Why Protecting Tanks is Getting Much More Difficult
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2024
- 0:00 Anti-Tank Weapons Are ... Strange!
0:59 Short History of Tanks and Anti-Tank Weapons
1:47 How RPG-7 Improved on Bazooka and Panzerfaust
3:23 What Are Shaped Charges and How Do They Work?
5:20 The Achilles' Heel of Shaped Charges
7:06 What Are Insensitive Explosives and What is Special About Them?
8:22 What is the Explosive Lens Inside a Nuclear Weapon?
9:05 The 1966 Palomeras Accident and The Invention of Insensitive High Explosives
10:10 How Does Explosive Reactive Armor Work?
10:43 How Does Javelin Work Against Explosive Armor?
11:11 Why Active Protection Systems Are Needed
11:53 Are Tanks Obsolete?
Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) has been around for a while, protecting against shaped charges like RPGs. But the effectiveness of ERA is now being challenged by more advanced HEAT missiles, like Javelins. What RPGs have in common with nuclear bombs, and what active protection systems can do to combat modern anti-tank weapons, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music:
Rise of the Velcro - Gabriel Lewis
Refined Enlightenment - Howard Harper-Barnes
Cloak - Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen
Before Nightfall - Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen
No Stone Unturned - Brendon Moeller
Blue Texas - Rockin' For Decades
Otherworld - Lama House
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Do you think tanks stand a chance against the ever advancing anti-tank weapons?
and what is the solution? "It's Not What You Think" is *not* an acceptable answer!! 😉
It can be a laser system of defence or maybe best is simply using tanks as mobile artillery and armored ambulance while infantry and small robots in armour clear ahead and taks give artillery
I feel this as most viable future of tank due to modern light nimble weapon of destruction
As the weapons get smarter it gets harder to counter, something that confuses the rocket would probably work. I’m not sure *How* it would work but I’m sure there’s some way to outsmart the missiles
It's What You Think, acceptable answer 🙃
@@ralphghost820 possibly they would have smaller remote controlled tanks that could withstand smaller arms but be highly mobile and cheaper
Just attach a 25mm Autocannon and a small-enough RADAR to it to shoot down the Missile, the whole thing has to be automated (obviously). But there in lies the problem, how much power is a Stop Sign Sized RADAR going to need to work? And do we even have a Stop Sign sized RADAR at all?
We've reached a point in military where the term "Glass Cannons" applies to everything
what do you expect when offense vastly outpaces defense :p
That's why drones are the new fashion, why spent billions and trillions in specialized equipment and training vehicle operators for months when they can get blown up the second they get spotted in the battlefield, at least if the glass cannon is operated remotely you don't lose the operator when the drone turns into smithereens
@@thorveim1174 'Disposable Glass Cannons', lots of 'em.
@@webaazul2500 The Bayraktar TB2 drone cost $5 million and a Russian tank less than $1mill/ea but every tank lost cost 4 Russian lives. For every fully loaded BMP-2 cost $500K and 10 lives.
maybe it's time we start investing in researching things like energy shields who knows, right?
people have already repeated the notion that "the tanks is dead" after the end of WW1 yet here we are today nearly a century later still making tanks, even making robotic tanks
But horses were eventually replaced by the automobile, computers eventually defeated humans at chess, and so on.
@@highdefinist9697 We will eventually be replaced by radioactive radiation.
@@highdefinist9697 so only computers are playing chess?
@@KennyNGA But a single dude with a laptop will obliterate a team of the world's most proficient master. At a fraction of the cost. We only play chess because we like to, not because it is the most efficient way.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 Yes because it's the most usefull way (for entertainement)
The issue is that our ability to destroy an object has become far greater than our ability to defend that object, and until some wizard in the DoD makes/releases some kind of magical energy shield tech and a portable fusion reactor to power it that isn't going to change.
Indeed. But maybe it's more of a blessing than an issue. It's mindblowing to see how high cost high-tech like tanks and aircraft becomes a useless money pit against lower cost ground and air missiles in modern warfare. The russian war has degenerated into artillery vs artillery.
If we reach a future where artillery vs artillery awaits invaders everywhere, and the only landmass you can conquer is that which you obliterate, there may be little reason for anyone to start a war to conquer a wasteland.
@@Erafune Ain't that the greatest irony
@@Erafune You know, I'm quite sure they thought of it that way after 1918...
bro nukes were invented in ww2. mass destruction of everything. And also you couldnt live there any longer for a good 40 years. So this was never an issue with those who wanted to go to war
There are infinite other solutions. Ai powered anti munitions tech. Ai powered evasive rcs boosters on a robotic vehicle. Drones. This is a naive comment
I think the future rolls of tanks will be battlefield coordination instead of direct combat. Heavy sensors, drones, soldier coordination, threat analysis, gear carrying. Kind of a mobile "forward base" until a safer front can be established.
Exactly. We still have our ground to guard and i don't think tanks will go obsolete for foreseeable future.
Tanks are also made to engage from way further distances these days. Urban warfare is not a great usage of tanks and that has been evident since Stalingrad imo.
@@mikevismyelementThank You! Anytime I watch videos of fighting that takes place today, I see tanks driving through neighborhoods. Is there that much of an advantage that a tank provides in urban combat? It just feels like it’s easy to turn that tank into a 70 ton road block and make the team inside a meal for rpgs flying in all directions from countless balconies and windows
@@ydel1234 the reason why is that we have only seen asymmetrical warfare for the last 40 years outside of Ukraine. The old Soviet RPG's that insurgents in the middle east had access to wouldn't penetrate a modern tank. Tanks didn't have to fear every window, alley, or blind corner in these scenarios.
Now that we have a more symmetrical battle in Ukraine, you see entire fields of blown up tanks for both sides. One can only imagine what Kursk was like
Modern anti tank missiles are incredibly effective at penetrating even the best armor. I think the strategy now is to roll the tanks in to "secure" the victory, as opposed to the spearhead tactics of WW2
At that point you might as well forgo a tank entirely for SP-Art or a IFV vehicle. The entire reason a nation foots the bill for the armor engine and gun on a tank is to either out maneuver the enemy or break through a hard point. If a tank can’t do either of those rolls it’s not worth using or making.
What you’re describing could be done by a tricked out semi-trailer. Or a tent…
Also worth mentioning are the NLAW launchers, which forego tandem charges by flying over the top of the target, and then detonating a downwards-firing shaped charge. Effectively attacking one of the least armored parts of the tank (even with cope cages).
the NLAW doesnt use a shaped charge in top attack mode, it has a shaped charge in the middle for direct attack mode but in top attack mode it fires a tungsten pellet downwards
Sideways cope cages completely save it from nlaw tho
@@fuckoff4705 No it uses a shaped charge in top attack mode, just watch Saab's own video "Saab´s NLAW anti-tank weapon explained"
Edit: Also see a video called "NLAW Warhead" to see it in action exploding in top attack mode
@@fuckoff4705 They do use a shape charge but an especial type called EFP, it detonates and create a hypersonic clump of metal that penetrates the target, this statement: " it fires a tungsten pellet downwards" its completely false.
@@divoulos5758 nope. Sideways cages made to deform contact HEAT missiles (or rounds) like rpg or at-4 collapsing its shaped charge structure before the rocket detonates. They do not work on remote explosion missiles like NLAW. That's why roof cope cages doesn't work and cannot work in theory.
This is the opposite of clickbait. The title really doesn't do the content justice and you get a lot more from the video than expected. Very good content. Keep up the great work!
Clickdeterent?
Right? It's such a good video
i agree and disagree since the title implies a general idea (tank defense and whatnot) and shows it off properly but then onlylightly touches on the main idea used in the thumbnail (wierd fast rocket thing)
Right? I learned how a freakin nuke works!
@@idkyet2962 True. I wanted to see more footage of the shape charge.
I served in tanks. They will become obsolete but I cherish every second I served in one. It was scary but very very cool.
The Age of Drones and Modern missiles.
Good video. A concise overview of the topic.
I hung out with an ex FMC tanks employee, and he said they were always trying to find a way to prevent projectiles from penetrating the tank (even hitting it, the fiberglass used would impact the tank, that people would itch from the fibers). His solution, just make it out of cardboard, so the projectile would go completely through, as a joke.
Intentional overpenetration was actually a thing for some early tank destroyers. Since they're intended to be used in ambush or otherwise long-range capability, they're not meant to take a hit. So paper thin armor just thick enough to hold the gun was all that you really need. Which means shells that depend on compression or otherwise high pressure to a primer charge simply don't work, because they whip through the thin steel so easily. You get killed stone dead by any good machine gun, but a tank shell will be like a bullet through a cardboard box.
i mean that could work if you like gambling if it goes through its either going to do nothing but leave a hole or its going to hit someone and well.....if a human is hard enuogh to make it go off then boom if not then uh there is a hole in a human
Reminds me a bit of Battleships. They were big and impressive looking, but by the end of WW2 they were quickly losing relevance since they started becoming big floating targets that just couldn't keep up.
floating targets against what? The only thing that could really hurt a battleship was aircraft or another battleship. Now a mk48ntorpedo will do they job but that is many years of science and testing to make that happen.
@@jeffreyiaia8592 You just answered your own question. Predominantly aircraft & increased/improved submarines negated the large, decked out battleships. Aircraft carriers became the new way to project power & the flagships of a nation's navy.
The bad ones with really crap AA used by the Japanese and Germans certainly fit into that category. The Iowa-class, however, was bristling with the most advanced AA guns in the world, AA which was so effective the US never lost one in battle despite using them as huge screening vessels for their carriers. They could deny large areas of airspace extremely well, as anything that didn't respect their personal bubble was chewed through like overcooked noodles.
Battleships were not phased out because they were useless or because carriers could destroy them easily- in fact of all the vessels in a fleet battleships were the hardest for carriers to sink. Rather they were phased out because carriers could perform the roles only battleships had the capability of performing up to that point. Like anti-surface combatant work or naval invasion support.
Even then, it was only to the point that new ones weren't being built. The US still used the Iowa's to great effect as screening vessels and fire support during the Korean war, where they continued being effective against jet fighters just from the sheer amount of lead they could put in the sky.
@@jaytranscendencemodder1280 Actually the Iowas (i can't remember how many) were used in 1990/91 during Desert Storm. Thing is that the smaller Ticonderogas can also perform AA and launch cruise missiles etc for less investment.
Yes and no. Battleships became very vulnerable 50 years prior with the advent of effective torpedoes and small boats that could carry them. What made battleships obsolete wasn't that they were vulnerable, it was that carriers could do their job - providing high calibre firepower at long range - better. Regardless of how vulnerable tanks get, until something can provide protected high calibre direct fire with offroad capabilities better than tanks, they will remain relevant, just how battleships remained relevant for 50 years after the torpedo was invented.
Thank you, Ive really enjoyed your way of conveying information, presenting it in a professional manner while still letting everyone know how excited you are to just talk about this topic. Also I did not know about the 1966 palomares b-52 crash, gonna look that up, thank you for that too
Varou
So much info around the main subject! Amazing! You are good!
I'm not even particularly interested in military tech, but this video was so well done that it had me hooked from beginning to end !
Same! It's very well done
The video was really well made.
Military tech is best tech
metis, konkurs, kornet, fagot.....penicilin.
Another thing about cage armor against shaped charges:
They have a chance of completely preventing the shaped charge of an RPG from exploding.
This happens when the fuze of the grenade goes between the bars of the cage and the grenade gets broken apart before the fuze impacts main hull, hence, no explosion.
As such, cage armor is a type of statistical armor, an armor that instead of only reducing damage, provides a chance of negating it.
It's like gangster ablative armor. Ok not really. Lol
Cool!
I wanted to say that :)
and that's why putting anything between cage armor and the vehicle, since whatever's been put there would cause a detonation of the charge before it's been neutralised by the cage
The chance of this is below 0,1% which does not even justify the cost in producing the cages
What a great explanation and visuals.
Extremely well produced video! Really focused, informative, and entertaining. Well done!
6:30 Slat armour/cage armour does NOT primarily work by increasing distance!
Most HEAT projectiles lose little power from those few centimeters of distance, and in some cases even gain additional penetration. The biggest threat to their effectiveness is if they detonate too close to the main armour, which prevents the proper formation of the explosive penetrator. You can see all of this in the clip at 6:18 - the copper penetrator takes some time and distance to form into a thin "needle".
Instead, slat armour (which for example was frequently used by western forces in Afghanistan) primarily works by squeezing the warhead "from the side". As the fuze at the tip of the warhead passes through a gap, the conical warhead gets squished by the cage. This disrupts the geometry of the shaped charge and hinders the penetrator formation process. That's why slat armour uses cages with pretty sizable gaps rather than a fine mesh.
In the Phillipine example, the ISIS militants allegedly just used plain high-explosive warheads (and even the launchers look like they may be local knockoffs or RPG-2). In this case, a little bit of stand-off distance on a thinly armoured vehicle can be more useful, and the cardboard is claimed to have reduced the power and spread of shrapnel.
Slat Armor and "Cope Cages" are to defend against very different attacks. Slat Armor, like you said, is against certain types of shaped charge warheads. Cope Cages are probably to protect against drones dropping grenades into open hatches. Which, given the soldiers sitting on an explosive doughnut, is not great.
@@MazeFrame then the cope cages wouldn't be built with gaps big enough for a drone-dropped grenade to fall through.
Besides it seems rather unlikely that they thought that far ahead from day 1 of the Invasion, or would choose a design that raises the visual profile so much and covers far more than the hatches.
So no I don't think that this adds up.
@@MazeFrame from the few reliable sources I've seen it sees like those cope cages were to protect from top attacks by RPGs in an urban environment, which they encountered in both Chechnya and Syria.
The purpose of the slat armor is to actually "deform" the entire cone of the HEAT charge itself, thereby disabling the effective trigger of the charge itself.
Simply put, if the cone gets deformed (by the slat bars) it can not trigger "normally" anymore and becomes useless.
However this only works against simple RPG (1 charge), but it does not work against modern Tandem-charge projectile, as the slat armor can only "defuse" the first chage, but not the second charge behind it, which activates immediately at the same time as the first charge impacts.
TL;DR cage armor only works against simple RPG (1 charge) but is entirely useless against modern Tandem-charge warheads. There is only so much a cheap solution can offer...
where does ceramic armour fit in all this
Wow, what a well put-together video; thanks!
That was very informative. Tx!
Shaped charges are an amazing aspect of engineering and physics. How to focus an explosion upon a single small point is amazing. It's a hypersonic welding torch. All you need is a small hole, and inside that hole you can pump a multitude of cocktails.
This is true. Fascinating stuff! I was a teenager in the Marine Corps when I learned that explosives can be measured and controlled to use in dynamic environments for a multitude of purposes. Cutting was probably most surprising to me. I had a lot of fun blowing up piles of worn out gear and clearing trees for practice back in the day. My college chemistry professor had some interesting things he shared with us including the basic principle that a high explosive was actually an extremely rapid burn rate. Although my time as a teenage jarhead was almost forty years ago it was still some of the most fun stuff I've ever experienced.
"amazing" more like horrifying and horrible
0:27 how is the target exploding before the missile has even entered the frame?
@@fukingmagnets reactive armor
@@chuckyLarmed how does reactive armor detect the missile so far away?
Absolutely brilliant video- cheers
Tank you! for you informative video
This is basically what happened to the knight. Armor went up and up as the crossbows and warpicks evolved, even getting through some gunpowder. But when enough guys have pikes ans gunpowder, heavy amor its just too expensive, so the infantry revolution happened.
If we repeat history, we could see lots of infantry supported by fast small tanks or recon vehicles with active defense systems and just enough armor to protect the core elements.
After that idk... maybe heavy energy shield generators with laser guns
It is a common misconception that armor was prohibitively expensive. Production methods and capabilities saw a considerable improvement in the late middle ages.
If you were a citizen in a german city around 1600, you had some privileges but also duties.
As your duties revolved around keeping the order and aid in the defense of the city, many cities required from their citizens to keep a full set of armor and some specific weapons and guns.
When gunpowder based weapons first arose, their punch was not as high as 100 years later. in this time, many pieces of armor underwent shot tests, where the manufacturer was shooting a cuirass to prove it was bulletproof.
Only after guns gained more kinetic energy many years later, full suits of armor were seen fewer. However, you still see cuirasses, leg and head protection on many Landsknecht soldiers.
A big part of the change to infantry armies, apart from the gun, as you correctly pointed out, was the politcal landscape. Knights needed to be in service for all their life needing a retinue and were producing costs. In addition to this, they required training from a very young age on.
If you could recruit infantry just for specific wars and only pay them for these wars, you were much more flexible and scalable with your armed forces in terms of money and size.
@@mephisto8101 very interesting
Armor never went away, it just changed to become lighter and more flexible. It won't stop a bullet, but it will stop spray from bullets hitting the ground gloseby for example - in general, it's better than nothing 🙂
Further, I think that the next iteration in tank technology will be drone tanks less than a quarter the size of the current models for speed and agility. Also, price and production speed - the guns can be a lot smaller as well, as those tanks would mainly fight infantry - they could even be equipped with a final weapon, being a large explosive in its middle so that they can serve as a form of kamikaze-AI once their ammo runs out or they become damaged.
As with the knights you mention bigger meant more protection but that's not working anymore. So, smaller and agile must be the next step.
Well not exactly. Cavalry and basically heavy infantry still persisted for the wealthy. Cavalry's role is to chase down retreating enemies and exposed artillery, unprepared infantry, and even cavalry itself. Even during the infantry revolution, even before the Napoleonic wars, the Swedes, the Spanish, the Ottomans, and the French would constantly use light to heavy cavalry as a means to outflank exposed enemy lines where Artillery, supply lines, and unengaged infantry would be extremely vulnerable towards cavalry attacks, especially during the Napoleonic wars with the Tatars just ambushing them beyond their supply lines. The knight simply reformed into the noble officers.
Its kind of the same role for the tank, to be the main gun and armor of the infantry to push through softened targets and any form of barricade that wasn't harmed by Aircraft and artillery.
@@Widestone001 By that time, we'll be probably using EMP bombs. Forcing us back to fight with fully analog weapons.
Just one clarification to this video - RPG in regards to RPG-43 stands for "Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata" meaning "Hand Anti-Tank Grenade", not "grenade launcher", whereas in regards to RPG-7 it does stand for, as stated in this video, "grenade-launcher" (Ruchnoi protivotankovy Granatomyot").
so Rocket-Propelled-Grenade is just a backronym?
Хорошие познания🙂
@@connormaloney2180 Yes, as stated in the video.
@@connormaloney2180 You'd be correct that the Russian arms development office doesn't operate in English.
great video, excelent explanation, i learned a lor and cleared questions i had about these systems.
Armor might be insuficient now but the role of tanks stands
Being able to eliminate armored targets while being protected and mobile
Also fan fact all it takes to take down a tank is a rock some clothes lighter and balls of steel (and maybe a gun or a knife when the crew opens the hatches)
finns used just logs and afterwards shot the russians
You only have to toss a few molotovs on the exhaust, the engine overheats, the tank breaks in mobility and breaking its optics by melting the wires, will render it completly useless. In short, toss molee's on top and once it stops, jump on it and leave grenades tied to the hatches. Once opened the short string will bring the grenade inside and drop inside... I won't go into details but you can make it a double trap (Pressure&tension) If you know you know :D
@@gotskilsudont2149 yeah your strategy won't work on some tanks. Check out military history visualised video about this topic
@@gotskilsudont2149 yeahhh...nah
Basically the strategy I'm talking about is from one of my Czech friends military exercise
Basically they knew the enemy team T-72 will be crossing they're position so they set up fires around it for smoke cover
Once the tank roll in they hide in a grass snuck up on him and then jumped on it
They used some rags to cover all the optics and used rocks to bang on the hatches (since they didn't have live ammo & bullet spoiling)
Once the commander opened the hatch the just hold it open and captured the tank
In a real word you can also destroy the outside machine guns(in most cases its as simple as taking out the ammo belt) and optics
That Trophy APS demonstration video is one of my favorites ever, not only is the projectile already supersonic but that shockwave when it blows up is A LOT faster than the speed of sound and it just doesn't stand a chance racing that penetrator.
They are a lot more interesting than you think, trust me
That used in anti-helicopter mines.
@@barrygregg3476 ok I trust you bro
Well guess what. The Trophy is using a variation of shaped charge (EFP) to kill nearby projectiles.
Great job on this video! The clips used were excellent and contemporary. Well done explaining the reactive armor as well. Thanks.
Awesome video, thanks
Soldiers were cobbling together shape charges out of wine bottles, breaking the tops off and using the punt to shape the charge, in WW1. The charge could be aimed and the force of the explosion traveled in a straight direction, killing people fifty feet away. Later, they discovered that placing copper coins in the center of the opening would cause the copper to vaporize and extend the kill range, as well as gain the ability to penetrate armor.
My buddy told me about an IED in Iraq made out of a sheet of copper, it vaporized everyone in the armor in front of him. He said they learned it from WW1
@@coopercross6123efp: a copper slug at 2 miles a second
The Germans even cobbled together six Stielhandgranaten in order to hopefully perforate armor
Loved it. Some footage of shaped charge explosions I hadn't seen and very well put.
You've opened a can of worms of discussion, you should be proud!
What a great video! Wow this and Dark Tech channels are my two favorites in this regard
I think the next step for tanks are gonna be automated/ remote controlled tanks, especially for mine sweeping duties and the ability to just scout a hot zone with some armour. It would help give away enemy position for 5-10 milion. Yes expensive, but life saving!
And drone tanks dont have to be anywhere near as big or heavy either since what is being protected is much smaller.
I imagine they too would be dead coffins to whatever weaponry will be used to counter the. Remember: Offense always beats defense in the age of gunpowder. The only advantage a "drone tank" would have over a conventional tank would be saving a few human costs, but that's about it.
Yeah but then you're vulnerable to ECM. Worse than a downed allied tank is a converted tank!!
If you're going to scout the last thing you will need is a tank. Small RC cars, drones or men with eyes are much better suited to do recce work and it's much more cost-efficient. A tank should be a long-range assault/support weapon suited to open plains. You just don't want it in the front anymore - that role has gone to IFVs and APCs these days (enough armor to protect against small arms yet no bloated armor that's going to get destroyed on the first hit anyways). The tank isn't dead, you just have to adapt it to new circumstances.
You could just use an actual drone
HEAT warheads and the countermeasures developed to protect against them is one of the most interesting parts of tank warfare.
@Mark Aspen no, proper MBT’s should be able to stop 120mm sabot from most angle when facing the front, but the side and top is where issues start. Top armor is designed to stop Shrapnel but if it was as armored as the top you would have no room for crew and it would be heavy, fortunately guided artillery is not common enough and non guided is too inaccurate to hit the top unless it gets very lucky. Perhaps in the future guided munitions will be more common (we are getting there) but id image just looking at Ukrainian for instance that the stockpiles of weapons like these will be far more useful not killing tanks but fuel depots, ammunition storages, and such that would make huge battalions of tanks be unable to function instead of just 1.
@Mark Aspen Nope, not necessarily true
@Mark Aspen the front of the Abrams Sepv4 would like to introduce itself to you. No seriously the Abrams Sepv4 is invincible from the front not even a kornet AGTM can punch through the front lower glacis. But considering you said that only a tank can destroy a tank you don't seem to be all that smart when it comes to military stuff so you probably don't know what a kornet is or what ammo type modern MBTs use wait... You don't know what a MBT is either XD man it's hard communicating with people of lower military knowledge
@Mark Aspen side ERA and side NERA is also on the Abrams making it have go protection form anti armour threats there too
@Mark Aspen Abrams is obsolete.
quite useful info. the molting jet is.made frm a cone of copper while the process is the Munro Effect in metallurgy. good point that era boxes unscathed by fire or scrhapnel
Great video! damn well explained, love it!
When you realise that the cost of one single Javelin can actually change a person's life quite significantly...
It destroys things that cost more than what people make in multiple lifetimes
@@sungukyun2608 If it gets a perfect hit. Check out the kill ratio these things get. It isnt actually very good. They are hugely expensive to operate regardless
@@r200ti Except one article from RT talking about allegedly leaked documents, there is nothing that idicates the Javelin has a bad shot/kill ration. On the contrary. So either we believe the one article from RT, which does not provide the allegedly leaked documents, what EVERY leak in the past did. Or we trust all the reports from the ukrainians, the americans, the brits, the swedes, the australians etc.
And I'm not starting to talk about other shoulder launched ATGM, like NLAW.
@@r200ti You also have to be within a certain range to use them and that range tends to be less than the range of the things they are targeting or the range of the artillery they tend to come up against. They have their usefulness but they are overhyped. The type of warfare that is being waged now is not dominated by javelin type systems nor by tanks, but by artillery. The war in Ukraine is essentially an artillery duel where infantry is used to mop up and consolidate gains. Infantry without artillery is only so much cannon fodder.
You mean the difference between life and death
salute to those brave philippine soldiers who fought isis
Amen , and world media wont remember this battle
Salute to all of the soldiers who fought isis
And due to the stpd ego of the president more died because he didn't want the support of us
@@drapas7467 typical Filipino, thirsty for international validation
@@syahmiefc6123 how does this relate to anything?
Excellent video…thanks!! 😊
The first Russian RPG was the RPG-2, not the RPG-7. And there was also a version of the Panzerfaust, the Panzerfaust 250 which was never actually built, that directly inspired many of the RPG-2s features.
Quick correction: The cages are not designed to defeat EFP and shaped charge warheads by increasing distance. The distance would be significantly greater than you could reasonably create with a secondary material for anything resembling a modern anti-tank round. RPG-7s even this will be true. Looking at their optimal detonation distances, it even makes the penetration BETTER if you slightly increase standoff.
The reason they are there is the piezoelectric point initiated, base detonated mechanic of the common anti-tank round. That nose of an RPG is piezoelectrically actuated, but you can potentially cut the line to the base detonator before the tip hits a target. The slats of proper cage armor the US uses are called statistic armor, because it is specifically a statistics problem. If you get wide enough, you can sometimes hit the sides of the imitation set in the standoff cone of an RPG before the tip hits anything, stopping the jet from forming at all. You can also fail if the tip hits a slat instead of in-between them. That is why the distance, number, and orientation are a "statistics" problem.
I worked at Aberdeen for a bit doing EFP shots on hybrid armor research back in 2009 and we were doing all manner of defeat approaches for shaped charges at the time for MRAPS.
CZcams people hate science, read a book ?
So basically you’re gambling on the edges of the cage potentially disrupting/destroying the shape of the inverted copper cone that forms the charge _before_ the tip of the warhead can signal the detonator? Am I understanding that correctly?
@@OneBiasedOpinion Yes, that's why this type of protection is referred to as "statistical armor"
@@wunkthemonk4359 I get the name, I was just trying to simplify the technical jargon into a format I could better understand and make sure I got what OP was saying.
@@OneBiasedOpinion To be clear, you either break the wire connection from the point initiator at the nose, that connects to the electric blast initiation set in the base of the device, or you don’t.
Almost all RPGs are what we call “point initiated, base detonated” projectiles.
To form any shaped charge the explosion has to be started from the back, then shaped with the explosive itself forming the lenses of blast wave that invert and direct the liner into the spear of plasma which penetrates the target.
Since the defeat mechanic is just break the connection between nose and base detonator, you either stop the explosion from being initiated at all, or you don’t and make it more effective on the target.
3:44 to be clear, this is a defensive grenade. An offensive grenade has no fragments, and relies on the shockwave. This gives it a smaller kill radius, and doesn't require cover to be safe for the thrower, so long as you're are distance away.
Grenades may also use a sleeve of ball bearings (or other fragments) instead of relying on the destruction of the case
That's awesome! I didn't know any of that, but it's super-interesting. Cheers!
Its counter intuitive but true
@@silver_surfer88 offensive, aka used when they're pushing buildings in tight quarters.
I've wondered about these shockwave grenades.
As implausible as it could be, if you flipped a grill lid onto a grenade, and jumped onto it, could you save yourself?
@@sirtimatbob You likely to die if do that.
As usual - Superb explanation !!!
Thank's 4 the info
RPG does indeed stand for 'Rocket Propelled Grenade". It's a backronym, as mentioned, but the NATO term for RPG-7 is RPG - Rocket Propelled Grenade
My man at @2:25 is CAKED UP
The video is so good you can watch it again by accident
Excellent. Great channel. He does his research.
Tanks offer a ton of firepower on the battlefield. When I was infantry, we wanted armor with us. Its really combined arms that needs to be used because everything has a weakness.
Really? wow! I didnt know that..thank you for this info.. i will share it to everyone
@@seanmoore4653really got em there man
Commits resources into dealing with tanks instead of just infantry. Might not sound like much but people worrying about dealing with tanks is less people shooting at the boots on the ground. I can imagine it must terrifying facing a force with armored support when you don't have the equipment to deal with said armor. Armor and infantry will always go hand in hand, it's just the armor's turn to adapt to the battlefield.
Seems that a good start to adapting to this new battlefield would be making the armor care a lot less about taking hits. I’m willing to bet robotic units would not be nearly as easy to kill, since they can be more compact, solid, and don’t have the downside of being large, hollow, metal shells full of very squishy meat to drive them.
I could be wrong on that though.
@@OneBiasedOpinion As soon as someone finds a way to research and finance that it'll be done. And then it'll be taken out by some dollarstore anti-mech solution.
Great video as always. I have a few corrections i want to make though. Firstly you said that explosive reactive armor can't deal with tandem shaped warheads like the javelin. While yes that used to be true, but with more advances in ERA technology in the past few decades, tandem shaped charges have now been countered to "some extent."
Kontakt 1 was the ERA explained in this video, which is just a simple steel plate sanwhiched between explosives so that they can't distrupt incoming shaped charges. This proved extremely effective but was later countered with tandem shaped warheads, which is basically in short terms for those who don't know: A charge that sets off the explosives in the ERA and then a second charge following through the exact hole that the first created in the ERA therefore penetrating the armor.
Now as i have explained how tandem shaped charges, and Kontakt 1 ERA works, it is time to talk about my second point which is Relikt ERA (Which is the 3rd generation of Russian ERA.):
This ERA infact counters tandem shaped charges with instead of having a simple steel plate sanwhiched with explosives, they now have 2 larger plates made from High Hardness Rolled Armor (which is some of the toughest armored steel you can possibly get if not the toughest.) They work by shooting first shooting the first plate towards the first incoming jet from the tandem warhead at an angle (to maximize effective thickness of the plate,) then the second plate gets launched towards the main armor of the tank catching the second jet from the tandem warhead that is meant to penetrate the tank, therefor neutralizing that incoming jet aswell, or at the very least weakening the jet so that it doesn't penetrate the remaining armor.
This however requires the ERA blocks to be significantly larger than the previous ones, therefor making it harder to protect the weaker parts of the tank like the roof (although newer tanks like the t90m and t14 amarta have removed this weakness by placing it at the roof aswell), which the javelin and the nlaw takes full advantage of.
Also newer tanks are getting fitted with Active projection systems that simply put: shoots the incoming missiles (or tank round) with another projectile and then prematurely detonates them way before they hit the tank.
"Great video as always." yea stoped watching after he proved he knows nothing about the topic of shape charge...
Extra 10 cm/4 inch of distance for old RPG gonna only increase its penetration capability...
the cages on tanks are there to jam the warhead betwen steel bars or to deform it as it needs to have a perfect symetric shape to form nice and symetric jet of metal...
And even Kontakt 1 is not "simple". I mean, there's some real engineering behind it ;) Already back then it was more than one layer of explosive between two plates. It was two layers that stood at precise angles to negate *as best as they could* (and I think this is key) the effects of HEAT but also SABOT rounds. Sure, newer systems are better but even first gen ERA was more complex than what you are told in most videos.
@@Bialy_1 What bothered me was the EFP illustrating a SC in the first few seconds ;)
Why can't there be triple-charge warhead then? Just kidding, but if someone makes it, well... is the next step gonna be triple-charge ERA then? And after that another charge for the missile and another for the ERA and so on.
Active Protection systems like Trophy give overhead protection and can handle multiple incoming targets . Unlikely to see multiple javelins coming in at the same time . Javelin is also relatively slow moving and easily dealt with with Active Protection Systems . The latest Russian version can take out an APFSDS round travelling at 1800 ms in flight
Allegedly, I don't know if we'll ever truly see these put to the test in our lifetime
Already Combat proven with an 85% effectiveness by the Israelis ........ welcome to the 21st Century . @@mikevismyelement
The Israeli Trophy system is already combat proven with a 95 percent success rate ....... WW3 has already begun brother @@mikevismyelement
Awesome footage sir
5:18 A dude last second hopped out that explosion
incredible video
You could just drone drop a contact activated shaped charge onto a tank. this would provide the same benefits as the javelin system, reduce the cost of the charge, and the drone can be reusable which would lower the cost of delivery as well. only problem with this is it would rely heavily on the weather for accuracy as far as I can see.
I need a way to prevent premature explosions too. 6:59
🤨
Wow this is some of the best weapons testing footage I've ever seen! Great video 😊👍
RKG-3 is really effective in urban areas. What happens is they come out of an alley while a convoy is stopped and hit our humvees. My battle buddy got his ass literally blown off from one of these in Mosul. Only 3 of the five guys in the truck lived. RIP bros.
Were you on the side of the defenders or the invaders and occupiers?
so terrorists shot terrorists?
@@AsokaTw-mz3lr it's possible that this guy was serving in the Iraqi army. US invaders left some equipment for them after they were done with their mass murders of innocent people and throwing nation after nation into anarchy
Give the reactive armor its own reactive armor. Genius!
8:46 wow! I have never seen that before. Super interesting.
Tank: “Haha my reactive armor detonated your shaped charge! You can’t get to me now!”
Tandem warhead: “BUT IT’S NOT WHAT YOU THINK!!”
It's a prank!
*Turret flying 40ft in the air
Mindblown
You got a heart but it's not what you think
@@zohaibtariq7351 it’s not what you think, but it’s what I think.
Lmao nice
"Now THAT'S a blast!" You have no idea... Understatement of the Holocene Epoch! (8:28)
Interesting information about the shaped charges and their use as a partial deterrent for the Anit tank round. Explains a lot that has been seen over the past few years.
but this explanation is wrong, this chanel is not professional
Shaped charges are used by the anti-tank rounds, not against them. Watch the video again.
All these years playing battlefield and now I finally know what "reactive armor" means
Al-Yassin 105 has another story with the Merkava
Videos about artillery shells and all the dynamics of how the explosion happens are incredibly interesting.
It's more like a educational video then a military video for me .
Have to say: this is the first time I am interested in modern warfare technology. Liked the Middle Ages and antique more, but this tank / anti tank weapon race is truly fascinating.
Hollow charges have universal appeal. They are considered fun by most.
Very scientific and useful 👍🏻
Thx a lot🙋🏻
Have you talked about HESH shells yet? If you haven’t, they are very interesting
Dude this was so interesting. Thanks for doing the research we love it
This is one of the most well made videos I’ve seen in a while. It’s on par with a tv show the amount of useful demo videos you had to describe what you were saying
Great report. It’s going to be wildly difficult to protect tanks going forward.
really good video, super informative and interesting. Thanks!
Actually ERA can be set off with small arms fire. generally larger calibers are more efficient at doing so. small arms can also deface the smooth surface of the ERA and cause the reactive armor to explode at a incorrect angle when a actual tank round hits it next.
in the mid 80's i was in the canadian military, we used the m72 rocket launcher. it did the same thing with a smaller nose cone. maybe didnt penetrate as much as this one. the layers on the outside of a tank were to do just that stated in the video, to ignite the explosive before it hit the actual armor. many tanks at that time were built with thin layers of metal a few inches out from the thick armor for this reason. and as you said, the more modern ones defeated that.
Also, it takes a 0.70 cent bullet to kill a human it took 20 years to prepare for the battlefield. And a 1000$ artillery round can kill like 20. Such price comparisons are very, very silly - especially that if the current war showed anything, is that there is no assault forces without tanks. There are different weapons and countermeasures and infantry AT weapons were always very, very cheap compared to their target.
And even the lifetime factors here. Tanks can live very long, as we see from the old russian T-62s, they can literally outlive like 2 full generations of soldiers, their first crews are already dying of old age. And they fire thousands of rounds during their lifetime. How do you calculate the cost of a tank that saw invasions from Afghanistan through Georgia up until Ukraine against a one-off NLAW in 2022? Like I said. Just... impossible. And silly at some moments.
As long as there is operational need for tanks they will be around no matter how devilish ways inventions may be developed to kill them, just as there will always be human beings fighting wars despite the ridiculously effective and cost efficient modern methods of killing loads of them.
You forget that on average 30,000-100,000 bullets are expended per infantry kill, that’s 21,000$ on the low end a 70,000$ on the high end
But the price of everything saved by destroying the target can sometimes be more than what's spent on ammo
@@dender5936 and it costs about $50K to train and equip 1 soldier. This doesnt account for logistic to maintian like food and shelter
@@dender5936 No i don't, that's why i call it silly to even start such comparisons. There is no actual way to compare this, because the entire environment of the battleield is the true cost. A 20k$ drone is worth destroying by a 200k $ rocket bc the target might be an empty field or a 2 billionn $ electrical plant that will cause all of the hospitals in the area to stop working. You cannot make a simple cost comparison.
And even the lifetime factors here. A tank can live very long, as we see from the old russian T-62s, it can literally outlive like 2 full generations of soldiers and fire thousands of rounds during it's lifetime. How do you calculate the cost of a tank that saw battle from Afghanistan through Georgia up until Ukraine against a one-off NLAW? Like I said. Just... impossible. And silly at some moments.
i guess it will become a support type for those fighting on foot instead of a frontline tool!
I would love a job blowing things up! It’s a lot of prep work but instant stress reliever
Tanks have always needed infantry support to be effective on the battlefield. A tank by itself on the battlefield is like an aircraft carrier without it's escort, just a juicy target. But supported by infantry a tank can mean the difference between winning or losing a battle.
Yup. We will always need them, just to keep the opponent honest. As usual there is no perfect defense. A defense in depth is the only way forward. The next layer is more drones. One day we will see “toner-wars”. Nano drones, micro drones, mini drones, and autonomous vehicles backed by humans, backed by shielded humans, backed by AIs, backed by… the “economy stupid”. Its ALWAYS about the economy. Economies have layers. The most fundamental of which is food. Calories. The calorie economy has been here for billions of years. Today we are talking about many layers or shells guarding the meat.
Can your side make it too expensive for a would-be challenger to contemplate making war?
@@leifolshanshkii8868 A good example of making it too expensive for war is what is currently happening between US and China. I am almost sure that if US and China's economies were not as integrated as they were we would have seen action from China to put Taiwan under CCP control.
The EU is another good example of it where enemies are now working together and it being to expensive to fight each other.
@@leifolshanshkii8868 Interesting take
@@leifolshanshkii8868 micro drone? how small is micro drone? the smallest drone ever made , have a size of a hand , but you need a big drone, or a drone carry rpg 7 round and drop to penetrate tank armor
This is an awesome episode. Very informative. Thanks for posting!
It is nothing more than nonsense.
The US had operational anti tank rocket launchers before anybody else had them.
Tank v. Anti-tank weaponry is my go-to example for any sort of extreme procedural evolution driven by competition. Shit's fascinating.
6:50 the metal cage around tanks are NOT there to cause premature explosion. They are there to crush the peizoelectric fuses of the RPG warhead, safely defusing the RPG.
Premature explosion makes the hypersonic jet even more deadly, not less deadly.
I suppose you could say tanks and anti-tank weapons are in an arms race.
allways has been since the beginning of the tank Era
Goro will always win in an arms race
It has always been the case since we invented armor and the sword.
Millenia before the tank...
But tanks reached their peak or near peak.
the spear and the shield... a competition as ancient as warfare...
Great content. The future of tanks depends on how they are used. For holding territory that is already occupied they are great. For urban warfare they are good for ambushing ironically as they can literally "jump" through a building they were waiting behind or pile of rubble they were hiding under. For moving around in the open without air cover...... Hell no! Sitting ducks is an understatement.
If their guns kill everything in front, no enemy gets close enough to fire an RPG or other anti-tank weapon. This requires a very open battle field.
I disagree. They are designed to take territory, with Infantry to fill the spaces inbetween. Holding territory, is up to infantry.
Great video 👏🏼👏🏼
Nuclear weapons have stopped used shaped charges a long time ago. There are severals reasons why but the two most prominent are that they make the bomb huge and the other is that it makes a weapon much easier to steal and detonate.
A modern weapon has a neutron source that is activated electronically to cause a fission runaway reaction which in turn causes fusion in a secondary or multiple other secondaries encased in a uranium shell (which under goes fission from this fusion reaction).
Actually even the latest fission primaries use controlled implosion by engineered shaped charge. The neutron generator you refer to is a very small particle accelerator that provides neutrons milliseconds after the boost gas is injected into the hollow core and is timed to pulse at the exact time the core is at it's densest compression. By changing the timing of the pulse the yield of the device can be changed, hence the "Dial a Yield" name of some tactical warheads.
The method of forcing a fissionable material to criticality (thru implosion) has NOT changed since first used with Fat Man. Design improvements have made the much smaller sizes possible.
3:10 "As you'll see, the SIZE is *extremely* IMPORTANT"
yes, very true in this modern society.
It will probably shift the balance towards lighter, and cheaper tanks: The lack of thick armor is less important, mobility is more important at not getting hit, and they still have enough protection from simple projectiles, while also being much faster than infantry.
I could see armour thickness being lowered slightly to focus less on defending against sabot and anti tank rockets. However even if those two things can kill a tank regardless of armour thickness, there’s A LOT of stuff on the battlefield that cannot penetrate. Lowering the armour thickness too much would let the enemy use any old autocannon or tank round to kill your tank, and at that point your tank is just an APC.
I think keeping a solid thickness of armour is important because at least it’ll still protect against medium weapons.
Modern tanks are already quite fast anyway so I don’t think there is too much to gain in mobility realistically.
But yes a slight decrease in armour thickness to where it can still defend against all other munitions but forget about anti tank rockets is probably a good idea if only to save money.
Mobility can’t protect you from guns unless in specific circumstances, and even then it’s not a significant advantage.
I doubt that mobility will protect you against an RPG unless your Tank is as fast as Racing Car
Oh so like what Germany did after the war?
@@David-ni5hj Yeah because it surely is easy to hit a vehicle that makes such intricate movements, or moving at fast speeds with an unguided AT weapon
Modern tanks already go 45+mph, pretty damn fast for a 73 ton machine, dont see anyone running at that pace lol
Vary informative
I'm working on a defensive system to thwart javelin missiles right now. It uses anti-gravity to redirect projectiles approaching the tank. But I'm still searching for the gravitons I'll need to power this thing. Can't seem to find them anywhere
I'd like to add something to your description of ERA or Explosive Reactive Armor. The primary mechanism in defeating the jet is that the explosives send the external face plate of the box often a given direction. This is rarely at 90° to the incoming warhead and consequently incoming jet. This means that the jet doesn't cut straight through the plate it has to cut through the plate as it's moving at some angle to it. The hole that's made is there for linear not circular. This extra metal that needs to be penetrated is what wears down the efficacy of the jet. So, I've read the impacts and era block at a 90° angle significantly reduces its efficacy while one that comes in at a steeper angle increases it. Hope this helps. Thanks for a fine presentation.
6:52 tank boop :D
Wow that was awesome. ty
A surprisingly good short summary, with some, at least for me, never seen before material. Althought some topics are missing and I do not believe that tanks getting obsolete. Especially the russian war in ukrain has shown how important tanks can be when used in combined forces.
Armor and all of that is nice to have, of course.
But I think it's been held true since the earliest days of tanks, that by far the best way to win a tank battle is to see the enemy first, and get off the first shot.
4:57 jeez no ppe? At least some sunglasses😎
ceramics are very good to against shaped charged, wounder know if top armor replaced by ceramics can it survival javelin?
that fact about what RPG stands for was fascinating, i had no idea!!
tanks always had their roles shifted around (infact same can be said about infantry) if we look at ww1 tanks they were primarily anti infantry vehicles, in ww2 they were made as mobile anti tank guns, during cold war they were primarily designed as something like a long range artillery, if you look at modern designs it seems that their purpose is to serve as multirole vehicles anti air/infantry support/with some anti tank functionality.
They were originally designed as a means for getting over the trenches dug in WWI battle fields of France. The trenches were dug in response to the introduction of the machine gun. So, in a a way, the machine gun led to the invention of the tank.
They have always been multi roll even in ww1 and ww2
And in the future, it may be used as drone carriers and resupply unit
@@Serlock4869 They could even serve as unmanned ground recon & suicide drones
Kinda self-defeating just to be used as mobile-antitank guns. Whats the purpose of making tanks if they can do nothing but kill other tanks.
you know we're reaching the endgame of this generation of warfare when its easier to destroy than defend again
It has generally been easier to destroy than to build. It is a mystery how we have made it through 😮
Just like when an archer could take down a mounted knight. Or a small guided missile could take down a ship.
@@frankohrt3347 or a musket penetrate armor defenses
Always has been. Only trench warfare was an exemption, stopping artillery or siege weapons. At all other times it was cheaper and quicker to break a (castle)wall than it was to to build that same wall.
@@frankohrt3347 an archer has never been able to reliably kill an armored knight.