Has British tank technology always lagged behind everyone else?

File: blackprince.jpg (888KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 2592x1944px

Dunno, but they sure were sexy. Pic related, sexiest tank ever made.

Chieftain and Centurion were years ahead of other NATO tanks.

File: 808f35105d5d7916.jpg (70KB, 736x584px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 736x584px

>>33825275
What did OP mean by that?

File: 1492826652919.gif (4MB, 327x194px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 327x194px

>>33825710

File: 1472817913386.jpg (293KB, 1016x568px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1016x568px

>>33826153

>>33825275
>Has British tank technology always lagged behind everyone else?
It was ahead of the US between the end of WWII and the introduction of the Abrams, desu. They were also way ahead of the curve on sabot.

>>33825275

The period between WW2 and before the introduction of the T-62, the Centurion and later the Chieftain were the best MBTs in the world. The Challanger 2 was momentarily the best itself until the Abrams got its later upgrade packages: Chally 2 could probably surpass it if the BA's funding wasn't taken away and it was proper upgraded.

File: British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_19161.jpg (216KB, 700x524px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 700x524px

Mk 1 Tank.

First.

File: Mark_IX_tank_IWM_Q_14515.jpg (73KB, 795x600px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 795x600px

>>33826478
While I'm here APC MK 1 (Tank MK IX)

>>33825275

>Posts an image that isn't even a British tank

They were ahead of the curve in WW1, with the sold exception of the Renault FT when it arrived. Even then some aspects of their tech was still ahead. Interwar they let the overall advancement slide, but they kept up in areas such as three man turrets, excellent mobility and powerful anti-tank guns. (For purposes of anti-tank, rather than for general purpose, which they lagged in.)

During the war, they were always just a little behind the curve by about a year or so, but made up for it in just enough areas to stay relevant.

Post War they surged ahead with the Centurion and Chieftain, they were on top for a good time.

Modern day they were on par in designs (Vickers MBTs were excellent, albeit not produced) until the absolute contempary era, where they let it lag again, mostly due to lack of development of anything right now.

tl;dr - It's varied between in front to behind a whole lot. Same as any nation has.

>>33825275
>BIRTISH TANK

File: 41be3c1c98cb72478f41c2a5a3414915.jpg (187KB, 991x667px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 991x667px

>>33825275
UC with delusions of grandeur.

>>33826378

> It was ahead of the US between the end of WWII and the introduction of the Abrams, desu.

I assume you're referring to the Centurion, as nothing else in the British Army's arsenal was particularly advanced. The Centurion Mk.1 and Mk.2 were about on par with the M26 Pershing, which had been in service already fo rnearly a year with the US Army, and actually saw combat. The idea that the Centurion was the world's first MBT is honestly one of the myths that needs to die, as the Pershing and, arguably, the Pz.V Panther, are earlier examples of the MBT principle.

> They were also way ahead of the curve on sabot.

This is an example of the British being ahead of the curve, yes. However what most sources usually handwave away is the horrendous accuracy problems that APDS had with the 17-pounder gun, which is what it was used in most of the time. The 17-pdr was actually a flawed design in that the barrel was too short for its typical powder charge, so that when a shot exited the barrel there was still powder burning. This would buffet the shell on exit, knocking it off course. This wasn't such a problem with standard solid shot AP due to its weight, but with the APDS round's significantly lighter penetrator rod, the buffeting effect was catastrophic.

In effect this meant that it was basically impossible to hit anything with APDS beyond 500 meters, and even at less than that it was still a roll of the dice.

tl;dr British tank/gun technology was overrated (although I still think they were ultimately passable at what they were designed to do)

>>33826499

The Chieftain was glorious when first introduced. At the time it was pretty much the only tank in NATO's armoury that was an honest match for the T-64.

>>33825710

If they'd given it a Meteor engine it could have been the British Tiger.

As it is, you can see the influences on the later Centurion design in the Black Prince, and that has gone on to live a very full life indeed.

>>33826499

CR2 LEP *should* deal with lots of the problems with the current platform. But when the budget has been scrabbling to pay for kit required to fight an extended foot-mobile COIN operation in the Desert, it's not really surprising that MBT development stagnated.

I mean RTR and I'm pretty sure Dragoons were deployed on Herrick as light role infantry. Literally no use in developing a platform that isn't being used when your budget is the size of a thimble.

>>33827012

>as the Pershing and, arguably, the Pz.V Panther, are earlier examples of the MBT principle.

Revisionist bullshit, especially on the Panther.

> it was basically impossible to hit

Massive over-exaggeration. The "muh inaccurate APDS" was due to early batch problems and a US focused test, which of course was going to have an agenda.

>>33825275
>British tank technology
The whole 'infantry tank' idea wasn't a technical deficiency, more of a tactical one.

In 1940 Matilda II's had some success near Arras with lopsided victories over Panzer III's and proved difficult to penetrate by IV's.

>>33827124

>Revisionist bullshit, especially on the Panther.

Neat

>Massive over-exaggeration. The "muh inaccurate APDS" was due to early batch problems and a US focused test, which of course was going to have an agenda.

No, it's based on combat performance. It was not a popular round to use.

File: mbt 70 prototype marking.jpg (129KB, 800x513px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 800x513px

this is now an aesthetic tank thread, you may only post aesthetic tanks

File: T-64B-001.jpg (122KB, 386x257px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 386x257px

best tonk much farther than any nato tank

File: Valiant_A38_1_Bovington.jpg (676KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 2592x1944px

brit bong tanks r shiet

>>33827124
>>33827012
>>33826499
Birt Shit Shills out in full fucking force I see
Lets never forget the catastrophe that is riveted armor

>>33826443
the t-62 entered service years before the chieftain.

>>33827059
>The Chieftain was glorious when first introduced
except for the fact that, you know, it never worked.

File: M3-Lee-latrun-2.jpg (207KB, 1230x908px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1230x908px

>>33827608
>Lets never forget the catastrophe that is riveted armor
agreed

>>33827260
To be fair, Panther is a shit example to claim as "first mbt" At least the Pershing got its engine problems fixed in the form of the M46, Panther had glaring issues down to its basic design.

>>33827608
>riveted armor
why?

File: 1200px-Chieftain_Tank_(9628802829).jpg (139KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1200x675px

No it hasn't, there where many periods where British tanks where ahead of the game in many ways.

naturally in the first world war the British where the inventors of the tanks and for a couple of years pretty much where the only nation taking it seriously until France built the Renault FT

during the interwar period the British built the Vickers 6 ton one of the most mas marketed tanks of the era and what went on to become the basis for most light tanks including the russian T-26 and BT models

During the second world war whilst the British did built some alright machines they where not by any means ahead of the curve with anything other than their HVAP and Sabot shells

The centurion was the first main battle tank as we know them and pretty much set the standard for most western tank design some a decade. also the improved British 105mm gun on the later models was so good it became the NATO standard for Years until The German 120

The chieftain was revolutionary in many ways and whilst some of its advances where not very welcome like the multi-fuel engine it was still a very good machine, so good that the Russians placed their best tanks on the Chefitain section of Germany

File: 1345184133336.jpg (75KB, 786x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 786x800px

>>33825275
>British tank technology lagging behind?

I dunno, no matter how many slips there's been here and there Britains still ahead in Tank innovation over all.

In WW2 it wasn't that the tanks were bad or lagging behind it was just archaic Cavalry doctrine (and worse still Artillery rules) that gave the Germans an advantage for a time.


>>33828436
A nation of ship builders will do that.

>>33828436
cheap and easy, for the time. the interwar period was a bad one for armour

>>33828473
>for a couple of years pretty much where the only nation taking it seriously until France built the Renault FT
so...all the other tanks france was building and using were just a lark?

>Vickers 6 ton
>BT models
niggawhat

>>33827805
well it did work, just the engine sucked. Being the first ever British attempt at a multi-fuel engine its not that bad and the rest of the tank was exceptional.

File: Saint-Chamond-WWI-tank-crossing-trench.jpg (27KB, 618x259px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 618x259px

>>33828525
>so...all the other tanks france was building and using were just a lark?
justify this

>>33828535
>well it did work
being broken all the time is a curious definition of "it did work." also, the armor turned out to be not that special; M60A1 was more formidable in places

>>33826478
Those seem more advanced than their later tanks. Just boost up the engine and it could compete with their current tanks.

>>33828557
a poor design decision is not taking something seriously. got it. let's go over using the 2-pounder in every tank and the crusader's water pump and the centurion's poor range and the chieftain's engine and the challenger 1's fcs

the british apparently don't give a shit about tanks at all

>>33828558
working 33% of the time seemed to work for them. The M60A1 was too tall of a vehicle, and whilst some areas where more heavily armoured others where not, a combination of low profile and heavy frontal armour made the chieftain a very hard tank to kill when dug in on a hill on the Rhine

>>33828585
>Centurian's poor range
To be fair, they weren't alone, US tanks with Gasoline version of the Continental AV-1790 (M46, M48, M48, M103) had only an ~80 mile range

File: chieftainmk5.jpg (580KB, 1945x1479px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1945x1479px

>>33828616
that the frontal armor was not that heavy was my point: http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm

"It turned out that the protection level of frontal projection of turret and hull provides protection from the 125 mm APFSDS (3BM-9, 3BM-15) from a distance of more than 3000 m (tank can be penetrated from distance up to 3000 m).

All types of shaped charge rounds (HEAT) can penetrate "Chieftain Mk5P" at all realistic ranges of fire.

115 mm APFSDS used for T-62 and T-64 guns can defeat “Chieftain’s” armor at a range of 1600 m. The studied example of the "Chieftain Mk5P" was manufactured in 1974 at the state-owned Royal Ordnance Factories in Leeds.

Protection of the upper frontal part of the hull and the frontal part of the turret provides protection:

from 100-mm caliber and armor-piercing sub-caliber shells of the T-54/55 tank at a distance of 500 m;

from 115-mm APFSDS of the T-62 and T-64 tank at a range of 1600 m.

protection from 125-mm APFSDS of T-64A (T-72, T-80)tanks is not provided. The tank can be penetrated by these projectiles from a distance of more than 3,000 m."

>>33828411
Technical issues don't really for this argument, he was arguing about the principles they were built around.

>>33825275

\Obviously that is a "birtish" not a "British" vehicle.

So I would drive around it.

However-

Were it "British" and broken down I would offer it a bottle of Lucas wiring smoke.

>>33828663
of course. but that doesn't change the fact that using a poor design decision in one type of tank as illustration that france wasn't taking tanks seriously until 2 years after britain is bullshit.

>>33828585
>over using the 2-pounder
for the doctrine and tank development of the time this was literally not a problem, it was even an asset in many ways as it standardised caliber and made production easier
>crusader's water pump
A problem that affected the tanks engine that only really affected it in hot conditions. it was a problem but it didn't make the rest of the tank unusable just unreliable. and the crusader itself was a stop gap measure in a period with no good cruiser design.
>centurion's poor range
they fixed it almost immediately with a long range fuel tank. the problem didn't even remotely affect the tanks performance in battle just fuel economy.
>challenger 1's fcs
whilst they where a problem they where fixed enough to make them battle ready in the gulf war. they did not lose any vehicles to enemy fire and managed to secure the longest ranged tank kill.

>>33828761
>they fixed it almost immediately with a long range fuel tank. the problem didn't even remotely affect the tanks performance in battle just fuel economy
I get how that would increase range, but how would that help fuel economy?

File: A33 Excelsior.jpg (68KB, 720x418px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x418px

>>33827583
You know you've fucked up when not even the British Army in 1943 will accept your shitty tank design.

>>33828795
it didn't, it hurt find economy but that was okay because it had more fuel now.

File: Centurion_2.jpg (582KB, 1764x1132px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1764x1132px

>>33825275

>>33828663
*M47, M48

File: Challenger1.jpg (1MB, 2840x1860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2840x1860px

>>33825275

>best survivability of any tank in the Gulf War

no.

The British didn't produce them in Soviet or even American numbers, but they produced good ones.

File: TOG II.jpg (3MB, 3456x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x2592px

>>33828761
These are all fairly good points, asside from this:

>for the doctrine and tank development of the time this was literally not a problem, it was even an asset in many ways as it standardized caliber and made production easier

Calling the standardization of tank gun calibers within a single army is not something to brag about. That's like claiming your gun has the benefit of firing bullets. Aside from nations like Poland and Spain, everyone was already figuring this shit out, at least in terms of finding a single gun to do a single job (and no, the 2-pdr was not a multipurpose weapon)

The weapon was not adequate, and this was apparent from the opening days of the war. Experiences in Spain lead many nations to believe that the 37-45mm caliber range of cannons were adequate against armor when, for the most part, they were not. I will give the British credit for identifying the issue, and they had squeeze-bore adapters developed from Czechoslovak designs in some stage of development from the first days of the war. Still, limited manufacturing capability and supply issues make the deployment of the "Little John" adapters meaningless in terms of the 2-pdr's overall efficiency in the war.

Pic unrelated.

>>33828557

It was largely a doctirnal issue. As an SPG, the Saint Chamond was literally among the first to exist and post war it managed some success used in that role.

>>33829006
Don't get me wrong i completely believe the 2pndr was inadequate as the war progressed and became effectively useless by 1943 but my point was it was a logical decision for the time period they where produced in.

the Spanish civil war did mistakenly put faith in small caliber tank guns but at the time it seemed like the entirely correct thing to do much like the small calibers used on the early Panzers.

the standardisation seemingly was correct due to the need for rapid tank production during Britain's period of rearmament and the doctrine at the time did not see things such as large low velocity guns for soft target combat as necessary as artillery would serve that purpose

>>33827608
>>33827912

lets not forget that the M3 was the only machine at the time that was suitable for a 75mm gun. it was a stopgap measure until US tank design and production could come up with something better

>>33826128

>scuse meh!! scuse meh!!! comin through lads, pip pip tallyho!

>>33826499
>but made up for it in just enough areas to stay relevant.
The only thing that made it up was lend-lease.

File: Cruiser Mk.II A10 CS.jpg (59KB, 650x369px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 650x369px

>>33829497
>the doctrine at the time did not see things such as large low velocity guns for soft target combat as necessary

*cough cough*

>>33828504
>In WW2 it wasn't that the tanks were bad or lagging behind
It was both, for a variety of reasons. We made up for it in the end by taking big steps forward with the Comet and Centurion.

>>33829715
oh you mean the tanks kept at squadron hq and designed to make smokescreens?

>>33828846
What was wrong with the Excelsior?

>>33829758
>goalposts.jpg

>>33829856
goalposts? the CS tanks WEREN'T intended for soft target combat--their job was to make smokescreens. an HE round for the 3.7" howitzer may not even have been issued to CS tanks according to dick taylor

>>33828691
I'm glad you still post here.

>>33829881
I will concede that you are right on this point. I was under the impression that net even the British were stupid enough to overlook the capability of a 94mm HE round, but clearly I was mistaken. Even more confounding when one realizes that many British tanks went into the war with smoke discharges of their own.

Clearly I gave them more credit than they deserved.

>>33826378
>It was ahead of the US between the end of WWII and the introduction of the Abrams,
>implying

Pattons were far superior to Centurions and Chieftains by a considerable margin.

>>33831099

No they weren't, they had significantly worse glacis armour when they didn't need to.

>>33831099
I'm all for the "American Tanks are best tanks" argument, but one must admit that in the early post-war years, it was the Centurion that really led the way. Fair enough, by the time the M48 came into play the US had caught up, but... well there's a reason the later M48 and the M60 all used a British main gun.

>>33828691
Hey fucko.
We miss you.

File: australian mayo dispenser.gif (3MB, 274x182px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 274x182px

>>33826153

>>33828990
>a war where the highest causality rates are friendly fire is a good benchmark for survivability

>>33831099
>Centurion
Fair enough, it's true that mobility-wise the Cent couldn't really match the Patton series and the 20-pounder and 90mm M3 were similar enough performance-wise

>Chieftain
lmao fuck no the Chieftain was arguably the best tank NATO could bring to the table against the Soviets from 1966 to the introduction of the Leopard 2

>>33831960
>lmao fuck no the Chieftain was arguably the best tank NATO could bring to the table against the Soviets from 1966 to the introduction of the Leopard 2
What were NATO tank designers even thinking early in the cold war? The chieftain is still a turd, how did they make a tank with less armor than an IS-7 but somehow slower? I once drove a chieftain, the thing was so slow you could outrun it on foot on soft ground. Apparently you couldn't turn too frequently or the braking system could overheat and catch fire.

For all it's bulk it's still only slightly better protected than a t-62.

File: warrior.jpg (39KB, 620x414px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 620x414px

>IFV in service in the year of our lord, 2017
>no ATGM

LOL

File: 4d34d835961f41eab3591e49fc0deff2.jpg (68KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x500px

>>33825275
What do you mean "Tanks"? They're attack kettles.

>>33825275
That's a M3A1 turret on a Bren Carrier.

File: thatsthejoke.jpg (31KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x450px

>>33832828

>>33832289

Eh, The CT40 gun on the updated Warrior and Ajax will be adequate for anything short of a MBT. For which the Spike-NLOS and ATGM equipped infantry will be adequate.

I believe the losing BAE bid for the upgrade program included an ATGM, but wasn't selected. It's simply a matter that since the UK military is emphasising the ability to deploy force to logistically distant places with less money, tracked AFVs are a spending priority ranked far below buying more aircraft and bigger ships.

>Brits invent tanks
>Then reinvent them after the war and lead to the basic design for all modern tanks
>Lagged behind

k

>>33833134
Cutting funding for the development of tanks will do that, honey.

>>33832478
if you cant bring a little civilization to the battlefield then what's the point?

>>33828990
>the allied tank that saw the least amount of combat died the least

wow great observation there

>>33826128
>don't tell me I'm going to drive this bloody thing into battle

>>33832289
The lack of ATGM is minor complaint compared to the fact that it doesn't even have a stabilized gun.

>>33833438

>Challenger 1
>Saw least combat in Gulf War

Yeah because the nation who had the most tank on tank combat other than the US out of all other nations involved sure had "least amount".

Never mind the AMX-30's that saw jack shit, or all the other countries bar Kuwait who saw almost nothing.

Challenger 1 saw plenty of combat in that war. They had a 300 vehicle kill encounter for goodness sake.

>>33833508

Hasn't stopped it having a great record thus far, and the CT40 is already in the process of being mounted on the new turrets.

RWS is being integrated with ATGMs too, so both problems being solved.

>>33833508

The new CT40 armed turret (same as the Ajax) that at least 245 of them are getting is stabilised, and there is funding for fitting a Javelin to a Kongsberg RWS fitted to this turret type, which has been trialled, hitting a target at over 4300 m. Sure the Javelin is not as powerful as the TOW, but it's better than nothing.

File: 1476841721442.jpg (46KB, 900x565px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 900x565px

>>33825710
>Black Prince
WE

>>33834679
Read a book retard

File: milan.jpg (33KB, 456x220px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 456x220px

>>33832289
It has a mount for a milan / Javlin on top man. on the side and another mount in centre of turret.

The 30mm is pretty good at AP to be fair. way more so than the us 25mm which only just makes up because it has an autoloader.