Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) book. Happy reading Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Pocket Guide.


Passing through the hail of arrows launched by the Persian army, protected for the most part by their armour, the Greek line finally collided with the enemy army. Holland provides an evocative description: The enemy directly in their path The impact was devastating. The Athenians had honed their style of fighting in combat with other phalanxes, wooden shields smashing against wooden shields, iron spear tips clattering against breastplates of bronze The hoplites' ash spears, rather than shivering Battle of Marathon 15 The Athenian wings quickly routed the inferior Persian levies on the flanks, before turning inwards to surround the T Persian centre, which had been more successful against the thin Greek centre.

The battle ended when the Persian rs2i centre then broke in panic towards their ships, pursued by the Greeks. Some, unaware of the local terrain, ran towards the swamps where unknown numbers drowned. The Athenians pursued the Persians back to their ships, and managed to capture seven ships, though the majority were able to launch successfully. Herodotus recounts the story that Cynaegirus, brother of the playwright Aeschylus, who was also among the fighters, charged into the sea, grabbed one Persian trireme, and started pulling it towards shore. A member of the crew saw him, cut off his hand, and Cynegirus died [85] Herodotus records that 6, Persian bodies were counted on the battlefield, and it is unknown how many more perished in the swamps.

The Athenians lost men and the Plataeans Among the dead were the war roc] archon Callimachus and the general Stesilaos. Aftermath In the immediate aftermath of the battle, Herodotus says that the Persian fleet sailed around Cape Sounion to attack [49] Athens directly. As has been discussed above, some modern historians place this attempt just before the battle.

Either way, the Athenians evidently realised that their city was still under threat, and marched as quickly as possible TR71 back to Athens. The two tribes which had been in the centre of the Athenian line stayed to guard the battlefield roo] under the command of Aristides. The Athenians arrived in time to prevent the Persians from securing a landing, T and seeing that the opportunity was lost, the Persians turned about and returned to Asia.

Connected with this episode, Herodotus recounts a rumour that this manoeuver by the Persians had been planned in conjunction with the Alcmaeonids, the prominent Athenian aristocratic family, and that a "shield-signal" had been given after the battle. Although many interpretations of this have been offered, it is impossible to tell whether this was true, and if so, what exactly the signal meant.

On the next day, the Spartan army arrived at Marathon, having covered the kilometers unknown operator: u'strong 1 mi in only three days. The Spartans toured the battlefield at Marathon, and agreed that the Athenians had won a great victory. The dead of Marathon were awarded by the Athenians the special honor of being the only ones who were buried where they died instead of the main Athenian cemetery at Keramikos. In the meanwhile, Darius began raising a huge new army with which he meant to completely subjugate Greece; however, in BC, his Egyptian subjects revolted, indefinitely postponing any Greek expedition.

Darius then died whilst [92] preparing to march on Egypt, and the throne of Persia passed to his son Xerxes I. Xerxes crushed the Egyptian [93] revolt, and very quickly re-started the preparations for the invasion of Greece. The epic second Persian invasion of Greece finally began in BC, and the Persians met with initial success at the battles of Thermopylae and [94] [95] Artemisium. However, defeat at the Battle of Salamis would be the turning point in the campaign, and the next year the expedition was ended by the decisive Greek victory at the Battle of Plataea.

Hill where the Athenian dead were buried after the Battle of Marathon Battle of Marathon 16 Significance The defeat at Marathon barely touched the vast resources of the Persian empire, yet for the Greeks it was an enormously significant victory. It was the first time the Greeks had beaten the Persians, proving that they were not invincible, and that resistance, rather than subjugation, was possible [97] The battle was a defining moment for the young Athenian democracy, showing what might be achieved through unity and self-belief; indeed, the battle effectively marks the start of a "golden age" for Athens.

This was also applicable to Greece as a whole; "their victory endowed the Greeks with a faith in their destiny that was to endure for three T21 T centuries, during which western culture was born". John Stuart Mill's famous opinion was that "the Battle of Marathon, even as an event in British history, is more important than the Battle of Hastings". How tried his valor, Marathon may tell. And long-haired Medes, who knew it all too well. Militarily, a major lesson for the Greeks was the potential of the hoplite phalanx.

This style had developed during internecine warfare amongst the Greeks; since each city-state fought in the same way, the advantages and roin disadvantages of the hoplite phalanx had not been obvious. Marathon was the first time a phalanx faced more roil lightly armed troops, and revealed how effective the hoplites could be in battle. The phalanx formation was still vulnerable to cavalry the cause of much caution by the Greek forces at the Battle of Plataea , but used in the right circumstances, it was now shown to be a potentially devastating weapon. Pheidippides' run to Sparta to bring aid has other legends associated with it.

Herodotus mentions that Pheidippides was visited by the god Pan on his way to Sparta or T perhaps on his return journey. Pan asked why the Athenians did not honor him and the awed Pheidippides promised that they would do so from then on. The god apparently felt that the promise would be kept, so he appeared in battle and at the crucial moment he instilled the Persians with his own brand of fear, the mindless, frenzied fear that bore his name: "panic". After the battle, a sacred precinct was established for Pan in a grotto on the north slope of the Acropolis, and a sacrifice was annually offered.

Similarly, after the victory the festival of the Agroteras Thysia "sacrifice to the Agrotera" was held at Agrae near Athens, in honor of Artemis Agrotera "Artemis the Huntress". This was in fulfillment of a vow made by the city before the battle, to offer in sacrifice a number of goats equal to that of the Persians slain in the conflict. The number was so great, it was decided to offer goats yearly until the number was filled. Xenophon notes that at his time, 90 years after the battle, goats were still offered yearly. Pausanias also tells us that: They say too that there chanced to be present in the battle a man of rustic appearance and dress.

Having slaughtered many of the foreigners with a plough he was seen no more after the engagement. When the Athenians made enquiries at the oracle, the god merely ordered them to honor Echetlaeus "he of the Plough-tail" as a hero. Aelian relates that one hoplite brought his dog to the Athenian encampment. The dog followed his master to battle and attacked the Persians at his master's side.

He also informs us that this dog is depicted in the mural of the Stoa Poikile. Battle of Marathon 18 Marathon run According to Herodotus, an Athenian runner named Pheidippides was sent to run from Athens to Sparta to ask for assistance before the battle. He ran a distance of over miles, arriving in Sparta the day after he left. Then, following the battle, the Athenian army marched the 25 or so miles back to Athens at a very high pace considering the quantity of armour, and the fatigue after the battle , in order to head off the Persian force sailing around Cape Sounion.

They arrived back in the late afternoon, in time to see the Persian ships turn away from Athens, thus completing the Athenian victory [] Later, in popular imagination, these two events became confused with each other, leading to a legendary but inaccurate version of events.

This myth has Pheidippides running from Marathon to Athens after the battle, to announce the Greek victory with the word "Nenikekamen! Most accounts incorrectly attribute this story to Herodotus; actually, the story first appears in Plutarch's On the Glory of Athens in the 1st century AD, who quotes from Heracleides of Pontus's lost work, giving the runner's name as either Thersipus of Erchius or Eucles.

Lucian of Samosata 2nd century AD gives the same story but names the runner Philippides not Pheidippides. It should be noted that in some medieval codices of Herodotus the name of the runner between Athens and Sparta before the battle is given as Philippides and in a few modern editions this name is preferred [] When the idea of a modern Olympics became a reality at the end of the 19th century, the initiators and organizers were looking for a great popularizing event, recalling the ancient glory of Greece.

The idea of organizing a 'marathon race' came from Michel Breal, who wanted the event to feature in the first modern Olympic Games in in Athens. This idea was heavily supported by Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics, as well as the Greeks. This would echo the legendary version of events, with the competitors running from Marathon to Athens. So popular was this event that it quickly caught on, becoming a fixture at the Olympic games, with major cities staging their own annual events.

The distance eventually became fixed at 26 miles yards, or Retrieved Berthold, Dare To Struggle. The History and Society of Greece pp. The Greco-Persian Wars. University of California Press. ISBN Holland, Tom Lacey, Jim. Souvenir Press, Oxford University Press, Greenwood Publishing Group, A Military History of the Western World. Fehling, D. Translated by J. G Howie. Leeds: Francis Cairns, Finley, Moses Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War. Anthologiae Graecae Appendix, vol.

Harold II was killed in the battle — legend has it that he was shot through the eye with an arrow. The battle marked the last successful foreign invasion of the British Isles. Although there was further English resistance, this battle is seen as the point at which William gained control of England, becoming its first Norman ruler as King William I.

The battle also established the superiority of the combined arms attack over an army predominately composed of infantry, demonstrating the effectiveness of archers, cavalry and infantry working cooperatively together. The dominance of cavalry forces over infantry would continue until the emergence of the longbow, and battles such as Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt in the Hundred Years War. The famous Bayeux Tapestry depicts the events before and during the battle.

Battle Abbey marks the site where it is believed that the battle was fought. Founded by King William "the Conqueror" as he became known , it serves as a memorial to the dead and may have been an act of penance for the bloodshed. The site is open to the public and is the location of annual re-enactments of the battle. Background Harold Godwinson, from the most powerful family in England, claimed the throne shortly after Edward the Confessor died in January He secured the support of the Witenagemot, the English assembly of nobles, for his accession.

Some sources say that Edward had verbally promised the throne to his cousin, William, the Duke of Normandy, but decided on his deathbed to give it to Harold. While Edward the Confessor's great-nephew Edgar jEtheling was also in England, he was deemed too young. William took Harold's crowning as a declaration of war. He planned to invade England and take the crown. The Norman army was not powerful enough, so nobles as far as Southern Italy were called to convene at Caen, in Normandy.

There, William promised land and titles to his followers and informed them that the voyage was secured Battle of Hastings 23 by the pope. William assembled a fleet said to number ships — if accurate this would imply an army of over 20, men. This force waited in port through the summer, supposedly because of adverse weather but quite possibly from fear of a clash at sea with the large English fleet. They finally sailed for England after the exhaustion of supplies forced Harold to dismiss his fleet and army and many English ships were wrecked by a storm.

On 28 September William landed unopposed at Pevensey. He defeated the invaders at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, near York. Upon hearing that the Duke's forces had landed he hurried southward to meet the invaders. His brother, Earl Gyrth, urged a delay while more men could be assembled, but Harold was determined to show his people that he could defend his new kingdom decisively against every invader.

He departed London on the morning of 12 October, gathering what forces he could on the way. Harold deployed his force, astride the road from Hastings to London, on Senlac Hill, some 6 miles unknown operator: u'strong' km inland north-west of Hastings. Behind him was the great forest of Anderida the Weald , and in front the ground fell away in a long glacis-like slope, which rose again at the bottom as the opposing slope of Telham Hill. English army The English army fought two other major battles, at Gate Fulford and Stamford Bridge, less than three weeks before the Battle of Hastings.

The latter resulted in the destruction of Harald Hardrada's Viking army, but also affected the English army's battle-worthiness at Hastings. The English army consisted entirely of infantry. It is possible that some or all the members of the army rode to battle, but once at the appointed place they dismounted to fight on foot. The core of the army was made up of full-time professional soldiers called housecarls who had a long-standing dedication to the King.

Their armour consisted of a conical helmet, a chain mail hauberk, and a kite-shaped shield. Their primary weapon was the two-handed Danish battleaxe, although every man would have carried a sword as well. The bulk of the army, called the fyrd, was composed of part-time English soldiers drawn from the landowning minor nobility. These thegns were the land-holding aristocracy of the time and were required to serve with their own armour and weapons for a certain number of days each year.

The Victorian concept of the noble peasant defending his lands with a pitchfork has been quashed by modern archaeological research. The most formidable defence of the English was the shield wall, in which all the men on the front ranks locked their shields together. In the early stages of the battle, the shield wall was very effective at defending against the Norman archery barrages.

The entire army took up position along the ridge-line; as casualties fell in the front lines the rear ranks would move forward to fill the gaps. Norman army The Norman army was made up of nobles, mercenaries, and troops from Normandy around half , Flanders, Brittany around one third and France today Paris and Ile-de-France , with some from as far as southern Italy. The Norman army's power derived from its cavalry which were reckoned amongst the best in Europe. They were heavily armoured, and usually had a lance and a sword.

As with all cavalry, they were generally at their most effective against troops whose formation had begun to break up.

Biographical Note

Apart from the missile troops, the Norman infantry were probably protected by ring mail and armed with spear, sword and shield, like their English counterparts. The large numbers of missile troops in William's army reflected the trend in European armies for combining different types of forces on the battlefield. The bow was a relatively short weapon with a short draw but was effective on the battlefield.

Hastings marks the first known use of the crossbow in battle in English history. Battle of Hastings 24 The battlefield from the north side Battle William relied on basic tactics with archers in the front rank weakening the enemy with arrows, followed by infantry which would engage in close combat, culminating in a cavalry charge that would break through the English forces.

However, his tactics did not work as well as planned. William's army attacked the English as soon as they were ready and formed up. Norman archers shot several volleys but many of the arrows hit the shield wall and had very little effect. Believing the English to have been softened up, William ordered his infantry to attack.

As the Normans charged up the hill, the English threw down whatever they could find: stones, javelins, and maces. The barrage inflicted heavy casualties among the Norman ranks, causing the lines to break up. The infantry charge reached the English lines, where ferocious hand-to-hand fighting took place.

William had expected the English to falter, but the arrow barrage had little effect and nearly all the English troops still stood, their shield wall intact. As a result William ordered his cavalry to charge far sooner than planned. Faced with a wall of axes, spears and swords, many of the horses shied away despite their careful breeding and training.

Academy Awards for Best Picture

After an hour of fighting, the Breton division on William's left faltered and broke completely, fleeing down the hill. Suffering heavy casualties and realising they would be quickly outflanked, the Norman and Flemish divisions retreated with the Bretons. Unable to resist the temptation, many of the English broke ranks, including hundreds of fyrdmen and Harold's brothers, Leofwyne and Gyrthe.

In the following confused fighting, William's horse was killed from underneath him, and he toppled to the ground. Initially, many of William's soldiers thought that he had been killed, and an even greater rout ensued. It was only after he stood up and threw off his helmet that William was able to rally his fleeing troops. William and a group of his knights successfully counter-attacked the pursuing English, who were no longer protected by the shield wall, and cut down large numbers of fyrdmen. Many did not recognise the Norman counter-attack until it was too late, but some managed to scramble back up the hill to the safety of the housecarls.

Harold's brothers were not so fortunate — their deaths deprived the English of an alternative leader after the death of Harold. The two armies formed up, and a temporary lull fell over the battle. The battle had turned to William's advantage, since the English had lost much of the protection provided by the shield wall.

Without the cohesion of a disciplined, strong formation, the individual English were easy targets. William launched his army at the strong English position again and many of the English housecarls were killed. With such a large number of English fyrdmen now holding the front rank, the disciplined shield wall that the housecarls had maintained began to falter, presenting an opportunity to William. At the start of the battle the hail of arrows fired at the English by William's bowmen was ineffective because of the English shields.

Though many on the front ranks still had shields, William ordered his archers to fire over the shield wall so that the arrows landed in the clustered rear ranks of the English army. The archers did this with great success. Legend states that it was at this point that Harold was hit in the eye by an arrow. Many of the English were now weary. William's army attacked again, and managed to make small chinks in the shield wall.

They were able to exploit these gaps, and the English army began to fragment. William and a handful of knights broke through the wall, and struck down the English king. Without their leader and with many nobles dead, hundreds of fyrdmen fled the field. The housecarls kept their oath of loyalty to the king, and fought bravely until they were all killed. Battle of Hastings 25 Harold's plaque Aftermath Only a remnant of the defenders made their way back to the forest. Some of the Norman forces pursued the English but were ambushed and destroyed in the dusk when they ran afoul of steep ground, called, in later 12th century sources, "the Malfosse", or "bad ditch".

The most likely site of Malfosse can be identified today as Oakwood Gill a deep ditch now traversed by the A road, north of Battle. William rested his army for two weeks near Hastings, waiting for the English lords to come and submit to him. Then, after he realised his hopes of submission at that point were in vain, he began his advance on London.

His army was seriously reduced in November by dysentery, and William himself was gravely ill. However, he was reinforced by fresh troops crossing the English Channel. Meanwhile in London the remnants of the English government had assembled and hastily chosen the young and inexperienced Edgar the Atheling as king. It has been said they chose him because a weak king was better than no king at all and in the absence of any of the Godwinson family he was now the only viable candidate. It is not known if he was crowned, it would have made sense to have him crowned as soon as possible as his predecessor Harold had been, but there is no record to support this.

Not long after the election of Edgar the northern earls, Edwin and Morcar left the city and returned with their forces to their respective earldoms. It has been speculated that they regarded the war with William as a dispute between him and the Godwinson family and hoped to make their own peace. Other members of the English establishment such as Edgar's sisters Margaret and Cristina hastily decamped with their retinues to Chester for safety. William advanced through Kent devastating Romney and receiving the submission of Dover and its important castle.

At Dover he paused for a week receiving the submission of Canterbury on October He sent messengers to Winchester who received the submission of that city from the widowed Queen Edith. From Canterbury William advanced to Southwark. After being thwarted in an attempt to cross London Bridge he destroyed the town.

He now approached the city by a circuitous route crossing the Thames at Wallingford ravaging the land as he went. The Norman forces advanced on London from the north-west eventually reaching Berkhampstead in late November [5] Messages were relayed between William's forces and the beleaguered authorities in London. Eventually it was agreed that the city would be spared further carnage if Edgar abdicated and William was recognised as king. This agreement seems to have been imposed on the young Edgar. In early December, Ansgar the Sheriff of Middlesex, the archbishops of York and Canterbury and the deposed Edgar the Atheling came out and submitted to the Norman duke.

William received them graciously and accepted their submission. From here he relocated his forces to Romford taking with him appropriate hostages [5] William was crowned king on Christmas Day, at Westminster Abbey. Battle of Hastings 26 Legacy Battle Abbey was built on the site of the battle. A plaque marks the place where Harold is believed to have fallen and the location where the high altar of the church once stood. The settlement of Battle, East Sussex, grew up around the abbey and is now a small market town. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the events before, during, and after the Battle of Hastings.

Legit Army Sniper Rifle

The Battle of Hastings is an example of the theory of combined arms. The Norman bowmen, cavalry and infantry cooperated to deny the English the initiative and gave the homogeneous English army few tactical options except defence. The account of the battle given in the earliest source, the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, is one where the Norman advance surprises the English, who manage to gain the top of Senlac Hill before the Normans. The Norman light infantry is sent in while the English are forming their shield wall to no avail and then the main force was sent in no distinction being made between infantry and cavalry.

Succeeding sources include in chronological order William of Poitiers's Gesta Guillelmi written between and , The Bayeux Tapestry created between and , and the much later Chronicle of Battle Abbey, the chronicles written by William of Malmesbury, Florence of Worcester, and Eadmer's Historia Novorum in Anglia embellishes the story further, with the final result being a William whose tactical genius was at a high level that he failed to display in any other battle. The Battle of Hastings had a tremendous influence on the English language. The Normans were French-speaking, and as a result of their rule, they introduced many French words that started in the nobility and eventually became part of the English language itself.

As Paul K. Davis writes, "William's victory placed a foreign ruler on the throne of England, introducing European rather than Scandinavian society onto the isolated island" in "the last successful invasion of England. Chevallier therein citing deeds of Battle Abbey and Manorial maps of and Also William Dugdale's Monasticon And Four Deeds c. Freemand, Volume III, p. William the Conqueror.

Hastings , The Fall of Saxon England. Osprey Campaign Series Osprey Publishing. New York: Barnes and Noble. London: Hambledon Press, pp. Includes facts and full story. Henry V's victory crippled France and started a new period in the war, during which, first, Henry married the French king's daughter and, second, his son, Henry VI, was made heir to the throne of France although Henry VI later failed to capitalise on his father's battlefield success. Henry V led his troops into battle and participated in hand-to-hand fighting.

The French king of the time, Charles VI, did not command the French army himself as he suffered from severe, repeating illnesses and moderate mental incapacitation. Instead, the French were commanded by Constable Charles d'Albret and various prominent French noblemen of the Armagnac party. The battle is notable for the use of the English longbow, which Henry used in very large numbers, with English and Welsh archers forming most of his army. The battle is also the centrepiece of the play Henry V, by William Shakespeare.

Contemporary accounts of the battle The battle of Agincourt is well-documented from at least seven contemporary accounts, three of whom were eye-witnesses. The approximate location of the battle has never been in dispute and remains relatively unchanged after years. Immediately after the battle, Henry summoned the heralds of the two armies who had watched the battle together and settled with the principal French herald, Montjoie, on the name of the battle, Agincourt- after the nearest fortified place.

Two of the most frequently cited accounts come from French sources, Jean Le Fevre de Saint-Remy, who was present at the battle, and the Enguerrand de Monstrelet. The English eyewitness account comes from the anonymous Gesta Henrici Quinti, believed to have been written by a chaplain in the King's Battle of Agincourt 28 household, who would have been in the baggage train at the battle.

Campaign Henry V invaded France following the failure of negotiations with the French. He claimed the title of King of France through his great-grandfather Edward III, although in practice the English kings were generally prepared to renounce this claim if the French would acknowledge the English claim on Aquitaine and other French lands the terms of the Treaty of Bretigny.

He initially called a great council in the spring of to discuss going to war with France, but the lords insisted that he should negotiate further and moderate his claims. In the following negotiations Henry said that he would give up his claim to the French throne if the French would pay the 1. Henry would marry Princess Catherine, the young daughter of Charles VI, and receive a dowry of 2 million crowns. The French responded with what they considered the generous terms of marriage with Princess Catherine, a dowry of , crowns, and an enlarged Aquitaine.

By negotiations had ground to a halt, with the English claiming that the French had mocked their claims and ridiculed Henry himself. In December , the English parliament was persuaded to grant Henry a "double subsidy", a tax at twice the traditional rate, to recover his inheritance from the French. On 19 April , Henry again asked the great council to sanction war with France, and this time they agreed. Henry's army landed in northern France on 13 August and besieged the port of Harfleur with an army of about 12, The siege took longer than expected.

The town surrendered on 22 September, and the English army did not leave until 8 October. The campaign season was coming to an end, and the English army had suffered many casualties through disease. Rather than retire directly to England for the winter, with his costly expedition resulting in the capture of only one town, Henry decided to march most of his army roughly 9, through Normandy to the port of Calais, the English stronghold in northern France, to demonstrate by his presence in the territory at the head of an army that his right to rule in the duchy was more than a mere abstract legal and historical claim.

He also intended the manoeuvre as a deliberate provocation to battle aimed at the dauphin, who had failed to respond to Henry's personal challenge to combat at Harfleur. The French had raised an army during the siege which assembled around Rouen. This was not strictly a feudal army, but an army paid through a system similar to the English. The French hoped to raise 9, troops, but the army was not ready in time to relieve Harfleur. They were successful for a time, forcing Henry to move south, away from Calais, to find a ford.

The English finally crossed the Somme south of Peronne, at Bethencourt and Voyennes and resumed marching north. Without the river protection, the French were hesitant to force a battle. They shadowed Henry's army while calling a semonce des nobles, calling on local nobles to join the army. By 24 October both armies faced each other for battle, but the French declined, hoping for the arrival of more troops.

The two armies spent the night of 24 October on open ground.

  • Sklep: mauser military rifles of the world?
  • Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68).
  • Design Sketching!

The next day the French initiated negotiations as a delaying tactic, but Henry ordered his army to advance and to start a battle that, given the state of his army, he would have preferred to avoid, or to fight defensively: that was how Crecy and the other famous longbow victories had been won. The English had very little food, had marched miles in two and a half weeks, were suffering from sickness such as dysentery, and faced much larger numbers of well equipped French men at arms.

Battle of Agincourt 29 Battle Preparation for battle The battle was fought in the narrow strip of open land formed between the woods of Tramecourt and Agincourt close to the modern village of Azincourt. The French army was positioned at the northern exit so as to bar the way to Calais. English deployment Early on the 25th, Henry deployed his army approximately 1, men-at-arms and 7, longbowmen across a yard part of the defile. The army was organised into three "battles" or divisions, the vanguard led by the Duke of York, the main battle led by Henry himself and the rearguard, led by Lord Camoys.

In addition, Sir Thomas Erpingham, one of Henry's most experienced household knights, had a role in marshalling the archers. It is likely that the English adopted their usual battle line of longbowmen on either flank, men-at-arms and knights in the centre. They may also have deployed some archers in the centre of the line. The English men-at-arms in plate and mail were placed shoulder to shoulder four deep. The English and Welsh archers on the flanks drove pointed wooden stakes into the ground at an angle to force cavalry to veer off. This use of stakes may have been inspired by the Battle of Nicopolis of , where forces of the Ottoman Empire used the tactic against French cavalry The battle of Agincourt [c] ri2i The English made their confessions before the battle, as was customary.

Henry, worried about the enemy launching surprise raids, and wanting his troops to remain focused, ordered all his men to spend the night before the battle in silence, with having an ear cut off the punishment for disobeying. He told his men that he would rather die ri3i in the coming battle than be captured and ransomed. The men-at-arms on both sides were high-ranking men who knew that if captured they could expect to be ransomed. As "commoners", on the other hand, the English archers knew they could expect to be killed out of hand by the French if they were defeated, as they were not worth ransoming.

Henry made a speech, emphasising the justness of his cause, and reminding his army of previous great defeats the kings of England had inflicted on the French. The Burgundian sources have him concluding the speech by telling his men that the French had boasted that they would cut off two fingers from the right hand of every archer, so that he could never draw a longbow again. Whether this was true is open to question; as previously noted, death was the normal fate of any soldier who could not be ransomed. The French believed they would triumph over the English not only because their force was larger, fresher, and better equipped, but also because the large number of noble men-at-arms would have considered themselves superior to the large number of archers in the English army, whom the French based on their experience in living memory of using and facing archers considered relatively insignificant.

The chronicler Edmond de Dyntner stated that there were "ten French nobles against one English", ignoring the archers completely. The French were arrayed in three lines or "battles". The third line was under the Counts of Dammartin and Fauconberg. The Burgundian chronicler, Jean de Wavrin, writes that there were 8, men-at-arms, 4, archers and 1, crossbowmen in the vanguard, with two wings of and mounted men-at-arms, and the main battle having "as many knights, esquires and archers as in the vanguard", ri7i with the rearguard containing "all of the rest of the men-at-arms".

The Herald of Berry uses somewhat different figures of 4, men-at-arms in the first line, 3, men in the second line, with two "wings" containing n ri mounted men-at-arms each, and a total of "10, men-at-arms", but does not mention a third line. Approximately 8, of the heavily armoured French men-at-arms fought on foot, and needed to close the distance to the English army to engage them in hand-to-hand fighting. If they could close the distance, however, they outnumbered the English men-at-arms by more than 5-to-l, and the English longbowmen would not be able to shoot into a melee without risking hitting their own troops.

Many of the French men-at-arms had fathers and grandfathers who had been humiliated in previous battles such as Crecy and Poitiers, and the French nobility were determined to get revenge. Several French accounts emphasise that the French leaders were so eager to defeat the English and win the ransoms of the English men-at-arms that they insisted on being in the first line. For example: "All the lords ri9i wanted to be in the vanguard, against the opinion of the constable and the experienced knights".

There appear to have been thousands of troops in the rearguard, containing servants and commoners whom the French were either unable or unwilling to deploy. Wavrin gives the total French army size as 50, He says: "They had plenty of archers and crossbowmen but nobody wanted to let them fire [sic]. The reason for this was that the site was so narrow that there was only enough room for the men-at-arms. Terrain The field of battle was arguably the most significant factor in deciding the outcome. The recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland favoured the English, both because of its narrowness, and because of the thick mud [21] [ through which the French knights had to walk.

An analysis by Battlefield Detectives has looked at the crowd T23] dynamics of the battlefield. The 1,—1, English men-at-arms are described as shoulder to shoulder and four deep, which implies a tight line about — men long perhaps split in two by a central group of archers. The remainder of the field would have been filled with the longbowmen behind their palings. The French first line contained men-at-arms who had no way to outflank the English line. The French, divided into the three battles, one behind the other at their initial starting position, could not bring all their forces to bear: the initial engagement was between the English army and the first battle line of the French.

When the second French battle line started their advance, the soldiers were pushed closer together and their effectiveness was reduced. Casualties in the front line from longbow arrows would also have increased the congestion, as the following men would have to walk around or over the fallen. Accounts of the battle describe the French engaging the English men-at-arms before being rushed from the sides by the Battle of Agincourt 31 longbowmen as the melee developed.

The English account in the Gesta Henrici says: "For when some of them, killed when battle was first joined, fall at the front, so great was the undisciplined violence and pressure of the mass of men behind them that the living fell on top of the dead, and others falling on top of the living were killed as [ well". Although the French initially pushed the English back, they became so closely packed that they are described as having trouble using their weapons properly. The French monk of St. Denis says: "Their vanguard, composed of about 5, men, found itself at first so tightly packed that those who were in the third rank could T scarcely use their swords", and the Burgundian sources have a similar passage.

In practice there was not enough room for all these men to fight, and they were unable to respond effectively when the English longbowmen joined the hand-to-hand fighting. By the time the second French line arrived, for a total of about eight thousand men depending on the source , the crush would have been even worse. The press of men arriving from behind actually hindered those fighting at the front. As the battle was fought on a recently ploughed field, and there had recently been heavy rain leaving it very muddy, it proved very tiring to walk through in full plate armour.

Denis describes the French troops as "marching through the middle of the mud where they sank up to their knees. So they were already overcome with fatigue even before they advanced against the enemy". The deep, soft mud particularly favoured the English force because, once knocked to the ground, the heavily armoured French knights had a hard time getting back up to fight in the melee. Barker states that some knights, encumbered by their armour, actually drowned in their helmets. Their limited mobility made them easy targets for the volleys from the English archers. The mud also increased the ability of the much more lightly armoured English archers to join in hand-to-hand fighting against the French men-at-arms.

Fighting Opening moves On the morning of 25 October the French were still waiting for additional troops to arrive. The Duke of [ Brabant about 2, men , the Duke of Anjou about men , [27] and the Duke of Brittany 6, no] men, according to Montstrelet , were all marching to join the army. This left the French with a question of whether or not to advance towards the English. For three hours after sunrise there was no fighting.

Military textbooks of the time stated "Everywhere and on all occasions that foot soldiers march against their enemy face to face, those who march lose and those [ who remain standing still and holding firm win". On top of this, the French were expecting thousands of men to join them if they waited. They were blocking Henry's retreat, and were perfectly happy to wait for as long as it took. There had even been a suggestion that the English would run away rather than give battle when they saw that they would be fighting so many French [30] princes.

Henry's men, on the other hand, were already very weary from hunger, illness and marching. Even though he knew as well as the French did that his army would perform better on the defensive, Henry was eventually forced to take a [ calculated risk, and move his army further forward to start the battle. This entailed abandoning his chosen position and pulling out, advancing, and then re-installing the long sharpened wooden stakes pointed outwards [ toward the enemy which helped protect the longbowmen from cavalry charges. The use of stakes was an "Morning of the Battle of Agincourt, 25th October ", painted by Sir John Gilbert Battle of Agincourt 32 innovation for the English: during the Battle of Crecy, for example, the archers were instead protected by pits and [ other obstacles.

If the French cavalry had charged before the stakes had been hammered back in, the result would probably have been disastrous for the English, as it was at the Battle of Patay. However, the French seem to have been caught off guard by the English advance. The tightness of the terrain also seems to have restricted the planned deployment of their forces.

The French had originally drawn up a battle plan that had archers and crossbowmen in front of their men-at-arms, with a cavalry force at the rear specifically designed to "fall upon the archers, and use their force to break them,' but in the event, the French archers and crossbowmen were deployed behind and to the sides of the men-at-arms where they seem to have played almost no part, except possibly for an initial volley of arrows at the start of the battle. The cavalry force, which could have devastated the English line if it had attacked while they moved their stakes, charged only after the initial volley of arrows from the English.

It is unclear whether the delay occurred because the French were hoping the English would launch a frontal assault and were surprised when the English instead started shooting from their new defensive position , or whether the French mounted knights instead did not react quickly enough to the English advance. French chroniclers agree that when the mounted charge did come, it did not contain as many men as it should have; Gilles le Bouvier states that some had wandered off to warm themselves T and others were walking or feeding their horses.

In any case, within extreme bowshot from the French line approximately yards , the longbowmen dug in their stakes and then opened the engagement with a long range barrage of arrows. The French cavalry attack The French cavalry, despite being somewhat disorganised and not at full numbers, charged the longbowmen, but it was a disaster, with the French knights unable to outflank the longbowmen because of the encroaching woodland and unable to charge through the forest of sharpened stakes that protected the archers. John Keegan argues that the longbows' main influence on the battle was at this point: armoured only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation long range shots used as the charge started.

The mounted charge and subsequent retreat churned up the already muddy terrain between the French and the English. Juliet Barker quotes a contemporary account by a monk of St. Denis who reports how the wounded and panicking horses galloped through the advancing infantry, scattering them and trampling them down in [37] their headlong flight from the battlefield. The Burgundian sources also say that the mounted cavalry retreated back into the forward ranks of French men-at-arms advancing on foot.

The main French assault The Constable of France himself led the attack of the dismounted French men-at-arms. French accounts describe their vanguard alone as containing about 5, men-at-arms, which would have outnumbered the English men-at-arms by more than 3 to 1, but before they could engage in hand-to-hand fighting they had to cross the muddy field under a bombardment of a hail of arrows.

The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as "a terrifying hail of arrow shot". To protect themselves as much as possible against the arrows they had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face — the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour.

This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armour weighing pounds 20—30 kg. Increasingly [30] they had to walk around or over fallen comrades. Battle of Agincourt 33 King Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt, , by Sir John Gilbert The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and actually pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point blank range.

When the archers ran out of arrows they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour combined with the English men-at-arms.

The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the [39] French men-at-arms could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line. The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground by the English and then unable to get back up.

As the melee developed, the French second line also joined the attack, but they too were swallowed up, with the narrow terrain meaning the extra numbers could not be used effectively. The French men-at-arms were taken prisoner or killed in their thousands. The fighting lasted about three hours, but eventually the leaders of the second line were killed or captured, as those of the first line had been.

The English Gesta Henrici describes three great heaps of the slain around the three main English standards. According to contemporary English accounts, Henry was directly involved in the hand-to-hand fighting. Upon hearing that his youngest brother Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester had been wounded in the groin, Henry took his household guard and stood over his brother, in the front rank of the fighting, until Humphrey could be dragged to safety; the king received an axe blow to the head which knocked off a piece of the crown that formed part of his helmet. The attack on the English baggage train The only French success was an attack on the lightly protected English baggage train, with Ysembart dAzincourt leading a small number of men-at-arms and varlets plus about peasants seizing some of Henry's personal treasures, including a crown.

Whether this was part of a deliberate French plan or an act of local brigandage is unclear from the sources. Certainly, dAzincourt was a local knight but he may have been chosen to lead the attack because of his local knowledge and the lack of availability of a more senior soldier. In some accounts the attack happened towards the end of the battle, and led the English to think they were being attacked from the rear. Barker, following the Gesta Henrici, believed to have been written by an English chaplain who was actually in the baggage train, concludes that the attack happened at the start of the battle [43] Henry orders the killing of the prisoners Regardless of when the baggage assault happened, there was a point after the initial English victory where Henry became alarmed that the French were regrouping for another attack.

The Gesta Henrici puts this after the English had overcome the onslaught of the French men-at-arms, and the weary English troops were eyeing the French rearguard "in incomparable number and still fresh". Le Fevre and Wavrin similarly say that it was signs of the French rearguard regrouping and "marching forward in battle order" which made the English think they were still in a [45] danger. In any event, Henry ordered the slaughter of what was perhaps several thousand French prisoners, with only the most high ranked and presumably most able to pay a large ransom being spared.

His fear was that the prisoners would rearm themselves with the weapons strewn upon the field, and the exhausted English would be overwhelmed. Though ruthless, it was arguably justifiable given the situation of the battle; perhaps surprisingly, even the French Battle of Agincourt 34 chroniclers do not criticise him for this. This marked the end of the battle, as the French rearguard, having seen so many of the French nobility captured and killed, fled the battlefield.

Aftermath Due to a lack of reliable sources it is impossible to give a precise figure for the French and English casualties. However, it is clear that though the English were outnumbered, their losses were far lower than those of the French. The French sources all give 4,—10, French dead, with up to 1, English dead. The lowest ratio in these French sources has the French losing six times more men than the English. The English sources vary between about T 1, and 1 1, for the French dead, with English dead put at no more than Barker identifies from the available records "at least" 1 12 Englishmen who died in the fighting including Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, a grandson of Edward III , but this excludes the wounded.

One widely used estimate puts the English casualties at , not an insignificant number in an army of about 8,, but far fewer than the thousands the French lost, nearly all of whom were killed or captured. Using the lowest French estimate of their own dead of 4, would imply a ratio of nearly 9 to 1 in favour of the English, or over 10 to 1 if the prisoners are included.

The French suffered heavily. A design might have good speed, armour, or firepower, but not all three at the same time. Facing the deadlock of trench warfare, the first tank designs focused on crossing wide trenches, requiring very long and large vehicles, such as the British Mark I tank; these became known as heavy tanks. Tanks that focused on other combat roles were smaller, like the French Renault FT; these were light tanks or tankettes.

Many late-war and inter-war tank designs diverged from these according to new, though mostly untried, concepts for future tank roles and tactics. Each nation tended to create its own list of tank classes with different intended roles, such as 'cavalry tanks', 'breakthrough tanks', 'fast tanks', and 'assault tanks'.

The British maintained cruiser tanks that focused on speed, and infantry tanks that traded speed for more armour. Evolution of the general-purpose medium tank[edit]Main article: Medium tank Abandoned French Hotchkiss H light cavalry tank, Battle of France, After years of isolated and divergent development, the various interwar tank concepts were finally tested with the start of World War II. In the chaos of blitzkrieg, tanks designed for a single role often found themselves forced into battlefield situations they were ill-suited for. During the war, limited-role tank designs tended to be replaced by more general-purpose designs, enabled by improving tank technology.

Tank classes became mostly based on weight and the corresponding transport and logistical needs. This led to new definitions of heavy and light tank classes, with medium tanks covering the balance of those between. The German Panzer IV tank, designed before the war as a 'heavy' tank for assaulting fixed positions, got redesigned during the war with armour and gun upgrades to allow it to take on anti-tank roles as well, was reclassified as a medium tank.

The second half of World War II saw an increased reliance on general-purpose medium tanks, which became the bulk of the tank combat forces. Late war tank development placed increased emphasis on armour, armament, and anti-tank capabilities for medium tanks: New Panther tanks being loaded for transport to the Eastern FrontThe German Panther tank, designed to counter the Soviet T, had both armament and armour increased over previous medium tanks.

The powerful Maybach HL P30 engine and robust running gear meant that even though the Panther tipped the scales at 50 tons[4] — sizeable for its day — it was actually quite maneuverable, offering better off-road speed than the Panzer IV. However, its rushed development led to reliability and maintenance issues. The Soviet T incorporated many of the lessons learned with the extensive use of the T model, and some of those modifications were used in the first MBTs, like a modern torsion suspension, instead of the Christie suspension version of the T, and a transversally mounted engine that simplified its gearbox.

These features include an automatic transmission mounted in the rear, torsion bar suspension[7] and had an early form of a powerpack. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Development of the Rolls-Royce Meteor engine for the Cromwell tank, combined with efficiency savings elsewhere in the design, almost doubled the available horsepower for cruiser tanks.

Continued development of the basic Cromwell design led eventually to the Centurion. Centurion was designed as a cruiser tank, usually prioritizing mobility and firepower at the expense of armor, but the increase in engine power allowed sufficient armour to be mounted to undertake the Infantry tank role as well. Development of the universal tank ceased, and Centurion entered service just as World War II finished, becoming a multi-role vehicle forming the main battle tank force of the British army and other nations through export.

The addition of the 20 pounder gun in gave the tank a significant advantage over other tanks of the era. By the early s, these designs were clearly no longer competitive, especially in a world of shaped charge weapons, and new designs rapidly emerged from most armed forces. Also, the heaviest tanks were unable to use most existing bridges.

The World War II concept of heavy tanks, armed with the most powerful guns and heaviest armour, became obsolete because the large tanks were too expensive and just as vulnerable to damage by mines, bombs, rockets, and artillery. Likewise, World War II had shown that lightly armed and armoured tanks were of limited value in most roles. Even reconnaissance vehicles had shown a trend towards heavier weight and greater firepower during World War II; speed was not a substitute for armour and firepower. Soviet T undergoing decontamination.

An increasing variety of anti-tank weapons and the perceived threat of a nuclear war prioritized the need for additional armour. The additional armour prompted the design of even more powerful guns. Typical main battle tanks were as well armed as any other vehicle on the battlefield, highly mobile, and well armoured. Yet they were cheap enough to be built in large numbers.

Anti-tank weapons rapidly outpaced armour developments. By the s anti-tank rounds could penetrate a meter of steel so as to make the application of traditional rolled homogeneous armour unpragmatic. The first solution to this problem was the composite armor of Soviet T tank, which included steel-glass-reinforced textolite-steel sandwich in heavily sloped glacis plates, and steel turret with aluminum inserts, which helped to resist both high-explosive anti-tank HEAT and APDS shells of the era.

Later came British Chobham armour. This composite armour utilized layers of ceramics and other materials to help attenuate the effects of HEAT munitions. Another threat came by way of the widespread use of helicopters in battle. Before the advent of helicopters, armour was heavily concentrated to the front of the tank. This new threat caused designs to distribute armour on all sides of the tank also having the effect of protecting the vehicle's occupants from nuclear explosion radiation. Any weapon advancement making the MBT obsolete could have devastated the Soviet Union's fighting capability.

Autoloaders were introduced to replace the human loader, permitting the turret to be reduced in size, making the tank smaller and less visible as a target,[16] while missile systems were added to extend the range at which a vehicle could engage a target and thereby enhance the first-round hit probability. In asymmetric warfare, threats such as improvised explosive devices and mines have proven effective against MBTs. In response, nations that face asymmetric warfare, such as Israel, are reducing the size of their tank fleet and procuring more advanced models.

They proved to have an unexpectedly high vulnerability to improvised explosive devices. However, with upgrades to their rear armour, M1s proved to be valuable in urban combat; at the Second Battle of Fallujah the United States Marines brought in two extra companies of M1s. Advanced armour has not improved vehicle survivability, but has reduced crew fatalities. Experimental tanks with unmanned turrets locate crew members in the heavily armoured hull, improving survivability and reducing the vehicle's profile.

The obsolescence of the tank has been asserted, but the history of the late 20th and early 21st century suggested that MBTs were still necessary. States such as Japan, Bangladesh and Indonesia lacking expeditionary ambitions, or even credible land-based threats from abroad, are bolstering their ground forces with MBTs for the express purpose of maintaining internal security.

Gun mantlet3. Coaxial gun4. Bore evacuator5. Main gun6. Driver's optics7. Driver's hatch8. Glacis plate9. Continuous track Machine gun ammunition Commander's machine gun Hatch or cupola Gun turret Turret ring Engine air intake Engine compartment Side skirt only the front skirts are armoured on the Abrams. Drive sprocket Road wheel Countermeasures[edit] The Challenger 2 is equipped with Dorchester armour, an advanced composite armour. Originally, most MBTs relied on steel armour to defend against various threats.

As newer threats emerged, however, the defensive systems used by MBTs had to evolve to counter them. One of the first new developments was the use of explosive reactive armour ERA , developed by Israel in the early s to defend against the shaped-charge warheads of modern anti-tank guided missiles and other such high-explosive anti-tank HEAT projectiles.

This technology was subsequently adopted and expanded upon by the United States and the Soviet Union.

FREE Ebook Download PDF Page enanatulifyb.ml

Missiles are cheap and cost-effective anti-tank weapons. However, the detonation of ERA blocks creates a hazard to any supporting infantry near the tank. Despite this drawback, it is still employed on many Russian MBTs, the latest generation Kontakt-5 being capable of defeating both HEAT and kinetic energy penetrator threats. The Soviets also developed Active Protection Systems APS designed to more actively neutralize hostile projectiles before they could even strike the tank, namely the Shtora and Arena systems.

The T Armata has a turret designed to be harder to detect with radars and thermal sights. Chobham armour uses a lattice of composite and ceramic materials along with metal alloys to defeat incoming threats, and proved highly effective in the conflicts in Iraq in the early s and s; surviving numerous impacts from —60s—era rocket-propelled grenades with negligible damage. It is much less efficient against later models of RPGs.

For example, the RPG from the s is able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger 2. Main battle tanks are equipped with a main tank gun, and at least one machine gun. The cannon serves a dual role, able to engage other armoured targets such as tanks and fortifications, and soft targets such as light vehicles and infantry. It is fixed to the turret, along with the loading and fire mechanism. Gun-missile systems are complicated and have been particularly unsatisfactory to the United States who abandoned gun-missile projects such as the M60A2 and MBT,[44] but have been diligently developed by the Soviet Union, who even retrofitted them to T tanks, in an effort to double the effective range of the vehicle's fire.

The MBT's role could be compromised because of the increasing distances involved and the increased reliance on indirect fire. Anti-personnel rounds such as high explosive or high explosive fragmentation have dual purpose. Less common rounds are Beehive anti-personnel rounds, and high explosive squash head HESH rounds used for both anti-armour and bunker busting. Some MBTs may also carry smoke or white phosphorus rounds. MBTs with an autoloader require one less crew member and the autoloader requires less space than its human counterpart, allowing for a reduction in turret size.

Further, an autoloader can be designed to handle rounds which would be too difficult for a human to load. However, with a manual loader, the rounds can be isolated within a blowout chamber, rather than a magazine within the turret, which could improve crew survivability. Composite reactive armour could withstand this kind of force through its deflection and deformation, but with a second hit in the same area, an armour breach is inevitable. As such, the speed of follow up shots is crucial within tank to tank combat.

However, their effectiveness is limited in comparison to dedicated anti-aircraft artillery. The tank's machine guns are usually equipped with between and rounds each. A former British Army Challenger 1MBTs, like previous models of tanks, move on continuous tracks, which allow a decent level of mobility over most terrain including sand and mud.

They also allow tanks to climb over most obstacles. The extreme weight of vehicles of this type 45—70 tons also limits their speed. Its relatively low weight 54 tonnes facilitates mobility, especially while crossing bridges. The MBT is often cumbersome in traffic and frequently obstructs the normal flow of traffic. The tracks can damage some roads after repeated use.

Many structures like bridges do not have the load capacity to support an MBT. In the fast pace of combat, it is often impossible to test the sturdiness of these structures. In the invasion of Iraq, an M1 Abrams attempting to cross a bridge to evade enemy fire plummeted into the Euphrates river when the bridge collapsed. The high cost of MBTs can be attributed in part to the high-performance engine-transmission system and to the fire control system. Also, propulsion systems are not produced in high enough quantities to take advantage of economies of scale.

Reducing the crew to three and relocating all crewmembers from the turret to the hull could provide time to sleep for one off-shift crewmember located in the rear of the hull. In this scenario, crewmembers would rotate shifts regularly and all would require cross-training on all vehicle job functions. The absence of sufficient numbers of strategic airlift assets can limit the rate of MBT deployments to the number of aircraft available. Internal space is reserved for ammunition. External space enhances independence of logistics and can accommodate extra fuel and some personal equipment of the crew.

The crew must perform their tasks faultlessly and harmoniously so commanders select teams taking into consideration personalities and talents. The main battle tank fulfills the role the British had once called the 'universal tank', filling almost all battlefield roles. Reconnaissance by MBTs is performed in high-intensity conflicts where reconnaissance by light vehicles would be insufficient due to the necessity to 'fight' for information. MBTs fire only at targets at close range and instead rely on external support such as unmanned aircraft for long range combat.

Procuring too many varieties can place a burden on tactics, training, support and maintenance. MBT production is increasingly being outsourced to wealthy nations. Countries that are just beginning to produce tanks are having difficulties remaining profitable in an industry that is increasingly becoming more expensive through the sophistication of technology.

Even some large-scale producers are seeing declines in production. Even China is divesting many of its MBTs. Commercial manufacturers of civilian vehicles cannot easily be repurposed as MBT production facilities. You can help by adding to it. See also[edit]Wikimedia Commons has media related to Main battle tanks.

Armoured warfareList of U. A French View of Counterinsurgency, trans. Daniel Lee, Pitting a traditional combined armed force trained and equipped to defeat similar military organisations against insurgents reminds one of a pile driver attempting to crush a fly, indefatigably persisting in repeating its efforts.

Panther: Germany's Quest for Combat Dominance. Osprey Publishing. Tank Encyclopedia. Retrieved 5 July American Fighting Vehicle Database. Retrieved 18 August P Berkeley, California: Feist Publications. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust. The New York Times. Retrieved 13 September Zarzecki Psychology Press. Retrieved 5 April Armour defuses the neutron bomb. Reed Business Information.

Retrieved 29 July Retrieved 4 April Isby Weapons and tactics of the Soviet Army. Else III. Bias in weapon development. Retrieved 12 March The Canadian strategic forecast. Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. Tools of violence: guns, tanks and dirty bombs. Archived from the original on 30 June Retrieved 6 April Retrieved 21 July Naval and amphibious warfare focused states such as Japan and Indonesia are acquiring new tanks to build capacity in land warfare urban warfare in Japan's case.

Bangladesh, as a developing nation, is acquiring cheaper Chinese MBTs for similar reasons. None of these states expect to use these tanks for an expeditionary purpose, or even against a foreign invader. MBTs can play an important role in maintaining internal security. Cordesman Greenwood Publishing Group. Retrieved 14 February USA Today. Retrieved 9 April Cordesman; Aram Nerguizian; Ionut C. Popescu Retrieved 1 April Sussex Academic Press.

A Claytons Defense. Strategic Book Publishing. Asia-Pacific Defence Publications. Retrieved 2 April Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Brassey's Defence Publishers. The Oxford Companion to Military History. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 22 May Nii Stali. Archived from the original on 9 October Hurriet Daily News. Daily Mail. Sunday Telegraph.

Military Publications Ltd. Weapons of War. Gallery Books.

© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.

Retrieved 18 February Committee on Adiabatic Diesel Technology National Academies. Retrieved 4 May British Defence: A Blueprint for Reform. Brasseys Defence. Continuum International Publishing Group. Zenith Imprint. The Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the World. Retrieved 3 May Committee on Appropriations Department of Defense Appropriations for , Part 6. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile viewDespite advances in armor-defeating weapons, the Main Battle Tank remains the cornerstone of every modern land army's true strength on the battlefield.

Main Battle Tanks MBT Despite advances in armor-defeating weapons, the Main Battle Tank remains the cornerstone of every modern land army's true strength on the battlefield. During the conflict, land forces relied on a mix of light, medium and heavy tank types to fulfill various requirements. The MBT arose out of a need for a 'Universal Tank' concept capable of achieving the same results through a single design. With the advent of lighter composite armor, engineers fashioned a new fighting machine which has remained the mainstay of modern land forces today.

In more recent years, some land forces have been abandoning the MBT concept in favor of more mobile, lightweight wheeled armored vehicles. Entries are listed below in alphanumeric order 1-to-Z. Flag images indicative of country of origin and not necessarily primary operator. The 'Military Factory' name and MilitaryFactory.

Material presented throughout this website is for historical and entertainment value only and should not to be construed as usable for hardware restoration, maintenance, or general operation. We do not sell any of the items showcased on this site. Please direct all other inquiries to militaryfactory AT gmail. Part of a network of sites that includes GlobalFirepower, a data-driven property used in ranking the top military powers of the world.

By David. In between, there was the Soviet era, with a history of building tanks spanning from the early s with copies of the Renault FT to the T MBT in the s. An immense country which wide, unencumbered steppes providing an ideal terrain for tanks warfare, but at the same time climatic conditions which pushed mechanics to the extremes. Hello, dear reader! This article is in need of some care and attention and may contain errors or inaccuracies. If you spot anything out of place, please let us know!

After the turmoil of the end of the USSR and the creation of the Russian Federation, and the reconstruction of the army, the T just had to probe into this wealth of experience, engineering, industrial capabilities, and proud legacy. However, with the opening to the west, a wealth of technical information were also available about the real capabilities and technologies used on Western, 3rd generation MBTs.

So it was obvious the new tank had to be on par with other western competitors, and on comparable assets. This led to a composite but very efficient model which constitutes the bulk of the Russian armored division today, soon to be gradually replaced by new the T Armata. The elite divisions are equipped with the even costlier Ts. It was also an excellent base for improvements, and an export success. The paradox was that it was costlier than the T, much ended to be built than the T which was seen at first as a simple evolution of the TB, at first called the TBU.

The T itself was a derivative of the controversial, revolutionary T back in the s. It must be recalled that the T was the first Soviet MBT fitted with a turbine, in addition to its regular diesel engine. The latter was rushed out and caused much turmoil and reliability issues, which had to be fixed on the long run.

The TU appeared in and was given a full Kontakt5 explosive reactive armour set, along with an improved gunsight and the brand new 9K Refleks gun missile system. Five year after its introduction it was given a 1,hp engine. It was on this base that the T was partially modelled: Although the core of the TB was kept, many components came from the TU.

We know how often these prospects have failed by the past. Indeed the T did not met all the expectations placed in it but was overall more reliable and cheaper to built, maintain and operate than the T Development historyIn , came out a crucial decision from the Russian Ministry of Defence that Russian culd not afford anymore to manufacture, maintain and upgrade two main battle tanks in parallel. However both the TU and TB production were seen as essential for the local economy of the manufacturers, and the government was found forced to maintain small orders.

Indeed, the Omsk plant delivered only five TUs while Nizhny Tagil had fifteen Ts in the meantime, but both expected further orders to came, or eventually to be chosen for the unique MBT projected. The resulting production hybrid in was to be built chiefly in Nizhny Tagil, but with components manufactured at Osmk, a plan that seemed to reach general agreement between the state and parties involved. Basically, the production model was unveiled in as the T prototype, featuring a hp kW diesel engine. The preserie was launched in It also featured an upgraded version of the Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour on the hull and turret, but had overall the conventional layout of the well-proven T However every single system and sub-system aspect of the T saw improvements, so the general final T product of could be seen as a well-upgraded variant.

One of these modifications also includes the the main gun. T rear view. After the start of a mass-production, the TS was chosen as an export model, with the usual downgrades. The production had eventually ceased in , after the T was first revealed and its own production was scheduled to start in early The TMS price was evaluated to 4. It was coupled to a 1 kW ABP28 auxiliary power unit which served several subsystems on board, without starting the main engine.

This was enough for this 46 tonnes MBT to reach speeds up to 60 kph and around 45 kph cross-country, due to a power to weight ratio of The transmission was manual, with 7 forward gears and 1 reverse. This power was passed onto the ground by the same drivetrain than the TB, six doubled cast roadwheels per side, and three return rollers, resting on torsion bar suspensions. Range was around km with internal capacity of 1. Ground pressure was 0. Performances were as follows: Fording depth 1. It was capable to cross a trench 2.

With the addition of additional armour and equipments, the weight rose to

Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)
Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)
Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)
Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)
Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)
Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)
Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)
Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68) Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)

Related Osprey The Military Sniper since 1914 (Elite #68)

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved