The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/coneofarc08211

Panzer of the lake was the original submarine tank

"Baby Assault Tanks! We can stop those Asian hordes in their infancy!" "I don't think that's he meant."

Slap a nuclear reactor in this thing and you have a perfect Fallout tank, even the article is overly American and fits into the lore

The tank sounds and looks like something from the fallout universe.

Tanks with deep wading kits _frequently_ get stuck in the mud, even 'just' crossing rivers, or stall their engines, or find that they can't climb the bank on the other side. Western tanks have wide snorkel 'towers' so that the commander can stand in the top and guide the driver via intercom, and so that the crew can escape up the tower if the tank gets stuck. The disadvantage of these systems is that they're too big to carry on the tank in normal usage, so tanks wanting to cross a river would have to wait for the snorkels to be brought up on trucks. Soviet tanks use a small diameter snorkel tube which can be carried on the tank all the time. However, this system is very dangerous, since if the tank stalls or gets stuck, the crew have no means of escape except in very shallow water. Russian crews have been known to point-blank refuse to use their snorkels, despite the dire consequences of refusing orders in the Soviet Army. Standard practice therefore became to attach a snorkelling Russian tank to the winches of two armoured recovery vehicles, one on each bank, so that if the tank got stuck or stalled it's engine, one or other of the ARV's could pull it out. This does mean though that the advantage of having the snorkels on the tanks all the time is largely negated by the setup time for a safe river-crossing. In practical terms, any safe, submerged crossing of a river by tanks requires prep time, support equipment and recce of entry/exit points, so it WILL slow down the tank's progress whatever method is used, often to the point where it's just easier, safer and almost as not-quick to wait for some kind of bridging gear to arrive and be setup.

Idea for a future video: the US "Hunter" heavy tank project from the 50's, it was supposed to be armed with twin 105mm guns with autoloaders in the main turret (yes, double barrel), some sources say it weighed 90 tons and had some early form of composite armor! Quite hard to find detailed info about that tank online. I think it would be perfect for this series.

im not too fond of the idea of an internally mounted recoiless rifle personally

But just imagine the fear of seeing the enemy throwing tanks overboard only for them to reapear from the water like 46 ton terminator

The artist rendition is my favorite part of this entire video

It's still not a match against the Bob Semple tank though.

Love the illustrated tank's name: "Water Lily" Love also the tease: "Baby Assault Tanks"...in case you need to clear out the offspring of your foe!!!!!

If this was ever to be built, there would be a lot of dead tank crews. Look at how many die in FLOATING armored vehicles. Now imagine they have zero chance to bail as they wait on the bottom for their breathable air to run out.

"The craftily led hordes of Asia" That whole paragraph is quite the period piece :D

I loved the “Artist Rendition” note just past the three minute mark, hahahaha

If you do make a separate series for magazine stuff, I have a name for it. Call it: "Magazine Marvels".

That old time recorded voice is great 😂👌

I feel like having a recoilless rifle in a confined space, much less a tank, would turn the entire crew into a thick paste upon firing.

Man i really hate how well thought out this design is My only modification would be to add sponsons to make the tank neutrally buoyant and link water screws to the drive

I can't even imagine how loud an *enclosed* 105mm recoilless rifle must have sounded from inside the tank even if the breech area was separated from the crew compartment with a bulkhead. The shockwave would have also been rather debilitating. An Ontos-style arrangement of recoilless rifles probably would have been more workable than what's shown in the drawing. Perhaps those barrels could have been sealed up without a plastic dome as well.

The turret looks more like an underwater UFO than a typical Soviet Dome turret

Panzer of the seas, what is your wisdom? "'Why don't we have [crazy tank design]?' would make for a great series"

The more I read into this the more I get the feeling that the author had never been in either a tank or a sub. Eh one can dream.

ConeofArc: "...if you'd like to see more...let me know..." Me: "More!....MORE!" General Hux: "That's enough....THATS ENOUGH!"

Please do more of these, I find the incredibly interesting, maybe even with more speculation? Also, I propose "Cursed by Fantasy" as a title for such a series

"why dont we build..." is an B-tier memetemplate imo

How the hell is this gun supposed to work? Is there just a big hole in the back of the turret for the backblast of the recoilless rifle, or is it venting the rocket blast directly into it? it doesn't LOOK like the rocket launcher from the Sturmtiger, i.e. venting the gasses forward... and the gun you mentioned being a likely candidate isn't much smaller than a 105mm tank gun. Still, while the flamethrower might be useful for beachhead invasions, i think the massive amount of machine guns show just how far detached from reality the designer is.

This may just be my lack of understanding on this sort of subject but wouldn’t a design like this want to be slightly heavier than a light tank but not enough to be classed as a medium tank? What I’m attempting to get at is the issues of underwater traveling. With wider tracks it would have an easier time finding grip but if the vehicle was too light, wouldn’t that negate the widened track lengths? Another issue would be underwater visibility; especially if there’s multiple of these tanks traversing the floor. I’m guessing there would be some sort of light on the outside of the tank like another other but what about an infrared sensor? Does water interrupt those? Lastly, communication. This is going to sound more complicated because of how I’m thinking but I’ll try to simplify it as best as I can. Would they use standard radio equipment found in most tanks or would they require something with similar strength to that of a submarine? To my knowledge currently, radio waves can travel far through water but it requires a strong sensor to pick up the response(I’m not 100 percent sure); something stronger than that of a standard tanks radio system. This is all speculation of course since this isn’t a real design but I think this concept could be made into a more realistic design if we collectively solve some of the issues highlighted above. Let me know what you think.

I love this kind of thing and would love to see more. The outlandish ideas are really fun to see and speculate. These kinds of things fueled my imagination as a kid.

Ah 1940/50's speculative military hardware where every new invention or technology will transform warfare with no regards for reliability, effectiveness, survivability or even crew safety.

If US had it in WW2 when fighting Japanese, this tank would be very helpful. But main challenge I see is actually the surface of the ocean bed - it's not really flat on most places. Second, if the ships need to stay away from shore guns, that makes quite a long distance and can be often really deep. It would be better to change the design from moving on seabed to keep like 10 m below water. This would need some submarine systems installed and lighter armor than the author imagined, but 10 m of water would also protect it nicely during the moving phase. Love the way he thinks tho :)

Oh, PLEASE cover more wacky ideas in magazines from the 50s (and beyond) regarding insane military concepts.

I think it has one fatal flaw. It it kind of assumes the enemy don't know it exists and won't try to counter it. Underwater dragons teeth, hedgehogs, mines, shelling the area with artillery, or any number other traps and obstacles would be 100x worse to deal with while underwater. I think it's first deployment could go really well but once the suprise factor is gone and counter tactics are introduced I just cannot see it working.

The shape of the thing reminds me of the AMX 40. I tried to find info on that tank once but since it was never built the only thing that came up was World of Tanks gameplay footage.

3 issues 1. Dense mud like you said which require emended power to overcome 2. Diesel subs used batteries underwater. Could a battery meet the power needs at that time. 3. Recoiless guns worked by pushing part of the blast back wards to reduce recoil. In a sealed box this would have shoved burning propellant into the crew’s faces

really interesting design, and pretty realistic too, all things considered a bit unrelated but do you know anything about tests that the soviets did with rappeling tanks during the inter-war/early ww2 period? I remember seeing a video of a bunch of T-26s connected by cable and slowly dropping one off a cliff and then forming a 'train' of tanks going down the hill but for the life of me I can't find it again

There is a big hole in it already: the recoilless rifle. When that gun fired, like a RPG or a bazooka, it would create a very big backlash to counter the recoil of the whole gun. If a 105mm recoilless gun is fired in that stubby turret, the crew, if not die from the fume, pressure, and heat, would be critically injured. Plus, the resistance on the beach can be very well put out by naval bombardment or airstrike. It would be much cheaper for a flight of F/A-18s or trios of Arleigh Burke-class to cover the landing party than to develop a tank for a niche situation.

I'm not sure if Tinsley understood how recoilless guns work. The vented breech system and massive rearward discharge means they would need just as much outside access as the muzzle of the gun, as well as posing loading difficulties. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near such a system.

I really enjoy this type of stuff, as it combines my interests in both military tech and the zeitgeist of the late 40’s - early 60’s. Personally, I’d love to see more videos like this one, Cone!

Just my opinion: Theoretically possible, yet extremely impractical. 1. These tanks will cost a lot more to be build due to added components for waterproofing, etc. This is not a regular tank with parts added to make it watertight. This is a submarine/tank hybrid. 2. Problem of communication while submerged. Radio cannot be used underwater. They will need to rely on scheduled plans yet it will be difficult for the tank or the commander to pass message to each other. 3. Rough underwater terrain would likely make this tank only deployable in even less areas, thus limiting the benefit of building such tank. Not to mention all underwater terrain need to be scouted just for this tank.

Artist Rendition* Moves Flying Pershing into the water*

I imagine TF2 MvM theme with this tank approaching. lol

From the early 60s, Popular Mechanics and Popular Science magazines had articles on jet back packs for soldiers, who are armed with machine guns and bazookas. One illustration has a soldier, wearing his jet pack, hovering over a city street, and firing his bazooka at a low flying enemy jet fighter. Bell Aerospace had their flying back pack on tour then. That thing had a 27 second run time. I saw one fly around 1964 at a home show in LA. There were also articles in those magazines about using "Radioactive Death Sand" on attacking enemy troops, and LSD fog to confuse and halt advancing soldiers. I still have those magazines, and the illustrations are classic.

Three words: Underwater Tank Traps. That's a fresh kind of hell I don't even want to imagine.

Yes, I would think this concept would have worked and please more of those tanks!!!

ConeofArc is the best history channel on youtube

This is actually a pretty neat idea. If the landing ship also came with a smallish sub to lay crane mats on the sea floor shortly ahead of the landing, I could see this concept working well regardless of seafloor conditions.

I think the major thing the guy who pitched the idea didn't think of is how the sea floor is basically just several feet of loose silt with not a lot to grab onto. The idea, though, is interesting.

There were definitely some fanciful ideas of the wars of tomorrow, they did get a lot of the TV war right with drones and helmet cams.

This tank can be countered with underwater anti-tank mines. Also, would need sizable oxygen tank to make it work as distances would be far greater than normal river crossing. Next big challenge would be a terrain. Shingle is not kind to tank tracks. Also, some sea floor is deep mud...

I don't know how I ever would have been able to understand the concept without that fantastic artist's rendition.

I think it could have been made to work - using electric drive is one solution, or carrying oxygen tanks to use a conventional motor as long as the depth pressure wasn't too great for the exhaust to work. It's interesting that there's possibly a false premise here - turrets have been successfully waterproofed as the German experiments showed, as was used on tanks on D-Day, and on the wading Soviet tanks we saw in your video. Therefore the next steps he proposed were not necessary, and there could have been other solutions such as a fixed turret/superstructure. I am also not sure how he intended a recoilless rifle to work inside the tank - I assume he's considered that the exhaust gas from the RR needed to go out the back of the turret some how. All very interesting though!

"Battlevision" became a literal reality. That one doesn't seem so whacky at all. The baby assault tanks though... that looks WILD.

The best tank in world is obviously the Bob Semple hehe

These are the type of people you want in you engineering team, always thinking outside the box instead of just doing the same concept over and over

"I join the Army, Not the Navy" must be the perfect reaction for the tankers in that time

When you don’t know which Torres belongs in a tank: *SALVATION!!!*

the main problem with this is the landing ships would have to get so close to shore as to make them a vulnerable target themselves

I appreciate the fact that the guy at least had some form of reasonable idea on how to make the concept work, rather than just making stuff up as was common in those types of magazines. I mean, yes, there are numerous detail issues that would stymie this design in the real world, but there is an interesting idea with some actual planning at the core of this.

As to the Underwater propulsion, using a full contained regenerative engine powered unit fueled by H2O2 at 98%+ was tested by the F*C company in the mid 1960's, but was cancelled after an explosion killed several Engineers. My Mom was a Technical Manual Transcriber/Translator at the time. I was an Aeronautical Engineering student just across the street from the company test track and was a eyewitness to the damaged test device remains. This was a higher than TOP SECRET Military project. When I Inquired about it I got a visit from the ''Men in Black''.

I enjoyed the video. I would look forward to hearing about far fetched tank concepts of yesteryear.

This type of tank seems pretty tame, compared to deep wading snorkel kits they make for many modern tanks.

This kind of ridiculous design is exactly the kind of thing I would love to see you dissect in detail.

I can think of a few ideas that would be a whole lot simpler than making a new vehicle, such as the DD tank (okay, only works in calm seas), strap-on pontoon floats (filled with cork, so a hit won't sink them immediately, or transport on semi-submerged barges.

being high on uranium also brings somewhat believable ideas

The "D Day Tank" is a "DD tank". The DD is for "Duplex Drive".

anybody who had ever swam in a beach using goggles can easily tell you visibility is close to zero underwater, units could easily lose formation or accidentally drive into impassable terrain, dooming the crews

I had that magazine as a kid. I always thought it COULD have worked, but I always believed it would have needed underwater pathfinding sonar.

looks like a fallout tank

10% of attention: COA speaking 90% of attention: artist rendition

The window between when the technology was there to do this effectively and the airpower hadn't yet overshadowed the need is just too small

That 105mm Recoilless Rifle mounted INSIDE THE TURRET would have killed everyone on board with the first shot. They have a TREMENDOUS back blast from the firing charge, hence "recoilless rifle".

yes please more of this kind of cursed stuff. the whackier the better!

This sounds like a death trap. by british armour doctrin any tank entering deap water is 'lost' regardless of weather it has wading gear or not. this is due to the vast number that get stuck in the soft bottom and then need to be winched out. I can see most of these getting stuck on the sea floor and drowning there crews.

Me, as a Dutch person, has tought alot about amfibious tanks, due to our relation with water. I would see a good underwater tank would be hugendue to our “waterlinie” but quite complex. 1 idea i had in mind however would be to sumbmerge a tank partually, using the water as means of protection, some kind of semi-submerisble. Imagine having to go trough 2 meters of water just to get to the crew compartment, or even remote controlled compartment. Even tough modern tanks have such advanced APDS-FS shells, good luck with going trough that!

A Betteridea(?) A giant hollow torpedo with blast off cap "Fired" at shore, such that the torpedo lands itself, like when they sink a truck in Operation Petticoat, but instead of blowing up, the front blows off and a tank or two rolls out.

Well this is interesting

WAIT WHAT IS THE BABY ASSAULT TANK? Could the Cone go over that? The smaller the vehicle the less weight it adds to make the armor thicker, like the Pz I F. I hope that's what the Baby Assault Tank is.

I noticed many things missing with the speculations: 1- There is no context on what type of contruction material would be used in the final desig but looking at it it wold have likely been cast homogeneous armor. 2- Weight, There is no context on weight aswell. Altough it needs to be heavy enough to sink but it can't be to heavy not to be stuk in the water mud. 3-Transmission, it could either be multi-transmission or clutch steering. But looking at the drawings i could expect clutch steering as of it's size. 4-Ammo amount/types, As there is no context on this aswell we can't fully say how much ammo it could have held and what type of ammo it would have fired from it's cannon. Sadly i couldn't find any hints on what it could have used. 5-Crew amount, i didn't see any mention of how many crew there would be in this kind of tank. Altough yes it could fit 4 crew members it would be extremily cramped in the hull and turret so i would say 2-3 crew members. 6-Turret drive, as there is no context on this aswell we can't really speculate how it's turret traverse speed would have been. My guesses are either Hand-cranked or powered. 7-How the explosive charges would have been activated. I only have little to say about this as i could easily say that it could have been internally activated. and finally 8-Top speed and gear amount, There isn't really any context on this but my guesses on the gear amont is 6 forwards 2 reverse. I hope this gives some idea of how it could have been but these are just guesses. If you would like then you could respond to this with your own guesses. I am always free to talk (Even tho i may be offline at times.) If i missed any other aspects then you could tell me with your own guesses on it.

When I see the amount of leaks that can spring in a regular boat made to float, I can't imagine the ingeneering madness this would have been.

Thats one cursed tank.

I saw the thumbnail and I thought you were going to tell me someone ACTUALLY tried to make the Tesla tank from Red Alert 1

I would watch the hell out of a series on military concepts from the old Popular Mechanics and other magazines. DO IT!

One more thing, that can play a SERIOUS part (depending on how far away the tank is launched from the beachhead) is ocean currents. Strong enough riptides could potentially flip the whole tank over in transit during a battle and well... I dont need a degree to tell you just how frightening flipping onto your only escape hatches (assuming there are no belly hatches) in a massive armored coffin UNDER WATER NO LESS would be.

I didn't think it would work, but his article was very convincing when it referred to similar solutions already in use.

Submersible Tank? Launch from a soviet style sub transport 621, 664, 748 just off shore, with companion apcs, drone aircraft... Don't forget the Nuke powered sub tank with the crazy football shaped fixed turret.

I’d love to see someone create a decent sized scale model of this vehicle. I don’t think it would be useful, but I think it’s definitely possible. For sealing the turret, it could be possible to use a temporary rubber seal that could be broken by the moving of the turret, potentially allowing for heavier armament without the need for the dome. The main issue is air for the engine, as you say, alternative power would likely be necessary, as well as a different track design for traversing the sea floor. Either way, it’s an interesting concept, glad you shared it.

"Necessity is the mother of invention". If there had ever been an actual need for a vehicle like this, I have no doubt whatsoever that it would have been developed. But as you pointed out, there hasn't really been any need for major amphibious landings in recent decades.

Man reading those old magazine concepts of the future is always fun to.

As a former mechanized Army veteran, you will never get us to get in a vehicle that sinks by design. You have submariners for that.

Definitely would like a series on these wacky designs and old war time magazines.

Since he doesn't mention the motive power, an alternative would be a standard IC engine, with some sort of floating "snorkel platfom", with a retractable hose of some sort - perhaps similar to how fire hoses are stored in cabinets in larger buildings - then just disconnect them the same way as the canopy once the tank is on shore. To solve the problem of soft underwater soil, you'd still have to make this creature fairly light, so probably install only a limited fuel supply, and smaller engine to save some weight, as well as EXTREMLY wide. Tracks. - It could work....it would have kicked ass at D-Day....but it'd probably also be a death-trap.

It's a cool-looking concept but certainly in modern times, between pin-point accurate cruise missiles and submarines with littoral capabilities (coupled with plain old naval bombardment from well off-shore), such a crazy design wouldn't be worth the cost of such a novel new vehicle. It's definitely an interesting idea - thanks for highlighting it!

I would definitely like to see more military “off beat” designs from the past. Thanks.

Mounting a recoilless rifle In a tank turret is a fools errand. It is recoilless because a large amount of gas from the chamber is directed rearward which compensates for the recoil of what is basically just a cannon

Tinsley apparently was unaware or unwilling to accept the concept of 'back blast .' Recoilless rifles function by allowing the 'kaboom' to be vented from the rear of the cannon. That has to go somewhere. In this design it apparently exits into the turret. 'Ka-incinerate.'

I love how this thing looks like a flying saucer

with a plastic dome around the turret, there could have been opening hatches on the turret to permit a clearer view underwater.

The 50s were a...special time.

If that tank is in use in a different timeline and continued to Vietnam war, the vietnamese be like, "the water speaks American"