Jump to content


Photo

Chieftain Questions


  • Please log in to reply
1256 replies to this topic

#121 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,901 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 27 July 2014 - 0436 AM

 

The later Centurions were pretty good for an all steel tank though.  Though from the picture above, even without Stillbrew, it's pretty thick along the direct front of the turret; the sides not so much.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to 200mm at whatever inclination the slope is (which would put it in the high 200s).

 

Which isn't enough against the 115mm APFSDS as we all know (BM-4 is around 270mm IIRC), but it's still pretty good for a "big tank".

Turret 195mm @ 60d = 390mm

Hull     120mm @ 72d = 388mm

 

DKTanker, if it is for Chieftain (as I guess), this data are obsolote. Glacis is circa 85 mm, turret front is circa 140-150 mm. A little more than equivalent for 120 mm at 60 degrees like FV 4201 was designed for.


Edited by Przezdzieblo, 27 July 2014 - 0507 AM.

  • 0

#122 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,355 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 27 July 2014 - 0738 AM

 

Hull     120mm @ 72d = 388mm

 

upper hull front 85-88mm.

4htx.jpg

8uvw.jpg

lower hull front 76mm

6viw.jpg


  • 0

#123 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 27 July 2014 - 1017 AM

So, Chieftain is about 300mm on the turret front with the 150mm figure.  280mm with 140.

 

The latter could possibly be penetrated by 115mm BM-4 on a good day.  I doubt it'd penetrate the former in most cases.

 

Pretty marginal for 115mm.  Easy for 125mm though.  I can see Stillbrew possibly protecting against BM22.


  • 0

#124 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:B E L G I U M
  • Interests:Military Intelligence, various

Posted 27 July 2014 - 1642 PM

So, Chieftain is about 300mm on the turret front with the 150mm figure.  280mm with 140.

 

 

Turret front thickness often differs depending on the source :

 

Russian

Swedish

 

 

Max H has measured the turret front thickness with its ultrasonic probe but unfortunately he cannot share the results.


  • 0

#125 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 27 July 2014 - 2347 PM

Are the Max H figures going to be for WoT?  If so, I guess we can wait till then.

 

The figure would be interesting, as it can tell us what Stillbrew was really made for.  Some books say 125mm, whilst people online tend to go with 115mm.  Granted, the latter can be in books too, but I only have the cheap Osprey ones.


  • 0

#126 Dave Clark

Dave Clark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 28 July 2014 - 0559 AM

Are the Max H figures going to be for WoT?  If so, I guess we can wait till then.

 

The figure would be interesting, as it can tell us what Stillbrew was really made for.  Some books say 125mm, whilst people online tend to go with 115mm.  Granted, the latter can be in books too, but I only have the cheap Osprey ones.

 

Soldat und Technik 1/90 in the column "Unsere Leser wollen wissen" (our readers want to know) states that Stillbrew was intended for protection against 125mm.


  • 0

#127 jmcmtank

jmcmtank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 736 posts

Posted 28 July 2014 - 0625 AM

 

Are the Max H figures going to be for WoT?  If so, I guess we can wait till then.

 

The figure would be interesting, as it can tell us what Stillbrew was really made for.  Some books say 125mm, whilst people online tend to go with 115mm.  Granted, the latter can be in books too, but I only have the cheap Osprey ones.

 

Soldat und Technik 1/90 in the column "Unsere Leser wollen wissen" (our readers want to know) states that Stillbrew was intended for protection against 125mm.

 

Think I'd agree with that; while it was a reaction to 115mm the vehicles in Germany were still expected to face the latest Soviet tanks.


  • 0

#128 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 02 August 2014 - 1441 PM

Did later Chieftains have thicker armor? Maybe that would explain why higher thickness figures are so often cited.

Edited by JW Collins, 02 August 2014 - 1444 PM.

  • 0

#129 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,564 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 02 August 2014 - 1557 PM

No. There was a story they did, but I am pretty sure it refer to Stillbrew package and not any basic armor upgrade.


Edited by bojan, 02 August 2014 - 1558 PM.

  • 0

#130 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:B E L G I U M
  • Interests:Military Intelligence, various

Posted 02 August 2014 - 1731 PM

Did later Chieftains have thicker armor? Maybe that would explain why higher thickness figures are so often cited.

 
 

No. There was a story they did, but I am pretty sure it refer to Stillbrew package and not any basic armor upgrade.

 

 

It must be noted that the FV4201 Chieftain Mk. 10 (the one which has the Stillbrew Crew Protection Package) was an upgraded Mk. 9, which was itself an incremental upgrade of previous Chieftain marks as the Mk. 5/4, Mk. 6/4, Mk. 7/4 and Mk. 8/4 respectively.

And the up-marked Mk. 6/4 is a modified Mk. 6, the final mark of the Mk. 2 after the Exercice Totem Pole upgrading programme !

All this to say that the Chieftain Mk. 10 (with the Stillbrew armor) previously measured by Max H could be an old Mk. 2 and therefore, share the same armor thickness.


Edited by Sovngard, 02 August 2014 - 1731 PM.

  • 0

#131 Kentucky-roughrider

Kentucky-roughrider

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:western Kentucky
  • Interests:Hunting, military history, horses ,and reading<br />

Posted 02 August 2014 - 2219 PM

What conflicts and wars was the Chietian involved in, other than the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990?


  • 0

#132 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lodz, Poland

Posted 03 August 2014 - 0328 AM

What conflicts and wars was the Chietian involved in, other than the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990?

Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians had hundreds of Chieftains when the unpleasantness began. Some of the captured ones were given by Saddam to Jordan.


  • 0

#133 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,901 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 03 August 2014 - 0513 AM

Last interesting find, from various UK docs from very early 1960s. Chieftain was already overgrown, to reduce weight it was considered to reduce armour protection of Mk 2. Firstly, from immunity vs 100 mm AP at circa 640 meters (700 yards) to 800 meters. Secondly, to reduce immunity zone from 60 degrees (30 degrees from left and right of turret axis) to 45 degrees (like, it is said, US did with M60A1 turret). Thirdly, to take some mm from glacis, as tank was supposed to fight hull down, mostly.

 

Like said, those are only considerations, but looks serious. Did not found paper confirmation, though.

 

 

 

 

 

Btw.WOT`s For The Record site digged up two interesting pics showing, the most probably, simplified mock-up of "Contentious" heavy-gun tank.

prototype.jpg

 

Note remains of armoured front fuel tank, the main feature of design, that was supposed to give this thing immunity to almost every threat of that time.


Edited by Przezdzieblo, 03 August 2014 - 0520 AM.

  • 0

#134 dejawolf

dejawolf

    Grand sack of flour

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trondheim, norway

Posted 03 August 2014 - 2340 PM

looking at the chieftain glacis plate, even with only 85mm, it still might be capable of defeating 3BM-15. 

http://fofanov.armor...pfsds/ammo.html

 

going by fofanovs figures, the certified LOS penetration of 3BM-15 at 0° is 310mm, but at  60° it's 240mm LOS. 

so 3BM15 is about 29% more effective at 0°.

taking los [email protected]° degrees = 275

then multiply by known BM-15 inefficency:

275*1.29 = 354mm. 

then multiply by cast steel TE: 

354*0.92 = 325mm.

of course this figure would be more accurate if BM-15 [email protected]° was known.

but i believe the glacis could be effective against 3BM-15.


Edited by dejawolf, 03 August 2014 - 2340 PM.

  • 0

#135 Max H

Max H

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 08 August 2014 - 2034 PM

According to Bojan BM-9 would stand a decent chance as the numbers on Vasiliy's grate sight are for 80% of shots - the 50% limit was much closer to LoS as you'd expect from L-O

 

 

Did later Chieftains have thicker armor? Maybe that would explain why higher thickness figures are so often cited.

 
 

No. There was a story they did, but I am pretty sure it refer to Stillbrew package and not any basic armor upgrade.

 

 

It must be noted that the FV4201 Chieftain Mk. 10 (the one which has the Stillbrew Crew Protection Package) was an upgraded Mk. 9, which was itself an incremental upgrade of previous Chieftain marks as the Mk. 5/4, Mk. 6/4, Mk. 7/4 and Mk. 8/4 respectively.

And the up-marked Mk. 6/4 is a modified Mk. 6, the final mark of the Mk. 2 after the Exercice Totem Pole upgrading programme !

All this to say that the Chieftain Mk. 10 (with the Stillbrew armor) previously measured by Max H could be an old Mk. 2 and therefore, share the same armor thickness.

 

 

According to Rob Griffin's book, the vehicle with that registration started out as a Mk2 (it's the vehicle run during bovington's summer tank displays). Which would beg the question, if Mk2's were so significantly underarmoured, why upgrade them just like the later marks?


  • 0

#136 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:B E L G I U M
  • Interests:Military Intelligence, various

Posted 28 August 2014 - 1551 PM

According to Bojan BM-9 would stand a decent chance as the numbers on Vasiliy's grate sight are for 80% of shots - the 50% limit was much closer to LoS as you'd expect from L-O

 

 

Did later Chieftains have thicker armor? Maybe that would explain why higher thickness figures are so often cited.

 
 

No. There was a story they did, but I am pretty sure it refer to Stillbrew package and not any basic armor upgrade.

 

 

It must be noted that the FV4201 Chieftain Mk. 10 (the one which has the Stillbrew Crew Protection Package) was an upgraded Mk. 9, which was itself an incremental upgrade of previous Chieftain marks as the Mk. 5/4, Mk. 6/4, Mk. 7/4 and Mk. 8/4 respectively.

And the up-marked Mk. 6/4 is a modified Mk. 6, the final mark of the Mk. 2 after the Exercice Totem Pole upgrading programme !

All this to say that the Chieftain Mk. 10 (with the Stillbrew armor) previously measured by Max H could be an old Mk. 2 and therefore, share the same armor thickness.

 

 

 

According to Rob Griffin's book, the vehicle with that registration started out as a Mk2 (it's the vehicle run during bovington's summer tank displays). Which would beg the question, if Mk2's were so significantly underarmoured, why upgrade them just like the later marks?

 

 

We should seriously measure the glacis of another Chieftain tank to be sure that the alleged 120mm thickness is a myth or indeed real. ;)


Edited by Sovngard, 28 August 2014 - 1552 PM.

  • 0

#137 Max H

Max H

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 29 August 2014 - 1748 PM

I did do two, see post #160


  • 0

#138 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,355 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 03 September 2014 - 1705 PM

kGPiS.jpg
Phuqp.jpg
aFYVW.jpg
06nEj.jpg
u2Tym.jpg

  • 0

#139 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,355 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 03 September 2014 - 1706 PM

PaDoQ.jpg
eipcM.jpg
rGRSC.jpg
czQfu.jpg
hnEWS.jpg
lTjqK.jpg

  • 0

#140 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:B E L G I U M
  • Interests:Military Intelligence, various

Posted 04 September 2014 - 0407 AM

FV4201 Chieftain prototype from 1961.

1409821339-yrtqcfb.jpg
  • 45,72 metric tonnes (100 800 lb)
  • 700 hp
  • glacis : 120 mm @ 30° = 240 mm


Weight, combat loaded (metric t) :


Chieftain Mk. 1 : 51,92 tons

Chieftain Mk. 2 : 52,44 tons

Chieftain Mk. 3 : 52,94 tons
Chieftain Mk. 3/3 : 54,1 tons

Chieftain Mk. 5 : 55 tons

Chieftain Mk. 10 : 58,28 tons

Edited by Sovngard, 04 September 2014 - 0422 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users