Tank were does the name come from
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: Stone Staffordshire, UNITED KINGDOM
I Know the answer to this question and want see how many "Tankers" out there know the answer
where does the reference to "Tank" as an armoured fighting vehicle come from
where does the reference to "Tank" as an armoured fighting vehicle come from
#8
ORIGINAL: brel
I know did you get my pm
I know did you get my pm
#9
It's probably Terribly Abstruse and Not Knowable. Although I like the one about it being like a water receptacle or tank and thus so designated in 1915, or the one about tank being used as a code name to obscure its real purpose, there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement about the origins of the term.
#10
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Stoke-on-Trent., UNITED KINGDOM
ORIGINAL: Wozwasnt
Tank was the code name given to Britains new top secret "Landship" during WWI.
Tank was the code name given to Britains new top secret "Landship" during WWI.
If they had been smaller, they could have been referred to as "water butts" or just Butts. I know which name I favour.

Heaven forfend, a small tank might have been referred to as a "bucket" even, let's not get back into the tank and bucket issue.[X(] LMAO!
I like the term "tank", it suits these vessels well.
#11
It is funny how it has nautical terminology though.
#12
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: sandy, OR
Maybe it's deliberate, considering the closest thing that a WW1 tank resembled are the dreadnought-type battleships.
Maybe that's why they refer to the tank body as a hull.
Maybe that's why they refer to the tank body as a hull.
#13
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: SpringfieldN.S.W, AUSTRALIA
Hi Guys
I was under the impression that the name Tank came about when they were first built, the workers were told they would be making water carts / tanks to keep what was really being built a secret and so the name stuck.
Regards M.A.Ts
I was under the impression that the name Tank came about when they were first built, the workers were told they would be making water carts / tanks to keep what was really being built a secret and so the name stuck.
Regards M.A.Ts
#14
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Stoke-on-Trent., UNITED KINGDOM
ORIGINAL: Panther F
It is funny how it has nautical terminology though.
It is funny how it has nautical terminology though.
We British were very fond of ships in that era, we had the largest and most powerful navy in the world in those days.
I suppose we expected to create a "land battleship" but ended up with a large water butt instead?
But perhaps not, that's why we are here.
#15
ORIGINAL: Panther F
It is funny how it has nautical terminology though.
It is funny how it has nautical terminology though.
#16

According to what I read in the "official guide to the tank museum" circa 1980 (when I was lad) - the official cover storey was that the enclosure that the workmen welded to form "Little Willy" (no snickering please - that was 'his' name...) was that it was a water carrier bound for the Arabian Desert...
Wozwasnt is also correct that the cavalry were not interested in tanks even past the start of WW2, at which point they were forced into them- Sir Percy Hobart's biggest complaint against the Cavalry branch was that they were too tied to their Horse's (and playing polo in the case of the 7th Armoured Div in Egypt prior to the outbreak of WW2) to even begin to understand how to use tanks properly.
The nautical link was due to Churchil being the First Sealord for a spell during WW1 and wanting something to break the stalemate on the western front. He carried this through to WW2 where he maintained patronage of his own "private special munitions" group, which ultimately lead to the formation of Hobart's 79th Armoured Div.
Big simplification of history I know - I can suggest/recomend books on the topic if anybody is interested(?)
Mart
Wozwasnt is also correct that the cavalry were not interested in tanks even past the start of WW2, at which point they were forced into them- Sir Percy Hobart's biggest complaint against the Cavalry branch was that they were too tied to their Horse's (and playing polo in the case of the 7th Armoured Div in Egypt prior to the outbreak of WW2) to even begin to understand how to use tanks properly.
The nautical link was due to Churchil being the First Sealord for a spell during WW1 and wanting something to break the stalemate on the western front. He carried this through to WW2 where he maintained patronage of his own "private special munitions" group, which ultimately lead to the formation of Hobart's 79th Armoured Div.
Big simplification of history I know - I can suggest/recomend books on the topic if anybody is interested(?)
Mart
#17
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Winnipeg,
MB, CANADA
ORIGINAL: Ex_Pat_Tanker
Wozwasnt is also correct that the cavalry were not interested in tanks even past the start of WW2, at which point they were forced into them- Sir Percy Hobart's biggest complaint against the Cavalry branch was that they were too tied to their Horse's (and playing polo in the case of the 7th Armoured Div in Egypt prior to the outbreak of WW2) to even begin to understand how to use tanks properly.
Wozwasnt is also correct that the cavalry were not interested in tanks even past the start of WW2, at which point they were forced into them- Sir Percy Hobart's biggest complaint against the Cavalry branch was that they were too tied to their Horse's (and playing polo in the case of the 7th Armoured Div in Egypt prior to the outbreak of WW2) to even begin to understand how to use tanks properly.
(Well, they have used elephants, haven't they?)
#18
The generally accepted designation came from the new wepons being transported on rail to the front. They were covered with tarps and boxes, and to hide their identity, the covers were listed "tanks".
Actually, the tem came from the rail station master who accepted the new weapons for off loading...he simply stated: "thanks" and was misunderstood.[:-][X(]
Actually, the tem came from the rail station master who accepted the new weapons for off loading...he simply stated: "thanks" and was misunderstood.[:-][X(]

#20
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: Stone Staffordshire, UNITED KINGDOM
ORIGINAL: Ex_Pat_Tanker
According to what I read in the "official guide to the tank museum" circa 1980 (when I was lad) - the official cover storey was that the enclosure that the workmen welded to form "Little Willy" (no snickering please - that was 'his' name...) was that it was a water carrier bound for the Arabian Desert...
Wozwasnt is also correct that the cavalry were not interested in tanks even past the start of WW2, at which point they were forced into them- Sir Percy Hobart's biggest complaint against the Cavalry branch was that they were too tied to their Horse's (and playing polo in the case of the 7th Armoured Div in Egypt prior to the outbreak of WW2) to even begin to understand how to use tanks properly.
The nautical link was due to Churchil being the First Sealord for a spell during WW1 and wanting something to break the stalemate on the western front. He carried this through to WW2 where he maintained patronage of his own "private special munitions" group, which ultimately lead to the formation of Hobart's 79th Armoured Div.
Big simplification of history I know - I can suggest/recomend books on the topic if anybody is interested(?)
Mart
According to what I read in the "official guide to the tank museum" circa 1980 (when I was lad) - the official cover storey was that the enclosure that the workmen welded to form "Little Willy" (no snickering please - that was 'his' name...) was that it was a water carrier bound for the Arabian Desert...
Wozwasnt is also correct that the cavalry were not interested in tanks even past the start of WW2, at which point they were forced into them- Sir Percy Hobart's biggest complaint against the Cavalry branch was that they were too tied to their Horse's (and playing polo in the case of the 7th Armoured Div in Egypt prior to the outbreak of WW2) to even begin to understand how to use tanks properly.
The nautical link was due to Churchil being the First Sealord for a spell during WW1 and wanting something to break the stalemate on the western front. He carried this through to WW2 where he maintained patronage of his own "private special munitions" group, which ultimately lead to the formation of Hobart's 79th Armoured Div.
Big simplification of history I know - I can suggest/recomend books on the topic if anybody is interested(?)
Mart
case closed
#22
A FACTOID:
A note of possible interest regarding the origin of the "tank" term; there is a SciFi author, Harry Turtledove, who specializes in "alternate history". His treatment of WW1 included using the term "barrels" for tanks, for the same purported reason - disguising their real intended use. If one didn't know the origin of "tank", the significance of "barrel" would have been lost on the reader.
A note of possible interest regarding the origin of the "tank" term; there is a SciFi author, Harry Turtledove, who specializes in "alternate history". His treatment of WW1 included using the term "barrels" for tanks, for the same purported reason - disguising their real intended use. If one didn't know the origin of "tank", the significance of "barrel" would have been lost on the reader.
#23
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: Stone Staffordshire, UNITED KINGDOM
ORIGINAL: RMStinson
A FACTOID:
A note of possible interest regarding the origin of the "tank" term; there is a SciFi author, Harry Turtledove, who specializes in "alternate history". His treatment of WW1 included using the term "barrels" for tanks, for the same purported reason - disguising their real intended use. If one didn't know the origin of "tank", the significance of "barrel" would have been lost on the reader.
A FACTOID:
A note of possible interest regarding the origin of the "tank" term; there is a SciFi author, Harry Turtledove, who specializes in "alternate history". His treatment of WW1 included using the term "barrels" for tanks, for the same purported reason - disguising their real intended use. If one didn't know the origin of "tank", the significance of "barrel" would have been lost on the reader.




do you want the answer posted here? or just saying we know?