Theoretically, melting could still be achieved with friction. Practically, I'm not sure if it's doable. EDIT: I know friction welding is a thing, and welding is defined as joining with the base metal locally melting (with or without additives).
Technically, the sheer amount of kinetic energy COULD theoretically just straight up cave in the armor of a tank if the armor was thin enough and the round hitting was traveling fast or big enough, (For example, a KV-2’s round hitting a 2008 Nissan or a M8 greyhound) but melting the armor is literally impossible
Sorry if I’m just dumb and didn’t understand sarcasm, but it was more of a joke to explain how RAF was able to detect germans in early war and not disclose classified RADAR technology
There are several instances of US Army documents claiming that the spaced armor on Pz IVs was an intentional attempt to disguise the Pz IV as a Tiger I.
That's kinda dumb. By doing that the tank crew basically cries: "HERE WE ARE! AN IMPORTANT TARGET! SHOOT US FIRST FROM ALL CANNONS!". Like 76.2 mm shermans on the western front
The most bizarre variant of this myth I've encountered in the wild was one guy who was adamant that the copper became a plasma when the round detonated.
It's not the worst I've heard. Once a "friend" of mine claimed HEAT rounds were called like that because they were used to kill infantry with heat. Hence the name. I'm glad I avoid him now
The temperature reached from friction is about 3000C. Enough to melt steel, but that's only in the very immediate contact of the round and armor during penetration on a small amount of steel. The penetration itself is kinetic
think another thing people miss out is that generally speakking, armour is made of very good conductors of heat; even if the contact area could reach such temperatures, the surrounding area would very quickly distribute the heat.
A big point to note is that the way shaped charges work, most of the energy is kinetic energy, so there's not enough thermal energy to force a phase change throughout the whole piece. It should also be noted that the material tends not to be steel in many shaped charges, but a material more conducive to hyperplastination, such as copper.
@@badgermcbadger1968 it is not in a liquid state, a shaped charge doesn't melt. it is hyper plasticization as a result of the immense kinetic energy transfer of the detonation of high explosives.
The physics concept behind HEAT shells is called the Munroe Effect. One of the only things in my engineering physics class that I actually remembered lol.
When a tank track is broken the tank doesn't slide the direction of the broken track, but instead will continue to travel in a straight line until the track falls off the sprocket in which case that side will simply be unpowered. At that point the tank can continue to move forward and back, but only forward and back. No pivoting would be possible due to there being no braking or neutral steering force available.
It is possible to mangle the track between the roadwheels, in which case 1) you are stuck only turning 2) you best prepare some very good lube, because your ass is getting *reamed* by everyone who has to deal with the situation.
@@MistahFox I don't know a single tank where a single seized roadwheel is going to cause the tank to hard brake in that direction. The tank is likely to simply slide over the rubber of those wheels without them spinning and slightly drag you to the left but you will not have the affect of the tank being turned hard left should that side be hit.
@@EgorKaskader Most tanks with supported or tensioned track don't have this issue much and I've never seen it happen in service, even when entire sides of the tank have had their skirts ripped off by being buried in clay.
@@K_GHOST225 It's a historical tank problem, I doubt it's possible for torsion bar suspension, but Christie suspension was fairly prone to doing this if there were flaws in implementation (i.e. the entire BT tank line).
Night vision equipment on T-34s and so early in the war - that’s something I’ve never heard before. Thank you for researching topics I was too lazy to touch!
i'd say recently one of revisionism "the ah56 cheyenne was the greatest attack helicopter that never was, capable of beating the apache, and it was only axed due to inter branch politics"
It was axed due to inter branch politics as far as i understand it. It's not better than the apache for sure, but largely superior to the cobra it was competing against. The new US helicopter prototype borrows clearly from the cheyenne too.
The entire project *was* inter-branch politics, USAF thought they didn't need to have a CAS ability and the Army made sure the USAF understood if the USAF wasn't going to do the mission the Army could and would.
yes, this was first tested by the germans in 1934 when mauser experimented with sub atomic materials that could fit between the gaps of atoms. this was later used by several nation's tanks to allow for turret maneuvering in tight spaces. most test were found to be successful and they started being applied to tank on the front when the soviets invaded finland. this allowed finish tanks to shoot at soviet forces behind tree cover causing large casualties to soviet tanks. this was used throughout the war, most famously used in Normandy where long 75mm panzer 4s used it to quickly ambush tanks from around corners despite not being able to see the enemy. sadly this was not very successful causing german tanks to be knocked out and their crews to complain about "imbalances and unfair advantages" despite mostly having positive k/d ratios. after the war the technology was applied to armor which caused some shells to pass through entire vehicles without damaging them almost like some kind of ghost.
I appreciate the shaped charge one cause that changes how you fundamentally view and expect a shaped charge to work and interact with armor or other ERA/NERA elements.
I saw a post that said 80% of tank spottings by allied crews were supposedly tigers but in reality it was only around 10%. The tiger was infamous and crews assumed they saw it any time they saw a tank
good example of that would be american troops constantly spotting tigers which turned out to be panzer 4s or whatever as no tigers were engaged against the americans in normandy
Didn't he already cover that argument? He said that the shermans where on par or better than tanks from other countries in terms of crew survivability and the easiness to escape from the tank itself
Tank Jesus had covered this in several videos. If I recall correctly, Sherman's were lost left and right. However the crews lived to fight another day(generally). I believe he said that of all the casualties (KIA & WIA) between the time frames of the invasion of north Africa, to the end of Monte casino in Italy, tankers contributed some 3% to the casualty listings.
This make no sense, you talk about crew escaping then switch to ammunition burning out, is it one or the other? Regarding the first soviets and T-34s are by far the worst in escape hatches since the vehicle is cramped and there are not too many hatches. Sherman's are questionable, early Sherman hatches I'm some areas were sometime inaccessible to some of crew. When that stopped becoming a problemsome of the hatches were quite narrow. So some people may consider these terrible hatches. Germans regarding their tanks, always gave at least 3 places to escape no less. At most maybe 6 ways to leave, say in the case of the Panzer IV for most variants, each of the 5 crew had a way to escape, same with most variants of the Panzer III, 5 ways to escape, though both might have 6 if there is a hatch underneath. Tiger I, 5 places to escape for each crew, maybe 6 if underneath, the Tiger II downgraded with 4 places to escape maybe 5 if underneath Often the case 3 of the places to escape from were big, while the driver and radio operators had smaller hatches Panther also had 5 hatches, mayne 6 if underneath tank It's either the Soviets or Americans with worst hatch Regarding ammunition, the Sherman's at the start was not very survivable but as wet storage were added become one of the most survivable. As anothernote, ammunition explosion can vary some are instant some are delayed slightly, don't state it like Sherman ammo never explodes immediately upon penetrating with projectile Stick to one damn point, escape hatches or survivability after ammunition fire
If you do another one of these videos, you should talk about the “Panther G mantlet,” and how it wasn’t exclusive to the Panther G, but was used on the Panther A as well.
There’s a myth among even some in the US Armor branch that a 120mm Sabot somehow creates a vacuum strong enough to suck the crew out of the exit hole of the target tank. Goes to show that even tankers don’t know what they’re talking about 100% of the time
@@jintsuubest9331 UN forces in Korean war had sometimes 10:1 oversetimated their kills because airforce would attack seemingly OK tanks, which inteligence later declared to be already dead. And I think I'd rather be sure like them than pragmatically sorry.
Year-old comment, I know, but the reason why it's not considered to be a serious weakness is to hit the lower frontal plate on any tank, you'd have to be fighting it in a very close-quarters engagement. Yes, it would be very easy to penetrate a Chieftain or Challenger there (or many other tanks, for that matter), but you'd have to come so close that it would be very difficult for the crew not to notice you. And given that British armoured doctrine dictates that MBTs should fight at long-range and from either hull-down positions or ones with terrain cover, it was always seen to be such an insignificant issue that the LFP was barely armoured on the Chieftain and Challengers. This proved to be a correct assessment until that very famous incident in Iraq, when an RPG managed to successfully hit the LFP on a Challenger 2. However, other protection measures managed to minimise enough of the weapon's impact that the driver only lost part of his foot, other crew members suffered minor injuries and the tank was able to safely reverse its way to an aid post. This, and a Blue-on-Blue loss, are the only noteworthy marks on an otherwise spotless record for both Challengers. This why the lack of LFP armour on British tanks isn't really considered to be a serious issue outside of armchair discussions (although later upgrades for the Challenger 2 did put some serious armour in that area and added ERA blocks).
ever read Band of Brothers? ever read/hear the opinions of actual WWII tankers that fought in them? Clearly not. It's a great read, you should check it out
@@ImpeachObamaASAP2010 heard of survivor bias? Heard that actual hard statistics and test is better than oral opinion of flawed humans? You should, I heard that Sherman has a mortality rate by 0.3 given the statistics of tankers that fought and died.
myth that "if youre on foot and you see a tank you just need to close in on it so close that you're closer to him that the length of its barrel and thus it cant shoot you" and the "tanks are almighty and indestructible"
TBH, knowing it isn't molten and the explosion is just forcing solid (or semi solid) metal into a shape and then ejecting it at 60% of orbital velocity is far more impressive than just burning.
@@morgus9892 SOmeone should make a WW2 game that gives the Allies super technology and makes germany look like shit, just to show how ridiculous all of the german uber technology in games is.
Fun fact about the last one, shaped charges: That is not actually the Internet's fault. My grandfather was an AT gunner in WW2 and he always referred to it as "Schweissmunition" or welding ammunition. Apparently that was a common term back then. Small side note: He also got the Iron Cross for using his ammo up in destroying 8 T-34s after the rest of his battery was wiped out and repelling the attack pretty much just him and his loader. After the ceremony, he was chewed out by the company first sergeant for using up all the expensive ammo! So he got a medal and a dressing-down for the exact same action...
Have you ever heard the myth that American APFSDS rounds would depressurize the crew compartment so much that it would pull stuff out the other side? I heard in OSUT that they did on a tank with goats inside and they were pulled out the hole left by the round.
I heard this when I went through as well. If it were true there would be little reason to have a HEAT round as it wouldn’t matter if a Sabot overpenetrates a PC as the crew would be liquid. Maybe they misunderstood an explanation of spalling? Only thing I could think of.
@@arc_4543 Heat rounds from tank cannons aren't used against mbts. They are used because they are versitile and can take out light armor, bunkers, and infantry.
A video about Automated tanks would be interesting. Since they're making drones for planes and ships (I think, not entirely sure on either of those), would tanks even be able to function completely automated? What would that look like?
I suppose automated tanks would be possible, although their combat AI would have to be incredibly advanced to make smart decisions on movement, fire, and ammo selection in a situation as complicated as a battle. Actually manipulating the tank’s controls without a human crew pushing pedals and buttons are probably achievable with current tech. The tank would probably have different size and dimensions because there’s no crew as well
hello spookston! i was wondering if it was true that in early models of T34s crewmembers could be injured when rotating the turret,also I love your content! its not only informative but very entertaining as well
I believe that the early T-34s and T-55s (if I am correct) didn’t have a turret basket, meaning that you could theoretically get you upper body twisted away from your lower one if you were standing on the tank’s floor when the turret rotated, but I may be remembering incorrectly
@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev This. And not just limited to those two iirc. They didn't have the rurret basket, so if the turret turned, the crew had to actually walk to traverse with the turret if you standing in the tank floor. Bonus points if one of the crewmen was resting his foot somewhere in the tank when they turned away
The first story about the M8 reminds me of a similar one that I've heard about. I don't remenber where it very well, but I still remember some of the details, so please bear with me. Basicaly, an M8 had spotted a german tank in a village, i think in the ardenne forest. It was designated as a king tiger in the reports, which, like every other report, might raise some doubt. However, the funny thing is, I believe it was in fact, an actuall king tiger because of the way it was knocked out. The report specified that the german tank had also spotted the M8 and began pursuing it. Now, this is where it gets interesting, you would think that the M8 simply out maneuvered the king tiger and shot it at the rear, but no, it was actually about to be destroyed after being cornered. However, by some miracle, the moment the king tiger was turning towards the M8, it hit one of the many houses, making it collapse on top of it. After collapsing, the king tiger didn't move again, allowing the M8 to live another day. What's interesting about this, is the way things played out. Like i said, my memory about this story isn't the greatest, but when you think about it, it makes some sense that it would be a king tiger. Being in a village in the ardeen, king tigers weren't exactly very hard to find and one being on a village could have just been a coincidence. Also the roads aren't very big, therefore, they had to be moving slow and to knock out a house, it takes a big tank to do such a thing. They never mentioned a shot being fired which leads me to believe that whatever tank they were facing had to be big to knock down a whole house just by hitting it. Now, you could argue that the house could have already been damaged, or that it might have been some other tank, like a tiget or a panther and honestly, those arguments would still be very much plausible. So yeah, what do you think, is this just another faulty report, or is it actually a true story? TL:DR - M8 finds king tiger and takes credit for destroying it, even though the king tiger, supposedly, knocked hitself out.
Barring the rest of the story, I am extremely doubtful that a king tiger or any tank of that size would be "knocked out" by a building it ran into. The only example I can think of is the killdozer, which got stuck when one side of its tracks sunk to the basement of a house it was demolishing.
We as a community must come together and boycott gaijin if we want the change we desire to come also it shows how much gaijin cares about this community when one of its best content creators just committed suicide but the devs can’t be bothered to respond to it in a timely manner
I mean its not their responsibility to do anything about it? Sure they could make a decal in his honor but that kinda seems cheap since it'd likely be behind either a paywall or it just wouldn't exist cause then they'd have to do something like this again if another CC passes away.
@@grandmoffrex Why would they do anything, its not like guy achieved something so they should reward him, that would just glorify suicide like it is some option which should never be
The m8 greyhound myth it probably was a Pz Iv H because the m 8 greyhound probably couldn’t penetrate the rear of the tiger 1 and tiger2 because How thick it’s armour was
Would love for you to talk about the misconception about how the strv 103 was picked by the swedes due to it being a good defensive tank. In actuality, it was more so picked due to its hunter killer ability's, with the commander being able to find, identify, and engage targets faster and more acutely then the centurions that where testing it against. This reasoning for choosing the 103 comes from Sweden's main plan vs a Russian invasion that would have involved more fast dashes and break throughs involving armor rather then a slow, drawn out, defensive plan.
3:05. Fun fact, people often describe the jet of metal in HEAT round/shaped charges as molten due to some professionals explaining that the metal acts like a molten stream of metal under the pressure the high explosives cause. It's a misconception caused by a dumbing down of the actual weapon, along with a somewhat believable misconception, and you have a horribly fast spreading myth because of that.
I HATE that so many people take their history from video games. Only thing video games are good for are learning that things existed. Like there was such a thing as the Normandy landings, and there was such a thing as a tank called t34 that generally looked like it's depicted. But if you wanna learn more, you should look those things up and not believe everything depicted in games is exactly as it happened in real life. To be fair tho, most ww2 games are complicit in this, as they provide absolutely no disclaimers as all historic video games should in my opinion.
As for most powerful INSIDE WW2, it would go to the 128mm used by the JagdTiger. That gun was excessive for anything in the war and most things post war.
@@vladimirbraveboy6531 Other factors like muzzle velocity, shell dimensions, ease of loading and the likr can't be disregarded. Plus a high velocity AP shell isn't optimal at fighting infantry, while it is great at destroying armor. It all depends on the role you judge the guns by.
The myth that the Panther was the best tank of WWII. I’d say it had to actually be the Sherman for its numbers and versatility, or the T-34 for its same reasons
A lot of people think schurzen was used to defeat shaped charges, especially the bazooka. According to Panzer Tracts 4-3, shaped charges were tested against shurzen by both and allies and Germans and proven ineffective on protecting against them, it would be cool if you talked about the development of schurzen or just spaced armor in general.
There is a bug with the churchill, which I encountered while being shot at by a jagdpanzer 4/70. When you hit the side plate of the churchill mk7 at an angle of 69°-70° right before the spare track then you might hit a spot of 2mm armor thickness. Even weirder, it can happen that the fired round phazes through the whole tank but from the other side.
Its funny. In documentaries I saw growing up they taught that the HEAT rounds functioned via the molten metal stream and that information purportedly came from the military themselves. The producers of the show must have misinterpreted the explanation or given incorrect info from the military.
Or the military themselves didn't really know what happened, just that it worked. Hard to tell what is going on in a split-second explosion. Edit: I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable, but it says that the Munroe effect functions via plasma.
I doubt average grunt can understand complex physics term. It's simply easier to told them shit can cut throught armor, and it is super hot. You want to be the person shooting it, not receiving it.
@@jintsuubest9331 For sure, I just dont know of it was a grunt who explained it to the show producers or not. They even made a 3D rendering to show how it worked. XD
to sum it up: T-72 during it's introduction was quite good, and over time it got upgraded the T-72 that they reffered to be ''bad'' would most likely the Iraqi T-72M1 (which is the export variant of T-72A) and the downgraded Lions of Babylon. By the late 80s and early 90s, Soviets (now reformed into Russia) is no longer use T-72A for frontline combat, because they had a better T-72B and T-72B (1989)
The super pershing didn't kill a Tiger II. This has been debunked already. the T26E4 Super Pershing only encountered Panzer 4s during its limited time in service.
My take on these myths: Myth 1: I certainly can see that, especially considering how many times I had heard that Tigers being so rare that any claims of a Tiger 2 in places that have little sources to confirm them are much easier to look at skeptically. Myth 2: I'm more surprised this is a recent myth as this has been around as far back as the early 2010s, even before War Thunder. I personally actually came across this because of Hearts of Iron 3 believe it or not. Granted every nation in that game can research Night Vision tech as soon as 1944 (as it is labeled as 1945 tech), and while you could research it at any time as long as you meet the requirements, but you will be waiting a very long time till it is researched for your units that I view it as a waste of a single research point over other things you could go for until the best point of 1944 or just wait till 1945 comes. Anyway from that tangent, most stuff especially back in the day only ever talked about the German Night vision and never mention any other nation dabbling into it so I could see why most people think Germany were the only ones via omitting other nations like the USA and USSR working on Night Vision too. Myth 3: hmm, much more recent for me, though considering other aspects I can see why some would fall for this myth. Especially how even knowing armor would spall even from non-penetrating hits; however this is more true with pure metal armor (especially poor manufacturing as has been seen in late war German tanks during penetration testing) whereas Composite armor would most certainly in modern times make such a concept not worth the effort. Myth 4: ah yes the ever eternal confusion of how Shape Charges/HEAT rounds work despite how simple it is presented. Something even I keep falling back into because gosh darn it, these rounds still feel like bits of information are missing in how they actually work.
You are just adding fuel to the already bright burning shit show of myth 3. No armor are well suited to take multiple impacts, especially composite armor. The reason why it was not a viable method of defeating armor is simply because we do not lived in a perfect world. Even guided munition cannot always land the munition at the same location. Things like constantly changing environmental variable, equipment wear and tear, manufacturing imperfection or simply tolerances, inherent operator error, etc. Also, the target itself would be moving even if it is just a static fixed anchored down test platform. You bet a T-64 would start moving, either smoke up and rush the closest cover or trying to shoot back if your first shot did not take it out. The largest issue is probably the way we ignite the charges. Even with the most modern gun (fired using charges), the initial chamber pressure difference can be as high as 15% peak to trough. The difference is not enough to effect the performance or the ability to hit a tank size target at combat distance (around 3km now days) at around the center mass. But it is also make sure you cannot hit the same spot to cause any practical armor degradation before the other side decided to shoot back.
Can you make a video about the effectiveness of the ad on track link armor used primarily by Shermans during World War II? I think this would be a good topic because track link armor Is a researchable modification in war thunder
another interesting tidbit regarding shaped charge warhead, as you mention it as "copper formed into penetrator", interesting bit is that penetrator would cut right through concrete, sandbags, and even logs due to their loose particles makes the copper penetrator almost ignore these material when it's penetrated. Even spaced armor is pointless unless you can make a spaced distance of 1 meter from main armor to defeat these copper penetrator lol Slat armor is a 50/50 chance as well, because the slat armor's goal is to prevent the cone to form into penetrator (by either crushing the fuze before it could be triggered. or deform its copper cone). Hitting the spaced part is good, hitting the structure part of the slat will trigger the Munroe effect, and main armor still can be penetrated
It Still has a noticeable effect because the copper "jet" will impact the armor after travel rather than be fired in direct contact and so have much greater chances to deviate. True the copper won't care about the materials but it WILL care about hitting the armor after travel through the air and not being kept uniform by material that it's penetrating.
@@m0nkEz It most likely happened but it is never really known if the M8 knocked out a Panzer IV, or either of the two Tiger variants. It's most probably a Panzer, but whatever the story ends up with, it's still hilarious.
The first one is interesting because on the western front American soldiers called all the panzers "tiger tanks" because all where scary and affective to them and the first time the British came across a tiger 1 was in north Africa, within 5 minutes 5 tigers where taken out by a bunch of 6 pounders.
Well, there's the very common idea that, admittedly, only really gets circulated around groups of people who know a *little* about tanks. This idea that you design every tank around the trifecta of armour-speed-firepower and you have to make concessions in one part to have good performance in the others. A myth with a small kernel of truth.
In the next myth video Spooks can you talk about the p47 pilot that talked about killing tigers by shooting his 50cals under the tank and making them bounce up trough the floor
Who needs night vision when you have such incredible transmission and logistics?
So you can do logistics at night xd
Who need`s night vision or termal imagers when you have ULQ?
The great thing about this statement is that it could be referring to the Soviets or the Germans and it'd still be accurate.
What German needs enemies to shoot at when the snow starts speaking russian.
@@DovahFett Yes, thank you, i definitely intended for it to be that way.
If Hitler had acess to Ultra Low Quality settings back then, the world would be a different place now.
I find this comment humorous
If Hitler also had the bush packs for his tanks the Soviets would have been getting sniped leaving the factory.
@@lightinggaming5113 and I find myself in agreement with you fellow human
Lmaaool
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 only 500 GE from the store
Talk about the myth that the sheer amount of kinetic energy exerted when a tank shell hits armor is enough to melt the armor.
Theoretically, melting could still be achieved with friction. Practically, I'm not sure if it's doable.
EDIT: I know friction welding is a thing, and welding is defined as joining with the base metal locally melting (with or without additives).
Technically, the sheer amount of kinetic energy COULD theoretically just straight up cave in the armor of a tank if the armor was thin enough and the round hitting was traveling fast or big enough, (For example, a KV-2’s round hitting a 2008 Nissan or a M8 greyhound) but melting the armor is literally impossible
Red hot metal shards can be formed tho, just bending metal can get it really hot.
@@manueldelbusto725 red hot =/= melted, not even close
thats not a myth but basic physics, there is simply not enough energy to transfer nor the ability to transfer it fast enough to melt armor like that.
I was gonna make a tankbuster joke because of title but I don't think it would go through.
What is it
@@prodabber0222 Read it again
"Hello, Internet police? We have another one that needs to be taken away."
[Insert "That one bounced!" or "We didn't penetrate their armor!" comment here]
*Its seem we missed..*
"Mythbusters is approaching rapidly at the speed of light"
So you better be running away boi
Nah, i think they are just approaching calmly at the speed of light.
"Who needs night Vision when you have carrots"
-Royal Air force
Lol 😂
Sorry if I’m just dumb and didn’t understand sarcasm, but it was more of a joke to explain how RAF was able to detect germans in early war and not disclose classified RADAR technology
@@apendragon53 yes they tried to troll other nations
There are several instances of US Army documents claiming that the spaced armor on Pz IVs was an intentional attempt to disguise the Pz IV as a Tiger I.
Although we should put emphasis on "claiming", since from the Germans themselves, we have no such claims.
That's kinda dumb. By doing that the tank crew basically cries: "HERE WE ARE! AN IMPORTANT TARGET! SHOOT US FIRST FROM ALL CANNONS!". Like 76.2 mm shermans on the western front
It was to protect them from anti tank rifle from soviet
It does look a little scarier
@@matteodes5484 not only anti tank rifles
You forgot the fifth reason: “I read it a while ago, but misspoke the fact I was reciting to my friend”
“HEAT isn’t a molten jet” thank you Spookston, I’ve always hated how prevalent this myth is.
Could be depending on the material.
The most bizarre variant of this myth I've encountered in the wild was one guy who was adamant that the copper became a plasma when the round detonated.
It's not molten but it is a liquid, the pressure from the explosion causes this.
It's not the worst I've heard.
Once a "friend" of mine claimed HEAT rounds were called like that because they were used to kill infantry with heat. Hence the name.
I'm glad I avoid him now
@@TheKenji2221 you avoid a “friend” because he made a ignorant assumption? Sounds like he’s better off without you.
The temperature reached from friction is about 3000C. Enough to melt steel, but that's only in the very immediate contact of the round and armor during penetration on a small amount of steel. The penetration itself is kinetic
think another thing people miss out is that generally speakking, armour is made of very good conductors of heat; even if the contact area could reach such temperatures, the surrounding area would very quickly distribute the heat.
A big point to note is that the way shaped charges work, most of the energy is kinetic energy, so there's not enough thermal energy to force a phase change throughout the whole piece. It should also be noted that the material tends not to be steel in many shaped charges, but a material more conducive to hyperplastination, such as copper.
also it's worth noting that the copper is in a liquid state because of the pressure caused by the explosion
@@badgermcbadger1968 it is not in a liquid state, a shaped charge doesn't melt. it is hyper plasticization as a result of the immense kinetic energy transfer of the detonation of high explosives.
@@cyonemitsu it's in a near liquid state. Maybe liquid isnt the right term but that's how I describe it
Well Injust learned 3 more new things about tanks today, was genuinely surprised by all of them.
The physics concept behind HEAT shells is called the Munroe Effect. One of the only things in my engineering physics class that I actually remembered lol.
When a tank track is broken the tank doesn't slide the direction of the broken track, but instead will continue to travel in a straight line until the track falls off the sprocket in which case that side will simply be unpowered. At that point the tank can continue to move forward and back, but only forward and back. No pivoting would be possible due to there being no braking or neutral steering force available.
It is possible to mangle the track between the roadwheels, in which case
1) you are stuck only turning
2) you best prepare some very good lube, because your ass is getting *reamed* by everyone who has to deal with the situation.
You _could_ argue that games are more representing the fact of a road wheel being destroyed or damaged than the track causing the effect.
@@MistahFox I don't know a single tank where a single seized roadwheel is going to cause the tank to hard brake in that direction.
The tank is likely to simply slide over the rubber of those wheels without them spinning and slightly drag you to the left but you will not have the affect of the tank being turned hard left should that side be hit.
@@EgorKaskader Most tanks with supported or tensioned track don't have this issue much and I've never seen it happen in service, even when entire sides of the tank have had their skirts ripped off by being buried in clay.
@@K_GHOST225 It's a historical tank problem, I doubt it's possible for torsion bar suspension, but Christie suspension was fairly prone to doing this if there were flaws in implementation (i.e. the entire BT tank line).
Night vision equipment on T-34s and so early in the war - that’s something I’ve never heard before. Thank you for researching topics I was too lazy to touch!
If that surprised you then teletanks will blow your mind.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 not really, watched a video on them
i'd say recently one of revisionism "the ah56 cheyenne was the greatest attack helicopter that never was, capable of beating the apache, and it was only axed due to inter branch politics"
It was axed due to inter branch politics as far as i understand it. It's not better than the apache for sure, but largely superior to the cobra it was competing against.
The new US helicopter prototype borrows clearly from the cheyenne too.
@@nicolaspeigne1429 It was axed due to inter branch politics, doctrine changing, pressure from Congress due to budget overruns.
Biased Opinion: The AH-56 looks ugly as sin so i'm glad it got axed, even if it functioned well. Thing is really an ugly duck.
@@F22onblockland Them's fightin words! The AH-56 was a beauty that never got to truly strut her stuff. A damn shame I say!
The entire project *was* inter-branch politics, USAF thought they didn't need to have a CAS ability and the Army made sure the USAF understood if the USAF wasn't going to do the mission the Army could and would.
misconception: war thunder is fun
That's where you're wrong, chief. If you play braindead, you always have fun.
Just play the panther, pray to the snail for a downtier and you'll have great fun sealclubbing everyone.
@@utzius8003 You: *happily sealclubbing in Panther*
Me, with sabbot: *trollge face*
Misconception: war thunder is completely balanced, fair and definately not bias or completely broken
Biggest myth is that the Bob Semple tank isn't the greatest of all time no shame from these couch historians.
Facts
After all. The Japanese dident attack New Zealand for a reason
@@RasEli03 One Bob Semple tank on each beach head was enough for deterrence
@@rykehuss3435 one per beach head ? Don't be ridiculous. Only a single Bob Semple's existence is enough to scare everyone off.
I hate this "bob semple tank best tank" meme so much
Can tank cannons faze through objects?
of course not! hahaha
yes, this was first tested by the germans in 1934 when mauser experimented with sub atomic materials that could fit between the gaps of atoms. this was later used by several nation's tanks to allow for turret maneuvering in tight spaces. most test were found to be successful and they started being applied to tank on the front when the soviets invaded finland. this allowed finish tanks to shoot at soviet forces behind tree cover causing large casualties to soviet tanks. this was used throughout the war, most famously used in Normandy where long 75mm panzer 4s used it to quickly ambush tanks from around corners despite not being able to see the enemy. sadly this was not very successful causing german tanks to be knocked out and their crews to complain about "imbalances and unfair advantages" despite mostly having positive k/d ratios. after the war the technology was applied to armor which caused some shells to pass through entire vehicles without damaging them almost like some kind of ghost.
Can spare crew mates hop between the bodies of their fallen comrades?
@@gabem3251 of course they can. think of it something akin to switching characters in lego star wars
Only reason it exists in almost every videogame is because physics would crash the game ( look at GTA 5 )
I appreciate the shaped charge one cause that changes how you fundamentally view and expect a shaped charge to work and interact with armor or other ERA/NERA elements.
Love you spookstonoon keep up the good job !!!!
I saw a post that said 80% of tank spottings by allied crews were supposedly tigers but in reality it was only around 10%. The tiger was infamous and crews assumed they saw it any time they saw a tank
good example of that would be american troops constantly spotting tigers which turned out to be panzer 4s or whatever as no tigers were engaged against the americans in normandy
The myth how the Sherman was the worst in terms of crew escaping. Compared to Panthers or T-34-85 when the amunition cooks off and they try to escape.
well early models were kinda ass but later they have watered ammo storage or something isnt it?
I imagine though the German tanks with the large side turret hatches were easier to get out of.
Didn't he already cover that argument? He said that the shermans where on par or better than tanks from other countries in terms of crew survivability and the easiness to escape from the tank itself
Tank Jesus had covered this in several videos.
If I recall correctly, Sherman's were lost left and right. However the crews lived to fight another day(generally). I believe he said that of all the casualties (KIA & WIA) between the time frames of the invasion of north Africa, to the end of Monte casino in Italy, tankers contributed some 3% to the casualty listings.
This make no sense, you talk about crew escaping then switch to ammunition burning out, is it one or the other?
Regarding the first soviets and T-34s are by far the worst in escape hatches since the vehicle is cramped and there are not too many hatches. Sherman's are questionable, early Sherman hatches I'm some areas were sometime inaccessible to some of crew. When that stopped becoming a problemsome of the hatches were quite narrow. So some people may consider these terrible hatches.
Germans regarding their tanks, always gave at least 3 places to escape no less. At most maybe 6 ways to leave, say in the case of the Panzer IV for most variants, each of the 5 crew had a way to escape, same with most variants of the Panzer III, 5 ways to escape, though both might have 6 if there is a hatch underneath.
Tiger I, 5 places to escape for each crew, maybe 6 if underneath, the Tiger II downgraded with 4 places to escape maybe 5 if underneath
Often the case 3 of the places to escape from were big, while the driver and radio operators had smaller hatches
Panther also had 5 hatches, mayne 6 if underneath tank
It's either the Soviets or Americans with worst hatch
Regarding ammunition, the Sherman's at the start was not very survivable but as wet storage were added become one of the most survivable.
As anothernote, ammunition explosion can vary some are instant some are delayed slightly, don't state it like Sherman ammo never explodes immediately upon penetrating with projectile
Stick to one damn point, escape hatches or survivability after ammunition fire
Would love to see Spookston make a Busting German Tank Myths video
*4 hours long*
*Even better because I can never get enough*
It would be a change for his normal videos of just busting German tanks
@@shukes4645 *And 12 hours on the Tigers and Panthers*
The Russian one would be 3 days long
American Tanker: Sees blurry shakey image of some muzzle break through his periscope.
"ZOMG TIGER! RUN!"
If you do another one of these videos, you should talk about the “Panther G mantlet,” and how it wasn’t exclusive to the Panther G, but was used on the Panther A as well.
There’s a myth among even some in the US Armor branch that a 120mm Sabot somehow creates a vacuum strong enough to suck the crew out of the exit hole of the target tank. Goes to show that even tankers don’t know what they’re talking about 100% of the time
I met recently an iraq war veteran (us tanker) who told me the exact same thing
Can you make a vid on confirming tank kills? I mean how the attacker knows it actually destroyed, and overestimations from this?
Pragmatically speaking, if it looks ded, it is ded. Cheiftan said that in one of his qna.
@@jintsuubest9331 UN forces in Korean war had sometimes 10:1 oversetimated their kills because airforce would attack seemingly OK tanks, which inteligence later declared to be already dead. And I think I'd rather be sure like them than pragmatically sorry.
One trick is simply to shoot it until you see flames or smoke coming out
@@Oppen1945 hopefully getting out on under half a minute and not get yourself stuck on the way out
Erosion is the word for advancing in penetration of both APFSDS and copper jet from HEAT.
British lower plates being a “weakness” would be a nice addition, though I’m not sure if it has already been covered
How is a barely angled 75mm steel plate in a modern tank not a weakness?
@@IronPhysik with size of almost 2/3 hull
Year-old comment, I know, but the reason why it's not considered to be a serious weakness is to hit the lower frontal plate on any tank, you'd have to be fighting it in a very close-quarters engagement. Yes, it would be very easy to penetrate a Chieftain or Challenger there (or many other tanks, for that matter), but you'd have to come so close that it would be very difficult for the crew not to notice you. And given that British armoured doctrine dictates that MBTs should fight at long-range and from either hull-down positions or ones with terrain cover, it was always seen to be such an insignificant issue that the LFP was barely armoured on the Chieftain and Challengers. This proved to be a correct assessment until that very famous incident in Iraq, when an RPG managed to successfully hit the LFP on a Challenger 2. However, other protection measures managed to minimise enough of the weapon's impact that the driver only lost part of his foot, other crew members suffered minor injuries and the tank was able to safely reverse its way to an aid post. This, and a Blue-on-Blue loss, are the only noteworthy marks on an otherwise spotless record for both Challengers. This why the lack of LFP armour on British tanks isn't really considered to be a serious issue outside of armchair discussions (although later upgrades for the Challenger 2 did put some serious armour in that area and added ERA blocks).
The soviets first mounted night vision to the BT-7 in 1939. It saw action in 1941 but it was very limited. The drivers loved it though.
The subnautica music and your videos go great together.
The Sherman myth of being cookers and terrible tanks makes me furious
ever read Band of Brothers? ever read/hear the opinions of actual WWII tankers that fought in them? Clearly not.
It's a great read, you should check it out
@@ImpeachObamaASAP2010 heard of survivor bias? Heard that actual hard statistics and test is better than oral opinion of flawed humans?
You should, I heard that Sherman has a mortality rate by 0.3 given the statistics of tankers that fought and died.
myth that "if youre on foot and you see a tank you just need to close in on it so close that you're closer to him that the length of its barrel and thus it cant shoot you"
and the "tanks are almighty and indestructible"
TBH, knowing it isn't molten and the explosion is just forcing solid (or semi solid) metal into a shape and then ejecting it at 60% of orbital velocity is far more impressive than just burning.
The NVD myth comes from games like CoH 2 where Germany is superior to every other playable nation with technology it uses.
What's funny is in coh2 the Germans have some of the best recon in the game. In reality though they had some of the worst recon of the major nations.
COH 2 should not be taken seriously, a tank like the Panzer 2 surviving multiple Sherman shots is proof enough.
@@Predator20357 I am not saying it should, it's just like most WW 2 games another Germany dick stroking simulator.
@@morgus9892 SOmeone should make a WW2 game that gives the Allies super technology and makes germany look like shit, just to show how ridiculous all of the german uber technology in games is.
@@morgus9892 the mg42 in EVERY squad/fire team in every ww2 game is my FAVORITE. 🙄
I love how you hit me with that smooth smooth jazz at the end of every video💯
tank man make serotonin go brrrr
Fun fact about the last one, shaped charges: That is not actually the Internet's fault. My grandfather was an AT gunner in WW2 and he always referred to it as "Schweissmunition" or welding ammunition. Apparently that was a common term back then.
Small side note: He also got the Iron Cross for using his ammo up in destroying 8 T-34s after the rest of his battery was wiped out and repelling the attack pretty much just him and his loader. After the ceremony, he was chewed out by the company first sergeant for using up all the expensive ammo! So he got a medal and a dressing-down for the exact same action...
Have you ever heard the myth that American APFSDS rounds would depressurize the crew compartment so much that it would pull stuff out the other side? I heard in OSUT that they did on a tank with goats inside and they were pulled out the hole left by the round.
I heard this when I went through as well. If it were true there would be little reason to have a HEAT round as it wouldn’t matter if a Sabot overpenetrates a PC as the crew would be liquid. Maybe they misunderstood an explanation of spalling? Only thing I could think of.
@@arc_4543 Heat rounds from tank cannons aren't used against mbts. They are used because they are versitile and can take out light armor, bunkers, and infantry.
@@loserface3962 PC = Personnel carrier, not tank. Such as BMP, BRDM, BTR, etc
@@arc_4543 I didnt see the PC part
Appreciate the subnautica music in the background.
my father used it at his panther , with 15 other tanks in Hungary, February 1945 with great success.
Debunking myths while admitting own mistakes. What a man.
A video about Automated tanks would be interesting. Since they're making drones for planes and ships (I think, not entirely sure on either of those), would tanks even be able to function completely automated? What would that look like?
I suppose automated tanks would be possible, although their combat AI would have to be incredibly advanced to make smart decisions on movement, fire, and ammo selection in a situation as complicated as a battle. Actually manipulating the tank’s controls without a human crew pushing pedals and buttons are probably achievable with current tech. The tank would probably have different size and dimensions because there’s no crew as well
Kurt I didn’t mean it was currently possible, but with highly advanced future AI it may be
hello spookston! i was wondering if it was true that in early models of T34s crewmembers could be injured when rotating the turret,also I love your content! its not only informative but very entertaining as well
I believe that the early T-34s and T-55s (if I am correct) didn’t have a turret basket, meaning that you could theoretically get you upper body twisted away from your lower one if you were standing on the tank’s floor when the turret rotated, but I may be remembering incorrectly
@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev This. And not just limited to those two iirc. They didn't have the rurret basket, so if the turret turned, the crew had to actually walk to traverse with the turret if you standing in the tank floor. Bonus points if one of the crewmen was resting his foot somewhere in the tank when they turned away
I believe there was a few british tanks like this too.
Ok the heat round explanation was very fascinating and I hadn't considered it worked that way!
The first story about the M8 reminds me of a similar one that I've heard about. I don't remenber where it very well, but I still remember some of the details, so please bear with me. Basicaly, an M8 had spotted a german tank in a village, i think in the ardenne forest. It was designated as a king tiger in the reports, which, like every other report, might raise some doubt. However, the funny thing is, I believe it was in fact, an actuall king tiger because of the way it was knocked out. The report specified that the german tank had also spotted the M8 and began pursuing it. Now, this is where it gets interesting, you would think that the M8 simply out maneuvered the king tiger and shot it at the rear, but no, it was actually about to be destroyed after being cornered. However, by some miracle, the moment the king tiger was turning towards the M8, it hit one of the many houses, making it collapse on top of it. After collapsing, the king tiger didn't move again, allowing the M8 to live another day. What's interesting about this, is the way things played out. Like i said, my memory about this story isn't the greatest, but when you think about it, it makes some sense that it would be a king tiger. Being in a village in the ardeen, king tigers weren't exactly very hard to find and one being on a village could have just been a coincidence. Also the roads aren't very big, therefore, they had to be moving slow and to knock out a house, it takes a big tank to do such a thing. They never mentioned a shot being fired which leads me to believe that whatever tank they were facing had to be big to knock down a whole house just by hitting it. Now, you could argue that the house could have already been damaged, or that it might have been some other tank, like a tiget or a panther and honestly, those arguments would still be very much plausible.
So yeah, what do you think, is this just another faulty report, or is it actually a true story?
TL:DR - M8 finds king tiger and takes credit for destroying it, even though the king tiger, supposedly, knocked hitself out.
You are not going to "simply out maneuvered the king tiger and shot it at the rear" in an M8 irl.
Barring the rest of the story, I am extremely doubtful that a king tiger or any tank of that size would be "knocked out" by a building it ran into. The only example I can think of is the killdozer, which got stuck when one side of its tracks sunk to the basement of a house it was demolishing.
@@Fenrir1398 Knowing german transmission and engine reliability back then? I'd belive that the house collapsing knocked the transmission out
We as a community must come together and boycott gaijin if we want the change we desire to come also it shows how much gaijin cares about this community when one of its best content creators just committed suicide but the devs can’t be bothered to respond to it in a timely manner
I mean its not their responsibility to do anything about it? Sure they could make a decal in his honor but that kinda seems cheap since it'd likely be behind either a paywall or it just wouldn't exist cause then they'd have to do something like this again if another CC passes away.
@@Mystic-Midnight it’s the fact that they have completely lgnored it they haven’t said a damn thing about and that’s what sucks
@@grandmoffrex im pretty sure they talked about it on the forums and gave condolonces, dont see why it would be on a devblog if thats what u mean?
@@JP-pk9ot yeah players talked about how gaijin is basicallly ignoring the situation nothing from the devs
@@grandmoffrex Why would they do anything, its not like guy achieved something so they should reward him, that would just glorify suicide like it is some option which should never be
The music i CANT lol - great video
ahh I remember watching a mark felton video on that m8 greyhound and tiger 2 event lol
Ive always loved these types of videos
Maybe a video about the infamous turret monster and efforts taken over the years to tame it.
The m8 greyhound myth it probably was a Pz Iv H because the m 8 greyhound probably couldn’t penetrate the rear of the tiger 1 and tiger2 because How thick it’s armour was
Yes, the m6 Gun is not capable of penetrating the tiger 2 from behind.
Subnautica music in the background is so good
I'm glad someone else noticed.
Would love for you to talk about the misconception about how the strv 103 was picked by the swedes due to it being a good defensive tank. In actuality, it was more so picked due to its hunter killer ability's, with the commander being able to find, identify, and engage targets faster and more acutely then the centurions that where testing it against. This reasoning for choosing the 103 comes from Sweden's main plan vs a Russian invasion that would have involved more fast dashes and break throughs involving armor rather then a slow, drawn out, defensive plan.
Based subnautica music at the beginning, nice
3:05. Fun fact, people often describe the jet of metal in HEAT round/shaped charges as molten due to some professionals explaining that the metal acts like a molten stream of metal under the pressure the high explosives cause. It's a misconception caused by a dumbing down of the actual weapon, along with a somewhat believable misconception, and you have a horribly fast spreading myth because of that.
I HATE that so many people take their history from video games. Only thing video games are good for are learning that things existed.
Like there was such a thing as the Normandy landings, and there was such a thing as a tank called t34 that generally looked like it's depicted.
But if you wanna learn more, you should look those things up and not believe everything depicted in games is exactly as it happened in real life.
To be fair tho, most ww2 games are complicit in this, as they provide absolutely no disclaimers as all historic video games should in my opinion.
It’s funny that there where more Tiger reports, than Tiger even existed
Ps: (sorry for my English)
I would be really scared too if I was an allied soldier, with all of the horror stories being told of how formidable the tiger was.
@@utzius8003 oh yes me too
Great video! I knew about the Soviet night vision but was wrong about the others. You should do more of these short Fact Attacks.
Quick and informative, perfect. Ty!
2:35 that panther represents every team that i have got since 2019
I knew about the Soviet NV being on tanks but I didn't know they were actually used in combat
love how stormer goes up in br and loses ability to kill tanks like before. now you can only kill something that has paper armor.
The Super Pershing vs King Tiger Fight is another myth
Myth: The 8.8cm PaK/KwK l/71 was the most powerful antitank gun used during the second ww.
I wouldn't say that is a myth, as "powerful" is a pretty subjective word and depending on how someone categorizes power it might have been.
As for most powerful INSIDE WW2, it would go to the 128mm used by the JagdTiger. That gun was excessive for anything in the war and most things post war.
@@utzius8003, bruh armour penetration and explosive mass is pretty objectiv to me...
@@vladimirbraveboy6531 Other factors like muzzle velocity, shell dimensions, ease of loading and the likr can't be disregarded. Plus a high velocity AP shell isn't optimal at fighting infantry, while it is great at destroying armor. It all depends on the role you judge the guns by.
@@utzius8003, yeah and none of these facts seem subjective... so?
haha first to watch
also night vision on a bt-7? that might be useful if u don't get 1 shot
in irl you dont get the same machups as war thunder
If your opponent only have 8 mauser, then bt7 is more than suffice.
great video but did yall see that shot at 0:55? love the content as usual
The myth that the Panther was the best tank of WWII. I’d say it had to actually be the Sherman for its numbers and versatility, or the T-34 for its same reasons
so you answer the question of "which tank has the highest quality" with "which tank had the most quantity" ...you should do some reasearch
Spookston just ruthlessly executing the Gaijin Social Media Manager in the opening kill...
A lot of people think schurzen was used to defeat shaped charges, especially the bazooka. According to Panzer Tracts 4-3, shaped charges were tested against shurzen by both and allies and Germans and proven ineffective on protecting against them, it would be cool if you talked about the development of schurzen or just spaced armor in general.
Spookston is GOAT
There is a bug with the churchill, which I encountered while being shot at by a jagdpanzer 4/70. When you hit the side plate of the churchill mk7 at an angle of 69°-70° right before the spare track then you might hit a spot of 2mm armor thickness. Even weirder, it can happen that the fired round phazes through the whole tank but from the other side.
me: wow, what a cool vid-
"Halo odst deference for darkness plays"
me: 😓well that hurts
Its funny. In documentaries I saw growing up they taught that the HEAT rounds functioned via the molten metal stream and that information purportedly came from the military themselves. The producers of the show must have misinterpreted the explanation or given incorrect info from the military.
Or the military themselves didn't really know what happened, just that it worked. Hard to tell what is going on in a split-second explosion.
Edit: I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable, but it says that the Munroe effect functions via plasma.
I doubt average grunt can understand complex physics term. It's simply easier to told them shit can cut throught armor, and it is super hot. You want to be the person shooting it, not receiving it.
@@jintsuubest9331 For sure, I just dont know of it was a grunt who explained it to the show producers or not. They even made a 3D rendering to show how it worked. XD
It would be interesting to see your take on weather or not the panzer 1 was a training tank or not.
It was a training tank. Yes it saw combat but it was also used for training and developing tank doctrine
Appreciate the Subnautica music
Once had a friend tell me that there's reports that the Valentine could bounce Tiger shells at certain angles.
I mean, he wouldn't be wrong. The impact angle of the shell just needs to be high enough for it to be unable to normalise
spook! spook! try the t-72, im a fan of them, and id like to see you cover the myths that claim it's bad because for its time it wasn't. good day :D
to sum it up:
T-72 during it's introduction was quite good, and over time it got upgraded
the T-72 that they reffered to be ''bad'' would most likely the Iraqi T-72M1 (which is the export variant of T-72A) and the downgraded Lions of Babylon.
By the late 80s and early 90s, Soviets (now reformed into Russia) is no longer use T-72A for frontline combat, because they had a better T-72B and T-72B (1989)
@@Kalashnikov413 yep! tankograd t-72 is an amazing source :D
Whoah video without a "problem"?Lets enjoy it
idea for the next vid: super pershing that killed a tiger 2
The super pershing didn't kill a Tiger II. This has been debunked already. the T26E4 Super Pershing only encountered Panzer 4s during its limited time in service.
@@dd-gl2qf ik thats why i want it in the next video😁
@@filli2429 oh, fair enough.
It could easily have done that though. Tiger 2 had nothing on a super pershing.
@@utzius8003 The gun and armour are better on the Tiger II than that of the super pershing.
Love the subnautica soundtrack
I'd love to see a video about different types of tank suspension and engine configurations, if you feel that you can speak on it.
I don't think I have some misconception to ask you about, but I want to say that the video was very cool
My take on these myths:
Myth 1: I certainly can see that, especially considering how many times I had heard that Tigers being so rare that any claims of a Tiger 2 in places that have little sources to confirm them are much easier to look at skeptically.
Myth 2: I'm more surprised this is a recent myth as this has been around as far back as the early 2010s, even before War Thunder. I personally actually came across this because of Hearts of Iron 3 believe it or not. Granted every nation in that game can research Night Vision tech as soon as 1944 (as it is labeled as 1945 tech), and while you could research it at any time as long as you meet the requirements, but you will be waiting a very long time till it is researched for your units that I view it as a waste of a single research point over other things you could go for until the best point of 1944 or just wait till 1945 comes. Anyway from that tangent, most stuff especially back in the day only ever talked about the German Night vision and never mention any other nation dabbling into it so I could see why most people think Germany were the only ones via omitting other nations like the USA and USSR working on Night Vision too.
Myth 3: hmm, much more recent for me, though considering other aspects I can see why some would fall for this myth. Especially how even knowing armor would spall even from non-penetrating hits; however this is more true with pure metal armor (especially poor manufacturing as has been seen in late war German tanks during penetration testing) whereas Composite armor would most certainly in modern times make such a concept not worth the effort.
Myth 4: ah yes the ever eternal confusion of how Shape Charges/HEAT rounds work despite how simple it is presented. Something even I keep falling back into because gosh darn it, these rounds still feel like bits of information are missing in how they actually work.
You are just adding fuel to the already bright burning shit show of myth 3. No armor are well suited to take multiple impacts, especially composite armor. The reason why it was not a viable method of defeating armor is simply because we do not lived in a perfect world.
Even guided munition cannot always land the munition at the same location. Things like constantly changing environmental variable, equipment wear and tear, manufacturing imperfection or simply tolerances, inherent operator error, etc. Also, the target itself would be moving even if it is just a static fixed anchored down test platform. You bet a T-64 would start moving, either smoke up and rush the closest cover or trying to shoot back if your first shot did not take it out.
The largest issue is probably the way we ignite the charges. Even with the most modern gun (fired using charges), the initial chamber pressure difference can be as high as 15% peak to trough. The difference is not enough to effect the performance or the ability to hit a tank size target at combat distance (around 3km now days) at around the center mass. But it is also make sure you cannot hit the same spot to cause any practical armor degradation before the other side decided to shoot back.
Using the Chinese m8 in simulator battles gets you many engagements similar to the tiger 2 story lol
Can you make a video about the effectiveness of the ad on track link armor used primarily by Shermans during World War II? I think this would be a good topic because track link armor Is a researchable modification in war thunder
another interesting tidbit regarding shaped charge warhead, as you mention it as "copper formed into penetrator", interesting bit is that penetrator would cut right through concrete, sandbags, and even logs due to their loose particles makes the copper penetrator almost ignore these material when it's penetrated. Even spaced armor is pointless unless you can make a spaced distance of 1 meter from main armor to defeat these copper penetrator lol
Slat armor is a 50/50 chance as well, because the slat armor's goal is to prevent the cone to form into penetrator (by either crushing the fuze before it could be triggered. or deform its copper cone). Hitting the spaced part is good, hitting the structure part of the slat will trigger the Munroe effect, and main armor still can be penetrated
It Still has a noticeable effect because the copper "jet" will impact the armor after travel rather than be fired in direct contact and so have much greater chances to deviate. True the copper won't care about the materials but it WILL care about hitting the armor after travel through the air and not being kept uniform by material that it's penetrating.
It's not incorrect to call it a molten jet of copper, but you are absolutely correct to call it a kinetic penetrator.
For the longest time I thought the M8 killed a tiger 2 so thx for clarifying
Chieftain covered in a reddit ama or something in more detail. His opinion is that it likely happened but it's not possible to say for sure, iirc.
@@m0nkEz It most likely happened but it is never really known if the M8 knocked out a Panzer IV, or either of the two Tiger variants. It's most probably a Panzer, but whatever the story ends up with, it's still hilarious.
@@modest_spice6083 Let's just pretend it was tiger 2 to make wehraboos salty.
The first one is interesting because on the western front American soldiers called all the panzers "tiger tanks" because all where scary and affective to them and the first time the British came across a tiger 1 was in north Africa, within 5 minutes 5 tigers where taken out by a bunch of 6 pounders.
What about a video on the greatest tank operators.
I miss this spookston
Myth: T-34 was a good tank
I would like to see the missconception debunked of paint used on tanks that increased the ricochet chances. Mainly during ww2.
Well, there's the very common idea that, admittedly, only really gets circulated around groups of people who know a *little* about tanks. This idea that you design every tank around the trifecta of armour-speed-firepower and you have to make concessions in one part to have good performance in the others. A myth with a small kernel of truth.
wouldn't surprise me if the first story was a tiger 2 tank that coincidentally broke down when it was being fired at lol
spookston the independent fact-checker™
Hypothetical: using HEAT concept at the start of the ballistic trajectory pushed into a rifled barrel, which would act as a hypervelocity round.
In the next myth video Spooks can you talk about the p47 pilot that talked about killing tigers by shooting his 50cals under the tank and making them bounce up trough the floor
THANK YOU. IV'E BEEN SAYING THE FIRST ONE FOR SO LONG.