military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (09/30/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) Recently, there's been some speculation about superheavy tanks, land battleships, Bolos, and other behemoths. In this topic, there's a very thin line between speculation and fantasy, and many postings, IMHO, have crossed it. I think I picked a good time to go on vacation 8-) Allow me to outline my recollections of factual material in this area, which might help future discussion. Tanks were originally (WWI, that is) seen as a sort of land battleship; in fact, at least in Britain, there was significant Navy involvement in their development. Naval terms still abound; the tank's "hull" is divided into "compartments," and roofed by "decks." Between the wars, this analogy was carried to its logical extreme. Britain introduced the Vickers Independent (about 1925, I think), which mounted a large turret gun, with smaller subturrets at the front and rear carrying machineguns. The French Char 2C was similarly armed. The Soviet Union embraced the Independent, producing first the T-28, with two forward machinegun turrets in addition to the 75mm main turret, and then the T-35, with five turrets: a 75mm main, 45mm secondaries at left front and right rear of the "superstructure", and machinegun turrets at right front/left rear. Finally, the rare T-100 carried 3 turrets, all on centerline. Germany, too, produced some multiturreted tanks, the "Neubaufahrzeugen." American tanks of the interwar period, as exemplified by the M-2 Medium, had only one turret, but a profusion of machinegun mounts; 10 on the M-2, which had a crew of only half that. All of these were obsolete by WWII, though the Soviet models saw service in the Finnish war and near Moscow in '41, and the German tanks, in Norway. They were flawed in numerous ways, not least of which was that so many turrets required a complicated fire-control system for the commander to be able to effectively fight his vehicle. Moreover, the added volume made for a huge target, which could not be adequately armored or powered at the time. During WWII, as tanks became more heavily armored and better armed, weights began to increase, until 70-ton giants were roaming the battlefield, with 10-inch armor and 5-inch guns. Every nation involved in the European war took part in this race for giantism; Russia, with their JS series, Britain with the Tortoise, America with the T-28 gun motor carriage, among others. Okay, Italy didn't prototype a superheavy 8-) Germany, though, took the crown. By war's end, they had two functioning prototypes of their 130-ton Maus, mounting a 128mm gun coaxially with a 75mm behind 10" armor plate... and capable of skittering across the battlefield at an astounding 8 mph. Bridges ? We don't need no stinking bridges ! The Maus was submersible, and in teams, could drive underwater. (BTW, despite popular folklore, at least one Maus did see combat, briefly, near Kummersdorf. One of the prototypes is apparently stored in Leningrad, and has made appearanes on Soviet TV). Of course, Maus was still a dinosaur. While nearly immune to enemy tanks, it was an easy target for aircraft, and vulnerable to hand-placed mines. Once immobilized, it was easily bypassed, and track repair was a *major* effort. Further, the Germans had planned an entire line of tanks, the E-series, ranging from light scout vehicles to land battleships. The second heaviest, the E-100, was similar to the Maus in scope; the heaviest was the E-1000, aka the Land Monitor. It was to be a 1000-ton beast, and well armored; rumors abound and facts are few. One story claims it was to mount an 80 cm (31.5 inch) main gun, with 28cm (11 inch) secondaries... it would bristle with 128mm and 88mm guns to ward off pesky enemy armor and aircraft. Power was supplied by four U-boat diesels. I think this is bunk, and find more credible a description of the Land Monitor as carrying a 28cm main with "several" secondary turrets for antitank/antiaircraft work. It never progressed past a few preliminary sketches, to my knowledge. Eventually, the trend toward giantism disappeared; modern "heavy" tanks have settled in at around 35-45 tons, in order to improve mobility, now universally recognized as critical. Probably the only other attention to track-driven superheavies came from Keith Laumer's "Bolo" short stories, which I recommend as fun reading. He postulates hundred-ton-plus tanks, with advanced armor and weaponry, which ultimately are controlled by AI cybernetics. Given his premises (basically, unlimited power), the story is believable; but we are nowhere nearly capable of producing one in the near future. Looking from the naval side, though, there are a few documented, though fantastic, plans. Many are fictional, some are based on grains of truth. With sufficient power, an armored hovercraft could be developed; that is a fact. From this idea stems a number of fictional concepts, probably epitomized in David Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" SF (science/speculative fiction) series. Hovertanks would avoid numerous problems by eliminating the tracks (vulnerable to damage) and transmission. Of course, the power requirements are fantastic. Along this same line, and used in the SF story "The Ayes of Texas" (author forgotten, but fun reading), is the idea of converting a battleship into a hovercraft. At first this seems pure fiction, but I've heard that such was actually considered by the military. Another story, in "Analog" magazine, details an interesting bit of dis-information: The plan was to take a decommissioned battleship, such as the North Carolina, and construct a building over her for several months. During this time, various false rumors would be spread, and a floating, removable shroud installed over her. She would then be towed by submarines (!) to the coast of Australia, where she would be sunk at night, leaving the shroud floating; the shroud would then be moved ashore and mounted on trucks, the whole rig fitted with a special device to leave a peculiar "wake." Over the next few days, the shroud would be driven through the Australian desert, under plain sight of Soviet spy satellites (which, from overhead, would have (so the story goes) no way of discerning the fact that the battleship had been left behind). Gunfire could be simulated to add to the illusion. Finally, the shroud would be driven back to the submerged battleship, which would be raised beneath it at night, then towed back to port for viewing by the press. This illusionary amphibious battleship was intended to cause considerable confusion to the Soviets, while intimidating Libya. Finally, while we're in the stratosphere, I might as well mention the Japanese cartoon "Starship Yamato", in which the Yamato is raised, fitted with particle cannon and ion drives, and used as a spaceship to defend Earth from attacking aliens. And, of course, the various animations which formed the basis for the Battletech universe, with huge, anthropomorphic armored machines. Fact or fiction ? How can we tell ? In an age where we are actually working toward space-based particle beam weaponry and x-ray lasers, have "smart" missiles able to track their path across hundreds of miles of terrain, nuclear-powered ships, and stealth aircraft, how fantastic is a hovertank ? It's a tough call. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com
nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) (10/03/89)
From: amdcad!well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle)
Military hovercraft have been proposed at various times, usually
as naval vessels. But have any ever been built? Hovercraft were discussed
as part of the Fast Deployment Logistics Force (a Carter-era idea) but
not much came of it, apparently.
Hovercraft have the interesting property that the bigger they
are, the less power per unit area they take to lift. This reflects
the fact that air loss is proportional to the perimeter of the craft.
Thus, quite large hovercraft are feasible, and can be seen ferrying
cars between England and France.
John Naglegwh%volcano.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/03/89)
From: gwh%volcano.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Bill posted a good and long article giving some new insights into really big tanks. There are a few things i'd like to add... First, a correction: Bill stated that today's MBT's are in the 35-45 ton range. This is not the fact: they are in the 45-55 ton range, and likely to grow in the immediate future, if mobility (bridges giving way beneath) problems can be overcome. This is mostly due to new cannon developments. Okay, now on with the new stuff: All fiction aside, hovertanks are a good idea, with certain limitations. They do take an enormous amount of power (gas turbines can supply it, but an armoured hovercraft is a hole that you pour fuel into). They have difficulties with broken ground and slopes. And forests. They are best used in flat terrain, or where there is enough flat open terrain to give them a mobility advantage in one way or another. And a final point about Real Big Tanks: Like all other warfare, there is a point where concentrating firepower suddenly becomes a very bad idea. Given a unstopable tank, for instance, the logical countermeasure is a nuclear bomb. The fine line to be walked is designing and using these such that there is no inscentive to escalate combat in that manner... **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) (10/05/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) In article <9871@cbnews.ATT.COM> amdcad!well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) writes: > Military hovercraft have been proposed at various times, usually >as naval vessels. But have any ever been built? Hovercraft were discussed >as part of the Fast Deployment Logistics Force (a Carter-era idea) but >not much came of it, apparently. Hovercraft were used by US forces in the Vietnam war in riverine operations in the Mekong Delta. Iran (during the days of the Shah) had a hovercraft force. I don't know if any are still running now. I don't know if these were designed as military craft or just adapted from commercial models. I suggest looking at a recent Jane's Surface Skimmers for more leads. -ted Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board
zimmer@cod.nosc.mil (Thomas L. Zimmerman) (10/05/89)
From: zimmer@cod.nosc.mil (Thomas L. Zimmerman) >From article <9871@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by amdcad!well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle): > > > From: amdcad!well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) > > Military hovercraft have been proposed at various times, usually > as naval vessels. But have any ever been built? Hovercraft were discussed > as part of the Fast Deployment Logistics Force (a Carter-era idea) but > not much came of it, apparently. > Actually something did come of this, they are called LCACs (Landing Craft, Air Cushioned). They are medium sized hovercraft, capble of carrying a full main battle tank or several smaller vehicles and of speeds up to 40 knots (this is from memory, so don't quote me). They are carried in Navy amphibious assault ships. The LCACs, combined with helicopters, supposedly allow the amphibious assault force to remain safely "over- the-horizon" while conducting an amphibious assault. There are supposed to be two operational squadrons(?). I know of one for sure at Camp Pendalton, in California - where I have seen LCACs operating. Lee Zimmerman Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo) (10/11/89)
From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo)
A Mause was actually used in combat, and one still exists in Russia?
You have any more information about this encounter, or about the one
in Russia. I had always thought that both of them were blown up at
the factory. Do you have any reference source I could look up for
this info?
Thanks
Larry Mayo
[mod.note: Sure ! From S.Zaloga and J Grandsen, _The Eastern Front:
Armor Camouflage and Markings, 1941-1945_ (Squadron/Signal, 1983) p.28
(photo caption):
"In the final days of the war, the two experimental Maus
super-heavy tanks were sent into action, one near the proving
grounds at Kummerdorf, the other at the approaches to OKH
staff headquarters at Zossen. One was destroyed by its crew,
while this one was captured by the Soviets."
This was a personal triumph for me, BTW. I once ran a "what if" microarmor
battle, in which the Soviets were overrunning Kummerdorf, which was
defended by various ad-hoc units utilizing the various prototype weapons
at the proving ground... including the Maus. At the time, it was just
a fiction on my part, and one of the Soviet players took me to task. "Oh,
I guess I can see it as a fantasy, but it's not *historical* " (Said with
a sneer). You can imagine my pleasure when I later found this book and
showed it to him... 8-)
As for the fate of the Soviet-captured Maus, this from "AFV News",
Sept-Dec 1987 (V22#3). It was submitted by a Mr. Hans Strom of Solna,
Sweden, who was watching the Russian satellite TV channel "Ghorizont",
a program called "I serve the Fatherland" (*).
The Maus is kept at the NIIBT (Research Institute for the Armored
Forces) facility at Kubinka, near Moscow, where a "marvelous collection"
of German vehicles is stored. The building is on a Soviet proving ground,
and inaccessible to Westerners (though this was pre-Glasnost !)
The article included two photos taken from the TV screen, which,
while not superb, clearly show a Maus in pseudo-accurate camouflage.
* - Perhaps an inaccurate translation of "Father Knows Best" ? 8-)
- Bill ]fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/11/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <9871@cbnews.ATT.COM>, amdcad!well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) writes: > > > From: amdcad!well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) > > Military hovercraft have been proposed at various times, usually > as naval vessels. But have any ever been built? Hovercraft were discussed > as part of the Fast Deployment Logistics Force (a Carter-era idea) but > not much came of it, apparently. The Russians have one or more classes of fast assault transports that are hovercraft. The U.S. Marines are supposed to be getting some hovercraft landing craft in the future. ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.