Post by oskar2ndchev on Dec 19, 2011 15:22:15 GMT -8
The recent discussion of the recent movie Warhorse and the commentary on the movie's merits prompted me to spin off the tank comments to this part of the board.
Just a little basic detail in respect to tank deployment and use (I'm sure the rest of you will chime in with more) that movies seem to constantly get wrong.
1) Tanks did not just wander the countryside by their lonesome and certainly didn't wander in the enemy's rear areas:
As many of you now doubt know, tanks in WWI were notorious for breaking down, often at the most inopportune moments. Also, they were incredibly hazardous and uncomforbable for their crews to operate for extended periods of time. Also, tanks had limited visibility and the heavier ones moved at the speed of a walking man. Even the lighter, faster tanks didn't move all the fast (even the Rheanault FT light tank moved at roughly 5 miles an hour) and their range was limited.
Also, one can find numerous accounts of tanks breaking down far in excess of battle losses. One example, from the battle of Campbrai in 1917: of the 437 British tanks that started the battle on the first day, by the end of the day the British had lost 180 tanks of which only 65 were lost to direct enemy action.
Bottom line, WWI tanks weren't going anywhere fast and for not very far in any case, assuming no mechanical breakdown.
2) Tanks depended on infantry support:
In order for tanks to have any effect, they had to work with supporting infantry. Supporting infantry was there to make sure the defending infantry couldn't take advantage of the tank's lmited visibility to close and counter-attack. At the same time, the tank was useful for overcoming barbed wire, machingun positions, and artillery emplacements. Both needed each other. When things worked correctly, the effect could be devastating.
On the other hand, when it wasn't such as the case with the 51st Highland Division at Cambrai whose commanding General who ordered supporting infantry to stay 100 yards away from the tanks at all times, it was death for the tanks.
Also, as time went on, the Germans devised various anti-tank tactics so things tended to even out more as time went on. The side that could more effectively utilize combined-arms tactics (as much as WWI weapons technology allowed) was going to succeed more often than not.
In any case, the bottom line is that tanks were part of a team effort and didn't go out unsupported and certainly didn't go out singly.
Anyway, that's just an overview but it does point back to how movies need to do a little more research (which would add little to the movie's cost and might make for a more convncing story). But that's just me.
Just a little basic detail in respect to tank deployment and use (I'm sure the rest of you will chime in with more) that movies seem to constantly get wrong.
1) Tanks did not just wander the countryside by their lonesome and certainly didn't wander in the enemy's rear areas:
As many of you now doubt know, tanks in WWI were notorious for breaking down, often at the most inopportune moments. Also, they were incredibly hazardous and uncomforbable for their crews to operate for extended periods of time. Also, tanks had limited visibility and the heavier ones moved at the speed of a walking man. Even the lighter, faster tanks didn't move all the fast (even the Rheanault FT light tank moved at roughly 5 miles an hour) and their range was limited.
Also, one can find numerous accounts of tanks breaking down far in excess of battle losses. One example, from the battle of Campbrai in 1917: of the 437 British tanks that started the battle on the first day, by the end of the day the British had lost 180 tanks of which only 65 were lost to direct enemy action.
Bottom line, WWI tanks weren't going anywhere fast and for not very far in any case, assuming no mechanical breakdown.
2) Tanks depended on infantry support:
In order for tanks to have any effect, they had to work with supporting infantry. Supporting infantry was there to make sure the defending infantry couldn't take advantage of the tank's lmited visibility to close and counter-attack. At the same time, the tank was useful for overcoming barbed wire, machingun positions, and artillery emplacements. Both needed each other. When things worked correctly, the effect could be devastating.
On the other hand, when it wasn't such as the case with the 51st Highland Division at Cambrai whose commanding General who ordered supporting infantry to stay 100 yards away from the tanks at all times, it was death for the tanks.
Also, as time went on, the Germans devised various anti-tank tactics so things tended to even out more as time went on. The side that could more effectively utilize combined-arms tactics (as much as WWI weapons technology allowed) was going to succeed more often than not.
In any case, the bottom line is that tanks were part of a team effort and didn't go out unsupported and certainly didn't go out singly.
Anyway, that's just an overview but it does point back to how movies need to do a little more research (which would add little to the movie's cost and might make for a more convncing story). But that's just me.
