Heads up guys. * please note that following the videos release the date of the APDS test should read: 28/6/45 and the final APDS round vs 50 degrees is 4885 not 5885 fps as per typo. (source A.R.D Terminal Ballistics Report No 16/46) the first date was missing from the tortoise file, the second is my butterfingers at typing
As an American, I can just imagine the biggest negative absolutely being how improper it was to have burned Loader boots and trouser bottoms! Keep up the great work, sir. It is greatly appreciated.
bigger guns aren't always more effective, as it also depends on the rounds used. That is why you test things. Just because you know X should mean Y doesn't mean it always happen.
Classic Game-Over for both Panther and the Tortoise. One became a practicing target, and the second simply fed the open hearth furnace... Only now there is a need for a conscious preservation of vintage vehicles before the age they become rare gems and it will be too late...
The UK was hurting so much for any source of revenue after WWII they scrapped so much of historical value for their raw materials. HMS Warspite being a prime example. Unfortunately its still happening in places like the UK, they were planning to turn all the surplus No.8 Lee-Enfield .22 trainers in to scrap metal; there was a big push to save them, even trying to get the US' CMP to buy them up for distribution in the US. Not sure what became of them.
@@stevenbreach2561 Send one to a museum in the US, I know Bovington and some groups in the US have traded vehicles on occasion; just imagine if you could have the T28/T95 and Tortoise side by side somewhere. Having a backup in case one is lost some how, that's actually happened; there was a museum sub that was destroyed in a hurricane once. Have a few spread around also helps if the group preserving the only one neglects it, that almost happened with the USS Texas.
@@stevenbreach2561 Because there is only one Maus (Kubinka) and none of Char 2C ( Also Kubinka but they eont tell you) Unlike Bovington in Kubina none of the old ones is in running order. I think not iven teir IS-3
@@stevenbreach2561 one at the Royal Armouries up in Leeds wouldn't go a miss so our armed history would be a little more easily available to those in the north and if we had hadu a museum similar to bovington in the north we would now be in a position of probably still having examples of some of the tanks that bovington either turned down or scrapped over the year's
Hope the Dorsetshire Liberation Front aren't seen in the background of any of your photos and getting you into Google clink again ;-) Another great vid Ed, thank you!
@@Arik-2103 You beat me to it. The Russians would be required to respectfully bring their tanks to Tortoise in an orderly fashion for targeting. Anything less would simply not be cricket. A casemate on a Centurion hull mounting the 32lb gun would probably have been a better idea.
It’s rather sobering to imagine what it would be like if you were actually in that Panther (or any other tank) when the armour was penetrated. Good vid. Thanks for posting.
I was very surprised during some research on the 32pdr to learn that it was an almost perfect surrogate for the D-10T firing APCBC. Nearly same projectile weight and muzzle velocity, similar cartridge size. Arguably a better early counter for the T-54 than the 20pdr.
I've just found this channel, and am rubbing my hands at all the goodies on display. I didn't think I'd be very interested in the Tortoise/Panther vid, but on the contrary. I wonder if I could put in a plug for the Matilda II modifications story you mentioned previously? I'd be very keen to see that happen. The Australian War Memorial has a good collection of photos and documents online which would help things along. Cheers Alan.
Seems the 3.7-inch AA gun was always destined to be the bridesmaid and not the bride when it came to being used in the AT role unlike its German counter part, fascinating comparison with the 20pdr.
I guess Britain's experience with the TOG gave them some insight on the concept of super heavy vehicles. I'm still wowed by how well Tortoise seems to have preformed.
Hit it, yes. See it, no. Unless they're trying to be seen, that is.
3 роки тому+1
Interesting Video. Good go see that Tortoise actually had a use. Testing platforms and roads not taken should get more coverage, as they are important in ascertaing what works and what doesnt. As well as gaining general experience
As a fan of casemated 'tanks' this is a very interesting episode, thankyou. The main disadvantage of such a vehicle of course is that it has to be rotated to aim but this forces the vehicle to automatically face towards the enemy. I forget how many photos I've seen of knocked out tanks not facing where their gun is pointing and so exposing their weak side armour. What was required with a casemated tank was an enhanced ability to rotate and aim but I've never heard of any such development. Such a vehicle has several potential advantages over a conventional tank - less complexity, no turret to jam or malfunction, generally a more compact vehicle that would be easier and cheaper to build and maintain yet have the same firepower. And lets not forget (although we apparently have) how successful the German StuG's were.
Fantastic work! We've just seen another platform removed before getting in to service, WR CSP, and fortunately an example sent to the Museum, the other 11 scrapped.
A fondness for Tortoise is only natural regardless of its actual battle effectiveness. Some comparison of the design and development of 17/20/32 pdr guns leading to the 105mm would be appreciated as would the progression from the American 120mm in the Conqueror that I assumed led ultimately to the 120mm L1 rifled gun in Chieftain and then the L20...
we covered a bit of that in an earlier vid - i think the fv4005 vid, where the tripartite meetings were taking place, with the american choice to go 76/90/120 the first 2 we didnt go for but the last we did.
Did this testing and the 32lbr test mounting into the Centurion have anything to do with developing the 105mm L7? Or did the 105mm L7 not come about til the T-54 was examined at the Budapest embassy/consulate?
the 105 had been in development before as a few peices mention it prior to the event, after 55 was captured tho, they got the armour assesment wrong, which made them feel the 20 pdr was not adeqaute.
You want to find out and use the lowest muzzle velocity that will do the job. A lot of muzzle velocity is great if it was free, but that force needs a strengthened breach, reduces barrel and breach life and with a turret can lead to trunion and turret ring wear unless you add a lot of brake or dampers to the gun, which would in turn increase weight and use up turret space, requiring a bigger turret, leading to a heavier and easier to hit vehicle. Too high muzzle velocity can also shatter the round itself, which looks like occurred with one of the 32lber tests.
@@Vespuchian IIRC the inaccuracy issues stemmed from the shell or sabot, not the sights I believe Canada later got a better projectile that did not have/had less issues
Sadly they are mostly mythical, the FV100, 101, 102 slots were created with the FV system for any future super heavy tanks/spg's - of which we had little interest after looking at stuff like the E100. they were kept about for a bit then dropped and the CVRT allocated the same numbers. - somewhere along the lines a few WOT forums started talking about prototypes etc which was no the case, and may have been muddling Minotaur and other STT projects up.
Speaking of 32pdr, was this gun or the 20pdr ever fitted into the black prince. I know the Meteor engine was too long for the engine deck, but we’re these guns ever fitted into the tank?
there was a proposal post war to fit in into cromwell, comet and a chuchill (type unkown) - only the cromwel would have it done as charioteer in the end
@@armouredarchives8867 Wouldn't be surprised if it was the Churchill Black Prince since the turret and turret ring were big enough to fit the massive breach of the 17pdr. I read that the 77mm gun or 17pdr was proposed for the Churchill Mark 7, but the turret and turret ring were both too small. I had sources but lost them few years ago. Thanks for replying though.
@@scottishcarver66 I might have missed it in the narration, but I wonder if they were deliberately varying the bag charge to see if it affected accuracy, and what the pay offs in penetration were or were not. Just guessing.
yep they will have been raising and lowering the mix, but as not recorded in the doc so i cant speculate in the vid, but i would almost bet my firdge full of pork pies thats what they were doing
6:30 The compound angle between 50° to the side and 55° inherent slope of the Panther's UFP would've been equal to 68,4°. I dont think that 20dpr APDS should've been able to defeat 80mm/68,4° at 1300yards. That's too much, likely the armour on this Panther was of poor quality. Edit 8:30 Yeah, just like I said.
Is there any reason for the over 1000fps difference in the shots. Were these different loades? Or just the range of variation in shells. If so I did not know there was such variation
Yes, the mostly likely variation based on other tests of the time would have been upping or lowering the charge to get the performance required within the guns threshold.
Well the tortoise by this time is just a testbed more than anything, the comparison is really between the guns, but with a secondary observation on comparing the merits of turretless to turreted vehicles
@@armouredarchives8867 its more like heavy assault gun, it can't be tank destroyer because of size (i dont mean it for really there were even bigger tank destroyers)
It would depend heavily on how much fatigue the metal has had, the cooldown between shots, and a host of factors. for more accurate tests they tend to use custom made plate that controlled, this is more on the accuracy as both would invariably perforate an old panther. The bigger issue was the 20 pdr APDS was initially quite inaccurate
Not really, post by late 40’s and 50's they were obsolete and considered left over junk, people only appreciate stuffs historical importance once that item becomes rare
@@armouredarchives8867 I get that buts what's the point in testing old tank armour against a modern gun. It would have been easier to put a sheet of modern armour up, rather than trucking in an old, out dated tank.
@@Ob1sdarkside we they do now more or less, or have mobile rigs that run across the ranges, but back then they just used up what was lying around and tank shaped, many vehicles allied and axis ended up on ranges, either from mod bases, labs or even bovington tank musuem which send dozens of vehicles down to lulworth. and shooting at somethign tank shaped and sized makes more sense for the accuracy than a single block.
@@armouredarchives8867 Makes sense I suppose, whatever saves you money at the end of an expensive war. I read the Soviets did the same to a Tiger tank after the war.
The Brits have always understood armor and the Germans have always understood canons. Imagine the love child between them. Americans understand engine power and electronics
I'm surprised that the allies, soon to become NATO. Did not produce more dedicated "tank destroyers" during the Cold War, utilising the chassis of the new MBT's with larger calibre weapons. NOT heavyweight beasts. Given the measurable success of the Stug III and IV in defensive situations, such weapon systems would have been perfect when halting massed Warsaw Pact armour thrusts. The NATO forces BAOR etc, were hunkered down in West Germany and had plenty time to prepare optimum tactics. The Bundeswehr being already experienced. With the exception of the Kanonenjagpanzer armed with the inadequate 90mm gun, the type seem to have fallen out of fashion in favour of the antitank missile. Back then, miss-ile being the best description. I recall trying to keep one of the later/better examples a Swingfire on target. My one and only live firing, not an easy task. Note that was on a range with nobody shooting at me and without the obligatory NBC suit. Having also fired L21 30mm Raden from a Fox turret with amazing accuracy after very little training. I know which method (missile vs direct fire gun barrel projectile.) I'd prefer to take into combat and engage MBT's.
So they kept the most un-reliable version. Typical british common sense that is, noone can beat us there. A super heavy class, but the modern Challenger is rated at 80 tons full on with added armour for battle as I understand it. Put a modern engine in the Tortoise and see her fly I say, i'd pay to see that!!
Panther 2 was designed to fix a problem that was fixed by just adding side skirts to the Panther 1. I doubt Panther 2 would have been made beyond a few prototypes, everything would have just be rolled in to the normal Panther. Also German tech wasn't better. The US developed all sorts of great gear, it was just judged to be not that much of an advantage to deploy it in favor of the existing equipment which was already winning the war. The US had the same style of night vision gear for rifles the Germans developed (and the US actually used it), the US built axial flow jet engines that didn't self destruct unlike the Germans. The US designed and built a 75mm autoloader for a tank in WWII, they just didn't bother with it beyond testing. If history had been a little different and the T3E2 Garand (the Garand in .276) been adopted and the box mags for the Garand followed to completion the STG-44 would have been a footnote.
Riiiiiight.... Lets look at a major example. Bismark. This 'superior' ship was not a bad ship, but hardly superior to its contemporaries. Why? Well lets look shall we? The Bismark is analagous to the King George the Fifth Class, South Dakota Class and Littorio Classes of Battleships, all being laid down and completed in roughly the same time period. So, lets have a look at those ships. South Dakota was the slowest of those ships at 27.5 knots, followed by the KGV's at 28. Bismark and Littorios at 30. Both the SD's and KGV's had uch greater operational range however than either the German or Italian Battleships. KGV had the best armour of the 4 ship classes, being surpassed by only one Battleship class in History, that being the two Yamato's. Armament, and here its a a good deal worse for the German ships, The Littorios and Bismarks were 15 inch gun armed ships, but the Bismarks had 4 twin turrets compared to the three triples for the Italian ships meaning that the Bismarks were down a gun tube. The South Dakotas had 3 triple 16 inch main battery, so clearly superior to the two Axis ships in firepower. The KGV's had smaller guns with a 14 inch main battery, but had 10 gun tubes, 2 quad and one twin turrets, so its broadside throw weight was actually greater than the Bismarks. So, now you have four ship classes that have roughly comparable combat capability. If any of these ships got into a 1 vs 1 fight with any of the others it would be a coin toss between them, the result of the action based around the skill of the crews, captains, and of course Lady luck. And this is where the design of the Bismarks really lets them down, because they are by FAR the largest of these four ship classes, in fact they are CONSIDERABLY larger than the South Dakota and King George the Fifth Class. The British and American ships displaced between 35,000 tons standard (S.Dak) and 37000 tons standard (KGV). The Bismarks displaced 41,000 tons standard. In other words, the Germans managed to build a ship with the same Combat Power as the American and British ships built at the same time, on 6 - 4,000 tons greater displacement. That right there is shoddy design.... We will not go into the German 'superior' Light Cruisers and Destroyers that could not make their full speed because if they tried they would literally vibrate themselves to pieces.
@@alganhar1 Not to mention that the Bismarck's radar system didn't work right. First salvo fired in anger from her guns disabled her radar system. Contemporary US battleships of the time came out of the yards with radars that worked. Her anti-aircraft fire control system was obsolete, although that was because the Germans sold the new system they made for the ship off to the Soviets. Her 37mm anti-aircraft guns were woefully outdated despite being designed in 1935 being single shot weapons compared to systems like the 40mm Bofors which came out a year earlier and is still used today. Those guns had a fancy mount that allowed them to be stabilized as the ship rolls... except it never worked right.
Heads up guys. * please note that following the videos release the date of the APDS test should read: 28/6/45 and the final APDS round vs 50 degrees is 4885 not 5885 fps as per typo. (source A.R.D Terminal Ballistics Report No 16/46) the first date was missing from the tortoise file, the second is my butterfingers at typing
As an American, I can just imagine the biggest negative absolutely being how improper it was to have burned Loader boots and trouser bottoms! Keep up the great work, sir. It is greatly appreciated.
cheers!
So after extensive testing, they found that the bigger gun was more effective...?
Fantastic work! Gold star!
British tank building in a nutshell
bigger guns aren't always more effective, as it also depends on the rounds used.
That is why you test things.
Just because you know X should mean Y doesn't mean it always happen.
@@Inucroft
It does. Try dropping the German WW2 Schwerer Gustav on top of anyone. I bet no one gonna survive the weight
@@cristsan4171 No it doesn't, that's the thing.
Good to know that this channel is preserved.
Classic Game-Over for both Panther and the Tortoise. One became a practicing target, and the second simply fed the open hearth furnace... Only now there is a need for a conscious preservation of vintage vehicles before the age they become rare gems and it will be too late...
The UK was hurting so much for any source of revenue after WWII they scrapped so much of historical value for their raw materials. HMS Warspite being a prime example. Unfortunately its still happening in places like the UK, they were planning to turn all the surplus No.8 Lee-Enfield .22 trainers in to scrap metal; there was a big push to save them, even trying to get the US' CMP to buy them up for distribution in the US. Not sure what became of them.
And why do we need more than one of these behemoths?I,m all for preservation,but it can go too far
@@stevenbreach2561 Send one to a museum in the US, I know Bovington and some groups in the US have traded vehicles on occasion; just imagine if you could have the T28/T95 and Tortoise side by side somewhere. Having a backup in case one is lost some how, that's actually happened; there was a museum sub that was destroyed in a hurricane once. Have a few spread around also helps if the group preserving the only one neglects it, that almost happened with the USS Texas.
@@stevenbreach2561 Because there is only one Maus (Kubinka) and none of Char 2C ( Also Kubinka but they eont tell you)
Unlike Bovington in Kubina none of the old ones is in running order. I think not iven teir IS-3
@@stevenbreach2561 one at the Royal Armouries up in Leeds wouldn't go a miss so our armed history would be a little more easily available to those in the north and if we had hadu a museum similar to bovington in the north we would now be in a position of probably still having examples of some of the tanks that bovington either turned down or scrapped over the year's
I went to Bovington tank museum - I came around the corner and there was, what appeared to be, a block of flats with tracks...
I've always had a soft spot for this tank. I had never really heard anything about the APDS round, so that was great to hear about
Glad you enjoyed it!
@armouredarchives8867 please drop souce documents so I can throw a report to War Thunder devs!
Hope the Dorsetshire Liberation Front aren't seen in the background of any of your photos and getting you into Google clink again ;-) Another great vid Ed, thank you!
nah, wrong region, now the Peoples Democtatic front of Lulworth ...they might be
@@armouredarchives8867 make sure not to show any images of the anarcho socialists of slough
@@zacamakapaka3989 splitters!
Tortoise dons a pair of shades, lights a spliff and casually drives away.
...pulls up on The Riverbank.
Yorkshire tea.
no farther than 10 miles though!
@@Arik-2103 You beat me to it. The Russians would be required to respectfully bring their tanks to Tortoise in an orderly fashion for targeting. Anything less would simply not be cricket.
A casemate on a Centurion hull mounting the 32lb gun would probably have been a better idea.
It’s rather sobering to imagine what it would be like if you were actually in that Panther (or any other tank) when the armour was penetrated.
Good vid. Thanks for posting.
I was very surprised during some research on the 32pdr to learn that it was an almost perfect surrogate for the D-10T firing APCBC. Nearly same projectile weight and muzzle velocity, similar cartridge size. Arguably a better early counter for the T-54 than the 20pdr.
The gun is a hair under 8 inch. If 155mm (6 nch) HE can kill 'em then a 8 inch round would.
I'm very surprised at the lack of subscribers on this channel, the quality rivals anyone on UA-cam
well its growing, tbh i was late to the game, i took time helping a few others grow first by writing for them.
I've just found this channel, and am rubbing my hands at all the goodies on display. I didn't think I'd be very interested in the Tortoise/Panther vid, but on the contrary.
I wonder if I could put in a plug for the Matilda II modifications story you mentioned previously? I'd be very keen to see that happen. The Australian War Memorial has a good collection of photos and documents online which would help things along. Cheers
Alan.
(Tortoise enters battlefield)
(Hitler looking through his binoculars)
“Took them long enough”
Glad you got your stuff back!
Seems the 3.7-inch AA gun was always destined to be the bridesmaid and not the bride when it came to being used in the AT role unlike its German counter part, fascinating comparison with the 20pdr.
I guess Britain's experience with the TOG gave them some insight on the concept of super heavy vehicles. I'm still wowed by how well Tortoise seems to have preformed.
Great Vid, glad the debacle is over and you can carry on.
The thought that the tank could hit a human being reliably at over 1000 yards with its first shot is skin crawling.Especially for a 1943 tank design.
Hit it, yes. See it, no. Unless they're trying to be seen, that is.
Interesting Video. Good go see that Tortoise actually had a use. Testing platforms and roads not taken should get more coverage, as they are important in ascertaing what works and what doesnt. As well as gaining general experience
Best channel ive come across♡
Ah, you're a gentleman and a scholar, you can pronounce 'glacis'. I also appreciate your sense of humour. Liked, subbed and shared.
cheers
I love this line at 4:52 He says there is still more enought to clap an is3 back to the shadow lands if needed. Made me laugh
Nice to see a video of yours again👍
I'm a new subscriber, that was brilliant, I'm also a tank lover since my early teens,, and ex Royal engineer, 👍
As a fan of casemated 'tanks' this is a very interesting episode, thankyou. The main disadvantage of such a vehicle of course is that it has to be rotated to aim but this forces the vehicle to automatically face towards the enemy. I forget how many photos I've seen of knocked out tanks not facing where their gun is pointing and so exposing their weak side armour. What was required with a casemated tank was an enhanced ability to rotate and aim but I've never heard of any such development. Such a vehicle has several potential advantages over a conventional tank - less complexity, no turret to jam or malfunction, generally a more compact vehicle that would be easier and cheaper to build and maintain yet have the same firepower. And lets not forget (although we apparently have) how successful the German StuG's were.
Check out the S tank.
"However, this still more than enough to clap IS-3 back to the shadow lands if needed". that line made chuckle more than I expected.
Fantastic work! We've just seen another platform removed before getting in to service, WR CSP, and fortunately an example sent to the Museum, the other 11 scrapped.
Always interesting and well presented, thanks that was great.
If the Tortoise can't go to the Panther,
the Panther has to come to the Tortoise.
lol
excellent! so it's a p1 at bovvy, hm? i need to re-watch the previous vid on the development of the tortoise now. thanks, ed!
it is indeed, they scrapped p2
A fondness for Tortoise is only natural regardless of its actual battle effectiveness. Some comparison of the design and development of 17/20/32 pdr guns leading to the 105mm would be appreciated as would the progression from the American 120mm in the Conqueror that I assumed led ultimately to the 120mm L1 rifled gun in Chieftain and then the L20...
we covered a bit of that in an earlier vid - i think the fv4005 vid, where the tripartite meetings were taking place, with the american choice to go 76/90/120 the first 2 we didnt go for but the last we did.
Did this testing and the 32lbr test mounting into the Centurion have anything to do with developing the 105mm L7? Or did the 105mm L7 not come about til the T-54 was examined at the Budapest embassy/consulate?
the 105 had been in development before as a few peices mention it prior to the event, after 55 was captured tho, they got the armour assesment wrong, which made them feel the 20 pdr was not adeqaute.
The 105mm L7 was simply an enlarged 20 pdr to ease up development.
My dad drove the tortoise when he was in the RTR
Ooh love the quick shot of the Diamond T Rolls Royce engined, who knows.
4:30 - that's a big variation in muzzle velocities. I presume one was given a higher charge on purpose?
yup, they will up it until they get the result needed.
@@armouredarchives8867 or the wrong type of bang :)
You want to find out and use the lowest muzzle velocity that will do the job. A lot of muzzle velocity is great if it was free, but that force needs a strengthened breach, reduces barrel and breach life and with a turret can lead to trunion and turret ring wear unless you add a lot of brake or dampers to the gun, which would in turn increase weight and use up turret space, requiring a bigger turret, leading to a heavier and easier to hit vehicle. Too high muzzle velocity can also shatter the round itself, which looks like occurred with one of the 32lber tests.
Just found your channel..great vid ,i love this stuff.💪🇺🇸
Welcome aboard!
Very interesting indeed! 👍
Very informative. I wonder why the Centurion gunnery was so poor against the Panther. Did they have issues with dispersion with the 20pdr?
yes the 20pdr apds was quite innacurate until late into its development
Sounds like an issue with how the sights were calibrated to me, but I suspect you'd need a second Cent. brought in to compare.
@@Vespuchian
IIRC the inaccuracy issues stemmed from the shell or sabot, not the sights
I believe Canada later got a better projectile that did not have/had less issues
@@Nightdare The Canadian thing is for the 17-pdr, not the 20-pdr.
@@Retrosicotte
Woops, sorry, my mistake
Very good video!👍Greetings from germany
Thank you! Cheers!
Hi! Will you make videos about tanks like the t-80um2 (black eagle), object 292, and the object 490 variants?
Do you have any plans to cover the mythical Fv100 class of tanks. There is little public information available...
Sadly they are mostly mythical, the FV100, 101, 102 slots were created with the FV system for any future super heavy tanks/spg's - of which we had little interest after looking at stuff like the E100. they were kept about for a bit then dropped and the CVRT allocated the same numbers. - somewhere along the lines a few WOT forums started talking about prototypes etc which was no the case, and may have been muddling Minotaur and other STT projects up.
@@armouredarchives8867 Ah, so nobody even bothered to design anything that heavy. Looks like they learned their lessons then. XD
I used to love and still love watching ed franis and his old freind arran who would play war thunder and WoT and rage
Was there ever a follow up video made for the YOH tanks? I'm dying to see it!
im so curious about that muzzle break
I could imagine an alt universe where the King tiger and Jagdtiger meet a 32lb armed Centurion and simply get smashed.
"as if millions of wehraboo voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened"
Speaking of 32pdr, was this gun or the 20pdr ever fitted into the black prince. I know the Meteor engine was too long for the engine deck, but we’re these guns ever fitted into the tank?
there was a proposal post war to fit in into cromwell, comet and a chuchill (type unkown) - only the cromwel would have it done as charioteer in the end
@@armouredarchives8867 Wouldn't be surprised if it was the Churchill Black Prince since the turret and turret ring were big enough to fit the massive breach of the 17pdr. I read that the 77mm gun or 17pdr was proposed for the Churchill Mark 7, but the turret and turret ring were both too small. I had sources but lost them few years ago. Thanks for replying though.
5000 plus Fps?!! Wow
the massive difference is velocity is somewhat strange
@@scottishcarver66 I might have missed it in the narration, but I wonder if they were deliberately varying the bag charge to see if it affected accuracy, and what the pay offs in penetration were or were not. Just guessing.
@@Simon_Nonymous thats my thoughts too as otherwise such wild swings in velocity would play havoc with acuracy at range
yep they will have been raising and lowering the mix, but as not recorded in the doc so i cant speculate in the vid, but i would almost bet my firdge full of pork pies thats what they were doing
Armoured Archives very battleship gun then....
6:30 The compound angle between 50° to the side and 55° inherent slope of the Panther's UFP would've been equal to 68,4°. I dont think that 20dpr APDS should've been able to defeat 80mm/68,4° at 1300yards. That's too much, likely the armour on this Panther was of poor quality.
Edit 8:30 Yeah, just like I said.
Welcome back.
Is there any reason for the over 1000fps difference in the shots. Were these different loades? Or just the range of variation in shells. If so I did not know there was such variation
Yes, the mostly likely variation based on other tests of the time would have been upping or lowering the charge to get the performance required within the guns threshold.
Still more than enough to clap an IS-V back to the shadow lands if needed 🤣 great chat
Let's go!!!
How is this the first ri e I'm hearing of 32 pdr centurion!?!
Its bit weard to compare medium tank and assault gun/tank destroyer (not sure for his purpose).
Well the tortoise by this time is just a testbed more than anything, the comparison is really between the guns, but with a secondary observation on comparing the merits of turretless to turreted vehicles
@@armouredarchives8867 its more like heavy assault gun, it can't be tank destroyer because of size (i dont mean it for really there were even bigger tank destroyers)
@@armouredarchives8867 but good work man, really informative and nice video!
Was that the Panther 2 that the Tortoise shot upon?
oooh no, just an old Ausf A - there was an Ausf F turret on the range tho
It’s hard not to shoulder bump when you have all shoulders and no neck.
For some unknown reason I watched this first and apparently it got pulled and just got posted. Wtf. Idk. Still like it!
No one complained that a shot on an already hit armor would be pointless to prove penetration?
It would depend heavily on how much fatigue the metal has had, the cooldown between shots, and a host of factors. for more accurate tests they tend to use custom made plate that controlled, this is more on the accuracy as both would invariably perforate an old panther. The bigger issue was the 20 pdr APDS was initially quite inaccurate
What a waste of a Panther! Quality gun, serious fire power and accuracy.
Not really, post by late 40’s and 50's they were obsolete and considered left over junk, people only appreciate stuffs historical importance once that item becomes rare
@@armouredarchives8867 I get that buts what's the point in testing old tank armour against a modern gun. It would have been easier to put a sheet of modern armour up, rather than trucking in an old, out dated tank.
@@Ob1sdarkside we they do now more or less, or have mobile rigs that run across the ranges, but back then they just used up what was lying around and tank shaped, many vehicles allied and axis ended up on ranges, either from mod bases, labs or even bovington tank musuem which send dozens of vehicles down to lulworth. and shooting at somethign tank shaped and sized makes more sense for the accuracy than a single block.
@@armouredarchives8867 Makes sense I suppose, whatever saves you money at the end of an expensive war. I read the Soviets did the same to a Tiger tank after the war.
The Brits have always understood armor and the Germans have always understood canons. Imagine the love child between them. Americans understand engine power and electronics
Shame the joint tank projects fell apart because if that
@@Orinslayer agreed.
I'm surprised that the allies, soon to become NATO. Did not produce more dedicated "tank destroyers" during the Cold War, utilising the chassis of the new MBT's with larger calibre weapons. NOT heavyweight beasts. Given the measurable success of the Stug III and IV in defensive situations, such weapon systems would have been perfect when halting massed Warsaw Pact armour thrusts. The NATO forces BAOR etc, were hunkered down in West Germany and had plenty time to prepare optimum tactics. The Bundeswehr being already experienced.
With the exception of the Kanonenjagpanzer armed with the inadequate 90mm gun, the type seem to have fallen out of fashion in favour of the antitank missile. Back then, miss-ile being the best description. I recall trying to keep one of the later/better examples a Swingfire on target. My one and only live firing, not an easy task. Note that was on a range with nobody shooting at me and without the obligatory NBC suit. Having also fired L21 30mm Raden from a Fox turret with amazing accuracy after very little training. I know which method (missile vs direct fire gun barrel projectile.) I'd prefer to take into combat and engage MBT's.
The Tortoise would've had loads of shells!
It's ED,hi ED.
engineers use metric
two sitting ducks shooting on a static target . 😅 the should have preserved the panther and give the totoise to the scrapyard.
Tortoise want a giant failure, developed to fight german tanks but it never made it on the battlefield
never designed to fight tanks
,
So they kept the most un-reliable version. Typical british common sense that is, noone can beat us there. A super heavy class, but the modern Challenger is rated at 80 tons full on with added armour for battle as I understand it. Put a modern engine in the Tortoise and see her fly I say, i'd pay to see that!!
Came here looking for sekrit dokuments on how kapitalist tanks are the worst..
j/k.. ;)
War tech vs after war tech. If the war would have lasted longer it would be a panther 2 or something else. German tech is always better
well panther 2 which was made mid war would have faired no better.
Panther 2 was designed to fix a problem that was fixed by just adding side skirts to the Panther 1. I doubt Panther 2 would have been made beyond a few prototypes, everything would have just be rolled in to the normal Panther.
Also German tech wasn't better. The US developed all sorts of great gear, it was just judged to be not that much of an advantage to deploy it in favor of the existing equipment which was already winning the war. The US had the same style of night vision gear for rifles the Germans developed (and the US actually used it), the US built axial flow jet engines that didn't self destruct unlike the Germans. The US designed and built a 75mm autoloader for a tank in WWII, they just didn't bother with it beyond testing. If history had been a little different and the T3E2 Garand (the Garand in .276) been adopted and the box mags for the Garand followed to completion the STG-44 would have been a footnote.
German tech was so good it won them the war.Oh wait...
Riiiiiight....
Lets look at a major example. Bismark. This 'superior' ship was not a bad ship, but hardly superior to its contemporaries. Why? Well lets look shall we?
The Bismark is analagous to the King George the Fifth Class, South Dakota Class and Littorio Classes of Battleships, all being laid down and completed in roughly the same time period.
So, lets have a look at those ships. South Dakota was the slowest of those ships at 27.5 knots, followed by the KGV's at 28. Bismark and Littorios at 30. Both the SD's and KGV's had uch greater operational range however than either the German or Italian Battleships. KGV had the best armour of the 4 ship classes, being surpassed by only one Battleship class in History, that being the two Yamato's.
Armament, and here its a a good deal worse for the German ships, The Littorios and Bismarks were 15 inch gun armed ships, but the Bismarks had 4 twin turrets compared to the three triples for the Italian ships meaning that the Bismarks were down a gun tube. The South Dakotas had 3 triple 16 inch main battery, so clearly superior to the two Axis ships in firepower. The KGV's had smaller guns with a 14 inch main battery, but had 10 gun tubes, 2 quad and one twin turrets, so its broadside throw weight was actually greater than the Bismarks.
So, now you have four ship classes that have roughly comparable combat capability. If any of these ships got into a 1 vs 1 fight with any of the others it would be a coin toss between them, the result of the action based around the skill of the crews, captains, and of course Lady luck.
And this is where the design of the Bismarks really lets them down, because they are by FAR the largest of these four ship classes, in fact they are CONSIDERABLY larger than the South Dakota and King George the Fifth Class. The British and American ships displaced between 35,000 tons standard (S.Dak) and 37000 tons standard (KGV). The Bismarks displaced 41,000 tons standard.
In other words, the Germans managed to build a ship with the same Combat Power as the American and British ships built at the same time, on 6 - 4,000 tons greater displacement. That right there is shoddy design....
We will not go into the German 'superior' Light Cruisers and Destroyers that could not make their full speed because if they tried they would literally vibrate themselves to pieces.
@@alganhar1 Not to mention that the Bismarck's radar system didn't work right. First salvo fired in anger from her guns disabled her radar system. Contemporary US battleships of the time came out of the yards with radars that worked. Her anti-aircraft fire control system was obsolete, although that was because the Germans sold the new system they made for the ship off to the Soviets. Her 37mm anti-aircraft guns were woefully outdated despite being designed in 1935 being single shot weapons compared to systems like the 40mm Bofors which came out a year earlier and is still used today. Those guns had a fancy mount that allowed them to be stabilized as the ship rolls... except it never worked right.