Tank for nuclear war. Iceberg aircraft carrier, atomic tank and other titanic military equipment See what "Atomic Tank" is in other dictionaries

In the fifties of the last century, mankind began to actively develop a new source of energy - the fission of atomic nuclei. Nuclear energy then it was seen, if not a panacea, then at least a solution to a great many different problems. In an atmosphere of universal approval and interest, nuclear power plants and designed reactors for submarines and ships. Some dreamers even proposed making the nuclear reactor so compact and low-power that it could be used as household source energy or as a power plant for cars, etc. The military became interested in similar things. In the United States, options for creating a full-fledged tank with a nuclear power plant were seriously considered. Unfortunately or fortunately, they all remained at the level of technical proposals and drawings.

The history of nuclear tanks began in 1954 and its appearance is associated with scientific conferences Question Mark, which discussed promising directions science and technology. At the third such conference, held in June 1954 in Detroit, American scientists discussed the project of a tank with a nuclear reactor submitted for consideration. According to the technical proposal, the TV1 combat vehicle (Track Vehicle 1 - Tracked Vehicle-1) was supposed to have a combat weight of about 70 tons and carry a 105-mm rifled gun. Of particular interest was the layout of the armored hull of the proposed tank. So, behind armor up to 350 millimeters thick, a small-sized nuclear reactor should have been located. For him, a volume was provided in the front of the armored hull. Behind the reactor and its protection, located workplace the driver, in the middle and rear parts of the hull they placed the fighting compartment, ammunition stowage, etc., as well as several power plant units.

Fighting vehicle TV1 (Track Vehicle 1 - "Tracked vehicle-1")

The principle of operation of the power units of the tank is more than interesting. The fact is that the reactor for TV1 was planned to be made according to the scheme with an open gas coolant circuit. This means that the cooling of the reactor had to be carried out atmospheric air running next to him. Further, the heated air was supposed to be supplied to the power gas turbine, which was supposed to drive the transmission and drive wheels. According to the calculations carried out right at the conference, with the given dimensions, it would be possible to ensure the operation of the reactor for up to 500 hours on one refueling of nuclear fuel. However, the TV1 project was not recommended for further development. For 500 hours of operation, a reactor with an open cooling circuit could infect several tens or even hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of air. In addition, it was not possible to fit sufficient reactor protection into the internal volumes of the tank. In general, the TV1 combat vehicle turned out to be much more dangerous for its troops than for the enemy.

By the next Question Mark IV conference, held in 1955, the TV1 project was finalized in accordance with current capabilities and new technologies. The new nuclear tank was named R32. It differed significantly from TV1, primarily in its size. The development of nuclear technology has made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the machine and accordingly change its design. The 50-ton tank was also proposed to be equipped with a reactor in the front, but the armored hull with a 120 mm thick front plate and the turret with a 90-mm gun in the project had completely different contours and layout. In addition, it was proposed to abandon the use of a gas turbine driven by superheated atmospheric air and to apply new protection systems for a smaller reactor. Calculations have shown that the practically achievable power reserve on one refueling of nuclear fuel will be approximately four thousand kilometers. Thus, at the cost of reducing the operating time, it was planned to reduce the danger of the reactor for the crew.

And yet, the measures taken to protect the crew, technical personnel and troops interacting with the tank were insufficient. According to the theoretical calculations of American scientists, the R32 "fonil" is less than its predecessor TV1, but even with the remaining level of radiation, the tank was not suitable for practical application. It would be necessary to regularly change crews and create a special infrastructure for the separate maintenance of nuclear tanks.

After the R32 failed to meet the expectations of a potential customer in the face of american army, the interest of the military in tanks with a nuclear power plant began to gradually fade away. Admittedly, for some time there have been attempts to create new project and even bring it to the testing stage. For example, in 1959 an experimental machine based on heavy tank M103. It was supposed to be used in future tests of a tank chassis with a nuclear reactor. Work on this project began very late, when the customer stopped seeing nuclear tanks as promising equipment for the army. Work on the conversion of the M103 into a test bench was completed with the creation of a draft design and preparation for the assembly of the layout.

R32. Another project of the American atomic tank

Last American project tank with nuclear power plant, which was able to move beyond the technical proposal stage, was completed by Chrysler during its participation in the ASTRON program. The Pentagon has ordered a tank designed for the army of the next decades, and Chrysler apparently decided to give the tank reactor another try. Besides, new tank TV8 was meant to represent new concept layout. The armored chassis with electric motors and, in some versions of the project, an engine or a nuclear reactor was a typical tank hull with a caterpillar undercarriage. However, it was proposed to install a tower of the original design on it.

The large-sized unit of a complex streamlined faceted shape was supposed to be made a little longer than the chassis. Inside such an original tower, it was proposed to place the jobs of all four crew members, all weapons, incl. 90-mm gun on a rigid recoilless suspension system, as well as ammunition. In addition, in later versions of the project it was supposed to be placed in the rear of the tower diesel engine or small nuclear reactor. In this case, the reactor or engine would provide energy for the operation of the generator that feeds the propulsion electric motors and other systems. According to some sources, until the closure of the TV8 project, there were disputes about the most convenient placement of the reactor: in the chassis or in the tower. Both options had their pros and cons, but the installation of all power plant units in the chassis was more profitable, although technically more difficult.

Tank TV8

One of the variants of atomic monsters developed at one time in the United States under the Astron program.

The TV8 proved to be the luckiest of all American nuclear tanks. In the second half of the fifties, a model of a promising armored vehicle was even built at one of the Chrysler factories. But things did not go beyond the layout. The revolutionary new layout of the tank, combined with its technical complexity, did not give any advantages over existing and developed armored vehicles. The ratio of novelty, technical risks and practical returns was considered insufficient, especially in the case of using a nuclear power plant. As a result, the TV8 project was closed for lack of prospects.

After TV8, not a single American atomic tank project left the technical proposal stage. As for other countries, they also considered the theoretical possibility of replacing diesel with a nuclear reactor. But outside the United States, these ideas remained only in the form of ideas and ideas. simple sentences. The main reasons for the rejection of such ideas were two features of nuclear power plants. First, a tank-mountable reactor cannot, by definition, be adequately shielded. As a result, the crew and surrounding people or objects will be exposed to radiation. Secondly, a nuclear tank, in the event of damage to the power plant - and the likelihood of such a development of events is very high - becomes a real dirty bomb. The chances of the crew surviving the moment of the accident are too small, and the survivors will become victims of acute radiation sickness.

The relatively large power reserve on one refueling and the general, as it seemed in the fifties, the prospects of nuclear reactors in all areas could not overpower dangerous consequences their applications. As a result, nuclear-powered tanks remained an original technical idea that arose in the wake of the general "nuclear euphoria", but did not give any practical results.

According to the websites:

nuclear tank? Is that possible?

The first nuclear reactor was launched in 1942 in the USA. In the 1950s, scientists were actively looking for options for the practical application of nuclear energy. On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant was put into operation in the USSR. And in the United States, scientists began to develop the concept of an atomic tank.

It was an incredible idea for those times. After all, all this was still a curiosity and nuclear tanks, and nuclear ships, and nuclear submarines. There were ideas about nuclear trains and airplanes. But back to tanks.

First project - TV-1

The first project of the American nuclear tank received the designation TV-1. He assumed that the tank would weigh 70 tons, be armed with a 105 mm T140 gun and 350 mm frontal armor. The nuclear reactor on board could operate for 500 hours without changing the fuel.

Second project - R32

Atomic science did not stand still, and a year later, in 1955, it became possible to significantly reduce the size of the reactor. And to replace the huge TV-1, a new project was developed - R32. It was a project of a 50-ton nuclear tank with a 90-mm T208 smoothbore gun and 120-mm frontal armor. The design range of the R32 was over 4,000 miles.

Just imagine: 6500 kilometers without refueling. But the problem was that this did not mean that the tank could go on an autonomous campaign for such a distance. Anyway, he would need to periodically change the lubricant in various units and assemblies, and most importantly, the crew would have to be changed periodically so as not to expose the tankers to long-term radiation. Plus to this: if such a tank was blown up, the entire area in the area would be infected.

As a result, the Americans abandoned the projects of the atomic tank. Not even a single prototype was produced.

Nuclear tank in the USSR

In the USSR, such projects were not developed. But he still had his own “atomic tank”. So in the press they called TES-3 - a transportable nuclear power plant, which moved itself on four self-propelled tracked chassis, created on the basis of the T-10 heavy tank. And this “tank”, unlike the American ones, really existed!

Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank

Most deadly tank Russia's third-generation T-14 main battle tank, as well as the basis for armored personnel carriers on the Armata universal chassis system, may become even more deadly in the near future.

According to unconfirmed media reports, Uralvagonzavod (a Russian defense contractor and the world's largest tank manufacturer) is not only upgrading new versions of the mysterious T-14 with a new nuclear-capable 152mm gun, but is also developing uranium tank armor.

It is not yet clear to military experts how far the Russians have advanced on this issue. That is, whether the nuclear subkiloton 152-mm projectile is under development, or we are already talking about its possible combat use.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield is not part of the official Russian military doctrine. However, in last years Russia has made significant progress in the development of tactical nuclear weapons.

The current version of the T-14 is armed with a 125mm 2A82 smoothbore gun capable of firing powerful ammunition at an effective distance of up to seven kilometers and at a rate of up to 10 rounds per minute. The 152mm 2A83 cannon will have a much lower rate of fire.

"Armata" is the first new Russian tank developed by Russia after the collapse Soviet Union. It is reported that the tank is equipped with a new active protection system, including a new generation of active armor, supposedly capable of withstanding the most advanced in the world anti-tank guns and anti-tank missile systems.

In addition, as we have already indicated in another article, the T-14 will eventually be a fully automated combat unit equipped with uninhabited tower and, if necessary, remotely controlled:

“The Armata Universal Chassis System is a platform for more than a dozen different tracked vehicles, including self-propelled howitzer, engineering vehicle and armored personnel carrier. 70 percent of the tracked armored vehicles of the Russian Ground Forces are planned to be replaced with vehicles based on the Armata universal chassis system.

True while authentic combat capabilities The T-14s are unknown and will remain so until they are tested in real combat.

In 2016, the Russian Ministry of Defense ordered the first batch of 100 T-14s and intends to purchase up to 2,300 T-14s by 2025. However, it seems that these are only the official financial and production capabilities of Russia. According to experts, from 2018, Russia can produce no more than 120 such tanks per year. Currently in ground forces Russia is in service with about 20 T-14 units. It is not yet clear whether mass production of the tank has begun.

In the fifties of the last century, mankind began to actively develop a new source of energy - the fission of atomic nuclei. Nuclear power was then seen, if not as a panacea, then at least as a solution to a great many different problems. In an atmosphere of universal approval and interest, nuclear power plants were built and reactors for submarines and ships were designed. Some dreamers even suggested making the nuclear reactor so compact and low-power that it could be used as a household energy source or as a power plant for cars, etc. The military became interested in similar things. In the United States, options for creating a full-fledged tank with a nuclear power plant were seriously considered. Unfortunately or fortunately, they all remained at the level of technical proposals and drawings.

Nuclear tanks began in 1954 and its appearance is associated with scientific conferences Question Mark ("Question mark"), which discussed promising areas of science and technology. At the third such conference, held in June 1954 in Detroit, American scientists discussed the project of a tank with a nuclear reactor submitted for consideration. According to the technical proposal, the TV1 combat vehicle (Track Vehicle 1 - Tracked Vehicle-1) was supposed to have a combat weight of about 70 tons and carry a 105-mm rifled gun. Of particular interest was the layout of the armored hull of the proposed tank. So, behind armor up to 350 millimeters thick, a small-sized nuclear reactor should have been located. For him, a volume was provided in the front of the armored hull. Behind the reactor and its protection, the driver's workplace was located, in the middle and rear parts of the hull they placed the fighting compartment, ammunition stowage, etc., as well as several power plant units.

Fighting vehicle TV1 (Track Vehicle 1 - "Tracked vehicle-1")

The principle of operation of the power units of the tank is more than interesting. The fact is that the reactor for TV1 was planned to be made according to the scheme with an open gas coolant circuit. This means that the reactor had to be cooled by atmospheric air flowing next to it. Further, the heated air was supposed to be supplied to the power gas turbine, which was supposed to drive the transmission and drive wheels. According to the calculations carried out right at the conference, with the given dimensions, it would be possible to ensure the operation of the reactor for up to 500 hours on one refueling of nuclear fuel. However, the TV1 project was not recommended for further development. For 500 hours of operation, a reactor with an open cooling circuit could infect several tens or even hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of air. In addition, it was not possible to fit sufficient reactor protection into the internal volumes of the tank. In general, the TV1 combat vehicle turned out to be much more dangerous for its troops than for the enemy.

By the next Question Mark IV conference, held in 1955, the TV1 project was finalized in accordance with current capabilities and new technologies. The new nuclear tank was named R32. It differed significantly from TV1, primarily in its size. The development of nuclear technology has made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the machine and accordingly change its design. The 50-ton tank was also proposed to be equipped with a reactor in the front, but the armored hull with a 120 mm thick front plate and the turret with a 90-mm gun in the project had completely different contours and layout. In addition, it was proposed to abandon the use of a gas turbine driven by superheated atmospheric air and to apply new protection systems for a smaller reactor. Calculations have shown that the practically achievable power reserve on one refueling of nuclear fuel will be approximately four thousand kilometers. Thus, at the cost of reducing the operating time, it was planned to reduce the danger of the reactor for the crew.

And yet, the measures taken to protect the crew, technical personnel and troops interacting with the tank were insufficient. According to the theoretical calculations of American scientists, the R32 "fonil" is less than its predecessor TV1, but even with the remaining level of radiation, the tank was not suitable for practical use. It would be necessary to regularly change crews and create a special infrastructure for the separate maintenance of nuclear tanks.

After the R32 failed to meet the expectations of a potential customer in the face of the American army, the military's interest in tanks with a nuclear power plant began to gradually fade. It is worth recognizing that for some time there have been attempts to create a new project and even bring it to the testing stage. For example, in 1959 an experimental vehicle based on the M103 heavy tank was designed. It was supposed to be used in future tests of a tank chassis with a nuclear reactor. Work on this project began very late, when the customer stopped seeing nuclear tanks as promising equipment for the army. Work on the conversion of the M103 into a test bench was completed with the creation of a draft design and preparation for the assembly of the layout.

R32. Another project of the American atomic tank

The last American project of a nuclear-powered tank, which was able to move beyond the technical proposal stage, was carried out by Chrysler during its participation in the ASTRON program. The Pentagon has ordered a tank designed for the army of the next decades, and Chrysler apparently decided to give the tank reactor another try. In addition, the new TV8 tank was supposed to embody a new layout concept. The armored chassis with electric motors and, in some versions of the project, an engine or a nuclear reactor was a typical tank hull with a caterpillar undercarriage. However, it was proposed to install a tower of the original design on it.

The large-sized unit of a complex streamlined faceted shape was supposed to be made a little longer than the chassis. Inside such an original tower, it was proposed to place the jobs of all four crew members, all weapons, incl. 90-mm gun on a rigid recoilless suspension system, as well as ammunition. In addition, in the later versions of the project it was supposed to place a diesel engine or a small-sized nuclear reactor in the aft part of the tower. In this case, the reactor or engine would provide energy for the operation of the generator that feeds the propulsion electric motors and other systems. According to some sources, until the closure of the TV8 project, there were disputes about the most convenient placement of the reactor: in the chassis or in the tower. Both options had their pros and cons, but the installation of all power plant units in the chassis was more profitable, although technically more difficult.

Tank TV8

One of the variants of atomic monsters developed at one time in the United States under the Astron program.

The TV8 proved to be the luckiest of all American nuclear tanks. In the second half of the fifties, a model of a promising armored vehicle was even built at one of the Chrysler factories. But things did not go beyond the layout. The revolutionary new layout of the tank, combined with its technical complexity, did not give any advantages over existing and developed armored vehicles. The ratio of novelty, technical risks and practical returns was considered insufficient, especially in the case of using a nuclear power plant. As a result, the TV8 project was closed for lack of prospects.

After TV8, not a single American atomic tank project left the technical proposal stage. As for other countries, they also considered the theoretical possibility of replacing diesel with a nuclear reactor. But outside the United States, these ideas remained only in the form of ideas and simple proposals. The main reasons for the rejection of such ideas were two features of nuclear power plants. First, a tank-mountable reactor cannot, by definition, be adequately shielded. As a result, the crew and surrounding people or objects will be exposed to radiation. Secondly, a nuclear tank, in the event of damage to the power plant - and the likelihood of such a development of events is very high - becomes a real dirty bomb. The chances of the crew surviving the moment of the accident are too small, and the survivors will become victims of acute radiation sickness.

The relatively large power reserve on one refueling and the general, as it seemed in the fifties, the prospects of nuclear reactors in all areas could not overcome the dangerous consequences of their use. As a result, nuclear-powered tanks remained an original technical idea that arose in the wake of the general "nuclear euphoria", but did not give any practical results.

According to the websites:
http://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/
http://raigap.livejournal.com/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://secretprojects.co.uk/

Sometimes amazing, but unadapted to military realities, monsters were born in the imagination of tank designers. Do not be surprised that it did not come to their serial production. Let's find out about 14 unusual tanks born by designers who are carried away by the flight of thought.

The Italian self-propelled gun was invented around the same time as the Tsar Tank. But, unlike the latter, it was successfully used in the First World War.

The Italian self-propelled gun is one of the most mysterious tanks in history. There is very little information about him. It is authentically known that the unusual tank had big sizes, a cannon was installed on it, firing shells of 305 mm caliber. The firing range reached 17.5 kilometers. Presumably, the Italian self-propelled gun was used in the shelling of the Austrian fortifications located in the Alps. O future fate this machine, unfortunately, nothing is known.

Literally, the name of this model is translated as "rail layer". The American military developed it in 1916 after learning about the extent of the use of tanks in the First World War. The authorship of the project belongs to the company C.L. Best, which is why the strange vehicle is often referred to as the Best tank.

In fact, it was a tractor of the same production. An armored hull, a turret, a pair of machine guns and a cannon were superimposed on top of it. Most of all, this tank resembles a boat turned upside down. Sorry, but military commission decided not to allow Best's car to mass production. The experts did not like the small viewing angle, thin armor and poor handling. The last remark is true, because the Tracklayer Best 75 could only ride in a straight line with minor deviations.

The TV-8 nuclear tank was designed by Chrysler in 1955. He had several distinctive features. The powerful fixed turret was rigidly mounted on a lightweight chassis with a solid monolith. In addition, the engineers decided that the tank would be powered by a small nuclear reactor located right in the tower. Finally, it was planned to mount television cameras in the body so that the crew of the car would not go blind when they were close to the epicenter of a nuclear explosion.

The TV-8 tank was considered a vehicle suitable for combat operations in a nuclear war. The vehicle was to be equipped with a pair of 7.62mm machine guns and a 90mm cannon. It is clear that the project impressed the management, but upon closer examination, several significant shortcomings were revealed. First, the creation of a small nuclear reactor was a difficult task. And secondly, in the event of an enemy getting into this reactor, the consequences would be disastrous for both the crew members and military equipment located close to TV-8, not to mention the soldiers. As a result, it did not even reach the creation of a prototype, and the project was forgotten.

This is interesting: Mass of 1 thousand tons, 39 meters in length and 11 meters in height. If the supermassive Ratte tank had been built in the 40s of the last century, it would have become the largest in history. Moreover, this record would not have been beaten to our time. German military leadership, however, chose not to develop a project that would require an incredible amount of resources to implement. The fact is that the "Rat" could not provide the German army with serious superiority on the battlefield. Therefore, things did not go further than drawings and sketches.

It was planned to equip the tank with a pair of naval guns with a caliber of 280 mm, a 128 mm cannon and 8-10 machine guns. Note that there was no clear idea regarding the type of engines for such a monster at the design stage. The possibilities of installing 8 diesel engines or 2 ships.

If Hollywood started making films about the indestructible James Bond in 1899, the British armored ATV would definitely become one of 007's vehicles. vehicle- less than 2 horsepower. The driver had to sit on a bicycle saddle. From armament there was a machine-gun cannon.

Note that the armor of the ATV protected only the torso and head of the driver, and only in front. The cross-country ability of such a machine was extremely low, so it was never mass-produced.

Compression is a Russian self-propelled laser system designed to counter enemy optical and electronic devices. Of course, he couldn't fire laser guns like in " Star Wars”, but the significance of this machine was very high.

This is interesting: The 1K17 complex was equipped with a system for searching and automatically aiming lasers at enemy missiles, aircraft and armored vehicles. In other words, if during the war any of the above objects were under the gun of 1K17, he would not be able to fire accurately in the opposite direction.

The tank was also equipped anti-aircraft gun, which would allow him to destroy nearby enemy forces.

A prototype military complex was assembled at the end of 1990. After successfully passing state tests, 1K17 was recommended for adoption. Unfortunately, it did not reach serial production. The high cost of the complex, the collapse of the Soviet Union and a sharp reduction in funding defense programs forced the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to refuse to release it.

This tank was produced in 1934 in Venezuela. The purpose of creating the car was rather strange - intimidation of neighboring Colombia. True, the intimidation turned out to be doubtful. Suffice it to mention that the word "tortuga" in translation from Spanish means "turtle". The pyramid-shaped armor of the tank was attached to a four-wheel drive six-wheeled Ford truck. The turret was equipped with a single weapon, a 7mm Mark 4B machine gun. In total, 7 "turtles" were released in Venezuela.

Almost nothing is known about this vehicle, the only copy of which is kept in the Kubinka armored museum. The mass of the tank was 1.8 tons, it was produced in Nazi Germany by Krupp. The car was seized the Soviet army in 1945. According to one version, this happened in Manchuria, according to another - at a German training ground. There was a radio station in the cockpit, there were no weapons. The hull was solid, it was possible to get into it through a small hatch. The engine of the tank-ball is a single-cylinder motorcycle engine. It is assumed that the strange machine was intended to adjust the direction of artillery strikes.

Having learned about the grandiose tank battles on the fields of World War II, New Zealand also wanted to get its own tank. In the forties of the last century, New Zealanders, who did not have a sufficient production base, assembled a small armored vehicle. It looked like a tractor covered in metal and carried 7 Bren 7.62mm light machine guns. It turned out, of course, not the most efficient tank in the world, but it was working. combat vehicle named after Bob Semple, then the nation's building minister.

This is interesting: Mass production of the tank never started due to multiple design flaws. Nevertheless, he managed to raise the morale of the New Zealanders.

First there were the Tsar Bell and the Tsar Cannon, then the Tsar Tank and the Tsar Bomba. And if the latter went down in history as the most powerful projectile ever tested by man, then the Tsar Tank turned out to be a less successful invention. It was very cumbersome and inefficient in practice. The car was developed by engineer Nikolai Lebedenko shortly before the start of the First World War.

It is noteworthy that this unit was rather not even a tank, but a huge wheeled combat vehicle. Her chassis consisted of a pair of huge front wheels with a diameter of 9 meters, which were complemented by a one and a half meter rear roller. central part with a fixed machine-gun cabin was suspended above the ground at an 8-meter height. The width of the Tsar Tank reached 12 meters, it was planned to strengthen the extreme points by installing machine guns. Lebedenko was going to supplement the design with a powerful machine-gun turret.

In 1915, the engineer presented his project to Tsar Nicholas II. He was delighted and, of course, approved the idea. Unfortunately, during forest testing, the rear shaft of the prototype got stuck in the mud. Pulling it out turned out to be an impossible task even for the most powerful Maybach trophy engines taken from a wrecked German airship. A huge tank was left to rust in the forest. They forgot about it for 8 years, and in 1923 the car was tritely dismantled for scrap.

Built by inventor John Walter Christie in 1921, the amphibious vehicle was designed to carry military weapons or other cargo in combat areas. In addition, it was possible to conduct aimed fire from the gun mounted on it. On both sides of the hull above the tracks were fixed balsa floats hidden in casings made of thin steel sheets.

The 75 mm gun was placed on a special movable frame. The design made it possible to move it forward, which ensured an even distribution of mass and no roll when swimming. In the combat position, the gun was moved back to provide free space for the rollback and maintenance of the gun.

The amphibious tank was released in a single copy. On June 12, 1921, a demonstration took place new car, on which she successfully swam across the Hudson River. However, the Department of Armaments was not interested in amphibians.

The A7V tank was designed and produced in a small batch of 20 vehicles at the end of the First World War to counter the British army. In fact, it was a huge steel box mounted on top of a tractor chassis. The only advantage of the A7V is enough good weapons(8 machine guns). It is a pity, but most of the tanks of this series could not visit the battlefield. The crews of some of them lost consciousness from the heat inside the hull, other cars got bogged down in the mud. Low cross-country ability has become the main drawback of the A7V.

This is interesting: The first in history tank battle happened on March 21, 1918 on the banks of the Canal Saint-Quentin. Three A7Vs met with three English MK-IVs that had left the forest. The fight was sudden for both sides. In fact, it was driven by only one tank on each side (2 British vehicles were machine guns, and 2 German vehicles stopped at a disadvantage). Gun british tank successfully maneuvered and fired from different positions. After 3 accurate hits on the A7V caterpillar, the oil cooler of the German car failed. The crew took the tank aside and left it. And the British got reason to consider themselves the winners of the first tank confrontation.

The A-40 flying tank (another name is “winged tank”) was created by the famous Soviet aircraft designer Antonov. The well-proven T-60 model served as the basis for it. A hybrid of a tank and a glider was intended for the rapid delivery of a combat vehicle to Right place by air to help the partisans. Interestingly, the crew had the ability to control the flight of the glider while inside the car. After landing, the glider quickly separated, and the A-40 was transformed into a standard T-60.

This is interesting: To raise an 8-ton colossus above the ground, it was necessary to deprive the tank of most of the ammunition. This made the A-40 useless in real combat conditions. Things did not go beyond the creation of a prototype, and the A-40 tank made its only flight in September 1942.

The main task"Crab" was clearing minefields. On a special rotating drum (specially pushed forward) 43 thick metal chains were fixed. The mines detonated upon contact with the chains, without causing any harm to the tank itself. Along the edges of the drum, the designers also installed sharp disks. As they rotated, they cut barbed wire fences. A special screen protected the front of the car from dust and dirt.

The mine trawl was very wide, thanks to which tanks and trucks could follow the path unhindered. An additional device was installed on the later analogues of the Crab, which made it possible to automatically maintain a given height of the trawl above the surface when moving through pits and potholes.

Some of the tanks discussed in the article are considered successful experiments, some are failures. But each of them is unique in its own way and has not so many analogues in the history of military equipment. From the mistakes made, the designers gained valuable experience, which made it possible to make the following models more perfect.