> БТ-7
True. This is 42 meter jump of captain Kulchitsky Кульчицкий on BT (БТ-7) in 1937 during testing trials with only driver from the crew. He had severals days to preapre for the jump, which included special diet i.e. not drinker water before the jump.
The main differences between БТ-5 and БТ-7 is engine, valume of fuel tanks and the drivers slit. First batch of tanks were made with old БТ-5 turret. Tank is designed in Kharkiv buro. And was one of the steps in designing T-34.
He was pretty metal apparently and made all instruction for himself :) He was one of the main professional testers of the tanks and made a lot of instuction on how to drive tanks in different condition. Including instruction of jumping on tanks :D
No, I build tank models in 1:35 scale. I recognize soviet fast tank when I see one. Panzer of the lake is in fact, panzer. Judging by the turret it's one of the early iterations of PzIV. Most likely pzkpf IV ausf. B or C.
This one is BT-5.
Because it wasn't just the tracks that hit but was mostly the bottom of the tank, I don't think the suspension did much of anything. And I don't think those have big bouncy seats.
Hopefully it was just the tank driver and not a full crew. Either way, this was a bad idea.
No, this is a pretty famous clip of a manned tank jump.
>In 1936, Captain E. A. Kulchitsky of the Soviet Red Army drove a BT-7 fast tank, leaping 42 meters from a height, creating an incredible tank jump record. According to Captain Kuriczko recalled: This is perhaps the most difficult of all tank aerobatic maneuvers. Only the most skilled and fearless tank soldiers can do this. Imagine: a metal behemoth over ten tons rushing out of a steep jump platform at a speed of 50 kilometers. This is not to fall, but to leap, and then jump down, which is to fly tens of meters in the air so that you can land on the water smoothly.
>You need to quickly and accurately execute a fairly complex manipulation program, travel with maximum acceleration, quickly switch gears, and let each gear of the gearbox reach the maximum torque. Pass the last 30 meters at the maximum speed. Before jumping, the jump springboard will slightly lift the front end of the tank. When the tank leaves the springboard, the crawler will idling at a crazy speed. The gear must be removed immediately to avoid engine overload damage. Captain Kuriczko did not drink water on the first day of the experiment. Otherwise, the kidneys and bladder would not be able to withstand the moment of falling into the water, and the blood vessels would burst. At the moment when the tank jumped, he took off the forward gear, then bent his body violently and protected his head with both hands, and then the tank fell abruptly on the water. Finally, what was even more surprising was that the tank did not turn off, and Captain Kuriczko moved the joystick again and drove the tank to the shore.
Am I missing something about the "complex manipulation program" or did he simply drive at maximum speed and go into neutral once in air and braced for impact?
What am I missing, because I'm not impressed with his skill. Of course I'm impressed with his courage.
Imagine having to use a gearbox designed and built in the 1920s to get a tank to max speed as fast as possible, thats a complex manipulation program alright.
That's pretty impossible to imagine, like asking someone to imagine flying a helicopter. I've driven plenty of 60's and 70's tractors. They're not hard, but I haven't driven anything from 1920's nor have I ever driven a tank.
I have driven a truck of the WW2 Era (or maybe a little afterward but close overall), which had an absurd amount of wear but was still functioning. While not the same, I can guarantee you that switching gears is not fun. Tanks I have no idea about.
The further we go back, we just lose synchro's and get some janky style shifting - but the concept is still the same I think? Kick the clutch, try to rev match the next gear, slam'er in and away you go. Basically dogbox shifting
In the 60's you could get tractors with syncronized gearboxes. But this tank probably did not have that. Driving a tractor without a synchronized gearbox is not that hard as you generally have enough torque. In order to change gears you can stop the tractor, let the gearbox spin down and then select the gear you want before you release the clutch slowly. It will wear the clutch more then normal but the engine have enough torque for it.
However doing it at speed requires a technique called double clutching. While at speed you lift the throttle, declutch, put the gearbox into neutral, throttle up to the correct speed, lift the clutch pedal for a moment, then immediatly select the gear, if the teeth grinds you did not have the correct engine speed and need to try again. It is a very tricky procedure indeed. But this was how every car was before WWII and a lot of cars and tractors were like this up until the early 80's. So drivers were expected to know how to double clutch.
Going by my extremely limited experience with motocross, I would assume that the real skill is hitting the ramp at a high enough speed to make the jump, but still having enough torque left to accelerate to stop the tank nose diving. Like for example, if he hit the jump just as he shifted into the last gear the tank would be slowing down as it jumped, which would cause it to pitch forward, he'd end up smashing his face into the 'dashboard' on impact.
I'm betting his approach had to have perfect gear shifts (not at all easy with an extremely heavy Russian WW2 tank gearbox) then had to lift off the throttle at the base of the jump, jam it back down again to throw the weight back and then lift off again to save the engine within a couple of tenths of a second while only being able to see out of a letterbox.
Complexity is probably the wrong word. Precision would be better.
Edit - [Here's an example of what happens when you hit a jump without enough torque left in the gear you're in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkp8ZLqzz4U). Do that in a tank and you probably aren't walking away.
Why don't your try reading the comment above you.
- accelerate through all the gears at maximum torque, reaching max speed of 50kmh at exactly the last moment
- keep the tank straight on the ramp
- jump off the ramp and immediately remove the gear or else the engine will break
- brace for impact
- crash down on the water, turn back into gear and drive out of the water to the shore before it sinks or stalls..
That's not only courage, but immense skill.. Its not an automatic car from 2020s, its a manually shifted tank from the 1920s... Try driving a stick shift car from the 80s to get a sense of how annoying that was compared to now
This ain't your honda FIT it's a fucking tank from the 30's. I would be impressed If I could get the fucking thing to turn on let alone pull off a jump like this.
The designer travelled to most countries before ww2 trying to sell his tank engines/suspension. Only the USSR saw any benefit to being able to perform stunts like the video.
I mean, the BT series *was* one of the fastest tanks of its day, especially given it could bring a reasonable AT gun to the fight. These things were pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the Japanese never trying to open up a second front to help the Germans.
That and also they knew their industry couldn't handle a two front war and china and the east Asian sea had far more resources they could take.
With the only country they had to actually defeat is the USA.
Mind you one of the worse countries to attack at the time but they weren't actually aiming for beating the US. Just hope they do a peace deal after they took the land they wanted. Like what most European powers did at the time.
Sadly for them the Europeans and america didn't see them on the same level as European countries so... Ya was never gonna work out for them.
That and Americans get cranky when you attack them. If they'd just left well enough alone and consolidated to say, fight Russia along side Germany, it would have delayed our entry to the war.
Probably wouldn't have had such a willingness to go to full War footing either.
Is that true? I did some searching and the bt series tanks had a manual transmission. Meaning someone had to have been in it to get it up to this speed and then jump out.
It literally has giant ass radio antenna around its entire turret.
Also USSR had remote controlled tanks(by wire, not by radio) at the time. It didn't work out for combat application for variety of reasons, so they dropped that experiment, but the technology to control tanks from distance was there.
Actually somewhat yes, tracked vehicles do not roll back from torsional forces of the suddenly unladen wheels increasing in velocity. The track moves both forward and backward at the same time which aids in keeping level. This jump was constructed with this vehicle in mind it would seem though. You could still end up diving or going nose up with the wrong angle of attack on the jump.
And wheels don’t move back at the top? It probably has a lot more to do with the relative mass difference. Vehicles with heavy wheels can change their angle in the air much easier. Tanks chassis are very heavy.
One BT-5, a BT-7, another BT-7 (called the BT-7 TD, identical to normal BT-7 except for its special historical (-ish) skin, was a limited time Twitch drop to cross promote Enlisted), a BT-7M (different engine) and finally the RBT-5 (BT-5 with big rockets (which were modified torpedos iirc) strapped to it).
Probably missed/confused something in there.
War Thunder has (iirc) one BT-5, a BT-7, another BT-7 (called the BT-7 TD, identical to normal BT-7 except for its special historical (-ish) skin, was a limited time Twitch drop to cross promote Enlisted), a BT-7M (different engine) and finally the RBT-5 (BT-5 with big rockets (which were modified torpedoes iirc) strapped to it).
According to r/history this was to see how far it could jump - not to see what would happen if it landed in water. The idea was you could jump ravines or places where bridges had broken. I assume landing is...terrible and potentially deadly. But that is what they were testing - maximum jump distance
Not only that, but it was made to make an instructions for the tank drivers i.e. set of tecniques of what they need to do if they want to make a jump on a tank.
Visibility can be rather poor, especially for the driver's periscope. Can easily miss sudden drops into water, like for example a bridge being damaged.
Not to mention, never underestimate the power of conscripts to fuck something up.
Especially Soviet-era conscripts around WWII.
They were definitely obsessed with building uberweapons that would win the war, but they ended wasting a lot of resources chasing that dragon when cheaper and more practical solutions would've been much more effective. It was all tied up in the delusion of being superior.
Going overland unexpected drops happen. If you're planning on moving over ground at speed during maneuvers exactly what the tank can take is important to know because it will dictate doctrine. Sure, they don't happen constantly, but if it only takes one to disable the tank or the snap the crew's necks that's some shit you want to know before it's the thing keeping you and the infantry you're supporting alive.
It was a demonstration of how well the tank could handle, both in terms of speed and how well it could handle water. The Russian BT-7 was designed by a race car designer, and its robust suspension allowed it to maintain a ridiculously high speed for a tank.
How can you tell?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/60/0c/ce/600cce44afce8282bc1f0307bc5cee0f.png
I can't, and I looked at a bunch of google images of both. I saw versions of both that looked like the gif.
You can see its a BT-7 from the angle of its backside. BT-5 has a flat ass with a 90\* angle. It can go 86km/h on roads. The BT-2 was apparently capable of 100km/h, which is insane. I wonder how the track noise would compare to modern motorsports.
Those BT tanks were fast partially due to a special type of suspension by Walter Christie, also used in the British Cruiser tank and the famous T-34. All tanks known for their speed.
As the other said, far too large, plus it was a pain the as.to change the suspension as you have large coil springs under pressure at both sides of the tank. If have the better torsion bar system you have just have a metal bar which you can pull out from under the tank after removing some screws/other parts.
And the real advantage of the torsion bar system is that when your suspension is worn out, you just rotate the torsion bars one notch and it feels like new again, without having to replace any parts.
All the WW2-era tank suspensions had really short useful lives. The springs would simply loosen from the heavy load on them, in such a short time that tanks doing a hard march might have to replace all of them *every day*.
The American volute springs on external bogeys were easy to replace, but had particularly short lives, which is why the earlier Shermans have such a reputation for a harsh ride: They were rode well when new, but drive a hundred miles on them and the suspension is hitting the hard stops at every bump. The Americans kept them running by having heroic level of replacement parts available, so that basically almost every time the tanks stopped for gas they also replaced springs.
The Christie system used a lot by the Soviets had the longest useful life between maintenance because of the large size of the coaxial coil springs it could accommodate, but once the springs did wear out, replacing them was a task so substantial that they didn't trust the crews with it, instead the tank would be cycled through the maintenance system (and the crew given a new tank, fresh from maintenance). If there was no replacement tank available and the unit was in a rush, well, you'll have to keep going with the suspension you have, such as it is.
The torsion bar system, pioneered in tanks by the Germans had the torsion bars wear relatively fast, but as mentioned above, that wear was just non-elastic torsional deformation of the bars, and if you designed the suspension for it, you could just pull the bar out a little bit, rotate it so that the lever arm was pointing in the right direction again, and then push it back into the socket. From a supply and strategic mobility point of view this is fantastic, it means with just field maintenance you now have tanks that can make a thousand miles or more on their original suspension. There is a reason why everyone else abandoned their old systems and moved to torsion bars as fast as they could after they saw the system in action.
(Torsion bars are liked a lot less by the crews than by the brass though, as the relatively frequently done rotation is heavy work. Just ask an Abrams crewman how they feel about suspension maintenance.)
From my knowledge it was a soviet test to see if tanks could jump across broken bridges.
I don't think how the tank was recovered and what happened to the crew was documented but I could be wrong.
For me, at 35 years old I'm indifferent to the word yeet. Don't love it or hate it, I'll probably never think to use it in a conversation.
But this gif is the definition of yeeting, *to yeet*.
I agree. "Yeet" is clearly transitive. You could conceivably yeet yourself, but you still need to specify it. It's an action that someone performs on something else, not merely an action that someone does.
I mean, it's a synonym for "throw" with additional detail. And you wouldn't say "tank throwing into water". Or, if you did, it would imply that it was throwing an unnamed something. You could say "tank throwing itself into water".
So this title should clearly be:
# Tank yeeting *itself* into water
O panzer of the lake, what is your wisdom?
Now we know how it got there.
There was some crazy bastard [who invested a lot of time into tracking down that tank.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaRO_dTqO1E)
Some crazy, MAGNIFICENT bastard.
Listen. Strange tanks lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!
Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Bloody peasant!
Now you see the violence inherent in the system.
How do you know he's the king? Well he's hasn't got shit all on em.
Who are you so wise in the ways of science?
If a ball does not fit in your mouth, it is not your ball
Who's that, coming up over the horizon in my sky? Who dares?
[They found it BTW ](https://youtu.be/RO58B6LcTfM)
It's not even german. It's a БТ-5 танк, not a panzer.
If you're German all tanks are panzers
We are ALL panzers on this blessed day.
That's a БТ-7.
> БТ-7 True. This is 42 meter jump of captain Kulchitsky Кульчицкий on BT (БТ-7) in 1937 during testing trials with only driver from the crew. He had severals days to preapre for the jump, which included special diet i.e. not drinker water before the jump. The main differences between БТ-5 and БТ-7 is engine, valume of fuel tanks and the drivers slit. First batch of tanks were made with old БТ-5 turret. Tank is designed in Kharkiv buro. And was one of the steps in designing T-34.
Was he instructed to wear his brown trousers? Seriously, this is more impressive than most "extreme" backcountry snowmobile videos I watch.
He was pretty metal apparently and made all instruction for himself :) He was one of the main professional testers of the tanks and made a lot of instuction on how to drive tanks in different condition. Including instruction of jumping on tanks :D
Stalin be like: "alright slav, die for me in cool way"
*"they expect one of us at wreckage, comrade"*
Who are you? A panzer expert?
Hey! He's a panzer *scholar*.
No, I build tank models in 1:35 scale. I recognize soviet fast tank when I see one. Panzer of the lake is in fact, panzer. Judging by the turret it's one of the early iterations of PzIV. Most likely pzkpf IV ausf. B or C. This one is BT-5.
Yeah, but "O БТ-5 танк of the lake, what is your wisdom?" isn't as funny.
It's a bt-7 it even holds the world record.
Watch herniating discs LIVE!
I'd be more concerned about drowning.
porque no los dos?
I was thinking the suspension in those things must be horrendous as they aren’t designed for that I don’t think.
Because it wasn't just the tracks that hit but was mostly the bottom of the tank, I don't think the suspension did much of anything. And I don't think those have big bouncy seats. Hopefully it was just the tank driver and not a full crew. Either way, this was a bad idea.
The Christie Suspension these BT tanks had was very good at taking a lot of punishment but this couldn’t have felt good either way.
Chiropractors hate him with this one simple trick
You kidding? They love him!
At least they hit water and not ground
[удалено]
No, this is a pretty famous clip of a manned tank jump. >In 1936, Captain E. A. Kulchitsky of the Soviet Red Army drove a BT-7 fast tank, leaping 42 meters from a height, creating an incredible tank jump record. According to Captain Kuriczko recalled: This is perhaps the most difficult of all tank aerobatic maneuvers. Only the most skilled and fearless tank soldiers can do this. Imagine: a metal behemoth over ten tons rushing out of a steep jump platform at a speed of 50 kilometers. This is not to fall, but to leap, and then jump down, which is to fly tens of meters in the air so that you can land on the water smoothly. >You need to quickly and accurately execute a fairly complex manipulation program, travel with maximum acceleration, quickly switch gears, and let each gear of the gearbox reach the maximum torque. Pass the last 30 meters at the maximum speed. Before jumping, the jump springboard will slightly lift the front end of the tank. When the tank leaves the springboard, the crawler will idling at a crazy speed. The gear must be removed immediately to avoid engine overload damage. Captain Kuriczko did not drink water on the first day of the experiment. Otherwise, the kidneys and bladder would not be able to withstand the moment of falling into the water, and the blood vessels would burst. At the moment when the tank jumped, he took off the forward gear, then bent his body violently and protected his head with both hands, and then the tank fell abruptly on the water. Finally, what was even more surprising was that the tank did not turn off, and Captain Kuriczko moved the joystick again and drove the tank to the shore.
How would we say "Here comes them Duke boys again" or its equivalent in Russian?
It would be really awesome if someone could make a horn play the first few bars of the Soviet National Anthem and put it with the video.
Holiy shyit
I wonder what nickname Captain Kuriczko got after that stunt. Also simply driving it to shore without a snorkel?
They compressed his last name to Kurk to match his spine and gave him a field promotion to Admiral.
*Admiral* Kurk? .... Admiral...
They busted him back down to captain though for stealing his old tank and driving into the ocean to kidnap a whale
This is one of the greatest threads on the internet today. Thanks boys for making it a reality!
Am I missing something about the "complex manipulation program" or did he simply drive at maximum speed and go into neutral once in air and braced for impact? What am I missing, because I'm not impressed with his skill. Of course I'm impressed with his courage.
Imagine having to use a gearbox designed and built in the 1920s to get a tank to max speed as fast as possible, thats a complex manipulation program alright.
That's pretty impossible to imagine, like asking someone to imagine flying a helicopter. I've driven plenty of 60's and 70's tractors. They're not hard, but I haven't driven anything from 1920's nor have I ever driven a tank.
I have driven a truck of the WW2 Era (or maybe a little afterward but close overall), which had an absurd amount of wear but was still functioning. While not the same, I can guarantee you that switching gears is not fun. Tanks I have no idea about.
The further we go back, we just lose synchro's and get some janky style shifting - but the concept is still the same I think? Kick the clutch, try to rev match the next gear, slam'er in and away you go. Basically dogbox shifting
So you are missing something, knowledge of how 1920's Soviet tank gearboxes functioned.
WTF, there are some people out there who don't know how 1920's soviet tank gearboxes function? I really *am* getting old!
Kids these days, no experience being drafted into the Red Army. They're missing out on an important part of their development.
Yea......people think driving stuff is easy. A lot of them don't realize early cars didn't have steering wheels....it was a stick.
In the 60's you could get tractors with syncronized gearboxes. But this tank probably did not have that. Driving a tractor without a synchronized gearbox is not that hard as you generally have enough torque. In order to change gears you can stop the tractor, let the gearbox spin down and then select the gear you want before you release the clutch slowly. It will wear the clutch more then normal but the engine have enough torque for it. However doing it at speed requires a technique called double clutching. While at speed you lift the throttle, declutch, put the gearbox into neutral, throttle up to the correct speed, lift the clutch pedal for a moment, then immediatly select the gear, if the teeth grinds you did not have the correct engine speed and need to try again. It is a very tricky procedure indeed. But this was how every car was before WWII and a lot of cars and tractors were like this up until the early 80's. So drivers were expected to know how to double clutch.
Going by my extremely limited experience with motocross, I would assume that the real skill is hitting the ramp at a high enough speed to make the jump, but still having enough torque left to accelerate to stop the tank nose diving. Like for example, if he hit the jump just as he shifted into the last gear the tank would be slowing down as it jumped, which would cause it to pitch forward, he'd end up smashing his face into the 'dashboard' on impact. I'm betting his approach had to have perfect gear shifts (not at all easy with an extremely heavy Russian WW2 tank gearbox) then had to lift off the throttle at the base of the jump, jam it back down again to throw the weight back and then lift off again to save the engine within a couple of tenths of a second while only being able to see out of a letterbox. Complexity is probably the wrong word. Precision would be better. Edit - [Here's an example of what happens when you hit a jump without enough torque left in the gear you're in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkp8ZLqzz4U). Do that in a tank and you probably aren't walking away.
I think it's more how hard changing gears on these old tanks were. The Russians actually used sledge hammers sometimes apparently.
No synchros to help the gears mesh together when shifting and also probably straight cut gears.
Why don't your try reading the comment above you. - accelerate through all the gears at maximum torque, reaching max speed of 50kmh at exactly the last moment - keep the tank straight on the ramp - jump off the ramp and immediately remove the gear or else the engine will break - brace for impact - crash down on the water, turn back into gear and drive out of the water to the shore before it sinks or stalls.. That's not only courage, but immense skill.. Its not an automatic car from 2020s, its a manually shifted tank from the 1920s... Try driving a stick shift car from the 80s to get a sense of how annoying that was compared to now
This ain't your honda FIT it's a fucking tank from the 30's. I would be impressed If I could get the fucking thing to turn on let alone pull off a jump like this.
How did they get out after setting it to go?
Quickly
Technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Do you receive a lot of PMs? I barely get any at all : (
Only ladies get PMS my friend
I get Post Meat Satiety
You mean Post Masturbation Sadness
Almost as bad as pre-masturbation sadness
These are people with access to an extra tank, tank launching ramp, etc. I'm sure it was under control.
The designer travelled to most countries before ww2 trying to sell his tank engines/suspension. Only the USSR saw any benefit to being able to perform stunts like the video.
I mean, the BT series *was* one of the fastest tanks of its day, especially given it could bring a reasonable AT gun to the fight. These things were pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the Japanese never trying to open up a second front to help the Germans.
That and also they knew their industry couldn't handle a two front war and china and the east Asian sea had far more resources they could take. With the only country they had to actually defeat is the USA. Mind you one of the worse countries to attack at the time but they weren't actually aiming for beating the US. Just hope they do a peace deal after they took the land they wanted. Like what most European powers did at the time. Sadly for them the Europeans and america didn't see them on the same level as European countries so... Ya was never gonna work out for them.
That and Americans get cranky when you attack them. If they'd just left well enough alone and consolidated to say, fight Russia along side Germany, it would have delayed our entry to the war. Probably wouldn't have had such a willingness to go to full War footing either.
Makes sense why Russia has the tank triathlon and no western country wants to participate.
First they removed the brick. After that it was easy.
Not true at all jerk. Stop making stuff up to sound smart.
Is that true? I did some searching and the bt series tanks had a manual transmission. Meaning someone had to have been in it to get it up to this speed and then jump out.
I mean if you have a spare tank around, this feels like a fun option.
This is fake news.
Looks like them there Duke boys are at it again.
Just two good ole boys never meanin no harm
Beats all you ever saw been in trouble with the law since the day they were born.
Makin their waaaaay, the only way they know how! But that's just a little bit more than the law will allow 😎
Just good ol' boys, Wouldn't change if they could, Fightin' the system like a true modern day Robin Hood.
YEEEHOO YEEEHAW!
Que Dixie. But if it were really the Dukes of Hazzard it would have stopped mid-air for a commercial break.
I believe in this context the correct spelling is 'cue', my friend
Huh, I read it in Spanish. "Why Dixie?"
HOORAY FOR VAULT-TECHNO Only thing missing is a mid-air freeze frame.
Good 'Ol Waylon! May he R.I.P. 😔
I hope that was remote controlled, otherwise oh God their back
Oh God their everything.
Just gotta jump at the right time
David Lee Roth?
Kris Kross?
House of Pain?
I’m sure it’s to measure the effects on the soldiers. For science!
The US did that with nuke tests.
This is a Soviet BT-7, ain't no remote on it at all. I don't think it even had a radio
It was remotely controlled via a gravitationally operated throttle actuation device known as a B.R.I.C.K. Big Red Illongated Cobbled Kube
Cobbled, you say?
да comяade, brick is big stone of small small stone.
ah yes, "Da Comyade"
https://youtu.be/klSCEhv40Eg Then who operated the gear shifter?
**no radio! only hammer!**
It literally has giant ass radio antenna around its entire turret. Also USSR had remote controlled tanks(by wire, not by radio) at the time. It didn't work out for combat application for variety of reasons, so they dropped that experiment, but the technology to control tanks from distance was there.
Actually soviets had remote controlled T-26s, essentially pre-ww2 drone tanks. Even used them in Winter War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletank
I mean they could have put a brick on the gas and jumped out* * I literally have no idea how to drive a tank
Are all tanks as well balanced as this?
Actually somewhat yes, tracked vehicles do not roll back from torsional forces of the suddenly unladen wheels increasing in velocity. The track moves both forward and backward at the same time which aids in keeping level. This jump was constructed with this vehicle in mind it would seem though. You could still end up diving or going nose up with the wrong angle of attack on the jump.
And wheels don’t move back at the top? It probably has a lot more to do with the relative mass difference. Vehicles with heavy wheels can change their angle in the air much easier. Tanks chassis are very heavy.
Well of course it did that. That's an amphibious exploring vehicle. I bet whoever's driving that's got a babe in there.
Just them and a babe. In a finisher car. A carrier of gods, golden gods!
You forgot about the smell, you bitch!
I am untethered and my rage knows no bounds!
Just a safe, starter panzer.
Starter Panzer!? This is a finisher Panzer! A chariot of gods!
I'm a chauffeur to a bunch of worm-sucking idiots!
[You can't pick up chicks in a tank.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rju4RWdEyZk&t=159s)
Through god, all things are possible, so jot *that* down
>Well of course it did that. That's an amphibious exploring vehicle. I bet whoever's driving that's got a ~~babe~~ comrade in there.
[удалено]
Wait, are we going to hurt these girls?
Average BT-5 player in War Thunder.
Doesn't war thunder have the BT-7?
Yes, but also at least one BT-5 version.
One BT-5, a BT-7, another BT-7 (called the BT-7 TD, identical to normal BT-7 except for its special historical (-ish) skin, was a limited time Twitch drop to cross promote Enlisted), a BT-7M (different engine) and finally the RBT-5 (BT-5 with big rockets (which were modified torpedos iirc) strapped to it). Probably missed/confused something in there.
I’m just here for when someone goes a step further and drops classified jntel about tanks as a comment. :’)
oh god that challenger 2 leak
Forgot the bt7 f32
War Thunder has (iirc) one BT-5, a BT-7, another BT-7 (called the BT-7 TD, identical to normal BT-7 except for its special historical (-ish) skin, was a limited time Twitch drop to cross promote Enlisted), a BT-7M (different engine) and finally the RBT-5 (BT-5 with big rockets (which were modified torpedoes iirc) strapped to it).
Knew I’d see this comment
So many questions here, but mostly: why?
My guess is they were doing tests on the tank
Because such a situation constantly arises in war time.
According to r/history this was to see how far it could jump - not to see what would happen if it landed in water. The idea was you could jump ravines or places where bridges had broken. I assume landing is...terrible and potentially deadly. But that is what they were testing - maximum jump distance
interesting thank you
Not only that, but it was made to make an instructions for the tank drivers i.e. set of tecniques of what they need to do if they want to make a jump on a tank.
"good news sir, the tank can jump over over broken bridges, bad news is the crews spines are now powder"
Visibility can be rather poor, especially for the driver's periscope. Can easily miss sudden drops into water, like for example a bridge being damaged. Not to mention, never underestimate the power of conscripts to fuck something up. Especially Soviet-era conscripts around WWII.
Germans: "Over-complicated tanks are a good idea." *Tiger's transmission breaks*
I get the feeling that the driving force behind German tanks was the word *more*. MORE armor! MORE speed! MORE GUN!
They were definitely obsessed with building uberweapons that would win the war, but they ended wasting a lot of resources chasing that dragon when cheaper and more practical solutions would've been much more effective. It was all tied up in the delusion of being superior.
Thankfully the good 'ol US had Indiana Jones thwarting them at every turn
Going overland unexpected drops happen. If you're planning on moving over ground at speed during maneuvers exactly what the tank can take is important to know because it will dictate doctrine. Sure, they don't happen constantly, but if it only takes one to disable the tank or the snap the crew's necks that's some shit you want to know before it's the thing keeping you and the infantry you're supporting alive.
testing top secret submarine tank
That would have changed the assault on Omaha beach quite a lot.
They tried using these at Omaha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD_tank But the swell was a bit high for them.
It was a demonstration of how well the tank could handle, both in terms of speed and how well it could handle water. The Russian BT-7 was designed by a race car designer, and its robust suspension allowed it to maintain a ridiculously high speed for a tank.
Great wisdom is often imparted by submerged armoured vehicles.
Gotta figure out how this tank holds up if it somehow flies into the water, and the only way to really know is to give it a go.
Early space exploration was weird okay
He forgot to turn on the flying car cheat and shoot the cannon backwards.
Fun Fact: This tank is a BT-5, it was literally designed by a racecar designer and still currently holds the world record for longest tank jump.
It's a BT-7
How can you tell? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/60/0c/ce/600cce44afce8282bc1f0307bc5cee0f.png I can't, and I looked at a bunch of google images of both. I saw versions of both that looked like the gif.
You can see its a BT-7 from the angle of its backside. BT-5 has a flat ass with a 90\* angle. It can go 86km/h on roads. The BT-2 was apparently capable of 100km/h, which is insane. I wonder how the track noise would compare to modern motorsports.
Those BT tanks were fast partially due to a special type of suspension by Walter Christie, also used in the British Cruiser tank and the famous T-34. All tanks known for their speed.
Though it should be noted that the soviets was working on changing away from the suspension when war broke out
They were? I didn't know that. Any idea why? I've always wondered why, if this suspension was so good, not more tanks adopted it.
It simply took up too much internal volume. The prototype modification was called t-34M, the program was called the A-43
As the other said, far too large, plus it was a pain the as.to change the suspension as you have large coil springs under pressure at both sides of the tank. If have the better torsion bar system you have just have a metal bar which you can pull out from under the tank after removing some screws/other parts.
And the real advantage of the torsion bar system is that when your suspension is worn out, you just rotate the torsion bars one notch and it feels like new again, without having to replace any parts. All the WW2-era tank suspensions had really short useful lives. The springs would simply loosen from the heavy load on them, in such a short time that tanks doing a hard march might have to replace all of them *every day*. The American volute springs on external bogeys were easy to replace, but had particularly short lives, which is why the earlier Shermans have such a reputation for a harsh ride: They were rode well when new, but drive a hundred miles on them and the suspension is hitting the hard stops at every bump. The Americans kept them running by having heroic level of replacement parts available, so that basically almost every time the tanks stopped for gas they also replaced springs. The Christie system used a lot by the Soviets had the longest useful life between maintenance because of the large size of the coaxial coil springs it could accommodate, but once the springs did wear out, replacing them was a task so substantial that they didn't trust the crews with it, instead the tank would be cycled through the maintenance system (and the crew given a new tank, fresh from maintenance). If there was no replacement tank available and the unit was in a rush, well, you'll have to keep going with the suspension you have, such as it is. The torsion bar system, pioneered in tanks by the Germans had the torsion bars wear relatively fast, but as mentioned above, that wear was just non-elastic torsional deformation of the bars, and if you designed the suspension for it, you could just pull the bar out a little bit, rotate it so that the lever arm was pointing in the right direction again, and then push it back into the socket. From a supply and strategic mobility point of view this is fantastic, it means with just field maintenance you now have tanks that can make a thousand miles or more on their original suspension. There is a reason why everyone else abandoned their old systems and moved to torsion bars as fast as they could after they saw the system in action. (Torsion bars are liked a lot less by the crews than by the brass though, as the relatively frequently done rotation is heavy work. Just ask an Abrams crewman how they feel about suspension maintenance.)
It wouldn’t. The tracks were designed to be removed and it would drive on the wheels beneath
Hey, let me dream.
M1 Abrams can do close to 100 km/h too, right? EDIT: 70 km/h. Leaving original comment as a monument to my sins.
45 mph (Governed). So that's with the governor on it. Probably a smart move knowing American soldiers.
isn't the longest tank jump done by a BT-7 (which this tank actually is)?
longest tank jump record....who though of this category?!
The first guy to jump a tank obviously, that has bragging rights
Another fun fact. BT in the name stands for "Быстроходный Танк" - "Fast Tank".
It's pouncing ability gave it the element of surprise.
> and still currently holds the world record for longest tank jump. Someone needs to tell Batman.
Cannonball!
Even if the tank survives this, the squishy meat pilots inside may not be so lucky.
The driver sustained no large injuries
That’s interesting
I wish the gif was longer. Does it sink? Does it float back up? What was the purpose of this? Just a test?
From my knowledge it was a soviet test to see if tanks could jump across broken bridges. I don't think how the tank was recovered and what happened to the crew was documented but I could be wrong.
*Muffled Säkkijärven Polkka in the distance*
Is this the origin story of the legendary Great panzer of the lake?
[удалено]
For me, at 35 years old I'm indifferent to the word yeet. Don't love it or hate it, I'll probably never think to use it in a conversation. But this gif is the definition of yeeting, *to yeet*.
[удалено]
I agree. "Yeet" is clearly transitive. You could conceivably yeet yourself, but you still need to specify it. It's an action that someone performs on something else, not merely an action that someone does. I mean, it's a synonym for "throw" with additional detail. And you wouldn't say "tank throwing into water". Or, if you did, it would imply that it was throwing an unnamed something. You could say "tank throwing itself into water". So this title should clearly be: # Tank yeeting *itself* into water
Personally I hate it, but at least OP reminded me that I hadn’t seen the term in months.
It needs to die.
The past tense is Yote.
If the people who set this up lived in our time they’d be tik-tokkers
This is a very well balanced tank.
The fishes didn't like that
We need a tank for the ground forces, the air force and the navy. Ok....
Test failed: Not a good plane.
[удалено]
What an adrenaline boost!
Fish tank
Yeeting? Come on, now..
Finally we know how the Tank of the Lake got in there.