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, but there use in war is still very much as that of mobile gun platforms in support of infantry, despite the introduction of integrated battle groups of all arms in the BAOR" . (p.13).
When I was a lad in that same BAOR, this brings back memories of debussing the FV432s and fanning out amongst the Smoky Joe's in the final assault. Much the say way as the 1960s infantry had done from the Saracen. There was only one roof hatch so for a squad to fire from a moving vehicle was not easy.
Our brief was to dismount, detect and destroy Saggers and RPG7 teams that would attack the AFVs.
Obviously by Desert Storm and with the new MICV the Warrior, troops have a vehicle they can fight from. Is there any good books/articles on this military doctrine of the tanks being mobile gun platforms?
Have I got this straight? In the old days the infantry would jump out of their armoured box so that they could see opposing infantry without the limitations of vision slits or prismatic periscopes, the drawback being that they were easy to shoot. Nowadays, however, they stay in the armoured box to avoid getting shot, but shoot out through slits in the armour (or fire some kind of remotely controlled automatic weapon). So, instead of the tanks having reduced vision and the infantry supplying the all-round overview, we have both groups with reduced vision. Furthermore, where before the infantry were several small targets for small arms, now their vehicle (with them in it) is a large target for light AT weapons or HMGs.
Where's the advance? Or am I missing something?
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.
Experience in combat suggests staying in your IFV does exactly what you suggest - makes you a big easily popped target whose destruction kills or incapacitates an entire squad...
Less so for Western or Israeli IFVs where external weapon mounts and sensors and extra armour and more sensors are prevalent, more so for Russian style IFVs - although post Chechnya they have lots of exciting ideas for "urban support vehicles" and heavy APCs I'm not convinced many are actually likely to be bought and in service, and how many are going to end up just being hopeful wish lists items...
Quote from: Hertsblue on 16 April 2015, 02:21:58 PM
Have I got this straight? In the old days the infantry would jump out of their armoured box so that they could see opposing infantry without the limitations of vision slits or prismatic periscopes, the drawback being that they were easy to shoot. Nowadays, however, they stay in the armoured box to avoid getting shot, but shoot out through slits in the armour (or fire some kind of remotely controlled automatic weapon). So, instead of the tanks having reduced vision and the infantry supplying the all-round overview, we have both groups with reduced vision. Furthermore, where before the infantry were several small targets for small arms, now their vehicle (with them in it) is a large target for light AT weapons or HMGs.
Where's the advance? Or am I missing something?
From bitter experience it depends what is 'in coming'. If it is mortar rounds or 7.62mm then I have in the past opted for the safety of the "the armoured box". If its ATMs or 100mm AP rounds, (which I never had to face) then I would have sought the dirt of the ditch.
I think Foss's point is that the Brits have opted in tank development to opt for protection and firepower. They downplayed mobility. Thus tanks were relegated to infantry support as opposed to breakout weapons ?
Quote from: Sunray on 16 April 2015, 07:42:17 PM
I think Foss's point is that the Brits have opted in tank development to opt for protection and firepower. They downplayed mobility. Thus tanks were relegated to infantry support as opposed to breakout weapons ?
Is that still the case today? Although Challenger 2 is faster than Chieftain, isn't it still slower than its contemporaries (e.g., Leopard, Abrams)?
Another question, if I may, Sunray. How was the FV432 for clambering in out of with the SLR?
I think we're still overreacting to WW2 era tank design producing the Cruiser series, and have gone heavy-heavy-heavy in an attempt never to be out gunned or out armoured. I suspect in actual combat conditions where speed is dictated by terrain clearance ability and not getting shot there's not a lot of difference in speeds (at least from WW2 experience - "combat speeds" for anything from Tigers to Shermans tended to be about the same; operational or getting to the battle field rather different though).
Quote from: Westmarcher on 16 April 2015, 09:39:56 PM
Is that still the case today? Although Challenger 2 is faster than Chieftain, isn't it still slower than its contemporaries (e.g., Leopard, Abrams)?
Another question, if I may, Sunray. How was the FV432 for clambering in out of with the SLR?
Recruits often landed in a heap! However this was a generation that cut their teeth in Operation Banner and had hard experience of debussing at speed from armoured Landrovers , Humber Pigs and Sarries on to a wet Belfast street. The trick was to hold the SLR well up the stockgrip. At night you would have a Bardic stop lamp in the other hand. The GMPG with a belt....that was another story.
I served with one character, Lemsip, [it was his hot wet of choice] who when we were putting on a display at Warcop, did trip on his sling on exiting a Landrover. The brass from the head shed were watching, so he did a PLF and rolled very professionally into the ditch where he nochantly took up a prone position as 'cover man', and trained his rifle down the road.
It impressed the top brass greatly, but they expressed fears that to adopt this fast deployment tactic on VCPs could lead to injuries- however they really appreciated Lemsip's zeal. I am sure it earned him his second tape.
In terms of BAOR it was assumed that we would be on the back foot in deep defence with hordes of T55s and assorted APCs streaming into our killing grounds. A battalion would have a troop of Chieftain attached, and prep a number of pre-prepared positions for them. Tank jockeys don't like digging. It was only at Suffield were debate about offensive tactics were broached.
The MTB is a holy trinity of firepower, protection and mobility. The Brit designs - after being traumatised in WW2, majored on the two former criteria and neglected the latter. Our Canadian cousins had the Leopard I which was fast, but light on protection. On firm ground they could and did 40mph. And they did not compromise your position with clouds of black smoke. Our Allies could not believe that we were not deliberately laying down smoke cover.
;D ;D
Some good stories there, Sunray. Ta much. :)
Awesome :D
Although given the massive input from Israel I do wonder how much of Chieftain is really down to their requirements, as the Merkava is quite similar in end result (if not detail...).
The Red Sea pedestrians had a different approach. After the Six Day War they believed that their Centurions and Pattons could do everything in the Killing Ground. Infantry was relegated to the rear in halftracks. Then came Yom Kippur. The Egyptians dispersed Sagger teams in the Sinai sandunes.
Israeli tankers did not see them as they barrelled across the desert to relieve besieged units at the Bar Lev Line. Heavy losses ensued. Some dismal Jonahs said the day of the MTB was over.
The IDF went back to the drawing board. The Merkava project had begun in 1973. The new lessons were to include room in the hull for an infantry fire team. The also purchased and uparmoured M113s. Unlike the MoD, the Israelis value their human resources. The Merkava has the engine at the front and designed for optimum crew protection.
The Israelis also passed on good intel. on how to respond to Saggers and wire guided missiles. Keep crew topside, look for the launch flash, and then two things. Evasive manoeuvres, and turn a GPMG on the point of launch. The missile firer requires to keep the target in his crosshairs and remain calm - hard to do when 7.62 ball is raking the dirt towards you.
That's why IDF Centurions of the period bristle with HMGs - at least three on the average turret. They also included a 60mm mortar on the Merkava.
The IDF where originally in on purchasing Chieftains but the Arab nations put pressure on the British Government I think 3 Chieftains where supplied for trials before Yom Kippur ???
Indeed, Mart - I don't dispute any of Sunrays comments as I think they're right, but my point was that the Israelis had big input into Chieftans design & development stage. They'd liked the Centurion so much they wanted in on the next one :D
They got booted off after pressure from elsewhere and went with American tanks "off the shelf" and used their experience in the Chieftain program whilst developing the Merkava... Which just makes me wonder how much of Chieftain is MoD and how much IDF driven. Despite it's flaws it a bit good for a UK Treasury funded design ;)
Suppose it goes with the theme, Challengers were for Iran! ;)
Israel purchased Mk3s, Mk5sand Mk8 in early 1960s. I think about 1,000 + in total (?).
They would have liked to get the Chieftain, indeed intel sources claim they were promised it and the cash they paid for the Centurions actually funded Chieftain development .
The new T62 being supplied to the Arabs, which was as good as was in the Soviet/Warsaw Pact OFB.
I have read one source that claims the Chieftain proto- types were used in the "water wars" against Syria. (Basically long range sniping with the 120mm gun ay 5,000 meters ). The alternative narrative is that "some of the Centurions sold to Israel has Chieftain turrets fitted for testing".
Which ever is correct, what we can say is that useful lessons were learnt concerning recoil and gun laying. (the Mk3 Merkava has the 120mm base on the German smoothbore).
The political decision not to sell the Chieftain led directly to the decision to make the Merkava.
Meantime the Centurion, when ably crewed and particularly by brave commanders to stood in the hatches to give direct FCOs (fire control orders) showed it was the match of any Soviet MBT in Yom Kippur.
But then you all knew that on this forum........
No the Chieftains - 3 thereof were in the south, and did take part, very unofficially.
ianS
Quote from: Sunray on 16 April 2015, 01:51:21 PM
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.
In '77 that's probably true...
Forty years later however :D
Quote from: FierceKitty on 18 April 2015, 07:22:48 AM
If that's a real sample of his writing, I'd seek more reliable opinions in other books.
Explain with facts please.
The quoted sentence simply doesn't mean anything. I don't trust the fellow's brain.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 18 April 2015, 07:22:48 AM
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 :)
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?
Quote from: Hertsblue on 18 April 2015, 02:09:15 PM
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?
:D 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. :D
Chears, Rob
Quote from: toxicpixie on 16 April 2015, 03:18:26 PM
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 :)