Can tanks be transported across the sea floor?
They're watertight, capable of taking large amounts of pressure due to it's armor, tracks can deal with most underwater obstacles. Just need to fit some small modifications to the engine.
>>30318998
No, they would get bogged down in the mud and other shit thats down there, the terrain is mountainous too.
>>30318998
The sea floor is literally nothing but mud and slime.
>>30319016
>>30319036
This
You'd need something that could deal with a few meters of mud
Sea floors are rarely flat and when they are, its because they are mostly silt, which is quicksands meaner older brother. Its one thing to get stuck in 3 ft of mud and be immobile until engies arrive to help you out, its another thing entirely to be buried under 2m of loose sand and sediment, 50 metres below the surface, hoping desperately that they have divers with shovels on call.
also:
>small modifications
>making a turbine engine run without air
>>30318998
>Capable of taking enormous amounts of pressure due to their armour
Go fuck yourself, no point even being polite with a statement that stupid.
That isn't how it works.
>>30319036
Somewhere Islam could flourish.
>>30318998
Kind of already a thing for laying cable. Make it neutrally buoyant for jumping over cliffs and tough silt and it is doable. Heavy modification required, but doable.
>>30319079
Fit some armor and a main gun to that thing and we have a new weapon of war.
>>30319079
Thought that thing had Warhammer 40k Chainswords on it from the thumbnail.
>fark yeah!
>>30319112
At which point it's no longer slightly negatively buoyant and you get stuck.
All that was mentioned and also the engine needs to "breathe" as does the crew.
Tanks are not watertight. Not even remotely.
>>30319148
But extra ballast can be added to adjust for it.
>>30319155
This, wasn't there an Abrams that fell into a river in Iraq and drowned some of the crew?
>>30319155
You know, come to think of it, don't most modern tanks have some sort of overpressure system for NBC protection? I wonder if that would be sufficient. No idea how they work.
>>30319188
There's a fan in the back that's basically a jet engine
>>30318998
>They're watertight
>>30319188
They suck air in through an nbc filter and force clean air into the tank. This over pressure forces clean air out through all the gaps to prevent chemicals etc coming the other way.
You can't make a tank airtight if you ever plan on opening the breach. The hatches, coax, viewports and even turret ring will allow air in if the external pressure is greater than internal pressure.
Tankers still wear nbc suits and gas masks.
>>30319174
I've not heard about it but I wouldn't be surprised. If the tank rolls you're not getting out. If you're still conscious after the roll you'll need to Hope the turret is in a position that will allow you to access the escape hatch on the floor.
>>30319193
>>30319285
Ah, I see! Learn something new every day. (Even if OP's idea is a bit silly.)
Must suck to have to wear NBC gear inside that teeny cab, though.
>>30318998
This has got to be the same guy that wants gliders and battleships.
>>30319372
if you have gliders then what's the purpose of transporting tanks underwarter?
Gliders can carry tanks easily.
>>30318998
>They're watertight
are you literally the dumbest poster i've seen on /k/ in days? very likely.
>>30319051
It's comical, I know, but what if you had a tube for air that went to the surface and terminated in a toroidal balloon to ensure it stayed that way?
Not saying OP's plan could ever work, this just seems like a fun thought experiment. Like... Hobart's Funnies on steroids, or something.
>>30318998
The Nazis were trying this out n WWII. Basically they had a snorkel for the tank hooked up to a floaty and an airpump to constantly pump air for the crew and engine.
If I knock on your skull OP
will it make a hollowed sound?
>>30319454
thr intent was to have a tank invasion of England via submerged tanks. The idea was eventually nixed because tank crews refused to attempt to drive their tanks under a few hundred feet of water due to all the issues pointed out in this thread
>>30319053
I'm an illiterate monkey and Thats the first thing that came to my mind. OP is a kid. I don't want to believe an adult can think like him.
Summer has been here
>>30318998
>Put tank crew in dive suits with rebreathers
>add ballast tanks to make tank neutrally buoyant at 15-30ft
>add a propeller and electric engine in a watertight compartment
Just solved every issue pointed out in this thread. Yes it's possible the real question is why would you want a tank underwater?
>>30319055
Kek
Iirc the germans actually tried this in preparation for operation sea lion
>>30318998
it's easy and can be done
>make hull cylindrical so it can take more pressure
>replace treads with a propeller so it can move faster
>make it not touch the seafloor so it doesn't get stuck
>replace useless cannon with torpedoes so it can engage other water based vehicles
>>30319885
So... a fucking submarine.
>>30319372
dont be daft.
Battleships wouldnt glide. you'd need engines on them.
>>30319906
No shot sherlock
>>30319906
That's the joke you fucking retard.
>>30319885
wait a minute, isnt that a fuckinb submarine?
>ITT: people with Down syndrome
>>30319174
Wasn't a mission kill though
>>30319809
What's worse is that barely anyone seems to be calling him out on it.
There was a 'Why don't we have a weapon in chambered in .22LR for suppressing the enemy because it'd be light and cheap' thread that actually gained traction. Hardly anyone called him out until a guy who'd served did at which point everyone just started calling him a welfare queen.
>>30318998
>>30320625
>>30318998
Hey, dipshit. Do you have -any- idea how much oxygen it takes to run an internal combustion engine? Or even a turbojet?
Also,
>They're watertight
nope
>capable of taking large amounts of pressure due to it's armor
nope
>tracks can deal with most underwater obstacles
nope
>Just need to fit some small modifications to the engine
nope
Tankfags gtfo. Tanks have always been infantry support vehicles. ATGM sidelines that pretty hard. Go away.
Why don't we just build mechs guys? Tanks are so outdated, i mean c'mon it's the current year!
>>30319160
Ballast is literally just weight
>>30318998
Every fastener and weld would start corroding. Marine environments hate metals
>>30320926
many is not most tanks since ww2 can ford deep rivers with snorkels, or external power.
problem with sea snorkels won't work.
if you can power your tank and keep up positive pressure in the cabin (so it doesn't take water in) it can in theory ford hard enough seabed for a short while. making them watertight can also work. what won't work is the engines. maybe they could lay cables from the mothership.
>>30321083
these can easily be coated the frictional parts will be self cleaning and also greased up.
>>30318998
lol watertight
>>30319160
Ballast is the opposite of buoyancy
>>30318998
its hugely impractical, and it is not difficult to design a boat large enough to fit them
>>30318998
For my own sake I have to believe this is b8
>>30321144
Or have a massive reel of hose on the back and have it take air from above. Just design a float that won't let water in or a valve at the bottom to take it out of the air intake and it could still work. For landings rather than long distance travel.
>>30318998
Just put some tracks under a typhoon class submarine, and a turret in the top thingy and you will basically have a working version of what you suggest OP.
>>30318998
The Germans tried it.
It didn't work so hot:
The Tauchpanzer or deep-wading tank (also referred to as the U-Panzer or Unterwasser Panzer) was a standard Panzer III or Panzer IV medium tank with its hull made completely waterproof by sealing all sighting ports, hatches and air intakes with tape or caulk. The gap between the turret and hull was sealed with an inflatable hose while the main gun mantlet, commander’s cupola and radio operator’s machine gun were given special rubber coverings. Once the tank reached the shore, all covers and seals could be blown off via explosive cables, enabling normal combat operation.
Fresh air for both the crew and engine was drawn into the tank via an 18m long rubber hose to which a float was attached to keep one end above the water’s surface. A radio antenna was also attached to the float to provide communication between the tank crew and the transport barge. The tank's engine was converted to be cooled with seawater, and the exhaust pipes were fitted with overpressure valves. Any water seeping into the tank's hull could be expelled by an internal bilge pump. Navigation underwater was accomplished using a directional gyrocompass or by following instructions radioed from the transport barge.
Experiments conducted at the end of June and early July at Schilling, near Wilhelmshaven, showed that the submersible tanks functioned best when they were kept moving along the seabed as, if halted for any reason, they tended to sink into the sand. Obstacles such as underwater trenches or large rocks tended to stop the tanks in their tracks, and it was decided for this reason that they should be landed at high tide so that any mired tanks could be retrieved at low tide. Submersible tanks could operate in water up to a depth of 15 metres (49 ft).
Germans actually tried this crap to get to England
>>30319377
Is that Listerine on your breath?
>>30319836
Asymetrical ASW. the greatest weakness in modern submarine combat is that they are only on the look out for ships and aircraft, they'd never see the army coming for them.
>>30319055
I kekked :D
>>30320501
So some of the crew survived and they were able to drive it out of the river without assistance?
>>30319160
You'd need to do the opposite. If it's not buoyant enough, that means you need to remove weight, not add more.
>>30322247
Can tracks actually be made big enough for an amphibious Typhoon? It would probably be pretty slow though, as it would have only ~4 hp/ton compared to ~25 for an Abrams.
>>30319155
>>30319155
>>30319206
>>30319407
>>30319836
>>30320926
>>30321192
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_wading
>All modern Soviet/Russian tanks since the 1960s (such as the T-55, T-72, T-90) are also able to perform deep fording operations.
>Deep fording generally implies driving through water of such a depth that the vehicle is mostly or entirely submerged by the water
>>30319055
heh
>>30323294
now granted you wont have a crew, but enough of the tank is watertight to run with a snorkel
>>30319295
>M1 Abrams
>Floor excape hatch
This ain't no Patton tank son
>>30320625
Sparky, is that you?
>>30318998
>watertight
>forgets that modern tanks have jet engines
this retard
>>30323442
What do jet engines have to do with being watertight?
>>30319425
it'd probably work. Vehicle snorkels are a thing
>>30319055
Ha!
>>30318998
No, but the Russians have tanks that can go under rivers and lakes for a short time.
>>30318998
>small modifications to the engine
Nigga you can't make an engine run where there's no air.
Your face when they really drive tanks under water??
>>30323478
they need air
>>30323478
euthanize yourself.
ever see a jet engine? image how much air it needs to run....
>>30328873
You see sergei, when tank have conning tower, enemy think you be of red october.
>>30320472
*drown
>>30328873
It's also extremely dangerous and done at river crossings that have been pre checked by engineers.
>>30320630
>>30320625
Get this into a fallout dlc NOW
>>30318998
It would need oxygen for the engine to continue running.
>>30323294
>>Deep fording generally implies driving through water of such a depth that the vehicle is mostly or entirely submerged by the water
> Mostly
no anon
thats like saying a cup is water tight when mostly submerged in water
![mid-atlantic-ridge-iceland-map[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ffInIRA.jpg "mid-atlantic-ridge-iceland-map[2].jpg")
Yes they can. But since "ships" exists they don't have to be dragged across the bottom of the fucking abyss..
Perhaps You where thinking the tanks could drive on the bottom of the sea? That is possible with some billion dollar adjustments, provided that the sea floor is flat, which is isn't.
>>30323100
>So some of the crew survived and they were able to drive it out of the river without assistance?
Even if they didn't, tank was still operational, so it wasn't killed.
>>30318998
No but rocket boosted gliders could help out some how I imagine.
>>30318998
Have you ever been to a beach anon ?
Know how you sink through the sand when its wet ?
It gets a lot worse the further away from the shore you go.
And at some point that layer get so deep you could literaly sink through it with a tank and then have another tank sink on top of you and you would still be completly covered.
Essentially it's be like driving a tank through kick sand, but worse and you can't go around it.
Also Oxigen for the engine and crew
Also any problem and you are dead, because getting out to push is not exactly a possibility.
