Talk:Chieftain tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

I'm not convinced of the copyright status of the images in use at the moment (9/11/2005). I've left a message for the uploader. GraemeLeggett 09:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How did the Chieftain perform in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88? -Petroleum

It performed very well. The Iraqians had only T-55 and T-62, two good tanks, but not enough to hope to challenge it in face to face. It's why they started to buy T-72 to USSR. With the T-72, they were able to fight the Chieftain on equal terms. Kovlocsky

[edit] Leyland L60 unreliability

Bizarre as it may seem the Leyland L60's unreliability (at least early on) would not have been perceived officially as big a problem at the time as many would now think. The L60 was designed to a specification that made certain assumptions, one of which was that it would be required to be run flat-out for a maximum of two hours and then be replaced. The Chieftain was designed at a time when the likelihood of all-out nuclear war and vast numbers of Soviet tanks crossing the North German Plain was a distinct possibility and this was what was occupying the Chiefs of Staff's/designer's minds when the vehicle was designed. Analysis of previous large-scale tank battles had shown that almost none lasted more than an hour, or at most, two, and the Chieftain's engine was therefore designed with this in mind, the engine-pack being intended to be taken out after the battle and replaced in-the-field. The removed engine could then be serviced/overhauled at leisure(!). The tank crews themselves had different views on this unreliability however when having to travel any distance without benefit of a tank transporter.

As for the engine itself, it was originally intended that Chieftain would have a Rolls-Royce diesel but NATO then changed its mind about acceptable fuels, requiring that all MBTs use a multi-fuel engine, hence the less-than-ideal L60.

BTW, the Chieftain's L11 gun used a bagged-charge in the same manner as large (e.g., 15") naval guns. The charge (propellant) is contained in a silk bag rather than in a brass cartridge case and the silk burns-up during firing. Ian Dunster 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of "most advanced" to "more competitive" POV?

I thought that the opening paragraph of this article seemed to understate the significance of the Chieftain somewhat, and found that prior to this unsummarised edit the text was closer to what I expected. Personally I think that the edit in question is contentious and should be reverted, but I'm reluctant to do it myself (I've retired from editing Wikipaedia articles because of the frequency with which this sort of thing tends to crop up) and also thought it would be better to solicit some other opinions on whether the original or the revision is more accurate and less POV.--194.247.53.233 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For once, I'm in agreement. Chieftain was very advanced for the time: first tank with supine driver position (and therefore shallow angle glacis), a 120mm gun fifteen/twenty or so years before the rest of NATO, the first tank to mount Chobham armour (in testing of Chobham and as Chieftain 900/Al Khalid), a multi-fuel pack (even though it was fantastic junk). There are lots of other little innovations that are rarely mentioned - for one, the fact that it was probably the first tank to have periscope lenses angled inward to reduce glare in desert operations (a feature proposed by the Israelis early in development).

If nothing else, the replacement intro is awful:

"It was one of the more competitive tanks of its time, having a powerful main gun and armour"

What does "competitive" mean here, exactly? Tanks, I think, do not compete...they blow other tanks up, or are blown up themselves. Furthermore, how can the armour be "powerful"? This is barely Dorling Kindersley stuff. The intro as it stands is trite, nebulous and nondescriptive.84.71.15.48 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How about changing it to 'arguably the most advanced tank of its time'? I struggle to think of anything that could have beaten it one-on-one in its prime, and it could even beat most tanks today. Just a thought. 86.134.78.192 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers

The above article refers to a Chieftain AVRE, (entered service in 1994). Can anyone here provide more light on the subject? Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)