Landships II

Oh dear god! I suppose it depends on what someone defines as the key characteristics of a Tank is!

That's an evil question. 

OK so here goes... a Tank is an armoured fighting vechile that is powered by an engine, has a gun of some type, and travels on tracks.

Notice I didn't say it had to have a Turret. 

Helen x

Oh forgot... Britain.

-- Edited by MK1 Nut on Thursday 25th of August 2011 07:48:36 PM

That's three questions - three sentences, three questions. The first I agree with - tanks are armoured fighting vehicles. But it's worth noting that not all AFVs are tanks. So armoured trains and armoured cars etc are AFVs, but not tanks.

The second I agree with because AFVs in use before 1916 aren't tanks. If the word tank came to have it's present meaning only in 1915/16 then anything that existed before the word was invented wasn't a tank. For an accessible philosophical discussion on the relationship of words and meanings read the chapter when Alice meets a deer in Alice through the Looking Glass. The deer isn't afraid when it doesn't know that Alice is human, but when it remembers it runs off. So a tracked AFV might exist before 1916 but if the word "tank" doesn't exist you can't say it's a tank.

The last I also think is true, for similar reasons.

Now my brain hurts so I'm going to stop.

Gwyn

-- Edited by Gwyn Evans on Thursday 25th of August 2011 08:53:37 PM

I see now the difficulty faced by those who conduct referendums/referenda/more than one referendum in phrasing a question that does not tend to influence the response.

Both of Lincolntanker's statements are true. But they are not answers to the question.

Let me try this:

In what country did the amoured fighting vehicle that is called in many languages today a "Tank" originate?

Whilst not attempting to sway anyone's view but merely to attempt to ensure that all relevant factors are considered, might I ask that the following be taken into account?

If Haig had not insisted on using Tanks in September 1916 and had not contacted Joffre in June 1916 to inform him of the existence of Britain's tracked, armoured fighting vehicles, what might have happened? If you see what I mean . . .

Well, actually, Wikipedia has several definitive answers, which is an interesting concept. Strangely, none of them is "America" (as far as I can tell). PDA might be thinking of Mr. Albert Mroz, who is very precise on that point. He also informs us that the Schneider was first tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland.

But I digress.

I do not wish to leave this survey open to allegations of being biased or unscientific. However, let me put it another way. Who came up with the theory of evolution? Or the lightbulb? Or the telephone?

kieffer wrote:

---

 well, that's Darwin, Edison and the last one is a matter of controversy, as Bell has the credits as well as the Germans, alas I have forgotten the name of the German claim.

---

 . . . or Alfred Wallace, Joseph Swan, and Elisha Gray. Quite independently of Darwin, Edison, and Bell.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

So I'll restate:

What is the country of origin of the tracked, armoured fighting vehicle known in many languages as a "Tank."

Well, I'd hoped for more of an avalanche of (correct) answers, but Helen's is encouraging.

OK, this is, as they say, the thing. PDA's lucky, or possibly shrewd, mention of Wikipedia is in the right territory. The section on Tanks gives the country of origin as "United Kingdom." I have attempted to persuade this fine organisation that, since the French contemplated the Tank (along with many others) and then went on to experiment with, design, and manufacture Tanks in a process in many respects very similar to but quite independent of that which took place in Britain, they should merit equal billing.

Not unexpectedly, this met with vigorous resistance. A gentleman whose username includes the word "Trek" countered my argument with the following riposte: "every source I've seen credits the invention to the Brits, & the page has had that as a stable state for quite awhile now. To change that IMO requires consensus."

His conclusion is not that he has not, therefore, consulted sufficient sources. Nor is he swayed by the presence of three references elsewhere on Wikipedia that describe the French and British processes as contemporaneous, parallel, and so on. And there is the golden rule that if enough Wikipedians have got hold of the wrong end of the stick and put it on Wikipedia (termed a "stable state"), getting them to accept amendments requires an effort akin to persuading Young Earth Creationists to have a rethink. For anyone who can be bothered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank and the accompanying Discussion page. There are also some other points in the article that are worth pondering.

 

I

-- Edited by James H on Sunday 28th of August 2011 09:55:47 PM

James H wrote:

---

---

 . . . or Alfred Wallace, Joseph Swan, and Elisha Gray. Quite independently of Darwin, Edison, and Bell.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

---

 Yes, I do. And I guess it's related somehow to some nationalistic approach, to put it boldly. It all reminds me to history lessons at lower school...I learnt that book printing was a Dutch invention, Gutenberg wasn't even mentioned. I think the teacher could not leave out Edison but after all it was Philips who gave the world the light bulb. Philips by the way was (and is, meaning the company) Dutch, but I met a few Germans, and Americans as well who were convinced that Philips was resp. German or American, the name just did not sound Dutch to them.

Just a small step further I guess, the inventor's identity. As little school kids we were very proud that French car maker Citroen had Dutch origins. I think people need that, it might be a tribal thing: being proud on your kinsmen who made it in the world. Makes it easy to forget the facts, or distort them a little.

regards Kieffer

I thought it was something to do with wiki, because checking all the articles referred to in their "tank" article gives quite a few "fathers of the tank".

We should probably check their article on "father". To badly quote from "The Princess Bride": You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

James,

as you have gone away from the original question, I feel you have to be pointed in this direction if non armoured crawler vehicles are to be considered.

http://landships.activeboard.com/t36353638/john-heathcoat-30-ton-tracked-ploughing-engine-1837/ 

 

 

-- Edited by LincolnTanker on Monday 29th of August 2011 04:07:07 PM

Austria

"Joseph Hawker is attributed as being the father of the modern tank when in 1872"

Hi James, well the article is dated 2007 and there appears to be nothing about it on the Chard Museum homepage, one assumes by now they would have put something up if they could substantiate the claim...

http://www.chardmuseum.co.uk/History_of_Chard/

My vote still goes to Pennington for first AFV Patent.....

Cheers

I agree that the French should get recognition for independently also inventing the tank. But then I also think Alfred Wallace should have recognition for his theory of evolution, and Rosalind Franklin for her discovery of the structure of DNA, and a NZ fella by the name of Pearse for the first powered flight.

On the subject of fathers of the tank, shouldn't Gottlieb Daimler get a mention? And how about Beardmores or some other suitable armour plate developer? In The Devils Chariots it mentions, fairly early on, a British patent dated 1691 for endless chain tracks (or what would later be called caterpillar tracks). Allegedly the patent was issued by the London Patent Office, and is numbered 277. It appears to predate Hawker's by some 200 years, and, conveniently for wiki proving purposes, a source can be quoted.

Well, Citizens, I am trying to avoid the question of who invented the Tank, because it seems to have no answer. Even the Awards Commission didn't truly reflect the value of individuals' contributions because it couldn't acknowledge work done that fell within their normal duties. Stern said that d'Eyncourt was the true father, but he also says that when the new track plates were fitted to Little Willie that was "the birth of the Tank." Maj. Donohoe of the Military Transport Committee suggested to Roberts well before the War that a Hornsby chaintrack be fitted with a gun and an armoured shield; the trouble is that it didn't happen, but he "invented" it.

The same applies on the French side. Was it Brillié? He has a claim. But it was Estienne who got Thibier to draw up the plan based on a Holt, made his own alterations, and presented them to Janin and Joffre along with a tactical theory.

I was hoping there was a subtle distinction between "invent" and "devise," but it seems there isn't. So that particular question must remain unanswered, I suggest.

As to the country of origin, the gent who seems to be in charge of the Wiki entry, by a process I don't understand, has helpfully refined his criteria, although I find his remarks less than clear. As you will see, there is something lacking in the logic:

 "You don't have to persuade me because a) I know this (if not in so much detail, I confess) & b) I agree with you. To get it changed, however, you do need persuasive reasons. Incumbency may not be an ideal one, but this matter has been hashed out before, & settled. That's how it goes here. Reopen it if you want, but don't count on it going any differently, if only because the historiography on this is also pretty much in agreement the Brits got in action first, &, as noted, being first gives them priority of invention. (Same goes for who got there first on inventing calculus, frex.)"

Apparently, Wiki articles work on the same principle as the towel on the sunbed. Once it's there, it's very hard to do anything about it without starting a fight. To remove or alter anything that is backed up by  a "citation" is, I have been informed, amongst the most heinous actions possible, even if the citation is a result of a misunderstanding by someone doing work experience on the Ilfracombe Bugle. It's in black and white and is therefore a source.

I wish I had Michel's strength of character to ignore Wikipedia. There are probably a dozen articles that cover or include the early Tanks - frequently contradicting each other and full of errors. What is so galling is seeing the misinformation from them quoted over and over again.

-- Edited by James H on Friday 2nd of September 2011 01:04:16 PM

The original question was " If you were asked to name the country of origin of the Tank, what would you say? ". I think that the only answer can be Great Britain, because the name Tank was used as verbal camouflage to hide "Landships" from our enemies.
Paul