Poll: A question on early tanks

[Xan Krieger]

Looking back on the early tanks it occurs to me that most of them have more in common with tank destroyers and assault guns than tanks. Looking at things like the Saint Chamond or British MK I or Mk IV they lacked a turret which has long been one of the defining features of tanks. It's why I would call those proto-tanks instead of just tanks. I would call the french FT-17 the world's first actual tank with everything before it being assault guns having more in common with say a stug III than a panzer III.

Yes they were called tanks back in the day to confuse the enemy during transport but I think once armored vehicles began to diversify into all these different categories by definition they weren't actually tanks.

Before anyone mentions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-tank look at it, it's got more in common with a jagpanther than a panther and in practice I think it's been shown it's more of an ambush vehicle because without a turret it would have trouble engaging targets to the side.

Why is my mind on german tanks? No idea, ask me later when my head clears up.

 

[shootthebandit]

Im not really into tanks and i cant differentiate tanks by name but i know that tanks were originally designed to transport troops and supplies safely in WWI, adding weapons was a later addition

 

[DefunctTheory]

FT-17 was the first modern tank.

Not entirely certain why you brought this up, since this has never been disputed.

EDIT: For all those who don't know what a FT-17 is...

 

[OneCatch]

Looking back on the early tanks it occurs to me that most of them have more in common with tank destroyers and assault guns than tanks. Looking at things like the Saint Chamond or British MK I or Mk IV they lacked a turret which has long been one of the defining features of tanks. It's why I would call those proto-tanks instead of just tanks. I would call the french FT-17 the world's first actual tank with everything before it being assault guns having more in common with say a stug III than a panzer III.

Yes they were called tanks back in the day to confuse the enemy during transport but I think once armored vehicles began to diversify into all these different categories by definition they weren't actually tanks.

Before anyone mentions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-tank look at it, it's got more in common with a jagpanther than a panther and in practice I think it's been shown it's more of an ambush vehicle because without a turret it would have trouble engaging targets to the side.

Why is my mind on german tanks? No idea, ask me later when my head clears up.

I'm not sure it's necessarily useful to redefine historic tanks based on modern definitions, just because there was such variation on early designs, and such difference in tank doctrines, even into WW2. Every tank in existance at the time will have some flaw or be lacking in some feature which defines modern tanks, either in physical attributes or intended use.
For example:
Obviously the FT-17 was groundbreaking, both in it's turreted design, and it's relative ease of breakout and maneuver on the battlefield - foreshadowing later developments.
But you could argue that it wasn't a 'true tank' because it had only a single gun, no provision for secondary armament, only 2 crew, and was originally designed as a machine gun carrier. Because of those considerations you could reasonably put it in the same category as a Bren carrier or some other light armoured vehicle, and thus not a tank.

One could do this for any tank design prior to WW2, and even with many designs prior to the dominance of the main battle tank as a concept in the postwar period.

Nah, I think it's better to define by the roles which they fulfilled at the time, in which case all the examples you gave are tanks of the lighter or heavier variety.