Tanks: A Post Script

I wrote a few weeks ago about misconceptions that people often have about tanks (the armored vehicles). This post is an addition or post script to that one, so to speak, so if you missed the first, check it out.

I received my copy of World War II Infantry Anti-Tank Tactics via OhioLINK, and wanted to remark on just a few of the things that popped out at me while I was reading it:

Despite their psychological impact on infantrymen in the open, tanks were far from being the undefeatable, unstoppable, fire-breathing monsters so often portrayed. Vulnerabilities abounded – if conditions were favourable to those fighting against them; . . . .

Hah! Well, now I don’t feel bad at all about my former misconceptions about tanks.

Except to the tank’s immediate front and the direction in which the turret was oriented, the crew were for all practical purposes blind. Many of the means of vision were mounted high to maximize their fields, and stealthy and courageous infantry could easily move into the tank’s blind zone or ‘dead space.’

Apparently my ideas based on playing Red Orchestra were right. Who said games are useless for education?

Fuel consumption limited operating range, and was measured in gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon.

This is another factor that I’d never considered before when thinking about tanks. I’m not entirely sure why, but I had never really taken all of the mechanical problems and issues of a tank into consideration. The tank was, in my mind, when I didn’t look at it too closely, above being a vehicle. It was closer to being alive rather than being a machine; that probably sounds absurd, but as I poke around in my memory, I realize that’s how I saw it. Logically, of course, I knew that it was a vehicle that had an engine, that required fuel, etc. – but just skimming over “tank” in my mind, none of that popped up. Maybe that just goes back to the above paragraph though, describing how many people viewed them as fire-breathing monsters rather than what they really were.

The tank crew had to endure great heat, deafening noise from the engine and running gear, dizzying fumes from the engine and gun, cramped space hampered by awkward interior fittings, violent pitching and lurching during cross-country movement, poor visibility, and the ever-present fire hazard.

Again, something else that I had never really considered. I always assumed that things on the inside of the tank, besides it being a bit cramped, were just fine. I’d never thought about extreme heat, fumes, and noise. Then again, in my defense, I’ve never been in a tank. All I’ve heard from them is the rather tank-specific sound of treads creaking. I suppose that, on the inside, the sound of creaking treads, guns firing, and the engine roaring would drown out most other sounds. I won’t quote it, because it’s a fairly long section, but the book explains that tank crews often had quite a time communicating with infantry and other tanks, which complicated movement and attack coordination considerably.

After reading the book, I’m left with an understanding that has been furthered, but is still quite close to what I had when I finished writing my first post on tanks. Tanks were:

• Terrifying
• Unstoppable
• Useless
• Battlefield dominating
• Total junk
• More trouble than they were worth
• The turn of the tide in many battles

The list could go on, but in short: it just really depended on the battlefield, what the attackers and defenders had available, and more than a little luck.

I could continue yanking quotes from the book that caught my attention, but I won’t, because I would most likely come close to rewriting it, which 1) I don’t want to do and 2) the publishers don’t want me to do. If you’re interested in how infantry went up against tanks, do get the book; it’s quite good.