I just read that the Brits fielded almost 500 Mark IV tanks during the battle of Cambrai in 1917 - i honestly had no idea that tanks were used so widely in WW1, the Germans never built more than 20 tanks during the entire war.
What were anti tank methods like during this period? What did the Germans do, when dozens or even hundreds of British tanks approached their lines?
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)12:51:58
>>65224979(OP) There's something 'off' with this image
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)12:59:45
>>65224979(OP) Wide ditches and trenches so the tanks couldn't easily cross over, that was a big one. There's a reason why late-war prototype models had significant length extensions.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)13:03:46
>>65225000 Why didn't they do this more with WWII tanks, which had significantly lesser trench-crossing capabilities? Most of the Panzer Is and IIs would had been ditched rather handily if Belgium had done the bare minimum to fortify their border.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)13:13:00
>>65225003 They had significantly more powerful engines and better track design, so they could just climb out.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)13:46:43
>>65224979(OP) >What were anti tank methods like during this period? What did the Germans do, when dozens or even hundreds of British tanks approached their lines? Armor piercing rounds were developed (like the K bullet), then anti-tank rifles once tanks started to be up-armored to defeat those
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)13:51:11
>>65224979(OP) >armour-piercing bullets (only worked on the earlier models) >AT mines (susceptible to wet conditions, not terribly reliable even when it was dry) >direct firing field artillery (very effective, but the pieces were too heavy to redeploy effectively)
>>65225003 >Why didn't they do this more with WWII tanks anti-tank ditches were still effective in WW2
however, with some exceptions (e.g. Siegfried Line, Gothic Line, El Alamein) WW2 was more fat-paced than WW1, so field fortifications were far less elaborate than in WW1
>>65225273 What is that flag in the back? Green-red-brown? Never seen that one before
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)12:30:40
>>65227798 Tank regiment. Through the mud and blood to the green fields beyond or words to that effect.
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)14:36:25
>>65225003 Any fortification the Belgians made, they would have had to manned, otherwise your tank ditch is just going to be covered over by combat engineers if no one is there to defend it.
>>65224979(OP) >i honestly had no idea that tanks were used so widely in WW1 When the war ended, the French had manufactured around 3000 Renault FT The little guy was ubiquitous on the battlefield, and played a leading role in the offensives of 1918, to the point it was nicknamed the "Victory Tank" Tanks in WW1 had a lot of flaws, but they definitely played a big part in the final Allied victory
00
Anonymous06/11/26(Thu)20:40:50
>>65224979(OP) >What did the Germans do, when dozens or even hundreds of British tanks approached their lines? Shoot them with light artillery pieces, worked pretty well. > the Germans never built more than 20 tanks during the entire war. Funfact: Tank designs were presented years earlier already in Germany, but people thought the war would be over way before they'd be relevant.
>>65224979(OP) I love WW1 tanks I love new weapon prototypes in general, like early machine guns and ironclads. Peopl didn't know what they're supposed to look like, so they try out all sorts of different things, and you end up with all kinds of unique, sometime wacky designs
I'd love to read first hand accounts of soldiers, Allied or German, encountering tanks for the first time Facing those things must've been terrifying for a lot of them
>>65225275 You had to have balls of steel to get into those machines. Even without enemy fire, it was extremely uncomfortable inside with the smoke, heat and crowded space That said, I guess being surrounded by metal had to give at least a sense of security compared to the infantry