Cone, I think that if you put some large ballast tanks in the tank than you could lessen the amount of pressure on the sea floor that causes tanks to become stuck in the mud, but you would have to sacrifice a bit of the armor to enable that to work. In our modern times an aluminum composite spaced armor would probably allow for decent protection and also lower weight, if the tank was battery powered and had a drive train similar to a Tesla with a inversion generator and in case of emergency the ability to fully come above water level, this concept might not be bad, but would probably be a better self-propelled artillery than tank. If you can think of anything I've missed, lmk.
@@aidenburnside6380 well they could have added large air bags with makes the tank float but also just enough floaty that the pontoons stays under water
This article is from Mechanics illustrated, which was cited as a major inspiration for the Fallout world. It's possible that the people at Interplay Productions saw this tank while designing the Robobrain.
Tanks with deep wading kits _frequently_ get stuck in the mud, even 'just' crossing rivers, or stall their engines, or find that they can't climb the bank on the other side. Western tanks have wide snorkel 'towers' so that the commander can stand in the top and guide the driver via intercom, and so that the crew can escape up the tower if the tank gets stuck. The disadvantage of these systems is that they're too big to carry on the tank in normal usage, so tanks wanting to cross a river would have to wait for the snorkels to be brought up on trucks. Soviet tanks use a small diameter snorkel tube which can be carried on the tank all the time. However, this system is very dangerous, since if the tank stalls or gets stuck, the crew have no means of escape except in very shallow water. Russian crews have been known to point-blank refuse to use their snorkels, despite the dire consequences of refusing orders in the Soviet Army. Standard practice therefore became to attach a snorkelling Russian tank to the winches of two armoured recovery vehicles, one on each bank, so that if the tank got stuck or stalled it's engine, one or other of the ARV's could pull it out. This does mean though that the advantage of having the snorkels on the tanks all the time is largely negated by the setup time for a safe river-crossing. In practical terms, any safe, submerged crossing of a river by tanks requires prep time, support equipment and recce of entry/exit points, so it WILL slow down the tank's progress whatever method is used, often to the point where it's just easier, safer and almost as not-quick to wait for some kind of bridging gear to arrive and be setup.
I used to study Soviet tank river-crossing operations when I was in the US Army. They used an observer in a tower or raised platform on shore guiding the driver by radio. During training exercises, they had specially prepared crossing points set up more or less permanently where the river bed was either naturally perfect or artificially prepared/reinforced. Still, every so often a tank would fail to cross and occasional deaths were not unheard of.
I've heard that bit about the Soviet tank crews refusing to use their snorkels, funnily enough the first thing that came to my mind when I thought about the design in the video was that I'd rather be on an open topped landing craft on the surface where I can have some situational awareness and the ability to at least attempt an escape if things get bad, than be trapped in a metal coffin under water with no means of escape if something goes wrong. Never mind the actual mortality rates, I don't care if you tell me that statistically the sub tank is much safer, I don't care. I would rather get blown up by a direct hit from a high explosive shell than take my chances with the underwater death box, and I think most people would probably agree that they'd rather take their chances with an easy death than being buried alive on the sea floor, where you get just enough time to process the fact that you're going to die, and nobody can help you.
Maybe the recoilless gun could have a back-opening in the turret too, and be moved back and forth for reloading? I mean, if the front opening is covered by the dome, the back hole could too...?
@@ultramarinus2478 The problem is that the dude speficially mentioned that th gun would need 90* of elevation. Maybe it was supposed to have an oscillating turret and the folks and MI just drew it wrong?
Idea for a future video: the US "Hunter" heavy tank project from the 50's, it was supposed to be armed with twin 105mm guns with autoloaders in the main turret (yes, double barrel), some sources say it weighed 90 tons and had some early form of composite armor! Quite hard to find detailed info about that tank online. I think it would be perfect for this series.
Have you guys heard of the M50 Ontos? 6 106 mm recoilless rifles. Served very well in the supporting fire role in Vietnam but constantly broke down because it was a 1950s design. Weird but effective design.
@@mardenrene yeah, that makes sense since the art style of fallout is 50's inspired. With nicely curved cars and those plastic domes it makes sense since this tank was designed/thought up during the korean war that took place in the early 50's.
@@bandvitromania9642 Arjun is a decent tank looking at the type of opponents that it is likely to face (Type-59, Type-69, Al Zarar and Al Khalid tanks)
Love the illustrated tank's name: "Water Lily" Love also the tease: "Baby Assault Tanks"...in case you need to clear out the offspring of your foe!!!!!
If this was ever to be built, there would be a lot of dead tank crews. Look at how many die in FLOATING armored vehicles. Now imagine they have zero chance to bail as they wait on the bottom for their breathable air to run out.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 still limited air time tho, you still need a division for recovery crews that are stuck underwater, wich may die beacuse of watter presure sudently entering the tank , is literally a death sentense
I’m also wondering about the gun performance too. If you had a gun with most of its length in a turret with a fairly low silhouette (reminds me of Cold War Russian mbts) then your depression and elevation would be tricky at best.
They probably had a weird new modified design with a hole in the back of the turret and some kind of side loading, plus I think the design was actually supposed to use rocket tube flame weapons instead of an actual flamethrower.
Have you seen the South American invasion of the USA lately ? or maybe the African invasion of Europe ? when one of your loved ones is killed by a foreigner, you'll finally wake up from your moralism.
Man i really hate how well thought out this design is My only modification would be to add sponsons to make the tank neutrally buoyant and link water screws to the drive
I can't even imagine how loud an *enclosed* 105mm recoilless rifle must have sounded from inside the tank even if the breech area was separated from the crew compartment with a bulkhead. The shockwave would have also been rather debilitating. An Ontos-style arrangement of recoilless rifles probably would have been more workable than what's shown in the drawing. Perhaps those barrels could have been sealed up without a plastic dome as well.
Recoilless rifles and armor protection don't generally go together. I think there were attempts to mount one with the muzzle and breech both outside a turret, but that introduced other issues, such as reloading. An Ontos arrangement requires a crewman to fully expose himself to enemy fire in order to reload. Not exceptionally practical for something supposed to be used in a beach assault (Ontos was designed as a tank destroyer).
@@Lightwolf_VR That might work but you'd need to significantly raise the gun versus what's depicted in the drawing. I guess the real issue here is that the concept drawing is quarter-assed at best. The thing looks like it's got a tiny mortar instead of a recoilless rifle.
@@HavocHerseim Even disregarding currents, it's incredibly easy to get a tank stuck underwater. With modern tanks, before any fording operation you'd carefully map the river bed and the shores, and it's still very risky. Can't really do that before an amphibious assault.
"I've been reading about military stuff since i was kid, thus it means i have a privilege to design a better vehicle than real military folks do." - The Designer (forgot his name) Wait, i think i've met this kind of people before.
These tanks were supposed to be used for the island attacks…they actually would’ve saved lives. Instead they launched a full frontal assault, U.S troops came under direct fire and the tanks had to clear the enemy out at the same time, which took time. Oh well, I guess there’s gotta be a time when we’re too scared to take on a decent idea. I mean it is a bizarr idea so I don’t blame them. And it probibly had complications..especialy with the engine.
Ah 1940/50's speculative military hardware where every new invention or technology will transform warfare with no regards for reliability, effectiveness, survivability or even crew safety.
Please do more of these, I find the incredibly interesting, maybe even with more speculation? Also, I propose "Cursed by Fantasy" as a title for such a series
How the hell is this gun supposed to work? Is there just a big hole in the back of the turret for the backblast of the recoilless rifle, or is it venting the rocket blast directly into it? it doesn't LOOK like the rocket launcher from the Sturmtiger, i.e. venting the gasses forward... and the gun you mentioned being a likely candidate isn't much smaller than a 105mm tank gun. Still, while the flamethrower might be useful for beachhead invasions, i think the massive amount of machine guns show just how far detached from reality the designer is.
@@ardie4 Plastics can be very impressive in that regard.... nowadays. In the 1950s, plastic was brittle garbage that would've just cracked as soon as it got a foot underwater.
@@DarkestVampire92 The bow machine gun on the lower plate of these tanks is especially silly. An amphibious tank is more likely than most tanks to need to crest a ridge under fire from entrenched enemies, so its lower plate is going to need to be extra strong. How do you make it extra strong? By putting an obvious weak point right where someone aiming for the biggest flat surface on the tank will be aiming.
I think it has one fatal flaw. It it kind of assumes the enemy don't know it exists and won't try to counter it. Underwater dragons teeth, hedgehogs, mines, shelling the area with artillery, or any number other traps and obstacles would be 100x worse to deal with while underwater. I think it's first deployment could go really well but once the suprise factor is gone and counter tactics are introduced I just cannot see it working.
Just the sea bed would be a problem in a lot of places, and underwater visibility is low in most seas and would be even lower with tanks churning up the sea bed. It would need underwater engineer vehicles to find and clear a path to the beach, particularly if the enemy had constructed obstacles. The Russians did make a swimming, tracked engineer vehicle to reconnoitre and clear fording sites, the IPR. www.net-maquettes.com/pictures/ipr/
This may just be my lack of understanding on this sort of subject but wouldn’t a design like this want to be slightly heavier than a light tank but not enough to be classed as a medium tank? What I’m attempting to get at is the issues of underwater traveling. With wider tracks it would have an easier time finding grip but if the vehicle was too light, wouldn’t that negate the widened track lengths? Another issue would be underwater visibility; especially if there’s multiple of these tanks traversing the floor. I’m guessing there would be some sort of light on the outside of the tank like another other but what about an infrared sensor? Does water interrupt those? Lastly, communication. This is going to sound more complicated because of how I’m thinking but I’ll try to simplify it as best as I can. Would they use standard radio equipment found in most tanks or would they require something with similar strength to that of a submarine? To my knowledge currently, radio waves can travel far through water but it requires a strong sensor to pick up the response(I’m not 100 percent sure); something stronger than that of a standard tanks radio system. This is all speculation of course since this isn’t a real design but I think this concept could be made into a more realistic design if we collectively solve some of the issues highlighted above. Let me know what you think.
Radio waves are highly attenuated by water, basically absorbing the RF. Though there is an exception ELF/VLF, Extra Low Frequency and Very Low Frequency. Those bands are used for submerged submarine communications. Drawback is while today’s WIFI is capable of multiple gigabyte speeds ELF/VLF is limited to a few bits per minute. Communications between submerged tanks would better use SONAR. Sound travels better underwater. Basic pings for Morse code. My background is communications research at The Naval Research Laboratory and ASW operations in the USN.
The German solution in the Tauchpanzer was to run an aerial up to the surface with the flexible 15 metre snorkel tube they used. Visibility is going to be poor to zero, once tracks started churning up the sea bed, so I believe the idea was to drive on a gyro compass heading.
They could have used a simple active sonar system, they’d be able to hear the “pings” through the hull, if they’re loud you’re close to someone. That would at least avoid people driving into each other. They could have tried to use the pings as some kinda Morse code but it probably wouldn’t have been worth the trouble, they’d only need to be out of communication for a few minutes at most
If US had it in WW2 when fighting Japanese, this tank would be very helpful. But main challenge I see is actually the surface of the ocean bed - it's not really flat on most places. Second, if the ships need to stay away from shore guns, that makes quite a long distance and can be often really deep. It would be better to change the design from moving on seabed to keep like 10 m below water. This would need some submarine systems installed and lighter armor than the author imagined, but 10 m of water would also protect it nicely during the moving phase. Love the way he thinks tho :)
@@HavocHerseim What shorelines do you swim near, where the currents are strong enough to sweep around a flat, hydrodynamic tank weighing many tons "like a toy", but are still gentle enough to allow people to swim in them?
I love this kind of thing and would love to see more. The outlandish ideas are really fun to see and speculate. These kinds of things fueled my imagination as a kid.
The shape of the thing reminds me of the AMX 40. I tried to find info on that tank once but since it was never built the only thing that came up was World of Tanks gameplay footage.
3 issues 1. Dense mud like you said which require emended power to overcome 2. Diesel subs used batteries underwater. Could a battery meet the power needs at that time. 3. Recoiless guns worked by pushing part of the blast back wards to reduce recoil. In a sealed box this would have shoved burning propellant into the crew’s faces
@@Mima_the_vengeful_spirit Literally not even close. Just how the theme sounds and how the tank looks is why to be honest. It has that retro style. What you said wouldn't even logically be a reason at all so I guess you're trying to somehow be hostile for no reason.
There is a big hole in it already: the recoilless rifle. When that gun fired, like a RPG or a bazooka, it would create a very big backlash to counter the recoil of the whole gun. If a 105mm recoilless gun is fired in that stubby turret, the crew, if not die from the fume, pressure, and heat, would be critically injured. Plus, the resistance on the beach can be very well put out by naval bombardment or airstrike. It would be much cheaper for a flight of F/A-18s or trios of Arleigh Burke-class to cover the landing party than to develop a tank for a niche situation.
Yeah lol. I was totally on board and open minded until he said to put a recoiless gun in it. Really though it could just be replaced with a 105mm howitzer since it should have to fight beach emplacements and not other tanks.
Forget something like a Burke, battleships were in service at the time this thing was designed, they should be able to clear the beach of the kinds of things that a 105mm recoilless rifle would be used against no problem. And if for some reason they can't, such as due to too many coastal defenses for them to operate, then an amphibious landing with tanks probably isn't feasible anyway. Using naval artillery to clear the beach of things like pillboxes and enemy tanks before landing makes much more sense than trying to find a way to land such a heavily armed and armored vehicle. It just isn't necessary. Light armored support should be enough to secure a beach head, at which point conventional tanks can be landed.
@@TommygunNG they probably would. But what if it failed? Murphy’s law is always there. And a recoiless rifle is something that should never be used in an enclosed space. Beside, the venting would probably make the gun more complicated to operate and take up a lot of space, lead to deficiency in combat effectiveness. Otherwise, if a beach is too heavily defended that a ship can’t get close, those tanks would not stand a chance. There is nothing a 16in shell or a missile can’t destroy. So, it would be a redundant tank and not much of use.
I'm not sure if Tinsley understood how recoilless guns work. The vented breech system and massive rearward discharge means they would need just as much outside access as the muzzle of the gun, as well as posing loading difficulties. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near such a system.
really interesting design, and pretty realistic too, all things considered a bit unrelated but do you know anything about tests that the soviets did with rappeling tanks during the inter-war/early ww2 period? I remember seeing a video of a bunch of T-26s connected by cable and slowly dropping one off a cliff and then forming a 'train' of tanks going down the hill but for the life of me I can't find it again
Would also be interesting to see more info on the russian "teletanks": a T-26 or BT-5 modified to be remote controlled and had no crew. The best part is how they were actually used in combat!
From the early 60s, Popular Mechanics and Popular Science magazines had articles on jet back packs for soldiers, who are armed with machine guns and bazookas. One illustration has a soldier, wearing his jet pack, hovering over a city street, and firing his bazooka at a low flying enemy jet fighter. Bell Aerospace had their flying back pack on tour then. That thing had a 27 second run time. I saw one fly around 1964 at a home show in LA. There were also articles in those magazines about using "Radioactive Death Sand" on attacking enemy troops, and LSD fog to confuse and halt advancing soldiers. I still have those magazines, and the illustrations are classic.
Just my opinion: Theoretically possible, yet extremely impractical. 1. These tanks will cost a lot more to be build due to added components for waterproofing, etc. This is not a regular tank with parts added to make it watertight. This is a submarine/tank hybrid. 2. Problem of communication while submerged. Radio cannot be used underwater. They will need to rely on scheduled plans yet it will be difficult for the tank or the commander to pass message to each other. 3. Rough underwater terrain would likely make this tank only deployable in even less areas, thus limiting the benefit of building such tank. Not to mention all underwater terrain need to be scouted just for this tank.
This is actually a pretty neat idea. If the landing ship also came with a smallish sub to lay crane mats on the sea floor shortly ahead of the landing, I could see this concept working well regardless of seafloor conditions.
I really enjoy this type of stuff, as it combines my interests in both military tech and the zeitgeist of the late 40’s - early 60’s. Personally, I’d love to see more videos like this one, Cone!
I think it could have been made to work - using electric drive is one solution, or carrying oxygen tanks to use a conventional motor as long as the depth pressure wasn't too great for the exhaust to work. It's interesting that there's possibly a false premise here - turrets have been successfully waterproofed as the German experiments showed, as was used on tanks on D-Day, and on the wading Soviet tanks we saw in your video. Therefore the next steps he proposed were not necessary, and there could have been other solutions such as a fixed turret/superstructure. I am also not sure how he intended a recoilless rifle to work inside the tank - I assume he's considered that the exhaust gas from the RR needed to go out the back of the turret some how. All very interesting though!
Also many sea floors are very uneven, rocky or pose some other danger. What an enemy could do to prevent the tanks from being useful is by artificially raising the sea floor or making it cluttered with boulders which is easily done. So essentially you could deny those tanks access to the beach with a bunch of rocks/concrete traps. Even better, you could create a bottleneck with those obstacles and lead them to a kill zone.
@@mihailosaranovic5444 as a scuba diver I agree that the biggest flow is the sea isn’t flat and easy to maneuver, the best thing would be make it swim like a submarine but you would need a really powerful engine to work
I think the major thing the guy who pitched the idea didn't think of is how the sea floor is basically just several feet of loose silt with not a lot to grab onto. The idea, though, is interesting.
I appreciate the fact that the guy at least had some form of reasonable idea on how to make the concept work, rather than just making stuff up as was common in those types of magazines. I mean, yes, there are numerous detail issues that would stymie this design in the real world, but there is an interesting idea with some actual planning at the core of this.
This tank can be countered with underwater anti-tank mines. Also, would need sizable oxygen tank to make it work as distances would be far greater than normal river crossing. Next big challenge would be a terrain. Shingle is not kind to tank tracks. Also, some sea floor is deep mud...
anybody who had ever swam in a beach using goggles can easily tell you visibility is close to zero underwater, units could easily lose formation or accidentally drive into impassable terrain, dooming the crews
As to the Underwater propulsion, using a full contained regenerative engine powered unit fueled by H2O2 at 98%+ was tested by the F*C company in the mid 1960's, but was cancelled after an explosion killed several Engineers. My Mom was a Technical Manual Transcriber/Translator at the time. I was an Aeronautical Engineering student just across the street from the company test track and was a eyewitness to the damaged test device remains. This was a higher than TOP SECRET Military project. When I Inquired about it I got a visit from the ''Men in Black''.
This sounds like a death trap. by british armour doctrin any tank entering deap water is 'lost' regardless of weather it has wading gear or not. this is due to the vast number that get stuck in the soft bottom and then need to be winched out. I can see most of these getting stuck on the sea floor and drowning there crews.
WAIT WHAT IS THE BABY ASSAULT TANK? Could the Cone go over that? The smaller the vehicle the less weight it adds to make the armor thicker, like the Pz I F. I hope that's what the Baby Assault Tank is.
Submersible Tank? Launch from a soviet style sub transport 621, 664, 748 just off shore, with companion apcs, drone aircraft... Don't forget the Nuke powered sub tank with the crazy football shaped fixed turret.
Me, as a Dutch person, has tought alot about amfibious tanks, due to our relation with water. I would see a good underwater tank would be hugendue to our “waterlinie” but quite complex. 1 idea i had in mind however would be to sumbmerge a tank partually, using the water as means of protection, some kind of semi-submerisble. Imagine having to go trough 2 meters of water just to get to the crew compartment, or even remote controlled compartment. Even tough modern tanks have such advanced APDS-FS shells, good luck with going trough that!
That 105mm Recoilless Rifle mounted INSIDE THE TURRET would have killed everyone on board with the first shot. They have a TREMENDOUS back blast from the firing charge, hence "recoilless rifle".
I can think of a few ideas that would be a whole lot simpler than making a new vehicle, such as the DD tank (okay, only works in calm seas), strap-on pontoon floats (filled with cork, so a hit won't sink them immediately, or transport on semi-submerged barges.
A Betteridea(?) A giant hollow torpedo with blast off cap "Fired" at shore, such that the torpedo lands itself, like when they sink a truck in Operation Petticoat, but instead of blowing up, the front blows off and a tank or two rolls out.
how to make floating heavily armored tank: Step 1: increase water displacement (volume of tank) Step 2: make it more stream line step 3: realize you went full circle and made a small battleship with tank tracks
Tinsley apparently was unaware or unwilling to accept the concept of 'back blast .' Recoilless rifles function by allowing the 'kaboom' to be vented from the rear of the cannon. That has to go somewhere. In this design it apparently exits into the turret. 'Ka-incinerate.'
I’d love to see someone create a decent sized scale model of this vehicle. I don’t think it would be useful, but I think it’s definitely possible. For sealing the turret, it could be possible to use a temporary rubber seal that could be broken by the moving of the turret, potentially allowing for heavier armament without the need for the dome. The main issue is air for the engine, as you say, alternative power would likely be necessary, as well as a different track design for traversing the sea floor. Either way, it’s an interesting concept, glad you shared it.
The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/coneofarc08211
Can i call you corn of arc?
Well germans were trying to make the maus to go under water so a point
dont need it tho
Cone, I think that if you put some large ballast tanks in the tank than you could lessen the amount of pressure on the sea floor that causes tanks to become stuck in the mud, but you would have to sacrifice a bit of the armor to enable that to work. In our modern times an aluminum composite spaced armor would probably allow for decent protection and also lower weight, if the tank was battery powered and had a drive train similar to a Tesla with a inversion generator and in case of emergency the ability to fully come above water level, this concept might not be bad, but would probably be a better self-propelled artillery than tank.
If you can think of anything I've missed, lmk.
@@aidenburnside6380 well they could have added large air bags with makes the tank float but also just enough floaty that the pontoons stays under water
Slap a nuclear reactor in this thing and you have a perfect Fallout tank, even the article is overly American and fits into the lore
This article is from Mechanics illustrated, which was cited as a major inspiration for the Fallout world. It's possible that the people at Interplay Productions saw this tank while designing the Robobrain.
Panzer of the lake was the original submarine tank
😬
@@broomhwauser3380 🗿
@Kamikaze Film Productions 🗿
🤣 so true
By accident though
"Baby Assault Tanks! We can stop those Asian hordes in their infancy!"
"I don't think that's he meant."
Nah the CCP one child policy is the best at stopping infancy.
Isn't it though?
@@andrewphillips8341 that’s been discontinued
@@kansascityshuffle8526 now it’s a two child policy.
@@ironyinc3453 your point?
The tank sounds and looks like something from the fallout universe.
It's from mechanics illustrated, where a lot of inspiration for fallout universe came from.
That was my first thought too lol
Thats exactly what i was thinking
nah it exists in World of Tanks Blitz in the name of "U-Panzer"
Tanks with deep wading kits _frequently_ get stuck in the mud, even 'just' crossing rivers, or stall their engines, or find that they can't climb the bank on the other side. Western tanks have wide snorkel 'towers' so that the commander can stand in the top and guide the driver via intercom, and so that the crew can escape up the tower if the tank gets stuck. The disadvantage of these systems is that they're too big to carry on the tank in normal usage, so tanks wanting to cross a river would have to wait for the snorkels to be brought up on trucks. Soviet tanks use a small diameter snorkel tube which can be carried on the tank all the time. However, this system is very dangerous, since if the tank stalls or gets stuck, the crew have no means of escape except in very shallow water. Russian crews have been known to point-blank refuse to use their snorkels, despite the dire consequences of refusing orders in the Soviet Army. Standard practice therefore became to attach a snorkelling Russian tank to the winches of two armoured recovery vehicles, one on each bank, so that if the tank got stuck or stalled it's engine, one or other of the ARV's could pull it out. This does mean though that the advantage of having the snorkels on the tanks all the time is largely negated by the setup time for a safe river-crossing.
In practical terms, any safe, submerged crossing of a river by tanks requires prep time, support equipment and recce of entry/exit points, so it WILL slow down the tank's progress whatever method is used, often to the point where it's just easier, safer and almost as not-quick to wait for some kind of bridging gear to arrive and be setup.
Yes, very well summarised.
I used to study Soviet tank river-crossing operations when I was in the US Army. They used an observer in a tower or raised platform on shore guiding the driver by radio. During training exercises, they had specially prepared crossing points set up more or less permanently where the river bed was either naturally perfect or artificially prepared/reinforced. Still, every so often a tank would fail to cross and occasional deaths were not unheard of.
I've heard that bit about the Soviet tank crews refusing to use their snorkels, funnily enough the first thing that came to my mind when I thought about the design in the video was that I'd rather be on an open topped landing craft on the surface where I can have some situational awareness and the ability to at least attempt an escape if things get bad, than be trapped in a metal coffin under water with no means of escape if something goes wrong. Never mind the actual mortality rates, I don't care if you tell me that statistically the sub tank is much safer, I don't care. I would rather get blown up by a direct hit from a high explosive shell than take my chances with the underwater death box, and I think most people would probably agree that they'd rather take their chances with an easy death than being buried alive on the sea floor, where you get just enough time to process the fact that you're going to die, and nobody can help you.
Yeah that is why having a floating tank is arguably better, similar to the BMP apcs
The sea/river bed is about the only place I would consider a legged design to be better than track and wheels.
im not too fond of the idea of an internally mounted recoiless rifle personally
Maybe the recoilless gun could have a back-opening in the turret too, and be moved back and forth for reloading? I mean, if the front opening is covered by the dome, the back hole could too...?
Would've been a blast for the crew
@@ultramarinus2478
That was my thought also; better make sure it has absolutely foolproof interlocks on it though!
@@ultramarinus2478 The problem is that the dude speficially mentioned that th gun would need 90* of elevation. Maybe it was supposed to have an oscillating turret and the folks and MI just drew it wrong?
Yes; sounds like something Coyote would try using against the Roadrunner.
But just imagine the fear of seeing the enemy throwing tanks overboard only for them to reapear from the water like 46 ton terminator
Idea for a future video: the US "Hunter" heavy tank project from the 50's, it was supposed to be armed with twin 105mm guns with autoloaders in the main turret (yes, double barrel), some sources say it weighed 90 tons and had some early form of composite armor! Quite hard to find detailed info about that tank online. I think it would be perfect for this series.
American had a twin barrel design?
@@reform-revolution yep, just like the russian double barrel heavies from WoT
@@mihailo674 ffs ......
Have you guys heard of the M50 Ontos? 6 106 mm recoilless rifles. Served very well in the supporting fire role in Vietnam but constantly broke down because it was a 1950s design. Weird but effective design.
@@tisdude8955 not very practical really .... had to leave the thing to load the guns
The artist rendition is my favorite part of this entire video
Kinda reminds me of the fallout are style.
@@mardenrene yeah, that makes sense since the art style of fallout is 50's inspired. With nicely curved cars and those plastic domes it makes sense since this tank was designed/thought up during the korean war that took place in the early 50's.
"Water Lily" is an adorable name for a tank.
@@thefez-cat it really is
It's still not a match against the Bob Semple tank though.
Or the Arjun
@@bandvitromania9642 Arjun is a decent tank looking at the type of opponents that it is likely to face (Type-59, Type-69, Al Zarar and Al Khalid tanks)
@@trejbiorgroup1713 no need for explanation we all know that the Bob semple tank is the best cause there's a mattress for the driver
@@itsjustpaul6398 Lol. I was trying to stop this guy from trolling Arjun tank..
@@trejbiorgroup1713 no need to stop him even if he explains Bob semple is still the best
Love the illustrated tank's name: "Water Lily"
Love also the tease: "Baby Assault Tanks"...in case you need to clear out the offspring of your foe!!!!!
If this was ever to be built, there would be a lot of dead tank crews.
Look at how many die in FLOATING armored vehicles. Now imagine they have zero chance to bail as they wait on the bottom for their breathable air to run out.
or you know they could have airtanks, like the germans planned to give their tank crews for operation sealion
If it was still the 1900s, give it to the Soviet Union lmao
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Oh, like they had on the Kursk?
@@matthiuskoenig3378 still limited air time tho, you still need a division for recovery crews that are stuck underwater, wich may die beacuse of watter presure sudently entering the tank , is literally a death sentense
Reminds me of the testing process of KA 21 IFV fitted with inflated sausages on its sides. The testing driver died in these testing trials.
I feel like having a recoilless rifle in a confined space, much less a tank, would turn the entire crew into a thick paste upon firing.
Yea.....the fellow who came up with the bright idea to put the recoil-less rifle inside the turret obviously had no experience with them being fired.
I’m also wondering about the gun performance too. If you had a gun with most of its length in a turret with a fairly low silhouette (reminds me of Cold War Russian mbts) then your depression and elevation would be tricky at best.
They probably had a weird new modified design with a hole in the back of the turret and some kind of side loading, plus I think the design was actually supposed to use rocket tube flame weapons instead of an actual flamethrower.
I was just about to post this.
these guns can be built to vent the gas anywhere, just vent it forward like the sturmtiger, its not inherently backward venting
"The craftily led hordes of Asia" That whole paragraph is quite the period piece :D
And he didn't even hyphenate it correctly.
"Yankee ingenuity" also
what do you mean ? it was true then, and it's true now.
are you one of those liberal types ?
Have you seen the South American invasion of the USA lately ? or maybe the African invasion of Europe ? when one of your loved ones is killed by a foreigner, you'll finally wake up from your moralism.
Gotta watch out for those crafty hordes of 'Asia', with their master plan to destroy our superior ary... I mean, our American way of life.
I loved the “Artist Rendition” note just past the three minute mark, hahahaha
The turret looks more like an underwater UFO than a typical Soviet Dome turret
That old time recorded voice is great 😂👌
If you do make a separate series for magazine stuff, I have a name for it.
Call it: "Magazine Marvels".
We need this series
Man i really hate how well thought out this design is
My only modification would be to add sponsons to make the tank neutrally buoyant and link water screws to the drive
Also the backblast of the gun
@@shogg4 it said in the design that there would be an exaust port in the Back of the turret. As in the gun would go through the turret front to back.
@@shogg4 One of the first flaw i noticed, the design literally means that the crew will be roasted when it fire its gun.
@@HavocHerseim Solution: rocket boosters.
Panzer of the seas, what is your wisdom?
"'Why don't we have [crazy tank design]?' would make for a great series"
ConeofArc: "...if you'd like to see more...let me know..."
Me: "More!....MORE!"
General Hux: "That's enough....THATS ENOUGH!"
I can't even imagine how loud an *enclosed* 105mm recoilless rifle must have sounded from inside the tank even if the breech area was separated from the crew compartment with a bulkhead. The shockwave would have also been rather debilitating.
An Ontos-style arrangement of recoilless rifles probably would have been more workable than what's shown in the drawing. Perhaps those barrels could have been sealed up without a plastic dome as well.
Wonder How they might deal with the backblast
Recoilless rifles and armor protection don't generally go together. I think there were attempts to mount one with the muzzle and breech both outside a turret, but that introduced other issues, such as reloading. An Ontos arrangement requires a crewman to fully expose himself to enemy fire in order to reload. Not exceptionally practical for something supposed to be used in a beach assault (Ontos was designed as a tank destroyer).
@@jarink1 Oh, I wasn't saying that the Ontos arrangement would have been ideal- just less insane than sealing the backblast within a turret.
Vent out the back and load from a sliding port in the side. Job done.
@@Lightwolf_VR That might work but you'd need to significantly raise the gun versus what's depicted in the drawing.
I guess the real issue here is that the concept drawing is quarter-assed at best. The thing looks like it's got a tiny mortar instead of a recoilless rifle.
The more I read into this the more I get the feeling that the author had never been in either a tank or a sub. Eh one can dream.
big "im an expert that has never actually be in the field" energy
@@HavocHerseim Even disregarding currents, it's incredibly easy to get a tank stuck underwater. With modern tanks, before any fording operation you'd carefully map the river bed and the shores, and it's still very risky. Can't really do that before an amphibious assault.
"I've been reading about military stuff since i was kid, thus it means i have a privilege to design a better vehicle than real military folks do." - The Designer (forgot his name)
Wait, i think i've met this kind of people before.
These tanks were supposed to be used for the island attacks…they actually would’ve saved lives. Instead they launched a full frontal assault, U.S troops came under direct fire and the tanks had to clear the enemy out at the same time, which took time. Oh well, I guess there’s gotta be a time when we’re too scared to take on a decent idea. I mean it is a bizarr idea so I don’t blame them. And it probibly had complications..especialy with the engine.
exactly
"why dont we build..." is an B-tier memetemplate imo
Ah 1940/50's speculative military hardware where every new invention or technology will transform warfare with no regards for reliability, effectiveness, survivability or even crew safety.
Clearly, the next war will require another D-DAy landing, its not like we have developed a civilization ending superweapon!
Please do more of these, I find the incredibly interesting, maybe even with more speculation?
Also, I propose "Cursed by Fantasy" as a title for such a series
How the hell is this gun supposed to work? Is there just a big hole in the back of the turret for the backblast of the recoilless rifle, or is it venting the rocket blast directly into it?
it doesn't LOOK like the rocket launcher from the Sturmtiger, i.e. venting the gasses forward... and the gun you mentioned being a likely candidate isn't much smaller than a 105mm tank gun.
Still, while the flamethrower might be useful for beachhead invasions, i think the massive amount of machine guns show just how far detached from reality the designer is.
The clear plastic dome would have surely kept everything safe, sturdy and not drenched.
@@ardie4 Plastics can be very impressive in that regard.... nowadays.
In the 1950s, plastic was brittle garbage that would've just cracked as soon as it got a foot underwater.
Hadn't the Cult of the Machine Gun been rightfully executed ten years before this?
@@rdfox76 Pretty much and the bow machine gun was on its way out as well.
@@DarkestVampire92 The bow machine gun on the lower plate of these tanks is especially silly. An amphibious tank is more likely than most tanks to need to crest a ridge under fire from entrenched enemies, so its lower plate is going to need to be extra strong. How do you make it extra strong? By putting an obvious weak point right where someone aiming for the biggest flat surface on the tank will be aiming.
Artist Rendition*
Moves Flying Pershing into the water*
I think it has one fatal flaw. It it kind of assumes the enemy don't know it exists and won't try to counter it.
Underwater dragons teeth, hedgehogs, mines, shelling the area with artillery, or any number other traps and obstacles would be 100x worse to deal with while underwater. I think it's first deployment could go really well but once the suprise factor is gone and counter tactics are introduced I just cannot see it working.
They will think of another way to counter those tactics by just scouting the water or other genius ideas that a general will think
Not to mention the wildly uneven terrain of the ocean floor would limit it's ability to be used in many areas of the world.
Just the sea bed would be a problem in a lot of places, and underwater visibility is low in most seas and would be even lower with tanks churning up the sea bed.
It would need underwater engineer vehicles to find and clear a path to the beach, particularly if the enemy had constructed obstacles. The Russians did make a swimming, tracked engineer vehicle to reconnoitre and clear fording sites, the IPR. www.net-maquettes.com/pictures/ipr/
This may just be my lack of understanding on this sort of subject but wouldn’t a design like this want to be slightly heavier than a light tank but not enough to be classed as a medium tank?
What I’m attempting to get at is the issues of underwater traveling. With wider tracks it would have an easier time finding grip but if the vehicle was too light, wouldn’t that negate the widened track lengths?
Another issue would be underwater visibility; especially if there’s multiple of these tanks traversing the floor. I’m guessing there would be some sort of light on the outside of the tank like another other but what about an infrared sensor? Does water interrupt those?
Lastly, communication. This is going to sound more complicated because of how I’m thinking but I’ll try to simplify it as best as I can. Would they use standard radio equipment found in most tanks or would they require something with similar strength to that of a submarine? To my knowledge currently, radio waves can travel far through water but it requires a strong sensor to pick up the response(I’m not 100 percent sure); something stronger than that of a standard tanks radio system.
This is all speculation of course since this isn’t a real design but I think this concept could be made into a more realistic design if we collectively solve some of the issues highlighted above. Let me know what you think.
Radio waves are highly attenuated by water, basically absorbing the RF. Though there is an exception ELF/VLF, Extra Low Frequency and Very Low Frequency. Those bands are used for submerged submarine communications. Drawback is while today’s WIFI is capable of multiple gigabyte speeds ELF/VLF is limited to a few bits per minute. Communications between submerged tanks would better use SONAR. Sound travels better underwater. Basic pings for Morse code. My background is communications research at The Naval Research Laboratory and ASW operations in the USN.
You'd also want to be sure that the seabed was free of obstructions, hitting large rock formations or steep coral could really ruin your day.
The German solution in the Tauchpanzer was to run an aerial up to the surface with the flexible 15 metre snorkel tube they used. Visibility is going to be poor to zero, once tracks started churning up the sea bed, so I believe the idea was to drive on a gyro compass heading.
The design looks like it could easily be 20-30 tons, so I think that the grip problem you're describing wouldn't be an issue.
They could have used a simple active sonar system, they’d be able to hear the “pings” through the hull, if they’re loud you’re close to someone. That would at least avoid people driving into each other. They could have tried to use the pings as some kinda Morse code but it probably wouldn’t have been worth the trouble, they’d only need to be out of communication for a few minutes at most
If US had it in WW2 when fighting Japanese, this tank would be very helpful. But main challenge I see is actually the surface of the ocean bed - it's not really flat on most places. Second, if the ships need to stay away from shore guns, that makes quite a long distance and can be often really deep. It would be better to change the design from moving on seabed to keep like 10 m below water. This would need some submarine systems installed and lighter armor than the author imagined, but 10 m of water would also protect it nicely during the moving phase.
Love the way he thinks tho :)
@@HavocHerseim What shorelines do you swim near, where the currents are strong enough to sweep around a flat, hydrodynamic tank weighing many tons "like a toy", but are still gentle enough to allow people to swim in them?
Oh, PLEASE cover more wacky ideas in magazines from the 50s (and beyond) regarding insane military concepts.
I love this kind of thing and would love to see more. The outlandish ideas are really fun to see and speculate. These kinds of things fueled my imagination as a kid.
"I join the Army, Not the Navy" must be the perfect reaction for the tankers in that time
The shape of the thing reminds me of the AMX 40. I tried to find info on that tank once but since it was never built the only thing that came up was World of Tanks gameplay footage.
Quack quack. The duck tank only showed off its bill in the drafting stage but was never completed due to the Fall of France.
3 issues
1. Dense mud like you said which require emended power to overcome
2. Diesel subs used batteries underwater. Could a battery meet the power needs at that time.
3. Recoiless guns worked by pushing part of the blast back wards to reduce recoil. In a sealed box this would have shoved burning propellant into the crew’s faces
I imagine TF2 MvM theme with this tank approaching. lol
there is a single dumb reason: there is no MVM map set near shore
@@Mima_the_vengeful_spirit Literally not even close.
Just how the theme sounds and how the tank looks is why to be honest. It has that retro style.
What you said wouldn't even logically be a reason at all so I guess you're trying to somehow be hostile for no reason.
@@xsonohx7961 what I meant is: if there was a sea based map for MVM, this tank would be a good replacement for the original one.
@@Mima_the_vengeful_spirit Oh, yeah I agree.
Three words:
Underwater Tank Traps.
That's a fresh kind of hell I don't even want to imagine.
ConeofArc is the best history channel on youtube
There is a big hole in it already: the recoilless rifle. When that gun fired, like a RPG or a bazooka, it would create a very big backlash to counter the recoil of the whole gun. If a 105mm recoilless gun is fired in that stubby turret, the crew, if not die from the fume, pressure, and heat, would be critically injured. Plus, the resistance on the beach can be very well put out by naval bombardment or airstrike. It would be much cheaper for a flight of F/A-18s or trios of Arleigh Burke-class to cover the landing party than to develop a tank for a niche situation.
Yeah lol. I was totally on board and open minded until he said to put a recoiless gun in it. Really though it could just be replaced with a 105mm howitzer since it should have to fight beach emplacements and not other tanks.
@@MistahFox or you know, just make a cover for the barrel that can be explosively removed :P
I figured he planned for a tube to vent exhaust.
Forget something like a Burke, battleships were in service at the time this thing was designed, they should be able to clear the beach of the kinds of things that a 105mm recoilless rifle would be used against no problem. And if for some reason they can't, such as due to too many coastal defenses for them to operate, then an amphibious landing with tanks probably isn't feasible anyway.
Using naval artillery to clear the beach of things like pillboxes and enemy tanks before landing makes much more sense than trying to find a way to land such a heavily armed and armored vehicle. It just isn't necessary. Light armored support should be enough to secure a beach head, at which point conventional tanks can be landed.
@@TommygunNG they probably would. But what if it failed? Murphy’s law is always there. And a recoiless rifle is something that should never be used in an enclosed space. Beside, the venting would probably make the gun more complicated to operate and take up a lot of space, lead to deficiency in combat effectiveness.
Otherwise, if a beach is too heavily defended that a ship can’t get close, those tanks would not stand a chance. There is nothing a 16in shell or a missile can’t destroy. So, it would be a redundant tank and not much of use.
"Battlevision" became a literal reality. That one doesn't seem so whacky at all. The baby assault tanks though... that looks WILD.
I'm not sure if Tinsley understood how recoilless guns work. The vented breech system and massive rearward discharge means they would need just as much outside access as the muzzle of the gun, as well as posing loading difficulties. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near such a system.
A retractable tube outlet?
really interesting design, and pretty realistic too, all things considered
a bit unrelated but do you know anything about tests that the soviets did with rappeling tanks during the inter-war/early ww2 period? I remember seeing a video of a bunch of T-26s connected by cable and slowly dropping one off a cliff and then forming a 'train' of tanks going down the hill but for the life of me I can't find it again
Sounds interesting
Would also be interesting to see more info on the russian "teletanks": a T-26 or BT-5 modified to be remote controlled and had no crew. The best part is how they were actually used in combat!
From the early 60s, Popular Mechanics and Popular Science magazines had articles on jet back packs for soldiers, who are armed with machine guns and bazookas. One illustration has a soldier, wearing his jet pack, hovering over a city street, and firing his bazooka at a low flying enemy jet fighter. Bell Aerospace had their flying back pack on tour then. That thing had a 27 second run time. I saw one fly around 1964 at a home show in LA.
There were also articles in those magazines about using "Radioactive Death Sand" on attacking enemy troops, and LSD fog to confuse and halt advancing soldiers.
I still have those magazines, and the illustrations are classic.
Just my opinion: Theoretically possible, yet extremely impractical.
1. These tanks will cost a lot more to be build due to added components for waterproofing, etc. This is not a regular tank with parts added to make it watertight. This is a submarine/tank hybrid.
2. Problem of communication while submerged. Radio cannot be used underwater. They will need to rely on scheduled plans yet it will be difficult for the tank or the commander to pass message to each other.
3. Rough underwater terrain would likely make this tank only deployable in even less areas, thus limiting the benefit of building such tank. Not to mention all underwater terrain need to be scouted just for this tank.
The radio problem can be dealt with
LONG ANTENNA
and navigation can have a special tank or sonar or such
Or silent communication
This is actually a pretty neat idea. If the landing ship also came with a smallish sub to lay crane mats on the sea floor shortly ahead of the landing, I could see this concept working well regardless of seafloor conditions.
the main problem with this is the landing ships would have to get so close to shore as to make them a vulnerable target themselves
Simple solution: just make the landing ship a submarine also
haha
@@mig0150 The Russians though of that. So in some wacky universe there's submarine tanks being brought in by submarines.
I really enjoy this type of stuff, as it combines my interests in both military tech and the zeitgeist of the late 40’s - early 60’s. Personally, I’d love to see more videos like this one, Cone!
I think it could have been made to work - using electric drive is one solution, or carrying oxygen tanks to use a conventional motor as long as the depth pressure wasn't too great for the exhaust to work. It's interesting that there's possibly a false premise here - turrets have been successfully waterproofed as the German experiments showed, as was used on tanks on D-Day, and on the wading Soviet tanks we saw in your video. Therefore the next steps he proposed were not necessary, and there could have been other solutions such as a fixed turret/superstructure. I am also not sure how he intended a recoilless rifle to work inside the tank - I assume he's considered that the exhaust gas from the RR needed to go out the back of the turret some how.
All very interesting though!
Also many sea floors are very uneven, rocky or pose some other danger. What an enemy could do to prevent the tanks from being useful is by artificially raising the sea floor or making it cluttered with boulders which is easily done. So essentially you could deny those tanks access to the beach with a bunch of rocks/concrete traps. Even better, you could create a bottleneck with those obstacles and lead them to a kill zone.
@@mihailosaranovic5444 as a scuba diver I agree that the biggest flow is the sea isn’t flat and easy to maneuver, the best thing would be make it swim like a submarine but you would need a really powerful engine to work
I think the major thing the guy who pitched the idea didn't think of is how the sea floor is basically just several feet of loose silt with not a lot to grab onto. The idea, though, is interesting.
The best tank in world is obviously the Bob Semple hehe
Jawohl
I was wondering if someone was smart enough to make this comment..
@@derrickstorm6976 am smart enough
It did it's job, ie. making the Aussies feel better.
@@steve0592 it's from new Zealand the Bob Semple
Yes, I would think this concept would have worked and please more of those tanks!!!
When you don’t know which Torres belongs in a tank:
*SALVATION!!!*
1 MILLION LIVES
@@starflyxxl8600 CRISP WHITE SHEETS
These are the type of people you want in you engineering team, always thinking outside the box instead of just doing the same concept over and over
There were definitely some fanciful ideas of the wars of tomorrow, they did get a lot of the TV war right with drones and helmet cams.
I don't know how I ever would have been able to understand the concept without that fantastic artist's rendition.
being high on uranium also brings somewhat believable ideas
I appreciate the fact that the guy at least had some form of reasonable idea on how to make the concept work, rather than just making stuff up as was common in those types of magazines. I mean, yes, there are numerous detail issues that would stymie this design in the real world, but there is an interesting idea with some actual planning at the core of this.
This type of tank seems pretty tame, compared to deep wading snorkel kits they make for many modern tanks.
I love how this thing looks like a flying saucer
This tank can be countered with underwater anti-tank mines. Also, would need sizable oxygen tank to make it work as distances would be far greater than normal river crossing. Next big challenge would be a terrain. Shingle is not kind to tank tracks. Also, some sea floor is deep mud...
not to mention a lot of islands tend to have reefs and cliffs near their shores
anybody who had ever swam in a beach using goggles can easily tell you visibility is close to zero underwater, units could easily lose formation or accidentally drive into impassable terrain, dooming the crews
yes please more of this kind of cursed stuff. the whackier the better!
As to the Underwater propulsion, using a full contained regenerative engine powered unit fueled by H2O2 at 98%+ was tested by the F*C company in the mid 1960's, but was cancelled after an explosion killed several Engineers.
My Mom was a Technical Manual Transcriber/Translator at the time. I was an Aeronautical Engineering student just across the street from the company test track and was a eyewitness to the damaged test device remains. This was a higher than TOP SECRET Military project. When I Inquired about it I got a visit from the ''Men in Black''.
10% of attention: COA speaking
90% of attention: artist rendition
The window between when the technology was there to do this effectively and the airpower hadn't yet overshadowed the need is just too small
The "D Day Tank" is a "DD tank". The DD is for "Duplex Drive".
If that tank is in use in a different timeline and continued to Vietnam war, the vietnamese be like, "the water speaks American"
looks like a fallout tank
Thumbnails : "underwater tank"
American inf : oh panzer of the rake what is your wisdom
That thumbnails : *Shoot AP mine*
I enjoyed the video. I would look forward to hearing about far fetched tank concepts of yesteryear.
This kind of ridiculous design is exactly the kind of thing I would love to see you dissect in detail.
This sounds like a death trap.
by british armour doctrin any tank entering deap water is 'lost' regardless of weather it has wading gear or not. this is due to the vast number that get stuck in the soft bottom and then need to be winched out.
I can see most of these getting stuck on the sea floor and drowning there crews.
The 50s were a...special time.
Well this is interesting
I had that magazine as a kid. I always thought it COULD have worked, but I always believed it would have needed underwater pathfinding sonar.
Thats one cursed tank.
I saw the thumbnail and I thought you were going to tell me someone ACTUALLY tried to make the Tesla tank from Red Alert 1
WAIT WHAT IS THE BABY ASSAULT TANK? Could the Cone go over that?
The smaller the vehicle the less weight it adds to make the armor thicker, like the Pz I F. I hope that's what the Baby Assault Tank is.
the baby tigers ...... they werent assault tanks they were "heavy scouts" which is silly
@@reform-revolution The smaller the vehicle the less weight it adds to make the armor thicker like the Pz I F
@@nicholaspratt8473 i know that i was talking about the tanks themselves which werent for assaults but scouting
@@reform-revolution Figure out what I'm talking about before you go insulting me. Nothing you've said is relevant to anything I've said.
@@nicholaspratt8473 i didnt insult you i called the idea of a heavy scout silly
Man reading those old magazine concepts of the future is always fun to.
-Oh panzer of the Sea , what Is your wisdom?
- don t listen to the panzer of the lake.
As a former mechanized Army veteran, you will never get us to get in a vehicle that sinks by design. You have submariners for that.
I don't want to ever think about one of those things having a breakdown underwater.
Submersible Tank? Launch from a soviet style sub transport 621, 664, 748 just off shore, with companion apcs, drone aircraft... Don't forget the Nuke powered sub tank with the crazy football shaped fixed turret.
Me, as a Dutch person, has tought alot about amfibious tanks, due to our relation with water. I would see a good underwater tank would be hugendue to our “waterlinie” but quite complex. 1 idea i had in mind however would be to sumbmerge a tank partually, using the water as means of protection, some kind of semi-submerisble. Imagine having to go trough 2 meters of water just to get to the crew compartment, or even remote controlled compartment. Even tough modern tanks have such advanced APDS-FS shells, good luck with going trough that!
That 105mm Recoilless Rifle mounted INSIDE THE TURRET would have killed everyone on board with the first shot. They have a TREMENDOUS back blast from the firing charge, hence "recoilless rifle".
I would watch the hell out of a series on military concepts from the old Popular Mechanics and other magazines. DO IT!
I can think of a few ideas that would be a whole lot simpler than making a new vehicle, such as the DD tank (okay, only works in calm seas), strap-on pontoon floats (filled with cork, so a hit won't sink them immediately, or transport on semi-submerged barges.
Definitely would like a series on these wacky designs and old war time magazines.
A Betteridea(?) A giant hollow torpedo with blast off cap "Fired" at shore, such that the torpedo lands itself, like when they sink a truck in Operation Petticoat, but instead of blowing up, the front blows off and a tank or two rolls out.
When I see the amount of leaks that can spring in a regular boat made to float, I can't imagine the ingeneering madness this would have been.
"Put tracks on submarines and roll them up the beach?"
Germany: Way ahead of you, buddies.
I would definitely like to see more military “off beat” designs from the past. Thanks.
I think the guy forgot that recoiless rifles have a MASSIVE backblast.... and he wants to keep that in a turret?
you can vent the gasses in any direction, this presumably would have vented forward, around the barrel similarly to the sturmtiger
@@gaiamission7200 true, forgot about that.
Building such a tank, would be far easier than finding enough idiots to crew them.
how to make floating heavily armored tank:
Step 1: increase water displacement (volume of tank)
Step 2: make it more stream line
step 3: realize you went full circle and made a small battleship with tank tracks
Tinsley apparently was unaware or unwilling to accept the concept of 'back blast .' Recoilless rifles function by allowing the 'kaboom' to be vented from the rear of the cannon. That has to go somewhere. In this design it apparently exits into the turret. 'Ka-incinerate.'
Everything seems like it would be functional. But like you said, the likelihood of it just getting stuck is high.
I’d love to see someone create a decent sized scale model of this vehicle. I don’t think it would be useful, but I think it’s definitely possible. For sealing the turret, it could be possible to use a temporary rubber seal that could be broken by the moving of the turret, potentially allowing for heavier armament without the need for the dome. The main issue is air for the engine, as you say, alternative power would likely be necessary, as well as a different track design for traversing the sea floor. Either way, it’s an interesting concept, glad you shared it.