@bobkozalov-1243ok let me help. HEAT/HEAT-FS (High Explosive Anti Tank-Fin Stabilized): a shaped charge filled with explosive filler in a conical shape that when detonated includes an explosive effect that maximizes penetration while simultaneously jetting molten metal around in the crew inside. APFSDS (Armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot): basically a spicy toothpick that punctures composite armor and explodes shattered armor in the tank as a sort of shrapnel that jet through the tank at the same speed that the shell would travel before it hit the tank or slower depending on distance, either way, the crew is dead almost instantly if they are lucky. And yes, it’s also VERY hot metal. APHE/APCBC (Armor Piercing High Explosive/ Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped) Both had the same effect >Pierce the armor >go boom >Make tank go boom. Overall, tanks are one of the last vehicles you want to be in during a war.
@zachthomas6144 Yes, he was driver. Sadly i do not know where exactly the tank was hit. It was a Panzer IV with long barrel. This happened right at the end of the war, against the British in northern Germany. There he was captured. He also survived a light headshot in Russia.
@sternleichehe fought eastern front and the fought the western allies, WOW, my great grandfather was from Norway but joined The Finnish army and fought alongside Germans around Leningrad
@ThomasGray-l3w5j Interesting, did not know Norwegians were fighting on the eastern front as well. At some point he fought together with Spaniards and Waloons, he said they were very capable allies. He fought at 4 major battles, Stalingrad, Kursk, Monte Cassino and the Ardennes offensive.
During Desert Storm I saw so many pieces of knocked out armour. The crews scattered in bits around the area. One commander was blown through the cupola and his arms were stripped off as he was blasted out. Many bodies halfway out of hatches. All were burned and split open like over cooked hotdogs. The sickly sweet smell mixed with burned plastic sticks with me. The wild dogs carried off bits to eat later. So that is the reality of stupid fucking wars! Still think combat is cool?
@GarySpeight-cv5sw true. Plenty of k.i.a. in all of my deployments. The burned smell is just different though. Turns on the memory every time I smell any smoke. Barbecue or diesel smoke. Even campfire smoke sometimes makes me think about it. Nothing like these types of memories while enjoying yourself camping with family and friends. I figured time would blurr it but God has different plans for me.
Not gonna lie you guys are the only vets complaining about winning too hard bothering you. That's probably a good thing all considered the coalition ham handedly beat Iraq's ass.
Agreed. SY Simulations is one of few channels dedicated to show shell performance against armor. And they do great job of it! Shame the lack of proper references ruins otherwise this great video
@PFCmittens except he’s right… no engine means no blasty blast and it’s a lot easier to take out the almost not protected engine with a Molotov compared to the armored portions.
@PFCMittensyea the flammable liquid has alot harder of a time draining down onto the crew in a steel box that can just close viewports or have reinforced glass in them, burning the radiator out or destroying the engine with flames would also not only potentiality cook and burn the fuel but also heat up the inside of the tank which could kill if they can't get out or otherwise force the crew out of the tank or in a rare case cook the ammo and cause them to explode inside the tank
@PFCMittens flames would basically just obstruct the view of the crew and make it easier to take out the tank with more upclose and personal solutions
I have a family friend who was a tank commander during Desert Storm and he told me after an enemy tank is hit by an APFSDS from an Abrams you can basically hose out the inside of the tank they hit and not leave too much "debris." He also hinted that they were not usually necessary and that HEAT rounds were sufficient to take out other tanks they encountered but they liked the effect on target from the APFSDS.
APFSDS is required on T64 and T72, their protection capable of defeating 120mm HEAT rounds. But you can use HEAT rounds on T62, T55/54, BMP 1-2-3, BTR, etc
@DonaldBarringer-i5c That's quite the condescending and immature approach. Instead of immature comments, maybe you can do your researches too like some of us who are passionate about these machines and conflicts. Your comment and attitude is so ignorant that it makes you look like a complete farce. Your opinion matter little compared to the historical data we have from museums and the war itself. T72M would still have been able to block HEAT but not the APFSDS. The reason HEAT was still capable is because the Iraqi Army at that time still used T55 and T62 in mass and a loads of BMP.
@mathieumorin7605 i'm not passionate about killing other people who on the whole dont want to be there at all....Being Passionate about such thing says to me your a nutter...
Was listening to an American WW2 tank recovery squad soldier. He mainly did Sherman tanks. They would try and salvage the tanks by welding up holes and doing mechanical repairs and paint the inside ready for the next crew. He said they had to pull what was left of the crews out of the tanks. Body parts and organs brains etc. Most were just bits of flesh, organs and bones smeared all over the inside of the tank. He said if they couldn't get the blood stains out they would just paint over it. Rotten job but had to be done.
One Canadian tank commander in NW Europe needed a tank but before he could use it he had to cut a crew body with Rigor mortis in half with a knife to get it out of the hatch. He gave an order or recommendation later that was not to be performed by anyone again.
@1fires1 His name was Sydney Radley-Walters. He was the allies top tank ace with 18 tank kills and other armoured vehicles. Had three Shermans shot out from under him and some crew members killed. He also possibly may have been the one that ended German tank Ace Michael Wittmann. I watched an interview with him a long time ago on TV, was trying to find that particular interview on utube. I think it was an interview by historian Norm Christie. It's better hearing that body removal incident straight from the man, couldn't find that one but found some other interviews with him. Became Brigadier General retired 1974. I don't know what he was made of.
Good insight. War Thunder is emulating men in metal boxes on tracked wheels attempting to turn each other into charred bits and pieces of shredded meat.
Hm, the exposed caroussel construction isn't overly helful either. Once one charge goes sperical, the rest follows in milliseconds no matter what the cartridge is made of. Peace comes instantly to the crew under those circumstances.
@Centurion101B3Cit's not exposed, otherwise it would tear apart feet of the crew if they forgot to pull legs up😂so the missile must penetrate the roof and the floor to get to the ammunition.
Britain was not involved in the Vietnam war, they were Australian centurion tanks. The addition of sandbags and other "homemade" armour during WW2 according to USA studies ; Was of no benefit to detrimental, where by it initiates the forming of maximum penetrating power as it contacts the actual original tank armour.
Not really so. The jet is abraded into a lower mass value, regardless of what it goes through, and the harder the bond strengths, the better the rejection. Glass, ceramic, granite (as used in Russian tanks), all worked well.
@balrog-xc6gq He clearly did NOT say British DESIGNED Centurions. Multiple Australian Centurion upgraded Mk.5/1(Aust) tanks sustained numerous non-penetrating RPG-2 hits in Vietnam. RPG-7 were more effective. 42/58 Centurions were hit by RPG anti-tank rockets and mines. Six were damaged ( Vehicle Beyond Local Repair) by mines. There were 2 crew KIA. The only Australian Centurion that could possibly be regarded as British was Centurion Mk.3, ARN 169041, the Atomic tank. Once it was deemed radiation from the BRITISH atomic bomb test in South Australia had reduced to a safe level, 169041 was repaired. During subsequent renovation and modernization this tank was brought up to the level of the Centurion Mk.5/1, armed with the type B 20 pounder gun. In September 1968, Centurion 169041 arrived in South Vietnam. It suffered an RPG hit in September 1969 but remained battle-worthy, although there were crew injuries. To illustrate the pride that Aussie tank crews took in their vehicles it should be noted that an US Army M48A3 Patton tank equipped with mine rollers which was on extended loan from the US Army to the Australians had kangaroos stenciled on the turret sides and was given the apt name "SEPTIC".
My summer camp leader in 1991 had just got out of the Gulf War. He was a Marine Humvee TOW gunner. He showed me many pictures of things they blew up and dead Iraqi soldiers. I saw what many types of different weapons did to many types of vehicles. It was a massacre, not a war.
And they were the ones who started it. Invading Kuwait, threatening everybody in the region, and we had one come up on the berm about 800 M from us grabbing his testicles through his pants and flipping us off while cursing Us in his not very good English. 3 days after that began, I had the honour to encourage him to stop. It didn't take much encouragement, his upper body went one way and his legs went a different way.
There's now even a new evolution of the turtle tank! The hedgehog tank! The idea of so many metal sticks pointing outward, drone blades damage and loose controll far before the shaped charge they carry, can neatly hit armor. Also harder to blow way in for the 2nd drone. It works, looks absolutely insanely ridiculous and the tiny designed Russian tanks are now massive metal hedgehogs.
I am Dragon qualified. It's a wire guided anti tank rocket that is similar to the TOW missles that were usually mounted to vehicles. A thermal tracker can be attached that can see heat through smoke, etc. It was a nasty treat that was bulky to carry as an infantryman.
The crews of a direct hit from a hollow charge shell were mostly killed immediately before the tank 'brewed up'.The grisly job of repairing the tank and removing the crew must have been one hell of an effort. Something that you and i could never fathom.But there were people who actually did it.😢🤮😱
I have heard soldiers talk about the trauma that they suffered having to clean out and hose down the inside of Sherman tanks after they were hit by an 88. They never really got over the awfulness that they witnessed.
One Canadian tank commander in NW Europe needed a tank but before he could use it he had to cut a crew body with Rigor mortis in half with a knife to get it out of the hatch. He gave an order or recommendation later that was not to be performed by anyone again.
Side skirts weren't added to protect against anti tank rifle rounds, otherwise they would have appeared much earlier. They were meant to protect against HEAT rounds by increasing the standoff distance of the shell to make the molten metal jet ineffective.
Hm, being a former TC myself, having seen the results of a HESH on a T-62, where the former crew could dismount from it through the 2" drainage plugs, put things into pretty clear perspective.
17:48 you're talking about ERA but showing off a Merkava (3 or 4) with it's Trophy APS (Active Protection System) which works fundamentally different that ERA which is a passive protection system.
One Canadian tank commander in NW Europe needed a tank but before he could use it he had to cut a crew body with Rigor mortis in half with a knife to get it out of the hatch. He gave an order or recommendation later that was not to be performed by anyone again.
I had an idea of making a video like this when my interest was peaked in crew damage. I found old ww2 autopsy photos and many other photos to see what actually happened and its weird to see someone with the same idea as me for something so specific.
The change over time is remarkable. I've read accounts of Soviet tanks hit by German high velocity rounds in ww2 and it was very common for crew lose limbs especially legs for some reason. Modern sabot can paste an entire turret crew and yet also fly straight through a bmp without much effect. Tank crews very statistically much more likely to die to fire and yet are also far safer in wartime than infantry.
BMPs have very thin armor; the armor up front was designed to stop .50 caliber at best. In WW2, when the US was fighting Japanese tanks, they had to use HE rounds because the AP would just pass through the Japanese tank.
When I was in the army rumors were going around about the "mile a second" round, the APFSDS long dart penetrator. Some people said that when the army was testing the ammo at Aberdeen Proving Ground, they shot a tank with live sheep in it to see what effect it would have on anything living. Supposedly, the sheep all got sucked out a hole about an inch in diameter on the other side. Bulls**t story or not, it wouldn't be a pleasant experience, to say the least.
Major walking up to the tank: "Captain, was the round deadly? What happened to the sheep?" Captain squirming a bit while you see some soldiers in the background grilling on a BBQ grill. Captain: "They were vaporized and sucked out of the exit hole" while sweating. Major: "Nice work lads." Captain relaxes and goes for a sheep kebab to his soldiers.
I think with all the fragments travelling through the air and ripping through the sheep, along with ignition and overpressure, the sheep wouldn't have time to process it all. At least I hope so. Poor sheep lol.
@lukasi.v4269 LOL. I think it was a golf ball size hole in the rumor, not an inch like I said, but that wouldn't make any difference to the sheep. They would have turned into a pile of jelly with wool in it.
My father was as a tanker with the 14/20 hussars. He served through much of the North Africa, Italy and Austria campaigns. He would only talk about amusing anecdotes in the mess and so forth. He refused to discuss his vast experience of combat and the aftermath. I guess he simply had learned to block them out.
Nice documentary but one inaccuracy. The side skirts, schurzen , on German tanks were introduced later in war not to protect against anti tank rifles . They were installed to protect against hollow shaped charges and explosives. They did not obstruct crews view because they were installed below fighting compartment. They might have offered some protection to the running gear by anti tank rifles but that wasn't their primary purpose. An enjoyable documentary.
WOW, this is the first time, I see the "reversed rifle bullet" and its effect as early adaption against tanks properly explained. I mean not only vaguely mentioned or misleadingly shown as magicly working penetrator, but perfectly correct explained! Only thing I´d like to have seen added: WHY or how this setup actually worked - the reversed bullets wider, and softer base striking first reduced the probability of the pointy nose bouncing straight off from an offset angle of impact, so much more energy being directly transfered into the armor, causing shockwaves in the material, instead of propelling the bullet harmlessly further into the distance. Thats what the "inert padding" of the HESH round at 15:21 is for - basically an empty space to collaps the outer hull to adjust its angle of impact on the amour Nevertheless: cudos!
All those anti-tank weapons pale in comparison to the latest phenomenon on the battlefield, the toy drone, with long range, absolute accuracy, and capable of targeting a wide variety of targets from soldiers to tanks, nothing is safe anymore. The toy drone, the ideal weapon for the infantryman. The possibilities for deployability are almost endless, ideal for urban warfare, perfect for tank destruction, dug-in enemies are no problem, and reconnaissance is also easy to do, foldable, compact, and lightweight - an all-in-one weapon.
The vacuum effect of the dart passing through the tank would actually suck bodies/ liquids out of bodes (Based on above comment) through the exit hole?
1:54, the further right arrow is actually pointing at a machine gun, it's a M1914 Lewis machine gun. There was also "hermaphrodite" ones who had one side like a "male" tank, and the other like a "female" one.
12:54 most of this segment about standoff distance is wrong. Even back then you'd need significant amount of space to decrease a HEAT round penetration, and before that there is a significant distance where the space actually increase the performance of a HEAT projectile as it gives much more distance to the jet to form, making it thinner, this giving it more matter to go through the armor. The side skirts on German tanks actually made those weapons much more effective as they gave such distance, but also made nice flat surfaces to impact where otherwise partially hitting a fender, track, wheel, etc could have changed the impact angle.
@jeremyfoster6942 Pull the bullet from a cartridge, dump the powder (for safety) and insert the bullet as shown. Now chamber your round. The bolt invariably WON'T go forward. why?
@David-e1b3t At their inception in 1916, the British Mark I tank proved nearly impenetrable to standard rifle fire. The first attempt at boosting the power of German infantry rifles was the "reversed bullet". This used the same case and bullet as a normal round, except with the bullet seated backward and additional propellant added to the 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge. When fired, the blunt end of the bullet hit the target first. The bullet did not as readily deflect or break apart against armor plating as a normal bullet would, but transferred most of its kinetic energy to the steel plate on impact.[1] Used against World War I tanks, the reversed bullet sometimes penetrated into the tank compartment, but more often it severely indented the plate armor of the tank. This caused a spray of metal fragments (spall) that injured or killed the crew of the tank as effectively as full penetration into the tank compartment.[2] At short range, armor required a minimum thickness of .50 in (13 mm) in order to stop a reversed bullet.[1] The allies spread stories that reversed bullets were illegal, improvised, expanding bullets used by Germans against French infantry at short ranges
05:20 'How that looked' or 'what that looked like', not 'how that looked like'. I'm not trolling, I'm not really criticising either, just correcting something that drives me up the wall. Aside from that, an interesting video but please proof read in future.
Ah, you mean the massacre on the convoy where tanks had their gun in the transport bracket and afterwards the assessment teams stopped counting the civilian casualties at 1500? You mean that one? I wouldn't call that a tank-engagement. In my book that was a war crime.
If you want to be part of a tank crew, you have to do like the Formula 1 drivers. Death is not in your thoughts, you drive it, load it, shoot it and fight. Coming from someone who served in an M109 Kawest even though I wasn't in a real MBT, we are an artillery crew that needs to move fast.
Killer drones like the FPV, and rail guns will make tanks as we know them death traps for their crews. The only way I see tanks continuing to have a role in warfare is autonomous operation as a drone armed with a rail gun, LASER or both in combination with heavy or mefium machibe guns. It will certainly be able to deploy and recover smaller drones, conduct surveillance, counter mines and protect infantry as well as other drones.
Even if a Molotov did not blow up the tank, which I would think it rarely did, catching the engine are on fire, even for only a moment could melt wires and render it dead were it sits.
It's important to note that APHE (Armor Piercing, High Explosive. A catch all term for Armor Piercing shells with Explosive Filler) was abandoned because the additional effect after armor was comparatively minimal. Momentum carried the shrapnel of the burst in the same forward cone that the spalling of the armor and the damaged projectile followed. While the effect was greater it was not tremendously so and in turn the cavity the explosive sat in caused the shells to lose penetrative performance due to loss of structural integrity. Most US tank shells initially used APHE but then swapped over to simple AP without explosive because it was negatively impacting their performance against armor. A good example of this comes with the late war American 90mm M3 Gun. Mounted upon the M36 Jackson Tank Destroyer and the M26 Pershing Heavy Tank (later reclassified as a Medium Tank in 1947) The M82 Shot was a capable APHE round that could counter everything up to a Tiger 1 but due to the penetrative flaws of APHE could not threaten the upper glacis plate of a Panther that while thinner than a Tiger 1's was sloped to an effectiveness about 40% superior to a Tiger 1's upper glacis due to effective thickness also known as line of sight thickness. Simply put a thinner plate angled steeply can present an effectively thicker plate than a thicker flat plate, though mechanically this only works if the thinner plate is not substantially thinner and the angle is severe. However the result was the same. 90mm Gun armed TDs that arrived earlier than the M26 showed shocking ineffectiveness against Panthers. The US solved this by taking an older simple AP shell, M77 which was rejected due to poor performance, reheating the penetrator to make it harder and redesigning the nose to shatter in a more controlled fashion to reduce the nose of the shell deflecting away from sloped armor plates. The result was the T33 Shot. A shell with both excellent flat and sloped armor penetration. Performance went from being completely incapable of penetrating the thickest armor of a Panther to easily cutting through it like butter out to ranges around about a kilometer. Seeing such success the US deemed that HE filler for shells was redundant and generally a negative aspect as their main concern was penetrating the armor in the first place, a penetrated tank was usually a destroyed or abandoned tank anyway so dealing slightly more damage at the cost of lowering the chance of defeating armor was seen as unacceptable.
My father fought US Army in WWII and the Korean War. He told me about "Sticky Bombs"; you take a dudes sock, pack it with axle grease, and just before deploying, you pull the pin on a grenade and stuff it into the sock. Then you slap the greasy sock onto a track drive wheel on the tank, and run around to the other side of the tank! A tank with only one functioning track is just a target. Sure, fire all the rounds you got, till dead, but it's still, "Game over Man!" for that tank...
![ARIN! LIVES are on the LINE! | Pokemon Grumplocke [9]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0Oz3IhKsYg/mqdefault.jpg)
Why do I feel like I've been clickbaited?!?
Me too. Learned nothing here.
@bobkozalov-1243ok let me help.
HEAT/HEAT-FS (High Explosive Anti Tank-Fin Stabilized): a shaped charge filled with explosive filler in a conical shape that when detonated includes an explosive effect that maximizes penetration while simultaneously jetting molten metal around in the crew inside.
APFSDS (Armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot): basically a spicy toothpick that punctures composite armor and explodes shattered armor in the tank as a sort of shrapnel that jet through the tank at the same speed that the shell would travel before it hit the tank or slower depending on distance, either way, the crew is dead almost instantly if they are lucky. And yes, it’s also VERY hot metal.
APHE/APCBC
(Armor Piercing High Explosive/ Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped)
Both had the same effect
>Pierce the armor
>go boom
>Make tank go boom.
Overall, tanks are one of the last vehicles you want to be in during a war.
@Bentleystar-y3e5s You didn't say anything that I didn't know before. The question remains.
My grandfather did survive a direct hit on his tank, the whole rest of the crew was killed.
God luck
I’m curious what the full story is… was he driving and the hit was on the turret? That’s crazy luck tho he has a guardian angel for sure
@zachthomas6144 Yes, he was driver. Sadly i do not know where exactly the tank was hit.
It was a Panzer IV with long barrel.
This happened right at the end of the war, against the British in northern Germany. There he was captured. He also survived a light headshot in Russia.
@sternleichehe fought eastern front and the fought the western allies, WOW, my great grandfather was from Norway but joined The Finnish army and fought alongside Germans around Leningrad
@ThomasGray-l3w5j Interesting, did not know Norwegians were fighting on the eastern front as well.
At some point he fought together with Spaniards and Waloons, he said they were very capable allies.
He fought at 4 major battles, Stalingrad, Kursk, Monte Cassino and the Ardennes offensive.
During Desert Storm I saw so many pieces of knocked out armour. The crews scattered in bits around the area. One commander was blown through the cupola and his arms were stripped off as he was blasted out. Many bodies halfway out of hatches. All were burned and split open like over cooked hotdogs. The sickly sweet smell mixed with burned plastic sticks with me. The wild dogs carried off bits to eat later. So that is the reality of stupid fucking wars! Still think combat is cool?
Sounds awesome. No, just kidding, that sounds horrible. War is insane.
Sickly sweet is exactly the smell of death 😐
@GarySpeight-cv5sw true. Plenty of k.i.a. in all of my deployments. The burned smell is just different though. Turns on the memory every time I smell any smoke. Barbecue or diesel smoke. Even campfire smoke sometimes makes me think about it. Nothing like these types of memories while enjoying yourself camping with family and friends. I figured time would blurr it but God has different plans for me.
Sadly, there will always be someone who does.
Not gonna lie you guys are the only vets complaining about winning too hard bothering you. That's probably a good thing all considered the coalition ham handedly beat Iraq's ass.
Incredibly uncool of you to blur out SY Simulations' RUclips logo.
Yep. What's even the point of doing that? Now the owner of that was a reason to file a complaint
Agreed. SY Simulations is one of few channels dedicated to show shell performance against armor. And they do great job of it!
Shame the lack of proper references ruins otherwise this great video
Please give SY Simulations proper credit.
That channel is so biased.
"Have you ever had a morbid curios.." yes, yes i have.
Molotovs were usually thrown at the engine grills not the crew compartment
Source: I play games
@PFCmittens except he’s right… no engine means no blasty blast and it’s a lot easier to take out the almost not protected engine with a Molotov compared to the armored portions.
@PFCMittensyea the flammable liquid has alot harder of a time draining down onto the crew in a steel box that can just close viewports or have reinforced glass in them, burning the radiator out or destroying the engine with flames would also not only potentiality cook and burn the fuel but also heat up the inside of the tank which could kill if they can't get out or otherwise force the crew out of the tank or in a rare case cook the ammo and cause them to explode inside the tank
@PFCMittens flames would basically just obstruct the view of the crew and make it easier to take out the tank with more upclose and personal solutions
True, but since the t34s were super badly welded molotovs could set internal components on fire as well
lots of inconsistencies, wrong images, editing glitches, not done well
I have a family friend who was a tank commander during Desert Storm and he told me after an enemy tank is hit by an APFSDS from an Abrams you can basically hose out the inside of the tank they hit and not leave too much "debris." He also hinted that they were not usually necessary and that HEAT rounds were sufficient to take out other tanks they encountered but they liked the effect on target from the APFSDS.
APFSDS is required on T64 and T72, their protection capable of defeating 120mm HEAT rounds. But you can use HEAT rounds on T62, T55/54, BMP 1-2-3, BTR, etc
@mathieumorin7605 Probably wasting Heat rounds on BMPs and BTRs. Should be using LAVs, Strykers, or equivalents in those theaters.
@mathieumorin7605 it wasn't in 1991. Just because you play War Thunder doesn't mean you know how war works ❤
@DonaldBarringer-i5c That's quite the condescending and immature approach.
Instead of immature comments, maybe you can do your researches too like some of us who are passionate about these machines and conflicts.
Your comment and attitude is so ignorant that it makes you look like a complete farce. Your opinion matter little compared to the historical data we have from museums and the war itself. T72M would still have been able to block HEAT but not the APFSDS. The reason HEAT was still capable is because the Iraqi Army at that time still used T55 and T62 in mass and a loads of BMP.
@mathieumorin7605 i'm not passionate about killing other people who on the whole dont want to be there at all....Being Passionate about such thing says to me your a nutter...
Ugh, I'm not even a mil history buff and I can tell this is a sloppy script.
It may be sloppy, but it still serves its purpose. HESH really was a pretty mid idea
Be better with a human narator
They always mix up "Lead" as in to lead a team, with "Lead" the metal.
@antman2826
True 😅
HOHMOHGEENUS AHRMUHR
Be better with factual information.
@antman2826 Not to mention the "homo genus" bit.
Was listening to an American WW2 tank recovery squad soldier. He mainly did Sherman tanks. They would try and salvage the tanks by welding up holes and doing mechanical repairs and paint the inside ready for the next crew. He said they had to pull what was left of the crews out of the tanks. Body parts and organs brains etc. Most were just bits of flesh, organs and bones smeared all over the inside of the tank. He said if they couldn't get the blood stains out they would just paint over it. Rotten job but had to be done.
Belton Cooper?
@bsdetector6908 Cant remember sorry.
One Canadian tank commander in NW Europe needed a tank but before he could use it he had to cut a crew body with Rigor mortis in half with a knife to get it out of the hatch. He gave an order or recommendation later that was not to be performed by anyone again.
@bobkozalov-1243 Wow that's horrible.
@1fires1 His name was Sydney Radley-Walters. He was the allies top tank ace with 18 tank kills and other armoured vehicles. Had three Shermans shot out from under him and some crew members killed. He also possibly may have been the one that ended German tank Ace Michael Wittmann. I watched an interview with him a long time ago on TV, was trying to find that particular interview on utube. I think it was an interview by historian Norm Christie. It's better hearing that body removal incident straight from the man, couldn't find that one but found some other interviews with him. Became Brigadier General retired 1974. I don't know what he was made of.
Hermaphrodite tanks had machine guns on one side and 6pounder on other 👍
Fact:
Soviet tank crews had less life expectancy than German U-Boot crews.
☠️
Thats a myth, not a fact. Dont embarass yourself and do some research
Other nations: use armor to protect a crew.
Soviets (later Russians): Use crew to protect motherland
Not Gewehr. Gewehr is German for rifle. The German anti tank measure of the Great War is called Tankgewehr M1918.
So... this in theory makes War Thunder into the most cruel and gore game that ever existed.
Good insight. War Thunder is emulating men in metal boxes on tracked wheels attempting to turn each other into charred bits and pieces of shredded meat.
Ghpc would be more accurate
there's APFSDS rounds that go beyond 1800 m/s btw
edit: The carousel itself isn't fully the issue, it's the really sensitive old soviet propellant
and lack of blowout panels.IF they wanted they could have designed it blow out the side instead of the crew hatches... but didn't.
It's additional ammunition that was stuck everywhere, not the carousel.
Hm, the exposed caroussel construction isn't overly helful either. Once one charge goes sperical, the rest follows in milliseconds no matter what the cartridge is made of. Peace comes instantly to the crew under those circumstances.
@Centurion101B3Cit's not exposed, otherwise it would tear apart feet of the crew if they forgot to pull legs up😂so the missile must penetrate the roof and the floor to get to the ammunition.
@Kotroniusz Hm, Ever been inside a tank?
2:50 so the German Anti Tank Weapon is the AMR grand daddy of the 50cal and Denel NTW-20 We get today?
Yeah pretty much. It was just an upsized Gewehr 98 that they slapped a pistol grip and a bipod on and chambered in 13.2 mm TuF.
BOOM Panzergewehr.
@MordecaiBL1 you mean Tankgewehr M1918
Great overview. Thank you
where do yu get 14 kilometers / second frome?
Britain was not involved in the Vietnam war, they were Australian centurion tanks.
The addition of sandbags and other "homemade" armour during WW2 according to USA studies ; Was of no benefit to detrimental, where by it initiates the forming of maximum penetrating power as it contacts the actual original tank armour.
I think he was referencing that the centurion is a British design.
Not really so. The jet is abraded into a lower mass value, regardless of what it goes through, and the harder the bond strengths, the better the rejection. Glass, ceramic, granite (as used in Russian tanks), all worked well.
@balrog-xc6gq He clearly did NOT say British DESIGNED Centurions.
Multiple Australian Centurion upgraded Mk.5/1(Aust) tanks sustained numerous non-penetrating RPG-2 hits in Vietnam. RPG-7 were more effective.
42/58 Centurions were hit by RPG anti-tank rockets and mines. Six were damaged ( Vehicle Beyond Local Repair) by mines.
There were 2 crew KIA.
The only Australian Centurion that could possibly be regarded as British was Centurion Mk.3, ARN 169041, the Atomic tank. Once it was deemed radiation from the BRITISH atomic bomb test in South Australia had reduced to a safe level, 169041 was repaired. During subsequent renovation and modernization this tank was brought up to the level of the Centurion Mk.5/1, armed with the type B 20 pounder gun. In September 1968, Centurion 169041 arrived in South Vietnam. It suffered an RPG hit in September 1969 but remained battle-worthy, although there were crew injuries.
To illustrate the pride that Aussie tank crews took in their vehicles it should be noted that an US Army M48A3 Patton tank equipped with mine rollers which was on extended loan from the US Army to the Australians had kangaroos stenciled on the turret sides and was given the apt name "SEPTIC".
03:40 lead core of the bullet, as in the metal lead core.
0:45 we could have had land ships instead of tanks‽
didnt put credits to SY Simulations for the sherman spalling simulation on 06:40
whats the shot simulation thing called, i have wanted to try it out for a long time and it would be great if i knew what its called
It's much worse than you could ever imagine or that any 30 minute video could prepare you for...
LEAD as in LEADER - I think you mean led for lead in bullets.
Smell carrys more memories for me than any other sense.
one thing not mentioned in the video are grenade bundles, very popular with german anti tank squads.
>made of soft flesh
Thank you, sire, I thought they were metal dieselpunk cyborgs
Buddy ....I don't know about some of these statements.
My summer camp leader in 1991 had just got out of the Gulf War. He was a Marine Humvee TOW gunner. He showed me many pictures of things they blew up and dead Iraqi soldiers. I saw what many types of different weapons did to many types of vehicles. It was a massacre, not a war.
Short in duration .
And they were the ones who started it. Invading Kuwait, threatening everybody in the region, and we had one come up on the berm about 800 M from us grabbing his testicles through his pants and flipping us off while cursing Us in his not very good English. 3 days after that began, I had the honour to encourage him to stop. It didn't take much encouragement, his upper body went one way and his legs went a different way.
8:51 imagine having to destroy your ally tank so that the crew inside dident have to suffer💀
Oh dear, chobe-ham armour ?
My uncle was tank gunner at Tobruk. He survived with shrapnell through his ear!!
I heard that in WW2 , even after beeing desinfected + coats of fresh paint , the stench of death still persist long after ...
2:01
today i actually learned something new about tanks
13:52 For this clip, it is, in fact, the more effective and cheaper way to destroy a tank, by a drone.
i laughed when he said "thicker armor", tanks now has NO armor.
@17:56 the shaped charge called APFSDS ...
There's now even a new evolution of the turtle tank! The hedgehog tank! The idea of so many metal sticks pointing outward, drone blades damage and loose controll far before the shaped charge they carry, can neatly hit armor.
Also harder to blow way in for the 2nd drone. It works, looks absolutely insanely ridiculous and the tiny designed Russian tanks are now massive metal hedgehogs.
Oh I saw that, such tanks are often called "Mad Max" tanks due to the similarity with some of Mad Max's car designs.
They should paint them blue, they'd be the fastest things on the battlefield...
you go so far in adv4nced w4rfare that you actually go backwards, m4d m4x style lol
Don't forget the sturmtiger...
I am Dragon qualified. It's a wire guided anti tank rocket that is similar to the TOW missles that were usually mounted to vehicles. A thermal tracker can be attached that can see heat through smoke, etc. It was a nasty treat that was bulky to carry as an infantryman.
I heard it was hard to guide/aim. Is that your impression as well?
The crews of a direct hit from a hollow charge shell were mostly killed immediately before the tank 'brewed up'.The grisly job of repairing the tank and removing the crew must have been one hell of an effort. Something that you and i could never fathom.But there were people who actually did it.😢🤮😱
I have heard soldiers talk about the trauma that they suffered having to clean out and hose down the inside of Sherman tanks after they were hit by an 88. They never really got over the awfulness that they witnessed.
That's why there's a drain on the deck of an Abrams tank...
One Canadian tank commander in NW Europe needed a tank but before he could use it he had to cut a crew body with Rigor mortis in half with a knife to get it out of the hatch. He gave an order or recommendation later that was not to be performed by anyone again.
Tanks were called tanks because they looked like water tanks from what I remember
Side skirts weren't added to protect against anti tank rifle rounds, otherwise they would have appeared much earlier. They were meant to protect against HEAT rounds by increasing the standoff distance of the shell to make the molten metal jet ineffective.
is the A7V at 4:44 a screenshot from warthunder?
Very well done.
Hm, being a former TC myself, having seen the results of a HESH on a T-62, where the former crew could dismount from it through the 2" drainage plugs, put things into pretty clear perspective.
Nice video. well done
17:48 you're talking about ERA but showing off a Merkava (3 or 4) with it's Trophy APS (Active Protection System) which works fundamentally different that ERA which is a passive protection system.
Dang, you beat me to it. Completely different system than ERA. Nice catch.
Heard they just make them a little sad and maybe have a headache.
US WW2 soldier said he was tasked to empty a Sherman. Said i wondered why their was a 10 year old's burnt skeleton inside. Heat had shrunk the body.
What an awful job.
One Canadian tank commander in NW Europe needed a tank but before he could use it he had to cut a crew body with Rigor mortis in half with a knife to get it out of the hatch. He gave an order or recommendation later that was not to be performed by anyone again.
@shannon6876nobody stops to think that someone has to clean up after a battle.
So that's the etymology of the word "Tank"😮 cool❤
I had an idea of making a video like this when my interest was peaked in crew damage. I found old ww2 autopsy photos and many other photos to see what actually happened and its weird to see someone with the same idea as me for something so specific.
The change over time is remarkable. I've read accounts of Soviet tanks hit by German high velocity rounds in ww2 and it was very common for crew lose limbs especially legs for some reason. Modern sabot can paste an entire turret crew and yet also fly straight through a bmp without much effect. Tank crews very statistically much more likely to die to fire and yet are also far safer in wartime than infantry.
BMPs have very thin armor; the armor up front was designed to stop .50 caliber at best. In WW2, when the US was fighting Japanese tanks, they had to use HE rounds because the AP would just pass through the Japanese tank.
When I was in the army rumors were going around about the "mile a second" round, the APFSDS long dart penetrator. Some people said that when the army was testing the ammo at Aberdeen Proving Ground, they shot a tank with live sheep in it to see what effect it would have on anything living. Supposedly, the sheep all got sucked out a hole about an inch in diameter on the other side. Bulls**t story or not, it wouldn't be a pleasant experience, to say the least.
Major walking up to the tank: "Captain, was the round deadly? What happened to the sheep?"
Captain squirming a bit while you see some soldiers in the background grilling on a BBQ grill.
Captain: "They were vaporized and sucked out of the exit hole" while sweating.
Major: "Nice work lads."
Captain relaxes and goes for a sheep kebab to his soldiers.
I think with all the fragments travelling through the air and ripping through the sheep, along with ignition and overpressure, the sheep wouldn't have time to process it all. At least I hope so. Poor sheep lol.
@lukasi.v4269 LOL. I think it was a golf ball size hole in the rumor, not an inch like I said, but that wouldn't make any difference to the sheep. They would have turned into a pile of jelly with wool in it.
I have a dvd set called the world ar war it showed a seen of two crewman who were completely chard bodies when thier tank was hit
Watch that a couple times you wou,d think the brits won the war by themself. Th pacific war was hardly covered very poor.
@davidbusch784TBF The classic World at War was a British series.
MAKE your own bluddy war documentary!
The tank crews have very emotional day
13:02 I thought the skirts were to protect against anti-tank rifle fire
My father was as a tanker with the 14/20 hussars. He served through much of the North Africa, Italy and Austria campaigns. He would only talk about amusing anecdotes in the mess and so forth. He refused to discuss his vast experience of combat and the aftermath. I guess he simply had learned to block them out.
Not luck.
God’s Grace. With grim specificity lest you forget.
Say hallelujah.
God Be with Us all.
My friends father was at Anzio, and his job was to retrieve radio equipment out of stabled allied tanks. It was a ghastly task.
Have I had a morbid curiosity about this topic? Oh ay! Indeed I have.
Nice documentary but one inaccuracy. The side skirts, schurzen , on German tanks were introduced later in war not to protect against anti tank rifles . They were installed to protect against hollow shaped charges and explosives. They did not obstruct crews view because they were installed below fighting compartment. They might have offered some protection to the running gear by anti tank rifles but that wasn't their primary purpose. An enjoyable documentary.
Interesting video but thumbs down for computer voice
Yes very curious
WOW, this is the first time, I see the "reversed rifle bullet" and its effect as early adaption against tanks properly explained. I mean not only vaguely mentioned or misleadingly shown as magicly working penetrator, but perfectly correct explained!
Only thing I´d like to have seen added: WHY or how this setup actually worked - the reversed bullets wider, and softer base striking first reduced the probability of the pointy nose bouncing straight off from an offset angle of impact, so much more energy being directly transfered into the armor, causing shockwaves in the material, instead of propelling the bullet harmlessly further into the distance. Thats what the "inert padding" of the HESH round at 15:21 is for - basically an empty space to collaps the outer hull to adjust its angle of impact on the amour
Nevertheless: cudos!
20:00 the olympic sport of turret tossing😂😂😂
All those anti-tank weapons pale in comparison to the latest phenomenon on the battlefield, the toy drone, with long range, absolute accuracy, and capable of targeting a wide variety of targets from soldiers to tanks, nothing is safe anymore.
The toy drone, the ideal weapon for the infantryman.
The possibilities for deployability are almost endless, ideal for urban warfare, perfect for tank destruction, dug-in enemies are no problem, and reconnaissance is also easy to do, foldable, compact, and lightweight - an all-in-one weapon.
did you ask chatGPT to write an advertisement on fpv drones or what
Good one
Incredibly uncool of you to blur out SY Simulations' RUclips logo. smh
"calcified"
Another word I can add to my lexicon
When the crew gets sucked out the exit hole we call that "spaghetti on the back deck" 😐
The vacuum effect of the dart passing through the tank would actually suck bodies/ liquids out of bodes (Based on above comment) through the exit hole?
War thunder: gunner unconscious
Anti tank crews, with bazooka and PanzerShreks, had a VERY tough time of it! Very high loss rate.
1:54, the further right arrow is actually pointing at a machine gun, it's a M1914 Lewis machine gun.
There was also "hermaphrodite" ones who had one side like a "male" tank, and the other like a "female" one.
I'm sad the A-10 wasn't mentioned
We mentioned it in the Gatling gun video to compensate :)
12:54 most of this segment about standoff distance is wrong.
Even back then you'd need significant amount of space to decrease a HEAT round penetration, and before that there is a significant distance where the space actually increase the performance of a HEAT projectile as it gives much more distance to the jet to form, making it thinner, this giving it more matter to go through the armor.
The side skirts on German tanks actually made those weapons much more effective as they gave such distance, but also made nice flat surfaces to impact where otherwise partially hitting a fender, track, wheel, etc could have changed the impact angle.
3:14 picture is wrong. The ammo shown is practically guaranteed to never chamber
It's a single shot bolt action rifle.
@jeremyfoster6942 Pull the bullet from a cartridge, dump the powder (for safety) and insert the bullet as shown.
Now chamber your round. The bolt invariably WON'T go forward.
why?
@David-e1b3t At their inception in 1916, the British Mark I tank proved nearly impenetrable to standard rifle fire. The first attempt at boosting the power of German infantry rifles was the "reversed bullet". This used the same case and bullet as a normal round, except with the bullet seated backward and additional propellant added to the 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge. When fired, the blunt end of the bullet hit the target first. The bullet did not as readily deflect or break apart against armor plating as a normal bullet would, but transferred most of its kinetic energy to the steel plate on impact.[1] Used against World War I tanks, the reversed bullet sometimes penetrated into the tank compartment, but more often it severely indented the plate armor of the tank. This caused a spray of metal fragments (spall) that injured or killed the crew of the tank as effectively as full penetration into the tank compartment.[2] At short range, armor required a minimum thickness of .50 in (13 mm) in order to stop a reversed bullet.[1] The allies spread stories that reversed bullets were illegal, improvised, expanding bullets used by Germans against French infantry at short ranges
05:20 'How that looked' or 'what that looked like', not 'how that looked like'. I'm not trolling, I'm not really criticising either, just correcting something that drives me up the wall. Aside from that, an interesting video but please proof read in future.
You can't be real
Can't be... serious*?
@tahyang67
@General_1220 We've moved on to 68.
@Lowest_Levels69
Lead as in the metal not first position...
You failed to mention the great tank battles during the gulf war against the revolutionary guard corps of saddam
Ah, you mean the massacre on the convoy where tanks had their gun in the transport bracket and afterwards the assessment teams stopped counting the civilian casualties at 1500? You mean that one? I wouldn't call that a tank-engagement. In my book that was a war crime.
@Centurion101B3CI was talking about the battle of 73 easting but that massacre was crazy too
Strange i hear the story of burning radio operators on squad from german storys in the osther front.
I always knew what happened to the crews inside, they die
No
The used the word tank as a code word because to them it looked like a huge tank of water
0:46 im 99. Like 😊
The Panzerfaust was developed before bazooka's reached the front lines.
There was a time when you would probably feel pretty good in a tank but now it's a death trap one missile long range artillery hit its over
We dont need a history of tanks. Get on with the topic.
If you want to be part of a tank crew, you have to do like the Formula 1 drivers. Death is not in your thoughts, you drive it, load it, shoot it and fight.
Coming from someone who served in an M109 Kawest even though I wasn't in a real MBT, we are an artillery crew that needs to move fast.
Killer drones like the FPV, and rail guns will make tanks as we know them death traps for their crews. The only way I see tanks continuing to have a role in warfare is autonomous operation as a drone armed with a rail gun, LASER or both in combination with heavy or mefium machibe guns. It will certainly be able to deploy and recover smaller drones, conduct surveillance, counter mines and protect infantry as well as other drones.
Even if a Molotov did not blow up the tank, which I would think it rarely did, catching the engine are on fire, even for only a moment could melt wires and render it dead were it sits.
Even if you have to use autotune pls use human voice
The skirting or spaced armour was there to detonate shaped charge projectiles nothing to do with anti tank rifles. WTF?
Homo-genius armor. 😅
It's important to note that APHE (Armor Piercing, High Explosive. A catch all term for Armor Piercing shells with Explosive Filler) was abandoned because the additional effect after armor was comparatively minimal. Momentum carried the shrapnel of the burst in the same forward cone that the spalling of the armor and the damaged projectile followed. While the effect was greater it was not tremendously so and in turn the cavity the explosive sat in caused the shells to lose penetrative performance due to loss of structural integrity.
Most US tank shells initially used APHE but then swapped over to simple AP without explosive because it was negatively impacting their performance against armor. A good example of this comes with the late war American 90mm M3 Gun. Mounted upon the M36 Jackson Tank Destroyer and the M26 Pershing Heavy Tank (later reclassified as a Medium Tank in 1947)
The M82 Shot was a capable APHE round that could counter everything up to a Tiger 1 but due to the penetrative flaws of APHE could not threaten the upper glacis plate of a Panther that while thinner than a Tiger 1's was sloped to an effectiveness about 40% superior to a Tiger 1's upper glacis due to effective thickness also known as line of sight thickness. Simply put a thinner plate angled steeply can present an effectively thicker plate than a thicker flat plate, though mechanically this only works if the thinner plate is not substantially thinner and the angle is severe.
However the result was the same. 90mm Gun armed TDs that arrived earlier than the M26 showed shocking ineffectiveness against Panthers. The US solved this by taking an older simple AP shell, M77 which was rejected due to poor performance, reheating the penetrator to make it harder and redesigning the nose to shatter in a more controlled fashion to reduce the nose of the shell deflecting away from sloped armor plates. The result was the T33 Shot. A shell with both excellent flat and sloped armor penetration. Performance went from being completely incapable of penetrating the thickest armor of a Panther to easily cutting through it like butter out to ranges around about a kilometer.
Seeing such success the US deemed that HE filler for shells was redundant and generally a negative aspect as their main concern was penetrating the armor in the first place, a penetrated tank was usually a destroyed or abandoned tank anyway so dealing slightly more damage at the cost of lowering the chance of defeating armor was seen as unacceptable.
Well, obviously, they just go unconscious.
My father fought US Army in WWII and the Korean War. He told me about "Sticky Bombs"; you take a dudes sock, pack it with axle grease, and just before deploying, you pull the pin on a grenade and stuff it into the sock. Then you slap the greasy sock onto a track drive wheel on the tank, and run around to the other side of the tank! A tank with only one functioning track is just a target. Sure, fire all the rounds you got, till dead, but it's still, "Game over Man!" for that tank...
How do we defend against explosives?
Soviets: more explosives!
PanzerShrek. Loool.