Could a Tankgewehr Really Take Out a British MkIV Tank?
The Tankgewehr antitank rifle was developed by the Mauser company and adopted by the Imperial German military as an emergency measure to counter the introduction of tanks to the WW1 battlefield. The question is, did they really work? Could a 13.2mm AP bullet from a Tankgewehr really perforate the armor of a British tank? Well today we find out!
The armor on a British tank was steel plate of 6mm, 8mm, and 12mm thickness, through-hardened to Brinell 440-480. We have replicated this with a plate of AR450 (ie, Brinell 450) armor, which we will be shooting at a distance of 50 yards. The ammunition we are using is original 1918 production German AP, and the rifle is a Tankgewehr captured by Allied troops late in the war and brought home as a souvenir.
This video was only made possible with help from three very helpful folks:
MOA Targets provided the steel (and on short notice!): www.moatargets.com
Mike Carrick of Arms Heritage Magazine provided use of the T-Gewehr: armsheritagemagazine.com
Hayes Otoupalik provided the original ammunition: www.hayesotoupalik.com
/ forgottenweapons
They were copying the british word for "tank," which is "tank." I learn a lot on this channel.
Tank was the codename for the project (i.e. like a water tank). I think they were developing "landships"
Now I know why in Battlefield 1 it always says you must lay down to fire that weapon lol
"An Anti-Tank Kit is available near your location."
Zeek Kasai a flame trooper kit has been located in your area.as well
Zeek Kasai A Tank-Hunter kit is available near your location.
Zeek Kasai anti-vehicle
Zeek Kasai bf1 brought me here to
does bf1 really tells you this?
You said "original ammo". So not only the rifle is 100 years old? The bullet was also lying in a depot for 100 years?
Yes.
Forgotten Weapons 🔥
Robert Yadegari Nay, Forgotten Ammunitions ^_^
ironheadfm bullets dont age
XenoNova Gaming lol Bullets aren't indestructible. They can age and sure as hell they can deteriorate.
I learnd one thing, don´t shoot a Tankgewehr with a tripod.
Or do, if you want to keep your shoulder.
Did not know that, thanks.
believe the answer is a shorter tripod and crouch behind it rather then stand, or put something VERY heavy on the base of the legs to hold it down
munkSWE88 evn a M2 tripod?
Ma dude, Answered my comment before I even made it.
And should all else fail you can always release the bolt and use it to club an elephant to death. Holy shit!
Multi function weapon is always handy!
End them rightly, eh?
I don't think you can unscrew the pommel from this mighty weapon.
+Skallagrim can a T-Gewehr end him rightly?
I brought the Skallagrim fanbase to light here, and I'm not ashamed of it. But let's be real, we were already here, and we already knew the answer to this question.
This is a really well made video. The camera angles are great, no-bullshit film cuts, interesting facts, just great narration across the board. This is a better production than 99% of whats on TV today. History Channel should buy all of this mans material and beg him and pay him handsomely to make more.
it's the father of the anti material rifle
Very much so. In addition, the .50 BMG cartridge was developed form the 13.2mm TuF, using a bunch of captured T-Gewehrs.
Chris Gaming Hate to be this guy (not really, I love it), but it's anti materiel. Material and materiel are different.
Forgotten Weapons actually the 50 BMG was already in development and planning at this stage of the war but like the Thompson SMG was to late to enter service. However, the US did look at using the 13 tuf as the caliber but ruled it unsuitable for MG use so they stayed with the 12.7 round
John Browning Developed the .50BMG round as an Enlarged Version of the 30-06 for use in his M2 Browning Machine gun. but i cannot Argue that the design is based off the 13mm TUF round.
Locked Firing proof it with some links
Next time you fire a godly weapon like this into simulated tank armor, it'd be nice to have a dummy or target behind the plate just so we could see the full effect of the spalling. Didn't realize that it carried as much energy as it did.
even a bit of plywood would be sufficent.
my thought too. thinking water mellon or something similar.
Bloody thirsty buggers
yes
And make a sturdier frame so the armor doesn't flop down and foul the test result by changing its angle as it's hit.
That was a big ass man to get kicked back like that! Impressive!
The Stoned Videogame Nerd WW2??
i just dont understand why they had that extremely tall bipod, its like they wanted the gun to hit the dirt. Better it, then them i guess. haha. think i would have done it prone though.
well thats a good point. i see why they didnt want that, it just loos so awkward. wikipedia says its designed to be fired either prone or from the trench. im guessing the design specification dont matter a lot there anyways, most would probably choose a dislocated shoulder over fist fighting a tank, hehe.
The Stoned Videogame Nerd Nowhere near like getting hit by a sledge That shit will break your shoulder bones and then some Sure it hurts, but it was primarly meant as a trench weapon to prevent tanks from steaming through barbed wire it's easily worth the pain, as tanks were a bloody nightmare, as it could relatively safely cross no man's land...and in it's path it opens up a rather nasty gsp the enemy can use to slaughter you The round waa loaded with being shot in both formats in mind, so it was far less dangerous than orginally designed to be, but also not constantly putting the soldier firing out of comission for abit With some.proper spacing it was not a difficult task to fire multiple rounds before having to switch it to the other member of your team If both got wore out? Chances are you're dead, as infantry against tanks was never a winnimg proposition, and if you got through that kany rounds..there are.too many for you to fight and likely live
that rifle was made to be shot from the ground.
Question about the 45 degree shot, if it was the actual tank, wouldn't the plate be more rigid? Since it was only supported by wood, and Ian knocked it over, isn't some of the force absorbed by the movement of the plate, making the test inaccurate?
It was the ricocheting fragments that destroyed the stand and allowed the plate to fall, not the initial impact.
Forgotten Weapons thanks for the reply and clarification!
Momentum is conserved in collisions but not energy: momentum is mv and energy is 1/2 mvv (Nonrelativistic approximation). Anyway - if we assume the bullet is about 0.1kg at 1000m/s, and the plate is 10kg (nice numbers for a ballpark guess), then the final velocity you would expect from the plate if all the momentum of the bullet was transferred to it would be 10m/s. The initial energy of the bullet would be 50,000J and the final energy of the plate would be 500J. That means that the energy loss in knocking the plate down would be only 1%. Okay so I know that plate was probably more like 25kg and the muzzle energy was probably more like 16,000J but the kind of scale will remain. This test will have involved about 99% of the energy that would've been imparted had the plate been attached to an actual tank. That 1% loss is probably equivalent to moving a couple feet further from the target. Also that's if you have all momentum imparted - any oblique ricochet or total penetration will leave some of the momentum in the bullet and result in even less energy being lost in the movement of the plate. Good question though.
Thats why angled armour was developed. Interesting how each side in a war catches up then the enemy improves so they have to catch up again. Wars are great for advancing weapons.
the British tank crewman were issued chainmail attached to the front of their helmet to prevent fragmentation so must have been more than just a perceived threat during the war
Not to mention spalling and rivets coming lose. those were the real killer.
and machine guns firing 500 rounds a minute would caused a lot of spalling on the inside of the tanks
Mryamaha R603 keep in mind, most of the power and velocity (the think that kills armor) is a result of the length of the barrel and the bullet picking up speed, not the round itself. Sure a heavy projectile hits hard, but velocity is what kills armor. Essentially, even though that round was origionaly designed for a machine gun, a machine gun wouldn't have the same raw performance (or as much as you could achieve with a large bore rifle) than what the rifle would do, not to mention the kick would be horrendous
Dwayne the 'Rock-Hard' Johnson The way I've heard that explained is that bullets are effective because of high kinetic energy, while wrecking balls are effective because of high momentum.
To help clarify, both a bullet and a construction wrecking ball do what they do because of kinetic energy. The energy they transfer to what they hit is based on their velocity and the mass of the object (the famous e=mc^2) , and how much energy is transferred is based on properties of the struck surface. A bullet generally has low mass and thus needs to be moving very fast to have enough energy to have much effect. Whereas a 1,000 kg weight would need far less movement to transfer the same amount of energy. Properties of the struck surface aside, it is indeed possible to have a bullet strike with the same force as a wrecking ball, the light weight bullet would just need to be moving incredibly fast. Dwayne is correct in the need for a correctly lengthed barrel to make full use of the powder charge behind the round. Firing the same form a gun with too short of a barrel would lead to loss of velocity because the expanding gasses in the barrel would be vented off to quickly. Keep in mind though, that a machine gun with a similarly lengthed barrel would have pretty similar performance to the rifle. It being a single shot weapon does not grant some additional bonus to the ballistics of the round.
god almighty look at the size of that rifle
it's bigger than the tank!
zum that's not what your mother said last night.
zum hahah yeeee, can never go wrong with a classic like that.
A weapon to surpass metalgear
That is what women when they see my dick.
"I should point out at this point in history, the German word for tank was... tank. Because they were copying the British word for tank... Which was tank." I just like the way he said that
Gun Jesus sacrificed his shoulder for you.
19 British tankers disliked this.
Why? It proved the rifle wouldn''t go through the tank lol.
At 45° it doesn't but otherwise it did. If you take a look at an Mark IV you'll see that it has plenty of space where it gets pened.
aka drivers port :D
?
Too soon :(
Very interesting. Thank you. Also loved the way nobody can fire the rifle without falling. Considering the .50 BMG is more powerful by a noticeable margin it really helps to demonstrate just how effective the modern .50 rifles are at reducing recoil, especially as they are also significantly lighter than the Tankgewehr.
12 years old and playing minecraft?
Germ .Fish Mate are you fucking serious? Like, no, genuinely how far up your arse is your head sitting? Jesus
It was the tripod. The weapon was never meant to fire from a standing position. The force simply knocked over the flimsy tripod. Notice how both of them were able to hold the rear of the weapon.
That is the weakest looking Tripod i have Ever seen....
Yet it still worked.
imagine shooting a bird with this
MWAHAHA FUCK YOUUUUU *BOOM* holy shit
gg bird
Spartan Pillow you would see nothing but a pile of feathers falling. Not even a corpse. Just 100 small pieces of meat
There wouldn't be bird left
in soviet russia, birds shoot with these
an anti vehicle kit is available near your location
KFC´s Gravy oh look some other idiot grabbed it and charged to their immediate death
Khanbalyk it's the same idiot who gets himself killed as a takner and behemoth driver
KFC´s Gravy *Tankhunter Kit
Sebeki 2 stupid announcer says anti vehicle kit
KFC´s Gravy It's tank hunter kit pal
3:17 Battlefield 1 wasnt ralking shit when they said YOU HAVE TO LAY ON THE GROUND TO SHOOT THIS THING
Bi pod on the gun has spikes for a reason...
Probably one of the coolest looking rifles of all time
Because it is big? It is just a single-shot Mauser albeit scaled up for a specific purpose.
45 degree angle not only 1,4x the effective thickness but also chops the impact force by half ;)
Piotr Sulej 60° doubles effective armor thicknes, 45° is only multiple of 1.414.
ah true, but still 1/2 the force.
the initial impact force at the angle deflects bullet even more, so effective angle is even sharper than 45 degrees
it doesnt double thinkness though, its increases it by a factor of 1.41 (square root of 2)
ah root, not roof, stupid me :P
In surprised that thing didn't break anyone's shoulder
Trevor Leach Well it did, after firing too many rounds it's known to have broken collarbones, especcially when prone.
The Two Shot Gun. One for each shoulder.
5:09 Embrace the german POWAH!
lol clarkson
And apparently, it's completely silent as well.
lol
6:05 Theoretically, the increase in thickness will be approximately 4.97 mm. On a side note, who would dislike this video? I mean, it was very well done, the information well arranged, what else could be possible add?
This was awesome. There's just one thing i'd have loved to see: balistics gel on the other side of the plate, so you could see the amount of fragments and depicture how much damage it would have actually cause apart from the obvious hole.
i'm gonna take a guess and say you didnt fire it prone because shoulders are best left intact.
Yes.
This particular AT rifle was not really expected to be used directly flat on the ground but rather perched on the edge of a trench or foxhole or crater. The shooter would thus be crouching or standing behind the gun, rather than in-line with it. The tripod thus better reflects how the weapon would have normally been wielded. AT rifles shooting flat on the ground regularly was more of 1920s thing. Shooting this gun flat on the ground is possible but only at great risk of injury, especially when you are expected to have to put 20 rounds into a tank before it quits.
And they were to lazy to dig a trench for testing purposes ;)
Its a typical rifle to be fired from the hip - semiautomatic.....^^
Collarbones feel better when they're not fractured
That recoil tho
You look like Townsend from "Through Mud and Blood" in that hat
Awesome as always. Amazed that original ammo for this still exists.
Douglas Bader You shouldnt be, France is still digging up a few thousand unexploded artillery shells a year in their woods.
You could replicate it with the right information, but having original ammo is amazing given it wasn't that common.
sweet vid ian, tripod might have been a tad ambitious
Nick Craik ya lol
Nick Craik that how they shot it back then
Nice audio! No wind noise!
The British tank crews were actually issued the equivalent of chain male glasses to keep the metal shards from such penetrations of the tanks armor from entering their eyes and damaging their faces.
I would have loved to see the impact of the shrapnel cloud on a ballistics gel torso! I'm the future please consider ballistics gel for those of us more interested in the damage to troops. (I am aware that if penetration did not occur this may be a waste of resources..) Thanks for posting Ian!
Hello future how is your day?
Go play BF1.
That's not what this weapon was designed for.
Dudio What are you talking about?
Dudio And what the f*** is a "shrapnel cloud"?
You can kill a heavy tank with 5 shots, if you pick up the tankgewehr (part of the tank hunter class). Cuz it does 20% dmg.
You cant kill tanks.
MAsterOplayer no but you can kill the crew inside that was the whole point of that rifle
Aser15€ The actual tank they're talking about in this video, the Landship its called in BF, theres a variant of it that has T Ghewehr's in the front and back instead of a cannon. You can snipe tanks with a tank haha
Can kill tanks, hit the engine, or a fuel pipe.
Yes, get the old man to fire the giant rifle. I like your thinking.
According to some German WW1 veterans if you extracted the bullet head from a 7.92mm cartridge and replaced it reversed, so the cup end was facing forward, this would penetrate the armour on a tank similar to a hollow charge effect. This was demonstrated on a British TV program using a WW1 98k and the bullet passed through the armour plate as clean as a whistle.
single shot 100 years old rare anchient ammunition *PISTOL GRIP* *BANNED IN CA* wtf cali?
Hey, it's unlikely that somebody will be this fucking crazy to do so, but this is CA, can you imagine shooting bullet-proof glass with this thing? Armored cars, bank deposits, shit, you can probably mess somebody up in the safety of their home within a safe range. I don't agree with the ban, but my argument would certainly not be rare ammunition and pistol grip.
Blyatiful Cyka it can peierce a TANK, imagine criminals using it against cop cars , its a wonder its banned lol
Yeah maybe not the number one choice for gang warfare...
Just imagine a gangster trying to hold this thing sideways...
Yeah Cali, there are plenty of legitimate uses for Anti-Tank rifles in civilian life. I don't care that this could potentially penetrate armoured police vehicles, what about all those heavily armoured deer that I need to hunt?
Thumbnail made me think this was a LindyBeige video.
In that case the tank would have stopped a nuke since it's britsh.
Mors Letum how you work that one out then
Coitus Ergo Sum While Ian and Karl actually demonstrate the effects of a T Gewehr on armor in 7 minutes, lindy would have still been giving his intro telling us about his childhood of making model british tanks, then proceed to ramble on for another half hour. (I just watched a 20 minute video of lindybeige explaining what a muzzle break does lol) Still a fan, dont kill me
His salt was that people were saying Brit soldiers called the MG34 Spandau, not the MG42. Because the 34 was manufactured in the Spandau plant and the 42 was made all over the country and whatnot. Like you can differentiate between both when they're slinging lead at you. Americans called them both "Buzzsaw". In the end of the first video, he reiterates the question: "Was the Bren better than the Spandau? NO *Outro plays*"
In what way was he proven wrong?
so far the best shooting videos in KZhead,no unwanted bgms,brief yet crisp and clear.
(0:45) We need a rifle *We need a bigger rifle*
this is why you have to be prone in bf1
BILLZ 1981 true...
h0lly shiz, and i thought it was an extra gun perk? i used it on an infantry at close range head on in the Chest. .. now i see its an anti tank rifle... this whole time.... i wasted my time..
Greedy Baron no they had it coming to them 😂😂😂
but i feel awful for the misery i caused to the widows i created. all they got back is a coffin filled with mince and their national flag at the ceremony. my sins are non-redeemable, i will uninstall Battlefield 1 in this case.
Nice one here
*It would be interesting to see a video on that man's hat collection!*
very informative, thanks for the continued content Ian!
There's a certain charm to these old forgotten weapons videos.
Ian is the man!
Sjambok1 He came to protect our sacred right to arm bears!
Sjambok1 and Satan
now I know that when I'm firing at a mark IV tank with my tank gewehr I'll be sure to be aiming directly at it and not an angle, thanks!
I love this video, a perfect example of angling armor, especially "tank" related armor vs guns.
Really neat video and thank you to the vendors for coming together to support you! Earned a sub. Cheers
This video is blessed, so does this man!
thank you gun jesus
hello darkness my old friend ....... I've come to talk with you again......
Interesting how these were the best tanks at that time and M2 Browning that has been built just 3-4 years later would massacre those tank crews.
So glad KZhead has shown me this great channel!!!! Y’all are awesome !!!
This was an awsome video! Thank you for that.
I don't know why but the sound of the ground crunching under his feet was the most attractive part of the video for me... so crisp xD
Tried a similar thing with a British .55" Boys A/T rifle, it penetrated 1/2" of plate at 50 yards, so we doubled up the plate thickness to 1" and got about 75% through it but no full penetration. It was a bugger to shoot but a lot of fun! Pete Moore
wow, that's the first YT video in quiet a while, that I actually learned something from,... great job dude, subscribed...
Extremely interesting and informative video, thanks Ian
fuck yes ian you godly man
aah the legendary spef
spef Dat profile picture tho
ahahaha fucking picture lol
Talk about fans
You know Ian has reached the big leagues when he has his own stalker, lol!
Once issue I had with this test was that an armor plate on a tank would move back, and might provide more of a sturdy impact zone for the bullet to penetrate.
Really just want to thank you for your work sir. Youve made my days better since 2014 favourite chanel by far. Thank you.
fantastic! again a great video for us to enjoy, thanks again man!!!
3:12 5:08 Hans, yu zont supozed zu fire zhat veapon zhat vay!!
Alpha Adhito lelelelelellellelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelel
Alpha Adhito Well the reason because of that is if he were to be proning his shoulder would just rip
zont?
"Let 'er rip!" "It sure does."
I dont know how i ended up here. Not even in to guns. But this dude is so charismatic that i am gonna go ahead and sub!
You put on a great show dude. Thanks.
That was a very impressive demonstration. Thanks!
I'd like to see that rifle compared with a modern .50 BMG.
Ah damn, that's gonna leave a big bruise on your sholder
Considering the fact that they were designed to be shot prone, it will make a massive bruise.
Great video and good considerations as always!
Really enjoy your videos on these old war weapons.
Just a quick question, why did you use the tripod to shoot instead of the bipod on the ground? It seems like it would be a lot more stable on the ground.
because when using a bipod your laying down and all the energy is going straight into your shoulder with no ability to bend to the recoil. in other words shooting from a bipod hurts like a bitch for something that big (shoot a bois AT rifle or a 50bmg while laying down and you will know what i mean) and finding a bipod to work for such an old gun is really difficult. would have been better if he used a tall wooden panel as a fourth support to stop him from dropping the gun.
No... if you are being hurt by recoil YOU are a bitch. The original comment was correct, he should have used a bipod. Looked like idiots dropping it twice... And whoever lent you that rifle will think twice about letting you borrow another after that.
so the ammunition was 100yrs old? how would it have performed factory fresh?
In the Great War Museum in Kansas City they have one of these and I had the honor of seeing one. They are a sight to behold. I’m short, 5’5 so I’m used to PEOPLE being bigger than me but to see a gun that’s a full 2 inches taller than myself made me really put how insane fighting the Great War was for BOTH sides. For the Germans, you hear a tractor engine buzzing through a desolate landscape so you mount a gun as big as you are to a goddamn machine gun mount (they didn’t have slings and NEEDED to be mounted to the base used by Maxim guns) and you start sending hate down range praying that you’ll sling a chunk of lead into a metal beast that didn’t even exist the year before. FOR THE BRITISH, you’re in a hot hunk of metal with an exposed tractor engine blasting fumes in a small cramped space you occupy with the rest of the crew. Bullets from rifles hitting the walls of the tank your in making what they called “Spatter” which is the razor sharp shards of metal that fly around inside the tank from bullets hitting the outside and not entirely passing through but splitting the metal just enough. Then you see some German cat in the hole you’re trying to get to pull out a weapon that’s just absurdly large and mount it to a maxim mount. He takes aim and blasts a slug bigger than any other that exist in that time right at you. Dude, world war one was just DIFFERENT
You are an excellent and knowledgeable host. Thank you.
I enjoy watching your normal videos, but this was *really good*.
Question is, are their any historical evidence these were used effectively to stop tanks. If so I also imagine someone did a battlefield damage assessment as well. Would be interesting to see/hear the results. Love your stuff Ian!
Great video, keep em coming, cheers from England.
This was a great video. Would love to see more test with these weapons.
I have one issue with the 45º angle shot. Destruction of the frame the plate was sitting in meant that a lot of the energy of the bullet was dissipated into the frame, meaning the full mass and speed of the bullet wasn't transferred to the plate. Since the frame was made of just plywood and some 2x4s, it blew apart, taking that momentum with it. What I'm getting at is that the MkII weighed 28 tons and all the energy of that bullet would have been transferred to the plate steel. If Ian's plate were more rigidly fixed, and didn't move when shot at 45º, would the bullet have been able to penetrate at that angle? Just a thought.
It fell over because the splash after impact ripped the wooden supports apart, Ian already explained this in another comment.
CRQ5508 Supported or unsupported makes no difference. The energy transfer happens so quickly. If you take a heavy door, like on a bank vault, and push it closed, the more energy you push it with, the harder it will slam shut. If you punch it, however, you're going to apply more energy but the door will move very little, if at all. In the case of the armour plate, if the projectile cannot penetrate, only then will it use all its energy in more of a push. It all happens in milliseconds though and the end result is the same. There's a couple videos I've seen floating around KZhead that have done supported vs unsupported penetration tests, and the result is always that they're the same.
+AusiKifaru27 very interesting, thanks! I was wondering the same thing and this answers that question.
This is way smaller in Battlefield One
thanks man for the awesome video
I don't know how I ended up here. I'm not a weapons guy. But your calm and factual style kept me watching :) I enjoyed.
Placing a panel of wood or foam board a yard or two behind the plate to show the spalling effect would have been a good idea.
You look like Jamie from the myth busters.
Jerwmy Julian yeah when he was 20
Remenber: the Difference between science, and messing around is writing it down.
The vegan version
Jerwmy Julian ha ha
excellent upload thanks for sharing guys
Informative. Thank you.
The moment I saw this in my recommended tab I thought "An Tank Hunter Kit is available near your location"
This is really cool! It's like watching Taofledermaus in 1917
Great video. Would love to see more content like this..
Thank you so much for throwing in that bit about the Germans using the British word for tank, that clarified that for me as I had wondered why they used the word tank instead of panzer.
Weird how the rifle specifically made to go thru that specific armor plating punched a hole in it. Man that slow mo was gorgeous!
So good! Everybody must name a baby after Ian, even if she is a girl!
Nice to see this one in action. Looks very powerful.
I didn't expect it to be that effective. Good video.
In Battlefield 1 we can do it. So, it's real. DICE would never lie to us :)
You have to keep in mind that the armor being fastened to wood gives it more wobble room to absorb the impact. While attached to the tank it has far less give and therefore less of the force of impact will spread out among the metal panels and more will concentrate on the point of impact. So, while shooting at a part of the tank which has straight vertical panels this rifle would have no problem penetrating it. However, if it hits a portion of the armor which has a slant, there is a much higher chance the kinetic energy will be diverted in another direction and the bullet will simply bounce off. Early tanks did not really have many slants; both the MKIV and A7V were pretty boxy and slow, so getting a shot in the right spot wasn't all too hard I'd imagine. I guess it came down to tactics and how tanks were deployed. They must have had an entourage surrounding them, potentially sharpshooters whose job it was to pick off AT crews. I imagine the AT crew was pretty slow given the size of the rifle, and not nearly as mobile as someone with a much lighter rifle.
Its a much larger sheet so the armour has more room to elastically flex except near the frames, that might happen faster than the acceleration of the whole mass of a small plate as seen here dampening some of the impact energy. A mid panel shot might not penetrate so well.
Dude watch the Video again. In the flat-on shot the projectile pierced before the steel plate could even move. If it had been even close to bouncing, the hole on the back would have been way more ruptured. It punched trough so fast it basically made jus a bullet diameter hole in the plate. The colourchange-area on the exit is basiacally the part of the metal that had to bend out of the way of the bullet. Do you see how small and defined the circle is? It was through before the impact force reached out more than the bore diameter.
Thats actually wrong.
love this channel
Love your content