[HN Gopher] A tank that could fly into battle
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A tank that could fly into battle
        
       Author : rmason
       Score  : 30 points
       Date   : 2022-10-21 21:50 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
        
       | roey2009 wrote:
       | As a former tank gunner, the suspension must be going through
       | hell, every landing. Once a year we would replace the suspension,
       | since it gets damaged, cracked, smushed and widens by the weight.
       | 
       | Every month or so, I would remove a pad from the suspension,
       | since the weight applied in the pads flatten them, so that
       | overall, less are required to fill the surface area. For this
       | reason, for each type of tank you don't have a specific number of
       | pads, but a range. I think it was 127 - 105, or something of that
       | scale, in my type of tank.
       | 
       | Applied to this thing, logic dictates that after every landing,
       | immediately after, the suspension must be replaced, in fear of
       | breakage during battle. Suspension pad replacement by a skilled
       | and well oiled crew can be done in 10 minutes. That's 10 minutes
       | under potential enemy fire, whether MG or Mortar. For each
       | cracked pad or broken pin. Total suspension replacement requires
       | even a couple of hours at the very least, in optimal conditions
       | on flat terrain. Not optimal.
       | 
       | Also must be a bloody hell on logistics. How do you move entire
       | suspensions to a place you had to land tanks to get them there?
       | Do you parachute them in as well?
       | 
       | In addition, after every landing, I would figure the the gun must
       | be zeroed again. Every morning, we would use a special target, in
       | a specific distance, to calibrate the gun with our periscope. We
       | would avoid sitting on the gun, to prevent errors in the zeroing.
       | Landing would affect the zeroing much more harshly, I would
       | presume.
       | 
       | Conclusion, unless absolutely necessary to land a tank is this
       | manner, I as a commander, would avoid using such tactics.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | int_19h wrote:
         | As the article says, BMDs are regularly paradropped as part of
         | the VDV exercises, so it must be possible to design a vehicle
         | that can handle the stress.
        
         | credit_guy wrote:
         | I think you are too charitable here.
         | 
         | I would simply state that some ideas are so ridiculously bad,
         | they should never leave the paper. The fact that the soviets
         | actually built one prototype is mind-boggling. Most likely
         | there were some people in power who did not have an ounce of
         | technical competence. Who in their right mind greenlights such
         | a project?
        
         | dirtyid wrote:
         | >unless absolutely necessary
         | 
         | I suppose high Soviet attrition/abandon rate during WW2 would
         | have made air dropping tanks with some chance of survival worth
         | considering. But it's nice to have skipped to air-to-ground
         | missiles.
        
       | bell-cot wrote:
       | "Small, tracked military scout vehicle" would be far less
       | misleading than "tank". The main gun was 20mm. Same 20mm for the
       | maximum armor thickness - so a _WWI_ -era 50 cal. machine gun
       | could punch through the armor.
       | 
       | And - in order to get it airborne - they had to remove most of
       | the fuel and ammunition. Ditto the turret. So "fly into battle"
       | is, ah, a rather optimistic interpretation of its capabilities.
       | 
       | Sensibly, the Russians built only one prototype, then ditched the
       | whole idea after its not-so-successful first test flight.
        
         | int_19h wrote:
         | At the time, vehicles like these were generally referred to as
         | light tanks. T-60 in particular was consistently referred to as
         | tank, even outside of this project.
        
         | rascul wrote:
         | > a WWI-era 50 cal. machine gun could punch through the armor.
         | 
         | Just wanted to note that the .50 caliber heavy machine guns the
         | US military currently uses first entered service in 1933.
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning
        
           | bell-cot wrote:
           | Literally true. And the used-in- _WWI_ German rifle (Mauser
           | 1918 T-Gewehr) which the M2 was designed to match (the armor
           | penetration of) fired a 13.2x92mm SR cartridge, _not_
           | 12.7x99mm NATO (.50 cal).
           | 
           | It's cool stuff...but for the point I wanted to make, it
           | didn't seem worth getting that far into the weeds.
        
       | n4bz0r wrote:
       | https://media.tenor.com/K3ysWo8hdloAAAPo/tank.mp4
        
       | EricE wrote:
       | For anyone who is a fan of this kind of whacky stuff, search for
       | Laserpig on Youtube.
       | 
       | Your welcome.
        
       | brohoolio wrote:
       | I honestly thought this was going to be about the A-10 warthog.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-22 23:01 UTC)