GJK Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 On 1/7/2022 at 9:15 AM, Stuart Galbraith said: Thats the thing, the only vehicle in NATO other than Chieftain with a multifuel. Were they still in service much? FV432 mk 2 was originally multi-fuel (Rolls-Royce K60 engine). However, like Chieftain they soon became diesel only in practice. Best, Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 Yes, id forgotten that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Yes, id forgotten that. Probably because it was such a daft idea in practice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Quote FV432 mk 2 was originally multi-fuel (Rolls-Royce K60 engine). However, like Chieftain they soon became diesel only in practice. I have interviewed/asked a few Chieftain tankers and none of them used the multifuel capacity. Also, it is like it was not taught or explained, as nobody knew of any procedure that you need to apply if you use different fuels (do you have to clean filters or purge the engine at some point for example) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 It was, IIRC, down to the REME to apply the conversion kit to turn it into an engine capable of running other fuels. As Oddball once said 'Hey man, I just ride 'em, I dont know what makes 'em go'. Might be worth asking some from the Corp and see if they were ever made familar with it. Certainly by the 1980's they locked out the multifuel capability as far more trouble than it was worth. There are lots of weird things about Chieftain, such as they apparently retaining the waterproof cladding in stores for donkeys years, despite nobody ever training on it. Maybe someone envisaged a Suez 2 at some point. There was the IR detector stalk that was never used because it was easily damaged. Then there was the .50 spotting rifle that was deleted, even though the crews liked it and wanted to retain it as a second Coax. Put it down to the infinite majesty of MOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 8 hours ago, alejandro_ said: I have interviewed/asked a few Chieftain tankers and none of them used the multifuel capacity. Also, it is like it was not taught or explained, as nobody knew of any procedure that you need to apply if you use different fuels (do you have to clean filters or purge the engine at some point for example) No wonder: Griffin says, "...in Chieftain's case, eight hours was quoted by REME as the length of time needed to convert from diesel to petrol." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) Yeah, I can well believe it. I really can't imagine a British Tank Squadron parked up for 8 hours in WW3, just because some bugger found 10000 gallons of petrol to run on. Edited January 12, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 10,000 bottles of Herforder on the other hand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 Let's face it, by the time the Reme had converted the L60s to run on it, the Squaddies would have drunk it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Let's face it, by the time the Reme had converted the L60s to run on it, the Squaddies would have drunk it all. Minus what the REME would have taken in payment! Edited January 13, 2022 by GJK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolas93TS Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 The narrative that L60 was unreliable due to it being multi-fuel is a myth, because Leopard 1 engine can run other fuels too. It was a combination of other factors, including poor quality control. One can argue that most of not all diesels can run on different fuel mixtures, at least, but diesel is preferable. Gas turbines could be considered proper multi-fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 13, 2022 Author Share Posted January 13, 2022 Nonetheless, the multifuel capability was deleted in an effort to make it more reliable. You are left with the feeling it was not the primary cause of the problems, but it certainly contributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 2 hours ago, Nikolas93TS said: The narrative that L60 was unreliable due to it being multi-fuel is a myth, because Leopard 1 engine can run other fuels too. It was a combination of other factors, including poor quality control. One can argue that most of not all diesels can run on different fuel mixtures, at least, but diesel is preferable. Gas turbines could be considered proper multi-fuel. L60 was unreliable because it was introduced before the design had been adequately tested. The multi-fuel capability merely compounded the issues that already existed. An example is the piston ring issue; already a weakness, but the need to have a higher compression ratio to enable fuels other than diesel to be used exacerbated the problem. The cylinder liner issue was more of a quality issue, whilst the belt tensioners were a poor design rather than poorly made. It appears that once again, the desire to spend as a little as possible is to blame to a large extent. The desire to have a domestically-produced engine over an off the shelf design from a foreign country without being willing to properly fund it will always result in a painful introduction. It also usually results in more expense than required to do it properly in the first place. In the case of L60, the mods that resulted in the mk 11 required new engine blocks to be manufactured because the old ones could not be so worked. The end result was an engine that met the original staff targets for reliability in the Gulf War (albeit for AVLB, ARRV and Willich AVRE, not MBT), but with enormous waste and huge reputational damage. Best, Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 13, 2022 Author Share Posted January 13, 2022 Let's face it, we should have stuck a Maybach in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R011 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Let's face it, we should have stuck a Maybach in it. Or a Continental. You could have then refit them into remaining Centurion based vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 13, 2022 Author Share Posted January 13, 2022 Either would have worked fine. Interesting thing is the Israelis didn't have major issues with the L60, and drove the crap out of it in the Negev. It always seemed to do better if it was well run and properly maintained, not always a given in cash strapped BAOR in the 1970's I'll still maintain that, notwithstanding the engine, it was the best European tank till Leopard 2 arrived. And as one Kuwaiti said, all you had to do was be sure you broke down in the right place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 I'm inclined to agree. If anything mechanical is not used much it tends to cause problems. I find exactly the same with rail vehicles as I did with armoured ones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 13, 2022 Author Share Posted January 13, 2022 There is a story, I don't know which Regiment, that a Cavalry C/O had private means, and paid for extra fuel. Lo and behold, they had a higher availability than other Chieftain Regiments in BAOR Which may partly explain why they were doing so much better in the 1980s, get had more track miles. Maybe someone should have shoehorned a Deltic into Chieftain, that would have been fun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Maybe someone should have shoehorned a Deltic into Chieftain, that would have been fun... That would have been impressive, but the smoke would make L60 seem like a hybrid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now