Talk:Chieftain (tank)

Untitled

I'm not convinced of the copyright status of the images in use at the moment (9/11/2005). I've left a message for the uploader. GraemeLeggett 09:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How did the Chieftain perform in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88? -Petroleum

It performed very well. The Iraqians had only T-55 and T-62, two good tanks, but not enough to hope to challenge it in face to face. It's why they started to buy T-72 to USSR. With the T-72, they were able to fight the Chieftain on equal terms. Kovlocsky

Movie Star

How about some notes on the use of Chieftains in a lot of movies? I can think of several they appear in, from Goldeneye to Reign of Fire and Courage under Fire. It's avalibility seems to have made it rather popular for films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.73.161 (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

only if notable and sourcedGraemeLeggett (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by notable and sourced. 3/5ths of the tanks in the tank-yard outside of the archives in Goldeneye, for example, are Chieftains. All Abrams in Courage under Fire are Chieftains. The main character in Reign of fire rolls around in a Chieftain. Is it in the credits? I have no idea, but images from those movies clearly show Chieftains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.155.203 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, the Abrams in Courage Under Fire are Centurions. More precisely, ex-Australian Army Centurions. They were shipped over to the US when the Department of Defense refused to cooperate in production.

Notable as in that it is a Chieftain is important to the story, and sourced as in that it IS a Chieftain being used has been stated by a reputable source. As an example you might expect the Herbie films to be mentioned under VW Beetle but not any old appearance by a Beetle in a film. The appropriate place for the examples you have given is probably in the articles for those films. see Wikipedia:Notability for an explanation on determing notability.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see if notable only for specific mentions of movies by name. But as a whole I would think that the surplus availability of Chieftains, and their subsequent use in a lot of films and television would be at least worth mentioning. Seems kind of absurd not to mention it, might as well not mention the Iraqis even had any, as at least that many have been converted or otherwise used for films. I will agree though, outside of images and visual recognition, who's going be able to prove something that's not in the credits, if you can dispute any claim of visual recognition? As a final, the VW Beetle has a section in popular culture, which is rather large and encompassing, with Herbie only being a small section. It's even mentioned as being referenced in some books, but not important to the story. What's the difference here? Also, as notability only seems to regard suitability for a seperate article (As stated on the page you linked), how does it prevent such notes from being placed here? I could easily put it in myself, but I have a little more respect for people who edit this stuff normally then to just up and do that without some discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.245.155 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr Bean's car was crushed by a Chieftain in the episode "Back to School Mr Bean" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokster (talk • contribs) 02:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a Chieftain tank with and without side skirts in the recent zombie flick Redcon 1, as well as an FV101 scorpion Reubeniv (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Leyland L60 unreliability

Bizarre as it may seem the Leyland L60's unreliability (at least early on) would not have been perceived officially as big a problem at the time as many would now think. The L60 was designed to a specification that made certain assumptions, one of which was that it would be required to be run flat-out for a maximum of two hours and then be replaced. The Chieftain was designed at a time when the likelihood of all-out nuclear war and vast numbers of Soviet tanks crossing the North German Plain was a distinct possibility and this was what was occupying the Chiefs of Staff's/designer's minds when the vehicle was designed. Analysis of previous large-scale tank battles had shown that almost none lasted more than an hour, or at most, two, and the Chieftain's engine was therefore designed with this in mind, the engine-pack being intended to be taken out after the battle and replaced in-the-field. The removed engine could then be serviced/overhauled at leisure(!). The tank crews themselves had different views on this unreliability however when having to travel any distance without benefit of a tank transporter.

As for the engine itself, it was originally intended that Chieftain would have a Rolls-Royce diesel but NATO then changed its mind about acceptable fuels, requiring that all MBTs use a multi-fuel engine, hence the less-than-ideal L60.

BTW, the Chieftain's L11 gun used a bagged-charge in the same manner as large (e.g., 15") naval guns. The charge (propellant) is contained in a silk bag rather than in a brass cartridge case and the silk burns-up during firing. Ian Dunster 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted this error, only eight years late. Chieftain bag charges were actually of two types. One was a fabric called calico and was hemispherical - this was for HESH. The other (known as full charge) was in a solid plastic material (the name of which I can't recall at the moment) and it was a fully cylindrical charge used for firing SABOT. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Close; for "hemispherical" read "hemicyclindrical" i.e. a cylinder split lengthways. HLGallon (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Chieftain's L60 was of a complete "power pack" installation - a requirement for the "two hour battle" mentioned above - that could be changed (using an FV434) in around an hour. So replacing an engine wasn't the lengthy process one might think. Early engines were sloppily-assembled at the factory with incorrectly torqued bolts, etc., which accounted for the leaks. After this was corrected the subsequent engines were easily good for a thousand miles or so without anything other than normal attention.

The gearbox was also easily removed and replaced but it wasn't included in the engine pack as experience had shown that transmissions rarely failed in service hence replacing the gearbox every time an engine was changed increased the wight of the pack and was both unnecessary and wasteful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Change of "most advanced" to "more competitive" POV?

I thought that the opening paragraph of this article seemed to understate the significance of the Chieftain somewhat, and found that prior to this unsummarised edit the text was closer to what I expected. Personally I think that the edit in question is contentious and should be reverted, but I'm reluctant to do it myself (I've retired from editing Wikipaedia articles because of the frequency with which this sort of thing tends to crop up) and also thought it would be better to solicit some other opinions on whether the original or the revision is more accurate and less POV.--194.247.53.233 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For once, I'm in agreement. Chieftain was very advanced for the time: first tank with supine driver position (and therefore shallow angle glacis), a 120mm gun fifteen/twenty or so years before the rest of NATO, the first tank to mount Chobham armour (in testing of Chobham and as Chieftain 900/Al Khalid), a multi-fuel pack (even though it was fantastic junk). There are lots of other little innovations that are rarely mentioned - for one, the fact that it was probably the first tank to have periscope lenses angled inward to reduce glare in desert operations (a feature proposed by the Israelis early in development).

If nothing else, the replacement intro is awful:

"It was one of the more competitive tanks of its time, having a powerful main gun and armour"

What does "competitive" mean here, exactly? Tanks, I think, do not compete...they blow other tanks up, or are blown up themselves. Furthermore, how can the armour be "powerful"? This is barely Dorling Kindersley stuff. The intro as it stands is trite, nebulous and nondescriptive.84.71.15.48 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How about changing it to 'arguably the most advanced tank of its time'? I struggle to think of anything that could have beaten it one-on-one in its prime, and it could even beat most tanks today. Just a thought. 86.134.78.192 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also struggle to think of any of its contemporaries that were 'superior' to it. The Patton series was under-gunned, under-armoured and not as advanced in design. Soviet tanks of the time may have had larger guns but I'm fairly sure penetration wasn't as high and armour was well below the Chieftan. Also, I believe the Chieftan was the first main battle tank to use computer assisted stabilisation and aiming which, while it may have been rather pathetic given the 1960's weren't the IT industries glory years, it certainly is a pretty significant technical achievement. I'd be curious to see how these things went on the range compared to a T-62 or M-60.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chieftain was probably the world's most potent MBT right up until sometime in the 1980s. I certainly can't think of anything that had better gun performance or better protection. There was really nothing in the Chieftain's league until then. The Challenger series continues that tradition. The only real fault of the Chieftain was that it really could have done with ~200-more horsepower than it had, but having said that, it was designed to defend Germany against a possible Soviet invasion and road speed was of less importance in that sort of situation, 'battlefield mobility' being more important and the Chieftain had plenty of that. The L-60 engine reliability problem I mentioned above. Although other people will disagree on this, the UK has probably built the world's best MBTs from the Centurion-on, a result of them having been on the (painful) receiving-end of superior AFV design too often in WW II. Sometime in the post-WW II period the British decided that was never going to happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.24 (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to forget the T-64 and the T-72 which were worthy opponents, particularily the former one. They were fielded some years later, but before the arrival of the next generation of western tanks like the M1 Abraham and the Leopard 2. I think that with their composite armor and their rather powerful gun, these two soviet tanks could fight the Chieftain in more or less equal terms. It was certainly the most powerful NATO tank and I think it should be stated in the article, but we should give credit to his adversaries. Kovlovsky

You may be right. I must admit to not knowing much about the former SU's vehicles, as when I was interested in that sort of thing the Cold War was still in full-swing and technical data of Warsaw Pact equipment was hard to come-by.

However, considering that the other NATO nation's vehicles were for the most part armed with the ROF L7 105mm gun then presumably this was considered capable of dealing with the armour on the two vehicles you mentioned, the likely opposition. The Chieftain's 120mm L11A5 was considerably more potent.

BTW, IIRC, the longest-range tank kill of 5km was against an Iraqi T-72. That was by a Challenger 1 using the same L11A5 gun used in the Chieftain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.43.105 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

While Challenger has a similar gun, in 1991 it was using rounds that were not available back in 1966. The best round available for Chieftain in 1966 was L-15 capable of penetrating about 340mm RHA on 2km distance. While the L-26 round introduced in 1991 penetrated 530mm RHA at the same distance.

I'm against the use of superlatives generally, but in the case of the Chieftain I think "most advanced" is acceptable, while "the most powerful main gun and heaviest armour of any tank in the world" is doubtful. It was superior compared to other NATO MBTs in the terms of protection and firepower; but the protection was still steel armour (390mm LOS), so it could still be penetrated by the HEAT-rounds of most tanks, including the T-10/T-10M, AMX-30, T-62, T-64 etc. The T-64 had composite armour which gave the turret a protection of 450mm RHAe (max.) and the glacis 335mm RHAe (max.) against KE, but stronger protection against HEAT-rounds (420mm glacis, 510mm turret), the T-64 was stronger protected. The 115mm smoothbore gun 2A21 (or the 2A20 of the T-62) was capable of reaching higher muzzle-velocities than the L15A4 APDS or the L23 APFSDS rounds of the L11, the German wikipedia claims that the turret armour of serveral Chieftains was penetrated by T-62 in Iraq-Iran war 1981. The 115mm gun featured the world's first APFSDS tank round. Another fact I wouldn't forget is that prior the use of composite armour, serveral countries including France, Germany and Italy rated the armour protection of a tank the last important of the three factors defining a good tank (firepower, mobility and armour). Another question is wether protopes/projects like the MBT-70 are also counted to the most advanced/best armed/best protected statement at the beginning. --Tim.vogt (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely correct: "at the time of its introduction in 1966 had the most powerful main gun and heaviest armour of any tank in the world". The next tank with a comparable or even superior armour was T-64. But it was not yet in service in 1966. The main gun was no doubts far superior to anything in service in 1966 too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.96 (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chieftain's armour was not intended to be proof against other tank guns of any reasonable performance, as this would require armour of a thickness too great and heavy for a vehicle required to possess any reasonable amount of battlefield mobility, instead the armour was intended to provide protection against artillery fire bursting nearby, a result of experience with the Centurion in Korea.

Similarly, the Chieftain's L11 wasn't designed for all-out armour penetration, per se, instead it was designed above all else for accuracy and armour penetration at long range. That is why the UK stayed with a rifled gun after other countries had gone over to a smooth bore, as a smoothed-bore gun's accuracy falls of rapidly with increased distance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers

The above article refers to a Chieftain AVRE, (entered service in 1994). Can anyone here provide more light on the subject? Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Exercises

The "Exercises" section should be deleted. It is not specific to the Chieftain; it has been standard range practice (in the British Army anyway) for every tank since Little Willy. HLGallon (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Hohum (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing information

I don`t know if it`s because the info isn`t available, but the article doesn`t seem to mention :
When series production actually started and finished.
The total number of Chieftans manufactured.
The muzzle velocity of the 120mm (and neither does the article on the L11A5 gun).--JustinSmith (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, there were around 900 Chieftains built, production ending with the Mk 5 in around 1978. There are no accurate performance figures available for any variant of the L11 as they are all still classified.

BTW, for anyone into modelling and building a Tamiya 1:35 "Chieftain Mk 5" the kit vehicle is actually a Mk 2 after undergoing the 1975 "Totem Pole" upgrade to a Mark 5.

BAOR

How many Chieftain MBT served with the mainstay of the British Army during Cold War - the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) - ? --213.172.123.242 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The British Army received 941 Chieftains and around 800 were allocated to the BAOR during the relevant period although not all were present in Germany at the same time due to vehicles undergoing re-working, modification, and used for training in the UK. In addition, there was a substantial War Reserve of vehicles held in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.227 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Israeli involvement in chieftain design

This information is entirely missing, including the extensive Israeli input to the perfected design in 66-68, and the British renaging on the joint co- production deal in 1969, which marked the death of Israeli-UK AFV cooperation, due it would appear to Arab "pressure", or blackmail. I propose to expand development section, filling out this rather odd omission of the Chieftain history. There is clearly a link to this bitter experience (from the Israeli perspective),to the determination to go ahead with the indigenous Merkava project fronted by Gen Tal in the early 70s. It is quite clear that the Chieftain and early Merk marques share design similarities, including highly ballistically efficient turret configurations and highly sloped frontal armour. From sources this would appear to be the fruit of Israeli-UK technical armour and ballistics co-operation from the period 66-68. Obviously the Merks' frontal engine configuration and rear personell/ammo compartment were unique offshoots of the Tal design. I can provide cited refs from Merkava MBT 1977-1996 (Osprey, Samuel Katz and Peter Sarson, 1997) The 2 designs appear linked by a shared developmental and co-operational history, and an unhealthy dose of politics. The BBC cite accompanying the article is a complete airbrushing of history in terms of the active co-operation of the IDF Tank Corps in the design, and merely concentrates on Chieftain potential sales to Israel, thus implying that Israel was a passive customer in the deal. Typical Beeb :). It would be useful to the article to include these facts. Any comments welcome.Irondome(talk) 02:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If the references support this without WP:synthesis, and in the case of the Merkava - specifically state there is a link in design, then it would seem relevant to the article. (Hohum ^@) 11:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

They seem to. Although the main thrust of new evidence is that considerable joint co-operation of the chieftain design was utilised in the final model. This is quite explicit from the material by Katz. The merk direct design link is more tenuous, and I woulsnt feel confident in stating that until ive checked on Tals involvement in the chieftain work, and i want an explicit source for that. Also an explicit source directly linking merkava to chieftain. Direct citable evidence exists for a linkage with the centurion, especially suspension, tracks and wheels. I think its in Katz also. Also a lot of this stuff is still classified it seems. It may take a bit of time, as this is my first edit with cites added. Ive not been that ambitious as an editor so far. Cheers for the response. Irondome (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If the Israelis had such and influence on the Chieftain design then why when their involvement was allegedly stopped did they then design a vehicle almost completely different from the Chieftain - the front-engined Merkava.

BTW, the British had two years experience of using armour in desert conditions fighting the DAK in North Africa during WW II. I suspect that beats the six days or so of experience the Israelis had in 1967.

The only likely input the Israelis had on the design of the Chieftain was that of a potential customer. And that would have been some way behind the British Army's requirements in terms of priority. The British Army's requirement was to be able to knock-out any Soviet tank or AFV at ranges of well over a mile on the plains of Northern Germany during a fighting withdrawal so delaying any massed Soviet armoured advance long enough for the Federal German Government to come to a decision whether to allow NATO use of tactical nuclear weapons on German soil.

BTW, the Chieftain prototype was completed in 1962 and production vehicles entered service with the 11th Hussars and 17th/21st Lancers in 1967, the same year as the Six-Day War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.121 (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I will take your comments in good faith but there isn't really any point in trying to counter them. History is history and fact is fact and all the facts on this article are supported by accurate and acceptable sources. If you have solid information with acceptable sources which proves anything wrong in the article I suggest you edit the article to include it. Failing that I suggest you must accept that what is in the article is fact and the information you have been given heretofore is incorrect. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The BBC source only mentions possible sales to Israel.

As for "despite considerable Israeli technical and tactical input into the development of the tank, especially the capacity to operate successfully in desert environments, and the provision for the tank to make good use of hull-down positioning" - what input. The Israelis had little or no experience of tank warfare at the time - 1959 - Chieftain was being designed. The Eighth Army had worked out desert tactics - at some cost to themselves - by 1943, including the use of hull-down firing positions, which has been part of standard British Army practice for tank use ever since. They had also utilized tanks successfully all the way from El Alamein in Egypt to as far as Tunisia, so I suspect that the North African Campaign and Western Desert Campaign counts for experience of the 'capacity to operate successfully in desert environments'.

IIRC, Israel's first large-scale experience of tank use in armoured warfare didn't occur until the Six-Day War in 1967 - the same year the Chieftain entered service with the British Army. So it seems unlikely that they would have been asked to contribute to the design of Chieftain eight or nine years previously. But that's just MHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.50 (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see why you would make the assumptions you have if you hadn't read the information provided as sources for the facts provided in the article. As a former Chieftain crewman I can assure you that we knew in the 1970's most of the information which is now publicly available. Some of us had been on Chieftain trials and the information gleaned from those was shared with all crews. I can also see your eagerness to participate in an involved discussion on Chieftain and other AFV types from your brief history. With the absolute greatest of respect this isn't the place for such discussion unless you have incontrovertible proof that some of the information and/or sources already provided are wrong. May I suggest one or two things without causing offence? Firstly: register an account with Wikipedia. It's better in the long run. Secondly: you need to fulfil your desire for speculative discussion on one of the many AFV discussion sites out there. If you don't already know any, e-mail me and I'll point you in the direction of one or two. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

With respect the 8th Army never achieved the level of expertise in desert fighting as did Rommels Afrika Korps; it is indeed a long-held myth that the British Army became 'masters of the desert' in WW2. No British or Commonwealth unit stayed in-theatre long enough to fully acclimatise themselves to the intricacies of desert fighting - this failure at both the doctrinal and political level is precisely why Montgomery insisted on only attacking when his forces would so massively outnumber those of his opponenent. Just a quick glance at the horrendous tank losses incurred by the 8th Army throughout its campaign in North Africa, at the hands of a relatively small panzer force, should tell you everything you need to know about British armoured warfare doctrine and practice during the desert war. 31.53.170.14 (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

" .... the 8th Army never achieved the level of expertise in desert fighting as did Rommels Afrika Korps...." - that must be why the 8th Army chased the Afrika Korps and Italians all the way from El Alamein to Tunis then, ~ 2,554km, 1,586 miles, the longest advance by any army in military history. :)

In response to Irondome's request for more infomation, and in reply to some of the other comments throughout casting doubt on the veracity of the claims of Israeli consultancy on the definative marques of the Chieftain.

Firstly, in spite of popular belief the Israeli armoured corps had by the mid 60s rather more pertinant post-WW2 experience using tanks in the desert than the 8th Army's historical 2-year experience in the Western Desert two decades previously. The Israeli tank force cut its teeth during the 1956 Anglo-French Suez campaign, particlarly in its use of armour in the area in and around Mitla, some 40 miles east of Port Suez, and the area around the Gaza Strip. There were several quite fierce encounters between Egyptian armour and Israeli AMX-13 light tanks and rebuilt Sherman medium tanks. After that conflict ended the focus switched to the north of Israel during the so-called 'Water Wars'. Numerous small-scale battles involving Israeli armour took place during 1964-65, the most serious on 12th August 1965 against Syrian earth-moving equipment which resulted in an artillery/tank dual, and then on 13th November 1966 a two-pronged Israeli reprisal raid supported by armour attacked into Jordan to destroy terrorist bases in the Mount Hebron area.

These ongoing armour clashes, taking place across a decade of 'peace' convinced the Israeli armoured corps of two things:

First, a total rebuild of its fleet of British-built Centurion tanks (which had showed lamentable performance due to their poor range and out-dated main gun); headed by General Tal this involved redesigning the engine bay to take a diesel engine and associated power train as well as much enlarged fuel capacity, and replacement of its 20pdr gun with the British L7 105mm ordnance. This gave the Israeli military industry a great deal of expertise in wringing the best out of its equipment.

Second, recognition that Israel urgently needed a 'new' tank. Initially the favoured choice was the French AMX-30 MBT, but the fierce tank battles in the north and south of a country with next to no strategic depth and very small population convinced the generals that the British view of armour over mobility should prevail. This led to a visit by senior members of the IDF to visit the UK with hopes of securing a deal to produce the Chieftain under licence in Israel, rather than buying them from the UK. Subsequently in November 1966 a pair of early-model Chieftains were shipped to Israel to undergo hot-climate testing in a desert environment. (Remember this was over a year before Anthony Eden's "East of Aden" policy of withdrawal of significant British presence from around the globe, so at this period it would have been assumed some level of 'globalisation' of Britains new MBT would be necessary.)

It was during these trials the Six-day War broke out and testing was temporaily halted due to British concerns that the presence of a pair of Chieftains would signify collusion with Israel. Testing resumed after the conflict, which led to many modifications to the design including altering the tanks optics to prevent glare (which made the vehicle highly visible from a distance). Foreign Office concerns about offending Arab states surfaced during this time and came to a head late '68 early 69; conversly the MoD were in favour of the deal, however 'realpolitik' resulted in the UK cancelling any deal, and the Chieftains were returned to the UK. The final full-production models incorporated many lessons learned during the the desert testing as well as several Israeli-suggested improvements. Not long after, in what has been described as an act of stunning duplicity, the Foreign Office approved sales of the Chieftain to various Arab countries which were technically at war with Israel!

My sources incude: "The Israeli Air Force Story" (Robert Jackson - 1970) and the Osprey volume "Chieftain Main Battle Tank 1965-2003" (Simon Dunstan - 2003), as well as several historical works by Chaim Herzog ~~Andy Loates~~ LoatesyJnr (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

For the removal of any further doubt I've now finished consulting with a retired Colonel who was heavily involved at Lulworth at the time Chieftain was being developed. He confirms there were Israelis on the design team and that two early models had to be returned from trial in Israel early because of the outbreak of the Yom Kippur war. I also respectfully recommend reading of the Merkava article which has additional information on the collaboration. what it lacks, according to my former comrade, is the fact that Vickers were collaborated in the design of Merkava. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The involvement of Vickers in the Merkava development programme would be a very valuable addition to the article. It makes a great deal of sense and rings very true in the context of the circumstances of the time, a kind of unofficial payback, and a close technological co-operation between the two countries in various projects which appears to be continuing to the present, despite occasional political interference. If we can track down a good source It would be extremely useful to readers. Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The information would be good in the Merkava article but not this one. That's my opinion. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes in Merkava, not here. I should have made myself clearer. Irondome (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Chieftain was being displayed to the press in 1961 - Pathe News clip Army Shows New Weapons here: [1] and again in 1963 - Meet The Chieftain [2]]. It entered British Army service with BAOR in 1967 - Chieftains For Germany: [3]].

This pre-dates any Israeli 'experience' in armoured warfare, as well as Israel's' alleged 1966-68 'involvement' in the design process. By that time - 1966-68 - it was already 'designed' and about to enter British Army service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.249 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Two Chieftains were sent to Israel for desert trials, the areas in Libya formerly used for such trials no longer being available due to the rise to power of Colonel Gaddafi in 1969.

By then the 11th Hussars in Hohne had been using the Chieftain Mk 2 for three years having received their first vehicles in November 1966.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.249 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the British already knew about 'hull-down' positions, one of the criticisms of the Grant when it was used in North Africa was that due to it's side-mounted 75 mm gun it couldn't be used from a hull-down position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Kuwait

I removed the following paragraph from the article:

Kuwaiti Chieftains participated in the 1990 Iraq–Kuwait War. The Kuwaiti 35th Armored Brigade fought at the Battle of the Bridges against elements of the Iraqi Hammurabi and Medina divisions before withdrawing over the Saudi border. 136 Kuwaiti Chieftains were lost. Only seven tanks managed to survive the war with Iraq.

After viewing the main source for the Battle of the Bridges http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/armormagazine/content/Issues/1995/ArmorSeptemberOctober1995web.pdf it became clear to me that the loss of 136 Chieftans and 7 survivors was probably wrong.

The writer of the source, Major Robert L. Nelson, lists how many tanks were available to each company in the 35th Armored Brigade just prior to the battle, and this comes up to 37 tanks. During his description of the battle there are no accounts of tanks being lost. He also mentions that the tanks were going to be replaced by the Yugoslav M84 in the future.

So what happened to these 37 tanks? Well obviously the Kuwaiti 35th Brigade didn't surrender to the Iraqis after they had crossed the border into Saudi Arabia. They stayed there until eventually the US and UK and other countries retook Kuwait from the Iraqis. The order of battle for the gulf war shows a Kuwaiti Brigade known as "Al-Fatah" as part of the Middle Eastern contingent. This page from globalsecurity shows that this is another name for the 35th Armored Brigade. : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/kuwait-army-orbat.htm

Nelson's article also has this in the appendix section marked "Interviews" about Salem Masoud Al Sorour:

Salem Masoud Al Sorour, Brigadier General, Commander, Kuwait Land Forces. General Salem was a colonel, commander of the 35th Brigade during the invasion. He lead the brigade back into Kuwait during Operation DESERT STORM.

I think the idea that Kuwait somehow lost all of its Chieftans comes from this page in globalsecurity: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/kuwait-army-equip.htm which shows 123 Chieftans going missing between 1990 and 1995 (1990 being pre-invasion and 1995 being after the Gulf War). This may give the impression that a whole heap of Chieftans were lost during the Iraqi invasion. But, as I mentioned before, Nelson had pointed out that the Kuwaiti government had already slated the Chieftan for retirement. By 1995 this was obviously the case, as 150 M-84 tanks suddenly appear.

The Kuwaitis did not put up much of a fight against the Iraqis. The 35th Armored brigade was one of the only Kuwaiti forces which did. Their tanks survived the invasion and it is fair to say that they probably had them when they went back into Kuwait during the Gulf War. What of the other Chieftans? Don't know. I would say most of them were captured by the Iraqis since there seems to be a dearth of information out there about non-35th Armored Brigade Chieftans during the Iraqi invasion.

As for this Russian Source (from the section I removed), I have no comment: Tanki v operacii "Shok i trepet", Aleksei Brusilov, Leonid Karyakin, Tankomaster 2003-08 (Russian: Танки в операции «Шок и трепет», Алексей Брусилов, Леонид Карякин, Танкомастер 2003-08)

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Kuwaiti crews fought until they ran out of ammunition for the 120 mm, they then abandoned their vehicles to avoid being captured.

What is the actual configuration of the Khalid

The article states the following...

Khalid /Shir (Lion) 1

   Also known as "4030 Phase 2 Jordan". Jordanian with the running gear of the Challenger 1. In essence, this was a transition vehicle from the Chieftain to the Shir 2, which had been intended for Iran but was subsequently cancelled due to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The vehicle chassis comprised the front half of a Chieftain hull, Chieftain running gear and the rear of a 4030/2 Chassis (Sloping Hull). This allowed the fitment in the engine bay of a Rolls-Royce CV12 engine producing 1200 bhp at 2,300 rpm.

...So the Khalid is either a Chieftain with the running gear of the Challenger 1, or, a front half of a Chieftain hull, with Chieftain running gear and the rear of a 4030/2 Chassis (Sloping Hull).

...So does it have Chieftain or Challenger I running gear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA7:4602:7AFE:B9B0:EEAD:4125:B7D9 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURALNESS & WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Thanks for the sum up Cinderella157. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

---

• Chieftain (tank) → FV4201 Chieftain
• Conqueror (tank) → FV214 Conqueror
• Charioteer (tank) → FV4101 Charioteer

– WP:NATURAL disambiguation is preferred. Schierbecker (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Are those commonly used names? They look hard to remember. "Natural disambiguation" is not always preferred when the alternative is awkward. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wouldn't a WP:NATURAL test favor the current names? I can't imagine that most reliable sources, including media, use the full FV designations. They'd call them by the alternative to their formal designations: "Chieftain tanks." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - these plainly fail WP:COMMONNAME; I have never seen the proposed name in anything beyond a specialized source. Parsecboy (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose these numbers are meaningless to most readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't see this one giving the closer a difficult time. WP:NATURAL applies. It would have been nice if the initiator had given any indication as to why the community might want to consider IARing that. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NATURALNESS and WP:COMMONNAME apply. The designations at the head of the name are not going to be WP:RECOGNIZABLE for most readers and are not going to facilitate searches. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.