My youngest brother was a navigator aboard one of the C-141s that made the Sheridan drop over Torrijos-Tocumen Airport (now Tocumen International Airport). The aircrews had been instructed to deliver the M551s next to the airfield instead of onto it because of fear the vehicles might strike some of the paratroopers or interfere with follow-on troop landings by tactical transports. What they were not told was that the adjacent field of elephant grass was actually a marsh. At least one of the armored reconnaissance vehicles became hopelessly mired in it, and I still joke with him today that it was probably the one he dropped.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1260">21:00</a> former C-17 loadmaster here. The C-17 can land on minimally prepared dirt strips (just don't let MX know what the underside is going to look like) and low level drogue chute extraction both mean you do not need a major airfield to deploy cargo. The second point about stripping down the tank is a well made point though
Really enjoyed this one . . . a very interesting example of a seemingly straightforward problem that has yet to be solved and maybe never will be! Thank you for all the hard work that goes into these videos, and for being so generous with your knowledge.
Great video. Can you make a follow-up video looking at some other examples, like the German Wiesel, the Soviet ASU-57 and BMD, or the relatively new US M10 Booker? Or other ideas such as how ATGM's have allowed lightweight, air-portable AFV's to remain viable, or the Soviet's usage of rocket-assisted parachutes?
On the cinematic war front, A Bridge Too Far shows the failure of Airborne to capture a bridge across the Rhine, while The Bridge At Remagen shows the U.S. 9th Armoured Division successfully capturing the titular bridge. So, maybe tanks may be a better investment than parachutes.
While the 1st Royal Airborne division lacked the fire power needed to take on armor, I would not put that in the top 3 reasons why the Arnhem bridge failed to be secured. After all the small force of Brits that did capture their side of the bridge held on for quite a long time considering their opposition.
@@dirus3142 I was addressing the topic in very broad strokes; also, let us not forget that anything covered in film, even historical events, do get distorted.
@@c.j.zographos3713 true. However, I refer to Ryan's book, and others on the topic. The film is worth the watch and earned itself as a classic war film. It does get enough right to lend a starting point to learn more on the campaign.
Honorable mention to LAPES: Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System. A tank (a Sheridan) is palletized in the back of a C130. The Hercules skims along the ground and throws a parachute out the back. The chute pulls the pallet, and the tank slides out to drop to the ground in a nearly combat-ready state. Theoretically. As far as I am aware, it was never used operationally, but there is some awesome test footage on RU-vid!
Neat if brief summary of an interesting area Coverage of the wheeled air mobile AFVs + review of the state of the art options would makefurther great videos
@@AlRoderick Sure, but they aren't "tanks". "Waste of Time" and "War Chunder" have a lot to answer for, even if they do sponsor events, it doesn't make their bullsh*t vehicle classifications right.
@@AlRoderick Sure and they aren't tanks. Russian game developers have a lot to answer for (even if they do sponsor events). Their game based classifications are not correct compared to real world classifications.
You should have mentioned the Me-321. Although more used in strategic way and not combined with paratroopers, this glider was able to carry a Panzer IV.
It was not capable of carrying a Panzer IV it was designed to carry a medium tank but never worked for that purpose as it couldn't carry a 25 tonne plus Panzer IV. In general it was a very unsuccessful design. I don't believe they ever deployed a light tank in combat.
Hey there Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video. What do you think - Flying Tanks: a great idea or a waste of time? Let us know your thoughts below
Well, in those time I would say no. Nowadays yes...although not tanks. One could deploy multiple anti infantry and anti armor drones in support of airborne troops. Those could be tasked to guard certain areas or strategic points. Perhaps we could re evaluate this tactic with new tech of this age. Armored drones with selfloading guns could be viable.... mu thoughts as a wannabe armchair historian.
Like a lot of Indigenous North American words, "chinook" was transcribed by the French and is pronounced "shin-ook." Normally I'd not quibble about British versus Canadian pronounciation, but "Chinook" is a proper noun and the name of an ethnic group. Saying it wrong feels mildly disrespectful. Also, yay to see Chris back! I feel like the Tank Museum's last few videos had different presenters (or maybe that's just because I've been working through the back catalogue) and Chris is very much the most effective at the "short video documentary presenter" role.
As someone who lives within walking distance of Chinook Middle School, thank you for this post. I feel like whenever a PNW native word pops up it gets mangled.
During my flying tours at Lyneham, from 1981 through to 1997 one of our regularly exercised roles was mass delivery of airborne forces according to the Long-Range Parachute Assault Concept (LPAC). Formation flying rader (SKE) was bought to enable this to happen in bad weather and we would regularly take streams of 18 C-130s around the UK to deliver vehicles and the guys with the one-way tickets to their DZs. But the aircrew at least realised that LPAC was an utterly flawed concept except in a totally benign environment. The only justification seemed to be the need to retain jump currency for the Paras and, more importantly, their jump pay. We did drop the odd armoured vehicle via the 20,000lb rated Heavy Stressed Platform but this was also clearly redundant once the concept of loitering Close Air Support by either fast jets or helicopters, which could do much of the role but with much greater flexibility, especially once decent defensive aids started to be fitted, particularly missile warners, countermeasures and Hostile Fire Indicators.
At <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="314">5:14</a> it is stated that the span of the Hamilcar was quite short compared to modern sport gliders. That is, I'm afraid, a misapprehension. The largest sport glider ever made, the Eta, has a span of 30.9 meters, shorter than the Hamilcar's 33.5 meters. Gliders in the Open Class (this is a FAI competition class for unrestricted spans) have actually been getting smaller with recent advances in aerodynamics and structures. Spans increased from 25 to 29 meters between the 1980's and the 2000's but the latest open class gliders are back to around 23 or 24 meters. Modern open class gliders have increadibly slender wings, and therein perhaps lies the misapprehension regarding their span. The aforementioned Eta has a wing spar that is only 9 cm tall at the root - for a 31 meter span!
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment had them when I arrived in Germany but was switching to M60s, so I never got to crew one. They really weren't liked that much by many. They are cool looking though. ✌️🍀
Very informative video, and the conclusion regarding ther value of British 'flying tanks' was spot on. Perhaps a bit inaccurate to suggest the Hamilcar was designed first, then the Brits looked for a suitable tank - the Hamilcar was of course largely designed around the Tetrarch. Minor point - a Tetrarch was knocked out in Normandy by a German 'SP', but I'm not aware of any evidence it was a Stug.III - more likely some self propelled gun on a French chassis. Missing out the ME-321 was definitely a mistake, as this demonstrated that a worthwhile tank could be delivered tactically by 1940s technology (just) - and this was in 1940. Overall, I would suggest that, despite Crete, D-Day, Market Garden and Varsity, major airborne forces turned out to be a bit of a dead end in WW2. In fact, of those 4 ops, only the first 2 have any claim to be a worthwhile success. Thanks for the video! Self promotion alert - see Airborne Armour, by Keith Flint, just re-issued in a new edition by Helion.
Having just watched the latest Ajax video, I'm immediately reminded of a demo air assault I was part of at the (then) RAF Fynningley Air Show, in the early 80s. We used a Puma for the infantry insertion, supported by a 7-tonne Scorpion airlifted by Chinook. I don't see that ever being replicated with a 38-42 tonne Ajax..
The Germans built a giant glider (suitably named the Gigant) to carry tanks . . . thought better of it and changed it into a six-engined transport aircraft that ferried tanks to Tunisia.
They had to give it engines because the intended tow plane (two medium bombers glued together) had development troubles, and someone had the bright idea of 'Just put ze engines on ze damned glider already!'.
If you're talking about the flying tank concepts designed by Christie, he did actually come up with a design which was not just a glider, but was theoretically capable of taking off as well. This was a purpose-designed light tank which had a highly reinforced version of the "Christie suspension", to take the shock of landing directly onto the ground on the tank treads. To make it fly, it had a large detachable wooden biplane frame (with a large 4-bladed wooden propeller), which was bolted to the rear deck of the tank, with explosive bolts to allow rapid separation. It also had a much larger and more powerful engine than any other tank of similar size. The tank engine had an extra sprocket at the back, which would be connected by a chain drive (like a motorbike chain, only larger) to a smaller sprocket on the biplane frame in order to spin the propeller for takeoff and powered flight. The biplane frame was as simple as possible - not much more than wings, propeller and tail, since it was essentially a disposable component. Therefore it would necessarily have to be controlled from the tank itself - possibly by the tank driver, or maybe even using a second driving position with aircraft style controls mounted somewhere inside the tank.
The famed Formula One commentator, Murray Walker, was a lieutenant in the Royal Scots Greys, present at the Rhine crossing and commanding a Sherman. In his autobiography, he recounts witnessing the airborne break up of the tank carrying Hamilcar. It was suggested that the driver, keyed up for landing, had the engine running with his foot on the clutch, but his foot slipped with disastrous results.
A good description of the British and US efforts to produce airborne light tanks -- but you should have included the German attampt to do the same with the Me321 glider and Me323 powered transports, that were supposed to carry a Panzer IV medium tank. Had they been used like the Hamilcar, they might at least have caused more consternation during, say, the Battle of the Bulge or the response to the Normandy invasion, when other German tanks were very delayed in reaching the front.
A part of me has always wondered if it may have been better if something like the M56 Scorpion were developed for World War II - eschewing armor entirely in favor of just having a more powerful gun. If you can't have something that's mobile, well armored, and can shoot back at the same time, two out of three ain't bad. On balance, it probably wasn't worth the effort at all, and more focus on towed heavy weapons and jeeps would probably have been a more efficient use of resources. But I do wonder.
They tried airborne armour in the late 60s,early 70s. It was known as the RAC para Sqn, which if memory serves me was Cyclops Sqn, 2RTR. All of the personnel had to do P company, then permitted to wear their wings. I think the issue was landing, the CVRs used developed cracks and stress fractures in the chassis or base after a couple of drops from Hercules C130s. They were sort of palletised, pushed out the back, and chutes deployed allowed the vehicles to fall underneath them
@@rorythomas9469 Yeah. Unfortunately, the Harry Hopkins itself was too heavy for the Hamilcar. I'm not sure if an open-topped variant would have been light enough.
@@mauruhkatigaming4807 Wikipedia says 8.64 tons of the 95mm CS, unclear if that is full combat weight. Possibly you could have got that lower if you really wanted to.
It would seem like carrying AT guns capable of taking out current tanks fielded by the enemy would be the realistic choice. It could be transported by jeep type vehicles capable of towing the guns with the crew. It just seems trying to airdrop tanks capable of taking out most tanks wasn't possible at the time.
That was actually at least trained for, because I've seen training films for at gun crews about how to properly secure and deploy both Jeeps and guns from gliders. They would of course have to send the Jeep and the gun in two separate gliders. Of course they trained to do a lot of things they didn't end up doing in practice.
The trouble with this is that potent anti-tank guns require potent towing vehicles. A Willys MB could only tow a 1/4 ton trailer, while a six-pounder AT gun weighed about five times that.
You hear a lot about how ineffective the 2pdr HE shell was, but just how bad was it? Is it comparable to anything? I've heard the French 37mm Puteux compared to a modern 40mm grenade in its explosiveness. Anything to compare the 2pdr HE to?
The Russians fielded a range of air-mobile afvs such as the ASU-57 and its updated larger brother ASU-85 (?) self propelled anti-tank guns and the BMD AIFV. Not sure about the BMD but the presence of SP-AT must have been a comfort (although I haven't seen them mentioned for some years now). The UKs Spartans would have been handy to move supplies around and Striker might have been useful to deal with enemy tanks (although a quad bike with whatever has replaced Swingfire might do in a pinch, providing it isn't caught by artillery).
Para Sqn RAC (disbanded 1976) deployed 8 Scorpions (76mm gun) and 8 Ferret Mk5 with Swingfire. Prior to Swingfire, they used Hornet , based on the Humber 'Pig' with Malkara ATGW. It was intended to replace the Ferrets with Striker but penny-pinching politicians got in the way and the squadron was disbanded before it could happen.
@@mikesmith2905 Anybody know about the MULE? It amounts to a motorized pallet. They used them to move ordnance loads around on airfields. And the Army mounted weapons on a few for security units. Well, some genius didn't like them so we surplused them. The Belgian Airborne liked them. They liked them so much they mounted recoilless rifles, MGs and even mortars on them. This can be seen in film from Operation Dragon Rouge. The rescue operation to Stanleyville during the Congo crisis.
These guys Hate russian armour they tryed to say the british cheiftan out preformed the iraqi t-72 during the iran iraq war this is simply not true only 40-60 t-72 were destroyed at least 320 chieftans mk4 were lost iraqi sabot rounds that the ussr ditiched in 1973 when stright trough the cheifans turret. This is fairly unsurprising consider they constalty bring lazerpig on board
Brilliant video, top production and writing to tell the air armour story. Tanks a lot! Bit crazy that the UK did not follow the lead of the Danes and use a commercial air transport contractor to get their MBTs to Helmand? Not familiar with that topic but interested to know if the decision not to deploy Challengers was based on an operational assessment, with the game not being worth the candle?
The Danes probably provided all the heavy armour they needed at the time. MBTs are not much more useful than light armour at fighting insurgents. Plus, most of the heavy fire support was from air assets or arty.
There is little doubt that the WW2 use of glider borne vehicles would have been better served with either Universal Carriers or Jeeps for towed 6 Pounder guns or mortars.
Airborne armour in the modern era doesn’t need to take on enemy armour, that’s what ATGM’s and air support is for. It’s to act as close in infantry support as artillery, especially heavy artillery is less numerous fire air borne forces
Why did they bother with the 37mm or 2 pounder so late in the war? If they ran into any substantial german armor it's not like the AP rounds of those guns would have given such tiny lightly armored tanks a fighting chance.
no mention of the russian efforts before ww2? liek the slinging of a T-37 under a TB-3 bomber. or the Antonov A-40.. which used the idea of a glider tank, but decided "what if glider is tank?" and just bolted biplane wings and a tail onto a T-60 light tank, and towed it behind a heavy bomber.
Some Tetrarchs might have been useful, but 'changed the whole battle'? Unlikely. Bigger factors were in play, most importatntly that the whole operation was about two weeks too late and the Germans were ready.
Good video but i miss some parts, like the ASU-57 and ASU-85! Soviet airdropped tanks! Not because like the Sovietunionen or Russia but they are important to understand the airdropped concept with tanks, wich this video partly missed infact........
One could mention that although the Russians have not managed to make their battle tanks airworthy, at least the turrets have very good flight characteristics.
You also need to remember that a C-17 can conduct 5 flights carrying a M1. Then it needs to be extensively serviced and checked for stress factors, etc. This maybe a peacetime restriction, but I suspect the operational limit wouldn't be much higher. Arguably the role of intimate and immediate fire support for airborne / air mobile formations is now filled by rotary wing attack aviation (AH64, Mi24, Tiger, ...).
