auto-loaders this position is omitted.

A view in a M1A1 Abrams tank of the gunner's station (bottom left) and commander's station (top right)Historically, crews have varied from just two members to a dozen. For example, preWorld War II French tanks were noted for having a two-man crew, in which the overworked commander had to load and fire the gun in addition to commanding the tank. First World War tanks were developed with immature technologies; in addition to the crew needed to man the multiple guns and machine guns, up to four crewmen were needed to drive the tank: the driver, acting as the vehicle commander and manning the brakes, drove via orders to his gears-men; a co-driver operated the gearbox and throttle; and two gears-men, one on each track, steered by setting one side or the other to idle, allowing the track on the other side to slew the tank to one side.With World War II the multi-turreted tanks proved impracticable, and as the single turret on a low hull design became standard, crews became standardized around a crew of four or five. In those tanks with a fifth crew member, usually three were located in the turret (as described above) while the fifth was most often seated in the hull next to the driver, and operated the hull machine gun in addition to acting as a co-driver or radio operator.Well designed crew stations, giving proper considerations to comfort and ergonomics, are an important factor in the combat effectiveness of a tank, as it limits fatigue and speeds up individual actions.Engineering constraints[edit]

The IndianArjun MBT's hydropneumatic suspension at work, while moving over a bump track.A noted author on the subject of tank design engineering Richard M Ogorkiewicz[62]outlined the following basic engineering sub-systems that are commonly incorporated into tank's technological development: Mobility of tanks (through chassis design) TankEngines TankTransmissions SuspensionsandRunning gear Soil-Vehicle Mechanics Tank gunsandAmmunition Ballisticsand Mechanics of Tank Guns Vision and Sighting Systems Illuminating andNight VisionSystems Fire Control Systemsfor main and auxiliary weapons Gun Control Systems Guided Weapons ArmourProtection Configuration of TanksTo the above can be added unit communication systems and electronic anti-tank countermeasures, crew ergonomic and survival systems (including flame suppression), and provision for technological upgrading. Few tank designs have survived their entire service lives without some upgrading or modernisation, particularly during wartime, including some that have changed almost beyond recognition, such as the latest IsraeliMagachversions.The characteristics of a tank are determined by the performance criteria required for the tank. The obstacles that must be traversed affect the vehicles front and rear profiles. The terrain that is expected to be traversed determines the track ground pressure that may be allowed to be exerted for that particular terrain.[63]Tank design is a compromise between its technological and budgetary constraints and its tactical capability requirements. It is not possible to maximise firepower, protection and mobility simultaneously while incorporating the latest technology and retain affordability for sufficient procurement quantity to enter production. For example, in the case of tactical capability requirements, increasing protection by adding armour will result in an increase in weight and therefore decrease in mobility; increasing firepower by installing a larger gun will force the designer team to increase armour, the therefore weight of the tank by retaining same internal volume to ensure crew efficiency during combat. In the case of the Abrams MBT which has good firepower, speed and armour, these advantages are counterbalanced by its engine's notably high fuel consumption, which ultimately reduces its range, and in a larger sense its mobility.Since the Second World War, the economics of tank production governed by the complexity of manufacture and cost, and the impact of a given tank design on logistics and field maintenance capabilities, have also been accepted as important in determining how many tanks a nation can afford to field in its force structure.Some tank designs that were fielded in significant numbers, such asTiger IandM60A2proved to be too complex or expensive to manufacture, and made unsustainable demands on the logistics services support of the armed forces. Theaffordability of the designtherefore takes precedence over the combat capability requirements. Nowhere was this principle illustrated better than during the Second World War when two Allied designs, theT-34and theM4 Sherman, although both simple designs which accepted engineering compromises, were used successfully against more sophisticated designs by Germany that were more complex and expensive to produce, and more demanding on overstretched logistics of the Wehrmacht. Given that a tank crew will spend most of its time occupied with maintenance of the vehicle, engineering simplicity has become the primary constraint on tank design since the Second World War despite advances in mechanical, electrical and electronics technologies.Since the Second World War, tank development has incorporated experimenting with significant mechanical changes to the tank design while focusing on technological advances in the tank's many subsystems to improve its performance. However, a number of novel designs have appeared throughout this period with mixed success, including the SovietIT-1andT-64in firepower, and the IsraeliMerkavaand SwedishS-tankin protection, while for decades the USA'sM551remained the only light tank deployable by parachute.Further information:Tank classificationCommand, control and communications[edit]

German ArmyLeopard 2A6M incorporatesnetworked battlefieldtechnologyCommanding and coordinatingtanks in the field has always been subject to particular problems, particularly in the area of communications, but in modern armies these problems have been partially alleviated bynetworked,integratedsystemsthat enable communications and contribute to enhancedsituational awareness.Early[edit]Armouredbulkheads, engine noise, intervening terrain, dust and smoke, and the need to operate "buttoned up" are severe detriments to communication and lead to a sense of isolation for small tank units, individual vehicles, and tank crewmen. Radios were not then portable or robust enough to be mounted in a tank, althoughMorse Codetransmitters were installed in some Mark IVs at Cambrai as messaging vehicles.[64]Attaching a field telephone to the rear would become a practice only during the next war. During World War I when these failed or were unavailable, situation reports were sent back to headquarters by some crews releasing carrier pigeons through loopholes or hatches[65]and communications between vehicles was accomplished using hand signals, handheldsemaphore flagswhich continued in use in theRed Army/Soviet Armythrough the Second and Cold wars, or by foot or horse mounted messengers.[66]Modern[edit]This sectiondoes notciteanyreferences or sources.Please help improve this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2013)

See also:Military communicationsandC4ISTAR

MerkavaMark 4main battle tankis equipped with a digital C4IS battle-management system.On the modern battlefield anintercommounted in the crew helmet provides internal communications and a link to theradio network, and on some tanks an external intercom on the rear of the tank provides communication with co-operating infantry. Radio networks employ radiovoice procedureto minimize confusion and "chatter".A recent[when?]development in AFV equipment and doctrine is integration of information from thefire control system,laser rangefinder,Global Positioning Systemandterraininformation viahardenedmilitary specificationelectronicsand abattlefield networkto display information on enemy targets and friendly units on amonitorin the tank. The sensor data can be sourced from nearby tanks, planes,UAVsor, in the future infantry (such as the USFuture Force Warriorproject). This improves the tank commander'ssituational awarenessand ability tonavigatethe battlefield and select and engage targets. In addition to easing the reporting burden by automatically logging all orders and actions, orders are sent via the network with text and graphical overlays. This is known asNetwork-centric warfareby the US,Network Enabled Capability(UK) orDigital Army Battle Management System" (Israel).Etymology[edit]The wordtankwas first applied to the British "landships" in 1915, before they entered service, to keep their nature secret. Several explanations of the precise origin of the term have been suggested, including:1. It arose in British factories making the hulls of the first battle tanks: workmen and possible spies were to be given the impression they were constructing mobilewater tanksfor theBritish Army, thus keeping the production of a fighting vehicle secret.[23]2. The term was first used in a secret report on the new motorised weapon presented toWinston Churchill, thenFirst Lord of the Admiralty, by British Army Lt.-Col.Ernest Swinton.[67]3. A biography of Winston Churchill states that, to disguise the device, drawings were marked "water carriers for Russia." When it was pointed out that the title might be shortened to "WCsfor Russia," the drawings were relabelled "water tanks for Russia," and eventually the weapon was just called a tank.[68](In fact, the prototype was referred to as a water-carrier for Mesopotamia [see below]. The Russian connection is that some of the first production Tanks were labelled in Russian "With Care to Petrograd," as a further security measure.)On December 24, 1915, a meeting took place of the Inter-Departmental Conference (including representatives of the Director of Naval Construction's Committee, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Munitions, and the War Office). Its purpose was to discuss the progress of the plans for what were described as "Caterpillar Machine Gun Destroyers or Land Cruisers." In his autobiography,Albert Gerald Stern(Secretary to the Landships Committee, later head of the Mechanical Warfare Supply Department) says that at that meeting "Mr. (Thomas J.) Macnamara(M.P., andParliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty) then suggested, for secrecy's sake, to change the title of the Landships Committee.Mr. d'Eyncourtagreed that it was very desirable to retain secrecy by all means, and proposed to refer to the vessel as a "Water Carrier." In Government offices, committees and departments are always known by their initials. For this reason I, as Secretary, considered the proposed title totally unsuitable.* In our search for a synonymous term, we changed the word "Water Carrier" to "Tank," and became the "Tank Supply" or "T.S." Committee. That is how these weapons came to be called Tanks," and wrongly added, " and the name has now been adopted by all countries in the world."[69](* The initials W.C. are a British abbreviation for awater closet; in other words, a toilet. Unfortunately, later in the War a number of Mk IV Tanks were fitted with grapnels to remove barbed wire. They were designated "Wire Cutters" and had the large letters "W.C." painted on their rear armour.)[70]Colonel Ernest Swinton, who was secretary to the meeting, says that he was instructed to find a non-committal word when writing his report of the proceedings. He later discussed it with a Lt-Col W. Dally Jones, and they chose the word 'tank.' "That night, in the draft report of the conference, the word 'tank' was employed in its new sense for the first time."[71]Swinton'sNotes on the Employment of Tanks, in which he uses the word throughout, was published in January 1916.In July 1918,Popular Science Monthlyreported, "Because a fellow of theRoyal Historical Societyhas unintentionally misled the British public as to the origin of the famous "tanks,"Sir William Tritton, who designed and built them, has published the real story of their name... Since it was obviously inadvisable to herald "Little Willie's" reason for existence to the world he was known as the "Instructional Demonstration Unit." "Little Willie's" hull was called in the shop orders a "water carrier for Mesopotamia;" no one knew that the hull was intended to be mounted on a truck. Naturally, the water carrier began to be called a "tank." So the name came to be used by managers and foremen of the shop, until now it has a place in the army vocabulary and will probably be so known in history for all time."[72]D'Eyncourt's account differs from Swinton's and Tritton's: " . . . when the future arrangements were under discussion for transporting the first landships to France a question arose as to how, from a security point of view, the consignment should be labelled. To justify their size we decided to call them 'water-carriers for Russia' - the idea being that they should be taken for some new method of taking water to forward troops in the battle areas. Lt.-Col. Swinton . . . raised a humorous objection to this, remarking that the War Office pundits would probably contract the description to 'W.C.'s for Russia', and that we had better forestall this by merely labelling the packages 'Tanks'. So tanks they became, and tanks they have remained."[73]This appears to be an imperfect recollection. He says that the name problem arose "when we shipped the first two vehicles to France the following year" (August, 1916), but by that time the name "tank" had been in use for eight months. The tanks were labelled "With Care to Petrograd," but the belief was encouraged that they were a type of snowplough.In saying that the wordtankwas adopted worldwide, Stern was wrong. In France, the second country to use tanks in battle, the wordtankortanquewas adopted initially, but was then, largely at the insistence ofColonel J.B.E. Estienne, rejected in favour ofchar d'assaut("assault vehicle") or simplychar("vehicle"). During World War I German sources tended to refer to British tanks asTanks[74][75]and to their own asKampfwagen.[76]Later, tanks became referred to as "Panzer" (lit. "armour"), a shortened form of the full term "Panzerkampfwagen", literally "armoured fighting vehicle". In theArab world, tanks are calledDabbba(after a type ofsiege engine). InItalian, a tank is a "carro armato" (lit. "armed wagon"), without reference to its armour. Norway uses the termstridsvognand Sweden the similarstridsvagn("chariot", lit. "battle wagon"), whereas Denmark useskampvogn(lit. battle wagon). Finland usespanssarivaunu(armoured wagon), althoughtankkiis also used colloquially. The Polish nameczog, derived from verbczoga si("to crawl"), is used, depicting the way of machine's movement and its speed. In Japanese, the termsensha(?, lit. "battle vehicle")is taken from Chinese and used, and this term is likewise borrowed into Korean asjeoncha(/); more recent Chinese literature uses the English derived tnk(tank) as opposed to zhnch(battle vehicle) used in earlier days.See also[edit] Armored car (military) Armoured warfare Hobart's Funnies Hull-down Infantry fighting vehicle Lancelot de Mole Light tank Lists of armoured fighting vehicles Main battle tank Military engineering vehicle Narco tank Skid steer Super-heavy tank Tank classification Tank desant Tank destroyer Tankette The first tank battle Unmanned ground vehicleNotes and references[edit]1. Jump up^von Senger and Etterlin (1960),The World's Armored Fighting Vehicles, p.9.2. Jump up^http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-251098793. Jump up^Coox (1985), p. 579, 590, 6634. ^Jump up to:abHouse (1984),Toward Combined Arms Warfare:A Survey of 20th Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization[pageneeded]5. Jump up^Tranquiler, Roger,Modern Warfare. A French View of Counterinsurgency, trans. Daniel Lee,Pitting a traditional combined armed force trained and equipped to defeat similar military organisations against insurgents reminds one of a pile driver attempting to crush a fly, indefatigably persisting in repeating its efforts.[pageneeded]6. Jump up^Wells, H.G. (1916), "V. Tanks",War and the Future, p.17. Jump up^Harris, J.P. Men, Ideas, and Tanks. Manchester University Press, 1995. P388. Jump up^Gannon, Charles E. Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Liverpool University Press, 2003. P679. Jump up^Edgeworth, R. & E.Memoirs of Richard Lovell Edgeworth, 1820, pp 164-610. Jump up^The Devil's Chariots: The Birth and Secret Battles of the First TanksJohn Glanfield (Sutton Publishing, 2001)[pageneeded]11. Jump up^Gunther BurstynAngwetter, D.& E. (Verlag Der sterreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 2008)[pageneeded]12. Jump up^"Australia To The Fore. Invention of the War Tank". Trove.nla.gov.au. 1920-02-12. Retrieved2012-05-13.13. Jump up^Russian tanks, 1900-1970 The Complete Illustrated History of Soviet Armoured Theory and DesignJohn Milsom (Stackpole Books, 1971)[pageneeded]14. ^Jump up to:abChurchill, p. 31615. Jump up^Churchill, p. 31716. Jump up^Foley, p. 22andp. 19317. Jump up^McMillan, N: Locomotive Apprentice at the North British Locomotive Company Ltd Glasgow Plateway Press 1992[pageneeded]18. Jump up^Glanfield, Devil's Chariots[pageneeded]19. Jump up^Regan (1993),The Guinness Book of More Military Blunders, p. 1220. Jump up^Steven J. Zaloga,The Renault FT Light Tank, London 1988, p.321. Jump up^Willmott (2003),First World War, p. 22222. Jump up^" - 0008.htm"(in Russian). Vadimvswar.narod.ru. Retrieved2012-05-13.23. ^Jump up to:abWillmott (2003),First World War[pageneeded]24. ^Jump up to:abcdDeighton (1979),Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk.25. Jump up^Time (1937),Chewed up26. Jump up^Manrique p. 311, 321, 32427. Jump up^Goldman p. 1928. Jump up^Coox p. 300, 318, 43729. Jump up^Coox 99830. Jump up^Coox p. 579, 590, 66331. Jump up^Cooper and Lucas (1979),Panzer: The Armored Force of the Third Reich, p. 932. Jump up^Forty (2004), p.251.33. Jump up^Stroud, Rick (2012).The Phantom Army of Alamein. Bloomsbury. p.219.34. Jump up^Zalogaet al.(1997)35. Jump up^Stolfi,Hitler'sPanzers East[pageneeded]36. Jump up^Deighton (1979),Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, p 30737. Jump up^Cawthorne (2003),Steel Fist: Tank Warfare 1939 - 45, p. 21138. Jump up^Starry pp. 45, 79, 129, 143, 153, etc39. Jump up^T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93 By Steven J. Zaloga, Michael Jerchel, Stephen Sewell. Books.google.com. 1993-09-30. Retrieved2012-05-13.40. Jump up^Steven Zaloga and Hugh Johnson (2004),T-54 and T-55 Main Battle Tanks 19442004,Osprey, 39-41,ISBN 1-84176-792-1, p. 4341. Jump up^von Senger und Etterlin (1960),The World's Armoured Fighting Vehicles, pp. 61, 118, 18342. Jump up^Dougherty, Martin J.; McNab, Chris (2010),Combat Techniques: An Elite Forces Guide to Modern Infantry Tactics, Macmillan,ISBN978-0-312-36824-1[pageneeded]43. Jump up^USA Today (2005),Tank takes a beating in Iraq44. ^Jump up to:abUSA Today (2005),Tanks adapted for urban fights they once avoided45. Jump up^Pengelley, Rupert,A new era in tank main armament,pp. 1521153146. Jump up^Hilmes, Rolf (January 30, 1999), "Aspects of future MBT conception".Military Technology23(6): 7. Moench Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh.47. Jump up^Goodell, Brad (January 1, 2007), "Electrothermal Chemical (ETC) Armament Integration into a Combat Vehicle".IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 456-459.48. Jump up^Wickert, Matthias,Electric Armor Against Shaped Charges, pp. 42642949. Jump up^Xiaopeng, Li, et al.,Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor, pp. 46046250. Jump up^Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications, pp. 13214451. Jump up^McDonald, Colin F.,Gas Turbine Recuperator Renaissance, pp. 1 - 3052. Jump up^Koschier, Angelo V. and Mauch, Hagen R.,Advantages of the LV100 as a Power Producer in a Hybrid Propulsion System for Future Fighting Vehicles,p. 69753. Jump up^BBC News (2006)Tough lessons for Israeli armour54. Jump up^"Defence chiefs knew 'invincible' tank armour could be breached",Daily Mail, 24 April 200755. Jump up^Sean Rayment (2007-05-12)."MoD kept failure of best tank quiet".Sunday Telegraph.56. Jump up^Michael R. Gordon (2008-05-21)."Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far".The New York Times.57. Jump up^"Nakidka" kit for protection against surveillance and precision-guided systems(archive)58. Jump up^Deighton (1979),Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, pp. 15459. Jump up^Deighton (1979),Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, p.18060. Jump up^John Pike."M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved2009-06-09.61. Jump up^Deighton (1979),Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, pp.234-25262. Jump up^Technology of Tanks, Richard M Ogorkiewicz, Jane's Information Group, 1991[pageneeded]63. Jump up^Journal of the United Service Institution of India, Volume 98, United Service Institution of India, 1968, p.58, retrieved4 April201164. Jump up^Macksey, K., Tank vs Tank, Grub Street, London, 1999, p. 3265. Jump up^Fletcher, D., British Mark I Tank 1916, Osprey, p. 1966. Jump up^Wright 2002,Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine, p. 48, "To the extent that they communicated at all, the tank crews did so by squeezing carrier pigeons out through a hole in a gun sponson, by brandishing a shovel through the manhole,mili or by frantically waving coloured discs in the air."67. Jump up^Barris (2007),Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 912, 1917, p.11668. Jump up^Gilbert (1991),Churchill: A Life, p.298.69. Jump up^Tanks 1914-1918; The Log Book of a Pioneer. Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p.3970. Jump up^Fletcher, David (introduction); Chamberlain, Peter et al. (1998).Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, Volume One. Cannon Publications. p.49.ISBN1-899 695 02 8.71. Jump up^Eye-Witness, And the Origin of the Tanks; Major-General Sir Ernest D. Swinton; Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1933, p16172. Jump up^Popular Science Monthly, July 1918, p7.73. Jump up^A Shipbuilder's Yarn; E.H.W.T. d'Eyncourt, Hutchinson & Co., 1948, p11374. Jump up^Die Tankschlacht bei Cambrai: Dr. Georg Strutz, pub 1929.75. Jump up^[1]76. Jump up^Die deutschen Kampfwagen im Weltkriege; Ernst Volckheim, 1937.Bibliography[edit] "Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications",Military Technology(Moench Verlagsgesellschaft mbH) (9/2007), September 2007: 132144 Barris, Ted (2007),Victory at Vimy: Canada Comes of Age April 912, 1917, Thomas Allen Publishers, p.116,ISBN0-88762-253-4 Cawthorne, Nigel (2003),Steel Fist: Tank Warfare 1939-45, London: Arcturus Publishing Ltd.,ISBN0-572-02872-5 Churchill, Winston (1992),The World Crisis (Abridged), Canada & New York: Macmillan Publishing Company,ISBN0-684-19453-8 Cooper, Matthew and Lucas, James (1979),Panzer: The Armoured Force of the Third Reich, Book Club Associates Coox, Alvin D. (1985),Nomonhan; Japan against Russia, 1939,Stanford University Press,ISBN0-8047-1160-7 Deighton, Len (1979),Blitzkrieg: From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, Fakenham: Fakenham Press Limited,ISBN0-224-01648-2 DiNardo, Richard L. (January 1986), "The First Modern Tank: Gunther Burstyn and His Motorgeschutz",Military Affairs(JSTOR: Society for Military History), 50, No.1 (1): 1215,JSTOR1988528 Col. Eshel, David (2007),Assessing the performance of Merkava Tanks, Defense Update, retrieved2008-05-16 Foley, Michael (2014),Rise of the Tank: Armoured Vehicles and their use in the First World War, Pen & Sword Military,ISBN978-1-78346-393-0 Forty, George (2004),Tank Warfare in World War II, London: Constable & Robinson Ltd,ISBN1-84119-864-1 Forty, George (2006),The World Encyclopedia of Tanks & Armoured Fighting Vehicles, Lorenz Books,ISBN0-7548-1741-5 Gilbert, Sir Martin (1991),Churchill: A Life, Thomas Allen Publishers, p.298,ISBN0-7624-2081-2 Goldman, Stuart D. (2012),Nomonhan 1939; The Red Army's Victory That Shaped World War II,Naval Institute Press,ISBN978-1-59114-329-1 Goodell, Brad (January 2007), "Electrothermal Chemical (ETC) Armament System Integration Into a Combat Vehicle",IEEE Transaction on Magnetics(IEEE)43(1): 4,doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887524 Hilmes, Rolf (December 2004), "Arming Future MBTs - Some Considerations",Military Technology(Moench Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh) (12/2004): 4 House, Jonathan M. (1984),Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of 20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization, United States Government Printing,OCLC464265702, retrieved2008-05-18 Hunnicutt, R. P. (1984),Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, Presidio,ISBN0-89141-230-1 Komarow, Steven (2005-03-29),Tanks adapted for urban fights they once avoided, USA Today, retrieved2008-05-16 Komarow, Steven (2005-03-29),Tanks take a beating in Iraq, USA Today, retrieved2008-05-16 Koschier, Angelo V.; Hagen R. Mauch (2000), "Advantages of the LV100 as a Power Producer in a Hybrid Propulsion System for Future Fighting Vehicles",Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power122(October 2000): 693698,doi:10.1115/1.1287585 Manrique, Jose; Lucas M. Franco (2006),Las Armas de la Guerra Civil Espanola(in Spanish), 28002 Madrid; La Los Libros,ISBN84-9734-475-8 Marcus, Jonathan (2006-08-15),Tough lessons for Israeli armour, BBC News, retrieved2008-05-26 McDonald, Colin F. (1990), "Gas Turbine Recuperator Renaissance",Heat Recovery Systems & CHP(Pergamon Press)10(1): 130,doi:10.1016/0890-4332(90)90246-G Pengelley, Rupert (1989), "A new era in tank man armament: The options multiply",Janes International Defense Review(November 1989): 15211531 Regan, Geoffrey (1993),The Guinness Book of More Military Blunders, London: Guinness Publishing,ISBN0-85112-961-7 Sharoni, Asher H. and Bacon, Lawrence D.,The Future Combat System (FCS): Technology Evolution Review and Feasibility Assessment(PDF), GlobalSecurity.org, retrieved2008-05-26 Starry, Donn A. GEN:Mounted Combat in Vietnam.Vietnam Studies;Department of the Army,Washington, D.C.1978. Thompson, William J. and Sorvig, Kim (2000),Sustainable Landscape Construction: A Guide to Green Building Outdoors, Island Press, p.51,ISBN1-55963-646-7 Time Life Books editors (1990),The Armored Fist, Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books,ISBN0-8094-8609-1,ISBN 0-8094-8704-7 Chewed Up, Alexandria, Virginia:Timemagazine, 5 April 1937, retrieved2008-05-16 Tomes, Robert R. (Spring 2004),"Relearning Counterinsurgency Warfare",Parameters(US Army War College), Vol. XXXIV, (No. 1,): 1628, archived fromthe originalon 2008-05-14, retrieved2008-05-26 von Senger und Etterlin, Dr. F. M. (1960),The World's Armoured Fighting Vehicles, London: Macdonald & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. Wickert, Matthias (January 2007), "Electric Armor Against Shaped Charges: Analysis of Jet Distortion With Respect to Jet Dynamics and Current Flow",IEEE Transaction on Magnetics(IEEE)43(1): 426429,doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887650 Willmott, H.P. (2003),First World War, Dorling Kindersley,ISBN1-4053-0029-9 Wright, Patrick (2002),Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine,ISBN978-0-670-03070-5 Xiaopeng, Li; Meng Tao, Zhao Chun and Li Liyi (January 2007), "Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor",IEEE Transaction on Magnetics43(1): 460462,doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887581 Zaloga, Steven J. and Grandsen, James (1984),Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, London: Arms and Armour Press,ISBN0-85368-606-8 Zaloga, Steven J., Kinnear, Jim, Aksenov, Andrey & Koshchavtsev Aleksandr (1997),Soviet Tanks in Combat 194145: The T-28, T-34, T-34-85, and T-44 Medium Tanks, Hong Kong: Concord Publication,ISBN962-361-615-5 Macksey, Kenneth (1976),Tank Warfare, A History of Tanks in Battle, London: Panther,ISBN0-586-04302-0 Macksey, Kenneth and Batchelor, John H. (1970),Tank: A History of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle, New York: Scribner,ISBN0-345-02166-5,ISBN 0-684-13651-1 Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. (1968),Design and Development of Fighting Vehicles, London: MacDonald,ISBN0-356-01461-4 Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. (1970),Armoured Forces: A History of Armoured Forces and Their Vehicles, Arms & Armour Press,ISBN0-85368-049-3 Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. (1991),Technology of Tanks, Coulsdon, Surrey: Jane's Information Group,ISBN0-7106-0595-1 Weeks, John (1975),Men Against Tanks: A History of Anti-Tank Warfare, New York: Mason Charter,ISBN0-88405-130-7