Chimera 1984- Tank Design & Development
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Today’s video will take a closer look at the development of Chimera tank destroyer 1984, a joint partner project done at a Long Armour Infantry Course in 1984. The officers had to design a tank destroyer and chose the chieftain as its base, although it was never part of the British requirements the Canadian army studied the subject afterwards in detail.
Also please don’t call it a jagdcheiftain.
#Chimera #tank #experimental #fredsmum #STT #LAIC #Chieftian #tankdestroyer #warrior #missile #armour #1984 #mbt #concept
Aka that thing that is in the Canadian tree in wargame red dragon
I remember wondering what the heck it was.
I remember this concept in the book “Tank vs Tank”
Called the “Goliath” in the book.
Sniping T-90s in support of Abrams.
Nice drawings. A lot of people don't realise how hard they are to do.
A proper hydrostatic steering system would have solved a lot of problems related to the gun traverse such as the need of internal space, sealing and the large slit in the frontal armor.
Not exactly inkeeping with the goal of keeping things cheep though.
For a moment there I thought 0:59 was a picture of a US Marine enjoying a snack while writing his report.
Despite it being based on a Chieftain hull, there doesn't seem to be much of the Chieftain left by the end. They've basically lifted up the number-plate and slid a new vehicle in behind it.
It had the same gun..... If you chose that option.. 😁
Some of those rescued models made me think of the fictional MBT90 that appears in Gavin Lyall's 1988 novel 'Uncle Target', I also noted that several of the concepts discussed for this Chimera (Namely the use of multi-spectral cameras, rather than direct vision devices.) also crop up in that novel. Definitely looking forward to when you get around to the projects those models cover.
I loved that book, finally read it last year and I've been itching to model the closest possible thing to the tank. That liquid propellant gun was really a neat feature
@@johnib5905 Reputedly the original publisher commissioned a model of the tank that they used for advertising, but I've never been able to find a copy of the advert and the earliest covers I've found for the novel use a Chieftain! As for what looks closest to the tank in the novel IRL, the Jordanian 'Falcon' turret fitted Challenger seems to be the best bet at the moment.
And what they came up with was a cross between a WW2 German StuG and Swedish Stridsvagn 103…
Absolutely fascinating video. With all this going on not very long ago. How the hell have we ended up where we are now?
No tank producing facilities left and a dwindling pitiful number of Challengers, being upgraded by Germans!
Another very intersting Video and vehicle. Thank you
Another great video about a vehicle that I hadn't heard of before.
If the AFV is going to be used defensively, from prepared firing positions, anyway. Wouldn’t it have been almost as effective to mount Challenger turrets and a new engines on old chieftain hulls? From a hull down position only the turret is exposed, and that was state of the art for the time. It would have made a cheap option for NATO countries looking to upgrade. You could even let them choose their own engine.
Also, part of the hidden genius of the Stank is its dual engine set up. A diesel for slow movement and fuel efficiency and a turbine for sprints. As far as I know this combination power pack is unique, but avoids a lot of problems which plague all MBTs. The US M3 had twin engines which combat experience showed was a great concept.
they did test that, done a vid on it too :) but in this case they wanted a TD, so a chally turret on a 4201 hull would still have the same issue as being less efficent and not utlising the advantages of a tank, while also not solving the issue as expensive new turrets on clapped out hulls would be wasteful, but at least one hybrid was mad in the chieftian PIP
I wonder if they considered a backwards gun, like the weird Valentine Archer. Obviously this makes the engine vulnerable, but hopefully it's hidden hull down.
With the gun facing backwards, the main armor plate is now in the center, and the gun pivots near the center of the vehicle.
_correction_ in reality it had on average less than 28 seconds of tracking time because in the real world you don't have your crosshairs moving directly on a target before it enters either extent of your training angles and projectile lead chews up to 4 degrees off of each side
Cool. you would have a blimey limey Hetzer. Lol
This was a interesting project but I cannot help but wonder with the side armor thickness how the tracks could be repaired from mine damage. Your channel is really great and the drawings are fantastic. I subscribed today because the content is so interesting. Thanks for sharing this.
Very informative.
why didn't they just buy the Swedish stridsvagn 103, the S tank and save the R and D costs and a whole lot of time not waisted?
*Stridsvagn 103C*
In the defense decision in 1982, it was decided that the purchase of a new tank would be expected until the 1990s, after which modification of the existing tanks became necessary. The renovation and modification of Strv 103 entailed improvements on the following points, among others:
• Laser rangefinder integrated with the shooter's sight
• New piston engine from Detroit Diesel
• Partially new gearbox
• Possibility of skirt armor consisting of diesel-filled jeep cans
• Headlights
• Dozer blades for all wagons
_All rebuilt 103Bs were taken into use in _*_1986-1988_*_ under the designation Strv 103C._
_Then they would have received a vehicle which could functions as:_
An infantry support vehicle
An anti-tank vehicle
A storm cannon vehicle
An armored bunker on tracks
be an easy course tho ... so chaps what do we thing..yeah buy that one :P also wont solve the issue of those leftover hulls we cant get rid off
@@armouredarchives8867 they could have made them into something like the BMPT "Terminator" 🧐
@@armouredarchives8867 six months later...
Maybe they could have used the as trade-in for the S tank.
I did my service in 89/90 and we really could have made good use of those hulls in the army. Our tank regements had there Centurions, S tanks and more and we only had some IKV 91* on my regement. And making anti tanks of the hulls for army use could have been a good solution. The StuG III was a serious moral booser with the German infantry so having potent anti tank platforms might be a game changer. We only had un-armored vehicles for our pvpjs 1110.
Sadly we will never know.
🇸🇪🤝🇬🇧
* _IKV91, The Infanterikanonvagn 91 ("infantry cannon wagon 91"), was a high mobility assault gun that was developed to meet the operational requirements of the Swedish Army. It was designed and manufactured by Hägglund and Söner (now Hägglunds Vehicle AB) and employed common components with the Pbv 302 armoured personnel carrier series. The first prototypes of the Ikv 91 were completed in 1969 with production running from 1975 until 1978. The total numbers manufactured were 212._
On the reliability issue of Chiefy ( and all brit armd vehs ) was there ever a study done as to why the recovery vehicle versions did not seem to break down as much as the fighting version despite having less crew and the reme did not seem to spend much time repairing / mainting their own vehicles but loads of time fixing the host units vehicles?
The Recovery vehicles probably just had fewer hours/miles on them
few aspects, the biggest issue with L60 was it really did not liek startign stopping and shuffling about, but worked well enough at a constant rev, which isnt good for tanks etc, they did fix most the issue by the end, but by that point the rest of the platform was gettign old
Wargame ALB intensifies.
Might as well have given it a bigger gun, following the old tradition when tank chassis are developed into tank destroyers.
nah, that gun was the best there was at the time, still in use today and more than capable for 1984, no need for a bigger gun if its not needed as less room, less ammo and so on, developing a 130mm piece would have cost a lot and defeated the purpose of this project
Skulls for the algorithm God.
Awesome as always!
Reminds me of the S tank Don't know the cost of that but for the purpose described it seems ideal.
If had a flamerthrower as secondary would be a funny reference
Seems to be reinventing the "wheel" of the S-tank. Sure, a bigger gun and more modern optics but losing many of the advantages of the S tank. Instead of the hydropneumatic suspension, a cheaper limited traverse mount. Putting the drive train in the rear and losing the protection of tons of metal at the front. That also eliminates the rapid reload at the rear.
Stansk primary defence is mobility and profile, not armour, any big hit will also imbolbilise the engine, which it vital along with the tracks for casemated vehicles, this vehicle has protection and profile, but lacks the agility os Stank. - Stanks is also a 'rank' and designed to work very offensivley, while this is aimed at defensivley squating more
I had that book (tank vs tank) and remember the artwork
With the name Chimera - it should really be stealthy.
I mean it’s silhouette is comparatively small
It is also one hell of a collection of idea just mashed together so name is also fitting in that regard
Great video! Subbed 👍
Looks like an StuG IV on Extacy
I know Japanese vehicles are outside the focus of this channel, but I'd like to see something about the Type 60 Self Propelled 106mm Recoilless Rifle. Maybe there's just not so much to say about it, compared to the more famous Ontos (which saw lots of action in Vietnam). But it's still pretty unusual for an adopted vehicle.
if i ever find archival stuff on it, i can cover it, but everythign on this channel is from archval original sources as opposed to lifted from the wikis etc
@@armouredarchives8867 Cool, thanks!
Looks similar to the MOWAG Taifun tank destroyer
but if whole vehicle can rotate and if gun can aim smoothly on moving target... that would be interesting still. thou whole new hull would be needed surely.
I still don't get it , why Bovington refuses some rare concept models and rare tank prototypes? If I was a responsible over there, I would be happy to have anything especially if it is rare.
they are just not that familiar with the deeper tank history, to them its centurion, chieftain, challenger, anything more and its deaf ears. They really have very little understanding of the bigger picture sadly and none at all on the engineering side
That is very sad to hear. Would have thought it was the perfect institution to house that type of knowledge.
Thank You
finally we see the jjjjj er odd cheify .
Were is the fv304 Development?
Maybe I missed it but was there any talk of a hydropneumatic suspension system so it could lower, tilt, or elevate the hull like the S-tank?
no, none at all
@@armouredarchives8867 Kinda crazy that they'd completely ignore something that was already proven to work.
That only works with a very short track, which wouldn't do for a weight over 50 tons
Since their idea was to convert Chieftains cheaply, it wouldn't make sense to replace the suspension system. This also rules out precision steer aiming like the S-tank, which rules out a tilting "pod" or an elevation only mount. They have to work with the capabilities of the Chieftain hull.
So, the design challenge is completely different from S-tank.
👍👍👍👊👊
I'm still failing to see how you can give an estimated ''off road''speed, given that ''off road'' means any terrain that isn't road.
remembr this is their calcualtions not mine! but they tesnd to have a set of ' off road critetia. such as heavy going (vylay, deep mud, loose sand, - light going, standard field dry etc, and this is then factorted in with vehciles eight, area,, ground pressure, engine power and so on
@@armouredarchives8867 I know it's not your own calculation but It's my own pet hate Lol .
Without qualification , the Phrase is essentially meaningless except as a value given for the sake of map exercises or, possibly , fuel returns.
The trouble is that people with no experience tend to abuse it . So , for instance , I've seen people argue that the ''off road'' speed of the PZ3 was no better than the speed of Italian M13 (no ''off road speed'' being given for this tank as it couldn't really go any slower ), making them about the same. Try explaining to them that , on good terrain like salisbury plain, your off road speed is the same as your top speed , especially down hill !
Stug - Mk 53
Make video about TANK Chimera ( no anti tank ) pls.
Well they've done videos on the 1955 and 1984 Chimeras. I'm sure they'll do the 1950 Chimera heavy tank too.
i diod the work for WG on that one too, the problem is its 99% based on interpreted data, as a certain musuem threw the plans away - over 900 of them, so only text left, and a few basic shapes etc. - the rest of the models looks were WG being creative sadly
@@armouredarchives8867 Unreal that a *museum* just throws away such things, especially since the storage requirements for sheets of paper is hardly on the same level as storing tanks.
Challenger meets S tank
Wait, the motto on the British badge is really just another way of saying dread naught............. lol really trying to go all in on the landship I see
StuG 84
Asking a bit more than is realistic to up rate a TN12 by 30% to take the added torque and power of the CV12. Then there's the question of adapting the transmission from a transversely mounted engine. No, if this video is correct then the guys involved in the exercise were wasting time and money indulging in their little fantasy.
quite possibly so, the LAIC were a shadow of the former STT in terms of accuracy imho
Plonk!
hi tech technical terms :P
one javelin strike on its roof and *the* project is scrapped
maybe but as javlin hasnt been started att his point il cut them some slack
@@armouredarchives8867 kornet