The UK was the birthplace of the tank and though today it has only a single upgrade programme to show for heavy tracked armour, it was the origin of many key technologies and capabilities used by tanks the world over. A🧵of a few highlights of the glory days of British armour R&D
The first practical gas turbine powered vehicle, the FV200 Turbine Test Vehicle, a Conqueror. 'Practical' is a caveat - the Germans actually had the first gas turbine tank, a Jagdtiger in WW2, but it had a problematic habit of setting trees and other nearby objects on fire.
FV4211 (initially the Chieftain Mk5/2), an all-aluminium tank that was the first with composite armour, initially called Burlington but renamed to Chobham, based around the concept of composite materials under permanent compression, laid in a matrix with additional materials...
...including rubber & steel. This led to essentially all modern tank armour today.
Speaking in 1976 when revealing the existence of Chobham, the MoD said ‘It is no exaggeration to say it represents the single most significant development in the design of tanks since World War 2’
It didnt really take off, but the first stealth tank was a British concept. Designed as a candidate 'future stealthy tank' for the sensor part of a weapon programme trial, the Signature Integration Demonstrator (SID, underneath a Chieftain Mk12). There were attempts at stealth...
...tanks before this but none were fully functioning tanks and just subsystems testbeds. SID minimised thermal, acoustic and radar signatures at all aspects. It was so successful that sensors trialled against it failed to find it, and caused a programme and requirements reset.
COMRES 75 was the first AFV with fully external autoloaded gun, though some will point at the US T114 with a 3-round 106 mm autoloaded recoilless gun, but it was the first in the vein of an actual tank, a Comet with a autoloaded 20 pdr gun feeding from coaxial tubular magazines
VERDI was the first fully digitised AFV with common interoperable crew stations and remains ridiculously advanced even by todays standards. I did a rushed summary of it recently, the comments have great anecdotes from those that trialled it:
Advanced Composite Armoured Vehicle Platform (ACAVP), or the "plastic tank". Other countries including the US had made substantial composite structures, but ACAVP was the first complete composite armoured vehicle hull. Made in two parts (upper and lower) from the...
...thickest composite cross sections ever manufactured for any application at the time, it used a Warrior IFV running gear and a Fox turret. Though not progressed, the skills and knowledge enabled many contemporary composite work possible, including the Foxhounds crew compartment
FV4005 remains the vehicle with the largest calibre anti-armour gun ever made, with a monstrous L4 183 mm. The FV4005 Stage 2 'Centaur' prototype has recently been restored and can be seen out and about from time to time at the Tank Museum now.
The great minds at Chertsey and other UK establishments also invented an incredible proportion of the key technologies of modern tanks, a few highlights of those:
Work on electromechanical gun stabilisation started in 1943, and following tests on Centaur the first 2-axis all-electromechanical stab was on a Centurion MkII, first true fire on the move capability and fitted to production tanks from 1948. (this video is Leo 2, but a good demo)
The first Laser Range Finder in a tank was completed on a Chieftain in 1974, the Barr & Stroud LF2 using Ruby lasers, which were admittedly pretty rubbish being large, unreliable, power hungry and with high false reading rates. But the start of a key capability for today's tanks.
The world's first mobile LRF had previously been built in 1963 at the Chobham establishment, a Q-switched Ruby Laser that 'filled the entirety of a small van' and may or may not have set Chobham Common on fire briefly during trials, though it later was blamed on a stray cigarette
An anecdote I recall from a talk with William Suttie was that in a UK/US meeting about future techs where the US said confidently that LRF may never be possible, but they were confident that a nuclear powered tank would be in trials within 5 yrs. The glorious mindset of the 60s!
The first hunter killer crew working concept (commander finds target and hands off via the systems to the gunner to engage) was implemented on Conqueror using automatic gun laying systems developed on the FV201.
Another achievement was the first fully integrated thermal imaging sight, meaning it was integrated to the FCS. The TICM (Thermal Imager Common Module) based Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight (TOGS) would go on to be fitted to Chieftain and Challenger 1.
The brains from the gun and fire control team also developed the first panoramic thermal sight with de-rotation optics, the Panoramic Thermal Imager Laser Integrated, or PANTILI, and the first panoramic thermal sight with an integrated CO2 laser.
And a mountain more of first implementations:
- Fume extractor
- Muzzle Boresight (Centurion 1953)
- Muzzle Reference System (Chieftain 1974)
- Digital FCS (Chieftain IFCS 1979)
- Solid state electric gun control (1981)
- Integrated automatic target detection and tracking (1988)
So, when people say the UK is regaining its tank development and manufacturing capabilities with the CR3 upgrade we can be excited, but also could perhaps ask quite how far back that means, because sure in the 2010s they were building a few AFV here and there, but regaining...
...what has been lost when the establishments were closed down would be something far grander and impactful, and will take a huge commitment and resource. True explorative R&D not tied to a specific vehicle acquisition that drove most of the modern world's AFV technology.
And a note that the majority of the AFV above are now residing at the @TankMuseum in Bovington, which remains one of the best museums of any type out there and well worth a pilgrimage for the AFV oriented people out there.
See if you can spot a few in this photo I took in May.
@tomas_morton ...(sand based maybe iirc?) whereas Burlington was about making discrete packs that were ~50% lighter than steel equivalents, using compressed composite matrices etc. An armour where a filling or void had an impact is a different concept and goes farther back in time - a fair...
@tomas_morton ...few examples in WW2 on both sides.
It may all be semantics, but I think composite as intended here is a different beast to what the Russians were doing on T-64 at that point. There are many who are better at armour than I who I'm sure will correct me though.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#1 Another wave of Ajax noise & vibration (N&V) chatter has followed IOC. I’m not going to weigh in on either side, but here’s how we might spot if N&V issues are real or rumour – an off-the-cuff thread.
#2 If a platform exhibits N&V that is excessive, it will generally manifest most evidently in two places: people and systems.
#3 People means safety limits on time in vehicle or injury patterns. If one AFV’s usage limits are significantly lower than similar AFVs, that’s a red flag.
It started as a thread on the UK's Titan AVLB and Project TYRO, but got so unwieldy I’ve made it a mini series. What is Titan and TYRO; why is it one of, if not the, most important requirements in the British Army (or any army); and why us it a serious problem area for the UK?
I’ve broken into a few parts; on to part 3 – Why is Titan a serious problem area? This one is the grim bit of the series, but to be clear the intent is to show plainly the criticality of TYRO and back it as an essential requirement that must be delivered, not just bash on Titan.
As explained in part 1, Titan is a great capability, but it is a bespoke small fleet and consequently has some very significant problems that critically impact the Army as a whole, and the bad news is they can't really be solved in practical terms.
(1/19) With DSEi around the corner, expect Ajax chatter on the topic of IFVs to crop up again, as it has this week. Here’s a thread on IFV options, facts, and my usual ramblings from recent developments.
(2/19) As usual I’m going to try to stick to the kit, I’m not a doctrine or strategy pro on wider force design. Just here to give some facts for others to be informed and make use of as they wish.
(3/19) Ajax is itself a (heavily) modified derivative of ASCOD 2. IFV Ajax would likely take one of 2 paths – remote turret on Ares with lower dismount capacity (aka Ares IFV) or new longer Ajax with traditional IFV config.
As Ajax comes online, a living thread of real and proposed (physical and hypothetical) variants that could expand the capabilities whilst sticking to a single core family for UK medium weight.
The original Ajax requirement, FRES SV, had a range of variants beyond the six the Army is presently buying, and returning to these (and a few more, like IFV) in pursuit of a common medium platform would be a good approach.
I've mixed in ASCOD/ASCOD2 variants as the lineage of Ajax means ASCOD variants are relatively straightforward to share across the ASCOD/ASCOD2/Ajax base platforms, moreso if Ajax does see a stretched IFV hull later this year.
(Part 2) It started as a thread on the UK's Titan AVLB and Project TYRO, but got so unwieldy I’ve made it a mini series. What is Titan and TYRO; why is it one of, if not the, most important requirements in the British Army (or any army); and why is it a critical requirement?
I’ve broken into a few parts; (1) What is Titan and Project TYRO; (2) Why is combat bridging important anyway; (3) Why is Titan a serious problem area; (4) Whats the plan for TYRO CSB; and (5) What are the other options and the implications?
So, Part 2 – Why is combat bridging important anyway?
(1/n) A neat bit of thermal footage of Challenger 2 firing and driving. A couple of obvious takeaway comments on tank heat signatures:
Engine is peak sustained source of heat, particularly once underway & exhaust blooms. Its at the rear which is good for classic head on engagements, but modern all-aspect attacks mean its increasingly a concern that you can't do much to mitigate. (cgi image but representative)
Barrel once fired is a big hot spot from the front. One part of the reason for these trendy shrouds we see on concept AFV is to limit that signature (and thus far has been dismissed as until you shoot barracuda coverings are good enough, and once you have who cares anymore)