Chieftain and Challenger

[gunfighter]

With some add and bits and proper camo, she could be Afrika Korps `64...ARGHHHHHH, I´m obssesed!!!!!!

[Sisko]

The challenger was evaluated by the Aussie army as a replacement for the Leopard 1's but it was almost double the price of the nearest competitor.

I still think that a twin gun version of the challenger would look very cool

[GTX]

The Chieftain Marksman was a SPAAG armed with two Oerlikon 35mm cannon, it was trialed but never saw service. 


The same turret was trialed on a Chally I as well, there's a poor quality pic on this site (it won't let me 'borrow' it):
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-charlie/charlie/challenger_series/challenger-marksman/challmark-intro.html

The Marksman turret was fitted to a number of platforms, more as a marketing exercise than anything, but has only seen service with Finland mounted on a T-55 chassis.  More info on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman_anti-aircraft_system
Pics here, some are dud, but if you type "xxxx Marksman" into Google you can find the dud pics on that site:
http://www.jedsite.info/artillery-mike/mike/marksman_series/marksman-series.html

I wonder if it would be possible to also fit some Rapier SAMs to the Marksman turret so as to great a dual gun/missile system?

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Further to my last idea, does anyone know what the arrangement is for the Marksman Turret - specifically re sensors and the like.  Looking at the Marksman head on, I note the large blank area (see below) - I assume this is fitted with something but I'm not sure what.




Regards,

Greg

[rickshaw]

Jus thinking - what if the Chieftain had more export success?  My thoughts (and modelling desires) are already looking towards an Australian Chieftain  instead of the Leopard 1.  Perhaps John or someone can help inspire with some artwork - hint, hint!!!!

Regards,

Greg

It wasn't trialled.  The contenders were the Leopard 1 and the M60.  The Leopard 1 was chosen both because of practical and political reasons - Gough was interested in trying to distance Oz from the US.  The M60 was actually more expensive and less available (the US Army was re-equipped with them).   I have a friend who wrote a historical analysis of the decision for the Chief of the Australian Army at the time of the M1 purchase.  He was rather scathing of the decision to adopt the M1, citing the same problems that the Leopard faced - basically numbers.   We now have only sufficient tanks to field a squadron.   At least with the Leopard there were sufficient to field two squadrons.  The other problem the M1 faces is transportability.   We have no means to move them long distances except one vehicle at a time in our C-17s.  Few roads and particularly road bridges are designed to take a tank transporter plus an M1 tank.  While the Ghan cannot take the axle-loading (its rails weren't designed for the weight either).  This leaves sea (MANORA and KANIMBLA can carry them but they have to loaded/unloaded over the side because we took the bow ramps off them when we refitted them to cut all the rust out) and the new LHDs will be able to carry them but they won't be available for what, another four years?

I have some pictures around the place of the M60 on trials in an old MAFVA magazine, if you're interested.

[Weaver]

Further to my last idea, does anyone know what the arrangement is for the Marksman Turret - specifically re sensors and the like.  Looking at the Marksman head on, I note the large blank area (see below) - I assume this is fitted with something but I'm not sure what.
Regards,

Greg

The radar is a Marconi 400 series. It has both surveillance mode (scans at 60rpm) and tracking mode, so it it doesn't need any extra sensors: it's similar to the Gun Dish radar on ZSU-23-4s in that respect.

The same radar was marketed for naval use fitted to the top of a Breda twin 30mm turret, the combination being known as Sea Cobra. I don't know if they sold any.

[GTX]

Does anyone have decent line drawings of the Chieftain and Challenger tanks - one of the Maksman Turret would be nice too .

Regards,

Greg

[raafif]

I'm surprised that only one person has mentioned the Jordanian Falcon (3rd post (2006) on page 1).
Falcon is an un-manned turret (crew in hull) concept that dates back to the early 90's.  Initially Teledyne in America designed a 105mm auto-loader that used the standard L7 barrel, they had 1/35th marketing models built -- Abrams, Centurion, Leo1 (on Tamiya kits).  Actual AGS (armoured gun system) prototypes were built on Teledyne & Centurion chassis, maybe others too -- the 4th Egyptian (Teledyne) Ramases MBT prototype was to have it installed.  The Cent. had a slightly raised roof with full-width smooth upper hull.  The AGS was all part of the larger project to replace the Sheridan light-tank but didn't go anywhere -- Cadillac-Gage also participated in the project with their M8 Buford AGS (regular turret, 120mm gun), all using Bradley components.

Teledyne was partnered by Sth Africa who were looking for upgrades for the Oliphant -- hence the Centurion AGS prototype on a Sth African chassis.
After the AGS project was cancelled, Sth Africa partnered Jordan & they created the Falcon 1 (Oliphant chassis) & Falcon 2 (Challenger chassis) un-manned turret systems (120mm gun) -- see http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw021121_1_n.shtml

The benefits of Teledyne's AGS & Falcon are -- 1 less crewman, crew-in-hull for better environment & survivability, separated ammo storage (hull bins or turret), slightly less weight & smaller profile for better battle-field concealment.

[Weaver]

Jordan did a heavy APC prototype based on a reversed Centurion chassis - what if they decided to kick the Chally upgrade in the head and do something similar with those chassis?

[GTX]

Jordan did a heavy APC prototype based on a reversed Centurion chassis - what if they decided to kick the Chally upgrade in the head and do something similar with those chassis?

I take it you refer to the AL Temsah (see here from the King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB):









Yes, they have proposed some quite attractive products over the years and have indeed played with the Challenger - I especially liked their Falcon Turret upgrade:








I must admit that I am surprised they haven't offered a similar Challenger based heavy ICV - probably not enough Challengers around + they are still a useful tank.

Mind you, it could be done in the Whiff universe - in fact, maybe I will...

Regards,

Greg

[kitnut617]

That's interesting, it looks like they swapped the front to the back (or vise versa).  Can the transmission run in reverse just like it does in forward motion on the Centurion ? or would it have a new transmission ?

[rickshaw]

That's interesting, it looks like they swapped the front to the back (or vise versa).  Can the transmission run in reverse just like it does in forward motion on the Centurion ? or would it have a new transmission ?

It has a new transmission, gearbox, engine and hull.  Basically all that remains of the original vehicle is the chassis.   It is an original and interesting use of old tank chassis but one has to wonder at the economics of it.  Now, if it was a new build vehicle, it would be possible to design this sort of utility in, as the Israelis did with the Merkava, from the very beginning and have a the engine in the front and a large area behind it where you could choose either an MBT turret or an APC compartment or a SPG or a...

[Weaver]

That's interesting, it looks like they swapped the front to the back (or vise versa).  Can the transmission run in reverse just like it does in forward motion on the Centurion ? or would it have a new transmission ?

It has a new transmission, gearbox, engine and hull.  Basically all that remains of the original vehicle is the chassis.   It is an original and interesting use of old tank chassis but one has to wonder at the economics of it.  Now, if it was a new build vehicle, it would be possible to design this sort of utility in, as the Israelis did with the Merkava, from the very beginning and have a the engine in the front and a large area behind it where you could choose either an MBT turret or an APC compartment or a SPG or a...

Is the powerpack new to the Temsah, or is it the the "old" upgraded powerpack fitted to the donor Tariqs (Centrurions) before conversion?

[kitnut617]

It has a new transmission, gearbox, engine and hull.  Basically all that remains of the original vehicle is the chassis.   It is an original and interesting use of old tank chassis but one has to wonder at the economics of it.  Now, if it was a new build vehicle, it would be possible to design this sort of utility in, as the Israelis did with the Merkava, from the very beginning and have a the engine in the front and a large area behind it where you could choose either an MBT turret or an APC compartment or a SPG or a...

I'm not into armour, could you clarify what is the chassis, I thought that included the hull or are the hull plates attached to a frame ?

[rickshaw]

It has a new transmission, gearbox, engine and hull.  Basically all that remains of the original vehicle is the chassis.   It is an original and interesting use of old tank chassis but one has to wonder at the economics of it.  Now, if it was a new build vehicle, it would be possible to design this sort of utility in, as the Israelis did with the Merkava, from the very beginning and have a the engine in the front and a large area behind it where you could choose either an MBT turret or an APC compartment or a SPG or a...

I'm not into armour, could you clarify what is the chassis, I thought that included the hull or are the hull plates attached to a frame ?

Most terminology in AFVs is rather elastic:  the "Hull" is properly everything that consists of the lower vehicle (ie not the turret or superstructure) as they generally utilise a monocoque structure which everything else hangs off off.   However, in this case the terms "hull" and "chassis" are used to differentiate between the upper armoured area above the tracks and the lower area where the running gear and tracks are.

Interestingly, while the original tanks were built with a frame or "chassis" on to which armour plates were attached, that was replaced towards the end of WWII by the use of a monocoque hull, where the armour plates were used as the main load bearing structure.  However, we are now seeing a full circle back to the use of a load bearing frame as it has become either more useful to add armour, to meet differing threat levels or the use of exotic materials (such as ceramics) make it harder to actually form a monocoque structure.