I believe that flying tanks became helicopters and the A-10.
I believe you are describing a very different concept of flying tanks than the article.
The tanks in the article were not aircraft with tank-like combat capabilities (either gunpower or protection). That is what you describe. There was not a single example in the article of a flying tank that was expected to engage in combat while airborne.
The tanks in the article were tanks with aircraft-like delivery to the combat zone. Not a tank in the air, but a tank on the ground that can fly into the fight. I defy you to find a helicopter that flies into the combat zone and then lands to fight on the ground. Ain't happening.
Some of the initial test runs of various winged tanks were successful, but eventually the idea was scrapped. Its death was due to many factors, including the limitations of the materials available at that time.
I think the conclusion from the article is a miss. Yes, initial tests of some of the winged tanks were successful. Successful in that it was possible to build a platform around a tank that could be towed by an aircraft and make a controlled glide in to land.
But that didn't make it a combat-useful concept.
First is the question of the vehicles that could be made into gliders. Only the very lightest of tanks could work. Combat experience quickly showed that the very lightest of tanks had low combat utility.
Second, if you can build a glider to carry that weight around the tank, why not just build a glider that can carry that weight and stick the tank into it? You get a far better glider, and you get a better platform for training pilots, than if you kludge the wings and controls onto a tank. This is exactly what the British and Americans did with the Hamilcar glider and the Tetrarch and Locust tanks. The Hamilcar was designed to be big enough to carry a light tank. The Tetrarch proved that you need a project manager to coordinate between dependent projects (ie: if you build a glider to carry a tank, make sure you have the final specs of the tank before you finalize the specs of the glider). The Locust proved that it could work -- you could indeed fly a tank into a combat zone in a glider. And then ….?
… and then third, having a glider with the capacity to deliver a very light tank does not make a very light tank the best use of that glider. If you can fly 6 or 8 tons into an airlanding zone, a nearly-useless tank is probably not the best use of your 6 or 8 tons of delivery capacity. Far better to use that capacity to fly in 2 medium artillery pieces. Or an actual usable AT gun and a soft transport to haul it around. Or just more ammo and other supplies.
The last issue, and the one that really puts the nail in the flying-tank's coffin, is that issue of "other supplies". Because tanks have a very high log footprint -- the LAST thing you want for airborne ops. Even a very light tank still needs POL, ammo, and maintenance. You ain't getting none of that in an airlanding unless you use your limited airlift to fly it in. Meaning your tank is subtracting from the combat capability of your other airborne forces, rather than adding.
Nope. Lots of good reasons that they were a bad idea. Very little to do with available materials of that time.
Just my $0.02 USD worth.
-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)
