Israeli Chieftains, 1973...

MacCaulay

Banned
...I was reading up on the Yom Kippur War for a wargame I'm doing on New Year's Day, and I was able to glean some further information concerning a POD I pitched about a year ago.

Here's a passage from Chieftain Main Battle Tank: 1965-2003 by Simon Dunstan:

In the same month [April 1966], a delegation from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) arrived in Britain to study the Chieftain. For years the IDF had been forced to acquire tanks from a wide variety of sources, be they East or West. As a result, the Israeli Armoured Corps was determined to produce its own battle tank, following a decision in February 1964, so as to ensure a continuity of supply. At first the Israelis wished to assemble the French AMX-30 tank in Israel as, hitherto, the French had been the most reliable supplier of weapons to Israel from the West. The intention was for Israelis to assemble the chassis locally with the turrets being imported from France. By this time the Centurion was in widespread service with the IDF and the Israeli Armoured Corps, under the dynamic leadership of Major General Israel Tal, was more inclined to the British school of tank design rather than the French belief in high mobility at the expense of armour protection. After protracted discussions, while the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dithered for fear of offending Arab opinion, the British agreed to sell Chieftain to the IDF including setting up a production line in Israel. Initially, the the tanks would be assembled in Israel from kits supplied from Britain before full production was undertaken in the country. In return, the Israelis agreed to share development costs and provide their particular expertise in operating tanks in desert conditions.
What struck me about this at first was the fact that the IDF would have had an indigenous tank production capability nearly 30 years before it did in OTL. It also would've propelled it a good generation ahead in tank design.

As I was reading The Yom Kippur War by Abraham Rabinovich, I was able to glean some more information on where precisely these IDF Chieftain tanks would probably have been employed and how an alternate Israeli force structure would look with them in it:

Between the first prototypes of the Merkava in 1974 and the 1982 Lebanon War, the Israelis were able to field 180 tanks. So we can safely estimate a possible production time of 5 years starting in 1968 or so for the Israeli Chieftains. That gives us 60, or somewhere in the ballpark of 2 or possibly three battalions.

The tanks themselves had been tested and found to be like their British successors: more suited to the terrain in the Golan, which would mean that Centurions from the Barak Brigade, or perhaps the 82nd would be transferred into reserve and take the place of some of the Super Shermans that would engage Iraqi forces later in the war.

I've got more that I'm thinking of, but that's the bare bones right now.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Well, it certainly would have made the Battles somewhat more one sided than IOTL, but I can't think of bigger short term effects beyond what you already stated.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Well, it certainly would have made the Battles somewhat more one sided than IOTL, but I can't think of bigger short term effects beyond what you already stated.

Well, the first Merkava prototypes were out in 1974. This would completely take away the need for those, since by the mid-70s the Israelis would be making Chieftains in their own country under license.

There'd be no Merkava, which is huge. Also, the Chieftain was always kind of considered the bastard stepchild of the British MBTs: the Centurion was this supertank that just wouldn't die, and the Challenger was the one that invented Chobham, but the Chieftain was...well...it was the one with the poopy transmission.
Sure, it got fixed. And quickly. But no one remembers that because it's just not fun to not have someone to pick on. :rolleyes:

It could be argued that the success of the Centurion in the 1967 and 1973 wars was what catapulted the Centurion into such prominence in the export market. If the Chieftain was seen on television during the Yom Kippur War making these amazing stands in the Golan Heights (along the Tapline with Force Zvika, for instance, where in OTL 2 Centurions destroyed almost a brigade of Syrian tanks), then more countries might be interested in buying the tank.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Well, the first Merkava prototypes were out in 1974. This would completely take away the need for those, since by the mid-70s the Israelis would be making Chieftains in their own country under license.

There'd be no Merkava, which is huge.
Maybe not. It might actually reinforce the IDF's notion that a Bow Engine is the best setup for a tank, particularly since it lets one resupply easier in combat. Of course the *Merkava might also just be a really heavily armed and armored IFV ITTL.

Also, the Chieftain was always kind of considered the bastard stepchild of the British MBTs: the Centurion was this supertank that just wouldn't die, and the Challenger was the one that invented Chobham, but the Chieftain was...well...it was the one with the poopy transmission.
Sure, it got fixed. And quickly. But no one remembers that because it's just not fun to not have someone to pick on. :rolleyes:

It could be argued that the success of the Centurion in the 1967 and 1973 wars was what catapulted the Centurion into such prominence in the export market. If the Chieftain was seen on television during the Yom Kippur War making these amazing stands in the Golan Heights (along the Tapline with Force Zvika, for instance, where in OTL 2 Centurions destroyed almost a brigade of Syrian tanks), then more countries might be interested in buying the tank.
True. The Centurion would probably still outsell it however.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Maybe not. It might actually reinforce the IDF's notion that a Bow Engine is the best setup for a tank, particularly since it lets one resupply easier in combat. Of course the *Merkava might also just be a really heavily armed and armored IFV ITTL.

In OTL, the Israelis heavily modified a large number of their Centurions into what they called the Sho't (Hebrew for "Whip"). The 20 pdr. gun was swapped out for the now famous L7 105mm, and they made what was probably the most fortuitous change: a storage bin in the belly was made for extra ammunition that could be accessed by the crew without leaving the safety of the crew compartment. It was this extra ammunition storage that allowed the Centurions in the Golan to stand against the Syrians for as long as they did in fixed hull-down positions without retiring for rearmament: they had more ammunition than other tanks would normally have had.

I'll be honest: I've got no clue what Israeli modifications there would have been to the Chieftain, but belly stowage doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. The Chieftain was also designed to have more ammunition storage anyway.

One interesting sidenote is that the placement of Chieftains in some of the Golan defensive positions as opposed to Sho'ts or Centurions would actually put the Israelis in a much stronger position even just in regards to tank silhouette: the Chieftain was the first tank to feature a driver in what was called a supine position, meaning he was reclined back in his seat with the stearing yoke over his crotch and hips. This allowed a few feet to be cut off the height of the tank.
The defensive positions in the Golan that were built for the tanks were made to cut as much height down as possible: they were ramps that the tanks drove up on and then stopped at as soon as they reached a turret-down firing position. With the Chieftain, this could be reached sooner than with the Centurions and when the tanks were forced to retire by superior Syrian numbers, the Chieftains could more quickly take advantage of other defensible places in the terrain.


True. The Centurion would probably still outsell it however.
No doubt: the Centurion's cheaper, and the production line was higher. But there's no arguing with highlight reels, you know? :D
 

NothingNow

Banned
I'll be honest: I've got no clue what Israeli modifications there would have been to the Chieftain, but belly stowage doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. The Chieftain was also designed to have more ammunition storage anyway.
I'd bet on Air Conditioning if they didn't have it already, belly stowage for something, and later on Cage Armor, assuming they don't just build something like the Shir 1/Khalid or Shir 2.
 
Interesting height comparison between the Conqueror, Centurion and Chieftain.

conq_cent_chief.png


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10474.0.html
 
I wonder if the Dutch might've considered Chieftain for their next MBT? ISTR that they were really interested in MBT-70 while the project lasted; perhaps they shift to Chieftain as MBT-70 collapses?
 

Thande

Donor
I can't say Chieftains ever had that reputation in the UK mainstream...they about tied with the wartime Sherman for 'name to use if you want to specify a type of tank in a figure of speech to make it more amusingly specific'. For example, on surveying damage to one's car, "either my neighbour is spectacularly bad at parking or he happens to drive a Chieftain tank". Centurion came in a distant third on that scale. I certainly don't recall them having a poor reputation...
 
No I believe the Dutch were already sold on the German Leopard I. The tank was more suited to the dutch needs and they got a better deal. The Dutch have if I recall correctely moved on to the Leopard II.
 

NothingNow

Banned
I can't say Chieftains ever had that reputation in the UK mainstream...they about tied with the wartime Sherman for 'name to use if you want to specify a type of tank in a figure of speech to make it more amusingly specific'. For example, on surveying damage to one's car, "either my neighbour is spectacularly bad at parking or he happens to drive a Chieftain tank". Centurion came in a distant third on that scale. I certainly don't recall them having a poor reputation...
Huh. Must just be a Gear-whore thing or something.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Huh. Must just be a Gear-whore thing or something.

They had a reputation for crappy transmissions, whereas the Centurions and Challenger-series tanks were reliable.

In reality, the Chieftains that were operated at very high tempos (like at BATUS in Canada) had exactly the same engine reliability as the rest of the British armour, but it was a reputation that stuck due to some bad showings at a Canadian Trophy Competition.

Logically, the Israelis would probably have run them at a very high operational tempo, like they did with the Centurion. They initially had issues with that tank's air filter in the engine being clogged with sand, which is why Centurion-armed units were placed in the Golan and M-48/60 units were put in the Sinai.





BATUS is British Army Training Unit Suffield, in Alberta. The British have what is essentially their own armoured warfare training center, similar to the American one at Fort Irwin: miles upon miles of prairie where live rounds can be expended and no one is around. There is a dedicated Opposing Force and British battlegroups are rotated through at regular intervals for training.
 

NothingNow

Banned
In reality, the Chieftains that were operated at very high tempos (like at BATUS in Canada) had exactly the same engine reliability as the rest of the British armour, but it was a reputation that stuck due to some bad showings at a Canadian Trophy Competition.
Huh. So it was just normal wear and tear?

Logically, the Israelis would probably have run them at a very high operational tempo, like they did with the Centurion. They initially had issues with that tank's air filter in the engine being clogged with sand, which is why Centurion-armed units were placed in the Golan and M-48/60 units were put in the Sinai.
Yeah, something like the Khalid/Shir 1 was probably in the cards then.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Huh. So it was just normal wear and tear?

Personally, I think it was just that people with more practice on the vehicle knew how to handle it better.

Handling a tank's a lot like driving a car: if you're operating it every day, then you can practically operate the thing with your eyes closed. But if you're just driving it to the grocery store once a week, then you'll probably eye the shifter before you change gears, you'll drive a little slower, etc.


The bad Canadian Trophy Competition was when the tanks were just starting production, and the army basically shipped some to the British Army Of the Rhine with the instructions to use them as opposed to the Centurions they were more versed on.
So they had to go into a high stress situation with a ride they weren't familiar with, and when some things went wrong it was much easier to blame the machine than the men inside or (more logically) the higher officers who'd issued the orders that put that whole mess together in the first place.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Personally, I think it was just that people with more practice on the vehicle knew how to handle it better.

Handling a tank's a lot like driving a car: if you're operating it every day, then you can practically operate the thing with your eyes closed. But if you're just driving it to the grocery store once a week, then you'll probably eye the shifter before you change gears, you'll drive a little slower, etc.


The bad Canadian Trophy Competition was when the tanks were just starting production, and the army basically shipped some to the British Army Of the Rhine with the instructions to use them as opposed to the Centurions they were more versed on.
So they had to go into a high stress situation with a ride they weren't familiar with, and when some things went wrong it was much easier to blame the machine than the men inside or (more logically) the higher officers who'd issued the orders that put that whole mess together in the first place.

Ah. Inexperience with the equipment was an issue as well. That'd explain everything.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Yeah, something like the Khalid/Shir 1 was probably in the cards then.


I think you nailed it on the head. The Israelis might even be a better choice to proceed with a Shir 1 program than the Iranians, or perhaps the best of both worlds would be a secret alliance for development between all three, with the Iranians footing the bill, the Israelis providing the experience, and the British running the diplomatic cover.

Until 1979, at least, you've got all the makings for a winner. And the funny thing is that odd Jordanian/Israeli arms parity keeps going: if the British end up building the Iranian Shir 1 order while the Israelis are building their own and the Revolution still goes on as it did in OTL, then the Jordanians could still end up with the Khalid to match whatever the Israelis call theirs. (I like the idea of Super Sho't or Sho't 2)
 

NothingNow

Banned
I think you nailed it on the head. The Israelis might even be a better choice to proceed with a Shir 1 program than the Iranians, or perhaps the best of both worlds would be a secret alliance for development between all three, with the Iranians footing the bill, the Israelis providing the experience, and the British running the diplomatic cover.

Until 1979, at least, you've got all the makings for a winner. And the funny thing is that odd Jordanian/Israeli arms parity keeps going: if the British end up building the Iranian Shir 1 order while the Israelis are building their own and the Revolution still goes on as it did in OTL, then the Jordanians could still end up with the Khalid to match whatever the Israelis call theirs. (I like the idea of Super Sho't or Sho't 2)
There might be a bit of irony in the Jordanians operating an Israeli design.
What about calling the IDF version of the Cheiftain, and Khalid/Shir 1 the Sholef #?(Slammer/Gunslinger, as was used on the Merkava based SPH.)
 
The Chief was a finicky beast but once you got used to its quirks they were good tanks and best of all was the BV the boiling vessel a constant supply of boiling water for tea, coffee, soup and shaving kept up morale when it was nippy. We were always being told our tanks were slow, unreliable and the gun was so inaccurate we couldnt hit a barn door unless we were inside the barn.

Strangely enough during real life training excersises the supposedly much faster Leopards and M60s never left us standing for speed unless it was on a road or flat hard ground. When the ground was really boggy or steep the Chief could show a clean pair of heels to most tracked vehicles.

Yes Chiefs did break down (show me a tank that is totally reliable) especially when they had been standing for too long the engine and transmission needed regular use and the more the tank was used the better they got. Unfortunately the British Army is always short of money for useful things like fuel so we did a lot of polishing but not as much training as we would have liked.

As for the gun system yes on a range with time to measure distance and get your eye in the Leopards and M60s regulary beat us but in real life situations when you only get a fleeting glimpse of a moving target the 120mm usually hit and a hit with 120mm HESH or APDS is usually enough to make anyones day go badly.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
There might be a bit of irony in the Jordanians operating an Israeli design.
What about calling the IDF version of the Cheiftain, and Khalid/Shir 1 the Sholef #?(Slammer/Gunslinger, as was used on the Merkava based SPH.)

Sholef sounds good. I'm finding it hard to get a good Hebrew translator: it just translates it into written Hebrew, and I can't read that. :D


fastmongrel: What model did you drive? Where? I'm very interested to know.
 
fastmongrel: What model did you drive? Where? I'm very interested to know.

I was a loader not a driver I would have liked to be a driver but I was way too tall at 6 foot and built like a badly shaved gorilla. I could have got in the drivers berth but I reckon they would have had to wait a few months till I had shrunk enough to wriggle out again:D

We trained on Mark 2s which were the dog version they were down on power and leaked fuel and oil from everywhere, you could tell where a mk2 had been by the trail of drips and the pool of oil where we had parked.

When we got fully trained we were on mk5/2s which had most of the mk 2 and 3 problems sorted though they still werent perfect. These were gradually swapped over for the mk 8. I think it was a mk 3 with service mods new sights, new lights, new radios, an NBC system that actually allowed you to breathe when you were working hard shifting heavy ammo, changes to turret layout (a bit of equipment I had always cracked the back my head on was cunningly moved so I cracked my forehead on it instead no ergonomics then :eek:) extra armour and a modified power pack which finally solved the leaks and overheating problems.

There was a promise of a rebuilt version which would have had the latest armour and a V8 1000 horsepower engine but we never saw them it probably got cut in the endless defence reviews.

All mark numbers I think are right, 1977 to 1983 was a long time ago and to be honest I wasnt the best soldier in the world. I only really joined up because I was caught in the back seat of a car that didnt belong to the driver and was offered the choice of court or the recruiting office.
 
Top