Chieftain

File: Cheiftain TOGS Stillbrew.jpg (4MB, 5069x3204px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5069x3204px

>>33478183
Until certain versions of T80 appeared in the 80's then yes. By which point Challenger was arriving.

Cheiftan also seems to be the go to movie prop for a generic tank.

Berlin brigade best camo

Stillbrew is sexy

IIRC though the readiness ratios for the tanks were godawful

>>33478553
It was something like 30% for British forces in Germany. But who knows, maybe they would have worked better in combat. Things tend to not run as well if you leave them sitting for long periods of time and only start them up for a little bit.
Run them around more and the engines may work better, as long as you do proper maintenance (As with any tank)

>>33478577
During the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, IIRC Kuwaiti forces had Chieftains and fought against Iraqi T-72's and didn't suffer a single loss.

nope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nasr

got slaughtered by T-62s and T-72s

File: Yom-Kippur-War-Syrian-T55-Valley-of-Tears.jpg (105KB, 700x460px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 700x460px

>>33478741
Shit. First time I've read of Soviet-made tanks wrecking NATO built stuff.
Comes down purely to the Iranians having poor tactics, but still interesting.

On the other hand, you also have stuff like the Valley of Tears. Where Syrians frontally attacked the Israelis, who were in dug-in and elevated positions. Went about as well as one would expect.

File: 1399064964-iria20chieftain20penetrat3vb.jpg (47KB, 630x318px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 630x318px

>>33478183
>Capricious engine turning out to be very noisy, making the tank easy to spot on the battlefield by just following the clouds of exhaust smoke into the air
>thick steel armor being useless against fin-stabilized HEAT rounds commonly used by Soviets tanks.
>no proper optical rangefinder
>still relying on Centurion-style suspension with limited vertical travel
>120 mm APDS round with armor-piercing capabilities only comparable to 105 mm HEAT rounds.
>* Britbonging intensifies *

>>33478771
>First time I've read of Soviet-made tanks wrecking NATO built stuff
Soviet tanks were wrecking NATO ones all the way up to 1991 when Americans arrived in Iraq.

>>33479449
>no proper optical rangefinder

Boo hoo, no optical rangefinder, i guess the laser rangefinder is no good.

>>33480205

Until the mid/late 1970s, the FV4201 Chieftain used a mere spotting rifle.

>>33478741


>Lets drive up a road surrounded by harsh terrain into an extremely fortified enemy with heavy support.

Sand niggers, everyone.

>>33480261

MK3 entered service in 1969, three years into the tank's life. Until then the ranging machine gun was a very quick way of ranging the target.

>>33480425

The basic Mk. 3 (and even the Mk. 5) didn't have the laser rangefinder, both were latter retrofitted.

File: 1473222303489.jpg (19KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 320x320px

>>33479715

>>33478741
The Iraqis were dug in and ready while the Iranians were hampered by shit commanders, shit weather, and shit terrain that made for predictable movement. It was never going to end well for the Iranians.
>>33479715
Then explain the Kikes kicking the shit out of Soviet built tanks for decades?

File: t64k.jpg (1008KB, 1200x933px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 1200x933px

The T-64 and T-72 both outclassed it until later versions like the mk.10 and more notably 11 incorporating advancements in FCS and armour left them superior to even late model T-80s.

It was the best NATO had prior to tanks like the M1 and Leopard 2 and Challenger appearing.

>>33483187
They did kick Syrian and Egyptian ass... even when crewing Tirans, aka captured T-55s and 62s. And they pushed the Jordanians' shit in as well, and these guys were equipped with Pattons.

>>33485269
This. You guys shouldn't underestimate the T-64, 64A and 72 Ural, the Soviets had a smoothbore barrel, autoloader, composite armor equipped tank since 1964.

>>33482987
I'm laughing harder than I should have.

>>33483187
>I-it's not the tank's fault unless it's a Soviet tank
Sorry, can't hear your justifications over the sound of yids being burnt by T-72.
>>33485269
>left them superior to even late model T-80s
Wet bong dreams: the post.

>>33485541
>composite armor equipped tank since 1964.

Kontakt-1 was not made until 1985.

File: vUowbU-R2SU.jpg (6KB, 240x344px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 240x344px

>>33486158
>ERA is Composite armor

>>33486158
Composite armor and ERA are two very different things anon

File: scroll scroll scr-.png (9KB, 261x547px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 261x547px

>>33486158
>Composite armour
>ERA

File: 1234723473.jpg (406KB, 1711x881px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1711x881px

>>33478183
>Was the Chieftain the best tank of its time?

Honestly due to most L7 Ordnance guns having HEAT later, not really.

>>33486165
>>33486168
>>33486180

>Tank has composite armor.
>It's still steel cutaway of spaced plates.
>Still gets BTFO by HESH.

The next thing you are going to say is, "Sloping is Revolutionary" when APCR exists.

File: image011.jpg (32KB, 782x446px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 782x446px

>>33486223
>Moves goalposts
>Is still wrong
You didn't even try.

>>33486223

Hey! Stop that man! He's running away with the goal!

>>33486223
chieftain hesh wouldnt even penetrate t64

>>33486288
it's not meant to penetrate. HESH is not an anti armour round, its for soft skinned vehicles and structures.

while not being ideal HESH had no problem with T72's in Iraq.

>>33483187

The T-55 was mediocre from its conception. Israel fought predominantly T-55s.

>>33486356
You have any source on Challenger vs T-72?

>>33486356
do you even read your own posts? do you realize what inconsistent trash you wrote? HESH is effective against homogenous (steel) armour without the need to penetrate it. it just sends spall fyling on the inside of the crew compartment. "soft skinned vehicles and structures" are going to be reckt and penetrated by it either way. HESH is a type of non-penentrating AT munition.

>>33486356
>while not being ideal HESH had no problem with T72's in Iraq.

The FV4030/4 Challenger (1) never encountered T-72 and they mainly used L23 APFSDS against Chinese rip-offs of T-55/62.

T-64 will absolutely crush it

File: main-qimg-00ca42ed748dd4f6966eaafd8530fb50-c.jpg (19KB, 500x216px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x216px

>>33478183
All these shitter's arguing about HESH when Sabots are the purest Tankfu Accessory.

Pro-tip, arguing about the T-64 is pointless because lolnoexport, the slav's will never budge on it. And honestly it was a pretty impressive tank for its time. Too bad it costs limited its production compared to the production rates of T-55/62/72

>>33486559
Blatantly false.

Or are we going to go the route of MUH MUNKEY MODEL?

>>33486107
Except it absolutely was.

Sure, the armour was inferior, it wasn't as fast, but the FCS made all the difference. Equipped with a thermal imager and superior ballistics computer, it enabled a Chieftain, or a formation of them to always get the first shot on the enemy, in fact if they were well camouflaged they could engage the Soviets at distance without even being detected until the Soviets already took heavy casualties. Maybe in WW2 having better armour was the end-all of tank engagements, but in the cold war, most weaponry could kill any tank on the field.

File: chieftan-main-battle-tank-2.jpg (97KB, 400x271px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 400x271px

>>33487016
Shhhhhhhhh. Don't bring up FCS's Slavs don't understand them.

Aesthetic AF.

File: Chieftain2.jpg (79KB, 960x487px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x487px

>>33487279

File: 1448048814506.jpg (444KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1024x685px

What was the life expectancy of those in the Berlin brigade? 30 minutes?

File: Leopard2FuldaGap.webm (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>33487296
AS i understand it the average lifespan say the Fulda Gap burst into flames was like 1 minute 30 seconds for PACT crew members and 2 minutes 40 seconds for NATO crew members.

File: f0c75b444254.jpg (418KB, 1774x714px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 1774x714px

>>33486579
>Too bad it costs limited its production compared to the production rates of T-55/62/72
People like you are referred to as "the one who heard bells, but didn't know where the sound was coming from" in Russian. T-64 was cheaper than T-72. The advantage T-72 had over T-64 was not due to price, but due to its production simplicity, especially regarding the engine, which allowed to produce it at any tank factory in the event of war, unlike T-64 for which only a very limited amount of engines could be produced and the production was limited to only one factory. It was perchance enough for the peacetime, but nowhere near of what was to be required in a war. There were other factors, but this one was by far the largest.

>>33487016
That's all cool and dandy except for the fact that it got butchered by Soviet tanks in real life.

>>33487597

I've heard this saying from my parents many times, first time I've heard it from someone else.

Slishesh zvon, me znayesh gde on, something like that right?

>>33487636
Yeah, Mk.3s and 5s used by incompetent sand people in a desert is sure indicative of the Mk.11s manned by professionals in good terrain.

>>33487694
Yep, usually with the firs part in past tense and referring to 3rd singular instead of 2nd singular:
"slyshal zvon, da ne znaet dge one". It's a pretty common proverb.

>>33478183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3OF9IvtHLk&t=0s

Sadly we will never know the true potential of most cold war era tanks

>>33487762
>It's not the tank's fault unless it's a Soviet tank
This argument only works when the sand people on the other side of the frontline are any slightest bit more competent and are driving anything but monkey models.

File: 1478178335532.jpg (83KB, 720x504px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x504px

>>33487597
Complexity of a manufacturing system is a cost to be considered when making a production decision. This means that when politburo was making decision on which tanks to order. they had to look at production capacity of their factories and calculate a retooling cost. Obviously the T-64's was too high so they put a contract out for a cheaper/simpler tank that would require minimal retooling. I understand economics is hard but come on senpai due diligence.

Also that chart doesn't say what you think/want it to say. That chart is showing the value of tanks compared to their maintenance costs. I find it kinda funny that the Russians have charts of their vehicles depreciation in USD no less.

The second column isn't price of the vehicle but rather the value of the vehicle. However that was calculated i'm not sure. The last two columns are the most interesting. They both will go 1500km before needing overhaul and the cost per km on that overhaul is only a .47 difference. That cost is down due to as you stated, the ease at which parts for a T-72 could be made.

File: Challenger 1 Gulf War no T-72.png (503KB, 600x834px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 600x834px

>>33486584

Are you dumb ?

>>33487877
But you said exactly the same thing as I did. I don't see how our points are any different from each other.
>The second column isn't price of the vehicle but rather the value of the vehicle.
Where are you getting this from? It quite specifically says "cost".

>>33487800
Two armies being equally incompetent gives a massive advantage to the defending side, which the Iraqis were doing.

I'll say it again: Early variants of Chieftains, manned by incompetent crews, charging across bad terrain into a heavily fortified position would have ended badly regardless of the tank they were driving, and it is NO indication of how the BAOR would have operated with technologically, tactically, skillfully superior troops against the Red Horde.

>>33487964
In your book. In real life incompetence works in both directions and defence can equally be fucked up by incompetence. Unless you are driving superiour armour, which the Iraqis did.

File: 1450454452635.jpg (202KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 800x533px

>>33487928
>But you said exactly the same thing as I did. I don't see how our points are any different from each other.
Were saying the same thing but the way we get there is different. When i said the T-64 was a more expensive tank i should have said is "The T-64 was a more expensive tank to mass produce" because of the aforementioned reasons. The production costs made the costlier per unit T-72 more economical to produce. Again, same answer, different reasoning.

>Where are you getting this from? It quite specifically says "cost".

It would seem the Russians use the same word for cost/value/worth/denomination/damage. These words in English all have different meanings especially when it comes to economics. I don't read Russian so relying on translation is an error i will accept and ill have to take your word that it says cost.

>>33487597
>comparing the price of T64A to T72A despite being 9 years apart.

>completely ignoring inflation

>completely ignoring the information in his own source that disproves his point.

Engine was hot garbage, and comprimised the whole platform.

Wholly inferior to the Leopard 1s.

File: 1462883859276.jpg (342KB, 2048x1232px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 2048x1232px

>>33488036
>Unless you are driving superiour armour, which the Iraqis did.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with a three sided ambush.

If the Iraqi's were in superior tanks why during a head-on engagement in 1990 did Kuwaiti Chieftains obliterate Iraqi T72's crewed by the republican guard with no Kuwaiti losses forcing the T72's (which had expended almost all their ammunition) to retreat.

Where does that fit in your narrative?

>>33488062
>it doesn't matter if our 105mm gun can't penetrate our target or our armour can't stop autocannon fire if we drive fast

Leo 1 was better than a Patton but thats not saying much.

Why would you want to be in a tank other than the merkava?

>>33488099
Why would you want to be in a tank that was only built because the Israelites were not allowed Chieftains like they wanted?

>>33488083

Weren't the Iraquis morally defeated, exhausted from a war that almost wiped out half of its army and lacking any proper support from comunications(that were destroyed in the firsts days of the war) and logistics?

>>33488108
>Iraquis

what

File: merkava infantry leaving_zpszjirp4la.jpg (51KB, 750x398px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 750x398px

>>33488103
dat back hatch doe

File: Iroquois.jpg (62KB, 450x364px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 450x364px

>>33488124
Iroquois

File: 1472383455935.jpg (284KB, 1480x990px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1480x990px

>>33488089
>armour can't stop autocannon fire
Which autocannon that was contemporary with the Leopard could penetrate 70mm of sloped armor?

>>33488124

Iraq's people, it was just a typo.

>>33488148
2A28

>>33488108
No, they had a huge army and all the initative and confidence. this was 1990, not 1991. a lot can change in a year

>>33488108
>Iranian Chieftains lost because the tank was shit!
>I-I-Iraqi T-T72s l-lost be-because the c-crew was shit!

>>33488148
2A42

>>33488188
That's not an autocannon, that's a cannon with an autoloader.
On top of that, 8 rounds per-minute of low velocity rounds inaccurate past 500 meters isn't going to be especially high up even on the Leopard's list of worries on a battlefield full of ATGM's and enemy tanks.

>>33488320
>That's not an autocannon, that's a cannon with an autoloader.

Imagine being this desperate

>>33488038
>When i said the T-64 was a more expensive tank i should have said is "The T-64 was a more expensive tank to mass produce"
If by that you mean "requires loads of money to be pumped into all other tank factories to modify them to able to mass produce it" then I agree. The birth of T-72 was quite literally the "give us a tank with same characteristics but production line not bound to one factory" idea.
>It would seem the Russians use the same word for cost/value/worth/denomination/damage
No? Stoimost, the word used in the said column, can be translated as cost, value or worth depending on the context. For example the sentence "etot tank stoit 250 tysjach dollarov" translates as literally "this tank is worth 250 thousand dollars" and in everyday life has the same meaning as "tsena etogo tanka 250 tysjach dollarov" - "the cost of this tank is 250 thousand dollars". The slight difference is that the word tsena refers to the actual price tag, while the word stoimost rather refers to the cost of obtaining. As in something might have high price tag, tsena, but is cheap to produce, has lower stoimost. However usually people just interchange these. The word stoimost is used in the sense of value only regarding economic theories. No one ever uses it to estimate a "value of a vehicle" as in how would it preform on a battlefield in fiat money equivalent.
>>33488083
>with no Kuwaiti losses
>≈200 tanks destroyed
Where does that fit in your narrative?
>>33488204
>No, they had a huge army and all the initative and confidence
They were economically, morally and militarily exhausted after the Iran-Iraq War.

>>33488349
But it literally is. An autocannon is capable of rapid fire in excess of 90 rounds per minute.

>>33488355
>Where does that fit in your narrative?

yet none in that battle. a head on engagement where the defenders were given very little time to prepare. this is about as fair as fight that can be had between two sides.

>>33488349
Imagine being this clueless.
If the Grom is an autocannon, then so is the 2A46, so why would there be any shame in being penetrable by autocannons if it also applied to every other tank around?

>>33488349
By your definition a 2A46M is an autocannon. You're an idiot and your logic is fucked.

>>33488363
Says who?

An Autocannon is an automatically loading cannon.

>>33488378
In what battle?

>>33488188
>thinking that's an autocannon

WEW LAD

>>33486357
>The T-55 was mediocre from its conception
nice revisionism amerilard

>>33488398
Says the fact that
>>33488396
>>33488395
wrecked your argument. Putting a loader behind an SPG-9 does not make it an autocannon.

File: 1453245896238.jpg (116KB, 899x691px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 899x691px

>>33488396
>>33488398
2A46 mind.

>>33488398
"Hay guise check out my sick autocannon."

>>33488421
The revisionism is pretending that the T-55 improved on anything other than gun, engine and armor package from the T-34 and T-44. It was still a shitty, unergonomic deathtrap with poor situational awareness.

>>33488398
An autocannon is any fully automatic gun that fires a shell larger than a typical man portable weapon but smaller than a field gun or other artillery.

>>33478426

It was a good tank, bront.

>>33488447
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55_Fire_Controls
Meanwhile M60 didn't have gun stabilisation until what, like 1973? Go watch CNN elsewhere, lardboy.

>>33488447
But the thing is they're cheap, numerous and apparently easily upgraded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-55AGM

>>33488355
>refers to the cost of obtaining.
Production costs.

>>33479449
Optical range finders are trash and the 120mm APDS shell is significantly faster than the HEAT-FS shells from the 105mm gun.

>>33483187

>Israeli Shermans kick the shit out of Jordanian Centurions and Pattons

Does that mean Centurions and Pattons are bad

>>33489233
No just that the Sherman can mount an almost equivalent gun and had better crews.

>>33489332
>better crews made the difference

So then how does that make the Chieftain a bad tank?

>>33488108
>Weren't the Iraquis morally defeated, exhausted from a war that almost wiped out half of its army and lacking any proper support from comunications(that were destroyed in the firsts days of the war) and logistics?

so the tanks performance was the issue with the Iranian experience despite the multitude of other issues, but the other iraqis lost against chieftans later because the crews were shit.

you realise that those are mutually exclsive conclusions right?

>>33489350
I have no idea what your talking about?
I was just commenting about shemans with a heat-fs firing 105 beating other medium tanks with heat-fs armor is irreverent in this situation.

>>33478183
Best NATO tank of that time was the Leopard 1.

>>33486107
>yids being burnt by T-72
In what, the Lebanon War? Doesn't change the fact that in open conflict the Sandniggers still can't get their shit together even when they gang up on the heebs.
>>33488036
Superior armor had nothing to do with the Battle of Dezful (may have been another, I usually associate armor in the Iran-Iraq War with that battle). I already mentioned above how terrain and leadership ultimately favored the Iraqis and how the Iranians were hampered by shit terrain forcing them to move in a very predictable fashion. Any tank of that time period was going to have issues.

File: INERTE USINE.jpg (15KB, 303x400px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 303x400px

>>33489214
>Optical range finders are trash
>trash

Provide a rapid measurement the distance

Not limited by the effective range of the tracer bullets of the ranging gun.

Passive device, non-detectable

>and the 120mm APDS shell is significantly faster than the HEAT-FS shells from the 105mm gun.

L15 APDS : 1370 m/s
M456 HEAT : 1173 m/s

Muh 17%

>>33488099
Because I want to survive fighting real MBT's.

>>33489233
Well the Sherman was better than the Centurion.

>>33489995
>Provide a rapid measurement the distance
They are very slow to use
>Not limited by the effective range of the tracer bullets of the ranging gun.
Limited by the quality of the glass and the user's eyesight
>Passive device, non-detectable
Works only in fair weather in the daytime

>>33488398
>Autoloaders make everything autocannons
>self-loading rifles are now all automatic rifles

>>33493448
semi-AUTOMATIC

File: T-90.jpg (794KB, 1964x1257px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 1964x1257px

What's the difference between a T-72 and a T-90, apart from ERA and some extra sensors on the turret?

Also, which is better, a late model (diesel) T-80 or a common T-90?

>>33493699
>extra sensors
that's a lot to just gloss over
french sensors enable it to actually have a chance of seeing the enemy before blowing it's top or drive in the dark without a big "pls shoot me" searchlight on it

other improvements include the composite armor itself and engine improvements

better ammunition

T-90A has more differences

>>33478183
T-64>=M48>T-55/62>Leopard 1>AMX-30>>>Chieftain

Unreliable engine, subpar armor, ergonomics as bad as slavsshit without the lower proficle, weak gun, limited ammo capacity, bad cross country performance, complex manufacturing, outdated compared to its contemporaries

It was the Panzer IV of its time

File: 1489856364125.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>33494390

File: 1470644247116.jpg (54KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 612x612px

>>33488398
>autoloader=autocannon

Did you have to train to be this stupid, or is it just a natural talent?

>>33493551
So is an autoloaded cannon a semi-autocannon?

>>33486223
Shockwave cannot go past the air gap, so it Spall's first still plate only

>>33478183
If you count a underdesigned sack of shit made from subpar alluminum with an anemic main gun to be even the best tank in its class, let alone it's time. well buddy you've got another thing comming.

>>33493448
RARDEN is a semi automatic cannon. does that mean it's not an autocannon?

It also engaged T55's in Iraq frontally and knocked several out.

>>33495555
>If you count a underdesigned sack of shit

Chieftain was the pinnacle of of tank design at the time save for the engine, which was not what the designers had intended as NATO essentially forced the UK to use a multifuel engine.

>made from subpar alluminum

Made from cast or rolled steel depending on the location and was the thickest armour on the battlefield for almost it's entire career.

>with an anemic main gun

If the 120mm was so anaemic in 1960's why is it still the first choice for western tanks today? In its early service life with tungsten APDS it was the most lethal tank around. It reclaimed that title when L23 APFSDS and the DU L26 APFSDS

>>33489485
>Sandniggers still can't get their shit together
Doesn't have anything to do with the actual tank. If anything, it only further proves T-72 superiority, as not even the infamous Arab incompetence could prevent it from burning yid tanks.
>I already mentioned
And I already answered to that argument. Simply repeating it won't do.

File: fishing pole.png (80KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x501px

>>33494390
>T-64>=M48
>>33495861
>Chieftain was the pinnacle of of tank design

>>33487350
Source on those numbers?

>>33486107
>yids being burnt by T-72.
I'll take 'shit that never happened' for 500, alex.
The only T-72s in Lebanon were thuroughly BTFO by jeep-mounted TOW ambush.
T-62s did however succeed in knocking out Merkava 1s with side hits to the turret.

>>33489995
>only comparing muzzle velocities
Shiggy diggy

>>33495861
>save for the engine
This. The Jordanians fitted theirs with the Challenger 1's powerpack, and by all accounts they seem pleased with it.