Over the course of this series we’ve discussed a number of designs with some being more ridiculous
than others.
With most of them, however, there usually is a decent amount of work put into the project
to make it a reality.
Today’s video is a bit different though as it was never pursued and was only created
as a concept.
The tank design is so outlandish I just had to make a video on it though.
Today on Cursed by Design we delve into the weird world of Frank Tinsley and his concept
for a submarine tank.
Trust me it's even crazier than you can imagine.
This video has been sponsored by Skillshare.
Skillshare is a community driven learning platform that allows you to develop new skills,
unleash your creativity, or even improve on an existing passion.
Maybe you want to design your own concept vehicles like the one we’ll be talking about
today.
Skillshare offers a plethora of classes which can help you get started or move to the next
level in your ability to do so.
One of the classes that caught my eye was Concept Art: Drawing Imaginary Worlds by Ira
Marcks which is a great place to start.
Skillshare is offering the first 1000 of my viewers who click the link below a full month
of Skillshare completely free.
So head down there now and grab your free month before they're gone.
Thanks so much to them for supporting my content.
Now let's get into today's video.
During WW2 amphibious tanks became a common sight on the battlefield, especially in the
pacific, with a number of specially designed tanks as well as modified vehicles.
Some of the more well known of these include the D-Day tanks and the LVT series of tanks.
However, these designs still exposed the crews to shore emplacements which often could punch
through the thinner armor of the light amphibious craft.
So what is a designer to do?
Following the end of WW2 an article by the previously mentioned Frank Tinsley was published
in the Mechanix Illustrated magazine from December 1950.
He begins in a similar way to how I started this video by detailing the early designs
used by the US in amphibious assaults.
The most common one known as the LVT actually began as a vehicle known as the Alligator.
This was an amphibious tractor developed by Donald Roebling to be used for search and
rescue in the Florida swamps.
Before it was even put into production for its intended role the design caught the eye
of the Marine Corps which quickly saw it modified for military use.
Despite later upgrades to the design which helped improve its performance on land; the
LVT still was lightly armored and a large target.
Not exactly a great combination for an armored vehicle that is likely to come under heavy
fire.
Clearly an improvement was needed and with war breaking out in June of 1950 on the Korean
peninsula our boy Frank had an ambitious solution.
Rather than lighten the tank to allow it to float thus putting it at risk of enemy fire,
why not create a tank which can approach a landing zone along the seafloor?
Not only would this allow the tank to have heavier armor, but could revolutionize the
way naval landings were performed.
I can definitely see the appeal considering the old method consisted of an armored landing
craft with the sole purpose of dumping soldiers onto a beach unprotected.
So how was something like this to be accomplished?
I’m going to start by reading directly from the article so you can hear the exact description
of the machine he envisioned, then we can take a step back and break down what exactly
this bizarre design would be.
“If an adequately armored tank is too heavy to float, why not let it sink to the bottom
and roll up to the beach under water?
It needs only suitable sealing, a temporary air supply and a means of guiding it along
passable, ocean-bed trails.
Let’s take a look at the technical problems involved.
The Alligator and Water Buffalo, plus several pre-war amphibious tank designs, have proved
that watertight, armored hulls can be successfully combined with practical track gear.
So far as underwater sealing, air supply and sea-floor operation are concerned, a working
prototype already exists.
See the undersea explorer’s submarine in the June ’50 issue of MI.
It is true that this machine is designed like a baby submarine with track gear.
It has none of the armament, free-swinging turrets, etc., that a fighting tank requires.
But those are problems that can be licked, too-if we really set our minds to it.
The hull, with its escape hatches, air inlet and exhaust ports, presents no great difficulties.
All have been long since solved in standard submarine practice.
The main problem lies in the turret.
Here we are faced with an entirely separate unit, mounting a heavy, long-barreled gun.
It must be capable of 360 ° rotation and its gun must have a 90 ° elevation.
Mounted on a motor-driven, ball-bearing traversing ring, it is difficult to render waterproof,
especially since the gun and turret must be free to swing into action as soon as the tank
emerges from the water.
And whatever freeing is necessary should be done from inside the tank.
If we can’t waterproof the turret itself, why not cover the whole thing with something
that can be waterproofed!
Let’s take our cue from aircraft design.
The modern jet fighter faces a similar problem in a different medium.
The pilot’s cockpit is like a fish bowl in reverse.
Surrounded by the thin, icy air of extreme altitudes, it must be kept filled with heavy,
breathable air, warmed to the proper temperature and enriched with oxygen.
This means that the cockpit enclosure must be airtight, strong enough to resist wide
differentials in pressure and transparent enough for good visibility.
Also it must be attached so it can be jettisoned instantly to permit escape in an emergency.
Here may be our answer.
Anchored in a rim molded into the tank’s hull just outside the turret joint can be
mounted a heavy dome of clear plastic enclosing the movable components in a rigid, waterproof
shell.
Inside this bubble-like canopy, the tank’s retractable periscope will revolve, giving
its crew a full 360 ° field of underwater vision.
Upon reaching the surface, the dome is blown clear of the tank by small explosive charges
placed around the rim as in the standard fighter-plane enclosures.
A suitable type of clear plastic, methods of fabrication, optical curves, rim fastenings,
gaskets and jettison equipment are all available and easily adaptable to tank requirements.
The sole remaining stumbling block is the long barreled, 90-mm. gun.
Luckily for us, the rapid acceptance of the recoilless type of cannon solves this problem.
Light in weight and comparatively short barrelled, this new piece of ordnance is made to order
for tank use.
With no recoil travel to consider, it can be fitted entirely inside the wide, dome-like
turret, with just an inch or two of muzzle protruding.
Using rocket-boosted shells with shaped-charge noses, its muzzle velocity and penetration
is easily the equal of conventional anti-tank artillery.
With a 105-mm. recoilless gun mounted in one side of the turret, a powerful flame projector
balancing it on the other side and a battery of machine guns buried in an independently
rotating top section above, our tank is more heavily armed than any existing model.
And all these stingers can be housed compactly beneath the waterproof dome.
In the drawing on pages 74 and 75, the tank is shown with side fenders which can be raised
during land travel to act as seats for soldiers or for carrying equipment.
Our tanks would arrive off an enemy coast in standard, sea-going LSTs.
As in wartime landing operations, the top deck would be packed solid with jeeps, half-tracks
and trucks loaded with fuel, ammo and supplies to implement follow-up tank assaults.
Like Europe of an earlier era, we are involved in a life-and-death struggle against the craftily
led hordes of Asia.
We cannot hope to match them in sheer man power.
Our only chance to beat them is with superior weapons and know-how.
A combination of western science, Yankee ingenuity and the willingness to try anything, is our
only hope.
An undersea tank may prove to be one of the weapons we need.
Why don’t we have it?”
When I first found this article and the pictures showing his idea I was instantly enamored
by it.
The absurd yet well conceived design just stuck in my mind as I’m sure it has for
many of you already.
Let's break down exactly what it is we’re looking at though and see if it's an actually
viable vehicle.
Obviously as this tank was never built we can only make assumptions on the dimensions
from the images.
Knowing that this would have likely been used purely for naval landings we can assume the
armor would probably not need to be as thick as a normal tank.
I assume we would be looking at around 75-100mms on the front with considerably less on the
sides.
Keep in mind this is just my best guess and might not even need to be that thick.
As for the mobility we can clearly see wide tracks which makes sense given it would need
good grip to move along the soft seabed and other soft terrain.
Other than that we get no real indication of what sort of drivetrain or powerplant it
would have possessed.
However, it likely would have needed some sort of hybrid electric system since otherwise
the crew would quickly be suffocated by fumes, or have the engine cut out from lack of air.
Next we move onto the armament which is surprisingly detailed compared to the other design elements.
Featuring a 105mm recoilless rifle, likely the M27 recoilless rifle, alongside a flamethrower
with an additional 4 machine guns in a separately rotating position similar to the later M48
cupola.
We can clearly see several viewports and a tall periscope although I do have to question
exactly how well you would be able to really see the enemies through them.
Finally we get to the most interesting feature of this concept, the plastic dome.
As mentioned in the article sealing a tank can be tricky especially with the area around
the turret often having necessary gaps to allow it to move.
Obviously the tank needed to be sealed in a way that didn't require the crew to get
out on the beach to remove anything as that would completely defeat the purpose of the
entire design.
Instead the crew could simply detonate small charges to blow the clear dome free from the
tank freeing its turret for use after exiting the water.
I imagine these domes could also be recovered following the landing to allow them to be
reused so I think its quite a clever concept.
Is this tank really feasible though?
That question is tricky to answer because of how many factors are left unknown.
From my basic understanding the concept could definitely be made to work if the circumstances
were correct but I find it quite likely that this would rarely be the case.
We can see from early attempts to create submersible tanks during WW2 by the Germans that these
tanks are likely to become stuck in the mud if the seafloor is anything but the perfect
type of terrain.
Granted the Americans would have had much better technology by the 50s than the Germans
had while trying to design their submersible tanks but the hurdles would not have changed.
Most modern tanks nowadays have the ability to cross rivers using special snorkels but
that is usually only very short distances so although it proves it can be done its not
quite a direct comparison.
In my opinion although in a different timeline this could have been a very successful design
were it to be done correctly.
Wars in our timeline would not have been kind to this concept.
With advances in air power and helicopters naval landings have become much less common
than in WW2 and the Korean war.
Although this could be partially due to the fact that there haven't really been any engagements
which required a naval landing in recent times, I think it still goes to show how the need
for this panzer of the sea would have quickly vanished.
Not to mention we’ve seen advancements in our landing craft technology as well.
This would mean any design which could only serve the specific purpose of naval attacks,
with a cost as high as an underwater tank would entail, more than likely would be mothballed
quickly.
But that's just my opinion on the design, the great thing about this tank being purely
conceptual is it allows us the freedom to speculate about its every aspect.
I’d love to hear what your opinions of it are in the comments, do you agree with me
that the design could have worked if the concept was attempted.
Or do you think that this is nothing more than a sensational design which thankfully
remained on the pages of a magazine?
I’d also like to know what you guys think of this slightly different style of video.
I’ve recently discovered the rabbit hole of military concepts from magazines in the
50s and even earlier, especially those of Frank Tinsley.
If you’d like to see more wacky ideas that people from those days came up with let me
know and I might even break it off into its own series or something.
Thank you all so much for watching please leave a like if you enjoyed it since it really
helps the channel out and if you haven't done so already please consider subscribing.
One last thanks to Skillshare for sponsoring this video and dont forget to click that link
down below so you can be one of the 1000 to get a free trial.
I’ll see you in the next video.