More nation take up the Challengers

[kelgar04]

Basically what it say on the tin. What of more nations bought Challenger tanks for their armoured forces.

Basically what I'm thinking is what would happen if Canada, Australia,l and New Zealand bought Challenger 1s and 2s when they come out.

With other nations buying thr Challenger 1s when they are superseded by the 2

How would this effect Tank development? How would this effect the UK economy? Who would buy the 1s?

 

[Riain]

The "problem" with the Challenger is timing, it began to enter British service in 1983 so won't be available for export until the second half of the 80s. At which point it has only a few years before the Cold War ends and the market for new tanks dries up for the better part of a decade.

 

[alspug]

The Challenger was as others have said a victim of not only timing but the problems the Chieftan had in it's early years.

The British could have been selling them like hotcakes to NATO countries much as the Leopard 2 was. The difference is in performance. The Leo 2 was faster, more agile and just as well armed with protection just about the same with Chally being tops.

The Iran revolution cost the Challenger program hundreds of tanks and reduced the market at the same time.

Of all the 1990's tanks in service around the world the Challenger 2 is my favorite.

 

[Bougnas]

The Challengers are too late and face stiff competition as a result.

The Shir 2 however interested both India and Egypt, can be delivered as early as 1980-81 and by 1983 becomes identical/superior to Challenger 1, so these countries are your best bets for larger "Challenger" customer base. This would require India not deciding to adopt T-72M1 instead, and Egypt to make a decision on a new tank sooner.

By the time CR1 arrives, it always was opposed by the M1 or Leopard 2 on the export market at the very least.

Challenger 2 was deemed to be hopeless at export even before it became a prototype. Oman only bought it because British-Omani politics forced that choice.

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

After the success of the Centurion, the Chieftain kind of ruined the British reputation for tanks again.

If the British had done what everyone else did and filed the NATO multi fuel engine requirement under "too hard, can't be bothered" and quietly ignored it, then the Chieftain could have had a reliable, and more powerful, diesel instead.

This alone would have left the Chieftain (and British tanks) with a better reputation and more sales.

When the Challenger came in, it got a bad reputation due to poor performance in NATO competitions. But as a British General said, it wasn't designed to win competitions, it was designed to fight wars - which the Challenger's performance in the' 91 Gulf War proved.

So either have the Challenger perform better in NATO competitions, or not enter them at all, combined with a more highly regarded Chieftain, and you may improve their export success.

Maybe add in the possibility of fitting the German 120 smoothbore as an export option as well, to help with sales.

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

The Shir 2 however interested both India and Egypt, can be delivered as early as 1980-81 and by 1983 becomes identical/superior to Challenger 1, so these countries are your best bets for larger "Challenger" customer base. This would require India not deciding to adopt T-72M1 instead.

I can't see India buying non-Russian tanks. India still regarded Russia as an all weather friend, while the West was not due to their support for Pakistan.

Add to that NATO tanks were getting too heavy for the roads and bridges high up in the mountains were India was facing up against China. The lower weight of R tanks was a factor in the decision.

 

[Mike D]

Maybe add in the possibility of fitting the German 120 smoothbore as an export option as well, to help with sales.

Because of the differences in the ammo it's absolutely impossible to chop and change the gun type without a major rebuild of the tank, unfortunately. British ammo is two piece with bagged charges, NATO smoothbore is one piece traditional metal cartridges. That was one of the problems that made the CR3 upgrade so expensive.

 

[Bougnas]

I can't see India buying non-Russian tanks. India still regarded Russia as an all weather friend, while the West was not due to their support for Pakistan.

Add to that NATO tanks were getting too heavy for the roads and bridges high up in the mountains were India was facing up against China. The lower weight of R tanks was a factor in the decision.

Per the document that brought up the Shir 2 to India question, the Indians seemed very much interested, to the point they were annoyed the British could not offer it until 1985 due to the Iranian order using all production capacity until then. They also wanted to produce it locally by 1985.

It seems the Shir 2 was expected to be a stopgap or outright replacement for Arjun (same weight class), which the Indian army didn't have high hopes for. So against Pakistan. The himalayan front against China wasn't too important at the time.

Also note that India was perfectly willing to buy Western many times (Vijayanta, Jaguar, Harrier), and the British had not sold much to Pakistan so it was a more favourable option than the US for Indian foreign weapon orders.

 

[Riain]

If the British had done what everyone else did and filed the NATO multi fuel engine requirement under "too hard, can't be bothered" and quietly ignored it, then the Chieftain could have had a reliable, and more powerful, diesel instead.

This alone would have left the Chieftain (and British tanks) with a better reputation and more sales.

Another one of Britain's mistakes in 1957 that cost it dearly for decades. When the Dutch trialed a Chieftain in 1969 they said the engine bay was black from oil leaks.

The 24 litre RR V8 would have made the Chieftain a beast from the outset, rather than a dud needing a decade of reputation ruining 'get well' programmes. This would have flowed on through the Iranian Chieftain programmes.

However the British arrived at the Challenger in a roundabout way, they started with an Anglo- German tank project in the early 70s that fell over, went to the MBT80 in the late 70s that wasn't due until 1990. They didn't go to the Challenger until the Iranian Revolution left the ROF Leeds high and dry by cancelling 125 Shir 1 that were already in production and 1200 Shir 2 tanks of which 250 were released for production. The Challenger was not part of Britain's plans, so an export drive could not be mounted in advance as its adoption was all a reactive rush job.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Basically what I'm thinking is what would happen if Canada, Australia,l and New Zealand bought Challenger 1s and 2s when they come out.

Canada and Australia might be starters, but NZ won't be. For one thing, they could only afford a handful - perhaps a dozen at the most, hardly enough to usefully contribute to keeping production lines open. For another thing, they wouldn't want them. They can't use them in NZ - anyone who can mount an invasion of NZ which requires ground combat will be able to deal with a dozen tanks. But they're also too heavy to airlift anywhere useful with NZ's C-130 fleet, and NZ didn't have a sealift capability back then (questionable whether it does now, tbh). So the Challengers would be stuck until the army got sick of driving them around Waiouru and sold them to the Aussies, which is what happened with the Centurions.

 

[naraic]

Inertia is a great thing in the arms business. If someone buys British theres a good chance they will buy a British replacement. The product will be getting a little old around the time the replacement becomes available. If the previous product is successful then the British reputation is boosted and they are likely to give a replacement the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't always work out that way but sometimes it does.

IMO the best way to boost sales of the challenger is to boost sales of the Chieftain.

 

[Riain]

From the Australian perspective back in 08 in my old life i had a conversation with an Army Captain on the Abrams project, coincidentally a Brit who had transferred to the ADF. Talking about the relative merits of the Challenger and Abrams he described the Abrams as the 'Cortina of tanks' to get into my head the difference in price of an Abrams and Challenger fleet.

The PoD for a more successful Challenger would have to be a more successful Chieftain, which starts with the engine back in 1957.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I agree Challengers success has to be an earlier Chieftain success

My POD for this would be far greater Israeli involvement (as well as adoption) and no Iranian revolution

So the Chieftain ends up with its RR V8 and torsion bar suspension - addressing IMO its main short comings resulting in a better Chieftain

It is used by both the Israeli army and Iranian army into the 1980s (with hundreds still serving in reserve roles or as repurposed vehicles)

This results in a great deal of combat experience gained on the type

As the various European and US tank projects fail the Shir project forges ahead - mainly financed by Iranian moneys and Israeli experience and British industry

This results in TTLs Challenger tank a few years earlier than OTL and is adopted by all 3 nations as a Chieftain replacement with 4100 odd being built

India stands up its own production of the type at AVANI in Chennai - with the first Challenger or ARJAN (Archer Prince) rolling out of the factory in 1994 and 410 built to date

 

[vetinari]

For Australia, in 1977 we had just adopted the Leopard 1. While it was a bit of a lightweight it was a good performer. It was adopted in lieu of the M60 MBT because while the M60 had won the competition, the US Army was busy re-equipping with it and could not guarantee delivery of a full 100 (which is what the initial order was to be) in a single tranche. With the prospect of having to take several tranches with the likilihood that the later ones would be equipped differently to the earlier ones and all the training problems associated with multiple different vehicles in the fleet, the Leopard 1 won. Plus, at the time, the Australian Government was seeking a more independent stance in it's logistics train after the 1960s and the Vietnam War.

So, the Challenger arrived at the wrong time in Australia's replacement cycle. We ended up with Abrams after the 1st Gulf War in the early 2000s. The Government at the time was convinced that the Abrams was the thing because of it's performance in the Gulf War. The Army wasn't so sure because of the logistics burden, the Abrams required refuelling too often because of it's its use of a turbine engine. In the end, the Abrams was ordered. We recieved though, at the time, too few for our needs, with insufficient to equip the requirements of 1 Armoured Regiment, the only MBT equipped unit in the army. So, we had to reorganise, going down to armoured squadrons. Since then we have ordered more MBTs and assault tanks.

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

I agree Challengers success has to be an earlier Chieftain success

My POD for this would be far greater Israeli involvement (as well as adoption) and no Iranian revolution

So the Chieftain ends up with its RR V8 and torsion bar suspension - addressing IMO its main short comings resulting in a better Chieftain

It is used by both the Israeli army and Iranian army into the 1980s (with hundreds still serving in reserve roles or as repurposed vehicles)

This results in a great deal of combat experience gained on the type

As the various European and US tank projects fail the Shir project forges ahead - mainly financed by Iranian moneys and Israeli experience and British industry

This results in TTLs Challenger tank a few years earlier than OTL and is adopted by all 3 nations as a Chieftain replacement with 4100 odd being built

India stands up its own production of the type at AVANI in Chennai - with the first Challenger or ARJAN (Archer Prince) rolling out of the factory in 1994 and 410 built to date

I was reading the Wiki page about the seeming fiasco that was the MBT70 project, which noted that the US armour establishment had a preference for working with the UK on a new tank, but McNamara was obsessed with German Engineering and insisted on collaborating with Germany on a new tank instead.

How about this - The initial Chieftain design has the RR V8 and better suspension, so is much better thought of, while McNamara never becomes Defence Sec or loses the arguement, so the US decides to work on the a new tank with the UK instead, so the Chieftain is developed further as a joint US/UK tank?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I was reading the Wiki page about the seeming fiasco that was the MBT70 project, which noted that the US armour establishment had a preference for working with the UK on a new tank, but McNamara was obsessed with German Engineering and insisted on collaborating with Germany on a new tank instead.

How about this - The initial Chieftain design has the RR V8 and better suspension, so is much better thought of, while McNamara never becomes Defence Sec or loses the arguement, so the US decides to work on the a new tank with the UK instead, so the Chieftain is developed further as a joint US/UK tank?

Interesting!

So a US/UK/Iranian/Israeli collab with India jumping in in the mid 80s?

Hmmm a lot of these projects folded during this period but its an interesting prospect

 

[Bougnas]

I was reading the Wiki page about the seeming fiasco that was the MBT70 project, which noted that the US armour establishment had a preference for working with the UK on a new tank, but McNamara was obsessed with German Engineering and insisted on collaborating with Germany on a new tank instead.

How about this - The initial Chieftain design has the RR V8 and better suspension, so is much better thought of, while McNamara never becomes Defence Sec or loses the arguement, so the US decides to work on the a new tank with the UK instead, so the Chieftain is developed further as a joint US/UK tank?

MBT-70 was meant to be a clean-sheet design, not an evolution of an existing tank so Chieftain didn't matter. OTL, the US managed to impose all of the major features of the new tank while Germany merely designed components like the engine, autoloader and suspension, things that the UK would be no better at even with the RR V8 and British torsion bar. The British also diverged from American thinking in much the same way as the Germans (normal main gun), with the only difference being that the Germans favored keeping the weight closer to 47t while the British wanted something heavier than the American target, but regardless weight will be a cause of divergence here too.

If anything, only the UK stands to gain from the cooperation, in the same way the Germans did OTL, by being able to develop components and testing things while not paying as much as they would have.

All of this ignores of course that the UK and US already partially cooperated during development of the Chieftain and T95 and still diverged, so I kinda doubt that the US genuinely was interested in more coop with the Brits. As it is McNamara dragged the Germans in but the Germans weren't all that interested and it is only very favourable terms that brought them in.