A tank that could fly into battle
bbc.com
bbc.com
Every month or so, I would remove a pad from the suspension, since the weight applied in the pads flatten them, so that overall, less are required to fill the surface area. For this reason, for each type of tank you don't have a specific number of pads, but a range. I think it was 127 - 105, or something of that scale, in my type of tank.
Applied to this thing, logic dictates that after every landing, immediately after, the suspension must be replaced, in fear of breakage during battle. Suspension pad replacement by a skilled and well oiled crew can be done in 10 minutes. That's 10 minutes under potential enemy fire, whether MG or Mortar. For each cracked pad or broken pin. Total suspension replacement requires even a couple of hours at the very least, in optimal conditions on flat terrain. Not optimal.
Also must be a bloody hell on logistics. How do you move entire suspensions to a place you had to land tanks to get them there? Do you parachute them in as well?
In addition, after every landing, I would figure the the gun must be zeroed again. Every morning, we would use a special target, in a specific distance, to calibrate the gun with our periscope. We would avoid sitting on the gun, to prevent errors in the zeroing. Landing would affect the zeroing much more harshly, I would presume.
Conclusion, unless absolutely necessary to land a tank is this manner, I as a commander, would avoid using such tactics.
I suppose high Soviet attrition/abandon rate during WW2 would have made air dropping tanks with some chance of survival worth considering. But it's nice to have skipped to air-to-ground missiles.
I would simply state that some ideas are so ridiculously bad, they should never leave the paper. The fact that the soviets actually built one prototype is mind-boggling. Most likely there were some people in power who did not have an ounce of technical competence. Who in their right mind greenlights such a project?
And - in order to get it airborne - they had to remove most of the fuel and ammunition. Ditto the turret. So "fly into battle" is, ah, a rather optimistic interpretation of its capabilities.
Sensibly, the Russians built only one prototype, then ditched the whole idea after its not-so-successful first test flight.
Just wanted to note that the .50 caliber heavy machine guns the US military currently uses first entered service in 1933.
It's cool stuff...but for the point I wanted to make, it didn't seem worth getting that far into the weeds.
(I expected the article to be about M551 Sheridans dropping from C-130's.)
Your welcome.