Myth or Plausible: Flying A Tank?

[Augustus Caesar]

If you haven't seen A-Team then you have no idea what I'm talking about.


In this movie, the A-Team was falling to a death in a tank when their plane got shot down. What they initially did was shoot the tank in a certain direction in order to land into a close by lake. As they were about to fall with the tank in the body of water - they shot downwards at the water in order to make the impact of the fall less powerful. Due to the help of the opposite directional shots from the tank, a parachute, and the body of water - they were able to survive the impact.

My question is: Is this actually possible in real life or is it impossible?

 

[thebluerider]

not only possible, but easy.

 

[zackryder]

sure

anything is possible

 

[Bob Gray]

No.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

No, but it is possible to fly an aircraft carrier.

 

[JohnnyDrama]

Why wouldn't they be able to? Enough thrust and stable wings why no.

 

[nobsbrress]

Ask Mythbusters

 

[ocean size]

If you haven't seen A-Team then you have no idea what I'm talking about.


In this movie, the A-Team was falling to a death in a tank when their plane got shot down. What they initially did was shoot the tank in a certain direction in order to land into a close by lake. As they were about to fall with the tank in the body of water - they shot downwards at the water in order to make the impact of the fall less powerful. Due to the help of the opposite directional shots from the tank, a parachute, and the body of water - they were able to survive the impact.

My question is: Is this actually possible in real life or is it impossible?

If firing the gun was enough force to actually do much to the tank's momentum, think what would happen to a tank firing on the ground - even with the treads locked and friction of the ground the whole tank would be kicked backward a ways.

ask footgod. I think he spent some time in a tank.

 

[seatea]

If you fitted enough parachutes to it might work. Firing the gun wouldn't make the slight bit of difference.

 

[HuntersCreed]

I know I'm the ghost/alien guy, but I'm calling horse shit on this.

 

[EGarrett]

I was about to answer this then I realized...I have no ****ing clue. I'm not a physics expert. Strange how the internet can make you think you understand things you probably don't.

 

[thebluerider]

are people actually considering this possible?

 

[Oatmeal Jr.**]

the force from the firing of a gun would cause the tank to accelerate some amount in the opposite direction. the mass of the shell itself is minute in comparison to the tank, unless the velocity with which the shell itself left the barrel was some truly massive quantity, displacement would be relatively small per shot, but you would be able to generate some momentum after rapid successive firings of the main gun.

but all in all, the forces acting upon the tank from the gun would be negligible in comparison to the force of gravity straight downwards. you wouldn't be able to achieve any sort of lateral ballistic trajectory, and to use the term "flight" or even "glide" would be laughable. but you could probably change the landing area by something on the order of a few feet per shot.

as far as breaking the fall of a tank using the chemical kinetic energy of the type of gunpowder load that one might use to fire medium to heavy munitions, again, negligible in comparison to the force of gravity. there would be some effect, however minor, but unless it coincides with the precise moment of contact, the force of gravity would quickly negate any upward acceleration.

so, "fly"? impossible, you would need fuckhuge wings to fly something as heavy and un-aerodynamic as a tank

effect some kind of displacement? yes, how much would depend on the mass of the tank, the mass and muzzle velocity of the shells and how rapidly you could fire them

 

[Huckleberry McRib]

Not sure if you have to load one shell at a time or if you can load multiple shells but I would say it might be pretty hard to load shells with the tank not being on the ground.

 

[itooknarro2knee]

No... tanks are meant to fire their guns while in motion so the gun is designed like
most modern field artillery to absorb the recoil. The only thing that would do anything
then is the escaping gas from the explosion which would be next to nothing.

 

[naked duck]

the tank is falling more than it is flying.

 

[Zer]

Meanwhile, in Russia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40

 

[naked duck]

The Antonov A-40 Krylya Tanka (Russian: крылья танка, meaning "tank wings") was a Soviet attempt to allow a tank to glide into a battlefield after being towed aloft by an airplane, to support airborne forces or partisans. A prototype was built and tested in 1942, but was found to be unworkable.

That's pretty cool actually. They should try again.

 

[Kanster]

Did it the other day, easier than it looks tbh.

 

[Silverblur]

I'm just gonna throw this somewhat related article in here;

http://what-if.xkcd.com/21/



If the parachute was big enough to slow the tank down I don't see why you couldn't aim the tanks fall by a half mile using the gun.