Armortek

Am I right in saying there was a prototype built with a Maybach engine I think this was for Iran

There must be a back story to that line-up photograph.

One Chieftain, one M60 but four Leopards ?

Adrian.

Aah, just when you thought it was getting quieter.....this thread has some life in it yet it seems.

Adrian - line up of the nations competing in the now defunct Canadian Army Trophy NATO gunnery competition. CAT ran from 1963 to 1991 and was mired in controversy. The competition was intended to foster camaraderie amongst NATO nations and improve gunnery skills. It failed in both counts because it was allowed to diverge too far from operational reality. Gamesmanship was everything and a lot of commercial pressure was put on succeeding. The UK eventually withdrew on the grounds that the completion was too far divorced from real operational skills. The photo reflects the dominance of guns of British design at that time. I put up the photos to show the height disparity between M-60, Leo 1 and Chieftain. UK won it three times with Centurion and Chieftain, Belgium three times in the early years with M-47, FRG five times with Leo 1 and 2, Canada once with Centurion, Netherlands twice with Leo 2 and the USA once, not with M-60 but with M-1.

Mark and Simon. There is no question that the UK's decision to follow NATO guidelines and attempt to field a multi-fuel engine led to years of cost and development. Chieftain's advantages over its contemporaries, Simon, weren't "paper", they were very real. I certainly would have wanted to be in Chieftain in the event of war. Yes,it was automotively unreliable in the early years but by the mid eighties, the incidence of failure had reduced to the extent that the problem was manageable and in the last few years, Chieftain was as reliable as Leo 1. Simon, your Iranian story is fascinating. Mark,the Iranians were well aware of the need to replace L60 and funded development of a diesel replacement. That development line was eventually to materialise as Challenger 1. The earliest prototype was the ROF Leeds Chieftain 800 which was given an 800 bhp Rolls Royce Condor diesel in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution. Further uprated engines were a trialled, which formed the basis for the automotive side of CR1. The reasons for Chieftain not getting a replacement engine are inevitably complex but the principal factors were the need to keep the failing Leyland in business (rather than use a Rolls Royce engine), the reluctance to put development money into a mature tank when its replacement was already planned and the higher priority given to up-armouring (STILLBREW) and improving hitting power (APFSDS - fin - ammunition, improved fire control - IFCS and muzzle reference sight).

Stephen

The Chieftain would be a great project that I'd love to do. I just don't think I have it in the budget for this year. Oh well, at least I have a King Tiger to look forward to.

Stephen White wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:43 pm

muzzle reference sight.

In REME, we knew the MRS as Muzzle Reference System.
For those who have no clue what it is, here is a short and simple explanation.

When firing, the barrel will get hot and bend slightly so that the rounds no longer end up with where the sight is pointing at, the hotter it gets, the more difference there is and eventually you can miss the target altogether. Tank crews used this system to compensate for that effect and ensure that they remained as accurate as possible during a firing engagement.

It consisted of an adjustable light source in the gunners sight, a fixed mirror on the end of the barrel ( the bulge on the top of the barrel end is an armoured schroud to protect the mirror ) and the gunners adjustable reticule pattern. During preperation for battle whilst the barrel is cold, gun and reticule pattern are aligned, light source is then adjusted if neccesary so that when the gun is depressed to a specific mark, the light source gets reflected off the mirror and back onto a specific point on the graticule. At any time afterwards, the gunner just needs to depress the gun to the same mark, switch on the light source and then adjust his graticule pattern to align with the reflected spot.

Mark

Mark, I think the expression is "my bad". System not sight is correct. The purpose of the MRS was to allow the gunner to maintain the gun - sight relationship from within the vehicle. This was a major advance. Previously, as commander, you had to get out of the tank, put a bore sight (telescope) into the muzzle, perch on a wobbly oil can to look through the sight. You then chose a target at precisely 1100 metres and instructed the gunner to lay onto the target ("ending the lay in elevation"). I've always ended my lay in elevation since. Once the bore of the gun was aligned with the target, you instructed the gunner to adjust his sight. If all that sounds dangerous and long-winded, it was. During combat, it would have been suicidal and we therefore accepted some degradation in the gun-sight relationship ie a decrease in accuracy. Since the Chieftain was particularly accurate, it was a compromise too far. With MRS, there was no need to get out of the tank. We could check the boresight after every three or four rounds and, once it was initially set up, the accuracy was maintained in safety. One point of accuracy, the shroud over the mirror wasn't armoured, it was a simple rubber shield. The light source was a halogen bulb projecting an image via fibre optic so it conformed to the MRS mark in the sight. Here's how it works:
Oh, one other thought. The boresight was a hefty piece of kit. It was not unknown for a commander to forget to remove it, despite the drills requiring the loader to check the bore was clear before firing. The sight of a sight flying down range, followed by s**t and corruption and a burst barrel were not to be contemplated lightly.

Stephen

mark lawson wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:21 pm

Am I right in saying there was a prototype built with a Maybach engine I think this was for Iran

Yes Mark there was, and it now resides at the Yorkshire Air Museum at Elvington, it is still regarded as having some secrets in its technology, and as such its interior is sealed to the general public, according to the museum themselves.


http://yorkshireairmuseum.org/exhibits/ ... ttle-tank/

I visited the tank last week, and am pleased to report they've given it a bit of a repaint, which it sorely needed.

It's an interesting and unique prototype, which was developed as a private venture by Vickers Defence Systems for Kuwait. The Kuwaitis missed out on Shir 2 and wanted an upgraded replacement for their 165 Chieftain. The British development path at the time was via the Rolls Royce Condor CV8 and ultimately CV12 engines, which led to Challenger 1 and 2. For some reason, VDS went down a different route for Kuwait, incurring significant extra development costs. This prototype wasn't fully developed and the project stalled when the Iraqis invaded. Subsequently, Kuwait divested itself of its Chieftains.

Like all good stories, there's a grain of truth in both the "secret" aspect and the Mayback angle but they probably stem from press reports in the Northern Echo when the tank was gifted to YAM by VDS in 2002. It's stretching it to suggest the engine is a Maybach. It was built by MTU, whose lineage can be traced back Maybach Mortorenbau of the 1950s via the merger in 1966 of MAN and Maybach Mercedes-Benz Motorenbau to form MMB, which became MTU in 1969. The Maybach heritage it there but it's pretty remote. It's like saying Eurofighter Typhoon has some Messerschmitt heritage. Ironically, MTU is now part of a joint venture with Rolls Royce and Daimler AG.

The YAM claim that the tank engine and transmission "include features which are still regarded as industrial secrets" is interesting but questionable. The technology dates from the 1990s and must by now have passed its sell-by date. The tank was gifted by VDS in 2002, when the intellectual property restriction probably made sense. It's obviously in the YAM's interest to keep the mantle of secrecy going. I'm a bit cynical and suspect that the "secrecy" was more a concern on VDS' part that the tank wasn't fully developed and the real sensitivity was about what didn't work rather than what did.

Interesting stuff nevertheless. You're never alone with a Chieftain.......

Stephen White wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:34 pm

Interesting stuff nevertheless. You're never alone with a Chieftain.......

True, there was usually a REME FV 434 hanging around.

But jokes a side, could this be one of the fastest sell outs?

Next Model?

How about a comprehensive upgrade/enhancement line for older models? It could include for example, gun recoil for kits that didn’t offer this, the new turret bearings, Tiger I late style track links, and I’m sure much else I’ve not thought of. It might be an easy revenue stream?
Also, how about official YouTube instruction videos, another revenue stream with added benefit of advertising, with enough subscribers. And it’d save on printing if comprehensive enough to replace the manuals??

Just a thought.

That's a great thought Simon, I often use You tube for advice "Take or leave it" but it's usually helpful.

With so much skill and knowledge to be harvested.

And as you said, on top of that, great free advertisement and with views, a source of revenue.

There a pretty good program with good views and sounds being aired at the moment,History channel, Ultimate Vehicles series 1 episode 6, enjoy.

Simon Peck wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:41 am

How about a comprehensive upgrade/enhancement line for older models?

That's already there to some degree, with the Spare Parts service. As for upgrades (ie. things that weren't made at the time) it could be something for the Kompact Kit line, ie. not number limited. I can't see it being a great money-spinner for Armortek though - there seems to be very little call for it on the Forum, outside of the 'professional' builders, who are probably clever enough to do it for themselves ! I could see the sales per model being in single figures, which would not justify the development cost.

But more use could be made of YouTube ...... probably more by individual builders than the Company, though.

As for the next model, I need the rest of the year to replenish my bank account, and to build my Lee and well as finishing off my Quad and Mark IV ! Chieftain and KT aren't for me. But, in time, I'd be seriously interested in a Churchill VII, especially if Dave Dibb (Armorpax) made the bits for a Crocodile .....

All the best,

Chris

Chris, Simon

I've ventured into YouTubing in a very amateur way. I just can't bring myself to appear in person, I don't like wearing baseball caps the wrong way round and I haven't (I don't think) got a weird, high pitched, over-excited voice (or a dull monotone which other's seem to favour). I do think instructional videos would be a great idea and I know the Director of the Tank Museum thinks videos are worth investing in. The problem is they are very labour intensive, unless you happen to have a David Fletcher to hand. Now there's an idea, David F does Armortek....

For what it's worth, my Channel is imaginatively called Tank Builders and can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8Ik1J ... JAg/videos

Stephen

One EXCELLENT novel to read is 'Night Laager' by Mr. David Allin. I've always been curious about the M113 APC and after reading his book, only one in a exciting book series that follows the same characters as M113 Mounted Infantry in Vietnam, now I would REALLY like to have a M113! Being light, mid sized 1/6 model it could use the smaller drive motors of the Sd Kfz 7. There's lots of room for batteries and the two vents on top could be vents for speakers. This is a model I would definitely get!!

Any hints for the next kit!?