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.

Today the Tank celebrates its 100th anniversary of combat involvement.

The BBC marks the occasion with a short article on the first tanks at the Battle of the Somme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37302722

Yeah am of to bovington for Tank 100 at the weekend should be good . Have read what small snippets have been in the papers today. Not that there's been much to be fair.

 xKillGorex wrote:
Yeah am of to bovington for Tank 100 at the weekend should be good . Have read what small snippets have been in the papers today. Not that there's been much to be fair.

I would love to go back to Bovington just for this event. It should be awesome beyond all things awesome.


Unfortunately, I've got too much on my plate for any overseas trips anytime soon.

It will be good but ah it won't be as good as Tankfest. Now that's one you really should come over for if you haven't before.

Great article, thanks!

 xKillGorex wrote:
It will be good but ah it won't be as good as Tankfest. Now that's one you really should come over for if you haven't before.

I'd echo this. Well worth upgrading to VIP if you can, too.

Tanks are awesome pieces of technology. It's kind of surprising that we ever developed them after that first day on the Somme, considering every single tank the British fielded broke down or was knocked out of action. It just goes to show how effective they were despite their massive shortcomings.

Here's a video by a group of guys who have a channel on all things WWI. It's a short bit about the development of tanks in WWI and is very relevant.

Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

inb4 best tank ever!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KXyx7OToQq0/maxresdefault.jpg
Totally is though.

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Perhaps, but then we would have never gotten this beauty show:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Well that's your opinion, personally I love em. Have always had an interest in them since being a small boy. To me there's nothing like seeing a tank tearing around kicking up dust. And yes obviuosly it's not fun being on the recieving end of one before you bring that one up lol

I second squidhills' comment - The Great War channel is worth checking out, one of my favourite youtube channels.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I second squidhills' comment - The Great War channel is worth checking out, one of my favourite youtube channels.

There's a few small spot light vids done by the tank museum that you might like too, done by David fletcher. That guy sure knows his stuff, had the pleasure of a tour by him a few years back now of all the archives at bovington.

Speaking of tanks, for you well off Dakkaites

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/16/news/world-war-2-tanks-auction/index.html

 xKillGorex wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Well that's your opinion, personally I love em. Have always had an interest in them since being a small boy. To me there's nothing like seeing a tank tearing around kicking up dust. And yes obviuosly it's not fun being on the recieving end of one before you bring that one up lol

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..,

tneva82 wrote:

 xKillGorex wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Well that's your opinion, personally I love em. Have always had an interest in them since being a small boy. To me there's nothing like seeing a tank tearing around kicking up dust. And yes obviuosly it's not fun being on the recieving end of one before you bring that one up lol

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..,

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.

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.

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Maybe. Tanks are of course created to kill people, which is never nice. But I don't think people would have been killing each other any less had the tank never been invented (people are extremely efficient killers even without modern technology) and the world would definitely have been a less awesome place without tanks.

 feeder wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Perhaps, but then we would have never gotten this beauty show:

Masamune Shirow was one of my idols during my teens. Love his tank design in Dominion!

Regardless of purpose, looking at the original landships up close you can get a sense of the wonder, fear and awe they inspired to those who first saw them.

Bovington has a really great display, everyone should visit, even if not a tread head, the human story is very much a part of the tanks existence. The vehicles are massive and yet inside conditions are so cramped and confined there must still be a sense of vulnerability and fear of the crews.

Remember as well the time they came into existence, who was it that thought armoured vehicles would give way again to cavalry if a war occurred again?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Maybe. Tanks are of course created to kill people, which is never nice. But I don't think people would have been killing each other any less had the tank never been invented (people are extremely efficient killers even without modern technology) and the world would definitely have been a less awesome place without tanks.

This.

Tanks like guns, swords, and orangers might be lethal killing machines, but they are so freaking bad ass;



It don't get much more manly than that! No fear. Just right into the water with nothing but his treads and a depth charge!

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.

I suspect more people died in WW 1 and 2 than in all the previous wars of history. The intensity of fighting, destructiveness of weapons and the length of battles, contributed to casualties.

I'm proud to have contributed a very tiny bit to the history of the tank. I was a platoon leader for the US Army's M1A2 company level test. We were able to show how much better than the M1A1s the new 'digital' tank was and contributed to the decision to field (and speed up the fielding) of this beast.


A31 is my track.

Turn your speakers off, the music is awful.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

I suspect more people died in WW 1 and 2 than in all the previous wars of history. The intensity of fighting, destructiveness of weapons and the length of battles, contributed to casualties.

True, but a large part of why it was so destructive is not due to modern technology, but rather due to the massively increased population. More people died in WW1 and WW2 than in any other wars because far more people participated than in any other wars (actually, the Taiping Rebellion may have seen even more people dead than WW1 or 2). But proportionally, they are far from the most destructive wars in Europe, let alone the world. The 30 Years' War for example killed a far greater proportion of Europe's population than WW1 and 2 combined.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

I suspect more people died in WW 1 and 2 than in all the previous wars of history. The intensity of fighting, destructiveness of weapons and the length of battles, contributed to casualties.

Hardly. It's estimated 40 million died in Ghegis Khan's conquests. 30 million (most conservative measurements, some say as high as 100) in the Taiping rebellion. Three Kingdoms War saw about 40 million dead, and the bow was the most advanced weapon of that conflict.

I think a more appropriate comment would be, more Chinese have died in warfare, then everyone else combined.

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..,

 Iron_Captain wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Maybe. Tanks are of course created to kill people, which is never nice. But I don't think people would have been killing each other any less had the tank never been invented (people are extremely efficient killers even without modern technology) and the world would definitely have been a less awesome place without tanks.

I certainly agree with the sentiment about wishing for weapons to have not been invented, but realistically, the tank is just an inferior version of this truly awesome piece of machinery.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

I suspect more people died in WW 1 and 2 than in all the previous wars of history. The intensity of fighting, destructiveness of weapons and the length of battles, contributed to casualties.

Hardly. It's estimated 40 million died in Ghegis Khan's conquests. 30 million (most conservative measurements, some say as high as 100) in the Taiping rebellion. Three Kingdoms War saw about 40 million dead, and the bow was the most advanced weapon of that conflict.

I think a more appropriate comment would be, more Chinese have died in warfare, then everyone else combined.

That's because the First World War did not affect civilian populations very greatly, and the proportion of casualties from disease and wounds was much lower than in previous wars.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet another piece of technology that world would have been better off without.

Maybe. Tanks are of course created to kill people, which is never nice. But I don't think people would have been killing each other any less had the tank never been invented (people are extremely efficient killers even without modern technology) and the world would definitely have been a less awesome place without tanks.

I certainly agree with the sentiment about wishing for weapons to have not been invented, but realistically, the tank is just an inferior version of this truly awesome piece of machinery.

Spoiler:

Ah needs more guns lol.

It's interesting how the 'tank' moniker has stuck after all this time. But what else could they be called?

I still think landships has charm to it, although not going in to action under that name as a reason of secrecy, imagine saying challenger 2 main battle landship.