Tanks.

This is coolbert:

This is serendipitous? Almost a synchronicity?

"ser·en·dip·i·ty - – noun 1.an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident."

"Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are apparently causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner."

Here with some qualifiers, some clarifications, regarding the previous blog entry.

I am watching late last night a public TV broadcast - - the subject being the development of armored vehicles, from the time of the ancient Egyptians to present [3000 B.C. to 2000 A.D.]

And the British "Mother" Mark I tank of course is a subject for discussion.

1. As regard to the mechanical robustness of "Mother":

"tanks [to include "Mother"] were of the most basic and untried design, rushed into production, no real working out of "issues". Subject to breakdown, difficult to keep running under all circumstances, NOT RELIABLE from a mechanical standpoint!!"

Of those English tanks attempting to cross "no-mans'" land, from the English side to the German trenches, ONLY ABOUT ONE-THIRD [1/3] OF THE TANKS WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THE COMPLETE CROSSING, THE REST BREAKING DOWN ALONG THE WAY DUE TO MECHANICAL DIFFICULTIES!!

2. Plunging artillery or mortar rounds, striking the top of the tank, setting off the fuel tanks, incinerating the crew:

"Incinerated crews were removed by special Salvage Companies, who also salvaged damaged tanks. They were forbidden to speak about this aspect of their work with still living tank crews"

ALL THAT WAS MOSTLY FOUND OF THE CREW WAS THEIR SHOES WITH FEET INSIDE!! THAT WAS IT!! THE REMAINDER OF THE BODY HAVING BEEN TOTALLY CONSUMED!!

[probably too the soles of the shoes melted to the metal "deck" of the tank!!]

Well, the tank of the WW1 era was a good idea, but the technology of the time did not allow for a robust machine that could "perform" adequately. That much is clear.

coolbert.