PDA

View Full Version : What is this? ;)



Egorka
11-05-2007, 02:05 AM
http://i20.tinypic.com/2cd8xok.jpg
http://i23.tinypic.com/2h3agit.jpg
http://i23.tinypic.com/30wmkvn.jpg

RifleMan20
11-05-2007, 04:57 PM
By the looks of it, it is an a selfpropelled tank aircraft hybrid my guess made by (also by the stars) the allies

pdf27
11-05-2007, 05:18 PM
The "CCCP" is a subtle hint, being as it is short for Союз Советских Социалистических Республик. Or in what may be a more familiar translation "Union of Soviet Socialst Republics".

I have seen pictures of Soviet glider tanks (Antonov A-40), but I haven't seen one fitted with an engine before. I rather suspect that this was just a mock-up model of somebody's wild idea - fitting a powerful enough engine to lug any weight of armour around isn't going to be very practical, particularly with wings that small.

RifleMan20
11-05-2007, 05:30 PM
on the other wing says AT-1 or I, dont know if that rings a bell

Egorka
11-06-2007, 04:23 AM
on the other wing says AT-1 or I, dont know if that rings a bell

It is LT-1 (ЛТ-1). Stands for "Летающий Танк 1" = "Flying Tank 1"

A wooden model of a prototype designed by Michail Smalko (Михаил Смалько) in 1937.

Kovalski
11-06-2007, 04:56 AM
I've seen a picture of a donkey with the panzerschreck attached to its back...

But this one goes far beyond that height of absurdity...

A tank with the wings, oh my... :)

RifleMan20
11-06-2007, 01:57 PM
huh, maybe I should learn the russian language, it might be hard though

Egorka
11-06-2007, 04:28 PM
I've seen a picture of a donkey with the panzerschreck attached to its back...

But this one goes far beyond that height of absurdity...

A tank with the wings, oh my... :)

Not just wings... Telescopic wings! :) And a propeller that can be hiden behind the armour.

RifleMan20
11-06-2007, 05:48 PM
the tank looks like it only has a small double barrel machine turret, no cannon

Egorka
11-07-2007, 06:19 AM
the tank looks like it only has a small double barrel machine turret, no cannon

2 x 12,5mm machine guns + 1 x 7,92mm machine gun

Rising Sun*
11-07-2007, 07:09 AM
the tank looks like it only has a small double barrel machine turret, no cannon

Because the prop would smash on a cannon.

If a cannon was swung to the rear it would alter the weight balance and make the plane too tail heavy to take off.

A flying tank can strafe so it doesn't need a cannon.

Note how the MG's are elevated with a rail all around the turret? The rail prevents the MG's depressing in flight, so the MG's can't shoot the prop as they dive to strafe, nor shoot off their own tail in defence against another plane.

Note also the twin headlights. These could be adjusted by the gunner on a parallax basis to direct the twin MG's very accurately as the third point of the triangulated fire direction cone.

If this flying tank had ever gone into production, it would have ruled the skies and given the Soviets victory to the point they would have met the British and Americans in Paris.

However, the Americans recognised the threat and sent the wrong specifications to the Soviets so the the mattress spring factory converted to produce the retractable wing springs never made springs that worked. As the wings never extended enough for take off, all prototypes were eventually destroyed and the idea was abandoned.

Man of Stoat
11-07-2007, 07:25 AM
Is clearly a concept model:

"Look, comrade Stalin, at the superiority of Soviet weapons design, unhindered by such bourgeois concepts as the reactionary laws of Newtonian physics! Let us give thanks to the memory of comrade Lenin that the capitalist running dogs in the West cannot benefit from the revolutionary insights of socialist science such as these "

Gen. Sandworm
11-07-2007, 08:13 AM
Is clearly a concept model:

"Look, comrade Stalin, at the superiority of Soviet weapons design, unhindered by such bourgeois concepts as the reactionary laws of Newtonian physics! Let us give thanks to the memory of comrade Lenin that the capitalist running dogs in the West cannot benefit from the revolutionary insights of socialist science such as these "

LOL

Whatever its a complete waste of time. There is know way you could get that thing off the ground under is own power unless you stripped it down to a flying beer can. Even then the aerodynamics look pretty depressing. Plus when are you supposed to deploy the tracks...........Im quite sure you not landing on tracks. The US Sheridan tank (Vietnam) was dropped from a C-130 on a skid. Even if you dropped this from a plane it would still be a retarded idea. Whoever came up with this concept .......... minus it being a 5 year old. Should have been shot for stupidity.

Egorka
11-09-2007, 08:01 AM
True. But how arrogant...

Egorka
11-09-2007, 08:34 AM
I understand your humour. But if you look at the specs below you will see that the idea was not absolutely crazy as such.

Remembering the purpose (gliding behind the line) and with a bit stronger power plant this project is not absolutely fantastic.

How much practical it would be is another issue. And that is exactly why the works did not go further than just a wooden model.


LT-1 project
Mass loaded = 4.500 kg
Powerplant = 526 kW
Power/weight = 8,55 kg/kW
Wing area = 32 m2
Wing loading = 141 kg/m2


Hurricane IIC
Mass loaded = 3.480 kg
Powerplant = 883 kW
Power/weight = 3,94 kg/kW
Wing area = 24 m2
Wing loading = 145 kg/m2


DH.98 Mosquito B Mk XVI
Mass loaded Max = 11.000 kg
Powerplant = 2 x 1.280 kW
Power/weight = 4,29 kg/kW
Wing area = 42 m2
Wing loading = 262 kg/m2


IL-2M3
Mass loaded Max = 6.160 kg
Powerplant = 1.285 kW
Power/weight = 4,79 kg/kW
Wing area = 38 m2
Wing loading = 162 kg/m2

pdf27
11-09-2007, 08:42 AM
You won't get much of a tank on 4 1/2 tonnes...

Cuts
11-09-2007, 12:46 PM
True. But how arrogant...

Arrogance is good...


But only if you can back it up, otherwise it's IRONMANCE.

Egorka
11-09-2007, 03:15 PM
You won't get much of a tank on 4 1/2 tonnes...

True. But arrogant again. Panzer I was also only 5,4 tonns and armed by 2x7,92mm machine guns. But it had one dissadvantage to LT-1, i.e. it could not fly.

Though inferior, Panzer I were used on both Polish and French campaigns extensively. Panzer I constituted 20% (523 out of 2574) of all German tank force in French campaign.

Now, imagine they could also fly.....:roll: ...they would land in Britain before the ships even left Dunkirk...

Drake
11-09-2007, 03:33 PM
Actually that would be kinda funny to watch, tanks flying

pdf27
11-09-2007, 03:59 PM
Now, imagine they could also fly.....:roll: ...they would land in Britain before the ships even left Dunkirk...
And they would do well for about a day until their fuel ran out. At which point they become immobile tin boxes and the attackers lose pretty much their entire tank force.
Given that I live about 20 miles from some of the planned invasion beaches, this suits me just fine :D

Egorka
11-09-2007, 04:13 PM
And they would do well for about a day until their fuel ran out. At which point they become immobile tin boxes and the attackers lose pretty much their entire tank force.
Given that I live about 20 miles from some of the planned invasion beaches, this suits me just fine :D

Nonsnese!
After the fuel would run out the nanoquarkotrons would be automaticaly triggered initiating annihilation of the time-space continuum in the radius of 3,1415 miles each...

Pretty scarry perspective! But since you live 20 miles avay it would not had been much trouble for your grand parents.

pdf27
11-10-2007, 02:41 AM
Nonsnese!
After the fuel would run out the nanoquarkotrons would be automaticaly triggered initiating annihilation of the time-space continuum in the radius of 3,1415 miles each...

Pretty scarry perspective! But since you live 20 miles avay it would not had been much trouble for your grand parents.

Yours, too, if it annihilates everything for 31,415 miles ;)

Egorka
12-26-2007, 05:49 PM
Guys,

I guess you will find this interesting:

http://fotoplenka.ru/photo/tancist/361294/7044147.jpg

http://fotoplenka.ru/photo/tancist/361294/7044128.jpg

http://fotoplenka.ru/photo/tancist/361294/7044129.jpg

Source: http://tancist.livejournal.com/109617.html

Egorka
12-26-2007, 06:03 PM
And here is the British input into what been said to be "gone far beyond that height of absurdity"

Vickers August 27 1941
Saunders-Roe P.1033 (http://cmeunier.chez-alice.fr/)

"The Saunders-Roe P.1033 project of 1940 is mentioned as a tank carrying aircraft, and that
remains the Antonov Krilya Tanka (not perfectly a twin-boomer) or the Christie M-1932 (older).
The P.1033s caterpillars were not used as a landing gear there were wheels below, that would
be removed with the wings. On the An KT, the tracks were the only landing device and reaching
100mph (160km/h) for take off with them would have been a problem, but a Packet twin-boomer
used a caterpillar landing gear for rough fields, and it worked in 1947."

http://fotoplenka.ru/photo/tancist/361294/7044165.jpg

and this one

Thinking of flying Valentines...

http://fotoplenka.ru/photo/tancist/361294/7044164.jpg