From someone with a c.v. like that, specialising in inventions.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
I knew I was going to regret clicking that link...
Actually it's quite a handy list of relevant files at The National Archives, even if one of the people named was, IIRC, the lady to whom the design of the tank came in a dream...
A very good question, Morgoth. Some constructive criticism would be useful. For what it's worth, here's my opinion.
It is a very brief article, and I read it speedily, but here is what springs to my mind. The author defines a tank as having treads, armour and a gun or guns, but then straight away talks of agricultural vehicles. The article never mentions the French or Russian designs. No mention is made of armoured cars, which surely are the forerunners of tanks. No mention is made of de Mole or Crompton's rhomboid shaped designs. No mention is made of the fact that Burstyn's design has no engine or space allotted for one, and was never built (making it just as valid as Leonardo da Vinci's).
Although a lot of emphasis is these days put on the Holt track system, we know that the first tanks that used that system (Schneider CA, Saint Chamond, A7V) were failures; they could not cross rough ground. Tritton's design of a new track is crucial in the development of tanks that can cross bad ground, and Tritton's track was nothing like Holt's. If the tank needs men to go ahead of it to smooth out the ground (like the first French tanks did) then the tank is a failure. If the tank falls over on any sort of rough ground (like the German tank did) then the tank is a failure. The tank is supposed to deliver firepower right into the enemy's trenches, if it cannot get to those trenches, what do you have? Without that British track design there could not have been that rhomboid shaped tank that could cross the existing battlefield to get guns to bear on the enemy.
All the other inventions necessary for a tank - practical power from a petrol engine, shapeable armour plate, quick firing guns, even turrets if you like, had all been invented, but who put them all together in one working package?
Is it the term 'Invented' that makes this such an awkward question to answer?
The idea of a Tank was around for centuries., it was though the Technology that made it a practical possibility and this came together all in a very short period of time. As a result then it was inevitable that designs and builds would overlap and make it almost impossible to point to anyone Country or Designer.
An important part of any invention though is the building and proving of the product. This I feel is were the British Heavy Tank Mk1 has the right to the Title of First Tank. It not only brought the technology together, but proved itself where it matters most for War Machine... in Battle.
It may not have been very reliable but it did the job, which considering the time taken from design to build is nothing short of a miracle. The other thing to take into account is that it was designed to meet very stringent list of requirements, in that it had to be able to cross shell cratered ground, Barbed Wire and Trench Systems. It was for this and time restrictions that things like Turrets and Suspension were left out of the final design.
I'm with PA on the importance of Tritton's Track Design, that and the slight curve to the track run to make sure only a limited number of track links touched the ground, is very underrated.
So in my opinion the British Designers of the MK1 Landship, Invented the Tank, as they designed, built and proved in Battle before anyone else.
