Added: 4 years ago
From: wongncheong
Views: 320,339
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (420)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • put this video on 240p for stereo

  • Survivor tanks here,

    youtube.com/watch?v=E0LJX1Er6l­E

  • The end of tank? Are they mad? Just because Western armies have mostly faced decades behind them obsolete armies? They might as well say it's the end of the SAM.

    Shortsighted fools.

    What happens if the enemy has artillery, are you going to attack a stronghold in Strykers or would you rather have the armor of a M1A1/2 /etc.?

    Every few years the same BS from people who want to be known for "knowing" (guessing) a possible outcome of warfare tech. Guessing everything so they might get lucky.

  • @Trusteft Exactly what I thought when I heard that bullshit...! End of the tank...?? Are you fucking crazy?! No way... Nothing says your totally screwed/fucked to a non fortified position like an Abrams or Challenger...

  • @dalesalsa Really? Look at it like this, Main Armour is very good, important and has established itself as both an effective anti personnel vehicle as well as an anti ground vehicle implements on the battle field. It is also a good fear factor.

    But remember, what ever main armour can do, a Gun Ship (Attack heli) can do better.

  • @1169Timothy Indeed. However it takes many times longer to educate pilots than it does to educate a tank crew. Also a gunship is vulnerable as it is still not able to carry much armor compared to a tank. And a gun ship can exceed the cost of a tank many times.

  • @SuperMightypirate while a gun ship is much more costly, the accumulated cost of the tanks that are equal to it are in some cases more costly than the single gun ship. Also while the gun shit has significantly less Armour it is also significantly more maneuverable and has the ability to fly above the target and rain down death. I do believe that at least for a M1-28 the fear factor is much more then that of a tank.

  • @SuperMightypirate by m1 I meant mi

  • Anyone else wondering about the random melon at @3:17 ?

  • @Hadleton meant to resemble a human head

  • @alexalex736 Nothing even happened to it though, so it didn't really serve much purpose did it.

  • @Hadleton THat means it would've protect a human if there was one and that means the armor works.

    Are you really this slow all the time?

  • @Hadleton To see if it broke or not.

  • yes another technology stolen from russians.

  • @Talshet It is a Israeli technology

  • @CEITCOGIDO Its a russian technology, learn something about it. Russians start it in 1943 during WW2, they said we have no time and money for technology to put explosives on our tanks, out tanks are enough armoured.1960They resumed the work on ERA the first ERA was succest in 1960s. We deployed it first we have 3rd Generation. Israel and the rest of the world have only 1st generation of ERA.

  • @Talshet True, it is a soviet invention: according to wikipedia: The idea of counterexplosion (kontrvzryv in Russian) in armour was first proposed by the Scientific Research Institute of Steel (NII Stali) in 1949 in the USSR by academician Bogdan Vjacheslavovich Voitsekhovsky (1922–99). The first pre-production models were produced during the 1960s. However, insufficient theoretical analysis during one of the tests resulted in all of the prototype elements being blown up.

  • lol, this guy was on CNN about explosives..

  • My right ear enjoyed this.

  • @ivanlagrossemoule My right ear found it scratchy and unpleasant.

  • @ivanlagrossemoule jokes on you, my headphones dont have a working left anyway

  • @ivanlagrossemoule Left ear here, but i'm from Australia.

  • do not watch this video with headphones on. dont do it!

  • What is the name of this show.....

  • there's no audio from the show.

  • Question: Why has the Stryker not been fitted with reactive armor ages ago if it works?

  • @hzzn All reactive armours, explosive or composite are heavy. A fully kitted out vehicle without extra armour is heavy enough and is difficult to transport. That extra armour makes it impossible to transport tanks effectively.

  • "How far it went I'm not sure...." *Plane crashes in background*

  • In my country we have something better than explosive reactive armor! It's called "The armor of Christ". Every tank is blessed by a priest and sprinkled with holy water. God protects the tanks and those from inside if their faith is strong.

  • @kittykatro Yeah, sure....

  • @kittykatro Hope you aren't being serious

  • @ScopedPewPew In my country people are very religious...They call their priests to bless pretty much everything: their homes, their cars, their shops,etc... Every official institution, school, hospital,etc. is also blessed officially by the highest priests. The same thing goes in other orthodox countries like Russia, Ukraine,etc. Check a video on youtube called "Kiev -priest throws holy water at dedicated cops" to see how such a ritual goes.

  • @kittykatro I understand the concept I'm catholic and I've seen schools be blessed etc... But I don't think god would protect a tank that would mean he is promoting war

  • @ScopedPewPew well....most people think that God is on our side, and we mostly fought war for defending our country not to attack others, so it kind of makes sense to bless tanks,fighter planes,etc...

  • @kittykatro In a sense yeah but I'm not gonna get into technical crap with you... You seem nice and its my birthday so I'm not gonna argue a pointless argument on youtube lol. I'm not sure about the catholic churches stance on war if you are only defending yourself. In God's eyes if you are protecting your family members and those you love from savage attackers who only want to bring misery to you then he'd probably forgive you since god forgives you for most sins.

  • israel already has active protection

  • my f150 could withstand that!!!! psyke!!!!

  • Comment removed

  • serikata bahasa malaysia tu hua3

  • @santacruzbass88 MALAYSIA BOLEH BRO!

  • @DJmattmatt111 fuck yeah.

  • kerosene light orchestra. (made in argentina).

  • Die folgenden Politiker, Authoren und Menschenrechtsaktivisten sind von den Geheimdiensten der BRD ermordet worden.

    Uwe Barschel,Jürgen Möllemann,Heiner Gehring(Author von: Versklavte Gehirne), Martina Pflock ( Politische Aktivistin),Tron(Internet Aktivist),Karl Koch(Politischer/Internet Aktivist),Bernd Seiffert(Menschenrechtsaktivis­t),Kirsten Heisig(Authorin/Richterin),Fri­tz Bauer(Staatsanwalt der Frankfurter Auschwitzprozesse),Markus Bott(Menschenrechtsaktivist).

    Und viele Andere auch.

  • crazy science

  • freaking stupid thinking that tanks could be outdated... a light response force would be VUNERABLE to heavy armor heavy hitting MBTs.

  • @23HAMSANDWICH Idk, RPG 29 penetrated T90's frontal armor.

  • @Failcard the T90 is just a rebuilt T62 i think. i dont know if the russians are using composite armor as well. id think that would help. even T90s might suffer casualties, but i would think probably prove victorious against any light response force. of course if they werent outmaneuvered.

  • @23HAMSANDWICH No, the T90 is a T72BU

  • @Failcard dang. thanks for correcting me tho. i cant find any videos about the "songster" it was an antitank missile built for Russian tanks. it could penetrate amazing amounts of armor

  • @Failcard Yeah and the chally2 's frountal armor cutting the drivers foot off , you have to know where the sweet spot is on a T90 to get the penitration ,all the tests were static ,the tank wasn't moveing where the chally loss was actual combat in Afganastan . No doubt the RPG 29 is a tank killer and a good one at that,one of the reasons it's called RPG 29 Vampire, it'l bleed your armored forces dry !..........

  • '

    germany make the cannon gun 120MM on american M1A1 / M1A2 tanks

  • fuck war

  • Its pretty funny to think about: We get lost in fighting in the air, on land and sea-with awesome and advanced equipment indeed. But the main thing is actually to kill eachother, so why dont throw away all the fancy stuff and do it the very old way.

  • @coinageboy your fucking ignorant.

  • what if u shoot it with bullets?!?!?!?!

  • @coinageboy Modern weaponry is the great equalizer of the 21 century. You could be the hulk for all i care but i could still kill you 3 ways from sunday with my guns.

  • nah it doest work tandem charges like 2 shaped charges in the same rocket go right true it, there is no armor against rpg 29 and other anti tank rockets, not to mention an rpg cost way less then a tank , thet can fire many rpg so tank loses either way

  • @BallerSkier WTF? "there is no armor against rpg 29" ermm WRONG!

  • @Atak31 no rpg 29 u see is a TANDEM CHARGE , it meas it has 1 chanrge to destroy reactive and a big charge to kill tank , it has 2 warheads, and there are rocket way better then rpg 29, u see also u can pop rpg 29 many times before the tank can do shat

  • @coinageboy acting tough over the internet is kind of lame and i'm 17 btw so i don't think i'm old or a fatass oh and fuck church

    i'm not calling you a liar you probably do know how to fight and all but anyone can say anything they want about them over the internet so do your self a favor and don't brag about your skills on here because you'll probably get a lot of shit from people

  • @coinageboy wow you're so badass without the bad

  • woah woah woah did anyone else see hitler at :53

  • CONVERT IT TO MONO FFS

  • Sydney Alford is the coolest guy on earth

  • I still wouldn't want to be inside that tank. The concussion alone would be brutal.

  • so that's what those additional plates on the tanks were...i thought they were just there to look pretty

  • Lol, USSR invented reactive armour more than 50 years ago. And americans use it since 2005. SOOOOOO SLOW.

  • @Camradko Whats the point? We haven't lost a tank in combat in over 20 years, all the ones that have been damaged have been repaired. We like to prevent the enemy from firing upon us rather then let them hit us, anyways. By the way we have had reactive armor since the end of Vietnam War so I don't know where you are getting your fact from. The USSR has had it only 10 years before us on prototype tanks, there was no conflict so it did not matter. The future does not lie with the tank.

  • @GunsOfThePhoenix

    Just wondering- how many tank-gunners(?) have we lost in the last 20 years?

    Also- I haven't seen it in action, but I've heard they had a fence-like covering to surround the tank and detonate the RPG before it comes in contact with the tank. Is this real/does it work?

  • @AnonymousUbiquity Apparently the fence armor works but, its mainly designed for older style rockets. Newer ones like the RPG 29 and 32 will slice right through it.

  • US made better Reactive Armour. Most nation use reactive armour on T-90, T-80, T-72, T-62, T-54/55, M60, & M48 are useless. They are too thin. Check out M1A2 SEP TUSK and M1A2 TUSK.

  • give it a Gauss gun, some sort of super cool lazer, a set of 4 legs and have it walk all around like a kick ass monster and you have the coolest tank ever.

  • @MrPoof15 attach it to a big dog =D

  • @MrPoof15 lol kid, go back to sleep

  • @kingofdice66 you wake up from sleep.

  • @kingofdice66 wake up from sleep.

  • @MrPoof15 until the legs get blown off I think thats why there aren't any mechs I'd love to see one though.

  • @pIMpPinKpAntHeR ohh ol ok my bad lol i diddnt know it was a joke

  • @pIMpPinKpAntHeR what do you mean?

  • Why does every millitary video comment section has to turn into Russia fan-boy vs the world?

  • Explosive reactive armour can only be defeated by a Tandem charge warhead (Fgm Javelin, Rpg 29, TOW)

  • Uk is designing electric armor for their new APC IFV. It has two hulls when the RPG hits and squirts in its molten jet it conects the two hulls the inner hull is electrified so it sends volts up the molten jet and throws it out. Its already been tested .

  • The army abandoned the Stryker MGS cause it wasent worth it. Not enough armor, couldnt shrug off rpg hits, not needed.

  • The only problem with ERA is that you can shoot in the same place twice and the 2nd shot will get through.

  • @Guynumber7 lol well try shooting same place twice, and the ntry shooting same place twice with people shooting back at ya

  • @VBH8888 well thats the theory anyways, and i agree

  • The911538 - Put in front 3 W dot and at the end dot html

  • Shaped Charge is well known in the armies from early WW-II ...

    It is coming again in the media when people can see many pictures of destroyed ABRAMS tanks in Iraq , I mean tanks totaly penetrated from top to buttom Believe it or not.

    The911538 - Here is you Link llnl.gov/str//Baum

  • -- 15-20 kg Explosives shaped Charge will penetrate ANY tank on this world.

    Super penetration was achieved with molydbenium cone which penetrated 3.2 m of high strenght steel. 3.2 Meters .... Believe it or not . it is on the World Wide WEB.

  • @aviomaster link?

  • This is why the tandem warhead was made. would an APDS set the reactive armor off, Dont think so. Its ok but will only really work against Low tech anti armor.

  • add to the complexity of the technology that can go wrong lol

  • Why not have the best of both worlds,, ceramic, reactive, titanium, steel and active missile armour.

  • The T-90 has a protection system called Shtora. it detects incoming missle, 360 degrees, fires its warhead and destroyed the incoming missle/warhead.

  • @Hatinonthehaters wait im wrong, its not called Shtora, its something else i forgot.

  • to watchsecurity let me give you an update the newer ERA's like kaktus are whitstand against the tandem warhead rockets too...

  • umm ahh im all 4 our troops but this is a good and bad how about the people out side

  • reactive armor isn't so hot for the infantry nearby....theres already shrapnel blown off the tank and now its got the reactive armor explosive force behind it.

  • I can get through one foot of armor steel no problem without explosive---- Hell Fire Projectiles or burnem your ass like HOT Habenero sauce and Chili Beans with Halapenos ...OHHHHH well not that hot just 6000 degrees the HAB and chili beans about 10000 degrees ooooohhhhhhhhh my butt!!!don't believe me check out my channel take slam charge and 5 gallon bucket of thermite ...

  • All well and good until hit with something like an A10. First rounds detonate the ERA, following rounds penetrate the hull. There's still nothing widely deployable that will provide better protection than Chobham, which, although still susceptible to multiple strikes provides far better resistance than "one trick pony" ERA. Ask anyone that lives in a Challenger or MI Abrams which they would prefer :)

  • dah lame aku nk buat ni.....

  • is electro-magnetic reactive armor actually  efficient ?

  • can the same principle be used in body armor?

  • @scullyy no, it would kill the soldier with its recoil.

  • should replace that explosive armor with convicts and priests

  • @lexmark136 but you gainfully neglect to mention morons. self serving bastard.

  • but what happens if the armor is hit twice or three or four times buy an RPG-29? Would it penetrate all the armor?

  • @death5089

    yer after that first hit the armor is exposed.

  • At 5:52....that's not a stryker, it's a tracked vehicle, anybody know which one?

  • @daconqueror101 Looks like German IFV Marder with turret from Stryker MGS :S

  • ERA was experimented with in the USSR in 1949...

    All this "new invention" thing is bullshit...

  • @Denmarkforever1 True enough ,The Russians have done more development,in ERA than anyone else,there newest ERA is even efective against APFSDS,as the plates move in opisite directions cuting a portion of the sabot off ,either de-stabilizeing it ,and causeing a deflection or reducing it's kenetic enregey and wasteing energy in the re-sharpening process,nearly every one else is jut playing catch -up

  • Now the question is: what are going to do about tandem shaped charges old man ;-)

  • @Justbeatit999 Double stacked ERA ceramic plates with at least 1" of spacing between them

  • @GreatWhite85

    You know that ceramic is too brittle to be used in any ractive armor rarry don't you?

  • @Justbeatit999 You do know that it's still a hard enough surface to detonate the impact fuze on those warheads but because of the material composition the ceramic won't produce as much shrapnel as hardened steel and it's because of that material that the detonation can spread out with less resistance over a steel container = it's going to be more effective against a shape charge. It's not like it's just ceramic and HE, but it is still layered with steel plates, they just aren't as thick.

  • @GreatWhite85

    If that is true then why aren't the russians (which I would say have the most experience with reactive armour) use ceramics like glass (which is 4 times lighter and still offers 0.7 the performance of RHA against schaped charges) on all of their tanks?

  • @Justbeatit999 Because Russia's mindset on military is numbers over quality. They have tested it and such but it was never mass produced in their country because of expenses so they just used conventional methods of containment in the ERA module. And on that note Russian's have a harder time manufacturing quality control on their warheads so because most other superpowers make better "ka-boom" (because that glass is 0.65-.75 depending on composition) they didn't want that 0.7, they wanted 1.0

  • @Justbeatit999 But you are right in the sense that alot of allied countries, namely US, Germany & UK, are indeed using the ceramics for either ERA or if it's layered like Chobum (sp?) armour (in which case you don't even need ERA). I mean, when asking a question like that you have to take a look at the country of mention and see how they have ALWAYS built things on the production scale.

    Russian = Cheap, Reliable, Simple, Effective, Mass Numbers

    America = Expensive, Quality, Shelf Life, Safe

  • @GreatWhite85

    What I meant was that glass offers 0.7 times the resistance of RHA against schaped charges, but only weighs 1,76g/cc compared with RHA which weighs 7,86g/cc. This should give glass a mass efficiency of 3,1 against shaped charges. Now the reason nobody uses glass in explosive reactive armour (or even non-explosive reactive armour) is according to my theory; that glass like all ceramic kind materials is too brittle to be used as a flying plate by the explosive.

  • @Justbeatit999 It's not the "flying plate" that stops the shape charge, but the blast/force/pressure of the explosive repelling in the opposite direction that does.

    What you are describing is an EFP.

  • @GreatWhite85

    The process of explosive reactive armour has been studied alot. If you want I can send you a paper that lays out preciesly how flying plates work in defeating schaped charges. (which is mostly by supplying 'new plate material' since the steel plate moves forward and is oblique to the jet of the schaped charge).

  • @Justbeatit999 I'm not saying it hasn't been done dude, what i'm saying is that's not the general school of thought behind it's application.

    We can bicker back & forth all day about what country has tried what in weapons R&D, I'm discussing the main process & execution of how the device works. Mind you, this all started because you said ceramic would never work and i said it has and it's been tested and you're jumping on my ass with what has been dicked around with, i'm stating basic use.

  • @Justbeatit999 My bad though, when you mentioned the rating I thought it was for strength, not resistance so why wrong.

  • @Justbeatit999 I'm not saying that ceramic plating is the end all do all answer for ERA, but it's a helluva alot lighter than previous methods.

    Why do think an m1a1 MBT doesn't even NEED ERA?

    I'm not trying to start shit or anything man, just do your research before blindly saying something out the ass.

  • Build more tanks! The A-10 Warthog needs something to shoot at!

  • i love that old white haired pap 3:17

  • It's the common story with weapons and tactics, you introduce a weapon and the other side tried to counter it then you figure out a way to counter their weapon and vice versa... The story of history goes on and on...

  • A constant cycle of measure and counter-measure. That's the nature of warfare.

  • Not forever and thats the point

  • Its the gun and armor theorem, one side get a bigger gun, one side get better armor, and other side inspire a even bigger gun, thus improvements in armor are made. and so on.

  • not always, unless there is a totaly differant weapon designed.

  • that is like everything else about "economics". But a person who faught in ww2 enjoyed Tanks way more than now because Tanks were brand new back then.

  • What I found pretty cool, is that when they tryed to field vehicles, that rely only on thin conventinal armor, and much more new technology, they proved to be incredibly vulnerable to outdated anti-tank weaponry, that would not have any effect on a MBT.

    So when those pre-emptive detonation measures fail, a crappy rpg is cabable of destroying the vehicle

  • right, no mention whatsoever that it is russians and israelis who actually invented ERA.

    Also no mention of Heavy ERA, such as Kontakt, which can deflect kinetic penetrators.

  • its crazy that one of the best ways to protect yourself from being blown up is to wrap yourself in a cacoon of explosives.

  • Well, since you're already wrapped in a cacoon of steel, the force of the explosion goes outward, leaving you completely unharmed. But yeah, at first it sounds down right stupid. :P

  • If it is stupid but it works it's not stupid. I suppose you could call it the surpreme irony.

  • Fight fire with fire.

  • @nagerbeech As napoleon said "You would make a ship sail against the wind by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I have no time for such nonsense"

  • @nagerbeech ironic isn't it?

  • wow, those last tanks almost look like the scorpians from halo lol, maybe they will be one day!

  • Now those are rocket scientists

  • oohhhh so thats what the small boxes are on the side of tank turrets and hulls this explosive reactor armor I always used to think it was just extra armor for vital places on the tank

  • What language is that in the subtitles?

  • Comment removed

  • That sure aint finnish!

  • Ah, looks odd without any diacritics. Thought it was like Tagalog.  :S

  • @sasasaassasasasa

    mlay language, I speak malay :)

  • I think one way to keep the armor on the Striker is to sacrifice firepower for mobility. The best defense is a good offense, I say.

  • Just detonate a shape-charge on the wheels. The tank isn't going anywhere then.

  • Reactive armor was made by Russians, first ever tank to use it was T-64.

  • It's a german invention ;-) .

  • @MoskvaPeterburg

    Soviets, not russians

  • @MoskvaPeterburg was T-55......:DDD

  • @MoskvaPeterburg It was invented by Israelis. M60

  • Comment removed

  • @MoskvaPeterburg was composite armor on t64 first effective reactive armor was used on israeli tanks in arab israeli conflict in 1982

  • Up the UVF

  • All that you write delirium! Half of records belongs to tanks t-80 and т90!

    Record on defeat of the purposes for a minute!!!

    The reservation t-80 maintains 6 on falling of shells! Though M1A2 Abrams! Dies from 1-2!!

    On tests t-80 has sustained 6 front on falling, and has under the own steam returned on base!!!

    To compare their delirium!

    Tanks t-80 and t-90 not killed!

    And that that 4 654 is destroyed this lies!!!

    leopard 2 it is impossible to compare with t-80!

  • lol 2 old guys blowing stuff up

  • the ak-47 was made in russian

  • that's not true... russian's army sniper is the Dragunov (SVD) that has nothing to do with AK family.

    On the other hand, russians and the asian countries still use evolved models of the AK-74, such as the AK-103. It may not be the best but it has been tested more than any other rifle for more than 50years in every terrain type.

  • Russian Technology reflective armor ;) very good in combat (tested;)

  • what is the name of this documentary ????

  • terrorism is made & planned in the U.S.A,FACT.U.S foreign policies is drawn on terrorist scale by Israeli-American military complex & industrialists by establishing as many military bases around the world for terrorism porpouses including sabotaging foreign public services,Municipalities,Commun­ications,Bridges,water treatment plants,Hospitals & others.American motives are clear.Bring down any government or nation that doesNOT perticipate in world terrorism..from iraq..El Toro

  • what language is that in the subtitles? tagalog?

  • Comment removed

  • era was not developed by that old dude. russia has been using it since the t50s.

  • holy shit there was ammunition left in those fucking turrets? who can assume that the tanks dont work anymore? just add a little gas and even if it cant move what about that cannoN? SHIT!

  • Operation Desert Storm was a major success you can't deny that. The objective was never to capture or kill Saddam, It was to repel Iraqi forces out of Kuwait which the coalition forces did and suffered minimal casualities. But I do agree that the current war in Iraq is pointless. No WMD found, and the whole thing is pretty much a stalemate. Once US gain some ground at one spot then some Islamic extremists takes over another.