<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Flying Tanks that Shed Their Wings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/</link>
	<description>Yesterday's tomorrow, today.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:28:09 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mickey</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/comment-page-1/#comment-1063208</link>
		<dc:creator>mickey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/#comment-1063208</guid>
		<description>it DID work, but only after the removal of the turret, ammunition, most of the fuel, guns, armor, and all but one crewman.

so all it accomplished was a way to get an expensive metal box in the air</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it DID work, but only after the removal of the turret, ammunition, most of the fuel, guns, armor, and all but one crewman.</p>
<p>so all it accomplished was a way to get an expensive metal box in the air</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Novichock</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/comment-page-1/#comment-1057405</link>
		<dc:creator>Novichock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/#comment-1057405</guid>
		<description>First of all, The BT series of fast tanks where useless against anything more heavily armored than the Panzer III and the T34 was not a direct decedent of the Christie, The only similarities where that it was fast and it used a modernized variant of his suspension design. And the M1 Abrams does not use the Christie suspension, It uses a torsion bar suspension, as do most modern tanks.

Second, The tank models used at America&#039;s entry into the war where the result of cutbacks in military spending, Designers who viewed tanks as infantry support vehicles to be used in WWI style trench warfare and a general ignorance and inability to innovate within the Army.

Fourth, One of the major reasons the Army did not adopt a Christie design was that he was busy off selling unarmed variants as &quot;Tractors&quot; to the UK, Poland and the USSR, These where later developed into the Crusier, 10TP and BT models. (It was also used on some Italian prototypes) Some of the other reasons where that the tanks where mechanically unreliable (The engine was literally unaccessible in the field on his first design, The M1919) and the fact that he would not adapt the vehicles to Army requests (Ie, Armor that can stop bullets, Turrets).

Finally, The M1932 had at most 20mm of armor which was only sloped on the forward glacis plate, A .30 caliber machine gun or rifle loaded with armor-penetrating ammo could punch right through it, Not to mention the Bofors 37mm Anti-Tank gun which was in widespread service around the world at the time.

And a flying tank is generally a stupid idea, The Russians only flew their design once and later during the cold war they where only able to drop BMP armored personnel carriers with large parachutes and rocket assisted pallets, The crews had to be dropped separately due to the large number of injuries sustained during the first tests. (From what I remember, 10-20 wounded with injuries ranging from sprains to broken ribs and fractures)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First of all, The BT series of fast tanks where useless against anything more heavily armored than the Panzer III and the T34 was not a direct decedent of the Christie, The only similarities where that it was fast and it used a modernized variant of his suspension design. And the M1 Abrams does not use the Christie suspension, It uses a torsion bar suspension, as do most modern tanks.</p>
<p>Second, The tank models used at America&#8217;s entry into the war where the result of cutbacks in military spending, Designers who viewed tanks as infantry support vehicles to be used in WWI style trench warfare and a general ignorance and inability to innovate within the Army.</p>
<p>Fourth, One of the major reasons the Army did not adopt a Christie design was that he was busy off selling unarmed variants as &#8220;Tractors&#8221; to the UK, Poland and the USSR, These where later developed into the Crusier, 10TP and BT models. (It was also used on some Italian prototypes) Some of the other reasons where that the tanks where mechanically unreliable (The engine was literally unaccessible in the field on his first design, The M1919) and the fact that he would not adapt the vehicles to Army requests (Ie, Armor that can stop bullets, Turrets).</p>
<p>Finally, The M1932 had at most 20mm of armor which was only sloped on the forward glacis plate, A .30 caliber machine gun or rifle loaded with armor-penetrating ammo could punch right through it, Not to mention the Bofors 37mm Anti-Tank gun which was in widespread service around the world at the time.</p>
<p>And a flying tank is generally a stupid idea, The Russians only flew their design once and later during the cold war they where only able to drop BMP armored personnel carriers with large parachutes and rocket assisted pallets, The crews had to be dropped separately due to the large number of injuries sustained during the first tests. (From what I remember, 10-20 wounded with injuries ranging from sprains to broken ribs and fractures)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Odon</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/comment-page-1/#comment-1054641</link>
		<dc:creator>Odon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 14:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/#comment-1054641</guid>
		<description>As regards the tank not having any armour, the Christie tank did in fact have very thin armor (which is why it was rejected by the U.S. military, who believed that tanks had to be slow moving and heavily armored because they were merely support units for the infantry) but obtained its protection through the then radical concept of &#039;sloping&#039; the armor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As regards the tank not having any armour, the Christie tank did in fact have very thin armor (which is why it was rejected by the U.S. military, who believed that tanks had to be slow moving and heavily armored because they were merely support units for the infantry) but obtained its protection through the then radical concept of &#8217;sloping&#8217; the armor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Enrique J. Klein</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/comment-page-1/#comment-440150</link>
		<dc:creator>Enrique J. Klein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/#comment-440150</guid>
		<description>I have done research on the life and work of J. Walter Christie.  I would be very interested to know if the Linden Lab, where Christie developed his tanks, is still standing and where it is located.
Incidentally, in the above photo, J. Walter Christie is the tall older man standing next to the tank.  His adopted son, J. Edward Christie is in the tank pointing with a pencil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have done research on the life and work of J. Walter Christie.  I would be very interested to know if the Linden Lab, where Christie developed his tanks, is still standing and where it is located.<br />
Incidentally, in the above photo, J. Walter Christie is the tall older man standing next to the tank.  His adopted son, J. Edward Christie is in the tank pointing with a pencil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stannous</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/comment-page-1/#comment-2801</link>
		<dc:creator>Stannous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings/#comment-2801</guid>
		<description>http://www.pocketfactory.com/archives/2005/10/innovators_and_1.php:
:
A New York inventor and engineer named J. Walter Christie developed a series of revolutionary tank concept designs that would ultimately give birth to the modern tank we know today. Christie was to armored warfare what Jeff Hawkins was to Personal Digital Assitants. His ideas were nothing short of earth shattering. They embodied all the basic principles that Patton, Guderian, and Rommel had foresawâ€¦speed, agility, maneuverability, and firepower. The â€œChristie Tankâ€ was so revolutionary that Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union all eagerly copied the design. And for that reason it is no coinicidence that nearly every tank designed by Americaâ€™s allies and adversaries in World War II bears a striking resemblance to Walter Christie&#039;s tanks design. The Soviet built B-2 tank was a direct clone, and even the later model T34 (arguably the best tank ever designed during the War) was a direct descendant of Christieâ€™s creation.

Sadly, the US government failed to adopt the Christie tank and opted instead to use the Armyâ€™s own creations designed by the Bureau of Ordinance. The result of this decision would doom the United States to enter Wold War II with armored fighting vehicles that were a generation behind, and often horribly ill-matched to the German Armyâ€™s (Wehrmacht) tanks and combat vehicles. Americaâ€™s first Medium tank used in the war, which deployed in North Africa in 1942, was the embarrassingly inferior M3 Lee; a turret-less tank that resembled a giant land tortoise. Its main gun, barrowed from the Navy, was hard mounted on the right side of the tank, and could only be turned in one direction, which made this tank an easy target against German tanks. The Lee featured all-rivet construction, and American tank crews soon learned a gruesome side effect of this design. When an M3 was hit by even a glancing shot from German shells, the rivet heads would be sheared off by the concussion, which would propel the bolt stems inside the tank like bullets, killing or injuring the crew.
The M3 Leeâ€™s successor did little to improve matters. Early M4 Sherman models soon earned ominous nicknames by their crews likeâ€¦â€œPurple Heart Boxesâ€ and â€œRonsonâ€ (named after a popular brand of Cigarette lighter that proudly boasted its slogan â€œLights the first timeâ€), due to the fact that itâ€™s ammunition storage compartment had a tendency to easily catch fire and explode when hit by German artillery. Germans laughingly nicknamed the Sherman tank â€œTommy Cookersâ€ after a field stove carried by Wehrmacht soldiers. Oddly in many ways the relationship between the M4 Sherman and its more advanced German counterparts mirrors that of the battle between PalmOS and Windows Mobile. The Sherman, like PalmOS, was known for its simplicity, versatility, and easy of mass production. German Panzer models like the vaunted Tiger and Panzer IV were incredibly advanced, offering superior firepower, greater complexity, and total superiority over the Sherman. Panzers dominated the battlefield. GIs coined the phrase â€œTiger phobiaâ€ to describe the typical reaction Sherman tank crews had upon encountering a German Tiger tank on the battlefieldâ€¦â€Get the hell out and run as fast as you canâ€.

Historians will never know how many brave young American soldiers needlessly lost their lives because of the inferior equipment they went into combat with, but I suspect many lives could have been saved if the United States had adopted Christieâ€™s designs. Ironically, the US finally managed to catch up with the Germans by developing the M26 Pershing tank, which unfortunately didnâ€™t arrive until the last days of the war. Too late to make a difference.

Christieâ€™s innovations are still utilized even in todayâ€™s state of the art in fighting vehicles, like the advanced M1 Abrams battle tank used by the United States Army, which features the same suspension system first conceived by Walt.

Another long article about Christie and his tanks here:
http://www.geocities.com/firefly1002000/christory.html
And more + photos of Christie tanks here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_tank</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.pocketfactory.com/archives/2005/10/innovators_and_1.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.pocketfactory.com/a....._and_1.php</a>:<br />
:<br />
A New York inventor and engineer named J. Walter Christie developed a series of revolutionary tank concept designs that would ultimately give birth to the modern tank we know today. Christie was to armored warfare what Jeff Hawkins was to Personal Digital Assitants. His ideas were nothing short of earth shattering. They embodied all the basic principles that Patton, Guderian, and Rommel had foresawâ€¦speed, agility, maneuverability, and firepower. The â€œChristie Tankâ€ was so revolutionary that Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union all eagerly copied the design. And for that reason it is no coinicidence that nearly every tank designed by Americaâ€™s allies and adversaries in World War II bears a striking resemblance to Walter Christie&#8217;s tanks design. The Soviet built B-2 tank was a direct clone, and even the later model T34 (arguably the best tank ever designed during the War) was a direct descendant of Christieâ€™s creation.</p>
<p>Sadly, the US government failed to adopt the Christie tank and opted instead to use the Armyâ€™s own creations designed by the Bureau of Ordinance. The result of this decision would doom the United States to enter Wold War II with armored fighting vehicles that were a generation behind, and often horribly ill-matched to the German Armyâ€™s (Wehrmacht) tanks and combat vehicles. Americaâ€™s first Medium tank used in the war, which deployed in North Africa in 1942, was the embarrassingly inferior M3 Lee; a turret-less tank that resembled a giant land tortoise. Its main gun, barrowed from the Navy, was hard mounted on the right side of the tank, and could only be turned in one direction, which made this tank an easy target against German tanks. The Lee featured all-rivet construction, and American tank crews soon learned a gruesome side effect of this design. When an M3 was hit by even a glancing shot from German shells, the rivet heads would be sheared off by the concussion, which would propel the bolt stems inside the tank like bullets, killing or injuring the crew.<br />
The M3 Leeâ€™s successor did little to improve matters. Early M4 Sherman models soon earned ominous nicknames by their crews likeâ€¦â€œPurple Heart Boxesâ€ and â€œRonsonâ€ (named after a popular brand of Cigarette lighter that proudly boasted its slogan â€œLights the first timeâ€), due to the fact that itâ€™s ammunition storage compartment had a tendency to easily catch fire and explode when hit by German artillery. Germans laughingly nicknamed the Sherman tank â€œTommy Cookersâ€ after a field stove carried by Wehrmacht soldiers. Oddly in many ways the relationship between the M4 Sherman and its more advanced German counterparts mirrors that of the battle between PalmOS and Windows Mobile. The Sherman, like PalmOS, was known for its simplicity, versatility, and easy of mass production. German Panzer models like the vaunted Tiger and Panzer IV were incredibly advanced, offering superior firepower, greater complexity, and total superiority over the Sherman. Panzers dominated the battlefield. GIs coined the phrase â€œTiger phobiaâ€ to describe the typical reaction Sherman tank crews had upon encountering a German Tiger tank on the battlefieldâ€¦â€Get the hell out and run as fast as you canâ€.</p>
<p>Historians will never know how many brave young American soldiers needlessly lost their lives because of the inferior equipment they went into combat with, but I suspect many lives could have been saved if the United States had adopted Christieâ€™s designs. Ironically, the US finally managed to catch up with the Germans by developing the M26 Pershing tank, which unfortunately didnâ€™t arrive until the last days of the war. Too late to make a difference.</p>
<p>Christieâ€™s innovations are still utilized even in todayâ€™s state of the art in fighting vehicles, like the advanced M1 Abrams battle tank used by the United States Army, which features the same suspension system first conceived by Walt.</p>
<p>Another long article about Christie and his tanks here:<br />
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/firefly1002000/christory.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.geocities.com/firef.....story.html</a><br />
And more + photos of Christie tanks here:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_tank" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_tank</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
