The Development of the Tank
Through World War I

The Quest for Mobility,
Firepower, and Shock of Impact

Precursors to the Tank

by Russ Lockwood
www.magweb.com

Origins of the Chariot

From the earliest records of warfare, commanders were always looking for that winning trifecta of Mobility, Firepower, and Shock. At the dawn of organized warfare, the chariot could be called the tank of its day, and through its development, you can see the trinity of the tank taking shape for the first time.

In the 3rd millennium BC, Sumerian monuments, the most impressive being the so-called Vulture Stele of King Eannatum of Lagash, show light infantry, heavy infantry, and a fragment of the king's battlewagon. This battlewagon, pulled by what appears to be either four mules, onagers, or horses, offers a high front "wall" and low side walls and carries numerous javelins or spears in a holder. Small clay figurines depict two-horse chariots of some sort, but detail is minimal.

New technology allowed modifications to the chariots as the Egyptian, Hittite, and Assyrian empires began their rise. The development of the chariot was aided by the development of the bent wood construction technique, which allowed the production of spoked wheels (instead of the much heavier solid wheels then in use) and lightweight bodies (instead of heavy, if solid, battlewagons).

The Egyptian chariot, circa 1600-1200BC, mostly contained two crew: a driver/shieldbearer and archer/spearman, although larger chariots with three and four-man crews were also used. Hittite chariots, circa 1400-1000BC, emphasized shock rather than mobility and skirmishing as the Egyptian chariotry favored. Chariot horses wore textile armor or textile reinforced with metal scales and textile or leather neck armor. Of the three-man crew, at least one wore a long coat of scaled armor. The Assyrian chariots, circa 1100-600BC, remained the offensive weapon of shock, with technological improvements leading to metal undercarriages with more rearward centers of gravity (lighter and more maneuverable) and metal studded rims (more traction). In addition, as chariots became lighter, they were enlarged and made more rectangular to hold a third and sometimes fourth crewman. The typical three-man Assyrian crew consisted of a driver, an archer or spearman/lancer, and a shield bearer or two.

The chariot lasted for another half millenium or so, although with ever decreasing effectiveness. Better armed and trained infantry and cavalry took its place. Celebrated last gasps of chariotry include the Persian charge against the Macedonians at the Battle of Arbela (Gaugamela), defeated with light infantry and trained heavy troops, and various Celtic battles against the Romans where the chariot was used more as an armored personnel carrier than a weapon. Certainly, chariots still hung around in the Western world of warfare, but as a cohesive, trained force, their day was over.

Elephants

For a time, elephants took the place of chariots as the decisive weapon system delivering mobility, firepower, and shock. Elephants towered over the other combat units, not only trained to charge, but also often mounting pikemen and archers. Alexander the Great met elephants as a cohesive force at the Battle of Jhelum in India. As the Alexandrian empire transformed into multiple Successor states, the use of elephants increased until there were hundreds per side in some battles, even though elephants could be as dangerous to their own troops as the enemy.

Hannibal certainly gets credit for taking 37 elephants across the Alps (though most were soon lost), and 80 of them to the Battle of Zama, but again, infantry tactics neutralized the threat, and elephants soon followed chariots as a weapon system of the past.

Knights and Knight-fall

The Roman legionnaire served as the next dominant weapon of the Western world. He offered at least two of the three aspects that would grow to fruition in the tank: Firepower, via the pilums tossed just prior to hand to hand combat, and Shock, with his armor, shield, and hand to hand training. All he lacked was Mobility, although some would argue that 20 miles a day on foot is mobile enough.

Still, he was an infantryman, and the idea of armored, mobile troops fell to the cavalry. In the right tactical use, with supporting cavalry, he was unbeatable. But pilums could only be tossed 30 yards or so, and without support, he could be easily surrounded and arrowed to oblivion as at Carrhae.

Cataphracts with head-to-hoof scale armor for the rider and horse offered Mobility and Shock, and for a time, especially as they evolved into fully plate-mailed knights, these swept the battlefield. But the lack of Firepower made them vulnerable to units with said firepower, notably at Crecy and Agincourt. As technology improved, personal firearms improved, eventually dooming the knight.

More Tank Development

Back to War Lore: The List
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2002 by Russ Lockwood.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com