Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo.html Please click the link to watch our other British Systems videos th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrA_rFwr_1Gk4JBymGPNxSJ.html Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Land videos th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LqHE6H1re0NTbEd4ZnzNCgn.html
My mum was engaged to a bloke who worked at Chobham, up the road from Chertsey (funny enough, that's where I was born) . Told me all about armour when it was still pretty secret. I was like 13 though.
One of these is sitting on a podium at the gate of our "tank refit and refurbishment facility" south of Tehran in some weird digital camo pain... I get to see it every day on my way to work...
I drove the first Chieftain issued to the 15/19th Hussars, around about 1968 I think, it was also the first vehicle with an engine I ever drove, not bad for a 15 year old.
the first Chief was issued to 5&9s in Tidworth, me and Paul Jones were the crew, we had it for familiarization, i remember getting to Fally and having the tankpark full of Chiefs and cents haha...those were the days
The chieftains engine problems were largely a result of the NATO design requirements of the time which wanted all armoured vehicles to be able to use any available fuel. These multi fuel engines were a disaster overly large over weight and under powered and while they could run on other fuels using anything other than diesel was insane as it reduced power damaged seals and clogged up the exhaust systems with carbon. As an example when the multi fuel engine in the 430 series APC's were replaced in the early 2000's the old engines were about 6ft tall 4ft wide and long the modern layland daff replacement was a standard small truck engine about the size of a small refrigerator had far more power and was incredibly reliable. Admittedly this represented about 50 years of engine development but that alone can't justify a two thirds reduction in size.
60 years old and it looks like it could hold its own on the battlefield today. In fact, the gun could hold its own on the battlefield today [with modern munitions]. Remarkable. (and the noise it makes is incredible)
I rly appreciate that whenever possible you include a section where the vehicle saw actuall combat and also summarize the context in which it was deployed.
I served in Germany in the early 1980's as an armoured infantry Soldier in Chieftain dominated Battle Groups and they were beasts, their drawback were mainly the packs which had followed the NATO requirement for duel fuel capability, pity really as this caused them many problems and they smoked like f*ck! But entering service in the late 1960's, their fellow NATO battle tanks were largely still Medium Tanks like the M48/M60's and Leopard 1's, later Leopard 2's, so they were definately a forerunner MBT, the 120 mm main armament also made a big difference in potentially taking on T64's and T72's, later Challenger 1 arrived in the mid 1980's as the Soviets upgraded their armour! The BAOR Chieftain equipped armoured regiments operating on the North German Plain, would also have been supported by Infantry Anti-Tank teams equipped with the Milan and US A10's flying from Hessisch Oldendorf! But the British tanks whilst not perfect always had well trained crews and were well supported by Armoured Engineers, Infantry, artillery and RAF Germany Harriers flying in a ground support role from RAF Gütersloh as well as Jaguars, Phantoms and Tornados flying from RAF Brüggen and Laarbruch, so they were not operating alone! Thanks for sharing! 👍🏼 🙏🏼
You missed out a salient point which would have had a significant impact had the Warsaw Pact steamed across the West German border. Chieftain tanks had a boiler for brewing up Britain's most secret and effective 'weapon,' TEA!!! lol :)
Many things are said about the Leopard but it has no combat record. In fact, under Turkish use the Leopard fared poorly against the Kurds. The only modern Western tanks to have seen combat are the Abrams and Challenger I & II. The Challengers, manned by superb crews, have an absolutely outstanding combat record.
@@TheKenji2221 Technically, the Leclerc did see combat in the 1st Gulf war, but French participation was quite minimal. There was no French ground participation in the second Gulf war. If you regard the Merkava as a "Western" tank, fine. Is Turkish weaponry also "Western"?
@@mwrkhan Turkish weaponry of course Western. They are designed and certificated by NATO standards. Also, the Leclerc did not see combat in the 1st Gulf War.
I have never understood the reputation of Leopard tanks. Given the almost complete lack of combat record it seems to be a reputation built on the frightening tanks Germany built in the second world war rather than anything actually achieved by the vehicle. It must be good because it has a cat name?
@@johnedwards1685 Except that the Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers were prone to frequent mechanical failure. Over engineered cathedrals on tracks, like the Leopard maybe?
I worked with the Chieftain when I joined and my experience was pretty bloody awful. I remember going on my first exercise and we got about 5 km down the road and the Chief came to a sudden halt . I was told by the commander to get used to this sort of scenario. The common saying with the Chieftain was that it's a brilliant tank as long as you breakdown in a good defensive position . I can tell you that the Chietain was most definitely not the shining knight of the BAOR and we were glad when the Challenger Mk.1 came into service . However with the passing of time my feelings for the Chiefy has softened .........though I would have preferred the Leopard 2 .
Early L60s were very unreliable but the later variants (think L609A onwards) were much more reliable and powerful. By then the Chieftain was getting old in the tooth though and needed more upgrades and a decent replacement.
Some notes on the ammunition and armour: While at the time it was believed that the chieftain's gun could defeat any soviet tank, it wasn't realised that the highly secretive T-64 (which entered service around the same time as chieftain) had composite front armour that was resistant to both the L11 and the L7 tank guns. This remained the case until the chieftains received the APDSFS round in 1982, well after both T-72 and T-80 had entered service. In addition, the chieftains supposedly impressive front armour was completely vulnerable to the T-64's 125mm gun even at long ranges. Stillbrew did somewhat resolve this problem, but again, this was not until 1986. That said, to be fair to the chieftain it's not so much that it was a bad tank, rather that the soviets had an incredibly good tanks from the 1960's until the 80's.
Also talking about rifled guns they get a rather bad rep, and it was not without good reason that the British kept them for so long. Rifled guns are awkward to use compared to smoothbores as they require more maintenance and make APDSFS ammunition harder to make, but these factors don't actually make the gun worse in combat. Sure it reduces the effectiveness of HEAT, but it also increases the effectiveness of HESH, which the British obviously preferred. That said, HESH can still be fired from a smoothbore to lesser effect, and it's cheaper to buy foreign ammunition than keep up with domestic development for your rifled design that has little modern advantage, hence why challenger 3 is receiving a smoothbore.
@@Mk1Male I'm talking from the declassified British intelligence reports from ~November 1978 that you can find at Bovington Tank Museum's archive department
You’re wrong about the British taking no notice of the APFSDS ammunition, the British knew about it but at the time and for a long time after the APDS spin stabilised round was far superior at long ranges than smooth bore APFSDS round which were affected by cross winds a long range and only now are both rounds comparable, that is why the longest range tank kill belongs to the challenger 1 with a rifled gun, that and the usefulness of the HESH round.
Another video!. Great a very nice channel that actually speak truth in tanks and other military stuff. Also Im still waiting for the Iranian Tomcats(Or the tomcat video). I cant wait for more content!
As a tankie in 1969/71 I was on the MK 3S Chiefs and let me tell you for crew comfort they were crap. Having been used to Cents where you could sleep on the backdecks, lift them to sit over the gearbox to get dry, preheat tins of grub on the aux gen's exhaust and had a little room in the turret to move around in. Chiefs had almost none of that, well they had some next to useless interior padding but that was it. The main thing we did not like them for though was the absolutely massive plume of 'smoke' when the engine was started in cold weather. That could be seen from miles away and gave away our positions on more than one scheme!
this was mostly becuase of the stupid dual fuel rule set by nato which only we adhered too, if we did out own thing cheiftain would most likely have had a much better engine.
@@ashleygoggs5679 True, but the gearbox wasn't that great either. I once watched the commander leave the turret unexpectedly when the gear box malfunctioned driving across the tank park and it changed down from 5th or 6th to 1st, dropping a gear every 1.7 secs. The driver got a broken nose as well. And don't get me talking about the main armament and vent tubes :-)
Iranian Chieftains have also been given to North Korea along with captured Iraqi T 72s in exchange of North Korean weapons. China also got some fair share of the data Iran gave to them in the form of British weapons assets. apparently the results was , The North koreans came with Pokpung Ho , although allegedly USSR sold 3 T 80 MBTs to NK. also M2020 MBT have some influence from the Chieftain in terms of the alleged crew Configuration which is eerily similar to the Chieftain. also Iraq used a lot of captured Chieftains against Gulf Nation in 1991 while the rest were sold to Jordan post ww2.
lots of ppl here say chief was bad...well my chief went for 3 years without and problems then it was sent back for rebuild. only problem was engine smoke on start up., 120 was amazing i hit a target in SUFIELD @3200 meters, first round just went over it then gunner (Mick Yomans RIP) drop 200 i stepped in and told him drop 100, service HESH got a turret hit
I can vouch for how poor that engine was. I served in 20 Armoured Bde in the early '70's and you often saw them broken down on ex. Detmold was a great posting though.
Lived on the patch opposite the gate up the hill. The apartments looked grim, but were big. I used to love as a kid, watching the Helicopters taking off from Detmold - and I was told stories about what was buried under the parade ground but I think that was all nonsense.
Detmold was a fantastic posting did 4 years at Hobart Bks late 80s early 90s both 4/7 and 15/19(Lothian Bks) in town. Lotta of tanks for small town hence the locals not keep on British Panzers..
@@fasteddie406 It was the Life Guards at Lothian, 9/12 Lancers at "Fleigerhörst" and the LI at Lemgo when I was there Eddie. Were the Krabben Keller and the George V still favourite haunts?
@@jimfrodsham7938 And RHG/D (Blues and Royals). We swapped every 4 years with our sister regiment The LG's between Detmold and Winsor. As mentioned above Detmold was a lovely posting and great town.
Most wonderful video about chieftain British made tanks several versions known mark's numbers...this enjoyed video shared by excellent weapons channel ( weapons detectives 🕵️♂️) ..this video clearly explained its characteristics extremely..thanks for sharing
Best true description of the Chieftain great investigational work. I feel the Chieftain gets hammered hard by the L60 engine in the early days but this engine came good on the13a and 14a engines - Check out my Chieftain MK10 that we are refurbishing I have put up couple of videos.
@@thecurlew7403 The 1100hp engine was the Rolls Royce Condor CV12, V12 4 stoke 4valve per cylinder 27 Litre Diesel. The Hull was completely redesigned to accept it (It was effectively a Challenger 1 Hull) The Chieftain had the L60 engine, 6 cylinder vertically opposed, 2 stroke, supercharged 19 litre diesel. When Chieftain was first designed it was planned to fit a V8 diesel made by Rolls Royce, then NATO decided to go Multi Fuel, Rolls Royce pulled out. Chieftain got the L60, sadly British Leyland didn't have the same quality levels as Rolls Royce, the rest is history. The reason why the Chieftain wasn't re-engined, money and the fact that the UK were already planning the replacement late 70's by a new MBT. Thanks to the Iranian revolution it was the Challenger 1 (THE BEST MBT during the 1991 Gulf War) which then led to Challenger 2.
@@aaronpentith130 My father drove a leyland lorry for a coal merchant all the rest of the fleet had leyland engines good for pulling usless for speed his was the only lorry with an Albion engine a flying machine could get 80 mph back in 1970 proves leyland engines were not much good in a tank RR would have been better.
Not sure why he says the British army didn't use Fin Stabilised APDS until the introduction of the smoothbore gun. As I recall, both Chieftain and Challenger fired fin from their rifled guns in the late 80s.
What killed the British/Israeli deal was the Arabs telling Britain to refrain from from that program with the Israelis or the Arabs would refuse to sell Britain oil. then again, that decision by Britain to not sell or allow the Israelis to build Chieftains under license is what led the Israelis to develop and produce the Merkava tank.
I remembre a test of the SS11 missile I read in a book long ago, an very early antitank missile, it pass through the Chieftain from front to rear. And in saumur museum there is a jeep with 4x SS11 missiles. And AMX13 light tank with 4x SS11 Missiles that makes this armor useless. It is why germany and France opteted for fast and agile tanks. Also the 120mm of the chieftain was only marginally powerfuller of the French 105 L56 gun. But quite a good success in export.
@Inwe David ...Can you provide proof, evidence or a source for the SS11 missile that was able to pass completely through a Chieftain MBT? I think you are confusing the French 105mm with the British L7 105mm main armament. Yes it was good but not as good as the L7. If you seriously think the French 105 would be close to any 120mm tank gun you are dreaming.
@@Slaktrax It was in a book in pre internet area and it is also why the challencher exist: SS11 Piece 600 mm of armor. AMX30 around 360 mm to 400mm on heat and more on APFSF. it is hard to find any value to the Chieftain but its gun goes around 380 to 500 for most modern ammunitiuon and the last L52 version, not that far supperior to the 105L56. Especially for chieftain time where gun penetrate 380MM with a 2 piece heavy round compare to the one piece 105 mm shell of the AMX30. If you have more source feel free to add them. In fact the 120 riflied is so good that even UK decide to no longer use it. Here the sources: SS11 old.weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/HH06%20-%20SS-11.html AMX30 gun : wiki.warthunder.com/CN-105-F1_(105_mm) wiki.warthunder.com/Challenger_2 fighting-vehicles.com/amx-30-tank/
the heavy tank was considered obsolete...but now , in the 21st century, all MBT are heavy.... about the Chieftain, probably the least reliable tanks of the post-war time, this is not just something annoying- it means the tank is not there when you need it. a tank with a great gun and good armour sitting in a workshop is not an asset, its a liability, tying down manpower and logistic capacity. when the dutch army tested the Chieftain against the Leopard, reliability was the number 1 requirement....for this very reason. when the tested Chieftain needed a replacement engine after 2400 km (broken piston!!??) that was that. they kept on testing (more than 2 month) but it was obvious that the Leopard was far more reliable.
Der beste bis zum erscheinen des Leo 2??? Er war langsam, er war sehr unzuverlässig.Unser Oberleutnant sagte immer als Geschütz eingraben. Im modernen Bewegungskrieg noch zu gebrauchen weil viel zu langsam.
This is true, on average, at the initial stages, when t 64 was just put into use, on average, three tanks failed every month in a military unit, due to improper operation
Chieftain was pretty poor as a MBT, problem was one word... "Leyland" who provided the awful 2 stroke diesel that powered it. It constantly broke down and was a PITA to keep running when it was operational.
Chieftain was (mainly) intended to fight a defensive battle and use superior gunnery and hull down/ambush to impose attrition on WP attackers. There was also a strong focus on infantry support. The modern PC woke army would like to deny any rumours that Chieftain drivers routinely took the concept of drunk driving to a whole new level...
A big tank with a big gun but slow, little maneuverable, with a speed on road lower than those of other tanks in all terrain. A design that is furiously reminiscent of the Tiger and Koenig Tiger tanks. Virtually obsolete against faster and more maneuverable enemies. But good English engines also should not seek reliability at this time. Having owned a Jaguar in the 70s and 80s in terms of reliability, I know it was really a disaster.
It was really a defensive tank, designed to stop Soviet tank armies on the North German Plain where survivability and accurate hitting power would be more important than mobility. British doctrine was to channel Soviet armour into killing grounds on the east bank of the Weser, where Chieftan, artillery and air assets could hit them hard. As a tank it was a continuation of Centurion, which was also slow, well armoured with a big hitting gun and we know how highly successful that was in action. Chieftan was the forerunner for the big gun western tank.
@@xjack2312 All true, but it would have had to go on the offensive and conduct demanding maneuvering at some point to take back ground or push Warsaw Pact forces out of West Germany, right? That's when it would have suffered. No thanks to its unreliable and under powered engine. The British had an ironic saying for the Chieftain "it is a great tank... as long as it breaks down behind an entrenched position".
@@xjack2312 the reliability of these devices was a real problem, an anti-tank gun costing millions of pounds against a jeep costing a few thousand pounds and an inexpensive Milan-type missile too. With reliability that no longer needs to be dismantled, incomparable mobility, discretion that a 55-ton juggernaut cannot have and results close to 80% of shots on goal. Strangely, I choose the Jeep or a light, fast, low-cost tank with a big gun. The choice of Sherman or T-34 faces to the German monster of WW2. And I don't think spoil anyone by saying that the allies won this war.
The chieftain got buggered a host of issues Came in too late as M60 and T55 were bought the most Iranian chieftain got thrashed by iraqi T 62 and T 72. Iraq didnt even want chieftains
I mean, sure boast about the smoothbore... but the Challenger 1 rifled barrel still holds the record for longest tank-tank kill of 15km. The Leaopard2 is still a concept tank since its never been tested in actual combat.
This is when we had a tank army of 900 of these !! Today we may have the best MBT in the world, but the Germans had the Tigers and that didn't end well !! Ist rat nation with third world tank army !!
Yep! And about to be slashed even further... I understand the policy as an island nation of focusing on navy and air force, but our armoured forces components are pitifully under strength.
I've not seen someone deep throat the chieftain this badly and this incorrectly. The 120mm on the Chieftain couldn't penetrate its contemporary Soviet tanks (the T-64 and T-72) at non-suicidal combat ranges. It was also more poorly armored than most T-72 variants until it got its Stillbrew package. The Chieftain was designed to die slowly, not even really compete. By the time the T-64B came out it was woefully undergunned. The british love of rifled guns, up until the most recent modification for the Challenger 2, has hamstrung **all their tanks** in combat effectiveness since the late 1970s unless they're fighting much older tanks (hey Desert Storm and Telic 1).
good armour and a good gun make it look great on paper. however a tank that is broken down is not only no use, it also costs extra manpower and supplies. that was the problem with the chieftain, especially the first 10 or 15 years. it had nothing to do with the multi-fuel requirement,which was abandoned quite soon anyway, but with the completely incapable leyland engineers. just an example, after years they found out one of the 2 radiators did not do much, because it could not be bled!!!there always was several gallons of air in it...the dutch army tested the chieftainagainst the leopard 1, and when they had to do the first engine swap (after 2400 km!!) they were apalled about the oil leaks, the bad workmanship, bad design of several parts, and the obvoius lack of quality control. then it was clear the dutch army was not going to choose chieftain.
@@liverpoolscottish6430 the Hitler Youth and the Volksturm kept the Sovs out of Berlin for 2 weeks. We had a complete Allied division. Every day we could keep the EW station on the Teufelsberg working was a big advantage: also the NVA had allocated 10 divisions to take Berlin, so we were occupying 3x as many Warsaw Pact divisions as any of the divisions in 1 (BR) Corps. In other words, from a military version it was a good investment
@@bob_the_bomb4508 I think you'll find there were quite a few SS units involved in the defence of Berlin as well as the coffin dodgers and teenagers. Interesting comment though. I suspect the Russians would have done one of two things- either blitz Berlin with tactical nuclear wpns, or just bypass it and contain it.
@@liverpoolscottish6430 after the wall went down the classified documents of the NVA became available. That’s how it was confirmed in the public domain was that the plan was to let the NVA ‘liberate’ their own capital.
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos
th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo.html
Please click the link to watch our other British Systems videos
th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrA_rFwr_1Gk4JBymGPNxSJ.html
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Land videos
th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LqHE6H1re0NTbEd4ZnzNCgn.html
You have to admit it was a very nice looking tank
Brings back memories. Spent many an hour working on Chieftain's and Challenger 1's at MVEE Chertsey in the early 80's.
Poor sod you have my sympathy,,Thank god i was a B mech
My mum was engaged to a bloke who worked at Chobham, up the road from Chertsey (funny enough, that's where I was born) . Told me all about armour when it was still pretty secret. I was like 13 though.
One of these is sitting on a podium at the gate of our "tank refit and refurbishment facility" south of Tehran in some weird digital camo pain... I get to see it every day on my way to work...
So you are the Mossad Agent, who keeps blowing up Iranian Equipment 🤫
@@comentedonakeyboard I travel along the road in front of the facility... 🤫
im interested in the Digital camo your saying
Is there a picture of the chieftain please
I drove the first Chieftain issued to the 15/19th Hussars, around about 1968 I think, it was also the first vehicle with an engine I ever drove, not bad for a 15 year old.
the first Chief was issued to 5&9s in Tidworth, me and Paul Jones were the crew, we had it for familiarization, i remember getting to Fally and having the tankpark full of Chiefs and cents haha...those were the days
@@terryhagan7694 I went to Warminster or very near by, the hanger was largely full of Cents', would 89 be about the right time?
@@T8Hants our first Chief was issued in Tidworth about 1968
For everybody who were on chieftain give me your reg numbers I may have photos of them
The Chieftain is my favorite Main Battle Tank.
The chieftains engine problems were largely a result of the NATO design requirements of the time which wanted all armoured vehicles to be able to use any available fuel. These multi fuel engines were a disaster overly large over weight and under powered and while they could run on other fuels using anything other than diesel was insane as it reduced power damaged seals and clogged up the exhaust systems with carbon. As an example when the multi fuel engine in the 430 series APC's were replaced in the early 2000's the old engines were about 6ft tall 4ft wide and long the modern layland daff replacement was a standard small truck engine about the size of a small refrigerator had far more power and was incredibly reliable. Admittedly this represented about 50 years of engine development but that alone can't justify a two thirds reduction in size.
60 years old and it looks like it could hold its own on the battlefield today. In fact, the gun could hold its own on the battlefield today [with modern munitions]. Remarkable. (and the noise it makes is incredible)
I rly appreciate that whenever possible you include a section where the vehicle saw actuall combat and also summarize the context in which it was deployed.
It was impossible to camouflage though. No matter how hard we tried, Wolfgang could always find us on Soltau…
I served in Germany in the early 1980's as an armoured infantry Soldier in Chieftain dominated Battle Groups and they were beasts, their drawback were mainly the packs which had followed the NATO requirement for duel fuel capability, pity really as this caused them many problems and they smoked like f*ck! But entering service in the late 1960's, their fellow NATO battle tanks were largely still Medium Tanks like the M48/M60's and Leopard 1's, later Leopard 2's, so they were definately a forerunner MBT, the 120 mm main armament also made a big difference in potentially taking on T64's and T72's, later Challenger 1 arrived in the mid 1980's as the Soviets upgraded their armour! The BAOR Chieftain equipped armoured regiments operating on the North German Plain, would also have been supported by Infantry Anti-Tank teams equipped with the Milan and US A10's flying from Hessisch Oldendorf! But the British tanks whilst not perfect always had well trained crews and were well supported by Armoured Engineers, Infantry, artillery and RAF Germany Harriers flying in a ground support role from RAF Gütersloh as well as Jaguars, Phantoms and Tornados flying from RAF Brüggen and Laarbruch, so they were not operating alone! Thanks for sharing! 👍🏼 🙏🏼
They needed to well supported ,,they kept breaking down ..Not one of R.E.M.E's favourite vehicles
You missed out a salient point which would have had a significant impact had the Warsaw Pact steamed across the West German border. Chieftain tanks had a boiler for brewing up Britain's most secret and effective 'weapon,' TEA!!! lol :)
@@liverpoolscottish6430 ...Very fair point ,as they would have been nothing to do as the warsaw pact steam rolled by them ,to get to the main prize
@@liverpoolscottish6430 Hmmmm.. Don't the Russians also drink a lot of tea? Samovar equipped AFVs?
@@TheArgieH I was JOKING :)
Many things are said about the Leopard but it has no combat record. In fact, under Turkish use the Leopard fared poorly against the Kurds. The only modern Western tanks to have seen combat are the Abrams and Challenger I & II. The Challengers, manned by superb crews, have an absolutely outstanding combat record.
Uh. You forgot the Leclerc and Merkava also saw combat
@@TheKenji2221 Technically, the Leclerc did see combat in the 1st Gulf war, but French participation was quite minimal. There was no French ground participation in the second Gulf war. If you regard the Merkava as a "Western" tank, fine. Is Turkish weaponry also "Western"?
@@mwrkhan Turkish weaponry of course Western. They are designed and certificated by NATO standards. Also, the Leclerc did not see combat in the 1st Gulf War.
I have never understood the reputation of Leopard tanks. Given the almost complete lack of combat record it seems to be a reputation built on the frightening tanks Germany built in the second world war rather than anything actually achieved by the vehicle. It must be good because it has a cat name?
@@johnedwards1685 Except that the Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers were prone to frequent mechanical failure. Over engineered cathedrals on tracks, like the Leopard maybe?
I worked with the Chieftain when I joined and my experience was pretty bloody awful.
I remember going on my first exercise and we got about 5 km down the road and the Chief came to a sudden halt . I was told by the commander to get used to this sort of scenario. The common saying with the Chieftain was that it's a brilliant tank as long as you breakdown in a good defensive position . I can tell you that the Chietain was most definitely not the shining knight of the BAOR and we were glad when the Challenger Mk.1 came into service . However with the passing of time my feelings for the Chiefy has softened .........though I would have preferred the Leopard 2 .
Early L60s were very unreliable but the later variants (think L609A onwards) were much more reliable and powerful. By then the Chieftain was getting old in the tooth though and needed more upgrades and a decent replacement.
Some notes on the ammunition and armour:
While at the time it was believed that the chieftain's gun could defeat any soviet tank, it wasn't realised that the highly secretive T-64 (which entered service around the same time as chieftain) had composite front armour that was resistant to both the L11 and the L7 tank guns. This remained the case until the chieftains received the APDSFS round in 1982, well after both T-72 and T-80 had entered service.
In addition, the chieftains supposedly impressive front armour was completely vulnerable to the T-64's 125mm gun even at long ranges. Stillbrew did somewhat resolve this problem, but again, this was not until 1986.
That said, to be fair to the chieftain it's not so much that it was a bad tank, rather that the soviets had an incredibly good tanks from the 1960's until the 80's.
Also talking about rifled guns they get a rather bad rep, and it was not without good reason that the British kept them for so long.
Rifled guns are awkward to use compared to smoothbores as they require more maintenance and make APDSFS ammunition harder to make, but these factors don't actually make the gun worse in combat. Sure it reduces the effectiveness of HEAT, but it also increases the effectiveness of HESH, which the British obviously preferred.
That said, HESH can still be fired from a smoothbore to lesser effect, and it's cheaper to buy foreign ammunition than keep up with domestic development for your rifled design that has little modern advantage, hence why challenger 3 is receiving a smoothbore.
Stop playing video games and look at the real world of tanks. You're talking nonsense.
@@Mk1Male I'm talking from the declassified British intelligence reports from ~November 1978 that you can find at Bovington Tank Museum's archive department
You’re wrong about the British taking no notice of the APFSDS ammunition, the British knew about it but at the time and for a long time after the APDS spin stabilised round was far superior at long ranges than smooth bore APFSDS round which were affected by cross winds a long range and only now are both rounds comparable, that is why the longest range tank kill belongs to the challenger 1 with a rifled gun, that and the usefulness of the HESH round.
*Well done video production. I sure like it, good job!!!*
Another video!. Great a very nice channel that actually speak truth in tanks and other military stuff. Also Im still waiting for the Iranian Tomcats(Or the tomcat video). I cant wait for more content!
👌👌👌🙏🙏🙏
As a tankie in 1969/71 I was on the MK 3S Chiefs and let me tell you for crew comfort they were crap. Having been used to Cents where you could sleep on the backdecks, lift them to sit over the gearbox to get dry, preheat tins of grub on the aux gen's exhaust and had a little room in the turret to move around in. Chiefs had almost none of that, well they had some next to useless interior padding but that was it. The main thing we did not like them for though was the absolutely massive plume of 'smoke' when the engine was started in cold weather. That could be seen from miles away and gave away our positions on more than one scheme!
this was mostly becuase of the stupid dual fuel rule set by nato which only we adhered too, if we did out own thing cheiftain would most likely have had a much better engine.
@@ashleygoggs5679 True, but the gearbox wasn't that great either. I once watched the commander leave the turret unexpectedly when the gear box malfunctioned driving across the tank park and it changed down from 5th or 6th to 1st, dropping a gear every 1.7 secs. The driver got a broken nose as well. And don't get me talking about the main armament and vent tubes :-)
@@Alan316100 That gear dropping was actually a safety feature that slowed and stopped the tank deliberately........
@@thewomble1509 I know, but changing down every 1.7 seconds tended to really throw the crew around, painfully😁
@@Alan316100 Yes, I can imagine. What was up with the main gun?
Iranian Chieftains have also been given to North Korea along with captured Iraqi T 72s in exchange of North Korean weapons. China also got some fair share of the data Iran gave to them in the form of British weapons assets. apparently the results was , The North koreans came with Pokpung Ho , although allegedly USSR sold 3 T 80 MBTs to NK. also M2020 MBT have some influence from the Chieftain in terms of the alleged crew Configuration which is eerily similar to the Chieftain. also Iraq used a lot of captured Chieftains against Gulf Nation in 1991 while the rest were sold to Jordan post ww2.
* i mean post gulf war ..sorry
May you please provide the source of this information. Would like to read it.
@John Milton The chieftain is now being actively modernized in Iraq, and according to them, the car has a resource for modification
Enjoyable to watch and informative!
lots of ppl here say chief was bad...well my chief went for 3 years without and problems then it was sent back for rebuild. only problem was engine smoke on start up., 120 was amazing i hit a target in SUFIELD @3200 meters, first round just went over it then gunner (Mick Yomans RIP) drop 200 i stepped in and told him drop 100, service HESH got a turret hit
with a decent motor this tank is a beast
Interesting video
I love your tank videos. Tanks for sharing
I can vouch for how poor that engine was. I served in 20 Armoured Bde in the early '70's and you often saw them broken down on ex. Detmold was a great posting though.
Lived on the patch opposite the gate up the hill. The apartments looked grim, but were big. I used to love as a kid, watching the Helicopters taking off from Detmold - and I was told stories about what was buried under the parade ground but I think that was all nonsense.
@@mwnciboo Hakedalh? They were all brand new quarters when we moved in, we were the first in our flat. There was still concrete dust on the floor. 😀
Detmold was a fantastic posting did 4 years at Hobart Bks late 80s early 90s both 4/7 and 15/19(Lothian Bks) in town. Lotta of tanks for small town hence the locals not keep on British Panzers..
@@fasteddie406 It was the Life Guards at Lothian, 9/12 Lancers at "Fleigerhörst" and the LI at Lemgo when I was there Eddie. Were the Krabben Keller and the George V still favourite haunts?
@@jimfrodsham7938 And RHG/D (Blues and Royals). We swapped every 4 years with our sister regiment The LG's between Detmold and Winsor. As mentioned above Detmold was a lovely posting and great town.
Sounds like a very good design, given the era it was introduced.
Great content 👍🏻👍🏻
Great video thanks for sharing 👌👍
The background music, is it "Its Long way to Tipperary?".
@MrLeeleeeeeeee: Yes.
Most wonderful video about chieftain British made tanks several versions known mark's numbers...this enjoyed video shared by excellent weapons channel ( weapons detectives 🕵️♂️) ..this video clearly explained its characteristics extremely..thanks for sharing
Best true description of the Chieftain great investigational work. I feel the Chieftain gets hammered hard by the L60 engine in the early days but this engine came good on the13a and 14a engines - Check out my Chieftain MK10 that we are refurbishing I have put up couple of videos.
Why did export cheiftain have a
11 hundred horse power engine while boar had a 700np power .
@@thecurlew7403
The 1100hp engine was the Rolls Royce Condor CV12, V12 4 stoke 4valve per cylinder 27 Litre Diesel.
The Hull was completely redesigned to accept it (It was effectively a Challenger 1 Hull)
The Chieftain had the L60 engine, 6 cylinder vertically opposed, 2 stroke, supercharged 19 litre diesel.
When Chieftain was first designed it was planned to fit a V8 diesel made by Rolls Royce, then NATO decided to go Multi Fuel, Rolls Royce pulled out.
Chieftain got the L60, sadly British Leyland didn't have the same quality levels as Rolls Royce, the rest is history.
The reason why the Chieftain wasn't re-engined, money and the fact that the UK were already planning the replacement late 70's by a new MBT.
Thanks to the Iranian revolution it was the Challenger 1 (THE BEST MBT during the 1991 Gulf War) which then led to Challenger 2.
@@aaronpentith130 My father drove a leyland lorry for a coal merchant all the rest of the fleet had leyland engines good for pulling usless for speed his was the only lorry with an Albion engine a flying machine could get 80 mph back in 1970 proves leyland engines were not much good in a tank RR would have been better.
Good channel
Never ever heard an Iranian and Iraqi say (EYEran) or (EYEraq). Try earRAN or earRAQ.
Not sure why he says the British army didn't use Fin Stabilised APDS until the introduction of the smoothbore gun.
As I recall, both Chieftain and Challenger fired fin from their rifled guns in the late 80s.
It could lay down withering fire from the last position it broke down
The thing was a horror to work on. The best that could happen was liners failed on the last day of a med man
What killed the British/Israeli deal was the Arabs telling Britain to refrain from from that program with the Israelis or the Arabs would refuse to sell Britain oil. then again, that decision by Britain to not sell or allow the Israelis to build Chieftains under license is what led the Israelis to develop and produce the Merkava tank.
The Centurions were the real legends after WW2
I remembre a test of the SS11 missile I read in a book long ago, an very early antitank missile, it pass through the Chieftain from front to rear. And in saumur museum there is a jeep with 4x SS11 missiles. And AMX13 light tank with 4x SS11 Missiles that makes this armor useless.
It is why germany and France opteted for fast and agile tanks. Also the 120mm of the chieftain was only marginally powerfuller of the French 105 L56 gun. But quite a good success in export.
@Inwe David ...Can you provide proof, evidence or a source for the SS11 missile that was able to pass completely through a Chieftain MBT?
I think you are confusing the French 105mm with the British L7 105mm main armament. Yes it was good but not as good as the L7.
If you seriously think the French 105 would be close to any 120mm tank gun you are dreaming.
@@Slaktrax It was in a book in pre internet area and it is also why the challencher exist:
SS11 Piece 600 mm of armor.
AMX30 around 360 mm to 400mm on heat and more on APFSF.
it is hard to find any value to the Chieftain but its gun goes around 380 to 500 for most modern ammunitiuon and the last L52 version, not that far supperior to the 105L56.
Especially for chieftain time where gun penetrate 380MM with a 2 piece heavy round compare to the one piece 105 mm shell of the AMX30.
If you have more source feel free to add them.
In fact the 120 riflied is so good that even UK decide to no longer use it.
Here the sources:
SS11
old.weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/HH06%20-%20SS-11.html
AMX30 gun :
wiki.warthunder.com/CN-105-F1_(105_mm)
wiki.warthunder.com/Challenger_2
fighting-vehicles.com/amx-30-tank/
@@inwedavid6919 Proof not Waffle !
@@trevorhart545 anyway the SS11 Pierce 600mm of armour, far more than what the chieftain offer.
@@inwedavid6919 WT as a credible source ??
Mmmmm ok.
the heavy tank was considered obsolete...but now , in the 21st century, all MBT are heavy.... about the Chieftain, probably the least reliable tanks of the post-war time, this is not just something annoying- it means the tank is not there when you need it. a tank with a great gun and good armour sitting in a workshop is not an asset, its a liability, tying down manpower and logistic capacity. when the dutch army tested the Chieftain against the Leopard, reliability was the number 1 requirement....for this very reason. when the tested Chieftain needed a replacement engine after 2400 km (broken piston!!??) that was that. they kept on testing (more than 2 month) but it was obvious that the Leopard was far more reliable.
Der beste bis zum erscheinen des Leo 2??? Er war langsam, er war sehr unzuverlässig.Unser Oberleutnant sagte immer als Geschütz eingraben. Im modernen Bewegungskrieg noch zu gebrauchen weil viel zu langsam.
If only the engine being removed was an L60 and not a K60
Made me laugh
Thanks 🙏🙏🙏
Good vid
Incidently the T-64 had a similar Engine, with similar Reliability Problems.
This is true, on average, at the initial stages, when t 64 was just put into use, on average, three tanks failed every month in a military unit, due to improper operation
Britain's aviation industry was also world leading but it's now pretty much nothing.
BAE systems s hardly nothing
@@yaronk1069 Big concern but not really involved in aircraft
@@georgebarnes8163 yeah bae system is more known nowadays by artillery
M777 for example
LOL what world leading still BAE ffs the Tempest and Euro fighter Typhoon
And also i would say they are known for ships and weapons and systems not Artillery
Gorgeous tank
Certainly not the best ever British tank, but I love the fact that - face-on - the earlier versions looked like "The Predator".
What's that crane vehicle at 3:05?
Chieftain combat record?
Chieftain was pretty poor as a MBT, problem was one word... "Leyland" who provided the awful 2 stroke diesel that powered it. It constantly broke down and was a PITA to keep running when it was operational.
It wasn't Leylands fault that the L60 was a poor unit (initially). read the Haynes Chieftain tank manual for the full story of the L60 development.
However it did sound great..... If a tad loud!
The tank was first designed by the UK
And what does Nicolas Moran call himself???
The Chieftain!!!
Clever design, especially with the Armour. But it's still too heavy!
Do a video on bramhmos missile 🙂
Halim Talafuka,Alhamdulillahirobbil Alamiin,Allahumma Amiin........
Chieftain was (mainly) intended to fight a defensive battle and use superior gunnery and hull down/ambush to impose attrition on WP attackers. There was also a strong focus on infantry support.
The modern PC woke army would like to deny any rumours that Chieftain drivers routinely took the concept of drunk driving to a whole new level...
ITS FINE BUT DONT SWITCH THE BLOODY ENGINE OFF BIT CLOUDY ON RESTART .
A big tank with a big gun but slow, little maneuverable, with a speed on road lower than those of other tanks in all terrain.
A design that is furiously reminiscent of the Tiger and Koenig Tiger tanks.
Virtually obsolete against faster and more maneuverable enemies.
But good English engines also should not seek reliability at this time.
Having owned a Jaguar in the 70s and 80s in terms of reliability, I know it was really a disaster.
It was really a defensive tank, designed to stop Soviet tank armies on the North German Plain where survivability and accurate hitting power would be more important than mobility. British doctrine was to channel Soviet armour into killing grounds on the east bank of the Weser, where Chieftan, artillery and air assets could hit them hard. As a tank it was a continuation of Centurion, which was also slow, well armoured with a big hitting gun and we know how highly successful that was in action. Chieftan was the forerunner for the big gun western tank.
@@xjack2312 All true, but it would have had to go on the offensive and conduct demanding maneuvering at some point to take back ground or push Warsaw Pact forces out of West Germany, right? That's when it would have suffered. No thanks to its unreliable and under powered engine. The British had an ironic saying for the Chieftain "it is a great tank... as long as it breaks down behind an entrenched position".
@@xjack2312 the reliability of these devices was a real problem, an anti-tank gun costing millions of pounds against a jeep costing a few thousand pounds and an inexpensive Milan-type missile too. With reliability that no longer needs to be dismantled, incomparable mobility, discretion that a 55-ton juggernaut cannot have and results close to 80% of shots on goal.
Strangely, I choose the Jeep or a light, fast, low-cost tank with a big gun.
The choice of Sherman or T-34 faces to the German monster of WW2. And I don't think spoil anyone by saying that the allies won this war.
@@xjack2312 question especially on the term defensive tank
Shiny knight with a knackered Horse that cannot move....Chieftain's power packs were terrible.
It's 007's revolver
The chieftain got buggered a host of issues
Came in too late as M60 and T55 were bought the most
Iranian chieftain got thrashed by iraqi T 62 and T 72. Iraq didnt even want chieftains
This is due to the poor training of the Iranian crews on the Chieftain
I mean, sure boast about the smoothbore... but the Challenger 1 rifled barrel still holds the record for longest tank-tank kill of 15km.
The Leaopard2 is still a concept tank since its never been tested in actual combat.
the leopard 2 was used in Afghanistan by the Dutch and Canadians and in Kosovo by the german army
This is when we had a tank army of 900 of these !! Today we may have the best MBT in the world, but the Germans had the Tigers and that didn't end well !! Ist rat nation with third world tank army !!
Yep! And about to be slashed even further... I understand the policy as an island nation of focusing on navy and air force, but our armoured forces components are pitifully under strength.
I've not seen someone deep throat the chieftain this badly and this incorrectly. The 120mm on the Chieftain couldn't penetrate its contemporary Soviet tanks (the T-64 and T-72) at non-suicidal combat ranges. It was also more poorly armored than most T-72 variants until it got its Stillbrew package.
The Chieftain was designed to die slowly, not even really compete. By the time the T-64B came out it was woefully undergunned. The british love of rifled guns, up until the most recent modification for the Challenger 2, has hamstrung **all their tanks** in combat effectiveness since the late 1970s unless they're fighting much older tanks (hey Desert Storm and Telic 1).
@@john-xo9mg
Doesn't work against composite armor.
Guess what both those tanks have?
good armour and a good gun make it look great on paper. however a tank that is broken down is not only no use, it also costs extra manpower and supplies. that was the problem with the chieftain, especially the first 10 or 15 years. it had nothing to do with the multi-fuel requirement,which was abandoned quite soon anyway, but with the completely incapable leyland engineers. just an example, after years they found out one of the 2 radiators did not do much, because it could not be bled!!!there always was several gallons of air in it...the dutch army tested the chieftainagainst the leopard 1, and when they had to do the first engine swap (after 2400 km!!) they were apalled about the oil leaks, the bad workmanship, bad design of several parts, and the obvoius lack of quality control. then it was clear the dutch army was not going to choose chieftain.
Some knight. His horse was unfortunately rather weak and lame.
The leopards are over rated imo
Good tank crap engine
Pog
in brief great tank shit engine.
The urban camo was on the tanks (and APCs) of the Berlin Brigade.
The Forlorn Hope! I wouldn't have rated the chances of the Berlin Brigade too highly in the event of a conflict.
@@liverpoolscottish6430 the Hitler Youth and the Volksturm kept the Sovs out of Berlin for 2 weeks. We had a complete Allied division. Every day we could keep the EW station on the Teufelsberg working was a big advantage: also the NVA had allocated 10 divisions to take Berlin, so we were occupying 3x as many Warsaw Pact divisions as any of the divisions in 1 (BR) Corps. In other words, from a military version it was a good investment
@@bob_the_bomb4508 I think you'll find there were quite a few SS units involved in the defence of Berlin as well as the coffin dodgers and teenagers. Interesting comment though. I suspect the Russians would have done one of two things- either blitz Berlin with tactical nuclear wpns, or just bypass it and contain it.
@@liverpoolscottish6430 after the wall went down the classified documents of the NVA became available. That’s how it was confirmed in the public domain was that the plan was to let the NVA ‘liberate’ their own capital.