Israeli Chieftain

Riain

Banned
Sanderford said:
Wasn't the Khalid the tank the British designed for the Iranians before the Shah was overthrown? I seem to recall reading somewhere that was where at least part of the Challenger I design originally came from.
Click to expand...

Cryhavoc101 said:
My understanding is that a lot of the funding of Challenger I came from the Iranian tank projects
Click to expand...

The Iranians has 3 phases to the FV4030, phase 1 was a Chieftain Mk5P (Persia) upgraded with an automatic transmission and other stuff. Phase 2 was the Shir1, the Chieftain Mk5P with a modified rear hull with the CV12 engine and new transmission. Phase 3 was the Phase 2 rear hull with a new Chobham armour front hull and turret.

This was all paid for by Shah's Iran, Britain was in a joint program with West Germany until 1977 and then went with the British only MBT80 from 1978. Some 125 Shir1 tanks were on the production line and 250 Shir2 had been approved for production in 1979 when the Shah was overthrown, with a total of some 1200 Shir2 bing planned. This was when the British Army cancelled the MBT80 and took over the Shir2 as the Challenger, with the 125 Shir1 being sold to Jordan who also ordered another 149 as the Khalid. Thus the ROF went from having years of work and thousands of tanks on order to none and then recovering to having over 500 orders on their books in the space of a year.
 

alspug

The Shah of Iran was if nothing else very good at ordering equipment better than the nations it was ordered from had operational in some ways. The Spruance class Destroyers ended up morphing into the Kidd class destroyers and some of the books I've read refer to them as the best GP destroyers in the world up until the Arleigh Burkes. The Challenger was developed by the British for the Iranian's and it was better than a chieftain, The order for 80 F-14 certainly helped the US Navy get more Tomcats as well.
As for Israel I am sure the Chieftan would be improved due to Israel combat experience and the models used by both Israel and GB would improve rapidly.
 
Sanderford

Sanderford

Richard V said:
There needs to be a thread for delaying the Iranian Revolution a couple of years and this gear gets delivered.
Click to expand...

The only thing that accomplishes is giving the Ayatollah some more tanks, frankly.

Regarding the Israeli bid to get the Chieftain, it could be a success, but they need to find some way to get rid of that horrendous multifuel engine, which was notorious for breakdowns all throughout the Chieftain's service life, because frankly the I.D.F. armored units can't afford to constantly be driving around with smoke billowing from the exhausts due to coolant leaks, or just not at all most of the time if they buy early models.
 

Hammerbolt

alspug said:
The Shah of Iran was if nothing else very good at ordering equipment better than the nations it was ordered from had operational in some ways. The Spruance class Destroyers ended up morphing into the Kidd class destroyers and some of the books I've read refer to them as the best GP destroyers in the world up until the Arleigh Burkes. The Challenger was developed by the British for the Iranian's and it was better than a chieftain, The order for 80 F-14 certainly helped the US Navy get more Tomcats as well.
As for Israel I am sure the Chieftan would be improved due to Israel combat experience and the models used by both Israel and GB would improve rapidly.
Click to expand...

Sanderford said:
The only thing that accomplishes is giving the Ayatollah some more tanks, frankly.

Regarding the Israeli bid to get the Chieftain, it could be a success, but they need to find some way to get rid of that horrendous multifuel engine, which was notorious for breakdowns all throughout the Chieftain's service life, because frankly the I.D.F. armored units can't afford to constantly be driving around with smoke billowing from the exhausts due to coolant leaks, or just not at all most of the time if they buy early models.
Click to expand...
Depends on how long it's delayed. It's not just equipment like F-14s and tanks, but their related support and maintenance, as well as training. I remember reading that, in the chaos of the revolution, containers of spare parts for the F-14 were forgoten in some docks. They remained there for so long, unprotected, some were ruined by the time they were found...
 

Riain

Banned
If Israel did become a big Chieftain user would they develop their own range of ammunition that would then be picked up by the British? HEAT for example?
 

Bougnas

Riain said:
If Israel did become a big Chieftain user would they develop their own range of ammunition that would then be picked up by the British? HEAT for example?
Click to expand...
I think so, yes. They were quite interested in HEAT, which is not available on the L11 from the Brits so they will upscale 105mm M456 for that purpose. Just like how the development process of the German Rheinmetall 120mm actually was "let's make something that can shoot Brit 120 APDS, but more compact and lighter and with HEAT too--turns out we want more firepower so let's make it smoothbore and shoot APFSDS" (sic!).

Israel would also have developped a 120mm version of the APFSDS they historically made for 105, as it is unlikely that Britain would do that for them before 1978 (they didn't for themselves until they got results from 1974 tripartite trials and didn't get their own rounds until 1983 so...).
 

Riain

Banned
Bougnas said:
I think so, yes. They were quite interested in HEAT, which is not available on the L11 from the Brits so they will upscale 105mm M456 for that purpose. Just like how the development process of the German Rheinmetall 120mm actually was "let's make something that can shoot Brit 120 APDS, but more compact and lighter and with HEAT too--turns out we want more firepower so let's make it smoothbore and shoot APFSDS" (sic!).

Israel would also have developped a 120mm version of the APFSDS they historically made for 105, as it is unlikely that Britain would do that for them before 1978 (they didn't for themselves until they got results from 1974 tripartite trials and didn't get their own rounds until 1983 so...).
Click to expand...

What about of the Dutch adopted the Chieftain, they did trial it in the late 60s? Would they drive or at least support improvements such as ammunition that the British and their Mid East export customers did not?
 

Bougnas

Riain said:
What about of the Dutch adopted the Chieftain, they did trial it in the late 60s? Would they drive or at least support improvements such as ammunition that the British and their Mid East export customers did not?
Click to expand...
Doubt it, Netherlands didn't have an ammunition R&D unit and they didn't design new ammo for the Leopards they got either, instead buying British L52A1 APDS and then L64 APFSDS. The only country that had any chance to buy Chieftain (and even that is very unlikely due to their requirements) outside of Israel AND developped ammo was Canada, that worked on APDS in WW2 and continued at least until Trudeau came to power (they are behind the DU cored experimental APDS).
 

Riain

Banned
Bougnas said:
Doubt it, Netherlands didn't have an ammunition R&D unit and they didn't design new ammo for the Leopards they got either, instead buying British L52A1 APDS and then L64 APFSDS. The only country that had any chance to buy Chieftain (and even that is very unlikely due to their requirements) outside of Israel AND developped ammo was Canada, that worked on APDS in WW2 and continued at least until Trudeau came to power (they are behind the DU cored experimental APDS).
Click to expand...

Fair enough, the reason I ask is because the Dutch as NATO country could be a requirements driver like Israel would be but the likes of Iran, Jordan, Oman and Kuwait would not be. While the Dutch won't R&D their own ammunition with 468 Chieftains of their own their requirements might create the momentum to sponsor a joint development project with the British, especially if such development could generate big export sales to the likes of Iran.
 

Bougnas

Riain said:
Fair enough, the reason I ask is because the Dutch as NATO country could be a requirements driver like Israel would be but the likes of Iran, Jordan, Oman and Kuwait would not be. While the Dutch won't R&D their own ammunition with 468 Chieftains of their own their requirements might create the momentum to sponsor a joint development project with the British, especially if such development could generate big export sales to the likes of Iran.
Click to expand...
Historically, the British kinda designed FV 4211 as a way to introduce a Burlington-armored tank very early to equip not just the BAOR but also NATO allies until they can introduce their own new tanks. Had the Netherlands bought Chieftain, it would certainly have made a lot of sense to work with the British on this one and the inevitable FMBT-70-like follow-up (as FV 4211 was considered too underpowered and was thus cancelled), especially since Dutch units were supposed to fight right next to BAOR.

In fact, IMO the best option for the British would have been to avoid cooperation with the Germans (or restrict it to a memorandum of understanding to share common components or dimensions as was done for M1 Abrams and Leopard 2) and just reorient the FV 4211 into a less conservative design once it's proven to be underpowered. Then once Iran or any ITTL major user asks for a Chieftain follow-up the new tank will be far along in development to suggest it to them or develop a steel-carcass derivative if required. Unlike MBT-78/80 which was started far too late and was too ambitious to be suitable for immediate export needs.
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
I see the path to the Challenger as akin to the path of the Polaris and Harrier; avoid all the in between crap and just go directly to the end point, in this case simply join with Iran to develop the Shir2/Challenger and avoid the A-G MBT and MBT80 time and money wasting exercises.
 
Lascaris

Lascaris

Riain said:
What about of the Dutch adopted the Chieftain, they did trial it in the late 60s? Would they drive or at least support improvements such as ammunition that the British and their Mid East export customers did not?
Click to expand...
Chieftain cost about two thirds more than Leopard 1 and AMX30 I understand. So either the Dutch need to pay about $200 million more or reduce thir order to about 280 tanks, roughly 4 armored battalions fewer...
 

Bougnas

Riain said:
I see the path to the Challenger as akin to the path of the Polaris and Harrier; avoid all the in between crap and just go directly to the end point, in this case simply join with Iran to develop the Shir2/Challenger and avoid the A-G MBT and MBT80 time and money wasting exercises.
Click to expand...
FV 4211 and the logical production design (FMBT-70 MLC 60 Concept 2 proposal) also had some advantages over Challenger beyond the massive reduction in weight induced by the aluminium carcass:

1635064394119.png

You can see that the FV 4211's upper composite block went below the upper track (Challenger's stops at track height so the LFP was less exposed, and said LFP was actually spaced and somewhat thicker overall over much of its surface, so this was not as much of a weakspot as Challenger. The turret roof also seems to be more sloped and the armor higher so that shouldn't be a weakspot although I'm not sure they'd keep that layout in a production design, for crew vision reasons.

And if it was under 56 tons with full side armor Chobham packs when Challenger is heavier with no side packs...
 

Riain

Banned
Bougnas said:
FV 4211 and the logical production design (FMBT-70 MLC 60 Concept 2 proposal) also had some advantages over Challenger beyond the massive reduction in weight induced by the aluminium carcass:

View attachment 689970
You can see that the FV 4211's upper composite block went below the upper track (Challenger's stops at track height so the LFP was less exposed, and said LFP was actually spaced and somewhat thicker overall over much of its surface, so this was not as much of a weakspot as Challenger. The turret roof also seems to be more sloped and the armor higher so that shouldn't be a weakspot although I'm not sure they'd keep that layout in a production design, for crew vision reasons.

And if it was under 56 tons with full side armor Chobham packs when Challenger is heavier with no side packs...
Click to expand...

I don't think that the Challenger would be better than the mbt80 howver assuming that it lived up to its promise and wasn't cancelled it was due to enter service in 1989 and paid for by the British taxpayer rather than the Shah of Iran. Against those things the Challenger looks pretty appealing despite its drawbacks.
 

Riain

Banned
Lascaris said:
Chieftain cost about two thirds more than Leopard 1 and AMX30 I understand. So either the Dutch need to pay about $200 million more or reduce thir order to about 280 tanks, roughly 4 armored battalions fewer...
Click to expand...

Wow, and the Leopard was more expensive than the M60 when Australia looked at them in the early 70s. That said the concept of the light, fast MBT quickly became obsolete in the face of massed Soviet tank armies, it turned out that there was no flank to manoeuvre to so big guns and heavy armour was the only option.

I think that if the Dutch chose the Chieftain they'd work compromise between the budget and the numbers required. Maybe do some offset deal with the British.
 

Bougnas

As far as I know the Leopard 1 and Chieftain were both 800k florins during the competition, per a Dutch journal:
1635069453297.png

(Yes, that was one hell of a sourcehunt!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top