Skipman Posted 20 January , 2020 Share Posted 20 January , 2020 Here is an alternative version of how the "Tank" came to be known as such. Do you think there's any substance to this or is the generally accepted 'water-tank' code-name more likely. Have attached an image of a WW1 motor cycle petrol tank. While we're at it, is there a definitive source for the 'water-tank' version? The Strathearn Herald - Saturday 20 January 1917 ran this article: "Discussing the name "Tank," as applied to these monsters which played such havoc among the Germans on the western front recently. Motor Cycling says:- Manned by the men of the Motor Machine Gun Corps, the "Armoured Cars, Heavy" ("Tank"). soon received a particularly apposite name. Look at the modern motor cycle tank, with its upturned front and down-turned end, and then at a photograph of the real article. Can it be wondered that these land ironclads should be dubbed immediately "Tanks" by their motor cyclist crew" Official phraseology, unusually apt to accept popular nomenclature, seized on the handy abbreviation of "Armoured Cars, Heavy," and hence the word became world famous." Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 20 January , 2020 Share Posted 20 January , 2020 The water tank story came after the name. They were originally Land Ships but the Land Ships committee thought that the name might give the game away so someone suggested Water Carriers. The members, not wishing to be part of the WC Committee looked for alternatives. Cistern was ruled out, tank was chosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 20 January , 2020 Author Share Posted 20 January , 2020 Thanks Gareth. So just guess-work on the part of the motorcyle magazine. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 20 January , 2020 Share Posted 20 January , 2020 Yes, guesswork. Or as it is sometimes known, bollox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 20 January , 2020 Author Share Posted 20 January , 2020 1 hour ago, Gareth Davies said: bollox. From a newspaper? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 20 January , 2020 Share Posted 20 January , 2020 That would be a Furphy then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 21 January , 2020 Share Posted 21 January , 2020 Please somebody enjoy my convoluted attempt at a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyH Posted 21 January , 2020 Share Posted 21 January , 2020 44 minutes ago, Muerrisch said: Please somebody enjoy my convoluted attempt at a joke. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buelligan Posted 23 January , 2020 Share Posted 23 January , 2020 There's some eye-witness testimony to the naming in the absolutely fascinating series of podcasts from the IWM. Here's an extract from the one on tanks Quote The arrival of the tanks on the Western Front was kept secret from those who wouldn’t be going into battle with them. Horace Calvert explained how this was achieved. They were on the roadside covered with tarpaulin sheets: we couldn’t see nothing except a square outline and there was two or three around it, guarding it. And when we asked what it was, the simple reply was, ‘Tanks.’ We naturally assumed water tanks and we’d no reason to think otherwise. It was one of the best kept secrets, I think, on that front. Knowing the shortage of water, we thought we were getting reserve supplies to make sure there was adequate supplies. And that was accepted by all, I believe. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/voices-of-the-first-world-war-tanks-on-the-somme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now