Have the Chieftain then Challenger I & II be more successful on the world market

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Have the Chieftain then Challenger I & II be more successful on the world market compared to the Leopard & M1 Abrams?

What other countries could you have sales to?
What improvements could you make to make these extra sales?

Much obliged!

 

[tomo pauk]

Chieftain - don't go overboard with size and weight; 105 mm gun, not 120mm. All that together drives the price down, both for buying the actual tanks and maintenance; countries can use the existing tanks' transporters thus again making the tank viable choice. A 'normal' V12 (turbo)diesel.
Challenger - again keep check on the wight and size (~55 tons initially), 120mm gun with smooth bore instead of the rifled bore. 1500 HP engine.

 

[Bougnas]

I'd say that the primary problems that prevented more Chieftain sales (beyond problems with meeting customers' requirements) were:
- bad timing
- lack of standardization with existing equipment
- bad reliability for much of its life

The Chieftain didn't enter service until 1967 and in practice still wasn't that reliable and mature until the early 70s which meant that the Chieftain missed the big selling season in Europe during the 1960s and the Leopard 1 was too entrenched in the continent in the 70s to have any hope of selling the Chief to the remaining European customers. The British mostly had to rely on North African/Middle Eastern customers at a time when some of those countries stopped buying British or were PR nightmares like post-67 Israel, so even less sales were made. Others were looking after the next generation of NATO tanks even if it was delayed, and by then the Chieftain was no longer competitive. Canada was a non-starter after 1968 thanks to Trudeau.

The 120mm L11 failed to get NATO's seal of approval for standardization while the 105mm was ubiquitous so that was a problem too, and Soviet armor was too underestimated and the 105 too overestimated to make the 120's extra power actually interesting.

Reliability and mobility were rather low compared to other tanks even though most countries at the time were looking for it, and the high weight meant that the Chief was rather unappealing to countries with problematic infrastructure.

So to fix this, the two priorities are:
- finish it in a reliable state way earlier, preferably before 1965
- keep it light
- have higher mobility requirements instead of merely making it "better than Centurion"

That should mean:
- keep the 105mm gun originally intended, with fixed cartridge instead of bagged charges (not needed with L7 cartridges anyway). Not sure if the OTL proposed 105 had L7 ballistics but I will assume it did. Adapting the breech to shoot bagged charges and then making it a 120 added major delays on top of requiring changes to the design and increasing weight.
- keep the RR V8 diesel as it reduces the overall weight and will be reliable earlier. I advise making it a V10 from the start though even if it removes the weight advantage because it will ensure greater mobility.
- have Vickers participate more and earlier in the project. Leyland alone couldn't finish the program in time. Vickers could help design a more reliable, mobile and lighter vehicle too (especially with Vickers' torsion bar tech instead of bogies).
- actively try to stay as close as possible to the OG 45 long ton weight requirement to maximise reliability, mobility and minimise delays.

In such a configuration it shouldn't be too hard to at least do as well as the Americans with the M60A1 in terms of timing and performance. Realistically though, this Chieftain could probably be even better as it's not constrained by the much older roots of the M60A1 (likely a tad lighter, lower, more mobile). France and Germany will still probably get their national tank but other European sales are much more likely, and it gives plenty of time to sell the tank to Israel before the Arabs attempt to block any sales after 1967, and Canada before they go nuts (and to Lybia before the 1969 revolution?).


Both Challengers are butterflied in this situation since they will look very different. I don't think that they can feasibly do better because the I is too constrained by its Chieftain roots and was a second-rate export tank (it's also way too late), not one that could be sold to Europeans, and the ME is flooded by Soviet products already. Challenger II is fundamentally screwed because it's not a really modern design again, and it wasn't ready before the 90s by which time the market not only collapsed but was flooded by ex-Soviet/German/US gear.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Strangely enough I've been thinking on this - particularly after the on going discussions we had on the other thread

a-series-of-assumptions-a-britwank-on-a-budget

The first change would have to be Chieftain - namely the power pack and suspension (Torsion bar and the originally planned Rolls Royce V8 power pack)

This might advance the design by a year or 2 and this might result in the design being taken up by the Israelis (OTL they were involved in earlier development before more pro Arab sentiments ended this tank development relationship).

So the Israelis end up using it almost like the 'firefly' was used by the British in WW2 except with each Tank battalion issued a troop or 2 by the 1967 '5 day war' where the extra reach and destructive power of the L11 on all fronts along with the L7 105mm armed Centurions and other tanks devastates the Arab tank army's despite earlier overconfidence on the IDFs part nearly resulting in disaster during the first couple of days

Feedback from the battle allows for extensive improvements to be made to the basic design which were made to British tanks as well as subsequent production models

The tank gained further 'glory' during the Yom Kippur war in 1973 this time in far greater numbers although a number were knocked out - principle by ATGWs

The other main operator is the Iranian armed forces who by 1978 have received over 1000 Chieftains including recovery vehicles etc

Following the internal issues following the death of the Shah in 1978 as his son Reza was said to be too young by some and too liberal by others (and not liberal enough by others etc etc), which included a somewhat insipid succession attempt by elements in the Oil Rich Khuzestan Provence Saddam Hussian the then leader of Iraq saw that the time was ripe to annex the region and launched the first of 3 boarder wars.

The first was a disaster, with the Chieftain (used properly) decimating large numbers of Iraqi tanks and even knocking out several of the vaunted T72s which were very quickly sent to the UK and USA for further assessment - where it was found that the L11 would struggle to defeat the T72A variant over the frontal arc at long ranges

The war and quick victory did much to cement the new Shahs position and he was able to restore order in his country buying time for the changes he had proposed to take hold. He then doubled down on orders for the new Shah 2 MBT (Effectively Challenger 1) that Britain was producing ordering over 1500 gun tanks and 220 ARVs

Following the losses suffered in 1967 at the hands of the IDF Jorden having normalised relations with Israel also ordered Chieftain - 300 hulls (including ARVs) based on the latest development of the Iranian version delivered by 1977

Kuwait also had ordered the design - with 175 of the earlier types in 1975 and another 155 of the improved versions in the 80s (with the older tanks being refitted to the improved standard).

Oman received 27 (Pretty much OTL)

The Netherlands impressed by the types combat performance in the 5 day war chose it over the Leo 1 in 1968 (OTL the very poor reliability of the OTL Chieftain particularly the engine made the choice of Leo1 very easy for the Netherlands) - They will eventually order 468 Hulls including AFVs and Bridge layers

Many of these Chieftain users would go on to purchase the SHAH 2/Challenger tank during the 80s and 90s

TBC - possibly

 

[Crowbar Six]

I'd say that the primary problems that prevented more Chieftain sales (beyond problems with meeting customers' requirements) were:
- bad timing
- lack of standardization with existing equipment
- bad reliability for much of its life

The Chieftain didn't enter service until 1967 and in practice still wasn't that reliable and mature until the early 70s which meant that the Chieftain missed the big selling season in Europe during the 1960s and the Leopard 1 was too entrenched in the continent in the 70s to have any hope of selling the Chief to the remaining European customers. The British mostly had to rely on North African/Middle Eastern customers at a time when some of those countries stopped buying British or were PR nightmares like post-67 Israel, so even less sales were made. Others were looking after the next generation of NATO tanks even if it was delayed, and by then the Chieftain was no longer competitive. Canada was a non-starter after 1968 thanks to Trudeau.

The 120mm L11 failed to get NATO's seal of approval for standardization while the 105mm was ubiquitous so that was a problem too, and Soviet armor was too underestimated and the 105 too overestimated to make the 120's extra power actually interesting.

Reliability and mobility were rather low compared to other tanks even though most countries at the time were looking for it, and the high weight meant that the Chief was rather unappealing to countries with problematic infrastructure.

So to fix this, the two priorities are:
- finish it in a reliable state way earlier, preferably before 1965
- keep it light
- have higher mobility requirements instead of merely making it "better than Centurion"

That should mean:
- keep the 105mm gun originally intended, with fixed cartridge instead of bagged charges (not needed with L7 cartridges anyway). Not sure if the OTL proposed 105 had L7 ballistics but I will assume it did. Adapting the breech to shoot bagged charges and then making it a 120 added major delays on top of requiring changes to the design and increasing weight.
- keep the RR V8 diesel as it reduces the overall weight and will be reliable earlier. I advise making it a V10 from the start though even if it removes the weight advantage because it will ensure greater mobility.
- have Vickers participate more and earlier in the project. Leyland alone couldn't finish the program in time. Vickers could help design a more reliable, mobile and lighter vehicle too (especially with Vickers' torsion bar tech instead of bogies).
- actively try to stay as close as possible to the OG 45 long ton weight requirement to maximise reliability, mobility and minimise delays.

In such a configuration it shouldn't be too hard to at least do as well as the Americans with the M60A1 in terms of timing and performance. Realistically though, this Chieftain could probably be even better as it's not constrained by the much older roots of the M60A1 (likely a tad lighter, lower, more mobile). France and Germany will still probably get their national tank but other European sales are much more likely, and it gives plenty of time to sell the tank to Israel before the Arabs attempt to block any sales after 1967, and Canada before they go nuts (and to Lybia before the 1969 revolution?).


Both Challengers are butterflied in this situation since they will look very different. I don't think that they can feasibly do better because the I is too constrained by its Chieftain roots and was a second-rate export tank (it's also way too late), not one that could be sold to Europeans, and the ME is flooded by Soviet products already. Challenger II is fundamentally screwed because it's not a really modern design again, and it wasn't ready before the 90s by which time the market not only collapsed but was flooded by ex-Soviet/German/US gear.

There were 3 Chieftains in Israel in '67 for trials, the British government told the Israeli's not to get creative with the term trial . It would have made sense for the IDF to buy as they already had and loved Centurion and Chieftain was a essentially Centurion writ large. Also there were also lots of NATO intelligence reports that the Soviet T64 was largely impervious to existing L7 105mm so some form of upgunned tank was going to be needed sooner or later. The US went down the 152mm gun/missile launcher route intended for M551, M60A2 and MBT70 which was a dead end. The UK went for L11, one reason was that the gun was a straight evolution from the L7, the UK preferred a rifled gun as it gave better performance with HESH rounds, it also gave them a secondary demolition role when a 165mm AVRE equipped Centurion was unavailable. I've always suspected there was a plan for a regun at some stage with a smoothbore 120mm down the line or one of the big gun 130-140mm replacements in the late 1980's early 1990's which never happened due to a combination of lack of funds and end of the Cold War.

Also the L60 was overcomplicated due to the NATO multi-fuel requirement in the late 1950's early 1960's. Once they deleted the multi-fuel elements it became a lot more reliable, though it was never a good engine, it was only improved when the Army acquired the Challenger 1 with the RR CV12 which was a much more powerful and reliable.

To get increased sales they would need a better engine ideally diesel with at least 800-1000 hp, improved mechanical reliability and a 120mm gun

 

[Bougnas]

There were 3 Chieftains in Israel in '67 for trials, the British government told the Israeli's not to get creative with the term trial . It would have made sense for the IDF to buy as they already had and loved Centurion and Chieftain was a essentially Centurion writ large. Also there were also lots of NATO intelligence reports that the Soviet T64 was largely impervious to existing L7 105mm so some form of upgunned tank was going to be needed sooner or later. The US went down the 152mm gun/missile launcher route intended for M551, M60A2 and MBT70 which was a dead end. The UK went for L11, one reason was that the gun was a straight evolution from the L7, the UK preferred a rifled gun as it gave better performance with HESH rounds, it also gave them a secondary demolition role when a 165mm AVRE equipped Centurion was unavailable. I've always suspected there was a plan for a regun at some stage with a smoothbore 120mm down the line or one of the big gun 130-140mm replacements in the late 1980's early 1990's which never happened due to a combination of lack of funds and end of the Cold War.

Also the L60 was overcomplicated due to the NATO multi-fuel requirement in the late 1950's early 1960's. Once they deleted the multi-fuel elements it became a lot more reliable, though it was never a good engine, it was only improved when the Army acquired the Challenger 1 with the RR CV12 which was a much more powerful and reliable.

To get increased sales they would need a better engine ideally diesel with at least 800-1000 hp, improved mechanical reliability and a 120mm gun

NATO didn't know about the T-64 (which didn't exist) when the 120mm caliber was chosen for Chieftain. The 105mm caliber was deemed adequate, but the Americans wanted to defeat 6" of armor at 60° at 2000yards with its smoothbore program so the search for a more powerful gun indeed existed.

 

[Crowbar Six]

NATO had already seen the T10, and there were reports of heavier and tougher.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

There were 3 Chieftains in Israel in '67 for trials, the British government told the Israeli's not to get creative with the term trial . It would have made sense for the IDF to buy as they already had and loved Centurion and Chieftain was a essentially Centurion writ large.

If the UK wouldn't export the Chieftain . . . . could they avoid the pro-Arab lobby by granting an license to Israel instead?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

If the UK wouldn't export the Chieftain . . . . could they avoid the pro-Arab lobby by granting an license to Israel instead?

I think the concern was Oil rich Arab nations turning off the supply of Oil

 

[Bernard Woolley]

The use of Roman numerals has triggered me. The U.K. went over to Arabic numerals for military designations back in the late ‘40s.

The IDF buying the Chieftain might have helped. No revolution in Iran would also have meant that the Shir 1 & 2 would have been exported. South Africa buying the Chally as a replacement for the Oliphant almost happene.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I just had a thought

Dangerous I know

But in order for a the Chieftain to become more successful it I think goes without saying that it is very necessary for Vickers to 'lead' the project

Now Vickers created the very successful Vickers MBT that was adopted by the Indians as the Vijayanta

Perhaps ITTL the Indians seeing the Chieftain (with its advanced/improved development over OTL) instead requests to be allowed to stand up licence production of that tank instead of the Vickers MBT MK1

So TTLs Vikayanta is adopted by the Indians with the first 150 odd built in the UK and then for the rest most of the Hull and turret etc built in India, with the Power pack and other features made in the UK for the remaining 2000 odd vehicles they would make up to 1984

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I think the concern was Oil rich Arab nations turning off the supply of Oil

Pity MOSSAD didn't 'accidentally' find any plans for the Chieftain lying about and illegally license produce it like the Mirage III

 

[Bougnas]

I just had a thought

Dangerous I know

But in order for a the Chieftain to become more successful it I think goes without saying that it is very necessary for Vickers to 'lead' the project

Now Vickers created the very successful Vickers MBT that was adopted by the Indians as the Vijayanta

Perhaps ITTL the Indians seeing the Chieftain (with its advanced/improved development over OTL) instead requests to be allowed to stand up licence production of that tank instead of the Vickers MBT MK1

So TTLs Vikayanta is adopted by the Indians with the first 150 odd built in the UK and then for the rest most of the Hull and turret etc built in India, with the Power pack and other features made in the UK for the remaining 2000 odd vehicles they would make up to 1984

Problem is that part of the reason why India bought the Vickers is because the tank was fully welded so production could easily be set up in India which didn't have any casting capability. The Chieftain's castings pose a problem. I don't know the maximum weight the Indians were willing to accept but it musn't have been high either.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Problem is that part of the reason why India bought the Vickers is because the tank was fully welded so production could easily be set up in India which didn't have any casting capability. The Chieftain's castings pose a problem. I don't know the maximum weight the Indians were willing to accept but it musn't have been high either.

I did consider that as a show stopper - and of infrastructure as it was then might not accept a 55 ton tank (the Vickers Mk1 was 39 tons)

 

[Crowbar Six]

If the UK wouldn't export the Chieftain . . . . could they avoid the pro-Arab lobby by granting an license to Israel instead?

I really doubt it. We would have to do what the US did with arms exports to the mid-east ie sling massive bribes around and subsidies to keep the Russians out.

 

[Bougnas]

The FV 4202* seems like a good example of what an 105mm L7 version of the Chieftain could look like:

Even with a rather inefficient structure, there are still over 3 long tons remaining for a proper CBRN suite and improved hull armor. Realistically a Chieftain made like this would have even more weight available for extra armor. I wonder if the cast upper front was actually efficient on the Chieftain because there isn't much rounding.

That said, it seems like the move to a bigger gun was mandatory in the program.

*The FV 4202 as is could have been a very quick, easy and cheap evolutionary replacement for the Centurion by 1950 too, like the T-44/54 or the T20 for their respective forerunners.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

*The FV 4202 as is could have been a very quick, easy and cheap evolutionary replacement for the Centurion by 1950 too, like the T-44/54 or the T20 for their respective forerunners.

That's an idea - a 2 phase version with a 1950 L7 armed variant in 1950 with a later mark getting the L11 - much the same as the M1 starting with the L7 105mm and then getting the Rhm 120mm / L44 in the later M1A1

Less revolution more evolution

 

[Riain]

In my TL a-series-of-assumptions-a-britwank-on-a-budget I had the original RR V8 retained which enabled the Chieftain to be sold to the Dutch in 1969, including the Falcon AA turret as the Flakpanzer Falcon, which I then had the British Army acquire.

I had the Israel Chieftain deal fall over because.......... "Knowledge about the pair of Chieftains on loan to Israel leaked out and caused a political crisis. Mobs attacked the British embassy in Cairo and other Arab cities, the British embassy in Tripoli was even set on fire. The British promised to provide the Libyans with Chieftain tanks of their own, but this did not satisfy the Arabs, who threatened to take their foreign currency accounts out of British banks."...................... I think that if the Israel deal went ahead it would have been at the expense of the 707 Chieftain, 185 FV4030/1, 125 Shir 1 and 1200 Shir 2 to Iran, which is a massive loss.

I didn't pursue it any more than that, but 450+ Chieftains for the Dutch is a pretty big win.

 

[Father Maryland]

In my TL a-series-of-assumptions-a-britwank-on-a-budget I had the original RR V8 retained which enabled the Chieftain to be sold to the Dutch in 1969, including the Falcon AA turret as the Flakpanzer Falcon, which I then had the British Army acquire.

I had the Israel Chieftain deal fall over because.......... "Knowledge about the pair of Chieftains on loan to Israel leaked out and caused a political crisis. Mobs attacked the British embassy in Cairo and other Arab cities, the British embassy in Tripoli was even set on fire. The British promised to provide the Libyans with Chieftain tanks of their own, but this did not satisfy the Arabs, who threatened to take their foreign currency accounts out of British banks."...................... I think that if the Israel deal went ahead it would have been at the expense of the 707 Chieftain, 185 FV4030/1, 125 Shir 1 and 1200 Shir 2 to Iran, which is a massive loss.

I didn't pursue it any more than that, but 450+ Chieftains for the Dutch is a pretty big win.

Why would a Chieftain sale to Israel destroy the Chieftain contract with the Shah? The Shah was almost always a relatively strong ally of Israel (For years pretty much the only major oil exporter that would sell to Israel) arguing that since Iran was Persian and not Arab the Arab/Israeli conflict was really not his problem.

Obviously Israel was pretty unpopular with the general Iranian population but the Shah was the one signing the checks.

 

[Bougnas]

That's an idea - a 2 phase version with a 1950 L7 armed variant in 1950 with a later mark getting the L11 - much the same as the M1 starting with the L7 105mm and then getting the Rhm 120mm / L44 in the later M1A1

Less revolution more evolution

Even with the 20pdr in 1950 it would be excellent. IMO the optimal schedule for new MBTs was 1950-53 after WW2 to take account of late war developments and "counter" the T-54 (since it was the most proactive tank design of the time), then a major upgrade or new tank every 10-15 years at least.