@@TheVindicitive An Australian producer had the original idea. But their production company didn't think it would work. So they sold the idea to the Discovery Channel who had connections to Jamie & Adam. & the rest as they say is history or Myth Busting.
Whether the bullets tumble or the experiment went flawlessly doesn't matter. The scene in itself is terribly thought out and belongs in a badly written action game AT BEST. Should have never been on the show, because no human factors were taken into account on the part of the live targets. The people targeted within the building are mentally prepared and used to these types of ambushes and traps being a certainty over the span of their careers. So as soon as the first shot is fired people would be dropping to the floor. And when you look at how high up on the wall the gun was firing, as well as how slow its turning the whole thing becomes ridiculous. If you were REALLY lucky, you may have gotten one or two guys before the rest would be lying on the floor and therefore would survive without so much as a scratch. That scene is at a video game writer's level of ignorance. There is a good reason why fixed gun-traps are laughable to tacticians, and have been ever since their pointless inception.
@@itwasagoodideaatthetime7980 Neither have I. Larry Hama's twist on this was being worried about the ones simply marked 'occupant' and that has always resonated with me.
An M60 barrel, straight from the factory, would not be destroyed after a few hundred rounds. I wasn't able to find numbers on the quick but the barrel lifetime of common machine guns is typically stated as at least 3,000 rounds. Sure, in combat, the barrel is commonly exchanged after only 100-200 rounds of sustained fire. Why? Mainly because of heat, to a lesser extent because it gets dirty (fouling), e.g. carbon residue from the burning propellant and copper residue from bullet jackets. But those are usually fixable by letting the barrel cool off a bit and, if necessary, giving it a good cleaning.
I would think with machine guns like that they can do millions of rounds. The Vickers guns of WW1 and WW2 could fire over 70 million rounds in one go without fail. They actually did try that in 1948. At that time the British were changing caliber from .303 to the standard NATO 7,62 so they had tens of millions of rounds of ammunition that was now obsolete. The Vickers guns themselves were also being phased out being deemed too heavy and cumbersome for the modern battlefield.
@@MrMarinus18 "The Vickers guns of WW1 and WW2 could fire over 70 million rounds in one go without fail. They actually did try that in 1948." Do you have more information on that? Wikipedia mentions a test firing of 1 million rounds but using 10 guns and 100 barrels in total, so 10,000 rounds per barrel on average and 100,000 per gun. They also mention an account of a single gun firing ca. 5 million rounds no longer approved for military use in a week, but it doesn't say how many barrels were used. Forgotten Weapons has an article on this event stating that the barrels were changed every one and a half hours. Which would be somewhat over a hundred barrels in total. "The Vickers guns themselves were also being phased out being deemed too heavy and cumbersome for the modern battlefield." There's definitely a tradeoff between weight and durability …
@@TruthNerds "Wikipedia" there's your first mistake. Wikipedia is as reliable as the Mythbusters conclusions.... Which is to say, dubiously reliable at best.
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 Wikipedia gives a primary source that you could check: Hogg, Ian V.; Batchelor, John (1976). Weapons & War Machines. London: Phoebus. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-7026-0008-1. That is, assuming that you are interested in finding out whether millions of rounds can really be fired through a single barrel without this at least resulting in degraded performance. I also pointed out the corroborating article from Forgotten Weapons. 🤷♂ To be fair, I would prefer to link to the article but the anti-spam bot on RUclips is very aggressive and I'm not going to risk it.
I think we all thought that but in reality they had certain budgets and deadlines for each and every episode, so to us it looks magical but in their experience they had to build things with scientific reasoning with a very strict deadline whilst having to perk up their faces to mock up their "host" personalities infront of camera every now and then to nake it look awesome and fun with the music, then go back to hard labour whilst knowing they have other people in the background doing hard labour on the projects with them too knowing full well they're basically stealing all the glory.. It had to be very awlward at times and probably not so fun. But the memories must be a blast
This has already been tested in full scale using battleships and aircraft carriers, in something called Operation Crossroads. It would have been epic if Adam and Jamie had replicated it.
@@ianrandall482 "This is a W-59 nuclear warhead, we're gonna blow it up underneath this Iowa class battleship and see if it lifts, we just wanna make sure it's all done safely." *moves behind tiny plastic blast screen*
One other detonation that could be the cause of the 'being blown out of the water' phrase might be a magazine explosion in a heavily armoured vessel like a battleship. There's reports from the sinking of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbour and other magazine detonations of the ship 'being lifted 10 feet or more' by the blast, which makes sense if you think about how the armour on a post dreadnaught battleship's armour is laid out. The thickest armour is on the sides (the belt), with deck armour protecting from falling shot (and in later years, air attack), but practically no armour on the bottom and all the ship's most important or vulnerable components (such as the engine and the magazines) inside this open bottomed box. So if the magazine goes up, the easiest route for all that explosive force is down, and Newton's 3rd law of Motion accounts for the ship moving up (and given we're talking somewhere between 30 and 50 thousand tons of steel moving up, 10 foot of movement is a *lot* of movement). As an aside to this, the idea that it comes from submarine crews has some merit as well. Torpedoes generally strike a ship below the armour belt (there is anti-torpedo defences, but they work differently to armour plate and a lot of older vessels either had poorly designed anti torpedo defences or none at all), so a torpedo strike can have a better chance of hitting a ship's engine spaces or magazines etc. So, although I admit I don't have any solid proof of this, I can see the logic that they saw a fair share of ships being lifted up in the water by an explosion. Not flying through the air, granted, but still 'lifted out of the water' even if only a little way.
There is actually footage of this, Tirpitz for example was hit by several tallboys and many eye witnesses saw the ship literally being lifted and tossed to the side, from the bomber footage, it does support this somewhat although its hard to see if the ship is really being lifted. There several footage of merchant ships being torpedoed and splitting in half literally being lifted in the middle and both sides tossed to their sides, but thats hardly the entire ship.
Funnily enough that's how modern torpedoes sort-of work. They create a big cavitation bubble that lifts the middle of the ship up and then opens, bending the ship the other way.
Saw the boat happening, 1000lbs is huge, a torpedo has about 275lbs of explosives and it detonates under the keel at a preset depth, it forms a bubble which lifts the center of the boat breaking her keel. That's how we sink boats in the Navy.
I miss this program. Science made fun .. they sometimes missing important clues,but got back on some of them. Im still hoping Discovery Channel will get this show back for the next generations. Btw,loved the teenage mythbusters episodes,but it was definitely written by the makers and not honest young mythbusters reactions in my pov. 🤔😉
If the expression "blowing it out of the water" came from submariners they'd be firing torpedoes that exploded on (or near) impact with the target, not depth charges that exploded well below the target; or maybe the ship blew up after taking damage to sensitive areas or cargo, i.e. an explosion within the ship, not dozens of meters/yards below the surface. It seems to me they skipped the part of trying to replicate the actual myth after one small scale test and went straight for replicating the outcome with that one. Still fun of course but a bit out of character.
It also seemed to be missing a lot of detail, I mean... there was no thought given (or at least, none shown in the final cut of the show which we see) to the relative sizes of the explosive as compared to the boats/ships (a whole torpedo's worth of ANFO compared to that tiny boat is just... _so_ far removed from being in any way comparable to a submarine torpedoing even the smallest of military vessels, it's _wildly_ overpowered), or how heavy vessels being fired at by submarines would be (which would affect the dynamics of how the explosion affects the ship _enormously_ ), or even to like... practical realities of testing like the pressure wave reflection from the huge explosion in the tiny little small-scale tank, and it's honestly a little disappointing for that reason. As you say, it feels much more like a race to see a boat pop out of the water at any cost, rather than an actual thoughtful test of the supposed myth at hand. I think it compares especially poorly to the level of detailed thought which was shown going into the other story in the show; we see a lot of the practical nitty-gritty of like... what are the physical and engineering concerns, what are the potential edge-cases, what's realistic in the context of the myth, etc., which is wonderful to see! It's sadly absent in what we see of the boat story though, and having the two of them in such sharp contrast side by side make the difference seem very stark. Even Jamie's comment at the end is odd and feels out of character, like... "unless your boat is very strong"? I mean... if it really came from submariners torpedoing vessels, then a decent chunk of their targets would be fully loaded with fuel, supplies, weapons, etc. and armoured specifically to try and withstand (or at least mitigate the damage of) things like torpedo strikes? Somehow I doubt the lightly constructed and as far as we see entirely empty little boat they had was designed with "withstanding 1000lbs of ANFO going off 10m below the water's surface" in mind. There are just so many variables which we don't even see being considered or discussed which really feel like they would have had a huge impact on the myth. Potential alternate explanations also never figured into the episode; one which occurred to me (admittedly an actual idiot) came from the small scale test... the explosion seemed to displace a lot of water downwards, so maybe it just _looked_ like ships were blown out of the water, as water was blown away from the ship's hull, temporarily revealing more of the hull below the waterline?
My thoughts on this one is they didn't investigate the size of the explosion without the boat on top. The small scale tests showed a bubble of a particular size. They should of done a full scale test with the anfo near the top and measured the resulting bubble that pushed below the water to get an estimated size. Then drop the anfo to a depth that would mean just the top of the bubble, or maybe the top one 5th is all that reaches the boat. Just to replicate the myth. But I do agree, a torpedo only explodes once it hits a target, unless it is remote detonated.
@@crazyphrog6289 To be fair, I think some torpedoes (even as far back as in WW2) are/were equipped with like... magnetic detonators? Using the magnetic susceptibility of steel ship hulls and how they affected the magnetic fields they sailed through to trigger detonation. I went through a bit of a naval architecture hyperfixation/special interest phase a couple of years ago, and though I was less interested in military stuff I seem to remember hearing or reading that magnetic detonators were a huge problem for... I think the US(?) navy? Because they were tested in one particular area of the world, so their sensitivity was calibrated for that particular area, but the differing strengths of the earth's magnetic field around the world kept meaning that they weren't detonating properly when they were fired at ships in other places that they weren't calibrated properly for. (and if I recall the story correctly, the body responsible for designing/testing them outright refused to consider the possibility that their torpedoes and/or procedures didn't work as intended or had any flaws, and so blamed submarine captains/crews for "just being rubbish" (paraphrased) for ages?) So with potential non-contact detonations, it's possible that torpedoes which may or may not have given rise to the myth might have detonated with some distance between them and the ship's hull
an additional thing I've thought of now is like... what if a torpedo managed to rupture a ship's hull, breaking into an ammunition or fuel or some other kind of explosive/flammable material storage, setting off an explosion which then had a convenient breach in the hull (presumably pointing downwards) to direct the force, which could help to push the ship upwards? Another aspect which wasn't considered in the story a shown on screen
I was in the germany navy in the 90th and I was stationed on a mine hunter and in the theoretical training courses we were shown video footage of world war 1 and 2 ammunition being exploded in the baltic sea where several times boats were lifted out of the water several meters and not being disintegrated. Some were damaged but all were still in service after the incident after some time in a dry dock at least without casualities and only minor injuries. They were not directly above the explosion but still to close.
I have never been a fan of red cars and the mark 4 has never been on the top of my list but i must admit this one has changed that it looks so good. Job well done. 👏
Since before WW2 torpedoes were fitted to detonate under enemy ships with magnetic detonated when it sensors a steel hull. They could also use a contact fuse against a detonate on the side of the hull. when detonating under most ships could break a split of the hull as the ships center was lifted up and a ships back broken. At the time magnetics were still unreliable in part due differing magnetism of different region. And many other US torpedoes had faults that US Navy leaders would not investigate the faults that were actually easy to fix. But thousands of lives were lost during the war due to these failures. Basically sending out defenseless subs on useless mission. Once the navy agreed to test the faults the US submarines became very destructive of the Japanese. Many heavily armored ships like battleship could survive an underwater detonation despite heavy damage. And may require more hits to sink. One of the worlds biggest battleships had 17 torpedo hits plus air dropped bombs to make it sink. Once the battleships ammunition was blew it in half.
The tumbling rounds would be as a result of going through the car - as a ricochet. The amount of explosive used was massively excessive. A quarter of the amount would have been enough and maybe have worked.
Actually, from what I've seen, when the explosion happened, the boat was hit and the various part separated: The steel hull actually lifted, but wasn't totally seen because of the geyser that covered it and sank almost immediately The wooden superstructure, well... it detonated. That's why we saw only little wooden debris, because the steel hull sank before the geyser fell down
After the first cherry-bomb I was wondering how long the tank would last! Second one got it. I know the Mythbusters know this but water doesn't compress meaning that lovely expanding sphere of destruction pushes the water outward with some force - what is the tank made of? Cool content, explosions are so mesmeric, is it just a bloke thing?
You should have measured maximum blast extension radius before putting the boat in. THEN put the explosives at the exact depth of the explosive radius so that the boat doesn't blow up
The Discovery Channel couldnt sell the show to networks anymore so they decided to run them on yt and make big money, I think this is a trendsetter for other production companies to release full episodes on YT. I wonder if Adam and Jamey are receiving royalty's on this?
Modern torpedos can be programmed to destroy ships not by direct impact but by exploding under de keel, breaking it as show on the first part of the video, methinks that it was throughly tested before deployment
They should have asked the Swedish Navy. In the relativly shallow waters of Sweden the tactic to lift the mid section of ships with torpedos was perfected. The idea was if you lift a ship at a single point in the middle the kiel will break sinking the ship rapidly using much less explosives.
The last is plausible as I see it, but then they have tinker with both depth and amount of explosive and that would have take a really long time and money which they understandably don't want to bother with.
9:31 Specifically, 7.62x51 NATO. The military equivalent to .308 Winchester. Also probably not realistic to shoulder fire this thing :P For peak performance it's best for it to be mounted to something, like a Humvee or a heli. 11:50 that's a bipod btw ;)
They are not taking into account that in the ocean, there’s more than 30 feet to the bottom (at least where the subs were operating). The ships they were firing on were usually in better condition, and that when the ships WERE blown up out of the water, but not immediately blown up, something WRONG had happened.
Can't help but think the bomb under the boat was so much more destructive upwards than expected because of the sand wall you put directly beneath the bomb material? wouldn't that have contained and rebounded the shockwave and made the upper one much more destructive?
if u look frame by frame it looks like the boat really flew out of it but stayed i the cloud of water and at a certain point u see a big splash maybe the top flew of and the rest sunk ?
I hate when they "bust" these myths based more on their own failures rather than truly proving it couldn't be done. Remember that the halfway distance from the model test was based on the size of the shockwave of the cherry bomb. We have no idea what the shockwave size was of the bomb they put together. Is it possible that it could be done? No idea. Was their test conclusive? Not at all
i like to think that off-screen, walter would have done a test firing before the big event. he's not the kind of guy to leave something like that to chance.
Picking a mid-point between the surface and bottom is totally arbitrary. Why they didn't calculate the relative distance from the boat to the explosive in proportion to the amount of explosive used in the test, I don't know. This seemed very unscientific.
Again, and it´s not the first time, the scaling it´s wrong when they came to maritime myths. This boat it´s 51 Fts long and 48.000 pounds heavy. Or 15.5 meters and 22 tons, if you don´t want to use archaic and obsolete measurements. That sound´s big, but for the scale of ships it´s really really small. The amount of explosives its´s in the right ballpark for a WW" torpedo (220-270kg of explosives for a submarine torpedo). High, twice the amount, but whatever. But a submarine NEVER will use a torpedo against a minor thing like this, that´s a complete and total waste. Bare minimum, they should go for a 500+ Tons ship. They are short by a factor of 25 or more And I can understand that there are budget consideration that make this not possible. But then thy should tone down a lot the amount of explosive.
Ok I know its been off the air for years...but the boat has to be In an ocean or deep enough lake the blast waves wont bounce off the bottom and you should use a metal boat ex: a WW2 PT boat.
@@TheTrueBatBrain I wonder how much of the metal hull was destroyed. Maybe the hull instantly sank and the upper wooden parts are what was thrown up high in the air.
WWII PT boats were made from various species of tropical timbers and plywood. There are several documentaries on RUclips which show some of the steps during construction of PT boats.
Blowing a ship out of the water is very much possible. Except it will break apart in two at the point of explosion and it doesn't actually leave the water. It just pushes up far and breaks its keel.
Yeah, I wondered about that, too. Why would the boat leave the water? The water will be displaced by the explosion and push upward and the boat will ride on the water. Since the displacement will be spherical, the force is not evenly distributed along the hull and it will always push harder in the middle than on stern and bow. No ship is made to withstand this kind of force. It will break under its own weight and crack in the middle. And that is what people saw. The boat was riding on a water sphere up out of the water, breaking apart. Nobody ever said "blowing it out of the water" meant it was literally hovering above any water. It was just above the surrounding water level, but well within (or atop) the water sphere/geyser. The only reason they declared the Myth busted was due to them not having the funds and time to try again, after their half-cooked plan fell apart. Whatever they said, I do not believe the story that the results of their plastic boat with black powder in a tank can be scaled in any way to a metal hull boat in a flooded quarry with ANFO. That are just too many variables and a lot of them unknown or too hard to calculate. Not even considering that the explosive was probably the correct size, but the boat was not a war ship, its hull too thin. As others suggested, a Patrol Ship or a small Frigate would be the right size. In my opinion, this myth is NOT busted.
Marching into Hell by Bret Levick, Angus C. Godwin, Thai Long Ly, Jeffrey Pevar, Frankie Hernandez. The only place I found it is Reliable Source Music. If you want to download it you'll have to use a tool like JDownloader2
The tumbling projectiles are more then likely caused from going through the quarter panel of the car. Not from the 200rds it shot. Anything that is in the line of aim point and target that the projectiles has to pass through can cause them to tumble.. if the rifle could pop up atleast an inch higher the the quarter panel there is a lot higher chance of a straighter line and a lot less tumbling projectiles
6:31 I agree with Jamie that being in a boat blown upside down by an explosion would be "Kind of upsetting."
A "significant emotional event"
A "mild inconvenience" one might even say.
"It's kind of like trying to throttle a full size and very angry snake... Which by the way, I've done." Jaime Hyneman 😂
which brings to question what animals he had in his pet shop pre-mythbusting days
@Adj72 how did mythbusters start
@@TheVindicitive An Australian producer had the original idea. But their production company didn't think it would work. So they sold the idea to the Discovery Channel who had connections to Jamie & Adam. & the rest as they say is history or Myth Busting.
lolololololololol
I love how casually he emptied that gun. He's an absolute machine of a man. Impressive in every way.
40:57 - barrels don´t wear out after 200 rounds! Those tumbling bullets were caused by you firing them through the side of that car!
single belt use :)
Whether the bullets tumble or the experiment went flawlessly doesn't matter. The scene in itself is terribly thought out and belongs in a badly written action game AT BEST. Should have never been on the show, because no human factors were taken into account on the part of the live targets. The people targeted within the building are mentally prepared and used to these types of ambushes and traps being a certainty over the span of their careers. So as soon as the first shot is fired people would be dropping to the floor.
And when you look at how high up on the wall the gun was firing, as well as how slow its turning the whole thing becomes ridiculous. If you were REALLY lucky, you may have gotten one or two guys before the rest would be lying on the floor and therefore would survive without so much as a scratch. That scene is at a video game writer's level of ignorance.
There is a good reason why fixed gun-traps are laughable to tacticians, and have been ever since their pointless inception.
Really appreciate the uploads! Plenty I've seen already back in the day, and TONS from S6 and on I've yet to see. Thank you 🙂
seeing Jamie coming with the gun is both awesome and somewhat terrifying XD
@viirrvill shut up nerd
lol
9.25 he looks like a googly eyed meta bad guy with a thirst for science and probably destruction.
edit: spelling
a very cool fortnight skin even
a classic case of * don´t worry of a bullet with your name on it, worry about the hundreds with "to whom it may concern" on it.*
That makes no sense.
@@pistonburner6448 Clearly you've never been in a battle.
@@itwasagoodideaatthetime7980 Neither have I. Larry Hama's twist on this was being worried about the ones simply marked 'occupant' and that has always resonated with me.
@@itwasagoodideaatthetime7980 Nothing wrong with refusing to be a government lapdog.
21:16 "Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day"
"Fritter and waste the hours in an off-hand way..."
"Digging around on a piece of ground in your hometown...."
"Waiting for someone or something to show you the way"
"tired of lying in the sunshine, staying home to watch the rain..."
Ive read the first two words in my normal inner monologue, then it turned into the song without me even realizing it. woah
An M60 barrel, straight from the factory, would not be destroyed after a few hundred rounds. I wasn't able to find numbers on the quick but the barrel lifetime of common machine guns is typically stated as at least 3,000 rounds.
Sure, in combat, the barrel is commonly exchanged after only 100-200 rounds of sustained fire. Why? Mainly because of heat, to a lesser extent because it gets dirty (fouling), e.g. carbon residue from the burning propellant and copper residue from bullet jackets. But those are usually fixable by letting the barrel cool off a bit and, if necessary, giving it a good cleaning.
I would think with machine guns like that they can do millions of rounds. The Vickers guns of WW1 and WW2 could fire over 70 million rounds in one go without fail. They actually did try that in 1948. At that time the British were changing caliber from .303 to the standard NATO 7,62 so they had tens of millions of rounds of ammunition that was now obsolete. The Vickers guns themselves were also being phased out being deemed too heavy and cumbersome for the modern battlefield.
@@MrMarinus18 "The Vickers guns of WW1 and WW2 could fire over 70 million rounds in one go without fail. They actually did try that in 1948."
Do you have more information on that? Wikipedia mentions a test firing of 1 million rounds but using 10 guns and 100 barrels in total, so 10,000 rounds per barrel on average and 100,000 per gun.
They also mention an account of a single gun firing ca. 5 million rounds no longer approved for military use in a week, but it doesn't say how many barrels were used. Forgotten Weapons has an article on this event stating that the barrels were changed every one and a half hours. Which would be somewhat over a hundred barrels in total.
"The Vickers guns themselves were also being phased out being deemed too heavy and cumbersome for the modern battlefield."
There's definitely a tradeoff between weight and durability …
@@TruthNerds "Wikipedia" there's your first mistake.
Wikipedia is as reliable as the Mythbusters conclusions.... Which is to say, dubiously reliable at best.
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 Wikipedia gives a primary source that you could check: Hogg, Ian V.; Batchelor, John (1976). Weapons & War Machines. London: Phoebus. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-7026-0008-1.
That is, assuming that you are interested in finding out whether millions of rounds can really be fired through a single barrel without this at least resulting in degraded performance.
I also pointed out the corroborating article from Forgotten Weapons. 🤷♂
To be fair, I would prefer to link to the article but the anti-spam bot on RUclips is very aggressive and I'm not going to risk it.
admit it, we ALL want their job
We dont need to, we can do it on the street (at home you cant)
I had their job ... even better ...
Former German Navy Mine diver here .. lol
I think we all thought that but in reality they had certain budgets and deadlines for each and every episode, so to us it looks magical but in their experience they had to build things with scientific reasoning with a very strict deadline whilst having to perk up their faces to mock up their "host" personalities infront of camera every now and then to nake it look awesome and fun with the music, then go back to hard labour whilst knowing they have other people in the background doing hard labour on the projects with them too knowing full well they're basically stealing all the glory..
It had to be very awlward at times and probably not so fun. But the memories must be a blast
Lurv the M60 -in-the-trunk, completely awesome reconstruction of one of the outstanding moments of an outstanding series, well done guys.
It's amazing to see how the weight of the water traps the explosion so much more in that third explosion during testing. I love mythbusters
This has already been tested in full scale using battleships and aircraft carriers, in something called Operation Crossroads. It would have been epic if Adam and Jamie had replicated it.
It's a bit beyond even the MythBusters budget to launch an entire fleet into the air with a nuke.
@@ianrandall482 "This is a W-59 nuclear warhead, we're gonna blow it up underneath this Iowa class battleship and see if it lifts, we just wanna make sure it's all done safely." *moves behind tiny plastic blast screen*
One other detonation that could be the cause of the 'being blown out of the water' phrase might be a magazine explosion in a heavily armoured vessel like a battleship. There's reports from the sinking of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbour and other magazine detonations of the ship 'being lifted 10 feet or more' by the blast, which makes sense if you think about how the armour on a post dreadnaught battleship's armour is laid out. The thickest armour is on the sides (the belt), with deck armour protecting from falling shot (and in later years, air attack), but practically no armour on the bottom and all the ship's most important or vulnerable components (such as the engine and the magazines) inside this open bottomed box. So if the magazine goes up, the easiest route for all that explosive force is down, and Newton's 3rd law of Motion accounts for the ship moving up (and given we're talking somewhere between 30 and 50 thousand tons of steel moving up, 10 foot of movement is a *lot* of movement).
As an aside to this, the idea that it comes from submarine crews has some merit as well. Torpedoes generally strike a ship below the armour belt (there is anti-torpedo defences, but they work differently to armour plate and a lot of older vessels either had poorly designed anti torpedo defences or none at all), so a torpedo strike can have a better chance of hitting a ship's engine spaces or magazines etc. So, although I admit I don't have any solid proof of this, I can see the logic that they saw a fair share of ships being lifted up in the water by an explosion. Not flying through the air, granted, but still 'lifted out of the water' even if only a little way.
There is actually footage of this, Tirpitz for example was hit by several tallboys and many eye witnesses saw the ship literally being lifted and tossed to the side, from the bomber footage, it does support this somewhat although its hard to see if the ship is really being lifted.
There several footage of merchant ships being torpedoed and splitting in half literally being lifted in the middle and both sides tossed to their sides, but thats hardly the entire ship.
Funnily enough that's how modern torpedoes sort-of work. They create a big cavitation bubble that lifts the middle of the ship up and then opens, bending the ship the other way.
@@BazilYat Yup.
In the Battle of Jutland in WW1 some of the British battleships were really flying into the air!
@44:49 "Your only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" (Charlie Croker, 1969)
Saw the boat happening, 1000lbs is huge, a torpedo has about 275lbs of explosives and it detonates under the keel at a preset depth, it forms a bubble which lifts the center of the boat breaking her keel. That's how we sink boats in the Navy.
why did the announcer call the bipod a tripod?
Glad to know you're not the only one irritated by that.
It was actually a quadpod if you include Jamie's moustache
He reads the words, and writers write the words. Writers aren't always right when they write.
One of their best episodes!
10:45 most evil laugh xD
never stop doing this Guys.
they stopped eight ys ago...
What they don't do is try the boat from different tank sizes, only 1 size, so very hard to say half depth is conclusive
I miss this program. Science made fun .. they sometimes missing important clues,but got back on some of them.
Im still hoping Discovery Channel will get this show back for the next generations.
Btw,loved the teenage mythbusters episodes,but it was definitely written by the makers and not honest young mythbusters reactions in my pov. 🤔😉
You should call that machine "Robo Rambo"
This deserves more than one like folks...
@@toddbob644 Fishing for likes of your own joke.. how low can you get?
I'm surprised a wiper motor wasn't used. Right speed, right action, easy voltage, OTS from a parts store
Not very powerful, tho - A viper motor might take some serious damage from trying to control this piece.
34:30 "Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering Kaboom!" XD
If the expression "blowing it out of the water" came from submariners they'd be firing torpedoes that exploded on (or near) impact with the target, not depth charges that exploded well below the target; or maybe the ship blew up after taking damage to sensitive areas or cargo, i.e. an explosion within the ship, not dozens of meters/yards below the surface. It seems to me they skipped the part of trying to replicate the actual myth after one small scale test and went straight for replicating the outcome with that one. Still fun of course but a bit out of character.
It also seemed to be missing a lot of detail, I mean... there was no thought given (or at least, none shown in the final cut of the show which we see) to the relative sizes of the explosive as compared to the boats/ships (a whole torpedo's worth of ANFO compared to that tiny boat is just... _so_ far removed from being in any way comparable to a submarine torpedoing even the smallest of military vessels, it's _wildly_ overpowered), or how heavy vessels being fired at by submarines would be (which would affect the dynamics of how the explosion affects the ship _enormously_ ), or even to like... practical realities of testing like the pressure wave reflection from the huge explosion in the tiny little small-scale tank, and it's honestly a little disappointing for that reason. As you say, it feels much more like a race to see a boat pop out of the water at any cost, rather than an actual thoughtful test of the supposed myth at hand.
I think it compares especially poorly to the level of detailed thought which was shown going into the other story in the show; we see a lot of the practical nitty-gritty of like... what are the physical and engineering concerns, what are the potential edge-cases, what's realistic in the context of the myth, etc., which is wonderful to see! It's sadly absent in what we see of the boat story though, and having the two of them in such sharp contrast side by side make the difference seem very stark.
Even Jamie's comment at the end is odd and feels out of character, like... "unless your boat is very strong"? I mean... if it really came from submariners torpedoing vessels, then a decent chunk of their targets would be fully loaded with fuel, supplies, weapons, etc. and armoured specifically to try and withstand (or at least mitigate the damage of) things like torpedo strikes? Somehow I doubt the lightly constructed and as far as we see entirely empty little boat they had was designed with "withstanding 1000lbs of ANFO going off 10m below the water's surface" in mind. There are just so many variables which we don't even see being considered or discussed which really feel like they would have had a huge impact on the myth.
Potential alternate explanations also never figured into the episode; one which occurred to me (admittedly an actual idiot) came from the small scale test... the explosion seemed to displace a lot of water downwards, so maybe it just _looked_ like ships were blown out of the water, as water was blown away from the ship's hull, temporarily revealing more of the hull below the waterline?
Agreed -- pretty sure I have seen footage of boats getting hit and lifting up in the middle and cracking in half?
My thoughts on this one is they didn't investigate the size of the explosion without the boat on top. The small scale tests showed a bubble of a particular size. They should of done a full scale test with the anfo near the top and measured the resulting bubble that pushed below the water to get an estimated size. Then drop the anfo to a depth that would mean just the top of the bubble, or maybe the top one 5th is all that reaches the boat. Just to replicate the myth. But I do agree, a torpedo only explodes once it hits a target, unless it is remote detonated.
@@crazyphrog6289 To be fair, I think some torpedoes (even as far back as in WW2) are/were equipped with like... magnetic detonators? Using the magnetic susceptibility of steel ship hulls and how they affected the magnetic fields they sailed through to trigger detonation.
I went through a bit of a naval architecture hyperfixation/special interest phase a couple of years ago, and though I was less interested in military stuff I seem to remember hearing or reading that magnetic detonators were a huge problem for... I think the US(?) navy? Because they were tested in one particular area of the world, so their sensitivity was calibrated for that particular area, but the differing strengths of the earth's magnetic field around the world kept meaning that they weren't detonating properly when they were fired at ships in other places that they weren't calibrated properly for. (and if I recall the story correctly, the body responsible for designing/testing them outright refused to consider the possibility that their torpedoes and/or procedures didn't work as intended or had any flaws, and so blamed submarine captains/crews for "just being rubbish" (paraphrased) for ages?)
So with potential non-contact detonations, it's possible that torpedoes which may or may not have given rise to the myth might have detonated with some distance between them and the ship's hull
an additional thing I've thought of now is like... what if a torpedo managed to rupture a ship's hull, breaking into an ammunition or fuel or some other kind of explosive/flammable material storage, setting off an explosion which then had a convenient breach in the hull (presumably pointing downwards) to direct the force, which could help to push the ship upwards? Another aspect which wasn't considered in the story a shown on screen
34:30
the nemesis of every explosives gag ...
who gets to go check the bomb?
I was in the germany navy in the 90th and I was stationed on a mine hunter and in the theoretical training courses we were shown video footage of world war 1 and 2 ammunition being exploded in the baltic sea where several times boats were lifted out of the water several meters and not being disintegrated. Some were damaged but all were still in service after the incident after some time in a dry dock at least without casualities and only minor injuries. They were not directly above the explosion but still to close.
Reminds me of the naval shock test on the big ships
I have never been a fan of red cars and the mark 4 has never been on the top of my list but i must admit this one has changed that it looks so good. Job well done. 👏
9:22 Thats bad-ass! 😂
I recognise that Airfix PT model boat from my childhood. Oh, about 40 years ago. :)
Thank you Adam for pronouncing submariner as Sub-Mariner instead of Submarine-r. It means a lot to me!
while I see Jamie firing using a bipod, I'm just waiting for the tripod scene... I don't think that is going to come however...
The whole tank of water lifted off the floor pmsl
that explosion made my jaw drop, that was WAY bigger than I expected. No wonder the thing got obliterated.
An M60 is not artillery, it fires 7.62 mm bullets, artillery is above 20mm. And it was not a tripod, but a bipod, having only 2 legs...
Artillery is used as a colloquialism as a comparator.
"get out the heavy artillery"
Couldn’t have done that first test outside? PANIC! WATER IN THE SHOP!
My favourite weapon to fire during my time in the Australian Defence force. Watching tracer fire at dusk is a sight to behold...
You're gonna need a bigger boat :)
Hahaha! It reminds me of the Joker in The Dark Knight when Adam's trying to get the bomb to explode with the remote and it isn't working.
Nowadays the "Don't try this at home" disclaimer could be replaced with "Try this in Kerbal Space Program"
That' was awesome! Wow!!!!
"The boat has GONE AWAY."
Another kink in the armor of the boat-out-of-water myth is that their test boat wouldn't have been built nearly as sturdily as a warship would
Since before WW2 torpedoes were fitted to detonate under enemy ships with magnetic detonated when it sensors a steel hull. They could also use a contact fuse against a detonate on the side of the hull. when detonating under most ships could break a split of the hull as the ships center was lifted up and a ships back broken. At the time magnetics were still unreliable in part due differing magnetism of different region. And many other US torpedoes had faults that US Navy leaders would not investigate the faults that were actually easy to fix. But thousands of lives were lost during the war due to these failures. Basically sending out defenseless subs on useless mission. Once the navy agreed to test the faults the US submarines became very destructive of the Japanese. Many heavily armored ships like battleship could survive an underwater detonation despite heavy damage. And may require more hits to sink. One of the worlds biggest battleships had 17 torpedo hits plus air dropped bombs to make it sink. Once the battleships ammunition was blew it in half.
FBI watching this like: "Hmmm, Interesting."
>They're testing a WW2 myth
>at 2:20 they show a 1950s Whitby-class frigate graphic
>evening ruined.
The tumbling rounds would be as a result of going through the car - as a ricochet.
The amount of explosive used was massively excessive. A quarter of the amount would have been enough and maybe have worked.
9:20 now thats a scary Hineman :O
Actually, from what I've seen, when the explosion happened, the boat was hit and the various part separated:
The steel hull actually lifted, but wasn't totally seen because of the geyser that covered it and sank almost immediately
The wooden superstructure, well... it detonated.
That's why we saw only little wooden debris, because the steel hull sank before the geyser fell down
YIKES !! Adam pointing the M60 at Jamie while fitting to office chair mount !
You mean the BB gun?
@@bradendouglas6980 i mean its just safe practice
One of the shooter games DEFINITELY needs Jamie's outfit 9:22
9:22 i thought he had googley eyes there for a second
After the first cherry-bomb I was wondering how long the tank would last! Second one got it. I know the Mythbusters know this but water doesn't compress meaning that lovely expanding sphere of destruction pushes the water outward with some force - what is the tank made of? Cool content, explosions are so mesmeric, is it just a bloke thing?
Since you've asked Adam, I've not seen breaking bad, but I'm not really upset by the spoilers.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Iconic, my cocaine line lol
This one is the last last episode?
Anyone know?
I know I am getting old when I watch the explosions and all I think is: "man the poor people who have to clean up that mess"
Since the bomb was made using a septic tank, you could say they used a shitload of explosives there.
You should have measured maximum blast extension radius before putting the boat in. THEN put the explosives at the exact depth of the explosive radius so that the boat doesn't blow up
Did they ever redo the boat myth? I feel like they should have made the bomb deeper (for that kind of power) like in the small scale test.
9:27 Jamie in those mirror glasses would have looked cool, but.... A reflection in them makes him look like a cartoon
I cant believe this is where I'd get breaking bad spoilers
oh no the almost 11-year-old show got spoiled 😢
Can you try to shoot an object moving away from you at high speed while you are Stationnary to see if this will affect the bullet penetration
Love the fact thay used a British frigate instead of a US one in the cartoon
That intro has Devil Went Down To Jamaica vibes
30:25: The Mythbusters have inadvertedly caused the develompent of a game called: Getting over it
would lowering the ampere of the motor work?
The Discovery Channel couldnt sell the show to networks anymore so they decided to run them on yt and make big money, I think this is a trendsetter for other production companies to release full episodes on YT. I wonder if Adam and Jamey are receiving royalty's on this?
The tank tanked
Modern torpedos can be programmed to destroy ships not by direct impact but by exploding under de keel, breaking it as show on the first part of the video, methinks that it was throughly tested before deployment
They should have asked the Swedish Navy. In the relativly shallow waters of Sweden the tactic to lift the mid section of ships with torpedos was perfected. The idea was if you lift a ship at a single point in the middle the kiel will break sinking the ship rapidly using much less explosives.
The last is plausible as I see it, but then they have tinker with both depth and amount of explosive and that would have take a really long time and money which they understandably don't want to bother with.
I always thought that the M60 wasnt quick enough to take all the bad guys, at least half would hit the floor as soon as they hear the machine gun.
9:31 Specifically, 7.62x51 NATO. The military equivalent to .308 Winchester. Also probably not realistic to shoulder fire this thing :P For peak performance it's best for it to be mounted to something, like a Humvee or a heli. 11:50 that's a bipod btw ;)
Walter finally build Jesse a robot... :D
"Does not go full auto ..."
Shoots full auto ...
These lefties ...
They are not taking into account that in the ocean, there’s more than 30 feet to the bottom (at least where the subs were operating). The ships they were firing on were usually in better condition, and that when the ships WERE blown up out of the water, but not immediately blown up, something WRONG had happened.
Both has this crazy Smile on their faces like this M60 Guy from the movie "Full metall jacket"😂😂😂 i think his name was animal mother
what's the name of the song at the start?
Can't help but think the bomb under the boat was so much more destructive upwards than expected because of the sand wall you put directly beneath the bomb material?
wouldn't that have contained and rebounded the shockwave and made the upper one much more destructive?
Warships are much more robust at the hull!
ThunderfOOt busted nice myths too.
if u look frame by frame it looks like the boat really flew out of it but stayed i the cloud of water and at a certain point u see a big splash maybe the top flew of and the rest sunk ?
Someone knows the Track DI of the intro track?
I hate when they "bust" these myths based more on their own failures rather than truly proving it couldn't be done. Remember that the halfway distance from the model test was based on the size of the shockwave of the cherry bomb. We have no idea what the shockwave size was of the bomb they put together. Is it possible that it could be done? No idea. Was their test conclusive? Not at all
there's a ridiculous amount of dye in that dam
What was the name of the boat they blew up? And was the hull really made of steel?
what the name of intro song?
Walt got lucky, yes. But he also had the luck of a protagonist.
i like to think that off-screen, walter would have done a test firing before the big event. he's not the kind of guy to leave something like that to chance.
Picking a mid-point between the surface and bottom is totally arbitrary. Why they didn't calculate the relative distance from the boat to the explosive in proportion to the amount of explosive used in the test, I don't know. This seemed very unscientific.
Again, and it´s not the first time, the scaling it´s wrong when they came to maritime myths. This boat it´s 51 Fts long and 48.000 pounds heavy. Or 15.5 meters and 22 tons, if you don´t want to use archaic and obsolete measurements. That sound´s big, but for the scale of ships it´s really really small.
The amount of explosives its´s in the right ballpark for a WW" torpedo (220-270kg of explosives for a submarine torpedo). High, twice the amount, but whatever.
But a submarine NEVER will use a torpedo against a minor thing like this, that´s a complete and total waste. Bare minimum, they should go for a 500+ Tons ship. They are short by a factor of 25 or more
And I can understand that there are budget consideration that make this not possible. But then thy should tone down a lot the amount of explosive.
Ok I know its been off the air for years...but the boat has to be In an ocean or deep enough lake the blast waves wont bounce off the bottom and you should use a metal boat ex: a WW2 PT boat.
I believe they said it was a metal boat when they were hauling it in and it still got disintegrated
@@TheTrueBatBrain I wonder how much of the metal hull was destroyed. Maybe the hull instantly sank and the upper wooden parts are what was thrown up high in the air.
WWII PT boats were made from various species of tropical timbers and plywood. There are several documentaries on RUclips which show some of the steps during construction of PT boats.
Blowing a ship out of the water is very much possible. Except it will break apart in two at the point of explosion and it doesn't actually leave the water. It just pushes up far and breaks its keel.
Yeah, I wondered about that, too. Why would the boat leave the water? The water will be displaced by the explosion and push upward and the boat will ride on the water. Since the displacement will be spherical, the force is not evenly distributed along the hull and it will always push harder in the middle than on stern and bow. No ship is made to withstand this kind of force. It will break under its own weight and crack in the middle.
And that is what people saw. The boat was riding on a water sphere up out of the water, breaking apart. Nobody ever said "blowing it out of the water" meant it was literally hovering above any water. It was just above the surrounding water level, but well within (or atop) the water sphere/geyser.
The only reason they declared the Myth busted was due to them not having the funds and time to try again, after their half-cooked plan fell apart. Whatever they said, I do not believe the story that the results of their plastic boat with black powder in a tank can be scaled in any way to a metal hull boat in a flooded quarry with ANFO. That are just too many variables and a lot of them unknown or too hard to calculate. Not even considering that the explosive was probably the correct size, but the boat was not a war ship, its hull too thin. As others suggested, a Patrol Ship or a small Frigate would be the right size.
In my opinion, this myth is NOT busted.
Let try test
Use water based explosive instead of ANFO
What Time?
MBS Septicsubmarine (MythBusterShip)
Whats the opening songs name?
Its woderfull!
Marching into Hell by Bret Levick, Angus C. Godwin, Thai Long Ly, Jeffrey Pevar, Frankie Hernandez.
The only place I found it is Reliable Source Music. If you want to download it you'll have to use a tool like JDownloader2
The tumbling projectiles are more then likely caused from going through the quarter panel of the car. Not from the 200rds it shot. Anything that is in the line of aim point and target that the projectiles has to pass through can cause them to tumble.. if the rifle could pop up atleast an inch higher the the quarter panel there is a lot higher chance of a straighter line and a lot less tumbling projectiles