Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: pete@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: What's an "I" tank?
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.033003.22789@amd.com>
Date: 17 Apr 91 10:49:04 GMT
References: <1991Apr16.041123.27184@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
Lines: 29
Approved: military@amd.com


From: pete@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon)


In article <1991Apr16.041123.27184@amd.com> anthony@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au
>In an article by Corporal tim Feaarnside (an Australian member of the 
>Rats of Tobruk), there is a reference to an "I" tank.  Could someone
>tell me what's an "I" tank ?

As far as I can remember -- all my references to this subject are 100 miles
away -- the term dates back to the British armoured policy of the late
Thirties/early war years. Basically all tanks (apart from light tanks)
were divided into two main classes, Infantry tanks (I Tanks) and
Cruisers.

Infantry tanks were intended for close support work -- very heavily
armoured, but not necessarily all that heavily armed. The original Matilda 1
was the classic I tank of 1939-40; very hard to destroy, but only armed with
a couple of machine guns. Matilda 2 was still classed as an I tank --
whereas tanks like the Valentine, Churchill etc. were cruisers; tanks
primarily intended to engage other tanks. As the war progressed the I
tank role became obsolete as British cruisers improved, and as British
medium tanks became more advanced (Comet etc) the concept of the MBT
gradually evolved. (I believe the first Centurions were just about
built in time for the end of the European campaign)

Pete Fenelon
pete@minster.york.ac.uk