previous post next post  

This is a nicely obscure whatzis...

By The Armorer on February 1, 2007 | | Comments (14)

Yadda yadda if you get the aircraft. That's easy.

Anybody got the skinny on the whole thing? What're we looking at here?

Impress me with your skilz.

Yes, I do.

Mind you - I just stumbled across this, it ain't something that was stuck in the brain housing group as actual knowledge or anything.

Share This Article:

Categories:

14 Comments

By fdcol63 on February 1, 2007 7:41 AM
Oh, cool. I can get this, because I stumbled across it the other day on another one of your Whazzis's, John. LOL http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/LightTanks.html According to this site (scroll down to section called "More Christie Fantasys"), it's a Christie M1940 light tank, which "never came off the drawing board". As this site further states: "Shown from left to right are the M1940, M1941, M1942, and the M1942A. Most Christie pictures are heavily airbrushed and should be viewed with suspicion. Some were never even made as in the M1940. The M1940 never even came off the drawing board. final submissions by J. Walter Christie. The M1942A picture is by Col. Robert Icks, a famous developer of United States armor. Since the picture comes from him, it appears that this tank was actually built. Note that it does not have the multiple machine guns as in the M1942 touched up picture. To further confuse everyone, the Christie "M" series date is not always acurate. Christie determined that his designs were so futuristic that he would "guess" at a future date when he thought that the rest of the industry would catch up with him." Better pic here: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieM1940.jpg
 
By wolfwalker on February 1, 2007 7:47 AM
This is a nicely obscure whatzis... Well, maybe, and maybe not. :-) The airplane looks to me like an early model B-17, probably a B-17A. The thing(s) underneath looks very much like a set of tracked landing gear for use on snow.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 1, 2007 7:52 AM
My pic is just fine, thank you very much!
 
By Curtis on February 1, 2007 7:57 AM
I'd say that is a J. Walter Christie M1935/b or M-1936 being carried underneath a Y1b17. Dropping a tank from a plane sounds like a great Idea! Just as long as your not in the tank.
 
By fdcol63 on February 1, 2007 8:01 AM
Ummm .... I just meant "larger". LOL
 
By Curtis on February 1, 2007 8:08 AM
Sorry about the double post, now I need to expand upon my guess. It has to be an extremely early model B-17 because you can clearly see the waist position blisters. On the early production model B-17s these were deleted in favor of elliptical and later square shaped windows. The early models also featured hoop antennae forward of the large spur support for the Vertical flight surface. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the spar support was deleted quite early as well. You can make out the extremely high angle on the old shark fin shaped vert stabilizer too. Also note that the early production model B-17s incorporated a small blister on top of the plexiglass nose for a forward facing machine gun. So this plane is most definitely one of the earliest B-17s period, a Yb-17. As far as the tank guess goes, those treads look alot like a Christie suspension of some kind, and I can clearly make out what appears to be a gun barrel of some sort. The whole apparatus is too big, too bulky, and too long to be any kind of landing gear for the aircraft. As for snow landings, B-17s typically used skis for arctic landings, not treads.
 
By wolfwalker on February 1, 2007 8:09 AM
If the photo shows a real airplane-with-tank in flight, then I admit to some surprise. 1930s-period light tanks weighed in the 5-6 ton range. I wouldn't have believed the Y1B-17 had enough power to carry a load that big.
 
By Neffi on February 1, 2007 9:37 AM
Hmmm... if that tank-like thingie is mounted center-line (and it would *have* to be), I really don't see how the Fort's landing gear would have enuff clearance to touch ground. Could this be an awkward bit of propaganda, along the line "Lookie here, we got air-droppable/air-liftable armor so watch out!" ?
 
By fdcol63 on February 1, 2007 10:00 AM
I don't think this thing ever really flew. As the quote I provided above says: "... Most Christie pictures are heavily airbrushed and should be viewed with suspicion. Some were never even made as in the M1940. The M1940 never even came off the drawing board. ..."
 
By jim b on February 1, 2007 11:22 AM
It's a Russian pre WWII bomber rigged for landing in snow, and taxing around.
 
By Casey Tompkins on February 1, 2007 12:59 PM
Ok. Some nomenclature first. :) There was no XB-17. There were twelve Y1B-17, later redesignated B-17. There was one Y1B-17A (Y1 also later dropped). This was the first turbocharged Fortress with the hardware was on top the nacelles. Only Model 299, the twelve YB-17s, -17A, and -17B models had the bulged blisters. The C and later models used flat panels. Thanks to fdcol63 for that link! It includes a somewhat more-detailed copy of that photo. I see no observation blister above the cockpit, and the nose seems to carry the early model cutout bombadier sighting panel. As best I can tell (pity the photo doesn't include the whole tail) that's a Y1B-17 tail, not a B model. This leaves fourteen planes. Model 299 only flew for approximately two months before crashing, and the plane was in competition with the Martin B-10 and the Douglas B-17, so I'm purt darn sure the US Army Air Corps had neither the time nor money to modify the craft in that manner. I've never heard of the single B-17A ever having tested tracked gear, nor do I see any evidence of the turbocharger housings on top of the nacelles. Again, it's hard to tell with this photo. Finally, there were only twelve Y1B-17s, and they were used to test and implement long-range bomber doctrine. In fact, the Air Corps was lucky to even have the bloody things, considering their cost. I doubt they'd muck around with tracked landing gear tests, but -hey- I could be wrong. Note that I've been referring to tracked landing gear only. The A model grossed around 32,000 pounds, and the B model about 34,000 pounds. Both had a maximum bomb load of 4,800 pounds, which dramatically shortened combat range. In other words, the early Fortress could carry about 2.5 tons at best. I'm purt darn sure weren't any 2.5 ton tanks, even in the 1930s. The Fortress, BTW, first flew in 1935. At that angle, the tracks would be pretty much be under where the landing gear are, in the inboard nacelles. Alas, the Fortress design was always low to the ground, especially compared to British bombers like the Lancaster. The main tire is only about 5' high, and the contraption in the photo looks taller than that. I know the P-38 Lightning tested skis (replacing the wheels), and kits for field modification were built, but I havent' seen photos of Fortresses with that mod. The B-36 did test tracked gear, but that was much later. Unless someone can convince me the Air Corps used one of the Y1B-17s as a test bed (after taking delivery of the combat models), I have to say this photo is bogus.
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on February 1, 2007 1:40 PM
I agree with fdcol63. The picture appears to be a collage intended for an advertising brochure. The T22 "Locust" was the only tank I know of which was carried under an aircraft, but only after its turret had been removed. Cheers
 
By MajMike on February 1, 2007 2:55 PM
well, i guess any tank looked at from this angle actually DOES have "suspended" track...
 
By Toluca Nole on February 1, 2007 4:17 PM
FSU, baby!
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.