Tank Development and Its Impact on Warfare, 1776–1918
This paper examines the development of the armored tank as a pivotal change in the conduct of warfare between 1776 and 1918. Beginning with early prototype concepts by designers such as E.J. Pennington and F.R. Simms, the paper traces the tank's evolution through the British Landship Committee's work in 1915, the battlefield debut of "Big Willie" at the Somme in 1916, and early tank-vs.-tank combat in 1918. It also analyzes the United States military's slow adaptation of tank technology relative to Germany, connecting pre-WWII conservatism and underfunding to America's lag in armored field artillery development.
- Introduction: The Tank as a Watershed in Military History: Tank's emergence as pivotal development in warfare
- Early Forerunners to the Modern Tank: Prototype armored vehicles before WWI
- British Development and the First Battlefield Tanks: British Landship Committee builds Little and Big Willie
- Early Tank Combat: Successes and Failures in WWI: Somme deployment and first tank-vs-tank battle
- American Tank Development and the Interwar Period: U.S. tank policy failures between the world wars
- Conclusion: The Tank's Lasting Legacy in Field Artillery: America catches up but did not lead tank innovation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Provides a clear chronological progression from early conceptual prototypes (1896) through WWI combat deployment and into the interwar period, giving readers a coherent developmental arc.
- Grounds broad claims about military evolution in specific technical details — weight, speed, armor thickness, and armament — making the argument concrete and verifiable.
- Balances international perspectives by comparing British, French, German, and American tank programs, which strengthens the thesis about the tank's global significance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses comparative analysis effectively: by placing U.S. tank specifications alongside German counterparts (e.g., the M26 Pershing vs. the Tiger II B), the author quantifies America's relative lag in armored warfare development. This evidence-based comparison turns what could be a general claim into a measurable argument, illustrating how specific data can support a thesis about institutional shortcomings.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by justifying its subject choice against the assignment prompt, then moves through a historical survey of prototype designs, the British engineering program, WWI battlefield results, and U.S. policy decisions in the interwar years. It closes by acknowledging that although America eventually caught up in tank capability, it did not lead the field's development. Endnotes and a reference list round out the paper, following a documentary citation style.
The development in warfare that had a profound impact on the conduct of war between 1776 and 1918 — and that was most important to the evolution of warfare — was, in the opinion of this writer, the armored tank. Granted, the very first tank, "Little Willie," was commissioned by the British in 1915 and was not put into use until the Battle of the Somme on September 15, 1916; and, granted, the tank did not have a "profound impact" on WWI itself. But the tank's emergence in 1916 did indeed have a profound impact on the evolution of warfare into the 20th and 21st centuries. The tank excellently fits the description of a pivotal development in the field artillery theater of warfare.
The development of the tank was truly a watershed in military history. This paper will therefore examine the development of the tank, as well as the apparent short-sightedness of the United States military in terms of producing enough tanks to meet the challenges posed by the Germans. Most Americans today, when they think of tanks, think of the WWII-vintage models that featured so prominently in films such as Saving Private Ryan. For younger Americans, images of the newest generation of tanks — captured by embedded reporters racing across the southern Iraqi desert at the start of the U.S. invasion — are equally familiar. Tanks are very much a part of the American public's perception of warfare, just as they are central to the experience of soldiers in the field.
Looking back at the Civil War, in which the young American nation shed the institution of slavery at the cost of approximately 620,000 lives on both sides, the only weapon that came close to what we now know as the tank was the sea-going U.S.S. Merrimack. Later rechristened the U.S.S. Virginia, she was known as the first "ironclad" — a revolutionary concept at the time — though the Civil War was ultimately won on battlefields, not at sea, and not by iron-plated attack vehicles.
Nearly forty years after the Civil War, the very first "drawing board" version of what we now call a tank was the brainchild of E.J. Pennington, who in 1896 (Paesani, 1998) conceived and designed an "oval-shaped vehicle with four wheels hidden by metal plates and two hull-mounted machine guns." Though the project never came to fruition, it demonstrated that military innovation was very much on the minds of designers whose countries needed defending.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.