ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2024
- In this video, we talk about the Maeda Ku-6, a Japanese-designed flying tank - or gliding tank, if you prefer - from mid-World War 2 that didn't make it very far. We first look at the strange global interest in the concept, with designs from the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, and Japan. We look a bit more in depth at the Soviet project, the Antonov A-40, as that made it the furthest in its development, to see where it went right and where it went wrong.
We then look at the Maeda Ku-6 and how it seemingly attempted to rectify the issues with the A-40, in designing a super light and tiny tank that was to be outfitted with wings and a tail. We look at their initial tank options and how their new tank design, known as Special Tank No.3 Ku-Ro, attempted to make the flying tank concept viable. We end by looking at the inevitable failure of the design due to the war situation and speculate on how poor the design would have been if it had been made.
Also yes, the thumbnail picture is very blurry. There're like two images of this online. My options were limited.
The Russian interest in this concept likely stems from the need to find new novel ways for a tank to get its crew killed.
Making a gliding tank with no turret makes sense, can't pop the turret off of there's no turret yet? When entering combat you just remove the turret again and you're invincible.
Keep in mind, Japanese tanks were more for infantry support rather than anti tank. They were small and light so they could be used in austere environments, their design allowed them to be placed in areas were you would not expect a tank. Which when you are on an island where the enemy really isn't expecting tanks is a very advantageous thing. You are putting a 37, 45, or 57mm that is covered in armor and can be relatively easy to mobilize in an environment where your enemies are going to be using small arms and light artillery.
All of these flying tanks were very high drag. The British got it right by putting a small light tank inside a glider.
My lord and savior the M22
@@nutmaster2563 and the Tetrarch.
Too bad this was mid/late war, where both the M22 and Tetrarch were completely obselete 😅
@@rudolfthecat1176 only obsolete when going up against other tanks. But who would expect airborne troops to bring their own armour? The psychological impact of enemy armour in your rear areas cannot be underestimated. Also the M5 Stuart was involved in the fighting in Normandy, Wittmann put several out of commission at Villers Bocage.
The inspiration for the “AeroGavin” 😂😂
Oh no, not that thing...
The German Gigant transport plane could carry a light tank and perhaps even a medium tank.
Speaking of soviet war atrocities if tanks aren't heavy enough they also toyed with flying submarines :) .
They weren't the only ones the us had a project in the 1960s for a submarine seaplane.
@@poil8351 probably much more doable these days but back then without modern composites. Getting things water tight and in and out of operation between states just an insane amount of weight to add to a plane but you could go genset to electroprop to make conversion from modes easier now but getting a water logged engine running really doesn't sound great :).
I've heard of trucks being shot down, but imagine being the first bird gunner to pick off a _tank._
Am I the only one to be really bothered on how little track tension is on the tank on the thumbnail?
nope.
if that thing lands with any crosswind the tracks will just fucking leave
@@manitoba-op4jx yeah and I can’t imagine having to put ones like that back on.
The Ki-21 "Heavy" bomber.
7:26 to be fair the m4 is a medium tank and weight in the region of i think 28 to 38 tonnes the hi-go is a light tank and more comparable to a m3 Stuart which also had a 37mm gun
Any airship tank concept anywhere?
The british had a glider with an 8 ton payload during WW2.
Frankly, I'm surprised this concept wasnt acutally done successfully by someone, its actually feasible considering the payload of a number of gliders being able to handle weights of the lightest tanks and tankets.
It was done by the British, they succesfully deployed some M22's by transport glider, during the Rhine crossings I believe. But these landings were hardly contested so it didn't see much action.
Thanks very much.....
Old F-4 Shoe🇺🇸
Compare the type 95 to the kv1s or kv85s. Those thigns would have litterally pushed a type 95 out of the way a kept going without breaking a sweat.
Reminds me of a hybrid car.
Yo this thing can pack so many kegerators in there
Cracking open some cold ones with the boys after *GAVIN COMMENCES*
We can do this...but it can't have a...full "TANK" of Gas...
WAAAAGGGHHHHHH
This is some Warhammer stuff!
Imagine an orbital drop delivery of leman russ, when the heretic looks to the sky, thousands of tanks are dropping like meteors.
Enduro Moocycles are the same consent. Doesn't do either function well.
While their not tops for either, they are good in the niche. This works well for folks who like to ride calmly on the road and get somewhere at the end that a road bike wouldn't be able to make it 100 yards. For this very reason they were developed and continue to be sold
The only bad WW2 weapon idea, were Germany isn't involved.
Tanks from 2300 will run on 100% replicated synthohol and still get 7mpg.
An idea bound to fail badly, even the light air portable kind they had some semi better armor and armament, the tetrarch and the purpose built m22 locust faired poorly as armored vehicles...hell, the Russians have suffered in Ukraine alot because of use of the bmd range of airborne amphibious tanks..though did have some better weapons.
Guys dont mention aerogavern 😂
What an horrible idea.
Ok. to summarize, A tank that cant roll or loop "but it dives rather good" And a tank that cant dogfight, and with armour that make the Citroen 2CV with a machinegun look like it was meant for real (it was)
And when it eventually was safe on the ground it would have wasted good time from either a machinegun group or a single wing of divebombers. Useless.
What drive on the ground should remain on the ground, Just like the flying car, The private drones give the planes that belong in the sky trouble enough as it is.
First
Until anti-gravity propulsion is invented all flying AFV concepts are… sigh…
Stupid and pointless.
Hell, even amphibious MTBs are a hopeless idea.
Physics and gravity are awkward ….