Uk tank production without the Iranian revolution

[Cjc]

Rather famisly the uk ordered the chalanger 1 tank do to the lose of tank orders by rof leads leading to the very big risk that it would close.

Now what I'm curious about is what the uk would have done if Iran hadn't had its revolution and there was no threat to rof leads. Personally I think the uk despritly needed a new tank by 1980 (after all every nato nato besides France was upgrading at this time) and the cheapest way forward would be gust buying the same version of tank iran was getting (aka the chalanger 1) but I am curious what you all think, maybe they would have tried foreign collaboration agine (with france?) Maby they would have wanted even longer for something more like the chalanger 2.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm not sure how to put this politely, but have you heard of spellcheckers? Your post is kind of hard to read. I've translated below, hopefully.

Rather famously the UK ordered the Challenger 1 tank due to the loss of tank orders by ROF Leeds leading to the very big risk that it would close.

Now what I'm curious about is what the UK would have done if Iran hadn't had its revolution and there was no threat to ROF Leeds. Personally I think the UK desperately needed a new tank by 1980 (after all every NATO nation besides France was upgrading at this time) and the cheapest way forward would be just buying the same version of tank Iran was getting (aka the Challenger 1) but I am curious what you all think, maybe they would have tried foreign collaboration again (with France?) Maybe they would have waited even longer for something more like the Challenger 2.

 

[aim9xray]

Thank you for the translation services!
It does help.

 

[JWilly]

Rather famisly the uk ordered the chalanger 1 tank do to the lose of tank orders by rof leads leading to the very big risk that it would close.

Now what I'm curious about is what the uk would have done if Iran hadn't had its revolution and there was no threat to rof leads. Personally I think the uk despritly needed a new tank by 1980 (after all every nato nato besides France was upgrading at this time) and the cheapest way forward would be gust buying the same version of tank iran was getting (aka the chalanger 1) but I am curious what you all think, maybe they would have tried foreign collaboration agine (with france?) Maby they would have wanted even longer for something more like the chalanger 2.

My guess is that UK would have bought Challenger I's alongside the Shah, at a somewhat lower unit cost due to the longer production run than eventually was the case after the Iranian order was cancelled.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I think there would have been an improved version as per Challenger 2. The original turret was a compromised design which was a cramped and awkward as the Chieftain on which it was based was so difficult for even average height crew. Far too many real world compromises.

 

[Cjc]

I'm not sure how to put this politely, but have you heard of spellcheckers? Your post is kind of hard to read. I've translated below, hopefully.

Rather famously the UK ordered the Challenger 1 tank due to the loss of tank orders by ROF Leeds leading to the very big risk that it would close.

Now what I'm curious about is what the UK would have done if Iran hadn't had its revolution and there was no threat to ROF Leeds. Personally I think the UK desperately needed a new tank by 1980 (after all every NATO nation besides France was upgrading at this time) and the cheapest way forward would be just buying the same version of tank Iran was getting (aka the Challenger 1) but I am curious what you all think, maybe they would have tried foreign collaboration again (with France?) Maybe they would have waited even longer for something more like the Challenger 2.

You know people constantly say that yet if you actually copy and paste it you would find the spell checker most places use won't actually catch the parts that were wrong there. Its frustrating but I'm not going to tab out for gramerly for something this short.

 

[Elan Vital]

The historian Ed Francis has a different opinion given the archives he got.
He hasn't said much on the subject but MBT-80 was not cancelled in favor of CR1 to keep Leeds working. Britain had all the Iranian money regardless.

The biggest change if Iran has no revolution is that it would request and justify changes to Shir 2/CR1 over a long period, while the UK was less ambitious on that front.

But otherwise the tank force Britain got solely is the fault of its own government, not foreign ones.

 

[Hood]

Yes I fear MBT-80 would never have gotten far.
MBT-95 was a thing, briefly during 1982-87, but was cancelled in favour of Challenger 2.
As it was the original MBT-80 wasn't due in service until 1989, so Challenger 1 gave a welcome bonus. In this scenario of no MBT-80 but Iranian Shir-2s rolling off the production line, eventually the Army would have to have taken the Shir 2/FV4211 as its future tank given the Soviets are introducing the T-80 and the Germans and US have new tanks coming on line. The demands of Iranian production would possibly push back the start of British deliveries to 1986-87 at least though.

 

[Elan Vital]

Yes I fear MBT-80 would never have gotten far.
MBT-95 was a thing, briefly during 1982-87, but was cancelled in favour of Challenger 2.
As it was the original MBT-80 wasn't due in service until 1989, so Challenger 1 gave a welcome bonus. In this scenario of no MBT-80 but Iranian Shir-2s rolling off the production line, eventually the Army would have to have taken the Shir 2/FV4211 as its future tank given the Soviets are introducing the T-80 and the Germans and US have new tanks coming on line. The demands of Iranian production would possibly push back the start of British deliveries to 1986-87 at least though.

Leeds would have been overwhelmed until 1985 yes (that's when India could have got Shir 2s if it accepted the British offer, which it refused in 1979 in favor of T-72 for political reasons)..

However both Vickers and Alvis could have done contractor work for the British CR1s. Vickers built Chieftains and CR2s, and had recently expanded its facilities to build a few MBT Mk3s. Alvis had been in the tender for MBT-95.

 

[Cjc]

Yes I fear MBT-80 would never have gotten far.
MBT-95 was a thing, briefly during 1982-87, but was cancelled in favour of Challenger 2.
As it was the original MBT-80 wasn't due in service until 1989, so Challenger 1 gave a welcome bonus. In this scenario of no MBT-80 but Iranian Shir-2s rolling off the production line, eventually the Army would have to have taken the Shir 2/FV4211 as its future tank given the Soviets are introducing the T-80 and the Germans and US have new tanks coming on line. The demands of Iranian production would possibly push back the start of British deliveries to 1986-87 at least though.

Leeds would have been overwhelmed until 1985 yes (that's when India could have got Shir 2s if it accepted the British offer, which it refused in 1979 in favor of T-72 for political reasons)..

However both Vickers and Alvis could have done contractor work for the British CR1s. Vickers built Chieftains and CR2s, and had recently expanded its facilities to build a few MBT Mk3s. Alvis had been in the tender for MBT-95.

So if indea had also gotten shir 2s then it basically would have to use ither vikers or advise for new tanks, I wonder if that would lead to a different chalanger or if the uk would gust also buy Shir 2s.

 

[Elan Vital]

Yes I fear MBT-80 would never have gotten far.
MBT-95 was a thing, briefly during 1982-87, but was cancelled in favour of Challenger 2.
As it was the original MBT-80 wasn't due in service until 1989, so Challenger 1 gave a welcome bonus. In this scenario of no MBT-80 but Iranian Shir-2s rolling off the production line, eventually the Army would have to have taken the Shir 2/FV4211 as its future tank given the Soviets are introducing the T-80 and the Germans and US have new tanks coming on line. The demands of Iranian production would possibly push back the start of British deliveries to 1986-87 at least though.

Leeds would have been overwhelmed until 1985 yes (that's when India could have got Shir 2s if it accepted the British offer, which it refused in 1979 in favor of T-72 for political reasons)..

However both Vickers and Alvis could have done contractor work for the British CR1s. Vickers built Chieftains and CR2s, and had recently expanded its facilities to build a few MBT Mk3s. Alvis had been in the tender for MBT-95.

So if indea had also gotten shir 2s then it basically would have to use ither vikers or advise for new tanks, I wonder if that would lead to a different chalanger or if the uk would gust also buy Shir 2s.

They would have to build FV 4030/4 in Vickers and possibly Alvis. I don't think it would be different from the normal CR1 as the Iranian influx of money was enough to pay for the development of that version no matter what happened and it's dubious that Iran would request modifications that the British would want in time for CR1 production.

Only exception could be the elusive L11A7 gun but for all we know CR1 actually had this too.


That's assuming the Iranians still want British components because Shir 2 would have been rather...disappointing even by export tank standards.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The interior turret fit out was pure Chieftain.

 

[Arjen]

I'm not sure how to put this politely, but have you heard of spellcheckers? Your post is kind of hard to read. I've translated below, hopefully.

(snip)
You know people constantly say that yet if you actually copy and paste it you would find the spell checker most places use won't actually catch the parts that were wrong there. Its frustrating but I'm not going to tab out for gramerly for something this short.

That attitude will not get you any friends here. Your replies can be almost unreadable. If you want your replies to be appreciated - or even understood - do your readers the courtesy of using a spellchecker.

 

[Elan Vital]

I'm reviving this thanks to new information on Shir sales and production capacity:

- it is mentionned in a letter from 1977 about India's interest in Shir 2 that production capacity for Iran is 240/year at ROFL with an option for 60/year produced at Vickers. This confirms my hypothesis that Vickers could be put to contribution.
- First deliveries to India could only start in 1985 if the Shah takes the option at Vickers, with local production starting 2-3 years later. If not then deliveries could start earlier but only from the Vickers facility.
- Egypt, Syria and Iraq all entered talks with the UK in the 1976-1979 period to acquire respectively 200 Chieftains+ an unknown number of Shir 2s, 500 Chieftains with Chobham and finally an unknown number of Chieftains respectively. Britain denied at least Egypt and Iraq because no Chieftains could be made available, Syria unclear but either for the same reasons or political ones.
- Britain suggested that Iran fund increased production capacity so the UK could fulfill orders from other countries.

It is rather clear that the Iranian order overloaded British production capability, and I'm not even sure the UK kept a sanctuarized capacity for its own needs even though the UK was still supposed to receive a last batch of 80 Chieftains in 1980 or 81 and contemplated swapping those for a modified version of Shir 2 (interest in Challenger 1 thus predated the actual Iranian revolution, showing concern over MBT-80's timeline was serious).

What is not exactly clear is why, after the Iranian revolution happened, the freed British tank production capacity was not used to finally offer tanks to the other countries I mentionned above. 240/300 tanks per year far exceeded what the British produced for themselves and it was not completely too late for India and Egypt at least, likely Iraq and Syria too.

 

[Cjc]

I'm reviving this thanks to new information on Shir sales and production capacity:

- it is mentionned in a letter from 1977 about India's interest in Shir 2 that production capacity for Iran is 240/year at ROFL with an option for 60/year produced at Vickers. This confirms my hypothesis that Vickers could be put to contribution.
- First deliveries to India could only start in 1985 if the Shah takes the option at Vickers, with local production starting 2-3 years later. If not then deliveries could start earlier but only from the Vickers facility.
- Egypt, Syria and Iraq all entered talks with the UK in the 1976-1979 period to acquire respectively 200 Chieftains+ an unknown number of Shir 2s, 500 Chieftains with Chobham and finally an unknown number of Chieftains respectively. Britain denied at least Egypt and Iraq because no Chieftains could be made available, Syria unclear but either for the same reasons or political ones.
- Britain suggested that Iran fund increased production capacity so the UK could fulfill orders from other countries.

It is rather clear that the Iranian order overloaded British production capability, and I'm not even sure the UK kept a sanctuarized capacity for its own needs even though the UK was still supposed to receive a last batch of 80 Chieftains in 1980 or 81 and contemplated swapping those for a modified version of Shir 2 (interest in Challenger 1 thus predated the actual Iranian revolution, showing concern over MBT-80's timeline was serious).

What is not exactly clear is why, after the Iranian revolution happened, the freed British tank production capacity was not used to finally offer tanks to the other countries I mentionned above. 240/300 tanks per year far exceeded what the British produced for themselves and it was not completely too late for India and Egypt at least, likely Iraq and Syria too.

Well for indea at least they had already decided on the t-72 and would receive the first one in 1982, and Egypt had already decided on the abrams as well I think? Or it may have been the m-60 order I'm not sure.

 

[Elan Vital]

Now it's clear that India had chosen the T-72 anyway. Still doesn't explain what happened to Egyptian and Syrian interest.