Do you think tanks stand a chance against the ever advancing anti-tank weapons? and what is the solution? "It's Not What You Think" is *not* an acceptable answer!! 😉
It can be a laser system of defence or maybe best is simply using tanks as mobile artillery and armored ambulance while infantry and small robots in armour clear ahead and taks give artillery I feel this as most viable future of tank due to modern light nimble weapon of destruction
As the weapons get smarter it gets harder to counter, something that confuses the rocket would probably work. I’m not sure *How* it would work but I’m sure there’s some way to outsmart the missiles
Just attach a 25mm Autocannon and a small-enough RADAR to it to shoot down the Missile, the whole thing has to be automated (obviously). But there in lies the problem, how much power is a Stop Sign Sized RADAR going to need to work? And do we even have a Stop Sign sized RADAR at all?
That's why drones are the new fashion, why spent billions and trillions in specialized equipment and training vehicle operators for months when they can get blown up the second they get spotted in the battlefield, at least if the glass cannon is operated remotely you don't lose the operator when the drone turns into smithereens
@@webaazul2500 The Bayraktar TB2 drone cost $5 million and a Russian tank less than $1mill/ea but every tank lost cost 4 Russian lives. For every fully loaded BMP-2 cost $500K and 10 lives.
Also worth mentioning are the NLAW launchers, which forego tandem charges by flying over the top of the target, and then detonating a downwards-firing shaped charge. Effectively attacking one of the least armored parts of the tank (even with cope cages).
the NLAW doesnt use a shaped charge in top attack mode, it has a shaped charge in the middle for direct attack mode but in top attack mode it fires a tungsten pellet downwards
@@fuckoff4705 No it uses a shaped charge in top attack mode, just watch Saab's own video "Saab´s NLAW anti-tank weapon explained" Edit: Also see a video called "NLAW Warhead" to see it in action exploding in top attack mode
@@fuckoff4705 They do use a shape charge but an especial type called EFP, it detonates and create a hypersonic clump of metal that penetrates the target, this statement: " it fires a tungsten pellet downwards" its completely false.
@@divoulos5758 nope. Sideways cages made to deform contact HEAT missiles (or rounds) like rpg or at-4 collapsing its shaped charge structure before the rocket detonates. They do not work on remote explosion missiles like NLAW. That's why roof cope cages doesn't work and cannot work in theory.
This is the opposite of clickbait. The title really doesn't do the content justice and you get a lot more from the video than expected. Very good content. Keep up the great work!
i agree and disagree since the title implies a general idea (tank defense and whatnot) and shows it off properly but then onlylightly touches on the main idea used in the thumbnail (wierd fast rocket thing)
people have already repeated the notion that "the tanks is dead" after the end of WW1 yet here we are today nearly a century later still making tanks, even making robotic tanks
@@KennyNGA But a single dude with a laptop will obliterate a team of the world's most proficient master. At a fraction of the cost. We only play chess because we like to, not because it is the most efficient way.
Another thing about cage armor against shaped charges: They have a chance of completely preventing the shaped charge of an RPG from exploding. This happens when the fuze of the grenade goes between the bars of the cage and the grenade gets broken apart before the fuze impacts main hull, hence, no explosion. As such, cage armor is a type of statistical armor, an armor that instead of only reducing damage, provides a chance of negating it.
and that's why putting anything between cage armor and the vehicle, since whatever's been put there would cause a detonation of the charge before it's been neutralised by the cage
Reminds me a bit of Battleships. They were big and impressive looking, but by the end of WW2 they were quickly losing relevance since they started becoming big floating targets that just couldn't keep up.
floating targets against what? The only thing that could really hurt a battleship was aircraft or another battleship. Now a mk48ntorpedo will do they job but that is many years of science and testing to make that happen.
@@jeffreyiaia8592 You just answered your own question. Predominantly aircraft & increased/improved submarines negated the large, decked out battleships. Aircraft carriers became the new way to project power & the flagships of a nation's navy.
The bad ones with really crap AA used by the Japanese and Germans certainly fit into that category. The Iowa-class, however, was bristling with the most advanced AA guns in the world, AA which was so effective the US never lost one in battle despite using them as huge screening vessels for their carriers. They could deny large areas of airspace extremely well, as anything that didn't respect their personal bubble was chewed through like overcooked noodles. Battleships were not phased out because they were useless or because carriers could destroy them easily- in fact of all the vessels in a fleet battleships were the hardest for carriers to sink. Rather they were phased out because carriers could perform the roles only battleships had the capability of performing up to that point. Like anti-surface combatant work or naval invasion support. Even then, it was only to the point that new ones weren't being built. The US still used the Iowa's to great effect as screening vessels and fire support during the Korean war, where they continued being effective against jet fighters just from the sheer amount of lead they could put in the sky.
@@jaytranscendencemodder1280 Actually the Iowas (i can't remember how many) were used in 1990/91 during Desert Storm. Thing is that the smaller Ticonderogas can also perform AA and launch cruise missiles etc for less investment.
Yes and no. Battleships became very vulnerable 50 years prior with the advent of effective torpedoes and small boats that could carry them. What made battleships obsolete wasn't that they were vulnerable, it was that carriers could do their job - providing high calibre firepower at long range - better. Regardless of how vulnerable tanks get, until something can provide protected high calibre direct fire with offroad capabilities better than tanks, they will remain relevant, just how battleships remained relevant for 50 years after the torpedo was invented.
hes deinitely not unbiased. If you see his other videos, you'll easily see he has a pro-West bias. But that bias is still less, atleast compared to toehr channels like infographics show which is straight up US propaganda. And afterall, NWYT is himself a westerner so a slight pro-West bias is definitely acceptable
The issue is that our ability to destroy an object has become far greater than our ability to defend that object, and until some wizard in the DoD makes/releases some kind of magical energy shield tech and a portable fusion reactor to power it that isn't going to change.
Indeed. But maybe it's more of a blessing than an issue. It's mindblowing to see how high cost high-tech like tanks and aircraft becomes a useless money pit against lower cost ground and air missiles in modern warfare. The russian war has degenerated into artillery vs artillery. If we reach a future where artillery vs artillery awaits invaders everywhere, and the only landmass you can conquer is that which you obliterate, there may be little reason for anyone to start a war to conquer a wasteland.
bro nukes were invented in ww2. mass destruction of everything. And also you couldnt live there any longer for a good 40 years. So this was never an issue with those who wanted to go to war
There are infinite other solutions. Ai powered anti munitions tech. Ai powered evasive rcs boosters on a robotic vehicle. Drones. This is a naive comment
6:30 Slat armour/cage armour does NOT primarily work by increasing distance! Most HEAT projectiles lose little power from those few centimeters of distance, and in some cases even gain additional penetration. The biggest threat to their effectiveness is if they detonate too close to the main armour, which prevents the proper formation of the explosive penetrator. You can see all of this in the clip at 6:18 - the copper penetrator takes some time and distance to form into a thin "needle". Instead, slat armour (which for example was frequently used by western forces in Afghanistan) primarily works by squeezing the warhead "from the side". As the fuze at the tip of the warhead passes through a gap, the conical warhead gets squished by the cage. This disrupts the geometry of the shaped charge and hinders the penetrator formation process. That's why slat armour uses cages with pretty sizable gaps rather than a fine mesh. In the Phillipine example, the ISIS militants allegedly just used plain high-explosive warheads (and even the launchers look like they may be local knockoffs or RPG-2). In this case, a little bit of stand-off distance on a thinly armoured vehicle can be more useful, and the cardboard is claimed to have reduced the power and spread of shrapnel.
Slat Armor and "Cope Cages" are to defend against very different attacks. Slat Armor, like you said, is against certain types of shaped charge warheads. Cope Cages are probably to protect against drones dropping grenades into open hatches. Which, given the soldiers sitting on an explosive doughnut, is not great.
@@MazeFrame then the cope cages wouldn't be built with gaps big enough for a drone-dropped grenade to fall through. Besides it seems rather unlikely that they thought that far ahead from day 1 of the Invasion, or would choose a design that raises the visual profile so much and covers far more than the hatches. So no I don't think that this adds up.
@@MazeFrame from the few reliable sources I've seen it sees like those cope cages were to protect from top attacks by RPGs in an urban environment, which they encountered in both Chechnya and Syria.
The purpose of the slat armor is to actually "deform" the entire cone of the HEAT charge itself, thereby disabling the effective trigger of the charge itself. Simply put, if the cone gets deformed (by the slat bars) it can not trigger "normally" anymore and becomes useless. However this only works against simple RPG (1 charge), but it does not work against modern Tandem-charge projectile, as the slat armor can only "defuse" the first chage, but not the second charge behind it, which activates immediately at the same time as the first charge impacts. TL;DR cage armor only works against simple RPG (1 charge) but is entirely useless against modern Tandem-charge warheads. There is only so much a cheap solution can offer...
This is basically what happened to the knight. Armor went up and up as the crossbows and warpicks evolved, even getting through some gunpowder. But when enough guys have pikes ans gunpowder, heavy amor its just too expensive, so the infantry revolution happened. If we repeat history, we could see lots of infantry supported by fast small tanks or recon vehicles with active defense systems and just enough armor to protect the core elements. After that idk... maybe heavy energy shield generators with laser guns
It is a common misconception that armor was prohibitively expensive. Production methods and capabilities saw a considerable improvement in the late middle ages. If you were a citizen in a german city around 1600, you had some privileges but also duties. As your duties revolved around keeping the order and aid in the defense of the city, many cities required from their citizens to keep a full set of armor and some specific weapons and guns. When gunpowder based weapons first arose, their punch was not as high as 100 years later. in this time, many pieces of armor underwent shot tests, where the manufacturer was shooting a cuirass to prove it was bulletproof. Only after guns gained more kinetic energy many years later, full suits of armor were seen fewer. However, you still see cuirasses, leg and head protection on many Landsknecht soldiers. A big part of the change to infantry armies, apart from the gun, as you correctly pointed out, was the politcal landscape. Knights needed to be in service for all their life needing a retinue and were producing costs. In addition to this, they required training from a very young age on. If you could recruit infantry just for specific wars and only pay them for these wars, you were much more flexible and scalable with your armed forces in terms of money and size.
Armor never went away, it just changed to become lighter and more flexible. It won't stop a bullet, but it will stop spray from bullets hitting the ground gloseby for example - in general, it's better than nothing 🙂 Further, I think that the next iteration in tank technology will be drone tanks less than a quarter the size of the current models for speed and agility. Also, price and production speed - the guns can be a lot smaller as well, as those tanks would mainly fight infantry - they could even be equipped with a final weapon, being a large explosive in its middle so that they can serve as a form of kamikaze-AI once their ammo runs out or they become damaged. As with the knights you mention bigger meant more protection but that's not working anymore. So, smaller and agile must be the next step.
Well not exactly. Cavalry and basically heavy infantry still persisted for the wealthy. Cavalry's role is to chase down retreating enemies and exposed artillery, unprepared infantry, and even cavalry itself. Even during the infantry revolution, even before the Napoleonic wars, the Swedes, the Spanish, the Ottomans, and the French would constantly use light to heavy cavalry as a means to outflank exposed enemy lines where Artillery, supply lines, and unengaged infantry would be extremely vulnerable towards cavalry attacks, especially during the Napoleonic wars with the Tatars just ambushing them beyond their supply lines. The knight simply reformed into the noble officers. Its kind of the same role for the tank, to be the main gun and armor of the infantry to push through softened targets and any form of barricade that wasn't harmed by Aircraft and artillery.
Shaped charges are an amazing aspect of engineering and physics. How to focus an explosion upon a single small point is amazing. It's a hypersonic welding torch. All you need is a small hole, and inside that hole you can pump a multitude of cocktails.
This is true. Fascinating stuff! I was a teenager in the Marine Corps when I learned that explosives can be measured and controlled to use in dynamic environments for a multitude of purposes. Cutting was probably most surprising to me. I had a lot of fun blowing up piles of worn out gear and clearing trees for practice back in the day. My college chemistry professor had some interesting things he shared with us including the basic principle that a high explosive was actually an extremely rapid burn rate. Although my time as a teenage jarhead was almost forty years ago it was still some of the most fun stuff I've ever experienced.
@@sungukyun2608 If it gets a perfect hit. Check out the kill ratio these things get. It isnt actually very good. They are hugely expensive to operate regardless
@@r200ti Except one article from RT talking about allegedly leaked documents, there is nothing that idicates the Javelin has a bad shot/kill ration. On the contrary. So either we believe the one article from RT, which does not provide the allegedly leaked documents, what EVERY leak in the past did. Or we trust all the reports from the ukrainians, the americans, the brits, the swedes, the australians etc. And I'm not starting to talk about other shoulder launched ATGM, like NLAW.
@@r200ti You also have to be within a certain range to use them and that range tends to be less than the range of the things they are targeting or the range of the artillery they tend to come up against. They have their usefulness but they are overhyped. The type of warfare that is being waged now is not dominated by javelin type systems nor by tanks, but by artillery. The war in Ukraine is essentially an artillery duel where infantry is used to mop up and consolidate gains. Infantry without artillery is only so much cannon fodder.
Also, it takes a 0.70 cent bullet to kill a human it took 20 years to prepare for the battlefield. And a 1000$ artillery round can kill like 20. Such price comparisons are very, very silly - especially that if the current war showed anything, is that there is no assault forces without tanks. There are different weapons and countermeasures and infantry AT weapons were always very, very cheap compared to their target. And even the lifetime factors here. Tanks can live very long, as we see from the old russian T-62s, they can literally outlive like 2 full generations of soldiers, their first crews are already dying of old age. And they fire thousands of rounds during their lifetime. How do you calculate the cost of a tank that saw invasions from Afghanistan through Georgia up until Ukraine against a one-off NLAW in 2022? Like I said. Just... impossible. And silly at some moments.
As long as there is operational need for tanks they will be around no matter how devilish ways inventions may be developed to kill them, just as there will always be human beings fighting wars despite the ridiculously effective and cost efficient modern methods of killing loads of them.
@@dender5936 No i don't, that's why i call it silly to even start such comparisons. There is no actual way to compare this, because the entire environment of the battleield is the true cost. A 20k$ drone is worth destroying by a 200k $ rocket bc the target might be an empty field or a 2 billionn $ electrical plant that will cause all of the hospitals in the area to stop working. You cannot make a simple cost comparison. And even the lifetime factors here. A tank can live very long, as we see from the old russian T-62s, it can literally outlive like 2 full generations of soldiers and fire thousands of rounds during it's lifetime. How do you calculate the cost of a tank that saw battle from Afghanistan through Georgia up until Ukraine against a one-off NLAW? Like I said. Just... impossible. And silly at some moments.
Armor might be insuficient now but the role of tanks stands Being able to eliminate armored targets while being protected and mobile Also fan fact all it takes to take down a tank is a rock some clothes lighter and balls of steel (and maybe a gun or a knife when the crew opens the hatches)
You only have to toss a few molotovs on the exhaust, the engine overheats, the tank breaks in mobility and breaking its optics by melting the wires, will render it completly useless. In short, toss molee's on top and once it stops, jump on it and leave grenades tied to the hatches. Once opened the short string will bring the grenade inside and drop inside... I won't go into details but you can make it a double trap (Pressure&tension) If you know you know :D
Basically the strategy I'm talking about is from one of my Czech friends military exercise Basically they knew the enemy team T-72 will be crossing they're position so they set up fires around it for smoke cover Once the tank roll in they hide in a grass snuck up on him and then jumped on it They used some rags to cover all the optics and used rocks to bang on the hatches (since they didn't have live ammo & bullet spoiling) Once the commander opened the hatch the just hold it open and captured the tank In a real word you can also destroy the outside machine guns(in most cases its as simple as taking out the ammo belt) and optics
@Mark Aspen no, proper MBT’s should be able to stop 120mm sabot from most angle when facing the front, but the side and top is where issues start. Top armor is designed to stop Shrapnel but if it was as armored as the top you would have no room for crew and it would be heavy, fortunately guided artillery is not common enough and non guided is too inaccurate to hit the top unless it gets very lucky. Perhaps in the future guided munitions will be more common (we are getting there) but id image just looking at Ukrainian for instance that the stockpiles of weapons like these will be far more useful not killing tanks but fuel depots, ammunition storages, and such that would make huge battalions of tanks be unable to function instead of just 1.
@Mark Aspen the front of the Abrams Sepv4 would like to introduce itself to you. No seriously the Abrams Sepv4 is invincible from the front not even a kornet AGTM can punch through the front lower glacis. But considering you said that only a tank can destroy a tank you don't seem to be all that smart when it comes to military stuff so you probably don't know what a kornet is or what ammo type modern MBTs use wait... You don't know what a MBT is either XD man it's hard communicating with people of lower military knowledge
3:44 to be clear, this is a defensive grenade. An offensive grenade has no fragments, and relies on the shockwave. This gives it a smaller kill radius, and doesn't require cover to be safe for the thrower, so long as you're are distance away. Grenades may also use a sleeve of ball bearings (or other fragments) instead of relying on the destruction of the case
I've wondered about these shockwave grenades. As implausible as it could be, if you flipped a grill lid onto a grenade, and jumped onto it, could you save yourself?
Tanks have been proclaimed "dead" multiple times. And every time they arose from it improved. So yes, tanks will prevail. ERA and hardkill systems will evolve enough to counter infantry launched AT weapons and in groups of typically 3-4 tanks, they can cover each other against multiple threats. And when that point is reached, tanks will be again a dominating factor on the battlefield, if used correct.
Just one clarification to this video - RPG in regards to RPG-43 stands for "Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata" meaning "Hand Anti-Tank Grenade", not "grenade launcher", whereas in regards to RPG-7 it does stand for, as stated in this video, "grenade-launcher" (Ruchnoi protivotankovy Granatomyot").
That Trophy APS demonstration video is one of my favorites ever, not only is the projectile already supersonic but that shockwave when it blows up is A LOT faster than the speed of sound and it just doesn't stand a chance racing that penetrator.
Quick correction: The cages are not designed to defeat EFP and shaped charge warheads by increasing distance. The distance would be significantly greater than you could reasonably create with a secondary material for anything resembling a modern anti-tank round. RPG-7s even this will be true. Looking at their optimal detonation distances, it even makes the penetration BETTER if you slightly increase standoff. The reason they are there is the piezoelectric point initiated, base detonated mechanic of the common anti-tank round. That nose of an RPG is piezoelectrically actuated, but you can potentially cut the line to the base detonator before the tip hits a target. The slats of proper cage armor the US uses are called statistic armor, because it is specifically a statistics problem. If you get wide enough, you can sometimes hit the sides of the imitation set in the standoff cone of an RPG before the tip hits anything, stopping the jet from forming at all. You can also fail if the tip hits a slat instead of in-between them. That is why the distance, number, and orientation are a "statistics" problem. I worked at Aberdeen for a bit doing EFP shots on hybrid armor research back in 2009 and we were doing all manner of defeat approaches for shaped charges at the time for MRAPS.
So basically you’re gambling on the edges of the cage potentially disrupting/destroying the shape of the inverted copper cone that forms the charge _before_ the tip of the warhead can signal the detonator? Am I understanding that correctly?
@@wunkthemonk4359 I get the name, I was just trying to simplify the technical jargon into a format I could better understand and make sure I got what OP was saying.
@@OneBiasedOpinion To be clear, you either break the wire connection from the point initiator at the nose, that connects to the electric blast initiation set in the base of the device, or you don’t. Almost all RPGs are what we call “point initiated, base detonated” projectiles. To form any shaped charge the explosion has to be started from the back, then shaped with the explosive itself forming the lenses of blast wave that invert and direct the liner into the spear of plasma which penetrates the target. Since the defeat mechanic is just break the connection between nose and base detonator, you either stop the explosion from being initiated at all, or you don’t and make it more effective on the target.
Tanks offer a ton of firepower on the battlefield. When I was infantry, we wanted armor with us. Its really combined arms that needs to be used because everything has a weakness.
Commits resources into dealing with tanks instead of just infantry. Might not sound like much but people worrying about dealing with tanks is less people shooting at the boots on the ground. I can imagine it must terrifying facing a force with armored support when you don't have the equipment to deal with said armor. Armor and infantry will always go hand in hand, it's just the armor's turn to adapt to the battlefield.
Seems that a good start to adapting to this new battlefield would be making the armor care a lot less about taking hits. I’m willing to bet robotic units would not be nearly as easy to kill, since they can be more compact, solid, and don’t have the downside of being large, hollow, metal shells full of very squishy meat to drive them. I could be wrong on that though.
@@OneBiasedOpinion As soon as someone finds a way to research and finance that it'll be done. And then it'll be taken out by some dollarstore anti-mech solution.
I think the future rolls of tanks will be battlefield coordination instead of direct combat. Heavy sensors, drones, soldier coordination, threat analysis, gear carrying. Kind of a mobile "forward base" until a safer front can be established.
Tanks are also made to engage from way further distances these days. Urban warfare is not a great usage of tanks and that has been evident since Stalingrad imo.
@@mikevismyelementThank You! Anytime I watch videos of fighting that takes place today, I see tanks driving through neighborhoods. Is there that much of an advantage that a tank provides in urban combat? It just feels like it’s easy to turn that tank into a 70 ton road block and make the team inside a meal for rpgs flying in all directions from countless balconies and windows
@@ydel1234 the reason why is that we have only seen asymmetrical warfare for the last 40 years outside of Ukraine. The old Soviet RPG's that insurgents in the middle east had access to wouldn't penetrate a modern tank. Tanks didn't have to fear every window, alley, or blind corner in these scenarios. Now that we have a more symmetrical battle in Ukraine, you see entire fields of blown up tanks for both sides. One can only imagine what Kursk was like Modern anti tank missiles are incredibly effective at penetrating even the best armor. I think the strategy now is to roll the tanks in to "secure" the victory, as opposed to the spearhead tactics of WW2
At that point you might as well forgo a tank entirely for SP-Art or a IFV vehicle. The entire reason a nation foots the bill for the armor engine and gun on a tank is to either out maneuver the enemy or break through a hard point. If a tank can’t do either of those rolls it’s not worth using or making. What you’re describing could be done by a tricked out semi-trailer. Or a tent…
Soldiers were cobbling together shape charges out of wine bottles, breaking the tops off and using the punt to shape the charge, in WW1. The charge could be aimed and the force of the explosion traveled in a straight direction, killing people fifty feet away. Later, they discovered that placing copper coins in the center of the opening would cause the copper to vaporize and extend the kill range, as well as gain the ability to penetrate armor.
My buddy told me about an IED in Iraq made out of a sheet of copper, it vaporized everyone in the armor in front of him. He said they learned it from WW1
Great video as always. I have a few corrections i want to make though. Firstly you said that explosive reactive armor can't deal with tandem shaped warheads like the javelin. While yes that used to be true, but with more advances in ERA technology in the past few decades, tandem shaped charges have now been countered to "some extent." Kontakt 1 was the ERA explained in this video, which is just a simple steel plate sanwhiched between explosives so that they can't distrupt incoming shaped charges. This proved extremely effective but was later countered with tandem shaped warheads, which is basically in short terms for those who don't know: A charge that sets off the explosives in the ERA and then a second charge following through the exact hole that the first created in the ERA therefore penetrating the armor. Now as i have explained how tandem shaped charges, and Kontakt 1 ERA works, it is time to talk about my second point which is Relikt ERA (Which is the 3rd generation of Russian ERA.): This ERA infact counters tandem shaped charges with instead of having a simple steel plate sanwhiched with explosives, they now have 2 larger plates made from High Hardness Rolled Armor (which is some of the toughest armored steel you can possibly get if not the toughest.) They work by shooting first shooting the first plate towards the first incoming jet from the tandem warhead at an angle (to maximize effective thickness of the plate,) then the second plate gets launched towards the main armor of the tank catching the second jet from the tandem warhead that is meant to penetrate the tank, therefor neutralizing that incoming jet aswell, or at the very least weakening the jet so that it doesn't penetrate the remaining armor. This however requires the ERA blocks to be significantly larger than the previous ones, therefor making it harder to protect the weaker parts of the tank like the roof (although newer tanks like the t90m and t14 amarta have removed this weakness by placing it at the roof aswell), which the javelin and the nlaw takes full advantage of.
Also newer tanks are getting fitted with Active projection systems that simply put: shoots the incoming missiles (or tank round) with another projectile and then prematurely detonates them way before they hit the tank.
"Great video as always." yea stoped watching after he proved he knows nothing about the topic of shape charge... Extra 10 cm/4 inch of distance for old RPG gonna only increase its penetration capability... the cages on tanks are there to jam the warhead betwen steel bars or to deform it as it needs to have a perfect symetric shape to form nice and symetric jet of metal...
And even Kontakt 1 is not "simple". I mean, there's some real engineering behind it ;) Already back then it was more than one layer of explosive between two plates. It was two layers that stood at precise angles to negate *as best as they could* (and I think this is key) the effects of HEAT but also SABOT rounds. Sure, newer systems are better but even first gen ERA was more complex than what you are told in most videos.
Tanks have always needed infantry support to be effective on the battlefield. A tank by itself on the battlefield is like an aircraft carrier without it's escort, just a juicy target. But supported by infantry a tank can mean the difference between winning or losing a battle.
Yup. We will always need them, just to keep the opponent honest. As usual there is no perfect defense. A defense in depth is the only way forward. The next layer is more drones. One day we will see “toner-wars”. Nano drones, micro drones, mini drones, and autonomous vehicles backed by humans, backed by shielded humans, backed by AIs, backed by… the “economy stupid”. Its ALWAYS about the economy. Economies have layers. The most fundamental of which is food. Calories. The calorie economy has been here for billions of years. Today we are talking about many layers or shells guarding the meat. Can your side make it too expensive for a would-be challenger to contemplate making war?
@@leifolshanshkii8868 A good example of making it too expensive for war is what is currently happening between US and China. I am almost sure that if US and China's economies were not as integrated as they were we would have seen action from China to put Taiwan under CCP control. The EU is another good example of it where enemies are now working together and it being to expensive to fight each other.
@@leifolshanshkii8868 micro drone? how small is micro drone? the smallest drone ever made , have a size of a hand , but you need a big drone, or a drone carry rpg 7 round and drop to penetrate tank armor
I hung out with an ex FMC tanks employee, and he said they were always trying to find a way to prevent projectiles from penetrating the tank (even hitting it, the fiberglass used would impact the tank, that people would itch from the fibers). His solution, just make it out of cardboard, so the projectile would go completely through, as a joke.
Intentional overpenetration was actually a thing for some early tank destroyers. Since they're intended to be used in ambush or otherwise long-range capability, they're not meant to take a hit. So paper thin armor just thick enough to hold the gun was all that you really need. Which means shells that depend on compression or otherwise high pressure to a primer charge simply don't work, because they whip through the thin steel so easily. You get killed stone dead by any good machine gun, but a tank shell will be like a bullet through a cardboard box.
i mean that could work if you like gambling if it goes through its either going to do nothing but leave a hole or its going to hit someone and well.....if a human is hard enuogh to make it go off then boom if not then uh there is a hole in a human
Active Protection systems like Trophy give overhead protection and can handle multiple incoming targets . Unlikely to see multiple javelins coming in at the same time . Javelin is also relatively slow moving and easily dealt with with Active Protection Systems . The latest Russian version can take out an APFSDS round travelling at 1800 ms in flight
Always has been. Only trench warfare was an exemption, stopping artillery or siege weapons. At all other times it was cheaper and quicker to break a (castle)wall than it was to to build that same wall.
Have to say: this is the first time I am interested in modern warfare technology. Liked the Middle Ages and antique more, but this tank / anti tank weapon race is truly fascinating.
Interesting information about the shaped charges and their use as a partial deterrent for the Anit tank round. Explains a lot that has been seen over the past few years.
6:50 the metal cage around tanks are NOT there to cause premature explosion. They are there to crush the peizoelectric fuses of the RPG warhead, safely defusing the RPG. Premature explosion makes the hypersonic jet even more deadly, not less deadly.
@@jgtheman84 Economical or not, it may yet be necessary. Heck, it will be all that much more relevant as tank-killing, shaped charge warheads grow more economical and thus more abundant on the battlefield. The system itself might be very expensive and yet worthwhile as long as one discharge isn't very much more expensive than the munition it counters as long as it works reliably and consistently. Beats losing the very much more expensive tank altogether. Modern ATGMs are not very cheap either, but they are shown to be very effective at killing tanks.
@@herptek Yes I think that APS has a definite future. Its gonna take some time though. Sabots are even harder to stop because you need a specific type of ERA to defeat it and it only reduces effectiveness but does not totally stop it.
@@jgtheman84 Yes, but those require high velocity impact by a heavy dart because they rely on purely kinetic energy to have an effect, instead of chemical energy converted into a penetrator by an explosive on the target end. This usually requires another tank armed with a high velocity cannon or something like an anti-tank gun anyhow. So there you would have a big target yourself to protect from everything cheaper than another tank.
Hard kill APS is the future and it's here. Look at current tanks: the trend is lighter less armoured tanks. A couple of examples: T-14 Armata weights less than an M1A2 but is at the same time bigger. Merkava with APS is one of the reasons why everybody is developping it's own: it works ! Also look at US next tank. Between it's gun and it's weight it's going to be a medium tank so you'd better hope it has some protection other than it's armor.. Everyone is working towards the goal of stopping the incoming round before it hits. You are both right about SABOT rounds being harder to stop but these can be stopped by composite armor now developped to "shear" the projectile. I'll also remind you that a SABOT can break upon impact, impact at a wrong angle and not penetrate etc.
I think the next step for tanks are gonna be automated/ remote controlled tanks, especially for mine sweeping duties and the ability to just scout a hot zone with some armour. It would help give away enemy position for 5-10 milion. Yes expensive, but life saving!
I imagine they too would be dead coffins to whatever weaponry will be used to counter the. Remember: Offense always beats defense in the age of gunpowder. The only advantage a "drone tank" would have over a conventional tank would be saving a few human costs, but that's about it.
If you're going to scout the last thing you will need is a tank. Small RC cars, drones or men with eyes are much better suited to do recce work and it's much more cost-efficient. A tank should be a long-range assault/support weapon suited to open plains. You just don't want it in the front anymore - that role has gone to IFVs and APCs these days (enough armor to protect against small arms yet no bloated armor that's going to get destroyed on the first hit anyways). The tank isn't dead, you just have to adapt it to new circumstances.
Nuclear weapons have stopped used shaped charges a long time ago. There are severals reasons why but the two most prominent are that they make the bomb huge and the other is that it makes a weapon much easier to steal and detonate. A modern weapon has a neutron source that is activated electronically to cause a fission runaway reaction which in turn causes fusion in a secondary or multiple other secondaries encased in a uranium shell (which under goes fission from this fusion reaction).
Actually even the latest fission primaries use controlled implosion by engineered shaped charge. The neutron generator you refer to is a very small particle accelerator that provides neutrons milliseconds after the boost gas is injected into the hollow core and is timed to pulse at the exact time the core is at it's densest compression. By changing the timing of the pulse the yield of the device can be changed, hence the "Dial a Yield" name of some tactical warheads.
The method of forcing a fissionable material to criticality (thru implosion) has NOT changed since first used with Fat Man. Design improvements have made the much smaller sizes possible.
tanks always had their roles shifted around (infact same can be said about infantry) if we look at ww1 tanks they were primarily anti infantry vehicles, in ww2 they were made as mobile anti tank guns, during cold war they were primarily designed as something like a long range artillery, if you look at modern designs it seems that their purpose is to serve as multirole vehicles anti air/infantry support/with some anti tank functionality.
They were originally designed as a means for getting over the trenches dug in WWI battle fields of France. The trenches were dug in response to the introduction of the machine gun. So, in a a way, the machine gun led to the invention of the tank.
I learned something new today after all these years thanks to you. Turns out even a soldier who taught me that didn't know what's the real meaning of RPG.
The soldier and th3 video is correct. The rpg-7 does stand for rocket propelled grenade. The hand thrown anti tank grenade is where the rpg stands for that Russian name that I can't remember to write.
Armor and all of that is nice to have, of course. But I think it's been held true since the earliest days of tanks, that by far the best way to win a tank battle is to see the enemy first, and get off the first shot.
5:45 Well being a Filipino you have to be creative when dealing with such firepower. These were created because the wooden armor was soft, the only thing that could make an RPG penetrate is through hard contact basically metal to metal contact, however if the armor itself is soft the detonation would be lessened
in the mid 80's i was in the canadian military, we used the m72 rocket launcher. it did the same thing with a smaller nose cone. maybe didnt penetrate as much as this one. the layers on the outside of a tank were to do just that stated in the video, to ignite the explosive before it hit the actual armor. many tanks at that time were built with thin layers of metal a few inches out from the thick armor for this reason. and as you said, the more modern ones defeated that.
9:37 those nukes didn't go off because the conventional explosives used to trigger the reaction detonated on impact with the ground, which caused an irregular/unsymmetrical shape of the explosion, which was not sufficient to start the reaction needed to detonate the nuclear charge. basically, extremely lucky.
It will probably shift the balance towards lighter, and cheaper tanks: The lack of thick armor is less important, mobility is more important at not getting hit, and they still have enough protection from simple projectiles, while also being much faster than infantry.
I could see armour thickness being lowered slightly to focus less on defending against sabot and anti tank rockets. However even if those two things can kill a tank regardless of armour thickness, there’s A LOT of stuff on the battlefield that cannot penetrate. Lowering the armour thickness too much would let the enemy use any old autocannon or tank round to kill your tank, and at that point your tank is just an APC. I think keeping a solid thickness of armour is important because at least it’ll still protect against medium weapons. Modern tanks are already quite fast anyway so I don’t think there is too much to gain in mobility realistically. But yes a slight decrease in armour thickness to where it can still defend against all other munitions but forget about anti tank rockets is probably a good idea if only to save money. Mobility can’t protect you from guns unless in specific circumstances, and even then it’s not a significant advantage.
The key in modern tank warfare is using systems that eliminate hard targets from 10 miles away. Their guns can fire a variety of munitions that can see, engage and destroy their targets long before the enemy can see it. Unmanned robotic tanks and drones seem to be the future. Big enough missiles, which aren't very big to begin with, can destroy anything these days.
Unfortunately for the humans involved, I do suspect we are now rapidly approaching automated robotic warfare. Which, of course, will cause the Geneva Convention to become entirely moot in most cases. 😬
I'd like to add something to your description of ERA or Explosive Reactive Armor. The primary mechanism in defeating the jet is that the explosives send the external face plate of the box often a given direction. This is rarely at 90° to the incoming warhead and consequently incoming jet. This means that the jet doesn't cut straight through the plate it has to cut through the plate as it's moving at some angle to it. The hole that's made is there for linear not circular. This extra metal that needs to be penetrated is what wears down the efficacy of the jet. So, I've read the impacts and era block at a 90° angle significantly reduces its efficacy while one that comes in at a steeper angle increases it. Hope this helps. Thanks for a fine presentation.
Weeeell, to be fair, infantry body armor for small arms fire seems to be making a comeback in recent years. Very recent development that only started in the 1980's and got a bit slightly stronger in the 2000's onwards and we don't know for sure how far it will get before it peaks, but compare it to entire centuries of forgoing any and all sorts of personal protection once Knight Armor disappeared.
RKG-3 is really effective in urban areas. What happens is they come out of an alley while a convoy is stopped and hit our humvees. My battle buddy got his ass literally blown off from one of these in Mosul. Only 3 of the five guys in the truck lived. RIP bros.
@@AsokaTw-mz3lr it's possible that this guy was serving in the Iraqi army. US invaders left some equipment for them after they were done with their mass murders of innocent people and throwing nation after nation into anarchy
Considering the focus is shifting towards infantry I think in the future we will see tanks function more like IFVs, Merkava IV for example is a tank that is capable of transporting infantry and it also has an onboard 60mm mortar system which if paired with drones could recon for anti-tank squads and destroy them from afar before the AT-squads can get sight of the tank, as well as provide fire support for infantry.
The Merkava is only capable of carrying infantry if you remove the majority of the tank’s ammo racks, and even then the space is extremely cramped and not suitable for carrying fully-equipped infantry into combat. The space just exists as a way to carry a few wounded soldiers in an absolute emergency.
Affordable if you funnel most of the US budget to the point your nation is already running a massive surplus But mentioning that kind of corruption and outright subversion while hiding more funding in bills is what we call anti semetism Funnily enough that's the same word for being anti corruption
@@Notreallysureactually If the ammo racks are removed then the Merkava 4 can carry 8 infantry soldiers, that's not a small number, if they aren't removed you can still carry 3-4, and I don't know why you say they can't be fully-equipped, there are infantry baskets at the outside of the hull in the back where infantry can place their equipment, the tank's crew have their own basket at the back of the turret. The space can also be used for other means other than carry wounded soldiers, carrying engineers, artillery commanders or other non combat personnel in and out of the battle zone is one use and also 20 years ago in an urban environment Merkava's often had 2 infantry snipers at the back that shot at rear threats by opening a crack at the rear corridor door, later a barrel opening was added so the snipers could fire without the need of opening the door at all.
@@E_y_a_l It’s exactly like you say. If you want to use a Merkava to carry an appreciable amount of soldiers, you’d need to remove almost all of the tank’s ammo AND store the soldiers’ gear (what they need to actually do their jobs) outside of the tank. At that point neither the tank nor the infantry can fight effectively, because the tank doesn’t have enough ammo and the infantry don’t have easy access to their equipment. You’re better off using an IFV, something that can carry the same number of soldiers AND their gear inside while also retaining its full fighting capabilities.
@@Notreallysureactually You're over simplifying things, infantry(or tanks) have a lot of different types of missions and uses, you talk about a very specific scenario, in some cases the setup described is suitable and in others it isn't, you also don't always need the tank to carry all of its ammo, it depends on the situation, the mission and the threats, also in most cases if not all when a Merkava will carry an infantry squad, the infantry's purpose will be to go from point A to point B and then disembark and fight on foot, not to fight from inside the tank, so it doesn't matter where their more heavy equipment is, and again, that depends on what you mean fully equipped, obviously they are inside the tank with their vests and weapons with them, the baskets outside are used for things like personal bags, sleeping bags, tents, etc...you're right that obviously an IFV or APC will be better in carrying infantry, after all that's what they are designed for and that's why all of the Israeli infantry are mechanized and have their own vehicles and do not rely on the Merkava's for transport, but just as a theoretical discussion which was what the OP was talking about, the Merkava's do have the capability if it's needed, just the ability to have a room where soldiers other than the crew can be is a welcome thing because in the past if there were extra people in the tank for some reason like artillery officers, intelligence officers, mechanics etc, they all needed to cramp up in the turret, having the ability for each tank to carry 3-4 additional soldiers without removing the ammo racks means a platoon of tanks doesn't need additional 3-4 APCs to travel with them to carry the mechanics and electrical specialists, which is already an advantage.
@@spectatorwhoisspectating a combination of the two I assume will happen. If lasers gets developed then something to counter it will also happen and I assume that'll be the good ol "throw a stick at it" but just very fast. They just need to somehow make mini nuclear reactors to power the thing
You can have layered reactive armor. A very thin armor layer separates them to not be heavy. It is more time consuming then normal RA but negates the advantage of a tandem warhead.
I have seen many videos of how shaped charges work, but your explanation beats them all. The narrative and video makes so clear that even this 80 year old gets it, finally. Thank you very much. Now, if you could explain how that anti tank round exploded many feet(meters- I'm American) from the tank, and then sent something at the tank that penetrated the armor, works, I would be even more grateful.
I think I can answer that. Unfortunately the video takes quite a few shortcuts and you are probably referring to the video at the beginning. That's not a shaped charge. That's an explosively formed penetrator. In shot, the "jet" formed by a shaped charge has a very precise *and short* distance at which it has to be fired to be effective. If the detonation happens too soon, the jet will be disrupted by the air it has to travel through. An EFP forms a solid projectile that travels a much greater distance but with a little less penetrating power. If you want a comparison: take an air compressor, aim it at packed sand from a few feet away: nothing happens. Come closer and the air will push the sand out of it's way. Now, if you take a 22LR (which would be the EFP in my example) and the results will be the same if you fire at point blank or from a few feet. The designs of the liners shown in this video are quite basic but in reality, the liner of an RPG is trumpet shaped in order to shorten the standoff distance. British Challenger tanks use a rifled barrel that imparts spin on the rounds. Centrifugal forces also disrupt the jet from a shaped charge so they had to come up with a liner designed to counter this. Hope that helped ;)
@@herrhaber9076 I am not sure I am following you. The early part of the video was not showing a shaped charge, instead a ultra high speed penetration round? If that is right, why was the penetration round launched from such a distance from the tank? Maybe to give it time to reach full speed? I want to thank you for taking the time to try to clear up my confusion. As you can see, I'm clueless as to what the early scene was showing.
@@williamromine5715 The early scene was showing an explosively formed penetrator or EFP. It works by exploding thus deforming a metal liner in front of the explosive to create a solid projectile from the blast travelling at 14 km/s as the video said. Don't think it's misinfo, but he definitely could have stated that video was EFP and not a shaped charge. As for why it was detonated quite far from the tank, I'm not entirely sure, but my best guess would be to prevent active protection systems from destroying the rocket before it detonates. The most useful part here is that the projectile is travelling so fast that no form of armor or active protection could do anything. At speeds of above 3 km/s (hypervelocity), impacts cause solids to behave like liquids as if you're watching a water drop land in the sink. There's a possible way to protect against something travelling this fast and it's called a Whipple shield. NASA uses them to protect space ships from hypervelocity debris. Essentially, they're multiple layers of thin metal sheets. When a hypervelocity projectile hits, it doesn't penetrate like a slower projectile (remember my water droplet analogy and behaving like a liquid), the energy delivered actually cause the projectile to turn into plasma So the first few layers take the brunt of the impact, but because the projectile does not stay solid (or liquid, for that matter), penetration beyond that is less of an issue. So many thin layers beyond that allows the plasma to expand and cool. I have not seen any evidence of tanks deploying with Whipple shields, but if EFP becomes a staple, I can see it happening. If you'd like to learn more about this stuff, I suggest browsing the "atomic rockets" website. It deals more with science fiction stuff but intertwined with real science. Lots of interesting stuff there, and hypervelocity projectiles was just one of them.
@@herrhaber9076 , the Brits solved the problem by not using HEAT at all, instead they relied on High Explosive Squash Heads. HESH is basically plastic explosives with a very thin case and a detonator in the bottom. On impact, it squashes onto the armour like a mudcake before exploding. That sends a shockwave through the target that will cause a big chunk of the inner wall to break off and send it flying around inside like a cross between a pinball in the bumpers and the rocks in the Asteroids game. Hopefully this was clear enough for mr romine to follow :)
@william Romine I think you ask a really good question and the other replies don't understand what you're asking. As best I can gather, the round has a multi-programmable fuse that allows it to either explode on impact, after impact, or before impact. You're asking how it explodes before impact, right? I've tried to find the answer but there doesn't seem to be much info out there for it. I'd assume it either has a proximity sensor of some sort, or it has a timer that knows where it is along it's flight path. Either way, it's pretty awesome.
i belive that in the fotage of 7:33 isnt accurate. that lack of detonation was caused by not having a long enough arming distance. Many MANPATS have a arming distance so if you accidentally shoot very close to the operator it wont detonate. so in the case fo that piece of fotage, the attack was done from too close, not letting the safety feature disactive and no allowing the payload to explode.
10:42 سلاح الجافلين الأمريكي المضاد للدروع فعال لأنه يحتوي على متفجرين وهذا يأخذنا إلى عبقرية الفلسطينيين حيث طورو سلاح الأر بي جي وجعله يحتوي على متفجرين وأسمه (ياسين 105) وأستطاع فعلا إختراق دبابات وناقلات جند تعتبر الأكثر تحصنا في العالم
This video works well enough for those who need an introduction into tank and anti-tank warfare. I thought this video would go over newer info like drones, EFPs, ECM, cope cages. Also, this video should have talked about the effectiveness of indirect fire medium to heavy artillery pieces firing plain old HE rounds against tanks. Other things that should have been discussed includes the different types of anti-tank mines and other methods of neutralizing tanks such as APFSDS, HESH/HEP, composite armor, tank traps, targeting the periscopes, the use of large IEDs, concrete bombs, tank plinking, etc. Although mentioned, the video didn't go into detail about how ERA and APS works.
The first Russian RPG was the RPG-2, not the RPG-7. And there was also a version of the Panzerfaust, the Panzerfaust 250 which was never actually built, that directly inspired many of the RPG-2s features.
With the advent of close drone warfare, I can see a future where a swarm reasonably low cost drones are deployed, magnetically or otherwise attach to a tank and detonate charges designed to shred reactive armour then are followed up with a shaped charge swarm or a conventional missile. Or even just the reactive armour shred drones themselves might be enough to make a tank flee knowing it isn't protected anymore.
yep, tank had their roles on battlefield, then planes, now its drone/missile/artillery/infantry era...but there is a constant: industry strenght and will to occupy. yet, if you cannot attack a city with tanks, lets try russian approach, empty the cities before an heavy shelling and raze it, very efficient :p and why not use the hunger? the cold? the lack of electricty or water run for you? siege warfare is efficient most of the times, the objective isnt military destruction, its to force to surrender. it work for beat vercingetorix, but north korea and cuba proudly face economic siege since 60-70years without sign of crumbling
@@eriklerougeuh5772 A lot of anti tank inventions have had people claim the tank is now irrelevant, but that's never been true. Tanks are never going away, they're a pain for infantry and artillery to deal with especially in an urban or forest setting where the weapons showcased in this video are very hard to deploy. Composite armor and active protection systems on modern tanks are very effective at taking shaped charge rounds or destroying them before they hit. Some even have the ability to detect a missile and lock the turret on the source. All in all, they keep evolving with modern weapons, and are meant to be used in conjunction with other ground and air vehicles
@@diverman1023 Russia-Ukraine war proved human-drive tanks are becoming obsolete. There's video of Ukrainian army use drone as spotter for indirect fire against Russian's convoy. Russian vehicles also suffered great damage from anti tank launcher given by Americans. Armed drone is easy to make even a youtuber can do it. It's always better to detect enemy position with drones than charge in with tanks Edit: Tanks won't go away, but it will become smaller and controlled by robot
@@diverman1023 The video said a new tank cost about 5-10 mil $ (not counting the cost of fuel to run), but a modern anti tank launcher only cost about 200k $. 25 launchers against 1 tank will never be a fair trade
There is some development in armor and defensive systems being pushed to field tests now that could change this a lot. 1 - is the hollow steel structure that could make armor lighter but thicker. 2 - new discoveries in alloyes that is looking to be able to make the armor up to 10 times more heat resistant. 3 - smarter intercept systems that can handle more targets utilizing mutiple layers of defence. 4 - more efficient lasers and radar for vehicles to find and counter the systems before they can fire. Best of all faster and lighter tanks is a huge goal at the moment.
Heat resistance does NOT matter with shaped charges since their effect is purely kinetic ie HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) weapons use a shaped charge but DO NOT mistake HEAT for heat. BTW the Panzerfaust 3 uses a HEAT warhead and is designed to be able to penetrate the frontal (where it is thickest) armour of a T-80 with ERA. Compared to NLAW they are dirt cheap: 1 single use NLAW costs $40 000 but the PF3 uses a reuseable aiming and trigger unit costing $11 000 and the rockets cost only $230 each. The effectiveness and range is practically identical between PF3 and NLAW. So for the price of 1 NLAW you can buy 1 PF3 trigger unit and 124 rockets.
Not to mention using ceramics or other types of material besides traditional armor materials can help reduce the weight of the vehicle and add properties to the armor that can increase survivability
I was not expecting a lesson on warfare and then the mention of the "Demon Core" incident, this video is awesome what is cool about this, is that america has already came to a solution, most anti tank rockets use lock on missiles, we have developed anti lock on armor, it obscures the heat the tank makes through its plating and has a form of active camo to help further erase its presence, the optic plating displaces the rays of light shining ON the tank to simply be AROUND the tank, making it virtually invisible to airborne surveillance tech. This method makes tanks need less armor so it can cut costs on defenses and be lighter and faster. This stealth tank kniwn as the PL-01 uses thermal, visual, and acoustic stealth technologies.
4:30 Huh. So would it be correct to say that on detonation it produces a particle beam? I wonder if it's possible to make a handheld gun that uses special ammo to shoot a short-range particle-beam/shape-charge rapidly as if it was shooting regular bullets. It would have to be a less powerful explosive or find some way to mitigate the force to make it safe for the person shooting it. A well to make sure it doesn't break the gun. Could be a good breaching tool that can double as a close-range armor-piercing anti-personal/armor weapon. Even if the shape-charge was too weak to get through the armor with the first bullet you could just keep shooting until you get through. To make this more useful it'd be better to find some way to keep the particle jet focused for a longer distance. This'd be a cool weapon.
Here’s the thing, out in the open tanks will see and engage infantry at ridiculous distances using thermal imaging systems that can zoom. And if tanks are moving into an urban environment they will be supported by their own infantry to protect them against anti-tank. Infantry and Armor work together tactically. They both protect each other against different enemies.
Here's the other thing: Shit happens. The symbiotic relationship you just described, though effective at mitigation, is not foolproof or invulnerable. If it were 100% effective, we'd never see a destroyed tank. But we obviously do see them.
Dude even gamers understand why this is easily countered. Focus on the tanks. Once destroyed, fight infantry. Or, have a anti tank guy while everyone else keeps infantry away, etc. Its a very common scenario in video games where the enemy team has a tank with infantry helping.
This is an excellent and informative video. It's fascinating to see how tank armor has changed over time and how technology keeps advancing the need for better protection. It's a great reminder of how important it is to be up to date on the latest armor developments.
Yeah except that Tanks still have one modern enemy... concertina wire. no joke... watch a ABV (with an M1A5 Abram chasis) get disabled with this cheap piece of wire.
0:29 you can literally see blue plasma forming at the front end of the jet stream if you slow it down. The same happens when a satellite reenters earths atmosphere and it burns due to hypersonic velocities.
1:51 - the Russian instruction says that this grenade should only be thrown from a trench or cover, to avoid getting killed. So I'd imagine the typical scenario would be when you're in a trench and an enemy tank comes rolling in towards you.
Still was used without cover and even in packs of few of those grenades to destroy Tigers. Before Kursk was done massive training for infantry how let tank go over you and then throw grenade onto its engine.
@@Velanteg Completely true. Jump up and toss onto the rear engine deck and the tanks is in trouble. And if you have nothing else, whip up a Molotov cocktail and make the same attack. It's possible the burning fuel from it will flow onto the engine through vents and catch it ablaze.
This reminds me of the book, "From the Earth to the Moon" by Jules Verne. In the story, a cannon maker from New England can't find a purpose after the civil war is over, so he and all the other cannon makers decide to make a cannon to shoot a projectile to the moon. His rival, a steel shielding producer from the South trashes him throughout the first half of the book, but eventually he realizes his metal panels are no match for a cannon that can fire a projectile to the moon. I suppose we may be reaching a time when the weapon is too powerful compared to any defense that can reasonably be mounted on a vehicle.
À 6:00 sur le talon d'Achille des charges creuse la technique des très fines plaques de blindages espacée autour du véhicule était déjà utilisé sur les Panzer allemand pendant la 2gm contre les obus à charge creuse
The “penetrator” is actually the copper cone shaped recess that inverts and becomes the molten copper shot that bores through thick armor. The TOW missile can penetrate past 4 feet of homogeneous steel. The RPG uses a piezo electric crystal in the tip of the round to ignite the explosive in the round. A piezo crystal creates electricity when crushed which is what powers the blasting cap/fuse in the explosives. Most of the time RPG gunners forget to remove the small safety pin in the nose cap of the rocket so they just bounce off its target.
tanks will have their uses in combat. tank teams can see and attack enemies before the enemy even know they are there. tanks are not just tanks, they are a tool that works in tandem with all the other parts of a military advance, satellites, drones, radar and everything else. I think going forward tanks will still be used but less in close corters and more as a support unite for an advancing force sort of like the artillery barrages of ww1 but way more advance and versatile. I would wager we will start seeing LESS armor on tanks as their need as a front line becomes less useful and their need a a mobile artillery/ troop transport becomes the norm though I could see a world where tanks armor is moved from the front and more on the top to protect from long range strikes.
If they're going to be used as mobile artillery and troop transports, they would probably instead just use mobile artillery and troop transports, because those are better at those jobs than tanks are.
@@pauls3204 don't worry. THE Biden administration will have the Military on 100% electric very soon. And guns will be phased out to make room for their new plasma rifles. 😌
Do you think tanks stand a chance against the ever advancing anti-tank weapons?
and what is the solution? "It's Not What You Think" is *not* an acceptable answer!! 😉
It can be a laser system of defence or maybe best is simply using tanks as mobile artillery and armored ambulance while infantry and small robots in armour clear ahead and taks give artillery
I feel this as most viable future of tank due to modern light nimble weapon of destruction
As the weapons get smarter it gets harder to counter, something that confuses the rocket would probably work. I’m not sure *How* it would work but I’m sure there’s some way to outsmart the missiles
It's What You Think, acceptable answer 🙃
@@ralphghost820 possibly they would have smaller remote controlled tanks that could withstand smaller arms but be highly mobile and cheaper
Just attach a 25mm Autocannon and a small-enough RADAR to it to shoot down the Missile, the whole thing has to be automated (obviously). But there in lies the problem, how much power is a Stop Sign Sized RADAR going to need to work? And do we even have a Stop Sign sized RADAR at all?
We've reached a point in military where the term "Glass Cannons" applies to everything
what do you expect when offense vastly outpaces defense :p
That's why drones are the new fashion, why spent billions and trillions in specialized equipment and training vehicle operators for months when they can get blown up the second they get spotted in the battlefield, at least if the glass cannon is operated remotely you don't lose the operator when the drone turns into smithereens
@@thorveim1174 'Disposable Glass Cannons', lots of 'em.
@@webaazul2500 The Bayraktar TB2 drone cost $5 million and a Russian tank less than $1mill/ea but every tank lost cost 4 Russian lives. For every fully loaded BMP-2 cost $500K and 10 lives.
maybe it's time we start investing in researching things like energy shields who knows, right?
Also worth mentioning are the NLAW launchers, which forego tandem charges by flying over the top of the target, and then detonating a downwards-firing shaped charge. Effectively attacking one of the least armored parts of the tank (even with cope cages).
the NLAW doesnt use a shaped charge in top attack mode, it has a shaped charge in the middle for direct attack mode but in top attack mode it fires a tungsten pellet downwards
Sideways cope cages completely save it from nlaw tho
@@fuckoff4705 No it uses a shaped charge in top attack mode, just watch Saab's own video "Saab´s NLAW anti-tank weapon explained"
Edit: Also see a video called "NLAW Warhead" to see it in action exploding in top attack mode
@@fuckoff4705 They do use a shape charge but an especial type called EFP, it detonates and create a hypersonic clump of metal that penetrates the target, this statement: " it fires a tungsten pellet downwards" its completely false.
@@divoulos5758 nope. Sideways cages made to deform contact HEAT missiles (or rounds) like rpg or at-4 collapsing its shaped charge structure before the rocket detonates. They do not work on remote explosion missiles like NLAW. That's why roof cope cages doesn't work and cannot work in theory.
This is the opposite of clickbait. The title really doesn't do the content justice and you get a lot more from the video than expected. Very good content. Keep up the great work!
Clickdeterent?
Right? It's such a good video
i agree and disagree since the title implies a general idea (tank defense and whatnot) and shows it off properly but then onlylightly touches on the main idea used in the thumbnail (wierd fast rocket thing)
Right? I learned how a freakin nuke works!
@@idkyet2962 True. I wanted to see more footage of the shape charge.
Extremely well produced video! Really focused, informative, and entertaining. Well done!
people have already repeated the notion that "the tanks is dead" after the end of WW1 yet here we are today nearly a century later still making tanks, even making robotic tanks
But horses were eventually replaced by the automobile, computers eventually defeated humans at chess, and so on.
@@highdefinist9697 We will eventually be replaced by radioactive radiation.
@@highdefinist9697 so only computers are playing chess?
@@KennyNGA But a single dude with a laptop will obliterate a team of the world's most proficient master. At a fraction of the cost. We only play chess because we like to, not because it is the most efficient way.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 Yes because it's the most usefull way (for entertainement)
Another thing about cage armor against shaped charges:
They have a chance of completely preventing the shaped charge of an RPG from exploding.
This happens when the fuze of the grenade goes between the bars of the cage and the grenade gets broken apart before the fuze impacts main hull, hence, no explosion.
As such, cage armor is a type of statistical armor, an armor that instead of only reducing damage, provides a chance of negating it.
It's like gangster ablative armor. Ok not really. Lol
Cool!
I wanted to say that :)
and that's why putting anything between cage armor and the vehicle, since whatever's been put there would cause a detonation of the charge before it's been neutralised by the cage
The chance of this is below 0,1% which does not even justify the cost in producing the cages
Reminds me a bit of Battleships. They were big and impressive looking, but by the end of WW2 they were quickly losing relevance since they started becoming big floating targets that just couldn't keep up.
floating targets against what? The only thing that could really hurt a battleship was aircraft or another battleship. Now a mk48ntorpedo will do they job but that is many years of science and testing to make that happen.
@@jeffreyiaia8592 You just answered your own question. Predominantly aircraft & increased/improved submarines negated the large, decked out battleships. Aircraft carriers became the new way to project power & the flagships of a nation's navy.
The bad ones with really crap AA used by the Japanese and Germans certainly fit into that category. The Iowa-class, however, was bristling with the most advanced AA guns in the world, AA which was so effective the US never lost one in battle despite using them as huge screening vessels for their carriers. They could deny large areas of airspace extremely well, as anything that didn't respect their personal bubble was chewed through like overcooked noodles.
Battleships were not phased out because they were useless or because carriers could destroy them easily- in fact of all the vessels in a fleet battleships were the hardest for carriers to sink. Rather they were phased out because carriers could perform the roles only battleships had the capability of performing up to that point. Like anti-surface combatant work or naval invasion support.
Even then, it was only to the point that new ones weren't being built. The US still used the Iowa's to great effect as screening vessels and fire support during the Korean war, where they continued being effective against jet fighters just from the sheer amount of lead they could put in the sky.
@@jaytranscendencemodder1280 Actually the Iowas (i can't remember how many) were used in 1990/91 during Desert Storm. Thing is that the smaller Ticonderogas can also perform AA and launch cruise missiles etc for less investment.
Yes and no. Battleships became very vulnerable 50 years prior with the advent of effective torpedoes and small boats that could carry them. What made battleships obsolete wasn't that they were vulnerable, it was that carriers could do their job - providing high calibre firepower at long range - better. Regardless of how vulnerable tanks get, until something can provide protected high calibre direct fire with offroad capabilities better than tanks, they will remain relevant, just how battleships remained relevant for 50 years after the torpedo was invented.
How fantastic to actually find an EXCELLENT INFORMATIVE UNBIASED show on YT. Thank you mate !
hes deinitely not unbiased. If you see his other videos, you'll easily see he has a pro-West bias. But that bias is still less, atleast compared to toehr channels like infographics show which is straight up US propaganda. And afterall, NWYT is himself a westerner so a slight pro-West bias is definitely acceptable
@@The_Unknown_Smiley sounds like you've got a lot more bias than the channel based on your comment
The issue is that our ability to destroy an object has become far greater than our ability to defend that object, and until some wizard in the DoD makes/releases some kind of magical energy shield tech and a portable fusion reactor to power it that isn't going to change.
Indeed. But maybe it's more of a blessing than an issue. It's mindblowing to see how high cost high-tech like tanks and aircraft becomes a useless money pit against lower cost ground and air missiles in modern warfare. The russian war has degenerated into artillery vs artillery.
If we reach a future where artillery vs artillery awaits invaders everywhere, and the only landmass you can conquer is that which you obliterate, there may be little reason for anyone to start a war to conquer a wasteland.
@@Erafune Ain't that the greatest irony
@@Erafune You know, I'm quite sure they thought of it that way after 1918...
bro nukes were invented in ww2. mass destruction of everything. And also you couldnt live there any longer for a good 40 years. So this was never an issue with those who wanted to go to war
There are infinite other solutions. Ai powered anti munitions tech. Ai powered evasive rcs boosters on a robotic vehicle. Drones. This is a naive comment
I'm not even particularly interested in military tech, but this video was so well done that it had me hooked from beginning to end !
Same! It's very well done
The video was really well made.
Military tech is best tech
metis, konkurs, kornet, fagot.....penicilin.
6:30 Slat armour/cage armour does NOT primarily work by increasing distance!
Most HEAT projectiles lose little power from those few centimeters of distance, and in some cases even gain additional penetration. The biggest threat to their effectiveness is if they detonate too close to the main armour, which prevents the proper formation of the explosive penetrator. You can see all of this in the clip at 6:18 - the copper penetrator takes some time and distance to form into a thin "needle".
Instead, slat armour (which for example was frequently used by western forces in Afghanistan) primarily works by squeezing the warhead "from the side". As the fuze at the tip of the warhead passes through a gap, the conical warhead gets squished by the cage. This disrupts the geometry of the shaped charge and hinders the penetrator formation process. That's why slat armour uses cages with pretty sizable gaps rather than a fine mesh.
In the Phillipine example, the ISIS militants allegedly just used plain high-explosive warheads (and even the launchers look like they may be local knockoffs or RPG-2). In this case, a little bit of stand-off distance on a thinly armoured vehicle can be more useful, and the cardboard is claimed to have reduced the power and spread of shrapnel.
Slat Armor and "Cope Cages" are to defend against very different attacks. Slat Armor, like you said, is against certain types of shaped charge warheads. Cope Cages are probably to protect against drones dropping grenades into open hatches. Which, given the soldiers sitting on an explosive doughnut, is not great.
@@MazeFrame then the cope cages wouldn't be built with gaps big enough for a drone-dropped grenade to fall through.
Besides it seems rather unlikely that they thought that far ahead from day 1 of the Invasion, or would choose a design that raises the visual profile so much and covers far more than the hatches.
So no I don't think that this adds up.
@@MazeFrame from the few reliable sources I've seen it sees like those cope cages were to protect from top attacks by RPGs in an urban environment, which they encountered in both Chechnya and Syria.
The purpose of the slat armor is to actually "deform" the entire cone of the HEAT charge itself, thereby disabling the effective trigger of the charge itself.
Simply put, if the cone gets deformed (by the slat bars) it can not trigger "normally" anymore and becomes useless.
However this only works against simple RPG (1 charge), but it does not work against modern Tandem-charge projectile, as the slat armor can only "defuse" the first chage, but not the second charge behind it, which activates immediately at the same time as the first charge impacts.
TL;DR cage armor only works against simple RPG (1 charge) but is entirely useless against modern Tandem-charge warheads. There is only so much a cheap solution can offer...
where does ceramic armour fit in all this
"So, how's the war going for you?"
"I just want to go back home and see my family"
"$H1T, ITS THE PROTON BEAM WEAPON"
Tank: “Haha my reactive armor detonated your shaped charge! You can’t get to me now!”
Tandem warhead: “BUT IT’S NOT WHAT YOU THINK!!”
It's a prank!
*Turret flying 40ft in the air
Mindblown
You got a heart but it's not what you think
@@zohaibtariq7351 it’s not what you think, but it’s what I think.
Lmao nice
"Now THAT'S a blast!" You have no idea... Understatement of the Holocene Epoch! (8:28)
This is basically what happened to the knight. Armor went up and up as the crossbows and warpicks evolved, even getting through some gunpowder. But when enough guys have pikes ans gunpowder, heavy amor its just too expensive, so the infantry revolution happened.
If we repeat history, we could see lots of infantry supported by fast small tanks or recon vehicles with active defense systems and just enough armor to protect the core elements.
After that idk... maybe heavy energy shield generators with laser guns
It is a common misconception that armor was prohibitively expensive. Production methods and capabilities saw a considerable improvement in the late middle ages.
If you were a citizen in a german city around 1600, you had some privileges but also duties.
As your duties revolved around keeping the order and aid in the defense of the city, many cities required from their citizens to keep a full set of armor and some specific weapons and guns.
When gunpowder based weapons first arose, their punch was not as high as 100 years later. in this time, many pieces of armor underwent shot tests, where the manufacturer was shooting a cuirass to prove it was bulletproof.
Only after guns gained more kinetic energy many years later, full suits of armor were seen fewer. However, you still see cuirasses, leg and head protection on many Landsknecht soldiers.
A big part of the change to infantry armies, apart from the gun, as you correctly pointed out, was the politcal landscape. Knights needed to be in service for all their life needing a retinue and were producing costs. In addition to this, they required training from a very young age on.
If you could recruit infantry just for specific wars and only pay them for these wars, you were much more flexible and scalable with your armed forces in terms of money and size.
@@mephisto8101 very interesting
Armor never went away, it just changed to become lighter and more flexible. It won't stop a bullet, but it will stop spray from bullets hitting the ground gloseby for example - in general, it's better than nothing 🙂
Further, I think that the next iteration in tank technology will be drone tanks less than a quarter the size of the current models for speed and agility. Also, price and production speed - the guns can be a lot smaller as well, as those tanks would mainly fight infantry - they could even be equipped with a final weapon, being a large explosive in its middle so that they can serve as a form of kamikaze-AI once their ammo runs out or they become damaged.
As with the knights you mention bigger meant more protection but that's not working anymore. So, smaller and agile must be the next step.
Well not exactly. Cavalry and basically heavy infantry still persisted for the wealthy. Cavalry's role is to chase down retreating enemies and exposed artillery, unprepared infantry, and even cavalry itself. Even during the infantry revolution, even before the Napoleonic wars, the Swedes, the Spanish, the Ottomans, and the French would constantly use light to heavy cavalry as a means to outflank exposed enemy lines where Artillery, supply lines, and unengaged infantry would be extremely vulnerable towards cavalry attacks, especially during the Napoleonic wars with the Tatars just ambushing them beyond their supply lines. The knight simply reformed into the noble officers.
Its kind of the same role for the tank, to be the main gun and armor of the infantry to push through softened targets and any form of barricade that wasn't harmed by Aircraft and artillery.
@@Widestone001 By that time, we'll be probably using EMP bombs. Forcing us back to fight with fully analog weapons.
Al-Yassin 105 has another story with the Merkava
There is no video in which the Merkava is seen detonating its ammunition, only clipped impacts._.
No, there are many, and there are also shots of the Merkava-based Tiger armoured personnel carriers destroyed everywhere.
@@AngeljkbdNo, there are many, and there are also shots
of the Merkava-based Tiger armoured
personnel carriers destroyed everywhere.
Shaped charges are an amazing aspect of engineering and physics. How to focus an explosion upon a single small point is amazing. It's a hypersonic welding torch. All you need is a small hole, and inside that hole you can pump a multitude of cocktails.
This is true. Fascinating stuff! I was a teenager in the Marine Corps when I learned that explosives can be measured and controlled to use in dynamic environments for a multitude of purposes. Cutting was probably most surprising to me. I had a lot of fun blowing up piles of worn out gear and clearing trees for practice back in the day. My college chemistry professor had some interesting things he shared with us including the basic principle that a high explosive was actually an extremely rapid burn rate. Although my time as a teenage jarhead was almost forty years ago it was still some of the most fun stuff I've ever experienced.
"amazing" more like horrifying and horrible
0:27 how is the target exploding before the missile has even entered the frame?
@@fukingmagnets reactive armor
@@chuckyLarmed how does reactive armor detect the missile so far away?
When you realise that the cost of one single Javelin can actually change a person's life quite significantly...
It destroys things that cost more than what people make in multiple lifetimes
@@sungukyun2608 If it gets a perfect hit. Check out the kill ratio these things get. It isnt actually very good. They are hugely expensive to operate regardless
@@r200ti Except one article from RT talking about allegedly leaked documents, there is nothing that idicates the Javelin has a bad shot/kill ration. On the contrary. So either we believe the one article from RT, which does not provide the allegedly leaked documents, what EVERY leak in the past did. Or we trust all the reports from the ukrainians, the americans, the brits, the swedes, the australians etc.
And I'm not starting to talk about other shoulder launched ATGM, like NLAW.
@@r200ti You also have to be within a certain range to use them and that range tends to be less than the range of the things they are targeting or the range of the artillery they tend to come up against. They have their usefulness but they are overhyped. The type of warfare that is being waged now is not dominated by javelin type systems nor by tanks, but by artillery. The war in Ukraine is essentially an artillery duel where infantry is used to mop up and consolidate gains. Infantry without artillery is only so much cannon fodder.
You mean the difference between life and death
Also, it takes a 0.70 cent bullet to kill a human it took 20 years to prepare for the battlefield. And a 1000$ artillery round can kill like 20. Such price comparisons are very, very silly - especially that if the current war showed anything, is that there is no assault forces without tanks. There are different weapons and countermeasures and infantry AT weapons were always very, very cheap compared to their target.
And even the lifetime factors here. Tanks can live very long, as we see from the old russian T-62s, they can literally outlive like 2 full generations of soldiers, their first crews are already dying of old age. And they fire thousands of rounds during their lifetime. How do you calculate the cost of a tank that saw invasions from Afghanistan through Georgia up until Ukraine against a one-off NLAW in 2022? Like I said. Just... impossible. And silly at some moments.
As long as there is operational need for tanks they will be around no matter how devilish ways inventions may be developed to kill them, just as there will always be human beings fighting wars despite the ridiculously effective and cost efficient modern methods of killing loads of them.
You forget that on average 30,000-100,000 bullets are expended per infantry kill, that’s 21,000$ on the low end a 70,000$ on the high end
But the price of everything saved by destroying the target can sometimes be more than what's spent on ammo
@@dender5936 and it costs about $50K to train and equip 1 soldier. This doesnt account for logistic to maintian like food and shelter
@@dender5936 No i don't, that's why i call it silly to even start such comparisons. There is no actual way to compare this, because the entire environment of the battleield is the true cost. A 20k$ drone is worth destroying by a 200k $ rocket bc the target might be an empty field or a 2 billionn $ electrical plant that will cause all of the hospitals in the area to stop working. You cannot make a simple cost comparison.
And even the lifetime factors here. A tank can live very long, as we see from the old russian T-62s, it can literally outlive like 2 full generations of soldiers and fire thousands of rounds during it's lifetime. How do you calculate the cost of a tank that saw battle from Afghanistan through Georgia up until Ukraine against a one-off NLAW? Like I said. Just... impossible. And silly at some moments.
ありがとうございます！
Thanks very much!!
Armor might be insuficient now but the role of tanks stands
Being able to eliminate armored targets while being protected and mobile
Also fan fact all it takes to take down a tank is a rock some clothes lighter and balls of steel (and maybe a gun or a knife when the crew opens the hatches)
finns used just logs and afterwards shot the russians
You only have to toss a few molotovs on the exhaust, the engine overheats, the tank breaks in mobility and breaking its optics by melting the wires, will render it completly useless. In short, toss molee's on top and once it stops, jump on it and leave grenades tied to the hatches. Once opened the short string will bring the grenade inside and drop inside... I won't go into details but you can make it a double trap (Pressure&tension) If you know you know :D
@@gotskilsudont2149 yeah your strategy won't work on some tanks. Check out military history visualised video about this topic
@@gotskilsudont2149 yeahhh...nah
Basically the strategy I'm talking about is from one of my Czech friends military exercise
Basically they knew the enemy team T-72 will be crossing they're position so they set up fires around it for smoke cover
Once the tank roll in they hide in a grass snuck up on him and then jumped on it
They used some rags to cover all the optics and used rocks to bang on the hatches (since they didn't have live ammo & bullet spoiling)
Once the commander opened the hatch the just hold it open and captured the tank
In a real word you can also destroy the outside machine guns(in most cases its as simple as taking out the ammo belt) and optics
Absolutely brilliant video- cheers
HEAT warheads and the countermeasures developed to protect against them is one of the most interesting parts of tank warfare.
@Mark Aspen no, proper MBT’s should be able to stop 120mm sabot from most angle when facing the front, but the side and top is where issues start. Top armor is designed to stop Shrapnel but if it was as armored as the top you would have no room for crew and it would be heavy, fortunately guided artillery is not common enough and non guided is too inaccurate to hit the top unless it gets very lucky. Perhaps in the future guided munitions will be more common (we are getting there) but id image just looking at Ukrainian for instance that the stockpiles of weapons like these will be far more useful not killing tanks but fuel depots, ammunition storages, and such that would make huge battalions of tanks be unable to function instead of just 1.
@Mark Aspen Nope, not necessarily true
@Mark Aspen the front of the Abrams Sepv4 would like to introduce itself to you. No seriously the Abrams Sepv4 is invincible from the front not even a kornet AGTM can punch through the front lower glacis. But considering you said that only a tank can destroy a tank you don't seem to be all that smart when it comes to military stuff so you probably don't know what a kornet is or what ammo type modern MBTs use wait... You don't know what a MBT is either XD man it's hard communicating with people of lower military knowledge
@Mark Aspen side ERA and side NERA is also on the Abrams making it have go protection form anti armour threats there too
@Mark Aspen Abrams is obsolete.
salute to those brave philippine soldiers who fought isis
Amen , and world media wont remember this battle
Salute to all of the soldiers who fought isis
And due to the stpd ego of the president more died because he didn't want the support of us
@@drapas7467 typical Filipino, thirsty for international validation
@@syahmiefc6123 how does this relate to anything?
3:44 to be clear, this is a defensive grenade. An offensive grenade has no fragments, and relies on the shockwave. This gives it a smaller kill radius, and doesn't require cover to be safe for the thrower, so long as you're are distance away.
Grenades may also use a sleeve of ball bearings (or other fragments) instead of relying on the destruction of the case
That's awesome! I didn't know any of that, but it's super-interesting. Cheers!
Its counter intuitive but true
@@silver_surfer88 offensive, aka used when they're pushing buildings in tight quarters.
I've wondered about these shockwave grenades.
As implausible as it could be, if you flipped a grill lid onto a grenade, and jumped onto it, could you save yourself?
@@sirtimatbob You likely to die if do that.
Tanks have been proclaimed "dead" multiple times. And every time they arose from it improved.
So yes, tanks will prevail. ERA and hardkill systems will evolve enough to counter infantry launched AT weapons and in groups of typically 3-4 tanks, they can cover each other against multiple threats. And when that point is reached, tanks will be again a dominating factor on the battlefield, if used correct.
Just one clarification to this video - RPG in regards to RPG-43 stands for "Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata" meaning "Hand Anti-Tank Grenade", not "grenade launcher", whereas in regards to RPG-7 it does stand for, as stated in this video, "grenade-launcher" (Ruchnoi protivotankovy Granatomyot").
so Rocket-Propelled-Grenade is just a backronym?
Хорошие познания🙂
@@connormaloney2180 Yes, as stated in the video.
@@connormaloney2180 You'd be correct that the Russian arms development office doesn't operate in English.
That Trophy APS demonstration video is one of my favorites ever, not only is the projectile already supersonic but that shockwave when it blows up is A LOT faster than the speed of sound and it just doesn't stand a chance racing that penetrator.
They are a lot more interesting than you think, trust me
That used in anti-helicopter mines.
@@barrygregg3476 ok I trust you bro
Well guess what. The Trophy is using a variation of shaped charge (EFP) to kill nearby projectiles.
そうか → そうこう(装甲)
かんとう → かんつう(貫通)
たんとう → だんとう(弾頭)
ぼうやく → ばくやく(爆薬)
東北人や！そう思えや！
多言語に対応させようとする以上、ある程度は仕方ないのかも？
内容的には凄く面白い
ふんふん😂こなごな
ふんふん😂こなごな
日本語がへん。
Quick correction: The cages are not designed to defeat EFP and shaped charge warheads by increasing distance. The distance would be significantly greater than you could reasonably create with a secondary material for anything resembling a modern anti-tank round. RPG-7s even this will be true. Looking at their optimal detonation distances, it even makes the penetration BETTER if you slightly increase standoff.
The reason they are there is the piezoelectric point initiated, base detonated mechanic of the common anti-tank round. That nose of an RPG is piezoelectrically actuated, but you can potentially cut the line to the base detonator before the tip hits a target. The slats of proper cage armor the US uses are called statistic armor, because it is specifically a statistics problem. If you get wide enough, you can sometimes hit the sides of the imitation set in the standoff cone of an RPG before the tip hits anything, stopping the jet from forming at all. You can also fail if the tip hits a slat instead of in-between them. That is why the distance, number, and orientation are a "statistics" problem.
I worked at Aberdeen for a bit doing EFP shots on hybrid armor research back in 2009 and we were doing all manner of defeat approaches for shaped charges at the time for MRAPS.
UA-cam people hate science, read a book ?
So basically you’re gambling on the edges of the cage potentially disrupting/destroying the shape of the inverted copper cone that forms the charge _before_ the tip of the warhead can signal the detonator? Am I understanding that correctly?
@@OneBiasedOpinion Yes, that's why this type of protection is referred to as "statistical armor"
@@wunkthemonk4359 I get the name, I was just trying to simplify the technical jargon into a format I could better understand and make sure I got what OP was saying.
@@OneBiasedOpinion To be clear, you either break the wire connection from the point initiator at the nose, that connects to the electric blast initiation set in the base of the device, or you don’t.
Almost all RPGs are what we call “point initiated, base detonated” projectiles.
To form any shaped charge the explosion has to be started from the back, then shaped with the explosive itself forming the lenses of blast wave that invert and direct the liner into the spear of plasma which penetrates the target.
Since the defeat mechanic is just break the connection between nose and base detonator, you either stop the explosion from being initiated at all, or you don’t and make it more effective on the target.
Tanks offer a ton of firepower on the battlefield. When I was infantry, we wanted armor with us. Its really combined arms that needs to be used because everything has a weakness.
Really? wow! I didnt know that..thank you for this info.. i will share it to everyone
@@seanmoore4653really got em there man
Commits resources into dealing with tanks instead of just infantry. Might not sound like much but people worrying about dealing with tanks is less people shooting at the boots on the ground. I can imagine it must terrifying facing a force with armored support when you don't have the equipment to deal with said armor. Armor and infantry will always go hand in hand, it's just the armor's turn to adapt to the battlefield.
Seems that a good start to adapting to this new battlefield would be making the armor care a lot less about taking hits. I’m willing to bet robotic units would not be nearly as easy to kill, since they can be more compact, solid, and don’t have the downside of being large, hollow, metal shells full of very squishy meat to drive them.
I could be wrong on that though.
@@OneBiasedOpinion As soon as someone finds a way to research and finance that it'll be done. And then it'll be taken out by some dollarstore anti-mech solution.
I think the future rolls of tanks will be battlefield coordination instead of direct combat. Heavy sensors, drones, soldier coordination, threat analysis, gear carrying. Kind of a mobile "forward base" until a safer front can be established.
Exactly. We still have our ground to guard and i don't think tanks will go obsolete for foreseeable future.
Tanks are also made to engage from way further distances these days. Urban warfare is not a great usage of tanks and that has been evident since Stalingrad imo.
@@mikevismyelementThank You! Anytime I watch videos of fighting that takes place today, I see tanks driving through neighborhoods. Is there that much of an advantage that a tank provides in urban combat? It just feels like it’s easy to turn that tank into a 70 ton road block and make the team inside a meal for rpgs flying in all directions from countless balconies and windows
@@ydel1234 the reason why is that we have only seen asymmetrical warfare for the last 40 years outside of Ukraine. The old Soviet RPG's that insurgents in the middle east had access to wouldn't penetrate a modern tank. Tanks didn't have to fear every window, alley, or blind corner in these scenarios.
Now that we have a more symmetrical battle in Ukraine, you see entire fields of blown up tanks for both sides. One can only imagine what Kursk was like
Modern anti tank missiles are incredibly effective at penetrating even the best armor. I think the strategy now is to roll the tanks in to "secure" the victory, as opposed to the spearhead tactics of WW2
At that point you might as well forgo a tank entirely for SP-Art or a IFV vehicle. The entire reason a nation foots the bill for the armor engine and gun on a tank is to either out maneuver the enemy or break through a hard point. If a tank can’t do either of those rolls it’s not worth using or making.
What you’re describing could be done by a tricked out semi-trailer. Or a tent…
Extremely interresting and informative video! Great work!😁
I suppose you could say tanks and anti-tank weapons are in an arms race.
allways has been since the beginning of the tank Era
Goro will always win in an arms race
It has always been the case since we invented armor and the sword.
Millenia before the tank...
But tanks reached their peak or near peak.
the spear and the shield... a competition as ancient as warfare...
Soldiers were cobbling together shape charges out of wine bottles, breaking the tops off and using the punt to shape the charge, in WW1. The charge could be aimed and the force of the explosion traveled in a straight direction, killing people fifty feet away. Later, they discovered that placing copper coins in the center of the opening would cause the copper to vaporize and extend the kill range, as well as gain the ability to penetrate armor.
My buddy told me about an IED in Iraq made out of a sheet of copper, it vaporized everyone in the armor in front of him. He said they learned it from WW1
@@coopercross6123efp: a copper slug at 2 miles a second
The Germans even cobbled together six Stielhandgranaten in order to hopefully perforate armor
Great video as always. I have a few corrections i want to make though. Firstly you said that explosive reactive armor can't deal with tandem shaped warheads like the javelin. While yes that used to be true, but with more advances in ERA technology in the past few decades, tandem shaped charges have now been countered to "some extent."
Kontakt 1 was the ERA explained in this video, which is just a simple steel plate sanwhiched between explosives so that they can't distrupt incoming shaped charges. This proved extremely effective but was later countered with tandem shaped warheads, which is basically in short terms for those who don't know: A charge that sets off the explosives in the ERA and then a second charge following through the exact hole that the first created in the ERA therefore penetrating the armor.
Now as i have explained how tandem shaped charges, and Kontakt 1 ERA works, it is time to talk about my second point which is Relikt ERA (Which is the 3rd generation of Russian ERA.):
This ERA infact counters tandem shaped charges with instead of having a simple steel plate sanwhiched with explosives, they now have 2 larger plates made from High Hardness Rolled Armor (which is some of the toughest armored steel you can possibly get if not the toughest.) They work by shooting first shooting the first plate towards the first incoming jet from the tandem warhead at an angle (to maximize effective thickness of the plate,) then the second plate gets launched towards the main armor of the tank catching the second jet from the tandem warhead that is meant to penetrate the tank, therefor neutralizing that incoming jet aswell, or at the very least weakening the jet so that it doesn't penetrate the remaining armor.
This however requires the ERA blocks to be significantly larger than the previous ones, therefor making it harder to protect the weaker parts of the tank like the roof (although newer tanks like the t90m and t14 amarta have removed this weakness by placing it at the roof aswell), which the javelin and the nlaw takes full advantage of.
Also newer tanks are getting fitted with Active projection systems that simply put: shoots the incoming missiles (or tank round) with another projectile and then prematurely detonates them way before they hit the tank.
"Great video as always." yea stoped watching after he proved he knows nothing about the topic of shape charge...
Extra 10 cm/4 inch of distance for old RPG gonna only increase its penetration capability...
the cages on tanks are there to jam the warhead betwen steel bars or to deform it as it needs to have a perfect symetric shape to form nice and symetric jet of metal...
And even Kontakt 1 is not "simple". I mean, there's some real engineering behind it ;) Already back then it was more than one layer of explosive between two plates. It was two layers that stood at precise angles to negate *as best as they could* (and I think this is key) the effects of HEAT but also SABOT rounds. Sure, newer systems are better but even first gen ERA was more complex than what you are told in most videos.
@@Bialy_1 What bothered me was the EFP illustrating a SC in the first few seconds ;)
@@Bialy_1 bro it would ave deformed after 10cm
And then a hamas fighter comes with a homemade rpg and destroys world's most protected tank from range zero
Yes like any explosion on a tank counts as a ' destroyed tank " doesn't it
@@celestialsatheist1535
IDF tow their tanks alright.
They did get destroyed.
@@rattman96 they wouldn't get towed if they were destroyed. It means they are still within repair. A broken track could bring the need to tow it
@@celestialsatheist1535 It's a tank that's been taken out of commission for the rest of the conflict. Dead is dead, dawg
@@HeavensRipper-he4sz only takes a day or two to repair a tank in a war economy lol
I served in tanks. They will become obsolete but I cherish every second I served in one. It was scary but very very cool.
The Age of Drones and Modern missiles.
Loved it. Some footage of shaped charge explosions I hadn't seen and very well put.
You've opened a can of worms of discussion, you should be proud!
Tanks have always needed infantry support to be effective on the battlefield. A tank by itself on the battlefield is like an aircraft carrier without it's escort, just a juicy target. But supported by infantry a tank can mean the difference between winning or losing a battle.
Yup. We will always need them, just to keep the opponent honest. As usual there is no perfect defense. A defense in depth is the only way forward. The next layer is more drones. One day we will see “toner-wars”. Nano drones, micro drones, mini drones, and autonomous vehicles backed by humans, backed by shielded humans, backed by AIs, backed by… the “economy stupid”. Its ALWAYS about the economy. Economies have layers. The most fundamental of which is food. Calories. The calorie economy has been here for billions of years. Today we are talking about many layers or shells guarding the meat.
Can your side make it too expensive for a would-be challenger to contemplate making war?
@@leifolshanshkii8868 A good example of making it too expensive for war is what is currently happening between US and China. I am almost sure that if US and China's economies were not as integrated as they were we would have seen action from China to put Taiwan under CCP control.
The EU is another good example of it where enemies are now working together and it being to expensive to fight each other.
@@leifolshanshkii8868 Interesting take
@@leifolshanshkii8868 micro drone? how small is micro drone? the smallest drone ever made , have a size of a hand , but you need a big drone, or a drone carry rpg 7 round and drop to penetrate tank armor
I hung out with an ex FMC tanks employee, and he said they were always trying to find a way to prevent projectiles from penetrating the tank (even hitting it, the fiberglass used would impact the tank, that people would itch from the fibers). His solution, just make it out of cardboard, so the projectile would go completely through, as a joke.
Intentional overpenetration was actually a thing for some early tank destroyers. Since they're intended to be used in ambush or otherwise long-range capability, they're not meant to take a hit. So paper thin armor just thick enough to hold the gun was all that you really need. Which means shells that depend on compression or otherwise high pressure to a primer charge simply don't work, because they whip through the thin steel so easily. You get killed stone dead by any good machine gun, but a tank shell will be like a bullet through a cardboard box.
i mean that could work if you like gambling if it goes through its either going to do nothing but leave a hole or its going to hit someone and well.....if a human is hard enuogh to make it go off then boom if not then uh there is a hole in a human
Active Protection systems like Trophy give overhead protection and can handle multiple incoming targets . Unlikely to see multiple javelins coming in at the same time . Javelin is also relatively slow moving and easily dealt with with Active Protection Systems . The latest Russian version can take out an APFSDS round travelling at 1800 ms in flight
Allegedly, I don't know if we'll ever truly see these put to the test in our lifetime
Already Combat proven with an 85% effectiveness by the Israelis ........ welcome to the 21st Century . @@mikevismyelement
The Israeli Trophy system is already combat proven with a 95 percent success rate ....... WW3 has already begun brother @@mikevismyelement
you know we're reaching the endgame of this generation of warfare when its easier to destroy than defend again
It has generally been easier to destroy than to build. It is a mystery how we have made it through 😮
Just like when an archer could take down a mounted knight. Or a small guided missile could take down a ship.
@@frankohrt3347 or a musket penetrate armor defenses
Always has been. Only trench warfare was an exemption, stopping artillery or siege weapons. At all other times it was cheaper and quicker to break a (castle)wall than it was to to build that same wall.
@@frankohrt3347 an archer has never been able to reliably kill an armored knight.
Have to say: this is the first time I am interested in modern warfare technology. Liked the Middle Ages and antique more, but this tank / anti tank weapon race is truly fascinating.
Hollow charges have universal appeal. They are considered fun by most.
Interesting information about the shaped charges and their use as a partial deterrent for the Anit tank round. Explains a lot that has been seen over the past few years.
but this explanation is wrong, this chanel is not professional
Shaped charges are used by the anti-tank rounds, not against them. Watch the video again.
6:50 the metal cage around tanks are NOT there to cause premature explosion. They are there to crush the peizoelectric fuses of the RPG warhead, safely defusing the RPG.
Premature explosion makes the hypersonic jet even more deadly, not less deadly.
Videos about artillery shells and all the dynamics of how the explosion happens are incredibly interesting.
It's more like a educational video then a military video for me .
Hard kill APS might be the costly answer of the tank to the challenges imposed by shaped charge warheads flying relatively slow before detonation.
That's the problem though. Its like a million dollar solution to a thousand dollar problem. Not economical.
@@jgtheman84 Economical or not, it may yet be necessary. Heck, it will be all that much more relevant as tank-killing, shaped charge warheads grow more economical and thus more abundant on the battlefield. The system itself might be very expensive and yet worthwhile as long as one discharge isn't very much more expensive than the munition it counters as long as it works reliably and consistently. Beats losing the very much more expensive tank altogether.
Modern ATGMs are not very cheap either, but they are shown to be very effective at killing tanks.
@@herptek Yes I think that APS has a definite future. Its gonna take some time though. Sabots are even harder to stop because you need a specific type of ERA to defeat it and it only reduces effectiveness but does not totally stop it.
@@jgtheman84 Yes, but those require high velocity impact by a heavy dart because they rely on purely kinetic energy to have an effect, instead of chemical energy converted into a penetrator by an explosive on the target end. This usually requires another tank armed with a high velocity cannon or something like an anti-tank gun anyhow. So there you would have a big target yourself to protect from everything cheaper than another tank.
Hard kill APS is the future and it's here. Look at current tanks: the trend is lighter less armoured tanks.
A couple of examples: T-14 Armata weights less than an M1A2 but is at the same time bigger. Merkava with APS is one of the reasons why everybody is developping it's own: it works !
Also look at US next tank. Between it's gun and it's weight it's going to be a medium tank so you'd better hope it has some protection other than it's armor..
Everyone is working towards the goal of stopping the incoming round before it hits. You are both right about SABOT rounds being harder to stop but these can be stopped by composite armor now developped to "shear" the projectile. I'll also remind you that a SABOT can break upon impact, impact at a wrong angle and not penetrate etc.
I think the next step for tanks are gonna be automated/ remote controlled tanks, especially for mine sweeping duties and the ability to just scout a hot zone with some armour. It would help give away enemy position for 5-10 milion. Yes expensive, but life saving!
And drone tanks dont have to be anywhere near as big or heavy either since what is being protected is much smaller.
I imagine they too would be dead coffins to whatever weaponry will be used to counter the. Remember: Offense always beats defense in the age of gunpowder. The only advantage a "drone tank" would have over a conventional tank would be saving a few human costs, but that's about it.
Yeah but then you're vulnerable to ECM. Worse than a downed allied tank is a converted tank!!
If you're going to scout the last thing you will need is a tank. Small RC cars, drones or men with eyes are much better suited to do recce work and it's much more cost-efficient. A tank should be a long-range assault/support weapon suited to open plains. You just don't want it in the front anymore - that role has gone to IFVs and APCs these days (enough armor to protect against small arms yet no bloated armor that's going to get destroyed on the first hit anyways). The tank isn't dead, you just have to adapt it to new circumstances.
You could just use an actual drone
As usual - Superb explanation !!!
Nuclear weapons have stopped used shaped charges a long time ago. There are severals reasons why but the two most prominent are that they make the bomb huge and the other is that it makes a weapon much easier to steal and detonate.
A modern weapon has a neutron source that is activated electronically to cause a fission runaway reaction which in turn causes fusion in a secondary or multiple other secondaries encased in a uranium shell (which under goes fission from this fusion reaction).
Actually even the latest fission primaries use controlled implosion by engineered shaped charge. The neutron generator you refer to is a very small particle accelerator that provides neutrons milliseconds after the boost gas is injected into the hollow core and is timed to pulse at the exact time the core is at it's densest compression. By changing the timing of the pulse the yield of the device can be changed, hence the "Dial a Yield" name of some tactical warheads.
The method of forcing a fissionable material to criticality (thru implosion) has NOT changed since first used with Fat Man. Design improvements have made the much smaller sizes possible.
tanks always had their roles shifted around (infact same can be said about infantry) if we look at ww1 tanks they were primarily anti infantry vehicles, in ww2 they were made as mobile anti tank guns, during cold war they were primarily designed as something like a long range artillery, if you look at modern designs it seems that their purpose is to serve as multirole vehicles anti air/infantry support/with some anti tank functionality.
They were originally designed as a means for getting over the trenches dug in WWI battle fields of France. The trenches were dug in response to the introduction of the machine gun. So, in a a way, the machine gun led to the invention of the tank.
They have always been multi roll even in ww1 and ww2
And in the future, it may be used as drone carriers and resupply unit
@@Serlock4869 They could even serve as unmanned ground recon & suicide drones
Kinda self-defeating just to be used as mobile-antitank guns. Whats the purpose of making tanks if they can do nothing but kill other tanks.
I learned something new today after all these years thanks to you. Turns out even a soldier who taught me that didn't know what's the real meaning of RPG.
Tanks to you*
Ручной Противотанковых Гранатомëт
The soldier is correct. The video is confusing history with present meaning.
The soldier and th3 video is correct. The rpg-7 does stand for rocket propelled grenade.
The hand thrown anti tank grenade is where the rpg stands for that Russian name that I can't remember to write.
Armor and all of that is nice to have, of course.
But I think it's been held true since the earliest days of tanks, that by far the best way to win a tank battle is to see the enemy first, and get off the first shot.
5:45 Well being a Filipino you have to be creative when dealing with such firepower. These were created because the wooden armor was soft, the only thing that could make an RPG penetrate is through hard contact basically metal to metal contact, however if the armor itself is soft the detonation would be lessened
The only way to stop anti tanks is to make the shapes of the tank slope style it should be around 30 to 50 degrees that is enough to deflect
in the mid 80's i was in the canadian military, we used the m72 rocket launcher. it did the same thing with a smaller nose cone. maybe didnt penetrate as much as this one. the layers on the outside of a tank were to do just that stated in the video, to ignite the explosive before it hit the actual armor. many tanks at that time were built with thin layers of metal a few inches out from the thick armor for this reason. and as you said, the more modern ones defeated that.
9:37 those nukes didn't go off because the conventional explosives used to trigger the reaction detonated on impact with the ground, which caused an irregular/unsymmetrical shape of the explosion, which was not sufficient to start the reaction needed to detonate the nuclear charge.
basically, extremely lucky.
It will probably shift the balance towards lighter, and cheaper tanks: The lack of thick armor is less important, mobility is more important at not getting hit, and they still have enough protection from simple projectiles, while also being much faster than infantry.
I could see armour thickness being lowered slightly to focus less on defending against sabot and anti tank rockets. However even if those two things can kill a tank regardless of armour thickness, there’s A LOT of stuff on the battlefield that cannot penetrate. Lowering the armour thickness too much would let the enemy use any old autocannon or tank round to kill your tank, and at that point your tank is just an APC.
I think keeping a solid thickness of armour is important because at least it’ll still protect against medium weapons.
Modern tanks are already quite fast anyway so I don’t think there is too much to gain in mobility realistically.
But yes a slight decrease in armour thickness to where it can still defend against all other munitions but forget about anti tank rockets is probably a good idea if only to save money.
Mobility can’t protect you from guns unless in specific circumstances, and even then it’s not a significant advantage.
I doubt that mobility will protect you against an RPG unless your Tank is as fast as Racing Car
Oh so like what Germany did after the war?
@@David-ni5hj Yeah because it surely is easy to hit a vehicle that makes such intricate movements, or moving at fast speeds with an unguided AT weapon
Modern tanks already go 45+mph, pretty damn fast for a 73 ton machine, dont see anyone running at that pace lol
The key in modern tank warfare is using systems that eliminate hard targets from 10 miles away. Their guns can fire a variety of munitions that can see, engage and destroy their targets long before the enemy can see it. Unmanned robotic tanks and drones seem to be the future. Big enough missiles, which aren't very big to begin with, can destroy anything these days.
Unfortunately for the humans involved, I do suspect we are now rapidly approaching automated robotic warfare. Which, of course, will cause the Geneva Convention to become entirely moot in most cases. 😬
@@OneBiasedOpinionit shall be the Geneva suggestion then
I'd like to add something to your description of ERA or Explosive Reactive Armor. The primary mechanism in defeating the jet is that the explosives send the external face plate of the box often a given direction. This is rarely at 90° to the incoming warhead and consequently incoming jet. This means that the jet doesn't cut straight through the plate it has to cut through the plate as it's moving at some angle to it. The hole that's made is there for linear not circular. This extra metal that needs to be penetrated is what wears down the efficacy of the jet. So, I've read the impacts and era block at a 90° angle significantly reduces its efficacy while one that comes in at a steeper angle increases it. Hope this helps. Thanks for a fine presentation.
Very scientific and useful 👍🏻
Thx a lot🙋🏻
RPG does indeed stand for 'Rocket Propelled Grenade". It's a backronym, as mentioned, but the NATO term for RPG-7 is RPG - Rocket Propelled Grenade
Dude this was so interesting. Thanks for doing the research we love it
Alternative title : "We may have proved that the spear that pierces everything is much more likely than the shield that stops everything".
Alternatively, the shield uses technology we don't have or understand yet. We don't know everything.
Weeeell, to be fair, infantry body armor for small arms fire seems to be making a comeback in recent years. Very recent development that only started in the 1980's and got a bit slightly stronger in the 2000's onwards and we don't know for sure how far it will get before it peaks, but compare it to entire centuries of forgoing any and all sorts of personal protection once Knight Armor disappeared.
RKG-3 is really effective in urban areas. What happens is they come out of an alley while a convoy is stopped and hit our humvees. My battle buddy got his ass literally blown off from one of these in Mosul. Only 3 of the five guys in the truck lived. RIP bros.
Were you on the side of the defenders or the invaders and occupiers?
so terrorists shot terrorists?
@@AsokaTw-mz3lr it's possible that this guy was serving in the Iraqi army. US invaders left some equipment for them after they were done with their mass murders of innocent people and throwing nation after nation into anarchy
日本語が不自由である点を除けば、非常に良くできた動画である。
8:50 の「爆縮レンズ(ばくしゅくれんず)」を不思議な発音している点等は、新しい概念かと思った。
※爆縮レンズは原爆を爆発させるのに使われた方法で動画もその時の実験映像を映している。
ただ爆発させても頑丈な装甲は貫けない。如何に工夫するか？対戦車兵器の進化を見た。素晴らしい。
Considering the focus is shifting towards infantry I think in the future we will see tanks function more like IFVs, Merkava IV for example is a tank that is capable of transporting infantry and it also has an onboard 60mm mortar system which if paired with drones could recon for anti-tank squads and destroy them from afar before the AT-squads can get sight of the tank, as well as provide fire support for infantry.
The Merkava is only capable of carrying infantry if you remove the majority of the tank’s ammo racks, and even then the space is extremely cramped and not suitable for carrying fully-equipped infantry into combat. The space just exists as a way to carry a few wounded soldiers in an absolute emergency.
Affordable if you funnel most of the US budget to the point your nation is already running a massive surplus
But mentioning that kind of corruption and outright subversion while hiding more funding in bills is what we call anti semetism
Funnily enough that's the same word for being anti corruption
@@Notreallysureactually If the ammo racks are removed then the Merkava 4 can carry 8 infantry soldiers, that's not a small number, if they aren't removed you can still carry 3-4, and I don't know why you say they can't be fully-equipped, there are infantry baskets at the outside of the hull in the back where infantry can place their equipment, the tank's crew have their own basket at the back of the turret. The space can also be used for other means other than carry wounded soldiers, carrying engineers, artillery commanders or other non combat personnel in and out of the battle zone is one use and also 20 years ago in an urban environment Merkava's often had 2 infantry snipers at the back that shot at rear threats by opening a crack at the rear corridor door, later a barrel opening was added so the snipers could fire without the need of opening the door at all.
@@E_y_a_l It’s exactly like you say. If you want to use a Merkava to carry an appreciable amount of soldiers, you’d need to remove almost all of the tank’s ammo AND store the soldiers’ gear (what they need to actually do their jobs) outside of the tank. At that point neither the tank nor the infantry can fight effectively, because the tank doesn’t have enough ammo and the infantry don’t have easy access to their equipment. You’re better off using an IFV, something that can carry the same number of soldiers AND their gear inside while also retaining its full fighting capabilities.
@@Notreallysureactually You're over simplifying things, infantry(or tanks) have a lot of different types of missions and uses, you talk about a very specific scenario, in some cases the setup described is suitable and in others it isn't, you also don't always need the tank to carry all of its ammo, it depends on the situation, the mission and the threats, also in most cases if not all when a Merkava will carry an infantry squad, the infantry's purpose will be to go from point A to point B and then disembark and fight on foot, not to fight from inside the tank, so it doesn't matter where their more heavy equipment is, and again, that depends on what you mean fully equipped, obviously they are inside the tank with their vests and weapons with them, the baskets outside are used for things like personal bags, sleeping bags, tents, etc...you're right that obviously an IFV or APC will be better in carrying infantry, after all that's what they are designed for and that's why all of the Israeli infantry are mechanized and have their own vehicles and do not rely on the Merkava's for transport, but just as a theoretical discussion which was what the OP was talking about, the Merkava's do have the capability if it's needed, just the ability to have a room where soldiers other than the crew can be is a welcome thing because in the past if there were extra people in the tank for some reason like artillery officers, intelligence officers, mechanics etc, they all needed to cramp up in the turret, having the ability for each tank to carry 3-4 additional soldiers without removing the ammo racks means a platoon of tanks doesn't need additional 3-4 APCs to travel with them to carry the mechanics and electrical specialists, which is already an advantage.
The future tanks most likely wouldn’t look to tanks to our standards
Cap bara
theyd still have treads, they wont hover around with magic, but perhaps the barrel would be shortened a lot and use a very VERY strong laser instead
@@MichelleW870 maybe a rail gun would be realistic
i mean
tanks always have to have tracks and a canon. right?
@@spectatorwhoisspectating a combination of the two I assume will happen.
If lasers gets developed then something to counter it will also happen and I assume that'll be the good ol "throw a stick at it" but just very fast.
They just need to somehow make mini nuclear reactors to power the thing
You can have layered reactive armor. A very thin armor layer separates them to not be heavy. It is more time consuming then normal RA but negates the advantage of a tandem warhead.
What about a tandem tandem warhead
@@sixthgreeny1880 you add reactive reactive reactive reactive armor.
@@sixthgreeny1880 Three layers just like Ukrainian Duplet ERA.
@@srdav1d56 a tank fit for the Michelin Man.
Hmm but would the swcond era explode when the first one detonates?
Nice video.
I have seen many videos of how shaped charges work, but your explanation beats them all. The narrative and video makes so clear that even this 80 year old gets it, finally. Thank you very much. Now, if you could explain how that anti tank round exploded many feet(meters- I'm American) from the tank, and then sent something at the tank that penetrated the armor, works, I would be even more grateful.
I think I can answer that. Unfortunately the video takes quite a few shortcuts and you are probably referring to the video at the beginning.
That's not a shaped charge. That's an explosively formed penetrator. In shot, the "jet" formed by a shaped charge has a very precise *and short* distance at which it has to be fired to be effective. If the detonation happens too soon, the jet will be disrupted by the air it has to travel through.
An EFP forms a solid projectile that travels a much greater distance but with a little less penetrating power.
If you want a comparison: take an air compressor, aim it at packed sand from a few feet away: nothing happens. Come closer and the air will push the sand out of it's way.
Now, if you take a 22LR (which would be the EFP in my example) and the results will be the same if you fire at point blank or from a few feet.
The designs of the liners shown in this video are quite basic but in reality, the liner of an RPG is trumpet shaped in order to shorten the standoff distance. British Challenger tanks use a rifled barrel that imparts spin on the rounds. Centrifugal forces also disrupt the jet from a shaped charge so they had to come up with a liner designed to counter this.
Hope that helped ;)
@@herrhaber9076 I am not sure I am following you. The early part of the video was not showing a shaped charge, instead a ultra high speed penetration round? If that is right, why was the penetration round launched from such a distance from the tank? Maybe to give it time to reach full speed? I want to thank you for taking the time to try to clear up my confusion. As you can see, I'm clueless as to what the early scene was showing.
@@williamromine5715 The early scene was showing an explosively formed penetrator or EFP.
It works by exploding thus deforming a metal liner in front of the explosive to create a solid projectile from the blast travelling at 14 km/s as the video said.
Don't think it's misinfo, but he definitely could have stated that video was EFP and not a shaped charge.
As for why it was detonated quite far from the tank, I'm not entirely sure, but my best guess would be to prevent active protection systems from destroying the rocket before it detonates.
The most useful part here is that the projectile is travelling so fast that no form of armor or active protection could do anything.
At speeds of above 3 km/s (hypervelocity), impacts cause solids to behave like liquids as if you're watching a water drop land in the sink.
There's a possible way to protect against something travelling this fast and it's called a Whipple shield.
NASA uses them to protect space ships from hypervelocity debris.
Essentially, they're multiple layers of thin metal sheets.
When a hypervelocity projectile hits, it doesn't penetrate like a slower projectile (remember my water droplet analogy and behaving like a liquid), the energy delivered actually cause the projectile to turn into plasma
So the first few layers take the brunt of the impact, but because the projectile does not stay solid (or liquid, for that matter), penetration beyond that is less of an issue.
So many thin layers beyond that allows the plasma to expand and cool.
I have not seen any evidence of tanks deploying with Whipple shields, but if EFP becomes a staple, I can see it happening.
If you'd like to learn more about this stuff, I suggest browsing the "atomic rockets" website.
It deals more with science fiction stuff but intertwined with real science.
Lots of interesting stuff there, and hypervelocity projectiles was just one of them.
@@herrhaber9076 , the Brits solved the problem by not using HEAT at all, instead they relied on High Explosive Squash Heads. HESH is basically plastic explosives with a very thin case and a detonator in the bottom. On impact, it squashes onto the armour like a mudcake before exploding. That sends a shockwave through the target that will cause a big chunk of the inner wall to break off and send it flying around inside like a cross between a pinball in the bumpers and the rocks in the Asteroids game.
Hopefully this was clear enough for mr romine to follow :)
@william Romine I think you ask a really good question and the other replies don't understand what you're asking. As best I can gather, the round has a multi-programmable fuse that allows it to either explode on impact, after impact, or before impact. You're asking how it explodes before impact, right? I've tried to find the answer but there doesn't seem to be much info out there for it. I'd assume it either has a proximity sensor of some sort, or it has a timer that knows where it is along it's flight path. Either way, it's pretty awesome.
5:08 for those who wonder what the text here says, it translates to "armor piercing round"
The correct answer is "it's secret".
@@danielguy3581 Or better still, 'it's my secret'.
i belive that in the fotage of 7:33 isnt accurate. that lack of detonation was caused by not having a long enough arming distance. Many MANPATS have a arming distance so if you accidentally shoot very close to the operator it wont detonate. so in the case fo that piece of fotage, the attack was done from too close, not letting the safety feature disactive and no allowing the payload to explode.
That isnt a manpad, it is the Nlaw. Manpads are for anti-aircraft use.
@@voidtempering8700 ups, wanted to say, manpats. ill change it now. thanks.
@@voidtempering8700 just edited it. but im technically not wrong, manpads also have the feature.
10:42 سلاح الجافلين الأمريكي المضاد للدروع فعال لأنه يحتوي على متفجرين
وهذا يأخذنا إلى عبقرية الفلسطينيين حيث طورو سلاح الأر بي جي وجعله يحتوي على متفجرين وأسمه (ياسين 105)
وأستطاع فعلا إختراق دبابات وناقلات جند تعتبر الأكثر تحصنا في العالم
Wow this is some of the best weapons testing footage I've ever seen! Great video 😊👍
This is an awesome episode. Very informative. Thanks for posting!
It is nothing more than nonsense.
The US had operational anti tank rocket launchers before anybody else had them.
I think the balance is shifted toward neither the infantry nor the tank, but to swarms of cheap robots (unmanned killer vehicles, not androids).
This video works well enough for those who need an introduction into tank and anti-tank warfare. I thought this video would go over newer info like drones, EFPs, ECM, cope cages. Also, this video should have talked about the effectiveness of indirect fire medium to heavy artillery pieces firing plain old HE rounds against tanks. Other things that should have been discussed includes the different types of anti-tank mines and other methods of neutralizing tanks such as APFSDS, HESH/HEP, composite armor, tank traps, targeting the periscopes, the use of large IEDs, concrete bombs, tank plinking, etc. Although mentioned, the video didn't go into detail about how ERA and APS works.
My man at @2:25 is CAKED UP
The first Russian RPG was the RPG-2, not the RPG-7. And there was also a version of the Panzerfaust, the Panzerfaust 250 which was never actually built, that directly inspired many of the RPG-2s features.
With the advent of close drone warfare, I can see a future where a swarm reasonably low cost drones are deployed, magnetically or otherwise attach to a tank and detonate charges designed to shred reactive armour then are followed up with a shaped charge swarm or a conventional missile.
Or even just the reactive armour shred drones themselves might be enough to make a tank flee knowing it isn't protected anymore.
yep, tank had their roles on battlefield, then planes, now its drone/missile/artillery/infantry era...but there is a constant: industry strenght and will to occupy.
yet, if you cannot attack a city with tanks, lets try russian approach, empty the cities before an heavy shelling and raze it, very efficient :p and why not use the hunger? the cold? the lack of electricty or water run for you? siege warfare is efficient most of the times, the objective isnt military destruction, its to force to surrender. it work for beat vercingetorix, but north korea and cuba proudly face economic siege since 60-70years without sign of crumbling
@@eriklerougeuh5772 A lot of anti tank inventions have had people claim the tank is now irrelevant, but that's never been true. Tanks are never going away, they're a pain for infantry and artillery to deal with especially in an urban or forest setting where the weapons showcased in this video are very hard to deploy. Composite armor and active protection systems on modern tanks are very effective at taking shaped charge rounds or destroying them before they hit. Some even have the ability to detect a missile and lock the turret on the source. All in all, they keep evolving with modern weapons, and are meant to be used in conjunction with other ground and air vehicles
@@diverman1023 Russia-Ukraine war proved human-drive tanks are becoming obsolete. There's video of Ukrainian army use drone as spotter for indirect fire against Russian's convoy. Russian vehicles also suffered great damage from anti tank launcher given by Americans. Armed drone is easy to make even a youtuber can do it. It's always better to detect enemy position with drones than charge in with tanks
Edit: Tanks won't go away, but it will become smaller and controlled by robot
@@namvo3013 Are you seeing videos of how many ukrainian soldiers got killed by out of date cold war-era tanks too?
@@diverman1023 The video said a new tank cost about 5-10 mil $ (not counting the cost of fuel to run), but a modern anti tank launcher only cost about 200k $. 25 launchers against 1 tank will never be a fair trade
Awesome footage sir
There is some development in armor and defensive systems being pushed to field tests now that could change this a lot.
1 - is the hollow steel structure that could make armor lighter but thicker.
2 - new discoveries in alloyes that is looking to be able to make the armor up to 10 times more heat resistant.
3 - smarter intercept systems that can handle more targets utilizing mutiple layers of defence.
4 - more efficient lasers and radar for vehicles to find and counter the systems before they can fire.
Best of all faster and lighter tanks is a huge goal at the moment.
Money is always the problem.
@@blackwidow7804 I was gonna say. Only the US really has that type of budget.
@@theothertonydutch The US are not eternal
Heat resistance does NOT matter with shaped charges since their effect is purely kinetic ie HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) weapons use a shaped charge but DO NOT mistake HEAT for heat.
BTW the Panzerfaust 3 uses a HEAT warhead and is designed to be able to penetrate the frontal (where it is thickest) armour of a T-80 with ERA. Compared to NLAW they are dirt cheap: 1 single use NLAW costs $40 000 but the PF3 uses a reuseable aiming and trigger unit costing $11 000 and the rockets cost only $230 each. The effectiveness and range is practically identical between PF3 and NLAW. So for the price of 1 NLAW you can buy 1 PF3 trigger unit and 124 rockets.
Not to mention using ceramics or other types of material besides traditional armor materials can help reduce the weight of the vehicle and add properties to the armor that can increase survivability
Give the reactive armor its own reactive armor. Genius!
7:15 So you're telling me that it takes an explosive to stop an explosive. Sounds about right
Yup
I was not expecting a lesson on warfare and then the mention of the "Demon Core" incident, this video is awesome what is cool about this, is that america has already came to a solution, most anti tank rockets use lock on missiles, we have developed anti lock on armor, it obscures the heat the tank makes through its plating and has a form of active camo to help further erase its presence, the optic plating displaces the rays of light shining ON the tank to simply be AROUND the tank, making it virtually invisible to airborne surveillance tech. This method makes tanks need less armor so it can cut costs on defenses and be lighter and faster. This stealth tank kniwn as the PL-01 uses thermal, visual, and acoustic stealth technologies.
4:30 Huh. So would it be correct to say that on detonation it produces a particle beam? I wonder if it's possible to make a handheld gun that uses special ammo to shoot a short-range particle-beam/shape-charge rapidly as if it was shooting regular bullets. It would have to be a less powerful explosive or find some way to mitigate the force to make it safe for the person shooting it. A well to make sure it doesn't break the gun. Could be a good breaching tool that can double as a close-range armor-piercing anti-personal/armor weapon. Even if the shape-charge was too weak to get through the armor with the first bullet you could just keep shooting until you get through. To make this more useful it'd be better to find some way to keep the particle jet focused for a longer distance.
This'd be a cool weapon.
Here’s the thing, out in the open tanks will see and engage infantry at ridiculous distances using thermal imaging systems that can zoom. And if tanks are moving into an urban environment they will be supported by their own infantry to protect them against anti-tank. Infantry and Armor work together tactically. They both protect each other against different enemies.
In a perfect world, yes. A battlefield is a place very far from perfect.
@@JigerotatheWicked A couple of thermobaric cheap bombs and the anti tank team is dead ...
Here's the other thing: Shit happens. The symbiotic relationship you just described, though effective at mitigation, is not foolproof or invulnerable. If it were 100% effective, we'd never see a destroyed tank. But we obviously do see them.
Dude even gamers understand why this is easily countered. Focus on the tanks. Once destroyed, fight infantry. Or, have a anti tank guy while everyone else keeps infantry away, etc. Its a very common scenario in video games where the enemy team has a tank with infantry helping.
@@sagnorm1863 ?? computer games? we are fighting in reality there is no chance you can do those ridiculous feats in real life.
For anyone wondering what the writings are at 5:56, it goes "It's now Christmas my love, I'm still in Marawi"
No one cares
@@jelly.212 You cared enough to comment
@@shianeruu4359
NPC reply to a common insult lol
Again nobody cares and you can keep boiling your blood
@@jelly.212 No bitches? Who hurt you anyway?
@@jelly.212 do you need a cope cage to protect yourself from a Ratio Penetrating Round? Because you somehow cared to say that
Боже, приятно слышать когда иностранцы хоть и не корректно, но правильно расшифровывают названия советского вооружения, честь и уважение тебе друг!)
This is an excellent and informative video. It's fascinating to see how tank armor has changed over time and how technology keeps advancing the need for better protection. It's a great reminder of how important it is to be up to date on the latest armor developments.
Yeah except that Tanks still have one modern enemy...
concertina wire.
no joke... watch a ABV (with an M1A5 Abram chasis) get disabled with this cheap piece of wire.
0:29 you can literally see blue plasma forming at the front end of the jet stream if you slow it down. The same happens when a satellite reenters earths atmosphere and it burns due to hypersonic velocities.
1:51 - the Russian instruction says that this grenade should only be thrown from a trench or cover, to avoid getting killed. So I'd imagine the typical scenario would be when you're in a trench and an enemy tank comes rolling in towards you.
Makes sense.
Still was used without cover and even in packs of few of those grenades to destroy Tigers. Before Kursk was done massive training for infantry how let tank go over you and then throw grenade onto its engine.
@@Velanteg Wow!
@@Velanteg Completely true. Jump up and toss onto the rear engine deck and the tanks is in trouble. And if you have nothing else, whip up a Molotov cocktail and make the same attack. It's possible the burning fuel from it will flow onto the engine through vents and catch it ablaze.
This video is genuine. Thanks for all the shared knowledge !
This is gold 🤯
🏆
This reminds me of the book, "From the Earth to the Moon" by Jules Verne. In the story, a cannon maker from New England can't find a purpose after the civil war is over, so he and all the other cannon makers decide to make a cannon to shoot a projectile to the moon. His rival, a steel shielding producer from the South trashes him throughout the first half of the book, but eventually he realizes his metal panels are no match for a cannon that can fire a projectile to the moon. I suppose we may be reaching a time when the weapon is too powerful compared to any defense that can reasonably be mounted on a vehicle.
À 6:00 sur le talon d'Achille des charges creuse la technique des très fines plaques de blindages espacée autour du véhicule était déjà utilisé sur les Panzer allemand pendant la 2gm contre les obus à charge creuse
The “penetrator” is actually the copper cone shaped recess that inverts and becomes the molten copper shot that bores through thick armor. The TOW missile can penetrate past 4 feet of homogeneous steel. The RPG uses a piezo electric crystal in the tip of the round to ignite the explosive in the round. A piezo crystal creates electricity when crushed which is what powers the blasting cap/fuse in the explosives. Most of the time RPG gunners forget to remove the small safety pin in the nose cap of the rocket so they just bounce off its target.
Not molten, but the effects resemble molten.
Copper doesn't melt, but behaves like a fluid due to immense pressure.
tanks will have their uses in combat. tank teams can see and attack enemies before the enemy even know they are there. tanks are not just tanks, they are a tool that works in tandem with all the other parts of a military advance, satellites, drones, radar and everything else. I think going forward tanks will still be used but less in close corters and more as a support unite for an advancing force sort of like the artillery barrages of ww1 but way more advance and versatile. I would wager we will start seeing LESS armor on tanks as their need as a front line becomes less useful and their need a a mobile artillery/ troop transport becomes the norm though I could see a world where tanks armor is moved from the front and more on the top to protect from long range strikes.
If they're going to be used as mobile artillery and troop transports, they would probably instead just use mobile artillery and troop transports, because those are better at those jobs than tanks are.
You can here a tank a mile away ! If you can get snuck upon by a tank you really need a heating test
Soon large groups of combat troops can be replaced with robots.😌
@@pauls3204 don't worry. THE Biden administration will have the Military on 100% electric very soon. And guns will be phased out to make room for their new plasma rifles. 😌
I need a way to prevent premature explosions too. 6:59
🤨