While it seems odd that the tank was stripped down to an extent of even removing the turret, back in 1942 tanks were used to push the front forward, their turrets were useful mostly against large or heavily armored opponents, but the tank could move across fields that were mined for men, flatten soft terrain, provide cover for moving troops and it could also crush gates and fences, and other small obstacles. Im not a tank expert or anything but i dont think that removing the gun of the turret in those days was as detrimental to the effectiveness of tank, especially when attempting flight. You gotta remeber that ww2 was partially won by inflatable tanks and fake armies, if you havnt seen it, definatley check out the false battalions of the allied forces. Seemingly ridiculous plan that ended up aiding a British spy who successfully diverted thousands troops away from the southern beaches on D-Day.
My favorite story of WWII is of the one guy who was left behind doing donuts in a tank to stir up dust and give the impression of an army approaching, while the rest of his guys went a different route. Dude is an absolute legend.
also where it would be deployed would likely be well scouted in advance, which would also include checking for actual threats to the tank the t60 was already completely useless for frontline combat in 1942, so not having its proper gun wouldnt matter that much
Well the problem with this idea isn’t the T-60/A40 or it’s weight because the soviets did have a bomber at the time with a 5000kg carry weight (the Pe-8), I think A bigger issue is that each plane could only carry one T-60 and there were only about 90 or so Pe-8s built, so even if you were able to get every single Pe-8 ever built to drop one. That would still be a relatively small fighting force and that’s only if every Pe-8 were still functional, as a large number of them crashed or were shot down. The Soviet Union would need to reroute a lot of resources just to deploy the A-40s in substantial numbers when those resources could be used for bombing bridges and factory which would have a much larger effect than the two or three dozen T-60s.
@@themuttonqueen8692 ok, well i was only really talking about how a tank is still useful when the barrel was removed. Thats about it. The program was scrapped for reasons that are pretty obvious.
Try making the strv 103, it's practically a wedge and it's turret is attached to it's hull so it's treads need to tilt back and forth so the turret can aim
Idea for MM: Each person makes a tank with their own tank design using either the same wing or custom wings in scrap mechanic or trailmakers. Glide from a platform to the battlefield and fight using cannons! Would be fnn
Just learned about the Antonov A-40 on accident about a week ago after looking through a catalog in a flight simulator. The A-40 was only craftable and I had no parts for it but it grabbed my interest.
T-37A was successfully dropped without crew but later sunk due to the water leaking through the unsealed viewports. T-38 was dropped with crew inside, and the crew were able to drive the tank back to the shore, although suffering from some major injuries.
The T-60 light tank they used for this "only" weighs 5.8 tonnes, so this could have been possible with more development time. We do have parachutable light tanks today, so the idea wasn't that outlandish and I believe the story about the prototype flight is feasible.
Yeah, I absolutely believe it was able to glide to safety. Now 8f they'd strapped engines to it and claimed they were able to gain altitude, I'd be much more skeptical.
The Soviets did In fact have a bomber at the time called the Pe-8 that could carry a 5000kg load so the weight isn’t too much of an issue. I think a bigger issue would be that there were only around 90 pe-8s built and you would need to dedicate a relatively valuable long range strategic bomber to carry each and every T-60/A-40. It would be a huge waste of resources to drop them in large numbers.
@@Firefrab yes, a lot of nations experimented with airdropping tanks such as the M22 but the idea was never used to much effect if at all because of the limited combat performance of a tetrarch or M22 as well as the limited number of planes capable of supporting the weight, the United States even attempted to design a plane for the exact purpose but the war had already ended by the time it made it through testing.
I'm just imagining how terrifying it would be to be the "pilot" of a flying tank. Hurtling through the air in a multi-ton casket at ridiculous speeds with a tiny slit to see through. No thank you.
You should do a Multiplayer Monday where you get have to build something to fly, float, swim, shoot, and drive and then you get one 15 seconds for flying, driving, floating, and swimming, but it's a battle.
As a note to the whole removal of weapons, a tank functions for more use than as a weapon necessarily, for protection of infantry both within and behind the tank
Leave it up to the Soviets to make something else even weirder... Progvev T Tanks with rockets attached to them Also tanks with rocket engines attached as shown by a Reddit video
Air dropping tanks has been done in more modern times as well. One would be pushed out of the back of a cargo plane that's flying a few feet off the ground. The tank would be on a skid plate though, so the drivetrain is not put under stress. Don't remember if crews would be inside during the drop though.
Try doing the "Nutcracker VTOL G-674". Its just a crazy VTOL (like it says in the name) that quite literally folds on it self by 90° to land. I think it will be hard to build but i also think that it will be a fun challenge for SCRAPMAN.
I also have another suggestion, try to make the DD tank, or the Sherman DD, it was used in the D-day and supposed to be able to swim , the way it swims is to inflate the dinghy and swim, but it failed badly.
By 'failed badly' you mean had a serious failure in one, (Omaha Beach), of their eleven swimming deployments, (all five Normandy beaches, southern France, the Scheldt, the Rhine, the Elbe, the Po and the Elde). With that one being in conditions they never should have been launched in.
I imagine you'd have a lot of fun with the Soviet RBT-5, it was a BT-5 light tank that could launch two massive rockets that were so large they were known by some as "Tank torpedoes"
you should try and make the XSV-20, it's a really weird boat that was made for the irish navy. Unconventional design, but it's really good at handling crazy rough water.
Center of mass in front of center of lift is never an insurmountable problem. Even _far_ in front, that just means you need a much bigger tail plane and elevator. Airliners actually have the CoM fairly far forward of the CoL and use very large tails to compensate. After all, if a couple too many people tried to walk to the rear bathroom at the same time, you wouldn't want the plane to fall out of the sky. They also typically have ginormous vertical stabilizers as well, because the rudder has to be powerful enough to compensate for asymmetrical thrust with an engine out, with the remaining engine having a humongous lever arm.
It would be cool to see you make this a challenge with kan and the others: Choose a prototype vehicle to recreate and improve like this one, then compete in a series of challenges
Idea for a video: Make something like a hovercraft, or a helicopter or something, but just a tiny bit wrong. Like, hovercraft won't stop rotating it less, or whatever. And then leave it up to the community to "fix" it, any way but the right way. Then after a week you check and see what everyone did. Or even a multiplayer Monday. "Fixing" bad creations. I like that kind of stuff.
When you do your sketches where your acting with yourself it would be amazing if you dressed up for those parts LOL I would love that and it would probably draw more of views!!
Hi ScrapMan! I love this series, it’s so cool. I have a vehicle suggestion, it’s called the panjandrum it’s a rocket propelled explosive laden cart. It was developed during WWII
That turret gives me an idea: Build a plane with no steering wings - instead, shift the plane's weight with movable turrets and the like to make it turn. I have no idea if this will actually work, but it's worth a shot!
you should have built the M22 because those were made on a somewhat large scale and actually kind of worked. Like it actually was used in battle, but the ones that successfully landed had to stay behind more heavily armored and powerful tanks.
Taking everything off for the first prototype makes sense. If it had been a success they could have then worked on adding as much weight as they could back to it. Give it the best change of success just to see if it's feasible, leave the 'drop it with arms and ammunition' stage for after you figure out if it's going to work at all
you should do a multiplayer monday type video where you and the others do challenges but you use your own creations you've built in the past (for example some of your recreation of real life machines)
Multiplayer Monday idea: time challenge on a monkey bar parkour where "vehicles" have to go through hanging, with different gap size and heights between bars. Ideally over a carpet of explosives ofc.
Attempt #5 😂 (For reference: Original comment from the Dragonfly Ornithoper video) An dogfight type battle like what you did with those battle drones or Cargo vs Fighter videos would be SWEET with these! All of you guys have a dragonfly with a Canon and try to take out the one person with a parrot ornithopter/more agile ornithopter - longest flight time wins!
you need to watch "pentagon wars" it explains this creation better than comments ever could. Also love your content, I have watched your videos for about a year now
By the way, I am pretty sure the soviets, (actually maybe not the soviets, maybe another power, I don’t know or care)realized that bombers were more fuel efficient than fighters, so what they did was strapped a few fighters to a bomber and made them detach once the planes got to a battlefield, if someone known the name of this “strategy” please tell me.
Ah, the air carrier! This is a fun story. Water based carriers can transport, launch and receive planes anywhere in the world! Anywhere on oceans, anyway. And with a grace period of two weeks to get where it's going. Now, seeing as how airplanes are so much faster, they should be able to deploy anywhere in a matter of hours regardless of terrain. The idea was implemented with blimps (which kind of worked, but with limited success, as it only carried one plane) and modified 747s (this idea never got off the drawing board, I don't think). This idea was disbanded until recently, where we now have military grade drones. Imagine if you will: A fleet of 6 747s each deploying a drone every 10 minutes. This actually may happen, but probably not.
A number of nations have experimented with parasite fighters, only the Russians and Japanese even used them operationally. It was less due to fuel efficiency and more due to larger aircraft simply being able to carry more fuel.
I guess the front heavy part makes since for towing stability but doesn't make since to remove the armor cause without a turret it could still be use to haul people to wherever
Despite Scrapman stating that you can't just slap wings to a tank, that's almost exactly the thought process behind the A-10 Warthog. It's a Gatling gun with wings
Scrapman said that they should have put a bomber engine in the tank and make it a seperate flying vehicle, but that would mean they need a full engine fr each use since the wings are detached since they make the experience worse when on ground. Btw if Scrapman reads this msg I love ur vids!
not exactly, since the counter tactic would be more surveillance within your own borders, every time a bomber would be spotted and dropped something off, immediately rush soldiers to that location to eliminate the threat...
Hey scrapman is have an idea for your next scrap mechanic survival you could make it so you can only stay in the air with mining and looting Cars as exceptions, you could have an air base with pistons then thrusters and if that is too hard you could make it on water only base farms are also an exception
Ï'll have to check, but i seem to remember that Christie flying tank had an option to disconnect the driveshaft from the tank treads and connect it to the propeller which was attached to the wing construction made of plywood, so in theory it was capable of taking a flight by its own power. The most successful test fly was around 5 meters or so before it crashed to the ground, soo...yeah.
I seem to recall a ww2 Japanese aircraft carrying submarine. Not sure if this was real or from fiction, but apparently the plane had wings that could fold upwards to fit the it inside a big tube. The sub would surface and they would unseal the tube, pull the plane out, fold down the wings, and launch it with a slingshot mechanism. There was no way for the plane to land back on the sub tho, so the pilots would just be expected to kamikaze I think... It'd be cool to see you build one in trailmakers, tho it might be too complex.
In 0:16 the bottom left tank is ze Ratte 1000 or what was supposed to be the largest tank ever built at 1000 tons with her tripled double sided tracks she could go 45 mph and trample T34s in her wake That's history today with me Greg
it's likely that the designers were planning on having the tail produce downforce to counteract the weight in the front of the plane/tank. many current planes use that design as well.
By all know laws of aviation, there is no way a tank should be able to fly, a tank of course flies anyways because tanks do not care what humans think is impossible
