The Origin of the Word Tank

I have been reading this book called "The Prize- The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power." It is a history of the oil industry from its humble beginnings in different parts of the world to become a commodity which played a significant role in determining the history of the world.

While reading about how Oil played a key role in determining the military strategy in the early 20th century, I read about how the First World War turned around with the introduction of the "Tank" by the British. Today the Tank is almost syonumous with the image of that beast of a armoured vehicle that pops into our heads. But when you think about it - "Tank" is not a very obvious choice of name for this military innovation. Why then is it called Tank?

During the First World War after the French successfully stopped the German advance by using an army of "taxis" ( yes soldiers transported by taxis for the first time) the war had gone into a stalemate of trench warfare for a couple of years. During this time a British War Fiction writer, Colonel Swinton had the idea that an armored vehicle powered by an IC engine could be the answer.

At this time, a man named Winston Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty. A few years earlier he had championed the cause of the introduction of Fuel Oil for ships of the British Navy. When he heard about the Swinton's idea he championed the cause and called upon the army to begin research to develop this vehicle. But the highly traditional Army did not take this idea seriously. As a result Churchill decided to fund this research from the Navy's funds. Some of the initial names given to the vehicle were "LandCruiser" and "Land Ship" - to indicate the fact that it was the Navy developing this weapon. Later on, in order to keep the development secret, the project was given the codename - "Cistern" and "Reservoir" - since the product when kept under wraps could be mistaken for Cisterns. Eventually the name "Tank"stuck.

I chose to delve a touch further. Why was Tank - a container for water -called Tank? Apparently there is a strong linkage to the Hindi/Marthi/Gujarati word - Tankh, Tanka etc. Apparently the Portuguese carried this word to Europe as Tanque in the 17th century. From the West coast of India to the battlefields of western europe - a long journey the Tank has made.

A Vicious Cycle...

Anger of the unbridled kind,
Pure unadulterated anger.
Held him in a tight bind,
Until his heart cared no longer

Pity, it seemed had no space.
How could it replace love?
Pity, it seems has its place,
But anger, it is not above.

Anger is essential, they plead
But it is not. Not at all.
Insincere anger, makes none bleed.
If real it makes a man fall.

Anger, Love, Pity and Hate.
A vicious cycle it is.
Heart's appetite they satiate.
Man must live with this.

What you learn about the nature of middle management in large corporations by playing Tennis doubles..

When I was playing tennis this morning, I noticed something. When novice players (like me) play doubles there is a tendency to play it safe - to hit the ball less harder and try to stay in the line. But when they play singles they go hard and the ball, go for the lines and try to finish off points. While this might be partly due to the inherent nature of the doubles game, at the skill level of novices I do not think that this is the cause.

My belief is that because a doubles player has a team mate, he feels that by going for his shots and hitting the ball out he is letting his team mate down. The doubles player becomes less likely to take risks and tends towards a more defensive approach. Such behaviour is only exacerbated by the constant refrain of a double partner to "keep the ball in play." Part of that sentence is left unsaid..."keep the ball in play so that I come into play."

It is this underlying human nature that ensures that in the middle management of large corporations managers seldom want to take risks. The decision that is made is usually something that is acceptable to one and all who would have a say in the decision. The path of least resistance. The management tends towards hitting the ball in the oppositions court and keeping the ball in play.

But the same behaviour is probably not displayed at the higher levels. Just like professional doubles players learn to play aggresively when required, managers at the high levels probably learn the art of making decisions, sticking with them and pushing them through the system. The really good managers learn when to hit winners and when to keep the ball in play despite playing doubles - being part of large teams/comittees/ boards that decide the course of action.

In small firms and entrepeneurial organisations this phenomenon of management by "minimum consensus" does not occur. The decisions are made by a single authority. If a large corporation wants to maintain an agressive middle management team they must replicate the structure of small companies and help their management team retain the ability to take risks and hit the winners.

Oh!...The things you think about when you are serving double fault after double fault....