• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Jagdchieftain

JC Carbonel

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
199
Reaction score
13
Anyone around with 3 views of the "JagdChieftain" assault project on Chieftain chassis ? I discovered that through a small pix in Wheel & tracks and it would make a nice modelling subject for using poor 60's-issues kits of early Chieftain (Imai etc...)

JCC
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
46
A "JagdChieftain" ?
THis sounds very un-British army tank corp!
Was this proposal ment for British or Foreign use?
I to would like to see a 3-view drawing of this concept

M.A.D
 

Dronte

Argentinean ugly bird
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
If the memory does not fail to me that was a project product of the collaboration between German and British. I have only this photography.
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
36
Looks rather primitive, really. Rather reminds me of the 3in gun carrier Churchill, same sort of slab-sided approach. The German single and twin gun projects of the same period, on modified Leopard chassis were much more workman like.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
46
rickshaw said:
Looks rather primitive, really. Rather reminds me of the 3in gun carrier Churchill, same sort of slab-sided approach. The German single and twin gun projects of the same period, on modified Leopard chassis were much more workman like.
I have to agree with you!
After all it was the German's who perfected the assault gun concept.
I do not know if the British Armored Corps or even the new German Army would be aggressive enough to operate an assault gun on today’s battlefield
I am very surprised that the German Army did not develop a Jagar variant of the
Leopard 1, armed with a hull-mounted L5 105mm gun.
Are there any willing artist able to put this concept together as a CGI ???
After all, I think foliage covered camouflaged (Normandy style) Jagar Leopard 1 would look awesome


Regards
Pioneer
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
2
Website
rp-one.net
I'm pretty sure that this was just a demonstrator for the new Chobham armour. The Osprey book on the Challenger mentions it, IIRC.

RP1
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
159
I've knocked up a very rough 2-view based on the pics already posted. I can't get the back of the superstructure accurate, so any suggestions for changes would be appreciated.

Ta

KB
 

Attachments

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Somewhere I've got a set of photos from the Bovington Tank Museum. I'll see if I can find them, but I think they were of various vehicles all from the front.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
36
Kelly, your front view appears too narrow and too high, IMO, based on the photo posted above.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
159
Thanks for the fresh pair of eyes. I'll give it the hedgehog treatment and see how it looks.

Thanks

KB
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
159
Thanks for the input, especially from Smurf. Here is my lowered superstructure Jagdchieftain.

Couple of queries:

Where does the driver sit? Chieftain driver in in the middle.
How does the driver see the way ahead?
Are the "handrails" (omitted from my front drawing) actually hand rails or as a former Tankie colleague has suggested, supports for camo netting.

KB
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
36
Better. I think the gun aperture now is too large. I'd suggest the "handrails" are more than likely supports for camnets. They appear too large for anything else and in the wrong place.
 

Thorvic

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
601
Reaction score
11
Its from a early 70's joint project betwwen the UK and FRG for a Tank Hunter, possibly inspired from the Sweedish introduction on the S-Tank and modern MBT development, however they found under trials that a turreted gun system was more flexible for the modern changing battlefield.

The test bed is currently in the reserve collection at Bovington Tank Museum and they would be the best people to ask for photo's & drawings.

Cheers

G
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
159
See latest changes to drawing, reduced size of "mantlet" as suggested. Anyone out there with a Hind's eye view of a Chieftain I can base a plan view on?

KB
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
36
Much better. Now, there should be some sort of vision blocks for the driver, whom I assume is in the front left or right of the hull, with a hatch over his head. They aren't visible in the photo but I can't see how it could work, otherwise. Does anybody know if this thing had an autoloader? I can't see it being loaded manually, very easily at all with the roof line that low.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
159
I can't see how this could be driven closed up. There are no vision blocks on the glacis plate, only the hint of a hatch on the left forward corner of the roof. I suspect there would be a major re-jigging of the Chieftain controls as the driver sits in the middle. Perhaps the "motorcycle" controls can be relocated easily.

KB
 

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
As Thorvic said, I think it's "ask the tank museum" time.
 

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
I think it's "ask the tank museum" time.
I did, chiefly to find if it was still there, but also where is the driver. David Fletcher replied:
The Jagdchieftain is still here, but not on show, it is part of the reserve collection.
Bearing in mind that it was never entirely finished the idea seems to have been to have two drivers, one facing each way, on top of the nearside, a bit like Combat Engineer Tractor.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
159
Rob Griffiths' "Chieftain" has a couple of pages on the Jagdcheiftain. The jist of it is as follows:

Jagdchieftain, or rather the Concepts Test Rig (CTR) was a 1972 joint project between UK and West Germany. This had a semi-fixed weapon in a hull superstructure on a Chieftain chassis. Modifications were made to the suspension, gearbox and steering system to allow the vehicle to be slewed for fine tuning when laying the 120mm weapon. A dummy gun was fitted to the vehicle that has been pictured previously. It was designed to used either the L60 or MTU pwerpacks, the MTU being in use on the Leopard.

The glacis was to be heavily armoured against all current and future AT weapons and this was intended to be Chobham armour. This was not fitted to the prototype, but was simulated by the addition of 5 tons of lead plate covered in sheet steel.

Three-man crew (commander, driver and loader) with the vehilce being capable of driven backwards, as has been mentioned in previous posts. Driver and commander were to be able to drive the vehicle, while the loader had a rear vison block to allow him to drive it backwards.

While the vehicle performed well as a test vehicle for the drive train, the gun laying trials showed it to be inferior to a turret for speed in engaging targets, so it was cancelled.

Rob mentions that the Jagdchieftain was based on the FV.4211 "Aluminium Chieftain", but doesn't elaborate on that apart from the fact that it was kept in storage to monitor the aluminium welds. Perhaps some-one in the know could elaborate further on the Aluminium Chieftain.

KB
 

Quoth

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
There are some unmarked photos of the Jagdchief taken by Dennis Trowbridge here:

http://news.webshots.com/album/461349270WufFkz

The dummy gun has been unmounted but you can see the two crew hatches on the LHS and the rear periscope in still fitted. There is also a partial rear shot, the vehicles are parked too close together to get a clear shot by the looks of it but it might give you enough to get an idea of what the rear looks like.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
129
Anyone interested in tank test beds should take a look at the link posted by Sealord Lawrence in the MICV with Chobham armour thread (on at the same time as this one) of an article. It mentions a two man turret British tank called Contentious which was tested up until 1970, when the concept was rejected.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
125
uk 75 said:
Following up the Contentious (one of a number of interesting subjects in the Tank test bed article)
here is a Wikipedia entry with some good links at the bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV4401_Contentious

John B Hedge claims in The Wankel Rotary Engine: A History that it was speculated that the Rolls Royce R6 may have been cancelled in part because of the abandonment of a lightweight airborne tank concept by the British Army.
 

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,304
Reaction score
75
Found a page with an interesting writeup on the history, includes details for a similar style of AFV based on the Conqueror.

 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
123
Thanks for the input, especially from Smurf. Here is my lowered superstructure Jagdchieftain.

Couple of queries:

Where does the driver sit? Chieftain driver in in the middle.
How does the driver see the way ahead?
Are the "handrails" (omitted from my front drawing) actually hand rails or as a former Tankie colleague has suggested, supports for camo netting.

KB
G'day, As a Chieftain crewman/commander I have no idea what you are calling hand rails/holds. The side skirts had small cleats which were used to haul the bleeping things off for maintainence but that is it. There were small cleats on the hull and turret we used for stowing camo nets from. Not used when actually deploying the nets as we had to be able to move out at zero notice. No good dragging camo net remnants all over the place.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
129
I recall reading that the UK tested the S Tank extensively, but decided against it as turreted tanks could react faster and fire on the move.
The Germans continued to use a 90mm tank destroyer after introducing tanks with the same (M48) or heavier (Leopard) guns. They were then adapted to carry ATGM.
The need for an airborne tank would have died with the end of commitments East of Suez and the arrival of the Ferret and then Striker carrying Swingfire in the remaining airborne role.
 

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,304
Reaction score
75
I recall reading that the UK tested the S Tank extensively, but decided against it as turreted tanks could react faster and fire on the move.
The Germans continued to use a 90mm tank destroyer after introducing tanks with the same (M48) or heavier (Leopard) guns. They were then adapted to carry ATGM.
The need for an airborne tank would have died with the end of commitments East of Suez and the arrival of the Ferret and then Striker carrying Swingfire in the remaining airborne role.
If the site I linked to is correct, there was a major on-the-ground exercise code named 'Dawdle' (Which took place in August/September 1973 if my check of the National Records Office is correct.) in which the British fielded 10 S-103s (S-Tanks) borrowed from Sweden and it indicated turrets were still more effective than casement guns, even in the planned 'shoot 'n skoot' mode intended.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
129
Graham1973 Thanks, I didn't realise that the test was that late, as the S tank had come into service in the 60s.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
125
These drawings match descriptions of designs considered for a joint Anglo-German MBT in the early 1970s in William Suttie's The Tank Factory. The CV16 engine is interesting, in the early 1970s it was given a rating of 1100bhp in public documents.
 
Last edited:
Top