Fundamentals of Ballistics

Why they are not creating new ones? God bless america 🙏🏻.

Ikrrr such an interesting way to make the concept understand

Agreed

@Keyur fair enough

That's because U.S. Army is the absolute best of all military organizations! Hooah! 😛

Niel degrasse Tyson is the smartest scientists on the planet USA!

Because the DOD understood that they needed to train and explain super complicated subjects to people who might not have even graduated high school. Using real world examples such as the “4th of July” analogy made things easier to understand.

Why can't school be like this?

It isn't that old actually since modern artillery is the same as ww2 only with a compurers attached to it. Also in the Ukraine they use the old pieces of artillery with the help of drones to correct the fire and that duo is almost as effective as the modern ones with computers.

@@magos2610 no. Modern artillery even barrel is electronic instead of steel.

yes sir yes sir yes sir. fuck off sir.

What came up must come down -Le boolet

Tom Lehrer. Wernher Von Braun.

@@whereswaldo5740A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience!

Ya it has it's ups and downs

Yes this is a great starters' guide to honing down your ballistics. :)

@@Eduardo_Espinoza I've seen pistols blow up either because the person reloaded a double charge of powder or they didn't load powder in a particular round, so the primer put the bullet in the barrel, squib, they think they have a jam so they manually cycle in the next round and BAM. Certainly most can tell if they had a squib or not.

Yes, he did a video that explain this. And I think this is what happened

Must be that, he was using that spicy SLAP ammo

@@raico6890 it was D1-LDO Ammo

There's no theory. Your beloved gunmaker is a psychopath and must be arrested. Scott too. He's also a danger to public safety. All gun KZheadrs, as good psychopaths too, went out of their way to defend him with all kinds of ridiculous theories to not loose their easy KZhead money. Not a single f for human life.

@@suprememasteroftheuniverse shut up, aguante el diego y Messi campeon brazuca

It was the norden bomb sight, it promised to have extremely high accuracy but failed to deliver, although it was more accurate than the bomb sights at the time. It used a compact computer and more advanced instruments to predict where the bomb would fall. The norden bomb sight was used on the Enola Gay dropping of the little boy atomic bomb on japan.

Mentally challenged bomb

@@thestupidchannel2037 yes it's amazing the niche appearances of specialised computer-like machines prior to the Turing Colossus.

Norton bombsights. Developed a perfected by a Brit engineer across the pond if I remember right

Poi

nah. the 2023 version will have a lot of empty words, a lot of useless visuals, and end up being entertaining to the point of failing to deliver information.

I agree that it's great, but it is CHOCK FULL of special effects shots. Manual animation is usually the most expensive type of shot available (measured in hundreds of dollars for a second of runtime), and this uses such animation, albeit quite a simple kind. You can make the same animation today with vector tech and flash-like programs for pennies, sure. If you don't factor in labor costs. But with 1950s tech, this is very expensive VFX that required filming animated stuff frame by frame, then re-filming it many times over to composite it with animated effects in studios. Not to mention that even now, you'd pay a lot for a good director, good storyboarder, good animator, and good motion designer to get a video as effective as this.

Poi

I've seen illustrations of internal ballistics that show that at ignition, all forces inside the barrel are equal, that recoil can not occur until the projectile clears the muzzle, then all forces are directed to the rear of the barrel resulting in recoil. Forces such as the ejection of the projectile, expanding gases, unspent propellant, etc. (ejecta) contribute to the rearward push. I've seen 'super slo-mo' video of a 76mm cannon firing and the recoil began before the projectile left the barrel, my theory is the 3in x bore length column of air inside the bore was ejected as the projectile was traveling toward the muzzle acting as ejecta. I've seen recoil action semi-auto pistols firing in slo-mo that demonstrate that recoil doesn't occur until the bullet leaves the muzzle.

@@pegheadSorry but that's wrong, the explanation and visualization on this film is right. Just a couple of things: - If at the moment of ignition forces inside the barrel would balance each other out, neither the gun or the bullet would move. In reality the forces acting on the back of barrel and on the bullet are (roughly) equal and certainly opposite, but they do not balance each other out, because they act on two different bodies (gun and bullet) and accelerate their motions in opposite directions. - The bullet, gases and ejecta rushing forward inside the barrel do not push the gun backward. On the contrary, the push the gun forward, because the friction and drag against the inside of the bore. But the backward force from the gas pressure in much greater, so the gun is pushed backward. This push is strongest while all stuff is still inside the barrel, because the pressure is strongest then. - In semiautomatic pistols the slide starts moving backward at the same instant the bullet starts its forward movement. I've seen hi-speed videos where this is very obvious. - Finally, and this should be obvious: we are dealing with contact forces here. Anything that does not touch the gun can not exert a force on it. So the bullet etc that has come out of the muzzle can't affect the gun any way. Unfortunately, I've noticed that those who don't believe the correct explanation usually can't be converted. They just do not understand Newtonian physics and interactions inside the gun. Which is not entirely their fault; these things are just generally taught so badly at school. PS. I have a PhD in physics education.

Fair enough, but is not the projectile ejecta also? I once saw a concept where in the vacuum of space, a craft can be propelled by launching a projectile from the rear, in your explanation, one would merely have to launch a projectile contained in a very long, closed and sealed tube/barrel and as long as the projectile doesn't exit the tube, it would still exert an opposite force to the craft propelling it forward, at a slower velocity, of course.

@@peghead In the described situation the craft would indeed be propelled forward. Let's assume it starts from rest. If we separate the projectile and the gas pushing it, then the craft is not propelled by the projectile but by the force the gas exerts to the craft. If we lump the projectile, gas, unburnt powder etc together as ejecta, then we can say that the craft is propelled by the ejecta. Using this terminology, when the ejecta reaches the other sealed end of the barrel, they exert equal and opposite forces to each other, which make both the ejecta and the craft to stop. But they both have moved from their original position; the craft has moved forward, the ejecta backward. What has not moved is the center of mass of the craft-ejecta system, which is assumed to be isolated from the rest of the world. Internal forces can't change the motion of the center of mass of a system. The principle is called the conservation of momentum. So in this case the system as a whole stays in rest all the time, in spite of that its parts move. Coming back to the recoil of a gun, conservation of momentum is in a way the simplest means to figure out why the gun starts to move backward at the same the bullet starts to move forward. No need to think about forces, their balances and directions. In order to keep the gun-gas-bullet system's center of mass in rest, when there's stuff moving forward, there must be stuff moving backward too. Of course in this case the system is not isolated, but at the moment of firing the forces accelerating the gun and the bullet are much greater than the forces holding the gun, so for a short time the gun behaves almost as if there were no external forces acting on it.

Glad you replied, I've had an epiphany. I spent about an hour this morning reviewing extreme slo-mo videos featuring firearm discharges. A popular example was from an episode of "Mythbusters" and a 73,000 frames per second video of an M1911-style semi-automatic pistol. I watched it over and over, eventually taping a metal straightedge on the screen level with the bottom of the pistol's slide. I used the pause-key to slow the video down even further. Sure enough, the slide began a rearward movement, however slight, to the rear prior to the bullet exiting the muzzle, even to the extent that the rear of the slide was pushing the hammer to the rear, acting against two springs, the recoil spring and the hammer mainspring, telling me this was a formidable amount of force. The movement was less than a millimeter and did not effect the position of the pistol in any way. Long confession short, LIST ME IN THE CONVERTED COLUMN, you have opened my aging eyes, thank you. @@mottee

I believe Those were analog computers, surprisingly there are some reasons to believe that those computers may have been faster than modern computers (At least in curtain areas of complex math)

@@craighalpin1917 now that i think about it, that makes sense

This is 1948. The fact that they have shown computers at al is amazing (before that, "computer" was a name for a woman performing arithmetical operations by hand).

We are only overspending because other countries won’t honor their contract

Deismakilin

@@progamer3335 Bullshit. America wastes most of its military budget on trash. It's so bad that Russia could likely prevail in Europe against American air and naval power. Russia spent 5% of its GDP on acquiring that capability.

@@progamer3335elaborate, just curious. This comment is 2y old lol

Why the fuck would you show your kid a video about bullets science?

Maiki lin

50

Then you have a huge and expensive, long range gun. It is a waste of resources. You can reach the same range with a less expensive gun design.

​@calm down Einstein

Deibes makilin

Ballistics is why I reload.

its supposed to be like that so they can remove you from the room of cadets when you correct the training video and toss you into a secret research and development program.

That’s cause the had to teach this to 18 year old kids, most of which didn’t even graduate high-school

Frankly this is the same as if today, you hired the best talent / contractor for the video's direction, script, animation, motion design, and post production. The govt was the client and they chose expensive, reputed contractors. You WOULD get the same level of quality today. It's just that the clients/stakeholders don't spend that money on good training videos, because they deem basic information to be already available (since it's way more accessible now), and are only prepared to splurge on high-level presentation for THEIR management which is all fluff and marketing. They are kinda right in a way, in the sense that their staff will still obtain the information without a golden-level, memorable training video. So they put their priorities elsewhere.

Stalin's Organ?

The Art of removing Grid Squares.

*Grain

thank god the english won out that battle innit bruv!

Ты чо. Есть же перевод автоматический. Ну немного кривой но понятно.