h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Influence of Tanks in World War II - A1047124
Author: Yataghan - U227486

This is my second entry to the guide. It is in essay form. My biggest question is if I should leave all of the bibliographical information or get rid of it. Also, how do I add headings and more complex formatting to my article? Thanks

You can convert to GuideML form and use the tags Here is the header and And this

where it's appropriate. You can find this at the <./>GuideML-Clinic</.>

On the subject of fuel consumption "My men can eat their belts, but my tanks have gotta have gas." is a pithy quote from General Patton.

I'm not sure about the superiority of Allied tanks, at least on the Western Front. English tanks were called "tommycookers" by the Germans because of their propensity to burst into flames when hit.

Noggin

It might be worth reading the following :
A888753 - edited
A906716 & A1006606 - both recommended
and
A857351 & A859449

and see what you think then. I also seem to recall entries on Germany's invasion of Russia and D.Day which also covered tanks.

These entries cover a lot of the ground covered in yours and they seem to disagree at some points as well.

What about A1012582 that I wrote It talks about why tanks became so popular briefly

Jodan I was thinking of who?'s articles and only looked at those.

is forgetful

I forgive you, only because mine only has a section on the development of armored vehicle

Not a bad piece of work, but here's a few pointers;

You keep swapping between "German" and "Axis" forces. Axis forces were the combined forces of Germany, Italy and others. For the sake of consistancy you should pick one and stick to it. As you only mention German tanks probably best to stick to "German Forces".

Try writing in GuideML this will allow you to put in suitable headers and sub-headers, and will also allow you to cite your quotes, if you are un-sure visit the GuideML clinic.

You contradict yourself by saying the Tiger II was the most powerful tank of WWII, and that the Russian T35? was the more powerful than anything the Germans produced.

Disregard any of the comments you don't agree with

Pongo

I'd agree that some of your conclusions don't match with what I've read elsewhere...

While the T34 and T34/76 were fine tanks, the Germans always seemed to produce better ones (Panther). It was more a matter of quantity I suspect in giving the Soviets the advantage...

I also reckon it's important to look at tanks as an extension of the cavalry with many of the tactics very similar to what the old horsemen used.

But don't be discouraged, there's some good material in here - I'm just not sure I agree with the conculsions you draw from that material.


- Jimi X

I'd say go for the previous comments, and maybe just mention at the end what sources you've used, you don't need MLA format and all that documentation. This paragraph has got a bit of fuzzy stuff in it:

...A factor of most large guns was their rotating ability. The French were the first to develop a tank with a 360&#61616; rotary gun turret (Armored). The 360&#61616; range allowed the tank to move in one direction and fire in another...

Maybe you copied and pasted it in here, just try and remove that stuff.

Overall, though, I think that this is a good entry, just make sure you take into account the previous comments!

Intersturber

Since Yataghan hasn't posted on h2g2 for more than two months (and hasn't posted in this thread aat all), perhaps we should move this one to the Flea Market.


Scout

I'd have to agree with that...

This is a complex topic that needs a careful approach from any Researcher who takes it on.

I don't think this is suitable for the Guide as it is, as the article contains so many inconsistencies and factual innaccuracies.

Could I reccomend that Yatagan goes away and reads an accessible history such as Kenneth Macksey and John H Batchelor's "Tank", which sets out the history of the tank, the constraints set on all the combatants at the outset of war, and the way those constraints forced the evolution of the vehicle during the following six years?

For instance: in 1939, the tanks available to the British Army were among the best in the world; it isn't necessarily correct to say they were, in themselves, inferior to those deployed by the Germans. However, British command structures, and their philosophy of tank use, were undeniably inferior to those of the German Army. it wasn't that the weapons were inferior, or the men using those weapons any less better or professional - their leadership belonged to the Colonel Blimp tendency that saw the tank as being a poor substitute for horsed cavalry, and had such a strong emotional tie to the horse that they simply couldn't see any other use for the tank except as a poor replacement for cavalry.

With one exception, therefore, the British tanks in France in 1940 were doomed to destruction.

(The exception was the battle of Arras in May 1940, where British tanks, properly used for once, found a hole in the German lines, exploited it, and threw back a major German attack. At one point the attacking British very narrowly missed capturing a then obscure German general called Rommel, who as always was leading from the front... unfortunately, the British army was too small to make a difference, promised French support failed to happen, but the Germans were so rattled that they then allowed the British to fall back on an obscure port called Dunkirk, and made no serious attempt to prevent evacuation by sea)

While most of the British Army made it back via Dunkirk, all its equipment was abandoned in France.

This had serious effects on British tank and weapon production. Projected plans to bring in the next generation of tanks and anti-tank guns had to be scrapped indefinitely - these rathere depended on having weapons of some kind already in place to keep the Army up to full strength while factories, et c, tooled up and rebuilt production lines to do new tanks and weapons.

As the Army had nothing, the current 1939 tanks, together with one 1940 model yet to see service, had to be kept in production so something could be issued to the troops to fight an expected German invasion. In fact, Britain was so in need of tanks of ANY kind that the last of the World War One tanks were brought out of mothballs and museums, refurbished and re-issued...

With the 1939 generation of tanks having to be in continuous production, rather than being replaced with newer models, British tank design began, inevitably, to slip behind the cutting edge and it never quite got round to building anything that was capable of taking on the Germans on equal terms. For instance, the Cromwell tank of 1944 was widely regarded as "1942's war-winning weapon" - the point being that it was two years behind anything German it was likely to encounter!

British tanks sent to Russia weren't rejected - the situation was too severe for that - but they were not the preferred vehicle of choice for the Soviet frontovik, whi often refused to believe that the British were going to war in crap like this and must therefore be holding the good stuff back for themselves. (Although the British Valentine tank of 1940 was found to be capable of receiving the same 76.2 gun as the Russian T-34 - this otherwise undergunned British tank was universally refitted by the Russians with their own standard gun)

It was also unfortunately the case that British tanks and anti-tank guns were based on the 40mm 2-pounder, when everything happeneing on the front lines was screaming for something bigger and better. (ie, British main armament was 40mm when everyone else was stepping up to 57mm or even 75mm weaponry - the British didn't make good this deficiency until 1944, which was again a long-term consequence of the weapon shortage of 1940)

Supply of the latest American tanks under Lease-Lend eased the situation for the British, and even allowed some sort of design and research for the future to take place.

We were also learning from captured German kit - British tank suspension, gearing and power-trains were basing themselves more andmore on German practice and example.

The final British tank of World War Two, incorporating the latest in tank design and innovations captured from the Germans was called the A-41. Five vehicles were sent to Germany in May 1945 on a desperate mission to find German tanks and engage in combat, but fired not a single shot.

The A-41 was later renamed the Centurion and in its essentials, was the parent of every British tank since, the Chieftain and today's Challenger are its linear descendants.

But World War Two was not the finest hour for the British tank, it has to be said...

So after writng the above comment and reflecting on it, I can see a possible structure emerging for a Guide entry on "The Influence of Tanks in WW2".

I'd sub-divide it and write a seperate section for each major combatant in WW2 and treat each in some detail, rather than try to write a single "overview".

The previous posting, for instance, might serve as a synopsis for "Britain - British Commonwealth" (I'd have to expand it a little to cover India, Canada and Australia, who were also volume tank users)

Other sub-headings would cover the most significant tank-building nations of WW2, and might be:-

i) Czechoslovakia;
ii) France;
iii) Italy;
iv)Japan;
v) the Soviet Union;
vi) The United States.

(Why Czechoslovakia? Well, in 1938 output from the Skoda tank works totalled 33% of German tank production. You can see straight away that getting his hands on the tank factories was a good reason for Hitler to invade the country: it is estimated that one in every four tanks Germany deployed in the invasion of France in 1940 was made in Czechoslovakia. And Czech-made tank designs served the German Army until the end, in May 1945, if only because these factories were for most of the war way out of reach of the RAF and USAF. And to dispel a prejudice: Skoda tanks might have been "basic", but they were incredibly hardy and mechanically reliable.)

Following on from Jimi X and Oojagig, I'd also like to propose moving A1047124 to the Flea Market; this having been done, I'd also like to establish a claim to take over this article, as I'd really like to revise and update Yataghan's work and submit it to Peer Review.

Is there anything to prevent me doing this?