Michel. Thank you for these videos. They fill a gap which does not seem to get covered elsewhere.
 
In hindsight the British would probably have been better off if they acknowledged in 1968 that the lower-end FV 4211 spec (high commonality with Chieftain but mediocre performance) would simply not cut it and instead leapfrogged straight to high-end FV 4211/FMBT spec, and started development of new components (preferably modern) accordingly.

MVEE suggested that RR design a new turbodiesel V12 in 1968, but it wasn't until 1974 that they seriously started working on CV12 and they were busy with the Wankel in the meantime.

This way, they could have entered FMBT talks in a much stronger position due to modern components being in a more advanced stage of development, and possibly could have had a backup prototype meeting their specs. Even if the talks failed anyway due to British conservatism and divergences of opinions on the tank, they would have been in position to finish their own indigenous tank at the same time as M1 and Leopard 2, avoiding the delays and flaws of MBT-80 and Challenger.

Alternatively or at the same time, ROFL could have properly worked on Shir 2 rather than making it deliberately bad, by using the more modern components of FMBT instead of old Chieftain ones, but with no aluminium endoskeleton. This would have been a better backup if they still went for MBT-80 and it would have better export prospects.

The notion of making FV4211 into a Chieftain with Burlington was pretty ill-advised in the context of fielding it in Europe ASAP. The armor was the only attractive part of this vehicle in Europe and with an introduction date in 1976 it offered only a small time edge compared to Leo 2 and M1. Considering that Burlington was always developped as add-on packs rather than truly integrated solutions like the composites in M1 and Leo 2, it would have been more efficient and more commercially successful to develop and offer said add-on packs for vintage tanks, even earlier than a FV4211 could hope to enter service and years or even decades before MEXAS, M60AX addons and such.​
 
Leaving aside the usual British problems of pennypinching budgets and lacklustre industry the British Army did not share the US and West German emphasis on mobility (Beweglichkeit).
BAOR prefered to channel the oncoming Warsaw Pact horde into killing zones where 120mm guns (Conqueror then Chieftain) and Swingfire ATGW at long ranges.
Where Bundeswehr Panzergrenadiers had HS30 then Marder infantry fighting vehicles which would move with Leopards BAOR had FV,432 APC that just unloaded infantry to fight from concealed positions with weapons like Vigilant Wombat and Milan.
Even when it got Warrior fighting vehicles and Challengers BAOR did not move like its US and West German counterparts.
Collaboration with West Germany was mainly driven by politics and the complicated way in which BAOR was financed by the West German taxpayer.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom