Because the DOD understood that they needed to train and explain super complicated subjects to people who might not have even graduated high school. Using real world examples such as the “4th of July” analogy made things easier to understand.
It isn't that old actually since modern artillery is the same as ww2 only with a compurers attached to it. Also in the Ukraine they use the old pieces of artillery with the help of drones to correct the fire and that duo is almost as effective as the modern ones with computers.
I've done a LOT of reloading of various calibers for handguns since I was into pistol shooting competition. I made SURE I followed the specs because things have to be so precise. Watching this excellent vid helped me understand so much more. Thanks.
@@Eduardo_Espinoza I've seen pistols blow up either because the person reloaded a double charge of powder or they didn't load powder in a particular round, so the primer put the bullet in the barrel, squib, they think they have a jam so they manually cycle in the next round and BAM. Certainly most can tell if they had a squib or not.
Sometimes I wonder if the people playing their instruments for these early films thought to themselves, “No need to hit every note perfectly because our music will just sound garbled and shitty anyway when played through a film projector!”
nah. the 2023 version will have a lot of empty words, a lot of useless visuals, and end up being entertaining to the point of failing to deliver information.
Precise dropping of bombs was also a big problem. There was a certain type of bomb sight developed by the US military during WW2 that provided very accurate bombing, but the name escapes me at the moment....
It was the norden bomb sight, it promised to have extremely high accuracy but failed to deliver, although it was more accurate than the bomb sights at the time. It used a compact computer and more advanced instruments to predict where the bomb would fall. The norden bomb sight was used on the Enola Gay dropping of the little boy atomic bomb on japan.
There's no theory. Your beloved gunmaker is a psychopath and must be arrested. Scott too. He's also a danger to public safety. All gun TH-camrs, as good psychopaths too, went out of their way to defend him with all kinds of ridiculous theories to not loose their easy TH-cam money. Not a single f for human life.
I've seen illustrations of internal ballistics that show that at ignition, all forces inside the barrel are equal, that recoil can not occur until the projectile clears the muzzle, then all forces are directed to the rear of the barrel resulting in recoil. Forces such as the ejection of the projectile, expanding gases, unspent propellant, etc. (ejecta) contribute to the rearward push. I've seen 'super slo-mo' video of a 76mm cannon firing and the recoil began before the projectile left the barrel, my theory is the 3in x bore length column of air inside the bore was ejected as the projectile was traveling toward the muzzle acting as ejecta. I've seen recoil action semi-auto pistols firing in slo-mo that demonstrate that recoil doesn't occur until the bullet leaves the muzzle.
@@pegheadSorry but that's wrong, the explanation and visualization on this film is right. Just a couple of things: - If at the moment of ignition forces inside the barrel would balance each other out, neither the gun or the bullet would move. In reality the forces acting on the back of barrel and on the bullet are (roughly) equal and certainly opposite, but they do not balance each other out, because they act on two different bodies (gun and bullet) and accelerate their motions in opposite directions. - The bullet, gases and ejecta rushing forward inside the barrel do not push the gun backward. On the contrary, the push the gun forward, because the friction and drag against the inside of the bore. But the backward force from the gas pressure in much greater, so the gun is pushed backward. This push is strongest while all stuff is still inside the barrel, because the pressure is strongest then. - In semiautomatic pistols the slide starts moving backward at the same instant the bullet starts its forward movement. I've seen hi-speed videos where this is very obvious. - Finally, and this should be obvious: we are dealing with contact forces here. Anything that does not touch the gun can not exert a force on it. So the bullet etc that has come out of the muzzle can't affect the gun any way. Unfortunately, I've noticed that those who don't believe the correct explanation usually can't be converted. They just do not understand Newtonian physics and interactions inside the gun. Which is not entirely their fault; these things are just generally taught so badly at school. PS. I have a PhD in physics education.
Fair enough, but is not the projectile ejecta also? I once saw a concept where in the vacuum of space, a craft can be propelled by launching a projectile from the rear, in your explanation, one would merely have to launch a projectile contained in a very long, closed and sealed tube/barrel and as long as the projectile doesn't exit the tube, it would still exert an opposite force to the craft propelling it forward, at a slower velocity, of course.
@@peghead In the described situation the craft would indeed be propelled forward. Let's assume it starts from rest. If we separate the projectile and the gas pushing it, then the craft is not propelled by the projectile but by the force the gas exerts to the craft. If we lump the projectile, gas, unburnt powder etc together as ejecta, then we can say that the craft is propelled by the ejecta. Using this terminology, when the ejecta reaches the other sealed end of the barrel, they exert equal and opposite forces to each other, which make both the ejecta and the craft to stop. But they both have moved from their original position; the craft has moved forward, the ejecta backward. What has not moved is the center of mass of the craft-ejecta system, which is assumed to be isolated from the rest of the world. Internal forces can't change the motion of the center of mass of a system. The principle is called the conservation of momentum. So in this case the system as a whole stays in rest all the time, in spite of that its parts move. Coming back to the recoil of a gun, conservation of momentum is in a way the simplest means to figure out why the gun starts to move backward at the same the bullet starts to move forward. No need to think about forces, their balances and directions. In order to keep the gun-gas-bullet system's center of mass in rest, when there's stuff moving forward, there must be stuff moving backward too. Of course in this case the system is not isolated, but at the moment of firing the forces accelerating the gun and the bullet are much greater than the forces holding the gun, so for a short time the gun behaves almost as if there were no external forces acting on it.
Glad you replied, I've had an epiphany. I spent about an hour this morning reviewing extreme slo-mo videos featuring firearm discharges. A popular example was from an episode of "Mythbusters" and a 73,000 frames per second video of an M1911-style semi-automatic pistol. I watched it over and over, eventually taping a metal straightedge on the screen level with the bottom of the pistol's slide. I used the pause-key to slow the video down even further. Sure enough, the slide began a rearward movement, however slight, to the rear prior to the bullet exiting the muzzle, even to the extent that the rear of the slide was pushing the hammer to the rear, acting against two springs, the recoil spring and the hammer mainspring, telling me this was a formidable amount of force. The movement was less than a millimeter and did not effect the position of the pistol in any way. Long confession short, LIST ME IN THE CONVERTED COLUMN, you have opened my aging eyes, thank you. @@mottee
I agree that it's great, but it is CHOCK FULL of special effects shots. Manual animation is usually the most expensive type of shot available (measured in hundreds of dollars for a second of runtime), and this uses such animation, albeit quite a simple kind. You can make the same animation today with vector tech and flash-like programs for pennies, sure. If you don't factor in labor costs. But with 1950s tech, this is very expensive VFX that required filming animated stuff frame by frame, then re-filming it many times over to composite it with animated effects in studios. Not to mention that even now, you'd pay a lot for a good director, good storyboarder, good animator, and good motion designer to get a video as effective as this.
This is a very good explanation of ballistics. I was a field artillery fire direction nco for 5 years. Next we need to cover. Accurate gun and target info and. Met. Meteorology. How weather things like gravity and spin include the coriolis force. Ie the earth spinning underneath the projectile while in flight
When was the footage originally published? In my opinion most of these old educational videos are much easier to understand than many modern videos with animated footage. Thanks for sharing!
I believe Those were analog computers, surprisingly there are some reasons to believe that those computers may have been faster than modern computers (At least in curtain areas of complex math)
This is 1948. The fact that they have shown computers at al is amazing (before that, "computer" was a name for a woman performing arithmetical operations by hand).
Now, what if you put high pressure grains on a long barreled gun but make the gunbreach (and barrel too) strong enough to withstand the extreme pressure?
9 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Then you have a huge and expensive, long range gun. It is a waste of resources. You can reach the same range with a less expensive gun design.
I'm a military trainings developer, I wish we could make stuff like this. Now stupid power point and similar slide show type training is forced everywhere.
I cannot help but wonder, where would we be right now, as a humanity, if all this effort and means that are put to develop more effective and sophisticated ways of killing each other and destroying everything around us were spend on "peaceful" and "civilian" technologies.
its supposed to be like that so they can remove you from the room of cadets when you correct the training video and toss you into a secret research and development program.
we hadn't even launched the first satellite during the filming of this documentary... Yet the people making it, found it obvious that the earth was a globe and rotated on its own axis... Just how are we getting so many flat earthers nowadays?
Frankly this is the same as if today, you hired the best talent / contractor for the video's direction, script, animation, motion design, and post production. The govt was the client and they chose expensive, reputed contractors. You WOULD get the same level of quality today. It's just that the clients/stakeholders don't spend that money on good training videos, because they deem basic information to be already available (since it's way more accessible now), and are only prepared to splurge on high-level presentation for THEIR management which is all fluff and marketing. They are kinda right in a way, in the sense that their staff will still obtain the information without a golden-level, memorable training video. So they put their priorities elsewhere.
yeah but if we didn't spend all that money for that science we would possibly be speaking some other language right now. ( I'm not trying to be mean but i just wanted to inform you )
![เก่งแต่ลับหลัง (FINSTA) - ส้ม มารี (Zom Marie) Ft. Punch 4EVE [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OOolBU2aC70/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 3](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1XXYbV048k/mqdefault.jpg)
These old US army videos are the best educational material i have seen
Why they are not creating new ones? God bless america 🙏🏻.
Ikrrr such an interesting way to make the concept understand
Agreed
@Keyur fair enough
That's because U.S. Army is the absolute best of all military organizations! Hooah! 😛
So easy to follow and no unnecessary complicated jargon, old time videos to teach are just top notch.
Niel degrasse Tyson is the smartest scientists on the planet USA!
Because the DOD understood that they needed to train and explain super complicated subjects to people who might not have even graduated high school. Using real world examples such as the “4th of July” analogy made things easier to understand.
Why can't school be like this?
It isn't that old actually since modern artillery is the same as ww2 only with a compurers attached to it. Also in the Ukraine they use the old pieces of artillery with the help of drones to correct the fire and that duo is almost as effective as the modern ones with computers.
@@magos2610 no. Modern artillery even barrel is electronic instead of steel.
Took Ballistics in school, Fascinating subject, things go up things go down
yes sir yes sir yes sir. fuck off sir.
What came up must come down
-Le boolet
Tom Lehrer.
Wernher Von Braun.
@@whereswaldo5740A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience!
Ya it has it's ups and downs
I've done a LOT of reloading of various calibers for handguns since I was into pistol shooting competition. I made SURE I followed the specs because things have to be so precise. Watching this excellent vid helped me understand so much more. Thanks.
Yes this is a great starters' guide to honing down your ballistics. :)
@@Eduardo_Espinoza I've seen pistols blow up either because the person reloaded a double charge of powder or they didn't load powder in a particular round, so the primer put the bullet in the barrel, squib, they think they have a jam so they manually cycle in the next round and BAM. Certainly most can tell if they had a squib or not.
Sometimes I wonder if the people playing their instruments for these early films thought to themselves, “No need to hit every note perfectly because our music will just sound garbled and shitty anyway when played through a film projector!”
This is brilliant, but I am sad that there isn't a brand new 2023 version of this on TH-cam! Fascinating subject which should be explored in detail.
nah. the 2023 version will have a lot of empty words, a lot of useless visuals, and end up being entertaining to the point of failing to deliver information.
This video is ruthless, still satisfying, a gem of time...?
Poi
This was actually a good, informative material; I'm impressed.
These videos explain a problem to you for understand FROM A VERY BASIC understanding and building up to the present problem. I really love it.
I'm very glad you are posting these ! They are very interesting - and very cool !
Poi
Precise dropping of bombs was also a big problem. There was a certain type of bomb sight developed by the US military during WW2 that provided very accurate bombing, but the name escapes me at the moment....
It was the norden bomb sight, it promised to have extremely high accuracy but failed to deliver, although it was more accurate than the bomb sights at the time. It used a compact computer and more advanced instruments to predict where the bomb would fall. The norden bomb sight was used on the Enola Gay dropping of the little boy atomic bomb on japan.
Mentally challenged bomb
@@thestupidchannel2037 yes it's amazing the niche appearances of specialised computer-like machines prior to the Turing Colossus.
Norton bombsights. Developed a perfected by a Brit engineer across the pond if I remember right
Clear, concise and informative, this is how an educational video must be.
7:37
I do believe this is one of the hypothesis of what happened to Scott's RN50 in Kentucky Ballistics: a round filled with this type of powder
Yes, he did a video that explain this. And I think this is what happened
Must be that, he was using that spicy SLAP ammo
@@raico6890 it was D1-LDO Ammo
There's no theory. Your beloved gunmaker is a psychopath and must be arrested. Scott too. He's also a danger to public safety. All gun TH-camrs, as good psychopaths too, went out of their way to defend him with all kinds of ridiculous theories to not loose their easy TH-cam money. Not a single f for human life.
@@suprememasteroftheuniverse shut up, aguante el diego y Messi campeon brazuca
Holy crap! Gotta love vintage mil training vids!
There's a lot of misconceptions about what initially causes the recoil. This video explains it spot on. Excellent!
I've seen illustrations of internal ballistics that show that at ignition, all forces inside the barrel are equal, that recoil can not occur until the projectile clears the muzzle, then all forces are directed to the rear of the barrel resulting in recoil. Forces such as the ejection of the projectile, expanding gases, unspent propellant, etc. (ejecta) contribute to the rearward push. I've seen 'super slo-mo' video of a 76mm cannon firing and the recoil began before the projectile left the barrel, my theory is the 3in x bore length column of air inside the bore was ejected as the projectile was traveling toward the muzzle acting as ejecta. I've seen recoil action semi-auto pistols firing in slo-mo that demonstrate that recoil doesn't occur until the bullet leaves the muzzle.
@@pegheadSorry but that's wrong, the explanation and visualization on this film is right.
Just a couple of things:
- If at the moment of ignition forces inside the barrel would balance each other out, neither the gun or the bullet would move. In reality the forces acting on the back of barrel and on the bullet are (roughly) equal and certainly opposite, but they do not balance each other out, because they act on two different bodies (gun and bullet) and accelerate their motions in opposite directions.
- The bullet, gases and ejecta rushing forward inside the barrel do not push the gun backward. On the contrary, the push the gun forward, because the friction and drag against the inside of the bore. But the backward force from the gas pressure in much greater, so the gun is pushed backward. This push is strongest while all stuff is still inside the barrel, because the pressure is strongest then.
- In semiautomatic pistols the slide starts moving backward at the same instant the bullet starts its forward movement. I've seen hi-speed videos where this is very obvious.
- Finally, and this should be obvious: we are dealing with contact forces here. Anything that does not touch the gun can not exert a force on it. So the bullet etc that has come out of the muzzle can't affect the gun any way.
Unfortunately, I've noticed that those who don't believe the correct explanation usually can't be converted. They just do not understand Newtonian physics and interactions inside the gun. Which is not entirely their fault; these things are just generally taught so badly at school.
PS. I have a PhD in physics education.
Fair enough, but is not the projectile ejecta also? I once saw a concept where in the vacuum of space, a craft can be propelled by launching a projectile from the rear, in your explanation, one would merely have to launch a projectile contained in a very long, closed and sealed tube/barrel and as long as the projectile doesn't exit the tube, it would still exert an opposite force to the craft propelling it forward, at a slower velocity, of course.
@@peghead In the described situation the craft would indeed be propelled forward. Let's assume it starts from rest. If we separate the projectile and the gas pushing it, then the craft is not propelled by the projectile but by the force the gas exerts to the craft. If we lump the projectile, gas, unburnt powder etc together as ejecta, then we can say that the craft is propelled by the ejecta.
Using this terminology, when the ejecta reaches the other sealed end of the barrel, they exert equal and opposite forces to each other, which make both the ejecta and the craft to stop. But they both have moved from their original position; the craft has moved forward, the ejecta backward. What has not moved is the center of mass of the craft-ejecta system, which is assumed to be isolated from the rest of the world. Internal forces can't change the motion of the center of mass of a system. The principle is called the conservation of momentum. So in this case the system as a whole stays in rest all the time, in spite of that its parts move.
Coming back to the recoil of a gun, conservation of momentum is in a way the simplest means to figure out why the gun starts to move backward at the same the bullet starts to move forward. No need to think about forces, their balances and directions. In order to keep the gun-gas-bullet system's center of mass in rest, when there's stuff moving forward, there must be stuff moving backward too. Of course in this case the system is not isolated, but at the moment of firing the forces accelerating the gun and the bullet are much greater than the forces holding the gun, so for a short time the gun behaves almost as if there were no external forces acting on it.
Glad you replied, I've had an epiphany. I spent about an hour this morning reviewing extreme slo-mo videos featuring firearm discharges. A popular example was from an episode of "Mythbusters" and a 73,000 frames per second video of an M1911-style semi-automatic pistol. I watched it over and over, eventually taping a metal straightedge on the screen level with the bottom of the pistol's slide. I used the pause-key to slow the video down even further. Sure enough, the slide began a rearward movement, however slight, to the rear prior to the bullet exiting the muzzle, even to the extent that the rear of the slide was pushing the hammer to the rear, acting against two springs, the recoil spring and the hammer mainspring, telling me this was a formidable amount of force. The movement was less than a millimeter and did not effect the position of the pistol in any way. Long confession short, LIST ME IN THE CONVERTED COLUMN, you have opened my aging eyes, thank you. @@mottee
No special effects, less music, no one acting on screen for most of the time.
*This is the true educational video.*
I agree that it's great, but it is CHOCK FULL of special effects shots. Manual animation is usually the most expensive type of shot available (measured in hundreds of dollars for a second of runtime), and this uses such animation, albeit quite a simple kind.
You can make the same animation today with vector tech and flash-like programs for pennies, sure. If you don't factor in labor costs. But with 1950s tech, this is very expensive VFX that required filming animated stuff frame by frame, then re-filming it many times over to composite it with animated effects in studios.
Not to mention that even now, you'd pay a lot for a good director, good storyboarder, good animator, and good motion designer to get a video as effective as this.
Made in the days when kids understood graphs.
That kid became an artillery man
This is a very good explanation of ballistics. I was a field artillery fire direction nco for 5 years. Next we need to cover. Accurate gun and target info and. Met. Meteorology. How weather things like gravity and spin include the coriolis force. Ie the earth spinning underneath the projectile while in flight
Por que esses vídeos antigos são mais explicativos que os atuais
It's simple yet easy to understand and to the point . Now I know about gunpowder type . I thought it all the same .
Classical and very informative.
They are very good at education. I love watching these videos.
Verry good education for any reloaders too.. . Por que esses vídeos antigos são mais explicativos que os atuais.
Verry good education for any reloaders too.. 😊
Love this kind of videos ❤
If videos like this were in school I would have paid alot more attention.
I love old film.
When was the footage originally published?
In my opinion most of these old educational videos are much easier to understand than many modern videos with animated footage.
Thanks for sharing!
Top tier material of learning
well, sometimes they over spend in the military, but back then, they need to spend or else we might not have a country now.
We are only overspending because other countries won’t honor their contract
Deismakilin
@@progamer3335elaborate, just curious. This comment is 2y old lol
Materiales educativos impresionantes y mejor que muchos modernos ,muy al punto ,sencillos y hermosos en metodologia y demostrativos
Очень понятный английский.
Some people are busy making tiktok videos😮
These videos were created so many years ago and the quality of information is amazing
In 7th grade I did a science fair project on this and used this film as reference.
Imagine doing that now.
I'm gonna make my kids watch these old documentaries when I'm a dad.
Why the fuck would you show your kid a video about bullets science?
Maiki lin
50
Amazing video
I took ballistics at school, fascinating subject: things go up - things go down.
Thanks for guiding me
Thanks to the random TH-cam algorithm for showing me this on my recommended
Excellent
11:50 "lightning-fast computing machines" - gotta wonder how much computing power that roomful-of-tubes had in 1948, compared to my digital watch.
"lightining fast compuetrs"
I believe Those were analog computers, surprisingly there are some reasons to believe that those computers may have been faster than modern computers
(At least in curtain areas of complex math)
@@craighalpin1917 now that i think about it, that makes sense
This is 1948. The fact that they have shown computers at al is amazing (before that, "computer" was a name for a woman performing arithmetical operations by hand).
Thanks.
Feels like watching old Tom and Jerry cartoons
the CIA giving out its award for excellence in journalism
It is simple and very informative within a short time.
Today firing solutions are made by computers. Man is only there to decide on what to shoot.
Super cool
I loved it
7:26 Fundamentals of Kentucky Ballistics
Pretty Darn Complicated!
Now, what if you put high pressure grains on a long barreled gun but make the gunbreach (and barrel too) strong enough to withstand the extreme pressure?
Then you have a huge and expensive, long range gun. It is a waste of resources. You can reach the same range with a less expensive gun design.
@calm down Einstein
Wanna prove the earth is round? Long range out of site artillery!
Now my neighbor will learn a lesson too.
this amazing
Thank you.
Neat!
Good vedio to understand the concepbof boat tailed bullets and the degreasion progression concept
Deibes makilin
I'm a military trainings developer, I wish we could make stuff like this. Now stupid power point and similar slide show type training is forced everywhere.
Ahhh, black and white video
This is how i know they are about to cover a complex subject in gradeschool terms
top tier
Gee thanks, that was swell.
Good ol unashamed intent to kill.
I cannot help but wonder, where would we be right now, as a humanity, if all this effort and means that are put to develop more effective and sophisticated ways of killing each other and destroying everything around us were spend on "peaceful" and "civilian" technologies.
in 1948 they used both german (V2) and soviet (Katjusha) examples.
MCMXLVIII= 1948
FASCINATING SUBJECT •v•
THINGS GO UP
THINGS DO DOWN
Makes sense
The trajectory without air resistance is wrong - it should be a symmetric parabola.
its supposed to be like that so they can remove you from the room of cadets when you correct the training video and toss you into a secret research and development program.
Yay! Let's go destroy some "targets" now.
I reload my own ammunition. Ballistics can be fun.
Ballistics is why I reload.
What is the bomb at 14:49
we hadn't even launched the first satellite during the filming of this documentary...
Yet the people making it, found it obvious that the earth was a globe and rotated on its own axis...
Just how are we getting so many flat earthers nowadays?
1948. Top notch
I should go to a school to learn ballistics
O I know why they has to put that charge I think it’s a wood cap lol
Your cell phone can figure out all of this now.
leave it to old training and informational videos from the mid 20th century to explain topics in a simple and easy to follow manner.
That’s cause the had to teach this to 18 year old kids, most of which didn’t even graduate high-school
Frankly this is the same as if today, you hired the best talent / contractor for the video's direction, script, animation, motion design, and post production. The govt was the client and they chose expensive, reputed contractors. You WOULD get the same level of quality today.
It's just that the clients/stakeholders don't spend that money on good training videos, because they deem basic information to be already available (since it's way more accessible now), and are only prepared to splurge on high-level presentation for THEIR management which is all fluff and marketing. They are kinda right in a way, in the sense that their staff will still obtain the information without a golden-level, memorable training video. So they put their priorities elsewhere.
o okay sorry for the misunderstanding
8:50
Hi! Can anybody tell what is the system shown at 17:42 ? Please.
Stalin's Organ?
Gold
Bruv, is that a V-2? @0:50
MCMXLVIII = 1948
'The gain' ?
*Grain
Why the intro remind me Tom & Jerry lol
US video shows A4 rocket 😂
yeah but if we didn't spend all that money for that science we would possibly be speaking some other language right now. ( I'm not trying to be mean but i just wanted to inform you )
thank god the english won out that battle innit bruv!
Ah! LSMFT
Why did i watch this entire video? 🤣
The art of killing
The Art of removing Grid Squares.
Hi maam 🤣🤣🤣
Dela Cerna buang😂
Greetings from Russia 🇷🇺 😊 it's very useful and informative 👍
Algorithm.
12:23 You say the most economical........ this is hardly that
Now I want to play Cup Head
Excellent education
They just don't educate like they used to... 😢
Блин сделали бы перевод на русский ну блин((
Ты чо. Есть же перевод автоматический. Ну немного кривой но понятно.
1948 рік