Clearly, the 183mm L4 is the most humane weapon ever derived, kills machines not men.

@reform-revolution

Жыл бұрын

Until you remember the mechanics it puts on s*icide watch after each hit

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

Remember that the crash test dummies used in these tests were Not fitted with any sort of device to measure the actual level of the various impact loads on a human body. There is the appearance that the "crew" survived but nothing to measure if their brains and internal organs had been scrambled.

@TheJimyyy

Жыл бұрын

not really , it dont kill the people in the tank only because of the add on armor , they also try on a centurion and it blow up the turret and rekt most of the tank .

@bongobrandy6297

Жыл бұрын

Tongue arrested for cheek assault. News at 11.

@scrubsrc4084

Жыл бұрын

It does not kill, it steals their souls

The thought of firing such a monstrous gun at a target is absolutely exciting. Id likely laugh like an utter lunatic and jump with joy.

@tackytrooper

Жыл бұрын

There's an American inside all of us!

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

You would probably be severely reprimanded by your RSM for immature behaviour whilst on the Firing Range. I pity your soul for the level of punishment that the RSM will take great delight in administering to you for your poor performance. Mark from Melbourne Australia

@richardcowling7381

Жыл бұрын

@@markfryer9880 You don't think an RSM would let a trooper fire the bugger do you? He'll be wanting to fire it himself.

Weapon Test videos are always increadibly interesting! More of these please :)

What interests me is that any of the testers were surprised by the efficacy of 7.5'' and 6.5'' high-explosive shells on armor, considering the Royal Navy had been blasting the heck out of armor plate with big-gun high-explosive shells (including HESH-like munitions) for decades. One would think it would have been taken more for granted that a 183mm HESH would be shattering the target.

@CharlesStearman

Жыл бұрын

HESH was never used at sea, and high explosive shells couldn't penetrate heavy armor - ships used armor-piecing shells (often with a penetrating cap i.e. APC) with a relatively small explosive filling and a delay fuse so they detonated after penetration.

@ker-klickchoom5119

Жыл бұрын

@@CharlesStearman That's not entirely true - although they certainly carried AP, from what I've seen a fair bit of WWI era naval thinking was based around degrading everything on the enemy ship by liberally blasting it with HE - the RN did a lot of tests on how much armour they needed to resist high caliber HE (and what armour layouts would reduce the HESH-style 'scabbing' effect behind the outer layer of armour) - so they certainly had been thinking along those lines!

@genericpersonx333

Жыл бұрын

@@CharlesStearman The Royal Navy had experience with base-fused High-Explosive shells, which are similar to Squash-head. More importantly, the Royal Navy used plenty of High-Explosive shells, especially for cruisers and larger ships concerned about engaging lightly- and un-armored ships where large-caliber armor-piercing was prone to overpenetration. Whatever the fusing, the key thing is that there was plenty of knowledge that large amounts of high-explosive did terrible things to metal structures on ships.

A video that has Conqueror and HESH in the title - an immediate like!

Those 183mm HESH rounds are insane.

Crew survival - with a serious headache and a reluctance to go anywhere near a tank again , I suspect

@genericpersonx333

Жыл бұрын

From what I can tell, the 1950s testers were being very optimistic when it came to crew survivability assessments and had rather limited means of testing critical details like gravity force and concussive effects. Real-world experience tended to suggest that large-caliber high-explosive shell hits on armored structures were much more harmful than not to occupants, be it a ship's gun turret hit by a cruiser shell, a tank hit by an artillery shell, or satchel charges to name a few.

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

@@genericpersonx333 Apparently there were rabbits inside to help guage the shockwave effects, but a rabbit can't easily tell you if it's thought processes are all scrambled along with it's internal organs. Mark from Melbourne Australia

@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24

Жыл бұрын

@@markfryer9880 If true and the rabbits survived (presumably) then thats your answer.

Excellent work. I look forward to more on such tests. Was the attraction of HESH rounds less their acknowledged anti armour performance and more their universality onto any target from dug in positions to concrete emplacements? A single type loading in the tank simplifying fire and logistics. As an aside, there wasn’t much that a WOMBAT could not dispose of in its day. Nor hide it’s position sadly. It would be nice to hear more of the WOMBAT and it’s doctrine.

@buscadiamantes1232

Жыл бұрын

I second this. I've been trying to find info online on what was the WOMBAT's round capable of and the results were rather inconclusive, some said it had 400mm of penetration, some others said that it was the Chieftain's 120mm HESH but with a reduced propellant charge...

@dougstubbs9637

Жыл бұрын

I used to be a Wombat. As a single man in Australia, being a wombat means you eat roots, shoots and leaves.

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

@@dougstubbs9637 Damn you Doug, you beat me to the punchline!

The pictures looked interesting but somewhat unimpressive, right up to that first side shot result. Good lord, that looked devastating externally. I'm impressed that the crew supposedly would've survived each of those shots. Though they'd probably want a change of pants and some booze to steady nerves afterward.

@Akm72

Жыл бұрын

It would definitely count as a significant emotional event.

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

I'm more concerned about the condition of their minds and internal organs.

I really like these Videos. The one you did about the HESH tests on a king tiger was quite illuminating. Wish we had similar channel in germany. Although in there was not a lot going on with tanks in germany in the 50s :)

This is fascinating, everything I've seen in the past suggested only a single cobbled together test range conq got the spaced armor but this is clearly different than the one with tiny holes floating around the internet and a cursorary search suggests the British ran 5 tests on spaced armor conq's so there's many more than I thought. This is a wonderfully informative video

Thank you for all the hard work you do for these videos. Cheerio and have a good day

Really nice to see a video on this. You showed a little bit on the Centurion that underwent similar trials. Have you got a video on that?

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

there will be yes

Thank you. Nice to get a proper test summary.

Very interesting, I would love to see more of these.

Love these videos! great work and more please!!

You do great work 👏

cheers,ed, that was most interesting! thanks very much!

Very very interesting indeed. Yes…, please create additional videos like this one in which you describe the (any, fact) military’s live fire testing of armor and and AFV weapons.

Very interesting, thank you for the video.

Great video Eddie, keep it up!!!😊

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

cheers mate x

Another really interesting and educational vide!

Very very interesting, thank you sir!

Very interesting video on the hits achieved by the 183mm on the Conqueror but I do have an observation: the impact of those rounds, by looking at some photos would have been very hard on some of the crew by creating shock waves internally incapacitating them with broken ear drums or knocking them unconscious for quite a while. In my opinion that would have been effectively a "kill" too...

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

nope, faid not, the overpressure myth has been massivley overplayed by games - later tests use rabbits a lot for this testing. - you can get some - often burst eardrums. but it often needs to hole the vehicle to work which hesh does not, the shock wave from the explosive on hitting a vacuum is reflected back, where it overlaps, forming a tension wave in the steel - this is what removes the scab. But the transition of shock i the air is not great. The shaped charges caused more than the hesh in later tests. - the shock in the metal works by traveling though the medium so being in direct contact would injure anybody touching it but often steel and crew are separate if that makes any sense. they would be having bad day, but often 'lived'

@dougstubbs9637

Жыл бұрын

@@armouredarchives8867 Rabbits ? The septic tanks used sheep in the Bradley testing. I watched it all all in that documentary reinactment, Pentagon Wars.

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

@@armouredarchives8867 I wasn't aware in my earlier comments that they used live subjects inside of the vehicles. The only problem with rabbits or sheep is that it can be very hard to determine if there has been any problems with cognitive thinking after the impact event. Mark from Melbourne Australia

@vegetablesoop1890

Жыл бұрын

@@dougstubbs9637 Pentagon wars is definitely not a documentary, it's a satirical comedy

@boydgrandy5769

7 ай бұрын

The test that resulted in a 25 pound spall cone inside the hull would probably have killed the crew more often than not. Big chunks and splinters flying around the crew compartment with the velocity of bullets would carve up bodies like butcher knives. In the test described, the point in the hull where the round struck and created the spall must have been one of the few locations where it would not have affected the crew.

Thank m8 very interesting

Incredibley interesting,thank you 👍

05:44 how is there 18 pounds of spall but no crew damage?!

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

hesh spalling is odd stuff, the scabs usually travel down perpendicular to the angle they hit. so if you it say a 45-degree slope the scab comes of and travels down in the same direction, rather than forwards into the crew. - as in the king tiger vs hesh vid i did where front shots wrecked the transmission. - i thin case the front turret is well angled and the ammo went down at the same angle into the turret floor. hits to a flatter side are more effective as the spall cones out

@sproge2142

Жыл бұрын

@@armouredarchives8867 Fascinating! Thank you for the response!

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

@@armouredarchives8867 That sounds to me as being very similar in behaviour as a light beam as it strikes a pane of glass. It is the angle of incidence which is critical in determining the direction of the light beam as it emerges on the other side and it would appear that the spalling behaves in a similar manner. Finally found a use for studying some physics. Mark from Melbourne Australia

1:22, sounds like there's missing something, but once again an amazing and very informative video.

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

cat attacking keyboard :)

Good job interesting 👍

Fascinating.

A very interesting video. I am just glad that I was not working a position inside the tank at the time it was hit. I don't think that I would have made much sense for quite some time afterwards and maybe never again? Mark from Melbourne Australia

Nice video

At this rate you might give Craig a run on his beard.

With the 'lite' but effective kill scenario, I'm minded of the Sturmtiger story & the platoon of Sherman's, & also the way the Churchill's first deployment went west, where they'd been transported to Africa on the decks of ships, without salt-water protection, so that the corrosion rendered them u/s due to wiring connection damage.

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

Glad that didn't happen with the Centurions bound for Australia that were diverted in a hurry to support the UN Forces in Korea. God, can you imagine if that salt water damage had occurred? Safest place to repair the tanks would have been in Japan and then to rush them back to Korea. Mark from Melbourne Australia

@richardcowling7381

Жыл бұрын

Then you had that Panzer division at Stalingrad that found field mice had chewed through wiring in the tanks after a halt.

You mentioned that they tested the 20pdr and US 90mm guns as well. Did these guns test with only kinetic penetrator rounds or were they equipped with HEAT or HESH?

The testers had amazing optimism that jelly donuts could operate a tank. Intact on the outside but all squishy and gooey inside. More weapon tests please!

@matevasas

Жыл бұрын

That’s what i thought. No one is left intact in a tank hit by 183mm hesh.

Thanks for a most interesting video the 183mmL4,has fascinated me for some time,often referred to as being derived from a howitzer it seems to me too different, much longer, sliding block instead of interrupted screw breech and fume extractor,one still exists has anyone attempted to measure the barrel length?

6:45 it would take 30 seconds to repair that in warthunder

Thanks for your efforts! I do get the sense that what was considered a "crew survivable" hit, for instance with the 18lbs of spall, is somewhat optimistic.

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

dpends where the spall goes, with most strikes the spall travels perpendicular to the angle of the armour, in these tests the wooden dummies were all intact.

@davidb6576

Жыл бұрын

@@armouredarchives8867 Well, I'm grateful no splinters (or bunnies) were sacrificed for the data collection...

I hate to think what later 183mm rounds they'd have developed could do had this calibre been adopted..

FV4005 currently being rebuilt by Joe Hewes for the tank museum.

The smaller HESH round design being much thinner walled might not have had sufficient structural strength to contain the explosion for sufficient time to generate the shaped charge effect, so it just became a conventional explosive. Overall my main takeaway though is they didn't realize at the time that while the dummies were physically intact their internal organs would have been liquified by the shockwaves.

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

not at all it seems. the shockwave does not propergate well though air inside. the tension wave it generate on rebound is good. the other tests with dart missiles and so on created much better effects. now if the crew were touching the metal when the shock hit, different story, same for components and fittings, but needs direct contact. - they did other tests with rabbits...lots of rabbits. - a few had burst ear drums, one died of a heart attack, but otherwise quite good. a lot of folks seem to think the WT style overpressure is a real thing but alas nowhere near as much irl

I honestly thought there was a giant green arrow their at the end pointing to the left - I need some glasses obviously 🙂

Good god this uparmored Conqueror is a tough old beast. The biggest gun ever fitted to a tank and he just takes it, leaving the crew alive. Centurion and even Chieftain wouldnt be so happy about it...

Is it true that such plates were planned to be put on Conqueror tanks during war time?

Is "line of sight" armour an actual military term? I question this because only the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum curator and your goodself appear to use this phrase, surely it should be "virtual armour thickness" when referring to angled armour plate, packing, spaced and applique forms of armour. Being pedantic possibly but this is how inaccuracies in correct nomenclature arise as you yourself are well aware. Good channel well researched, informative and interesting, so thank you for your efforts.

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

Valid question, however I believe that using the term "line of sight" is the easiest way to convey to the maximum number of people that you are talking about the depth of armour "straight through the armour to the inside of the tank." Otherwise how else do you explain that you are not looking at the thickness of armour at 90 degrees but rather approximately horizontally as the shell would approach the armour. It is easily getting convoluted and confusing when clarity of communication is required. Mark from Melbourne Australia

@davewise001

Жыл бұрын

​@@markfryer9880 I don't think "virtual armour thickness" is any more or less confusing than "line of sight armour" thickness, "line of sight" does have a defined meaning in terms of communications and I feel using this phrase in the context of armour thickness muddies the water on its more usual context. Anyway it matters not what we may construe from this, as the question is what is the accepted military (unequivocal) term for what is the effective thickness of various types of armour installation? Perhaps I've answered my own question, maybe it is just 'effective armour' thickness, which then makes it fairly clear that the reference is not just about material type or thickness? I was curious initially because I'd only come across the idea of "line of sight" thickness referred to by just 2 videos creatives, this one and the Aus Armour videos, which anyone who is interested in AFVs their history, construction and preservation should certainly be subscribed to. 😉

By the looks of some of them photographs being inside the talk would have definitely left you with your ears ringing.

@markfryer9880

Жыл бұрын

At a minimum. Further damage will make itself known in short order.

I wonder if those 14mm Burster plates are just for testing or can be used as an option in a possible war?

@Akm72

Жыл бұрын

I assume it was a bit of both, in that it was mainly for testing but they seem to have done good enough detail design that it could have been rolled out as a quick upgrade if it was required.

@LordOfChaos.x

2 ай бұрын

They were quite effective against HEAT shells.

BESH

I swear is gajin doesn't get on adding the super duper centurion. I'm going to throw a fit.

Early boiz ❤

@indigohammer5732

Жыл бұрын

Sad boi

I know that World of Tanks make things up from time to time but the Super Conqueror was still a good idea,

STT Chimera (1950) when ?

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

alas probly never, there is a lot of text left, but of the 1000+ drawings only 2 survive, bovington binned the rest, and they are the barest outlines - most of tank as in WOT was done from text clues and desc along with the 2 basic outlines

I would not want to have been on the wrong end of that.

Any reason why 183mm was the calibre developed? It's 7.2" approximately but that seems nearly as arbitrary.

@howardxu8050

Жыл бұрын

Is from when NATO were shitting themselves from IS-3 scare

I just watched this today. I thought that only Germany and Russia is thinking of putting large caliber guns on their tanks, I was wrong. They pale in comparison to the British

In all case's the BV was found to be intact. Nothing worse than pissed off tankies throwing hot soggy tea bags at you cause you scratched the paintwork...

Oh, so early

@indigohammer5732

Жыл бұрын

You live a sad life

So was "Conq" already yesterday's news?To destroy one of your latest tanks seems wasteful,unless you,d already decided it was obsolete

@genericpersonx333

Жыл бұрын

It is not unusual for a nation to use one of its newer and better tanks for testing if it thinks the tests are important enough. Indeed, nations really prefer to shoot up their own new tank designs in testing when economically feasible, because it really yields far more useful data than shooting up old and/or foreign vehicles. It helps improve the paper modeling for armor efficacy, improving the chance that the paper predictions reflect reality more in future designs. For this test specifically, the other benefit was that Conqueror, so far as anyone in Britain knew, was the closest to Soviet heavy tanks in terms of actual armor performance, so shooting it with HESH would yield better data than trying to extrapolate from shooting up Tiger IIs or American vehicles which used very different geometry and materials.

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

pretty much as said below, youcan only get so much in blowing up old panzer wrecks. in these tests alot of the vehicles are older, or a they used the turrets and hulls from the prototype vehicles p1-p10

"super" conquerer as in "better" conquerer due to spaced armor i guess :3 intresting, was the fv4005 was first made, or fv215b?

@armouredarchives8867

Жыл бұрын

215 was to be the heavy gun tank with 183mm, the 4005's were the test beds for this, but the project was canceled, and the 2-3 4005's were kept about a bit for testing only

@toysoldi3r14

Жыл бұрын

the fv215b is a "blueprint" tank, there were plans to make it and even a full size wooden mock up was made but the design was scrapped in favour of the fv4005 stage 1 which was further in development. so to answer your question, fv4005 was first because it was actually made and the latter was not.

Poor thing.

World of tanks should call it by designated name by tank crews as ( Target ) not as Super Conqueror

@destroyerarmor2846

Жыл бұрын

Come to Warthunder 🙃

183mm….because if some is good, then more is better.

nOT According to Wargaming😂 every sh*tbarn shot I take at a Fake Conqueror …..I miss and kill an enemy behind it.

World of Tanks being inaccurate - who'd have thought.

Freaking boring. Not even a film. Just a bunch of pics.