5 ms·
I don't think that a chariot is a tank, for the simple reason that "tank" is typically defined as *ARMOURED* combat vehicle. The chariot as described in that a
by hooby 4y ago
I don't think that a chariot is a tank, for the simple reason that "tank" is typically defined as *ARMOURED* combat vehicle.
The chariot as described in that article is more along the lines of mobile artillery.
- folbec 4y agoThe original link poster may have wanted to link to this : https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not-a-tank/ https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not...
- brazzy 4y agoThe article mainly discusses the (IMO much more interesting) question whether chariots had a similar function on the battlefield to what tanks do today - and comes to the conclusion that no, they did not.
- retSava 4y agoExactly, the doctrine (function/use) vs design/structure (look/physicals) tension found in the memes in the linked article. edit: meant this other article by the same author: https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not-a-tank/ https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not...
- ekianjo 4y ago> had a similar function on the battlefield to what tanks do today nonsensical question to start with if you have ever read any story of roman battles involving chariots. A tank has an asymmetry on the battlefield: it's very powerful and very well protected. None of this is true for chariots.
- cestith 4y agoA chariot was more similar to a technical or an FAV. It allows one to advance quickly on fairly regular terrain, carry a slightly bigger weapon, and stock yourself with more ammunition. It's not well protected and the weapon is not as devastating. The mobile ballista was more like a primitive field gun or crew-served mortar. Add black powder and a strong metal barrel and it served the same role through the 19th century. An actual tank cannot exist without a powerful engine. They were literally designed as the battleships or destroyer of the land. They used big engines and small naval-inspired guns. The most successful have always mounted those guns on turrets just like a naval ship. The reason no primitive tank can be found is that nothing did serve quite the same role.
- CRConrad 4y ago> The most successful have always mounted those guns on turrets just like a naval ship. To be fair, at the time tanks were created and (not quite immediately, but rather soon) adopted the rotating turret for their main gun, that turret wasn't all that age-old a tradition at sea, either. Wasn't Ericsson's Civil War-era Monitor the first with that? (If not the very first, then among the first to deploy it in combat, I'm fairly sure.) But yeah, their greatest proponent in WW1 Britain being the Admiralty is of course an amusing connection. (But I suppose if Churchill had been, say, Minister of Agriculture, then their greatest proponent would have been the Department of Agriculture.)
- cestith 4y agoIndeed it wasn't an ancient technology, but in the 19th and 20th centuries warfare adapted at a blistering pace compared to earlier centuries. Three to five decades of advancement was everything. Rifled barrels, self-contained cartridges, breach loading, tractors, planes, radios, morphine, acriflavine, and barbed wire were all fairly recent technologies still finding their practical and doctrinal uses in warfare.
- usrusr 4y agoReally more like a staff car I think. Once you have an army big enough to make shouting from one end of the battle line to the other difficult, leaders will want to increase their mobility.
- lloeki 4y agoI was under the impression that two-wheeled chariot front and sides are solid and the shape is round partly in order to deflect arrows.