Exactly when it comes down to alot of things tho in the tank aspect of history alot of people think that AT and armor is the only thing that matters and all other aspects of the tank or round doesn't matter.

It's the perfect "Anti-Everything" round too, infantry, buildings, IFVs, trucks, older tank models, HESH Don't care

Yellow and Black doesnt care what it hits!

@@magoshighlands4074 Perfect is an extreme word. If you added "cheap" to that list, I'd probably agree though. Things like HEAT rounds with anti-personal secondary ability and proximity and/or programmable fuses for airburst are probably a better anti-everything round - but they cost way more and are way more complicated

@@tommeakin1732 True, I suppose a better way of putting it is "Perfect for the tech they had at the time"

if you get hit by the big one your get pasted near instantly its the spall that's really terrifying cause it doesn't necassarily kill outright like in shot one the drive losing an arm and leg but no comments on death so likely would have survived the shot.... which sounds painfull

@@volrosku.6075 die from shock or massive loss of blood - not pleasant

@@volrosku.6075 Why would you "likely survive the shot"? It depends on where it hits you, just like any bullet or fragment. If it amputates an arm, you will probably live with prompt care. if it hits your torso, you are fucked. The spall fragments are just like the fragments from artillery shells that do most of the artillery's killing.

Not sure I follow you. You are getting shot at by a HESH shell. You are getting hit with flying fragments of metal. Like with artillery, you are getting shot at by _shells_ , but the flying shell fragments are the lethal part. But no one is shooting shell fragments at you.

@@volrosku.6075 assuming of course no things like infection etc. Either way, it is a enemy combatant out of the fight.

not really its just showing how much a garbage round hesh is smallest amount of space armor makes it almost useless

@@AmirDarkOne The smallest amount of spaced armor notably *didn't* make HESH useless, as was noted in one of the pictures referencing a previous episode on British spaced armor design tests.

Track links have to be as dense or denser than armor because it has to be able to handle the weight and stresses the vehicle its' designed for can generate. All the bolts and joiners also have a little bit of flex that can absorb the shock damage pretty well too. It's all in how it was designed. That's why tankers were putting it all over parts of their vehicles to help protect it, even though they weigh quite a bit.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Keep in mind the low quality metal plaguing German production at this time

whats that in mm? sounds big

@@comrade-princesscelestia4907 183mm

@@stuartburton1167 ah, the same caliber as the shitbarn (FV4005)

Glad you like them!

Glad you enjoyed it!

My pleasure!

Appreciate that

I WIsh we could have kept the prototype tanks like this Porsche model, but it's understandable that they wanted to test out these HESH against it, since it was the heaviest mass produced combat tank at that time. (the Tiger II, not just the Porsche tank). To compare it to WWII normal tank rounds would be of great interest.

Not any more.Challenger3 upgrade is fitted with a smoothbore gun.I understand that rifling was essential for the HESH round

alas while hesh does play a part, its very small, i will do a video as i have the docs a lot of them, but to sum it up, when we were first approached to do a SB gun, the goverment tasked Ft Halstead to decide whether they would be a good idea...but Ft Halstead designed, made, and sold rifled guns.....So surprise, surprise the answer was no. - there were some other considerations along the way, but the bread and butter of it was asking the one company in the UK with a vested interest in rifled guns… whether they would recommend the MOD switched to smoothbores and did away with rifled guns.

Thanks and welcome

Welcome aboard!

15:23???END OF VIDEO ...

@@charlesangell_bulmtl My bad, I meant 12:23, fixing in the original comment now.

Mmmh spicy peanut butter HESH

Thank you!

yes sadly they didnt record much about her at all, no markings i could see, bit of a shame

@@armouredarchives8867 Was one of the early mid steel or early testbed prototypes. It still got binocular sights on the front hull which means it still did not had the sight developed for the gun but used the one from the early tigers for testing, At 12:56 Another thing caught my eyes is the drivers hatch elevating mechanism, this is again the one from the early prototypes and not from the ones which entered series production.

@@venator5 good stuff! recon u can guess which one exactly it is then by rule of elimination

@@armouredarchives8867 I would personally guess that it was one of the first 5 ever built. Since the first 3 was made out of mid steel there is a chance that it was not armor grade, but I am not 100% sure. (The one in bovington is v2 and regardless being the second is still mid steel) This example is most likely being ranging somewhere beetwen v3 to v5. One indicator I also seen is the lack of the equipment for submerging.

@@venator5 Glacis is notched for the radio operators periscope and the hull extensions are cut for the C-hooks.

Even the Is 3 ? Wasnt supposed to resist long 88 ?

@@fabio6170 the armor held , the welds gave in , it's all in the book , the long 88 was pretty formidable

@Cormano yes and it's high rate of fire a bonus

yes 100% right, it is recorded as that, my bad when reading aloud. i even had buster on what i was reading from - doh

hhhaha made me lol ty

should be there, il have an aske around tho

Possibly!

Glad you enjoyed it

pretty mcu, too fast and the plastic will spread too much or the case will crumple incorrectly, too slow and wont crumple at all or have time to form

very easily so, but they had no quite made the full connection between anti tank and anti stucture work yet, despite some weaposn like the blacker bombard beign made for that purpose. that said by the time they were considering japan it was and hehs was beign used on old m3's and m5 to test the wepaons out

@@armouredarchives8867 if would have thought the technology was there, but given the pace of the war, the connection was over looked. The reason I thought of HESH for the Sherman is that everyone says that some sort of HVAP should have been developed before D-Day. And I would agree, the 75mm could have been a tick better at punching holes in armour, but, it could only fire rounds of a certain velocity. That's where HESH would have been of great benefit. Just hit the target and the warhead does the rest, velocity isn't that important.

no idea no markings are left or recorded sadly

@@armouredarchives8867 i send one mail ;) best regards

had to look some of that up, re pile driving there is compression/tension waves, but in the pile itself, tho the hesh idea came about before barnes bombs, tho not fully understood

@@armouredarchives8867 - yeah I was a bit hazy with the memory, but Barnes worked from an effect of 'rebound' from pile-driving a bridge that he'd read about (or personally observed), when he had the idea of dam-busting. I was quite drunk too.

Poor Tiger😂😂😂😂

we never really got our mitts on too many IS3's T-54s it makes a mess of tho.

@@armouredarchives8867 i know we nadded a T54a from the hungarian revolution in 56 but you just don't hear too much about the IS3s apart from it didn't fair too well after all the hype, in Budapest or vs the IDF and their 105 Cents in 68

@@armouredarchives8867 If 105 and 120 were that good, why did anyone ever try to use 7.2 inch HESH?

@@Orinslayer There were several tests done with smaller rounds, but for big structures you need a big old HESH round, and that’s what these demolition vehicles are for, 6.5 was considered an optimum size, enough rounds for several tasks and easier reloading and stowage, but enough boom for your bucks, the older larger spigot weapons from WW2 were limited in capacity, range and had much longer reloads and much shorter ranges. Others tested like the 7.2 inch (and larger) had to be balanced between role and stowage, for example the large L4 had a much heavier round and less ammunition, require a lot more crew space and so on, the smaller ones tested needed more rounds and took longer to breach the structures. But worth remberign the purpose of this vehicle is to break open bunkers, blockages, walls and so on, they just wanted to see that if an enemy tank approached could it be used and to what effect. The 105mm and 120’s were more than enough for the enemy tanks and afv’s of the time, enough to be used as a dual purpose HE and make a smaller breach if needed, if something bigger had to be knocked down, you called in the engineers to tackle it