Chieftain Chat

I'm enjoying the APDS thread - so I thought i'd try another (based upon the same discussion, to give background, Cold War armour and 'who's the best')

The main question is, what's the hull glacias width (negative stillbrew) on the Chieftain? I mean most Internet sources seem to say it's ~120mm. But a careful search suggests someone has recently measured a hull with ultrasonic schnurglies and it's only 85mm?? Bit of a discrepancy...
 
we cant tell you that! What happens when we brake out the strategic reserve chieftains to go against the resurgent russia?!?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
I'm enjoying the APDS thread - so I thought i'd try another (based upon the same discussion, to give background, Cold War armour and 'who's the best')

The main question is, what's the hull glacias width (negative stillbrew) on the Chieftain? I mean most Internet sources seem to say it's ~120mm. But a careful search suggests someone has recently measured a hull with ultrasonic schnurglies and it's only 85mm?? Bit of a discrepancy...
Maybe the official figure is measured horizontally through the armour along the path of a Sabot round, whereas the ultrasound went through the glacis perpendicularly.

It's worth pointing out that Stillbrew was borne out of the heart failure when Iranian Chieftains were found not to be impervious to Iraqi T72s during their 1980s war as had previously been believed.
 
Maybe the official figure is measured horizontally through the armour along the path of a Sabot round, whereas the ultrasound went through the glacis perpendicularly....
120 horizontal/85 true thickness would be a slope of about 45 degrees.
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
we cant tell you that! What happens when we brake out the strategic reserve chieftains to go against the resurgent russia?!?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

They'll need a quick service first..
 
Thanks all haha

Effective thickness is approx 320mm, if you take slope and the 120mm width as the right measurement. It's obviously a lot less if you take the 85mm
 
Glacis was 72 degrees from vertical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks all haha

Effective thickness is approx 320mm, if you take slope and the 120mm width as the right measurement. It's obviously a lot less if you take the 85mm
I make 320/120 a slope of 22 degrees to horizontal. Does that sound reasonable for hull glacis?

EDTIT: Cross posted with Gassing Badgers, but a similar figure.
 
Educate me please.

Tank on tank, or infantry AT missile on tank means head-on engagement, if the two sides are facing each other.

So glacis armour is relevant there. What about an artillery fire mission against enemy tanks? Top-down engagement. Or anything other than head-on, all you have to do is take out the wheels/tracks and while the tank might not be very badly damaged, it's going to take recovery and repair to get it back on the road.

Any comments on tactics/doctrine/weapons on that line of thinking?
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Educate me please.

Tank on tank, or infantry AT missile on tank means head-on engagement, if the two sides are facing each other.

So glacis armour is relevant there. What about an artillery fire mission against enemy tanks? Top-down engagement. Or anything other than head-on, all you have to do is take out the wheels/tracks and while the tank might not be very badly damaged, it's going to take recovery and repair to get it back on the road.

Any comments on tactics/doctrine/weapons on that line of thinking?
I wouldn't expect an artillery piece (firing from the back, indirectly) to score a direct hit. That said, if it did, even if it doesn't penetrate, I'd expect it to destroy periscopes, warp and render hatches inoperable, etc, a mobility kill.

I believe the Septics have developed a smart round for Abrams that will detonate above the target and if I remember correctly, fire some sort of submunition down through the less highly armoured roof.

Sure I've seen a demo video on YouTube in here before now.
 
Educate me please.

Tank on tank, or infantry AT missile on tank means head-on engagement, if the two sides are facing each other.

So glacis armour is relevant there. What about an artillery fire mission against enemy tanks? Top-down engagement. Or anything other than head-on, all you have to do is take out the wheels/tracks and while the tank might not be very badly damaged, it's going to take recovery and repair to get it back on the road.

Any comments on tactics/doctrine/weapons on that line of thinking?
In the latter days of MILAN we mainly trained using shoot and scoot tactics to achieve MKills as the reality was we were going to struggle against T-80's etc. Not really ideal when you're wire guided.

When Jav came in I was on my way out but I'm aware things were changing due to the top attack option. Which was much more useful for what we were actually used for which wasn't Anti Tanks at all but as a Platoon/coy level fire support option. Bunker busting if you will.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
Educate me please.

Tank on tank, or infantry AT missile on tank means head-on engagement, if the two sides are facing each other.

So glacis armour is relevant there. What about an artillery fire mission against enemy tanks? Top-down engagement. Or anything other than head-on, all you have to do is take out the wheels/tracks and while the tank might not be very badly damaged, it's going to take recovery and repair to get it back on the road.

Any comments on tactics/doctrine/weapons on that line of thinking?
The aim is to fight hull down, moving from hull down position to hull down position...which is why you have very heavy turret face armour and maximum gun depression.

Sovs had a different idea. Didn't work very well for them though.
 
I wouldn't expect an artillery piece (firing from the back, indirectly) to score a direct hit. That said, if it did, even if it doesn't penetrate, I'd expect it to destroy periscopes, warp and render hatches inoperable, etc, a mobility kill.
One of my civvie-street instructors was ex-RA and mentioned that the NATO shift to 155mm artillery was because it was the smallest calibre that could achieve mission-kills on massed Soviet tank formations.

Seemed reasonable, back in the 1980s before terminal-guidance, but no idea if it's correct.
 
I wouldn't expect an artillery piece (firing from the back, indirectly) to score a direct hit. That said, if it did, even if it doesn't penetrate, I'd expect it to destroy periscopes, warp and render hatches inoperable, etc, a mobility kill.

I believe the Septics have developed a smart round for Abrams that will detonate above the target and if I remember correctly, fire some sort of submunition down through the less highly armoured roof.

Sure I've seen a demo video on YouTube in here before now.
For indirect fire against armour, airburst would be the preferred option (so I was told) to penetrate through engine decks, thinner armour and generally mess up optics etc. More chance of getting hits than expecting a shell to drop onto the vehicle itself.
 
In the latter days of MILAN we mainly trained using shoot and scoot tactics to achieve MKills as the reality was we were going to struggle against T-80's etc. Not really ideal when you're wire guided.
That's funny, because on the A2020R thread, JohnG was telling us all about his time as Milan Pl commander, and his knowledge of the critical vulnerabilities of T-72/T-80 - apparently the Russians never deployed them because of this (Not even the ones in Ukraine...)

Apparently, all you need to do is ensure that your Milan is able to achieve a perfect flank or rear hit every time...

Easy.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There was an experimental 81mm round called Merlin. It was being talked about when I was in mortar troop early 90's. I don't think it was used.

Probably went for Javelin.
 
The Merlin round was said to have the ability to home on heat signatures so any pikey fire or watchman's brazier (do they have those?) was likely to be in receipt of a Merlin round, instead of it falling onto a T72 engine.
 

Latest Threads

Top