Ground Warfare: The Tank

[M1A1Tanker]

Little Willie was a "one off" prototype that was designed to to cross a 5ft trench. Designed by the Landships Committee, Little Willie was built by William Foster & Company an agricultural machine business. Part of the design, the tracks and running gear, was of American design but was only incorporated into the original design. Towards the end of WWI the design would be shelved for the Male and Female tanks Mk I, IV, V and so on. Also coming onto the scene were the French light tanks the FT17s. The first tank designed with a turret, the FT17 could either be armed with a Hotchkiss MG or a 37mm assault cannon. Either way this tank was fast and maneuverable.

[Vladimir80]

I want some pictures my friend.

[Relikt]

Renault FT-17







Weight: 6.5tons

Dimension (LxWxH): 5m x 1.47m x 2.14m
Armor (frontal):22mm
Engine:Renault 4-cyl petrol 39hp
P/W ratio: 6 hp/ton
Operational range: 65km
Maximum speed: 7km/h

Crew: Commander and Driver

[M1A1Tanker]

Originally Posted by Vladimir80

I want some pictures my friend.

Plenty of them on Google buddy!


I posted the topic to start discussion....Seems Relikt has the idea

[Vladimir80]

Originally Posted by M1A1Tanker

Plenty of them on Google buddy!


I posted the topic to start discussion....Seems Relikt has the idea

OPs are supposed to post the first pics. You getting lazy in your old age.

[M1A1Tanker]

I'm old..thats not being lazy!

Originally Posted by Vladimir80

OPs are supposed to post the first pics. You getting lazy in your old age.

[The Exorcist]

I saw an operational F-17 once at the Rhinebeck Aerodrome, in upstate New York (if you are ever in the area, I highly recomend seeing the show they put on every Sunday, it is the only place I know of where you can see half a squadron's worth of WW1 aircraft flying aorund).

That was the first real tank, IMHO. Turret armament, compact, reasonably good mobility, and somewhat reliable. Several were still in use in WW2, and not just as training vehicles; the Germans put a few on flatcars and used them for railway protection.

It was by far the best tank of its era.

[Ayyash]

So i'm reading a book right now called On Killing:The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War And Society by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, its an fascinating well-written read for anyone interested, but he talks about how in war the greatest psychological damage is inflicted not to soldier who are in greatest fear of dying or injury, but rather those who are forced to kill or do damage, he goes onto say that up until just recently most infantry did not kill or even fire their weapons, he quotes a 15% firing rate in WWII and massive mathematical discrepancies in the civil war as proof, this, he asserts, is because humans have an immensly powerful innate barrier against committing violence against other humans because it runs contrary to the survival of humanity.

How's that for a run-on sentence!

Anyway, he alludes to the fact that this factor does not exist on things link battleships where you dont ever really fire on a human, but rather against a massive hulk of metal. It reminds me of a quote by Mahan that i read elsewhere, the father of modern naval strategy, about the danger of the massive range of naval guns that it would create an "indisposition to close" and that "terror and punishment were useful checks on the human impulse to prolong war. "
Another author, Tom Engelhardt writes the same thing about air power and how the lack of humanity risk prolonging war and wreaking even more destructive potential.

So my question is, does this same factor apply with ground warfare when insulated within the caccoon of the tank do you lose emotional connection with the fact that the T-72 you just fired a round at actually contains another human, even though intellectually you may rationally know that there is someone in the tank?

[Zraver]

As Excorcist says, its F-17 not Ft or FT-17 accoridng to official French documents. The F-17 and its clones have a three important firsts for a tank.

1- 360 traverse turret
2- bulkhead between the engine and crew (introduced on the American Ford 6 ton tank)
3- first turret mounted main gun of 75mm of more

Dave the F-17blockhaus could mount a 75mm field gun

The F-17 was also the first tank of France, USA, USSR, Italy, Japan. It was one of two tanks to see use in both World Wars on the Western Front and Eastern Front being in both the arsenals of France and Italy in the West and Poland, Romania and USSR* (*T-18/MS-1) in the East. While the Vickers tank served the British, Soviets, Poles and Italians.

[M1A1Tanker]

Originally Posted by Zraver

As Excorcist says, its F-17 not Ft or FT-17 accoridng to official French documents. The F-17 and its clones have a three important firsts for a tank.

1- 360 traverse turret
2- bulkhead between the engine and crew (introduced on the American Ford 6 ton tank)
3- first turret mounted main gun of 75mm of more

Dave the F-17blockhaus could mount a 75mm field gun

The F-17 was also the first tank of France, USA, USSR, Italy, Japan. It was one of two tanks to see use in both World Wars on the Western Front and Eastern Front being in both the arsenals of France and Italy in the West and Poland, Romania and USSR* (*T-18/MS-1) in the East. While the Vickers tank served the British, Soviets, Poles and Italians.

It is and I quote a man I cannot stand, Steve Zaloga, Automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault FT modèle 1917. from the book, The Renault FT Light Tank, 1988, London. It is the French designation and is a combination of 2 terms used by the French.

It was also a misnomer for the Ford tractor of the same type.

Yes it is true there was an adaptation for the 75mm Schneider gun. But because it was a limited production run with less than 30 models made (no accurate no. can be counted as they were deemed obsolete after the war) I excluded because it was not a vehicle adopted by US Forces.

[Zraver]

If you find an official French document from the war years saying FT you'll rewrite history.

[M1A1Tanker]

Originally Posted by Zraver

If you find an official French document from the war years saying FT you'll rewrite history.

Don't have to. Zaloga wrote his book in London and did his research on the tank in France. The French title in the note above comes from the French nomenclature for the tank.

[Vladimir80]

Originally Posted by Zraver

If you find an official French document from the war years saying FT you'll rewrite history.

Dude, even Renault calls it the FT.

http://www.planeterenault.com/groupe2-28-Lhistoire.html

[M1A1Tanker]

Originally Posted by Vladimir80

Dude, even Renault calls it the FT.

http://www.planeterenault.com/groupe2-28-Lhistoire.html

You do know that according to Jason it HAS to say "Official French Document". I have read several Marine diaries from WWI where they identify the French tanks by what the French called them..The FT-17.

[Zraver]

I promise you, the FT is not the offical name given it by the French Army. Vlad, FT is Renault's code for it. That however is not the same as its offical designation. Its just an oddball trivia fact of WWI.