Thomas Anderson - Tanks of the Second World War

British Cruiser Mk V Covenanter tanks on a rail transporter. More than a thousand of the type were produced, but only used for training in England. A rather unusual characteristic was the air cooler for the motor, located left near the driver. (Library of Congress)

The German word Panzer (armour) comes from the Middle High German pancier, (armament for the body), a word borrowed from the French panciere (paunch), which comes from the Old French pance , and that in its turn from the Latin pantex (paunch).

In the areas where the German language is spoken, the word Panzer (tank) has a negative ring. For the postwar generation the tank, more than any other weapon, is representative of the cruelty of war, for violence and death. It is not my purpose to criticise this attitude nor doubt it. War is the greatest catastrophe which one people can inflict upon another.

Technical progress brought humanity definite improvements. It helped to control outbreaks of disease, to cure illness and prevent famine. Warfare, however, changes things fundamentally. The great physicist Albert Einstein was very pessimistic in his opinion:

I am not certain with what weapons the Third World War will be fought, but the Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones.

His pessimism was based on his great understanding of people. Progress alone cannot change the way people are. It is up to ourselves to prevent wars or effectively suppress them.

It is the purpose of historical research to throw light on every facet of cultural development. This research must be objective and value-free. It should never allow itself to become an instrument of political influence no matter in what form that may be presented. War research is too dangerous to be left in the hands of nostalgic Nationalists or Utopian dreamers.

This book attempts to trace the development of the tank in the Second World War whilst adhering as closely as possible to the historical facts. The development of the tank by the industries of the various States is treated chronologically. The principal tanks considered are those built to confront their enemy counterparts. This clear division is not always successful.

An understanding of the subject would not be complete without prior reference to the tanks which made their first appearance in the Great War 1914-1918, and the subsequent dynamic development in the inter-war period. This requires a look at individual tanks both in isolation and in comparison. Reducing particular tanks to their theoretical values is only part of the story, for important influences of scale such as the quality of strategic and tactical command, technical reliablity or essential parameters including the types of ammunition, fuel and spare parts have to be left aside.

War is not a computer game and the pure comparison of technical details can be misleading. A good example of this is the effectiveness of tank guns. In 1941 Germany was developing guns capable of delivering very powerful ammunition. The 7.5 KwK 42 L/70 of the German Panther could fire the conventional AP shell PzGr 39/42 to penetrate 111-mm armour steel at 1,000 metres. The improved version PzGr 40/42 shell could penetrate 150 mm armour. These shells had a tungsten core which gave better penetration on account of their temper. Tungsten was a scarce material in the German Reich, and the small quantities available did not allow a reliable supply. Also available was the hollow charge shell Gr 39 Hl which could penetrate armour at 90 mm within range. At impact a metal spike penetrated the armour independent of the speed of impact and range. Hollow charge shells were not highly explosive and their accuracy was variable. Original reports show that for this reason a Panther commander would generally prefer the PzGr 39/42. The penetrative achievements provided in the descriptive tables of tank types are therefore an indication depending on other factors.