Space News: For first time, scientists use neutrinos to create 'ghostly' map of Milky Way

For first time, scientists use neutrinos to create 'ghostly' map of Milky Way

The new mapping method may allow astronomers to study previously obscured parts of the galaxy and of the universe.

By TZVI JOFFRE, Jerusalem Post, JUNE 29, 2023

https://www.jpost.com/science/article-748282

 An artist’s composition of the Milky Way seen through a neutrino lens (blue).

(photo credit: IceCube Collaboration/US National Science Foundation (Lily Le & Shawn Johnson)/ESO (S. Brunier))

Scientists have mapped the Milky Way galaxy with high-energy neutrinos for the first time, the IceCube Collaboration, an international group of over 350 scientists, announced on Thursday. The research was published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

Neutrinos are the most abundant fundamental particles that have mass in the universe and have been detected from many sources. They are among the least understood particles in the standard model of particle physics.

The particles are special as they have little mass and no electric charge and can travel straight through the earth as they interact very weakly with other matter.

The high-energy neutrinos, which have energies millions to billions of times higher than those produced by the fusion reactions that power stars, used to create the image were detected by the IceCube Neutrino Observatory at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.

The IceCube Neutrino Observatory takes up a cubic kilometer of Antarctic ice with over 5,000 light sensors to search for signs of high-energy neutrinos coming from our galaxy and beyond.

With the help of machine learning, IceCube researchers have now found neutrinos emanating from the Milky Way. (Credit: IceCube Collaboration/Science Communication Lab for SFB 1491)

How did the researchers map the galaxy with neutrinos?

The researchers focused on the southern sky, where the main bulk of neutrino emission from the galactic plane is expected near the center of the Milky Way. In order to filter out the background of muons and neutrinos produced by cosmic-ray interactions with Earth's atmosphere, researchers from Drexel University developed analyses focused on "cascade events."

When neutrinos pass through the detector, they can leave signals, referred to as "events," either as tracks or cascades. Tracks occur when a neutrino collides with matter in or near the detector, while cascades occur when all or most of the neutrino's energy is deposited in a small region, creating a nearly spherical event.

 The IceCube Lab is seen under a starry, night sky, with the Milky Way appearing over low auroras in the background. (credit: Yuya Makino, IceCube/NSF)

While it is harder to measure the direction from which a neutrino came in a cascade event, the atmospheric backgrounds in such cases are small and relatively uniform meaning it's easier to filter out.

The final piece of the puzzle was machine learning methods developed by researchers from TU Dortmund University that improve the identification of cascades and the identification of their direction and energy reconstruction. The new methods allowed for an analysis that is three times more sensitive than the previous search conducted for neutrinos from the galactic plane.

The researchers used a data set of 60,000 neutrinos detected over 10 years to create the ghostly map of the Milky Way, 30 times as much as the data used in a previous analysis of the galactic plane.

While the Milky Way has been imaged using radio waves, optical light, and gamma rays, this is the first time the galaxy has been imaged in a way other than electromagnetic radiation.

“Observing our own galaxy for the first time using particles instead of light is a huge step,” said Naoko Kurahashi Neilson, professor of physics at Drexel University, IceCube member, and Sclafani’s advisor. “As neutrino astronomy evolves, we will get a new lens with which to observe the universe.”

According to Denise Caldwell, director of NSF's Physics Division, the capabilities of the IceCube detector coupled with new data analysis tools enabled the researchers to create this new image of the galaxy. "As these capabilities continue to be refined, we can look forward to watching this picture emerge with ever-increasing resolution, potentially revealing hidden features of our galaxy never before seen by humanity," said Caldwell.

“The strong evidence for the Milky Way as a source of high-energy neutrinos has survived rigorous tests by the collaboration,” said Ignacio Taboada, a professor of physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology and IceCube spokesperson. “Now the next step is to identify specific sources within the galaxy.”

How the new findings could change astronomy

The new mapping method may allow astronomers to study parts of the galaxy and of the universe that are obscured by gas and dust that were previously inaccessible by mapping methods using light. Scientists expect to find neutrinos where charged particles accelerate in extreme magnetic fields and collide with other particles, such as in star-forming regions.

The findings published on Thursday come after the IceCube collaboration traced neutrinos to the NGC 1068 (Messier 77) galaxy for the first time in November.

PLEASE RECOMMEND THIS PAGE & FOLLOW THE SPUTNIKS ORBIT AT HTTPS://DISQUS.COM/HOME/FORUM/THESPUTNIKSORBIT-BLOGSPOT-COM

There's a Giant Gravity Hole In The Indian Ocean, And We May Finally Know Why

30 June 2023, By CLARE WATSON

https://www.sciencealert.com/theres-a-giant-gravity-hole-in-the-indian-ocean-and-we-may-finally-know-why

Geoid undulation in false color.

  (International Centre for Global Earth Models/Wikimedia, CC BY 4.0)

Gravity's pull is a constant on Earth, but our planet is no uniform sphere. It's covered in lumps and bumps, with geology of varying density yanking on nearby masses with subtly differing degrees of force in an undulating map known as a geoid.

Deep beneath the Indian Ocean, that pull weakens to an extreme low, leaving what is considered a massive gravity 'hole' some three million square kilometers in size roughly where the seafloor sinks into a vast depression.

One of the most profound gravitational anomalies on Earth, its presence has been alluded to for a while. Ship-based surveys and satellite measurements revealed long ago that the sea level just off the tip of the Indian subcontinent dipped on account of the gravitational tug-of-war between the aptly named Indian Ocean geoid low and the surrounding gravitational 'highs'.

Just what caused this relative weakening has never been clear. Now two researchers from the Indian Institute of Science think they have a better idea of the kinds of planetary phenomena that could be involved.

"All these [past] studies looked at the present-day anomaly and were not concerned with how this geoid low came into existence," geoscientists Debanjan Pal and Attreyee Ghosh explain in their published paper, which describes their new working hypothesis.

They think the answer lies more than 1,000 kilometers (621 miles) beneath Earth's crust, where the cold, dense remnants of an ancient ocean plunged into a 'slab graveyard' beneath Africa some 30 million years ago, stirring up hot molten rock.

But their results, based on computer models, are unlikely to settle a fiery debate about the geoid low's origins – at least not until more data is collected.

In 2018, a shipload of scientists from India's National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research set out to deploy a string of seismometers along the seafloor of the deformation zone, to map the area.

Being so far offshore, little seismic data had been collected in the area before. The results from that 2018 survey pointed to the presence of hot plumes of molten rock rising up beneath the Indian Ocean and somehow contributing to its great dent.

The gravitational 'hole' in the Indian Ocean, and the location of seismometers (black triangles) deployed on the seafloor. 

(Ningthoujam, Negi & Pandey/EOS, 2019)

But a longer view was needed to reconstruct the geoid low in its early phases. So Pal and Ghosh retraced the formation of the massive geoid by modeling how tectonic plates skimmed over Earth's hot, gooey mantle during the past 140 million years.

Back then, the Indian tectonic plate was just starting to break away from the supercontinent, Gondwana, to begin its northward march. As the Indian plate advanced, the seabed of an ancient ocean called the Tethys Sea sank into Earth's mantle, and the Indian Ocean opened up behind it.

Pal and Ghosh ran simulations using more than a dozen computer models of plate motion and mantle movements, comparing the shape of the oceanic low those models predicted with observations of the dent itself.

The models that reproduced the Indian Ocean geoid low in its current form all had one thing in common: plumes of hot, low-density magma wafting up beneath the low. These plumes, in addition to a distinctive mantle structure, are what created the geoid low; if they rise high enough, Pal and Ghosh surmise.

"In short, our results suggest that to match the [shape and amplitude of the] observed geoid low, plumes need to be buoyant enough to come up to mid-mantle depths," the pair writes.

The first of these plumes appeared about 20 million years ago, to the south of the Indian Ocean geoid low, and around 10 million years after the old Tethys Sea sank into the lower mantle. As the plumes spread beneath the lithosphere and inched towards the Indian peninsula, the low intensified.

https://youtu.be/7sjSNDFByzk

Given their results are consistent with elements of Ghosh's previous modeling work from 2017, the duo suggests the telltale plumes were thrust up after the Tethys seafloor sank into the lower mantle, disturbing the famed 'African blob'.

However, some researchers not involved in the work aren't convinced, telling New Scientist there isn't any clear seismographic evidence yet that the simulated plumes are actually present beneath the Indian Ocean.

Such data may soon come to light, and there's no rush really – the geoid low is expected to persist for many more millions of years yet.

Recommend this post

 and follow

Sputnik's Orbit

https://disqus.com/home/forum/thesputniksorbit-blogspot-com/

Posted by Chuck

forum/lifeofearth/

Going Underwater

 

Going Underwater

 

By Chief Mac – 30 June 2023

The navies of the world weren’t going to take flying tanks lying down. Now what could be crazier than a flying tank? I got it flying submarines!!! That tops anything like a mere flying tank.

A flying submarine, submersible aircraft or aerosub is a combination of a seaplane and a submarine. It is supposed to be able both to fly and to travel under water. Taking-off from the surface of water is also intended.

Since the requirements for designing a submarine are practically opposed to those of an airplane, the performance expected from such a construction is usually rather moderate.

United Kingdom

As early as 1920, the British trade journal, "Flying", reported conversations between the First Sea Lord and other military leaders and one of the principal aircraft manufacturers concerning a flying submarine (or submersible seaplane). The all-metal craft, its hypothetical design illustrated in the article, was to be a twin-propeller airplane with retractable wings and a hermetically sealed fuselage. There was, however, apparently no further development of the project.

Soviet Union

In 1934, a Soviet engineering student, Boris Ushakov, proposed a design for a submersible aircraft that would scout for ships and then submerge itself in order to ambush them. The design had three engines, conning tower, periscope and could fire torpedoes (of which it carried two). It would submerge itself by flooding its fuselage and would use electrical power to propel itself when underwater. The craft would take off and land like a normal seaplane. However, the craft was viewed as being too heavy by the Soviets to be useful.

 

United States

In 1961 Donald Reid designed and built a single-seat craft (32.83 ft or 10 m length) capable of flight and underwater movement, the Reid Flying Submarine 1 (RFS-1). A 65 hp (48 kW) engine mounted on a pylon provided propulsion for flight; a 750 W (1 hp) electric motor in the tail provided underwater propulsion. The pilot used an aqualung for breathing underwater. The first full-cycle flight [underwater at 6.5 feet (2 m) depth, airborne at 33 ft (10 m) altitude] was demonstrated on 9 June 1964. Reid, his craft, and his son (the test pilot) appeared on the U.S. game show "I've Got A Secret" on March 15, 1965.

 

In the mid 1960s, the Navy let a contract to Convair to design a submersible airplane. The project – called the Convair Submersible Seaplane (see below) – reached the stage of detailed design and models, but was then cancelled by Congress.

 In 2008, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced that it was preparing to issue contracts for a submersible aircraft. Some ideas are too crazy to abandon.

In order for the DARPA craft to be propelled underwater, it has been suggested that high-energy batteries could be used to drive underwater motors. However, one problem identified with this proposal was that the batteries required to achieve DARPA's specifications would make the vehicle too heavy to fly. A suggested solution was using a ten-metre tall snorkel to supply air to a more conventional petrol turbine engine, although this would limit how far the craft could dive.

Another project involved the Lockheed Martin Cormorant drone aircraft. It would be launched from submarines, replacing the launch tubes of several cruise missiles. To reduce the risk of detection during launch, the drone would first be released from the submarine, which would then sail away. The drone would use compressed gas to push it to the surface, then it would use rocket motors to launch before using a jet engine when in the air. In order to return to the submarine, the drone would land on the ocean surface via parachute and be recovered by a swimming drone. The Cormorant was cancelled in 2008 due to budget cuts.

Some submersible aircraft proposals have involved using jet engines in a dual role, both propelling the vehicle in the air using conventional combustion and providing thrust underwater by being spun via an electric motor; some researchers have proposed using turboshaft engines to get the best efficiency and performance in both air and underwater environments. To prevent salt water from prematurely entering the engines when the aircraft is not submerged, the engines could be mounted on the craft's dorsal surface and to the rear. However, one issue is that because jet engines run at several hundred degrees when in air, they could not immediately transition underwater, as being exposed to seawater would subject them to extreme temperature change which would damage them, requiring the aircraft wait for several hours on the surface to cool its engines to submerge, thus any such configuration would require a novel cooling system in order to make a faster transition.

Convair Submersible Seaplane

Between 1962 and 1964, the Navy granted a contract to Convair, a military aircraft arm of General Dynamics, to design and develop the vehicle, intended for anti-submarine warfare. The craft's operational deployment would be to scout for enemy submarines from the air and, when detected, land on the water, submerge, and engage them underwater. One envisioned deployment was to attack shipping in the Soviet Union's marginal seas – the Baltic, Black, and Caspian seas.

The specifications were for a craft capable of operating in sea state 2 (waves of maximum height of 1.8 feet (0.55 m)), a cruising speed in flight of up to 220 miles per hour (350 km/h), and an underwater performance of up to 10 knots (19 km/h), a depth of down to 75 feet (23 m), and an endurance of 10 hours.

Convair's design was for a narrow-hulled flying boat (rather than a floatplane). The craft was to be powered by three turbojets, carry a crew of two, and carry a payload of 500 to 1,500 pounds (227 to 680 kilograms). The craft was to have used ballast tanks to dive and surface, much as a conventional submarine does, located in the wings and fuselage. The weaponry was to be torpedoes or mines. For undersea operations, the turbojets would be sealed water-tight, and underwater propulsion would be provided by a battery-powered electric motor driving a propeller.

Convair made detailed designs and built scale models which were tested, and averred that the craft would work, but the project did not get beyond that stage and was cancelled by Congress in 1965 or 1966.

Lockheed Martin Cormorant

This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The Cormorant was a tailsitter project under development at Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works research facility until 2008 when its contract for development was cancelled. It is named after a species of diving bird in reference to its intended role as a submarine-launched UAV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-J8LNhCr8I

So flying submarines might to too hard I get it, instead let’s build underwater aircraft carriers, and the world navies did so with gusto.

France

French submarine Surcouf

Surcouf was a French submarine ordered in December 1927, launched 18 October 1929, and commissioned May 1934. At 4,000 tons (3,600 tonnes) displacement submerged, Surcouf was the largest submarine in the world at the start of World War II.

Surcouf was designed as an "underwater cruiser", intended to seek and engage in surface combat. For the first part of that mission, it carried an observation float plane in a hangar built into the after part of the conning tower; for the second part, it was armed with not only 12 torpedo tubes but also a twin 8-inch (203 mm) gun turret forward of the conning tower. The guns were fed from a magazine holding 60 rounds and controlled by a director with a 16 ft 6 in (5.03 m) rangefinder, mounted high enough to view a 7 mi (11 km) horizon. In theory, the observation plane could direct fire out to the guns' 15 mi (24 km) maximum range. Anti-aircraft cannons and machine guns were mounted on the top of the hangar.

Italy

Italian submarine Ettore Fieramosca

The Regia Marina (Italian Navy) ordered Ettore Fieramosca, a submarine with a waterproof hangar for a small reconnaissance seaplane in the late-1920s. In 1928 Macchi and Piaggio each received orders for suitable aircraft which resulted in the Macchi M.53 and the Piaggio P.8, but the program was cancelled, and the submarine's hangar was removed in December 1931, before Ettore Fieramosca was delivered

 Japan

The Japanese applied the concept of the "submarine aircraft carrier" extensively, starting with the J2 class I-6 and the J3 class of 1937–38. The Japanese built no less than 42 submarines with the capability to carry floatplanes, one such vessel being I-8. These were to see combat in World War 2 including a bombing raid on the United States.

Type J1M scouting submarine (one built, I-5)

The first IJN submarine to carry a floatplane, completed 1 July 1932. No catapult was fitted, the I-5 aircraft was assembled on deck and lowered into the water for takeoff. Had two hangars.

Type J2 scouting submarine (one built, I-6)

Carried one floatplane

Type J3 scouting submarine (two built, I-7 and I-8)

Carried one floatplane, fitted with fixed catapult aft and twin hangars. Japanese submarine I-8 was the only submarine to complete a round-trip voyage between Japan and Europe during World War II.

Type A1 headquarters submarines (three built, I-9, I-10, I-11)

Carried one floatplane, two more cancelled 1942.

Type A2 headquarters submarine (one built, I-12)

Carried one floatplane, hangar and catapult fitted forward.

Type AM (A modified) aircraft carrying submarine (two built, I-13, I-14)

Carried two floatplanes, catapult forward. Two not completed and three more cancelled.

Type B1 scouting submarine (twenty built, numbered I-15 through I-39)

Carried one floatplane, hangar and catapult fitted forward). Japanese submarine I-25 launched the only plane that made an aerial bombing of the USA in wartime.

Type B2 scouting submarine (six built, numbered I-40 through I-45)

Carried one floatplane, hangar and catapult fitted forward. Numbers 702 through 709 cancelled.

Type B3/B4 scouting submarine (three built, I-54, I-56, I-58)

Carried one floatplane, hangar and catapult forward. 12 more cancelled) I-58 had aircraft and catapult replaced by Kaiten.

I-400-class submarine (three built, I-400, I-401, I-402)

Carried three floatplanes, catapult forward. Were designed specifically to launch floatplane bombers against the Panama Canal. Two not completed, others cancelled.

The Japanese submarine I-401, with its long plane hangar and forward catapult.

 United Kingdom

After the loss of the heavy gun-carrying HMS M1 and the Washington Naval Treaty which restricted the armament of vessels that were not capital ships, the remaining M-class submarines were converted to other uses. By 1927, HMS M2 had entered service with a waterproof hangar for a Parnall Peto seaplane with folding wings, which could be launched and recovered with the aid of a derrick. In October 1928, she was fitted with a hydraulic catapult which allowed the seaplane to be launched from a ramp on the forward casing. The submarine and her plane could then provide reconnaissance ahead of the fleet, submerging when threatened. HMS M2 herself was lost in 1932, and plane-launching submarines were abandoned by the Royal Navy.

HMS M2 launching her Parnall Peto seaplane.

HMS M2 retrieving her Parnall Peto seaplane.

United States

The United States began studying the concept in 1922 when two Caspar U.1 seaplanes were purchased from Germany for evaluation at Anacostia Naval Station. One aircraft was later lost during an exhibition flight in 1923, but they provided useful technical information.

 

The United States Navy ordered six Cox-Klemin XS-1s and six Martin MS-1s, both small seaplanes that like the Caspar U-1 could be disassembled easily. Both were tested aboard S-1 during October and November 1923. Later, Cox-Klemm built the improved XS-2 model, and Loening built the XSL, but the Navy had lost interest in the concept by then. Problems with launching and recovering the aircraft, and the limited military value caused interest in the concept to wane, and news that the British submarine M2 had sunk during trials in 1933, plus damage to the XSL during testing on the sheltered waters of the Anacostia River ended further U.S. Navy development.

S-1

Can’t keep a good idea down, well maybe you can because we are talking about submarines.

World War II had proven the value of aircraft carriers to the U.S. Navy, but after losing five such vessels and seven more escort carriers in the conflict, the Navy could see the value of an aircraft carrier that could submerge after launching its fighters.

Using the Halibut as a model, the U.S. Navy devised the AN-1 submarine aircraft carrier, which would carry eight fighters stored within two hangers inside the ship’s hull. In order to launch the fighters, the submarine would surface and orient the fighters straight up to be launched vertically. In order to manage the vertical launch, separate boosters would be affixed to the aircraft once they were on the launch rail. Those boosters would then fire, propelling the fighter into the air with enough speed and altitude for the fighter’s own engines to keep it flying.

According to the Navy’s plans, the AN-1 submarine aircraft carrier could launch four fighters in just 6 minutes and all eight fighters in less than eight minutes. Today’s Nimitz-class supercarriers can launch a fighter every 20 seconds when moving at full steam, but nonetheless, eight fighters in eight minutes was seen as an impressive figure at the time, especially for an aircraft carrier that could submerge again after launch.

Initially, the Navy hoped to use conventional fighter aircraft with the new submarine, and for a short time, the Grumman F-11F Tiger was considered for the role. But the 1950s saw such rapid advancement in aviation that the F-11 was soon deemed too slow to compete in the latter half of the 20th century. Instead, the Navy looked to Boeing to devise purpose-built fighters that could not only manage the stress of a vertical launch from an aircraft carrier submarine, but that could also attain speeds as high as Mach 3.

This page was compiled and posted by Chief Mac, 06/30/23

 

 

Super Heavy Tanks

Super Heavy Tanks

By Chief Mac – 29 June 20233

This is the last of the series on tanks.

Here we are going big, and I do mean really big. Modern Main Battle Tanks range from 40 to almost 60 tons. None of these are that light. Of course nobody gave a thought as to the roads couldn’t support the weight and no bridges could be crossed or that they such a huge target for everybody. Heck what to those minor issues have when you can have the biggest baddest tanks in the world?

Mendeleev Tank

The Mendeleev Tank was a proposed early tank design by Russian naval engineer Vasiliy Mendeleev, son of Russian scientist Dimitri Mendeleev, who created the modern periodic table. The vehicle was envisioned by Mendeleev during his time working at the Kronshtadt Marine Engineering School in Saint Petersburg, Russia, from 1911 to 1915. Its purported purpose was to be a "landship" immune to all enemy fire and able to cross large battlefields while providing heavy artillery support to troops using a 120 mm gun. The proposed tank was one of the heaviest tank designs of all time; at 173.2 tons it would have been nearly the same weight as the World War II German Panzer VIII Maus superheavy tank.

 

Flying Elephant

The Flying Elephant was a proposed super-heavy tank, planned but never built by the British during World War I.

After the last order for an additional fifty Mark I vehicles in April 1916, it was not certain that any more tanks were to be produced. Everything would depend on the success of the new weapon. William Tritton, co-designer and co-producer of the Mark I, thought he already understood what would prove to be its main weakness. A direct hit by a shell would destroy the vehicle, a major drawback on a battlefield saturated with artillery fire. Tritton decided to design a tank that would be immune to medium artillery fire in April 1916.

 Tritton was unsure what this would entail. He did not know how thick the armor should be to ensure complete protection. The same month Lieutenant Kenneth Symes began to test 2 inch (51 mm) armor plate by firing at it with various captured German guns. In June, this program was expanded by testing several types of plate at Shoeburyness, delivered by armor producer William Beardmore and Company. The Tank Supply Committee approved the production of a prototype on 19 June 1916, but the design was not to be finalized until late August 1916.

K-Wagen

The Großkampfwagen or "K-Wagen" (short for G.K.-Wagen) was a German super-heavy tank, two prototypes of which were almost completed by the end of World War I.

In June 1917, before the first A7V tanks had been completed, the German War Ministry ordered the development of a new superheavy tank intended to be used in break-through situations. Design work was carried out by Joseph Vollmer, a reserve captain and engineer working for the Verkehrstechnische Prüfungskommission ("Transport-technologies Board of Examiners" of the army), and a Captain Weger.

On June 28, 1917 the War Ministry approved the draft design and ordered ten examples, five to be built by the Riebe ball-bearing factory in Berlin and five by Wegmann & Co. of Kassel.

The vehicle originally weighed 165 tons but this was reduced to a more practicable 120 tons by shortening the length. The huge size and mass of the K-Wagen made it impossible to transport complete, so it was decided that it would be split into four sections for transport by rail, to be reassembled behind the front line near where it was to be used.

Two prototypes were built at the request of Hindenburg, but were still incomplete by the end of the war due to lack of raw materials and other demands for weaponry.

Char 2C

The Char 2C, also known as the FCM 2C, was a French heavy tank, later considered a super-heavy tank. It was developed during World War I but not deployed until after the war. It was, in total volume or physical dimensions, the largest operational tank ever made.

The Char d'assaut de grand modèle

The origins of the Char 2C have always been shrouded in a certain mystery. In the summer of 1916, likely in July, General Léon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, the Subsecretary of Artillery, verbally granted Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée (FCM), a shipyard in the south of France near Toulon, the contract for the development of a heavy tank, a char d'assaut de grand modèle. At the time, French industry was very active in lobbying for defense orders, using their connections with high-placed officials and officers to obtain commissions; development contracts could be very profitable even when not resulting in actual production, as they were fully paid for by the state. The French Army had no stated requirement for a heavy tank, and there was no official policy to procure one. Hence, the decision seemed to have been taken solely on his personal authority. The reason he later gave was that the British tanks then in development by a naval committee seemed to be better devised as regarded lay-out, ventilation and fire protection, so a shipyard might improve on existing French designs. Exact specifications, if they ever existed, have been lost. FCM then largely neglected the project, apart from reaping the financial benefits. At that time, all tank projects were highly secret, and thereby shielded from public scrutiny.

TOG 1

The Tank, Heavy, TOG 1 was a prototype British super-heavy tank produced in the early part of the Second World War in the expectation that battlefields might end up like those of the First World War. It was designed so it could cross churned-up countryside and trenches. A single prototype was built, and followed by an improved model (the TOG 2), but interest faded with the successful performance of another cross-country design, the Churchill tank, and the mobile war that was being fought.

Design work by Fosters began in December 1939, resulting in a wooden mock-up. Designed with trench crossing abilities to the fore and the capability to carry infantry as well, the design as built was a large hull with side doors supported on broad tracks, with a 2-pdr-gun-armed Matilda II infantry tank turret. The front plate of the hull carried the 75 mm gun and mounting as used on the French Char B1 tank. Neither of the planned sponson designs was ever actually installed on the prototype hull.

The prototype was sent to Chobham and then seems to have disappeared into history.

TOG2

The TOG2, officially known as the Heavy Tank, TOG II, was a British super-heavy tank design produced during the early stages of World War II in the case that the battlefields of northern France devolved into a morass of mud, trenches and craters as had happened during World War I. When this did not happen the tank was deemed unnecessary and the project terminated. A development of the TOG I design, only a single prototype was built before its termination.

O-I super-heavy tank

O-I was the name given to a proposed series of Japanese super-heavy tanks, to be used in the Pacific Theater. The vehicle was planned to be very heavy and have a crew of 11. The complete history of the O-I is unknown, due to the “obscure” nature of the project and the limited documentation known to have survived post-war.

The development process was restarted by the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Tokyo Machinery Division on the 120 ton version under the designation "Mi-To" (for Mitsubishi -Tokyo). Later it was given the official designation of the "O-I tank" (オイ車). "オ" is an abbreviation of "大き"(big or large) and "イ" in Japanese army nomenclature, refers to model number 1, from the old Japanese alphabet iroha. The tank was again to be equipped with a Type 92 105 mm cannon for its main gun.[2] Its two smaller front hull turrets were designed to be "offset slightly left from the mid-point".[3] One turret was designed to carry a Type 1 47 mm tank gun as secondary armament. The other turret was to carry a 7.7 mm machine gun. The rear hull was designed to have two more smaller turrets each with a 7.7 mm machine gun.

Panzerkampfwagen E-100

Of course if anybody was going to build the largest tanks it would be Germany. The Panzerkampfwagen E-100 (Gerät 383) (TG-01) was a German super-heavy tank design developed towards the end of World War II. The largest of the Entwicklung series of tank designs intended to improve German armored vehicle production through standardization on cheaper, simpler to build vehicles. By the end of the war, the chassis of the prototype E-100 had been partially completed; it was shipped to the United Kingdom for trials, but was later scrapped.

In March 1944, the Adler company in Frankfurt submitted blueprint 021A38300 for a super-heavy tank called E-100, after the tank was proposed in April 1943 along with the other Entwicklung series vehicles. According to the blueprints, the tank would be armed with a both a 150 mm gun and a 75 mm gun. Two types of engines were proposed: one was a 700 hp Maybach HL230, with a transmission and turning mechanism borrowed from the Tiger II. The estimated top speed was 23 km/h (14 mph). The second variant would have a new 1200 hp Maybach engine and a top speed estimated at 40 km/h (25 mph). The design had removable side skirts and narrow transport tracks to make rail transport more viable.

Panzer VIII Maus

Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus (English: 'mouse') was a German World War II super-heavy tank completed in late 1944. It is the heaviest fully enclosed armored fighting vehicle ever built. Five were ordered, but only two hulls and one turret were completed, the turret being attached before the testing grounds were captured by advancing Soviet military forces. This vehicle was also built to compete with the Soviet heavy tank the Kliment Voroshilov tank.

These two prototypes underwent trials in late 1944. The complete vehicle was 10.2 m (33 ft) long, 3.71 m (12.2 ft) wide and 3.63 m (11.9 ft) high. Weighing 188 metric tons, the Maus's main armament was the Krupp-designed 128 mm KwK 44 L/55 gun, based on the 12.8 cm Pak 44 towed anti-tank gun also used in the casemate-type Jagdtiger tank destroyer, with a coaxial 75 mm KwK 44 L/36.5 gun. The 128 mm gun was powerful enough to destroy all Allied armored fighting vehicles in service at the time, with some at ranges exceeding 3,500 m (3,800 yd).

Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

The Landkreuzer P. 1000 "Ratte" (English: Land Cruiser P. 1000 "Rat") was a design for a 1000-ton tank to be used by Germany during World War II which may have been proposed by Krupp director Edward Grotte in June 1942, who had already named it "Landkreuzer". Submitted designs and drawings of the vehicle went under the names OKH Auftrag Nr. 30404 and E-30404/1, which were presented in December 1942. The tank was planned to be 1000 tonnes, being far heavier than the Panzer VIII "Maus", the heaviest tank ever built (weighing 188 tonnes). The project gained the approval of Adolf Hitler, who had expressed interest in the development of the tank, but was cancelled by Minister of Armaments Albert Speer in early 1943.

T-42 super-heavy tank

The T-42 (also known as the TG-V) was a Soviet super-heavy tank project of the interwar period. It was developed in 1932 by the OKB-5 design bureau at Bolshevik Plant no. 232 under the direction of a German engineer-designer Edward Grote [de; ru]. Development did not advance past the stage of construction drawings and scale models. The design was passed over in favor of the T-35 project which was already at the prototype stage.

T28 Super Heavy Tank

Everybody knows America had to get into the act. The T28 Super Heavy Tank was an American heavily armored tank/self-propelled gun designed for the United States Army during World War II. It was originally designed to break through German defenses of the Siegfried Line, and was later considered as a possible participant in the planned invasion of the Japanese mainland.

The near 100-ton vehicle was initially designated a heavy tank. It was re-designated as the 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 in 1945, and then renamed in 1946 as the Super Heavy Tank T28.

Only two prototypes were built before the project was terminated.

Tortoise heavy assault tank

One last British super heavy. The Tortoise heavy assault tank (A39) was a British heavy assault gun design developed during the Second World War, but never put into mass production. It was developed for the task of clearing heavily fortified areas such as the Siegfried Line and as a result favored armor protection over mobility.

Although heavy, at 78 tons, and not readily transported, it was considered reliable and a good gun platform.

Only a few prototypes of the Tortoise had been produced by the end of the war. After testing was complete, one was retained for preservation and the others disposed of.

 This page was compiled and posted by Chief Mac, 06/29/23