Something WWII History Buffs Might Be Interested In - The Firearms Forum

LurpyGeek · 11-07-2006, 04:21 PM

There is a book that just came out this year called "My Tank is Fight!" by Zack Parsons. He's a writer for a website called "Something Awful".

We've all seen books and documentaries about some of the crazy ideas that were formulated and in some cases implemented in World War II (especially by the Germans). This book takes a look at twenty inventions of World War II that never really saw the light of day (Looking at most of them, it's easy to see why). Inventions such as a tank so large that it had to be powered by naval engines, early night vision scopes, a submarine u-cruiser, and a tank that could fly. Some never made it past the drawing board, some had prototypes built and some even saw very limited action.

Mr. Parsons really did his research on these inventions. One of the things that I found a refreshing departure from a normal history book is that for each chapter he includes a hypothetical deployment history detailing the "what if"'s and an evaluation of whether each of the new weapons would have been a success or a failure.

Take a look at it if you're interested.

polishshooter · 11-08-2006, 07:48 AM

The tank that could fly actually made some "flights," there are pictures of it after casting off the tow.

It was a Russian light tank with jettisonable glider wings attached....but the reason they dropped it was that once on the ground it was no different than OUR "airborne" light tanks like the Tetrarch or Locust...too light, too small, too little gun, virtually no armor, to make a difference in the actual FIGHT.

Plus there were "Cruiser subs" with 6" and even 8" guns actually in service between the wars, we had two, the Narwhal and Argonaut.

But they were too big and slow to actually be effective as SUBS, and too slow, small and unarmored to fight on the SURFACE against conventional warships.

They had some use early for "surprise" surface bombardments of outposts early, but they did have utility as "transport subs" once the guns were removed. The Narwhal got sunk being used as a typical "Fleet boat."

Pistolenschutze · 11-08-2006, 01:04 PM

Here is the Antonov A-40 Krylya Tanka:

The Russians, it seems, really liked this sort of thing. Hmmm, I wonder if the M-4 could have been used that way? I mean, after all, it had no armor to speak of and Patton would have approved since it was so mobile.

LurpyGeek · 11-08-2006, 03:33 PM

Many of the things you mentioned are discussed in the book Pistol & Polish. I myself can't imagine what it would be like to be soaring through the air and then plummeting to Earth inside a tub of metal.

LurpyGeek · 11-24-2006, 09:39 AM

There is now a wiki on this book if you want more info without reading the book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Tank_Is_Fight

Pistolenschutze · 11-24-2006, 05:35 PM

I still think the M-4 would have made a great flying tank. Heck, it was so light, and its armor so thin, that it could have been transported with a glider. Of course, the Tigers would still have been waiting when it landed.

southernshooter · 11-24-2006, 09:47 PM

Looks like something worth reading

11-07-2006, 04:21 PM	#1
LurpyGeek Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: UT Posts: 1,436	Something WWII History Buffs Might Be Interested In There is a book that just came out this year called "My Tank is Fight!" by Zack Parsons. He's a writer for a website called "Something Awful". We've all seen books and documentaries about some of the crazy ideas that were formulated and in some cases implemented in World War II (especially by the Germans). This book takes a look at twenty inventions of World War II that never really saw the light of day (Looking at most of them, it's easy to see why). Inventions such as a tank so large that it had to be powered by naval engines, early night vision scopes, a submarine u-cruiser, and a tank that could fly. Some never made it past the drawing board, some had prototypes built and some even saw very limited action. Mr. Parsons really did his research on these inventions. One of the things that I found a refreshing departure from a normal history book is that for each chapter he includes a hypothetical deployment history detailing the "what if"'s and an evaluation of whether each of the new weapons would have been a success or a failure. Take a look at it if you're interested. __________________ Knowing is half the battle... Of course, the other half is violence. -->

11-08-2006, 07:48 AM	#2
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,879	Re: Something WWII History Buffs Might Be Interested In The tank that could fly actually made some "flights," there are pictures of it after casting off the tow. It was a Russian light tank with jettisonable glider wings attached....but the reason they dropped it was that once on the ground it was no different than OUR "airborne" light tanks like the Tetrarch or Locust...too light, too small, too little gun, virtually no armor, to make a difference in the actual FIGHT. Plus there were "Cruiser subs" with 6" and even 8" guns actually in service between the wars, we had two, the Narwhal and Argonaut. But they were too big and slow to actually be effective as SUBS, and too slow, small and unarmored to fight on the SURFACE against conventional warships. They had some use early for "surprise" surface bombardments of outposts early, but they did have utility as "transport subs" once the guns were removed. The Narwhal got sunk being used as a typical "Fleet boat." __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living. Last edited by polishshooter; 11-08-2006 at 07:53 AM..

11-08-2006, 01:04 PM	#3
Pistolenschutze Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 13,094	Re: Something WWII History Buffs Might Be Interested In Here is the Antonov A-40 Krylya Tanka: The Russians, it seems, really liked this sort of thing. Hmmm, I wonder if the M-4 could have been used that way? I mean, after all, it had no armor to speak of and Patton would have approved since it was so mobile. __________________ --Pistolenschutze (Pistol Shooter)

11-08-2006, 03:33 PM	#4
LurpyGeek Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: UT Posts: 1,436	Re: Something WWII History Buffs Might Be Interested In Many of the things you mentioned are discussed in the book Pistol & Polish. I myself can't imagine what it would be like to be soaring through the air and then plummeting to Earth inside a tub of metal. __________________ Knowing is half the battle... Of course, the other half is violence.

11-24-2006, 09:39 AM	#5
LurpyGeek Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: UT Posts: 1,436	Re: Something WWII History Buffs Might Be Interested In There is now a wiki on this book if you want more info without reading the book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Tank_Is_Fight __________________ Knowing is half the battle... Of course, the other half is violence.

11-24-2006, 05:35 PM	#6
Pistolenschutze Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 13,094	Re: Something WWII History Buffs Might Be Interested In I still think the M-4 would have made a great flying tank. Heck, it was so light, and its armor so thin, that it could have been transported with a glider. Of course, the Tigers would still have been waiting when it landed. __________________ --Pistolenschutze (Pistol Shooter)

11-24-2006, 09:47 PM	#7
southernshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Deep South Mississippi Posts: 5,943	Re: Something WWII History Buffs Might Be Interested In Looks like something worth reading __________________ Only you can see this