How effective where tanks in ww1 out of 10? and why?

Watch
euphxria
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
How effective where tanks in ww1 out of 10? and why?
please answer
0
reply
Apocrypha
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
From the top of my head, they tilted the scale of trench warfare into the favour of the allies, so pretty effective. 8/10

They broke down alot though and were expensive to upkeep and got stuck in the mud.
0
reply
uberteknik
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by euphxria)
How effective where tanks in ww1 out of 10? and why?
please answer
You start.
0
reply
Josh93
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
My understanding (and I am no expert so someone else will probably contradict me) is that they were initially relatively ineffective due to their slow speed and difficulty crossing the uneven ground of the Western Front battlefields, stranded tanks make brilliant targets for artillery and at best they could move at 3-4mph (again, no expert so fact check that).

However, the psychological impact on the enemy would I imagine have been pretty extraordinary and when newer, more mobile tanks were used in conjunction with 'creeping artillery barrage' tactics the tank was almost certainly a key part of the reason for the success of the allied assaults in the summer of 1918. They were pretty impervious to small arms fire (so infantry could advance behind them and be largely immune to enemy machine gun fire) and they were invaluable in clearing enemy wire ahead of the advancing infantry.

I'm going to say 7/10 because in my opinion they contributed hugely to the overall allied victory by 1918, however compared to the effectiveness of a Tiger tank from WW2 they would score 1/10 and there is absolutely no comparison with the effectiveness of a modern Challenger 2 or ABRAMS tank for example.
1
reply
Marshall22
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
They were really just the tip of the iceburg. Most were glorified tractors with armour plating. The models which came later in the war were effective but as previously said they broke down and as you can imagine changing out a knackered radiator or axle in no-mans land while under a hail of bullets wasn't easy, also the speed (Max of 4mph being correct) did make them artillery's wet dream. This being said it did indeed give the allies the advantage and did allow allies to cower behind them during advances and they could drive right over enemy trenches.
In my eyes 7/10, simply for they having been so unreliable and slow but also a promising idea that was proved in WWII to be the root of deadly and versatile power.

A fine idea and great vision just needed time to grow, same as WWI bi-wing planes.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

When did you submit your Ucas application if you applied to go to university this year?

September 2021 (29)
7.09%
October 2021 (189)
46.21%
November 2021 (42)
10.27%
December 2021 (53)
12.96%
January 2021 (45)
11%
I still haven't submitted it yet! (38)
9.29%
Something else (13)
3.18%

Watched Threads

View All