Poll  

184 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Chieftain Mk. 10 be added to War Thunder?

    • Yes
      158
    • No
      26


Chieftain Mk. 10 (1983)

 

Currently Britain is severely lacking in Tier 5 vehicle quality and quantity. The only real competitor to other top-tiers (Leopard 1/A1A1, T-62, IT-1) is the Chieftain Mk. 3, and even that is very lacking in mobility. While its turret armor is "acceptable," it remains easily penetrated by anything better than or equal to 100mm APDS. I suggest adding the Chieftain Mk. 10, which improves engine performance and adds appliqué "Stillbrew" CHA armor (not composite) to a portion of the turret front. This would give it extra survivability when played correctly (i.e. hull down), but still remain vulnerable on the LFP, sides, various uncovered portions of the turret front, and frontally in general to all high penetrating rounds (e.g. ATGM or 115mm HEAT). Armor is currently irrelevant in Tier 5, and adding an exception to this rule would make gameplay more interesting.

 

c.jpg

 

Armament:

  • Main gun: 120mm L11A5
  • Secondary: Coaxial L8A1 and cupola-mounted L37A1

 

Ammunition:

  • APFSDS: L23A1 (1985)
  • Penetration: 460mm RHA @ 500 meters, 90 degrees  (information not publicly available)
  • Muzzle velocity: 1534 meters per second

(Note: adding L23A1 could be omitted for balance reasons)

 

Specifications:

  • Engine: Leyland L60, 695 bhp (improved from the Mk. 3's 650 bhp)
  • Combat weight: ~56.5 tons (55 ton Mk. 5 + 1.5 ton Stillbrew)

(Other specifications are identical to the Chieftain Mk. 3 in game)

 

Stillbrew Armor:

Stillbrew armor is essentially ~150mm of CHA surrounding the frontal arc of the Chieftain's turret. There are rubber sheets between the turret and CHA plating, but these serve only to hold the armor in place and do not provide any protection. Stillbrew is essentially the Chieftain's version of the Leopard A1A1's appliqué turret armor, which also includes rubber to hold it in place. Analysis of Stillbrew package.

 

Stillbrew001.jpg

 

 

This is not composite armor as War Thunder defines it. If a simple steel/rubber/steel appliqué is considered composite (in terms of WT's technology limit), why shouldn't the Leopard A1A1's turret armor be considered composite? It had the exact same rubber and sheering bolt NERA design, albeit with a much thinner steel layer (see sources). Rubber itself has 0 effect on shaped charges. The change in medium does (steel to rubber to steel), but this change in medium is similar to standard steel to air to steel spaced armor. The rubber layer does provide a slight NERA effect, but this isn't modeled in game.

 

Sources:

Edited by UltimateBawb
Added sources, updated mass, updated L23A1, added defining composite armor
  • Upvote 18
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open for discussion. :salute:

 

However,your current suggestion is incomplete. Please provide a list of at least 2 different matching sources that you used for making this suggestion. If the sources are not added within 48 hours,this suggestion will be closed.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, hope for good sources

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, UltimateBawb said:

"Stillbrew" CHA armor (not composite)

 

It is composite. It has different elements in the same armor plate, which is rubber and steel. If we take a look at the T-72B, it also uses just steel and rubber in its composite, at least until 1989. No one says that the T-72B doesn't have composite armor though.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rubber is not protective, does it still count as composite ?

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Querulous1 said:

If the rubber is not protective, does it still count as composite ?

I think the rubber has an effect on HEAT charges, it was used so in some composites afaik.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kinda headed in the way of powercreep, that extra armour is going to make quite a significant difference in hull-down positions and though the extra penetration/engine power won't make much of a difference, I still feel like it's not entirely needed at the moment.

 

I'd much rather see a Fv 107 or something along those lines.

Edited by Necrons31467
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chieftain mk 5 would be better. Mk10 was designed to stop heat shells aka being composite. And I'm not meaning the mk 4/5 as I believe it was said no to for it was suggested earlier. The 5 should be plenty has a better engine maybe armor. Not quite sure on that so please correct me if I'm wrong. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, *Lightening_Drake said:

Chieftain mk 5 would be better. Mk10 was designed to stop heat shells aka being composite. And I'm not meaning the mk 4/5 as I believe it was said no to for it was suggested earlier. The 5 should be plenty has a better engine maybe armor. Not quite sure on that so please correct me if I'm wrong. 

The Mk 5 has only a better engine over the Mk 3 if you are talking about the most basic version of the Mk 5. Everything else stays the same.

Edited by Mercedes4321
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of wanting the game to progress further and eventually maybe get above tier 6, I say yes. While it would probably take a while to get to the point of needing this, I think in the future the game should be open to this tank and tanks of similar nature. Although by the time this tank would be necessary, the Challenger 1 would have already been in service which is a better tank in general. As for now, I think the Mk.5 is all we really need.

 

About how it might perform in game, I honestly don't think the Stillbrew will do anything because if it's to be balanced properly, the turret won't be OP and would be rather balanced against the rounds that would hit it, however the Chieftain would still be a slow PoS that has no side armor and a massive lower plate, and given the meta of War Thunder, it would still probably be a bad tank. The Chieftain only succeeds in hull down locations, which nowadays are far and few between with the maps getting flatter and more and more short range maps, leaving the lower plate and side armor exposed which is instant death for it. The only thing that could make the Chieftain better would be about an 800-1,000hp engine which exists in the form of the Challenger 1, essentially eliminating the need for the Chieftain Mk.10. 

 

Also, regarding the Stillbrew, while it is not technically wrong, it is also not 100% right. The rubber was there to hold it in place and such yes, but it was also intended to act as spaced armor towards HEATFS, essentially forcing the HEATFS to explode on the Ceramic plate, have the jet enter the rubber and then try to enter the Steel itself all the while losing huge amounts of effective penetration. Had it been just a Steel plate add on, or one thick piece of Ceramic, it would basically be less effective against HEATFS than to stick a slab of rubber in between. At least that's what I understood from researching Stillbrew/Composite armor and the Chieftain a while ago.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk5 or Mk5/4 would be better, as much as I would like the Mk10.  Same armour package as the Mk3, but a better engine, and in the case of the Mk5/4, proper fin stabilized APDS.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, PantherAl said:

The Mk5 or Mk5/4 would be better, as much as I would like the Mk10.  Same armour package as the Mk3, but a better engine, and in the case of the Mk5/4, proper fin stabilized APDS.

There was a suggestion for the mk5/4 what ever happened to it?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, *Lightening_Drake said:

There was a suggestion for the mk5/4 what ever happened to it?

 

No idea, don't usually follow suggestions. I'm all for it though, as I am a huge Chieftain fanboy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PantherAl said:

 

No idea, don't usually follow suggestions. I'm all for it though, as I am a huge Chieftain fanboy.

Here it is then

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, HipTurtle said:

Also, regarding the Stillbrew, while it is not technically wrong, it is also not 100% right. The rubber was there to hold it in place and such yes, but it was also intended to act as spaced armor towards HEATFS, essentially forcing the HEATFS to explode on the Ceramic plate, have the jet enter the rubber and then try to enter the Steel itself all the while losing huge amounts of effective penetration. Had it been just a Steel plate add on, or one thick piece of Ceramic, it would basically be less effective against HEATFS than to stick a slab of rubber in between. At least that's what I understood from researching Stillbrew/Composite armor and the Chieftain a while ago.

 

Stillbrew was add-on steel armour - nothing ceramic about it.

 

But it did have an interesting effect - the rubber wasn't just for "padding", even though it was only 20mm thick - 

 

GMvrW7M.png
 

Quote


The pieces are self-explanatory here with 4 as the RHA block, 5 as the interlayer and 6 as the bolt. The bolts are made from stainless steel and tighten down that outer armoured section to the vehicle compressing the rubber interlayer between the two layers of armour. The outer block is thick enough that even medium caliber rounds (up to 20mm) will be ineffective in damaging it (unlike modern NERA). On impact though from HEAT or KE shells the bolts will shear off and the rubber will expand pushing the outer block forwards towards the incoming shell. There are 4 interlayers shown, but looking at real examples shows 6 layers. This is because multiple thinner layers actually increase the effectiveness as the expansion wave effect in the rubber moves faster reaching the surface more quickly. That interlayer will also act as cushioning in the same manner, rendering HE and HESH type rounds far less useful, too.
So as the outer plate is hit, the bolts shear off, the rubber sheets expands and pushes the outer block away from the vehicle. Due to the angle of movement this not only disrupts the path of the jet or penetrator but in simple terms, provides continuously new armour material to penetrate because the initial hole is always moving sideways to the penetrator, substantially increasing the effectiveness of the armour.

 

 

(from here)

 

this effect is what is utilised in new generation "non-explosive reactive armor" - rubber expanding to change the geometry of the outer plate and disrupt penetration - so was ahead of its time!

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would like to see the Mk.10 Chieftain I would say the Mk.5 should appear first.

 

Also a number of things you have listed with the Mk.10 are unfortunately incorrect.

 

For example the Mk.10 has a 750bhp 8A L60 engine which was fitted to all Chieftains as part of the "Totem Pole" conversion program. Of course the issue with all Chieftains post 1975 is that there are quite a few different engine marks but from 8A onward to 14A they should all be 750bhp engine's.

 

Also it is worth noting that the Mk.3 Chieftain and the Mk.10 Chieftain are two very different tanks.

 

(source is "Chieftain main battle tank 1965-2003 by Simon Dunstan)

 

20 hours ago, UltimateBawb said:

Ammunition:

 

  • APFSDS: L23A1 (1985)
  • Penetration: 460mm RHA @ 500 meters, 90 degrees
  • Muzzle velocity: 1534 meters per second

(Note: adding L23A1 could be omitted for balance reasons)

 

 

What is your source for this??? because as far as I am aware accurate information on L23 APFSDS ammo is not available to the public.

 

Also for ammo I would suggest adding L31 HESH.

 

As for the Stillbrew armor add-on's I see one of to ways of getting around this.

 

A) Add the Mk.9 instead of the Mk.10 (the Mk.10 is basically a Mk.9)

B) Have the Mk.10 as the first tank with better defense's against HEAT-FS but of course going down this line raises three issues the 1st being that stillbrew can basically be considered as composite armor and the 2nd issue is can the game handle it correctly and lastly can the dev's get it right?

 

lastly +1 but I would suggest the Mk.5 or the Mk.5/4 first.

 

:salute:

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GreenAid said:

I think the rubber has an effect on HEAT charges

 

It does. That's a problem.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost_Rider12 said:

While I would like to see the Mk.10 Chieftain I would say the Mk.5 should appear first.

 

Also a number of things you have listed with the Mk.10 are unfortunately incorrect.

 

For example the Mk.10 has a 750bhp 8A L60 engine which was fitted to all Chieftains as part of the "Totem Pole" conversion program. Of course the issue with all Chieftains post 1975 is that there are quite a few different engine marks but from 8A onward to 14A they should all be 750bhp engine's.

 

Also it is worth noting that the Mk.3 Chieftain and the Mk.10 Chieftain are two very different tanks.

 

(source is "Chieftain main battle tank 1965-2003 by Simon Dunstan)

 

 

What is your source for this??? because as far as I am aware accurate information on L23 APFSDS ammo is not available to the public.

 

Also for ammo I would suggest adding L31 HESH.

 

As for the Stillbrew armor add-on's I see one of to ways of getting around this.

 

A) Add the Mk.9 instead of the Mk.10 (the Mk.10 is basically a Mk.9)

B) Have the Mk.10 as the first tank with better defense's against HEAT-FS but of course going down this line raises three issues the 1st being that stillbrew can basically be considered as composite armor and the 2nd issue is can the game handle it correctly and lastly can the dev's get it right?

 

lastly +1 but I would suggest the Mk.5 or the Mk.5/4 first.

 

:salute:

 

Mmm.. L31 HESH.  The salt will be real.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

It does. That's a problem.

Can you please find a source regarding the effect of rubber on shaped charges? All I've managed to find is that Stillbrew has a slight NERA (non-explosive reactive armor) effect, which could be omitted in game for simplicity. It's possible that the Leopard A1A1's armor package was meant to provide the same effect. As far as I know, rubber itself has no effect on HEAT.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, UltimateBawb said:

Can you please find a source regarding the effect of rubber on shaped charges? All I've managed to find is that Stillbrew has a slight NERA (non-explosive reactive armor) effect, which could be omitted in game for simplicity. It's possible that the Leopard A1A1's armor package was meant to provide the same effect. As far as I know, rubber itself has no effect on HEAT.

The transitions in materials such as from steel to rubber does cause some distortion in the path that HEAT warheads take through the armour, which causes them to be less effective. How much effect this had specifically in the case of Stillbrew I do not know.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems they are open to further modifications,

 

'' A: The Iranian Mk 5 Shir modification is not currently being considered, but there other variants of the British Chieftain. An earlier or later model  are possible. ''

 

The mobility increase might be good too have, however I highly doubt APFSDS is actually needed, I'm quite sure they won't model a significant damage increase from the projectile, so all you'll have is extra penetration, which wasn't an issue to begin with.

 

The Mk. 10's extra turret armour might make it entirely resistant to 400mm penetration HEAT-FS fired from the Leopard and M60  but from my experience I rarely kill Chieftains from a hull-down and frontal position anyways, most of the time it's a lower plate penetration or a simple flanking shot.

 

Personally I'd really like to see a T-72A / T-64A vs Leopard 1 A4 / Kpz-70 vs Chieftain Mk. 10 / Challenger 1 vs MBT-70 / M60A3 at a battle rating of around 9.3 or higher, which is also why I'm rather worried if this ever were to be implemented, given Gaijin's track record of balancing vehicles, I wouldn't be suprised if a T-72 would eventually find itself fighting M48's or Jagdpanzer 4-5's.

 

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a bad thing. So lets not put in the super tanks until they solve compression.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.