Who Was First? (Not "Who's on first...")

An early model British Mark I "male" tank, named C-15, near Thiepval, 25 September 1916. The tank is probably in reserve for the Battle of Thiepval Ridge which began on 26 September. The tank is fitted with the wire "grenade shield" and steering tail, both features discarded in the next models. (Source)

When you mention World War I tanks to someone - well, someone who is somewhat familiar with both topics - most would have that opening photo in mind, the classic rhomboid-shaped British tank. Because after all, the British invented the tank, right?

Or did they?

From my research, it seems that the British were first to deploy an operational tank, which looked a lot like the one in that opening photo. But the idea of the tank has been around for a long time. The first to envision the tank as a weapon of war, who else but Leonardo da Vinci, a fellow who was born way too early. Now two army officers had an idea for the tank before one was ever fielded. The first guy was an Austrian. An army officer by the name of Gunther Adolf Burstyn. This fellow -

Oberleutnant Burstyn

In 1911 he designed and patented his idea for a vehicle which ran on tracks, had a rotating turret, and was armored. For the time, it looked very modern. Far more modern that the majority of tanks which saw action in World War I. He called it the Motorgeschütz, literally "motor gun." While the good lieutenant was an Austrian, he did receive a German patent (252,218) in February of 1912, according to the Army Ordnance Journal VOL. Ill Copyright 1922 WASHINGTON, D. C, JULY-AUGUST, 1922, bottom of page 36 -

Credit for the invention of the armored caterpillar "tank" as an instrument of warfare is denied to the British and conceded to the Teutons by the United States Patent Office. If the Patent Office record is correct it adds one more to the mistakes attributed to the Germans in their conduct of the war, for the shock the Germans got when the British tanks appeared in battle did not come until five years after a German patent had been taken out on a similar death-dealing machine. "Records of the Patent Office," says a Patent Office statement, "showed that Gunter Burstyn, of Austria, was granted a German patent on a caterpillar tank on February 22, 1912, which is practically a duplicate of the English type used in their offensive during 1917 and 1918.

"Drawings of this German tank reveal the fact that it was so constructed as to crawl over trenches, plow through wire entanglements and perform all the other feats that made the English tank so successful in the War. "Having issued a patent upon an armored tank of the caterpillar type in 1912, it is puzzling to understand why the German Imperial Government did not make use of it during the war, instead of allowing the English to surprise them with this new engine of destruction. (From the New York Times, April 23, 1923.)

Burstyn's Motorgeschütz

The Wikipedia entry for Oberleutnant Burstyn says he was denied a patent, this source (auf Deutsch) says he did get a patent. As did the U.S. Patent office (there was also an Austrian Patent).

The distinction, I think, is that neither the Austro-Hungarian Army, nor the German Army wanted it, their generals being "experts" in their chosen field of endeavor and how dare you question them? (Note, it is an accepted historical fact that all generals, yes, admirals too, are always preparing for the last war. To be fair, it's all they know.)

While it was cool looking, and modern, and probably would have been a war winner, the big shots said, "No." So it was kind of interesting that they went bat-shit crazy when the British attacked them with tanks during the war. (Always take what the experts say with a grain of salt, they don't know everything, no one does.)

The second guy who envisioned the need for some sort of vehicle which was protected, packed a punch, and could cross all sorts of terrain, was the guy in the next picture, a French general by the name of Estienne. The French know him as "father of the tank," which in French is "Père des Chars." (What, did you think I could miss the chance to use the language of some of my ancestors in a post?)

Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne
(Source)

This was his baby -

The Renault FT, the first "modern" tank to enter production.
Grandpa of the Sarge drove one of these!
(Source)

Looks more modern than that British monster up top, neh?

Colonel (at the time) Estienne predicted that -

"Victory in this war will belong to the belligerent who is the first to put a cannon on a vehicle capable of moving on all kinds of terrain." — Colonel Jean Baptiste Estienne, 24 August 1914.

But the British got them into the field first, a favorite fellow of mine really pushed the concept -

When Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, learned of the armoured tractor idea, he reignited investigation of the idea of using the Holt tractor. The Royal Navy and the Landship Committee (established on 20 February 1915), at last agreed to sponsor experiments and tests of armoured tractors as a type of "land ship". In March, Churchill ordered the building of 18 experimental landships using Diplock pedrails (an idea promoted by Murray Sueter), and six using large wheels (the idea of T.G. Hetherington). Construction however failed to move forward, as the wheels seemed impractical after a wooden mock-up was realized: the wheels were initially planned to be 40-feet in diameter, but turned out to be still too big and too fragile at 15-feet. The pedrails also met with industrial problems, and the system was deemed too large, too complicated and under-powered. (Source)

(Source)

Now many folks have been taught that the first use of tanks was at the Battle of Cambrai in the fall of 1917, but in reality that was the first large scale attack by tanks and it was successful, breaking through the German lines. Unfortunately the British intended to use horse cavalry to follow up on the breakthrough (WWI tanks were very slow, much slower than horse cavalry). Due to the primitive communications of the time, the horse soldiers didn't get the word until it was too late to advance. As many of the tanks had by then broken down, the Germans patched the holes in their line before things got out of hand.

But that was after the actual first use of tanks in combat at the Somme in the Battle of Flers-Courcelette in September of 1916. Things went well at first, but many of the tanks broke down and there just weren't enough of them. For what it's worth, the French advised the British to wait until they had more tanks. Perhaps les Anglais should have listened to their French allies. (If the French had won at Waterloo, maybe they would have!)

So there's a brief look at who was first with fielding the tank. The Germans did have a tank in WWI, it was fairly effective, but with quality steel at a premium they only built about twenty of them. They took the tank more seriously in the Second World War, as we all know.

German A7V tank at Roye on March 21, 1918.
Big sucker innit?
(Source)

So some of you are no doubt asking, "So Sarge, tanks, again? I thought you were in the Air Force dude?"

Why yes, yes I was. But I like tanks, rather a lot really. But I've also been watching a four part series on the tank over at Netflix (I know Beans, I know, but I don't let politics stand in the way of entertainment and education) called Age of Tanks. The first episode covered WWI, they mentioned both Burstyn and Estienne, two guys I'd never heard of before that, so that was educational.

The second episode which covered WWII wasn't quite as good, probably because there were a crap ton of tank types in that war. A lot of German tanks were mentioned, probably because they really put the tank to good use, but they didn't mention the single best German tank of the war, the Panther (PzKw V). Sure the Tigers were hyped as was the T-34, the Sherman (which the narrator kept referring to, rather annoyingly, as the "U.S. American Sherman"), but no British tanks were mentioned. None at all that I can recall.

Sure, a lot of the British tanks in WWII sucked, but hey, the tanks of the 8th Army defeated Field Marshal Rommel (Mr. Panzer hisself) in North Africa, that's gotta count for something, right?

Anyhoo, I'll report back when I watch the last two episodes. (By the way, the WWII episode ended with breathless mentions of the tank being used against civilians, and why not, they used horse cavalry against civilians in Russia, right?)

Now let me close with this, what do the various big nations call what is officially an armored fighting vehicle, or main battle tank?

Well, the Brits coined the term "tank" because the early ones looked like big water tanks, and calling them "land ships" might give away what they were going to be used for, so tank became the name. (Oddly enough, in Desert Storm, the British called their tanks, "panzers," see below.)

Now we had the Austrian Motorgeschütz, motor-gun, the Germans call them Panzerkampfwagen, armored fighting vehicles, the Russians call them "танки," (yup, tanks), and the French refer to them as chars. which is usually translated as "tank," but literally is translated as "chariots." Romantic folk those French. (I kinda like the name to be honest.)

Oh, that "panzers" thing? It's what the Germans usually call their tanks, short for that whole Panzerkampfwagen thing. So British tankers in the desert (hearkening back to their grandfathers in 8th Army no doubt) called their tanks "panzers." Sort of akin to Patton's "Rommel you magnificent bastard, I read your book!*" So perhaps the Brits were saying, in a rather British way, "Rommel, you cheeky bastard, we stole your word for tank!"

Or something.

* Probably apocryphal but a great scene in a great movie, the line delivered by a great actor as well. Also, ever the historical pedant, Rommel's book was shown in the movie as Tank Attacks, but in reality Rommel's book was Infanterie greift an, Infantry Attacks. But why confuse the audience with facts?