View Full Version : Tank Firing in Slow Motion - the Slo Mo Guys
So the Slow Mo Guys are always filming some really unique and interesting things, and this video is no exception. In this one the guys are firing the 76mm cannon on an M4 Sherman tank, and filming it in slow motion. What I think is neat is how the round pitches and yaws in flight. A rifle bullet does the same thing for a short distance until it finally stabilizes.
The guy pulling the lanyard was an EOD specialist in the British military
https://youtu.be/xpJ8EoGmLuE
I'd love to see footage of a 55gr. Vmax shot to 100yds VS. 77gr. SMK shot to 100yds using this videos same tech.
I could finally put a theory to rest. Neat video, thanks for sharing.
My pleasure. Here's another really neat video of them playing around with various explosives including shaped charges. In the last explosion they use water to focus the blast and almost destroy one of their expensive cameras.
https://youtu.be/dHfQYGGUS4U
I'm surprised how much effect the melons had on the 150mm cannon
My pleasure. Here's another really neat video of them playing around with various explosives including shaped charges. In the last explosion they use water to focus the blast and almost destroy one of their expensive cameras.
Now that is one of the coolest videos I've seen on YT. That was truly epic stuff. Their knowledge, with those items is just insane. It's like making Fine Art with explosives.
The Colorado School of Mines I'm sure wasn't counting on that type of damage to their facility though. When you blow up a bombproof testing facility, you're next level I'm sure.
Since we're posting awesome slow motion videos....this is one of my all time favorites:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOXunRYJIw
Do one with a Pershing tank.
Had they been fielded earlier and with the fleas worked out nobody would care about Queerosexual King Tigers
wilson1911
02-28-19, 16:33
That jet charge is how they perforate oil wells. Electric dets, prima cord, and charges strung together. They go 10k mph and have 5 million pounds of pressure. The size hole they make is controlled by shape of the cone, as well as the depth. Average hole sizes they make are 0.45 and 30" of penetration. There are many types of them.
Det cord burns around 1720 feet per second. Just depends on what your using, RDX, HMX,PTEN etc.
I will limit my response to this information only since I use these daily.
Also for all the tankers here correct me if I am wrong but the M4 wasn’t meant to be a “tank” tank. As was explained to me it was meant to be sorta like a nascent IFV. It was intended to be used in built up areas and to cross bridges without being too fat.
Hellcats did the heavy lifting. But the Pershing was made to eat lunch. Just too late
Cool vids...can't believe they stood that close with NO muffs on. Foamies just don't look like they would cut it especially with a brake on the cannon.
Before seeing the first video I didn't know that the cannon on a Sherman could be fired from the outside with the use of a lanyard.
Averageman
02-28-19, 17:18
Also for all the tankers here correct me if I am wrong but the M4 wasn’t meant to be a “tank” tank. As was explained to me it was meant to be sorta like a nascent IFV. It was intended to be used in built up areas and to cross bridges without being too fat.
Hellcats did the heavy lifting. But the Pershing was made to eat lunch. Just too late
We were so far behind the power curve when it came to developing tanks, we didn't know which end was up for WWII.
Look at the history of it, the hull was developed to move throughout Europe, cross bridges and mover through built up area's, the turret and main gun were a bit of an afterthought. They used a bit of data available from the Navy, then did the math and decided a 75 mm gun should do the trick. For the most part, that was all correct until the krauts started up arming heavier tanks with 88 mm guns.
The difference between German and American Tanks at that point became Mass Production versus Custom builds. The German Tanks were very finicky in some area's, especially transmissions, while the American Tanks were built in a assembly line in Henry Ford's model "T" like mindset. They were adequate, did 75% of the job, but they churned out quickly.
The bad part was actually being a crewman on one of those Sherman's because once the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger hit the battle field it took three to five Sherman's to take one out in tank on tank fights.
Rather than up gun the Sherman at that point and yes the technology was available, they decided the war would end before that was feasible.
I've spoken to a few German Tankers from WWII, they explained to me that they had better training and more experience than their allied counterparts.
We were so far behind the power curve when it came to developing tanks, we didn't know which end was up for WWII.
Look at the history of it, the hull was developed to move throughout Europe, cross bridges and mover through built up area's, the turret and main gun were a bit of an afterthought. They used a bit of data available from the Navy, then did the math and decided a 75 mm gun should do the trick. For the most part, that was all correct until the krauts started up arming heavier tanks with 88 mm guns.
The difference between German and American Tanks at that point became Mass Production versus Custom builds. The German Tanks were very finicky in some area's, especially transmissions, while the American Tanks were built in a assembly line in Henry Ford's model "T" like mindset. They were adequate, did 75% of the job, but they churned out quickly.
The bad part was actually being a crewman on one of those Sherman's because once the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger hit the battle field it took three to five Sherman's to take one out in tank on tank fights.
Rather than up gun the Sherman at that point and yes the technology was available, they decided the war would end before that was feasible.
I've spoken to a few German Tankers from WWII, they explained to me that they had better training and more experience than their allied counterparts.
Correct. We went into the war with the concept of the tank being an infantry support vehicle. The Germans utilized them as fast attack assault vehicles. I remember reading that General Rommel studied Nathan Bedford Forrest's calvary tactics and applied them to his armor units.
Yeah. I actually read Heinz Guderians book years ago in college. They really were in point with armor.
I thought they did upgun the M4 like the Easy Eight or was that in limited numbers?
Yeah. I actually read Heinz Guderians book years ago in college. They really were in point with armor.
I thought they did upgun the M4 like the Easy Eight or was that in limited numbers?
The one in the video is the upgunned M4 with the 76mm. The standard Sherman had a lower velocity 75mm gun.
hotrodder636
02-28-19, 17:40
Pretty cool videos. I agave always been introgued by shape charges and what tbey can and do ‘do’.
vicious_cb
02-28-19, 18:25
FYI the military has been posting this stuff for years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ
FYI the military has been posting this stuff for years.
That's a cool video, but the Sherman tank video stands out to me because it shows on a larger scale what happens when a bullet leaves a barrel. It doesn't come out straight and true, but rather goes through a short period of instability before truing itself up.
Yeah. I actually read Heinz Guderians book years ago in college. They really were in point with armor.
I thought they did upgun the M4 like the Easy Eight or was that in limited numbers?The long barreled 76mm hit the scene for the normandy breakout in August 44. It had better AP abilities over the shorter 75mm. However the explosive payload of the 76mm was far less effective than that of the 75mm for infantry support. The "Easy 8" or M4A3E8 had the M4A3s 500hp ford V8, "wet" ammunition storage, larger 76mm gun and turret, and HVSS suspension with its wider tracks. It showed up in ever increasing numbers from Nov 44 on, eventually becoming the standard Sherman used through the Korean war.
The real sweetheart would be the British ...(wait for it)..."Firefly" variants with their 17 pounder (also 76mm) that was a better tiger killer. Oddly no HE/frag shell was available at the time for it, so it was mixed in with regular 75mm shermans and camouflaged with neat counter shaded barrels to blend better with the herd.
Forget the anecdotes of old, the Sherman was the best all around tank of the war. So many were lost because we were just about always on the offensive and the Germans were rather adept at defense.
Our 90mm, like the 76mm was a bit overrated in their actual abilities. A later improved 90mm was introduced but only small numbers were tested in combat including on the T26E4 "super" Pershing(1 or 2 produced)https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190301/6767662d49f2a5975c8060af2df8b79d.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190301/51d2d391c8b3cb53d9a0d65732eb99c0.jpg
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
One of the best books on the Sherman's performance (or lack thereof) is Death Traps by Belton Cooper. The author was there and part of his job was battle damage assessment. He is adamant that the U.S. unnecessarily sent a lot of young men to their deaths because of lack of development and acceptance of superior designs in offensive armor.
I never bought into the whole , "let is stabilize and check groups at 200/300 yards". Hmmm makes me re think
Pretty cool stuff.
PB
BTW, the cameras that they are using start out at $135,000 U.S. dollars and top out at around $200,000!!!
vicious_cb
02-28-19, 20:32
One of the best books on the Sherman's performance (or lack thereof) is Death Traps by Belton Cooper. The author was there and part of his job was battle damage assessment. He is adamant that the U.S. unnecessarily sent a lot of young men to their deaths because of lack of development and acceptance of superior designs in offensive armor.
I liken the notion that the M4 Sherman was a "death trap" to the M16 is an "unreliable POS" myth. The numbers dont lie, in there entire European theater was there were only 1,407 tankers KIA or 0.4 casualties per Sherman knocked out in the US armored corps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIlrAosYiM
He was developing a flinch with the 76mm so normally not a good idea to jump up to a bigger caliber magnum. If he had gone back down to 9mm he might of hit those melons in the first shot!
Very cool videos. I guess there is significant truth to the bullet “going to sleep” at a certain distance. So much interesting things going on with ballistics there is always something more to learn.
Shermans were famously called, by their crews, Ronson's. The advertising slogan for Ronson lighters in the day was "lights the first time, every time".
We lost a lot of Shermans as they were vulnerable to various anti tank weapons. Previous post was correct, they were made for infantry support. Not anti tank. Yes, overall tank mortality wasn't high, because tank on tank battles were actually rare. However German high velocity 75's and 88's were a nasty surprise. British Fireflys and Easy 8's were our answer, but they were fielded in low numbers. At best, there was one Easy 8 to 3 regular Shermans. Wanna guess which tank was targeted first? For a really overrated tank, study the t-34. The early ones were real pieces of crap. On paper they were impressive. In reality... terrible ergonomics. The commander was also the loader. One radio per 4 tanks and it often didn't work. One could not see. Poor vision. Optics were bad and had poor field of vision. The gun was inaccurate. The transmission broke often and engine overhaul was 110 kilometers or so. This varies. The sloped armor and Christie suspension took up so much room inside that it made being a crewman intolerable. It could only do its max speed for about 15 minutes then it overheats. About half of max speed was sustainable. The early versions had bad problems tempering their steel and so poor steel quality let to cracking and seams buckling at a glancing blow. It is heralded now because they made so damn many of them. Well over 40,000 for the war. Against 1200 Tigers total for the war. Think if they had 40,000 Tigers or Panthers...
eightmillimeter
03-01-19, 08:43
A lot of that instability you are seeing is due to barrel wear and an improper projectile (not what was designed for the gun, just what is easy to make on a lathe). A lot here just assuming this is something bullets do is in no way true.
We were so far behind the power curve when it came to developing tanks, we didn't know which end was up for WWII.
Look at the history of it, the hull was developed to move throughout Europe, cross bridges and mover through built up area's, the turret and main gun were a bit of an afterthought. They used a bit of data available from the Navy, then did the math and decided a 75 mm gun should do the trick. For the most part, that was all correct until the krauts started up arming heavier tanks with 88 mm guns.
The difference between German and American Tanks at that point became Mass Production versus Custom builds. The German Tanks were very finicky in some area's, especially transmissions, while the American Tanks were built in a assembly line in Henry Ford's model "T" like mindset. They were adequate, did 75% of the job, but they churned out quickly.
The bad part was actually being a crewman on one of those Sherman's because once the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger hit the battle field it took three to five Sherman's to take one out in tank on tank fights.
Rather than up gun the Sherman at that point and yes the technology was available, they decided the war would end before that was feasible.
I've spoken to a few German Tankers from WWII, they explained to me that they had better training and more experience than their allied counterparts.
I would argue that the Sherman was possibly the best tank of WWII with the Tiger, panther, and King tiger being the worst.
The goal of a tank is to get to a location, protect the crew and take out threats at that location.
The Sherman, even with its flaws did this in spades. Against any tank it was made to fight, it did an amazing job. The Panzer IV was the germans closest equivalent and they were very equally matched. And despite the nickname and stories of them going up in flames at the slightest hit, the Sherman actually had the highest crew survivability of any tank in WW2. Not to mention that most taken out of action were reparable.
On the other hand we had the Panther and Tiger tanks. Big, new, heavy armor and amazing guns. However they failed in one important point. Being able to do their job. Yes when they worked they were amazing. But they didn't work. Transmission and Engine issues were only a small part of it. Don't forget the weight. Even with larger tracks they still had a lot of weight to move around.
A tank is only effective if it can get to the fight and stay in the fight. The Sherman with its modular components and rugged parts did that well. The german tanks did not.
But really the Sherman wasn't meant to fight the newer german tanks. That was the job of the Pershing. And it did it quite well.
Check out this video of one of the final battles of the war. A Pershing took out a Panther easily.
https://youtu.be/D6LqB-RYUvY
I can't disagree with any of the above. That's fairly accurate.
The German large tanks were underpowered and the transmissions overstressed due to the weight. Tha Panther shown in the video was quite well armored in the front but very vulnerable on the sides. This was known and after the first run, Panthers received steel skirts (the one in the video is lacking these skirts) to beef up the side armor. The Pershing would have penetrated the front armor of a Panther even at a longer distance regardless. Ironically, the German armor produced from about '44 on had the same problem with quality of steel that the Soviets had. One, they had shortages of things like nickle and vanadium, second, the slave labor impressed for the production of steel had little motivation to follow procedure and produce proper steel. So things like the face hardening suffered greatly. Another vulnerability was the turret ring. Tank crews were directing their fire in this area.
The modularity of the Sherman is a good point and many, even with a big hole in it were returned to service. Large German tanks suffered more losses from breakdowns and abandonment than actual battlefield kills. The removal of a transmission from these beasts for repair was a nightmare.
Belton coopers book isnt a bad read and I do recommend it but it hardly tells it how it really was. Lots of easily verifiable but incorrect technical information on the sherman. A sample of one as it were, and not an actual user either. As mentioned above "the Sherman tank was junk" is comparable to the "M16/M4 is junk" both widely spouted off about in the media by alot of folks that never knew any better.
For a great read on Shermans check out Steve Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt". Most of his stuff on armor is pretty good and very readable
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
Averageman
03-01-19, 17:06
I think in the context of a Tank built to support an Infantry advance it was very capable. I do not believe when the Sherman was being designed anyone was predicting large scale Tank vs Tank battles such as what happened at Kursk.
It also wasn't unusual for a Tanker in WWII to have little or no training before fighting in battle on a Sherman, so I would imagine the reputation of the Tank was much maligned by troops who were OJT'ing in battle on them.
I remember reading that some of the slave laborers in the German Tank plants could insert a slip of cigarette paper in a Tiger transmission in such a way that the Tank would make it to the front lines before it would totally disable the transmission.
T-34 had some impressive cgi slo mo ballistics. Fantastic tanker flick, a must see..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfwXCqvX-4
T-34 had some impressive cgi slo mo ballistics. Fantastic tanker flick, a must see..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfwXCqvX-4
I still havent' found that anywhere online to watch!
MountainRaven
03-01-19, 23:48
Yeah. I actually read Heinz Guderians book years ago in college. They really were in point with armor.
I thought they did upgun the M4 like the Easy Eight or was that in limited numbers?
On the subject of Heinz Guderian...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTgf3UHMBjY
It should probably be remembered that while the Soviets and Germans could effectively design new tanks and roll them straight into combat, the development cycle necessitated by the distance from the US to Europe meant that by the time any American tank showed up in Europe, it would have already become obsolescent. Which is a large part of why the US didn't engage in the same sort of incremental improvement programs as the Germans or Soviets, but instead sought to leapfrog and pretty much ended up introducing the 76mm Shermans just in the nick of time.
The M26 Pershing was supposed to leapfrog the Panther, Königstiger, &c. But it wasn't really available until late 1944 and had the Battle of the Bulge not occurred, they probably never would have made it to Europe. As it turned out, the M26 suffered from a lot of the same problems as the Panther and other German tanks, in that it tended to suffer a large number of mechanical issues. Mechanical issues which continued to plague the M26 into Korea, where they were frequently sidelined in favor of 76mm-armed Shermans (which proved themselves the equal of the vaunted T-34/85), until the M46 and M46A1 Pattons were available in sufficient quantities to withdraw the M26 and the M4.
The Sherman continued to be used into the 1960s and 70s, when the Israelis up-armed them with 90mm guns, and were able to use them with skill and success against the latest and greatest Soviet tanks used by Egypt and Syria right into the Yom Kippur War.
Also, fun fact: The Sherman VC Firefly's 17-pdr gun mounting was such a bodge job that the tank gained a reputation for burning the hair off of it's crew inside the tank when the 17-pdr was fired. (The Firefly had other problems, too, but they were never really addressed because the tank was a stopgap until the Comet and Centurion were available in quantity. By which time the war was over.)
Averageman
03-03-19, 11:35
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=16662
One interesting thing about tank evolution that never gets mentioned in America is just how good the Soviets were at making tanks. The Germans are always assumed to have been the great tank builders, followed by the Americans, but it was the Russians who dominated the field in the tank game. Russian tanks were fast, powerful and easy to operate by their crews. Most important, they were reliable in all weather. The Russians assumed they would be fighting in horrible conditions and built a tank for it.
vicious_cb
03-03-19, 13:11
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=16662
One interesting thing about tank evolution that never gets mentioned in America is just how good the Soviets were at making tanks. The Germans are always assumed to have been the great tank builders, followed by the Americans, but it was the Russians who dominated the field in the tank game. Russian tanks were fast, powerful and easy to operate by their crews. Most important, they were reliable in all weather. The Russians assumed they would be fighting in horrible conditions and built a tank for it.
I would not say easier to use by crews. Sit in a T-72 or T-55 then sit in any other western tank. Crew ergonomics are by far better in western tanks. Soviet tanks sacrifice crew ergonomics to reduce protected volume and hence have a lower profile turret. Soviets had better tanks until the Abrams, I would not want to be an M60 Patton crewman going against T-64s in Europe but once the Abrams came out it was the Soviets who had to play catch up.
That jet charge is how they perforate oil wells. Electric dets, prima cord, and charges strung together. They go 10k mph and have 5 million pounds of pressure. The size hole they make is controlled by shape of the cone, as well as the depth. Average hole sizes they make are 0.45 and 30" of penetration. There are many types of them.
Det cord burns around 1720 feet per second. Just depends on what your using, RDX, HMX,PTEN etc.
I will limit my response to this information only since I use these daily.
Det cord detonates a lot faster than 1720 fps.
A lot of that instability you are seeing is due to barrel wear and an improper projectile (not what was designed for the gun, just what is easy to make on a lathe). A lot here just assuming this is something bullets do is in no way true.
My first thought when I watched that video was 'I wonder what condition the bore is in'. The projectiles seem to be new made 'training' (solid) rounds, so I would presume them to be in spec.
Also, the load for the 152 didn't seem like a full power load. Propellant for big guns is hard to come by for civilians, I'm sure the correct propellant for that gun is unobtanium. I'd bet that is a reduced power load with similar-ish properties, or totally different propellant in a small enough amount that it doesn't matter that it's not the right propellant.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are some 155's in private ownership, that are fired (there was a comment in the vid that the 152 was the biggest privately owned gun).
Seriously cool video, though.
From what I have read, Dan was an Ammunition Tech, or ATO in the Royal Logistics Corp... ATOs do IEDs and stack/store British Ordnance, but not foreign ordnance. The Brits also have Engineers that do IEDs, and I was very amused that they have a similar relationship to American EOD and Combat Engineers.
eightmillimeter
03-04-19, 01:07
There are a couple people in different places that have these toys (which is what they are effectively) and every time they shoot it’s at very close range with a very big target. It’s because none of them can hit anything. The ammo is a complete guessing game, usually lathe turned aluminum but sometimes other materials. Loading has to be a complete nightmare, you’re right the correct propellants are hard to come by, and you won’t find loads for German 88’s or 76mm Sherman’s in the Hodgdon annual. None of these guys shoot anything close to full power because they need the brass to last as long as possible. But by darn that doesn’t mean it’s not fun as hell either.
The only real thing close to replicating real performance are the guys shooting civil war era big rifles and replicas. It’s easy to make round balls and simple projectiles and black powder is easy to come by. Some of those guys can actually hit shit at 6-700 yards using correct sights and data tables.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.