Jump to content
tanknet.org

Chieftain Questions


Recommended Posts

Sorry for the delay, it slipped my mind. The other two turrets are indeed chieftain

 

 

 

 

 

Action X is about as you'd expect given the treatment it's had - the casting itself doesn't look too bad. The gun mount is still fitted surprisingly (fv4202's has gone walkies for example, I need to ask about that one) but it's not as happy looking as the turret casting.

 

 

I dunno what the rod in the gun hole is, I completely missed it when I was there. Funny how things can only appear in photographs

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for the photographs Max.

 

They really ought to try and do something with that one. I cant believe there arent any Centurion hulls that need a turret. It (and FV4202) clealry have some significance as far as Chieftain is concerned. It seems everything get second place compared to WW2 stuff.

 

More specifically Tiger 131

Link to post
Share on other sites
More specifically Tiger 131

 

 

We give the people what they want

488251_10151517943765842_1018783026_n.jp

Tiger day is a massive boost for the museum, and it's plain to see what all the visitors are interested in - as soon as tiger goes back into the workshop everyone leaves. We are going to restore other vehicles to the same standard as tiger, including at least one of our prototype chieftains, but that has to wait until the new workshops are sorted. The tiger restoration was special, with the funding from the lottery we could just throw money at it until it was sorted - most of the actual restoration work was done at other workshops who we employed.

 

 

There is an awful lot in their storage shed that never sees the light of day.

 

 

Hence the viewing gallery in the VCC, which is getting filled with all kinds of cool stuff - conway, chieftain 900, "mbt-80", 40 ton cent, boarhound, the control vehicle for crazyhorse (which is in line for restoration as well, it's got all the kit inside so it'll look really nice when it's done), I could go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I first visited with my parents in the early seventies and back then it was just rooms full of tanks with the names on them. My Grandad lived in Wool so you can imagine how I use to pester my parents to go and visit him.

 

One thing I noticed at tankfest was the information panels in the tank park were often wrong. A number of them got the inches and millimetres of the armour thickness the wrong way. One of the Chieftains had a panal saying 12.5mm max armour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The boards can be very hit and miss. The tank experience in the new hall does a good job of putting things in context, it has similar things grouped together on a sort of timeline route - a chieftain, a leo, t48 and t-72 are next to each other, for example. The chally 2 prototype is facing off with a T-62 as well IIRC, which is fitting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The boards can be very hit and miss. The tank experience in the new hall does a good job of putting things in context, it has similar things grouped together on a sort of timeline route - a chieftain, a leo, t48 and t-72 are next to each other, for example. The chally 2 prototype is facing off with a T-62 as well IIRC, which is fitting.

 

 

As BansheeOne points out in post #306 on the Tankfest 2013 thread. But then, of course, accuracy doesn't matter a jot as long as we are all having an "experience", the more immersive the better, of course.

 

The Tank Museum claims on its home page that it is the museum of the Royal Tank Regiment & Royal Armoured Corps. It, and I, as a former member of the RTR, deserve better than this.

 

Max do not think I am getting at you, I very much appreciate the effort that you and your fellow volunteers put in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Max notice you mention you have MBT80 sorry but you do not, for the simple fact that no hulls were built prior to cancellation. What you do have that is called MBT80 is ATR2 rig with a turret THOUGHT to be part of the project. Some turret work was commenced and the optics were built which by all account were probably the best AFV optics built. When MBT80 was cancelled there were still no final drawings produced so hard to see how a hull could be built.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Charles

Max notice you mention you have MBT80 sorry but you do not, for the simple fact that no hulls were built prior to cancellation. What you do have that is called MBT80 is ATR2 rig with a turret THOUGHT to be part of the project. Some turret work was commenced and the optics were built which by all account were probably the best AFV optics built. When MBT80 was cancelled there were still no final drawings produced so hard to see how a hull could be built.

The drawings that were done, have they been declassified yet?.

 

Charles

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Just a short glance into one of the papers associated with MBT-80 project. It is loose minute about proposal of name for MBT-80.

 

1. I believe we should start to think of a name for MBT 80. It has been the tradition in the Army to give our tanks names starting with C. Only VALENTINE, MATILDA and BLACK PRINCE have broken this tradition. There is however no compelling reason to stick to this tradition, I am told.

 

2. DRAC has held a ballot at RAC Conference producing the following three names in order of support:

 

a. GLADIATOR

 

b. LION

 

c. CAVALIER (A resurrection of an earlier name)

 

3. I agree that GLADIATOR has a good ring to it and does not appepear to be open to any unfortunate nicknames. LION I am not so keen on. The Germans have gone for wild animals with TIGER and LEOPARD and I believe we should keep out of that zoo.

 

4. Unless a really strong contender starting with C emerges I think we would be well advised to call it GLADIATOR. I will give numbers of ECAB a little while to think about it and then, unless I receive any contrary views, I will put forward a note for agreement by the Army Board.

 

15 December 1978 VCGS

 

 

 

Minute is signed JWS who is the most probably Vicechief of Imperial General Staff sir John WIlfred Stanier. DRAC should be Director Armoured Royal Corps (Sir Joseph Michael Palmer?) and ECAB would be Executive Committee of the Army Board. Like that "keep out of that zoo" passus, and mentioning about unfortunate nicknames remainds me a story about Churchill`s HMS Pitt and HMS Repair and Refit. Worth a grin :)

Edited by Przezdzieblo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Re Action-X turret, the first mention I was able to find about mantletless turret for Centurion was during the 3rd Tripartite Conference on Armour, 1955. It was planned to be introduced together with uparmoured glacis. The new turret, with front of 200 mm basis thickness, was seen as alternative to uparmouring old turret (vertical 150 mm) with 75 mm plate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

L11A5's effective range : 3200 meters with APDS, 3500 with HESH while stationnary in direct fire mode.

 

Source : Chieftain Pamphlet No 33, service manual, page 7 of the chapter 2 : http://fr.scribd.com/doc/121248794/chieftain-tank-pamphlet-no-33-armament

 

 

Otherwise,

- Any informations about the penetration capabilities of the L15 APDS series ?

- Is there weight differences among the Chieftain of the first to the last version* ?

*I would refer to the Mk 1/2 (early), Mk 5 (most produced) and Mk 10 (with Stillbrew protection package).

Edited by Sovngard
Link to post
Share on other sites

Manic Moran,
ff "anything" means photos, then yes. The source is report from ballistic trials I mentioned some time ago, which is part of TNA collection.

 

Sovngard,

preliminary assessment (from 1956) for Solution 2B gun (which later turned to L11) was that new APDS (so called type H) could penetrate more than 140 mm plate at 60 degrees obliquity at 2000 yards. This would be circa 280-290 mm RHA, as penetration of high obliquity targets by those APDS almost matched performance versus vertical.

On the other hand it was thought that muzzle velocity of 4800 fps (1460 m/s) would be achieved. L15 is said to be fired with lower velocity (1370 m/s, which is 4500 fps). In 1956 terms it would mean penetration circa 130 mm at 60 degrees obliquity. The question is was L15 better than assessed.

 

HESH would spall 150 mm plate.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sovngard,

preliminary assessment (from 1956) for Solution 2B gun (which later turned to L11) was that new APDS (so called type H) could penetrate more than 140 mm plate at 60 degrees obliquity at 2000 yards. This would be circa 280-290 mm RHA, as penetration of high obliquity targets by those APDS almost matched performance versus vertical.

On the other hand it was thought that muzzle velocity of 4800 fps (1460 m/s) would be achieved. L15 is said to be fired with lower velocity (1370 m/s, which is 4500 fps). In 1956 terms it would mean penetration circa 130 mm at 60 degrees obliquity. The question is was L15 better than assessed.

 

 

Thank you

 

For my part I have up to 450 mm penetration :huh: at 2000 meters for the L15A4 (latest model of the L15 series).

 

 

HESH would spall 150 mm plate.

 

 

and spalling on a 460 mm plate for the L31 HESH :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I think that that was a later .50 round developed to replace the earlier ones. Or am I thinking of L8 7.62 tracers? Damned If I can remember.

 

 

The L21A1 .50 ranging gun* used two kind of ammunition :

 

L11 : 945 meters per second

L13 : 777 mps

 

*in fact a Browning M2 configured to fire in burst of 3 at 240 rpm.

 

 

http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm

 

That is something I find odd that the L15A4 APDS would have the same penetration capability than the newer L23 APFSDS. :blink:

Edited by Sovngard
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Jane's the L15 APDS should penetrate 355 mm at 1,000 m. Given that the L15A4 is just a modification of it (and not a completely new APDS round) it is very unlikely that it would achieve anything close to 450 mm penetration into RHA at twice the range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob stated in his book that L1 APDS could penetrate 446 mm, unforntunately with no information about distance. I can imagine if such performance could be even achieved, it was point blank, versus vertical plate. With introduction of L11, however, UK changed core of tungsten carbide to tungsten alloy. New material was inferior versus vertical targets, but, in connection with new projectile design, could do good versus sloped ones.

Since late 1950s performance against single plate targets became secondary issue, the more important was penetration of complex targets (spaced, later standarized as NATO targets).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob stated in his book that L1 APDS could penetrate 446 mm, unforntunately with no information about distance. I can imagine if such performance could be even achieved, it was point blank, versus vertical plate.

 

The M358 APBC-T of the M58 (M103's 120mm rifled gun) can be taken as an indicator :

 

255 mm at 1000 yards

226 mm at 2000 yards

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...