Main page

Title says it all

The FT-17 was in WWI but I don't think any of the other were. They were prolly in the 1920's

I dont think any of those tanks participated in WW1, only the FT17 did.

All came after WW1.
MS-1 is from 1927
T1 is from 1927
Loltracktor is from 1930

If they were in WW1 they would most likely be infantry support and end the constant trench warfare.

The war would have probably ended a lot later depending if germany could have actually supplied the loltraktor. Though it is an interesting topic because we have no way of knowing if these armored monsters would have had an even bigger effect.

Edited by GenericSoldier, Jun 02 2012 - 03:32.

most came after wwI, they all were somewhat effective against infantry

by the look of them they are all crew training/concept tanks from after WWI.

WWI tanks were generally mobile land ships with a crew 16 or so (Sixteen!) with cannons on all sides. They were introduced in 1917 for the most part. The word we have in english "Tanks" comes from the fake descriptions put on the sides of the crates they were shipped across the channel in to conceal them, rather than "armored fighting vehicles"

http://en.wikipedia...._in_World_War_I

You're thinking about the German A7V... 18 crew, a 75mm, some smaller guns, some MGs...

British tanks (MK I and IV) were diamond- shaped with all- round tracks ("lozenge"). "Male" versions carried two 6pdr/ 57s or adapted naval cannons, while "female" tanks carried MGs. Guns were mounted on sponsons on the sides. They had only 6 crewmen (if I recall correctly), and the MK I needed two drivers, one for each track.

There was also the Whippet, the first light tank. Two Hotchkiss MGs on something half the weight of a MK I and about the same armor (no turret). It looked somewhat like an L turned on its side.

There's two stories I know about how "tank" got its name. One is husband's description, they were actually disguised as water carriers ( first abbreviated w.c. then tanks), and another is that the MK 1 looked like the fuel tank of a popular motorcycle at the time.

 _RayS_, on Jun 01 2012 - 23:19, said:

"Tank" was used to trick german spys to think they are water carriers
Edited by Nincadaguy1, Jun 14 2012 - 21:57.

What would the Loltraktor's career be if it was in WW1?

Unless any of the above tanks magically appeared in enormous numbers (i.e. 1,000+, which was beyond the capabilities of the Allies or the Central Powers to produce them) they would had virtually no effect on the war. Heck, even adding a whole battalion (50+ tanks) of Shermans or Tigers wouldn't have done much either.

The reality of World War 1 is that it was a static trench war. There was very little room to maneuver because the whole frontline was essentially a massive belt of fortifications, protected by an equally enormous amount of artillery. Tank "assaults" through this network tended to bog down as the tanks encountered obstacles (i.e. the trenches themselves) or heavy artillery fire - which was the primary cause of both infantry and tank losses during World War 1.

Modernized versions of the FT-17 were actually used in WWII by the French, Poles and the Italians. The MS-1 one is actually a derivation of the FT-17 as well. In all of the cases, they were reserved vehicles that had to be used because of how situations developed. Some of the Italian FIAT 3000's ( a license built FT-17, modified) were still available in 1943 and used in the Sicilian Campaign, along side some Hotchkiss tanks given to them from German captured stocks (the 82nd Airborne fought them in street fighting without the aid of bazookas). The Itailain industry couldn't supply vehicles for more than a single armored division at a time, although 3 divisions were planned. See "Iron Hulls, Iron Hearts". The Poles first use of the FT-17 was in the 1920-21 Polish/Russian conflict, in which the Bolsheviks used the same vhicles. The Polish units were officered by French military advisors.

 Hayaba3, on Jul 08 2012 - 04:01, said:

It was never intended to fight, it was designed to give the Germans an armored vehicle to train on in preparation for the upcoming war. The reason it's called traktor is because the Germans were forbidden from building tanks after WWI so they disguised the project as agricultural tractor developement.

In retrospect, I may have misunderstood the question.
Edited by Odomir, Oct 04 2012 - 06:30.

The question was WOULD these vehicles have had an impact on WWI, not if they actually did.
If you sent a loltraktor back in time to WWI, how much of an impact would it have had?

I'd say a lot. Enough armor to stop bullets and actually has a decent touch of mobility.

 Tupinambis, on Oct 04 2012 - 16:42, said:

One traktor will have very little effect in a war involving millions. Moreover, tanks did exist in this period and were taken out by artillery. The Leichtraktor does not have the armor to survive the massed arty available to both armies.

WW1 was mainly an artillery war.

I'd actually want to give a VK.31 to the Kaiserreich before they would even have a chance to start working on the A7V, and try to convince them with my limited knowledge of the German language that a two-man contraption, if they copied it to the gear, would make the entire war swing differently. It has enough armor to shrug off bullets, and its small size and mobility make it good at staying out of the way of enemy artillery, ideally just rushing forward, and driving into enemy trenches, dropping off some fascines, and continuing onwards.

The Renault FT was the world's first modern tank, and had a tremendous impact on post war designs. Both the FT and the British Mark series gave the allies a fairly significant tactical advantage over the Germans, but it would be incorrect to say that tey were war winning weapons.