Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Mr. Burning wrote: It's interesting how the 'tank' moniker has stuck after all this time. But what else could they be called?
armor. Germans call it armor aka Panzer.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
So what good it does apart from killing people more efficiently?
The less things that had been designed just for killing would have been left designed the less people would be dying in droves. The more efficient tools to kill you have the more people die.
Abomb miggt be technological wonder as well but i would prefer it never have been created either.
Gearing dust btw can be archieved with things not designed solely for killing people as well btw..,
Thanks for the info although am not getting in to an argument or justifiying my interest in something to someone on here,you have your views as I have mine.
I would say the tank has saved lives in many cases. Desert Storm for example. With out tanks/armored vehicles it would have been a much harder infantry oriented slog with many more casualties and a much longer conflict (which has more effect on the civilian populations of the warring nations. When a Abrams can take out a sniper position (as was done in OIF) you cap a couple bad guys. In the past we would have called in arty and leveled several buildings killing more folks.
Just as precision munitions, designed just for killing, have led to strikes that kill many fewer people than when we used no precision munitions.
And then we could discuss crew survivability. There were tanks destroyed in Iraq that all crew members survived.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/17 19:31:17
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Kilkrazy wrote: The German name is PanzerKampfWagen = Armoured Battle Wagon. Very appropriate.
Way too unwieldy though. That is why they shortened it to Panzer in normal usage and PzKpfw in designations. I have also heard them use Kampfpanzer (KPz), which translates to Battlearmour. I think really I like that one.
H.G. Wells once wrote about huge tank-like vehicles. He called them 'land ironclads', which I also really like. Ironclad has a real badass ring to it. It sounds invulnerable and intimidating like the epithet of some ancient hero from a Germanic saga.
Really, it is a pity we got stuck with boring 'tank'. There is so much potential for awesome names here and they literally picked the most boring, ordinary and unintimidating word they could think of... Which was probably on purpose
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/17 20:54:59
You're right about ironclad a very fitting name too, even more so when you think about British training methods on Salisbury plains in the interwar years. Using ship like manoeuvres that apparently worked pretty well in the desert campaign.
The name Tank was chosen as a security measure, apparently. The new device was described as a water tank as a cover name. Early tanks actually look something like old-fashioned rivetted water tanks.
Spot on there, they went to the front lines under the guise of water tank carriers.
On a side note found out that as the new secret weapon was on its way to bovington. The people that lived in the small village down the road had to close their curtains and stay in any back rooms (under orders) while the tanks went through to the camp.
When it comes to saving lives, ending a war sooner > having less efficient means of making war. It's possible, if not likely, that less lives were lost from the US dropping the bombs on Japan than there would of been over the course of a land invasion that would've taken years. Wars happen and have always happened, blaming the weapons used is largely pointless since we have ample evidence that people will kill each other regardless. With that out of the way, let us celebrate the badassery of the tank and leave the bit about how much we love to kill each other to discuss another day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/18 08:47:40
Mr. Burning wrote: This forum wouldn't exist without war to fuel the imagination of games designers and writers. Violence brings your group of pals together to roll dice, and paint minis.
I would consider non-existance of games small tradeoff for having safer world. As it is with the way "me me me me" attitude prevails and weapons keep getting more and more efficiently capable of wiping out humanity with a button push(one could arque nuclear weapons already could do...) it's inevitable we either need to find a way for said weapons to be removed all together(ie humans need to learn to live together) or sooner or later the one button push happens and humanity is wiped out. When weapons come sufficiently powerful all it takes is one mistake/bad decision and that's it for humanity.
Now while humanity is bound to change into something else sooner or later I would hope it's not pile of ash and residual energy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daston wrote: OK so lets say the gun was not invented and so the tank was not needed (after all it was designed partly due to the machine gun). You mean to say that people didn't die on mass in the middle ages or during roman times? I am pretty sure there were some pretty big engagements and swords can do a hell of a lot more damage than you think.
Could people kill with a sword? Yes. But scale...You don't kill millions with in an instant with a sword like you can do with modern weapons. Nor can you kill as much and as fast as with a tank.
Also sword is also tool designed for killing humans...
And just because there exists less efficient weapons of killing doesn't mean it's no problem to have even MORE efficient. Or you claim just because swords exists a-bomb is also fine and dandy?
Give me guy armed with a sword and guy armed with a tank and I know from which I prefer to try to escape. Never mind guy armed with abomb...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/19 06:09:03
BrookM wrote: Dear UK, many thanks for inventing the tank, otherwise one of the best series ever would never have existed!
Spoiler:
It's seriously bizarre how fun that series is. I expected I'd loathe it like most quirky school girl animes, but that... man that was addictive.
I've not watched it either for that very reason but I might have too as screen shots I've seen of the tanks look very good.
On a side note to those that are interested in armoured vehicles, Tank 100 was a great day. The British army display was good as always, got the see the new Ajax vehicle for the first time and had a pretty good ww1 display and remeberance service. Topped off with poppies falling from the sky.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 10:37:51
BrookM wrote: Dear UK, many thanks for inventing the tank, otherwise one of the best series ever would never have existed!
Spoiler:
It's seriously bizarre how fun that series is. I expected I'd loathe it like most quirky school girl animes, but that... man that was addictive.
I was a hater at first, forced to sit through the first few episodes, but after a while I decided to ignore some of the things that bothered me, it grew on me and well..
BrookM wrote: Dear UK, many thanks for inventing the tank, otherwise one of the best series ever would never have existed!
Spoiler:
It's seriously bizarre how fun that series is. I expected I'd loathe it like most quirky school girl animes, but that... man that was addictive.
I was a hater at first, forced to sit through the first few episodes, but after a while I decided to ignore some of the things that bothered me, it grew on me and well..
How many episodes is it until it really kicks off. Action wise. dont think I can take too many of teenage girls running around lol
How many episodes is it until it really kicks off. Action wise. dont think I can take too many of teenage girls running around lol
Action kicks of pretty quick. Though while it seems the animators did a really good job of rendering the tanks to be as accurate as possible, just take the physics with a grain (or huge pile) of salt.
Overall, worth a watch for any panzer fan.
"Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi
Could people kill with a sword? Yes. But scale...You don't kill millions with in an instant with a sword like you can do with modern weapons. Nor can you kill as much and as fast as with a tank.
Also sword is also tool designed for killing humans...
And just because there exists less efficient weapons of killing doesn't mean it's no problem to have even MORE efficient. Or you claim just because swords exists a-bomb is also fine and dandy?
Give me guy armed with a sword and guy armed with a tank and I know from which I prefer to try to escape. Never mind guy armed with abomb...
The Mongols murdered millions of people in a single year with bows, spears, and swords. Entire cities, populations ranging in the 100,000+ were wiped out, men, women, children, in a single day.
The weapon doesn't matter. The will to use it is all that matters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 15:34:26
How many episodes is it until it really kicks off. Action wise. dont think I can take too many of teenage girls running around lol
Action kicks of pretty quick. Though while it seems the animators did a really good job of rendering the tanks to be as accurate as possible, just take the physics with a grain (or huge pile) of salt.
Overall, worth a watch for any panzer fan.
Let me guess,they manage to get them airborne by chance lol
How many episodes is it until it really kicks off. Action wise. dont think I can take too many of teenage girls running around lol
Action kicks of pretty quick. Though while it seems the animators did a really good job of rendering the tanks to be as accurate as possible, just take the physics with a grain (or huge pile) of salt.
Overall, worth a watch for any panzer fan.
Let me guess,they manage to get them airborne by chance lol
They don't airdrop tanks until the movie. Though it does feature a Crusader tank flying through the air twice, though this is mainly due to its commander being anything but a slowpoke..
One of the things that got a lot of people upset in the series was the bridge scene. Then there was that one bit with the super-heavy tank and how they took it out..
How many episodes is it until it really kicks off. Action wise. dont think I can take too many of teenage girls running around lol
Action kicks of pretty quick. Though while it seems the animators did a really good job of rendering the tanks to be as accurate as possible, just take the physics with a grain (or huge pile) of salt.
Overall, worth a watch for any panzer fan.
Let me guess,they manage to get them airborne by chance lol
They don't airdrop tanks until the movie. Though it does feature a Crusader tank flying through the air twice, though this is mainly due to its commander being anything but a slowpoke..
One of the things that got a lot of people upset in the series was the bridge scene. Then there was that one bit with the super-heavy tank and how they took it out..
I love this series. That and GATE. Both are almost required viewing for fans of both anime and military hardware (especially for treadheads).
NinthMusketeer wrote:When it comes to saving lives, ending a war sooner > having less efficient means of making war. It's possible, if not likely, that less lives were lost from the US dropping the bombs on Japan than there would of been over the course of a land invasion that would've taken years. Wars happen and have always happened, blaming the weapons used is largely pointless since we have ample evidence that people will kill each other regardless. With that out of the way, let us celebrate the badassery of the tank and leave the bit about how much we love to kill each other to discuss another day.
Perhaps OT, but the third option beyond nuke/invade was besiege. By 1945 Imperial Japan had virtually no ability to wage war. All was required to do was blockade the home islands and continue to wreck their industry from the air. They would have capitulated eventually.
Daston wrote: OK so lets say the gun was not invented and so the tank was not needed (after all it was designed partly due to the machine gun). You mean to say that people didn't die on mass in the middle ages or during roman times? I am pretty sure there were some pretty big engagements and swords can do a hell of a lot more damage than you think.
IIRC, WW1 was the first where more casualties were from actual conflict rather than disease. During the Napoleonic Wars, more men died from dysentery than bullets.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Daston wrote: OK so lets say the gun was not invented and so the tank was not needed (after all it was designed partly due to the machine gun). You mean to say that people didn't die on mass in the middle ages or during roman times? I am pretty sure there were some pretty big engagements and swords can do a hell of a lot more damage than you think.
IIRC, WW1 was the first where more casualties were from actual conflict rather than disease. During the Napoleonic Wars, more men died from dysentery than bullets.
Daston wrote: OK so lets say the gun was not invented and so the tank was not needed (after all it was designed partly due to the machine gun). You mean to say that people didn't die on mass in the middle ages or during roman times? I am pretty sure there were some pretty big engagements and swords can do a hell of a lot more damage than you think.
IIRC, WW1 was the first where more casualties were from actual conflict rather than disease. During the Napoleonic Wars, more men died from dysentery than bullets.
In the Age of Gunpowder maybe.
I would posit that even before the Age of Gunpowder, more men died from dysentery than bullets
But seriously, it wasn't until we understood the role of bacteria in illness that we stopped gakking in our drinking water. Armies in the field would dig their latrines right next to their water source.
Pooping yourself to death was a common way for a soldier to go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 18:18:31
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Daston wrote: OK so lets say the gun was not invented and so the tank was not needed (after all it was designed partly due to the machine gun). You mean to say that people didn't die on mass in the middle ages or during roman times? I am pretty sure there were some pretty big engagements and swords can do a hell of a lot more damage than you think.
IIRC, WW1 was the first where more casualties were from actual conflict rather than disease. During the Napoleonic Wars, more men died from dysentery than bullets.
In the Age of Gunpowder maybe.
I would posit that even before the Age of Gunpowder, more men died from dysentery than bullets
But seriously, it wasn't until we understood the role of bacteria in illness that we stopped gakking in our drinking water. Armies in the field would dig their latrines right next to their water source.
Pooping yourself to death was a common way for a soldier to go.
Indeed. There was a reason for catapulting dead bodies into the enemy's fort. Poor man's bio-warfare at it's finest.
Daston wrote: OK so lets say the gun was not invented and so the tank was not needed (after all it was designed partly due to the machine gun). You mean to say that people didn't die on mass in the middle ages or during roman times? I am pretty sure there were some pretty big engagements and swords can do a hell of a lot more damage than you think.
IIRC, WW1 was the first where more casualties were from actual conflict rather than disease. During the Napoleonic Wars, more men died from dysentery than bullets.
In the Age of Gunpowder maybe.
I would posit that even before the Age of Gunpowder, more men died from dysentery than bullets
Could people kill with a sword? Yes. But scale...You don't kill millions with in an instant with a sword like you can do with modern weapons. Nor can you kill as much and as fast as with a tank.
Also sword is also tool designed for killing humans...
And just because there exists less efficient weapons of killing doesn't mean it's no problem to have even MORE efficient. Or you claim just because swords exists a-bomb is also fine and dandy?
Give me guy armed with a sword and guy armed with a tank and I know from which I prefer to try to escape. Never mind guy armed with abomb...
The Mongols murdered millions of people in a single year with bows, spears, and swords. Entire cities, populations ranging in the 100,000+ were wiped out, men, women, children, in a single day.
The weapon doesn't matter. The will to use it is all that matters.
And that is why swords are probably more lethal than a-bombs. No one has the will to use an a-bomb out of fear of retaliation. With the sword, there is no such concern. You may be able to kill millions in an instant with modern weapons, but given a day or two you can also kill millions with swords. Does that little extra time really matter so much? Especially when the sword is a weapon that is more likely to be actually used than modern weapons are?
A sword may appear less lethal and destructive, but that is exactly what is the problem. The appearance is deceptive. People are much more likely to go to war when they have weapons that are less destructive than with weapons that are highly destructive because the fear of retaliation becomes much less. Therefore, modern weaponry actually helps prevent wars. It is so destructive everyone has become afraid of war. The kind of jingoism that was a stock feature of European society until the 20th century has dissapeared almost completely because of this. Had weaponry been less destructive, we would have seen more wars, and thus more people killed.
Kilkrazy wrote: The German name is PanzerKampfWagen = Armoured Battle Wagon. Very appropriate.
Way too unwieldy though. That is why they shortened it to Panzer in normal usage and PzKpfw in designations.
I have also heard them use Kampfpanzer (KPz), which translates to Battlearmour. I think really I like that one.
H.G. Wells once wrote about huge tank-like vehicles. He called them 'land ironclads', which I also really like.
Ironclad has a real badass ring to it. It sounds invulnerable and intimidating like the epithet of some ancient hero from a Germanic saga.
Really, it is a pity we got stuck with boring 'tank'. There is so much potential for awesome names here and they literally picked the most boring, ordinary and unintimidating word they could think of... Which was probably on purpose
The Shortest abbreviation would be PKW but that is what Germans already call cars
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 06:13:28
Though it does feature a Crusader tank flying through the air twice, though this is mainly due to its commander being anything but a slowpoke..
