British armoured tactics BAOR 1970s

[FierceKitty]

I was reading Christopher F Foss Tanks and fighting vechicles (Salamander Books, 1977), and in the introduction to British armour was a very candid admission -

" Modern British tanks such as the Chieftain are the best protected as any....

If that's a real sample of his writing, I'd seek more reliable opinions in other books.

[toxicpixie]

In '77 that's probably true...

Forty years later however

[Rob]

If that's a real sample of his writing, I'd seek more reliable opinions in other books.

Explain with facts please.

[FierceKitty]

The quoted sentence simply doesn't mean anything. I don't trust the fellow's brain.

[Rob]

If that's a real sample of his writing, I'd seek more reliable opinions in other books.

The quoted sentence simply doesn't mean anything. I don't trust the fellow's brain.

Not a comment on the validity of the statement then, which in the context of the thread is what is is more easily taken to mean.

To be fair you are correct about Chris Foss, he is an artist and has published many books on tanks. His text is "safe" and only quotes official sources so he can get access for his camera work, you will never discover anything new in a Foss book only superbe pictures. Additionally there has never been any official armour figures given for the Chieftain so his statement set in the '70s that it is one of the best protected tanks is overwhelmingly safe.

A better analytical author for the time would be Stepen Zaloga or for scientific analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of cold war tanks the mathamatics of Paul Lakowski.

If you are interested, it is now known the turret armour of the Chieftain is 195mm set at a vertical angle of 60 degrees with a horizontal angle of approximatly 30 degrees giving a line of site armour thickness of 420mm. As this is cast armour the comparison with the nato standard RHA armour will be slightly lower at 380mm plus or minus 10mm. The Glacis plate is 85mm set at a vertical angle of 60 degrees.

Cheers, Rob 

[Hertsblue]

Our crowd knew what the frontal armour thickness of a Chieftain was back in the 70s. How do I know? Simple, one of my hates jumped up on to an open Chieftain at a Bovington with a tape measure and measured it. Nobody saw, nobody noticed. Just as well we weren't Russians, eh?

[Rob]

Our crowd knew what the frontal armour thickness of a Chieftain was back in the 70s. How do I know? Simple, one of my hates jumped up on to an open Chieftain at a Bovington with a tape measure and measured it. Nobody saw, nobody noticed. Just as well we weren't Russians, eh?

I did similar at Ashchurch Camp when I was contracting for GD(UK)Ltd in South Wales, (loved it there, stayed in Manmoel and played wargmes at Taffs Well).

It gets more difficult these days to get protection values, we are restricted to estimates usually because of the specialised armours and sensor protection.

It amuses me the way protection is now quoted in in completely unrealistic thicknesses of NATO equivalent RHA armour plate e.g. Chally 2; 960mm RHA equivalent. Reminds me of pre-breechloader howitzer shell weights when the weight of the shell was measured in its theoretical stone forebears equivalent.  

Chears, Rob

[Rob]

It's more that a modern IFV can fight WITH the infantry, and isn't just a minimally armoured bus; if needed infantry can fight FROM the vehicle but in general will dismount.

I think with the Warrior it is the former part of the statement that is true. The Brits do not provide any firing ports, and the vehicle is not particually suited for fighting with its unstabilised main gun on the move. I think its a doctrine thing.

Cheers, Rob