Israeli Chieftain Tanks

I was looking for tank information to use in Chris' story and came on this:

In the 1960's the Arabs were about to obtain T-62 tanks from Soviet Russia. This was the most modern operational Main Battle Tank (MBT) of its time, equipped with a high-powered 115mm cannon. It. was clear that no improvisations or rejuvenation to tanks of the 1940s and 1950s would suffice to ensure the continued security, and indeed the existence, of the State of Israel.

At that time, in 1966, Britain came forward with a dramatically historic proposal. The British needed money in order to complete the development of their new tank of the future, the Chieftain, with its 120mm cannon. This tank was designed to be the strongest and most modern in the west. In view of their financial constraints they proposed a "package deal". According to this deal, we would buy hundreds of obsolete Centurion tanks. They, in exchange, would allow us to participate in the final stages of Chieftain development, would sell us Chieftains, and would help us build, in Israel, an assembly line for Chieftains. This was seen as an ideal solution to the unacceptable predictions regarding the middle-eastern armor balance from both quantitative and qualitative points of view.

Our cooperation with the British lasted for about three years. Two prototypes of the Chieftain tank were delivered to Israel. Israel invested heavily in the improvement and final development of the Chieftain in close cooperation with British officers and engineers, who worked with us in Israel.

However, Arab states intervened. They threatened Britain with sanctions, with pulling their monetary reserves out of British banks, and other actions. Demonstrations were held in Arab capitals and British embassies were attacked. In November 1969 Britain withdrew from its Chieftain deal with Israel.

So what if the deal had gone through?

What would the effects be on the design of the Chieftain, on Anglo-Arab relations and on Middle Eastern wars?
 
Hate to think what the Arabs would have done to the British economy in the 1970s if we had gone through with it, though: lack of investment in UK when we were poor (thank you, WW2!), especially pre-North Sea Oil, and probably none too many big arms deals with much of the Arab world.

Did the Israelis lose many tanks in these wars? I thought they used M48s, M60s and Centurions (the latter two up-armoured and in service for many years afterwards).

The Chieftan was better than these, if only because they could take far more punishment. Had the Israelis improved on the poor gun aiming capabilities of British tanks during this period - much as they improved the fighter aircraft sold to them by the French - it could well have been of influence amongst their Arab neighbours. (And I doubt whether the British would have bothered adopting any Israeli improvements to their own Chieftans, on the grounds of domestic political expediency and cost.)
 
seems as if it would affect Britain more than Israel... even without Chieftains, Israel triumphed in the Yom Kippur war. The Israelis might have lost fewer tanks, although I don't know if anything on the Chieftain would have helped much with the (in OTL quite successful) Arab heavy use of RPGs. But in the end, Israel would still win, and it would be Britain facing the wrath of the defeated Arabs... right along with the US....
 
Dave Howery said:
seems as if it would affect Britain more than Israel... even without Chieftains, Israel triumphed in the Yom Kippur war. The Israelis might have lost fewer tanks, although I don't know if anything on the Chieftain would have helped much with the (in OTL quite successful) Arab heavy use of RPGs. But in the end, Israel would still win, and it would be Britain facing the wrath of the defeated Arabs... right along with the US....

The Cheiftain tank of that day had very thick steel armor. I've read as much as 400mm thick on the front turret or tower. The same sources claim the RPG [7?] was only capable of penetrating 300mm, so the front of that tank would be protected. By comparison the tanks they did have [American] were only 200mm protection so they were vulnerable to that rocket. Also I have read that the British design of the Chieftain tank included thin sheet metal plates suspended from the side hull [where the tracks are] .

When the RPG rocket strikes this plate , it is detonated almost a meter from the hull sides and that increase in distance made those RPGs not very effective at all. I'm told that the british also mounted storage bins around the side and rear of the turret that also achieved the same result. Some sources claim these 'spaced armor' plates and bins could even be enough to stop the arab missile , the SAGGER.
 
Add to that the subsequent employment of Chobham Armour, which is intended - through sneaky means - to explode any projectile before it hits the tank proper.

I remember someone saying that during GULF 1, the British Challenger tanks were sometimes used as shields for other tanks and amoured vehicles.
 
It was the AT-3 Sagger and other wire guided anti-tank missiles that accounted for most of the tank kills in 1973. The RPG unless I'm wrong was used on lighter AFVs or soft skinned vehicles or else used en masse to immobilise (note not destroy) tanks in conjuction with heavier missiles.
 
Typhoon said:
It was the AT-3 Sagger and other wire guided anti-tank missiles that accounted for most of the tank kills in 1973. The RPG unless I'm wrong was used on lighter AFVs or soft skinned vehicles or else used en masse to immobilise (note not destroy) tanks in conjuction with heavier missiles.
good point. Even if the Israelis did have Chieftains, their mounted infantry would still be in their US made APCs, and would be very vulnerable. Still, in the long run, it wouldn't make much difference... the Israelis would still win the war, although they'd do it faster.....
 
I've decided to bump this as I keep coming on references to it lately. So Israel adopts the Chieftain in place of the Merkava, does it later buy Challengers and perhaps other British military equipment?
 
That would depend on whether there's a Tory or Labour government at No 10. Wilson was quite pro-Israel, while Heath was in line with the Arabists at the FO.
 
Top