British Army of the Rhine alternatives

[PMN1]

Seconded on the Battlegroup book, it is a very interesting read.

There was a posting on the Wavell Room site on the APC vs IFV argument.

Deleting Warrior saves lives: APCs vs IFVs

controversial opinion: The APC (Armoured Personnel Carriers) is a better platform than Infantry Fighting vehicles.

wavellroom.com

Though it does bring up the turretless Israeli Namer heavy APC yet there is an IFV version of this as well, admitedly with an unmanned turret.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Seconded on the Battlegroup book, it is a very interesting read.

There was a posting on the Wavell Room site on the APC vs IFV argument.

Deleting Warrior saves lives: APCs vs IFVs

controversial opinion: The APC (Armoured Personnel Carriers) is a better platform than Infantry Fighting vehicles.

wavellroom.com

Though it does bring up the turretless Israeli Namer heavy APC yet there is an IFV version of this as well, admitedly with an unmanned turret.

Hi PMN1,
Yes seen that article last month; but thanks for reminding me to re-read it. In it the gent does a great job of explaining that the turreted IFV is not a suitable vehicle for most types of operations (although Warrior has done a great job to date); and I agree with most of his conclusions until the final paragraph. There he hopes that the savings from deleting Warrior can be re-directed to 'procuring more capable Boxers'.

More capable Boxers! A wheeled APC can never go where a tracked APC can go once off road or provide enough protection. I am of course coloured by my experiences with the almost useless Saxon but I refuse to believe that the Boxer brings a revolutionary increase in X-country capability; can it force its way through thick vegetation, can it push over a small wall, can it get itself out of a sunken lane and over a normal barbed wire fence surrounding a field, can it turn around in its own length etc? Can it protect its crew/passengers against multiple battlefield threats from RPG's to enemy tanks. Unlikely; a tracked APC, in my mind a heavy tank based one can in almost every case.

He mentions the Namer and the Trophy APS but then ignores it, and as you say the turreted version as well, and does not include it in his conclusions. Blinded by the Emperors new clothes (Boxer) if you ask me!

Boxer has its place in light mechanised units and for peace support operations but not peer on peer armoured operations. Only the tank based APC with APS etc, with a small number of supporting turret versions, can do this. The wax and wain of the lightly armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) for UK military (and others) is best shown by what happened in WW2; the UK started started the war with the various models of the light tank and cruiser tanks and ended up with heavily armoured Churchills, Comets and of course the superb Centurion (a heavy cruiser by design); and the Tortoise in construction! Peace time light and cheap; war time heavy and expensive. Its just the lives of the soldiers that are not taken into consideration!

Rant over lets get back to BAOR. When I get the time I have some thoughts on UK recce vehicles and our ATGW's. Discuss.........

PS: if you like the Wavell Room this guy speaks more sense in my humble opinion in his various articles; https://wavellroom.com/2023/01/06/russias-withdrawal-from-kherson/

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[SteveO]

This was proved when it took the whole of BAOR to send one Division to Kuwait in 1991 and even then we had to scrounge equipment off allies like Belgium.
The organisational acrobatics necessary to maintain the pretence that BAOR had enough Divisions to meet UK commitments under the WEU Treaty are well known and documented.
And yet it was the one postwar commitment that was so binding that the Royal Navy had to be gutted in 1981 to maintain it alongside the Nuclear Deterrent and the Air Defence of the UK.

Hi uk75,
Its a good job that the Russians did not decide to play silly buggers in 1990/1991 during Gulf War 1 as there was not much of a British Army left in northern Germany in the UK area. And as you say the 1981 RN cuts almost lost us, and may have caused, the Falklands war.
Regards, VikingTank.

Growing up I always intended to join the British armed forces when I turned 18 in 1993. Unfortunately, by then I had read so much about kit deficiencies, cuts, cancellations and missed opportunities that I went off the idea!

The “Never Ready” book, as you say, is a troubling, but very interesting read that confirmed my youthful concerns!

 

[SteveO]

BOAR did badly need a tank based anti-aircraft gun system, as you say, but I would not agree (nor would the operator the Royal Artillery) with it having a secondary ground support role; keep it for its primary role and save its very expensive systems for the anti-air role. However the tank units could do with a tank support vehicle, similar to the Russian BMPT tank support vehicle, see below, with cannon and ATGW; 1 to a troop or 1 troop to a Sqn; all on the same tank/IFV/AA gun etc chassis.

View attachment 690735

Fair comment. I was thinking of a common turret with 40mm cannon for both variants but fitted with different sensors and missiles for each role.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

BOAR did badly need a tank based anti-aircraft gun system, as you say, but I would not agree (nor would the operator the Royal Artillery) with it having a secondary ground support role; keep it for its primary role and save its very expensive systems for the anti-air role. However the tank units could do with a tank support vehicle, similar to the Russian BMPT tank support vehicle, see below, with cannon and ATGW; 1 to a troop or 1 troop to a Sqn; all on the same tank/IFV/AA gun etc chassis.

View attachment 690735

Fair comment. I was thinking of a common turret with 40mm cannon for both variants but fitted with different sensors and missiles for each role.

That makes sense as well; and would certainly aid the many attempts, most of which have failed, to keep down the numbers of different vehicle types.

In my unit we had FV432 infantry carriers (2 per platoon with the Peak engineering L37 MG turret originally designed for the FV722 Vixen liaison armoured car), Company and Battalion commander versions, the FV432 for Milan ATGW, the FV432 REME, the FV434 REME, FV432 ambulance and the FV432 81 mm mortar version. The CVR(T) family we had the Scimitar recce vehicle, the Spartan APC for Mortar MFC, Sultan command and Samson recovery/repair. On top of that we had Ferrets for the ATGW section commanders and Stalwarts for resupply.

Ref your earlier comment about joining up its like any job good and bad; shame the mess the Army has got itself into at various times put you off. The RN are far better at it than the other 2 services and their TV job adverts are far, far better!

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[Foo Fighter]

A fascinating thread, brings back memories. Crash out tests for a start, I cannot recal a isingle one where we met targets. As far as Chieftain not replacing Centurion goes, I think it still a good idea but politics buggered the vehicle via the engine.
Frankly these times were fed by growing regiment size by about a third. Exercise Spring Rites in jan/feb 1977 when we were missing the Chieftains to crew, we had up to ceven crew per Chieftain. Not fun in any sense of the word.

Training was woeful and inadequate for the task with very little real attempt to maintain currency let alone proficiency so, put that together with the dire supply situation and reliability in the toilet and you get an official statement of life expectancy once the WP came over the border. Not saying it was all roses for them either but the results given claimed the average Chieftain survival on contact was 37 seconds. Rather sobering but then we were there as a deterrent rather than a real opponent.

If you think the Russians were alcoholics, well BAOR was not far behind. I ended up a paramedic and frankly the number of kids who inhaled their own vomit is shameful.

This thread is probably the best discussion anywhere on this topic, nicely done folks, informative and sharp without antagonism. Nice to be here.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of the Opening Post

In his seminal World War 3 books General Hackett argued for the creation of a second UK Corps in Germany.

So far the thread has been about improving the equipment. Is a larger BAOR allowed? I.e. National Service isn't abolished and BAOR isn't cut from 85,000 to 55,000 men?

After completing their 2 years with the colours National Servicemen had to serve for a number of years in the reserves. I don't know the fine details but in the 1950s the plan was to reinforce BAOR with a number of TA divisions.

According to Watson & Rinaldi the TA was set up in 1947 with 2 armoured divisions (49th & 56th), 6 infantry divisions (42nd, 43rd, 44th, 50th, 51st/52nd & 53rd) and an airborne division (16th) along with a few independent brigades. However, they also say that by the end of 1955 only 2 were still tasked as NATO reinforcements and the others were organised for home defence. The airborne division was reduced to a brigade (44th) in 1956 and an extra infantry division (54th) was created from two of the independent infantry brigades. Further, reductions in 1961 saw the elimination of the remaining (independent) armoured brigades. There was also the Army Emergency Reserve (AER) that provided a pool of men to bring the Regular Army up to its War Establishment and provide a pool of men to replace casualties.

Then there were the massive cuts of April 1967 that saw the TA & AER merged into the Territorial Army & Volunteer Reserve (TAVR) and apart from the airborne brigade (disbanded in 1977) there were no tactical units above the battalion level. I don't know much about the 1970s other than a number of TAVR units did have a BAOR reinforcement role and I'm guessing that most of them became part of 2nd Infantry Division in the 1980s.

I appreciate that the extra expense of maintaining a larger active and reserve army after the 1957 Defence Review would mean a large increase in the percentage of GNP spent on defence and/or a better performing British economy. Therefore, I'm assuming in advance that a larger BAOR in peace and a larger TA & AER (and their successors) to reinforce it in war isn't allowed. However, if one doesn't ask one doesn't find out.

Hi NOMISYRRUC,
Thanks some really interesting info there; I did not know most of that.

Personally I would have rather seen any extra money spent on better and more kit for the then (so my time in BOAR 1978-82 and as a re-enforcement later) 55,000 troops and their re-enforcing troops from the UK. If I could only explain to you the unbelievably poor kit we had at the time; from our boots, our uniforms, our load carrying gear to our vehicles etc it would make your hair stand on end! And the shortages of everything; on the more funny side I remember eating tinned rice pudding made in 1945 in 1982. I was happy as we were ordered not to eat it so I had loads from the other vehicles in the Platoon; tough stomach you see!

But yes I would love to hear your ideas on the higher level strength and formations; I was always concerned (mostly in hindsight) about the Spetsnaz threat to our HQ's/ammo depots etc which really needed dedicated protection units and hunter units to prevent the Spetsnaz attacks.
Regards, VikingTank.

Thank you for your kind words.

For what it's worth the British 1951 Rearmament Programme included an Army with the equivalent of 30 divisions. That is 10 regular, 10 in the TA and the equivalent of 10 in Anti-Aircraft Command.

Realistically, I think that the largest armed forces that the UK could have maintained until the end of the Cold War was at the pre-Mason Defence Review level with 3 strike carriers instead of 3 through deck cruisers. That's with an economy that performed as well as West Germany's.

I'm a bean counter. I'll provide the extra/better beans. I'll leave strategy & tactics to the people at the "sharp end" such as yourself.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Questions for @VIKINGTANK.

Earlier in the thread I suggested that the Army should have bought M108s and M113s built in the UK under licence instead of the FV430 family. That's for three reasons.

1. I thought that standardisation with many of the NATO armies would have helped logistically. This is particularly in the case of Canada because I want their brigade to remain part of BAOR and I want them to buy Chieftain instead of Leopard 1.
2. The M108s built instead of the Abbots could have been converted to M109s by fitting new turrets. As far as I know is what most M108 operators did in the 1970s.
3. Westland's licence on Sikorsky helicopters included the right to sell their licence built helicopters in certain territories. E.g. that's why the Australian Fleet Air Arm operated Westland Wessex and Sea King helicopters instead of Sikorsky-built Sea Kings. I want the licence taken out by GKN and Vickers (building the gun turrets) to allow the same. Any export contract would reduce the unit cost of the 3,000 built due to economies of scale and things like Tracked Rapier would be mounted on British, rather than American built, M578 chassis. My guess is that in the "Real World" Tracked Rapier was too big for a modified Spartan chassis and M578 had to be used instead of FV431 (the flatbed truck member of the FV430 family) because production of the FV430 family ended in the early 1970s.

What are your thoughts on that? As you would have been "at the sharp end" would you have preferred to be sitting in the back of a FV432 or M113 if the Cold War had turned hot? M113 may or may not have been cheaper to build & maintain and eased the logistical burden but if gets more of "our boys" killed I'd rather pay the extra Income Tax.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Realistically, I think that the largest armed forces that the UK could have maintained until the end of the Cold War was at the pre-Mason Defence Review with 3 strike carriers instead of 3 through deck cruisers. That's with an economy that performed as well as West Germany's.

It might not have felt like that to the people at the "sharp end" but the British Army in general and BAOR in particular suffered the least from the Mason and Knott defence reviews of 1974-75 and 1981 respectively because both Sercetaries of State for Defence decided to concentrate the money they had on the nuclear deterrent and NATO's Central Front.

Mason cut most of the remaining out of NATO Area commitments and this was the real death of "East of Suez" (rather than the cuts of 1967 and 1968). Therefore, even if the British economy had been performing as well as West Germany's the extra money would be spent on maintaining the capabilities lost in 1975 and 1981.

As far as I know the biggest "kit" casualties for BAOR were Vixen (which was intended to replace Ferret) and the disbandment of the Thunderbird SAM regiment which (along with the RAF's Bloodhound SAM) was to have been replaced by Land Dart.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Part of the Opening Post

In his seminal World War 3 books General Hackett argued for the creation of a second UK Corps in Germany.

So far the thread has been about improving the equipment. Is a larger BAOR allowed? I.e. National Service isn't abolished and BAOR isn't cut from 85,000 to 55,000 men?

After completing their 2 years with the colours National Servicemen had to serve for a number of years in the reserves. I don't know the fine details but in the 1950s the plan was to reinforce BAOR with a number of TA divisions.

According to Watson & Rinaldi the TA was set up in 1947 with 2 armoured divisions (49th & 56th), 6 infantry divisions (42nd, 43rd, 44th, 50th, 51st/52nd & 53rd) and an airborne division (16th) along with a few independent brigades. However, they also say that by the end of 1955 only 2 were still tasked as NATO reinforcements and the others were organised for home defence. The airborne division was reduced to a brigade (44th) in 1956 and an extra infantry division (54th) was created from two of the independent infantry brigades. Further, reductions in 1961 saw the elimination of the remaining (independent) armoured brigades. There was also the Army Emergency Reserve (AER) that provided a pool of men to bring the Regular Army up to its War Establishment and provide a pool of men to replace casualties.

Then there were the massive cuts of April 1967 that saw the TA & AER merged into the Territorial Army & Volunteer Reserve (TAVR) and apart from the airborne brigade (disbanded in 1977) there were no tactical units above the battalion level. I don't know much about the 1970s other than a number of TAVR units did have a BAOR reinforcement role and I'm guessing that most of them became part of 2nd Infantry Division in the 1980s.

I appreciate that the extra expense of maintaining a larger active and reserve army after the 1957 Defence Review would mean a large increase in the percentage of GNP spent on defence and/or a better performing British economy. Therefore, I'm assuming in advance that a larger BAOR in peace and a larger TA & AER (and their successors) to reinforce it in war isn't allowed. However, if one doesn't ask one doesn't find out.

Hi NOMISYRRUC,
Thanks some really interesting info there; I did not know most of that.

Personally I would have rather seen any extra money spent on better and more kit for the then (so my time in BOAR 1978-82 and as a re-enforcement later) 55,000 troops and their re-enforcing troops from the UK. If I could only explain to you the unbelievably poor kit we had at the time; from our boots, our uniforms, our load carrying gear to our vehicles etc it would make your hair stand on end! And the shortages of everything; on the more funny side I remember eating tinned rice pudding made in 1945 in 1982. I was happy as we were ordered not to eat it so I had loads from the other vehicles in the Platoon; tough stomach you see!

But yes I would love to hear your ideas on the higher level strength and formations; I was always concerned (mostly in hindsight) about the Spetsnaz threat to our HQ's/ammo depots etc which really needed dedicated protection units and hunter units to prevent the Spetsnaz attacks.
Regards, VikingTank.

Thank you for your kind words.

For what it's worth the British 1951 Rearmament Programme included an Army with the equivalent of 30 divisions. That is 10 regular, 10 in the TA and the equivalent of 10 in Anti-Aircraft Command.

Realistically, I think that the largest armed forces that the UK could have maintained until the end of the Cold War was at the pre-Mason Defence Review with 3 strike carriers instead of 3 through deck cruisers. That's with an economy that performed as well as West Germany's.

I'm a bean counter. I'll provide the extra/better beans. I'll leave strategy & tactics to the people at the "sharp end" such as yourself.

Hi NONISYRRUC,

My speciality is WW2 armour and conducting various battlefield tours (Waterloo/Ypres/Dieppe/Normandy etc) and then more modern stuff so I definitely have a black hole on this post WW2 era; so thanks for the info. I had no idea that AA Command was so big; wasted resources?

I did get the book 'The Dark Age of Tanks: Britain's Lost Armour, 1945-1970' https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Age-Tanks-Britains-1945-1970/dp/1526755149 which did educate me on tanks at that time.

Only a bit of a navy buff but yes it would have been good to see up to 4 CVA-01 carriers, and their Type 82 escorts, around in 1982 for the Falklands. Would also have been ideal for escorting the Reforger convoys but not for hunting Russian subs in the north; UK learned that the hard way with HMS Courageous. By then Eagle/Ark Royal etc were getting a bit long in the tooth. Have you seen these brill stories;

HMS EAGLE in the Falklands (Story Only)

Westminster, 31st March 1982 Pausing only to make a quick phone call to get an update on the disposition and readiness of his fleet and having found the defence secretary not in his office in the Ministry of Defence but at an emergency meeting to discuss the emergent situation the fully...

www.alternatehistory.com

Ship Shape and Bristol Fashion. Books 1, 2 and 3.

I've decided to try to finally put this work to bed, and have decided to have it here in this forum. Obviously, there is no discussion on here, but here is the link to the discussion forum where, if you do want to chat about it, please do...

www.alternatehistory.com

Umm a few years since I was at the 'sharp end' but I like to keep current.

If you can come up with a reason for a much more prosperous UK during the 1960's and 70's then I will see what kit would equip BAOR.

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Questions for @VIKINGTANK.

Earlier in the thread I suggested that the Army should have bought M108s and M113s built in the UK under licence instead of the FV430 family. That's for three reasons.

1. I thought that standardisation with many of the NATO armies would have helped logistically. This is particularly in the case of Canada because I want their brigade to remain part of BAOR and I want them to buy Chieftain instead of Leopard 1.
2. The M108s built instead of the Abbots could have been converted to M109s by fitting new turrets. As far as I know is what most M108 operators did in the 1970s.
3. Westland's licence on Sikorsky helicopters included the right to sell their licence built helicopters in certain territories. E.g. that's why the Australian Fleet Air Army operated Westland Wessex and Sea King helicopters instead of Sikorsky-built Sea Kings. I want the licence taken out by GKN and Vickers (building the gun turrets) to allow the same. Any export contract would reduce the unit cost of the 3,000 built due to economies of scale and things like Tracked Rapier would be mounted on British, rather than American built, M578 chassis. My guess is that in the "Real World" Tracked Rapier was too big for a modified Spartan chassis and M578 had to be used instead of FV431 (the flatbed truck member of the FV430 family) because production of the FV430 family ended in the early 1970s.

What are your thoughts on that? As you would have been "at the sharp end" would you have preferred to be sitting in the back of a FV432 or M113 if the Cold War had turned hot? M113 may or may not have been cheaper to build & maintain and eased the logistical burden but if gets more of "our boys" killed I'd rather pay the extra Income Tax.

No issues at all with M113 and M-108, timing wise they pretty much match the FV431 and Abbot, and it makes a lot of sense. NATO standardisation always made/makes a lot of sense.

Its just that while the US suffers from the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome the UK suffers from a MBIH (Must Build It Here) syndrome so unless you can get both built in the UK, lots of local jobs and investment etc, at a really attractive, if not free, licence agreement you are out of luck. The UK also likes to spend vast sums of money on R&D, often wasted, but it sometimes does have civilian applications so the UK ploughs onwards!

With ref to Canada staying with BAOR post their actual move southwards in the late 1960's it would firstly need some political changes at home. Secondly for them to buy Chieftain as you suggest, that would almost certainly help keep the Canadian forces in the north, it would need a much better and more reliable Chieftain. Look at what happened during the Dutch Army trials of the Chieftain; poor workmanship and also oil leaking everywhere.

Actually I thought it strange with all the lessons on tank protection that the Canadians would have learnt in WW2 that they then replaced their Centurion tanks with rather thin Leopards 1's; then I found this;

Leopard 1 Tank

West Germany introduced the Leopard 1 tank in 1965. It equipped several nations and went through six models (A1 to A6). Canada acquired its first Leopard 1 tank...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

'In the mid-1970s, Canada sought special trade status with the European Common Market. Canada’s European allies, especially West Germany, insisted on linking future trade negotiations with replacing Canada’s aging Centurion Tanks. Canada quickly agreed to do so and selected the Leopard 1'.

Ref converting M108's to M-109's, did not know that (every day is a learning day), that also makes a lot of sense.

I believe the Tracked Rapier, remember it was built for export, was put on a M578 chassis was because most of the target audience used the M113 chassis and as you say the UK chassis were either too small or out of production.

Your final point ref FV432/M113, and having driven the FV432 and travelled in a M113, I do not see a great difference; the steel versus aluminium armour debate is not worth considering here with it being so thin on both. As you say scale of production, so cheaper, would have given us more vehicles; perhaps even for UK 2 Div instead of those awful Saxons! And of course more upgrades available.

Enjoying this very much; thanks. Regards, VikingTank.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@VIKINGTANK Thank you for your reply. I've not read the Bristol Fashion thread on Alternatehistory.com, but I am familiar with Eagle in the Falklands.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I believe the Tracked Rapier, remember it was built for export, was put on a M578 chassis was because most of the target audience used the M113 chassis and as you say the UK chassis were either too small or out of production.

Coming to think of it Tracked Rapier might have been one of the hand-me-downs from the Shah of Iran. Therefore, it might have been on a M578 because it would have standardised with the Imperial Iranian Army's M113s and derivatives.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Realistically, I think that the largest armed forces that the UK could have maintained until the end of the Cold War was at the pre-Mason Defence Review with 3 strike carriers instead of 3 through deck cruisers. That's with an economy that performed as well as West Germany's.

It might not have felt like that to the people at the "sharp end" but the British Army in general and BAOR in particular suffered the least from the Mason and Knott defence reviews of 1974-75 and 1981 respectively because both Sercetaries of State for Defence decided to concentrate the money they had on the nuclear deterrent and NATO's Central Front.

Mason cut most of the remaining out of NATO Area commitments and this was the real death of "East of Suez" (rather than the cuts of 1967 and 1968). Therefore, even if the British economy had been performing as well as West Germany's the extra money would be spent on maintaining the capabilities lost in 1975 and 1981.

As far as I know the biggest "kit" casualties for BAOR were Vixen (which was intended to replace Ferret) and the disbandment of the Thunderbird SAM regiment which (along with the RAF's Bloodhound SAM) was to have been replaced by Land Dart.

Still learning, thanks. Ha, god help us then in BAOR if there had been real cuts; at one stage we had to get a Company Commanders (a Major) permission to start up our FV432's to save fuel (winter 1979/80). I do remember Land Dart; a bit short range and fixed if I remember rightly.

The Vixen was of interest to me as for some reason, although it was cancelled in 1973-ish, we thought in the late 70's we were still getting it for a while. Pre-internet days I suppose. I think it would have made a poor replacement for our ferrets, OK it was a bit bigger, but it was designed for the liaison role but had an incredibly small turret (and turret hatch - they ended up on the rear deck of my FV432) and no side doors! More dismount broken ankles that a FV432 me thinks!


Actually the Ferrets often ended up being towed cross-country, especially on the training areas, by a FV432 as they could not cope with the mud; really useful when they were meant to be locating firing positions for the Milan ATGW.
Regards, VikingTank.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Ref converting M108's to M-109's, did not know that (every day is a learning day), that also makes a lot of sense.

As far as I can remember it was following the Israeli Army's experience in the Yom Kippur war. They discovered that their 105mm guns weren't powerful enough to destroy enemy armour in the "forming up phase" and that's why everyone who could upgraded their M108s to M109s.

As far as I know the Abbot couldn't be rearmed so the MoD formed a consortium with Germany and Italy to develop SP70. I've got a book somewhere saying that the number of SP70s that the British Army wanted to buy was about the same as the number of Abbots and M109s purchased which makes sense as it was intended to replace the Army's M109s too.

What is the forming up phase?

 

[VIKINGTANK]

I believe the Tracked Rapier, remember it was built for export, was put on a M578 chassis was because most of the target audience used the M113 chassis and as you say the UK chassis were either too small or out of production.

Coming to think of it Tracked Rapier might have been one of the hand-me-downs from the Shah of Iran. Therefore, it might have been on a M578 because it would have standardised with the Imperial Iranian Army's M113s and derivatives.

You are correct; brought for the UK along with Shir 2 (Challenger (1)) when the Shah was overthrown. VikingTank.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Ref converting M108's to M-109's, did not know that (every day is a learning day), that also makes a lot of sense.

As far as I can remember it was following the Israeli Army's experience in the Yom Kippur war. They discovered that their 105mm guns weren't powerful enough to destroy enemy armour in the "forming up phase" and that's why everyone who could upgraded their M108s to M109s.

As far as I know the Abbot couldn't be rearmed so the MoD formed a consortium with Germany and Italy to develop SP70. I've got a book somewhere saying that the number of SP70s that the British Army wanted to buy was about the same as the number of Abbots and M109s purchased which makes sense as it was intended to replace the Army's M109s too.

What is the forming up phase?

Yes the SP-70 another waste of money when we could just have brought M-109 in the first case. Tank chassis based SP guns just do not work; you need a rear door and the turret at the rear for resupply etc and for ease of getting into and out of the vehicle.

Forming up Phase (Forming up point) is the pre-assault phase and location, normally in dead ground behind solid cover (terrain), where you get all you toys lined up in the correct formation before shouting tallyho. Think pre Operation Citadel at Kursk where the Russian bombardment caught the German armour in their forming up points and caused real confusion and damage.
Regards, VikingTank.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Its just that while the US suffers from the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome the UK suffers from a MBIH (Must Build It Here) syndrome so unless you can get both built in the UK, lots of local jobs and investment etc, at a really attractive, if not free, licence agreement you are out of luck. The UK also likes to spend vast sums of money on R&D, often wasted, but it sometimes does have civilian applications so the UK ploughs onwards!

There's "method in the madness". Building it under licence means you're not dependent on others for spare parts, it keeps some of your [voters] workers out of the dole queues and if it does cost more "up front" than buying foreign you get some of it back in extra taxes.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

A fascinating thread, brings back memories. Crash out tests for a start, I cannot recal a isingle one where we met targets. As far as Chieftain not replacing Centurion goes, I think it still a good idea but politics buggered the vehicle via the engine.
Frankly these times were fed by growing regiment size by about a third. Exercise Spring Rites in jan/feb 1977 when we were missing the Chieftains to crew, we had up to ceven crew per Chieftain. Not fun in any sense of the word.

Training was woeful and inadequate for the task with very little real attempt to maintain currency let alone proficiency so, put that together with the dire supply situation and reliability in the toilet and you get an official statement of life expectancy once the WP came over the border. Not saying it was all roses for them either but the results given claimed the average Chieftain survival on contact was 37 seconds. Rather sobering but then we were there as a deterrent rather than a real opponent.

If you think the Russians were alcoholics, well BAOR was not far behind. I ended up a paramedic and frankly the number of kids who inhaled their own vomit is shameful.

This thread is probably the best discussion anywhere on this topic, nicely done folks, informative and sharp without antagonism. Nice to be here.

Hi Foo Fighter,

Yes memories indeed; Active Edge was the name of the crash outs for us. Always at 0400 hrs!

I have ready almost every book on the Chieftain, my current favourite is; Chieftain: Britain’s Flawed Masterpiece. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chieftain-Britains-Flawed-Masterpiece-Green/dp/8365958295. But apart from a crawl over and inside it I never really got a handle on it; could hear it coming from a long way off and you knew which tank it was for sure by the screaming engine!

My thinking on waiting for it to all happen, Russkies to cross the border etc, was rather coloured by youthfulness; I thought we would do our best, and at that time, we were a good unit. Units have good and bad phases depending on the leadership as you will well know.

Umm yes the drinking was an issue; many a good man went bad over the demon booze.

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

With ref to Canada staying with BAOR post their actual move southwards in the late 1960's it would firstly need some political changes at home. Secondly for them to buy Chieftain as you suggest, that would almost certainly help keep the Canadian forces in the north, it would need a much better and more reliable Chieftain. Look at what happened during the Dutch Army trials of the Chieftain; poor workmanship and also oil leaking everywhere.

"Build a better Chieftain tank, and the world will beat a path to your door"

I'm by no means an expert on Canadian political, social and economic history, but my ignorant impression is that Canada took the peace dividend twice.

• The first time between the mid 1960s and the mid 1970s when the total personnel strength of HM Canadian Forces was cut from about 120,000 to about 80,000 and the percentage of GNP spent on defence fell from about 4% to a trough of 1.8% and then "recovered" to 2.0 to 2.5% for the rest of the Cold War.
• The second time when the Cold War ended.

Apologies in advance to Canadian members of the site for my ignorance of the medium to fine details. If you ask the average Brit what they know about Canadian history and culture it's likely that all they can tell you is Pierre Trudeau and Hammy Hamster.

Though from what I've read on Alternatehisory.com my impression is that HM Canadian Forces would have been cut even more, except that all of Canada's arms factories are (deliberately) in Quebec so the workers won't vote to secede from the Confederation. So they are defending Canada, but not in the normal way that one would expect armed forces to defend a country.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes the SP-70 another waste of money when we could just have brought M-109 in the first case. Tank chassis based SP guns just do not work; you need a rear door and the turret at the rear for resupply etc and for ease of getting into and out of the vehicle.

Based on the above I presume that you have a poor opinion on the FV3800 family of SPGs based on the Centurion, the Vickers GBT turret and the proposed SPG members of the FV200 & FV300 families.

Although I think buying M108 instead of Abbott and then converting them to M109s was the best solution. was the failure of SP70 inevitable? Could they have designed a half-decent vehicle? If it had used a new chassis incorporating as many parts from Leopard 1 as possible would it have worked? The combined requirement was for about 700 vehicles. That's a decent production run by AFV standards.

 

[red admiral]

There's "method in the madness". Building it under licence means you're not dependent on others for spare parts, it keeps some of your [voters] workers out of the dole ques and if it does cost more "up front" than buying foreign you get some of it back in extra taxes.

But this overlooks that most of those workers would be in jobs that gave a higher rate of return and hence paying even more taxes etc. e.g. building aluminium pans would have been better economically than building aluminium airframes

 

[VIKINGTANK]

With ref to Canada staying with BAOR post their actual move southwards in the late 1960's it would firstly need some political changes at home. Secondly for them to buy Chieftain as you suggest, that would almost certainly help keep the Canadian forces in the north, it would need a much better and more reliable Chieftain. Look at what happened during the Dutch Army trials of the Chieftain; poor workmanship and also oil leaking everywhere.

"Build a better Chieftain tank, and the world will beat a path to your door"

Hi NOMISYRRUC,

"Build a better Chieftain tank, and the world will beat a path to your door" - who said this other than a rather clever NOMISYRRUC?

A good point and it could have been possible. OK so apart from a decent diesel engine, and much more powerful engine (I am no engine expert from the early 60's but did such an engine exist?), what else could be improved?

I am open to suggestions on major improvements but were there better fire control systems available, could it have had a trainable IR searchlight moving with the main gun (how odd on the side of the turret!), could better mobility (as well as having a new engine) have been achieved, better side armour, perhaps looking to the future threat and thicker turret front etc, etc. Discuss ......

See below for the Chieftain armour thickness and angles (I assume this is correct?) but without the Stillbrew extra turret armour that looked very 'bodge job' (almost home made) to me;



One thing I found interesting is that in all the books I have read on the Chieftain the initial trials report, by 1 and 5 RTR (compiled separately and initially frowned upon as both said it was not ready for service) is passed over with little detail; what were the many faults? The whole thing reminds you of the terrible reputation of the early marks of the WW2 Churchill tank; we seem especially adapt at learning from our mistakes only to repeat them the next time!

Likewise the Israeli suggestions for improvements during the trials of the Mk.4 are unclear; what exactly did they suggest? A great 'What if' for it coming into service in Israel and all the improvements over the years.

Perhaps the UK should have taken the bull by the horns and had converted all UK Chieftains to the FV4030/2 Shir (Lion) 1 that was designed for Iran with a front end of Chieftain but the rear end of the forthcoming FV4030/3 Shir (Lion) 2 (what ended up as the Challenge (1)) but just much, much earlier.

I firmly believe the Chieftain was a huge missed opportunity; NATO standard tank anybody? OK only joking, US, no, Germany, no, French very no ...............

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Yes the SP-70 another waste of money when we could just have brought M-109 in the first case. Tank chassis based SP guns just do not work; you need a rear door and the turret at the rear for resupply etc and for ease of getting into and out of the vehicle.

Based on the above I presume that you have a poor opinion on the FV3800 family of SPGs based on the Centurion, the Vickers GBT turret and the proposed SPG members of the FV200 & FV300 families.

Although I think buying M108 instead of Abbott and then converting them to M109s was the best solution. was the failure of SP70 inevitable? Could they have designed a half-decent vehicle? If it had used a new chassis incorporating as many parts from Leopard 1 as possible would it have worked? The combined requirement was for about 700 vehicles. That's a decent production run by AFV standards.

Hi again,

I have nothing against tank based SP guns as long as they have a front engine, like Centurion FV3802 (25pdr) or the FV3805 (5.5 inch), and a rear hatch for crew movement and reloading; and bug out if required! Same for the FV200/300 chassis. The rear engined Conqueror FV215 heavy gun version, with the turret at the rear, would also have worked as a SP gun with a 5.5 inch/155 mm etc.

The SP-70 failed because of reliability issues with the turret and also in trials the M-109 beat it; and I bet UK crews hated having to climb in via the 9 ft 2 in (2.8 m) turret hatch or the turret side hatches! I know I would. So no why waste yet more money. I do not always think US kit is better its just the production scales tends to bring down costs and helps NATO standardisation.

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

To bring us back on track as well as turreted conventional tanks what do you think on the fixed, or limited traverse, SP anti-tank guns or tanks that some countries trialed or brought into service? Such as the German Kannon Jagdpanzer (KJP), the one off JagdChieftain (or Concept Test Rig) and the S-Tank etc? Could these have made a valid contribution to BAOR?

The Brits trialed the S-tank in 1968 and found a number of advantages and disadvantages; read pages 7 and 8 for the conclusions;

Report from British evaluation of the S-tank (1968) – Swedish tank archives

Do not read this if you are a Brit:

Report from British strv 103 trials at BAOR, 1973 – Swedish tank archives

Personally the S-Tank, in being particularly effective in defence, would have made a great contribution to NATO wide anti-tank units (great for ambush) and would have been a great asset to UK infantry battalion anti-tank platoons; a mix of ATGM and S-tank. I know its another chassis but she is so pretty...............



Regards, VikingTank.

 

[zen]

Always thought more could be done with the S-Tank if one was prepared to remove gun and related paraphernalia.
Got a soft spot for it

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There's "method in the madness". Building it under licence means you're not dependent on others for spare parts, it keeps some of your [voters] workers out of the dole queues and if it does cost more "up front" than buying foreign you get some of it back in extra taxes.

But this overlooks that most of those workers would be in jobs that gave a higher rate of return and hence paying even more taxes etc. e.g. building aluminium pans would have been better economically than building aluminium airframes

Would they be better paid jobs? One needs to earn more to be taxed more. Would the aluminium pan industry be able to sell its extra production? Would we have a "tin pan mountain" to compliment the grain mountain, butter mountain and the wine lake? It happened before with the "Give a pan to build a Spitfire" campaign during the invasion scare of 1940. It assumes full employment which the UK hasn't had for the last 50 years so redundant defence industry workers won't automatically find work in the British civil economy. They'll join the Brain Drain to the States or design tilting trains that don't work.

This argument sounds somewhat like the (probably apocryphal) stories about British socialist politicians of the 1960s wanting to convert aircraft factories into jam factories.

 

[SteveO]

Not sure about an S-Tank type being required. What would be more cost effective and survivable, an S-Tank and 105mm rounds or Swingfire vehicles?

 

[SteveO]

So my alternative BAOR would see the frontline equipped with an all heavy armour, tracked common drivetrain fleet (rear engined for the MBT, SPAAG and front engined for the APC, SPG, Mortar and load carriers). This would obviously require more heavy road transporters which they probably never had enough of. I believe a common engine for the MBT and transporter is possible?

As for the rear areas and reservists what would have been a better choice than the Saxon? uk 75 had another thread suggesting developments of the 6x6 wheeled Saladin and Saracen. 6x6 vehicles with good road mobility would have been able to self deploy from ports and bring heavier weapons than the Saxon. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/upgrading-saladin-and-saracen-instead-of-cvrt.33276/

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Always thought more could be done with the S-Tank if one was prepared to remove gun and related paraphernalia.
Got a soft spot for it

Hi Zen,

Agreed; small, fast, well protected, front engine and a rear facing driver - all the ingredients to modify into a recce tank. Remove the main gun and ammo storage and put in the area of the gun breech, but on the roof, a low profile automatic remotely operated cannon, move the rear facing radio operator/driver rearwards (so he can see better and around the gun mount) to where the ready ammo was on the tank and hey presto the best recce tank in the world! Good armour and can withdraw at speed; the turret may have to have some height to allow depression to the front and sides but doable. Only downside is that the commander would have to fire the cannon, unless fired by the guy at the back but he may have to drive backwards in a rush (the main driver can also fire the cannon); but then again the cannon is for emergencies only as recce by stealth is the plan.

Variants would include long range twin launcher ATGM over-watch (3 man crew but likely only 6 or so spare missiles; so 8 in total) , an APC with MGs only to carry a 2/3 man scout group (crew of 2 or 3 depending if radio operator rear/driver is still required) and a command variant of the APC with a crew of 4/5. The variants could be on a slightly stretched chassis to allow extra missiles/crew etc and would have a rear hatch.

Does this work as I am no S-tank expert?

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[zen]

Neither am I, but it seems like the potential basis for a number of roles.
Could add a Command Vehicle
Radio/Comms
EW maybe

Could potential fit a mortar system aboard.

It's also worth pointing out that the UK did look and toy repeatedly with similar concepts. Some of which got to testing I seem to recall.

There's a rather good series on such on YouTube.

 

[Hood]

could better mobility (as well as having a new engine) have been achieved, better side armour, perhaps looking to the future threat and thicker turret front etc, etc. Discuss ......

A different engine, or at least a more proactive effort to fit an alternative (one did exist by the mid-1970s) would have been ideal.
In terms of armour, the density of frontal armour was the highest for any tank of that era when it was introduced. As ever, nothing stands still and as Soviet guns and ATGW improved during the 1970s/80s it needed some augmentation. Stillbrew was ad hoc but then a lot of tanks had that (even the 'Dolly Parton' T-72s).
Chobham at least had the theoretical advantage that if you needed thicker armour you would just hang thicker blocks on the chassis.

FV4211 was probably too much of a testbed, but it does seem odd that FV4030 (or a very similar development) had not been considered as a stopgap before MBT80 was introduced. It seems the aborted UK-German Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) messed up the timelines somewhat and perhaps that made the interim design less attractive. Of course how the massive Iranian procurement would have messed up production capacity is open to question had such a design been ready for 1978-79.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Questions for people better qualified than myself.

• Would the S-Tank be as well as Chieftain or instead of it?
• If it's the latter who operates it? Is it the RAC or the RA?
• If it's the RAC we've only got 19 regular regiments & the 5 Yeomanry regiments in the TA to play with.
  • According to my copy of the Encyclopaedia of the Modern British Army, 3rd Edition, by Terry Gander, published October 1986, price £19.95 net from the WH Smith in my local big town. There were 5 Yeomanry Regiments. These included 2 equipped with the FV721 Fox which were intended to reinforce BAOR and the other 3 were for Home Defence & not armoured in any way because they were equipped with 3/4 metric ton Land Rovers.
  • How about equipping them with S-Tanks?
• If it's the RA new regiments can be formed or those disbanded as part of the Mason Defence Review can be converted to the S-Tank. Or if we give them to the handful of surviving RA regiments in the TA they can have them instead of the 105mm light gun.
  • If it's the RA we can call it the ABBA because it's Swedish and continues the tradition of giving SPATGs names that begin with the letter A, e.g. Archer and Alecto.
• Mrs Thatcher might have been hard on the RN but she did expand the TA. This included forming new infantry battalions. In the run up to World War II the TA arms of the RAC and RA were expanded by converting infantry battalions to those corps. So another possible source of units to equip the S-Tanks is converted TA infantry battalions.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Not sure about an S-Tank type being required. What would be more cost effective and survivable, an S-Tank and 105mm rounds or Swingfire vehicles?

Thats a very good question.

The UK had FV438 and Striker with Swingfire, which was originally Manual Command to Line Of Sight (MCLOS) and then upgraded to Semi-Automatic Command to Line Of Sight (SACLOS), and was used for recce over-watch (CVR(T) Striker) by the RAC and for anti-tank work with the RA (FV438).

I was advocating adding the S-Tank to Infantry Battalions ATGW platoons to beef up the anti-tank capability of the unit; but what a weapon it would also make for the RA anti-tank Regts! So I see it being complementary rather than replacing Swingfire in the RA/RAC; and perhaps the S-Tank chassis would have been better than FV432/FV438 chassis for Swingfire anyway! BTW Swingfire was never in the infantry battalions I believe; only the RAC/RA.

In 1984 a missile cost £7,600 according to Wiki; not aware of how much a FV438 and S-Tank would have been but for me its the complementary effect that the S-Tank brings. Long range ATGM (4,000 yards) from the FV438/Striker and, while able to fire from cover with a remote sight, was not well protected whereas the S-Tank, which would be used for shorter range ambush work, was for its size very well protected. Shame that it brings another type of ammo (cannot see the Chieftains 120 mm gun working at all with the separated ammo on the S-Tank) although the RA still used Centurion Mk.13 gun tanks as FOO tanks with the L7 105 mm gun when I was in BAOR.

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

So my alternative BAOR would see the frontline equipped with an all heavy armour, tracked common drivetrain fleet (rear engined for the MBT, SPAAG and front engined for the APC, SPG, Mortar and load carriers). This would obviously require more heavy road transporters which they probably never had enough of. I believe a common engine for the MBT and transporter is possible?

As for the rear areas and reservists what would have been a better choice than the Saxon? uk 75 had another thread suggesting developments of the 6x6 wheeled Saladin and Saracen. 6x6 vehicles with good road mobility would have been able to self deploy from ports and bring heavier weapons than the Saxon. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/upgrading-saladin-and-saracen-instead-of-cvrt.33276/

Yes I think we are in broad agreement there. The orbats would be interesting; I have lots of views of course but will not bore you with them right now - and no time! Ref the tank transporters you have a good point there, and yes engine compatibility is a possibility, but I was never loaded onto a tank transporter in my FV432 as we did not have far to go to our initial deployment area. And the one time we went a bit further away, on exercise, we went by train.

Ref the Saladin/Saracen yes in full agreement, and thanks for the link (good read and most sensible), they could have both been upgraded (it would be a pretty big upgrade) and been used by 2 Div coming from the UK; lets call it 2 Light Armoured Div shall we! And correct so much better than Saxon.

Its a shame that the CVR(W) program only brought about Vixen (cancelled) and Fox; the Fox was really only suitable for roads/tracks and gentle X-Country - we did have them at one time but I never saw them in difficult country so I cannot comment for sure. A 6x6 CVR(W), perhaps in co-operation with the French, would have worked far better and may have lead to more overseas sales.

Regards, VikingTank.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

Neither am I, but it seems like the potential basis for a number of roles.
Could add a Command Vehicle
Radio/Comms
EW maybe

Could potential fit a mortar system aboard.

It's also worth pointing out that the UK did look and toy repeatedly with similar concepts. Some of which got to testing I seem to recall.

There's a rather good series on such on YouTube.

Yes the book Chobham Armour: Cold War British Armoured Vehicle Development that I mentioned earlier is full of such fixed gun concepts. A great read. Regards, VikingTank.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Would a 6x6 CVR(W) been light enough to be air portable? That is by RAF Transport Command's Hercules and Belfasts? As far as I know that was part of the specification that produced the Fox and Vixen.

 

[zen]

A quick link to YouTube (mods hope thats ok?) This chap has done quite a few interesting Videos on British tank efforts among other such.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6iECzhIOhOA

 

[Elan Vital]

With ref to Canada staying with BAOR post their actual move southwards in the late 1960's it would firstly need some political changes at home. Secondly for them to buy Chieftain as you suggest, that would almost certainly help keep the Canadian forces in the north, it would need a much better and more reliable Chieftain. Look at what happened during the Dutch Army trials of the Chieftain; poor workmanship and also oil leaking everywhere.

"Build a better Chieftain tank, and the world will beat a path to your door"

Hi NOMISYRRUC,

"Build a better Chieftain tank, and the world will beat a path to your door" - who said this other than a rather clever NOMISYRRUC?

A good point and it could have been possible. OK so apart from a decent diesel engine, and much more powerful engine (I am no engine expert from the early 60's but did such an engine exist?), what else could be improved?

I am open to suggestions on major improvements but were there better fire control systems available, could it have had a trainable IR searchlight moving with the main gun (how odd on the side of the turret!), could better mobility (as well as having a new engine) have been achieved, better side armour, perhaps looking to the future threat and thicker turret front etc, etc. Discuss ......

See below for the Chieftain armour thickness and angles (I assume this is correct?) but without the Stillbrew extra turret armour that looked very 'bodge job' (almost home made) to me;

View attachment 690865

One thing I found interesting is that in all the books I have read on the Chieftain the initial trials report, by 1 and 5 RTR (compiled separately and initially frowned upon as both said it was not ready for service) is passed over with little detail; what were the many faults? The whole thing reminds you of the terrible reputation of the early marks of the WW2 Churchill tank; we seem especially adapt at learning from our mistakes only to repeat them the next time!

Likewise the Israeli suggestions for improvements during the trials of the Mk.4 are unclear; what exactly did they suggest? A great 'What if' for it coming into service in Israel and all the improvements over the years.

Perhaps the UK should have taken the bull by the horns and had converted all UK Chieftains to the FV4030/2 Shir (Lion) 1 that was designed for Iran with a front end of Chieftain but the rear end of the forthcoming FV4030/3 Shir (Lion) 2 (what ended up as the Challenge (1)) but just much, much earlier.

I firmly believe the Chieftain was a huge missed opportunity; NATO standard tank anybody? OK only joking, US, no, Germany, no, French very no ...............

Regards, VikingTank.

The very first thing that should be improved is the management and allocation of labor (as in getting Vickers involved from the start instead of later) so that combined with a more appropriate powerpack, Chieftain can enter service more or less in 1962 as intended, and preferably while meeting the reliability and engine power expected of a mature peacetime tank early in its life.

The next step is looking at all the weight efficiency improvements we can find to reduce weight for improved mobility and reduced wear, or increase the armor or some other weight-intensive parameter.

The biggest issue I have with the OTL tank is that the powerpack's actual design doesn't follow its intended philosophy at all. Britain basically took components meant for a light tank or light MBT (TN12 derived from FV300's TN10, V8 or opposed-piston engine of 700hp or less). Normally the limited power would be compensated by the very small size and low weight of the powertrain to devote more weight to armor and firepower for a given weight limit, but for the Chieftain the powerpack ended up being somewhat bigger and heavier than more conventionnal/high powerpacks of the day. This is due to:
- L60 being fitted vertically and being pretty big and heavy for what it does already (iron parts, low super/turbocharger boost)
- the hull sides being angled, which drive the height up since all the components still have to fit but now have less space at the bottom.

The other area when big savings can be made is the suspension:
- the roadwheels are absolutely superheavy by the standards of contemporary tanks of the same weight class, due to being fairly simplistic in design. You can easily save several dozen kgs or up to 100kg per wheel, or 1200kg in total
- the Horstmann bogies are extremely heavy for the performance they offer. Two contemporary alternatives exist: torsion bars that have the potential for greater travel and save a lot of weight, or external independent coil springs ala Merkava which remove the travel limitation when one wheel of a bogie is compressed (since wheels are now independent) and remove much of the weight of the steel needed to connect the wheels in one bogie. Savings on the order of 1000-2000kg. By switching to Leo 2/Abrams/T-tank style bottom hull (straight bottom with angled connections to the sides) and straight sides, you would retain or even improve the mine protection while saving height since now you can relocate stuff closer to the bottom of the tank. This would offset the height increase that torsion bars would have added. If torsion bars are used, the wheels could be reduced in diameter to fit a 7th wheel and improve ride further.

Layout:
- I mentionned ditching the angled sides and the mild Vee bottom. As I said this would allow a reduction in hull height. Packaging would be improved because most things in a tank are fairly rectangular and there would be wasted space along angled walls. This would also allow the turret basket to be dropped almost to floor level or to be increased in width at the bottom, since the angled sides precluded that. Bonus point is that this would make Chieftain easier to upgrade with foreign turrets or powerpacks, which was an issue with all British sloped side designs.

- You could probably even go as far as exploiting the benefits of the reclined driver's seat as much as possible and use the same general hull shape as the M1 Abrams. Historically Chieftain mostly used that to make up for the seat being mounted on rails over the Vee, instead of directly on a straight floor. A fully welded hull front, rather than cast may end up being superior to the cast layout in this configuration (improved resistance of rolled steel offsetting the efficiency of the cast shape).

- I might advise using a lighter style of skirts, either completely rubber or the 10mm thick steel skirts Leopard 1 used, that hang from the sponson. This would save weight since the side bars used to fix Chieftain-style skirts would be deleted and wouldn't contribute to mud buildup. Note the 10mm thick skirts are no worse ballistically than Chieftain ones and will still cover the area above the wheels.

Turret: nothing notable to alter.

Firepower: autoloading the ammo could have yielded further space and weight savings and would be a nice parallel to the Soviets and their two-part autoloaded ammo. Probably too expensive and complex for the British however, who ditched even the powered rammer on Chieftain because "the loader alone already met ROF requirements".

The gun can't really be improved much without going for riskier technology (APFSDS, smoothbore and combustible case ammo) or compromising on the original requirements.

Ammo stowage: testing in 1984 on a Chieftain led to Challenger replacing the wet stowage bins with armored bins. Foreign testing indicated that wet stowage only really worked well against low energy fragments that armored bins can already stop while being lighter and not having liquid in them. Maybe the British had not tested wet vs armored stowage at the time and drew the wrong conclusions?

Ammo capacity: it might be wise to just go back to 40-50 rounds like most 120mm wielders. This would save some weight overall. When the Chieftain prototypes were lightened they had to reduce ammo capacity to 56-52 rounds, but weirdly enough went back to 62 in service even though weight kept creeping up.

Ammo choices: it might be preferable to replace HESH with HEAT-MP and HE or HE-FRAG. HEAT was generally better accross the board in the AT role and isn't really worse against infantry in the open (less blast than HESH, but more frag). HE is straight up better than HESH against anything but very reinforced fortifications that aren't exactly common in the Cold War, and at that caliber it will hurt tanks quite badly. Would also make up for the reduced ammo load I suggested.

FCS: short of making the compromise of adding an optical RF in the cupola or the turret, not much to do.

 

[VIKINGTANK]

could better mobility (as well as having a new engine) have been achieved, better side armour, perhaps looking to the future threat and thicker turret front etc, etc. Discuss ......

A different engine, or at least a more proactive effort to fit an alternative (one did exist by the mid-1970s) would have been ideal.
In terms of armour, the density of frontal armour was the highest for any tank of that era when it was introduced. As ever, nothing stands still and as Soviet guns and ATGW improved during the 1970s/80s it needed some augmentation. Stillbrew was ad hoc but then a lot of tanks had that (even the 'Dolly Parton' T-72s).
Chobham at least had the theoretical advantage that if you needed thicker armour you would just hang thicker blocks on the chassis.

FV4211 was probably too much of a testbed, but it does seem odd that FV4030 (or a very similar development) had not been considered as a stopgap before MBT80 was introduced. It seems the aborted UK-German Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) messed up the timelines somewhat and perhaps that made the interim design less attractive. Of course how the massive Iranian procurement would have messed up production capacity is open to question had such a design been ready for 1978-79.

Hi Hood,

Good points; I well remember teaching T-72, T-72A (Dolly Parton) and T-72B (Super Dolly Parton). Just had a quick look at the book Chobham Armour again and it also mentions the FV4222, the 'National MBT' which was a interim, or alternate, to the UK/German FMBT and was based on FV4030 with Chobham (with lessons from the FV4211 that you mention and correctly think was pretty basic) but some 4 tons lighter than the FV4030. It never happened but its all very confusing!

Yes the several years building the Shir 2 for Iran if that had carried on, once all the Shir 1 were complete, would have meant that Chieftains replacement would have been further delayed but would have still been in service for Gulf War in 1991 I think.

Regards, VikingTank.