YEARS OF
THE TANK
YEARS OF
THE TANK
Real
steel
There has not been a bigger symbol of valour since tanks
roared into the battlefield 100 years ago
Dual role: For common people,
tanks can be motivating as well as menacing
BY DNYANESH JATHAR
M
umbra is often in the news for wrong reasons—com-munal tension, collapsing build-ings, massive land encroachments, illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. This suburb of Thane with a sizeable Muslim population has been electing a Hindu legislator, Nationalist Congress Party's Jitendra Awhad, for more than a decade now. A few years ago, Awhad decided to build a memorial for Manish Pitambare, who died in a gun battle in Jammu and Kashmir in 2006. “Something which will instil secular-ism and nationalsecular-ism in people,” said Awhad. And he did something unusual. He obtained an old Vijayanta battle tank, painted it and installed it right outside the Mumbra railway station.Why did Awhad choose a tank? His explanation cites nationalism, bravery and the sacrifice of our soldiers. Still, a tank? “There is something impressive about them,” he said. “They are moti-vating and menacing at the same time.” From a commoner's point of view the two adjectives capture everything that a battle tank stands for. For them, it is a symbol of military might and sheer power.
The tank was invented to break the stalemate on the western front in World War I by crossing trenches and penetrating enemy lines. The earliest example of a vehicle which had a simi-lar function could perhaps be chariots and the Roman siege engines—wheeled wooden towers which were used to destroy enemy fortifications. The ori-gins of the tank, however, should not be traced back to siege engines or a chariot. If there was anything that per-formed a role similar to the
modern-day tanks, it was the knight in shining armour. His armour protected him, his horse moved him swiftly and his sword provided the firepower.
These are exactly what make a battle tank unique—it is a perfect combina-tion of mobility, armour and firepower. In fact, two geniuses had envisioned a combat vehicle quite similar to a battle tank—Leonardo da Vinci designed a wooden combat vehicle, and H.G. Wells wrote a story in The Strand Magazine in 1903 prophesying the birth of a combat vehicle.
A century before Awhad made his tank memorial in Mumbra, an Australian engineer named Lancelot de Mole submitted an idea of a tracked armoured vehicle to the British war office. It was rejected outright. Around the same time, Gunther Burstyn, an Austrian army officer, designed what he called Motorgeschutz (motor gun) using American farm tractors.
YEARS OF
THE TANK
1
It had a swivelling turret and was lightly armoured. Burstyn's prototype, however, was rejected by the Austro-Hungarian empire citing lack of funds.
The credit for invention of the tank does not go to one person. According to a New York Times report pub-lished on October 7, 1919, the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors had investigated claims of 11 inven-tors (12 persons, as two of them were a team) of making battle tanks. One of these 12 men was Lancelot De Mole. He, however, did not receive any award. But the commission acknowl-edged that his design was superior and his ideas were ahead of the times.
First among the award winners, whose claim to have invented the tank was upheld, was major-general Ernest Swinton, a Bangalore-born British army officer. He was awarded 1,000 pounds for advocating the overall con-cept, setting the design and overseeing the project which resulted in produc-tion of Little Willie, the first battle tank, in 1915.
Winston Churchill, who was the first lord of admiralty during World War I, was firm in his belief that no one person could be credited with invention of the tank. Churchill was right. The tank was an idea born out of sheer necessity—resulting from car-nage in trench warfare on the western front in World War I, and nobody knew it better than Churchill.
“WHERE THE CONNECTING
trench joined in, an unfortunate fel-low was stretched out, decapitated by a shell, just as if he had been guil-lotined. Beside him, another was frightfully mutilated... I saw, as if hallucinating, a pile of corpses... they had started to bury in the trench itself... 'There is no one here but the dead', I exclaimed.”
These lines are from Poilu, written by corporal Louis Barthas, who served in the French army. He maintained a notebook while serving in the Great War and that notebook became Poilu,
one of the best works to emerge from the war. The book captures horrify-ing life in trenches across the western front.
Trench warfare could blunt any offensive. “The outcome was deadlock, particularly on the western front in France, with neither side being able to break through other's defences by the traditional massed infantry attacks,” writes military historian Richard Ogorkiewicz in his book, Tank: 100 Years of Evolution. “The immediate problem became that of finding a way that would enable infantry to continue to attack in the face of machine guns and barbed wires. In response to this came the proposals for armoured assault vehicles that could pave the way for infantry by attacking enemy machine guns and by crushing the barbed wires.”
When these proposals were mooted, tanks were envisioned in a supporting role—to bridge trenches, crush barbed wires and neutralise machine gun nests so that the infantry could launch large-scale attacks. The generals
con-ducting the war wanted the tank, but they wanted it to play second fiddle to the infantry.
Tanks entered the battlefield on September 15, 1916, at the Battle of Somme. Of 49 tanks introduced, only 36 saw action and just nine suc-ceeded in crossing the 'no man's land' to attack German lines. The first tank ever to fire on enemy positions was commanded by a British Jew named Basil Henriques. His machine reached the frontline 20 minutes earlier than expected and he just kept going, writes Patrick Wright in Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine, a brilliant work on military and cultural history of tank as weapon of war and dominance.
ON THE DAY the British tanks first
appeared on the battlefield, the psy-chological impact they made was immense. The German infantry was simply stunned. It was the German heavy artillery which reacted by pounding these new machines.
“NO BASTARD ever won a war by dying for his country. You win it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his
country,” said General George S. Patton, Jr, in his speech to the 6th Armored Division of the US army in 1944.
Patton did everything with conviction. Even in his casual talks with the men he commanded, he stressed the point that you fight and kill others to win in a war. ‘Attack, attack, and when in doubt, attack again’ was his mantra. He cajoled his men, shouted at them, slapped them on occasion and drove them so hard that his Third Army became, arguably, the best fighting force among the Allies.
Patton hailed from a family that had a military background. As a child, he often said he would one day become General Patton. In 1916, after the US entered World War I, he was appointed commander of the headquarters company of the American Expeditionary Force in France. His lifelong affair with tanks began here. He requested General John J. Pershing, the commander of the AEF, to transfer him to the tank corps. In 1917, Patton was asked to establish a light tank school for the First US army. He was among the first American soldiers to work on development of the tank arm of the US army.
Patton’s light tank school became a reality in February 1918, but he had no tanks to train his troops with. The troops trained with plywood tanks that had turrets fit-ted with 8mm guns. By May that year, Patton’s tank school had a contingent of 25 Renault FT light tanks, courtesy of the French. In the last
year of the war, Patton led a tank battalion in the Saint-Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne offensives.
During the Meuse-Argonne offensive, he thought of a novel way to refuel tanks: by tying jerrycans filled with fuel to each tank, so they could dash ahead without waiting for replenishments. His battalion also set up the first roving maintenance shop in a tank to tackle break-downs without delay.
Patton was a lieutenant general when the US army landed in north Africa to take on Erwin Rommel and his German Africa Korps in 1942. His Seventh Army recap-tured Sicily in just over a month in 1943. Entrusted with the command of the newly created Third Army, Patton landed in Europe soon after the Normandy landings. He launched his offensive without slightest delay from the
Cherbourg peninsula. From then on, nobody could stop the juggernaut of the Third Army. Metz, a heavily fortified town which had not fallen in 400 years, fell to the onslaught of his tanks.
Like a tidal wave, the Third Army rolled on across France. It achieved a monu-mental feat in the Battle of the Bulge at the end of 1944, when it reached Bastogne covering 160km on roads covered with snow. As more than 2,50,000 German troops commanded by Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt launched a massive attack on the Allies, General Dwight D. Eisenhower asked Patton, “Could you make it to Bastogne in three days?” Patton reached in two, thus turning the tide.
After the defeat of Germany, Patton was made military governor of Bavaria. He died in an automobile accident in Heidelberg in 1945.
ever mass use of tanks. German gener-al Erich Ludendorff described August 8, 1918, after an immensely successful tank attack by the enemies, as a “black day in the history of Germany”. It was a clear pointer to which way the tanks turned the war.
In the 1920s, military establish-ments in Britain and France, two nations that effectively deployed tanks against Germany in World War I, were reluctant to accept that the sun had risen on armoured warfare. A handful of men, like Major-General J.F.C Fuller, Captain B.H. Liddell Hart, General Jean Eugene Estienne, tried their best to convince the top brass of the British and French defence establishments that the future wars would be decided by tanks and mechanised forces.
Germany and Soviet Russia, on the other hand, had slowly woken up to the opportunities that tank forces could open up in the battlefield. With the Treaty of Versailles (which ended the war between Germany and the Allied Powers) depriving
Man of action
◆
General George S. Patton, Jr (1885-1945)One-man juggernaut
Patton’s light tank
school became a
reality in February
1918, but he had
no tanks to train
his troops with.
The troops trained
with plywood
tanks that had
turrets fitted with
8mm guns.
AFP
Mightier than gun: Tanks
seemed ineffective on very few occasions, like this one in Tiananmen Square in 1989
against Pakistani aggression. On November 1, 1948, M5 Stuart light tanks from the 7th Cavalry regiment were dismantled and airlifted to Zoji La pass in the Himalayas—11,000 feet above sea level—by General K.S. Thimayya. He led the battle from a lead tank and recaptured the cru-cial pass from Pakistani infiltrators. “The greatest Indian strategic suc-cess by employment of tanks was the recapture of the otherwise impreg-nable, 11,578 feet high, Zoji La pass, which enabled them to relieve Leh and recapture vast bulk of Ladakh. These areas, without Zoji La, were for all purposes lost to Indians. Today, the Pakistani army is still paying the price for loss of Zoji La with approximately three infantry brigades committed in Pakistan-held Kashmir opposite Indian-Pakistan-held Ladakh,” writes Agha Humayun Amin, a former Pakistan army tank corps major, in his book Handling of Tanks in Indo-Pak Wars.
RECAPTURE OF ZOJI La with
the help of tanks was flashed across newspapers in India. This, perhaps, was the moment when a battle tank as a symbol of valour entered Indian imagination and consciousness. “The use of tanks at Zoji La, use of tanks of Central India Horse in recapture of Jhangar and Rajouri in 1948, position-ing of AMX 13 tanks of 8th Cavalry at Changu and Nathu La and airlift-ing tanks of 20 Lancers to Chushul in 1962 were bold moves that paid hand-some dividends to the Army. These examples have won accolades all over the world and speak volumes of the brilliant planning and audaciousness of our commanders,” said Lt-Gen (retired) Anil Malik, a veteran of the armoured corps.
Every society has, and needs, such symbols of valour. Rana Pratap's famed horse, Chetak, and Tipu Sultan's mechanical toy of a tiger slaying a British soldier, are classic examples of animals and machines Germany of having access to tanks, the
Reichswehr (military organisation) of the Weimar Republic (which replaced the German empire) relied on the Soviets, and a secret tank warfare school was jointly opened at Kazan in the USSR in 1926. Young German officers who showed interest in mechanised and mobile warfare were trained here.
A wave of reformation was secretly under way in the German Army at this time. It was initiated by its visionary chief Hans von Seeckt, who believed that Germany's tiny Reichswehr—a force of one lakh soldiers—must be open to embrace every possible mod-ern military thought. Born out of this was officers like General Oswald Lutz and Heinz Guderian who creatively used their postings in motorised trans-port supply units to create dummy tanks. When Adolf Hitler first saw Guderian's real tanks at a parade in 1934, so impressed was the Fuehrer that he kept saying, “This is what I want, this is what I will have.”
It was in World War II that tanks became barons of battlefield. If the innovative sloping armour and the 76mm gun made the Soviet T-34 the best practical tank on the eastern front, the 88mm gun and 100mm thick armour made the German Tiger the mightiest.
Tanks clashed in the battles of France, Tobruk, El Alamein, Raseinai, Dubno-Brody, Stalingrad, Kharkov and Kursk-Prokhorovka. At the beginning of their attack on France in May 1940, Germans moved panzer divisions through Ardennes forest. Forests are a hostile terrain for tanks, but the persisting Germans reached the English Channel coastline of France and defeated the French. Interestingly, 18th Cavalry, an Indian armoured regiment, was at the van-guard defending Tobruk in north Africa against Field Marshal Erwin Rommel's onslaught in 1942. Six years later, India did something astonishing to defend its territory 6.86m 2.23m 0.49m 46.5 tonnes 550km India Saudi Arabia Turkmenistan
YEARS OF
THE TANK
1
becoming symbols of valour. With the recapture of Zoji La, the tank became the latest symbol of valour for the newly-born Indian nation.
Lt-Col Ardeshir Tarapore became another symbol of courage and leader-ship after the 1965 war with Pakistan. Tarapore, who died in the war, was awarded ParamVir Chakra. He led his regiment, the Poona Horse, from the front, and the cupola of his Centurion tank, named Kooshab, was always open, as he would be standing in it. Tarapore was hit by shrapnel in the initial days of the war. He bandaged it and went back into action. A few days later, he was hit by a shell while stand-ing outside his tank.
Another famed armoured regiment, 3rd Cavalry, knocked out 103 Pakistani Patton tanks in the Battle of Asal Uttar in the 1965 war. Bhikiwind village in Punjab had so many conked-out Pattons that it was called Patton Nagar.
In the 1971 war, Second Lieutenant Arun Khetrapal from the Poona Horse lost his life battling Pakistani tanks in the Battle of Basantar. Barely 22, Khetrapal is the youngest recipient of Param Vir Chakra. Lt-Col Hanut Singh, who commanded the Poona Horse at that time, received Maha Vir Chakra.
Khetrapal had been asked to leave for a training course at Armoured Corps Centre and School
in Ahmednagar just before the war started. But he told Hanut Singh about his desire to fight the war along with the regiment. The commandant con-ducted a course similar to the training course for Khetrapal in the regiment. Khetrapal passed the course with fly-ing colours and Hanut Sfly-ingh let him command troops in the battlefield.
According to Malik, the Pakistani armour was quantitively and qualita-tively superior to the Indian armour in the 1965 war, yet the Indian armour could hold its own. “The reasons can best be attributed to three major fac-tors: leadership, good training and high level of motivation. Superior training, competence in handling the
Many tanks played important roles in the wars of the past
100 years, but these ones stood out for their design, fire
power and reputation
MEAN MACHINES
T-34
Country:
THE USSR
German Field Marshal Ewald von Kleist called this medium tank
the finest in the world when he first encountered it in 1941. General
Heinz Guderian, too, found it vastly superior to German tanks,
which was a surprise because German tanks were considered the
best those days owing to their combat history. Designed by Mikhail
Koshkin and later Alexander Morozov, the T-34's best feature was its
sloping armour. It had an F 34 tank gun and two 7.62 machine guns.
It had been in use in many countries till the late 1980s.
TIGER
Country:
GERMANY
The Tiger first saw action in 1942 in North Africa under Field Marshal
Erwin Rommel. It had a heavy armour and an 88mm main gun which
could score a kill up to 2km. Rival tanks had to be as close as
500m to score a Tiger kill. The subsequently developed Tiger II was
superior in firepower and armour to all allied tanks in World War II,
but lacked mobility and mileage.
M4 SHERMAN
Country:
THE US
This reliable, practical and easy-to-make tank was designed by
the US Army Ordnance Department. It had a 93mm-118mm thick
armour, a 75mm M3 L/40 tank gun which could fire with accuracy
even on the move and three machine guns.
SHERMAN FIREFLY
Country:
THE UK
Based on Sherman, this British tank had a powerful 17-pounder
gun that could defeat the German Panthers and Tigers at standard
combat range.
CENTURION
Country:
THE UK
Perhaps the first main battle tank (MBT) from Britain, the
Centurion had an armour up to 152mm, a 105mm rifled gun and a
.30 calibre Browning machine gun. It was used effectively by the
Indian Army to knock down the Patton tanks of Pakistan in 1965
and in 1971. The Centurion saw action in the Korean War, Six-Day
War, Yom Kippur War and Falklands War.
T-54/55
Country:
THE USSR
The MBT of the USSR post World War II, the T-54/55 could
probably be the most produced tank ever—some 80,000 of them
have been manufactured. It had a 100mm rifled gun as the main
weapon and a 7.62 coaxial machine gun.
M60 PATTON
Country:
THE US
Conceived in response to the T-54/55, this solid MBT
from the US was in action in the Yom Kippur War,
Iran-Iraq War, Beirut War and Persian Gulf War.
LEOPARD
Country:
GERMANY
The German MBT post World War II, the Leopard has a
19-21-7mm steel and 10-70mm rolled homogeneous armour. The main
weapon is a 105mm Royal Ordnance L7A3 L 52 rifled gun and it
has a 7.62mm machine gun as well.
BY THE time World War II began, the nation that invented the battle tank had despatched its best
armoured commander to the Home Guard instead of the battlefield. The credit for Lt Gen Percy Hobart’s eventual return to the battlefield in 1941 goes to Sir Winston Churchill, then British prime minister.
Hobart was born at Nainital in India, where his father was a civil servant. He served in Mesopotamia during World War I. After the war, he sought transfer to the Royal Tank Corps. Soon he returned to India—at the Command and Staff College at Quetta, now in Pakistan. He was soon made inspector of Royal Tank Corps and then brigadier commanding 1st Army Tank Brigade. “Hobart wanted to see the development of an all-tank force and his tank brigade was a pioneering, even world-leading, initiative which seemed full of promise,” writes British historian Patrick Wright in Tank: The Progress of a
Monstrous War Machine.
In the mid-1930s, Hobart began advocating tank warfare so aggressively that old-school British generals called him a difficult person to work with. He was packed off to Egypt, where he raised his famous ‘Desert Rats’ divi-sion (the 7th Armoured Dividivi-sion), converting a ragtag unit into a phenom-enally disciplined killing machine.
When World War II began, Hobart was nowhere in action. He had been forced into retirement. Back home, he enlisted in Home Guards as a lance cor-poral. On learning about this, Churchill was aghast. He reinstated Hobart, who went on to train the 11th Armoured Division.
But even after his reinstatement, Hobart was denied command of the 11th. “The High Commands of the Army are not a club. It is my duty to make sure that exceptionally able men, even those not popular with their military con-temporaries, should not be prevented from giving their services to the Crown,” wrote Churchill in Hobart's defence.
Hobart is best known for his 79th Armoured Division, known as ‘Hobo’s Funnies’. Under him, the 79th became an innovation lab. It developed flame-thrower tanks (Crocodiles) and chain-flailing tanks that exploded mines (Crabs), equipped Matilda tanks with searchlights and designed and built DD tanks that could cruise in water. It looked as if the
79th had the solution to every problem that the Allies faced. Interestingly, it never fought as one whole division as Hobart had always advocated. It used its 1,900 armoured vehicles in support of operations launched for other divisions, mostly of the US army.
After World War II, the phrase “served under Hobart” became a distinction in the British army. Hobart died in 1957.
Man of action
◆
Lieutenant General Percy Hobart (1885-1957)The ‘funny’ fighter
Hobart is best
known for his
79th Armoured
Division, known as
‘Hobo’s Funnies’.
Under him, the
79th became
an innovation lab
that developed
flamethrower
tanks (Crocodiles)
and chain-flailing
tanks that
exploded mines
(Crabs).
equipment and high level of motiva-tion of the soldiers are hallmarks which the Indian Army takes pride in and are paramount factors in the suc-cess achieved in 1965,” said Malik, who was commandant of Armoured Corps Centre and School.
Another major factor, said Malik, was the imaginative employment of the armoured force. “At Khemkaran [in Punjab], the Indian Army flooded the sugarcane fields and thus man-aged to lure the Pakistani tanks inside a horseshoe-like deployment and was able to decimate them. Most Pakistani tanks were slowed down and got caught in the muddy slush,” he said.
The 1960s also witnessed a race to
MERKAVA
Country:
ISRAEL
Israel felt the need for its own MBT when
Egypt's anti tank Sagger missiles started
turning M60 Pattons into balls of flame.
The result, Merkava, was the first tank
to have engine in the front to protect the
crew. It had a 120mm smooth bore gun,
three machine guns and one mortar.
M1A1 ABRAMS
Country:
THE US
This MBT, which replaced the M60
Patton tanks, were named after General
Creighton Abrams, one of the greatest
armoured commanders of the USarmy.
It uses sophisticated composite armour
and is one of the heaviest tanks around.
YEARS OF
THE TANK
1
design a universal tank or what is now called a main battle tank (MBT). The tanks of World War II were divided into three categories—light, medium and heavy. While the light tanks became obsolete by the 1960s, the heavy ones turned out to be costly and difficult to move around. So, it was the medium tank that eventually evolved into an MBT.
India had been producing Vijayanta
MBTs since the mid-1960s, based on a licensed design of British Vickers Mk I at Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi near Chennai. After the 1971 war, a programme was launched to make an indigenous MBT. The project suffered long delays and cost escalation, and the first batch of Arjun MBT was handed over to the Army's 43rd Armoured Regiment in 2004. The latest regiment to be equipped
with the Arjun is the 75th Armoured Regiment.
“The Arjun is a promising piece of equipment. We, however, need an affordable MBT which can be moved and deployed without difficulty and restriction across the board,” said a retired lieutenant-general.
Major General (retired) Rajan Aney, who was additional director general (combat vehicles) for the Arjun project, said Arjun had a lot of good points. "But it is too big and too unwieldy for our requirement. The big question is its tactical mobility. I think it was more of a political com-mitment than the Army's require-ment. Since a lot of funds had been channeled into the project, it was decided to induct 124 Arjun tanks in two regiments,” he said.
NO OTHER ARMY has used battle
tanks as effectively as Israel's. Its tactics in the Six-Day War of 1967 and Yom Kippur War of 1973 are taught in military academies across the world. One of the fine examples of battlefield deception was destruction of the Egyptian armoured division in a night raid— Israeli commanders knocked off Egyptian T-62 tanks by recognising a peculiar sound from their engines. Israel's own Merkava is one of the best MBTs.
Even as battle tanks were being hailed as symbols of valour in India and Israel, in Europe they had transformed into symbols of terror. German panzers were flag-bearers of the Nazi regime and intimidation. Later, the Soviets crushed civilian unrest in Czechoslovakia in 1968 by fielding tank units on the streets of Prague. A defining image of tanks as monstrosity against civilians was captured when Wang Weilin stood in front of a column of 18 Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square in June 1989. Never before did the giant machine look so ineffective and the state so helpless.
SURROUNDED BY hostility, Israel focuses on military innova-tion, rather than mega systems, to ensure the safety of its soldiers. It is in this context that Israel's Merkava (Chariot) becomes one of the most significant main battle tanks developed so far.
Israel was the first nation to use explosive reactive armour—an innovation by Germany's Manfred Held—on its battle tanks. Similarly, Merkava was the first MBT to have its engine in the front, to allow a second exit in the rear. So if the tank is hit, its engine would be the first casualty, and the crew could exit safely. This hatch can also be used to take in injured troops.
The man behind Merkava, Major General Israel Tal, is hailed as Israel's best armoured warfare expert. At the Patton Museum in the US, his name is among the top five greatest armoured commanders, the others being George S. Patton (US), Erwin Rommel (Germany), Creighton Abrams (US) and Moshe Peled (Israel).
Tal is known for his role in the Six Day War—in which his armoured division broke through northern Sinai to decimate Egypt's tank columns
from more than a kilometre away.
Aided by air superiority, Tal's division destroyed almost 800 tanks and armoured vehicles, and captured 100 abandoned tanks.
British historian Patrick Wright says Tal's breakthrough at Rafah is hailed as a model of 'adherence to mission' in British army publications, “which in Israel refers to a military operation that holds true to its fundamental aim while allowing its units to improvise in the unpredictability of actual conflict”.
In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Tal famously disobeyed his defence minister, Moshe Dayan, who wanted Egypt's Third Army massacred, as it was enveloped by Israeli forces. But, by then, peace had been brokered, and Tal
refused to violate ceasefire. Tal paid the price for ethic; he was not made chief of the defence force.
After the Yom Kippur War, Tal led a team that developed Merkava, one of the best tanks in the world today. In addition to the crew, it can take about ten soldiers. It has a tracking device that locks the gun on a target, so a 'miss' is a rarity.
Rolled out in 1982, Merkava held the record of not being affected by a hit for more than two decades till the Lebanon war in 2006.
Man of action
◆
Major General Israel Tal (1924-2010)Charioteer of fire
Israeli defence
minister Moshe
Dayan wanted
Egypt's Third Army
massacred. But,
as peace had been
brokered, Tal
disobeyed the
order, and paid
the price for it.
BY LT GEN ASHOK BHIM SHIVANE
T
he ability of tanks to dominate the increasing threat spectrum is often debated, albeit by other than military professionals, and put to rest repeatedly. Tank was, is and will continue to be an instrument of military decision, spearheading a combined arms team in an essentially joint network-enabled operational environment, across the entire spectrum of conflict.Conceived as an inspiration from the earlier avatar of horsed cavalry, tanks emerged in the Battle of the Somme in September 1916 as a func-tion of an armoured box housing a field gun mounted on tracks to break the deadlock of trench warfare. Ever since, tanks have been at the forefront of challenging status quo in battles and a harbinger of weapon technol-ogy. Though the 20th century saw the mechanisation of transport, and war-fare was the cradle and laboratory for many military inventions, none of the innovations, unlike the tank, was recog-nised as an instrument of deterrence in peace and an instrument of implacable military decision in war. Tanks, with their ever-evolving design and tech-nology, are the most powerful symbol
of military might of the ground forces. The world wars saw tank employ-ment concepts such as the ‘blitzkrieg’ by the Germans, the ‘deep battle’ by the Russians and the ‘expanding tor-rents’ by Liddell Hart. They repre-sented the tank as the primary weapon system that would turn the tide and defeat armies.
The Cold War saw tanks and tank technology taking many a leap. Tanks repeatedly proved their mettle as the dominant military instrument in conflicts across the world, includ-ing Korea, Iran-Iraq, Arab-Israel and others. The conflicts in the past two decades have largely evolved with unconventional, irregular and hybrid warfare carried out by both state and non-state actors. Be it Crimea, the Middle East, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Kosovo and Afghanistan, it has been repeatedly proven that ‘tracks and boots’ on ground matter. It has been accepted that a combination of aerial platforms, long-range precision fires,
protected mobile firepower platforms (tanks) and special forces will be the gamechanger in future battle space.
Armoured cars were inducted into the Indian Armoured Corps before independence. They were later replaced by Stuart and Sherman Tanks. Tanks of the 254th Indian Tank Brigade (later, 3 Independent Armoured Brigade) participated in the action in Kohima to stall the ingress of the Japanese Army. With more than 11,000 dead, this has been described as one of the bloodiest battles in history. The British National Army Museum voted it as the most extraordinary fight, beating the famous ‘Battle of Waterloo’.
In the first Indo-Pak war of 1947-48, the bold and innovative employment of Stuart Tanks of the 7th Light Cavalry surprised the enemy at Zoji La, at an unparalleled altitude of 11,400 feet, repulsing their advance to Srinagar and saving the province of Ladakh. Had it not happened, the map of India would have looked different today.
LATER DURING THE 1962
Indo-China border skirmish, AMX tanks of the 20th Lancers were airlifted by AN-12 aircraft. They gallantly fought alongside infantry battalions in the famous Battle of Gurung Hill at Chushul in Ladakh. Ironically, the initial active employment of tanks in India was all at high altitudes.
In the 1965 Indo-Pak war, tanks per-formed commendably. Tank thrusts in the Chawinda-Phillaurah sector forced Pakistan to recoil its offensive in the Chamb-Jaurian sector. Had it continued the offensive, it would have cut off the lifeline to Jammu and Kashmir. The epic battle of Phillaurah is a saga of bravery by men behind the machine. Lt Col A.B. Tarapore, com-mandant of 17 Horse regiment, was awarded the Param Vir Chakra post-humously. In the same war, the big-gest tank battle since World War II took place in the Khem Kharan sector. Pakistan’s 1 Armoured Division was
An enduring
war machine
The tank of the future may not necessarily be the
typical tank we would recognise today
Tanks proved
their mettle as the
dominant military
instrument in conflicts
across the world,
including Korea,
Iran-Iraq and Arab-Israel.
YEARS OF
THE TANK
1
annihilated, and the sector was named as the ‘Pak tank graveyard’.
In 1971, the feat was repeated in the western sector. The Battle of Basantar exemplified the spirit of tanks and tank men. Second lieutenant Arun Khetrapal was awarded the Param Vir Chakra posthumously for his supreme courage and valour. In the eastern sec-tor (now Bangladesh), Indian armour was again at the forefront. Led by PT-76 amphibious tanks, the Indian Army raced to Dacca in 14 eventful days in 1971.
In the 1980s, tank superiority got tested during the massive Ex Brass Tacks. In the same decade, tanks were also deployed in Sri Lanka by the Indian Peace Keeping Force. On sev-eral occasions thereafter, tanks were at the forefront of mobilisation by the Indian Army. In the Samba attack in 2013, the innovative move of tanks by the 16th Cavalry confined terrorists to a building and made their subsequent neutralisation easy.
Thus, tanks in the Indian context have dominated the critical ‘time-space-force’ dimension of battles, attaining a decisive edge.
In the words of American writer Walter Lippmann, “a nation has secu-rity as long as it does not have to sac-rifice its legitimate interests to avoid war and is able to, if challenged, main-tain them by war”.
AS FAR AS India is concerned, we
live in a nuclear neighbourhood with territorial disputes and energy and water-sharing concerns. We have the responsibility of securing large ter-ritorial waters and defending island territories, besides our national obli-gations in the regional and global con-texts of out-of-area contingencies and UN commitments.
In addition, we live in a perpetual state of proxy war. Thus our national interests, strategic security framework and geographic imperatives remain the overarching principle of our mili-tary capability development based on
a threat-cum-capability approach. We prepare for ‘state vs state’ and ‘state vs state-cum-non-state actors’ threats, while retaining the capability to adapt to the ‘state vs non-state actor’ threats. This would mandate the main battle tanks, along with a supporting fam-ily of platforms, as the backbone of ground forces. It is pertinent to note that, in our subcontinental context and future threat scenarios, India’s conventional land war fighting capa-bility will remain relevant.
INDIA HAS GONE to war several
times and has been on the brink of war on many occasions, including post the 2002 Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai attack. There are enough pos-sibilities if our thresholds are crossed and the nation decides to unfold its proactive operation strategy at short notice. This would imply maintain-ing adequate combat superiority and punitive deterrence through rapid deployment of mechanised forces to preempt, dislocate and disrupt/disin-tegrate enemy forces for decisive vic-tory in the western front. Mechanised forces add to the credible deterrence against any revisionist designs in our northern borders.
A reality check is indicative of the immediate environment around us possessing maximum number of tanks. It is quite evident that our neighbourhood has a large tank popu-lation, which also impacts our force structure.
The aim of war is to impose one’s will on the adversary and the art of war
is to achieve victory at the least cost (of men and material) and in minimum time. Thus, the application of military instrument must target both the will and the capability of the adversary. It is this important factor for which tanks enjoy a unique and indomitable position in the battlefield. Their abil-ity to achieve an overwhelming 24x7 tempo by providing shock action and precise lethal firepower will paralyse the enemy physically and psychologi-cally. Is there any parallel platform that can fulfil their role on ground?
The introduction of tactical nucle-ar weapons has upgraded the role of tanks in a nuclear environment. Not only are they better equipped to resist a nuclear strike, but they also retain the ability to operate in zones of high radioactivity to seize, retain and, if required, exploit initiative.
Similarly, in an urban warfare
envi-Evolved weapon: An artist's
impression of a futuristic battle tank
Tanks in the Indian
context have
dominated the critical
‘time-space-force’
dimension of battles,
attaining a decisive
edge.
ronment with hybrid threats (not a tank commander’s dream), the value of a tank with enhanced survivability envelope cannot be underestimated. Today, they are the only principal means for a combined arms team to close in on the threat and neutralise it. Thus, modifications for use in urban combat conditions will make tanks indispensable partners in the war-fighting, combined arms team. With their precision fire and shock effect, tanks will remain relevant and domi-nant as protected mobile platforms that lead the advance for immediate response to threats.
Anti-tank weapons have become more sophisticated and dangerous. In keeping with the threats and technol-ogy, tank design is changing to get the right combination of the ‘iron triangle’ of firepower, mobility and protection. The increased lethality and accuracy
of anti-tank weapons have resulted in the increasing need for enhanced sur-vivability in tank design. Situational awareness and a networked, integrat-ed C4I2 system to ensure decision superiority add to being a key enabler for tanks in future wars.
Tank designs are reflective of a nation’s threat perception, war-fight-ing philosophy and geostrategic reali-ties. Thus, design revolves around the optimum desired blend of lethality, survivability, agility and adaptability. Tanks are being modernised to retain the technological edge through upgra-dation programmes with enhanced focus on lethality and survivability to operate 24x7 in all terrain conditions, and for dominant manoeuvres in the entire spectrum of conflict.
Further, the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (the Future Main Battle Tank) along with a family of armoured
plat-forms, including light tanks, is getting the necessary institutional attention in keeping with our future operation-al perspective and threats. Thus, the tank of the future may not necessarily be the typical tank we would recognise today. It will continue to evolve as a dominant, protected, mobile weapon platform still called ‘tank’.
There has been discussion about attack helicopters as flying tanks. Attack helicopters complement tanks and one cannot replace the other. They are the aerial arm of the manoeuvre of the mechanised forces and integral part of a combined arms team. It is thus increasingly felt relevant that attack helicopters form an intrinsic part of mechanised forces in war and in peace.
FINALLY, A TANK is as good as the
man inside it. Tanks are best employed as part of a combined arms team. So a tank commander should be flex-ible in mind, progressive in thought, liberal in imagination and audacious in application. Along with structural reforms and innovative tactics, tank commanders will be key to the suc-cessful outcome of tank battles.
Tanks also offer a platform for mate-rialising the dream of ‘Make in India’. It offers scope from low-end technol-ogy to high-technoltechnol-ogy indigenisation with large numbers making a viable cost-benefit model. Today, with a vibrant private industry demonstrat-ing technology prowess in defence sector, the next-generation tank will be symbolic of technology sovereignty and strategic autonomy. They will be designed, developed, produced and sustained in India.
In the Indian context, tanks are still the most powerful symbols and instru-ment of war for ground forces, across the entire spectrum of conflict. As new threats emerge, they will continue to evolve in technology and in dynamic employment, retaining their domi-nant role.
The author is director-general, Mechanised Forces.
©Macintosh HD:Users:ajay:Desktop:HDD:THURSDAY_WEEK _NEW:Indesign fi le:Tank Battles.indd
TEN GREATEST TANK BATTLES
GRAPHICS: DENI LAL
YEARS OF
THE TANK
BATTLE OF CAMBRAI (1917)
War: World War IBelligerents: British empire vs German empire Location: Cambrai, France
Cambrai was an important supply point for the Germans. They launched a coun-ter-offensive as the British captured it. At the end, neither side gained much in terms of territory.
SECOND BATTLE OF
EL ALAMEIN (1942)
War:World War II
Belligerents: Axis powers vs Allies Location: El Alamein, Egypt
The battle was a turning point in the Western Desert Campaign, and halted the dream run of Afrika Korps. Erwin Rommel's men and machines started withdrawing.
BATTLE OF KURSK (1943)
War:World War II
Belligerents: Germany vs the Soviet Union Location: Kurzk, Soviet Union
In one of the largest armoured clashes in history, the Soviets countered the Germans with two offensives and won the battle. The victory was the base of the Red Army's tactics in the rest of the war.
INVASION OF FRANCE (1940)
War: World War II
Belligerents: Germany and Italy vs France, Britain and allies
Location: France
Germans' superiority in armoured mobility was in full display in the Battle of France. The battle resulted in the division of France.
BATTLE OF DUBNO-BRODY (1941)
War: World War IIBelligerents: Germany vs the Soviet Union Location: Brody in the Soviet Union
It was one of the most fierce armoured battles in World War II and one of the largest tank battles. The Germans won decisively, inflicting heavy damage on the Red Army.
1
4
2
5
6
3
1 2 3 5 78 9 10 4 6BATTLE OF THE BULGE (1944-45)
War:World War II
Belligerents: Germany vs the US, the UK and France Location: Belgium and Luxembourg
A surprise attack on Belgium, France and Luxembourg was the last major German offensive in the war. Though the US forces ini-tially suffered heavy losses, Lt-Gen George S. Patton successfully manoeuvred the Third Army to stop the Germans.
YOM KIPPUR WAR (1973)
Belligerents:Israel vs Arab states led
by Egypt and Syria
Location: Sinai and Golan Heights
The Arab offensive was an attempt to recapture the ter-ritory lost in the Six-Day War of 1967. However, Israel neutralised the initial gains made by the Arab forces with its ability to quickly return the damaged tanks to the warfront after repair.
BATTLE OF ASAL UTTAR (1965)
War:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
Belligerents: India and Pakistan Location: Asal Uttar in PunjabPakistan lost some 90 tanks in Asal Uttar, which is more than half of its total loss in the 1965 war. India's victory was decisive and the bravery of havildar Abdul Hamid, who knocked out seven Pakistani tanks with a gun, was honoured with a Param Vir Chakra.
BATTLE OF BASANTAR (1971)
War:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
Belligerents: India and Pakistan Location: Shabazpur, Punjab, Pakistan The battle, which secured Punjab and Jammu for India, foiled the Pak plan to eventually invade Jammu and Kashmir, and the Indians reachedalmost Sialkot.
BATTLE OF 73 EASTING (1991)
War:Persian Gulf War
Belligerents: the US and the UK vs Iraq Location: Southeastern Iraq
Often called the last great tank battle of the 20th cen-tury, it was the first ground defeat of the Iraqi Republican Guard in the Persian Gulf War.
7
8
9
BY DNYANESH JATHAR
A
hmednagar, the western Maharashtra district of prosperous sugar-cane farmers, lives in the shadow of history. It was here that Ahmednagar Sultans laid the foundation of their kingdom. It was here that Chand Bibi challenged the might of Emperor Akbar. It was here that Maratha armies crushed Nizam's forces to begin the north-ward expansion of their kingdom. Little wonder then that two of Indian Army's elite training estab-lishments—Armoured Corps CentreShining
armour
Armoured corps continues to attract the best talent of the Army
YEARS OF
THE TANK
1
and School and Mechanised Infantry Regimental Centre—are based in Ahmednagar.
Armoured corps is considered modern-day cavalry. If cavalries brought speed and mobility to the battlefields of yore, tanks play the role in today's battles. The Indian Army's 3,000 plus tanks are divided among some 60 armoured regiments; each one with about 50 tanks and other vehicles. The regiments are divided in three sabre squadrons and one headquarters squadron. Each of these sabre squadrons—Alpha, Bravo and Charlie—is equipped with 14 tanks. The headquarters squadron is
an administrative unit and has three tanks, including that of the comman-dant who is an officer of the rank of colonel.
The squadron is further divided into troops, each of which has three tanks and is normally
com-manded by a young officer. And, finally, each tank is commanded by a senior non-commissioned officer or a junior commissioned officer.
Armoured Corps Centre and School (ACC&S) was established in 1924. The British called it Royal Tank Corps School. When a recruit joins the Army and is selected
Local hero: Arjun in an exercise at KK Ranges, Ahmednagar
for armoured corps, he comes to Ahmednagar for training at ACC&S. Similarly, a newly commissioned armoured corps officer comes to Ahmednagar for Young Officers' course, which lasts six months and imparts intensive training in all aspects of tanks and tank warfare.
“When I went to the National Defence Academy as a young cadet, we had 3-4 officers from armoured corps on the staff,” says Major General (retired) Rajan Aney, a vet-eran of the armoured corps. “They were young captains and majors, all flamboyant and dashing. I am not saying that the other officers didn't possess all these, but there was some-thing about these officers that made them stand ahead of others. For a cadet this is a fascinating aspect.”
When Aney moved to the Indian Military Academy, he was part of a platoon commanded by Captain Sudhir Kumar Sonpar, an armoured corps officer who had won a Vir
Chakra during the peacekeeping operations in Congo. “Personalities of these officers influenced me when I was commissioned in 63 Cavalry regiment,” says Aney, who retired in 2002 as additional director general for combat vehicles.
Once commissioned, armoured corps officers spend 3-4 months with their regiments, and then go to Ahmednagar ACC&S for the Young Officers' course. In this course, they are taught military history, tank driv-ing, maintenance, gunnery, and com-munications training in tactics and manoeuvres among other things. “We were not considered as officers till we had completed our YO's course. We were addressed as mister so and so, though we had been commissioned, as we knew nothing about tanks and tank warfare. It was only after com-pleting the YO's course and passing retention examination that everyone used to treat us as armoured corps officers,” says Aney.
The rapid expansion of the Army's armoured corps started soon after the 1965 war with Pakistan. “It was a war of mobile warfare and tank battles,” says Aney. “This was also the war in which we realised that Pakistan is potentially our number one enemy. After the war it was felt that we were woefully short of equipment and tanks. So, 1966 onwards there was rapid expansion of armoured corps.” During this expansion Aney was pulled out of 63 Cavalry and posted to 65 Armoured Regiment. He eventu-ally commanded the regiment.
ACC&S plays an important role in preparing the tank men. “The entire training of the armoured corps is imparted here,” says Major General Pravin Dixit, commandant of ACC&S. “Training of recruits is done at Armoured Corps Centre, and advanced training, both technical and tactical, is done at the School; that is why it is called Armoured Corps Centre and School.”
THERE IS an interesting video of Lt Gen Hanut Singh paying tribute to second lieutenant Arun Khetrapal, the
young-est martyr of the 1971 war. In the video, Singh recalls how Khetrapal was selected for the Young Officers’ (YO) course when war broke out. Khetrapal, 20, urged Singh, who was then commandant of 17 Poona Horse regiment, to allow him to head for the front. “Sir, the regiment is going to war. This is an opportunity of a lifetime. If I miss out now, I may never see action again in my life. Please take me off the YO course. I will not let you down,” he said.
Khetrapal kept his word. As the youngest officer in Poona Horse, he displayed exemplary courage at the Battle of Basantar. He kept on fighting even after his tank was hit and he was wounded. He was awarded Param Vir Chakra posthu-mously.
In the video, Singh is seen having aged gracefully. His eyes are ever alert and his nose even more prominent. There are no trophies in the background, no insignias or medals, not a thing to indicate that the man is, perhaps, the best armoured commander India has ever produced.
Singh, who died last year, belonged to the Rathore rajput family of Jasol in Barmer. His father, too, had been an Army officer. Singh was commissioned into the Poona Horse regiment. This was the decade after World War II and he studied the war campaigns of generals like Manstein, Rommel, Montgomery, Guderian and Patton. He modelled himself on the
German general staff and believed that they had perfected the theory of mobile warfare, wrote retired major general Raj Mehta in a tribute last year.
In the mid-1950s, when Poona Horse was issued Centurion tanks made in Britain, Singh was selected for an advanced gunnery course in the UK. Upon his return, he was posted as gunnery instructor at the Armoured Corps Centre and School in Ahmednagar. At ACC&S, he wrote ‘Technique of Shooting from Armoured Fighting Vehicles’. “These techniques con-tinued to be the bedrock of gunnery training in the Armoured Corps for as long as Centurions were in ser-vice and enabled India to outshoot Pakistani Pattons in 1971,” writes Maj Gen V.K. Singh in Leadership In Indian
Army: Biographies of Twelve Soldiers.
Under his command, 17 Poona Horse crippled 13th Lancers and 31st Cavalry regiments of the Pakistani army in the 1971 war. During the fight with 8th Armoured Brigade, 17 Horse destroyed 50 Pakistani tanks in a single day. He was awarded the Maha Vir Chakra for his gallantry and leadership during the war. By the time he retired as lieutenant general in 1991, Singh had commanded an armoured brigade, an armoured division and 2 Corps, and was commandant of ACC&S from 1988 to 1991.
A bachelor, Singh had a spiritual bent of mind. Every evening, he would medi-tate and nobody could disturb him. This had detractors branding him as a reli-gious bigot, which affected his chances to head an army command, according to V.K. Singh's book. Post retirement, he lived in an ashram in Dehradun, where he died last April.
Man of action
◆
Lt Gen Hanut Singh, PVSM, MVC (1933-2015)Braveheart at Basantar
Then the officers come back for an advanced course. “The training of young officers is divided into four phases encompassing driving and maintenance, gunnery, communi-cations and IT, culminating in the tactical phase. The officers are also exposed to latest trends in technol-ogy. During the tactical phase, due emphasis is laid on aspects such as development of leadership qualities, logistics planning, maintenance of morale, team building and cohesion,” says Lt-Gen (retired) Anil Malik, for-mer commandant of Armoured Corps Centre and School.
Then comes the time to apply these skills in the battlefield sce-nario. “How to manoeuvre tanks to successfully overpower the enemy on a battlefield is taught at School of Armoured Warfare. We teach tactics, the application of all your technical knowledge to destroy the enemy. They learn during armament phase that aim of a tank is to destroy another tank of at least equal weight and classification, but it is not easy. It is not just gunnery skill because the other guy also has a gun. So how do you manoeuvre yourself to come at a place of advantage using terrain and other forces, get onto his flanks of weakness and destroy him? This is what is taught at Armoured Warfare School,” says Brigadier Akash Bhanot, head of Armoured Warfare School at ACC&S.
On January 6, ACC&S and Mechanised Infantry Regiment Centre conducted an Integrated Fire Power and Manoeuvre Exercise. Two pioneers who revolutionised tank warfare—British major general J.F.C. Fuller and the German general Heinz Guderian—were remembered at the event. “It was Fuller's idea to introduce black dungaree and black berets as Royal Tank Corps' uniform as he felt that stains of oil and grease on the uniforms of tank men cannot be spotted,” said a commentator at the event. Similarly, when the Line
Singh studied the
war campaigns
of generals
like Manstein,
Rommel,
Montgomery,
Guderian and
Patton. He
modelled himself
on the German
general staff.
YEARS OF
THE TANK
1
ERWIN ROMMEL’S greatness was not just in his brilliant battlefield victories, but also in his ability to convert defeats into planned and systematic retreats, so that the men could be regrouped to launch another offensive at the very next window of opportunity. It was also in his mastery of his weapon systems. He was one of the first German generals to use the legendary 88mm Flak anti-aircraft gun in an anti-tank role, with devastating effect.
His book Infanterie Greift An (Infantry in Attack) is consid-ered an important work, read even by General Patton of the US army. There is an interesting scene in Patton, the Hollywood film. Patton lays a trap for Rommel’s retreating Afrika Korps. As Rommel realises this, he orders his 10th Panzer Division to hastily retreat to original positions. Patton, observing Rommel's manoeuvres from an observation post, remarks, “Rommel, you magnificent bas-tard, I have read your book.”
Rommel’s swashbuckling attitude as an armoured commander was a constant source of worry to his seniors. He pushed through and punched weak spots in enemy lines, and attacked the opponent at the most unexpected places.
Rommel rose to prominence during the invasion of France in May 1940. In 15 days flat, his famous 7th Panzer Division, nicknamed the Ghost Division as it could appear any time and anywhere behind enemy lines, had reached the English Channel. A stunned France simply could not recover, and attempts to stop him at Flavion and Arras failed miserably.
At Arras, his panzers were proving inferior to the British Matilda tanks that had three-inch-thick armour. The Allies deployed 88 tanks. When Rommel realised that his traditional and trusted anti-tank weapon, the 37mm gun, was proving quite useless, he placed a few 88mm anti-aircraft guns on a hillock and began the lethal pounding of the Matildas. The Allies lost 60 tanks. Nobody had used 88mm guns in an anti-tank role before.
The exploits of Rommel’s Panzer Army Afrika are legendary. It was in his African campaign that he was praised by British prime minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck wrote to his commanders that Rommel had reached “superhuman status” and that he was being thought of by British troops as an invincible general.
Before World War II, Rommel commanded a regiment that served as Hitler’s escort battalion. Hitler chose only those whom he trusted beyond doubt in this role. Eventually, during the course of war, Rommel was convinced that the state on whose behalf he was fighting had turned into a criminal one, engaging in mass murders and ethnic cleansing. He did not hesitate to join the generals who were planning to overthrow Hitler, as he was convinced that the war was lost and an honourable peace could be worked out only if Hitler was replaced.
For this, he paid the price of his life, as he was forced to commit suicide by the Nazi regime for “being aware” of the plot to kill Hitler.
Man of action
◆
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (1891-1944)German giant
of March Attack was in progress, the commentator used a famous quote by Guderian: “The engine of the Panzer is as much its weapon as its gun.”
According to Dixit, Guderian's operations and his writings are crucial part of learning. “Ask any tank man at any level, readings about Guderian and his works are his bible,” he says. Adds Bhanot: “Guderian is the most respected tank warfare theorist. Whatever they taught that time—fire and move, fire and manoeuvre—is as relevant today as it was back then.” Commissioned in 67 Armoured Regiment, Bhanot calls himself a proud cavalier. In fact, it runs in his family: his great-grandfather was in the cavalry of the Maharaja of Patiala. Later, Bhanot commanded 89 Armoured Regiment.
The bonding between the men and their tanks is reflected in the interesting names given to their machines. The tank commanded by the legendary Lt-Col Ardeshir Tarapore, who was awarded Param Vir Chakra for his bravery in the 1965 war, was called Kooshab. “We are nothing without our equipment. Tank is a fighting member of our
Playing up a storm: A T-72 at an annual
exercise at KK Ranges in Ahmednagar
Rommel had a
swashbuckling
attitude as an
armoured
com-mander. He
pushed through
and punched
weak spots in
enemy lines,
and attacked
the opponent at
the most
unex-pected places.
Armoured corps is considered modern-day
cavalry. If cavalries brought speed and mobility
to the battlefields of yore, tanks play the role in
today's battles.
unit and hence he should also have a name,” says Bhanot. “That is the sentiment behind naming tanks. My tank when I got commissioned was named Azad. When I came back from advanced course where I did well my tank was named Akash. So we had two Akashs in our unit; my tank and me.”
Malik says tank crews do not con-sider their mount as a war machine. “The crew of the tank consider themselves an integral part of the weapon platform. The idea of hav-ing a name stems from identification as a whole. The name may take any form, be it an event in the history of the regiment, a place where lineage was drawn from or a special charac-teristic. In my regiment tanks from Alpha squadron had names starting with A, Bravo squadron with B and Charlie squadron with C. Tanks of regimental headquarters had names starting with R. My tank as a commanding officer was named
'Rajpramukh',” he says.
In armoured corps, three squad-rons of a regiment used to be recruited from specific races or communities (fixed class regiment). For instance, Squadron A would be all Sikhs, Squadron B would be Jats, and Squadron C would be Rajputs. The first regiment to recruit from mixed classes was 66 Cavalry which was raised in 1966. “All the new regiments are mixed class while the older ones continue to have fixed class,” says Bhanot.
Col (retired) Virendra Swaroop, who wrote the engaging book Across Seven Seas: The Memoir Of A War Veteran, served in the famed Poona Horse armoured regiment in the 1965 and 1971 wars against Pakistan. This regiment, which was called Fakhr-i-Hind (pride of India) by the Pakistanis, has won five Victoria Crosses, two Param Vir Chakras (Lt-Col Tarapore in 1965 war and Lt Arun Khetrapal in 1971),
three Maha Vir Chakras and many other honours. In his book, Swarup writes about the interesting tradi-tion called 'dining in' that a young officer joining the regiment has to undergo. It is a custom in which all new officers are dined in formally. Colonel Swarup was shown paint-ings of every hero of the regiment and made to drink a peg every time.
General Aney's memories of his own dining in are still vivid. “The officers who were a little more senior were the ones who plied me with drinks and made me do some funny pranks, all in good humour. It was not ragging at all,” he says.
The fascination of armoured corps runs in many families, with several generations serving in it. “My grandfather and father served in Poona Horse. I am now serving in 1 Horse,” says Pramod Kumar, a daffadar.
And, there are others like Lt-Col Digvijay Singh Chauhan, who broke away from the tradition of serving in the infantry to join armoured corps. Chauhan was fascinated by tanks and affectionately calls them monsters. “Monster because of the shock and the effect that it has on enemy psyche,” he says. “It is a great war machine.” ●
YEARS OF
THE TANK
1
BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL DILIP DESAI (RETIRED) CAVALRY ADDS class to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. Made in a mix-ture of jest and a sense of supe-riority, the irony of this statement was that horsed cavalry, which had slowly been losing its utility as modern weapons prolif-erated, was of little use in the trench-lined, barbed wire-infested, shell-pocked battlefields of Europe during World War I where the routine hor-ror of massive casualties imposed its own vulgarity. It was in this scenario that the tank made a modest and ineffective debut in the Battle of the Somme in France in September 1916 and gradually gained recognition as a battle-winning factor. Commencing with a few tanks supporting assaulting infantry against deeply entrenched defences, more innova-tive thinking gradually led to larger, massed groupings breaking through strong defensive lines. Consequently, the cavalry metamorphosed into the tank corps and the era of armoured or mechanised warfare dawned. In
the inter-war years, military think-ers developed theories on the basis of which large-scale, tactical exer-cises were undertaken, which were instrumental in refining employ-ment methodologies. The creation of highly mobile, offensive-oriented mechanised formations comprising tanks, mounted infantry and artillery followed. Significantly, the essential element of mobility was restored to the battlefield. The German blitz-krieg against France in the opening stages of World War II established their efficacy and the concept was reinforced in numerous campaigns in theatres as diverse as Europe, Russia and North Africa.
Closer home, mechanisation of the Indian cavalry commenced in 1938; regiments were equipped variously with light tanks, scout cars and truck-towed antitank guns. Four Indian regiments participated in the Burma campaign and one in the 1947-48 Kashmir operations. Starting off with only seven of the existing twenty cav-alry regiments when Partition came about, US aid in the 1960s helped Pakistan to augment this number and modernise its armour with Patton tanks and M-113 armoured personnel carriers (APCs) while ‘modernity’ in Indian armour was its four Centurion
and two AMX-13 regiments acquired during the 1950s. Worse, the 1962 defeat by the Chinese shifted the focus to raising and equipping moun-tain formations, which relegated modernisation of Indian armour to the back burner. By 1965, Pakistan had two armoured divisions compared with India’s one. Moreover, India had only ‘lorried’ infantry as against Pakistan’s APC-borne infantry.
Nonetheless, good training, deter-mination, excellent gunnery skills and relatively better strategy enabled Indian armour to come out on top in the 1965 India-Pakistan war. A thrust in the Chamb-Jaurian (J&K) sector
Mechanised
warfare
Given their size and structure, Indian mechanised
forces have the potential to rapidly achieve allocated
objectives in compressed timeframes to bring about
favourable tactical and strategic outcomes
Marching on: Indian tanks in action in
achieved considerable success, but, elsewhere, Pakistani armour came off second best. An offensive by India’s 1st Armoured Division, part of the hastily raised 1 Corps, resulted in heavy destruction of Pakistani tanks in the Sialkot sector. Over 400 tanks, on both sides, participated in what is viewed as the largest and fiercest tank engagement after World War II. Further south, armour-supported infantry divisions launched offen-sives which reached the outskirts of Lahore. To relieve pressure, a counteroffensive by Pakistan’s 1st Armoured Division in the Amritsar-Ferozepur sector was mauled by tank regiments of India’s 2nd Independent Armoured Brigade in hard-fought battles at Khem Karan and Asal
Uttar, which created a graveyard of over a hundred much-vaunted Patton tanks.
The compelling need to modernise led India to replace vintage equip-ment with Soviet tanks and APCs in the late 1960s while adding more tank regiments, mechanised infantry battalions and armoured brigades. Concurrently, new assault bridging and minefield breaching equipment
helped augment offensive capability. However, Pakistan also kept pace by raising more units and acquiring Chinese tanks.
The highlight of the 1971 India-Pakistan war was the campaign in the Eastern Theatre, which led to the dismemberment of Pakistan and gave birth to Bangladesh. This brilliant blitzkrieg—executed with limited resources and masterful rapidity,
The compelling need to modernise led India to
replace vintage equipment with
Soviet tanks
and APCs
in the late 1960s while adding more
tank regiments, mechanised infantry battalions
and armoured brigades.
YEARS OF
THE TANK
1
overcoming numerous rivers and marshes in a remarkably short time-frame—has not received the plaudits that it deserves possibly because it is Indian! The three mainly light tank regiments that participated in this campaign most often detached ele-ments to act in support of infantry formations and contributed to speed-ing up operations.
In the Western Theatre, lack-ing the numerical superiority to act offensively across the board and to avoid over-extension, armour was mainly employed in defensive roles in the Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab sectors. A major multi-pronged offen-sive by two armoured brigades and three infantry divisions was, none-theless, launched once again in the Sialkot sector towards Shakargarh to provide depth to the vital Pathankot-Jammu artery and tie down Pakistani armour. Fierce battles resulted with Pakistan losing close to a hundred tanks in addition to sizeable terri-tory. India’s lone armoured division remained unutilised since it was retained as a strategic reserve in the Punjab-Rajasthan sector to counter a major Pakistani offensive which, in the event, did not materialise. Other armour operations included two tank regiments thwarting a Pakistani thrust in the Chamb-Jaurian sector and smaller forays into Pakistani ter-ritory from the Jaisalmer and Barmer sectors.
India’s mechanised forces grew almost exponentially over the next four decades during which a num-ber of noteworthy developments occurred. The most important one has been the building of three ‘strike’ corps, each comprising an armoured
division, an independent armoured brigade and infantry divisions with sizeable mechanised forces. These ‘strategic’ reserves have contributed immensely by relieving ground-hold-ing corps of the burden of launchground-hold-ing major offensives while concurrently defending vast expanses of territory. Next, each ground-holding corps was allotted one or two armoured brigades as reserves for defensive needs while enhancing their
capabil-ity to launch offensives independent of, or in concert with, strike corps. Additionally, the long-standing entitlement of an armoured regiment in each infantry division was fulfilled; in fact, some of them even have an armoured brigade.
The all-arms concept of coop-erative and synergistic effort is best exemplified by mechanised forces. Tank units form the spearhead and muscle; mechanised infantry acts complementarily. Artillery, air defence, helicopter, engineers (for minefield clearing and bridging) and communications units provide close combat support. Enormous quanti-ties of replenishment are met by mobile logistics units which handle fuel and ammunition supply, repair
