On a major FTX (Field Training eXercise) our troop (3 tanks) overlooked a major road leading up from a valley. One tank brewed up (engine fire), second tank lost its main engine, leaving one fully mobile gun tank. A US armoured column was spotted, with M113s in front, M60s behind. Hit the lead M113, and rear M60 (umpires confirmed). That meant the entire column was stuck. Because of the 113s in the lead we were out of range of the M60s. The force was unable to move forward or backward, it became a turkey shoot. In theory we had three tanks worth of ammo available, enough to destroy the column. We were credited with the kill, and the exercise reset.
Is the rumor true all BAOR tank crews where ADAC (german automobile club) gold members? After all that gives you 7 days of access to a similar vehicle if you break down. So call ADAC and have them send a Leo2 ;)
I used to drive these when I was in the army in Germany. We used to traverse the gun over the back decks and slightly elevate the gun,place a tarpaulin sheet over the barrel and sleep on the decking. This was done when we were on exercise in mid winter in Germany. The engine took around 24 hours to go cold...It kept you nice and warm.
hurnethehunter: Yes, they made a great "tent" although I often used to sleep in the driver's cab with the seat in the "closed down" position.....it was much softer than the engine deck :-)
My dad was an officer in the Iranian royal army (a tank commander) before the bloody revolution, and he went to war against Iraq. Lost his life during early times of war inside one of these tanks (one of the biggest tank battles) and sill MIA after 42 years. Thanks for the nice explanation :)
"The engine was the thing that let Chieftan down". As soon as you said that, the video shows the infamous Leyland logo. I think most people who, like me, grew up in the seventies will have either laughed or winced when they saw that logo here.
@@davidmorgan5525 really , I have had my BL car for 31 years and I love it . 139 mph , 185bhp and 0-60 in just under 8 seconds . Bloody excellent car .
I had the “pleasure” of working on these from 1970 through 1975, on and off. I drove an FV434 so ran from one pack lift to the next. Interesting point. Many years later, I worked as a civil servant at a facility and a transporter came in with trailer problems. They sought me out as no one knew how to operate the Chieftain on the trailer. I unloaded it and spent most of the day giving rides to the staff! Great time!
My favorite too, but this was in the Sixties. A lot better-looking than my AMX-13! My Mom was the local Ministry of Culture librarian, so I thought it wouldn't be too hard to learn about that tank, but information in French about it was scant and inaccurate, citing a 155 mm caliber instead of the 120 mm rifle it actually had.
I worked at BSC in Sheffield in the early 70s where the turrets were cast, I’ve often thought that the soldiers sat inside never saw the turrets after crack detection, we used to chip and grind the cracks out some were inches deep, then weld up and make good. Sometimes the army would bring a turret in that had been shot at, we would weld it up and send it back.
A beautiful machine! I always found almost all British tanks to be just so stylish, it's like they are the gentelmen of tanks, all dressed up and ready to go, hat, umbrella and suit :)
I was born in 1956 and trained as an infantry officer. So these were the tanks that supported us. One story I heard was that Leyland ran a Chieftain engine for so many hours. Changed the engine oil, put the dirty oil in the fuel tank and started it up again. They would run on anything.
Remember years back reading a book written by one of NATO's top general's. Can't remember the books name, it was written in 85 and I read it probably 15-20 years back. But it talked about how the Soviets put their best tanks and most experienced troop's up against the British sector and intel told them how much they feared the Chieftain especially it's firepower. Can't remember all the details, and I'm not British so no bias. I'm Canadian, I also liked how this general also mentioned the small, but extremely well trained Canadian contingent. Just a touch of pride in my country's extremely capable soldiers. Wish our politicians would support them more now a days though.
It would also have made strategic sense for the Soviets to prioritize the northern sector: quickly capturing the German and Dutch North Sea ports would have made it very difficult for the US to reinforce and resupply its forces in Europe.
In the second WW the only time a German Brigade complained to Geneva convention. Was about the Canadian regiments fighting them God knows what they were doing.
I drove one of these beasts for a couple of years in the late 70's early 80's. Had a pack lift in Canada but that was to do with the coolant readings being totally up the left. But in Germany and UK never had a single problem with the Chieftain tank. Loved it. But would love to have a go on the Challenger.
the other case in which the Chieftain had to fire its gun in anger was the opening stages of the invasion of Kuwait: by all accounts, the Kuwaiti 35th Brigade (which was only able to field a total of 36 Chieftains, 26 with the 7th bat, 3 Coy, and 10 with the 8th bat, 3 Coy--backed by a handful of BMP-2s, M-113s, M901ITVs from the AT company, and 7 M109A2 SPGs) was able to check the 1st Republican Guard Mech and 2nd Republican Guard armored for most of the day on August 2nd. yes, the Kuwaitis fled in the end...but it doesn't negate the fact 36 tanks held elements a full tank and mechanized division at bay for longer than they had any right to.
Apparently the Kuwaitis were hampered by the fact that they'd had to deploy before they had fully stocked the tanks with ammo. So their ability to fight was sadly curtailed by that alone as well as being outnumbered. They gave a very good account of themselves though.
I've never seen a tally of the kills they got but I suspect it could've easily been 50-60 enemy vehicles. they fought like hell, and rightfully so (nothing like the knowledge that one's family and friends are to your immediate rear to make you fight harder, eh?). I wonder how many T-72s they got (the Al-Medina division should've had some with them).
Here is a list of British tank which have a name beginning with C: Covenanter, Crusader, Cavalier, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, Churchill, Comet, Centurion, Conqueror, Chieftain, Challenger 1, Challenger 2 Kind of interesting... Great video!
AFAIK it's tradition. The British used to split their tank designs into ponderous heavily armoured 'Infantry' tanks and fast 'Cruiser' tanks for exploiting breakthroughs. All of the 'Cruiser' designs had names beginning with 'C' - Crusader, Cromwell, etc. The Brits have carried on using names beginning with 'C' long after the Cruiser tank concept was abandoned. I guess the Churchill was the odd one out because it was an 'Infantry' tank at the time but they wanted to name something half decent after their war leader, and his name began with a C anyway :D
@@Weisior And T-62s too. The Chieftain didn't perform very well in the Iran-Iraq War although to be fair, the Iranian Army had been very disorganised and demoralised by the purges at that time. In addition, later in the war, when the Iraqis got T-72s in large numbers, they generally defeated the Chieftains pretty heavily. I believe the two parts ammo the Chieftain used was very problematic for under trained iranian loaders to handle. The engine unreliability and its dreadful top speed probably didn't help either. Still an awesomely nice looking tank that was very capable in the right hands though!
@@philipped.r.6385 the Iranian Chieftains were poorly managed on the battlefield, hence the many losses. Many Cheiftains were knocked out at point blank range after their crews had abandoned them because they had either broken down, run out of fuel or stuck in mud. Not sure why the Iraqis wasted so much effort is destroying abandoned Chieftains. The UK examined the destroyed Chieftains and produced a report stating this in 1981. Of course the Chieftain was maintenance intensive, following the revolution the UK staff maintaing the fleet left Iran. The Iranians simply didn't have the knowledge or people to keep Chieftains in service.
@@michaelsalt4565 Maybe I sounded a little harsh. I didn't meant to say that the Chieftain was bad. On the contrary, I have a pretty high opinion of it and I think this was the only NATO tank that could match the T-64s and T-72s until the new NATO tanks started to enter service in the early 80s. It's just that the Iranians were not in a position to use it right because their army had been disorganised by the purges. Chieftains needed a lot of care and maintenance to be effective. In an army where the soldiers' main concern was to not being shot by hysterical "Guardians of the Revolution", it wasn't really possible. Also, the T-62 had a pretty potent weapon and couldn't be underestimated. Even the export T-72 variants had a pretty heavy armor and their guns were effective. This has to be taken into account.
I worked as an armoured mech on the Chieftain, before moving over to the Challenger. My baby was my Chieftain ARRV and I'll always have a soft-spot for it. Can be a pig to maintain but had a better gearbox than the Challenger I (neutral turning was easy-peasy).
Around the 5 min. mark. I was intrigued by the mirror system at the end of the barrel. I have wondered for years what that funny lump was for, obviously not for aiming (as such.) I am now in my 60s and have only now been enlightened. Thanks old Chap, most grateful.
I love the L60 engine sound. My Dad was in SEME and after 22 years in REME worked as a civilian instructor. After school I would ride my bike to the heath and then have a ride on a chieftain. The engine sound reminds me of that time. He complained about the multi fuel engine.
At 5.20 - The Muzzel Refrence System had nothing to do with any 'bend' in the barrel due to wind. (that was mitigated by the thermal sleeve you see on the barrel) it was purely an instantly available means of quickly realigning the sights graticule pattern to the origional boresighting done previously. During live firing we would do a quick MRS check every few rounds during a lull in firing. (align the depresion indicators, look through the sight, adjust the MBS mark back on to the orange MRS light, lock back up the graticule adjusters, and bob's yer uncle) It took about 20 seconds to do it. Every time a round was fired it would put the sight/barrel alignment out by a small amount.
I was a B1 gunner on a MkII Chieftain in 2RTR (second regiment after the 11th Hussars to be equipped with the tank). We used the .50 Browning ranging gun and found it to be quite accurate. Its main failing was the the amount of time, several seconds to fire off 4 bursts of 3 rounds then adjusting the lay of the main gun, using the 9 dot sight, according to the fall of the ranging shots. I never missed with Sabot - flat trajectory over two thousand yards made that pretty routine, and HESH could be expected to be on target by the second round at most at the same range. It was fun to fire but the laser sights made that gun into a wicked thing to have to face!
I rarely had issues with torsion bars replacement with the Bradleys and the Abrams. But I think most of the issues he is talking about had been resolved by the time they were made. There were SOME times it was a pain occasionally but not something we dreaded. But that could be said for most suspension issues. I have seen people fight with shocks absorbers on Bradleys for hours and get pissed at me when I roll up and smear grease into the mounting holes for the shocks and wrap the bolts with electrical tape. Then I just used the crews electric driver and rammed the bolts in. The grease would force the shocks to pop off with a loud snap lol. I figured this out on my own when I was going over Bradley BII and discovered a special tool that was supposed to do this same action. The problem with the special tool and thus why most people didn't know how to do this trick I guess was because the special tool was manually cranked and thus worked really slowly. But if you used a electric driver like the one the crews had to remove road wheels and deck bolts and rammed the bolts in at higher speeds the grease didn't have time to leak passed the bolt. Once I showed crews this trick their average shock replacement time went from 1HR to 10 minutes. It really was a handy thing to know about if you were a Bradley crew or mechanic.
Excellent video as usual. As far as I'm aware the T-62 was the tank that used the 2A20 115mm gun throughout its production. The T-64 only had a 115mm smoothbore gun during the prototype stage and extremely early production. Virtually all T-64 tanks produced used the 125mm 2A46 gun, the difference in firepower is significant. The T-64 was a different, vastly superior tank to the T-62. The 115mm gun being used in T-62 to nullify the advantage of the 105mm L7 was an issue for NATO but the 125mm gun on T-64 was a far more serious concern. T-64s composite frontal aromor was also quite significant.
You're right. The initial T-64 had the same 2A20 gun than the T-62 and about 600 were made in 1966. Then, in 1967, the T-64A with the new 125mm gun entered service. The T-64 was a very advanced tank at the time and was quite revolutionary on many aspects like the introduction of composite armor like you said. It's my favorite tank. Interestingly, the T-64 also had a very troublesome engine at the time of introduction much like the Chieftain and it took some time before it got fixed. I always loved the Chieftain too. It's a very beautiful tank. It might have had a lot of troubles with the engines, if the Cold War went hot, they would have needed the firepower and protection. The Germans and French would have regretted quickly to have fitted such light armor on their tanks.
I agree. The T-64 was a significant technological leap forward in tank development and would have been a serious opponent to any western equivalent, mechanical issues accepted. I'm quite fond of the T-64 and T-80 series of tanks and consider them largely underestimated and unappreciated by the majority of people when considered side by side with their historical rivals. The Russians weren't idiots by any means. I agree with that last part too, while I'm fond of the Leopard 1 and AMX30 as well as the Chieftain of course I think the German and French approach to tank design at the time would have had quite a hard time with newer Soviet tanks, as would the Americans in the same time period to a lesser extent. The British had the right idea with the Chieftain even though the mechanical reliability was even worse than the early T-64. Plus it doesn't hurt that the Chieftain is an excellent looking machine.
The brakes were basically non-existent on most of them, the hydraulics for the steering got lots of air leaks, you needed to bleed, or you needed to pump the sticks before being able to turn. "Leaky Mcleakface". Loved them, hardly missed a target with ICLS and as a driver it was hands on unlike later with Chally 1 which was hands off in the engine compartment. Loved my Chally as well especially cross country driving, compairing to my old Chieftain. All in all I enjoyed every minute being in a Chieftain or Chally 1.
In the nationaal militair museum in the Netherlands in Soest we temporarily have a chieftain from the Berlin brigade with the blue white brown camouflage. It's there now because of a exhibition of the cold war. It's only temporarily so it will go out of the museum again. I only don't know when.
Centurian was used in the the 1st Gulf War in 1990-1 by 32 Armd Engineer Regiments RE in the support role, with dozer blade or mine plough, pipe fascines, class 60 trackway and Giant Viper.
Big and accurate gun, thick armor, low silhouette......this is my favorite or almost favorite MBT of the cold war. Wish they got a better power plant, they certainly deserved it....
Low silhouette? Only if you were on a gun tank. I was an Armoured Engineer. Stick two maxi pipe fascines on top of a Chieftain AVRE, or launch a bridge from an AVLB and you end up sat at the bottom of the largest silhouette on the battlefield. "Please aim at bottom centre of the two giant vertical legs" when the bridge was at Top Dead Centre... :¬{(
@Michael Hunter It's a long and complicated story Michael.Basically, after the L60 was installed it was decided to try and keep improving and modifying it rather than sourcing a new engine which would have been impossible to design, trial and fit in a fleet of nearly a thousand front line tanks. The constant upgrading programmes eventually produced a reasonably relaible though underpowered engine but the whole fiasco should never have happened to start with.
@Andrés Valverde Well let's see: It is fully proof against 100mm Subcaliber ammo such as 3BM8, against 122mm subcaliber like 3BM11 on the T-10. The only things capable of challenging that Turret was the 115mm gun on the T-62 (which was effective against ANY NATO Tank of the 70s) and the 125mm on the T-64A. (Which however was scarce in the 70s)
The MRS was to quicly realign the sight itself with the gun as the firing and recoil would very often put the boresighting out. when live firing we would do and MRS check quite frequently between engaging targets.
The hero of my youth, as a boy i played many times in this beast and in brit and Dutch Centurions when they were in Manouvre in our Village in lower saxony i wish i had the money to buy one
I was a military kid in Paderborn during the seventies. My dad was a tankie in the QRIH. Our school had an open day at Barker Barracks. We all had to write about our trip. I wrote an article about the Chieftain, it got published in an army magazine. 😊
I was in 3RTR we took over from the QRIH at Paderborn and handed over to the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards in around 1986, Paderborn was a pretty good posting.
I grew up around these tanks in the 70s in Germany my father being with REME ( royal electrical mechanical engineers ) I remember the white smoke and climbing around and through these tanks as a small boy 😃
My father was not REME (Infantry then transferred to Int Corps, ended up serving almost 36 years years, from Private to Major), but I have memories of these tanks as well. One was watching an armoured Battalion moving out for an exercise when I was on the school bus going to school (in Celle). Pretty impressive sight. Problem was on the way back home we came across roughly half the vehicles where they had broken down, the crews sat next to them drinking tea :P. I seem to remember being told that if the whistle had gone up 1st Armoured had planned on only around half its vehicles getting into action. Late in her career the engine was not really that bad, lots of tweaking, but in the early days gods they broke down, a lot!
I love the idea of Haynes manuals for tanks. They were in another video. For the man who has everything. I may need to get a couple to go with my military and firearms books. Great novelty item. The Chieftain was a fine tank, no question. The engine needed work though
I must have lived in one of these old beasts for well over a year if you add up all the schemes, only ever had one pack lift so not too many problems with the engine but I must have got a good one. Front idler wheel could be a bit fragile, got through a few of those but easy enough to replace, did see a few half tracked on exercise though usually after a longer FTX in Germany though. I have fond memories of Chieftain and the later Challenger 1 :)
I was "on Chieftains" as an Armoured Engineer during the first Gulf War. By that time, Challenger 1 was the front line gun tank - we had to limp along behind the battle-group, desperately trying to keep up without breaking down. Usually unsuccessfully. But while it's reputation for unreliability was probably deserved, it was quite often stuff other than the engine that broke down to be fair. Dozer packs, mine ploughs, the hydraulic system for the engineer kit up top, and frequently radios and other electrical systems. But if the BV went u/s the crews would swiftly try to find a problem that rendered the vehicle 'non-battleworthy' until those all important BVs could be fixed
Nah - I was "Armoured Engineers Lite" at 23 Engr Regt, Osnabruck. 73 Fd Sqn, but my troop deployed as part of 39 Fd Sqn for war. Something about the Close Support Concept not fitting in with the Battle Group's formation in the desert, or some other "above my pay grade" guff. But at least we brought all our tanks home - not like 32 who blew three Centurion AVREs up in two days without any help at all from the enemy! ;¬{D
drove one of these in 91 with 9troop 77AES , 32AER.and spent many hours in BATUS doing pack lifts, spring packs, then commanded one later on ,fun times
No, the management of the companies that were brought together to form Leyland destroyed the British auto industry. Leyland was the remnants of the corpse.
@@jasonhartley3256 Nice motor. My first car was a Triumph 1300 whish was very comfy but front suspension mounts rotted away. Have a 65 Herald Convertible these days for fun.
@@jasonhartley3256 absolute crap! You have an early Leyland vehicle, presumably you have never heard of later Leyland crap ie 'the Princess' absolute garbage which took 11 months to deliver to a customer, please don't defend Leyland,they are terrible and folded for that reason.
Is the floor of the museum reinforced? It must take some punishment from all that weight sat on it constantly PS: Would love to see some tank interiors included in this series
Bovington started as a military base. So you could say the current buildings were designed around tanks. The museum is only part of the complex. I have no idea of the depth of floor concrete. Take this link with a pinch of salt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovington_Camp
@@eastcorkcheeses6448 When you weigh more than 50 tons, it only prolongs the inevitable if the ground is too soft. In Vietnam, M48 and M60s did have wide tracks, but if they stopped for the night, their tanks would sink slowly and pin whoever was sleeping under it
I was a REME mechanic with 4RTR back in the seventies,and I would like to point out a mistake in the description of the Chietains engine,it was a Vertically opposed 2 stroke supercharged engine and not Horizontally as pointed out in the decription. But the video was excellent
I love the military mentality. "Survivability first because we've invested a lot of time in training these men". Not because they have families. Not because any casualties are to be avoided. Not even that the lesson of WW2 was as much about finite troop numbers as anything else, but because of the effort and money involved in their training.
Part of that is because the Chally 1 is based on (or, probably a better description, 'evolved from') the Chieftain Mk5 via the export Shir 2. Challenger 2 is a similar evolution from Challenger 1, basically a turret and armour upgrade which approaches what an experienced British tank officer described to me as his ideal tank 'A Challenger Hull with an Abrams Turret'. There are various things about UK doctrine and tank design rules (all of which I agree with) that meant that we didn't go for something closer to the Abrams turret.
The engine was a nightmare for REME, during manouvres in lower saxony, early 70s, i saw so many Chieftains with engine failures standing in the villages or towed by Centurion ARV or other Chieftains Nevertheless the Chieftain was and is my fav. Tank, it was the best armoured Tank with a powrful Gun in the Nato and he is sooo beautyful I remember that before Railroadtransportation they removed the Searchlight from the Turret and stowed beside the Gun on the Engine deck. I was never inside a Leopard1 but several times inside a Chieftain or Centurion
“Of Hector and Lysander and all uch great heros as these theres none that can compare to the Tow Row Tow Row Tow Row of the British Grenadiers. Making a mess of course trying to remember the lines. We sang this little ditty in grade one. Loving these vids❤️🇨🇦🤠
omg. Them brits and that fucking boiling Vessel!. in all videos i've seen about British tanks, i have seen or heard about the Tea maker. it's just amazing!☕☕☕☕. BTW what a beautiful machine(chieftain)😘
Although it does make tea. It can warm up MRE's quickly also. The crew never has to leave the tank if its unsafe to do so and still eat, drink and sleep all within the fighting compartment
6:10. the laser might reach out to ~6000 metres, but the fire control computer won't return a firing solution beyond 3000 metres. Challenger I had the same limitation, at least at first.
We also used the BV (boiling vessel) to heat our tinned 'compo' food. As the tins had to be pierced it often led to slightly greasy water left after the cooking so we got kinda used to oil slicks on our 'brews'.
we would put a dent in the tin,as the water gets hotter the tin would try to go back to its original shape but you just kept an eye on it....hey No grease
Reference the "boiling vessel" mentioned about 75% through: As an American, visited Hildesheim mid-1980s. British tanks' ability to heat water for tea in British tanks is a standout memory from the orientation we got there, as well as getting a demonstration from a brand new Challenger I.
I do like the Chieftain. I served with M-60A1 and later the M1A1 Tanks in the US Army. I would be proud to share the field of battle again with our British Brothers and Sisters any day but do me a favor put on a spot of coffee for us. Tea is fine but not enough kick, nor does the tank run well on it as our tanks need more Octane.
We loved serving with you guys in Berlin. Every time we exercised with your people they would bring cooked food up to us in the defensive positions. All we could give you guys in return was stew with onions and biscuits AB.
I can't exactly remember what year, but it was definitely pre summer 1966 and a group of us army cadets went on a jolly to Catterick driving centurions, the Sgt in charge couldn't contain himself and took us to a garage where there was a tank covered with a tarp, he uncovered it and there was his new tank, a chieftain and guess what he seemed most excited about, you've guessed it, the kettle!
Best Cheiftan quote ever: "this tank is an absolute battle-winner... as long as it breaks down in a good fire position"
i think that is British tank doctrine at its core.
Makes zero sense, only unreliable engine in a British tank mass produced since WW2 in the form of the Matilda.
No...
On a major FTX (Field Training eXercise) our troop (3 tanks) overlooked a major road leading up from a valley. One tank brewed up (engine fire), second tank lost its main engine, leaving one fully mobile gun tank.
A US armoured column was spotted, with M113s in front, M60s behind. Hit the lead M113, and rear M60 (umpires confirmed). That meant the entire column was stuck. Because of the 113s in the lead we were out of range of the M60s. The force was unable to move forward or backward, it became a turkey shoot. In theory we had three tanks worth of ammo available, enough to destroy the column.
We were credited with the kill, and the exercise reset.
Is the rumor true all BAOR tank crews where ADAC (german automobile club) gold members? After all that gives you 7 days of access to a similar vehicle if you break down. So call ADAC and have them send a Leo2 ;)
I used to drive these when I was in the army in Germany. We used to traverse the gun over the back decks and slightly elevate the gun,place a tarpaulin sheet over the barrel and sleep on the decking. This was done when we were on exercise in mid winter in Germany. The engine took around 24 hours to go cold...It kept you nice and warm.
hurnethehunter: Yes, they made a great "tent" although I often used to sleep in the driver's cab with the seat in the "closed down" position.....it was much softer than the engine deck :-)
But it had no heater installed so in a German winter everyone virtually froze to death............
The ARV had a heater fitted and the exhaust of this we would use as a cooker lol
@@stevewood1754 nice one!!
Wow... you tankers got it good. You got a warm “bed” and self heating “tent”... I don’t think the infantry had those luxuries.
My dad was an officer in the Iranian royal army (a tank commander) before the bloody revolution, and he went to war against Iraq. Lost his life during early times of war inside one of these tanks (one of the biggest tank battles) and sill MIA after 42 years. Thanks for the nice explanation :)
God bless your Father and those men of his generation!
RIP to your dad mate
Commiserations.
I was in Shiraz and Kermanshah with Chieftains and Scorpions in mid ‘70’s! Loved my time there. RIP to your father, who I may have worked with.
@@Brian-xq8fh yes. i have some pictures of him in Shiraz and kermanshah. His name was Abedin
"The engine was the thing that let Chieftan down".
As soon as you said that, the video shows the infamous Leyland logo. I think most people who, like me, grew up in the seventies will have either laughed or winced when they saw that logo here.
The Leyland motors sucked in passenger cars too!
@@davidmorgan5525 really , I have had my BL car for 31 years and I love it . 139 mph , 185bhp and 0-60 in just under 8 seconds . Bloody excellent car .
Explain more, please. (non-british person here)
I had the “pleasure” of working on these from 1970 through 1975, on and off. I drove an FV434 so ran from one pack lift to the next. Interesting point. Many years later, I worked as a civil servant at a facility and a transporter came in with trailer problems. They sought me out as no one knew how to operate the Chieftain on the trailer. I unloaded it and spent most of the day giving rides to the staff! Great time!
You lucky buggar!!! 😜😜😜😜
Thanks for the story I love hearing this stuff. Thank you for serving the country
... I've got this image of the office girls clinging on for life as circles the car park 🙂
@@TeddyBear-ii4yc I’ve still got the image of the office girls climbing into the turret! I was in the driver’s seat, reclined.
@@Brian-xq8fh
Let me guess, the safe way up was up the front, across the glacis plate and then to either side of the turret? 🙂
Always wanted to know more about this tank, thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Simple History I luv ur channel
Hey I like your channel too! I was wasn’t expecting to see your channel name in the comments XD
Simple History chieftain didn't prevent brexit
tiger cat brexit is a good thing
Simple history could you do a video about the centurion tank ?
Shame no mention at the end of the Battle of the Bridges (Al Jahra) in 1990. Arguably Chieftain's finest moment.
The_Chieftain why did you not fight Soviet Russia with the Germans if they were such an immediate threat after the war anyways
Oh come on. It was a paper tiger
Chieftain, care to shed some light on the aforementioned battle?
@Breezy Mods penetrate or perforate? Because if you mean penetration that'd be way more hilarious
@@tigercat418 Because the Germans attacked us, so we had to defeat them first.
I had a small metal Chieftain tank when I was a kid back in the 70's. I LOVED that tank!
My favorite too, but this was in the Sixties. A lot better-looking than my AMX-13! My Mom was the local Ministry of Culture librarian, so I thought it wouldn't be too hard to learn about that tank, but information in French about it was scant and inaccurate, citing a 155 mm caliber instead of the 120 mm rifle it actually had.
I worked at BSC in Sheffield in the early 70s where the turrets were cast, I’ve often thought that the soldiers sat inside never saw the turrets after crack detection, we used to chip and grind the cracks out some were inches deep, then weld up and make good. Sometimes the army would bring a turret in that had been shot at, we would weld it up and send it back.
A beautiful machine! I always found almost all British tanks to be just so stylish, it's like they are the gentelmen of tanks, all dressed up and ready to go, hat, umbrella and suit :)
I was born in 1956 and trained as an infantry officer. So these were the tanks that supported us. One story I heard was that Leyland ran a Chieftain engine for so many hours. Changed the engine oil, put the dirty oil in the fuel tank and started it up again. They would run on anything.
"Leyland worked on it" - the one thing you never want to hear about a vehicle
Might as well have let the Soviets build the engines.
@@SMlFFY85 Soviets did build better tank engines, and tanks overall.
Leyland was fine until BL happened
@@USB740 the joke is that the soviets were the enemies...
@@USB740 You wouldn’t say that when it was these tanks that caused your T72 autoloaders to explode like sparkler candles
Remember years back reading a book written by one of NATO's top general's. Can't remember the books name, it was written in 85 and I read it probably 15-20 years back. But it talked about how the Soviets put their best tanks and most experienced troop's up against the British sector and intel told them how much they feared the Chieftain especially it's firepower. Can't remember all the details, and I'm not British so no bias. I'm Canadian, I also liked how this general also mentioned the small, but extremely well trained Canadian contingent. Just a touch of pride in my country's extremely capable soldiers. Wish our politicians would support them more now a days though.
It would also have made strategic sense for the Soviets to prioritize the northern sector: quickly capturing the German and Dutch North Sea ports would have made it very difficult for the US to reinforce and resupply its forces in Europe.
General Sir John Hackett, The Third World War.
Hopefully soon you guys will make a decision on your new fighter jet. I don't have a preference on what is chosen just as long it is 4+ generation.
In the second WW the only time a German Brigade complained to Geneva convention.
Was about the Canadian regiments fighting them God knows what they were doing.
*Thank you for not adding useless music to that video!*
*It's behind me why some people put music on top of someone talking in some other videos.*
I drove one of these beasts for a couple of years in the late 70's early 80's. Had a pack lift in Canada but that was to do with the coolant readings being totally up the left. But in Germany and UK never had a single problem with the Chieftain tank. Loved it. But would love to have a go on the Challenger.
the other case in which the Chieftain had to fire its gun in anger was the opening stages of the invasion of Kuwait: by all accounts, the Kuwaiti 35th Brigade (which was only able to field a total of 36 Chieftains, 26 with the 7th bat, 3 Coy, and 10 with the 8th bat, 3 Coy--backed by a handful of BMP-2s, M-113s, M901ITVs from the AT company, and 7 M109A2 SPGs) was able to check the 1st Republican Guard Mech and 2nd Republican Guard armored for most of the day on August 2nd. yes, the Kuwaitis fled in the end...but it doesn't negate the fact 36 tanks held elements a full tank and mechanized division at bay for longer than they had any right to.
Apparently the Kuwaitis were hampered by the fact that they'd had to deploy before they had fully stocked the tanks with ammo. So their ability to fight was sadly curtailed by that alone as well as being outnumbered.
They gave a very good account of themselves though.
I've never seen a tally of the kills they got but I suspect it could've easily been 50-60 enemy vehicles. they fought like hell, and rightfully so (nothing like the knowledge that one's family and friends are to your immediate rear to make you fight harder, eh?).
I wonder how many T-72s they got (the Al-Medina division should've had some with them).
Never assume anything about the vehicles based on modern Arab war making. The potential wasted in their hands is vast.
Very enjoyable watch!
Here is a list of British tank which have a name beginning with C:
Covenanter, Crusader, Cavalier, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, Churchill, Comet, Centurion, Conqueror, Chieftain, Challenger 1, Challenger 2
Kind of interesting...
Great video!
Jaak Sootak there is the charioteer as well. But yes good video!
Technically, Cruiser Mk.I, II and III also started with a C.
Yeah, forgot about them. All the other cruisers start with C so maybe its because Cruiser start with it?
AFAIK it's tradition. The British used to split their tank designs into ponderous heavily armoured 'Infantry' tanks and fast 'Cruiser' tanks for exploiting breakthroughs. All of the 'Cruiser' designs had names beginning with 'C' - Crusader, Cromwell, etc. The Brits have carried on using names beginning with 'C' long after the Cruiser tank concept was abandoned.
I guess the Churchill was the odd one out because it was an 'Infantry' tank at the time but they wanted to name something half decent after their war leader, and his name began with a C anyway :D
Brits have always enjoyed traditions :D
Drove one of these on my 30th birthday, absolutely awesome!
Noice!
Lucky git!
Matt Hayward you lucky little brit that's my 3rd favorite tank hope you had fun though
Mate, it was such a laugh: drove a FV432, then an Abbott SPG, then the Chieftain and messed about on quad bikes after.
I drove one on my 18th. Tank training at Catterick! :)
Martin Tabony that's awesome! And they were paying you 👍
“Many people criticise the Chieftain, but you won’t find many that would want to fight it.”
Iraqis T-55s did good enough against Iranian Chieftains. In fact Chieftain broke down quite a lot in middle east environment.
True, but then again you can say the same thing about literally any tank apart from Italian ww2 tanks
@@Weisior And T-62s too. The Chieftain didn't perform very well in the Iran-Iraq War although to be fair, the Iranian Army had been very disorganised and demoralised by the purges at that time. In addition, later in the war, when the Iraqis got T-72s in large numbers, they generally defeated the Chieftains pretty heavily. I believe the two parts ammo the Chieftain used was very problematic for under trained iranian loaders to handle. The engine unreliability and its dreadful top speed probably didn't help either. Still an awesomely nice looking tank that was very capable in the right hands though!
@@philipped.r.6385 the Iranian Chieftains were poorly managed on the battlefield, hence the many losses. Many Cheiftains were knocked out at point blank range after their crews had abandoned them because they had either broken down, run out of fuel or stuck in mud. Not sure why the Iraqis wasted so much effort is destroying abandoned Chieftains. The UK examined the destroyed Chieftains and produced a report stating this in 1981. Of course the Chieftain was maintenance intensive, following the revolution the UK staff maintaing the fleet left Iran. The Iranians simply didn't have the knowledge or people to keep Chieftains in service.
@@michaelsalt4565 Maybe I sounded a little harsh. I didn't meant to say that the Chieftain was bad. On the contrary, I have a pretty high opinion of it and I think this was the only NATO tank that could match the T-64s and T-72s until the new NATO tanks started to enter service in the early 80s. It's just that the Iranians were not in a position to use it right because their army had been disorganised by the purges.
Chieftains needed a lot of care and maintenance to be effective. In an army where the soldiers' main concern was to not being shot by hysterical "Guardians of the Revolution", it wasn't really possible. Also, the T-62 had a pretty potent weapon and couldn't be underestimated. Even the export T-72 variants had a pretty heavy armor and their guns were effective. This has to be taken into account.
Amazing as an infantryman feel the chieftain rumble past you. Such power 🇬🇧
Yes big old beasts, remember on Salisbury plain we trained with tank every so often. I was T.A. infantryman
These longer form videos are quite informative, thanks!
Whatever might anybody say - I FREAKING LOVE ALL THE BRIT TANKS OF THE IInd HALF of the XXth CENTURY - and THIS ONE IS A GODDAMN AWESOME TANK!...
Of course the british tank would have some sort of tea making device onboard.
No self respecting Brit ever goes to war without the ability to have a decent brew at the end. Just simply not on Old Boy.
Well, Israel's first job when they upgrade a captured tank is to install air-conditioning, so priorities are specific to the army in question.
Eustace Stritchers Well, AC is incredibly necessary for crew comfort.
ArthurAlcantara the British don’t make tanks they made 10M dollar tea factories
As someone once said 'Tea was the British Army's solution to any physical or mental problem, except a stomach wound.'
A british tank, WITHOUT a 2-pounder!? What madness is this?!
We need a challenger with a 2-pounder.
@@Patriotic_Brit I would pay good money to see that tbh
Reece Longden yeah
Somehow, I read that with Lindybeige voice saying it in my mind! Seems like the kind of thing he would say! :D
@@Patriotic_Brit No! 37mm only!
BATUS 1984 every system on my tank worked superbly! It was a unique tank, i was very fortunate to have it. My crew was awesome to match!
I worked as an armoured mech on the Chieftain, before moving over to the Challenger. My baby was my Chieftain ARRV and I'll always have a soft-spot for it. Can be a pig to maintain but had a better gearbox than the Challenger I (neutral turning was easy-peasy).
As always you gentlemen are superb in your presentations. Thanks.
Both the Centurion and the Chieftain are still two of the finest tanks ever built.
John Buckley: Yes, especially the "Cent" which very rarely broke down (unlike the Chieftain).
I'd argue it's the centurion and the Sherman
Centurion has the ugly mug port though
@@Legitpenguins99 definitely not the Sherman, I'd give it to the Centurion and T34 or Panzer 4
@@Legitpenguins99 There are many contenders for the title. But the Sherman tank isn't one of them.
Around the 5 min. mark. I was intrigued by the mirror system at the end of the barrel. I have wondered for years what that funny lump was for, obviously not for aiming (as such.) I am now in my 60s and have only now been enlightened. Thanks old Chap, most grateful.
A fourteen minute video from The Tank Museum is just the boost I needed today.
I love the L60 engine sound. My Dad was in SEME and after 22 years in REME worked as a civilian instructor. After school I would ride my bike to the heath and then have a ride on a chieftain. The engine sound reminds me of that time. He complained about the multi fuel engine.
At 5.20 - The Muzzel Refrence System had nothing to do with any 'bend' in the barrel due to wind. (that was mitigated by the thermal sleeve you see on the barrel) it was purely an instantly available means of quickly realigning the sights graticule pattern to the origional boresighting done previously. During live firing we would do a quick MRS check every few rounds during a lull in firing. (align the depresion indicators, look through the sight, adjust the MBS mark back on to the orange MRS light, lock back up the graticule adjusters, and bob's yer uncle) It took about 20 seconds to do it. Every time a round was fired it would put the sight/barrel alignment out by a small amount.
Well said, very informative. I thought he was a bit off when he spoke about that actually.
I was a B1 gunner on a MkII Chieftain in 2RTR (second regiment after the 11th Hussars to be equipped with the tank). We used the .50 Browning ranging gun and found it to be quite accurate. Its main failing was the the amount of time, several seconds to fire off 4 bursts of 3 rounds then adjusting the lay of the main gun, using the 9 dot sight, according to the fall of the ranging shots. I never missed with Sabot - flat trajectory over two thousand yards made that pretty routine, and HESH could be expected to be on target by the second round at most at the same range. It was fun to fire but the laser sights made that gun into a wicked thing to have to face!
I rarely had issues with torsion bars replacement with the Bradleys and the Abrams. But I think most of the issues he is talking about had been resolved by the time they were made. There were SOME times it was a pain occasionally but not something we dreaded. But that could be said for most suspension issues. I have seen people fight with shocks absorbers on Bradleys for hours and get pissed at me when I roll up and smear grease into the mounting holes for the shocks and wrap the bolts with electrical tape. Then I just used the crews electric driver and rammed the bolts in. The grease would force the shocks to pop off with a loud snap lol. I figured this out on my own when I was going over Bradley BII and discovered a special tool that was supposed to do this same action. The problem with the special tool and thus why most people didn't know how to do this trick I guess was because the special tool was manually cranked and thus worked really slowly. But if you used a electric driver like the one the crews had to remove road wheels and deck bolts and rammed the bolts in at higher speeds the grease didn't have time to leak passed the bolt. Once I showed crews this trick their average shock replacement time went from 1HR to 10 minutes. It really was a handy thing to know about if you were a Bradley crew or mechanic.
Excellent video as usual.
As far as I'm aware the T-62 was the tank that used the 2A20 115mm gun throughout its production. The T-64 only had a 115mm smoothbore gun during the prototype stage and extremely early production. Virtually all T-64 tanks produced used the 125mm 2A46 gun, the difference in firepower is significant. The T-64 was a different, vastly superior tank to the T-62. The 115mm gun being used in T-62 to nullify the advantage of the 105mm L7 was an issue for NATO but the 125mm gun on T-64 was a far more serious concern. T-64s composite frontal aromor was also quite significant.
You're right. The initial T-64 had the same 2A20 gun than the T-62 and about 600 were made in 1966. Then, in 1967, the T-64A with the new 125mm gun entered service. The T-64 was a very advanced tank at the time and was quite revolutionary on many aspects like the introduction of composite armor like you said. It's my favorite tank. Interestingly, the T-64 also had a very troublesome engine at the time of introduction much like the Chieftain and it took some time before it got fixed.
I always loved the Chieftain too. It's a very beautiful tank. It might have had a lot of troubles with the engines, if the Cold War went hot, they would have needed the firepower and protection. The Germans and French would have regretted quickly to have fitted such light armor on their tanks.
I agree. The T-64 was a significant technological leap forward in tank development and would have been a serious opponent to any western equivalent, mechanical issues accepted. I'm quite fond of the T-64 and T-80 series of tanks and consider them largely underestimated and unappreciated by the majority of people when considered side by side with their historical rivals. The Russians weren't idiots by any means.
I agree with that last part too, while I'm fond of the Leopard 1 and AMX30 as well as the Chieftain of course I think the German and French approach to tank design at the time would have had quite a hard time with newer Soviet tanks, as would the Americans in the same time period to a lesser extent. The British had the right idea with the Chieftain even though the mechanical reliability was even worse than the early T-64. Plus it doesn't hurt that the Chieftain is an excellent looking machine.
One of the most interesting Tank chats so far, great work
The brakes were basically non-existent on most of them, the hydraulics for the steering got lots of air leaks, you needed to bleed, or you needed to pump the sticks before being able to turn. "Leaky Mcleakface". Loved them, hardly missed a target with ICLS and as a driver it was hands on unlike later with Chally 1 which was hands off in the engine compartment. Loved my Chally as well especially cross country driving, compairing to my old Chieftain. All in all I enjoyed every minute being in a Chieftain or Chally 1.
In the nationaal militair museum in the Netherlands in Soest we temporarily have a chieftain from the Berlin brigade with the blue white brown camouflage. It's there now because of a exhibition of the cold war. It's only temporarily so it will go out of the museum again. I only don't know when.
Great addition to your tank chats; David Willey you are an awesome explainer of all things armour! More tank chats please :) !!!
Centurian was used in the the 1st Gulf War in 1990-1 by 32 Armd Engineer Regiments RE in the support role, with dozer blade or mine plough, pipe fascines, class 60 trackway and Giant Viper.
Wow. A fascinating history. Thanks Mr. Wiley.
Always a beautiful tank
At 13:21 - wow, what a picture, what a tank
Big and accurate gun, thick armor, low silhouette......this is my favorite or almost favorite MBT of the cold war. Wish they got a better power plant, they certainly deserved it....
Low silhouette? Only if you were on a gun tank. I was an Armoured Engineer. Stick two maxi pipe fascines on top of a Chieftain AVRE, or launch a bridge from an AVLB and you end up sat at the bottom of the largest silhouette on the battlefield. "Please aim at bottom centre of the two giant vertical legs" when the bridge was at Top Dead Centre... :¬{(
They did, the later Marks had a much more powerful engine.
@Michael Hunter It's a long and complicated story Michael.Basically, after the L60 was installed it was decided to try and keep improving and modifying it rather than sourcing a new engine which would have been impossible to design, trial and fit in a fleet of nearly a thousand front line tanks. The constant upgrading programmes eventually produced a reasonably relaible though underpowered engine but the whole fiasco should never have happened to start with.
@@paddy864 Not the British army variants. They only ever had L60 packs.
@Andrés Valverde Well let's see: It is fully proof against 100mm Subcaliber ammo such as 3BM8, against 122mm subcaliber like 3BM11 on the T-10. The only things capable of challenging that Turret was the 115mm gun on the T-62 (which was effective against ANY NATO Tank of the 70s) and the 125mm on the T-64A. (Which however was scarce in the 70s)
Great video - Thanks for the memories! (an Ex- Chieftain/Challanger1 soldier)
the wet ammo bins also make great beer coolers :)
Loved getting the Train to Leeds back in the 80s & 90s, Going past the Barnbow Factory and seeing the Chieftains and Challengers lined up
and watching them on the test track and telling the transporter drivers that you could get a tank through there when blocking austhorpe road up
The MRS was to quicly realign the sight itself with the gun as the firing and recoil would very often put the boresighting out. when live firing we would do and MRS check quite frequently between engaging targets.
The book is one of the best I have ever read. I relived my service reading it
The hero of my youth, as a boy i played many times in this beast and in brit and Dutch Centurions when they were in Manouvre in our Village in lower saxony
i wish i had the money to buy one
Great fun
But limited use . Love to see a wife's expression ! .
Very innovative design. Amazing gun and armour. I think the armour is still formidable today.
Just such a beautiful and amazing vehicle. Makes me want to be British
I was a military kid in Paderborn during the seventies. My dad was a tankie in the QRIH. Our school had an open day at Barker Barracks. We all had to write about our trip. I wrote an article about the Chieftain, it got published in an army magazine. 😊
I was in 3RTR we took over from the QRIH at Paderborn and handed over to the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards in around 1986, Paderborn was a pretty good posting.
I grew up around these tanks in the 70s in Germany my father being with REME ( royal electrical mechanical engineers )
I remember the white smoke and climbing around and through these tanks as a small boy 😃
My father was not REME (Infantry then transferred to Int Corps, ended up serving almost 36 years years, from Private to Major), but I have memories of these tanks as well.
One was watching an armoured Battalion moving out for an exercise when I was on the school bus going to school (in Celle). Pretty impressive sight.
Problem was on the way back home we came across roughly half the vehicles where they had broken down, the crews sat next to them drinking tea :P. I seem to remember being told that if the whistle had gone up 1st Armoured had planned on only around half its vehicles getting into action. Late in her career the engine was not really that bad, lots of tweaking, but in the early days gods they broke down, a lot!
What a brilliant and also delicate / a bit cheerful video : ) Salut from Türkiye, cheers to David Willey! Solid lad he is : )
better to have it and not need it
than need it and not have it
peace
Edgy.
the cringe is real
ugh, yeah and we'll never meet again this young
The Russians are still afraid of the Chieftain - they wont introduce it into WoT.
Acharacle & Achiltibuie wot console has it
Had the old 1/35 Tamiya kit and loved it. Cool tank and thanks for those great videos.
me too. i think I built three all together!
I love the idea of Haynes manuals for tanks. They were in another video. For the man who has everything. I may need to get a couple to go with my military and firearms books. Great novelty item. The Chieftain was a fine tank, no question. The engine needed work though
The Haynes books are well worth the cost. Full of anecdotes, crew interviews and technical data and great photos!
Love it this Film. Could Please Keep them coming. For People who Unable to to The Tank Muesem
I must have lived in one of these old beasts for well over a year if you add up all the schemes, only ever had one pack lift so not too many problems with the engine but I must have got a good one. Front idler wheel could be a bit fragile, got through a few of those but easy enough to replace, did see a few half tracked on exercise though usually after a longer FTX in Germany though. I have fond memories of Chieftain and the later Challenger 1 :)
I spent my life in 432s with bv and then fox and CVRT. Saved walking and all fitted with a kettle. What more could the infantry want.
I was "on Chieftains" as an Armoured Engineer during the first Gulf War. By that time, Challenger 1 was the front line gun tank - we had to limp along behind the battle-group, desperately trying to keep up without breaking down. Usually unsuccessfully. But while it's reputation for unreliability was probably deserved, it was quite often stuff other than the engine that broke down to be fair. Dozer packs, mine ploughs, the hydraulic system for the engineer kit up top, and frequently radios and other electrical systems. But if the BV went u/s the crews would swiftly try to find a problem that rendered the vehicle 'non-battleworthy' until those all important BVs could be fixed
Simon are you ex 32 Armd Engr Regt b
y any chance? I did 4 years with them. 77 Sqn. Munsterlaager/Bergen Hohne
Nah - I was "Armoured Engineers Lite" at 23 Engr Regt, Osnabruck. 73 Fd Sqn, but my troop deployed as part of 39 Fd Sqn for war. Something about the Close Support Concept not fitting in with the Battle Group's formation in the desert, or some other "above my pay grade" guff. But at least we brought all our tanks home - not like 32 who blew three Centurion AVREs up in two days without any help at all from the enemy! ;¬{D
drove one of these in 91 with 9troop 77AES , 32AER.and spent many hours in BATUS doing pack lifts, spring packs, then commanded one later on ,fun times
One of my favourite tanks in history 😍
I'm glad none of the crews ever had Significant Emotional Events.
One of my favorite British tanks.
My Dad and his crew drank beer all day long in their tanks in the CA desert. never had to get out to pee LOL
Just an incredible machine.
Everything was sounding good, until they stuck a Leyland engine into it.
Leyland - the company that destroyed the British auto industry.
No, the management of the companies that were brought together to form Leyland destroyed the British auto industry. Leyland was the remnants of the corpse.
Absolute crap , I drive a triumph 2.5pi .this is British Leyland and it's 50 years old and still awesome ! I have had it for 31 years .
@@jasonhartley3256 Nice motor. My first car was a Triumph 1300 whish was very comfy but front suspension mounts rotted away. Have a 65 Herald Convertible these days for fun.
@@jasonhartley3256 absolute crap! You have an early Leyland vehicle, presumably you have never heard of later Leyland crap ie 'the Princess' absolute garbage which took 11 months to deliver to a customer, please don't defend Leyland,they are terrible and folded for that reason.
Excellent presentation David; very interesting. Thanks for that!
Is the floor of the museum reinforced? It must take some punishment from all that weight sat on it constantly
PS: Would love to see some tank interiors included in this series
Bovington started as a military base. So you could say the current buildings were designed around tanks. The museum is only part of the complex. I have no idea of the depth of floor concrete. Take this link with a pinch of salt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovington_Camp
•TheKaisTzar • I went in their chieftain today actually, it’s quite cramped and you can definitely feel how “70s” that particular tank is
But treads are good at spreading the weight ...
@@eastcorkcheeses6448 When you weigh more than 50 tons, it only prolongs the inevitable if the ground is too soft. In Vietnam, M48 and M60s did have wide tracks, but if they stopped for the night, their tanks would sink slowly and pin whoever was sleeping under it
Great fun to drive: Like a battleship surging over the hills. (900 Hp.)
at 03:08 the loader has made a BIG safety error in not pulling back on the loaders safety shield once the gun is loaded.
Not really,it won't fire unless the guard is "made"
@@stevenbreach2561 I know I was a gunner/loader on a Chieftain
Cheers for all the dits from the lads who served in them.
Lol the engine is the MOST important aspect of any vehicle. I can't believe that wasn't the first thing solved
You need to fully look into the story of the development of that engine and then you'll see why it took so long to get it halfway decent.
And the back decks stayed warm all night! Also lots of places to heat a can of rice pudding. Can’t say I miss all that really 🙂
Overall a good tank just let down by the engine. Anyone saying its a bad tank is like saying the panther was in ww2 as that also pretty unreliable
I was a REME mechanic with 4RTR back in the seventies,and I would like to point out a mistake in the description of the Chietains engine,it was a Vertically opposed 2 stroke supercharged engine and not Horizontally as pointed out in the decription. But the video was excellent
Didn't believe you but looked it up. True, I find it interesting, that opposed piston engines are most often built vertically, not horizontally.
I love the military mentality. "Survivability first because we've invested a lot of time in training these men". Not because they have families. Not because any casualties are to be avoided. Not even that the lesson of WW2 was as much about finite troop numbers as anything else, but because of the effort and money involved in their training.
Of course. Soldiers are always expendables. Main thing is the ROI. We are being treated as things and not living beings.
Proud to have served on it.
Chieftain looks like an early version of the more modern tanks like the M1 Abram & Challenger 1.
Part of that is because the Chally 1 is based on (or, probably a better description, 'evolved from') the Chieftain Mk5 via the export Shir 2. Challenger 2 is a similar evolution from Challenger 1, basically a turret and armour upgrade which approaches what an experienced British tank officer described to me as his ideal tank 'A Challenger Hull with an Abrams Turret'. There are various things about UK doctrine and tank design rules (all of which I agree with) that meant that we didn't go for something closer to the Abrams turret.
@@rickansell661 And quite soon that's what they'll be getting. Challenger 3 is going to have a smoothbore gun.
@@rickansell661The M1.Abrams is essentially already a Challenger 2 with an M1 Abrams turret.
The engine was a nightmare for REME, during manouvres in lower saxony, early 70s, i saw so many Chieftains with engine failures standing in the villages or towed by Centurion ARV or other Chieftains
Nevertheless the Chieftain was and is my fav. Tank, it was the best armoured Tank with a powrful Gun in the Nato and he is sooo beautyful
I remember that before Railroadtransportation they removed the Searchlight from the Turret and stowed beside the Gun on the Engine deck. I was never inside a Leopard1 but several times inside a Chieftain or Centurion
Good looking tank.
“Of Hector and Lysander and all uch great heros as these theres none that can compare to the Tow Row Tow Row Tow Row of the British Grenadiers.
Making a mess of course trying to remember the lines. We sang this little ditty in grade one.
Loving these vids❤️🇨🇦🤠
omg. Them brits and that fucking boiling Vessel!. in all videos i've seen about British tanks, i have seen or heard about the Tea maker. it's just amazing!☕☕☕☕. BTW what a beautiful machine(chieftain)😘
Dennis Sørensen tea is op pls nerf
Stephen Cooper hehe. maybe Tea Works for the brits. like spinach Works for popeye;)
Dennis Sørensen yes as a Brit can confirm
Although it does make tea. It can warm up MRE's quickly also. The crew never has to leave the tank if its unsafe to do so and still eat, drink and sleep all within the fighting compartment
okay. i thought you brits only ate biscuits and drink Tea.😉
A beatiful tank and a real war machine
6:10. the laser might reach out to ~6000 metres, but the fire control computer won't return a firing solution beyond 3000 metres. Challenger I had the same limitation, at least at first.
In fairness though, how often is a gunner going to find himself engaging a target even at 3000m?
My favourite tank as a kid! Beast.
Did British Leyland ever make anything that wasn't crap?
No.
Picket Lines?
Hahahaha you sarcy bugger
The place was run by the unions, making an actual good product was last on the list of priorities.
Mini
We also used the BV (boiling vessel) to heat our tinned 'compo' food. As the tins had to be pierced it often led to slightly greasy water left after the cooking so we got kinda used to oil slicks on our 'brews'.
we would put a dent in the tin,as the water gets hotter the tin would try to go back to its original shape but you just kept an eye on it....hey No grease
11:04 can't have them Brit tankers missing their cup of tea now can't we... :))
We weren't "tankers" lol We were "Tankies" wtfl
Reference the "boiling vessel" mentioned about 75% through: As an American, visited Hildesheim mid-1980s. British tanks' ability to heat water for tea in British tanks is a standout memory from the orientation we got there, as well as getting a demonstration from a brand new Challenger I.
I do like the Chieftain. I served with M-60A1 and later the M1A1 Tanks in the US Army. I would be proud to share the field of battle again with our British Brothers and Sisters any day but do me a favor put on a spot of coffee for us. Tea is fine but not enough kick, nor does the tank run well on it as our tanks need more Octane.
We loved serving with you guys in Berlin. Every time we exercised with your people they would bring cooked food up to us in the defensive positions. All we could give you guys in return was stew with onions and biscuits AB.
Very interesting ,informative upload ..makes me want to visit the tank museum and see all this metal for myself ..
Dear Wargaming,
Release this damn tank please!!!!!
Britain started to build beautifull tanks after WW2 :-) and as always superb video from the Tank museum
She just looks...right.
The first of the modern MBTs. Well at least the modern style of western MBTs.
Century
😉😉😉😉😉😉😉
1:36 the most epic selfiestick ever
What are those honeycomb looking things on either side of the main gun?
Jerris Mungai: They are for firing smoke-grenades.
Thank you!
Very good, very good, lots of information, and good points.
12:55 Kilroy was here
I can't exactly remember what year, but it was definitely pre summer 1966 and a group of us army cadets went on a jolly to Catterick driving centurions, the Sgt in charge couldn't contain himself and took us to a garage where there was a tank covered with a tarp, he uncovered it and there was his new tank, a chieftain and guess what he seemed most excited about, you've guessed it, the kettle!