After World War I, military development and testing had reached an unprecedented height. The recent developments in technology had given birth to new inventions that changed the landscape of the battlefield. Two machines in particular emerged in the previous decades that had never been used on a large scale; tanks and airplanes. The next step was obvious – combine the two.
America, Russia and England all tinkered with the idea of transporting the grounded beasts, but the USSR really led the way. After attempts at parachuting mini-tanks from bombers, they hired engineer Oleg Antonov to design a dedicated glider that could parachute full-sized tanks.
After years of development and multiple failures, the project was finally scrapped when the Soviets finally acknowledged there was no plane in existed that could carry the weight of a tank. Fortunately the world never had to experience the fear of a tank gliding 200mph through the air, and the scientist began their work on flying sharks.
-
-
Copy & paste this:
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-483xl95pmUiaY.gif\")
WTF? That stupid thing looks like it would do end-overs on landing and kiil the crew.
No problem, just a few more dead grunts. These same boneheads thought it was a good idea to run the infantry in front of the tanks because the tanks were more expensive than the men. This just demonstrates how stupid and wasteful any administration can be.
Hey, welcome to the 21st century. Nothing has changed. Waste people’s children in idiotic endeavors to secure barren wastelands. Oil oil oil. Money money money. Screw the future and your children, let’s fill some fat-cat’s bank account. You think he’s gonna share?
You run the infantry in front of the tanks because the opposing infantry has satchel charges, and satchel charges are a nice way to obliterate your $1 million tank with about $50 worth of explosives. So you put your infantry in front (or on the sides, supporting the tanks), and they’ll keep the opposing infantry from getting too close.
The US gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and has since before the second Gulf War.
Mostly you run the infantry behind and to the flanks of the tank: there’s an entire area in front of the tank you Do Not Want To Be… because the muzzle blast from a tank’s main gun could be harmful or fatal. Also, in certain types of ammunition, the shell is fitted with a sabot which parts company with the actual projectile shortly after leaving the barrel, and may fly anywhere within a thirty degree or so cone, depending on the shell, gun, etc.
I think the primary problem is that a tank is very large, very heavy, and as aerodynamic as a brick. The tank carrying gliders mentioned later on (thanks to Mr Jenkins) were just big enough to carry a bren gun carrier or a tank that was really, really, really small. There were precious few aircraft types that could even summon enough lift to haul a tank-sized load off the ground, even as late as WWII. Forget trying to deploy it in to battle. the only contemporary combinations of Tank and Aircraft Big Enough to Deploy a tank that come to mind would all either involve an M-50 Ontos and a C-130 drop, or a C-17 Globemaster III and an M-1 Abrams tank…. and the Mother Of All Parachutes. For this, I have defined “tank” as “armored vehicle capable of direct engagement that another armored vehicle might actually be afraid of.” Which makes the Locust and its glider deployment something to make the airborne troops a LOT happier than No Tank…. but a quick check tells me that that thing could only stop small arms fire…. maybe.
As for Miven’s comment regarding sending people to the godforsaken butt-cracks of the world, well, all I hear is “wah, wah, wah, I’m a troll without the cajones to go hunt down a murderous bastard, to locate, close with, and destroy him wherever he may hide, and to not give him a moment’s peace to plot more murder and violence against people whose only crime was to go to work one morning.”
As a matter of fact, there *was* an aircraft in WWII which successfully carried tanks into battle. It was the Hamilcar glider. You can see a picture of it doing so at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aircraft_Hamilcar.
My father helped to build these things, which were largely made of wood.
“…there was no plane in existed that could carry the weight of a tank.”. Grammar check much?
Also, the Germans would beg to differ – check out the Me 323 and the Ju 322
I beg to differ!!! Tanks Can Fly
That’s not flying, that’s falling with style.
Maxim #11. Everything is air-droppable at least once.
Yup.
Indeed there is now a lot of planes(mostly ukrainian) able to carry tanks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225#Specifications_.28An-225.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22#Specifications_.28An-22.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76#Specifications_.28Il-76TD-90.29
None during the time when airplanes were barely making 200 MPH, if that.
Not sure, but can’t the C-130 carry a tank fairly easily?
Depends on how you define “Tank.”
If you define it as “Armored Vehicle Capable of direct fire that an enemy armored vehicle has reason to be afraid of” then not really. Although it MAY be big enough to carry an M-50 Ontos… which is an ugly little tank hunter track that the Army despised and shunned (something about blowing out windows and brickwork at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds when they fired ALL SIX BARRELS AT ONCE.
Needless to say, it was a “Love at first sight” situation for the Marines, who used the nasty little vehicle to great effect in Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos
When you ever cheat in GTA, you will know there is not a glider…
I seem to remember a movie on failblog of an airdropped vehicle whose parachute failed. Not quite a tank but quite terrifying enough.
I remember training on the M1s. The driving course had each of us take the tank airborne for a moment to demonstrate the fantastic suspension technology.
Cracked ran an article where the airplane-tank was one of those featured…
Gotta love the Soviets. *sigh*
this thing actually did fly…once.
and landed succesfull in a field and driven back to base.
The only problems where the lack of a powerfull enough tow-plane and also, to keep the weight down, al ammunition, most of the fuel, some armour and the headlights where removed.
I suppose it’s the same problem as the flying submarine.
Here’s my idea:
Imagine a huge plane where the submarine is the bomb..
Land in water, detach the submarine as the plane sinks.
I didn’t say you’d be able to fly back!
In Soviet Russia, tank hunts Apache helicopter.
No more historical thurdays?