Hell their military hasn't even started using _forklifts_ yet. They still load and unload trucks BY HAND. As in, reach in, pick up a box, carry it somewhere. Walk, back. Grab another box, carry it somewhere. Walk back. One box at a time. The entire truck. And they wonder why they have the logistical capacity of a mannequin holding an abacus.
Which also explains the weapons working best in Ukraine on Russian Tanks. Missiles that arc up and down to hit into the upper structures, and drones dropping grenades into open ports (as they get very hot with poor ventilation so the crews keep opening the hatches lol). Side shots will bounce off the reactive armors on the side.
Hydraullic press cone tip was changed to a softer one for the USA test (You can clearly compare both and see the differences in color, black and yellow marks, porosity, etc).
@walterengler5709 That's not how reactive armor works. In fact, reactive armor isn't even "armor" in the traditional sense that we call it. It's a block filled with an explosive charge. Armor piercing rounds will go right through ERA without even batting an eye. ERA will, however, stop at least 1 HEAT round but even then, it only works once on whatever section got hit.
Seems like the bearing transferred the cold into the AR500 and weakened the crystalline structure in the core by creating a fairly large temperature invariant. In other words, cold ball make plate go poopf
@DM-wp9vq yea, but thats only useful science if able to apply full heat transfer in the 10 milliseconds of impact, not 20-30 seconds in a press shop. So while impressive in theory, useless in practice in actual combat, so the russian armour is still way ahead in stopping power where angles and layers matter more than anything else.
@DM-wp9vq Yes, the problem with AR-500 armor (which is not what is used on modern U.S. tanks) is that it fractures when exposed to extreme cold and pressure or the impact of high-velocity rounds. Also, .50 caliber anti-materiel rounds burn a hole clean through it. Anti-tank weapons punch a hole through it and then spew molten copper into the crew compartment of the tank.
@JohnLee-db9zt 31 Abrams tanks were sent from US to Ukraine to meet with Russian technology. On the West, *👉BEFORE SENDING,👈* they call these tanks *_"the game changers"._* However, within just a few months, 29 of them gone, some captured by Russian militaries with minimal damage or just after mechanical failure. 2 that are left are kept away from front line. After that no-one even thinking to sent more Abrams tanks to Ukraine. And no one calls them _"the game changers"_ anymore.
@FirstNameLastName-hy1pfThose Abrams did not have the advanced armor of current Abrams in the US arsenal. Also crew training is more important in tank battle. Where is your source for the 29 Abrams? And how many thousands of tanks did Russia lose including its “advanced” T90? You’re speaking out of your 🫏. 😂
Looking at the T 34 Armour plate I am impressed by how good it was in terms of ductile strength. It was hard enough and thick enough to function but not so hard it was brittle. Good RHA should not fracture as if it does then it actually is weaker than a similar version that does fracture. German late war armour was prone to fracturing which was a sign of poor composition while Russian armour was not so brittle.
Is it from a post War T-34? One actually made to spec, unlike those during the war. T-34 armor was over treated and was notorious for spalling killing most of the crew on non-penetrating hits. I believe the statistic for surviving a non-penetrating his was south of 25%. That's how BAD their steel and preventative measures were during the war. Don't even get me started on their production and failure rates. And their early war steel was bad by comparison to most tank armor. They heated it to much high degrees than pretty much every other nation involved in the war making their steel much more brittle.
Еще смешнее ставить сталь выбранную на основание богатого опыта боев со сталью выбранную по сути теоретиками. В конце разлетевшиеся куски брони это то, что будет лететь в экипаж при попадании по танку снаряда.
@CosmosCramer-f3ino it seems like the opposite cause most probably they used a dud point thing to do American tank one but Russian one got the gauge and a hard ass point
Кто же так делает? Ты берёшь броню от танка Т-34 и сравниваешь её с современной американской бронёй. Нечестное сравнение. Разумеется, броня, которую делали более восьмидесяти лет назад в СССР, будет проигрывать в прочности. Надо было или брать для сравнения броню какого-нибудь Шермана, или ещё какого американского танка времён второй мировой войны, тогда сравнение будет более или менее объективным.
@thatguy46744 And which tank had the proven better survivability? CLUE:....it wasn't the Sherman......Don't worry, though, it does when driven by Brad Pitt. It's the same story now, old Soviet tanks surviving multiple Javelin hits, NATO's latest and greatest destroyed by tiny drones.
@pgVeritas yes, the sherman was in fact more survivable. The t34 had several times the loss rate if the sherman. In fact, the t34 suffered more losses than any vehicle ever used in any war ever both raw numbers and percentage wise😂 it was one of the worst vehicles ever conceived. Its 75mm main gun also was very innacurate and had poor pen. The later midels such as the 57mm and 85mm also suffered from poor penetration and poor accuracy. On top of that; soviet tankers nicknamed the t34 a metal coffin, whereas the sherman was regularly praised by soviet tankers. It also had a gun stabilizer, the t34 and most tanks of Ww2 did not. Your claim of old soviet tanks surviving javelin missiles is simply not correct. Over 85 percent of javelin strikes have been lethal upon the first hit to even russias latest tanks. Speaking of which, the t90m was frontally disabled by a bradleys 25mm autocannon, which has never happened to any tank in history. A 25mm ap round, not even an apfsds, pentrated the front if a t90m and damaged the turret ring upon penetration. Do you know how pathetic that is? 😂 Furthermore, not even half of the 40 year old outdated downgraded m1a1 abrams tanks sent to ukraine are gone yet. Whereas nearly every t90m thats ever been built has already been confirmed destroyed. There are only a couple remaining. Same goes for the t80 bvm, t80 bvm 2023, t80bvm 2020, t72 b3, etc etc etc. In fact, russia lost thousands of armored vehicles last month alone. Oh, and we cant forget how russian commanders THEMSELVES admitted the bradley was better than the bmp/bmd series in every way. They literally said in quotes "in every way". 😂
Он не сравнивает их, а показывает различие в подходе к производству этой брони. Советская броня была без закалки, если на простом языке вязкой, снаряд должен был в ней застревать за счёт её деформации. Американская же броня была закалённой, там снаряд должен был рикошетить или же разрушаться за счёт своей меньшей прочности, но у этого был свой большой минус, при попадании с внутренней стороны откалывались куски брони которые травмировали экипаж. Немецкая же броня была с поверхностной закалкой, если снаряд не ловил рикошет, то останавливался за счёт вязкого слоя.
This guy thinks he knows what lead looks like with his clown ass bud just can’t accept the fact that American steel was and is higher quality then Russian/soviet steel
@Goofy-ln2md What? You're an amateur. It's all about the fact that the steel is hardened, nothing more. It's just that Russian steel was ductile and designed to allow a shell to penetrate it, with only a small amount of after-armor impact(or the projectile should have gotten stuck in the armor). American steel is hardened differently, designed to ricochet shells more often, but can still have a significant after-armor impact if it hits without penetrating. German armor was the best, the top layer was made of hardened hard steel, the bottom of viscous
@Goofy-ln2md You don't have to be a clown like you to understand that American steel from 2010 is stronger than Russian steel from 1940. And as for tanks, all the Ambras tanks in Ukraine have been destroyed, while Russian tanks are still in service. But as advertising, it's a hoax and hypocrisy, yes. America has no equal here.
There is a pretty big difference in the physics of a high-speed impact and a slow pressing. What seems good under a hydraulic press might not be very good with high-speed impacts and vice-versa.
Not true. Sone materials stiffen under sudden force but buckle at slow constants. Heat (as in temperature, not the projectile), also gives very different reactive properties than alow force. Kinetic impact in values produced by tank cannons with sabot, gives extreme energy at a very small point, creating great heat at a small point, softening the armor just a bit more. Not like heat ammo, but much more than a blunt press does.
Те кто не понял, броня для танка Т-34-85 была для остановки тех "болванок" которыми стреляли во вторую мировую, то есть она не должна была "колоться", то есть её легировали таким образом, что бы она была "вязкой", и вот как раз немецко-фашисткие танки страдали тем что у них броня была твёрдой, но очень часто отколовшимися кусками экипаж был убит или ранен а танк не имел пробития, то же самое мы увидели когда кусок бронелиста США разлетелся и порушил всё вокруг, а броня Т-34 просто как пластилин, в общем разные по свойствам металлы.
Немецкая броня была гетерогенная, т.е. её твердость была разная в срезе. Наружный слой твердый, а внутренний слой - вязкий. Так, что не особо там что откалывалось внутрь по сравнению с Т-34, с его катанной гомогенной броней. А башня Т-34 вообще была литой, что вообще ухудшало стойкость процентов на 20-30.
Извините, я не говорю по-русски, и я использовал Google Translate. Конусы, похоже, не отличаются. И это исторический факт, что русская сталь была не совсем лучшей.
@JayRayAndMadnessПривет. У нас в России лучшей считается та сталь, с помощью которой достигается победа! А не та, что побеждает в лаборатории. Hi. In Russia, the best steel is the one that wins! Not the one that wins in the lab.
@JayRayAndMadnessте, кто могут тебе кричать, что всё неправильно было сделано - слишком уж дикие патриоты, которые этого могут не замечать. Насчёт советской стали - да, так и есть, однако броня Т-34 должна была останавливать те снаряды, которыми пользовались в то время. Именно по этой причине она была не самой лучшей, если пытаться её расколоть, она была вязкой, густой, что-то вроде жвачки или болота. Это спасало экипаж от осколков после разрыва снарядов гораздо лучше. Поэтому тут важна объективность, но, надеюсь, я смог без проблем для восприятия тебе рассказать об этом нюансе. Всего доброго, друг. И да, конусы действительно разные, но AR500 и правда хорошая сталь в своей сфере, поэтому в любом случае достижения тех, кто смог её получить, достойны похвалы.
Yep, high velocity, very dense, spear-like dart relying more on pin point kinetic energy transfer generating heat and shock instead of just pure hardness to complete a "normal" deform-penetration. Materials become / interact very weirdly at higher velocities. FMJ rifle bullets, hitting water will fragment to safe crinkly shards within like a foot depth! Seeing that for the first time was a "WhAt?!" moment. A pistol fired FMJ is actually a higher threat to "underwater" life... but has lost all energy well within a yard. A rubber band slung steel spear however... 😆 that's an underwater ouchie!
Most people killed in tanks are killed by the spalling from the inside of the armour at the point of impact. Modern tanks line their interiors with anti-spall liners (Kevlar, fiberglass, or aramid composites) to catch spalling fragments.
I love these videos, but the disclosure at the beginning warning us Not To Try This At Home cracks me up! Like most of us have this kind of equipment sitting in our basement or work room! LOL!!!
To expand on this, the T34 armor was not heat tempered for exactly the same reason the US M4 Sherman tank also used soft armor, because the pliability of the armor was what protected the crew, engine and fuel, and ammunition. Softer steel is far more capable at deformation, which means a force directed inwards is redistributed across the metallic crystal structure. AT500 is a highly efficient heat treated armored steel alloy, which means it has high resistance to impact compression AND doesn’t shatter like glass when breached, but even in armor systems where it is used, it is one of multiple layers, each layer offering hardness, deflection, deformation, and more to safely handle repeated fire without putting the combat operation at risk. Modern US tanks have more in like with the dragon and its scales, than it did with the knight, and that is just repeated refining of design over decades.
@CaseyMonigold there is a serious gap in time, though. There were hardened steels in the 1940’s that would punch through tank armor, but AR500 is a fairly modern invention.
U. S. Armor these days is steel alloyed with tungsten and copper laminated with ceramic fiber. The stuff is incredibly tough. The new metal foams have steel, copper, tungsten and iridium foamed around ceramic microparticles. They’re 50% lighter but still as strong as a comparable thickness of composite armor. They’re also much cheaper, costing 80% less than standard composite armor. DARPA has recommended that all new armored vehicles be equipped with this armor. So far, the military hasn’t listened.
Наконец-то в DARPA достали разработки времён Холодной войны (от импортированных немецких инженеров) и решили, что их уже можно производить - военные действия США сворачиваются (Афганистан, Ирак) и количественное смягчение с гигантским госдолгом США способно оплатить любую Wunderwaffe трудом американских работяг.
@Тивиал у нас выставляли в городе трофейные - выглядят брутально, но толка от них мало. Короче, Украина стала не только полигоном для испытаний техники ВПК РФ, но и полигоном для утилизации американской техники.
@Тивиалbud your T72s burn up and get tossed into the air same as your T90s and your T14s that yall thought was the shit is in the Siberian scrapyard😂 the Abrams in Ukraine is an old version and they still kill more Russian tanks then the Russian tanks kill Abrams accept it your military is ass
If you wanted to do a more accurate test, you need to have the plates be level with the bottom of the press. Having them at an angle like that weakens their stability, as all the force gets put on the edges as opposed to the center. It's similar to how karate practitioners break tiles with their hands: they use physics to do the majority of the work for them.
Ну ты и сравнил 😂😂😂 Броню 40-х годов с т-34 с американкой 2010 года. У т-34 броня решала за счет углов наклона, а не прочности. Это было нечно новое в то время
Самое прикольное, что он даже не показывает давление которое на сталь оказывается. Потому как там его просто нет. Зарядил мягкий наконечник и пытается всех убедить что сталь супер жёсткая.
Yes, I'm pretty ignorant to liquid nitrogen properties/the effects of freezing steel. But I did NOT expect the 2010 armor to shatter like that. Very violent.
Awesome, however I could have done without the music. We're watching a press video, not trolling for girls in a night club. It was watch with the cursor over the mute button. Not a good way to enjoy a video
Imagine for a moment the fantastic amount of resources used for killing each other and destroying what was already built only to rebuild again. It should surprise no one how much we have stagnated as a species.
Developed in the 1960s-1970s at the British Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (FVRDE) located in Chobham Common, Surrey. That’s where it got its name.[ Outer Steel Plate ] [ Ceramic Tile Layer ] [ Elastomer / Adhesive Backing ] [ Aluminum or Steel Backing Plate ]
Because they already feel bad that they can’t do anything to Ukraine. They thought they’d have a ‘victorious war in 3 days’, but it didn’t go that way. And then they see a video like this, so they get triggered, gotta let off some steam somewhere.
Во вторую мировую войну применяли броню из вязких стальных листов метала чтоб не прилетела шрапнель с брони в экипаж.В любом случае современные средства поражения превосходят любую броню по текучести метала при встрече с кинетическими силами энергии .
I turned this off after 1:25 because of the shite music. I'd much rather hear the destruction coming from the press than that skull rattling free use shite. Why do creators do that to their videos?
Russians are very mad in the comments. But I don't think the intent was to show that Soviet/Russian tank steel is worse, it was to show how much stronger modern tank steel is.
The thing is, the test is very biased. Same press, same plate thickness, same cones/balls. Even if we adhere to all of this, we still won't know whether it's really a tank plate or just a purchased piece of metal-even a good one, but not truly tank-grade. This applies to both the American and Russian plates.
Still it's very pleasing to see them losing their shit so much. Maybe some of them will realize something is very wrong with their country and stop buying into Putin's war propaganda.
I doubt 1940's Russian armour was even tempered. They were churning those things out as quick as they were getting blown up, and with limited resources
This is not a fair comparison. Why they change the drive/press bit to do the comparisons. If they change to use a ceramic drive/press bit. The bit will be shatter less than a second. This comparison does not demonstrate how hard the tested materials are, but to show how hard and soft the drive/press bits are.
Одна заколеная головка, другая из сырой стали. Они по цвету отличаются и форме. Вы правы. Скорее всего расчёт на просмотры и комментарии, а не на реалистично тестов.
Who are you trying to fool man, you should use best produced steel from both countries and same cone, why did you change the cone when testing US steel and hide the pressure gauge, probably because the cone crashed not reaching even 10 tones, it looks like butter made cone
He used 2 cones to show the difference in strength between the two. The Russian armor was noticeably softer if you look at the pressure guage, but I don't think you're that adept at noticing such details.......
Russian armor from the 1940's is lying around all over, well, Russia. But getting a sample of (semi) modern Amurikan tank steel probably violated one or more laws. Good thing those dont matter in 'Murika!
I was a tanker in 1968 in Vietnam. I was on the M48A3 which was made out of cast iron pretty much. They didn't have "chobham armor" until 1980 and the m1 Abrams Tanks. We had a 90 mm main gun. We had various ammo for it. HEAT. High Explosive Anti Tank. It would hit, detonate and burn its way through much like the enemy's RPG (B 40 and B41 rocket or RPG 3 and RPG 7) SABOT This baby relied on kinetic energy and had a projectile about the size of an 8 oz coke bottle that was made of tungsten carbide. (tungsten carbide is used as cutting tools for machinging steel and cast iron) This moves at 4400 feet per second! A 30-06 round goes about 2900 and a 50 BMG round about 3200 FPS CANNISTER... this was like a giant shotgun. It had (I can't remember how many) about what 1200 35 caliber slugs in it. (think of a 357 shooting at you with a thousand at a time coming your way) BEE HIVE. This had about 6000 darts that were about twice the size of a finishing nail. You could literally nail your enemy to a tree! HE High explosive... it blows up, it has a fuse where you could turn a screw to delay the explosion HEP High explosive plastic. theory was you shot at enemy steel (tank) or bunker and it would stick to the side, then BLOW up making everything on the inside of the tank or wall turn into shrapnel. SEEMS TO ME I am missing one, but hey that was 57 years ago. I was a tank commander at the time and we got engaged in our night defensive perimeter by an estimated regiment of NVA. WE would hang extra track block on the turret and place sandbags on that for "added armor" we'd hang perforated steel plate (landings for aircraft usually) on our fenders like "fender skirts". that way, when an RPG would hit, it would detonate and by the time it reached the hull it was burned out. so the enemy started shooting into our turret which is the reason for the track block and sand bags. Anyhow, an RPG came through the sandbags, track block, turret, my "former thigh" lit the inside on FIRE and went out the other side. Only took me 48 years for the VA to get the "compensation" corrected!!! Not to mention the INSULTS they layed on us. and before you tell me I "deserved to die", pi$$ off, I heard it all and still do, so don't waste your time or breath !
Если Вы совершали военные преступления, то возможно и заслуживаете смерти. Но это решать, не обычным людям, а только суду. Солдат, служит своей Родине и обязан выполнять приказы, если они не являются преступными. Если Ваша страна развязала войну, при том в своих корыстных целях, это не является Вашим преступлением, так как Вы просто выполняли свой долг.
С одной стороны, сочувствую ветерану пострадавшему от мясорубки затеянной американским правительством, а с другой стороны, непонятно как ветераны войн США допустили, что народ США довёл до роли биомассы собственный истеблишмент.
@ildar000это просто, капитализм плюс пропаганда тех времён. Вымыть мозги, человеку, не так уж и тяжело. Посмотри на нацисткую Германию, у них на пряжке было, "с нами Бог", а что творили и сколько народа поубивали, при том садисткими методами. Граждане Украины, не хотели отсоединяться от России, это показал референдум. А во что это превратилось через тридцать лет пропаганды, мы сейчас наблюдаем.
Just so you know, despite the alloys being the same like ar500, the " grain" direction makes a huge difference in performance. There are plates made by cutting off slabs from bar stock with a grain structure that goes front to back, the thin direction and side to side, the long direction. Front to back is weaker against impacts because " plugs" can dislodge.
The biggest problems I see with this “armor” test are. #1 the armor used to T34 tanks is probably not considered armor by today’s standards. #2 AR series plate is not armor. It’s abrasion resistant plate, mainly used for buckets and blades of earth moving equipment. Just some folks figured out it works good to stop bullets too.
Рашистская броня горит лучше свечей и очень часто отлетает колпачок (башня) метров на сто в верх и сторону от украинской Стугны или американского Джавелина, а Бредли которые обозвали гробами разносит т-72 как куропатку от дробовика. В Рашке самые крепкие не танки а воровство и коррупция. Пора бы уже усвоить, пускать бульбы, работать коли взялся за прутня.
Странное сравнение. Кумулятиву и лому из урана похуй на состав брони, а вот осколкам и пулям всех калибров - нет. Вообще сталь у них хорошая, хоть там и не АР500, не надо шапкозакидательством заниматься, но и наша модификация стали 8С не хуже, даже лучше, наверное, но это прям сравнивать надо. Короли коричневой стали это немцы, как лепили чугун, так и лепят.
If you want to test tank armour you have to use a high velocity impact. Why did that not occur to you? No-one climbs onto a tank and pushes holes in it.
See a lot of Commieboo cope in the comments lol, must be Russia mains in War Thunder and/or WoT. It's the same steel as the Shermans used, the difference is that modern tanks have compound armor so the steel is only a part of the protection scheme. Of course T-34 steel would be inferior, the Soviets were under a lot of logistical stress from the German invasion. They needed a lot of tanks very quickly, often from less equiped factories, so it stands to reason their quality assurance would be much lower. America manufactured there's from the safety of the Continental US, so they didn't have the same stresses on their armor production. Just be proud of the fact they cranked out as many as they did and turned back the invasion in spite of their production quality. You RussophiIes need to get a grip, this isn't even an American channel, they use metric measurements and even their mathematic notation is the European style (commas and decimals have their application swapped). You're just coping that the "superior Soviet steel" isn't what you want it to be.
Not just "stress" - most steel factories where in Ukraine, only the tank factory in Kharkiv (Ukraine) was evacuated beyond Ural, where those T34 where making from American (!) armor steel plates supplied fron US by landlease.
Есть более простое и наглядное объяснение, автор видео поменял испытательный конус на верхнем штоке пресса, заменив твёрдую насадку, на мягкую сталь. Конусная насадка при испытании брони Т34 была из очень твердого сплава с навершием из вольфрам-кобальтового сплава. При испытании американской брони, конусная насадка, использовалась самодельная из мягкого железа. В ином случае, она бы разрушилась, а не мялась не оставляя следа на броне, хотя твердый сплав наконечника обязан был оставить кратер. Это подтасовка результата, возможно, автор из Украины.
The music is way too loud and the video could have been much shorter. But still, very interesting to see how much better quality the US tank armor is in comparison
@sumwonche5688during times of war one needs to produce more stuff often at a faster pace to keep up with the demand. The faster said stuff is produced, lowering in quality is inevitable. Its not propaganda
АР-500 это не танковая броня, а противопульная для бронежилетов, легких транспортных средств - но в большей мере это конструкционная сталь для бульдозеров, например. Она с бОльшим содержанием углерода, но меньше легирующих добавок. Она гораздо тверже, но более колкая, плохо свариваемая, трудоемкая в производстве и тяжелая по массе. 34-ка имеет более вязкую броню с легирующими добавками и умеренным содержанием углерода с отличными эксплуатоционными и производсвтенными характеристиками брони и малым количеством шрапнели от сколов брони с обратной стороны бронеплит. Она отлично рикошетила снаряды из за своей твердости и вязкости одновременно, однако в годы войны до ~1943 года технология ее изготовления часто нарушалась на производстве в силу разных обстоятельств (бомбежки, повреждения завода, дети на производстве, недостаточно обучение литейщиков и так далее...). АР-500 было бы логичнее сравнивать со сталью 36СН - из нее делали каски, броню для легких танков поддержки пехоты и казематные установки орудий. Ну и не стоит забыват, что АР500, мягко говоря, современнее... Если ее и сравнивать, то с современной модификацией стали 8С (та же, что в 34-ке), только вам ее никто не даст - она используется на современных танках РФ.
Ну, если взять американскую танковую броню 40х годов и сравнить с российской танковой броней 2010 года то победит Россия. Тут победила не страна, а время и совершенствование технологий
@AAaa-wu3el Its not T-34 armor plate, watch carefully, its some kind of soft steel while cone is hard steel and when US steel is tested the cone is totally different (compare pic at 3:01 and 4:06), made of soft steel while US plate is hard steel. Its pure BS propaganda
Que tiene que ver un acero de 1945 por una parte con otro del 2010. Debería ser acero hecho por las dos partes a prueba con aleación del mismo año. Eso no dice nada. , 😮
My mother in law's meatloaf is harder than all those. It would destroy the hydraulic press.
So would the last focaccia I attempted to bake 😂
I had a frozen solid Twix ice cream that snapped my whole front tooth off less than 2 weeks before my wedding.
And your wife?
Well, now we know why you don't get invited to family dinners any longer.
/sarc
It's a good thing she doesn't watch this channel... Or does she ?... lol
Metallurgy has evidently improved a great deal between WW2 and the modern day.
Hell their military hasn't even started using _forklifts_ yet. They still load and unload trucks BY HAND. As in, reach in, pick up a box, carry it somewhere. Walk, back. Grab another box, carry it somewhere. Walk back. One box at a time. The entire truck.
And they wonder why they have the logistical capacity of a mannequin holding an abacus.
Which also explains the weapons working best in Ukraine on Russian Tanks. Missiles that arc up and down to hit into the upper structures, and drones dropping grenades into open ports (as they get very hot with poor ventilation so the crews keep opening the hatches lol). Side shots will bounce off the reactive armors on the side.
Not really
Hydraullic press cone tip was changed to a softer one for the USA test (You can clearly compare both and see the differences in color, black and yellow marks, porosity, etc).
@walterengler5709 That's not how reactive armor works. In fact, reactive armor isn't even "armor" in the traditional sense that we call it. It's a block filled with an explosive charge. Armor piercing rounds will go right through ERA without even batting an eye. ERA will, however, stop at least 1 HEAT round but even then, it only works once on whatever section got hit.
Helpful as this is, resistance to slow constant pressure is different from kinetic protection.
Yep completly different Physics
Yeah, no way a free flying projectile can exert this amount of force.
Agreed. This is closer to being hit by a shell from an Iowa class battleship at point blank while braced against a rock wall, just a little slower.
Also, sloped armor give additional effective protection.
А что не сравнить сталь времён Руси или сталь времён Железного века и сталь сша 2025 года ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Dang Son! When frozen steel ball busted that armor plate, that was the biggest Commotion, I've ever seen go on under that press!😮😅
I was so waiting for the ball to shatter, everything else frozen like that does.
Seems like the bearing transferred the cold into the AR500 and weakened the crystalline structure in the core by creating a fairly large temperature invariant. In other words, cold ball make plate go poopf
@DM-wp9vq yea, but thats only useful science if able to apply full heat transfer in the 10 milliseconds of impact, not 20-30 seconds in a press shop. So while impressive in theory, useless in practice in actual combat, so the russian armour is still way ahead in stopping power where angles and layers matter more than anything else.
@HighwayUK Think you mean US
@DM-wp9vq Yes, the problem with AR-500 armor (which is not what is used on modern U.S. tanks) is that it fractures when exposed to extreme cold and pressure or the impact of high-velocity rounds. Also, .50 caliber anti-materiel rounds burn a hole clean through it. Anti-tank weapons punch a hole through it and then spew molten copper into the crew compartment of the tank.
2010 US vs 1940s Russia 😂 yeah this test is clearly objective…..
Russia still uses the same technology.😂
Russia is still living in 1940 lol
@JohnLee-db9zt
31 Abrams tanks were sent from US to Ukraine to meet with Russian technology. On the West,
*👉BEFORE SENDING,👈* they call these tanks *_"the game changers"._* However, within just a few months, 29 of them gone, some captured by Russian militaries with minimal damage or just after mechanical failure. 2 that are left are kept away from front line. After that no-one even thinking to sent more Abrams tanks to Ukraine. And no one calls them _"the game changers"_ anymore.
It's accurate .....thats what they got over there
@FirstNameLastName-hy1pfThose Abrams did not have the advanced armor of current Abrams in the US arsenal. Also crew training is more important in tank battle. Where is your source for the 29 Abrams? And how many thousands of tanks did Russia lose including its “advanced” T90? You’re speaking out of your 🫏. 😂
Is American steel in 2010 stronger than Soviet steel in 1940? 🤔Unbelievable! 😮
В России есть военный ремонтный корабль ему больше 120 лет он в строю и не ржавеет . потому что сделан из древней стали
Thats kinda sum stupid shit to say bc 1940 and 2010 is two diffrent times and u say that’s unbelievable
@ИС-3-у5эи что за корабль?
Different times used different formulas for steel as armaments changed.
@alexejdekunoff9507 Спасательное судно "Коммуна" 1913 год постройки. Враки, конечно, что не ржавеет, но тем не менее, солидно.
Looking at the T 34 Armour plate I am impressed by how good it was in terms of ductile strength. It was hard enough and thick enough to function but not so hard it was brittle. Good RHA should not fracture as if it does then it actually is weaker than a similar version that does fracture. German late war armour was prone to fracturing which was a sign of poor composition while Russian armour was not so brittle.
al fin una respuesta inteligente
T-34 was a badass Tank, If the Russians Had Tank to Tank Communications Germany wouldnt have made 5 miles...
American made plate steel supplied from US in landlease - sure it was better that nothing.
Like knife in butter ?
Is it from a post War T-34? One actually made to spec, unlike those during the war. T-34 armor was over treated and was notorious for spalling killing most of the crew on non-penetrating hits. I believe the statistic for surviving a non-penetrating his was south of 25%. That's how BAD their steel and preventative measures were during the war. Don't even get me started on their production and failure rates.
And their early war steel was bad by comparison to most tank armor. They heated it to much high degrees than pretty much every other nation involved in the war making their steel much more brittle.
Fair play on blowing up the studio - Im glad you survived xD
Belachelijk om staal van 80 jaar geleden te vergelijken met hedendaags pantser staal ! Als je testen wil doen, doe het dan op een eerlijke manier !
Еще смешнее ставить сталь выбранную на основание богатого опыта боев со сталью выбранную по сути теоретиками. В конце разлетевшиеся куски брони это то, что будет лететь в экипаж при попадании по танку снаряда.
When u were doing the American steel why wasn’t there any pressure gauge?
Can't be making Russia look bad 😂
@CosmosCramer-f3ilol says the AR15
Там даже другая сталь на конусе насадки пресса, дешёвая не легированная. Автор готовит себя к Грин Кард.
@sign6555sorry mate I couldn’t understand what you are saying..
@CosmosCramer-f3ino it seems like the opposite cause most probably they used a dud point thing to do American tank one but Russian one got the gauge and a hard ass point
Кто же так делает? Ты берёшь броню от танка Т-34 и сравниваешь её с современной американской бронёй. Нечестное сравнение. Разумеется, броня, которую делали более восьмидесяти лет назад в СССР, будет проигрывать в прочности. Надо было или брать для сравнения броню какого-нибудь Шермана, или ещё какого американского танка времён второй мировой войны, тогда сравнение будет более или менее объективным.
Ar 500 steel is the exact same Armour as that used on the shermans. It was just renamed.
@thatguy46744 And which tank had the proven better survivability? CLUE:....it wasn't the Sherman......Don't worry, though, it does when driven by Brad Pitt. It's the same story now, old Soviet tanks surviving multiple Javelin hits, NATO's latest and greatest destroyed by tiny drones.
@pgVeritas yes, the sherman was in fact more survivable. The t34 had several times the loss rate if the sherman. In fact, the t34 suffered more losses than any vehicle ever used in any war ever both raw numbers and percentage wise😂 it was one of the worst vehicles ever conceived.
Its 75mm main gun also was very innacurate and had poor pen. The later midels such as the 57mm and 85mm also suffered from poor penetration and poor accuracy.
On top of that; soviet tankers nicknamed the t34 a metal coffin, whereas the sherman was regularly praised by soviet tankers. It also had a gun stabilizer, the t34 and most tanks of Ww2 did not.
Your claim of old soviet tanks surviving javelin missiles is simply not correct. Over 85 percent of javelin strikes have been lethal upon the first hit to even russias latest tanks. Speaking of which, the t90m was frontally disabled by a bradleys 25mm autocannon, which has never happened to any tank in history. A 25mm ap round, not even an apfsds, pentrated the front if a t90m and damaged the turret ring upon penetration. Do you know how pathetic that is? 😂
Furthermore, not even half of the 40 year old outdated downgraded m1a1 abrams tanks sent to ukraine are gone yet. Whereas nearly every t90m thats ever been built has already been confirmed destroyed. There are only a couple remaining. Same goes for the t80 bvm, t80 bvm 2023, t80bvm 2020, t72 b3, etc etc etc. In fact, russia lost thousands of armored vehicles last month alone.
Oh, and we cant forget how russian commanders THEMSELVES admitted the bradley was better than the bmp/bmd series in every way. They literally said in quotes "in every way". 😂
да и далеко не факт , что броня от т-34 , может рандомный кусок стали , покажите мне место где запросто можно отпилить кусок брони от танка
Он не сравнивает их, а показывает различие в подходе к производству этой брони. Советская броня была без закалки, если на простом языке вязкой, снаряд должен был в ней застревать за счёт её деформации. Американская же броня была закалённой, там снаряд должен был рикошетить или же разрушаться за счёт своей меньшей прочности, но у этого был свой большой минус, при попадании с внутренней стороны откалывались куски брони которые травмировали экипаж. Немецкая же броня была с поверхностной закалкой, если снаряд не ловил рикошет, то останавливался за счёт вязкого слоя.
Этот деятель думал что никто не заметит, что он американскую танковую броню давит совсем другим наконечником😂 Скорее всего свинцовым😂
This guy thinks he knows what lead looks like with his clown ass bud just can’t accept the fact that American steel was and is higher quality then Russian/soviet steel
That was very obvious it was lead lol.
@Goofy-ln2md What? You're an amateur. It's all about the fact that the steel is hardened, nothing more. It's just that Russian steel was ductile and designed to allow a shell to penetrate it, with only a small amount of after-armor impact(or the projectile should have gotten stuck in the armor). American steel is hardened differently, designed to ricochet shells more often, but can still have a significant after-armor impact if it hits without penetrating.
German armor was the best, the top layer was made of hardened hard steel, the bottom of viscous
@Goofy-ln2md Bruh, this guy compared 1940's steel and 2010's steel. You know?
@Goofy-ln2md You don't have to be a clown like you to understand that American steel from 2010 is stronger than Russian steel from 1940. And as for tanks, all the Ambras tanks in Ukraine have been destroyed, while Russian tanks are still in service. But as advertising, it's a hoax and hypocrisy, yes. America has no equal here.
I'd love to see thermal imaging. Bet that stuff gets pretty warm under all that pressure.
There is a pretty big difference in the physics of a high-speed impact and a slow pressing. What seems good under a hydraulic press might not be very good with high-speed impacts and vice-versa.
Примерно как кинетический песок, правильно бро?🤔
That´s right, but what is bad under a hydraulic press will also be not good under a high-speed impact.
Not true. Sone materials stiffen under sudden force but buckle at slow constants.
Heat (as in temperature, not the projectile), also gives very different reactive properties than alow force. Kinetic impact in values produced by tank cannons with sabot, gives extreme energy at a very small point, creating great heat at a small point, softening the armor just a bit more. Not like heat ammo, but much more than a blunt press does.
You made a real mess out of things with the nitrogen that’s for sure.
Thank you, for your time and effort
Well said Egon!
Те кто не понял, броня для танка Т-34-85 была для остановки тех "болванок" которыми стреляли во вторую мировую, то есть она не должна была "колоться", то есть её легировали таким образом, что бы она была "вязкой", и вот как раз немецко-фашисткие танки страдали тем что у них броня была твёрдой, но очень часто отколовшимися кусками экипаж был убит или ранен а танк не имел пробития, то же самое мы увидели когда кусок бронелиста США разлетелся и порушил всё вокруг, а броня Т-34 просто как пластилин, в общем разные по свойствам металлы.
Ну наконец то грамотный коментарий!!! Браво!!!
Немецкая броня была гетерогенная, т.е. её твердость была разная в срезе. Наружный слой твердый, а внутренний слой - вязкий. Так, что не особо там что откалывалось внутрь по сравнению с Т-34, с его катанной гомогенной броней. А башня Т-34 вообще была литой, что вообще ухудшало стойкость процентов на 20-30.
Речь про то, что в конце войны у немцев нехватало спец металов для вязкозти из-за чего и была хрупкая броня
@yan4383 Вроде наоборот, литую хвалили, так как не имела клёпок и сварочных швов, что делало её прочнее.
@strangerloner90 Ошибаешся. Литая броня не имела постоянной одинаковой толщины и присутствовали раковины в отличии от катанной гомогенной.)
А почему конусы то разные ?😅 можно было еще попробовать аллюминиевый конус)
Извините, я не говорю по-русски, и я использовал Google Translate. Конусы, похоже, не отличаются. И это исторический факт, что русская сталь была не совсем лучшей.
@JayRayAndMadnessПривет. У нас в России лучшей считается та сталь, с помощью которой достигается победа! А не та, что побеждает в лаборатории.
Hi. In Russia, the best steel is the one that wins! Not the one that wins in the lab.
@demotrexx скажи проще: русская сталь - говно.
@JayRayAndMadnessте, кто могут тебе кричать, что всё неправильно было сделано - слишком уж дикие патриоты, которые этого могут не замечать. Насчёт советской стали - да, так и есть, однако броня Т-34 должна была останавливать те снаряды, которыми пользовались в то время. Именно по этой причине она была не самой лучшей, если пытаться её расколоть, она была вязкой, густой, что-то вроде жвачки или болота. Это спасало экипаж от осколков после разрыва снарядов гораздо лучше.
Поэтому тут важна объективность, но, надеюсь, я смог без проблем для восприятия тебе рассказать об этом нюансе. Всего доброго, друг.
И да, конусы действительно разные, но AR500 и правда хорошая сталь в своей сфере, поэтому в любом случае достижения тех, кто смог её получить, достойны похвалы.
Shows why a lot of shells use very dense material like tungsten or depleted uranium now
That's what M1 Abrams use. Makes a small hole going in, & sucks everything out the other side.
Yep, high velocity, very dense, spear-like dart relying more on pin point kinetic energy transfer generating heat and shock instead of just pure hardness to complete a "normal" deform-penetration.
Materials become / interact very weirdly at higher velocities.
FMJ rifle bullets, hitting water will fragment to safe crinkly shards within like a foot depth!
Seeing that for the first time was a "WhAt?!" moment. A pistol fired FMJ is actually a higher threat to "underwater" life... but has lost all energy well within a yard.
A rubber band slung steel spear however... 😆 that's an underwater ouchie!
Why are they just reuploading old videos nowadays? I've seen that steel block be shattered in like 3 or 4 of these videos
2010 US vs 1940 Russia, it's very objective 🤣🤣🤣
Конусы разного цвета как и броня😂
Та Українським дронам всеодно яка в москаля броня, хоча з такими темпами винищення техніки, чекаємо Т-34 на фронті🤣
@MrAlexey28, а сами че Яки совесткие используете?😂
Так там 1.7 млн хряков?😊
@MrAlexey28 украинские дроны?! 😁 чи таки турецкие?! Из украинского у тебя только сопли в носу. А шмекель - русский. Но вот только во рту
@MrAlexey28 Да ты не переживай, после советской эпохи в России осталось более 16тыс танков на хранении, это только танков...
Most people killed in tanks are killed by the spalling from the inside of the armour at the point of impact. Modern tanks line their interiors with anti-spall liners (Kevlar, fiberglass, or aramid composites) to catch spalling fragments.
Да хоть сто штук клади одна одну,все равно будут раскалываться последовательно одна за одной...Другое дело одна спеченая с другой ,как триплекс,...😂
I love these videos, but the disclosure at the beginning warning us Not To Try This At Home cracks me up! Like most of us have this kind of equipment sitting in our basement or work room! LOL!!!
Modern armor is built to deform and absorb and dissipate force, kinda like crumble zones on cars. This test in no way reflects that
To expand on this, the T34 armor was not heat tempered for exactly the same reason the US M4 Sherman tank also used soft armor, because the pliability of the armor was what protected the crew, engine and fuel, and ammunition. Softer steel is far more capable at deformation, which means a force directed inwards is redistributed across the metallic crystal structure. AT500 is a highly efficient heat treated armored steel alloy, which means it has high resistance to impact compression AND doesn’t shatter like glass when breached, but even in armor systems where it is used, it is one of multiple layers, each layer offering hardness, deflection, deformation, and more to safely handle repeated fire without putting the combat operation at risk. Modern US tanks have more in like with the dragon and its scales, than it did with the knight, and that is just repeated refining of design over decades.
I figured it was to represent tank armor and the cone represents a sabot ?
@CaseyMonigold there is a serious gap in time, though. There were hardened steels in the 1940’s that would punch through tank armor, but AR500 is a fairly modern invention.
U. S. Armor these days is steel alloyed with tungsten and copper laminated with ceramic fiber. The stuff is incredibly tough. The new metal foams have steel, copper, tungsten and iridium foamed around ceramic microparticles. They’re 50% lighter but still as strong as a comparable thickness of composite armor. They’re also much cheaper, costing 80% less than standard composite armor. DARPA has recommended that all new armored vehicles be equipped with this armor. So far, the military hasn’t listened.
Наконец-то в DARPA достали разработки времён Холодной войны (от импортированных немецких инженеров) и решили, что их уже можно производить - военные действия США сворачиваются (Афганистан, Ирак) и количественное смягчение с гигантским госдолгом США способно оплатить любую Wunderwaffe трудом американских работяг.
Ты не радуйся,горят ваши Абрамсы...
@Тивиал у нас выставляли в городе трофейные - выглядят брутально, но толка от них мало. Короче, Украина стала не только полигоном для испытаний техники ВПК РФ, но и полигоном для утилизации американской техники.
@Тивиалbud your T72s burn up and get tossed into the air same as your T90s and your T14s that yall thought was the shit is in the Siberian scrapyard😂 the Abrams in Ukraine is an old version and they still kill more Russian tanks then the Russian tanks kill Abrams accept it your military is ass
By the military you mean the russian
Yeah, absolutely a "Kids, Don't Try This One At Home" moment, that last. Very very interesting stuff all round.
0:08 толщину измерять линейкой 🤷♂️🤦♂️
Г - профессионал
Зато сразу видео уровень компетенции с первых кадров видео 🤷♂️👍
cant do this at home since i dont have armor or an hydraulic press
If you wanted to do a more accurate test, you need to have the plates be level with the bottom of the press. Having them at an angle like that weakens their stability, as all the force gets put on the edges as opposed to the center. It's similar to how karate practitioners break tiles with their hands: they use physics to do the majority of the work for them.
Titanium is not stronger than steel. It is the same strength but much, MUCH lighter.
So it's stronger by weight
Раньше бронежилеты СССР делали с титановыми пластинами, но у них был большой вес. Еще корпуса подводных лодок из титана.
@okgoogle4206 It's also less brittle, so will deform before shattering
Alpha phase, Alpha-Beta, or Beta? Which kind of steel?
Ну ты и сравнил 😂😂😂 Броню 40-х годов с т-34 с американкой 2010 года. У т-34 броня решала за счет углов наклона, а не прочности. Это было нечно новое в то время
4:04 thats not the same ram like used seconds before... trying to kiddin us?^^😢
Yes but I do believe the second cone was the same one
Yup, looked soft like aluminum. Lol
@jamesromanow5905if it was truly aluminum that shit would fold in 2 tons you don’t know anything about metal bud
@Goofy-ln2md if not aluminum, then it is some other soft metal. You can clearly see the cone is different so go gaslight some other goy.
Самое прикольное, что он даже не показывает давление которое на сталь оказывается. Потому как там его просто нет. Зарядил мягкий наконечник и пытается всех убедить что сталь супер жёсткая.
No wonder I never get to bed at a reasonable hour... 😆
Yes, I'm pretty ignorant to liquid nitrogen properties/the effects of freezing steel. But I did NOT expect the 2010 armor to shatter like that. Very violent.
Вы бы еще сравнили алюминий и титан.
Не ну серьëзно. Разница в качестве 70 лет ясен перец, что современная броня лучше.
don't fret dude, it was typically the welding that shattered on t-34s when hit.
В любом случае современные средства поражения превосходят любую броню по текучести метала при встрече с кинетическими силами энергии .
А это и есть броня Шермана, если ты не знал.
@user-charakternik Я бы не хотел в нутри шермана оказаться после поражения небольшой болванкой .Дуршлаг с экипажа обеспечен в полном объёме .
А где броня Шермана 1943-44 годов ?
That laminate flooring is pretty tough!
Awesome, however I could have done without the music. We're watching a press video, not trolling for girls in a night club. It was watch with the cursor over the mute button. Not a good way to enjoy a video
@garyjohnpeterson9954 I could care less what it is, all I care about is that's it's annoying as FUCK.
Tfck? Make your own video then.
Liked the music
@robertlynch805 I am not surprised. And now I know all I need to know about you. No thanks
I feel like I should be wearing safety goggles just watching that
Imagine for a moment the fantastic amount of resources used for killing each other and destroying what was already built only to rebuild again. It should surprise no one how much we have stagnated as a species.
Нормальных людей удивляет всех
Steel isn't the main component in US tank armor. It's Chobham, which is classified material.
Developed in the 1960s-1970s at the British Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (FVRDE) located in Chobham Common, Surrey.
That’s where it got its name.[ Outer Steel Plate ]
[ Ceramic Tile Layer ]
[ Elastomer / Adhesive Backing ]
[ Aluminum or Steel Backing Plate ]
@car9167Yup. God bless our cousins ingenuity.
LMAO @ all the triggered Russians
Because this comparison is ridiculous. You are the one who is triggered by their comments.
@cybermancer8522 sorry dude, you don't have a reverse Uno card here and me finding something funny does not make me triggered.
Because they already feel bad that they can’t do anything to Ukraine. They thought they’d have a ‘victorious war in 3 days’, but it didn’t go that way. And then they see a video like this, so they get triggered, gotta let off some steam somewhere.
They trigger even more when they hear historical facts that t34 armor was made from American steel too, supplied by US in landlease, lol.
@Quake1488 must have been the more survivable T-34s or maybe USA matched the Soviet "quality" just for them
Ты кого тут обмануть хочешь?? Конусы разные и металл разные!!! Дуришь людей!!!!
Во вторую мировую войну применяли броню из вязких стальных листов метала чтоб не прилетела шрапнель с брони в экипаж.В любом случае современные средства поражения превосходят любую броню по текучести метала при встрече с кинетическими силами энергии .
Бутылки в твоем очке тоже разные, но ты не прекращаешь быть русским, бггг.
@Quake1488Прохрюкал, молодец, иди получай свои 2 гривны😂
@Quake1488кастрюля чтоль закипела, с ними с бестолковки быстрей😂
@Quake1488 Спец по бутылкам в своем очке?
Omg the music...had to mute the video to get through it
"Hydpress vs Tank Armor US v Russia"
Tests everything but tank armor. This is Russian bot farming at its finest.
Why is there no preassure watch and another pressing tool at usa steel ?
I turned this off after 1:25 because of the shite music. I'd much rather hear the destruction coming from the press than that skull rattling free use shite. Why do creators do that to their videos?
Dude, to turn that off in an episode where he blows up the whole studio at the end... You missed out.
Russians are very mad in the comments. But I don't think the intent was to show that Soviet/Russian tank steel is worse, it was to show how much stronger modern tank steel is.
Товарищи просто не знают, что броня такой и должна была быть - мягкой, не закалённой. В конце концов броню не прессом давят))
The thing is, the test is very biased. Same press, same plate thickness, same cones/balls. Even if we adhere to all of this, we still won't know whether it's really a tank plate or just a purchased piece of metal-even a good one, but not truly tank-grade. This applies to both the American and Russian plates.
hahahaha you're right! After all, how could they have used American steel when they didn't even know what it was?
Still it's very pleasing to see them losing their shit so much. Maybe some of them will realize something is very wrong with their country and stop buying into Putin's war propaganda.
Also to be fair, AR 500 is Abrasion Resistant not Armour. 😂 Used for bulldozer blades and such. Not necessarily tanks.
Stupid comparation between WWII steel and todays!?!
How else would you show the difference?
@scottreed991 T-34 armor vs Sherman armor would be more fair.
I doubt 1940's Russian armour was even tempered. They were churning those things out as quick as they were getting blown up, and with limited resources
@scottreed991
T34 armor was made from American landlease steel plates, lol. Engine blocks from American aluminum too, etc. This is US vs US, ahah.
@Quake1488I don’t think so. At any rate a comparison between WWII Soviet tank armor and modern armor steel is a waste of time.
Excellent video. Be careful with accidents. !!
What that hell is the press tip made out of?!?!
This is not a fair comparison. Why they change the drive/press bit to do the comparisons. If they change to use a ceramic drive/press bit. The bit will be shatter less than a second. This comparison does not demonstrate how hard the tested materials are, but to show how hard and soft the drive/press bits are.
молодцы показали советскую сталь 40-х и сталь США 2010-х а где показали разницу в стали одинакового года выпуска
Pay attention to which heads are used... one is pointed, another is less pointed and wider... who are you trying to fool here?
Одна заколеная головка, другая из сырой стали. Они по цвету отличаются и форме. Вы правы. Скорее всего расчёт на просмотры и комментарии, а не на реалистично тестов.
What is the tip of the press made out of? I worked in the TI and steel industry and that thing is crazy tough.
Try welding the 8 pieces together and see how much stronger it is.
4:32 😂😂 that was actually funny
Stop the damn music, what the hell is wrong with you.
Cry. CRY HARDER
Very unfair comparison. Now try it with armour from a modern Russian T-90
On the stats and tests ive seen, still lose
@thekaxmaxsure you have 😂
You validate and back up your claim first, that's how it works.
@thekaxmaxLook at your Abhrams tanks in Ukraine. They are just expensive coffins and haven't performed
Does the 80 mm ball keep its added hardness after it has warmed back up to room temp?
"Do not repeat this at home" thanks I really need that reminder.
Let me park this 46 tonne T-90 back in my garage.
WHAT WE SEEING IN UKRAINE IS ANOTHER STORY U.S TANKS AND ARMOR BURN AS EASY AS THE REST WE HAVE NOTHING SPECIAL HERE IDC WHAT YOUR TEST SHOWS.
Who are you trying to fool man, you should use best produced steel from both countries and same cone, why did you change the cone when testing US steel and hide the pressure gauge, probably because the cone crashed not reaching even 10 tones, it looks like butter made cone
Lol I think this is a Russian channel
@addicted2monster88 That makes it even worse
Or, at least my soon to be Ex that won't stop talking politics.
He used 2 cones to show the difference in strength between the two. The Russian armor was noticeably softer if you look at the pressure guage, but I don't think you're that adept at noticing such details.......
Russian armor from the 1940's is lying around all over, well, Russia.
But getting a sample of (semi) modern Amurikan tank steel probably violated one or more laws. Good thing those dont matter in 'Murika!
bruh, Why did you change the tips when comparing the armor from 1942 and 2010? so as not to take risks?😃
Just casually creating artillery inside the shop 😂
You know it's hard when it smooshes the press head.
I was a tanker in 1968 in Vietnam. I was on the M48A3 which was made out of cast iron pretty much. They didn't have "chobham armor" until 1980 and the m1 Abrams Tanks. We had a 90 mm main gun. We had various ammo for it.
HEAT. High Explosive Anti Tank. It would hit, detonate and burn its way through much like the enemy's RPG (B 40 and B41 rocket or RPG 3 and RPG 7)
SABOT This baby relied on kinetic energy and had a projectile about the size of an 8 oz coke bottle that was made of tungsten carbide. (tungsten carbide is used as cutting tools for machinging steel and cast iron) This moves at 4400 feet per second! A 30-06 round goes about 2900 and a 50 BMG round about 3200 FPS
CANNISTER... this was like a giant shotgun. It had (I can't remember how many) about what 1200 35 caliber slugs in it. (think of a 357 shooting at you with a thousand at a time coming your way)
BEE HIVE. This had about 6000 darts that were about twice the size of a finishing nail. You could literally nail your enemy to a tree!
HE High explosive... it blows up, it has a fuse where you could turn a screw to delay the explosion
HEP High explosive plastic. theory was you shot at enemy steel (tank) or bunker and it would stick to the side, then BLOW up making everything on the inside of the tank or wall turn into shrapnel.
SEEMS TO ME I am missing one, but hey that was 57 years ago.
I was a tank commander at the time and we got engaged in our night defensive perimeter by an estimated regiment of NVA.
WE would hang extra track block on the turret and place sandbags on that for "added armor" we'd hang perforated steel plate (landings for aircraft usually) on our fenders like "fender skirts". that way, when an RPG would hit, it would detonate and by the time it reached the hull it was burned out.
so the enemy started shooting into our turret which is the reason for the track block and sand bags.
Anyhow, an RPG came through the sandbags, track block, turret, my "former thigh" lit the inside on FIRE and went out the other side. Only took me 48 years for the VA to get the "compensation" corrected!!! Not to mention the INSULTS they layed on us.
and before you tell me I "deserved to die", pi$$ off, I heard it all and still do, so don't waste your time or breath !
Если Вы совершали военные преступления, то возможно и заслуживаете смерти. Но это решать, не обычным людям, а только суду.
Солдат, служит своей Родине и обязан выполнять приказы, если они не являются преступными. Если Ваша страна развязала войну, при том в своих корыстных целях, это не является Вашим преступлением, так как Вы просто выполняли свой долг.
С одной стороны, сочувствую ветерану пострадавшему от мясорубки затеянной американским правительством, а с другой стороны, непонятно как ветераны войн США допустили, что народ США довёл до роли биомассы собственный истеблишмент.
@ildar000это просто, капитализм плюс пропаганда тех времён. Вымыть мозги, человеку, не так уж и тяжело. Посмотри на нацисткую Германию, у них на пряжке было, "с нами Бог", а что творили и сколько народа поубивали, при том садисткими методами. Граждане Украины, не хотели отсоединяться от России, это показал референдум. А во что это превратилось через тридцать лет пропаганды, мы сейчас наблюдаем.
@Фдуч-р7ш верные мысли. Не зря маркетинг, правовой фетишизм и прочие формы цивилизованного самообмана получили такое распространение именно в США.
Wow that story put shivers down my spine. I hope you were able to get by in life with your injuries. Thank you.
Awesome stuff!
That AR500 is some impressive stuff. But also those steel bearing balls 😂
The music is obnoxious.
Turn the volume down.
Just so you know, despite the alloys being the same like ar500, the " grain" direction makes a huge difference in performance. There are plates made by cutting off slabs from bar stock with a grain structure that goes front to back, the thin direction and side to side, the long direction. Front to back is weaker against impacts because " plugs" can dislodge.
In the first part
- the destroying of armours it was like e electric shocks, with these "lightings" there during the crackings!
Test Battleship armor next. Full sized too.
The biggest problems I see with this “armor” test are.
#1 the armor used to T34 tanks is probably not considered armor by today’s standards.
#2 AR series plate is not armor. It’s abrasion resistant plate, mainly used for buckets and blades of earth moving equipment. Just some folks figured out it works good to stop bullets too.
Таки чушь.
What I want to know is what material is that pointed end on the hydraulic press made of?
У ,тебя наконечники разные, при проверке брони, 1 темный, 2 светлый
Америкосы этого "не заметили" 😂 Второй конус из свинца😂
А цвет первого куска "брони" Не смутил? Очень похож на алюминий
Это не броня Т-34, которую продавили конусом. Невозможно это сделать с бронёй Т-34.
Это броня, не гони.
@ХРЕНОРЕЗчем докажешь?
Расскажи это десятку тысяч дидофф сгоревших под Прохоровкой, бггг.
@Quake1488талпайоп
@Quake1488 Прохрюкал, молодец, иди получай свои две гривны😂
Американская броня настолько крепкая, что Абрамсы и Бредли горят на Украине как свечки.
Рашистская броня горит лучше свечей и очень часто отлетает колпачок (башня) метров на сто в верх и сторону от украинской Стугны или американского Джавелина, а Бредли которые обозвали гробами разносит т-72 как куропатку от дробовика. В Рашке самые крепкие не танки а воровство и коррупция. Пора бы уже усвоить, пускать бульбы, работать коли взялся за прутня.
Странное сравнение. Кумулятиву и лому из урана похуй на состав брони, а вот осколкам и пулям всех калибров - нет.
Вообще сталь у них хорошая, хоть там и не АР500, не надо шапкозакидательством заниматься, но и наша модификация стали 8С не хуже, даже лучше, наверное, но это прям сравнивать надо.
Короли коричневой стали это немцы, как лепили чугун, так и лепят.
@МастерСтайвандер , дай ссылку хоть на одно видео, где видно, как Бредли разносит Т-72.
@МастерСтайвандерПрохрюкал, молодец, иди получай свои две гривны😂
@МастерСтайвандерукрошисткие танки вообще не горят, потому их нет😂😂😂
I used to repair dump trucks for the mines. We used AR 500 plates to line bed. After a couple years they wore down to nothing
Why didnt it show the psi gauge when doing the usa 2010
Из чего они там делают AR500, из вибраниума?
И тут США нас обошли. Да что ж такое....
@ОлегГончаров-з9й Вас это кого?
@relicthominide5546 не хныкай
@ОлегГончаров-з9йтакие плиты кладут в штаны, оставшиеся нормальные. Для защиты сзади 🤣
@relicthominide5546 То есть ваших.
Tanks do not use titanium in modern armor layouts due to it being far too brittle.
If you want to test tank armour you have to use a high velocity impact. Why did that not occur to you? No-one climbs onto a tank and pushes holes in it.
Not? 🤔😂…. Was interesting nonetheless
т.е. ламинат выдержал 80т и не выдержал острия пресса?
Me when I bring my hydraulic press to ww2
Разные виды стали разная закалка, сравнение вообще не уместное и необъективное!
See a lot of Commieboo cope in the comments lol, must be Russia mains in War Thunder and/or WoT. It's the same steel as the Shermans used, the difference is that modern tanks have compound armor so the steel is only a part of the protection scheme.
Of course T-34 steel would be inferior, the Soviets were under a lot of logistical stress from the German invasion. They needed a lot of tanks very quickly, often from less equiped factories, so it stands to reason their quality assurance would be much lower. America manufactured there's from the safety of the Continental US, so they didn't have the same stresses on their armor production. Just be proud of the fact they cranked out as many as they did and turned back the invasion in spite of their production quality.
You RussophiIes need to get a grip, this isn't even an American channel, they use metric measurements and even their mathematic notation is the European style (commas and decimals have their application swapped). You're just coping that the "superior Soviet steel" isn't what you want it to be.
Not just "stress" - most steel factories where in Ukraine, only the tank factory in Kharkiv (Ukraine) was evacuated beyond Ural, where those T34 where making from American (!) armor steel plates supplied fron US by landlease.
Есть более простое и наглядное объяснение, автор видео поменял испытательный конус на верхнем штоке пресса, заменив твёрдую насадку, на мягкую сталь. Конусная насадка при испытании брони Т34 была из очень твердого сплава с навершием из вольфрам-кобальтового сплава. При испытании американской брони, конусная насадка, использовалась самодельная из мягкого железа. В ином случае, она бы разрушилась, а не мялась не оставляя следа на броне, хотя твердый сплав наконечника обязан был оставить кратер. Это подтасовка результата, возможно, автор из Украины.
набутылочник
- Ну конечно, сегодня вся Вселенная - Украина. И лишь опущенные - сасея. Ведь русский - тот кого ипут!
Ну если быть объективным ,то сталь т-34 в ролике оказалась очень пластичной и не треснула
и да Т-34 красив ,а шерман выглядит как ублюдок страшный )))
@sign6555да и первый кусок "брони"очень похож на алюминий
So many mad russians in the comments. I love it 😂😂
what is the usa armor made of? what did they put in that steel?
Was that last plate supposed to be explosive reaction armor?
The music is way too loud and the video could have been much shorter. But still, very interesting to see how much better quality the US tank armor is in comparison
the us armor was from 2010 and made of better metal quality, while the russian armor was from ww2 and of a lower metal quality.
In comparison to 70 years ago. Not daring to compare with modern Russian metals. It's press-propaganda.
@sumwonche5688during times of war one needs to produce more stuff often at a faster pace to keep up with the demand. The faster said stuff is produced, lowering in quality is inevitable. Its not propaganda
АР-500 это не танковая броня, а противопульная для бронежилетов, легких транспортных средств - но в большей мере это конструкционная сталь для бульдозеров, например. Она с бОльшим содержанием углерода, но меньше легирующих добавок. Она гораздо тверже, но более колкая, плохо свариваемая, трудоемкая в производстве и тяжелая по массе. 34-ка имеет более вязкую броню с легирующими добавками и умеренным содержанием углерода с отличными эксплуатоционными и производсвтенными характеристиками брони и малым количеством шрапнели от сколов брони с обратной стороны бронеплит. Она отлично рикошетила снаряды из за своей твердости и вязкости одновременно, однако в годы войны до ~1943 года технология ее изготовления часто нарушалась на производстве в силу разных обстоятельств (бомбежки, повреждения завода, дети на производстве, недостаточно обучение литейщиков и так далее...).
АР-500 было бы логичнее сравнивать со сталью 36СН - из нее делали каски, броню для легких танков поддержки пехоты и казематные установки орудий.
Ну и не стоит забыват, что АР500, мягко говоря, современнее... Если ее и сравнивать, то с современной модификацией стали 8С (та же, что в 34-ке), только вам ее никто не даст - она используется на современных танках РФ.
- Почему не в танке, набутылкоскакуасишка? Я батки зарядил уже.
I guess the US wins this round.
Ну, если взять американскую танковую броню 40х годов и сравнить с российской танковой броней 2010 года то победит Россия. Тут победила не страна, а время и совершенствование технологий
@kskuroku Эта сталь не с Т-34, это просто кусок какой-то мягкой стали. Не верьте разному трёпу глупых блоггеров.
@AAaa-wu3el Its not T-34 armor plate, watch carefully, its some kind of soft steel while cone is hard steel and when US steel is tested the cone is totally different (compare pic at 3:01 and 4:06), made of soft steel while US plate is hard steel. Its pure BS propaganda
набутылочник
- А это и есть американская сталь 40х годов, ведь Т34 делали из американской листовой бронестали поставляемой по лендлизу.
Absolutely
why did it explode like that at the end, with the nitrogen steel ball?
So what is the piece on the press made of?
Haha der Russische Stahl ist ja weich wie Butter
True, and when American steel is tested the cone is soft as butter, compare pic at 3:01 and 4:06. Its pure BS propaganda
Dang! I was looking forward to using my hydraulic press to annihilate some steel plates, but you told me not to try it at home.
Que tiene que ver un acero de 1945 por una parte con otro del 2010. Debería ser acero hecho por las dos partes a prueba con aleación del mismo año. Eso no dice nada. , 😮
Man that’s dangerous when that plate exploded I thought you were a goner 😳
9:25 “I don’t need to wear safety glasses, “nuttin’s gonna happen..”
whats the press tip made of???