Tanks - how did they develop so quickly between the two world wars?

[Gordy]

The British invented tanks at the end of WW1 and they looked like water tanks - hence the name. They look pretty pathetic compared to what we have today.

A mere 30 years later, we have some pretty modern designs and they look properly scary. I don't imagine that their main guns or armour would match up to a 21st century tank (or their speed either) but they seem to be hugely different from WW1 tanks.

How did designs evolve so (seemingly) quickly?

Actually much the same could be said about planes while I think about it.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Afaik they made huge leaps in engine construction in the 20s and 30s
This affected vehicles, planes and to a lesser extend ships.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

It's more that the first few British and German designs were weird by later standards. You had modern tank-ish looking tanks by 1917:

 

[chepaeff]

The war gave a big push to new designs and technically development wasn't restricted much. Developing something new nowadays would take huge amount of monies and years or even decades in case of planes, and even then its would hardly be something significantly new. While in 20-30s every 5 years you could see some new design.

 

[chepaeff]

It's more that the first few British and German designs were weird by later standards. You had modern tank-ish looking tanks by 1917:

But the Brits :unsure:

 

[gagenater]

As Graf Zeppelin pointed out - there were enormous improvements in the construction techniques, engines, radios, etc. that go into a modern type motorized vehicle in the period between the two world wars. Indeed - the improvements in airplanes were even more dramatic than the improvements in tanks. In both cases in WWI the whole idea of a motorized land or air vehicle was quite new. By the time WWII started everyone had a chance to figure out what things would be 'obvious' improvements.

During WWI the British spent a lot of time developing a VERY specific tank program. It was very narrowly focused on crossing trenches, barbed wire, and no mans land in the most efficient way possible. The strange shape of their tanks was a direct result of this narrow focus. The particular rhomboid shape they chose is ideally suited for crossing deep AND wide trenches, for crushing barbed wire and similar obsticles, and has a very low ground pressure allowing it to easily traverse deep mud and poor ground.

Once they were actually used in combat it became obvious that while they were good at what they were supposed to do, it would be useful/advantageous to have tanks that were a bit less specialized and/or other types of tanks for other roles. The French Renault FT17 that Sarmatia 1871 pictured above is an excellent example of this line of thinking - it looks a lot more 'modern' to our eyes because it's designed to be an all purpose tank. However since WWI was winding down, not a lot of experimentation was done with the tanks during the war. Instead the focus was on making as many of the existing designs as possible to get the war over with fast - and this succeeded.

After the war was over then everyone started to tinker around with all the new ideas and designs that were developed during the war - the results were as we saw in WWII - huge improvements.

 

[Berkis]

Yes, I guess the timespan is shorter than two decades or so. Those were mainly tactical considerations, like a tank's cavalry role vs. the development of combined-arms tactics which brought some of the experiments to fruition, and mainly in the 1930ies and during WWII.

 

[Sathariel]

I'd just like to add that 20-30 years can be actually quite meaningful for technologies that are seen as necessary. Just look how the world was like in the 1980es or even 1990es compared to now, and how many new technologies got developed in that time. The 20es and 30es were very insecure times, a lot of countries were working on creating their own tanks. Look at the list of states with their own designs - its quite impressive. A lot of ideas to look at, a lot of good solutions to steal from - it all tends to push the technologies in question forward rapidly.

 

[knul]

It's more that the first few British and German designs were weird by later standards. You had modern tank-ish looking tanks by 1917:

What a cute little thing! :wub:

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

The fact it was obvious the next major war would be fought on the Northern European plains probably spurred the initiative...

 

[Jazumir]

As Graf Zeppelin pointed out - there were enormous improvements in the construction techniques, engines, radios, etc. that go into a modern type motorized vehicle in the period between the two world wars. Indeed - the improvements in airplanes were even more dramatic than the improvements in tanks. In both cases in WWI the whole idea of a motorized land or air vehicle was quite new. By the time WWII started everyone had a chance to figure out what things would be 'obvious' improvements.

During WWI the British spent a lot of time developing a VERY specific tank program. It was very narrowly focused on crossing trenches, barbed wire, and no mans land in the most efficient way possible. The strange shape of their tanks was a direct result of this narrow focus. The particular rhomboid shape they chose is ideally suited for crossing deep AND wide trenches, for crushing barbed wire and similar obsticles, and has a very low ground pressure allowing it to easily traverse deep mud and poor ground.

Once they were actually used in combat it became obvious that while they were good at what they were supposed to do, it would be useful/advantageous to have tanks that were a bit less specialized and/or other types of tanks for other roles. The French Renault FT17 that Sarmatia 1871 pictured above is an excellent example of this line of thinking - it looks a lot more 'modern' to our eyes because it's designed to be an all purpose tank. However since WWI was winding down, not a lot of experimentation was done with the tanks during the war. Instead the focus was on making as many of the existing designs as possible to get the war over with fast - and this succeeded.

After the war was over then everyone started to tinker around with all the new ideas and designs that were developed during the war - the results were as we saw in WWII - huge improvements.

Yes, the first tanks were designed to overcome the quagmire of a WW1-battlefield that field-fortifications and heavy artillery bombardment had caused. It´s purpose was to keep mobility equal or superior to the defender, thus turning break-ins into break-throughs.

But just like with the first planes, which were only used for reconnaisance, it became desirable for the enemy to fight these machines. So new types were brought about: The fighter plane in the air, the battletank on the ground. 20 years after WW1, Guderian wrote, that the number one enemy of the tank was... the tank. And from there, just with the planes, it became a spiral of competition: Faster, heavier, more firepower. Things began to diversify: There would be light tanks for recon, medium all purpose tanks, and heavy tanks to use against the mediums. In the sky, the first fighters were used against enemy recon-planes and bombers, but then of course, fighters started to fight among each other and needed to become better with every improvement the enemy would make. Typical Clausewitzian scenario of war: One hand forces the other.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Contrary to what the grognards would have you believe, the tanks of the late 1930s (or later east years) were *not* super-complicated machines. They were agricultural tractors with bigger engines and a crudely mounted artillery piece on top. Similarly sophisticated machines had already been built and used widely before WW1.

Tanks didn't become really sophisticated machines until the advent of electronics, automated gun laying computers, etc.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

Contrary to what the grognards would have you believe, the tanks of the late 1930s (or later east years) were *not* super-complicated machines. They were agricultural tractors with bigger engines and a crudely mounted artillery piece on top. Similarly sophisticated machines had already been built and used widely before WW1.

Tanks didn't become really sophisticated machines until the advent of electronics, automated gun laying computers, etc.

A curious view :huh: Sure, targeting didn't start getting sophisticated until the Sherman or thereabouts in the early 40s. But I think you massively underestimate how complex getting the chassis and turret right was. This is what you get if you actually take an agricultural tractor and crudely mount an artillery piece:

This is a more typical 1930s tank:

The previously posted 1917 Renault has many of the same features, and a similar main armament. But despite being lighter it could only make about 8 km/h in favourable conditions. The Czechoslovakian 38(t) could do about 42 km/h on road and 15 off. A lot of sophisticated development happened, particularly in the 30s, to get good enough suspension and powerful enough engines to pull that off while still having a useful fighting vehicle. A lot of the engine development went hand in hand with aircraft design, which saw more obvious yet no more significant improvements. You can walk nearly as fast as that Renault, and probably jog alongside it for a greater distance than it can go without emptying its fuel/breaking down. The 38(t) could take on Bolt in a 100m sprint and keep going at the same speed for a few marathons.

 

[nwinther]

Tanks didn't become really sophisticated machines until the advent of electronics, automated gun laying computers, etc.

No doubt that with the advent of electronics, tanks (life!) got increasingly sophisticated. However, micro-mechanics, optics, accurate bearings etc. were phenomenons of the 40's tank-development - and are still essential today.

The Tiger I's aiming mechanism and optics were superiour achievements with automated fine-aiming and an optics that made the Tiger able to find it's target in a flash and hit it's mark at any range. While this was quickly surpassed by computers etc. there was nothing "crude" about it.

 

[gagenater]

Contrary to what the grognards would have you believe, the tanks of the late 1930s (or later east years) were *not* super-complicated machines. They were agricultural tractors with bigger engines and a crudely mounted artillery piece on top. Similarly sophisticated machines had already been built and used widely before WW1.

Tanks didn't become really sophisticated machines until the advent of electronics, automated gun laying computers, etc.

I would highly suggest that you take a visit to a museum that has some actual tanks and other pieces of equipment from that era so you can see the ways in which you are wrong. Tanks of that era had some very complex and useful mechanical and electromechanical devices for gun stabilization, and range finding periscopes. Not to mention some pretty complex radio equipment. All of these things were in fact simplified by the development of electronics. Pre electronics these were all incredibly complex devices that required lots of skilled labor, precision machining, and detailed training in order to build and use properly. Post electronics these things all became automation produced 'black boxes' that any moron could use by turning the power on.

 

[Kovax]

The WWI tanks were developed with no previous experience, and were essentially designed in part according to marginally applicable Naval traditions, until field experience showed that practical applications didn't call for "land battleships". By the end of the war, with a pool of real combat experience as well as trail and error (lots of the latter) to draw from, the early "giant eraser" designs of British tanks, as well as the crude "moving pillbox" German designs, were already obsolete.

The encounters in the Spanish Civil War allowed the (indirect) participants to further hone their designs and operational doctrines, while the UK still clung to its separation of "infantry tanks" and "cavalry tanks", and France parceled out most of its armor in direct support of small infantry formations.

 

[nwinther]

Post electronics these things all became automation produced 'black boxes' that any moron could use by turning the power on.

Don't know about that either. I was inside a tank once (Leopard 2). I wouldn't know what to do to load, aim and fire the gun.

 

[Ming]

Tanks of that era had some very complex and useful mechanical and electromechanical devices for gun stabilization, and range finding periscopes.

Do you have any examples or information on non electronic gun stabilization systems? The Sherman I know about, but where there any other projects? Post war, I guess.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Don't know about that either. I was inside a tank once (Leopard 2). I wouldn't know what to do to load, aim and fire the gun.

Given the context it does not make you appear smart ya know

 

[Kovax]

Don't know about that either. I was inside a tank once (Leopard 2). I wouldn't know what to do to load, aim and fire the gun.

Without at least some training (or a manual), I wouldn't know what to do to load, aim, and fire a WWI field gun either. Given time, I could probably figure it out; given time, I could probably figure out how to use the Leopard 2's far more sophisticated systems. It's just that the introduction of computers and automation reduced the operating difficulty back to about where it was when it was still a "simple" system. You still need training to use it, just a bit less, rather than a lot more.