I love this series, and please don't be afraid to make some videos going really in depth, after the initial overviews. You'd be surprised how many people are actually enjoying to hear about the intricacies of a particular topic in excessive detail.
Throughly enjoying these presentations. When you come to 'firepower' can I suggest an episode on the BESA machine gun. There is next to nothing on the internet relating to this particular subject.
Awsome vid one thing you forgot its been around for a while now is a good example is the Isreali Active Protection system Trophy or for short APS. It can detect incoming rounds from RPGs and ATGM and destroy them. Even improved systems in development are claiming they will do the same for incoming APFSDS rounds. Its been used in combat and it works.
@@151mattwilson It started as an internet meme. The joke is that they don't actually do anything other than giving the tank crew some peace of mind, so they can cope with the situation. To hear it used in a serious context is hilarious.
@@151mattwilson An internet meme (reddit mostly) where ruzzians put these on top of their tank in the hope to stop modern anti-tank missile systems like the US Javellin and the British NLAW. Like most ruzzians weapons and armor, it is specifically designed to stop RUZZIAN weapons. so an RPG-7 fired from above would be neutralized like this, much, in the same way, SLAT armor does on APCs. Since Javellins and NLAWs don't work like RPG's, so these "cope cages" are useless, it just gives ruzzo tankers a way to "cope" with their ineffective defense systems.
@@151mattwilson To add to the previous to commenters. The joke with the "cope cages" was also used in the informational war going on at social media platforms. For that matter it was widely used to denigrate the Russian military and amplify their ineffective performance up to that point. So in parts it was indeed a joke, in parts it was also a lowkey psyop tool. Hearing the historians of the tank museum use the term "cope cage" is at the same time a recognition of how widespread the influence of social media and the effectiveness of the "troll farms" which helped amplify the term. It's delicious to hear.
More episodes with Mr. Copson please. The guy has knowledge so he knows WHAT to talk about, and he has passion so he knows HOW to talk about it. The episodes are entertaining and interesting. A worthy succesor of Mr. Fletcher.
it's kinda funny, I've watched Shorts on here where I was bored half-way through, but I couldn't even focus on anything else I was doing for almost half an hour with this video because it was so well made. Despite him not being overly flamboyant or what modern creators would call "engaging" (Basically, a bunch of tricks to keep your attention that aren't really related to the video). Holding people's attention really is a skill all its own.
@John Thomas fun fact, the liners of a HEAT rounds isn't exactly molten, its a rather confusing area of behaving like liquids but isn't liquid, things moving at fast enough velocities tends to behave like fluids
Angled armour pre-dated the T-34 by a long way and its advantages were well understood thanks to naval design dating back to the 19th century. I think the reason for boxy tanks was part volumetric, part constructional and part metalergical. Likewise, while electric arc welding has existed since about 1801, armour plate isn't anywhere near as easy to weld as your average mild steel & was prone to cracking or weak joints. Indeed the internal stresses would often cause welds to crack when a plate was struck by a round. This was the reason why Germany favoured interlocking welded plates.
British tanks generally favoured rivets as all the good welders were concentrated on shipbuilding and its just easier to rivet than weld. The russians insisted on welding the T34 regardless of the factory workers competence and some times the armour would stop the round but the welds would crack. Apparently the armour was often overhardened which would lead to spalling on the inside, which was lethal to the crew.
@@SlappyTheElf Incorrect. Soviets were one of the first to develop "submerged arc welding" which allowed them to weld. Riveting is far inferior to welding but if you do not have the tech... you rivet. Soviets simply were more technologically advanced the the British. The reason weld jobs on T-34 were sloppy is simply the need to make them fast. Note welding with submerged arc is not the same way you weld with stick at home. It is SAW process.
@@tomk3732 Incorrect. SAW can only weld in horizontal and flat planes. It is not ideal for use in armour plates. SAW can also not be used on alloy metals, it is mainly limited to being used only nickel and nickel alloys. SAW is also hugely bulky and overly expensive compared to SMAW, it is not practical for welding armour plate. SAW is not used in military applications and is mainly used for the construction of civilian infrastructure like pipes. The fact you think that SAW and SMAW are not the same is also funny, it is. It's literally one difference in being that the electrode is submerged or not. Oh, SAW is also not portable, hence why you typically see this process in small automated processes, confined to one area like production lines. I mean, why even bring SAW up? It is not applicable in anything here at all unless you want to build a civvie car or lay some pipes. Soviet Russia was late to the welding game. Britain had been welding since the turn of the century, but just as the dude said, most welders were hogged by the Royal Navy because that is the oldest and most prestigious branch of the Military. It received more funding than the Army several times over, it was a very lucrative career being a welder in the Navy.
A big thing with the leopard and being “faster” isn’t necessarily the idea of being more mobile but more responsive to the situations it would be in. You aren’t going to dodge a sabot round coming in at 1200+ meters/s. What you are going to be able to do is give the appropriate and most versatile support to whomever is in need and get move into and out of cover when necessary; as fast as (reasonably) possible which is especially important at long range
in addition to your comment: the AP ammunition of the time was HEAT-FS wich could easily penetrate 400mm of steel on 2000m (so much for armor on chieftain) or the brand new sovjet T-62´s 115mm APFSDS. There was just no reasonable amount of armor that you could add on a tank, that would protect you from 100mm and 115mm HEAT rounds, without turning into a mobile pillbox like T-28 Assault Gun. Chieftain (60t weight) is 15t heavier than Leopard 1 and about as protected vs HEAT and AP ammunition of the late 60´s early 70´s as leopard 1. The sacrifice Chieftain had to make for its irrelevant armor was a 20km/h lower topspeed, atrocious terrain mobility and a 35-40% failure rate under peace conditions for the drivetrain and engine.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 yes and there’s the additional benefit of fuel consumption. Logistically speaking that can mean less fuel needing to be transported around and less transportation of fuel needed. It can be extraordinary beneficial if the conflict you’re in happens over a long period of time rather than the ideal and if we know anything; anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Including expected time lengths extending
Have you ever seen a Leopard 1 actually working, they travelled in troops of 3 and actually worked as 1 tank when it came to bugging out of ambushes etc. The problem was the extremely thin turrets as seen on the Leo2 which badly needs more armour on the turret sides. Very few CVR(T) were actually hit by the enemy, their speed was their protection! Very hard to hit a moving target even with modern computers, most ranges have movers from left to right, once the little buggers start zig zagging it is almost down to luck. Leo1 was very much a Recce Vehicle with a 105mm Gun, it fulfilled what it was built for.
@@gaptaxi i think you missunderstood a few things there. NATO Users of Leopard 2 only ever used troops of 4-5 vehicles. And Leopard 1 was a legit main battle tank at the time, because NOTHING could protect against sovjet HEAT and AP rounds in the late 1960´s, even Chieftain with its almost 400mm steel was unprotected. Leopard 2 has quite thick turret sides, thicker than for example M1 Abrams. And Leopard 2 got extra armor on the turret with the A5 upgrade plus new composites in the turret with A6 and A7.
RPG originally - in Russian - stands for ‘hand held anti-tank weapon’. RPG aren’t necessarily propelled grenades. The RPG-2 fires a projected grenade with no rocket motor, and the RPG-43 is actually a hand grenade.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 Yep, "RPG" basically means Hand-held Anti-Tank Grenade. Which is why the commonly claimed "Rocket Propelled Grenade" is wrong, it's just a backronym and not what "RPG-7" or similar AT launchers actually mean. Rocket Propelled Grenade wouldn't even be correct anyways, since most people don't know the RPG-7 is actually a recoiless launcher. While it has a Rocket sustainer motor/booster, that's just to extend the range a bit and help it stay level, the main propulsion or "Launch Force" is still a powder charge with half vented out the back counteracting recoil like you'd see in a Panzerfaust, AT-4, or Carl Gustav. Grenade can also mean plenty of things and is basically just small explosive, for instance submuntions from a cluster bomb are commonly referred to as grenades, and you can have "Grenade" rounds for a cannon which is just what some places call HE/HEF/HEI/Etc.
I appreciate the upgrade from showing us individual tanks to teaching about tank theory. I agree with covering the fundamentals, like armor, first and I'm particularly interested in where this will go once the fundamentals have been fully covered.
"This is a _savage_ weapon..." As someone who has fired a few large-caliber rifles (though not quite that large!) the description was perfectly evocative of what it's like to aim then pull the trigger on such a beast. My bones and I all winced at the description. Nicely done, sir!
In the photo of the Mauser T-Gewehr in use, someone's had the wit to add a bipod - I'd guess to help foremost with aiming the damn thing but secondarily to take some of the recoil?
i once fired a 12 gauge shotgun with a slug and powder charge for hunting...that was a unique experience. especially having no previous firearm experience. i dont even want to imagine firing a t-gewehr xD
Large caliber rifles aren't that bad to fire if someone takes the time to design in decent recoil mitigation. Barretts are a treat, the Boys isn't really a big deal, and even the Lahti and Solothurn 20mm rifles are bearable because of muzzle brakes, butt pads, etc. The biggest issue with the T-gewehr is no brake and a steel butt plate. That being said, I also feel like historians who have never shot the weapon are overselling how bad it is. I remember Mae with C&Rsenal sent 5 in a row through it, and she was laughing.
I watched a bunch of old German army training videos for tankers a while ago and one of the most interesting things about those videos I noticed was that they didn't even mention the tank's armor once in them. They still instruct the drivers to point the front of the tank at the enemy, but not because the armor is thickest there, but to make the tank's silhouette as small as possible, not so much to be harder to hit, but for minimum visibility. They really seem to treat the armor as an afterthought. The general gist or mentality is that relying on armor for your safety is like relying on your car's airbag and seat belt to get you from A to B safely, instead of your driving skills. Armor is just a last ditch hail Mary safety feature that may help, may not after everything else has failed.
I think what is missing from all these tank chats, is the labor which goes into maintaining them, everything from daily maintains by the crews to the maintains by the rear workshops.
I often see people asking "how would [Modern Tank] fair against x20 [Second World War Tank] and while mobility sometimes gets brought up, its usually firepower and armour that gets cited, so it's exciting to be able to peek into the forge and learn about the armoured tip of the iron triangle!
@@KilerkRazorclaw I wonder about that, if full bore rounds really are capable of dealing with modern composite armor why aren't we seeing APCR/HVAP-FS rounds being developed?
@@KilerkRazorclaw They really would not! during WW2 they were finding that the common shot AP round was becoming increasingly ineffective and so developed HVAP (a full bore lightweigh outer with a denser but smaller core and APDS with a discarding outer layer - that concentrated impact force over a much smaller impact point, so increasing the energy available to rupture (or scab) the target armour, that route continues into modern APFSDSDU rounds. The argument that WW2 AP rounds would be effective against modern armour is about as credible as flat earth theories.... as a simple test ask yourself "if it were true, why has no army in the world re-introduced them?"
I can see why the focus would be on mobility. I'm quite convinced that simply the ability to fire on the move makes modern tanks so much better that they could probably take out 20 WW2 tanks. Of course if one of the enemy got a lucky shot in, they might hit the tracks, in which case no armor is going to protect you from at least a dozen tanks firing on you for very long.
@@josephahner3031 mainly because apfsds would still have an advantage in muzzle velocity, range, and penetration. and although a full bore projectile may pose a threat to tanks in certain circumstances, a modern apfsds round will almost always be a threat to a tank.
Thank you guys not only for the preservation of the history and technology of these beautiful machines, but also for making these excellent presentations of the evolutionary use of these vehicles. Seriously, so much history would be lost if not for your team.
An old tanker once told me that if the Chieftain got into a good defensive position it would have been almost invincible compared to its contemporaries. The trick was getting the bugger there without it breaking down!
@@user-propositionjoe Which didn’t exist in the Chieftain’s time, so what’s your point exactly? That old armour is easily defeated by modern weapons? Well, d’uhhh…
@@user-propositionjoe Which were not precision-guided munitions at the time, and had a low likelihood of scoring a direct hit on a vehicle using indirect fire. Your arguments thus far are specious.
One of the things I've always been interested in with regards to armour is how it reacts to repeated hits. More in the example of cast or homogenous steel armour. Repeated hits by shells that can't penetrate an armour of a given value. Would eventually get through is what I am thinking. I've seen first hand WW2 tanks that have had non penetrating hits and the damage is noteworthy. It looked like the steel had been melted and pushed armour aside.
An important part of this is penetration absorption, you want the face hardened to be stronger and if possible shatter shells, but you also want the back of the plate softer to sort of absorb the force I guess. With a soft back it might bend, dent, or deform easier, but it's less likely to crack or spall as bad as fully hardened armor. This was why Soviet and German tanks spalled and cracked so bad, the German armor was too face hardened and they lacked the supplies to divert alloys for tanks, meanwhile the Soviets just over hardened the entire plate. US Warships had a similar problem, things like the turret face armor were hardened too deep actually reducing protection over if they had the same thickness with shallower hardening. They did this on accident, trying to increase protection but unknowingly reducing it. Softer armor was also actually an advantage on the M4 Sherman though I don't rememberthe exact reason, something like while it's less likely to shatter a shell it's more likely to "gouge out" the armor and bounce.
@@pyro1047 Think about it, if the tank round has to expend energy deforming a larger surface areas of armour than it is actually penetrating on the way in, it will have less energy left for traveling and penetration. Is the armour too soft, though, it will deform so easily that it won't actually sap any meaningful amount of energy. Bear in mind, soft and hard are relative terms, no one person could bend any kind of steel used in tank production as they might be able to bend soft iron.
That made me think (Damn you Sir, the pain from long unused braincells is severe!) What it specifically mde me think is *'I wonder how it might be possible to cause something protected by that Russian Explosive Reactive Armour to trigger'* ? ...... There must be some sort of pressure mechanism I guess IF you could make the ERA blow itself off Well, the tortoise is out of its shell innit?
I would love an in depth video about the evolution and the abilites of modern FCS. An indepth view into the in and outs, like delta d, the difference between point stabilization and direction stabilization and everything else. Would love it!
Love this video series, focusing on crosscutting / broader topics involving different aspects of tank technology across time and countries. Kudos to tank museum crew!
Can you do an episode on the different types of materials used in tanks in WW2? I keep hearing boilerplate, rha, plate, and cast but very little about the differences between them and how they compare
In addition to the below, you asked about RHA, which is rolled homogenous armor and is in contrast with face-hardened armor. RHA is basically a billet of armor alloy steel that is then rolled down to a particular thickness, which also causes the billet to spread laterally. The rolling process both gets the steel down to the specified thickness and dimensions, from which excess can be trimmed and the RHA plate welded into place on the frame, and work hardens the steel making it harder and more resistant to penetration but also more brittle. In contrast, face-hardened armor takes a similar plate of armor steel alloy and heats the plate up to fairly high temperature, then quickly quenches the outer face of the plate to cool it down. This makes the surface very hard to a depth of between 1/4 and 2/3 of the thickness of the plate (depending on the manufacturer and purpose), while the back of the plate is more ductile and better able to absorb the shock of an impact without shattering or having fragments spall off the back. RHA is common for tanks, which are mass produced, but face-hardened armor is better overall if more difficult and expensive to produce, so it would be used for more limited production tanks and for warship armor.
@@kemarisite From what I read elsewhere, face hardend armour was initialy considerd superior, as it could cause impacting AP shells to shatter. But with the advent of capped shells, they mostly lost that advantage and weren't much better than rolled homogenous armour. At least not sufficiently better to justify the additional cost.
@@Bird_Dog00 that could very well play a roll with tank armor, but there is a lot of overlap with warship armor. Even with a suitable cap on the shell, face hardened armor plate was typical for warship armor right up to the time (after WW2) when warships gave up on exterior armor entirely as a wasted weight. The Iowa class battleships used Class A armor plate, which is face hardened, on the main belt, barbettes, and turret sides and rear, with Class B (non face-hardened) armor plate on the turret faces, deck, and citadel because of some unique US Navy assumptions about the kind of combat they would be getting involved in and the weapons that would be used.
@Retired Bore As Drachinifel is a practicing civil engineer I think he probably understands the technical details better than most historians. I’m not proposing his video on historical armour as an alternative to the engineering textbooks he drew his figures from, only suggesting that he gives quite good answers to some of the metallurgy questions people are asking in the comments. The unwillingness of governments and manufacturers to give details about current technology is part of the reason Drachinifel has a pretty hard cutoff of about 1950, and won’t talk about anything after that.
Actually slat armour is quite high tech. There is a lot of mathematics involved in deciding the size of the gaps and the direction of the slats. The Russians did a massive study into it. And that’s not how it works, it’s not designed to trap the round, or damage it, it’s designed to change the angle and distance of the detonation.
@@dwastart One of my favourite parts of England, I've visited many times over the past few years and always want to go back for more. I have been to Bovington twice and have no doubt that you will not be disappointed. If you make it there take time to visit places such as Lullworth Cove and Durdle Door and to see Chesil Beach at Portland. At weekends the Tank Training area at Lulworth is often open to public access with a number of footpaths available to walk.
@@dwastart Yes indeed at certain times, the South West Coast Path passes through the training area between Lulworth Cove and Kimmeridge Bay. A small detour will take you to Tynham village which was evacuated during WW2 and has been used for urban combat training ever since. I think the path is open most weekends and during the UK's school summer holiday period. Check online first if you want to walk the path. I hope you manage to visit, both Bovington and Dorset in general are well worth the time. 😀
This is also a massively complicated subject, but the triangle is a rectangle. Availability, the most important, covers everything from doctrines, reliability, man hours v operation hours….Availability tells far more, speaks of those who operated them.
Exactly! Having something which performs according to that triangle, but which is so hard to produce and maintain that you're unable to field them in sufficient numbers would diminish your military capabilities instead of enhance it. This is something which has been proven to be very influential in the Russian invasion of sovereign Ukraine, not just theoretical. 'On paper' Russia's has superior hardware. In the field, we are seeing day in day out what the 'second best military in the world' is capable off.
Yes indeed. Run out of beans,bullets or motion lotion,you start by walking. However,communication is not mentioned yet. Training. Leadership. Discipline. Without an effective radio net,the Russians took terrible casualties against German armour. French tanks of 1940 looked good on paper,but internal design and ergonomics were awful. Point is ,there are a whole bunch of whatzits that have to be added to the equation. Not just a triangle. Training has to be relentless. Practise. That is expensive, but crucial. Elan. Really effective leadership. No doubt other as well. Oh,shoot on the move technology. Reliability. Ease of service. A tank in the shop is one very expensive boat anchor.
Another factor is psychology. It's true for example that the Tiger 1 was never produced in enough numbers to really influence the battlefield, and was expensive and unreliable. But allied tank crews, and infantry, were terrified of it, and thought that every german tank they encountered was a Tiger. Its psychological impact far exceeded it's actual impact, and that is also important
also, if your crew gets easily exhausted trying to work inside a very uncomfortable interior, their ability to actually utilize the strengths of the vehicle diminishes heavily. The 76mm, and 17lb gun Sherman variants were initially rejected from US service because of how exhausting and cramped it was inside the early turrets.
really great video, i had read a lot on this subject over the years, and knew most of what was mentioned, however to learn all that takes hours upon hours of reading so many varied sources and you put it all together in a clear and concise 25 min video, keep up the good work a true credit to the museum
Good overview presentation, excellent german, good selection of vehicles, and lots of "aahm...". Would like to see specific episodes in the future focusing on specific vehicles and their armour. Thanks in advance. :-) Regards from a half kraut in Sweden going to Arsenalen on April 1:st.
What a great and informative video, pure quality. Not wasting time, clear and to the point, well narrated. I rarely see channels like this. You won a sub for sure. Thank you for your work and sharing knowledge.
RPG actually did not originally mean "rocket-propelled grenade". It was actually an acronym for the Russian phrase meaning "Hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher"; it was lost in translation though (understandably; it doesn't translate from Russian very well).
The secret ingredient of choblam is dried Weetabix, perhaps the hardest material known in the universe. Superb video, really loved it! Please make more like this (for firepower and mobility, perhaps ;) ) and I'd love to see a more in-depth video on tank armour.
Chobham armour has a material added to it that gives it its unbeatable and unpenetratable strength. Its top secret but after all these years I think I can what it is. Concrete has steel rods as reinforcement. Chobham armour had whiskers from David Fletchers moustache.
These are great videos, I liked the one on the guns as well. I expect to see one on the mobility next. Will there be one on the almost as important soft factors, like the ergonomics, visibility, speed of targeting, fire control etc?
Рік тому+1
Nice overview over a very broad topic. I also like that you have nice Visuals from your collection for the older stuff but the rely on the same open source/Wiki Commons pictures and videos for illustration for more modern things like the rest of us humble TankTubers :)
WoW, first "landships" really had no what we would consider tank armour these days - penetrated two plates, sent shrapnel flying around, and even left dents in third plate. Feels like those tanks were a "room-sized flack jacket".
Well, it was expressively stated that this wasn't a truly armoured vehicle, as it was only plated in mild steel. Also, the part of the tank show was not part of the crew/engine compartment, but simply a cover over the running gear.
Russian roof cages are not for top-attack missles but actually for AT drone bombing attacks and high angle RPG fire in urban combat from lessons learned in Syria and Georgia, its actually pretty smart but very misunderstood by people who don't really know why they're there
A lot of the up-armoring on the Shermans in WW2 was pretty much totally ineffective against armor-piercing gun projectiles (and probably made the armor _less_ effective against them), but it was never intended to stop those. It was just there to make shaped-charge rounds from Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks detonate prematurely. A shaped charge needs to detonate at just the right distance from the target as possible in order to maximize its penetrating power, so making it detonate early will add substantially to the effectiveness of the armor. Since the biggest threat to Allied tanks--by far--was Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks, this was actually pretty sensible.
Yeah, because German high velocity guns were able to go through 150mm of armor or more, they were so good that nor even German tank were able to withstand their own guns. sloped makes no difference against HEAT specially if something like a panzer Faust would through 200mm of steel with ease.
@@viceralman8450 Sloped makes a difference against HEAT rounds, but if the round is large enough, it may not make enough of a difference. The bigger issue is that there were just a lot more Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks out there than there were high-velocity guns.
@@viceralman8450Slope actually had a big effect on early HEAT projectiles without piezo electric fuse trains. A sufficiently angled plate ( think over ~60 degree compound angle ) could ensure that HEAT fusing correctly did not occur. I.e. the round would glance off.
The ceramic material, used for tiles in laminate armour, is sintered aluminium oxide. It is manufactured by Morgan Ceramics. Sintered aluminium oxide is raspberry pink in colour and has excellent thermal absorption properties & strength. It can also be moulded with a high degree of precession. One famous use was in the pink, expensive, top quality, Lodge spark plugs, that were used as OEM spark plugs by Land Rover, Roll Royce, Lamborghini, Alfa Romero, Ferrari, etc.
I like Mr. Chris Copson. He is thorough, well informed and always goes that extra step to give examples of what has been presented so as to make the subject matter easily accessible to the common viewer. One would've thought there's no replacing Mr. Fletcher's humorous moustache, which makes Mr. Copson all the more a welcome surprise.
The comment at 15:50 or so that slanting armor does not increase weight is simply not correct, at least with regard to direct fire coverage. Because triangles. If you are trying to protect 1 vertical meter of height, if you tilt the armor 45 degrees, one meter's height of armor won't reach. You'll need a plate that is 1.41 meters long. If your "roof" was much thinner (lighter) material, you may definitely end up increasing weight by slanting the plate.
As a german i would like to point out your nearly perfect german pronunciation of very difficult german words (like "Tank- und Fliegergewehr")! That is amazing - my gratitute.
Your German pronunciation is very, very good! Again another very interesting video, even for an ex-soldier, since I had nothing to do with armour back in my days.
Love the episode, I'm surprised you went with calling the RPG the rocket propelled grenade as that's is just a backronym taken from the original acronym in Russian that just means handheld anti-tank granade launcher.
15:47 Actually the weight of that frontal armor increases just as much as the effective thickness, assuming that the height of the vehicle does not change. The same plate angled back will be shorter and must be lengthened by the same amount (about 40%) to retain the same total height. The only advantages of sloped armor are decreasing the area of (dedicated, thin) roof armor, and increasing the chance of ricochet (and in modern times, the effectiveness of reactive armor [technically sloped ERA can be mounted to flat armor in a series of triangles]). Sloped armor can help the rigidity of the hull if plates intersect near the load points (idler bearing, torsion bars, sprocket bearing, tow hooks) similar to a truss bridge.
Today apfsds rounds are very good against angle plate. This was not true for many WW2 rounds. Heck rands were designed to pivot into the angled armor. However, obviously not as good as modern stuff.
But if you have a vertical piece of armor then you will need a horizontal piece on top of that to extend to you end point which will add up to a lot more than one sloped piece
@@BuilditUK True, and I mentioned that. The horizontal armor is usually much thinner, meaning lighter but not weightless, and a vulnerability when attacked from above.
Okay. This is a Tank Museum video. Why is it perpetuating that old, tired myth that the T-34 introduced sloped armor to the world? The Pzkw I befehlswagen he was standing next to earlier had sloped armor.
My Dad was a driver of a M5A1 model Stuart light tank in the European Theater during WWII. Can we find out more about this version of the tank? I've seen videos on the M3 Stuart, with the vertical forward vision "windows", known as the Honey, powered by an aircraft radial engine, but not much about the M5A1, except that it had TWO Cadillac V-8 automobile engines plus an "automatic" transmission.
Sherman armor is relatively thick at nearly the same protection value as the Tiger 1 upper front plate. The issue is that the guns the Sherman faced were made to penetrate much thicker armor values.
the Sherman was a overall much better tank than the Tiger I. Let´s not forget that the sherman was produced in much much higher numbers and tanks are made to support infantry to breakthrough. The sherman was cheaper, more reliable and didn´t need to kill tigers as this was the job of tankhunters, planes and artillery.
@@zenon4383 Absolutely right, the best Tank (or gun ship aeroplane etc) is the one you have and can depend upon, and the Sherman was exactly that, a point Nick Moran has made several times.
I have always wondered how tank armour from the WW2 and cold war era compares to the Harvey/Krupp armour used by warships in WW2. I know the tank armour is much thinner than that found on a battleship, for obvious reasons, but is the metallurgy similar? Maybe a subject for a future video ?
Will you do a video on active protection systems like Drodz, Trophy etc. In a future video or is it a bit too modern for the museum, with I imagine no examples in the museum.
They put crap on their tanks towards the end of WW2 like chickenwire and fencing because the panzerfaust was an ever-present threat and things like those steel cages did work against the shaped charge, it wasn't just hopeful stupidity on the tankers' part.
I'm taking videos of you featuring him with a pinch of salt because there are several mistakes to be found. Here for example "modern tank rounds travel at 3000m/s". (19:07 onward) No, they do not?! No tank round is that fast yet. I suggest 1. To check facts because this one was an easily avoidable mistake and 2. Also double check yourself if you are really into this topic
T34 was not the first or the only inter war tank with slop armour.The soviets just use it more,sacrificing space and crew ergonomy.There is a reason why no one used the t34 idea after it,not even the soviets.
@@dwwolf4636 Again t34 was not the first to use front slope armour.And the overall design of t34 was not repeated,ever,even if some elements were used.
I consider this video to be on the beginner's level of understanding of armour protection. Let's do a deep dive into much more advanced concepts of protection, and the round types that the armour is protecting against.
Normally I wouldn't dare this, but can I venture two points regarding the T-34's sloped armour? 1) Sloped armour doesn't directly save weight. For a given effective thickness over a given frontage, the volume (and thus weight) of steel required is constant - it's the effective thickness multiplied by the frontage of the plate. Sloping a plate costs internal volume but lets you use a plate that is longer but thinner and thus easier to manufacture - something that really matters when you need to churn a design out by the tens of thousands. 2) T-34 was not the first tank to use sloped armour...not by a long shot, although it is probably the first to take it to such an extreme. The BT series, the Vickers 6-ton, even the venerable Renault FT all have sloped frontal armour. Even the Pz.IV which is normally thought of as a box has a 10 degree slope on the front glacis.
To say that having a 45 degree armor plate adds no extra weight is just plain wrong. You need a large plate to cover the same amount of vertical space than a vertical plate. Haven't these guys heard of the first math formula you learn in school?
The only way it'd save weight is when the effective slope mod is greater the pure mathematical LoS increase ( which is equal to to length increase to cover a given height. That's a complex relation between t/D ratio, penetrator design and velocity.
It is not that simple. The vertical plate of course has to be thicker (heavier) and there needs to be more top and side plate to come out and meet it. Big gaps in your armor are not conducive to protection.
I agree, it's not simple. That's why saying "It adds no extra weight" is missinformative . Angled armor existed before the t34, it's not a straight upgrade from flat armor as they claim.
Oh here we go again. 1) armor mobility, firepower. was initially based on cruisers by Jackie fisher. not tanks - and while a desirable outcome is not an initial priority in a tank's design. things like cost, capability, and volumetrics all come beforehand. 2) not much evidence on sandbags - you have a whole archive full of information and tests on this subject, all proving it did. try to avoid reading wiki for your references? 3) Sherman had poor armour? - its just as thick as its german contemporaries. 4) sloped armour has been around since ww1. 5) sloped armour does increase the weight of the vehicle as the plate has to be larger to cover the same area. - this is basic geometry. 5) 'Chobham' begins back in the late 50s as ideas. first fitted to FV4211- then the XM1 and Abrams - then challenger. - the armour type is generically referred to as Chobham, and the individual setups/compositions have names such as Burlington, Buckhorse, Dorchester and so on. it was primarily designed to stop shaped charge attacks not APFSDS at the outset. 6) shaped charges are not 'white hot' the temperature is lower than the melting point of the material. often between 400-700 degrees and are not 'molten' in the normal sense of the word. 7) you can make chobham styles in curves, but it's not very effective so why would you. 8) cage armour does not TRAP rounds, its designed to disrupt or break up the cone before the fuse can contact the main armour. 9) ERA does not neutralise the impact, it's there to disrupt the jet or projectile, to prevent it from striking effectively. - awful video full of mistakes and tropes.
My ocd could not stand these few misconceptions that i feel are getting in a way of otherwise good and informative video, so few things that im going to bother to point out Cast armor in ww2 was inferrior in terms of protection versus rha or rolled homogenous armour. You could create more natural and more varried shapes that by themselves may provide better protection but if you take 100mm thick cast plate and 100mm thick rha plate, rha plate would most likely stop a projectile that would otherwise penetrate cast armor plate( ignoring all possible variables due to resource shortages, workforce experience and so on). Sloped armor was and is heavier to cover the same frontal projection size versus simple flat piece of armor. Unless you are planning to armor the top part of hull as much as the front itself, which was never the case, vertical plate would have smaller area and top part of the hull would be much thinner, therefore lighter overall. It was about having more chance to ricochet incoming shells without your armor plate having to soak up the whole kinetic energy by itself. It was never about weight saving. And finally, heat rounds do not penetrate by molten metal jets, its the pressure that does the penetration and under that immense pressure, many metals become superplastic. They may not even reach their melting temperature but still act like they are in liquid/solid state. Really complicated physics, but not necessarilly molten and even if it was, it would not be the temperature eating at the armor plate in front of it.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed this new episode of Evolution. Let us know what you thought in the comments down below.
I love this series, and please don't be afraid to make some videos going really in depth, after the initial overviews.
You'd be surprised how many people are actually enjoying to hear about the intricacies of a particular topic in excessive detail.
Throughly enjoying these presentations. When you come to 'firepower' can I suggest an episode on the BESA machine gun. There is next to nothing on the internet relating to this particular subject.
Loved the video - really well presented. Could you possibly do something on active protection systems?
Awsome vid one thing you forgot its been around for a while now is a good example is the Isreali Active Protection system Trophy or for short APS. It can detect incoming rounds from RPGs and ATGM and destroy them. Even improved systems in development are claiming they will do the same for incoming APFSDS rounds. Its been used in combat and it works.
Is there a good book that details the history of the development of tank armor?
hearing professional historians say "cope cages" is really a treat unique to our time, and i love it
What's the whole deal with "cope cages" being said? Can you explain?
@@151mattwilson It started as an internet meme. The joke is that they don't actually do anything other than giving the tank crew some peace of mind, so they can cope with the situation. To hear it used in a serious context is hilarious.
@@151mattwilson An internet meme (reddit mostly) where ruzzians put these on top of their tank in the hope to stop modern anti-tank missile systems like the US Javellin and the British NLAW.
Like most ruzzians weapons and armor, it is specifically designed to stop RUZZIAN weapons. so an RPG-7 fired from above would be neutralized like this, much, in the same way, SLAT armor does on APCs.
Since Javellins and NLAWs don't work like RPG's, so these "cope cages" are useless, it just gives ruzzo tankers a way to "cope" with their ineffective defense systems.
@@neliz2k Why use Ruzz instead Russ? I don't get it
@@151mattwilson To add to the previous to commenters. The joke with the "cope cages" was also used in the informational war going on at social media platforms. For that matter it was widely used to denigrate the Russian military and amplify their ineffective performance up to that point. So in parts it was indeed a joke, in parts it was also a lowkey psyop tool.
Hearing the historians of the tank museum use the term "cope cage" is at the same time a recognition of how widespread the influence of social media and the effectiveness of the "troll farms" which helped amplify the term.
It's delicious to hear.
More episodes with Mr. Copson please. The guy has knowledge so he knows WHAT to talk about, and he has passion so he knows HOW to talk about it. The episodes are entertaining and interesting. A worthy succesor of Mr. Fletcher.
it's kinda funny, I've watched Shorts on here where I was bored half-way through, but I couldn't even focus on anything else I was doing for almost half an hour with this video because it was so well made.
Despite him not being overly flamboyant or what modern creators would call "engaging" (Basically, a bunch of tricks to keep your attention that aren't really related to the video).
Holding people's attention really is a skill all its own.
He's not good in front of the camera though
He’s the man!
Hear, hear!
@John Thomas fun fact, the liners of a HEAT rounds isn't exactly molten, its a rather confusing area of behaving like liquids but isn't liquid, things moving at fast enough velocities tends to behave like fluids
His German pronunciation is spot on.
On top of his already extremely informative presentation.
👏
Completely agree 👍
Ja 😅
His English pronunciation isn't half bad either!
Um...
No it's not, wtf?
I love that cope cage has entered the industry vernacular. Great content as usual. Thank you!
Angled armour pre-dated the T-34 by a long way and its advantages were well understood thanks to naval design dating back to the 19th century. I think the reason for boxy tanks was part volumetric, part constructional and part metalergical.
Likewise, while electric arc welding has existed since about 1801, armour plate isn't anywhere near as easy to weld as your average mild steel & was prone to cracking or weak joints. Indeed the internal stresses would often cause welds to crack when a plate was struck by a round. This was the reason why Germany favoured interlocking welded plates.
Angled armour is used in castle design from the 15th century.
But also yeah the later ww1 tanks have angled armour.
Correct, museum guys here are amateurs as far as tank design is concerned. They get lots of things wrong.
British tanks generally favoured rivets as all the good welders were concentrated on shipbuilding and its just easier to rivet than weld. The russians insisted on welding the T34 regardless of the factory workers competence and some times the armour would stop the round but the welds would crack. Apparently the armour was often overhardened which would lead to spalling on the inside, which was lethal to the crew.
@@SlappyTheElf Incorrect. Soviets were one of the first to develop "submerged arc welding" which allowed them to weld. Riveting is far inferior to welding but if you do not have the tech... you rivet. Soviets simply were more technologically advanced the the British.
The reason weld jobs on T-34 were sloppy is simply the need to make them fast.
Note welding with submerged arc is not the same way you weld with stick at home. It is SAW process.
@@tomk3732 Incorrect. SAW can only weld in horizontal and flat planes. It is not ideal for use in armour plates.
SAW can also not be used on alloy metals, it is mainly limited to being used only nickel and nickel alloys.
SAW is also hugely bulky and overly expensive compared to SMAW, it is not practical for welding armour plate.
SAW is not used in military applications and is mainly used for the construction of civilian infrastructure like pipes.
The fact you think that SAW and SMAW are not the same is also funny, it is. It's literally one difference in being that the electrode is submerged or not.
Oh, SAW is also not portable, hence why you typically see this process in small automated processes, confined to one area like production lines.
I mean, why even bring SAW up? It is not applicable in anything here at all unless you want to build a civvie car or lay some pipes.
Soviet Russia was late to the welding game. Britain had been welding since the turn of the century, but just as the dude said, most welders were hogged by the Royal Navy because that is the oldest and most prestigious branch of the Military. It received more funding than the Army several times over, it was a very lucrative career being a welder in the Navy.
A big thing with the leopard and being “faster” isn’t necessarily the idea of being more mobile but more responsive to the situations it would be in. You aren’t going to dodge a sabot round coming in at 1200+ meters/s. What you are going to be able to do is give the appropriate and most versatile support to whomever is in need and get move into and out of cover when necessary; as fast as (reasonably) possible which is especially important at long range
Please Tank Museum, pin that comment!
The misunderstanding of the concept of mobility allowing for less of armor is as old as that concept.
in addition to your comment: the AP ammunition of the time was HEAT-FS wich could easily penetrate 400mm of steel on 2000m (so much for armor on chieftain) or the brand new sovjet T-62´s 115mm APFSDS.
There was just no reasonable amount of armor that you could add on a tank, that would protect you from 100mm and 115mm HEAT rounds, without turning into a mobile pillbox like T-28 Assault Gun.
Chieftain (60t weight) is 15t heavier than Leopard 1 and about as protected vs HEAT and AP ammunition of the late 60´s early 70´s as leopard 1. The sacrifice Chieftain had to make for its irrelevant armor was a 20km/h lower topspeed, atrocious terrain mobility and a 35-40% failure rate under peace conditions for the drivetrain and engine.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 yes and there’s the additional benefit of fuel consumption. Logistically speaking that can mean less fuel needing to be transported around and less transportation of fuel needed. It can be extraordinary beneficial if the conflict you’re in happens over a long period of time rather than the ideal and if we know anything; anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Including expected time lengths extending
Have you ever seen a Leopard 1 actually working, they travelled in troops of 3 and actually worked as 1 tank when it came to bugging out of ambushes etc.
The problem was the extremely thin turrets as seen on the Leo2 which badly needs more armour on the turret sides.
Very few CVR(T) were actually hit by the enemy, their speed was their protection!
Very hard to hit a moving target even with modern computers, most ranges have movers from left to right, once the little buggers start zig zagging it is almost down to luck.
Leo1 was very much a Recce Vehicle with a 105mm Gun, it fulfilled what it was built for.
@@gaptaxi i think you missunderstood a few things there.
NATO Users of Leopard 2 only ever used troops of 4-5 vehicles.
And Leopard 1 was a legit main battle tank at the time, because NOTHING could protect against sovjet HEAT and AP rounds in the late 1960´s, even Chieftain with its almost 400mm steel was unprotected.
Leopard 2 has quite thick turret sides, thicker than for example M1 Abrams. And Leopard 2 got extra armor on the turret with the A5 upgrade plus new composites in the turret with A6 and A7.
This is the first time I've seen "Schürzen" correctly translated as "aprons" and not as "skirts". I applaud you!
RPG originally - in Russian - stands for ‘hand held anti-tank weapon’. RPG aren’t necessarily propelled grenades. The RPG-2 fires a projected grenade with no rocket motor, and the RPG-43 is actually a hand grenade.
Yes, but G is for grenade launcher.
@@frun no it’s simply for ‘Grenade’ (‘Granata’).
There’s no ‘launcher’ in the Russian use of RPG. As evidence I give you the RPG-43.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 Yep, "RPG" basically means Hand-held Anti-Tank Grenade. Which is why the commonly claimed "Rocket Propelled Grenade" is wrong, it's just a backronym and not what "RPG-7" or similar AT launchers actually mean.
Rocket Propelled Grenade wouldn't even be correct anyways, since most people don't know the RPG-7 is actually a recoiless launcher. While it has a Rocket sustainer motor/booster, that's just to extend the range a bit and help it stay level, the main propulsion or "Launch Force" is still a powder charge with half vented out the back counteracting recoil like you'd see in a Panzerfaust, AT-4, or Carl Gustav.
Grenade can also mean plenty of things and is basically just small explosive, for instance submuntions from a cluster bomb are commonly referred to as grenades, and you can have "Grenade" rounds for a cannon which is just what some places call HE/HEF/HEI/Etc.
@@pyro1047 Absolutely. The PG-2 munition (fired from the similar looking RPG-2 launcher) doesn’t even have a sustain motor.
as add to that: Panzerfaust is an abreviation of Panzerabwehr Faustpatrone - basicly hand held anti tank grenade
I appreciate the upgrade from showing us individual tanks to teaching about tank theory. I agree with covering the fundamentals, like armor, first and I'm particularly interested in where this will go once the fundamentals have been fully covered.
"This is a _savage_ weapon..." As someone who has fired a few large-caliber rifles (though not quite that large!) the description was perfectly evocative of what it's like to aim then pull the trigger on such a beast.
My bones and I all winced at the description. Nicely done, sir!
In the photo of the Mauser T-Gewehr in use, someone's had the wit to add a bipod
- I'd guess to help foremost with aiming the damn thing but secondarily to take some of the recoil?
i once fired a 12 gauge shotgun with a slug and powder charge for hunting...that was a unique experience. especially having no previous firearm experience. i dont even want to imagine firing a t-gewehr xD
Large caliber rifles aren't that bad to fire if someone takes the time to design in decent recoil mitigation. Barretts are a treat, the Boys isn't really a big deal, and even the Lahti and Solothurn 20mm rifles are bearable because of muzzle brakes, butt pads, etc. The biggest issue with the T-gewehr is no brake and a steel butt plate. That being said, I also feel like historians who have never shot the weapon are overselling how bad it is. I remember Mae with C&Rsenal sent 5 in a row through it, and she was laughing.
@@Triezukeep in mind that any modern examples aren't going to be firing full pressure ammo.
I think it’s heavy enough to not be that bad to fire.
Thanks for all your work!
I watched a bunch of old German army training videos for tankers a while ago and one of the most interesting things about those videos I noticed was that they didn't even mention the tank's armor once in them.
They still instruct the drivers to point the front of the tank at the enemy, but not because the armor is thickest there, but to make the tank's silhouette as small as possible, not so much to be harder to hit, but for minimum visibility.
They really seem to treat the armor as an afterthought.
The general gist or mentality is that relying on armor for your safety is like relying on your car's airbag and seat belt to get you from A to B safely, instead of your driving skills.
Armor is just a last ditch hail Mary safety feature that may help, may not after everything else has failed.
I think what is missing from all these tank chats, is the labor which goes into maintaining them, everything from daily maintains by the crews to the maintains by the rear workshops.
I often see people asking "how would [Modern Tank] fair against x20 [Second World War Tank] and while mobility sometimes gets brought up, its usually firepower and armour that gets cited, so it's exciting to be able to peek into the forge and learn about the armoured tip of the iron triangle!
@@KilerkRazorclaw I wonder about that, if full bore rounds really are capable of dealing with modern composite armor why aren't we seeing APCR/HVAP-FS rounds being developed?
@@KilerkRazorclaw They really would not! during WW2 they were finding that the common shot AP round was becoming increasingly ineffective and so developed HVAP (a full bore lightweigh outer with a denser but smaller core and APDS with a discarding outer layer - that concentrated impact force over a much smaller impact point, so increasing the energy available to rupture (or scab) the target armour, that route continues into modern APFSDSDU rounds.
The argument that WW2 AP rounds would be effective against modern armour is about as credible as flat earth theories.... as a simple test ask yourself "if it were true, why has no army in the world re-introduced them?"
I can see why the focus would be on mobility.
I'm quite convinced that simply the ability to fire on the move makes modern tanks so much better that they could probably take out 20 WW2 tanks.
Of course if one of the enemy got a lucky shot in, they might hit the tracks, in which case no armor is going to protect you from at least a dozen tanks firing on you for very long.
@@josephahner3031 mainly because apfsds would still have an advantage in muzzle velocity, range, and penetration. and although a full bore projectile may pose a threat to tanks in certain circumstances, a modern apfsds round will almost always be a threat to a tank.
although as always it is best to not get hit in the first place by any type of round
Brilliant episode Chris, well done! Keep the chats coming, they are very nicely put together and well presented buy your self.
This chaps delivery is so, so good! More please!
Two tank videos in one day? what a treat
Thank you guys not only for the preservation of the history and technology of these beautiful machines, but also for making these excellent presentations of the evolutionary use of these vehicles. Seriously, so much history would be lost if not for your team.
Thanks
An old tanker once told me that if the Chieftain got into a good defensive position it would have been almost invincible compared to its contemporaries.
The trick was getting the bugger there without it breaking down!
Top attack missile says no
@@user-propositionjoe Which didn’t exist in the Chieftain’s time, so what’s your point exactly? That old armour is easily defeated by modern weapons? Well, d’uhhh…
@@feliscorax Joe, apparently, doesn't know the definition of the word "contemporaries."
@@feliscorax ok then, artillery shell says no
@@user-propositionjoe Which were not precision-guided munitions at the time, and had a low likelihood of scoring a direct hit on a vehicle using indirect fire. Your arguments thus far are specious.
One of the things I've always been interested in with regards to armour is how it reacts to repeated hits. More in the example of cast or homogenous steel armour. Repeated hits by shells that can't penetrate an armour of a given value. Would eventually get through is what I am thinking. I've seen first hand WW2 tanks that have had non penetrating hits and the damage is noteworthy. It looked like the steel had been melted and pushed armour aside.
An important part of this is penetration absorption, you want the face hardened to be stronger and if possible shatter shells, but you also want the back of the plate softer to sort of absorb the force I guess.
With a soft back it might bend, dent, or deform easier, but it's less likely to crack or spall as bad as fully hardened armor.
This was why Soviet and German tanks spalled and cracked so bad, the German armor was too face hardened and they lacked the supplies to divert alloys for tanks, meanwhile the Soviets just over hardened the entire plate.
US Warships had a similar problem, things like the turret face armor were hardened too deep actually reducing protection over if they had the same thickness with shallower hardening. They did this on accident, trying to increase protection but unknowingly reducing it.
Softer armor was also actually an advantage on the M4 Sherman though I don't rememberthe exact reason, something like while it's less likely to shatter a shell it's more likely to "gouge out" the armor and bounce.
@@pyro1047 Think about it, if the tank round has to expend energy deforming a larger surface areas of armour than it is actually penetrating on the way in, it will have less energy left for traveling and penetration. Is the armour too soft, though, it will deform so easily that it won't actually sap any meaningful amount of energy. Bear in mind, soft and hard are relative terms, no one person could bend any kind of steel used in tank production as they might be able to bend soft iron.
That made me think (Damn you Sir, the pain from long unused braincells is severe!)
What it specifically mde me think is
*'I wonder how it might be possible to cause something protected by that Russian Explosive Reactive Armour to trigger'* ?
...... There must be some sort of pressure mechanism I guess
IF you could make the ERA blow itself off
Well, the tortoise is out of its shell innit?
More succinctly. using emoji as pictograms...... 🐢 +☀ = 🦎
@@Farweasel Been around for a long long time. Called tandem warheads. IIRC Tow II was one of the first systems to use it.
I would love an in depth video about the evolution and the abilites of modern FCS. An indepth view into the in and outs, like delta d, the difference between point stabilization and direction stabilization and everything else. Would love it!
That would be great to learn about!!!
Chris does an excellent job in his videos. My favorite Tank Museum presenter.
Love this video series, focusing on crosscutting / broader topics involving different aspects of tank technology across time and countries. Kudos to tank museum crew!
Can you do an episode on the different types of materials used in tanks in WW2? I keep hearing boilerplate, rha, plate, and cast but very little about the differences between them and how they compare
In addition to the below, you asked about RHA, which is rolled homogenous armor and is in contrast with face-hardened armor. RHA is basically a billet of armor alloy steel that is then rolled down to a particular thickness, which also causes the billet to spread laterally. The rolling process both gets the steel down to the specified thickness and dimensions, from which excess can be trimmed and the RHA plate welded into place on the frame, and work hardens the steel making it harder and more resistant to penetration but also more brittle. In contrast, face-hardened armor takes a similar plate of armor steel alloy and heats the plate up to fairly high temperature, then quickly quenches the outer face of the plate to cool it down. This makes the surface very hard to a depth of between 1/4 and 2/3 of the thickness of the plate (depending on the manufacturer and purpose), while the back of the plate is more ductile and better able to absorb the shock of an impact without shattering or having fragments spall off the back. RHA is common for tanks, which are mass produced, but face-hardened armor is better overall if more difficult and expensive to produce, so it would be used for more limited production tanks and for warship armor.
@@kemarisite From what I read elsewhere, face hardend armour was initialy considerd superior, as it could cause impacting AP shells to shatter.
But with the advent of capped shells, they mostly lost that advantage and weren't much better than rolled homogenous armour. At least not sufficiently better to justify the additional cost.
@@Bird_Dog00 that could very well play a roll with tank armor, but there is a lot of overlap with warship armor. Even with a suitable cap on the shell, face hardened armor plate was typical for warship armor right up to the time (after WW2) when warships gave up on exterior armor entirely as a wasted weight. The Iowa class battleships used Class A armor plate, which is face hardened, on the main belt, barbettes, and turret sides and rear, with Class B (non face-hardened) armor plate on the turret faces, deck, and citadel because of some unique US Navy assumptions about the kind of combat they would be getting involved in and the weapons that would be used.
Drachinifel has a video on warship armour which covers many relevant elements.
@Retired Bore As Drachinifel is a practicing civil engineer I think he probably understands the technical details better than most historians.
I’m not proposing his video on historical armour as an alternative to the engineering textbooks he drew his figures from, only suggesting that he gives quite good answers to some of the metallurgy questions people are asking in the comments.
The unwillingness of governments and manufacturers to give details about current technology is part of the reason Drachinifel has a pretty hard cutoff of about 1950, and won’t talk about anything after that.
Interesting survey of the race between attack and defence. Happy to see more videos along these lines.
Fascinating look at a 100 years of basic tank design countering threats. Very interesting.
Thank you
Actually slat armour is quite high tech. There is a lot of mathematics involved in deciding the size of the gaps and the direction of the slats. The Russians did a massive study into it. And that’s not how it works, it’s not designed to trap the round, or damage it, it’s designed to change the angle and distance of the detonation.
That's the cool thing about UA-cam. I never typred what tanks can and can't do but seeing your video had me learning all this stuff.
If I ever have the chance to visit England, I am setting aside at minimum two days to explore your museum
At least! Many local hotels to stay
@@stuartpeacock8257 Lot's of local B&Bs, area looks amazing too. Just did a Google street view tour of the area
@@dwastart One of my favourite parts of England, I've visited many times over the past few years and always want to go back for more. I have been to Bovington twice and have no doubt that you will not be disappointed. If you make it there take time to visit places such as Lullworth Cove and Durdle Door and to see Chesil Beach at Portland. At weekends the Tank Training area at Lulworth is often open to public access with a number of footpaths available to walk.
@@tonym480 They have the tank training area open to the public?! This is starting to sound like a dream vacation
@@dwastart Yes indeed at certain times, the South West Coast Path passes through the training area between Lulworth Cove and Kimmeridge Bay. A small detour will take you to Tynham village which was evacuated during WW2 and has been used for urban combat training ever since. I think the path is open most weekends and during the UK's school summer holiday period. Check online first if you want to walk the path. I hope you manage to visit, both Bovington and Dorset in general are well worth the time. 😀
Good Video. A follow up on modern active and passive protecton systems like Trohpy would be cool as well.
as a mechanical engineer i'd prefer the "deep water" talk about armour. hardened, rolled, composite... pros, cons
This is also a massively complicated subject, but the triangle is a rectangle. Availability, the most important, covers everything from doctrines, reliability, man hours v operation hours….Availability tells far more, speaks of those who operated them.
Exactly! Having something which performs according to that triangle, but which is so hard to produce and maintain that you're unable to field them in sufficient numbers would diminish your military capabilities instead of enhance it.
This is something which has been proven to be very influential in the Russian invasion of sovereign Ukraine, not just theoretical.
'On paper' Russia's has superior hardware. In the field, we are seeing day in day out what the 'second best military in the world' is capable off.
Then theres things like logistics, no good having a tank that cant get refueled and re-armoured on the front lines
Yes indeed. Run out of beans,bullets or motion lotion,you start by walking. However,communication is not mentioned yet. Training. Leadership. Discipline. Without an effective radio net,the Russians took terrible casualties against German armour. French tanks of 1940 looked good on paper,but internal design and ergonomics were awful.
Point is ,there are a whole bunch of whatzits that have to be added to the equation. Not just a triangle. Training has to be relentless. Practise. That is expensive, but crucial. Elan. Really effective leadership. No doubt other as well. Oh,shoot on the move technology. Reliability. Ease of service.
A tank in the shop is one very expensive boat anchor.
Another factor is psychology. It's true for example that the Tiger 1 was never produced in enough numbers to really influence the battlefield, and was expensive and unreliable. But allied tank crews, and infantry, were terrified of it, and thought that every german tank they encountered was a Tiger. Its psychological impact far exceeded it's actual impact, and that is also important
also, if your crew gets easily exhausted trying to work inside a very uncomfortable interior, their ability to actually utilize the strengths of the vehicle diminishes heavily. The 76mm, and 17lb gun Sherman variants were initially rejected from US service because of how exhausting and cramped it was inside the early turrets.
Great video, folks. Chris Copson does a top-notch job on explaining the subject.
This series is fantastic. So detailed.
really great video, i had read a lot on this subject over the years, and knew most of what was mentioned, however to learn all that takes hours upon hours of reading so many varied sources and you put it all together in a clear and concise 25 min video, keep up the good work a true credit to the museum
Good overview presentation, excellent german, good selection of vehicles, and lots of "aahm...". Would like to see specific episodes in the future focusing on specific vehicles and their armour. Thanks in advance. :-)
Regards from a half kraut in Sweden going to Arsenalen on April 1:st.
This was really good. Please do a video on the different methods in making the armor. Cast, rolled, etc... Well done! ☺
What a great and informative video, pure quality. Not wasting time, clear and to the point, well narrated. I rarely see channels like this. You won a sub for sure. Thank you for your work and sharing knowledge.
What a fantastic video. I'd love to see more from this crew!
RPG actually did not originally mean "rocket-propelled grenade". It was actually an acronym for the Russian phrase meaning "Hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher"; it was lost in translation though (understandably; it doesn't translate from Russian very well).
Another excellent tank chat. This new series is superb
The secret ingredient of choblam is dried Weetabix, perhaps the hardest material known in the universe.
Superb video, really loved it!
Please make more like this (for firepower and mobility, perhaps ;) ) and I'd love to see a more in-depth video on tank armour.
Chobham armour has a material added to it that gives it its unbeatable and unpenetratable strength. Its top secret but after all these years I think I can what it is.
Concrete has steel rods as reinforcement.
Chobham armour had whiskers from David Fletchers moustache.
Is that Weetabix that has had milk added and then "sat in a bowl on the draining board untill dry"? If so I must argee.
Nah. Unripe avocados is the actual secret ingredient.
@@fus149hammer5Chobham armour has something more special than a kind of REBAR added to it
@@StewartWalker-hy1eo it has. David's moustache whiskers. A photon torpedo won't get through that!
6:00 can we all appreciate that this vehicle was preserved with battle damage and all?
These are great videos, I liked the one on the guns as well. I expect to see one on the mobility next.
Will there be one on the almost as important soft factors, like the ergonomics, visibility, speed of targeting, fire control etc?
Nice overview over a very broad topic. I also like that you have nice Visuals from your collection for the older stuff but the rely on the same open source/Wiki Commons pictures and videos for illustration for more modern things like the rest of us humble TankTubers :)
WoW, first "landships" really had no what we would consider tank armour these days - penetrated two plates, sent shrapnel flying around, and even left dents in third plate. Feels like those tanks were a "room-sized flack jacket".
Well, it was expressively stated that this wasn't a truly armoured vehicle, as it was only plated in mild steel.
Also, the part of the tank show was not part of the crew/engine compartment, but simply a cover over the running gear.
Till the char 2c yeah, the fairly well armoured landship
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?
This content is superb, I can't believe I'm only now discovering this channel.
Would love to see more about the internal tech of tanks through the ages. Starting with radio.
This guy is great. I love putting this on before bed. Relaxing and informative content.
Russian roof cages are not for top-attack missles but actually for AT drone bombing attacks and high angle RPG fire in urban combat from lessons learned in Syria and Georgia, its actually pretty smart but very misunderstood by people who don't really know why they're there
These NPCs Just say It is a Cope cage to boost Morale why tf would they spent their times with useless stuff?
Just because "russia IS The bad guy" they can think everything about It and misunderstand with pleasure.
Can’t get enough of these videos! Keep Mr Copson videos coming please.
A lot of the up-armoring on the Shermans in WW2 was pretty much totally ineffective against armor-piercing gun projectiles (and probably made the armor _less_ effective against them), but it was never intended to stop those. It was just there to make shaped-charge rounds from Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks detonate prematurely. A shaped charge needs to detonate at just the right distance from the target as possible in order to maximize its penetrating power, so making it detonate early will add substantially to the effectiveness of the armor. Since the biggest threat to Allied tanks--by far--was Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks, this was actually pretty sensible.
Yeah, because German high velocity guns were able to go through 150mm of armor or more, they were so good that nor even German tank were able to withstand their own guns. sloped makes no difference against HEAT specially if something like a panzer Faust would through 200mm of steel with ease.
@@viceralman8450 Sloped makes a difference against HEAT rounds, but if the round is large enough, it may not make enough of a difference. The bigger issue is that there were just a lot more Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks out there than there were high-velocity guns.
@@redrackham6812 Not at all as they were pretty effective, towed AT cannons caused most of the loses the allies suffered during WW2.
@@viceralman8450Slope actually had a big effect on early HEAT projectiles without piezo electric fuse trains.
A sufficiently angled plate ( think over ~60 degree compound angle ) could ensure that HEAT fusing correctly did not occur. I.e. the round would glance off.
@@viceralman8450Mines.
I like this guy. Straight to the point
The ceramic material, used for tiles in laminate armour, is sintered aluminium oxide. It is manufactured by Morgan Ceramics.
Sintered aluminium oxide is raspberry pink in colour and has excellent thermal absorption properties & strength. It can also be moulded with a high degree of precession.
One famous use was in the pink, expensive, top quality, Lodge spark plugs, that were used as OEM spark plugs by Land Rover, Roll Royce, Lamborghini, Alfa Romero, Ferrari, etc.
I like Mr. Chris Copson. He is thorough, well informed and always goes that extra step to give examples of what has been presented so as to make the subject matter easily accessible to the common viewer. One would've thought there's no replacing Mr. Fletcher's humorous moustache, which makes Mr. Copson all the more a welcome surprise.
The comment at 15:50 or so that slanting armor does not increase weight is simply not correct, at least with regard to direct fire coverage. Because triangles. If you are trying to protect 1 vertical meter of height, if you tilt the armor 45 degrees, one meter's height of armor won't reach. You'll need a plate that is 1.41 meters long. If your "roof" was much thinner (lighter) material, you may definitely end up increasing weight by slanting the plate.
A+b is greater than c. : )
@@chopstick266 Sure, but nobody armors roofs to the same thickness as fronts.
Amazing material. Thank you so much.
Excellent series. Looking forward to more. Mr. Copson is a great presenter.
As a german i would like to point out your nearly perfect german pronunciation of very difficult german words (like "Tank- und Fliegergewehr")! That is amazing - my gratitute.
Great video, I was wondering if you could do anything on active protection systems or even smoke to hide movement or anti infrared smoke?
22:02 was the highlight of my week hearing that from you lot
cant wait till i can visit again
24 minutes 😮 It felt like 10. Absolutely superb
The Jagtiger at the angle they always show it at is the best looking tank of all time.
Your German pronunciation is very, very good! Again another very interesting video, even for an ex-soldier, since I had nothing to do with armour back in my days.
Excellent content delivered clearly,concisely and with an engaging punch
Such a great video. So much work went into the script and editing. Amazing!
Love the episode, I'm surprised you went with calling the RPG the rocket propelled grenade as that's is just a backronym taken from the original acronym in Russian that just means handheld anti-tank granade launcher.
Thanks - again - for a very well made/researched/presented documentary!
15:47 Actually the weight of that frontal armor increases just as much as the effective thickness, assuming that the height of the vehicle does not change. The same plate angled back will be shorter and must be lengthened by the same amount (about 40%) to retain the same total height. The only advantages of sloped armor are decreasing the area of (dedicated, thin) roof armor, and increasing the chance of ricochet (and in modern times, the effectiveness of reactive armor [technically sloped ERA can be mounted to flat armor in a series of triangles]). Sloped armor can help the rigidity of the hull if plates intersect near the load points (idler bearing, torsion bars, sprocket bearing, tow hooks) similar to a truss bridge.
Today apfsds rounds are very good against angle plate.
This was not true for many WW2 rounds. Heck rands were designed to pivot into the angled armor. However, obviously not as good as modern stuff.
But if you have a vertical piece of armor then you will need a horizontal piece on top of that to extend to you end point which will add up to a lot more than one sloped piece
@@BuilditUK True, and I mentioned that. The horizontal armor is usually much thinner, meaning lighter but not weightless, and a vulnerability when attacked from above.
Nice to see I'm not the only one thinking this.
Another great presentation by Chris. Keep 'em coming
Okay. This is a Tank Museum video. Why is it perpetuating that old, tired myth that the T-34 introduced sloped armor to the world? The Pzkw I befehlswagen he was standing next to earlier had sloped armor.
I love this channel and this museum, I hope to visit one day when I finally make it across the pond for a visit!
My Dad was a driver of a M5A1 model Stuart light tank in the European Theater during WWII. Can we find out more about this version of the tank? I've seen videos on the M3 Stuart, with the vertical forward vision "windows", known as the Honey, powered by an aircraft radial engine, but not much about the M5A1, except that it had TWO Cadillac V-8 automobile engines plus an "automatic" transmission.
Very well done video, good host and good camera/editing work as well
Sherman armor is relatively thick at nearly the same protection value as the Tiger 1 upper front plate. The issue is that the guns the Sherman faced were made to penetrate much thicker armor values.
the Sherman was a overall much better tank than the Tiger I. Let´s not forget that the sherman was produced in much much higher numbers and tanks are made to support infantry to breakthrough. The sherman was cheaper, more reliable and didn´t need to kill tigers as this was the job of tankhunters, planes and artillery.
@@zenon4383 Absolutely right, the best Tank (or gun ship aeroplane etc) is the one you have and can depend upon, and the Sherman was exactly that, a point Nick Moran has made several times.
@@ThatZenoGuy when on the attack the armor on front is what's exposed
@@ThatZenoGuy properly done you have infantry support
@@ThatZenoGuy no tank at the time was immune to a side strike dummy
A tank saved my marriage, fixed my morning breath and gave me the confidence I needed to start a new singing career. Thanks Tank!
I have always wondered how tank armour from the WW2 and cold war era compares to the Harvey/Krupp armour used by warships in WW2. I know the tank armour is much thinner than that found on a battleship, for obvious reasons, but is the metallurgy similar? Maybe a subject for a future video ?
if face hardened, yeah, it's similar. Krupp armor is more or less carburized and hardened on one side.
Yes, they used similar techniques to produce face hardened armour.
On top of his already extremely informative presentation.
Will you do a video on active protection systems like Drodz, Trophy etc. In a future video or is it a bit too modern for the museum, with I imagine no examples in the museum.
Quality as always. Thanks! 🇨🇦
They put crap on their tanks towards the end of WW2 like chickenwire and fencing because the panzerfaust was an ever-present threat and things like those steel cages did work against the shaped charge, it wasn't just hopeful stupidity on the tankers' part.
Full of important information that are so simply stated- awesome.
What tank armour can do: not move itself
What tank armour can't do: move itself
I love these, can't believe they are free to watch!!!!! I used to go here as a kid
I'm taking videos of you featuring him with a pinch of salt because there are several mistakes to be found. Here for example "modern tank rounds travel at 3000m/s". (19:07 onward)
No, they do not?! No tank round is that fast yet.
I suggest
1. To check facts because this one was an easily avoidable mistake and
2. Also double check yourself if you are really into this topic
He probably meant to say 3000 mph
A really well done Video, Congratulations to the Tank Museum
T34 was not the first or the only inter war tank with slop armour.The soviets just use it more,sacrificing space and crew ergonomy.There is a reason why no one used the t34 idea after it,not even the soviets.
Well. No, and yes.
Sloped side armor went the way of the dodo.
Sloped frontal armor is alive and kicking.
@@dwwolf4636
Again t34 was not the first to use front slope armour.And the overall design of t34 was not repeated,ever,even if some elements were used.
Well that was terrific. Thanks, Tank Museum! 👏👏👏
I consider this video to be on the beginner's level of understanding of armour protection. Let's do a deep dive into much more advanced concepts of protection, and the round types that the armour is protecting against.
Informative with great presentation. Whatever the subject, a true expert is a pleasure to listen to.
Normally I wouldn't dare this, but can I venture two points regarding the T-34's sloped armour?
1) Sloped armour doesn't directly save weight. For a given effective thickness over a given frontage, the volume (and thus weight) of steel required is constant - it's the effective thickness multiplied by the frontage of the plate. Sloping a plate costs internal volume but lets you use a plate that is longer but thinner and thus easier to manufacture - something that really matters when you need to churn a design out by the tens of thousands.
2) T-34 was not the first tank to use sloped armour...not by a long shot, although it is probably the first to take it to such an extreme. The BT series, the Vickers 6-ton, even the venerable Renault FT all have sloped frontal armour. Even the Pz.IV which is normally thought of as a box has a 10 degree slope on the front glacis.
Glad I watched this before purchasing my combat tank.
Amazing how much more competent the naration is compared to some German museums channels , thanks , danke
To say that having a 45 degree armor plate adds no extra weight is just plain wrong. You need a large plate to cover the same amount of vertical space than a vertical plate. Haven't these guys heard of the first math formula you learn in school?
The only way it'd save weight is when the effective slope mod is greater the pure mathematical LoS increase ( which is equal to to length increase to cover a given height.
That's a complex relation between t/D ratio, penetrator design and velocity.
It is not that simple. The vertical plate of course has to be thicker (heavier) and there needs to be more top and side plate to come out and meet it. Big gaps in your armor are not conducive to protection.
I agree, it's not simple. That's why saying "It adds no extra weight" is missinformative . Angled armor existed before the t34, it's not a straight upgrade from flat armor as they claim.
Very nice explanation, even a newby like me can understand. Btw your pronunciation of German words is on point, really enjoyed that.
Oh here we go again. 1) armor mobility, firepower. was initially based on cruisers by Jackie fisher. not tanks - and while a desirable outcome is not an initial priority in a tank's design. things like cost, capability, and volumetrics all come beforehand. 2) not much evidence on sandbags - you have a whole archive full of information and tests on this subject, all proving it did. try to avoid reading wiki for your references? 3) Sherman had poor armour? - its just as thick as its german contemporaries. 4) sloped armour has been around since ww1. 5) sloped armour does increase the weight of the vehicle as the plate has to be larger to cover the same area. - this is basic geometry. 5) 'Chobham' begins back in the late 50s as ideas. first fitted to FV4211- then the XM1 and Abrams - then challenger. - the armour type is generically referred to as Chobham, and the individual setups/compositions have names such as Burlington, Buckhorse, Dorchester and so on. it was primarily designed to stop shaped charge attacks not APFSDS at the outset. 6) shaped charges are not 'white hot' the temperature is lower than the melting point of the material. often between 400-700 degrees and are not 'molten' in the normal sense of the word. 7) you can make chobham styles in curves, but it's not very effective so why would you. 8) cage armour does not TRAP rounds, its designed to disrupt or break up the cone before the fuse can contact the main armour. 9) ERA does not neutralise the impact, it's there to disrupt the jet or projectile, to prevent it from striking effectively. - awful video full of mistakes and tropes.
This chap really knows his stuff. I’m impressed.
My ocd could not stand these few misconceptions that i feel are getting in a way of otherwise good and informative video, so
few things that im going to bother to point out
Cast armor in ww2 was inferrior in terms of protection versus rha or rolled homogenous armour. You could create more natural and more varried shapes that by themselves may provide better protection but if you take 100mm thick cast plate and 100mm thick rha plate, rha plate would most likely stop a projectile that would otherwise penetrate cast armor plate( ignoring all possible variables due to resource shortages, workforce experience and so on).
Sloped armor was and is heavier to cover the same frontal projection size versus simple flat piece of armor. Unless you are planning to armor the top part of hull as much as the front itself, which was never the case, vertical plate would have smaller area and top part of the hull would be much thinner, therefore lighter overall. It was about having more chance to ricochet incoming shells without your armor plate having to soak up the whole kinetic energy by itself. It was never about weight saving.
And finally, heat rounds do not penetrate by molten metal jets, its the pressure that does the penetration and under that immense pressure, many metals become superplastic. They may not even reach their melting temperature but still act like they are in liquid/solid state. Really complicated physics, but not necessarilly molten and even if it was, it would not be the temperature eating at the armor plate in front of it.