Absolutely KINO cold war training film from the bongs in 1983. Great production values. Very interesting as well, it shows how far modern russia has deviated from the USSR's tactical doctrines while still trying to keep the spirit of those doctrines.
You can see what they wanted to do in the early part of the war with the thrusts and pushing on regardless, but that strategy was developed for a Soviet motor rifle division, not a Russian battalion tactical group. Very interesting, give it a watch.
The chieftain is such a goofy looking tank with the additional turret armour. I love it.
>chief-ACK
this thing kept getting rekt by t-62s lmao
Unfortunately time marches on anon, there will always be a weapon that can kill your vehicle.
Chieftain was a pure steel tank with no composite armour designed for old doctrine or speed and hulldown, the only counter that it could not reliably defeat was the new t72, which Russia is still fielding kek.
At that time, most tanks could reliably kill each other with a direct hit untill the arrival of said t72.
This change in operations requirements directly lead to a change in design, and thus the chieftain was retired.
Also have a nice day warriortard.
>tank was designed for hull down
This has to be the biggest midwit meme related to weapons.
I mean, it was, it was also to keep the ammunition protected too, the Russians instead kept the ammunition near the bottom of the tank due to it being protected in defilade, the location of which in modern warfare is dangerous due to top down attacks.
They effectively only armoured the turrets for more than just medium arms for a reason anon, because steel is heavy as frick and they took priorities.
You like look at most tanks during the era and they followed similar principles.
Yeah I'm sure the British MoD decided to make their primary maneuvre element only able to effectively fight in a ditch.
Yes, they spent vast resources on the pre-prepared bounding withdrawal HD FPs and organic engineering elements.
The entire BAOR doctine was based around this attritional withdrawal strategy until the 1980s when it shifted to the BCT doctrine as the US was increasingly confident of having air supremacy over the FEB.
It wasn't until advances in metallurgy (ironically by the British) which allowed armour to catch up with advances in weapons.
>Ditch
Are you moronic, you do know what defilade is, it's not "just ditches".
What am I saying of course you are.
Low IQ posters incapable of reading. Love to see it.
>no arguments
If you honestly believe that the Chieftain was only designed to be able to fight from behind a hill or entrenched position you are moronic. What do you think the British MoDs plan was incase of a Soviet breakthrough retreat to the Marne? If the only purpose was to act as a glorified anti tank gun why even build it? You're morons that think that because it was designed to excel in the defense that it was incapable of fighting a war a maneuver.
>only
>only
>incapable
like I said, nice strawman, mong
It was mainly designed (as was much of NATO) to slow the russkies down only long enough until our politicians could either sort out a peace, or go MAD. Nato only had stocks to fight for a couple of weeks before going nuclear. Because of how much the Warsaw pact outnumber NATO ground forces, nuclear was our main defence, the ground troops were mostly as a speed bump.
Yes it was literally designed to fight in this manner for the BAOR, all other considerations were secondary.
Your entire argument is fricking moronic dude. The military can and will design platforms with a primary role first and then secondary considerations a distant second.
The British are pretty much the most autistic single use platform developers in modern military history. Look at the WW2 funnies, the harrier which was a distributed rough field CAR aircraft that by mistake became a decent fighter in the SHAR. The near total focus on AD of their destroyers in and after the cold war.
C2 was literally designed to BTFO as much vatnik armor from a defensive positions in Germany while engaging only from the front.
>coping with a strawman
you know you're wrong, just admit it
You're exposing your own ignorance.
The UK wanted a tank to fight in Germany in a defence in depth battle. They would move forward to prepared positions and plink away at soviet tanks with a fearsome gun and fast hunter killer system before withdrawing under cover to the next defensive position.
All modern tank doctrine involves moving through terrain so as only to expose the turret when possible. If this isn't possible you roll out, fire and retreat.
What are those bags on the side panels that look like Teabags? Are they for t-bagging the iraqis?
crew gear, tent, netting, spare dust skirt, a wet towel to keep the tank cool. Your guess is as good as mine.
Screen glare on my kindle, gunner rotate bearing 315.
It's to keep dust down.
He's asking about the top not the bottom
No no, about the bottom which partially covered the tracks
Ah alright
>could not reliably defeat was the new t72,
It could not reliably defeat the T-55s and T-62s it actually fought either. In fact it got its shit pushed in
When you do shit like this, it's not a troll. You just look moronic anon. The chieftain's gun was fully capable of killing all those tanks.
The time it did badly the Iranians boneheadedly drove them into a swamp, where they bogged down and drowned the engines.
At least make the criticism of tanks in line with reality. The Chieftain had good armor, a good gun but a dogshit moronic engine. An engine that was a product of a NATO initiative to create multi-fuel engines for every nation's tanks. Everyone else pulled out of it because it immediately became clear that multi fuel had so many engineering tradeoffs it really wasn't worth it. Literally everybody else said it wouldn't work and the bongs were like
>hold my tea and crumpets
and then they built a horrifically underpowered engine that broke down every hundred yards, couldn't be easily fixed when it did and couldn't, in fact, use different kinds of fuels without it fricking itself to death.
Really you just make the rest of look bad when we're dabbing on the bongs. You're so bad it it makes me think you're a bong false flagging to discredit the rest of us.
Spot on anon. The Chieftan was mostly a defensive tank though, not designed for maneuverability as it was supposed to fight from prepared hull down positions and snipe at enemy hordes from long range. The design emphisised protection and firepower over speed, hence the shit engine.
moron.
>only designed to fight in ditches
>I mean it was
Fricked this whol post up my bad in the middle of having an Indian woman give a talk.
>designed for = can only do that one thing
your mother's gash was designed for fricking, but I'll have you know both her throat and arse could accommodate a surprising length of penis
Okay so that's my point, that it wasn't only meant to be used in the defense. Although I'm pretty sure I was moronic and no one said the opposite, so that's my mistake.
Cheers
You just overreacted over nothing to the other anons. Like other NATO tanks of the period it was optimised for that envisioned style of fighting. That's just fact. Could it also manoeuvre and counter-attack? Absolutely, it was also part of the job description.
>not designed for maneuverability
Now this is a fricking new cope.
The engine was just shit.
>The time it did badly the Iranians boneheadedly drove them into a swamp, where they bogged down and drowned the engines.
There wasn't "a time it did badly", the Iran-Iraq war lasted 8 years and the tank performed poorly throughout.
>Iran-Iraq war
>Competent ground forces
Naturally you have some examples to back that up? And naturally if I do some research into them it won't be because of gross incompetence on the Iranian side?
Iranians used them like morons, rushed them forward into a swamp in a suicidal attack.
The Kuwaitis used them how they were meant to be used and a single company of them held up an Iraqi division for most of a day, killed 70+ tanks and vehicles before withdrawing when they ran out of ammunition. I'm not even a bong and I know this.
Why do you have to be such a Black person about these things, warriortard? You make /k/ so unpleasant to browse.The chieftain had it's issues, primarily it's multi-fuel engine but for it's time it was a solid tank.
because he's ruined his life and has nothing else to exist for
>could not reliably defeat was the new t72
says who
the British used them well in 1991
120mm APDS was not effective vs early T-72 Ural after 1km, and late T-72 Ural with the 60-105-50 at all
HESH was shown in tests to mission kill all cold war era soviet tanks regardless of terminal penetration.
Meanwhile in reality a 14mm thick spaced plate was enough to defeat 183mm HESH and have no effect on the tank hull
the 120mm HESH round out of the l30 was tested against abandoned and hulk t72 after GW1, led to estimated mission kills.
Held M (1999) Comparison of Effectiveness of Explosive Reactive Armour Against Different Threat Levels Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 24 76–77
Argues that HESH would be defeated by the T64(B) due to the spaced laminated armour, but the tests done arguably show that no tank hit would be in a fit fighting state afterwards.
>L30
not in service in GW1
>tested against T-72
didn't happen.
>M Held
The paper doesn't mention either the T-64 or HESH at all.
Britbongs on some mad copium if they believe HESH would defeat any surface that isn't only homogeneous armor. The German's did testing on Leopard 1 vs 105mm and found the X snow growsers that are mounted on the front plate made HESH unreliable as hell.even though they weren't designed to be armor at all.
>the British used them well in 1991
That was the later APFSDS (then known in the British Army as just fin round). When the T-72 was first deployed the Chieftain used standard APDS.
>fin round
yes
when was it introduced?
1983, just before the Soviets started introducing their 2nd generation of composite armors that L23 A1 was ineffective against (5 layer glacis on T-64B and T-80B and spaced plate array on T-72B)
I should say that is when it was typeclassified, I have no idea on the production and when it actually became common enough to replace L15A5
M833 was type classifed in 1983 but on ~1400 were produced in FY84, 0 were produced in FY85 due to quality issues and production only started ramping up after FY86
When used properly and not driven into a swamp and surrounded they do very well actully.
30 killed T-72 for no chieftain losses.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bridges
i think it's dead sexy with the rubber armor packs
also that engine, while completely dogshit, sounds really intimidating when it roars
though admittedly that's probably the sound of the engine tearing itself to pieces
Most kino cold war propaganda is Fortified Switzerland.
I live in Switzerland. It is not kino. The military here is full of homosexuals that take up space on the train.
You have no idea what kino means.
OP, if you like this there's a playlist i found on youtube with 60 cold war era British Army videos, most of them for training.
>https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1201241573903DAF
Lmao, great timing OP I just watched that last night. Very kino indeed
The youtube algorithm does this repeatedly. I'll post about something because it got recommended to me, then someone else will also have watched it recently. Must be something to do with shared interests. Here's the test, I also watched this last night :
Have you also watched it recently?
>amalgamated
sad
there's no reason the Royal Green Jackets and the Light Infantry shouldn't be two separate regiments even today, instead of being squashed together into the frickhuge "Rifles"
What's the rationale for amalgamating into big regiments like that? Cutting down on support staff?
I have no insider's view, but I suspect internal politics*. Outwardly, recruitment.
The British Army is small, it always has been, historically. The RN was always the focus for obvious reasons, and the RAF has taken off large numbers who pre-20th century would have joined the other 2 services. So has the Army Air Corps (helicopters), cyber warfare units (they really missed an opportunity here to save one regiment), and the Paras (very popular, relatively young.)
Within the Army, some regiments and regions attract more recruits. That's just a fact of life, but its made much much worse nowadays when the average village has 2,000 folks, mainly old farts and retirees, or farmers and shopkeepers; and everyone else is in a few key cities. Look at this heat map; you can't maintain regional-style recruitment when basically everyone is centred on London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Belfast.
As such, some units tend to attract more recruits than others. And yes, you have to accommodate their wishes TO A CERTAIN EXTENT (small as it may be), because the alternative is "oh very well then I'll frick off home". For example, if a super keen fit young fellow wants to go into the Paras, are you really going to tell him "nothing doing, it's the Irish Guards for you"? He might just resign altogether! Therefore, some units are just more popular than others, and others languish and have to amalgamated. It can't be helped.
Why not rubbish the Regiments and all that "useless" ceremony altogether? EVERYONE would just give up and you'd then have an even smaller army! And one with morale shot to hell to boot. Because say what you will, pride of the regiment does have significant combat morale value.
>*Perhaps they wanted to get rid of any special identity and make "The Rifles" the most generic fit-anywhere regiment of the Army. Also makes it easier to downsize in future. I don't know.
Yeah... but then you've got situations like R ANGLIAN, where the 1st battalion is effectively the old Suffolk regiment and the 2nd battalion is the Gloucesters. When you may as well just have two seperate regiments with a single battalion and keep their histories more intact.
Capbadge and muh infantryman and his rifle autism have ruined the British Army since the 50s.
disagree
I don't get it either
if anything, the Rifles should've been formed of the Royal Green Jackets and the Light Infantry, with the rest plus Suffolk plus Glosters plus Mercian forming the Royal Anglian Regiment, ie the "English Regiment"
>There's an element of 'bloat' that comes with single battalion regiments
ceremonially? could cut down on that
>ceremonially? could cut down on that
Partly; but also regimental HQs and their staff; some efficiencies with regards to recruiting material and other stuff. Admittedly not a huge expense in the grand scheme of things.
Ultimately a lot of single battalion capbadges weren't able to sustain themselves.
There's an element of 'bloat' that comes with single battalion regiments but by and large the amalgamations made in the mid noughties were to make it easier to cut numbers in the future and as a result of certain county regiments struggling to recruit (see the large numbers of Fijians in Scottish regiments). This wasn't the first case, there were a number of amalgamations in 1958 for a lot of infantry units and after the cold war for a lot of cavalry units IIRC.
they want to keep the tradition of the individual units "alive" while cutting the size of the army
this one is a good one to watch after; it goes into more specific platoon defence and preparation tactics against an advancing soviet force
There's a west german one that's similar where the last 30-40 minutes just turns into a realistic action film. I know it's on youtube but I can't recall the name
Berlin Brigade camo is pure sovl.
Berlin Brigade camo with the blue DPM would be a great combination
>The Siegessäule, aka the Berlin Victory Column
I was standing in almost the same spot a few weeks ago.