I’m with the Mythbusters Idea.
Holy cow, that discussion quotes things like 91 ton trains being lifted up, so maybe I’m wrong. Wow, that’s a spicy meatball.
I managed to find working links to the photos referenced by that discussion, and it’s not quite as impressive as it sounds – it’s more like some cars were pushed off the tracks, but the engine remained on, though the engine’s a fair bit heavier at 136 tons.
Lifting it up 10 feet in the air and flipping it? I don’t think that’s going to happen, although it might get moved around a teeny bit.
Depends on the tornado and the circumstances, but I’d go with: yes, it’s definitely possible. Strong tornadoes are capable of lifting very heavy objects and carrying them considerable distances. A tornado in Moorhead MN picked up an 83-ton railway car (with 117 passengers in it), carried it 80 feet, and then dropped it in a ditch. It also tossed five other cars in the train, each weighing 70 tons or more. Another tornado picked up a locomotive, spun it 180 degrees, and set it down on a parallel track facing the opposite direction. Weird shit happens in tornadoes.
From the side, a tank has maybe half the surface area of a train car or a locomotive, so it’s probably less likely that it would carry it any considerable distance. But your criteria was not “would it fly?” but rather “could it flip?” and the answer to that is yes, I think it could.
Well, ‘could’ is a very broad word. Lots of things COULD happen. We could experience a tornado worse than any previously measured by mankind, striking a tank positioned EXACTLY right, etc.
I’d define the question a little more tightly as, “If the strongest tornado measured to-date struck an M1 positioned at the worst angle (presumably sideways), is there a decent (>10%) chance that the tank would lift 10 feet and flip?”
Three key issues about the train comparison:
-
I’d suspect that the weight to profile ratio for the passenger cars is FAR lower than for an M1. Note that the heavier locomotive was apparently not moved.
-
I’d want to know what the estimated wind speed of the tornado in question was - it’s possible that this was only a relatively mild tornado.
-
Jpinard’s original post specified that the tank was sitting on muddy/marshy ground, with the treads sinking in a bit. A railway car, on the other hand, sits on top of the rails, and a force pushing that car sideways and up a bit wouldn’t have to push nearly as hard as for JP’s scenario to lift the car off the track.
So, #1 and #3 argue for the M1 in the given scenario being more tornado resistant than the train cars, while #2 possibly argues for it being a bit less.
My gut feeling is that in a maximum force tornado, there is a non-trivial chance of the M1 being lifted.
The Wiki page says the original M4 weighs 30.3 tonnes. I’d say that’s too heavy.
BUT not every tank is one of those. The lightest ones are in the 3-4t range,
or something like that, which isn’t far off American muscle cars, which can weigh
a couple of tonnes. I guess it’s all the tornados that make you cowboys build 'em
like that!
I’m thinking they’d like to fool aruond with a tornado just as much.
But thats the problem, now isn’t it?
Let’s put it this way. If a tornado was bearing down and a tank was right there with the hatch open, I’d get in the tank.
Short of a bomb shelter, I can’t think of anyplace safer.
And my point is that it doesn’t deflect wind nicely, not by a long shot. A tank, no matter what angle you view it from is significantly less aerodynamic than a car. It’s not made to deflect wind. Cars are. You claimed that tanks are more aerodynamic since they’re angled on all sides, which is plain wrong.
I’m not extending the argument, I’m showing where your argument falls apart.
From three of its four sides, a Abrams tank is as aerodynamic as a brick. Even the turret is basically a flat surface angled back about 20 degrees. It may be great for deflecting shells, but I suspect it deflects wind about as well as the roof of a mobile home. And about two-thirds of the side of an Abrams tank is just a vertical, flat surface.
And I’m not sure why people keep implying that a tank is far too heavy for a tornado to toss, anyway, because it clearly isn’t. As has been pointed out several times, tornadoes have hurled much heavier objects, and over greater distances than the original question proposed. The real issue is mass vs. surface area. But the Abrams’ ratio isn’t any better than that of a train car (which has more surface area, but is also much heavier).
Buh? Where on earth did I say that tanks are more aerodynamic than cars?
H.
edit: I see where we got off base:
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.
My “not necessarily” was in response to the tank not having any aerodynamic features, not to the bit about cars being designed better for aerodynamics, which they obviously are. The point was that tanks ARE made so that they present angled surfaces, which would help a bit. This all goes along with the difference between a tank and a railroad car, which is a hollow rectangle.
OK, which one of you is emailing MythBusters? Without testing, you can argue this forever.
I volunteer to be in the tank as it gets tossed around in the tornado!
Oz, here I come!
This is incorrect. Modern tanks–the Abrams specifically–are designed to face threats head-on, ideally from a hull-down position. There is significantly less angling on the sides and rear of the tank, and also less armor. The slope of the turret on the sides is considerably less than the front slope, and is not really intended to deflect rounds coming at the tank from the side. It does provide more protection against off-axis frontal attacks, and also increases the effective perpendicular thickness of the armor (i.e. how much armor a projectile traveling parallel to the ground would have to go through to penetrate the tank). But most of the side facing of a tank is just a big, vertical surface, capped with a slightly angled surface. The idea being that you aren’t supposed to let enemies attack from the side or the rear.
Other than the tracks, there isn’t a flat surface to be seen when looking straight at one.
Go back to page one and look at that photo again. From the front, this is true. From the side, not at all.
That was just a Force three tornado. Not even an F5.
This let me put my finger on part of why “Land of the Dead” was a mildly disappointing entry in Romero’s zombie flicks. The anti-zombie tank Dead Reckoning really should have had more of a heavily-armored mobile home feel.
Topically, all I know is that an F5 tornado can carry an Abrams to Mars in two days or so.
What’s the big knob on the main gun barrel for?