Anti-tank Kinetic Energy Projectiles | HIGH VELOCITY MISSILES

[@Grand-Massive]

Texas instruments, where you can come for all your calculator and high velocity missile fire control system needs

[@Marinealver]

Yet it still can't compute X

[@mattmarzula]

Nothing about Emerson?

[@craigseymour1099]

Lol, in high school...we had ti-34 calculators...but the military 🪖 had Texas instruments laser guided bombs...

[@vejet]

1:54 Watching the steel wheels of a tank crushing rocks and the ground beneath it is surprisingly soothing to the eyes...

[@jetrickgordo4026]

*crunchy*

[@paulh2468]

Good video Matt. Your final comment made sense. This weapon system will be brought back, at some point. The blueprints are stored somewhere. Unless lasers can be developed to punch holes in tanks, high velocity penetrators will have a place. There are many cancelled programs, but pieces of them are used in future programs. Hypersonic missiles are becoming popular now, so dont be surprised if the HVM reappears.

[@EthanolTailor]

listen son, i play kerbol space program and in that game the delta V to orbit is roughly 2000m/s and your saying that thing has the energy to do that packed in to that tiny package, AAAND THEY MADE IT EVEN SMALLER AND FASTER, this blew my mind

[@Duvallmd]

I was a kid when the HVM project was announced. Always thought it was a cool concept. Thanks for the update, I imagine its time will come again.

[@Pthrust]

"War Thunder developers *SCRIBBLES FURIOUSLY* on a dilapidated notebook"

[@MasterBlaster220]

lol

[@drnovikov]

Sekrit documents! We need sekrit documents, tovarisch!

[@ChocorocK]

Ink is frozen again, blin!

[@gijoe41688]

thanks matt... great information as always, you are THE go to for military hardware like forgotten weapons is for firearms... cheers

[@justaregularguy3827]

Red camp effect

[@franciscook5819]

Another excellent video, Matt: detailed, comprehensive, well thought out and well presented. Keep up the good work.

[@thedungeondelver]

A couple of pods of HVMs under the wings of the A10 would have been a gorgeous thing to behold in combat.

[@nickjohns1192]

I'd love to see an updated A10 with no rockets or missiles.. but replace them with more ammo so I can see a 20-30 sec burst of madness

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

8:32 That is true. However, that depends on the layout of the missile. The missile could be arranged with as a penetrator with jettisonable rocket motor. After which, the penetrator will glide, unpowered to its target (similar in build to the Starstreak missile. This arrangement of missile is basically strapping an APDSFS unto a rocket motor). Since, the penetrator flies by itself, it suffers less from drag. In fact, I would say that it would only lose around 40 m/s every 1 km it travels (similar to how an APDSFS loses energy to drag) Or, the missile could be arranged by surrounding the penetrator core with the entire body of the missile. Which is kinda akin to an APCR shell. However, this design suffers from excessive loss of kinetic energy due to drag. A normal APCBC shell loses like a few-couple of hundred meters/sec every 1 km it travels (I am not quite sure about APCR, but the effect may be worse, since the shell is much more lightweight). *[And sure, even if the missile wraps around the penetrator, it still has a fairly areodynamic dart shape, so it wouldn't lose drag like an APCBC shell. But, then, the cross section of this missile layout is still higher than a missile where the penetrator flies by itself]*

[@Pudentame]

If the missile is wrapped around the penetrator couldn't you have a rocket that continues accelerating long enough to offset the increased drag with higher velocity when the motor burns out? If it's going fast enough by then the increased drag wouldn't have time to slow it down too much before it reaches the target?

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

@@Pudentame Yes, your right. As you say so yourself, you can have a rocket that continues accelerating to offset increased drag. Or increasing the rocket's speed to a higher velocity. There is no technological limit stopping anyone from making a higher velocity KEM missile. They could do it if they wanted to. However......that being said, going faster doesn't come without it's own downsides. And there are some issues to making a faster missile

[@thecavalrygeneral3453]

combine a scaled down version of this technology with Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems like the upgrade on the Hydra 70 and I think we're looking at a low cost future tech winner

[@gusgone4527]

Wait for the electromagnetic rail-gun, it will be the ultimate kinetic energy perpetrator. The electrical energy required is currently (joke) the limiting factor. 25 megawatts of sustained power is required, the average warship generates 10 megawatts. That said, pulse technology under development by BAE has lowered the requirement to 5 megawatts. Much more achievable.

[@thecavalrygeneral3453]

@@gusgone4527 still waiting on the "Rods of God" Orbital Artillery (Ortillery) lol but yeah I agree - direct fire in the (not so distant) future is going to be dominated by rail guns and rail gun-alikes, indirect and stand off stuff though I think will belong to guided hypersonics.

[@loserface3962]

@@thecavalrygeneral3453 railguns arent going to be good in ship warfare, the projectiles cant hold any payload and to do major damage it has to go really fast which can make the projectile unstable.

[@adamleddy9894]

if you mean near future to be 2050... I mean just sayin

[@gordonlawrence1448]

@the cavalry general, I took a design for that to the UK government way back in the mid-90's. Of course they said they were not interested because it could not be done without looking at my design or my CV.

[@Marinealver]

Next episode, Railgun Tanks!

[@Edario]

@@revolverswitch True, energy required are significantly less than rail/coil gun.

[@ShrekMeBe]

maybe the real issue is do you want to negate the whole tank warfare by introducing a modar system that can be fired from a normal car (more or less), exponentially increasing threat to tanks once the tech picks up. After investing zillions of dolars into tanks, normally you want to go with the same. This tech can have the same impact as the early guns had on personal armor in medieval times, any peasant with a modicum of training being able to kill a mounted knight.

[@davehood2667]

The problem remains the mass of the power plant required, the Navy could do it on a nuclear powered ship, but a tank is just too small.

[@brianphillips7696]

I think I once heard one of these systems referred to as “Follow on to TOW” in the late 1990’s. And the idea was that it would replace the Tow systems I worked on. I had always wondered what happened to the project after I left the service.

[@daveleyerle2525]

Thanks Matt, I tracked that program with a lot of interest since I graduated in 1990 and lost track of it when they joined in the merger! I agree with major high intensity combat being what is forecast, the 2.75 inch rocket and Clem could be used more in a ground support role! I think tow is in dire need of being phased out. Javelin is good, but we need something more immune to apps systems!

[@EcchiRevenge]

"The T-72 in Lockheed Martin's 2007 test was just over 2 miles away from the CKEM launcher. Limitations in the firing platform’s ability to steer the missile to the target may have been the reason for not testing it out to its maximum range at that time." It's not as great as it sounds. T-72 was probably old one captured from Iraq with Kontakt-1(which already isn't effective against APFSDS). Or shot on the side just like in the video. It works against aircraft and lighter armored vehicles(APC...etc.) because they're thin-skinned. But inherent instability(which is how it's steered) can cause massive penetration loss against modern tanks. (on top of ERA/NERA's mechanism for defeating KE projectiles, any slight tilt would be significant decrease in penetration, ~10degrees will lose ~50% penetration; worse if it's hit by hardkill APS) The non-existence of explosive effect also limits its use against infantry...etc. So basically you have a vehicle-portable weapon(barely, seeing as Humvee had to be enlarged) that is dubious against front of modern tanks with similar range to standard ATGM platforms, that has little use against anything that isn't armored enough for pure-AP to be effective(would probably pass straight through civilian cars without much damage), that costs a ton(not just in deploying/supplying a new platform), that has very long minimum range(this is nearly Shilleleigh level bullshit; except that one just can't be guided before that range, this one literally has less destructive power until it accelerates past that range), that probably still has enough backblast to kill friendlies 20m away. That's probably why people gave up on it. Might as well use a traditional ATGM(top down attack, or just a bigger warhead) or lower-pressure/recoil traditional tank gun(like 105mm on M1128MGS).

[@Colonel_Overkill]

At one point the KE protection was drastically lower than the CE protection. It was in the mid to late 50s I believe when the defense meta was leaning towards everything armed with HESH or HEP and HEAT-FS shells with aux ATGM for tank combat as first generation test deployments of ERA were only recently introduced. I honestly wonder if this program was a legacy of that time and just floundered in the bureaucracy on paper for decades. Even as late as the 70s with the introduction of T-72 with proper armor and T-80 the kinetic protection reached levels almost equal to chemical protection these missiles would be rendered redundant. If it were firable from a more mobile system I could see some use against IFVs but all of your points are valid. Any scenario that this system could be employed in likely could be matched in performance at worst or likely exceeded by a TOW-2 or javelin.

[@bigmal1690]

@@Colonel_Overkill anything going that fast will fly flat and straight and destroy most things on the battle field and air

[@Colonel_Overkill]

@@bigmal1690 you appear to have missed my point, while I am disputing what the rocket will do on impact, Im also saying the entire program seems to be 40 years late. A kinetic projectile like that has subpar performance to a gun launched APFSDS shell, which it is supposedly intended to rival. It also is inferior to HEAT effect weapons and for pure kinetic impact most modern battle tanks are immune to it frontally. Decades ago this would have been a great system but these days anything it may be able to do something else can already do it better.

[@afs101]

Simple calculations based on the impact energy show that a hit from an 80kg projectile travelling at 2000mps will destroy any ground vehicle. It doesnt have to penetrate the armour, it has enough energy to snap the chassis like a torpedo breaks the keel of a ship.

[@EcchiRevenge]

@@afs101 Nice try at using full weight of the missile instead of the relevant part(the penetrator). If you take a round *that* heavy(for reference, 80kg is close to the weight of a 203mm HE round) and dump it onto a tank, even just HE would destroy any tank... 176lb. is missile with the fins, guidance system, mostly propellant that would mostly be burnt before reaching max range(just to accelerate to lethal velocities, if it actually works...). Lol "simple calculations." Now I know why people think this is some kind of magical weapon - they can't even figure out how heavy the relevant part is. (remember this is supposed to be "lightweight" enough to fit onto HMMWV) In all likelihood it probably blinds the shooter(and "computerized tracking system") with launch blast for most of that ~4s it takes to reach the target, plus it has maybe 20 degrees of guidance, on a wheeled platform that you have to steer toward target... And that's just LOSAT; CKEM is already well under 50KG.

[@Eyeless2509]

watching those starstreaks fly is so bizarre, they way they dart around looks like a swarm of gnats

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

14:08 The LOSAT missile has 90 MJ of kinetic energy? Well maybe for the entire missile itself, but that doesn't apply to the penetrator core itself. The kinetic energy of the penetrator core is likely to be lower. If we look at the Starstreak missile itself as an example, it weighs 14-20 kg overall. But, the total projectile weight of the missile is 2.7 kg. So, that gives us a figure where 13.5-19.3% of the missile is its projectile core. That's pretty impressive, since APDSFS shells devote around 22% of its weight into the actual penetrator (so that Starstreak has somewhere around 60-88% of the "payload" of a tank fired sabot shell). But, anyways, that means the actual mass of the LOSAT missile that actually contributes to the penetration is only around 10.8-15.44 kg. Which gives a kinetic energy of around 12.54-17.93 MJ. Which is pretty impressive, in comparison the 140mm XM291 is speculated to have a muzzle energy of around 24 MJ (it is likely that half of that energy goes into penetrator of the sabot shell). So.....a fraction of the missile's kinetic energy is devoted to the penetrator core. But, what about the rest of missile body, you might ask. Well, the rest of missile body would probably peel off, and not penetrate very far into armour (sorta akin to the aluminum body on a APCR shell peeling off when it hits armour). HOWEVER, that's not to say that the (peeling) missile body (surrounding the penetrator core) isn't entirely useless. It could cause secondary damage through concussive impact (caused from the mass of the missile body). Just as an example this is what happens to a Churchill tank when it receives a non-penetrating hit from a German 128mm gun ftr.wot-news.com/2013/10/25/the-big-bad-128mm/. Yeah, the 128mm is pretty damn scary, now use your imagination when thinking about a great big honking, 90 kg missile flying your way at hypersonic speeds. *[And also, a slight side note. The LOSAT missile may weigh 80 kg. But, you gotta keep in mind that a significant portion of the missile's weight is in its fuel. So, once, the fuel is expended, the weight of the missile may be less than 80 kg]*

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

@@komradearti9935 Are you sure about that? That seems far too light for a 80 kg missile. Where do you get your information from?

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

@@komradearti9935 Oh ok. Thanks.

[@AllToDevNull]

Starstreak is a kinetic anti aircraft system in use today. Pretty cool one actually.

[@Jreg1992]

I love StarStreak. Losat was close to god, a boat with a Losat turret and programmable-timed-fuse missles = Line Of Sight defense bubble. I figure. Hyper-sonic cruise missile defense (regardless if the cruise missile has evasion capabilities)? I live starstreak. ❤❤❤ stay strong, stay safe, and keep shining, even from the shade 😎 💪!

[@anindyamukhopadhyay8]

One of the best documentaries I've seen on Apfsds rounds Thanks 😊 4 educating us with so much knowledge on Apfsds

[@littlemikey46]

What program are you using to simulate the tank at 14:30 ?

[@IllidanSturmgrimmDeusVult]

That is from the game "war thunder" bro

[@littlemikey46]

@@IllidanSturmgrimmDeusVult Oh I didn't know that vehicle was in War Thunder

[@Jermo7899]

I love your videos. Your knowledge about every subject is much appreciated!

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

What! Another Matsimus Vid! Great job as usual Mat

[@gregjennings9442]

Good stuff. Minor pick: Loral was not part of LM. Loral picked up LTV and other defense companies/units during the consolidation of the defense industry after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Later, Loral decided that it wanted to concentrate on commercial space launch and sold off its defense elements to LM.

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

1:31 If I remember correctly, the Soviet Union during that time had outnumbered NATO in tanks by a factor of 2 (and some of their tanks were pretty scary actually. Anyone familiar with the T-64?). And the Russians had a numerical superiority in infantry by a factor of around 4 (To be honest, NATO had some advantages over the Soviet Union. Such as in air, and naval power). So, obviously NATO was like "nope, I don't want anything to do with you", and resorted to desperate backup plans (namely using nukes. But, to be fair, the Soviets were planning to do the same thing too)

[@ThisAlias]

Yes but the Russian tanks were garbage as usual...

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

@@ThisAlias Are you sure about that? When the T-54 was introduced it was equal to the American Patton tanks (and I don't rly remember anyone calling those tanks being garbage). When the T-64 came out, it was superior in almost every conceivable way (although it was built in relatively few numbers. After which point, the T-72 superseded it, due to cheaper costs). I wouldn't call Soviet tanks to be garbage

[@Antagraber]

@@ThisAlias Everybody knows that in WW2 German tanks were by far more sofisticated and lethal than any Soviet one. But,... as A.Hitler said in a private conversation, Soviets were able to build 1000 T34 per month. In some cases even German tanks finished all the shells killing Soviet ones, but there were still many that still were more Soviet ones operationally able to destroy the German ones. Sofistication and modern weapons often demonstrated that in the long run do not bring the superiority against massive attacks. Or even against a Taliban/Vietcong that lives during days in a foxhole with an AK and a bowl of boiled rice. Furthermore, sofistication is always expensive and operationally dependent of second line support. Russians tanks are not generally lethal, but also cheaper and more easy to mantain. It is not only with tanks, but also in many technologies they create. It is in their minds, thus their engineers mindset.

[@andyboog2010]

Im trying to remember but there was a place in west Germany that you could go to see into e Germany and actually see Russian tanks sitting just beyond the border but enough to let you know they where there. I was a kid in the 70s living there as an army brat but I believe the area was around Fulda.

[@cekseh]

@@Antagraber "Sofisticated" in ww2 germany tank divisions = overengineered, expensive, and fragile. They were very effective when working properly but outnumbered. And they only dominated in the earlier stages of the war. There's a reason why Germany considered rushing their own carbon copied t-34's when they started running into them in Russia. Up until the Abrams Russian tanks were considered pretty beast. Supposedly their new stuff is as well, however modern militaries are moving away from MBT's now, so they will never have a chance to shine I imagine, other than bullying 3rd world countries.

[@jacobsparry8525]

You were talked about the Fulda gap for armors invasion?

[@southronjr1570]

A good friend of my Father's worked for the US Army at Aberdeen back in the 60's and 70's and with us all being gun folks, we often discussed weird or oddball weaponry. He told me about a now unclassified program he worked on the was a precursor to this program. The Army was looking for a lightweight man portable hyper velocity weapon that would allow a single man to knock out a Russian tank. They came up with a KE round that sent a titanium "dart" that was about twice the size of a standard flachette. He said they sent it down range at close to 10,000 fps and at 500 yards it went through 2 M60 range target tanks front straight on and passed entirely through the front and back of both tanks. He said it was incredibly strange to look through a perfectly shaped hole with fins and all and look straight through them both. One of his jobs was to document the terminal performance and the Army was happy about how well it penetrate but it would literally just punch neat little holes and not do any spalling or create any shrapnel upon penetration. Basically unless personell or something vital was in its path, nothing really happened and the program was deemed a failure.

[@nephihenry4328]

what is the name of the song/track that starts at around 0:38? after the intro? i've got it stuck in my head. I NEED to know plz.

[@rhinehardt1]

Just because we may not need a particular weapon system at the moment, that doesn't mean we won't need it in the future, so don't totally get rid of something that we might be needing in the future.

[@williamtoyer5165]

Mat, I really enjoy your vids. Keep up the good work. Thanks!

[@charlescourtwright2229]

Throwing something very fast towards the enemy will always be a viable strategy, its been around for thousands of years

[@noreavad]

As usual, quality editing, solid info, set an exception in ad blocker for your content.....the ordinary stuff.

[@francisdavis1271]

Many of the discussions are ignoring the interaction of active defense systems. While hypervelocity kinetic rounds are exceptionally difficult to intercept they're not "impossible" to intercept. There are practical upper limits to size and weight of vehicles so rather than add armor to be defeated by KE you may add active protection. Gun and rocket propellant are at a plateau of energy; more energy requires different techniques; vehicles may go toward Navy concepts of "electrical systems" (electro-thermal combustion for guns as well as propulsion). Electromagnetic fields are being examined ("shields" if you will - but not quite the magic of sci-fi). Everything is about change.

[@anthonykaternoza9664]

Nobody: Some poor soul in the taco Bell bathroom: (11:15)

[@dimes7742]

F

[@rvh1999]

Please stop with all those 'nobody' jokes, they're old now

[@dimes7742]

@@rvh1999 nobody This guy:

[@suprlite]

Nobody: Nobody jokes are funny and innovative.

[@legionarii4711]

5:09 voice crack was amazing and so was the video

[@EdwardPCampbell]

Excuse me, legionnaire, but what kind of vehicle attacks a ground target at mach number 2, apart from a nuclear tipped MIRV.? Or a WW2 V2?

[@bantalee2002]

i remember when Texas Instruments just made digital watches and hand held calculators for math class.

[@antonblebann6823]

Awesome Review, never heard before of this Programm, very interesting👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻 THX

[@bassambouhamad7935]

My Goodness what powerful weapon , God bless America .

[@gordonlawrence1448]

Some of those launches look a lot like the UK Starstreak. Itself an interesting system.

[@vasopel]

those are Starstreak missiles :-)

[@enscroggs]

Love it, Matsimus! Keep it up, please.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Would it be safe to say that the APKWS is an offshoot of the HVM development? Specifically, regards compact guidance for the 2.75 Hydra rocket?

[@Nitwa08]

Please do a video on active protection systems.

[@zachgwidt6013]

9:48 I have a pic of one of those fireing on my wall. My father took the pic

[@christianpervert525]

stop lying....u dont have a father

[@ulflyng]

Where did he take that pic?

[@twothouse123]

Love these kinda videos like mini documentaries!!

[@Appreciation-Community]

Wow I never knew TI did these kind of military contracts. My old man worked as an engineer there in the 90s.

[@smogdanoff7053]

I read on a forum where it was mentioned that back in the day (80’s 90’s probably) bofors were testing a 220mm recoilless anti tank gun which had the capability of firing dart ammunition(supposedly)

[@paulbarrett9951]

The UK has starstreak HVM which looks very similar, was this the same as the 3 dart one in this video?

[@krakenburger56]

Yes

[@waynebrundidge206]

With everything I’ve ever seen or heard about kinetic energy missiles they are so much less expensive to operate. It seems they are more practical

[@SuperDiablo101]

Could you do a segment on the old soviet FOBS fractional orbital bombardment system in the later days of the program the soviets used kinetic weapons rather than nukes I could be wrong maybe the kinetic weapons were used earlier

[@sohomchatterjee]

You're getting so less views man.... Damn this hurts

[@dukenukem8381]

most of his videos just Wikipedia readthru with stolen footage so no wonder

[@ShrekMeBe]

there is a distinct pro-russian tinge in many of his videos. maybe that's why

[@robappleby583]

@phil mill ISIS 300 million? What on earth are you talking about?

[@alejandrorojas1423]

Matt also has years of experience as an armor crewman and I believe even combat experience. That's part of his appeal and should be all that is needed to justify his channel

[@hp2084]

I think the channel's name was Matsimus gaming and then turned to vids like this, I just wonder why people even care to view his vids.

[@FortuneZer0]

9:27 Heavily modified? This looks way closer to the design drawing than what it devolved to.

[@bradleyanderson4315]

If they were so concerned about the minimum range, they could just put a pair of Javelin launchers on one side of the turret and Lost on the other.

[@tylerfranco920]

Could just use the crows javalin that already is in service on strykers

[@melissalydon3681]

why did the that missile have three prongs or whatever they are?

[@manzo931]

Hi everyone what would happen to a target if you fired a projectile at 2.5km/s to 4km/s? I'm a curious person and I don't mind graphic details with multiple scenarios.

[@Southernstar-RHINO]

You would be brave to drive a tank after seeing this kinetic lance destroy a tank in a flash.

[@phoneey645]

The best youtubers always be named matt

[@alexdunphy3716]

Great video! Keep it up! These are my favorite type of videos from you

[@robertfarrow4256]

Well researched and quite interesting. This technology is in our closet waiting for a new armored threat.

[@thomas_jay]

Hi there, I wonder if you could cover the recent development in russian arctic warfare systems, such as the Ivan Papanin icebreaker / patrol ship?

[@jeremymccord1154]

it would be nice if you used stranded and metric measurements in your videos

[@vermilion7777]

I always wondered, why the Starstreak's penetrators rotating around a common centerpoint like an old school muzzle loader chain shot. I don't see the physics behind that.

[@marinadimosthenous9052]

What if tanks fire hypervelocity missiles. Take a solid fueled subcaliber rocket and line its internal combustion cavity with a burnable carbon fiber porous tube. This tube would protect the plastic solid fuel from deformation. A spigot will be inserted into the combustion cavity to fill any empty space. When the tank fires the round, the igniter explodes the main charge that sends the missile sub-projectile out of the cannon tube. Then the spigot is ejected from the rocket's combustion chamber out at the back, this is done with the help of a time delayed fuse that pushes the metallic spigot-rod through the nozzle and out of the rocket. The rocket is ignited and it burns slightly oxygen rich. It then deploys its fins for controlled flight. The main charge is a high explosive/gun power mixture with innert hellium gas buffer in order to make it a combustion light gas cannon. So if the missile exits the cannon at mach 2,5 to mach 3 it could then accelerate to hypersonic velocities... Would this work?

[@johnelliott7850]

Good, informative video. I didn't even know this particular branch of anti-armour systems existed 'til now.

[@andreasleonardo6793]

Nice video..talking about kinetic energy missiles with clear explaining of method of explosively activewear ...thanks friend

[@edwardzerilli4550]

A bit long winded, but good. I would like to know more about how the projectiles are steered to the target. Do these projectiles have gyroscopes, thrusters, onboard computers, etc? Thanks for the information.

[@quentinspaeth1757]

if it can you feel any better Mattsimus, France is also wondering about boosting apfsds and can maybe be guided too

[@Phos9]

2:13 I’m just imagining the grip just off camera waving a light. I could see these coming back (probably in a top attack roll) out of necessity to counter hard kill anti missile systems.

[@AKAtheA]

why do you think a hard-kill system could not deal with this? A small czech project called EFA (explosively formed axe) uses a shaped charge to bitchslap anything coming at your vehicle...already tested being able to seriously decrease APDFS penetration as it destabilizes it...

[@Phos9]

@@AKAtheA Hard Kill systems can reduce kinetic penetrater effectiveness (trophy as well has been demonstrated this) but it still requires some underlying armor. I'm imagining the missile flying basically a ballistic arc to build up energy and targeting the roof, but with that level of complexity a Sufficiently Large Bomb might be easier.

[@oceanhome2023]

This is a departure from using the Hyper velocity rail gun these are rocket powered . With the rail gun there is no too close to be effective but the speed drops off very dramatically

[@michaeltheoret8913]

I'd like a spent one of those kinetic dart things to lean in the corner along with that bazooka tube ( deactivated of course) that I somehow acquired ,just to get people asking questions.

[@RagsHSC-7]

It sure did not go to waste all of that technology right now we have the rail gun. Cheers

[@andyfriederichsen]

M48 and/or M60 Patton video(s) when? I mean, they are still in use to this day.

[@cav1stlt922]

Matt covered those briefly in his Cold War videos, along with a full in-depth video of the controversial M551 Sheridan.

[@andyfriederichsen]

@@cav1stlt922 Must have been VERY briefly, because I don't remember ever hearing him talk about them in those videos.

[@cav1stlt922]

@@andyfriederichsen He did a piece on the M60 upgrade, the rest I couldn't remember but I knew he talked of them in his Cold War pieces if ever so briefly. I personally would like to see a piece on the M60A3 Starship myself

[@andyfriederichsen]

@@cav1stlt922 True, but not the history of that tank.

[@jlokison]

US Navy is starting to deploy electromagnetically accelerated projectile cannons and offensive combat lasers. Won't be long before someone else does as well, nor for the technology to transition from naval warfare to land based. The question is what will get you more bang for your buck a rail gun or hypervelocity kinetic penetrator missile? The technology has been around for awhile, if the Russians can make big hypervelocity missiles they can probably make small ones also. Someone will continue developing this technology even if the USA doesn't.

[@inventor121]

why not both?

[@AutismIsUnstoppable]

Probably both as both have different advantages and disadvantages similar to cannons and rockets/missiles in the current day.

[@andreww2098]

Lasers yes, Railguns no, they paused the project due to problems with the pulsed power subsystems and the low rate of fire, whilst research continues it is at a much reduced level due to budget cuts

[@TheBuckStopsHere480]

Very well-researched & very informative.

[@StormBringare]

I wonder if this will have a resurgence once active protection systems that can take out all ATGM's, including top attack variants, becomes commonplace.

[@JoeBlow-8080]

remember playing tackle football and you got your BELL rang...now imagine weaponizing the pain

[@heithdokken1]

Can you please tell me the name of the song you always use in the beginning? I thoroughly enjoy all of your videos.

[@joe74ta1]

Am I Wrong in thinking the lack of interest in this weapon was the depleted uranium used for mass on the penetrator I asked the question respectfully

[@jayteeb1]

What were the tanks at the beginning of the video?

[@TihoDownTheTube]

When you say some project was abandoned, you should really give some more info like why was it abandoned and where where the problems.

[@jangustl_wt2358]

Combine this with a recoilless rifle and you have a high kinetic, recoiless rifle with the rocket propellant counteracting the typical low velocity of the recoilless concept.

[@peterstoneberg7120]

+

[@jangustl_wt2358]

@John Smith I didnt thought about the infantry, while i wrote. I had more vehicles in mind, as an alternative to the ATGM.

[@borisbadinov1300]

are we discussing penetrators or bureaucracy and paperwork?

[@chrisdjernaes9658]

Great anti-Ballistic Missile tech ... using a bullet to kill a bigger bullet.

[@studavies1967]

Brilliant video as always

[@danielgreen3715]

Fascinating would like you to do something on jsow's and some of the more obscure weapons/munitions ie electric rail gun and some of these types of weapons

[@linkchen8245]

Awsome vide !!! If there is no tanks in the army, this will be a really good resolution.

[@jlytollis4]

Great content bud. Keep them coming.. greetings from the UK 🇬🇧🍺

[@densealloy]

12:18 wow that's 90MJ! Or 66,380,591 ft-lbf (approximately) that is a bit of energy

[@vernski1015]

I never heard of these programs. Those things are flipping awesome!

[@jccalvente]

8:33 what vehicle is this?

[@allengjarzombek7125]

Isn’t the British brimstone missile system similar to this??

[@jeadie8131]

If the kinetic energy missiles hit a thin skinned target, at what point do they go right through leaving a small hole and no other damage? A truck or an aluminum fuselage would be examples.

[@Burboss]

It was dead on arrival on the sense when first prototypes were tested they already were inadequate for the intended purpose. Similar story happened to Metal Storm which never materialized as battle-worthy system.

[@francispitts9440]

Awesome video. I’m glad I found your channel. New subscriber here.

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

As far as I can see: APDS depends on speed to achieve its penetration that is more a function of the bolt or projectile length than the actual weight of the projectile. The reason for using depleted uranium is - as far as I understand it - due to the extreme hardness of the uranium alloy used. Not the mass density of the alloy. OK the culprit is here (again) the sound barrier - which according to the figures I've seen - raises the drag coefficient by a factor of four. Again: According to the figures I've heard: The AVERGE distance for a tank-tank kill is 700 meters, but the medium is 400 meters (i.e. 50% of enemy tanks killed is taken out at from 400 meters or less). This means a tank kill at extreme ranges is a very rare occurence. One of the reasons might be that the enemy uses terrain, cover and concealment, as he does not want to be killed. OK my figures might be old (WW2), so do not hold me to the mm. But lets say relevant mordern data are 500 meters and 1000 meters respectively - just for the sake of argument. Speed of the projectile probably drains off rapidly with distance and it is the speed that kills with a APDS. On longer ranges a squash head that uses the explosive charge in the grenade to inflict the damage. This makes sense in British tactics where the Challenger 2 uses a rifled gun to stabilise the projectile in flight - instead of fins - as in smooth bore guns. But the difference between a 120 mm and a 105 mm is probably not the largest at a typical tank kill range. Reducing to 105 mm tank gun (and not many has lived to bad mouth the british L7 105 mm gun). To reduce the recoil which is mass times velocity it is smarter to reduce mass to get more speed on the projectile.

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

@@komradearti9935 Again average is not indicative of anything. The major parts of hits are below the MEDIUM distance. If you say the average is 1½ km. Given the same distribution type the medium should be 3/2 * 4/7 km = 6/7 km. or about 800-850 meters. No doubt the ranges have increased, a rifleman today with proper sights can expect to hit at 300 yards and most rifles in my time were zeroed to 200 yards. If you can hit with one in two shots at that distance great. Here I wellcome the smaller caliber - which means you can put more energy into the bullit by increasing speed, as energy = ½ mass * velocity squared. At the same time you reduce recoil as that is the negative impulse = - mass * velocity. I have seen little old ladies fire the Colt Canada C7 without as much as flinching. She didn't hit anything - her spectacles weren't up to it - but neither did I. My point being: A gun projectile starts out with all the energy at the muzzle and gradually loosing it over the flight distance. The TOW missile is the exact opposite: It gains energy as it flies. A tank gun generally hits below say 500 meters where the energy is at its maximum due to projectile speed. At those ranges a lot of things DON'T MATTER. Vindage and gravity drop f.i. The target is bigger. Canting is probably a larger factor. I really think that TOW's are quite adequate - mounted on a light armoured vehicle. The tanks with the 105 mm. L7 or something similar. Artillery on tracks or wheels with 155 mm. What I really would like to see is Matsimus and his gun flown in for exercise in Lithuaniua or Estonia with a Globemaster loosening a few rounds at the range.

[@johnhotz3029]

Starstreak. Look to Ireland for some extra information. I believe those kinetic rounds became reactive.

[@omnianti0]

seem to be the exact same system

[@bromine_35]

Honestly i think that universal anti-everything missiles are the futre of tanks and militairy combat.

[@tomhamrick7151]

Excellent, thanks for posting!!

[@ajikanExe]

matt what bout etc cannon future pretty intresting stuff you should do the vid about that

[@andrewostrelczuk406]

Hey 👋 Matt great work!!! I’m south of your boarder in the US. I’m still stuck working out the length of the missiles... I know 1 meter =1,000 mm and is also 39. Something inches... an one kilo is about 2.2 pounds roughly... but while I’m still spinning the gears to get the correct understanding... you’ve moved on to the next one granted it’s 5 plus AM and no Coffee yet... so please could you please would you please do the math for me??? I’m getting old now and not as sharp as I was. I see someone else comment on here that your viewership has gone down, this could be a reason why... that and Covid-19... I’m a former logistics NCO and have been with AVN, INF, CDAT’s turning to RSTA Cav last... retiring at 20 years in 2007. With 4 MOS, and Made E-7... so I also was in Germany for the fall of the wall, Desert Storm and lived a lot of the historical times as they are now... again Great 👍 work the Devi is always in the Details!!! AIRBORNE!!! ENGINEERS LEAD THE WAY!!! HOOAH!!!