NATO Standard Tank for the 60s and 70s: Which would you choose?

[timmymagic]

A bit like the Lightning Mk53 these were "political" purchases. Note that unlike Oman Kuwait did not buy Challengers.

They were used in battle though in 1990/91

 

[Rule of cool]

My vote would be the Chieftain with the RR V8. Apparently the Dutch trialed a brand new Chieftain and the engine bay was black from engine oil leaking and spraying everywhere, fix that for starters and it might sell well.

Something I came across recently was BAOR exercises from 1966-69 known as Tank Hell, where tanks were pitted against ATGM Helicopters, where it was determined that helicopters would play an important part on the battlefield and further that the conventional phase of the war might be prolonged which resulted on wide ranging changes to defence strategy and policy.

Tank Hell showed that tanks on the move were easily detected even at ling range and likely engaged with ATGMs successfully. However it was found tanks in defensive positions with their engines off couldn't be detected until the helicopters were in range of the tanks machine guns. With this in mind a tank with an auxiliary engine to keep power when in defensive positions, and the sort of defensive machine gun able to stitch up a helicopter (.50 not 7.62) would be advantageous.

 

[Foo Fighter]

So much of the Chieftain automotive somponentry was compromised by the engine change to the L60 pack. All of the hydraulics, for example, went through ONE dump valve for overpressure release. Brakes, steering and even changing gear gone and you automatically went into neutral.

Cue the flying Chieftain.

Remove the crap engine, multi fuel and all, retain the RR V8 and original hull to reduce weight and you have a much more realistic vehicle.

However, that is political.

Endex.

 

[Rule of cool]

However, that is political.

For me political decisions are the easiest to change, its just a matter of putting different advice to the Minister.

'Minister we have already developed an engine for this tank at great expense. We could comply with the NATO multi-fuel directive with the next AFV far more cheaply.'

 

[MadRat]

Every tank depot is equipped with high pressure sprayers, and most have steam for NBC cleaning. Oil in an oil compartment is nothing to clean out.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Every tank depot is equipped with high pressure sprayers, and most have steam for NBC cleaning. Oil in an oil compartment is nothing to clean out.

You shouldn't have leaking oil inside an engine bay in the first place. Not least because it says "you WILL run out of oil at some point".

 

[Rule of cool]

You shouldn't have leaking oil inside an engine bay in the first place. Not least because it says "you WILL run out of oil at some point".

Not for a new tank delivered for the express purpose of impressing the testers enough to buy 400+.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not for a new tank delivered for the express purpose of impressing the testers enough to buy 400+.

Especially not then, but I meant in general.

 

[Lascaris]

So much of the Chieftain automotive somponentry was compromised by the engine change to the L60 pack. All of the hydraulics, for example, went through ONE dump valve for overpressure release. Brakes, steering and even changing gear gone and you automatically went into neutral.

Cue the flying Chieftain.

Remove the crap engine, multi fuel and all, retain the RR V8 and original hull to reduce weight and you have a much more realistic vehicle.

However, that is political.

Endex.

I understand Chieftain cost about 50% more than AMX30 and Leopard 1?

 

[Foo Fighter]

Especially not then, but I meant in general.

I take it you would have been appalled by the state of Chieftain drivetrain sections then.

When changing an engine (Which we did a s$*t load of) we would have to dig crud out of the bottom with shovels. Dirt, oil and grease etc along with the other circulating fluids was more than a few inches deep. I heard that later crews would leave the crud where it lay to 'stop' leaks with dried up gunk sealing holes.

As for having high pressure hoses? well I never saw ONE in my time. Garrisons would have a central service we could apply to use on a booked basis but it once took three engines to get the vehicle there and back. Three miles and three engines.

Beat that with mpg figures.........

Apparently the RR/Perkins engine is night and day different but that merely demonstrates what we should have done with Chieftain.

 

[Rule of cool]

I understand Chieftain cost about 50% more than AMX30 and Leopard 1?

Is it a better tank? If so then how much is that worth?

 

[Foo Fighter]

I understand Chieftain cost about 50% more than AMX30 and Leopard 1?

I think it depends on the variants and timeline but considering the faffing about and delays with adapting the hull and the L60 etc, being more expensive is understandable. Especially when you consider that the UK was the only nation that stuck with the multi fuel requirement.

On that aspect alone "The overtime must have been a nightmare".......

 

[Foo Fighter]

BTW, converting the diesel variation to petrol etc would have, in the opinion of the REME tech officer, have taken between 24 and 48 hours per vehicle.

Allowing for a combat scenario, when and where would this be appropriate or feasible?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Allowing for a combat scenario, when and where would this be appropriate or feasible?

Eastern Bloc agents/special forces managing to nobble the available on-hand stocks of diesel immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities might be one scenario.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Eastern Bloc agents/special forces managing to nobble the available on-hand stocks of diesel immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities might be one scenario.

It would be remarkably considerate of them to contaminate the diesel, and not any other fuel, though. Rather than just blowing up and/or set fire to the entire fuel dump.

Is it a better tank? If so then how much is that worth?

I guess the question is, if there are five Soviet tanks coming over the hill, do you want to have two Chieftains or three Leopards?

 

[Grey Havoc]

It would be remarkably considerate of them to contaminate the diesel, and not any other fuel, though. Rather than just blowing up and/or set fire to the entire fuel dump.

I was thinking that there would be plenty of civilian petrol stocks, including filling stations, that NATO forces could requisition in a hurry.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I get the scenario OK, what I do not get is how it could be accomplished in the real world. Some of the scenario's they ran suggested our MBT's would survive for 38 seconds once contact with Soviet main forces was made.

How they expected units to withdraw assets for conversion is a Miss Terry, hysterical mystery.

I wonder how these people making the 'big' decisions actually manage in the bathroom without someone to manage the paper work.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I guess the question is, if there are five Soviet tanks coming over the hill, do you want to have two Chieftains or three Leopards?

If they are T-54/55s and T-62s, the three Leopards, anything including T-64 and after, the Chieftains. Given what NORTHAG was facing, I think the Chieftain was a better choice for it's gun, should have had a better engine though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I take it you would have been appalled by the state of Chieftain drivetrain sections then.

When changing an engine (Which we did a s$*t load of) we would have to dig crud out of the bottom with shovels. Dirt, oil and grease etc along with the other circulating fluids was more than a few inches deep. I heard that later crews would leave the crud where it lay to 'stop' leaks with dried up gunk sealing holes.

As for having high pressure hoses? well I never saw ONE in my time. Garrisons would have a central service we could apply to use on a booked basis but it once took three engines to get the vehicle there and back. Three miles and three engines.

Beat that with mpg figures.........

Apparently the RR/Perkins engine is night and day different but that merely demonstrates what we should have done with Chieftain.

JFC, whoever approved that engine needs to be taken out back behind the woodshed and have "corrective phrenology" applied.

I hope their hell is changing Chieftain engines.

 

[Rule of cool]

I guess the question is, if there are five Soviet tanks coming over the hill, do you want to have two Chieftains or three Leopards?

There would be a mathematical formula that could work this out, because I don't think it's linear. Like a race car that is only a fraction faster than the opposition wins all the races I think a weapons platform that might be 10-20% better than the baseline might win 50% more engagements so is worth the 50% extra cost.

 

[Lascaris]

Is it a better tank? If so then how much is that worth?

Arguably no it's not. You are buying a tank Not a static armored pillbox. But leaving aside these little issues with engine reliability what is preferable 2 battalions of Chieftains or 3 battalions of Leopards and who is going to bail the cat err convince yourn average European ministry of economics that coughing up the extra money to buy Chieftain instead of Leopard or AMX30?

 

[Rule of cool]

I think far too much emphasis is put on unit price (and brochure stats) when talking about why this or that tank might be selected. The M60 tank was almost half the price of the Leopard 1 when Australia trialed them in the early 70s. While the Army thought the Leopard was better in the field, was easier to move around by rail on the East coast, had ARV and ALVB variants they did acknowledge that the M60 was an improvement over the Centurion and expected the Government to buy them.

However apparently the US wouldn't commit to building all M60s in a single, standard batch and the US was a bit on the nose with the newly elected Labor Government in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam, so the Leopard was chosen despite its much higher unit cost.

Keep in mind that in the Cold War NATO members were more or less the richest countries in the world, so mostly weren't scratching around the back of the couch for coins when it came to investing in fleets of AFVs, Warships or Combat Aircraft. Its also important to keep in mind that even when these are commercial sales Government are highly involved and interested and do arrange payments in commodities or other goods and all sorts of other offsets and deals.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Arguably no it's not. You are buying a tank Not a static armored pillbox. But leaving aside these little issues with engine reliability what is preferable 2 battalions of Chieftains or 3 battalions of Leopards and who is going to bail the cat err convince yourn average European ministry of economics that coughing up the extra money to buy Chieftain instead of Leopard or AMX30?

Agreed, the most valuable weapon of a tank is its engine, not the gun.

If you can't move, you're an artillery target. Or an air target, if people really hate you.

 

[Rule of cool]

Agreed, the most valuable weapon of a tank is its engine, not the gun.

If you can't move, you're an artillery target. Or an air target, if people really hate you.

I don't think anyone is a fan of the L60, the original RR V8 likely would have transformed the tank and made it far more attractive.

 

[Pioneer]

Arguably no it's not. You are buying a tank Not a static armored pillbox. But leaving aside these little issues with engine reliability what is preferable 2 battalions of Chieftains or 3 battalions of Leopards and who is going to bail the cat err convince yourn average European ministry of economics that coughing up the extra money to buy Chieftain instead of Leopard or AMX30?

Even if you were to measure on the fact that budgetary wise 2 Bn's of Chieftains or 3 Bn's of Leopard 1's, you'd still have to crew the additional 3rd Bn and provide the additional support vehicles, base and training infrastructure for that additional Bn, which = $$$$.

I guess the question is, if there are five Soviet tanks coming over the hill, do you want to have two Chieftains or three Leopards?

I don't think its that mathematically straightforward. For realistically it wouldn't be five Soviet tanks coming over the hill accompanied by BTR-60 or BMP-1's and doctrinally artillery in support.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Lascaris]

Even if you were to measure on the fact that budgetary wise 2 Bn's of Chieftains or 3 Bn's of Leopard 1's, you'd still have to crew the additional 3rd Bn and provide the additional support vehicles, base and training infrastructure for that additional Bn, which = $$$$.

But why treasury won't tell you to stick with two battalions of the cheaper machines?

 

[Rule of cool]

But why treasury won't tell you to stick with two battalions of the cheaper machines?

Governments don't set a budget then wonder on what they're going to spend it on.

They look at the threats, what they can and should do about them, come up with a Defence policy, then a defence strategy, then a force structure wish-list to meet that strategy. Its then that budget comes into it. However even at that point it's not X bucks equals Y tanks, because there's all sorts of industry strategies, local vs foreign support, manning etc etc etc. Governments will jump through all sorts of hoops to meet their stated policy-strategy-force structure goals before having to decide to reduce their tank force from 3 to 2 regiments due to the unit cost of the tank.

Treasury gets a bap rap, but often they're a reality check on Government and the Ministry/Department of Defence and the MoD/DoD can often juggle priorities to get acceptable results.