There are literally hundreds of these lying around
>Stick a new engine in
>update sights and radios
>give it the DU ammunition from Challenger with adjusted bag charges for the older gun
>make a chobham version of the still brew armour
>slap on some aesthetic soviet ERA
>Remote weapon station with .50 cal and thermal sight.
You now have a tank that can shit on the T-54/55/62/64's that Russia is now deploying in large numbers. And by the time it gets there it will dab on the T-44 and 34's too.
This is the most aesthetic tank option available to Ukraine.
an unmodified chieftain will probably dab on what the russians are using 95% of the time.
Didn't Iran have these and they just constantly died ?
They replaced the L60 with the V-84 and redesignated those Mobarez
But yeah, as far as I am aware where the hell are the "literally hundreds" lying around other then Iran and Iraq (who reactivated a few Chieftains vs ISIS)
IIRC Jordan have retired their Khalid tanks, so that if they have them in storage, I guess that's an option, but you need a lot of work to modernize it.
The UK. You can't move around our museums without bumping into them. Very few of the 900 were scrapped. Heaps of them just got dumped on our firing ranges too (pic related) although you obviously wouldn't restore those ones.
You can even buy them privately, this company is selling 4 right now.
Most of those museum chieftains are completed gutted inside.
Also if they are in the UK, the gun is disabled by cutting the breech
Not necessarily. There are plenty with no bore cut, but they are plugged.
They can be unplugged.
There are 3 Cheiftains in some bushes near me lol
>although you obviously wouldn't restore those ones
Just have one of those youtube channels that likes fixing old things do it for free.
Funny you mention that
Oh neat, thanks; I will have to check that out later.
Knew you would have been linking to hewes before checking.
Great little channel.
how much does it cost to buy one
to t72m1 and chinese t62s. yes.
to be fair they were used poorly but its not like the iraqis were using theirs any better
The biggest tank battle of the war involved the Iranians driving right into a prepared defensive line and getting stuck in the mud without infantry support, even the Iraqis couldn't screw that up.
As we recently realized iraquis were better than most people think
Older marks of chieftain with older ammo
Give it TOGS L26 or L27 and it could pose a real threat to t-72s
Still I'd be worried about the logistical burden of its unreliable engine
h-h-how long is it?
Kuwait also had these and stomped 30 t-72's with no losses.
>Stick a new engine in
If we're talking about British engineering from the cold war, better get Jordanian Chally 1's. They can even shoot some of the Chally 2 ammo
A Challenger 1 is literally just a modified Cheiftain 2 retard, the FCS Thermal sight etc is the same.
>A Challenger 1 is literally just a modified Cheiftain 2
You're way off the mark. The latter tank doesn't even exist.
>The Challenger design by the former Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment (MVEE) near Chobham in Surrey originated in an Iranian order for an improved version of the Chieftain line of tanks in service around the world. These were the Chieftain Mk5(P)- FV4030/1, FV4030/2 Shir (Lion) 1 and 4030/3 Shir 2. With the fall of the Shah of Iran and the collapse of the UK MBT-80 project, the British Army became the customer and the tank was further developed by MVEE to meet Western European requirements.
The Challenger 1 is the Cheiftain 2 brainlet. When Iran collapsed and cancelled its order the Brits renamed it the Challenger. You were never on the mark to begin with.
design origins mean fuck all, there is next to no commonality. Totally different hull and turret, new engine, new FCS and optics.
>The L11 was developed by Britain's Royal Ordnance Factories to equip the Chieftain tank as the successor to the 105 mm L7 gun used in the Centurion tank. It was also used on the Challenger 1, which replaced the Chieftain in British and Jordanian service. The weapon has been superseded by the L30 series 120 mm rifled tank gun.
You stupid cunt the newest cheiftain had identical FCS and gun as the Challenger 1.
Stop coping and know when your wrong you autistic freak.
>Iran wants improved cheiftain
>UK develops shir 2 a la cheiftain 2
>Iran collapses, UK renames shir 2 Challenger 1
>Keeps FCS, Gun and electronics. Adds on UK only armor and new engine
>the newest cheiftain had identical FCS and gun as the Challenger 1.
Because the newest chieftain came AFTER challenger 1.
>Cheiftain with same gun, fcs, electronics and togs as challenger 1 1975
>Challenger 1 introduced 1983
Do you have mental issues with not being able to admit you were wrong?
In 1975 all British Army earlier Marks of tanks except Mark 1's were upgraded to Chieftain Mk.5 standard as part of the 1975 "Totem Pole" programme. "Exercise Totem Pole" was carried out in six-to-nine phases depending on the Mark of vehicle being modified (Chieftain Mk.5's already had some of the required changes incorporated at the factory) between 1975 and 1979 and included fitment of the Marconi Improved Fire Control System (IFCS), replacement of the searchlight with the Barr & Stroud Thermal Observation Gunnery System (TOGS), along with modifications for using FSAPDS ammunition. Upon completion of each phase the vehicle received an additional suffix to the designation, e.g., "Chieftain Mk.3/S(Y)2" denoting a Mark 3/S having completed the first three phases of "Totem Pole". including addition of Clansman radios,[xvii] fitting of TLS, fitment of Muzzle Reference System (MRS) [xviii] upon replacement of L11A3 barrel with L11A5 barrel,[xix] and fitment of 750 hp L60 Mark 8A. These vehicles were re-designated Chieftain Mk's.6 to Mk.8.
Scroll down the variants you can see here where Cheiftain 2 became Challenger 1 you imbecile.
Nice self own.
"completely new MBT"
>B-but it says entirely n-new!
Hence why I said the Cheiftain 2 in my op you fucking spastic, the fact that it's on the Cheiftains variants proves me completely right.
keep trying to soothe your autism though.
>Hence why I said the Cheiftain 2
Hence why I've been telling you no such tank exists, Challenger 1 is an entirely new Hull and turret. It's not a modification.
>Iran wants modified cheiftain
>UK works to make a new Cheiftain
>Iran bails, UK adds its own armor and calls it Challenger 1
but thats the issue, the development project went far enough from chieftan to be a distinctly new tank hence challenger not chieftan 2 itshull was based on chieftans but significantly up armoured, with a new engine and suspension and a completely new turret
I sometimes call the Sherman the M3 Lee II "Completely Different Hull and Turret"
There is no such thing as Chieftain 2. The development process resulted in an entirely new hull and turret and this became challenger 1. If you'd ever seen them in the flesh you would know this.
>Different suspension type
>Different in every dimension
>Virtually identical FCS
>The Challenger 1 is really the Chieftain 2
The Challenger 1 is literally an upgraded Cheiftain like the other anon is telling you, you can read it on wiki dude.
> Citing wiki as a source
the Chally 1 was essentially a reheated Chieftain and showed it in terms of reliability and gunnery
Chally 2 by contrast despite sharing a similar hull is inarguably a separate tank
>You stupid cunt the newest cheiftain had identical FCS and gun as the Challenger 1.
Both Totem Pole Upgraded Chieftains and Challenger 1 used the Marconi IFCS/CSS and both used the L11A5.
Firepower wise they were identical.
>Firepower wise they were identical.
That's a terrible argument. So were the KV-1 and the T-34 Model 1940, but it doesn't make them the same tank.
I didn't say they were the same tank.
Challenger 1 uses the exact same FCS and Optics as Chieftain.
Challenger 2 hull is exactly the same as Challenger 1. Only the turret and the internal systems are different
Forgot to specify later Chieftain mks fitted with IFCS rather then TLS or the Ranging MG
Lima/Anniston is at max capacity with orders for US, Taiwan, Kuwait, Poland
>They can even shoot some of the Chally 2 ammo
So can cheiftain, it shares pretty much the same gun as challenger 1.
why bother with the upgrades, just dump them on the Poland boarder, let the Ukrainians figure it out
These would be a logistics nightmare to restore, let alone retrofit with a new engine. US already backed out of providing base M1 Abrams because of how long it takes to restore these, and provided M1A2 instead
Also the Brits have barely any ammo left for their tanks, all the factories have closed down ages ago, it's a miracle that they found any stockpile for the few Chally 2s that they've sent over.
Very little reason when there's already hundreds more leopard 1 around.
Daily reminder that there are thousands of M1 and M1A1 Abrams sitting around in California.
They could have been refurbished 6 months ago and now entering the battlefield.
But no, America does not wish to see Ukraine win.
Same with the atacms or the many M198 howitzers we could send over and not cripple our military. Hell we could bring the USS Salem back to operation and give the Ukrainians shore bombardment capabilities without affecting our current naval effectiveness.
Europe was supposed to solve Europe.
and it has.
Ukraine is a lot more important to America than Europe.
2/3 of Europe would be happy to go back to doing business with Putin. It's mostly in US interest to keep Ukraine standing.
>and it has.
You mean Poland?
No one has donated more actual equipment than Poland.
I mean I would have liked to think the scope of what I said was broader than that. NATO is back with a vengeance, the Nordic nations have combined their air power. MIC has fired up again. Europe is ready to clean house and fix a lot of shit that has been hanging around for decades. It even looks like Serbia has figured out it can't be a pet antagonist any more, although it's going to have to go through a shitload of reforms.
Things aren't perfect, why would they be, but the US has a lot to be happy about in terms of how things are going. At the very least, they have a shitload more "Good boy" countries now than they used to, so they can commit their yelling to South East Asia now (Which they are doing, holy christ I decided to take up my apprenticeship at EXACTLY the right time holy military contracts batman)
>There are literally hundreds of these lying around
And they're fucking terrible.
Even the guy who named himself after them thinks so.
I'd link you the video but finding a video named about a tank with the same name as the guy is annoyingly difficult as he also named one of his video series "the chieftain's hatch."
Maybe try the FV designation
Diden't Jordan have 400 Challanger 1s that they retired?
There was some talk of them being bought and Rheinmetal modernising them for Ukraine, but nothing's come of it as far as I can tell
Just replace the armour, the ammunition, the sights, the engine... at that point, haven't you replaced most of the tank?
Yes but also no
many times have tanks had a different armor pack added-on and it's still the same tank, e.g. Chieftain with Stillbrew
Upgraded ammunition still means it's the same tank, e.g. Chieftain with L23A1
Tanks have had their sights improved numerous times over their lifespan, still the same tank, e.g. Chieftain with IFCS and TOGS
This one is 50/50 depending on what the manufacturer feels like Chieftain with CV12 is Shir 1/Al-Khalid
Leclerc with MTU 883 is still a Leclerc
What I'm suggesting is not a philosophical distinction but a practical one. You've replaced pretty much all the components that are major cost factors for a tank... you're more than halfway to buying a brand new vehicle at that point.
>just make a chobham version bro
This seems to be the thread for it:
How complex is conversion from torsion suspension to hydrogas suspension for a tank? Is there good documentation anywhere for the process where it has been done?
There was an Abrams demonstrator with Hydraulic suspension.
And more recently there was a Bradley testbed with the suspension
real swede energy, I like it. I assume it didn't work out?
Tank with no autoloader would not survive in Ukraine a single day.