Chinese Eye Chieftain

[Stephen White]

Mike, thanks, some intriguing photos.

The first two show a Mk 10 with a sadly truncated barrel. It's in civilian hands and judging by the background in the first photo, is in the US. The paint job is a brave attempt to re-create the standard NATO Green/Black camouflage used in BAOR. Was it used for filming? I can't find the image on Google. I wonder if any of our American colleagues can shed any light on it?

00EB54 was built in early 1967 by Vickers in the Elswick Works Newcastle as one of the first batch of 117 Mark 2s. It was the 32nd Chieftain off the production line (excluding prototypes). It ended its service in 1996 as a hard target on Lulworth ranges.

00FC05 was build in June 1971 by ROF Leeds as part of the first batch of Mk 3/3 Chieftains, with the 720hp Sundance Power Pack and the then new improved NBC Pack No 6. It ended its days in June 2000 on Salisbury Plain as a range target. By then it would probably have been modified to Mk 10 or 11 standard. The photo is interesting. It shows the tank in its Mk 2 configuration and judging by the green and black denims on display, was probably taken at the RAC Centre, Bovington. It looks as thought it's undergoing trials with the Armoured Trials and Development Unit, which are resident there and whose badge is seen on the toe plate. The crew are wearing experimental helmets and there is an intriguing device mounted on the turret roof beside the operator. I simply don't recognise it but will ask David Fletcher if he knows what it is. The apparent stripey camouflage is a blemish on the photo before anyone thinks tiger stripes were in fashion in the RAC.

[Mark Heaps]

00FC05 - Yes, very intriguing photo and I do not know what it is either so something experimental that never entered service, or if it did then never in that form.
It does not look like a projectile weapon to me so two thoughts.
1) An experimental camera array to allow a vehicle to accompany tanks on their battle runs on ranges and record the images for debriefing the commanders and gunners later.
2) An expeimental microphone array allowing direction finding by sound.

And back to the cupola, although we ensured the contra-rotation worked, the crews I supported did say they very rarely used it, and like Stephen has said, it was quicker and easier for the commander to take control of the gun, traverse and elevate onto the target, and then hand control back to the gunner to prosecute the engagement.

I was informed the contra-rotation got its most use on parades, the cupolas would be offset beforehand. On approaching the saluting dias, the order was given for "Eyes, Right". The commanders, stood up through their hatches, would throw up a smart salute. The gunners would activate the contra-rotation whilst going for max depression. The turrets would then synchronously slew to the right and the barrels dip.

[Michael Cecil]

I'm glad they were of some interest.

The Chieftain with the short barrel (chopped off to reduce shipping cost, welded back on for display) was when it was being delivered from the Ro-Ro into the Port of Melbourne, Australia, in the mid-1990s. The chap visible at the rear with the red beard is someone I've known all my life, just a bit skinnier and less grey then!

Two were delivered - the other had Berlin block cammo. Both were direct from MOD sales.

Mike

[Mark Heaps]

If it had not been for Michaels´s explanation, I would have posted the following.

The first two photos show a Stillbrew Chieftain and from the background, I would suggest not the US but Kuwait. We used two rows of iso-containers stacked on each other to protect the bases there in the lead up to GW2 and afterwards in Iraq. Possibly a Kuwaiti Chieftain that had been captured by Iraq during GW1 and now re-liberated.

[Stephen White]

Mystery solved, courtesy of David Fletcher. Thanks David. The object outlined below is a Twin 71mm Lyran Mortar made by Bofors in Sweden. It was used to produce illumination out to 1600m.

To quote David:

They were very fashionable for a while. You’ll find them fitted to most of the post war Swedish tanks at Bovington but I’ve also seen them fitted to an FV102 Striker.

It was primarily fitted to Swedish S Tanks and Centurions. The round produced a cone of light of about 600m diameter and lasted for about 30 secs. The mortar is shown in the stowed position and would be elevated to 45deg to fire.

It might seem a good solution to increase the tank's lethality at night but I can see two issues. Firstly, the ammunition would need to be stowed under armour and that would displace tank rounds in an already full space. Secondly, the maximum range of 1600m is insufficient, given that you need to drop the illumination behind the target. I don't know what the firing signature was like but if there was any flash, it would also compromise the tank's position. We much preferred to use the light projector in a co-operative shoot where a flank tank illuminated for a firing tank. Our best option was to use artillery, who had the range, sufficient ammunition to sustain illumination and the accuracy to adjust fire to place the light in the right place whatever the wind downrange.

We practised illuminated night shoots a lot, with the artillery. It was always highly spectacular.

In this photo you can see I've called for eight rounds illuminating and the light is drifting with the wind. The Forward Observation Officer who is adjusting the fire, is sitting in his vehicle next to me, putting it just where we want it, in the centre of arc and behind the targets, so that they are silhouetted. Six tanks have engaged with DS(P) at a range of about 1200m.

When TOGS came in, on the last Mk11 Chieftain and subsequently on Challenger 1, it transformed night engagements and made us far less reliant on illumination. It was still essentially a static firing mode but with TOGS II on Challenger 2, night does become day and firing accurately on the move at night is commonplace.

[Phil Woollard]

Spectacular in deed Stephen, worth mentioning that the illuminating artillery rounds were flares on parachutes ejected from the shell, like you said fired up wind and allowed to drift over and behind the target silhouetting the enemy.
Going back to those model aircraft targets that you guys were firing at, I used to fly the MATS A ( model aircraft target A, small arms) and launch the MATS B's ( the big buggers) in such places like the Falklands Islands, the larger MATS B's weighing in at 70kgs and launched from a trailered nitrogen cannon which would propel the aircraft from 0 to 70 mph in less than a second. Those were used for the Rapier batteries to fire at but we did use them in Norway with Leopard 2 but I can't say in what capacity!

[Mark Heaps]

Firing on the move accurately using TOGS on Chieftain and Challenger 1 was certainly possible.

TOGS 2, as fitted on Challenger 2, had I believe a better resolution but the main reasons it out-performed TOGS were
1) the TISH was mounted on the gun mantlet, rather than the TISH following the gun electrically, or the gun following the TISH electrically ( depending on mode) so no misalignments during elevation, depression if not perfectly set up as was the case with TOGS.
2) The tank crews had by this time learnt to change the inlet filters and guard air driers religiously. The detectors on both were cooled systems relying on a source of HPPA High Pressure Pure Air to provide the cooling. Any impurities, especially moisture, in the air supply would prevent the detector being cooled sufficiently and cause degradation of the picture quality. Once the cooler became contaminated, changing the filters and guard air driers was not sufficient, the system would have to be purged over a considerable length of time using LPPA Low Pressure Pure Air to flush out the impurities. In severe cases of contamination, purging the system would not work and the TISH had to go back to second line for the cooler to be replaced.

[Michael Cecil]

Found a few more for your enjoyment .... you won't find any of these via Google, at least not the colour shots, as the photographer was either me or my better half.

The two of the tank being driven are the same tank being delivered from the RoRo in my previous post, just with the barrel end re-attached and a SIMFIRE system system added plus some other bits & bobs for display. The registration is apparently a Military Sales (MS) registration for foreign sales, which I'm sure someone can tell us more about.

The other images are of the 2nd Chieftain to arrive in Australia, ex-UK, in the blocky 'Berlin' urban terrain camouflage (at least that is what I was told it was). This tank was offloaded at the Port of Melbourne late at night. Shots with the flash camera didn't come out too well, so apologies for the standard of the images. Nevertheless, the cam pattern can be seen.

Mike

[Stephen White]

Interesting images Mike, as ever, thanks. No surprises to investigate this time though.....

Firing on the move accurately using TOGS on Chieftain and Challenger 1 was certainly possible.

Yes, firing on the move was certainly possible but firing only frightens the enemy. It's hitting him that causes maximum discomfort.

There were some fundamental differences between Chieftain/Challenger 1 with TOGS and CR 2 with TOGS 2 for crews shooting on the move. On the former, the gun was physically controlled by the crew using sights slaved to the gun. The gunner had to lay the gun onto the point of aim and, although the gun stabilisation was good, he still had to keep adjusting the fine lay with his thumb controller. This was never perfect and the best you could hope for was to fire the gun as the aiming mark and the point of aim achieved coincidence, which required split second timing and some anticipation. A skilled gunner could achieve hits at around a 1000m in daylight on the move, aided by a good driver who tried to drive smoothly and anticipate bumps. The gunner also had to lay off to compensate for the tanks movement if you weren't driving straight at the target. Before TOGS, firing on the move at night was probably at best a way of frightening the opposition. TOGS introduced the possibility of a hit. With CR2/TOGS2, that became a probability.

For us, the difference with CR2 was fundamental. I did my last operational firing on CR1 and was then responsible for all the British Army's AFV training as CR2 was introduced, so was well placed to appreciate the increase in capability. This transformation in lethality was the result of a lot of very clever digital stuff but at the heart of it is giving the commander and gunner gyro stabilised sights and making the gun control equipment do what it says, ie control the lay of the gun and indeed fire it when the correct lay is achieved to hit the point of aim. As Dick Taylor says in his book on CR2, "This contrasts dramatically with previous fire control systems, in which the gunner physically controlled the gun control equipment and thus the gun and the sighting system was mechanically slaved to the gun".

How long is it until our models arrive........?

[John Clarke]

How long is it until our models arrive........?

Seconded.

[Mark Heaps]

Hi Stephan,
I only served 22 years with REME, was trained to understand FVGCE, IFCS, TOGS, know what they were theroretically capable of and be able to fix them.

I forwarded your post to my younger brother 22 years service 17th/21st Lancers and then QRL ( Gunner, Gunner Mech and I believe Gunnery Instructor although I would have to get him to confirm the last one ) with the following observation and asked for his commments
Please read the following that Stephen White (ex-CO 4 RTR ) posted on the Armortek forum and give me your feed-back and comments. My view is that a slight oscillation on STAB when moving was normal and unavoidable, the gun reacted to the gyros precessing and so the small delay between cause and effect could not be totally cancelled out. 100% stabilisation is a physical impossibility, deflection has to occur before a correction can be triggered. Also that it was acceptable and would only have reduced the accuracy by a marginal amount ( ie if the point of aim was center of mass, then it should still have hit). To me, if the Gnr was constantly having to correct, creep and gyro creep had not been trimmed out properly or the valves in pre-solid state gunkit had been inaccurately adjusted, or the gunner reacting immediately to a sudden bump rather than waiting that little bit longer for the gun to re-achieve alignment, and so making the situation worse.

His answer was
Basically both are correct, firing on the move with chieftain was a lot more challenging but I think his estimate of 1000m is selling good gunners short, or maybe the gunners in his regiment were not that good. we regularly got hits at much greater distances, yes there was some movement of the aiming mark but that was normal, it was old tech that was playing catch up to the movement of the vehicle, what he does not answer is if the gunner is trying to fine lay then he is not using full system IFCS, why was he not using the system put there to assist him, if he is having to lay off for movement then the autolay is not doing its job, well maintained the old girl could do the job, when I was with demo squadron we were using ours all the time and did several firepower demos per season without hitting the wrong target.
Trying to compare a chieftain with a challenger 2 is a bit like comparing a Bugatti with a F1 car, one was built as a car and the other as an all-out racing machine.
Chieftain was built using the tech at the time to slug it out with the Russian masses, great firepower, great ( for its time ) protection, lesser mobility, the Israeli IDF are still using Centurion ( granted its much upgraded) for exactly the same reasons and their crews love them and we are talking about the people who have had the most tank battles since WW2 so it aint all bad
Chally 2 was built using space age tech to fight a fast paced dynamic battle space on the move, which it did well.
The gun kit and sighting system on it was a whole new set up and not upgrade after upgrade of what was already there that you had to work around so yes it was good.
Also what he does not mention is the suspension on the two are worlds apart giving CR2 gun kit less to put up with.

[Stephen White]

Good stuff Mark and thanks for posting. You both make perfectly valid points. I’ll leave it there, except to say that although my parent regiment was 4th Tanks, I commanded 2 RTR. I was then fortunate to be given a new role amalgamating all the Army’s AFV training at the time of Challenger 2’s introduction to service. The progress from early Chieftain to the latter was remarkable and kept the UK at the forefront of tank technology. Chieftain was very certainly the best tank of its day.

I hope this thread remains interesting for everyone who reads it, whether they’ve had the privilege of serving on Chieftain or not. I go back to pre-IFCS and TLS days, so my next post will show Chieftain in the days with the .50 Ranging Gun. It would be very easy to build one of these early Chieftains from the Armortek kit. To go back to the earliest Marks, you would need to change the NBC pack, add the .50 barrel and delete the Muzzle Reference System fittings. You could get away with not changing the Fume Extractor.

[Stephen White]

Canada, 1975 and Chieftain Mk 2s and 3s with the .50 ranging gun. Note the ammunition for the .50 is all tracer.

Look hard and you’ll see the other two tanks in the troop, giving you an idea of the ground Chieftain could cover.

[Stephen White]

These are from the final years of Chieftain in service. 4RTR was equipped with Mk 11 with TOGS at the time of these photos taken in 1990.

A Mk 11 from the Armortek kit is perfectly possible, the major modifications required being the STILLBREW armour on turret and hull and the replacement of the light projector and left hand basked with the TOGS installation.

In the next photo, callsign 20 has just hit a moving target (arrowed) at about 1000m with DS(P).

[Stephen White]

One of our many trips to train in Canada in 1979. I'm showing the photo to illustrate a feature criticised by the Israelis when they evaluated Chieftain. The No 15 cupola provided very good all-round vision to the commander via eight No 40 Mk 1 periscopes. The Israelis realised that the vertical faces of the periscope optics caused unacceptable reflections which could compromise the tank's position in bright sunlight. The solution was the No 40 Mk 2 periscope which was angled outwards at the top, deflecting the reflections downwards onto the turret roof. There was no reduction in the commander's vision. My tank below has the old Mk 1 periscopes. I'm not sure which version the Armortek kit will provide.