General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy tanks are called "tanks"
Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:12 PM - Edit history (2)
On the literal level, the first tanks did look like big water tanks or boilers, so of course wags could have come up with the appellation. But unlike "shit on a shingle" (colloquial term for Army chipped beef on toast) "tank" was used formally as the proper term almost from the start.
When the British introduced tanks in WWI the Navy took the lead in development because some people in the Naval dept. thought it was a better idea (Churchill being one) than people in the Army dept. did.
And with the Navy taking the lead, and England's military tradition being navy-heavy, they were formally called "land ships" and sometimes called "armored fighting vehicles."
The first ones deployed actually said "HM Land Ship" on them, which would be darling if WWI wasn't so awful.
But since it was a secret weapon when first developed it was felt that either formal name kind of gave away the idea. So using the waggish but vague name "tank" was encouraged during development. (In a war that used chemical weapons who knows what a "tank" might mean?) And then when the cat was out of the bag, everybody was already long accustomed to calling them tanks.
Lesson: Loose lips sink land ships!
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)to fool the enemy.
pa28
(6,145 posts)In my version the equipment was being transported to the front on rail cars and covered in tarps.
If anybody asked what was hidden under there the guard was instructed to answer "tanks".
Xithras
(16,191 posts)In order to disguise what they were doing, the first tanks were produced using the project code name "Water Carriers for Russia". Because the military tends to shorten things to their initials, it was quickly noticed that people were calling them WC's...which is also the British term for a bathroom. To avoid this, the documents were updated to call them "Water Tanks for Russia" instead. The word "tank" sprang from that.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)but knew that its use during development was connected to security.
Mostly, though, I just wanted to say "loose lips sink landships" It tickles me.
valiberal26
(41 posts)World War One is one of the more interesting wars to study, IMO; particularly the weapons systems developed for the war. The tanks and aircraft used had a certain style and beauty to them that I've always enjoyed. The F-22 and the Abrams lack a certain aesthetic compared to the Fokker Triplane and the St. Chamond; to say nothing of the German Zeppelins used in the bombing raids over London.
Om a side note, I'm not sure if anybody here has read the Timeline-101 (or Southern Victory) series by Harry Turtledove, but in the alternative world of the series, armored fighting vehicles are known as 'barrels' for the same reason they became known as 'tanks' in our world.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)Tanks are invented by the North as the USA and CSA are having at it for a third (!) time during the Great War, and tanks wind up being called "barrels" due to circumstances paralleling their invention in our timeline.
valiberal26
(41 posts)Weren't they first used by General Armstrong Custer around... Roanoke, Virginia? Its been a while since I've read any of the books.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)He's portrayed in a very unflattering light throughout the series, but he does have one shining moment of insight when he sees the potential of the barrel (tank) in 1917, and proceeds to be instrumental in the defeat of the CSA.
Of course, that leads to things going even further South (um, so to speak) by 1940.
valiberal26
(41 posts)They were first used around Roanoke, similar to how they were initially deployed in our timeline; as infantry support to no great effect. Custer saw the potential and used them in a massed operation in Tennessee, allowing breakthroughs in the Confederate lines in what is known as "The Great Barrel Roll".
Is it me or would Southern Victory make for a good television series? It'd have to be high quality, with good casting, and run close to ten seasons to tell the full story, but it has some potential. I've always thought that an adaptation of "The Guns of the South" would make for a decent film in the hands of the right director too.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)The only one I can think of is Sliders, and that was terrible.
I'd love to see Southern Victory as a regular series, but I don't see it as being very appealing to any network I can think of.
valiberal26
(41 posts)Judging from TV these days everything is either some sort of reality-TV show, or a one-size-fits-all sitcom. The only series currently on TV with a decent story is "The Walking Dead". Southern-Victory has so many characters and locations you'd have to cherry pick though most of the books to really fit it into an hour a week to make it work; which is its biggest downfall if you're trying to make it a TV show.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)Writer: "Ok, in this episode our characters encounter a timeline in which the divergence occurs in the 16th century, when the heir to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain survives to ascend the throne as John III. Without the union of Spain and Austria under the Hapsburgs, European history took a different shape during the reformation. Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, the Jesuits were successful with their campaign to bring christain spiritualism to Japan. Under the oda chancellors, Japan began an early westernization that led to its dominance in the far east. The Japanese are in control of the eastern half of the globe, Brazil is a major economic power, the Swedish Empire is a totalitarian power and the Kingdom of France has become the major power in the high ground of outer space."
Network executive: "Er...couldn't you just write an episode about an Earth where men get pregnant instead of women?"
valiberal26
(41 posts)If you really wanted a challenge, try adapting "For Want of a Nail" to a screen play. Good novel, but I thought it was pretty dry and hard to get into. Now if you wanted a simple alternative history one-shot for a screen play, I've always thought it'd be interesting to run this scenario...
Say the Viking colonies in North America took off and Europeans began to colonies North America centuries before Christopher Columbus ever set sail. Lets set the one-shot in the year 1300 or so, giving the Europeans plenty of time to set up a feudal society on the east coast.
The Catholic Church instead of engaging in crusades in the Middle East decides to embark on a crusade against the 'Skrælings'; the Norse term for the Native Americans, as opposed to the term 'Indians'. An episode pitting medieval knights against Native American warriors would be quite interesting.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)Given that it's written in the form of a history textbook written in an alternate history, with hundreds of footnotes of references that don't even exist...in our timeline, anyway.
If you're not familiar with them, you might want to check out the books "GURPS Alternate Earths" volumes 1&2. They're roleplaying supplements that go into substantial detail regarding alternate history settings as a backround for roleplaying. The scenario I mentioned earlier is one of them, and there's a Viking scenario not not too far off from your setting.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Since Cro Magnons eventually developed into us.
It would have made more sense if they'd gone with Neanderthals for the series.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)or Death Tractors, or the Sausage Cavalry. Tank is so blank it's hard to see how it stuck.
guardian
(2,282 posts)Still eat it for breakfast occasionally.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)at the B&B he and my parents were staying.
This was while visiting the Somme battlefields over the next few days.
They struck up a conversation with the fellow at breakfast, and it seemed that he turned out to be what the British used to call a "Talented Amateur"; a person with no formal training or schooling, but turns out to be an absolute authority on a particular subject.
His area of expertise was the complete history of the tanks used in battle by the BEF in WWI.
He had written a half-dozen scholarly books that went into excruciating minutiae and detail about the design, construction, and implementation of the first tanks used in combat, and was considered to be the most authoritative source on the subject by many war historians.
Anyway, the gentleman asked my parents if they would like to have him give them a little insight on a walking tour of the different battlefields where tanks had been first put into action, and of course they said yes.
Dad said that he showed them the known routes, the disposition of each tank, the names of the crew members of individual tanks, where they succeeded in breaching enemy lines, the spots where tanks were disabled by artillery or mechanical breakdown...Dad said that his knowledge of the subject was absolutely astounding.
When they parted company three days later, he gave my folks a signed copy of two of his books.
Damn if I can remember his name, I read his books.
talkingmime
(2,173 posts)guardian
(2,282 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)The Professor told us that the prototypes for military "tanks", or, "armored fighting vehicles", were hidden inside water tanks somewhere in the middle east where they were being secretly developed. That particular war forever changed the way that wars were fought. Machine guns, battle tanks, the idea of bombing people from the sky... poisonous gas, and so on.
I wonder what the next one hundred years will show us regarding the development of weapons technology.