All language subtitles for Weapons Race_S01E02_Battletank

The second Iraq War, March 2003.

Spearheading the battle,

the United States M1 Abrams,

the most formidable tank
the world has ever seen.

The trenches of World War One,
1916.

The British Mark I,

the world's first battle tank.

The Abrams and the Mark 1.

And in the years in between,

a race to build the ultimate
mobile armoured
fighting machine.

In war after war,

the best tank
can mean the difference
between victory and defeat.

The weapons race
is for the battle tank.

The US M1A2 Abrams.

Latest version
of a battle tank designed

to overwhelm the Soviet Army
during the Cold War.

The British Mark I.

Thrown into battle,
September 1916,

to burst
through German defences.

Between 1916 and today,

new generations of battle tank
leave their mark

on the battlefields
of each new conflict.

World War One,

World War Two,

the Cold War, the Middle East,

Operation Desert Storm,

Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Running through each campaign,

a weapons race that gives
one side a vital advantage.

In every new tank,
excellence is defined

by the balance of three
critical requirements.

Not just speed
and cross-country mobility,

but the ease with which the crew
can do its job in combat.

Not just the size of the gun,

but how quickly it can be aimed,
fired and reloaded.

Not just the thickness
of the armour,

but how well it can
deflect a projectile.

Trade-offs emerge
as the tank is tested in battle.

It's the overall balance
among them

that determines
which machine is ahead

at any given stage in the race.

Go for speed and mobility

and you sacrifice firepower
and protection.

Go for firepower and protection

and you sacrifice speed
and mobility.

And that's the essence
of tank warfare

from the earliest days
of the tank

through to the present day.

Other crucial factors emerge
as the weapon is tested
in conflict.

But the first three requirements
are the reason why
the tank was invented.

World War One,
the Western Front.

The rival armies are dug into
impenetrable trench systems.

Artillery and carefully
positioned machine guns

annihilate every
infantry assault.

Millions face slaughter,

unless these defences
can be breached.

Inspiration
comes from the United States.

In 1906, Benjamin Holt
puts tracks

on an agricultural
steam tractor.

By 1914,

his invention is pulling
artillery on the Western Front.

The basic ingredient
of the tank,

the tractor
with caterpillar treads,

was in use in various
parts of the world

as an agricultural vehicle.

It's hard to imagine a situation
where nobody thought

of slapping some armour
on this tractor

and fitting it with
a machine gun or a small cannon.

The race is on
to build a machine

that can break
the trench stalemate.

It was designed to cross
the moonscape of no man's land,

with shell craters
and other things,

to be able to survive small arms
fire and machine-gun fire,

and finally break through the
barbed wire and other obstacles,

punch a hole
through enemy lines,

so that infantry
could follow behind and
get into the enemy's rear.

In Britain,
Colonel Ernest Swinton

proposes to adapt the Holt
tractor into an armoured
vehicle.

He has the strong support
of government minister
Winston Churchill.

By January 1916,

a prototype, nicknamed Mother,
has been completed.

Its performance is slow,

capable of only
3.5 miles an hour.

Its armour is only 8mm thick,

barely enough to stop rifle
or machine-gun bullets.

But it has two
six-pounder 57mm cannons

and four machine guns,
more than enough firepower

to deal with German
machine-gun nests.

And specially developed
all-round tracks

prove capable of getting it over
substantial obstacles.

Mother is ordered into
production as the Mark I.

It's so secret workers are told

they are making a mobile water
container for the Middle East.

So, the new weapon
becomes known as a tank.

Although they don't know it,
the British have competition.

But only
from their ally France,

which is also developing
the Holt tractor

into a cross-country
armoured vehicle.

The British win the race
to get the tank into battle.

September 15th, 1916.

26 British Mark I's

rumble into
the Battle of the Somme

to support
an infantry assault.

At first the
Germans flee in panic,

but there are too few tanks
to be effective.

And their performance is poor,
in the muddy conditions.

The debut of the British tank

in World War One
was actually a disaster.

Many tanks bogged down,
many broke down,

and the German soldiers
facing it

thought that this
new wonder weapon

was, actually, not all
that it was cracked up to be.

Undaunted, the British
are convinced
they're on to a winner.

A separate Tank Corps is formed.

Staff officers,
led by Colonel JFC Fuller,

work out a battle plan
to use massed tanks

to lead an infantry
breakthrough.

When the French test
their tanks in battle,

in the Spring of 1917,

the cross-country performance
is so bad

they abandon their first designs

and decide to concentrate
on a lighter, smaller tank.

While the French are rethinking
their approach,

a third competitor
enters the race.

Despite the poor showing
of the enemy's new weapon,

Germany begins to develop
its own tank,

the 32-ton
Sturm-Panzerwagen A7V.

It's an even more unwieldy
armoured box than
the French design

with even worse
cross-country performance.

During 1917,

the stalemate on
the Western Front grinds on,

horrific losses continue.

Then, at dawn
on November 20th, 1917,

the British Tank Corps
puts its new battle plan

into action at Cambrai.

376 tanks go into action
without an artillery barrage.

The German line collapses

and British troops push through
a six-mile gap,

suffering
only slight casualties.

The tank has shown that used
en masse and with surprise

it can break a hole
in the enemy's line.

But can it now go on
to win the war?

Cambrai. November 20th, 1917.

By evening the British advance
three to four miles

through the hole their tanks
tore in the German line.

But as dawn breaks
on the second day,

barely half the tanks
are still running.

And by the next day,
only a quarter.

There are too few
to keep up the momentum.

Attempts to use cavalry are
cut-down by machine-gun fire,

and the Germans counter-attack.

Cambrai shows that another
requirement will be vital
for battle tanks.

It's no good creating a hole
in the enemy's line

if enough tanks aren't running
to follow up.

The battle also makes
clear to the British

they need another type of tank,
smaller, faster,

able to do the job of cavalry.

They come up with the 14-ton
Whippet.

Armed only with machine guns,

it's capable of 8 mph.

But World War one ends
before the Whippet can
be widely used.

While the British are building
on their experience of Cambrai,

the French introduce
their new small tank,

the 6.7-ton Renault M-17.

Its size and low speed

mean that it has poor
cross-country performance.

But the Renault has one
revolutionary feature,

its main armament
is a machine gun

or a 37mm cannon
in a revolving turret,

giving it
considerable flexibility.

November 1918,

the First World War
drags to its bloody close.

Tanks continue to provide
infantry support,

but they're too slow
and unreliable

to be the formidable battlefield
weapon that was hoped for.

So far, three nations have built
and used their own tanks.

Britain, with its mixed fleet
of Mark V's and Whippets.

France, with the light Renault.

Germany,
with its cumbersome A7V.

One other nation,
the United States,

has bought and used the light
French Renault in large numbers.

It has also begun a joint
development project with Britain

for a new heavy tank,
the Liberty.

Peace brings major changes.

Defeated and forbidden
from producing any more tanks,

Germany drops out, temporarily.

Isolated and isolationist,

the United States
loses interest.

Only in one area

does the US leap ahead,
unofficially.

Independent designer
Walter Christie

experiments with revolutionary
suspension systems.

By the end of the 1920s,

he has produced
a series of prototypes

which can exceed
50 miles an hour

and have extraordinary
cross-country ability.

But the US Army ignores them.

Only in Britain and France do
designers and military planners

continue building on
their World War One experience.

During the 1920s,

the race continues to improve
the three key features,

performance, protection
and firepower.

The French introduce new tanks
which are well-armoured

and have good
cross-country mobility.

But they build into them
features which turn out

to severely limit their
firepower and crew performance.

Virtually, all the French
designs have a small turret

from which a single man
has to command the tank,

operate the radio,
and fire the gun.

It's too much for one man
to do effectively.

The main French heavy tank,
the Char B,

not only has the
single-man turret

with a 47mm cannon,

but its main 75mm armament

is buried in the hull and can
only be moved up and down.

The whole tank has
to turn to aim it.

Also, the French
remain convinced

that infantry support
is the tank's main role.

They do not see any need
to explore new ways

of using their new battle tanks.

In contrast, in Britain
a small group of officers,

like JFC Fuller
and military theorists,

like Basil Liddell Hart,

use their experience
of World War One

to begin a fundamental rethink
in the race for the battle tank.

They decide that the tank
can be used not just
to support infantry

but to win battles.

By combining a fast,
reliable tank

with mobile artillery, airpower,
and good communications,

armoured spearheads will thrust
deep behind enemy lines

and win a swift victory.

Throughout the 1920s,

the British Army allowed

its armour enthusiasts
and supporters

an unusual level
of intellectual freedom

to go ahead and try new ideas,
new designs,

new tactics.

And a very, very vibrant

doctrine emerges.

A fast and reliable tank,

the Vickers Medium Mark II,

is tested in a series of
exercises on Salisbury Plain.

Although lightly armoured,

the Mark II has a 47mm gun.

Its five man crew is
concentrated in
or near the turret,

to improve co-ordination,
and it is fitted with a radio.

The British are developing
a new generation of battle tank

and exploring ways
of using it to win battles.

And their experiments are being
watched with interest elsewhere.

In 1924, Germany
and the Soviet Union

begin a secret joint
development programme.

1928, the Soviets produce
their first light tanks.

Young German officers,
like Major Heinz Guderian,

experiment with
the British ideas

using mock tanks
made of wood and canvas.

At the end of the 1920s,
the army that's making

the best use of tanks
is that of Great Britain.

It has the largest
number of tanks,

the most enthusiastic
tank officers,

and the best tank theory.

But British innovation
is short-lived.

October, 1929.

Wall Street crashes

and the world plunges
into the Great Depression.

In Britain, experimentation
in both design

and tactics comes to a halt.

When the British develop
a new tank during the 1930s,

it is a throwback
to the infantry support idea.

The Matilda I fails in just
about all the main requirements.

Its firepower is
a single machine gun.

It can only manage
eight miles an hour.

Only in protection
does the Matilda measure up.

Its armour is even thicker
than that of the Char B.

In contrast, the Soviet Union

pushes ahead along the lines
pioneered by the British.

In 1931,

it buys two of Walter
Christie's tanks

and copies
his revolutionary suspension.

By 1934, the Soviets produce

the 11-ton BT-5.

It has a 45mm gun,

as big as the British
Medium Mark II.

It is better armoured
and twice as fast.

But it is Germany that now
leaps ahead in the race.

When Adolf Hitler
comes to power,

the officers who had been
secretly experimenting

with British ideas are able
to put them into practice.

They appreciate that for the
tank to be a battle winner,

it must not only
be well-balanced in firepower,

performance and protection

but it must be used
to produce maximum impact.

It's not just
the technical qualities

of the weapon that make it
successful on the field.

It's the tactics they employ,

and it's also the doctrine
which they work under

as part of an army
and a combined arms force.

They develop the
Liddell-Hart/Fuller ideas,

that it is armoured
units operating

with mobile infantry
and airpower

which will win battles
in the future.

Germany's tank
development programme

produces fast,
well-armed designs.

The 15-ton Mark III
has a 37mm gun.

And the 20-ton Mark IV

has a short-barrelled 75mm.

Although lightly armoured,
they are spacious designs

with plenty of scope
for development.

Unlike the French designs,

they also group three
of their five crew in the turret

to give excellent
crew performance.

The Germans understood
that warfare

is not an individual sport,
it's a team sport.

They put people in
where they could communicate,

transfer information
to each other,

and therefore it was
a team fighting a system

instead of isolated individuals.

Within four years,

Hitler has annexed Austria
and Czechoslovakia,

and is threatening Poland.

The world is about to go to war.

In World War One,
the tank was in its infancy.

A lot more is riding on it now.

This time, the race
for the battle tank

could decide the outcome
of the war.

September 1st, 1939.

Germany invades Poland.

World War Two has begun.

After 20 years of development
and debate,

two very different approaches
to the battle tank race

are about to be tested
where it counts, in combat.

The French and British infantry
support tanks,

well-armoured, but slow.

Firepower and crew performance

are likely to be
their biggest flaws.

Most French tanks have the
inefficient single-man turrets

and the Char B's
hull-mounted 75mm gun

is difficult to aim quickly.

The main British tank,
the Matilda I,

only has a machine gun
in its one-man turret.

Against these are the faster
but less well-armoured

German Mark III's and IV's

with good cross-country
performance and comparable guns.

As the war began,

the Germans were very
much in the lead.

They had, in the Panzer III,

the best all-round tank
that was then in service.

But Germany faces a problem,

with a secondary,
but still critical factor

in the race for the battle tank.

The war has begun too early.

Germany has produced too few
medium Mark III's and IV's.

This shortfall doesn't
matter in Poland,

where the opposition
has even fewer tanks

and doesn't know
how to use them.

But it may prove
critical in the West,

where Britain and France
have 3,000 tanks.

Most are French, as well-armed
and better protected

than the 600 Mark III's and IV's
Germany has available.

The remaining 2,000 German tanks

are designed only
for reconnaissance and training.

But the coming battle
will not just be a confrontation

between two types of battle tank

but between different
ways of using them.

French and British tanks
are dispersed to
support the infantry.

German tanks are concentrated
in separate Panzer divisions,

and will be used en masse
to probe for weak spots

and then push through
to cut off the enemy's forces.

May 10, 1940.
Hitler attacks in the West.

German Panzers move through

the seemingly
impenetrable Ardennes,

split the Allied armies

and race for
the English Channel.

Within eight days,
they reach the coast.

Germany's tanks
and the way they are used

have decisively defeated
the French and British.

And their superiority continues
on the next battlefield.

North Africa, 1941.

the German Afrika Korps
under General Erwin Rommel,

one of the outstanding leaders
of the Blitzkrieg in France,

faces the British.

Rommel's tanks have
increased firepower.

The Panzer Mark III's
now have a 50mm gun

and Mark IV's,
a long-barrelled 75mm gun,

which gives much greater range
and penetration.

They have also substantially
increased their protection.

Until now, a solid shot

has been used
to penetrate a tank's armour.

The Germans develop
a super-hardened surface

more difficult to pierce.

The British respond

by producing
an armoured-piercing round

with a cap designed
to break open the hardened face

so the shot can still penetrate.

The German response is to attach
additional thin layers of armour

to break up these capped rounds
prematurely.

It's a new escalation
in the race

between firepower
and protection.

But the basic problem
for the British

is that the German tanks
still completely outrange them.

Even the newest British tanks

still have only
a two-pounder, 37mm gun.

British designers
and industry seem unable

to come up
with a quick solution.

It's very difficult for a
nation, due to a tactical need,

to develop a new tank
that is highly successful.

The British just
didn't have the time

to develop the sort of tank
they needed for desert warfare.

In desperation,
Britain turns to its old ally,

the United States.

Fortunately, it finds a giant
which has just woken up.

The success of
the German Blitzkrieg

has been an alarm call
for the United States to rearm.

In this desperate race
the United States

has a huge advantage
over even the Germans

in one key factor.

The United States has
a world-beating auto industry.

And now it's mobilised
for the war effort.

In 1939,

the US Army was
in very poor shape
where tanks were concerned.

Fortunately, however,
the US auto industry

was in very good shape,

and that auto industry turned
out to be the secret weapon

of the US armoured force.

The first US medium tank
to reach the British

is the M3 Lee/Grant.

But it has a weakness.

Its main 75mm gun

is mounted in the hull

so the tank
has to turn to aim it.

The second US medium tank

is the 33-ton Sherman

with a turret-mounted 75mm gun.

This is rushed to the British
Army in North Africa.

It goes straight to the front
and plays a key role

in the crucial battle
of El Alamein.

The Sherman proves a match
for the German Mark IV.

It is just as fast,
its armour is just as thick,

and its gun just as powerful.

The Sherman leads
the British 8th Army

in its 1,200 mile
pursuit of Rommel,

and is the main tank
of the US and British forces

which finally win a decisive
victory in North Africa.

Now, the race switches
back to Europe.

June 1941.

Adolf Hitler launches
Operation Barbarossa.

His invasion of
the Soviet Union.

The bulk of his Panzers

are still the up-gunned
Mark III's and IV's.

The reason the Germans

allowed their armour
designs to stagnate

was that they didn't think it
was going to be a very long war.

They believed that Russia
would only take a year or two

and they wouldn't need
to design new tanks.

By the end of November,
the Panzers are close to Moscow.

German tanks and tactics
again seem unbeatable.

Then, on December 5th,

they run into
a devastating surprise.

Tens of thousands
of fresh Soviet troops

fall upon the Germans
and drive them back.

They are equipped
with a new tank

which completely
outclasses the Panzers.

With the outcome
of World War Two
hanging in the balance,

the Red Army has leaped ahead

and begun a new stage
in the race for the battle tank.

The new Soviet T-34

represents the most successful
integration yet

of the three most critical
factors in a battle tank.

It's fast, 32 mph,

compared to
the German Mark IV's 24.

And it has a wide track,

for superb
cross-country ability.

Ironically,
the suspension is based

on American
Walter Christie's design,

which the United States
turned down.

The T-34 has revolutionary

angled armour to deflect shells.

This more than doubles
the protection

without increasing
the thickness or weight.

Its main armament is a 76mm gun.

The T-34 design

meets another requirement
brilliantly.

It's simple and easy
to manufacture in bulk.

Faced with this devastating
new opponent,

Hitler orders a crash programme
to regain the initiative
in the race.

Two new tank designs
are rushed into production.

The 43-ton Panther,

with a 75mm gun
and sloped armour.

Germany's answer to the T-34.

And the 56-ton Tiger,

a quantum leap in tank design

with sufficient frontal armour
to deflect a 75mm shot,

and an 88mm gun

which outranges every
other existing tank.

By mid-1943,

Hitler is facing one of the most
crucial tank battles
ever fought.

It will be a key moment
in the race for the battle tank.

After annihilating a German army
at Stalingrad,

the Soviets are pushing west.

Near Kursk their
front-line bulges deep

into German-held territory.

Hitler orders his generals
to eliminate this salient.

But he delays the offensive

until the Tiger I and Panther

can be rushed into service.

July 5th.
The Battle of Kursk begins.

[explosion]

After a week,
the Germans have been halted.

With their 88mm guns,

the Tigers can pick off
the T-34s at long range,

but the Soviets use their
speed and superior numbers

to get close in,
especially around the sides

and backs of the German tanks,

where they are vulnerable.

The Soviets lose many more
tanks, but they can afford to.

With the T-34,
the Russians had a good tank,

easy to produce in huge numbers.

Not a match for the best
of the German tanks,

but they simply swarmed them.

They could afford
to lose ten T-34s

for every Tiger they killed.

The German designers have built
superb fighting machines,

but they failed on two
other key requirements.

The Tiger I and Panther
are complex to build.

German industry
isn't capable of producing them
in sufficient numbers.

The Tigers and Panthers

are over-engineered
and temperamental.

Early teething problems,
especially in the fuel systems,

meant that they often burst into
flames in the middle of combat.

For the next two years,

German forces in the east
are constantly on the retreat.

They are totally outnumbered
by the flood of T-34s

pouring from Soviet factories.

And the skill
of the Soviet designers

means that the T-34
can easily be up-gunned

to take an 85mm gun.

Hitler has lost the race
for the battle tank in the east.

Now, his new tanks are about to
face a crucial test in the west.

June 6th, 1944,

the Allies land in Normandy.

Needing a massive
number of tanks,

they stick with
the reliable Sherman.

An attempt is made
to upgrade firepower

against the sloped armour
protection of the new
German tanks.

A new high explosive
anti-tank shell

is fired at a slight trajectory

so it explodes flat
against the slope

and then creates
a jet of molten metal

which penetrates the armour
and kills the crew.

But the small fields,
narrow lanes

and high hedgerows of Normandy

are ideal defensive terrain
for the German tanks.

With its impenetrable
frontal armour

and 88mm gun,

the Tigers can lurk in ambush

and pick off the Allied Shermans
before they get in range.

The Tiger tank
was a feared weapon

during the Battle of Normandy,
and the Germans used it,

they used it
as a psychological tool

against the Allies,
often moving them around

to give the impression they had
far more than they did have.

Like the Soviets,
the western Allies

have to rely
on overwhelming the Tigers

with superior numbers.

Once they can get around
the back and sides,

their new shells have
a chance of working.

Gradually Allied numbers
and air power

combine for the knockout punch.

August 1944.

They break out.

Now, the Sherman comes
into its own.

The great virtues of the Sherman

were mechanical reliability
and operational mobility.

The Sherman was a tank
that was at its best

in exploiting a breakthrough

rather than making one.

On both their eastern
and western fronts,

the Germans are ultimately
beaten by numbers.

Their final tanks,
improved Panthers

and the 68-ton Tiger II,

are technologically superb

but far too complex
to produce in bulk.

It's important to remember
that for all of its legend,

only a few hundred Tigers
were built.

Tens of thousands of Shermans

and T-34s were built,

and it was these numbers that
just overwhelmed the Germans.

Berlin, May, 1945.

The end of the road
for Hitler's Germany.

A major stage in the race
for the battle tank ends.

But another stage
is about to begin.

The wartime alliance which
defeated Hitler is falling
apart.

The Cold War between the Soviet
Union and the western powers

will see a new generation
of battle tanks

go eyeball-to-eyeball

in the world's new hotspots.

in the world's new hotspots.

By 1948,

the Soviet Union and
western powers are squaring off

across the plains
of north-west Europe.

Now, the battle tank
weapons race

is dictated by the sort
of battle they intend to fight.

The Soviets believe that attack
is the best form of defence.

The Russian tanks
are primarily offensive.

They have very large guns,
they've got great mobility,

and they're very, very low
to the ground to reduce
their silhouette.

The western allies
have a different focus.

They want to stop them.

For this reason, there is a bias

in favour of well-armed,

heavily armoured,

relatively immobile tanks.

The two sides in the race

start to focus
on different requirements.

For the Red Army
it is performance and firepower.

1949,

the result is the 35-ton T-54

with a 100mm gun.

For NATO, the focus is on

protection and firepower.

In particular,
the British are determined

never to be outclassed again

as they had been
by the German Tigers.

The 50-ton Centurion,

which comes into service shortly
after the end of World War Two,

is well-armoured, with good
cross-country performance.

But firepower is where
the Centurion scores.

Its 84mm gun

fires a new shell
with a lot more bang

from the same size gun.

A thinner armour-piercing
warhead

is cased in a jacket, or sabot,

which flies off as the warhead
leaves the muzzle.

With a much higher
explosive charge

the warhead has greater range
and penetrative power.

The Centurion also
has a revolutionary new

gyroscopic control system

which provides an outstandingly
stable firing platform,

especially accurate
while on the move.

The new British tank
can destroy enemy armour

with deadly-accurate
fire at long range.

The Centurion leapfrogs
ahead in the race.

After World War Two,

the US seems uncertain if battle
tanks will be needed again

and starts to slip behind.

Its last World War Two design,

the M-26 Pershing,

is updated to become
the M-47 Patton I.

And then,
the considerably redesigned

M-48 Patton II.

These developments mean
that the US designs

are barely meeting
one of the crucial factors

in the race for the battle tank.

Their 90mm guns

have better fire-control
than the Soviet tanks,

and could probably
hold their own against them.

But American design fails badly
in another crucial factor.

US tanks have
an extraordinary thirst,

the M-48 gulps four
US gallons per mile.

For the rest of the Cold War
the race leaps back and forth.

The US fits a British 105mm gun

into the M-60 and gets a tank

that can take on
the most recent Soviet T-55.

The Soviets retake the lead

with the 40-ton T-62

with a 115mm gun.

Then in 1967,

the British deploy
the 50-ton Chieftain

with excellent sloped armour

and a massive 120mm
fully-stabilised gun

which can fire on the move.

1971,

the Soviets hit back
with the T-72.

It has a 125mm gun

with an automatic-loader
reducing the crew to three.

These Soviet machines are rugged
and easy to build.

But to achieve their low
silhouette, performance suffers.

They are very cramped
and their crews tend
to become exhausted quickly.

[It may seem rather
ridiculous, but actually,

comfort in tanks is a very
important tactical factor.

If you've ever ridden in a tank
cross-country at speed

for any period of time,
it becomes very tiring.

So, a comfortable tank
is an effective tank.

And significantly,
western designs were
much more comfortable

than Warsaw Pact
or Eastern Bloc designs.

Only combat can show whether

the NATO or Soviet tank
design is best.

But the test doesn't
come in Europe.

The confrontation is by proxy.

The arena is the Middle East.

In 1967,

Israel uses British Centurions

and modified US Shermans

to rout the armies
of Syria and Egypt

with their Soviet T-54s.

But Israeli training
and strategy are also superior,

making it difficult to know
whether it was their tanks

or their tactics that completely
outclassed the enemy.

I think the lesson
out of the '67 war,

relative to offensive
or defensive tanks,

it is more important who you're
fighting than what you're
fighting.

Six years later,
October 6th, 1973.

Egypt's surprise attack
across the Suez Canal

starts the Yom Kippur War.

Syria assaults
the Golan Heights.

Syria assaults
the Golan Heights.

What is about to happen
is crucial in the race
for the battle tank.

The Israeli tanks
are hugely outnumbered,

but their Centurions do the job,

knocking out ten Syrian T-62s

for every one loss.

It's here that we see
the only true manifestation

of the tactics and technology

that would have been used
on the central European plains.

[Bruce Gudmundsson] The fighting
on the Golan Heights in 1973

demonstrates that when it
comes to a set-piece battle,

a battle in which one side

has a strong defensive position,

a British-style tank,
with its heavy armour

and first-class firepower,

is much superior
to a Soviet tank.

The Yom Kippur War changes
the rules of the weapons race.

Protection and firepower
are now the highest priorities.

Now, the British,
with their concern

for maximum protection,
lead the field.

They develop
a new type of armour,

named Chobham,

which gives far greater
protection with less weight.

To make a projectile
lose its power,

Chobham has two armoured skins

sandwiching a core
of ceramic tiles.

As the projectile
penetrates the outer skin,

the ceramic shatters
and disperses the impact,

ideally before the inner skin
is penetrated.

By the early 1980s,

there are four
very similar contenders

in the race for
the best battle tank.

The British 62-ton Challenger 1,

with Chobham armour,
and a 120mm gun.

The German 62-ton Leopard II

with a 120mm gun.

It also has British
Chobham armour.

The Soviet 46-ton T-80

with a 125-mm gun,

and revolutionary
gas turbine engine.

The American 70-ton M1 Abrams.

This also has a
gas turbine engine.

It starts with a 105mm gun,

but is upgraded in 1984

to 120mm.

It also uses Chobham armour.

The Abrams is designed
for a defensive battle

with firepower
and protection supreme.

November, 1989.

The Berlin Wall comes down.

It's the beginning of the
collapse of the Soviet Union.

It seems the great battle tanks
designed for the Cold War

have been rendered irrelevant.

They may never go head-to-head
in combat.

Then, in 1990.

Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait.

The US M1A1 Abrams

and British Challenger 1 tanks
of the Coalition forces

go up against Soviet T-72s.

Although the Iraqis in theory
have more tanks,

they are completely outclassed.

It is the same story ten years
later in Gulf War Two.

US M1A1 Abrams

mount a devastating 350-mile

Blitzkrieg to seize Baghdad.

After a nearly
century-long weapons race,

the latest version
of the Abrams tank

seems in a class of its own.

It proved outstandingly
dependable during the
epic race to Baghdad.

The tank has been upgraded not
only with new guns and armour,

but with an array of new sensors
and communications equipment

which make it superbly versatile
on the battlefield.

The Abrams
is immensely expensive,

but the US is wealthy enough

to buy and maintain
substantial numbers.

The tank's 120mm gun

is the match of any other,

but what makes it lethal
is the fire control system

and the speed with which
it can fire aimed rounds.

Its Chobham armour
and sloped design

have proved outstanding
in combat.

The tank is very comfortable

and has excellent cross-country
performance.

It was designed
for the defensive.

Its gas-turbine engine

gives it excellent acceleration
over short distances,

moving from one defensive
position to another

while engaging the enemy with
its superbly accurate armament.

But this is also
its major weakness.

The immense amounts of fuel
needed to keep it advancing
rapidly.

Our tanks have to be refilled,
in the offensive,

every four hours because,
essentially, it's a jet engine.

A diesel engine
is about every 24 hours.

So, as you're fighting your way
forward, we found in Baghdad,

the Iraqis got out of the way
and let the tanks go forward,

knowing that within four
hours a fuel truck has
to come up that same route,

and fuel trucks are a lot easier
to kill than tanks.

So far, the Abrams tank
still represents

both the state of the art
and the status quo.

It may be heavy and thirsty
but it is a formidable,

almost unbeatable,
presence on the battlefield.

But it may be
running out of enemies,

since they can't be counted on

always to play by your rules.

This is leading
to a conclusion where

the US is so dominant on
the technological end
of the battlefield

that our enemies
have simply decided
they'll play a different game,

"I cannot match you in
conventional fights in the open.

I will fight unconventionally
in the city

at point-blank range
and take away your advantages."

The end of the battle tank
has long been forecast,

from the threat
of anti-tank missiles,

anti-tank helicopter,

or precision guided weapons

which can attack
where its armour is weakest.

And yet, each time,

new defensive solutions
have kept it in business.

If there are no more opponents

attempting to better
the Abrams tank,

then the battle tank weapons
race may be over for now.

But different wars
demand different weapons,

and the idea of a highly mobile,

well-armed and well-armoured
war machine

has proved remarkably resilient
for almost a century.

We can no more predict an end
to the battle tank weapons race,

than we can predict the future
of warfare itself.