My wife and I have a bet. I bet a tornado can not flip An Abrams M1A1 tank if had the gun mount locked. She says a tornado could pick up a tank and toss it around because tornados are really big, strong, and scary.
My only test parameter is the tank must be in a muddy road or in the grassy wet marsh. Basically, an area where its treads sink into the earth a bit. This way no extra lift will occur due to air running quickly under the base of the tank.
So, what do you all think?
The tank takes off.
Is that your bet, or do you have empirical evidence?
Well it’s more my joke than anything else, but it’s my bet as well I suppose. I certainly don’t have a tornado to try it with.
Or a tank, if we’re splitting hairs.
What’s the gun mount aspect? On the Abrams, gun mount locking gives +1 stability against tornados? You hyperpowers and your over-developed R&D budgets.
My vote would be the tank stays still. A main battle tank probably masses about 60-70 tons. If tanks were being thrown about, I can’t see much of anything being left standing.
Wikipedia thinks that tornados are categorised on the 5pt Fujita Scale. Once you’re at EF5 (Incredible damage, worst cases ever recorded), cars can be be thrown 100m. A car could weigh a ton… Say for the sake of argument throwing 1 ton 100m is like throwing 60 or 70 tons a metre or two, so that might be enough to flip it :) So my new guess is that the worst tornado ever seen ever might conceivably just about flip a tank, but the average tornado definitely wouldn’t.
Yeah, my answer is probably no, but it’s close enough for a small chance at flipping.
Just to get in on the fun, I’m saying Hell No. Too dense vs. surface area, not to mention an Abrams is designed to deflect force coming at it (slanted panels) which should shed the wind nicely.
H.
OK, let’s get a tank and a tornado and test this out.
You’d think the stormchasers would have already done something like this.
Slanted panels? When it comes to shedding wind and deflecting it your average car is designed to do that ten times better than an Abrams tank. Aerodynamics are not part of a battle tank’s feature set.
Sheer weight would still keep the tank on the ground.
Not necessarily. While a car certainly has superior aerodynamics from the front, the Abrams is designed so that all sides are angled away from presenting a flat surface for a tank round to penetrate. Other than the tracks, there isn’t a flat surface to be seen when looking straight at one:
I agree that the sheer weight is probably enough to keep it down, but having the angled panels will also keep the wind from pushing it directly to the side or upwards.
H.
Not an M1, but seems relevant (and crazy):
http://www.flicklife.com/42a05642a667959c1223/Tornado_Chaser_Tank.html
Well, I suggest you circulate this on the Internet in a mass chain email. Then we can ask the Mythbusters to take it on. I’m sure they’d love to fool around with a tank.
“Other than the tracks” is a pretty big caveat considering the surface area we’re talking about here. The sheer flat trackguards alone should have a side surface as large as a small car and they won’t deflect anything.
There’s also the rear of the tank which is about as aerodynamic as a brick, though your picture doesn’t give us a clear shot at it.
The flat angles on the turret are also not optimal for deflecting wind, especially not compared to the curved and rounded surfaces of a car.
OP: No way.
No way in hell. Way, way, way too heavy.
And therefore we should give everyone in the midwest a tank. Otherwise, how will they survive the tornadoes?
No, they’re optimal for deflecting friggin’ tank rounds. THE POINT IS that the angling will help, though it probably doesn’t need the help, anyway. Why must every statement be extended to infinity, then argued against? “Deflect the wind nicely” does not equal “most aerodynamic vehicle known to man.”
H.
Heh, the first Google hit for “tornado lifting force” is the very same question, with a little discussion.