Knock Out: The Evolution of Tank Ammunition

[@thetankmuseum]

Hi Tank Nuts! The live chat has now ended. Thank you for your questions and we hope you enjoyed the video! For more opportunities to ask The Tank Museum experts your questions, support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/tankmuseum/membership or become a KZbin member: www.youtube.com/@thetankmuseum/membership

[@catlee8064]

Be honest, we only went smoothbore so we could get cheap rds from the yanks....and germans.

[@azgarogly]

There is no stable isotope of uranium. So uranium is always radioactive. And highly toxic, that is much more important. True, different isotopes are radioactive to different extent, but as we are mostly talking about U235 vs U238, the difference in radioactivity of these is meh. Real difference is that one is suitable to sustain a fission chain reaction and the other is not. Otherwise, if we are not talking about building a fission device, both are equally dangerous.

[@GARDENER42]

Please do a far more in depth video regarding tank ammunition at some point for those of us who understand the basics & would like to see more.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

EXCELLENT VIDEO.....Thanks very much i am Sub'ed..... Shoe🇺🇸

[@melanieenmats]

Oh the radiation from the uranium is "minor". Tell that to the deformed babies in Iraq. Simply disgusting this report, how it skips over the issue. It is impossible to prove that any disease is related to this by definition because you cant ethically test on pregnant women. However there is significant correlation. Disgusting how he skipped over all this. To me it is an utterly criminal weapon. This is why some countries abondoned using it decades ago. Utterly disgusting heartless propaganda slipped into an otherwise great video. The mention of the russians in current day betrays the alternate agenda in this presentation. Y'all make me sick.

[@timgosling6189]

Just to be clear, DU is not waste from nuclear power stations. It is 'waste' from the process of extracting the radioactive U235 that goes on to form the fuel for nuclear reactors. Military DU comprises more than 99% U238; that's why it's only weakly radioactive and it will certainly never have been near the inside of a power station. It is though still a heavy metal and still chemically toxic, but you wouldn't want to be ingesting too much lead either.

[@roll-outcommanders6520]

So it is not nuclear weapons, just very nasty chemical ones? Some justification on the usage of DU.

[@gherkinisgreat]

@@roll-outcommanders6520 You might as well call lead small arms rounds chemical weapons then

[@furtivedig]

While not a nuclear weapon, of course, DU is toxic and somewhat radioactive. The biggest danger is produced when DU shatters and produces dust. Even if the chemical hazard is more serious I wouldn't discard the radiological aspect of DU, which decays, as anything does.

[@death00124]

So it's basically like firing lead asbestos at someone

[@Ganiscol]

U238 particles still give you cancer when ingested. Its by no means harmless, especially given that the rounds - be it tank sabots or 30mm fired from a Gau-8 - do not stay intact but, as mentioned in the video, shave material off upon impact. The area will be salted with U238 particles and dust... Also noteworthy: U238 is used as a booster for thermonuclear weapons, as the intense neutron flux of a fusion process can split U238 and trigger another fission chain reaction on top of it. Its the only way to achieve multi-megaton yield.

[@donerkebab97]

I must say, I really enjoyed this video. Chris Copson has tremendously improved as a presentator. In the past I found his style good enough, but now i like it. the cadence has improved, as well as where, when and how he chooses to pause. Well done! Looking forward to more

[@djd8305]

Agreed. His knowlwdge has been obvious, his experience emergent and I suppose I've become used to, and like his presentation style. Hard to follow David and David:) Tghough I'd really like to see more of David W.

[@azkrouzreimertz9784]

Was thinking the same thing

[@Schimml0rd]

Great presentation indeed

[@billy4072]

Got presence . 🤙

[@thomasknobbe4472]

Please do not feel as if you have to apologize for explaining all of these concepts so clearly and simply that a novice like myself can understand. I believe that your pacing, and the accompanying illustrations and film, will keep the video interesting even for those who are more knowledgeable on the subject.

[@ddegn]

I completely agree with your comment. The presenter combined with the location made the whole video very interesting and enjoyable. I'm not one who can identify tank types but it's sure fun to see the various tanks in the museum.

[@johanmetreus1268]

I've probably forgotten more bout tanks than these videos detail, but I till find them charming and must say I'm impressed that he managed to accurately describe the way HEAT works with the current understanding of things. While I was familiar with the statistics of the 17 pounder, actually seeing the rounds and projectiles handled gave me a much better understanding of their sizes. In short, I agree. These videos provides something for all.

[@CharlesStearman]

The word "sabot" (the 't' is silent) originally meant a type of French wooden shoe. In the 18th century, it was used to refer to a wooden disc which was attached to a cannon ball to give a tighter fit in the barrel.

[@AlRoderick]

The same wooden shoe that gives its name to sabotage, because machine wreckers in the early days of industrialization would throw their shoes into the gearworks of industrial machines to break them.

[@ROBERTNABORNEY-f3k]

During the Industrial Revolution many of the new factory workers in France were peasants, who wore wooden shoes or sabots When they went on strike, they would throw their shoes into the factory machinery to damage it. Thus they were "saboteurs" committing "sabotage"

[@bradyelich2745]

@@ROBERTNABORNEY-f3k Nice u all watch time team, too.

[@trolleriffic]

@@bradyelich2745 Or Star Trek VI...

[@bradyelich2745]

@@trolleriffic Ha!

[@oligoprimer]

A mistake about annealing (5:10): Hardening the round (via quenching) gives it strength but also brittleness. Annealing improves the toughness of the round so that it doesn’t shatter on impact.

[@69Deez_Nutz69]

Yup, basically hardening the skin of the metal (about 2-7%) of the overall metal but imparting a relatively 'softer' metal inside after heating it up again.

[@MrRedRye]

I assume he was conflating annealing and tempering. Heat treatment is probably above the level of this video though. You can do some pretty fancy things with heat treatment if you know what properties you want in a specific part of the design.

[@billbuck3590]

Agreed, Annealing is a process used to actually soften steels. I guess the rounds were quenched and possibly tempered to get the desired hardness.

[@liljasere]

It’s neither here or there it’s actually an exact science of just the right amount either way for the use case it’s just oversimplified for a short video

[@rhystaylor851]

Super awesome to see a comprehensive basic talk about tank shells! I hope you guys expand the series and talk about stuff like HE filler vs solid shot in WW2, canister, and artillery shells

[@JohnCBobcat]

Even as someone who's a bit of a "casual enthusiast" on arms and ordnance topics (and who once-upon-a-time did volunteer work at a very different armor museum), I did appreciate the relatively comprehensive yet approachable coverage in this video.

[@brianferguson7840]

Just a correction on the solid rounds. "Annealing" is a heat treating process which SOFTENS metals, it doesn't harden them. It is used to control the crystal grain growth in the metal.

[@dwwolf4636]

To make them less brittle...

[@MK-Ultra-o7]

​​@@dwwolf4636 to me annealing means to make soft completely. Stress relief refers to a 300-500 degree draw to relieve internal stresses in material. Hardening is the opposite of annealing. The man in the video misspoke unless there are different terms used across the pond. I think he is just using the term annealing a little loosely and means that they are hardened and then stress relieved. Which makes complete sense. If the were hardened and annealed then you didn't do anything but waste electricity or gas.

[@FuckYouYouFuck]

When he said annealing I assumed he meant tempering, which to the average person sounds like the same thing. At a guess, the shell would be forged from something like 1065 high carbon steel. In a fully annealed state it would be something like 15 on the Rockwell C scale of hardness, soft enough that you could easily file shavings off it. Heated to ~825°C and quenched in oil or water it might be around 65 HRC, but also very brittle. It would be so hard that a hand file wouldn't scratch it. Tempering it at say 250°C for a couple hours would greatly reduce the brittleness giving it toughness and elasticity so it doesn't shatter and reducing the hardness to something like 58 HRC, which a hand file would be able to scratch but just barely.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@MK-Ultra-o7 Only a waste if you do both things to the whole projectile. For instance, you could harden the top and anneal the bottom so you get a hard striking surface with a bottom that won't break away on impact.

[@MK-Ultra-o7]

@@johanmetreus1268 thats true, you can do some fancy things with your quench and with your temper.

[@MitchSprague]

Great stuff! Excellent presentation.

[@DarkShroom]

this guy has one of my fave new youtubers, he is very thorough.... what i like from youtube is enthusasts, not some presenter that is just presenting and i think this channel understands what youtube is about in that regard a great many museams now put on top quality docs of their own, the imperial war museam also does great ones to

[@66kbm]

Superb video, i can not fault it. The information was given in an understandable way. Chris gives great explanation for all subjects. Personal memories...RCT supporting RSDG in 1985, found out they called the HESH practise rounds SHSPRAC. When said it sounds good. No idea what they called SABOT rounds. Edit. @19.28 Let that sink in, then remember Challenger had the longest Tank on Tank kill ever, with a "dart" with a "Rifled" gun.

[@carlnewman7096]

I was at tankfest 2023 last weekend, my 3rd tankfest & an amazing weekend. These videos, along with the tank chats series are all presented by people with an incredible depth of knowledge of the subjects discussed, & are great insights in to the complex & fascinating subject of armoured warfare past & present. I am a full gold membership holder & supporter of the museum & I cannot encourage a visit to the museum in beautiful Dorset , highly enough. Keep up the great work guys, & hope to see you next year at tankfest 2024. 👍👍😎

[@oceanic8424]

Sighting in the enemy first, and getting an effective first hit quickly is the key.

[@julianshepherd2038]

Or destroy the tanks support.

[@hansolowe19]

Recon, intel, observation 🤓

[@Jussijii77]

Before that, by looking what's happening in Ukraina, avoiding mines, enemy artillery and drones is the most inportant. After that there might be change to shoot that first shot.

[@dudududu1926]

so?

[@ROBERTNABORNEY-f3k]

Left out APCR / HVAP - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid / Hyper Velocity Armor Piercing (Known to the Russians and Germans as Arrowhead from its shape) - A half way house to Discarding Sabot Armour-piercing, composite rigid (APCR) in British nomenclature, high-velocity armour-piercing (HVAP) in US nomenclature, alternatively called "hard core projectile" (German: Hartkernprojektil) or simply "core projectile" (Swedish: kärnprojektil), is a projectile which has a core of high-density hard material, such as tungsten carbide, surrounded by a full-bore shell of a lighter material (e.g., an aluminium alloy). However, the low sectional density of the APCR resulted in high aerodynamic drag. Tungsten compounds such as tungsten carbide were used in small quantities of inhomogeneous and discarded sabot round, but that element was in short supply in most places. Most APCR projectiles are shaped like the standard APCBC round (although some of the German Pzgr. 40 and some Soviet designs resemble a stubby arrow), but the projectile is lighter: up to half the weight of a standard AP round of the same calibre. The lighter weight allows a higher muzzle velocity. The kinetic energy of the round is concentrated in the core and hence on a smaller impact area, improving the penetration of the target armour. To prevent shattering on impact, a shock-buffering cap is placed between the core and the outer ballistic shell as with APC rounds. However, because the round is lighter but still the same overall size it has poorer ballistic qualities, and loses velocity and accuracy at longer ranges. The APCR was superseded by the APDS, which dispensed with the outer light alloy shell once the round had left the barrel. The concept of a heavy, small-diameter penetrator encased in light metal was later employed in small-arms armour-piercing incen

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Yes, this was a bit of a dead end technology, but it was used, so it would have been nice to see it included; and you could then include squeeze bore guns as well possibly? A good constructive comment, and well explained.

[@LeadHeadBOD]

Was about to say this as well. Quick addition though regarding the caps, they are not necessarilly present. Soviet 45mm APCR has no cap, only an aluminium (or was it soft steel?) ballistic.

[@LeadHeadBOD]

​@@Simon_Nonymous for tank use, they are definitely a bit of a deadend. Not so much for aircraft though. The discarding sabot can get caught in the propeller of a helicopter or turbine of a jet engine, which you certainly do not want. For some reason Germany also never developed 20mm APDS until the 80s, instead using APCR (with a small incendiary component) for their autocannons on infantry fighting vehicles like the Marder.

[@waynemayo1661]

Well done, sir! A complex subject briefly explained, but not over simplified. I look forward to future videos on the subject.

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

Excellent as ever. A video on the development of fire control systems would be good - basic telescope, stadiametric range finding, ballistic computers and digital fir control. Plus gun stabilisation to allow firing on the move. Then there are night vision devices

[@richardhighsmith]

Now I know we all want Smoothbore v. Rifled - A closer look!

[@Herbybandit]

For anyone wanting to know the basics this is very informative and straight to the point.

[@TheKRU251]

Chris. You're doing a good job! Please announce your name at the start of the video or get it added to the title. You deserve the credit !!!!!

[@Bembem69]

I never knew what cordite looked like before. Now I do. It’s one of those things I never really gave any thought to before. I enjoyed this video tremendously!

[@andersjjensen]

At around 10:55 when they describe the hit on the T-72 it would have been prudent to point out that it's internal ammo detonated. An APFSDS round does not have the kinetic energy to lob a 4 ton turret 300 meters. To viewers not intimately familiar with the subject mentioning which guns uses cased ammo and which does not would probably have been helpful. Especially the last segment went rather quick back and forth between the two scenarios.

[@101stub]

Excellent video. Keen to see an expanded and more in depth look into the other tank munitions that you were unable to cover in this video.

[@jeffwickersheim195]

I would really like to see a longer form video on rifled vs smooth bore guns and the pros and cons of the respective rounds fired!

[@musicbruv]

It would be interesting to see close up the damage various rounds to to a tank. I am always amazed at the power of an impact on a tanks armour.

[@alexbowman7582]

There’s various KZbinrs making slow motion CGI videos of various shells impacting various armours.

[@darrenjosephgregory]

If you are anywhere near Portsmouth, then head to fort Nelson, they have a section of ship armour that shows where it is has been hit by a HESH rounds and the resulting 'scab' marks on the inside. Must be absolutely terrifying to be pootling along in your tank and that large bits of the inside start ricocheting around at 300m/s.

[@musicbruv]

@@darrenjosephgregory Been to Portsmouth a few time to see HMS Victory and the Mary Rose. thanks for the tip.

[@ariochiv]

I love the POV shots where you can see the actual flight of the tank round. A great segment, folks, I enjoyed it.

[@reddevilparatrooper]

Outstanding presentation indeed!!! Very accurate information. I used to be a Tank Commander on the M1A1 Abrams. I used to be a Paratrooper and an Infantryman once upon a time. Learning the M1A1 Abrams to maintaining and driving was very short and mastered it quickly. Gunnery was very important and foremost along with tactics. A good understanding of Tank Gunnery and especially crew, platoon, company or troop level live fire exercises after qualification is very essential. It develops unit cohesion especially under combat conditions where coordination must become instinctive when calling out fire commands to your crew, platoon, and to relay the engagement to your unit commander. It also works in reverse if your unit commander is excellent at his job as company or troops commander. When moving out on a mission all tanks as a first engagement round in combat should battle carry a SABOT round. After the first round is fired by the gunner, the commander has to identify the next target as he is searching to select the next round either HEAT or SABOT.

[@06colkurtz]

Good video. The driving band also seals the gun tube to ensure the force of the burning propellant pushes the round out the barrel.

[@marcelb7259]

What a brilliant, and yet concise, explanation on the subject. Thank you very much for sharing with us your knowledge and cheers from Canada.

[@perrydear]

Thanks! Excellent coverage of your subject!

[@mchrome3366]

Great video adding a lot of new material to whole process that doesn’t come around alot in other videos. Great channel, thanks.

[@danielmarshall4587]

"If you haven't had the opportunity to handle tank ammunition, you may not know what all the bits are and what they do." quite right. Much appreciate your insight thank you.

[@DirtyHairy1]

Yes the depleted uranium has way less radioactivity, but when its shot at a tank and creates microscopic dust, it still gets everywhere in your body and its known how 'not that bad´ it is.

[@awatt]

Any airosol particles are bad for you. Wood dust can cause cancers. In that light depleted uranium is probably less toxic than wood dust.

[@gsylass]

Ask the Serbs and Iraqis how the cancer rates increased after the US used DU on/around them.

[@Bird_Dog00]

Yes. Uranium 238is decays emiting alpha radiation. That's basicaly the HE-shell among the various form of ionising radiation (shitty penetration, but if it does get in, it does a ton of damage). And Uranium dust in your lungs is just in the perfect spot to put those alpha particles to work...

[@awatt]

@@Bird_Dog00 "International Atomic Energy Administration points out, “DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors.” DU is also far less radioactive than the potassium 40 found in the human body. Potassium is a substantial percentage of the dry mass of common Hawaii agricultural crops such as bananas and marijuana. A 2.5 lb bunch of bananas will contain over 100 mg of potassium 40. Gamma detectors are used to detect marijuana smugglers at international borders."

[@ghostshock4317]

I love listening to this guy talk. Chris Copson? Great job!

[@headshot6959]

Glad this guy is on the payroll. Excellent quality videos, some tiny inaccuracies pointed out in the comments, but look at the wording of them. This is clearly not troll/hater territory, it's a respectful exchange of knowledge and opinion. Maybe the tank museum can appreciate the quality of it's viewers.

[@dsclark1954]

Well that gave me a shock. The knocked out Sherman at 4.27 was commanded by Robert Hiseman at El Alamein. He happened to be my mothers boyfriend in Egypt. She commanded the Army telephone exchange in Cairo. I have a print of this and Bob has written on the back of the print. That’s not Bob in the picture but one of his crew How we caught it at El Alamein ‘Blighty’ T74285 5 troop B squadron 47 RTR

[@MortRotu]

I'd love to see a part 2 to this particular video covering the other types of rounds and where the spent brass goes please!

[@KMac329]

I was very comfortable with the level of complexity provided by this video. I found it very clarifying. I've seen all of the "Tank Chat" videos, so it's very educational to watch an episode that draws together a lot of the information about the ammunition. Still, I'm left wondering: What does SABO stand for, if anything?

[@darrenjosephgregory]

I believe it originates from an old French word 'Sabot' which was a wooden shoe, then in the 1800s they used a wooden block on naval guns to wedge in the round and apparently it looked a bit like sabot and so the name stuck.

[@fluphybunny930]

Excellent clear and concise look at the different tank rounds. Another great video.

[@Pyjamarama11]

My favourite round is the Oddball. Filled with paint to produce pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people.

[@theflyingfool]

What an excellent subject! Thanks for a really good video Chris!

[@N0d4chi]

Well done video, good intro for people who dont know much about tanks in the first place.

[@thomasburke7995]

For years I have not been able to find an explanation as to why the 88mm was so effective at long ranges in the tanks.. the explanation given about the 6 pounder brought everything into focus.. the 17 pounder was probably the best to against heavy armour.. but the American 75 mm with advancements in AP rounds actually was a more versatile and valuable gun.

[@michaeld.uchiha9084]

Easy higher musle velocity and more weight.

[@scottw5315]

Going from memory but I think 80% of US tank rounds fired were HE. The 75mm provided more blast effect than higher velocity rounds. The Big cats were pretty rare on the western front so the Sherman was a good fit for "all" tank missions aside from dueling the Panther and Tiger. An old joke from the Germans, a Tiger could take on five Shermans at once...but there was always a sixth Sherman.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@scottw5315 Panthers were the most prevalent German tank after Normandy. More Panthers than Panzer IVs were built in 1944 and 1945. There were 650 Panthers in Normandy alone. There were more Panthers than Panzer IVs in the Westwall battles and the Ardennes etc.

[@davidgoodnow269]

​@@lyndoncmp5751Watch the Tank Chat: Reloaded on Panther. Almost none of the Western Front Panthers were able to engage in battle, they were almost all destroyed by their own crews without fighting.

[@DankRy23]

Simply put the 88 was originally designed as an anti-aircraft gun able to reach heights of 20,000 feet fairly accurately so put it on a tank and you are not shooting 20,000 ft but maybe 3,000 ft so needless to say it had plenty of oomph to get to the target and penetrate no problem and was so accurate at that range as well.

[@robertsantamaria6857]

I never understood what the first cap in APCBC was for. Now I know. Thanks Tank Museum!

[@slartybartfarst55]

A really excellent video and a fantastic explanation of the various ammunition types without getting too technical. Thank you

[@ericschmidt2085]

I loved the video, but I would love to see more technical and in-depth videos. So many channels provide the same baseline of information on things like ammunition types and their functions, different types of armor, etc. But I have yet to find a channel that goes into real depth on the subjects.

[@RobSchofield]

Excellent! Perhaps a second one as a follow-up covering the rounds you describe at the end? Great stuff.

[@davidgoodnow269]

He described the use and composition and even showed a cut-away model! What is it you want to know?

[@RobSchofield]

As I say, the rounds briefly mentioned @ 18:54 might be deserving of a short follow-up, or even an entire video of their own. A cross section lasting 2s does *not* explain how it works or how it's used tactically. THAT is what I would like to know. Any more questions?

[@davidgoodnow269]

@@RobSchofield Oh. Well, you point your gun in a direction, fire that round, and it spreads ball bearings at a rate of about 1 meter every 10 meters forward, utterly destroying *everything* not substantially armored in its path; to about 50 meters' swath at 500 meters. The ball bearings remain lethal well past 1 kilometer, but dispersal at that point reduces hitting any individual to a fluke. As the projectiles form a Cone of Destruction, many go high and many go low, but those going low are at such velocity and hardness that they tend to ricochet off hard ground and _graze_ targets. They are nominally for clearing brush, such as the hedges in Normandy, allowing the tank to exit a road. These are the modern version of canister shot, by the same name, and used much the same.

[@robertdeen8741]

I was impressed by Concern Herr Krupp. He’d have a new steel to armour battle ships. All the navies bought it and soon after he’d market the AP round to punch through. The once sales petered out, he’d roll out the new Uber armour to stop them. Of course the new AP shell was already in development to defeat the new armour. The SOB’s greatest feet was paying war reperations. What he claimed was all his assets turned out to be 1/10th of 1% !!!!

[@effectivemelody]

I learnt a lot. Looking forward to more stuff. The presenters are excellent and very clear and interesting.

[@tapioperala3010]

These videos should be mandatory :D Great quality!

[@Toranga]

Where has this channel been all my life?

[@ProfessorPesca]

What an effective communicator this guy is.

[@samiamrg7]

The problem with DU isn’t so much the radiation, it is the fact that it disintegrates and pollutes the area. It can then enter the bodies of humans and cause serious problems since it both causes heavy metal poisoning and the slight radioactivity becomes much more dangerous when it is inside of a body.

[@davidgoodnow269]

That is why "decontamination" exists. As for crew, the "pyrophoric" effect mentioned -- combined with plain compression of the atmosphere inside an armored vehicle -- always kills an armored vehicle crew by incineration. When you see those T- tanks in Ukraine combust and/or blow up in horrifying jets of fire, the crews are already mercifully long-dead before the fire ignited the on-board ammunition though the source of the ignition is often the single "bullet."

[@truetrueevil1]

Exceptionally good video. It covered things in accessible depth in an admirable fashion. Though I would happily have gone deeper! Mentioning what wasn't covered was a great so we can go on and do some further reading/watching. Though I would love more on the subject.

[@jelhaj7769]

yes indeed. this needs a sequel. Also I'd love a video about "delousing".

[@theodoreshasta7846]

Highly informative presentation of a very complex subject. Well done, and thank you!

[@ericbergfield6451]

Very cool, I learned a lot here: so it was much more than just entertaining, but educational too!

[@DeaconBlu]

Great vid. I wish you could go deeper. Fantastic job folks. Thank You!

[@arka2982]

excellent as always

[@gooner72]

This gentleman is absolutely perfect for videos like this, his knowledge is on a biblical scale and the way he conveys this knowledge across to even the most novice armoured vehicle enthusiast.

[@keithflint7243]

Glad to see the comments correcting the idea that DU rounds aren't harmful to non-combatants living on or near a battlefield. And APCR should have had a mention. Overall, these are very useful videos, but one has to keep an eye and ear open for the occasional error.

[@thegodofhellfire]

Awesome crash course! Thanks so much for the video.

[@eirikronaldfossheim]

A DU arrow is also heavier, even if tungsten is heavier than DU. Tungsten need around 10% alloying elements, DU only 2%. This will decrease the weight of the tungsten arrow.

[@AugustBebelX]

Depleted uranium is toxic. The use of it is a war crime. This video is proof that the Tank Museum is a criminal and terroristic organisation. EVERYONE who promtes the use of DU is a candidate for the electric chair ...

[@mr.muffins6240]

I never knew how much I needed this video in my military-geek life :D

[@tasman006]

Great vid I thought and I've read in books 6 pounder yes its 57mm put the 6 pounder part is the weight of the ammunition 17pounder, 25 pounder and so on.

[@ROBERTNABORNEY-f3k]

37mm = 1 pounder 40mm = 2 pounder 47mm = 3 pounder 57mm = 6 pounder 76mm = 17 pounder 84mm = 20 pounder all used by

[@russellnixon9981]

Excellent technical presentation of modern ballistic penetrators. I was particularly impressed by the fraze " this keeps the pointy end going forward". They are very big. Can we have one on Hesh next week.

[@wamanning]

description of the annealed chromium projectiles is incorrect. it was not to harden. hardened chromium steel tends to fracture in to smaller pieces, which would degrade effectiveness of armor-piercing rounds. annealing is the opposite of hardening -- it increases the ductility and reduces the hardness of a material.

[@trolleriffic]

It's done to increase toughness isn't it? I seem to recall that annealing is done very carefully with strict control over the temperature and time spent to increase toughness while minimising the reduction in hardness of the metal. I think there's also differential hardening (or whatever it's called) which might be done using a mould which has one end water-cooled to rapidly chill the tip of the projectile for maximum hardness, while letting the rest of the round cool more slowly so that it's softer and tougher.

[@awatt]

You are both right. It reduces brittleness

[@alsenar2]

This is a very informative and well presented video. Thank you!

[@stephen9869]

Great video, love this presenter. Please make a video discussing rifled Vs. smoothbore barrels! See you at the Tankfest!

[@draken68]

6lb gun is the weight the projectile would be for the diameter of the barrel if it shot a solid lead sphereical shot. Thanks for putting that in the video.

[@kaptkrunchfpv]

Thank you for the video! Your explanations were spot on for my intellect.

[@RTFLDGR]

I cannot get over the SIZE of that Chieften to our narrator!

[@Rambo55293]

Another great Video from Bovington museum! The quality if these films is getting better than the BBC. Keep it up! Cheers from Washington!

[@davidhanson8826]

This host... is workin out... Thank you for good content

[@martindice5424]

Very good. Clear and useful information (as always) 👍

[@elblanco5]

Beautifully presented!

[@GarethThompson-u1w]

I noticed something a while back about very early (interwar) tank guns. It seems that, early on, tank designers had to make a choice between a gun that was either well suited for penetrating armor, or well suited for delivering an effective amount of high explosives to deal with infantry/fortifications. It seems like they couldn't initially field a tank with a gun that could do both. A tank in the 1920s and 1930s had a gun that either had a small caliber and fired high velocity projectiles (for punching through armor), or had a large caliber and fired low velocity projectiles (for lobbing a large high explosive shell). It looks to me like, in order to get both capabilities, the French had a two-gun solution with the Char 2B (one small caliber high velocity gun, and one large caliber low velocity gun) and the Germans had a two-tank solution with the Pz3 and Pz4 (one tank with a small caliber high velocity gun, and the other tank with a large caliber low velocity gun). But no one had quite managed (or had only very recently managed) to figure out how to build a good dual purpose gun, which could fire both a high velocity projectile for dealing with armor, and a large high explosive projectile for dealing with infantry and fortifications. I have a few questions. 1st. To what degree is this a correct impression on my part? 2nd. If this is a correct impression on my part, why was it so difficult to field a dual purpose (can fire both a high velocity AP projectile and a powerful HE projectile) tank gun in the 1920s and 1930s? Or if it's an incorrect impression on my part, why did there seem to be this dichotomy between either small high velocity guns or large low velocity guns on interwar tanks? and 3rd. If this is a correct impression on my part, why isn't this talked about more often in the history of tank development? This seems to me like a very significant capability challenge, and I would think that overcoming it should be remembered as an important achievement.

[@johanmetreus1268]

I'd say you are on to something. My speculation would be recoil as the reason, HE needs diameter to be effective, but it doesn't need velocity. In fact, travelling fast makes it difficult to make a reliable detonator for it. On the other hand, with the same recoil force as that heavy and slow HE round causes, you can make something small fly very fast. Something heavy flying fast takes the whole thing to another league.

[@pRahvi0]

Very interesting to hear the British point of view on tank ammunition. Everyone just keeps thinking the Brits are weird using their rifled barrels in the era of smooth-bore Rheinmetal barrels. But I'm fascinated to hear about the actual reasoning behind that decision.

[@FrankMuchnok]

Very good content well presented. Good job !

[@michaelguerin56]

Good video, especially for new people. Thank you.

[@rat_king-]

A Banana is more radioactive than a piece of DU.

[@AugustBebelX]

Depleted uranium is toxic. The use of it is a war crime. This video is proof that the Tank Museum is a criminal and terroristic organisation. EVERYONE who promtes the use of DU is a candidate for the electric chair ...

[@mbr5742]

So the training agsinst being attacked by a guy with a banana that Monty Phyton offers makes sense...

[@dukesofdevon]

"We really don't have time to deal with it in a video of this length". Well... I see a solution... (Great video, would love to see longer form content!)

[@johnmoorefilm]

Mr Copson is remarkable

[@bsimpson6204]

The value of kinetic energy is ably demonstrated by the simple paper pellet I fired at my school chums ear. It was a heavy weight pellet fired by a short and stout elastic band. The damage was substantial, his ear grew to twice it’s normal size and glowed dark red 😊

[@Hillbilly973]

Excellent commentary. Thank you very much.

[@mikewinston8709]

Depleted uranium is completely first class. I recall the 14/20 H and the QRIH using it to great effect during Gulf 1…

[@Bird_Dog00]

It's less first class if you have to make a living in an area where it has ben extensively used...

[@mikewinston8709]

@@Bird_Dog00 Then don’t work there. No one is forced to. Only little people worry about that….

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@mikewinston8709 WTF? "don't work there" "only little people worry about that" Are you for real? You do realise that DU weapons have been used in populated areas. Often poor region where people have little choice but to live there, right?

[@mikewinston8709]

@@Bird_Dog00 Then do something about it; change the world; drone on to someone that actually cares……

[@awatt]

International Atomic Energy Administration points out, “DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors.” DU is also far less radioactive than the potassium 40 found in the human body. Potassium is a substantial percentage of the dry mass of common Hawaii agricultural crops such as bananas and marijuana. A 2.5 lb bunch of bananas will contain over 100 mg of potassium 40. Gamma detectors are used to detect marijuana smugglers at international borders.

[@residentgeardo]

Very interesting video. Please do more of this kind of stuff!

[@WynnofThule]

2:32 Fun fact about driving bands: In WW2 he Germans started using porous iron instead of copper for them because of shortages. And I didn't just take that one off Wikipedia, I actually put it there.

[@FlyboyHelosim]

Good luck with that. I've put many things on Wikipedia only to have some know-it-all admin remove it.

[@hundun5604]

11:48 "Depleted uranium dust is save to inhale". Oke, got it.

[@0rogontorogon]

The main isotope used for DU munitions is (238)U, an alpha emitter. While the layer of dead cells on top of the living skin is thick enough to block alpha radiation from external sources, the impact and subsequent pyrophoric behavior of the material causes it to disperse into finest particles which are easily taken up by breath. Once ingested, alpha emitters are extremely toxic, rendering former battlefields where DU munitions have been fired uninhabitable.

[@trolleriffic]

The penetration depth for an alpha particle inside the body is measured in tens of microns. In tissues like the lungs or intestines which have a mucus lining, there's a good chance it'll be stopped by that before it reaches the cells which should reduce the risk of DNA damage significantly. I suspect the bigger risk is from some of the uranium ending up in solution where it can be taken up by the cells directly, either that or from beta and gamma emission from other parts of the uranium decay chain. The impact of a uranium round isn't going to make the land near it uninhabitable - the average concentration of uranium in soil is such a that the top metre of soil in a large garden (by British standards) contains about 2kg of natural uranium or the equivalent of around 3kg of DU. If the underlying geology is different - granite or phosphate rocks - then concentrations can be much higher with soils around Stockholm for example having the equivalent of 20kg or more of DU in the same size garden as well as large amounts of thorium and radium yet people are living there just fine. Inhaling or ingesting grams of the stuff is a bad idea, but that's true of many substances encountered in warfare so I'd be interested to know how the relative risks compare.

[@LeadHeadBOD]

Also the uranium particles that end up in water supply are basically as bad as inhaling them if not worse. Then again, basically all heavy metals are highly toxic, whether it be tungsten or lead, (silver and gold not withstanding, but they have basically no military application outside of electronics) and you don't want any of them in your lungs, stomach or bloodstream.

[@awatt]

"International Atomic Energy Administration points out, “DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors.” DU is also far less radioactive than the potassium 40 found in the human body. Potassium is a substantial percentage of the dry mass of common Hawaii agricultural crops such as bananas and marijuana. A 2.5 lb bunch of bananas will contain over 100 mg of potassium 40. Gamma detectors are used to detect marijuana smugglers at international borders."

[@totterdell91]

given that there is Uranium in all water on earth (because it is highly soluble & omni-present) your statement is really pretty obviously quite silly as well as demonstrably false based on readily observable reality. Humans interact with the sea all the time, all people regularly breathe water vapour, and the sea is definitely not uninhabitable.

[@AKUJIVALDO]

​@@trolleriffic yeah, tell that to Iraqi people, how it is harmless.

[@leoa4c]

"The radioactivity of depleted uranium is relatively minor." Yes, but it still causes radioactivity related health problems. You can ask all the veterans with “Gulf War Syndrome” how "relatively minor" their symptoms have been.

[@emmabird9745]

Very good vid, not overly simplified at all. With your 2 pdr shell, I think you meant tempered not annealed as annealed means fully softened. Isn't a Sabot (French) a wooden clog which gave its name to the ordenance because early examples were made of wood?

[@blatherskite9601]

Excellent intro. Thanks!

[@manders7868]

Thank you. I think that was an excellent introduction to the subject.

[@terryroots5023]

Excellent, this was a great introduction

[@carloshenriquezimmer7543]

They also have not spoken about APCR shells (armour piercing composit rigid)

[@roygardiner2229]

That was so enjoyable. Thank you!

[@thcdreams654]

Really enjoy these videos. Thank you!

[@darrenjosephgregory]

Top video, many thanks. Would enjoy a video discussing the pros and cons of smooth and rifled barrels and why the UK has continued with rifled and HESH for so long, when other NATO forces have gone smooth bore, and also why with Challenger 3 they have decided to change. Looking forward to Tankfest.

[@aratus1622]

Out of curiosity, why not have a rank that has interchangeable rifled and smooth bore guns?

[@quicktoevil]

Thoroughly enjoyed !