The Glider Tanks of WW2 - Which Nation Got It Right?

4 Nations. 2 aircraft. 3 tanks. Sort of. In this video, I do a deep dive into how each of the main WW2 nations wanted to deploy their airborne armour.
DISCORD: / discord
Any feedback is greatly appreciated, I'm always trying to improve.
If you enjoyed the video please leave a like - and if you want to see more like it, I'd encourage you to subscribe!
Credit to these excellent articles:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messers...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M22_Locust
www.thedefencematrix.in/anton...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_T...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov...
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us...
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/so...
All content is presented in historical context for educational purposes. All footage is owned by it's copyright holder and is used in this channel under "fair use".

[@IndianaDel1]

Silly question. At 1:15 you have a picture of men looking out the door of a Horsa. one of them is my Grandfather. I even recognize his ring. Where did you source this image, as I have never seen it I would much appreciate your help with this

[@RedWrenchFilms]

On Getty images the original source is stated as “Hulton Archive” with the caption being: “Reinforcements - Paratroops give the thumbs up signal, before leaving in a glider to drop on Normandy as reinforcements to the invasion forces.” I know that KZbin hates it when I comment with links so please contact me (my email is in my “about” section of the channel) and I can send you all the raw images and sources. There is even a very nice colourised version of this image! (www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/nintchdbpict000386922227.jpg)

[@IndianaDel1]

@@RedWrenchFilms Thank you very much

[@monke148]

wow you never know what youll find on the internet lol, if ur grandpas still alive thank him for his service

[@IndianaDel1]

@@monke148 He passed away over 40 years ago.

[@teslashark]

A real Christmas surprise if I ever see one

[@MetalX34]

kinda reflects the usual stereotypes people joke about with the different wwII nations : john and tom try to stay reasonable overall, hans does it ludicrously bigger or more complex but beyond that it seems sound, and then you got crazy boris unbounding himself from common sense, just in case it could work.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Hahahah I enjoyed making it for this reason

[@mattbowden4996]

I think the Germans were the only nation to realize that making tiny light tanks air mobile was pointless, but this put them in a situation where a giant glider was the only way to go. The western allied Glider tanks might have worked better as a practical deployment system, but the tanks they were actually capable of delivering were completely useless (contrary the author's opinion, I would argue the M22 was a worse fighting vehicle in just about every way than the Tetrarch, even though it looks cuter). The German system was way less practical, but at least in theory it could deliver a fighting vehicle that was actually worth a damn. Essentially, you have to chose between a practical glider that can only deliver useless sub-ten ton tanks or something that can deliver a useful fighting vehicle but is so big and unwieldy it can't possibly be used as an assault glider. Neither solution was at all satisfactory. The less said about the Soviet insanity the better - and it's worth noting the T-60 that their mad system was supposed to deliver was by some margin the weakest tank of any discussed in this video.

[@Skorpychan]

@@mattbowden4996 The german system couldn't actually deliver the vehicle, though. That was the problem.

[@mattbowden4996]

@@Skorpychan Indeed, so they they ditched the concept and used the airframes for something else - but they were still right that delivering tiny seven ton tanks was a complete waste of effort. If you can't deliver a useful armoured vehicle then the concept is still a failure even if your delivery method is more practical. The author puts a positive spin on the M22, but truthfully neither the M22 not the Tetrarch ever achieved anything in the airborne role that justified the considerable trouble taken in delivering them by glider.

[@berserkerpride]

@@mattbowden4996 I bet the germans would have loved to have had some useless 8 ton tanks on crete. Its not going to be useful in a lot of situations but hell, paratroopers in general aren't useful in a lot of situations.

[@dposcuro]

I am still of the opinion that the M22 Locust is the most adorable AFV ever developed. Thank you for this Christmas gift, and I hope you have the best of holidays, and get well soon. Also, subscribed!

[@GundamReviver]

I see your locust, and raise you the German Ww2 luchs. That tank is just so dumpy and cute looking!

[@IceAxe1940]

L3/33, ASU-57, Weisel.

[@jtjames79]

Wait... I wonder if the creator of the BattleTech Locust knew this. It's no accident that lots of Mechs share names with contemporary and historical military vehicles.

[@wellensgamingodds3228]

it is as some say in war thunder, an adorably aggravating killer. XD

[@dragonoflocniroth]

Favorite tank in Warthunder

[@gareththompson2708]

Providing some armored firepower to airborne forces has always been an attractive idea. Making a tank that is light enough to be air mobile necessarily means that it won't have the armor and firepower to be effective at fighting other tanks. But any tank at all has the potential to massively boost the firepower available to formations that have always been forced to carry only light weapons by the very nature of how they are deployed to the battlefield.

[@cosmoray9750]

Look up " Three narratives, one reality " on yT. Insightful on the world most dynamic country.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

This is of course complete nonsense and stems from the fact that the Allies were unable to solve the problem and were wrong in their approach from the start. Germany solved that problem, because the German assault guns could be transported through the air, right?

[@Jurflip2]

I agree. I think arming the M22 with a 37mm gun was a mistake. It fired a tiny HE shell and was too weak to engage enemy armour. A 20 mm automatic cannon would have been better. That would also relieve the commander from having to load the gun. I don't think the Allies had a suitable cannon though, but even armed with a .50 machine gun, it would have been useful for the support of paratroops.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@Jurflip2 You really have no idea. Not even the M24 could mess with German tanks. And it was still too heavy. He could only withdraw quickly. And speaking of fast reconnaissance vehicles... The Germans had a great deal of experience with wheeled tanks, since the development of such weapons was not forbidden in the 1919 peace treaty. If you look at the German SdKfz. 234- 2/3/4, armored vehicles with speeds of up to 90 km/h are available, which are hardly inferior to a scout- chain tank in terms of off-road mobility and armor and have enormous firepower, but are considerably lighter. And most importantly, they are much faster and have a longer range. The M22 weighs just under 8 tons and was 64km/h fast, but it's just scrap. The only airborne mission with the thing was a disaster. The M24 was more than 10 tons heavier, only 56 km/h fast and therefore unsuitable to airlift and also came too late. A German wheeled tank, weighing less than 12 tons, could easily be transported in the Me 323 giant and had either the 5 cm gun used in the latest version of the Panzer III to deal with the T-34, or it had a short 7.5 cm gun (Panzer IV /E), or Pak/40 gun. All of these scout tanks were deadly opponents for infantry and not a snack for a main battle tank either. I would say engineer duel, clearly lost...

[@Mincecroft]

The idea has potential but it can never really beat what Close Air Support would be able to bring. A P-47 was a very effective ground attacker and so planes like that would fill the role of fire support for airborne units. The main problem would be getting some CAS to the area where your paratroopers are as this may be too far for the CAS.

[@donjones4719]

The Tetrarch and Locust were more of an armored fighting vehicle than a tank. As mobile pillbox that could take out an enemy infantry position they were suited to the task, it would seem - as long as the enemy had no antitank weapons at all.

[@5RndsFFE]

The issue is that the 37mm and 40mm (2pdr) were terrible at anti infantry due to the pathetic HE amount in their respective HE rounds when they were even available. They would have been far better having them use either 20mm Oerlikons or larger 75-90mm low recoil guns as dedicated support. The 37-40mm would only have been effective against things like Armoured cars and Halftracks, given they primarily had solid shot and the guns being rather obsolete by 1944.

[@lightypower3412]

Like MPF

[@phatbongshaggy2163]

Mobile pill box i dont think it was good at that one the m22 was in service in 1940's meaning at the same time as panthers tiger II's assuming there was 0 anti tank i mean i guess bit the HE filler was not nearly enough for infanty support also seen on the british matilda Series

[@davidgoodnow269]

It does seem something like the American recoilless rifle would have been handy as a main gun, if there was a way to load it, with a scaled-up 1-inch Browning machine-gun as another option. The latter could have been useful against vehicles and troop carriers, and in a high-angle mount useful to fend off air attacks. The former would not hunt Tigers, but be very useful to destroy bunkers and anything from a Panzer IV on down and those were by far the most common threats, anywhere. Ideally something like an Ontos! I could easily see a M-22 stripped of its turret and equipped with a half-dozen 75mm or 90mm recoilless rifles, like a smaller, lighter, earlier, Ontos! If it could carry 20-30 "main gun" shells and two hundred or so ranging rounds, that should do the job. Most commonly you need enough armor to bounce .30 caliber or 7,9mm armor-piercing, as only the Soviets fielded large numbers of serious anti-tank _rifles._ Such light tanks needed superb mobility to evade the most common, 3,7cm and 2#, anti-tank guns used by field infantry. A recoilless rifle, PIAT, or panzerfaust would be ridiculous overkill when everyone used rifle grenades! That Soviet light tank seemed the most practical of these, similar to the Panzer II which has a distinguished record throughout the war as a reconnaissance tank.

[@allangibson8494]

The simple presence of the Tetrarch’s caused German forces to withdraw and await armor support around the landing areas. The effect was mostly bluff but any tank would cause unsupported infantry to withdraw.

[@philo6850]

Another great video! Our son with his family managed to catch a standby flight on a C-17 Globemaster to get home for Christmas. Looking at the pics he sent of that cavernous interior, I could imagine an M1 Abrams tucked up in there. How things have progressed since WW2, now we fly MBTs to the far side of the world for deployment in a matter of hours. Thanks for another enjoyable video and happy holidays!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Always look forward to your comments Phil. Happy Christmas to you and your family!

[@Colinpark]

There was an attempt to get a bigger allied tank into the drop zone, using a powered aircraft, but they had to stow the turret separately from the hull that was slung under the aircraft.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I believe this was the M22 Locust! The plan was to fly it into action under a C-54 Skymaster with the turret stowed in the cargo bay. Then after landing the crew would assemble the vehicle again.

[@Thekilleroftanks]

You got two different projects mixed up. The turret was the m22. While the larger glider was the British attempt of PARADROPPING CHURCHILL HEAVY TANKS. Just take that in for a second and then realized the planes needed would have a wing span of over 90 meters....

[@mondriaa]

@@Thekilleroftanks are you sure about the Churchills? there was a planned for a rotochute style Valentine tank

[@builder396]

Its an idea that really made sense in a pre-Panzerfaust/Bazooka/PIAT era, where AT guns were these big bulky things that really were only on defensive strongpoints and not behind the lines, so if all you have to face is rifles and at best a bunch of MGs of rear guard units tanks can pretty much go rampaging. But the second you add man-portable AT weapons into the mix youre better off giving your own man-portable AT weapons to the paratroopers and letting them shoot stuff with that as opposed to having a loud obnoxious tank around that just makes itself a target.

[@davidgoodnow269]

One or two problems and advantages if you can deliver even a lightly-armored vehicle to transport your bunker-busting gun: that armor can protect the ammunition, while transporting the gun and its ammunition where needed, without encumbering the mobility of the infantry. Paratroopers in particular carry far more ammunition and equipment than mechanized infantry, because they may have to fight against heavy odds for days without resupply. Where a standard U.S. daily load of rifle ammunition was 80 cartridges, and a patrol load was 240 cartridges (3 days' ration), paratroopers commonly dropped with 1,000 rounds of rifle ammunition, 75-300 rounds of linked ammunition (belted) for machine guns, a musette bag of hand grenades, another of rifle grenades with adapter and blanks, one 60mm mortar shell, two colored smoke grenades, and such pieces of shared equipment as assigned . . . plus actual weapons! The jeep was probably the most important vehicle paratroopers had, because it could take that load off, plus transport a machine gun, recoilless, a complete mortar team with weapon and ammunition, a bazooka team,, or tow light artillery. More important to paras than the DC-3, because you can jump out of a DC-2 or even a Ford Tri-Motor!

[@radw2849]

The Tetrarch flew, landed and fought... Not too many others can say that.

[@orkstuff5635]

Can't help wondering why the Horsa's weren't used for Daimler Dingo's - lack of ground transport did seem to be a major problem for most of the paratroops who were landed (certainly during Market Garden).

[@captmoha3787]

They were given Willy MB jeeps as they were far lighter and served the same purpose as the daimler dingo weighing only about 1 ton compared to the Dingo's 3 tonnes which would allow the Horsa to carry more equipment and supplies or more men, keep in mind they only had a limited amount of gliders and tugs so every space and weight must be considered.

[@aasphaltmueller5178]

Oleg Antonow did have a knack to make heavy things fly, so I wouldn't discount the Soviet reports here, especially as they report a failure. He was the last surviving of the Pioneer Generation of Aircraft designers, BTW, saw the End of the Soviet Union.

[@JMunge379]

As an aero man myself I loved the dive into that side of history! Great stuff and keep it up!

[@clangerbasher]

I am reminded that isn't always the vehicle that counts more how the vehicle is employed and used. Out east there were examples of 'cavalry' being successful that was only mounted in Universal Carriers.

[@leopoldthedigger7062]

For the allied airdropped tanks I reckon they would’ve worked well but were deployed too late to be effective or influential

[@_XPXI]

That’s why the Wiesel is one of my favourite armoured vehicles.

[@davidgoodnow269]

Yes. I just watched a video about the new M10 Booker, and was thinking I would rather have an improved Weisel. Use the same 14-tank company, but use three platoons of four Weisel employed as two pairs, plus a pair covering. Upgrade the 20mm Weisel to at least a 25mm Bushmaster, if not a 35mm Oerlikon. Or scale the Steyr 15×150mm H.M.G. to 3×30cm-3,5×35 as an autocannon, best of all (Smoothbore, 2km/s velocity, polymer cartridges massively increase the amount of ammunition for a volume and mass. 15mm ammunition types are FSAPDS-D, proximity-fused H.E., APIE so figure the same for 30mm.) Pair one of those to the A.T. version, probably replacing H.O.T. with Javelin and carrying twelve to sixteen reloads in the autoloader. I have come to appreciate the British Starstreak surface-to-air missile system, and I think a Weisel could carry the triple launcher and six to eight reloads. That for the overwatch pair. Add laser detection and a blinder, and a TROPHY system, update the sensors and masking (recent huge advances in S. Korea) and that company would be vastly superior to a 14-tank company of Bookers. Possibly replace the MG-3 with the new U.S. .338 Norma MMG, since that has been removed from service anyway.

[@_XPXI]

@@davidgoodnow269 The weapons gonna weigh more than the Wiesel itself 💀. But the Wiesel could do that

[@wellensgamingodds3228]

Learning about the LittleJohn adapter, I now want this as an added feature (an addable modification) in war thunder, make the little beast more deadly by giving it a parcel squeezy barrel. XD

[@elitebeachgaming]

Some of the British tanks have them I think

[@xXrandomryzeXx]

Hearing how it had no turret, or ammo, and many major components, it's not unrealistic to believe that it actually flew but just barely flying above stall speed.

[@englishpassport6590]

The German Gigant Transporter was used to supply the Africa Corps from airbases in Sicily to Tunisia in Africa. They worked perfectly until they were discovered by long range twin engined Beaufighters from Egypt which shot them down in droves. A prototype turretless version of the Tetrarch was built using a 6 pounder anti tank gun it proved to be a good idea but it was never mass produced.

[@johnbaker1256]

Something like the Russian ASU-57 ?

[@michaelschmid9567]

yep. the German Gigants was the best. The British, US or Sowjet glider would also not stand against fighter planes, as all of them had no defense weapons. Only the Germans could bring in mid sized tanks, like the Panzer 3, what outclassed any of the "airborne tanks" / light tanks of the British, US or Sowjets.

[@julianfitz806]

My grandfather flue with a Gigant to Africa and talked very fond of it. They felt very save (especially because there were so many windows that they could shoot out of them:-D), so I expect the flight was in 1942, before the British learned how easy they are to attack.

[@Tyber_gsk]

More content please.. Really appreciate your work mate..

[@Redgolf2]

Loved the video mate, keep it up 👍🏻

[@Ocrilat]

Nice video. I guess the point of a glider tank was that something was better than nothing. The Tetrarchs were selected because they were small...but I think another big reason was, they existed and were basically useless in any other role. One of the strengths of the Locust was the 37 mm could fire HE (small but better than nothing), and the British added smoke dispensers. The U.S. Army was disgusted by the tank, mostly because of how mechanically unreliable it was. The British ordered them because it was better than what they had. Only Britain used them operationally, and they were a minor success on the ground. Giving paratroops armor support was a good idea, but with the tech at the time there was no way to design an effective air deployable tank that was both useful AND deployable.

[@brijekavervix7340]

I think you can also cut them some slack since they were very much pioneering the idea of airdropped vehicles too. Like, you gotta crawl before you can walk after all.

[@ReviveHF]

Probably the most successful glider tanks history is the M113 variants, it was designed to fit nicely into any transport plane including gliders but it came later after WW2.

[@monostripezebras]

nice video, man!

[@stirfrywok2927]

Excellent stuff. I always thought thry should have scaled down these efforts to carry universal carriers (for example) to haul extra gear/ anti tank guns etc

[@smyrnamarauder1328]

Nice video edit ! I would also like to add german Panzer I Ausf C for use in paratrooper ops. About 40 produced

[@mikeycraig8970]

It's pronounced Hen Gist, hard G sound. Hengist and Horsa were brothers and the first of the Anglo Saxon incomers into formerly Roman Britannia, a few decades after the Romans left (and took their legions with them). The English and Germans were much closer in relation than some other countries. I wonder if the naming of these gliders were a subtle dig somehow.

[@jeremielarin1979]

« Even if it was partially aviation based » 10:46 .considering that paratroopers are basically the crossover of the airforce and army. It comes with. Same as amphibious tanks except army and navy.

[@TheLastSterling1304]

It should be pointed how how Airborne Tanks were to be organized and used. The British had their Tetrarchs and later Locusts in their '6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment'. They served in the same role as the Daimler Armoured Cars in regular Reconnaissance Regiments; providing overwatch and fire support for the Scout Cars and Jeeps. By 1944 Light Tanks in the British Army was considered obsolete in direct combat roles with them relegated to recce duties instead so it was very clear to them that the Tetrarchs were never going to be useful in any frontal engagement with enemy panzers. However they could still be useful in screening against troops unprepared to fight armoured vehicles.

[@lllordllloyd]

Oh, as if any high commander would be stupid enough to allow his unsupported paratroops to face enemy armour. No, couldn't happen.

[@binaway]

If you want useful armor you require mass. If you want to fly you don't want mass. You can't have both. That made any flying tank almost useless with 1940's technology.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

The very sad truth, unfortunately.

[@killerkraut9179]

I think depends on the Enemy ! I think Japan hade les good Tanks then Germany ! I have heard the locust where send or sold to north africa after ww2 !

[@joeblow9657]

Finally someone covered this topic

[@jasonpatience8255]

Red Wrench does it again… Surprised every time, by the unique content! 😍 Even gets the job done while sick!

[@biddinge8898]

honestly squeeze bore cannons are great but the barrel life is horrendous. a muzzle device and malleable ammo solution is a amazing idea. I forgot to mention what makes it amazing! 😅 the squeeze part of the squeeze bore is replaceable. So you can carry multiple squeeze bore muzzle devices and have more squeeze bore ammo.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I read somewhere that the Americans tried to fit squeezebore adapters to the 37mm M6 but they only lasted a few rounds! Not sure if they were the same as the ones that actually made it onto the M22 but it was interesting to see.

[@davidgoodnow269]

​@@RedWrenchFilmsUncredited, but I am guessing this is an incarnation of the idea that Pole had for a squeezebore version of the Polish (wz24?) anti-tank rifle. I know that he escaped to France with it, where two were built and tested, but abandoned with the invasion of France and went to England. I don't recall the end of him, or his name.

[@columnal8067]

please do a video on the M41 Bulldog and M47 patton, in my eyes they are such interesting vehicles

[@jj-eg5up]

I couldn't imagine pulling a tracked tank down a runway.

[@abzzeus]

The Me323 were used as a desperate attempt to resupply the Afrika Korp across the Straits of Sicily , which went as well as could be expected with over half shot down.

[@jevinliu4658]

Straits of Sicily by the way, not Scilly. Scilly is off the coast of Cornwall

[@abzzeus]

@@jevinliu4658 autocorrect

[@jevinliu4658]

@@abzzeus Fuck

[@jeremyfisher8512]

0:25 that dude tumbling headfirst out the plane must've had a hell of a time

[@zachsmith1676]

while the locust may have been designed as the replacement for the Tetrach... I personally would prefer the Tetrach than the locust. Unless i'm mistaken the locust is smaller in height than the Tetrach so an already cramped crew would be even more cramped

[@Skorpyy406]

Usually i don`t write any comments, but here it´s absolutely necessary! You do awesome content on older but also recent topics/vehicles packed in short, but really well made videos. You definitely deserve more attention! Thank you for your brilliant content!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks so much I really appreciate it! I’m just grateful to get the amount of attention I’m getting at the moment :) Hope you’ll stick around.

[@Skorpyy406]

@@RedWrenchFilms Oh trust me i will :)

[@lightypower3412]

In the opening, kinda missing was the earlier history of Airbourne troops like VDV, but especially wrong was ''''France and the low countries'''' as the first tactical success was Oslo.

[@kellybreen5526]

Ultimately the answerr was give the airborne troops better anti armour weapons and aid mobility with small trucks or even motor bikes. The final piece was making sure that they had overwhelming and sustained close air support. Forget the tank.

[@williammagoffin9324]

The idea of airborne armor never died, they just ditched the glider. The US developed T-92 then later built the M551 (the M41 was also meant to be air mobile but the aircraft weren't developed in time to be useful), while the Soviets made the ASU-57, ASU-85, and BMD series. The US Stryker was tested for air drops but never certified, while the 82nd uses LAV-25 with their attached armored battalion.

[@forgivemenot1]

I think jeeps towing anti-tank guns were the answer for the long range heavy anti-tank role and PIAT/bazooka for short range support.

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

you need to make a follow up on the reformer insanity that is the flying M113

[@JoesWebPresence]

Didn't anybody think to design a kit tank? A main shell with some easy to attach armour, wheels and track, a power train, a turret with a main gun, then the fuel and ammo. Include the crew and that's six components. Factor in a small A frame type crane for assembly, and that's seven trips. It would seem logical to design something they could have put together in the field in an hour or so, and then send it in six gliders. Could have been the size of a Sherman! Big enough to defend a landing zone for more to land. Now THAT would have been a breakthrough IMO, which could have led to innovations like modular mechanised armour, and allowed all kinds of flanking manouvers that were previously impossible.

[@lllordllloyd]

The French flew disassembled Chaffees into Dien Bien Phu. Working flat out, the Foreign Legion's engineers had them going in a few days.

[@davidgoodnow269]

I dig it. Balance the power pack with the frontal armor, and have a wide turret ring to accommodate different turret designs. Even make it possible to swap ends for the driver, since the frontal armor is a shed able skin, that way you can switch to a spacer disk and a smaller turret, and use emptied volume to transport an infantry team, or fuel or ammunition as a fast armored transport! Even if it only had volume for four 55-gallon drums, more if cubic easily-stowable and removable containers instead of cylinders, that could be critical to keeping a column moving. One of the most mind-boggling things I have noticed is that every military vehicle has a diesel or multi-fuel engine, and these are used because of simplicity, reliability, . . . and a fuel-efficient idle. So, why isn't every diesel-fueled military vehicle also fitted with a generator wheel in the engine compartment, not just an alternator? Almost every arc welder can serve as a generator, too. So, why doesn't every engine compartment not only double as a generator at need, but have attachments to serve as an arc- or TIG-welder, too? I have used a large Rand-something air compressor to air-blast pressure-wash all day for several days before. Air compression is how superchargers work, but automotive and aircraft superchargers are much higher maintenance than industrial air compressors. I don't know why, but it is baffling. Why not add the compression components to every engine compartment, so that if mechanics need the use of pneumatic tools -- if one vehicle's engine will run, the mechanics can work. In daily driving, that same compressor could be feeding air to the engine, burning fuel more cleanly and thereby getting more horsepower, and improving mileage. Especially when in the field, whether training or disaster relief or battle, wouldn't that increase in capabilities and economy -- not of financial costs in purchase or maintenance, but of *time* -- be worthwhile?

[@davidgoodnow269]

Picture a tank as a shell, that can be divided in half, and half again. In the rear quarter, ammunition stowage. Moving forward, the fighting compartment and turret. Next, the driver, probably with the power pack to one side. In the very front, the final drive and armor. Reduce the size of the turret and ammunition storage and add a rear hatch, and you have an armored transport. Reverse the halves, flip the quarters. Driver in front, power pack in back, gun in turret and fighting compartment in the middle. You had a very creative idea, it is interesting to find applications!

[@JoesWebPresence]

Good point about the generators@@davidgoodnow269 I suspect there's a lot of specialised machinery that could serve a dual or auxiliary purpose. I think the Boxer IFV comes closest to what you describe, with mission specific modular compartments that can be swapped out in an hour or so. The UK recently took delivery of some: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGrXg6yEosirnposi=McUPuK8d8Vdt4TqK&t=460

[@russelrenan9341]

4:19 In my country i’ve found that there’s a stuart 3 with the littlejohn adapter. I was confuse at first because it was called vickers mk (i do not remember the number after mk) I hope this comment would be interesting to someone because I would like to know more details about the littlejohn adapter.

[@mugbug5]

Is that ETA 320 in the discord?

[@sneakysnek8416]

I watched your recent video about the Bushmaster and was wondering if you could do a video about the BMC Kirpi currently used by the Ukrainians.

[@jessecullen212]

Hey I do have a idea for a future video. Australian tanks have been unvalued and relitivly unshown.

[@ignasanchezl]

Now if you had Christie put wings on a BT-2 with a British Little John adapter, towed it with a captured zwilling and it the whole thing was then built at scale by the Americans, now that could had worked.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Genius.

[@Skorpychan]

So, in conclusion, it doesn't matter how airborne your tank is if it's a bad tank. Also, tanks don't fly for a reason.

[@Slye_Fox]

Wasn't the Alecto, a variant of the Tetrach with a bigger gun, meant for Glider operations?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Alecto was a variant of the Harry Hopkins (Light Tank Mk VIII). At 8.64t I think it was too heavy to be transported inside a Hamilcar.

[@mondriaa]

in late 44 early 45 the luftwaffe wanted a 3,5 ton tank destroyer for the airborne role, armed with a 81mm PAW 600, that ia a big 180 from there original idea. Im not sure what glider was going to carry it as the Gotha Go242 could not carry 3,5 ton but its also the only option so maybe it was going to be strengthened somehow?

[@username_3715]

Something like an asu 57

[@mondriaa]

@@username_3715 yes pretty much, likely even smaller as it would be made out of steel and not aluminium

[@stug77]

Wait what's with the Marder III M in the thumbnail?

[@donovanchau3483]

You should follow this up with airborne tanks of the Cold War

[@schmiddy8433]

I think the glider tank would be virtually impossible to fly, far more difficult than any regular aircraft, meaning your best pilots would have to be dropped in behind enemy lines to die on the ground. The weight distribution is just way too front heavy and the elevator at the back is probably not big enough or strong enough to control attitude very well. As soon as the nose dips at all that thing would be plummeting straight to the ground.

[@davidgoodnow269]

I read a journal by that test pilot about that particular flight, once, decades ago, so it is out there to be read. Most of what you wrote matches what he wrote, but he was an excellent technical writer who really let you feel what he did and experienced!

[@Redgolf2]

Maybe the 4 engine carrier aircraft from GAL or the Rotajeep

[@ceilyurie856]

The M22 is actually pretty fun, and good, in WarThunder

[@bumpermanthesecond615]

Principles: UK/US: make it light and compact! USSR: make it fly! Germany: dummkopfs, we make bigger glider to carry a panzer iv!

[@ZCJKF13GDG4]

Any veteran of gta3 series flying car cheat knows the answer is simply to point the turret backwards and fire continuously to gain speed

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Ah I see you are a fan of The A-Team (2010) as well.

[@JosHoogwerf]

What a glorious cargo bay to have on the Hamilcar i guess like the 17pdr it wasnt theirs to have. Must be a hell of a thing getting flattened by Kingtigers holding on to that bridge at Arnhem bye the way where those bazooka's?

[@sean640307]

but they DID drop Hamilcars loaded with 17pdrs in Operation Market.

[@liamferreira8912]

COD Ghosts: *Drops M1 Abrams tanks from transport aircraft*

[@thesnazzycomet]

ok but the tetrarch and locust are super cute

[@Oligodendrocyte139]

3:16. Tarrant Rushton and the accidentally dropped tank 😊

[@andrewstrongman305]

I remember an account of Me 263's being shot down in droves as they tried to supply the Afrika Korps.

[@daviddavid5880]

Outdated? Obsolete? So what? I don't care how tough you think you are, suddenly finding a couple of "outdated" tanks and a few hundred troops right up your trumpet taking bridgeheads behind you is probably still just a bit unsettling.

[@lazynow1]

Today they call the flying tank the A-10 Thunderbolt

[@thomaslinton5765]

The nations that never tried the mad idea.

[@jenniferstewarts4851]

I'm actually surprised, they did NOT employ the littlejohns on the tets. The little johns turned the 40mm 2 pounder into a high velocity 37mm almost doubling the accuracy of HE rounds and increasing the accuracy by 25% for AP. the little john could be removed quickly and the tank could continuing using normal 40mm round if needed. those rounds booked it, at almost 1150 m/s they had the ability to penetrate a tiger tank at close range frontally, or most panzer 3's and 4's at any angle out to about 1000 yards... with the 303's actually acting as a "ranging" round. so if the mg hit at 500-1000 yards, the APHV rounds would hit.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

But of course not... It only looks good on paper. How close do you have to get to a tank that, with its superior fire control optics, has recognized you from a distance of 2000 yards and blasted you away before you even heard its engine. The greatest advantage of the German armored formations was not their naturally excellent guns, but their sights, which were far superior to anything in the world. And indeed, you only have one shot. If he doesn't kill the tiger, you will be killed. The Russians specially developed a tank destroyer with a 152mm gun to deal with a Tiger. Why...? The best thing to do is to answer it yourself... kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJKkqWhtgq17bc0

[@jenniferstewarts4851]

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 and the UK and canadian sherman fireflys could knock out tigers. I mention the tiger not because it was an "easy kill" but because it was able to do it... reality is, most of what it would really encounter would be panzer IV's, and tank destroyers. the brittish used that little john adaptor right to the end of the war... not just on the tets, but on the Daimler. the Daimlers with those little johns actually served untill the 1960's so obviously there was still some use to them.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@jenniferstewarts4851 To be honest, the fat Sherman's already had enough to do with the German tank destroyers and the Panzer IV. Because the weapon optics of these tanks were comparable to the Tiger. And the Panzer IV was the only tank that had been developed before the war that was up to date until the end of the war. And one should not underestimate the losses suffered. The German assault guns alone destroyed 30,000 enemy tanks. This corresponds to the entire annual production of the Soviets in 1943...

[@jenniferstewarts4851]

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 I know. But the brittish made great use of the little scout cars with 2 pounders fighting at guns, at emplacements, scounting, and firesupport.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@jenniferstewarts4851 Fair enough...

[@josephwheeler1]

I'm not an aviation engineer but that A-40 looks like it's center of gravity is way too far forward. Compare it to the American drawings that were shown right before. Those tanks are balanced underneath the wing but the A-40 sticks way out in front. I could be wrong but I would guess that whoever drew this picture was making it look more like a normal aircraft where the fuselage sticks out in front of the wings. If this is really what it looked like I'll be surprised if it could actually fly. I have been wrong before though.

[@NorthKorean_dictatorship]

3:25 And thus, a meme was born

[@rabbiboazmarmon7723]

Wrench? Oh, I misread that.

[@lesliestephenson1298]

Totally missed the Harry Hopkins light tank.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

The Harry Hopkins was too large and too heavy to be transported by the Hamilcar. There was an “idea” to attach wings like the A-40 but nothing suggests this was anything more than a napkin drawing.

[@bulldowozer5858]

Ah yes, the giant glider is too big to be pulled by a plane... so you smash two planes together, absolute reasonable lol

[@taderdinedillon2509]

Dont forget imperial japan‘s attempt at glider tanks as well

[@RedWrenchFilms]

6:56 :)

[@philvanderlaan5942]

You say you are sorry that it’s partially aviation based. It’s not there is no mention of tail hooks or landing on postage stamps in the middle of the ocean.

[@rodolfo9876a]

1:17 Wow, they made a football team named after that aircraft! Sorry for dad jokes

[@samlambert4770]

The Baynes bat flying wing almost got a full size prototype made. It was an attempt to stealth glide a fucking Churchill into battle 🤣

[@johnbaker1256]

Valentine, maybe?

[@bluestar4579]

Technically, the United States built the first and only flying tank. It called the AC-130 Gunship.

[@toldyouso5588]

Should have included M24 Chaffe light tank, it was the best that could be air-dropped at the time, although it was not until the French-Indo-China war when it was tried. The point is, that it could also have been done in WW2.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I don’t believe the M24 was air-droppable. It was nearly 20 tons and even in Indo China the French had to transport them disassembled and split into separate aircraft.

[@toldyouso5588]

@@RedWrenchFilms So still air droppable as you grudgingly admitted after the fact. Even if in seperate main parts.(which I already knew) it was feasible as the French proved it could be done in an out of the box solution way. Conventional proceedures are not the only acceptable methods in warfare.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@toldyouso5588 The M24 Chaffee was in no way air droppable I’m afraid. Even the M24s that made it to Dien Bien Phu had to be split into 180 separate pieces and required extensive assembly after landing. Each tank required 2 large and 6 medium transport aircraft to hold all these parts. The focus of this video was on vehicles that could be deployed alongside airborne infantry and would be ready to fight almost instantaneously so vehicles that need that sort of effort after landing just weren’t considered. Aside from that, “air droppable” means it would be dropped in mid-air, most likely using a parachute. The fact is that no aircraft were capable of air dropping a complete armoured vehicle for decades after WW2. The Chaffee certainly doesn’t fit this description and was barely even air deliverable, never mind droppable. The French Army had to borrow and then heavily modify large cargo aircraft to even get *part* of an M24 into Dien Bien Phu. Like I said it needed to be split 8 ways - into 2 Bristol 170s (in service from 1946) and 6 C-47s. And, in theory, this would be doable with any relatively light tank, it just so happened that the French were using M24s at the time.

[@toldyouso5588]

@@RedWrenchFilms Yes the French split the Chaffe into 180 parts, for the particular packing purposes of the cargo plane the French had available. But if you do the math, in WW2 the Brits had the Avro Lancaster that could carry a 22,000 lbs grand slam bomb. That's more than sufficient to divide the Caffe into 3 or 2 main parts of the 19 ton Chaffe., hull, turret and engine would not pose as much as the 180 parts re-assembly challenge.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@toldyouso5588 In terms of raw carry capacity yes, but even to carry the Grand Slam the Lancasters had to be heavily modified and had their bomb bays removed. There would be no way to actually attach the parts to the Lancaster nevermind fly it around - half a tank isn’t going to be nearly as aerodynamic as a purpose built bomb. Regardless I think it’s fair to say that if you have to modify a large number of heavy bombers to carry around (somehow) large parts of dissembled tanks, then it is already out of the scope of this video, which was about different methods of landing complete vehicles into battle alongside airborne troops. Lancasters would have to have a runway after all, like the French had at Dien Bien Phu.

[@paulsmithjr.9281]

The M22 locust was the one that did it best!

[@LordBilliam]

3:50 "to fit a British specification"... so, then it had a tea maker?

[@StupidStuart1]

My dumbass thinking "Why did they not just attatch a huge parachute to a tank" bro it would get battered by anti-air fire.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

A bigger issue is what do you drop it from! And how do you stop it landing in a tree or a river or something haha

[@jaymacpherson8167]

At 8:42 I laughed out loud! At 9:50, I cried.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Glad you enjoyed it Jay! I had a lot of fun making it

[@basilpunton5702]

The Locust still used the 37mm gun which was not as powerful or acccurate as the 2 pounder(40mm). The real problem was the stupid British decision not to equipe the 2 pounder with high explosive(HE) ammunition. Australia did equipe the 2 pounder with HE and used it successfully against Japanese tanks which had thin armour. The 2 pounder was arguably the best of this class of gun. Just not a good anti-armour gun for fighting German tanks. Many people extrapolate the failure against the very good armour means that the gun was outdated.

[@crumpetcommandos779]

I heard they didn't bother because the HE shell was crap

[@watcherzero5256]

@@crumpetcommandos779 It had 3x the explosive fill of the US 37mm HE round. It wasnt issued for doctrinal reasons, the Armoured Corp job was to kill tanks so they received AP rounds, the Royal Artillery job was to kill infantry so they got HE rounds for their 2pdr. Its the same reason the US issued better weapons and ammo to their Tank Destroyers than their Tanks as their doctrine was tanks killed infantry and tanks should be avoided and left to the Tank Destroyers. UK replaced it with the 6pdr for improved all around performance in May 1942 (being Issued to the Royal Artillery as a AT gun to free the 25pdr that was being used in the role by them to go back to being artillery and as the general purpose gun of the Armoured Corp) and the US exactly a year later in May 1943 adopted the same gun as the 57mm after they realized in Tunisia the 37mm was obsolete.

[@crumpetcommandos779]

@@watcherzero5256 ahh never mind what I said then :)) thanks for the info I wasn't aware of most of that

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

What was the 2 pounder for if not fighting tanks? I think I recall that it was the best anti tank gun in the world early in the war.

[@watcherzero5256]

@@offshoretomorrow3346 Royal Artillery also used it as a small caliber towed artillery piece.

[@christopher5723]

Since the locust was primarily designed for infantry support, you'd think the M2/m3 75mm pack howitzer used on the M8 GMC would have been a better choice with much better effects vs infantry in cover than the 37mm, and firing the m66 HEAT capable of penetrating some thing like 3.5" of armor IIRC (admittedly I'm not sure when the M66 round was introduced)

[@mrjockt]

Possibly due to the weight issue, even the M2 with the 37mm gun came in at over 3 tons more than the M22, adding a variation of the turret from the M8 might have pushed that weight up even higher.

[@christopher5723]

@@mrjockt the gun and mounting itself isn't that much heavier than the 37mm, they're within a couple hundred pounds iirc, I'd think it would have been possible to design something light enough, even if they had to go with an open topped casemate like the marders

[@mrjockt]

@@christopher5723 Being more of an aviation person than an armoured vehicle one I’ll take your word on that, to be honest if all the airborne troops were looking for was something to provide mobile fire support that was glider transportable why not go for something like a Universal Carrier with a light field howitzer in an open mount on top rather than a fully armoured vehicle, anything that was light enough to be glider portable was never going to have sufficient armour to stand up to any of the later anti-tank weapons they were likely to face.

[@Kav.]

Is it not an issue of fitting it in the existing gun ring, ammunition weight and also different levels of recoil from the guns?

[@christopher5723]

@@Kav. did a little rough math, the 75mm Pack Howitzer is a very low velocity weapon and while recoil will impart more force than the 37, it should easily be manageable (the 75mm Pack Howitzer had already been mounted on the T30 HMC based on the M3 half track with similar levels of protection to the locust hull with no structural issues), yes it would require a different turret but if the vehicle were designed from the start that should not present an issue.

[@bmac7643]

Any War Thunder player would know the M22 is truly the superior option Context: it’s a meme tank

[@brianevans9231]

3:56 my average American line up in war thunder

[@I_want_White_Cheddar_Popcorn]

I think America did it best, the tetracycline and locust did work but the tetrarch just completely failed at its job, the M22 didn't, the German glider was a failure and the Russian antonov is still unsure ss to whether it did fly or not, still, everything in the tank itself was basically removed

[@daveb.4268]

Surprised the Italians and Japanese didn't have an entry, all they had were tiny tanks?🤔

[@ricardoospina5970]

2 man turret so the commander was over worked "French tanks with one man turrets glare at the lazy people in the 2 man turrets".

[@jamesgoldring1052]

Surely sea planes would be cool

[@HoratioScaleModels]

Crazy German engineers! The Zwilling! bloody hell!

[@yutakago1736]

If the glider tanks are used in the Falkland war. It would reduce British casualties.

[@JosipRadnik1]

I am puzzled why this myth keeps showing up over and over again. The 2 pdr was NOT obsolete in 1938, neither was it in 1940. In fact, it was one of the most potent anti tank guns of the time, when many nations still regarded 2cm to 3,7 cm as effective against armour - which in turn mostly did not exceed 30mm (the Char B, the Mathilda II and the KV1 being exeptions here of wich neither was going against 2pdrs). It wasn't until late 1941/early 1942 that the 2 pdr began to encounter significant numbers of enemy tanks that could withstand it at average combat distances. Of course, 1944 is another story. What the gun lacked was a potent HE round that would allow tankers to engage enemy infantry or artillery targets - which proved to be the tanks main workload eventually. As for the Tetrarch - of course, this tank was a bit of a failure in concept due to the fact that it traded almost any useful feature a Tank could have for a reduction in size and weight. It wasn't particularly good for scouting nor had it much chance to survive any kind of direct engagement. The only thing where this pocket-battletank still could make sense of course was to provide airborne troops with at least some form of armoured assistance or in jungle warfare. That said, I personally would have exchanged at least some of the 2 pdrs with some howitzer for that task or create some sort of pocket STUGIII with a 6 pdr or a 7,5 cm gun. What I never came across any information though was the intitial thoughts that led to the creation of this clumsy looking contraption.

[@Andrew08893]

You forget the japanese also did tank gliders

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It’s at 6:56

[@Andrew08893]

@@RedWrenchFilms didn't see it

[@j-aaxch9658]

M22 is a pain on WT

[@THESocialJusticeWarrior]

Maybe they should have just planned on capturing enemy tanks instead...

[@solidsnake8330]

Despicable Me lookin ahhh German Glider

[@FUNNYpla]

I feel that I am a good tank

[@Jin-Ro]

3:14 That cope cage to protect from Javelin. what an Idiot! they weren't invented yet! lol

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Ahead of their time!

[@a_majorproblem]

"Mate should we make a glider that can carry tanks?" "I don't see why not. Let's make a very light tank so it can fit." "JAJAJAJAJAJAJA BIGGER BETTER MAKE GIANT PLANE CARRY MEDIUM TANK AJAJAJAJAJAJA" *explosion in the background* "EVER HEARD OF RED BARON? I'M SURE YOU HAVE, LET'S MAKE RED ARMY BARON HAHAHAHA RUSSIA ENGINEERING SMART HAHAHA"