invention of the tank

This documentary goes about over the invention of the tank and weapons of tank en new inventions like reactive armour/kinetic energy penetrator.

[@ianpotter2128]

As a tank crewman for 9 years, let me tell all of you something. A tank is only as good as it's crew. You can have the best tank in the world, armed to the teeth and defended by reactive armour but if that crew cannot work, support and over come their arrogance, the can be taken out with a simple hand grenade. Stop and think about that one.

[@domosrage5434]

Ian Potter well it's a good thing there is training and a good ol rpg to keep ya humble

[@ianpotter2128]

@@domosrage5434 that is sooooo very much true and I don't mind a slice of humble pie every now and then.

[@Apex_grind562]

Makes sense. The crew is only as strong as it's weakest link. The armor could be impenetrable but the psychology of the soldier penetrated.

[@jeffreym.keilen1095]

19E10B8.....Tankee Tough.

[@bigjim9706]

Sidney is one of my favorite explosive/pyrotechnic professionals he is so awesome with his knowledge!

[@johnyricco1220]

I just learned Sydney Alford died in January 2021. He had just been presented with the USN’s highest civilian award the day earlier.

[@markfryer9880]

Thanks for uploading this doco, it is one that I haven't seen before and covered some things not shown in other docos.

[@DoubleMrE]

Good doc . . . . thanx for the UL! P.S. 'Metroid' is one of my all-time fav game series. ;)

[@Fabrizio_Ruffo]

Sidney is the greatest old man on earth.

[@saigokun]

Thanks for posting this interesting documentary.

[@Mossyz.]

When i was at school i HATED history. It was so BORING i used to fall asleep .But since i left school, i love history now :)) Im more interested in the time before gun powder .... And what AMAZES me more then anything is that when two armys are at a stalemate,90% of the time both sides come to some sort of terms. But over the centuries its the british that invents these machines to win wars,and its much richer countries who then tweek these inventions :) THANKYOU youtube for being GREAT .x.x. And thankyou uploader

[@gamestv4875]

I love you :)

[@Mossyz.]

Dawie Van Emmenes :)

[@jillvalentinefan77]

Cause the education system of certain western countries, is water downed to a extent. Me I am currently preparing for college and studying Military history, and Military science.

[@Mossyz.]

Tyler Howell :)

[@CZ350tuner]

The first squash head shells were called "Copper Heads" appeared in the 1870's as a response to the new iron clad warships starting to be introduced into the navies of the world. They were invented by the British Royal Navy and were a copper nosed shell filled with explosive (usually gunpowder) that deformed on impact and caused wracking (the effect a squash head explosion has) to rip through the rolled iron plate armoured hull of the warship being struck, spreading massive amounts of spalling and debris internally. To counter squash head shells various navies started laminating their rolled iron armour with layers of iron wood and oak which cancelled out the wracking effect. This and the introduction of Harveyised armoured steel rendered the squash head shell obstelete for naval use by the 1890's and so the technology was abandoned until WW2.

[@tomservo5347]

The Abrams has a terrible heat signature and chugs fuel. Wherever they go the fuel browsers are never far behind. When attached to armor units we were told to keep at least 70 feet away from the rear of M1A1's. One of our drivers got his M113 too close and the exhaust melted the tent cover he had strapped to the front. (He wasn't the smartest cookie.)

[@scoobbbbbydo]

I have watched so many tank videos with david fletcher in it ,im begining to think hes dr who. old yougish ,old .young,old,old .young again . He made a lot of tank docos

[@jasonhiggins8909]

What?

[@JumpSeeker]

At last, a program about tanks that isn't just a bombardment of incorrect facts and propaganda. A simple but informative presentation on the development of tanks that is clearly explained and illustrated. Easy to understand for people new to the subject and refreshing for people who are well informed. More of this please. :)

[@SilentRazor1uk]

***** Really, the style of speach and accent is all English, but the topic is about a US Tank, and it does suck up a bit to them, but it is more truthful than usual US 'history' programs that market to the ill-educated.

[@rigamarrow]

***** "Gof LOVES te rineCorps-because we keep heaven stocked with fresh souls!"

[@lukedontknow9283]

JumpSeeker it’s just a add for abrams everyone know leopard2a7 is better

[@ApplyWithCaution]

... the Chieftain was the step change in tank design, and it's successor, the Challenger, is easily a match for any MBT in the field today ...

[@valentinfinozzi9358]

Well, isn't it David Fletcher! He's very knowledgeable and appears on the Tank Museum channel.

[@frankpineda1832]

Amazing video, thanks a lot 👏👏👏👏👏

[@wesdowner5636]

Yeah, tanks are great, if you have air superiority. Without control of the skies, your 70 ton tank is nothing but a giant iron coffin.

[@georgeking9247]

except against terrorists with no air force

[@Sandwich13455]

Civilians are all their for now.

[@jclark6749]

yea that what happen to me when i play war thunder

[@florkiler6242]

@@georgeking9247 well if they don't have air and we do than we have air superiority

[@fratersol]

Very true

[@johnbartlet8444]

Good job for uploading , thank-you

[@squarepants49]

Actually, "Little Willie" the first tank built, had a turret and a normal, not rhomboidal track design, but they had some difficulty with the tracks traversing trenches so scuppered the turret.

[@networkbike543]

Very good documentary with clear explanations and good demonstrations. Never even heard of the sabot before this and seen many documentaries.

[@Thelothuo]

+networkbike543 This is made for a television channel that does not specialize in this field. Take caution, as much of the information has some arguable inaccuracy. For one, Squash-Head ammunition was designed for use against concrete, initially. The flattened face of the shell in theory would reshape the shockwave to make it more effective at breaking concrete. It worked. The "slap" that squash-head shells gave was much better at disassembling concrete along unseen stress lines and points in the material than conventional explosive shells. (Also why wall-breaching is done with flat charges and not satchel charges.) It was found that the squash-head slap just so happened to work on steel, too. Interestingly, because the energy transferred from the explosion is mostly shock and not raw gas pressure, the remains of concrete walls destroyed this way tend to fall more or less straight down instead of being blown in by pressure. Modern building demolition makes great use of this.

[@jameswhyard2858]

The Australian Lanceot de Mole took his design for a tracked vehicle to the War Office in 1908, it was rejected. Post WW1 he objected to the War Office and was awarded 250 pounds and also awarded the honorary rank of Corporal!

[@TheTrollwut]

6.00 I have been in that very tank, it is at bovington tank museum in the uk :D

[@javamann1000]

When I was involved with tanks, a Chieftain on the range, went into a small dip with the gun stabilised. The result as the barrel skewered the rise, which did it no good!

[@natedunn51]

the rise or the barrel?

[@kmandafirst7874]

does the abrams have chobham armour like our challenger 2? i heard that it has been mentioned to america but not in great detail.

[@fritadosebbl9814]

In this docu they say that the Tiger couldn't fire its gun on the move. I just watched a docu about Michael Wittman, and if I got it right, they said that he took out an enemy convoy on the run, firing his Tigers cannon. Anybody with further information about that ?

[@DrCruel]

37:45 The plates are actually angled at 60 degrees from the perpendicular to the vector of the charge, not 30 degrees.

[@bjaminstaples]

Thanks for the heads up nerd

[@DrCruel]

You're welcome, WoT noob.

[@Darranis_Kuningasverinen]

Perhaps they did that to misteach 3rd world countries

[@jonmeyerpeter9459]

thx this helped me in wot or world of tanks

[@robrobert9541]

I don't know if you can still buy them, I haven't seen one in many years now, but when I was a kid in the 70s I had several gyroscopes as toys. You would wrap a string around the axle and pull it really fast. That would get the wheel spinning at high speed, and it would remain spinning for several minutes, as long as you didn't interfere with the wheel's ability to spin freely. Whenever I brought that gyroscope to school I was the most popular kid in school. Everyone wanted to play with it. I never realized it at the time, but I never saw any other kids with one of them, for some reason, but they all loved mine. LOL! You could make it walk across a string stretched between two points, and all kinds of other cool tricks that the instructions told you how to accomplish. They were small enough to fit in your hand, but the power you could feel in that little spinning wheel was impressive. (That's the same scientific principle that helps a bicycle stay upright when in motion. Just take a bicycle wheel and hold it by the two ends of the axle on either side of the wheel, give the wheel a good spin and then try to tilt the wheel. It really resists being tilted, and more so the faster the wheel is spinning.) My Dad bought me my first one as a Christmas present, as a sort of science lesson kind of thing. And they were fairly cheap, too. I think back then I was buying them for around $4 or $5. Now I'm going to look around and see if you can still buy them. LOL! I'd love to have one again.

[@modelshiper]

+Rob Robert if you want, you can get them at Lee Valley

[@robrobert9541]

Kurtis McConnell Where's/What's Lee Valley?

[@modelshiper]

Its a store in Canada, they probably ship to the states

[@robrobert9541]

Kurtis McConnell I'm in Canada, but I've never heard of them. I've searched the Internet, but I can't find any stores that stock them here. I'll look for them and see if I can get one sent. Thanks.

[@modelshiper]

www.leevalley.com/en/gifts/page.aspx?c=&p=50462&cat=4,53201&ap=3 there you go :)

[@TheHilariousGoldenChariot]

This is the best tank documentary ever, it has the most accurate information and best demonstrations. All of the facts in this documentary are correct which is just splendid.

[@Gman3000vr4]

Great Documentary.

[@renegadusunidos6151]

narrator: the tiger can't fire while on the move micheal wittmann: hold my beer

[@coryfice1881]

Flies out of tank with his turret as brits and canadians watch his tank blow up from a firefly round.

[@coachhannah2403]

Well, the T34 also used to fire on the move. Didn't often hit... M4, on the other hand!

[@laffytaffy1417]

@@coryfice1881 what a muppet

[@coryfice1881]

@@laffytaffy1417Micheal Wittmann was a nazi muppet correct.

[@coryfice1881]

@@laffytaffy1417wittman was a muppet correct.

[@TheWolfsnack]

Damn....I instantly click on anything showing old Sid!

[@OmluTerong]

Whooa....I believe, it must be fun having Dr. Sydney as your neighbor

[@jacobshort6528]

Can you imagine a Mark 4 tank built with modern tanker technology? It would probably resemble one of the Lord's of War tanks, from the Warhammer Escalation series of 2013.

[@hartstudebakerkid]

As I remember it it was Holt that first used tracks on steam tractors.

[@scottguffie7759]

Two things he forgot to mention about both the Tiger and the T-34. First off is that while the Tiger was in many ways an excellent fighting machine it was also incredibly expensive and extremely difficult to make due to the German perfectionist nature which meant that they could only be produced and deployed in limited quantities. As for the T-34 it was quite literally the epitome of cheap and cheerful (for a tank anyway) which meant that the Soviets could, and did, send dozens of them to kill a single Tiger with dozens more to spare thus literally overwhelming everything in their path. The T-34's were almost literally thrown together in a truly Soviet "it's good enough" mentality which exemplified the quote by Stalin "Quantity has a quality all its own". As such while the Tiger was an engineering masterpiece it was too big, too heavy, too time consuming to make and just too darn expensive while the T-34 was lighter, faster, cheap and easy to make which is why the T-34 won time and again against the Tiger.

[@MartyWoodcock]

One thing this "documentary" misses is landmine safety. Many of these tanks have been taken out by landmines. Since 2012, improvements have been made, but I'm uncertain how effective these are, when faced with powerful landmines. How do tracks fair, when a landmine is detonated underneath? How about the "belly" armour? (Not sure if that's the correct wording, but I'm using it anyway, to describe the underside of the tank).

[@TheHilariousGoldenChariot]

Minesweepers/ pray you don’t go over an anti tank mine

[@trevortrevortsr2]

Sidney Alford is such a genius

[@05017351]

He is the only reason I clicked on this.

[@romeovarga6413]

I love him!

[@Andrew-yb1uv]

I could listen to him all day.

[@KarILsson]

A Swedish strv 103C also known as the S-Tank in the background at 39:55 :D

[@wat8437]

is the back half of the round at 2:04 spinning, or rotating? if so, what purpose does it fill?

[@wat8437]

@@cyberpunkalphamale i don't mean the fins. The Black/White squares

[@AmazingAce]

Common myth about the Soviets inventing sloped armor. Sloped armor was around before the first tank was ever envisioned. The Renault FT utilized sloped armor. The Soviets where merely the first to use sloped armor on a large scale.

[@MegaRaven100]

+Amazing Ace There was also sloped armor by accident but it was the Soviets who made it POLICY and and put that into a production if new tanks using it to beat the 'ubermensch' with many 2nds best tanks; as the T 34 so clearly shows. Simple , cheap and yet in fact more effective with the increased numbers this led to than expensive German superior engineering. It was the basic concept that was superior. It was faster, better armored and better armed and could go where other German tanks could not in 1941-2.

[@silver760]

On one of the armour tests on the Abrams 43:44 the armour fails and the simulated shell detonates the magazine at the turret rear.

[@Goose_Farquit]

Chobham armour is not reactive armour but a laminated composite armour. It's also a Top Secret British invention that the Brits allow the USA to use on the Abrams. So all in all this is an interesting Documentary to a point but it's not quite accurate in it's final deposition as the the Abrams does not use reactive armour!

[@EnhancedNightmare]

Gareth Brooks-Martin Smoothbore guns allow more ammunition types but lower accuracy, from what I know. Can rifled gun shoot out a guided missile? A drone? Canister Shot? They also wear out faster. I'm not 100% positive on this one though.

[@EnhancedNightmare]

9M119 Refleks - guided missile system in T90S. The drones are novel thing, China just presented one. What's snub nose round? Never heard of them are those squash heads? Things aren't illegal because they are similar... It's just a giant shotgun. They are being developed for Abrams too, but I wonder how they affect the durability of the tube. As said by the officials they "provide effective rapid lethal reaction against massed assaulting infantry armed with hand held anti-tank and automatic weapons at close range ". 120MM M1028 CANISTER its called. Things like APDS and HEAT suffer lowered effectiveness when spinning. So rifled guns rarely use them. However French managed to make those and to make them useful. You probably can adapt each ammo type to each tube but I can't see rifled guns soothing rockets.

[@alexanderrahl482]

Gareth Brooks-Martin smoothbores allow for more ammo types, your logic is flawed.

[@EnhancedNightmare]

***** " _Another reason for the declining use of HESH rounds is the preference of most armies for smoothbore cannons. Rifling decreases the penetrating power of HEAT warheads because the centrifugal force of the spinning projectile tends to disperse the explosive, but this same effect can assist a HESH shell by increasing the surface area of contact. The British Army has persisted with a rifled cannon on their Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 battle tanks partly to preserve the general purpose capability of HESH ammunition. Nevertheless, the British Army had planned for a conversion to the more versatile smoothbore cannons, but the project was cancelled due to budget constraints. This would have allowed them to take advantage of commonality with NATO partners and the greater availability of smoothbore ammunition types such as high-explosive (HE), time-fuzed and canister shot. British rifled tanks have been limited to two ammunition types: a kinetic energy penetrator and HESH_ " British army kept HESH up until 1970's or so -They still use them in their tanks. In USA they use them in engineering forces to demolish fortifications. But in general I agree with you.

[@EnhancedNightmare]

***** Yep.

[@captainobvious9233]

Tanks were used in wartime.

[@walt_man]

Best man!

[@foughtthelol]

26:55 is that Chaos Space Marines music from Dawn of War?

[@mikesivo]

The most iconic tank that no one wanted to meet in combat was the Tiger 1, yes we had other greats and modern armour with reactive armourplate are to recconed with, however the Tiger 1 nails it every time.

[@qunt2742]

27:06 "One solution came from the Russian T-34, with an innovation that others were to copy, sloping armour" The T-34 was not the first tank to use sloped armour, stop it.

[@herculean616]

Well the Russians did innovate on it since they saw it very helpful, therefor others copied it for how much the Russians showed success with the sloped armor.

[@user-mg8mb6ss2t]

@@herculean616 germans where using sloped armor on tank destroyers in the late 30's. years before russia even designed the t 34.

[@user-mg8mb6ss2t]

for the record, they called them "tractors" at that time. They where used more as troop transports and recovery vehicles. Then they decided to slap a gun on them and send their men out to die in their farm equipment. They liked to dig them in and keep fixed positions. If their position was over run, they would almost always abandon them. Despite the sloped armor, it was far too thin to be effective against larger caliber weapons. One hit from a high velocity 50mm would almost certainly kill the entire crew, and any infantry hiding behind it. They should have just built a shit ton of panzer iv's with 75's and they might have won the damn war.

[@reubenroonshaw9801]

@@herculean616 people knew it was useful it just massively reduces interior space

[@reubenroonshaw9801]

@DaToNyOyO tank destroyers are not artillery

[@stephencordell6661]

I bet Sidney’s neighbours must love him

[@Greater98er]

I like explosive reactive armor. Stopping destruction by blowing stuff up... It is cool because it works. Something unrelated but really kinda funny is that the Abrams gets terrible mileage but can run on basically any fuel. (Unleaded, Diesel, Kerosene, Jet fuel and more.) it is kinda expensive, but it is an intimidating weapon in the US's arsenal and basically is fast, strong, powerful, advanced and pretty.

[@shaloamnenja12yearsago29]

Greater98er, it’s kinda sad... If APFSDA hits it, the ERA will have no effect. Basically the only reason it’s used is so others can’t use HEAT projectiles.

[@golucid745]

@@shaloamnenja12yearsago29 Some ERA today, like Relikt, has a degree of protection against APFSDS. Ukrainian Nozh ERA is also effective against older APFSDS rounds made of steel.

[@DylanDiMiG]

I saw a Panther on the old footage at the part of putting bigger guns on weapons after a ranger finder. Not a Tiger at first.. Maaaayybbee a king tiger but i seriously doubt it..

[@abergethirty]

The first commercially produced track vehicles were American. The British ones he was describing didn't look anything like the track vehicles they were showing in the video as examples. They were called Goliath Wheels and they were like wheels with planks attached to them. In WW1 we brought over track vehicles to haul artillery and supply trains, that gave them the idea for the tanks.

[@andrewpetersen6116]

Depleted uranium makes the darts work

[@CMDRSweeper]

The tanks next challenge will be to make a civillianified version, to combat roads destroyed by oversalting and lack of maintenance as well as parking garage bumping! Now, who would stack up better? Can the Abrams successfully survive a season in road salt? Or will it be sunk by its turbine gas economy? Will the Russian multifuel V12 engine prove to be a hit at the gas pump since it can run on almost anything that burns? The future of the tank :D

[@2serveand2protect]

Ha!ha!ha! :D :D

[@2adamast]

+Steve Johnson diesel doesn't care of correct fuel-air ratio

[@RoboFloyd]

Firing an Abrams every 4 seconds😂. Trust me it’s not as easy as you think

[@milesarcher8502]

The 'target lock-on" turret is fascinating!

[@garywheeler7039]

Yeah, the Sherman in the 1940's had a similar thing using gyroscopes that would compensate aim while the tank was moving. Or so the advertisements of the day claimed.

[@shaloamnenja12yearsago29]

It’s a computer using a gyro. He’s just making it seem cooler than it is.

[@osmacar5331]

a lot of people are saying tanks are becoming obsolete, i laugh at their propositions and tell them to invest heavily into armour materials, also america did not invent the tank it was britain, so an accurate option would have been the FV4034 Challenger 2, not to mention the abrams is not the ultimate tank that'd be more the leopard 2 (armour) or type 10 (internal systems and FCS)

[@shaloamnenja12yearsago29]

osmacar, pretty much. The US did invent the crisis chassis though. Still a pretty inaccurate video.

[@1guitarlover]

You have missed to mention the outstanding help of the A-10 Thunderbolt II in the destruction of Hussein's tanks.

[@rockerneck]

dual-turret m1a4 abrams=solution. just like the "mammoth tank" in command and conquer. it was the king.

[@wwmoggy]

I Burst out laughing when they Got to the Canon WTF LOL

[@Corristo89]

We'll see if the tank has a future as it is in modern warfare, which largely takes place in urban surroundings today. Remember, the tanks killing power comes from its main cannon, which needs a lot of space to work and tanks are quite big and lumbering targets. In a city, combatants can outflank and hit them with RPGs or put explosives on them. And the RPG-7, while quite old, is available in huge quantities and still poses a threat to armored vehicles.

[@jasonharding96]

Omg this is the part of the military storm music video

[@noahrichards9741]

U.s tank designs have always had sloping armor it was not the russians.

[@likesmilitaryhistoryalanmo9568]

The tank is far older than people think,the first armoured fighting machine was deployed by the Assyrians around 700 BC

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

34:00 how does the Sabot influence cannon wear?

[@elderjakelee]

The sabot petals themselves decrease cannon wear. They are made of material that is softer than the cannon barrel and much softer than whatever the penetrator is made of. However, modern sabot rounds are generally operate at a much higher pressure than chemical energy rounds. This increased pressure can cause increased wear on a cannon barrel. Modern gunners and technicians will track the number rounds each barrel has fired, so worn barrels get swapped out before they become a safety hazard.

[@BartJBols]

The missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't.

[@Digmen1]

I saw somewhere that sloping armour is not that good on the sides of tanks as it takes up too much room.

[@shaloamnenja12yearsago29]

DigNap15, that’s correct. If you can keep your strongest armor facing the enemy there’s not point in super strong sides.

[@christophersciamanna8708]

I always wondered what kinda tires r those on the striker personel carriers r they solid ruber tires or what?? Anyone know??!!

[@tankolad]

Christopher Sciamanna They're ordinary tyres. Non-bulletproof.

[@InsanoBinLooney]

+Tiles Murphy those things aren't even all-seasons.

[@Andromediens]

Weren't the Renault FT tanks the most used during WWI? As far as I remember from school, there were about 800 Renault FT tanks during that war, used by the british, americans and french. This tank was the reason of why germany has lost so many soldiers between 1916 and 1918, because this tank was very agile and resistant.

[@leahparsuidualc666]

Supreme? Maybe. Most scary, definitely.

[@WJack97224]

The video I saw recently showed that the Brit tanks of WW I were not armored so well and could be penetrated by armor piercing machine gun bullets and at Cambrai the Germans use a 77 mm cannon to knock out 120+ tanks.

[@stizandelasage]

now i know that's your culture i got a taste of it I seen one in real life

[@Redharp]

37:34 "almost X inches" "just over X inches" "nearly X inches" How about you start using metric system and be done with this math for the impared

[@andrewstrongman305]

It's bizarre to hear a modern Brit use inches. I guess the target audience is Americans who don't understand anything else.

[@w8stral]

Only a dumb nugget has problems converting units in their heads. Far easier to quote existing specs than convert and quote.

[@majormadjack8600]

@@andrewstrongman305 to be honest mate, we still use both quite often, for example we measure our body height and weight in inches, and we measure long distances in miles, i use feet and inches alot

[@awesomesaucejr.6647]

I'm American and I prefer to use mm's for armor thickness, it's easier to understand.

[@ddawsond]

@@awesomesaucejr.6647 If you are military or former military the metric system comes easy while civilians don't have a clue. Military uses metric for range, thickness and bore on a regular bases. of course I did have a problem explaining heavy naval guns to a former marine. he could not grasp the concept of a 14 inch 45 caliber gun.

[@nickacelvn]

Challenger! ..... drops the mike.

[@edwardeatme]

the M1 Abrams uses the german Rheinmetall gun ( also used on the leopard Panzer), the tiger could shoot on the move!

[@andrewstrongman305]

Ah, I've never heard of the Tiger being unable to fire it's gun on the move. No self-levelling guns existed and German doctrine was to halt, fire accurately and then move on.

[@romeovarga6413]

Michael Wittmann ambushed the British 7th Armoured Division at Villers-Bocage, apparently driving up and down at the edge of the forest in his Tiger taking out an insane number of tanks while on the move.

[@andrewstrongman305]

@@romeovarga6413 That was very close range, wasn't it?

[@JonathanRossRogers]

The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. However, it varies in Earth's atmosphere little enough to make range finding quite accurate.

[@ATINKERER]

Hold on here. The speed of light is always measured to be the same. This fact is what lead to the Theory Of Relativity. So, if you measure light to take more time than expected to pass a given distance, it means that the distance is longer than you thought it was. In this case, space/time was compressed from the perspective of your field or reference.

[@Sandwich13455]

Gravity is a constant in a vacuum and relativity and special relativity is is proven false

[@Dennis19901]

@@ATINKERER The speed of light is constant, that is correct. However, the time light spends between point A and B can differ depending on the medium it has to travel through. Light bounces off on particles which. This means with the constant speed of light, it takes a longer route between two points and thus takes longer.

[@ATINKERER]

@@Dennis19901 nope

[@Dennis19901]

@@ATINKERER Well, yes actually. Light always travels at the speed of light. The more precise explanation would be that light gets absorbed and re-emitted in a medium. Light travels at c at all times. It is a constant. That's the definition of a constant. It's speed is constant. If you honestly think that the apparent delay in the time it takes light to travel through, say a fiber optic cable, means "space/time was compressed", I'm sorry to say, but you're quite delusional.

[@silver760]

If you remove the men from the tank the only protection it would require would be for critical components such as the engine,control system,cabling and magazine.We currently have the technology to do this with ease,a large part could be done with the many modular systems currently available!

[@alecblunden8615]

Interesting the the origins of the sloped armour principle is only traced to the T34. It appeared on the front of UK Heavies in World War 1. It also appeared on Vickers mediums between the wars and on early infancy tanks during the war, but was not favoured by the Germans and Brits on the (mistaken) believe that rounds would always strive at the armour at an angle, giving an adequate "sloped" effect. This was possibly right given the focus on low velocity, high explosive firing guns on early WW2 tanks. On the issue of the "best" tank, this is conditioned by tactical doctrine.The Challenger 2 was designed to fights primarily defensive war and issuperb fort that purpose. Other tanks are designed for offensive doctrine - which may not prove feasible when faced with massed Russian armour. Alec Blunden

[@Centurion101B3C]

Crud! I have been a Centurion MK5/2 tank-commander. We beat the Abrams in team-to-target in night shooting1986. The Centurion is 50 years older than the Abrams... and still better where it counts. Time-to-target....Zappp! Night-vision.....Zapp! Hit-kill shot? Zappp! The L7a1 tank gun? 2nd to NONE.

[@glenbrugge7430]

Corvus Rabiatus Any good documentaries on KZbin that you'd recommend (on the Centurion)?

[@Centurion101B3C]

Glen Brugge Well, I take it that you already looked at the history channel, where the Centurion came out as the 5th best tank ever. If not, that's a point to start.

[@tankolad]

Corvus Rabiatus The Centurion came out in the 50's, if I remembered correctly. The Abrams came out in 1980.

[@Centurion101B3C]

Tiles Murphy The Centurion Mk1 came out in 1945, just in time NOT to have taken part in WWII. The centurion Mk3 came out in '52/'53T and most were upgraded to Mk5/2s The Abrams came out in the late 1970s, initially sporting an L7A1 main gun, later upgunned to 120mm smooth-bore.

[@tankolad]

Corvus Rabiatus Ah, I see. Still, that's less than 40 years before the Abrams...

[@petersmythe6462]

The Abrams isn't a bad tank, but it's not meta-defining. The frontal hull armor probably couldn't withstand modern weaponry, unlike that of, say, the T-14, but more significantly, this is a much earlier version of the Abrams which likely would have suffered against even the most up to date Soviet tanks of the time.

[@DeerHunter308]

You aught to really hire a researcher or two who knows what they are doing.

[@w8stral]

No no no. That is not how you make a TV show! You know better! You make Bull SHITE(common urban knowledge) up and peddle it as facts

[@TheHilariousGoldenChariot]

What do you mena

[@Bradgilliswhammyman]

The documentary is quite accurate.

[@robertkraciuk2753]

word, fucking sums everything up

[@badweetabix]

Conveniently omitted in this documentary is that the so-call "best tank of WW2" the T-34 had a transmission that was only good for about 75 miles. After 75 miles, the transmission had to be replaced.

[@rayrobbins4625]

what would an A10 do to it ?

[@neddyladdy]

"The silhouette brings fear". Bullshit, it's the intent of the crew and the fact that they have powerful bang bangs on it.

[@granskare]

is this air conditioned?

[@devimead750]

Didn't the British have some involvement in the tank war in Iraq?

[@csnelling4]

David Taylor and the Chobham Armour also the stabilised barrel systems

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

Yep. Longest ever tank on tank kill.

[@lordmopton]

Yep ..friendly fire ...

[@flybobbie1449]

One of the best docs on tanks.

[@WJack97224]

Since battleships had rotating gun turrets, it is puzzling as to why the first tanks did not have them. Perhaps the urgency of the need was dominant and thus turrets were avoided.

[@Digmen1]

The first tanks were just designed to break through the German trenches and barbed wire, not to destroy by firepower. (Like the guy said in the doco)

[@peterking2651]

Why pick the Abraham’s? This is was all basically implemented in about 1945 with the Centurion. The next step was with Challenger, and it’s composite armour (actually developed on Chieftain)

[@oldschoolfoil2365]

id pick the moses tank its more biblical for america

[@willhelmkirkpatricka4253]

I would’ve hoped that they mentioned the BT Russian Tanks because those care before the T-34. Both the BT-2 and BT-7

[@Darranis_Kuningasverinen]

And the bt-5

[@wildbill8304]

To those Tanks enthusiasts, can any of you explain to me where and what was that soldier at 10:31 doing ,where the heck did he come from? For a better preview watch from 10:10 at 0.25...speed! Some amazing early tank action in slow-mo is really trippy and capturing but more is that soldier just appearing from thin air, either that or he was lying there and came within inches of becoming a meat patty!

[@flybobbie1449]

10:31 Propaganda set piece, he's probably a camera man, just taking some close up shots.

[@foughtthelol]

Still waiting for something as cool as the Landkreuzers and Metal Gears.

[@2serveand2protect]

..."LANDKREUZERS"?...

[@leso204]

Good to see a guy 'Tech' drawing by hand no CAD crap ................

[@Nounismisation]

Great documentary. Thank you for posting it Mark. Right, here is my two pennies worth: I don't know when this documentary was made, perhaps a while ago as it is now widely accepted that the 'ultimate' tank today is the Challenger II (which has approx. 1% in common with the earlier Challenger; the Challenger II is a misnomer). It is very similar to the (awesome) Abrams except in two important ways. 1) It has superior armor made from cross-meshed material the composition of which is a state secret of Britain. 2) Most importantly, it requires a much smaller supply route than any other modern tank, allowing it to operate for longer, over greater distances, and places a reduced short-term dependence on an army's logistical elements. i.e. should the supply chain become compromised the Challenger II's operational life remains greater than any of its peers in the same situation. It also has great tea making facilities.

[@DeltaAssaultGaming]

The Challenger 2 is not the ultimate tank.

[@daljiba]

It is about evolution of tank into a near perfect fighting machine of which Abrams is one of them and not history of tanks and as the General spoke about 60% it is known as Directional Probability Variation theory by Whittaker regarding how to armourise a tank

[@DidivsIvlianvs]

Work fine just as long as you have air superiority...

[@doyleaudio]

Tried to look up the Belgium inventor that developed the Sabot, "Permata". And found nothing! @31:43 . Does any one know about this guys? Major development yet no historical mention other than this video.

[@BoZoiD57]

I'm pretty sure the inventor of the sabot shell was French and of the same name. Kind of like Shrapnel.

[@2adamast]

+doyleaudio Perlmutter Armour-Piercing Discarding Sabot

[@Emdee5632]

+doyleaudio I also did some searching and I came up with two names, L. Permutter (not Perlmutter / Permata) and S.W. Coppock, who worked on APDS shells from 1941 to 1944 in Britain. There was a French company, the Edgar Brandt Company, where designers before WW2 had been working on the principle. They were evacuated across the Channel, where the work continued. I have not been able to find anything else about these two men. By the way, ''sabot'' is the French word for wooden shoe. So there's no French (or Belgian) inventor by that name.

[@2adamast]

Marc Dezaire John Buckley goes for Perlmutter in his book and there are a few Perlmutter in Belgium but no Permutter. So why not?

[@Emdee5632]

+Adamast Did some more searching and yes, for some reason at least one source misspelled Perlmutter (the l was dropped), presumably the other sources followed on that one, I don't know Permutter is not a family name in Belgium I found out. I'm Dutch, Permutter seemed like a good Flemish family name to me, but no. There are indeed some Belgian Perlmutters.

[@smokeydization]

Why has chopham armour not mentioned when talking about the a1 Abrams? Is it because it's a British invention?

[@peterson7082]

Well the Chobham was really limited to M1 and earlier M1A1 variants. Later A1s, and all M1A2s dropped it completely for DU mesh plating.

[@jfdesignsinc.innovationsid1583]

I don’t agree with the calc of of sloped armor... yes it’s def more effective in protection. But it’s not 8 inches thick... metals goin to fatigue and give way where it’s weakest.. no shot is goin straight through to that measurement

[@nagyandras8857]

1991 first action, right. whatkindof tanks where facing the abrahms tanks ? when where those built and designed? its a verr good tank, but come on.... its pretty far from perfection.

[@sebastiankajander905]

They have upgraded it from M1 to M1A1 and finally M1A2

[@thedisabledwelshman9266]

IT MAY NOT BE PERFECTON IN YOUR EYES, BUT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IT IS.

[@lettersenumbers917]

Is it just me or is it delicious to watch tank suspensions roll through muddy ditches and dirt hills

[@lucass5980]

it is, thats kinda one of my favorite things to watch.

[@christophercook723]

Letter seNumbers lts you!

[@colubrinedeucecreative]

Seems like if you made a tank that # 1 didn't have a heat signature. #2 could absorb the laser sighting the Abrams tank would be pretty useless.

[@Worstplayer]

#1 is already possible. Israel has a prototype tank with thermal camouflage (Black Fox) as does the UK (Adaptiv). They can even mimic heat signature of other objects, so in thermal sight it looks like a civilian car or a bunch of trees or whatever. The problem is that it only works as long as you don't shoot or move enough to heat up the engine, which makes "invisible tank" a bit useless.

[@SnafuYuri]

What you fail to realize is, thermal scopes, and range finders are abstract. Don't say that a well trained tank crew couldn't hold their own without these 2nd hand things in a tank battle.