What were the strengths and weakness of tanks in WWI?

Question

What were the strengths and weakness of tanks in WWI?

Answer 1

strengths pplz were like wtf is that boom dead

weakness crappy reliablitly weak but bullets didnt do much to them

slow fire slow moving

Answer 2

The difficulty in answering your question lies in the fact that not all WW1 tanks had the same strengths and weaknesses.

British Mk I was produced from 1916 as an infantry support and assault tank; it was very slow, its armour was relatively weak and it was prone to mechanical breakdowns, all of which made it an easy target for German artillery. Conditions for the crew inside were dreadful, with engine fumes and noise, fumes from the detonation of its own guns and no space to move about. On the other hand, it was a complete surprise to the enemy and this factor alone meant that some successes were achieved.

But the British "Whippet" tank and the French "Char Leger" were completely different in design and use: both were lighter and faster that the Mk I and were more lightly armed, but their speed made them much more difficult targets for enemy artillery. Again, the armour plating was less than brilliant (when hit by small arms fire, small flakes of metal would be detached from the interior and sent buzzing around inside the tank, much like shrapnel).

The Germans only developed a "super-heavy" tank of their own and this was produced in very small numbers - they had no answer to the Whippet and Char Leger.

Answer 3

While they couldn't operate well, were under-gunned, maneuvered like a cow, uncomfortable, loud, and easily stuck, their greatest strength was inducing the enemy to the state of "What the F*** is that?! Run away!"

Answer 4

The tank was newly designed so it had a lot of kinks.  The engines which were used often broke down.  If the tank was hit by an explosive ordinance it would often catch fire and immolate the crew.  The armor was no sufficient to stop large caliber arms, so there were dedicated tank buster rifles which could pierce the armor.  The tank was slow which made it easy to target.

The strength of the tank was it could hop the huge trenches if moved right.  The armor helped protect troops from small caliber rifle fire which allowed it to act as a moving shield.  Psychological, the tank was a new weapon which incited fear in the enemy.  The weapons on board were largely ineffective.  

Answer 5

Do you mean tanks as a weapon or individual tanks?

Tanks as a weapon were used ineffectively, as they were a new invention strategies for their use were in their infancy.

The British Mk I tank was slow, poorly armoured, undergunned, under-powered and clumsy.  The crew of 8 were in danger of being deafened by the engine, poisoned by the exhaust fumes and blown to pieces by enemy artillery or mortar fire.  Most WWI tanks suffered from similar problems - the German A7V was even worse.

It would take the battle of Cambrai in 1917 for massed armour to be used effectively.

See:

http://www.historyoftanks.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A7V

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/cam...

Answer 6

They only arrived on the scene very late in the war, and were used in a piecemeal fashion as no-one was sure whether to use them like cavalry or artillery.

If they had any value or effect at all, it was on the psychological / propoganda level.  

The tank didn't really come into its own as a decisive battlefield weapon until the Germans invented the concept of Blitkrieg, which gave them mastery of Europe for the first half of WW2.

Ironically, the Germans met their nemesis at Kursk - the greatest tank-on-tank battle ever - when they were crushed by the Red Army (along with mechanical breakdown and fuel shortages).

Given the efficacy of anti-tank technology today, I would certainly NOT volunteer to be in the armoured divisions....