What-Ever Happened To The Vickers Mk7 Mbt?

[Gavin-Phillips]

If there's one British-built MBT I never hear (or ever heard) much spoken of, its the Mk7. Some websites do mention this vehicle as being tested by the Indian Army but "never adopted". I'm certainly no stranger to mis-information which is out there in alarming abundance!

 

So I figure I'd ask the experts.

 

What happened to it? Was it already outclassed by more modern designs, perhaps designed as an export vehicle which just never made any sales? Or...?

[DKTanker]

It was built under license by India so I don't know why you have a reference saying "never adopted." In any case the Vickers had two problems, a couple of tanks in the same class as the Vickers that also happened to be their respective nations MBT. Namely AMX-30 and Leopard.

 

Edit: Misread your initial post but the answer remains much the same, the Mk 7 was competing against export versions of contemporary MBTs which were also their nations MBT.

Edited December 26, 2015 by DKTanker

[Panzermann]

Why buy the Vickers MBT Mark 7 if you could get Leopard 2 at bargain prices?

 

that Vickers is no more may play a role as well.

[Sovngard]

It probably endured the same fate as the Vickers Mk. 4 "Valiant".

 

[BLAH]

Kenya uses them.

 

They're currently in the fight against their Islamic extremists (and have been used by the same).

[DKTanker]

Kenya uses them.

 

They're currently in the fight against their Islamic extremists (and have been used by the same).

Only one (1) Vickers Mk7 MBT has ever been built. If you were reading the wiki page perhaps you were confused by the entry regarding Kenya using the Mk3 along with 7 each Vickers ARV.

[GPMG]

The Vickers Mk7 MBT was a Leopard 2 hull with the "Universal Turret" from the Vickers Mk4 MBT. Only one was built.

The Vickers Mk4 MBT had an aluminum hull and steel "Universal Turret" which could be fitted with the British 120mm L11 rifled, German smoothbore 120mm Rheinmetall L44, or French smoothbore GIAT CN-120 F1. Only one built.

The Vickers Mk3 MBT improved version of the Vickers Mk1 MBT. 76 sold to Kenya, and 136 to Nigeria.

The Vickers Mk1 MBT developed as a simpler cheaper tank than the Chieftain it used many components from the Centenarian and Chieftain tanks, including Leyland L60 Multi fuel engine and L7 105mm gun. 70 sold to Kuwait. The Indian Vijayanta was based on the Mk1 2200 were built.

[Panzermann]

For the Challenger 2 the customer wanted this exact cannon, why waste space and money for the not wanted capability to put a different cannon in. In hindsight it would.have been a good idea, but then it this is in hindsight.

 

 

Maybe Vickers could have found a market in putting their Mk.7 turret on Patton hulls as a cheap upgrade, but in the eighties Pattons were mostly in use by countries that did not have much money anyway.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Panzermann

[BLAH]

 

Kenya uses them.

 

They're currently in the fight against their Islamic extremists (and have been used by the same).

Only one (1) Vickers Mk7 MBT has ever been built. If you were reading the wiki page perhaps you were confused by the entry regarding Kenya using the Mk3 along with 7 each Vickers ARV.

 

 

I'm apparently confused, but not by WIki. I thought there was only one Vickers MBT, which is the production one that looks like a late model Centurion. I think India made a whole heap under license with a different name, though I might be confused there too.

Edited December 27, 2015 by BLAH

[Panzermann]

Yes, now that you put it this way.

 

The Challenger was originally for Iran and a load of turrets for the aging Chieftains would easily carried vickers into the nineties until the British MoD had made their mind up what their future MBT should look like.

 

No exports and reducing numbers of the British Army made it not really a worthwhile undertaking anymore to build tanks in the UK. Since the Jordan deal there have been no exports. And those last ones were sold very very cheap.

 

Alas, it is part of the UK shrinking back to normal size again, that is, this small island off the coast with its eccentric islanders.

[Gavin-Phillips]

Very informative replies, thank you all. I suppose the pictures that publications like Janes has are of the prototype then, certainly must be if no more than a single vehicle was built.

[urbanoid]

Yes, now that you put it this way.

 

The Challenger was originally for Iran and a load of turrets for the aging Chieftains would easily carried vickers into the nineties until the British MoD had made their mind up what their future MBT should look like.

 

No exports and reducing numbers of the British Army made it not really a worthwhile undertaking anymore to build tanks in the UK. Since the Jordan deal there have been no exports. And those last ones were sold very very cheap.

 

Alas, it is part of the UK shrinking back to normal size again, that is, this small island off the coast with its eccentric islanders.

 

It depends how we look at it - First was CR2 order (two orders - 1993 and 1997) by Oman, then Jordanian order AND delivery of CR1s, with the final delivery being last CR2s for Oman.

 

Also, IIRC the CR1s were given to Jordan, not sold.

 

Also, about what killed the UK tank production ... I'd say that 'non-standard' gun might have played a role in that. E.g. Gulf Arabs might have wanted to to diversify their fleets with yet another Western MBT, i.e. alongside M1, Leclerc and Leo2, but why would they want L11 or L30?

[Damian]

Another problem I see, is that UK MoD was not ordering modernization programs for Challenger 2 that would keep production plant running and busy.

 

Look how US is doing that, they are constantly modernizing their tank fleet, be it smaller or larger upgrades, smaller or larger orders, but they have constant work, and armed forces have always an up to date tank fleet.

 

Same with Challenger 1.

 

IMHO what UK should do is to keep Challenger 1's alongside Challenger 2's, and modernize both tanks from time to time. Afterall in reality UK have strong enough economy and money to do that, poorer countries are able to keep larger tank fleets than UK have now.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Damian

[Chris Werb]

I think the argument was that it cost us a lot more to keep and armoured division in Germany than it did the Germans. Therefore, if they replaced our division, we could take over a bit more of their role at sea with a surplus to spend on other stuff.

[Damian]

Heh, well then I should be scared to move to UK, but it's not surprising, my GF is a British and she always complains about UK.

 

Still I think British MoD made a huge mistake giving away Challenger 1's, these would be a good reserve, and still could be rearmed with L30 gun, and use the same ammo as Challenger 2.

[DB]

Storing tanks costs money, and comes out of core budget, which includes buying new stuff and operating the stuff you actually use. When told to make 20%+ savings, you get rid of stuff that you don't need. You also don't need treasury types messing you about by changing the accounting rules to include a depreciation cost for assets that are ageing, which takes "cash" out of your budget when you can dump them elsewhere before the rules change.

[Sovngard]

The Vickers Mk4 MBT had an aluminum hull and steel "Universal Turret" which could be fitted with the British 120mm L11 rifled, German smoothbore 120mm Rheinmetall L44,

 

or French smoothbore GIAT CN-120 F1.

Likely the CN 120 G1.

[Panzermann]

I think the argument was that it cost us a lot more to keep and armoured division in Germany than it did the Germans. Therefore, if they replaced our division, we could take over a bit more of their role at sea with a surplus to spend on other stuff.

Besides being left over from occupation the foreign forces served as trip wire to make sure for example the UK is engaged in a potential cold war turned hot. UK politics has a bad habit of distancing themselves from europe.

[Panzermann]

Heh, well then I should be scared to move to UK, but it's not surprising, my GF is a British and she always complains about UK.

 

Still I think British MoD made a huge mistake giving away Challenger 1's, these would be a good reserve, and still could be rearmed with L30 gun, and use the same ammo as Challenger 2.

Well a Challenger 2 is a Challenger 1 hull with a new turret. So the upgrade is obvious.

 

Scrapping surplus Challenger2 was dumb on the other hand.

[Damian]

Challenger 2 hull is not exactly the same as Challenger 1 hull, they look similiar but are different as well.

[GPMG]

 

The Vickers Mk4 MBT had an aluminum hull and steel "Universal Turret" which could be fitted with the British 120mm L11 rifled, German smoothbore 120mm Rheinmetall L44,

 

or French smoothbore GIAT CN-120 F1.

Likely the CN 120 G1.

 

Probably I copied it from an internet article.

[swerve]

 

 

Kenya uses them.

 

They're currently in the fight against their Islamic extremists (and have been used by the same).

Only one (1) Vickers Mk7 MBT has ever been built. If you were reading the wiki page perhaps you were confused by the entry regarding Kenya using the Mk3 along with 7 each Vickers ARV.

 

 

I'm apparently confused, but not by WIki. I thought there was only one Vickers MBT, which is the production one that looks like a late model Centurion. I think India made a whole heap under license with a different name, though I might be confused there too.

 

No, Vickers made a few different tanks. See GPMG's post #7.

[swerve]

Storing tanks costs money, and comes out of core budget, which includes buying new stuff and operating the stuff you actually use. When told to make 20%+ savings, you get rid of stuff that you don't need. You also don't need treasury types messing you about by changing the accounting rules to include a depreciation cost for assets that are ageing, which takes "cash" out of your budget when you can dump them elsewhere before the rules change.

The depreciation rules are crazy. The Treasury seems determined to impose economic inefficiency.

[Panzermann]

Challenger 2 hull is not exactly the same as Challenger 1 hull, they look similiar but are different as well.

Yes, you are right. But not that different. I see more differences between the various marks of Centurion and from the different factories it has been manufactured in. So yeah, a CR2 turret should fit a CR1. If the turning signal is put some place else does not matter much.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Panzermann

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kenya uses them.

 

They're currently in the fight against their Islamic extremists (and have been used by the same).

Only one (1) Vickers Mk7 MBT has ever been built. If you were reading the wiki page perhaps you were confused by the entry regarding Kenya using the Mk3 along with 7 each Vickers ARV.

I'm apparently confused, but not by WIki. I thought there was only one Vickers MBT, which is the production one that looks like a late model Centurion. I think India made a whole heap under license with a different name, though I might be confused there too.

No, Vickers made a few different tanks. See GPMG's post #7.

Vickers has had a long tradition of designing tanks on its own and selling those abroad since the 1920ies.