My take on this is that it comes down to so many soft factors like crew training, doctrines, maintenence, who sees first and shoots first, etc. It is entertaining to compare tank hard stats, but it is more important to examine all the contexts of the engagement
I've only just started this video and I don't know how this engagement went, but I've seen footage of Iranian soldiers during this war and they don't seem anywhere near as well trained as the Iraqis.
You can give the best equipment to the worst troops and they'll fail. It's always more important to factor in tactics and training. If you don't know how to use your shiny new tool then it's as good as useless or at least worth a lot less than it says on the box.
oooh, I like using these terms. Hard factor = Built vehicle to spec, Soft factor = Crew Training, Health, Doctrine, vehicle maintenance, LOS acquisition.
I feel very positive about seeing a younger face on the Tank Chats. It was a great talk with more about practical tank doctrine and real world experience in a more recent conflict. I remember having a similar chat with a young mechanic beside a Tiger at the museum a few years ago. That was superb, connecting the museum and collection with a younger audience. Please do more like this.
the chieftain engine may have been a stinker but the sound it makes is epic , this conflict is also covered in another game called steel armor blaze of war , except instead of playing as a chieftain you get to play in an m60 ( for some reason )
Thank you for producing this. For one of the largest conflicts during the 2nd half of the 20th century, there is a rather sparse content about the Iran-Iraq war on sites like UA-cam.
It's largely overlooked by Western bias media. I remember that it would occasionally rate a mention on the ABC (Australia) TV news and in some of the daily newspapers, but I doubt that the commercial networks would have covered it. However, I do seem to remember Channel 9, 60 Minutes (Australia) covering the war at least a couple of times. I am a bit vague as to the status of SBS TV (Australia) during that period. If it was active then they would have given it some coverage to inform people from that region who were living in Australia. Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
Massive bias My dad (UK) worked with an Iranian man during the war and mentioned how he would always get visibly angry whenever there was media coverage as it would always show Iran as the aggressor, even though Iraq had started the war and was using chemical weapons, the latter of which was conveniently ignored until the fact became useful to the west in the Gulf Wars
I was in the middle east at the time and this battle caused quite a stir. The main reason for the Iranian defeat was a lack of leadership, abysmal tactics, poorly trained crews and zero logistics/maintenance. Great video and I enjoyed watching it.
Battle of Brody/Dubno. I understand that it is massive and would take time to cover, but I hope that like the coverage of the Battle of Cambrai and Battle of Arras and episode could be done. It hard to find good detailed coverage of the battle - and I would guess the Soviet records are scanty and fragmentary. Also - Paul is an excellent presenter. Glad to see more of him.
I don't understand why you would report Iraqi losses as higher when it's been documented that Iran had much heavier losses. I found this channel to be biased and not accurate. From an Iraqi veteran of this war
They HATE russian armour it has nothing to due with iraq if that make you happy (yall crushed iran in operation naser) they constanly bring on proven aint russian channels that have been proven to be wrong like lazerpig
Look at the battle of 73 easting. That statement is inaccurate. The American Abrams had thermal and infrared sights while the Iranian tanks had neither. And we all know how that went.
@@afberglund2764 oh very, but I'm sure that whenwe (Im English) had withdrawn our instructors to the Iranian army in 1979 when the Shah was deposed had some affect, plus the numbnuts on both sides believed that crap that it didn't mind if you lose and die because you go to paradise and get 72 virgins. Be careful what you wish for, where I come from paradise is a a milk chocolate and coconut snack bar and mother Theresa was a virgin.
Ouch! That is very personal. How old were you at the time of the battle, if you don't mind me asking? Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺 Former Australian Army Reservist '88 to mid '90s
2:43 230mm really isn't much thinner than the armor of most western MBTs of the same generation. Of the 2nd gen western MBTs, I'm pretty sure only the Chieftain had significantly thicker armor. The M60 had marginally thicker armor in some places (I think it got up to 250mm on the front of the turret). Both the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 had much thinner armor.
T-62 was only slightly less armored than non-Stillbrew Chieftain but still better than M60. It achieved this not by just being tighter inside but also through having very compact engine and transmission layout that only took a quarter of the tank's length (this solution started with T-44, is still alive on T-90 and arguably the reason for X-engine on Armata). Stillbrew package would probably help with U-5TS but against 2A46 that have been around for more than a decade by then... lol, lmao even. T-62 had *much* better APFSDS in soviet service (330mm @ 2000m), however having simple steel armor it was vulnerable to Chief's HESH. Mobility-wise T-62 is okay but Chieftain is basically a WW2 heavy tank when it's powetrain doesn't crap out - think Tiger II. At the end of the day the excuse of Chieftains "not being used properly" doesn't hold much water as back in europe GSFG would blot out the likely ambush spots with rocket-delivered AT mines to force western tanks into mobile warfare. And if the roles were reversed T-62s would be able to traverse the marshy ground or not even be on that road in the first place.
The tank is only as good as its crew and doctrine. It would have been interesting to see how the battle would have unfolded with a soviet crew in the T64 and a British crew in the chieftain.
Speaking in terms of performance in daylight fighting it most likely would boil down on who sees who 1st...At night Chefu will make a cosmonaut out of the 64....
@@apyllyon agreed. The British doctrine would have had recce and infantry support. Soviet doctrine was different again, they would have had numbers. Glad it didn't happen however, I wouldn't like to test out those NBC units 😳
@@nigelharrison83 In terms of numbers the british vs soviet recce would have been 1st to clash, and at night during 1960´s and onwards the West would have had minor advantage at night in term of IR optic´s since the Chefu and M60 had Xenon-arc lights operated with IR-lenses while soviet tank´s operated L-2 Luna light´s with incandescent bulbs.The 1960´s would have been interesting also due to having centurion Mk10´s clashing with T-62´s since both were serving as mechanized infantry divisions tank support.
@@apyllyon during the day would have been a different story to. The Iraqis in this case had air reconnaissance. In short this video's comparison can't be used as an example of how a confrontation with the soviet union would have played out. Fyi I appreciate your knowledge dude 😎 very impressed
I would not say that chieftains performed poorly. They were driven thru soft ground into ambush possition into close quaters fight. Thats death sentence for any tank
It said that when 'The enemy is in range' - So are *you* The distance between the Iraqi & the Iranian Tanks was the same as thet between the Iranian Tanks & the Iraqi. But the Iraqis trusted to tactical reasoning & the Iranians to God. Had the two sides swapped tanks the overall effect would have been the same with a decisive Iraqi victory.
@@ianjardine7324 Worth remembering the Iraqis were also massively incompetent in this war. But we've seen from the invasion of Kuwait that the Chieftain, in the right hands, was very very good at blowing up T-72s and T-62s.
@@ianjardine7324 All false claims written up by British propaganda. Look up the Iranians losses from reliable sources, much heavier than ours. It was a huge defeat for them and the Chieftain proved to be a failure.
@@shaddaboop7998 Kuwaiti chieftains failed with most being destroyed and the rest were captured. There is no proof that they had any meaningful success against our forces. They lied and the British perpetuated their lies. Just like the babies thrown out of incubators and the stealing of them.
@@therealwildboar1007 The numbers presented in this clip are wrong. It's just basic British propaganda to write up their own tank, even though it was a failure. Iranian armor losses versus our T-62s and T-72s was horrible. Pierre Razoux and other notable authors on the topic have confirmed it through independent research. A veteran T-72 tanker from the 8 year war.
Great new format and excellent presentation. T34 various versions against the German tanks they caused the Germans to create - T34 76 v PzKpfw III / IV up to T34/85 v Panther / Tiger
1,370 m/s is relatively slow, the quite short L44 smoothbore gun of the early Leopard 2 reached 1,650 m/s. For AP-rounds the rifled gun is inferior, but for HESH superior.
@@FieldMarshalFry So why stuck the british with an outdated gun in tanks that were developed later than the Leopard 2 ? Btw: The guns you mentioned were excellent in their time, but when Challenger was introduced the 120mm rifled was already a bit long in its teeth. Perhaps financial and logistic reasons.
Excellent breakdown of both tanks. I have a model Chieftain and a T-72 but not the T-62. Thanks guys! I love World of Tanks by the way. I have 2 accounts active.
the iraqi-commanders knew their job better and made proper use of the strenghts of the t62 (higher speed,lower silhouette) and they avoided long- range frontal engagements with the Chieftain.
I'm ashamed to admit as an Iranian I didn't even know we had chieftains at the time and this is quite news for me. But in my defense the coverage of the war in Iran is and was heavily politicized and almost impossible to discuss the parts were we screw up. Thanks to tank museum for creating this learning opportunity.
4:15 Every diesel engine works on aviation jet A-1 fuel withouth any problem. It also starts much easyer with aviation fuel in winter. Modern common rail diesels also work well on Jet A-1. On longer periods of use there could be problems with lubrication of injection pump, but that can be solved by adding few percent of engine oil in aviation fuel. Aviation fuel is cleaner kerosine with some aditives anway.
Depends how many could you get to front line....? In a major Russian attack on the rear area workshops, Soviet forces would indeed come up against the bulk of Britsh Tank Strength......in various stages of engine repair.
Another great video which I really enjoyed. It showed how training certainly affects the outcome of a battle. I'd like to see a video about WW2 German Mk IVs against the IS series of heavy tanks. I've never found any good information about their fight on UA-cam. How did that 75mm gun on later versions handle the Soviet heavies?
Many people don't take into account the logistical benefits that go with a lower vehicle weight. The lighter tank does not only have greater agility. It can also make do with less sturdy bridging equipment when it comes to crossing rivers and other obstacles. You need less powerful and heavy lorries to truck it around. These advantages can make it possible to get the lighter tank into places where the heavier one cannot be brought into action, or fewer of them. It can mean having tanks where the others don't.
I was a wee lad when I first saw the Centurion at Queen’s birthday parade in Berlin. Got to ride on one early/ mid 60’s at Bovington. Beautiful bit of gear
Quick question regarding the armour penetration values mentioned at 5:55 Judging by the muzzle velocity mentioned in the video, I'd guess you are refering to either the 3BM-3 or 3BM-4 APFSDS rounds. How do you get to a penetration value of 228 mm? Is that at an angle or do you reference a different round I don't know? Or is this not aginast pure RHA? Because most sources I could find state between 270 to 300 mm at 1000 m an 0° on the 3BM-3 round thanks to it's tungsten tip and between 240 to 260 at 1000 m and 0° for 3BM-4 with the full steel dart. The T-62 also had access to the BK4-M HEAT-FS round with 440 mm of penetration against RHA at 0° - I'd call that quite deadly. Either way, great video and I love your work! :)
Depends largely on the era or ordinance supplier, also there are different opinions on what the actual penn power of those old guns is, the soviet field manuals that are largely selected as a primary source have been proven to include misleading and outright incorrect info on machine and ordinance performance. see the BMP 1 field manual for example
This was good, be nice to see more like this please!! The first German encounter with the Kv1 would be interesting or some of the battles in France where they came up against Matildas and Char B1’s
4 місяці тому+1
05:36 I am a bit confused by the statement about smoothbore and APFSDS. Smoothbore is better for firing fin stabilised rounds because fin rounds would "spin" out of control if they had to much of a "spin" imparted on them by the rifling. And the soviets went for the smoothbore because if you have a penetrator of a certain length to diamater ration you cant stabilise it in flight by spin stabilisation anymore. Because the spin would not stabilised but destabilise it. I mean there are other reasons for smoothbore, but as far as I know that is the main one? Am I missing something here?
Really interesting chat, Thanks. And yet another example of the truth that no matter how much you model or role play a piece of kits effectiveness, you only really find out how good it is when it is tested in battle.
An excellent and informative video about a little known tank battle (for me at any rate). This would be a good subject for the Osprey Duel series. However, I would suggest that the biggest post war tank battles were in the Sinai in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and not seven years later in the Iran- Iraq War. It terms of future vidéos I would like to see an analysis of the Battle of Lake Qaraoun in the Lebanon in 1982, where the Israeli Merkava made its combat debut against the Syrian T72s.
Remember the Challenger 1 was actually built for Iran before the revolution under the Shah but not delivered due to what happened hence the Chieftain had been realized as obsolete. Hence adopted by British army as paid for and later Britain ironing out the numerous faults before performing against Iraq in the desert that it was designed for.
Nope..The moment for that was when Soviet Technical Commission studied the Ex-Iranian M60 patton. Chieftain was introduced in 1966 while at that point M60 had been 7 years in service.
I dont know, but if you get ambushed due to bad recon and decisions and you still inflict a 1to1 casualty rate or 1 to 2 with captures, thats pretty good comparitively
Centurions were able to take out T-62s and T-55s in war previously, the Chieftain was a more sophisticated vehicle than the Centurion so I suspect soft factors were the main culprit. The Chieftain was a bit behind the curve and to see some of the presenters suggest that Chieftain was a match for the T-72 is baffling.
The farm I work on has a chieftain tank in one of the storage units, where we park the quads, tractors and other plant vehicles. The owner is restoring it, slowly (very slowly) and although its engine runs, the electrics and hydraulics are a different matter altogether. The most striking thing about the tank is it's sheer bulk. They look quite reasonably size when they're next together in videos, but when it's stood still in a warehouse of tractors and excavators, it is absolutely huge. I had a look inside a couple of days ago, and the sheer size of the tank isn't reflected in the cramped crew compartment, which is a bizarre shape with the gunner sitting almost directly underneath the commanders seat, and the loader sits facing almost backwards to the gunner. All this is completely uneducated of course. I'm a simple farmer, but my son is a soldier which is where the interest comes from. I jumped down from the top of the turret and I bet I fell 12 or 15 feet. I had to do it in two drops, first from the turret top to the deck, and then from the track guards to the floor. The size of the thing is just mind blowing.
x3 piece ammo on the Chieftain? That must be a pretty slow load, I could load a M256 and hit the safety in about 4ish seconds and I was on the slow side. I don't envy those Chieftain loaders. This was a great video! Please peek them coming.
3 Piece ammo would certainly be slow for an inexperienced crew, though it has to be remembered that one of the 'pieces' isn't actually manually loaded. The loader has to deal with two parts (The charge and the projectile) on these British guns. They are in some ways more wieldy than single piece 120mm ammunition and a trained loader can meet a 4~ second reload. Due to both HESH and APFSDS warheads being inert, the loader can also use lap loading for any follow up shot they can prepare for, making that rather rapid. Certainly though, for an untrained loader, this two piece setup would be a nightmare.
To me Iran-Iraq war sort of looks like a winter war without the gigantic advantages of men and material. The military completely purged of it's senior officers and political interference at every level.
Good job lad! I just learned something new about the Chieftain and three-part ammo. Too many Battleship videos had me missing the Vent tube "bullet". Funny they didn't build in a firing cap to the bag charge? Anyway, cheers. /Tank Museum fan from Canada
HAVE TO ADD - World of Tanks, please do MORE Historical animation re-enactments, you guys are PERFECT for that! Be the next "Greatest Tank Battles!" TV show!
My take on this is that it comes down to so many soft factors like crew training, doctrines, maintenence, who sees first and shoots first, etc. It is entertaining to compare tank hard stats, but it is more important to examine all the contexts of the engagement
I've only just started this video and I don't know how this engagement went, but I've seen footage of Iranian soldiers during this war and they don't seem anywhere near as well trained as the Iraqis.
You can give the best equipment to the worst troops and they'll fail. It's always more important to factor in tactics and training. If you don't know how to use your shiny new tool then it's as good as useless or at least worth a lot less than it says on the box.
Very true. Something often overlooked by bean counting bureaucrats is that training and logistics count for more than a shinney new toy.
Tactics wins battles, logistics win wars
oooh, I like using these terms. Hard factor = Built vehicle to spec, Soft factor = Crew Training, Health, Doctrine, vehicle maintenance, LOS acquisition.
M48 Patton vs Centurion in the Indo-Pakistan War 1965.
300 pattons fought 100 got destroyed and 200 ran away.
indian t55 vs Pak m48
@@max2008abhi In Chawinda who lost 100-120 tanks compared to 44-60? India. Losses were similar in overall war.
@@HerrFresh pakistans losses were higher. That's why they went on the defensive. Problem is Pakistan army is filled with jackass people.
@@max2008abhi There were some of these engagements between the Israelis and the Jordanians too.
This was an excellent Debut for Paul, and a new format. I’ve always enjoyed the "Old Guard". Looking forward to seeing more of the "New" in the future
At the 12:25 mark he said T-62A with a 100mm gun. Shouldn’t it be a 115mm gun.
@@UmHmm328 WOT isn't exactly accurate and he did say 115mm when referring to the real tank.
I feel very positive about seeing a younger face on the Tank Chats. It was a great talk with more about practical tank doctrine and real world experience in a more recent conflict. I remember having a similar chat with a young mechanic beside a Tiger at the museum a few years ago. That was superb, connecting the museum and collection with a younger audience. Please do more like this.
Agreed, Paul is an excellent presenter.
@@AndyTernayPaul’s hair is a great presenter
Yup, Paul is a great presenter👍🏻
Thanks for the feedback!
@@pinkyandbrain123 looks terrible like a lost tribe blackman no disrespect but would he be allowed in defence with that hair
the chieftain engine may have been a stinker but the sound it makes is epic , this conflict is also covered in another game called steel armor blaze of war , except instead of playing as a chieftain you get to play in an m60 ( for some reason )
I agree!
Great video thanks! I wish there was more stuff out there covering the Iran-Iraq War, I'm amazed how overlooked it's been.
Great idea for a new series. Also love Paul’s presentation - he’s a natural. Look forward to seeing more of these.
A new presenter for the museum! Excellent and well done!
Thank you for producing this. For one of the largest conflicts during the 2nd half of the 20th century, there is a rather sparse content about the Iran-Iraq war on sites like UA-cam.
It's largely overlooked by Western bias media.
I remember that it would occasionally rate a mention on the ABC (Australia) TV news and in some of the daily newspapers, but I doubt that the commercial networks would have covered it. However, I do seem to remember Channel 9, 60 Minutes (Australia) covering the war at least a couple of times.
I am a bit vague as to the status of SBS TV (Australia) during that period. If it was active then they would have given it some coverage to inform people from that region who were living in Australia.
Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
Massive bias
My dad (UK) worked with an Iranian man during the war and mentioned how he would always get visibly angry whenever there was media coverage as it would always show Iran as the aggressor, even though Iraq had started the war and was using chemical weapons, the latter of which was conveniently ignored until the fact became useful to the west in the Gulf Wars
@@FieldMarshalFryThere was plenty of media coverage including the massive iranian human wave attacks led by children.
I was in the middle east at the time and this battle caused quite a stir. The main reason for the Iranian defeat was a lack of leadership, abysmal tactics, poorly trained crews and zero logistics/maintenance.
Great video and I enjoyed watching it.
Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video, what Tank V Tank video do you want to see next? Let us know below.
My dad was a gunner for this tank
workshop diaries
Can you cover some interwar tank battles? Like uses of t-26 and pz 1 in Spain for example
I would love to see the Matilda 1 and 2 vs Pz38 and Pz 3....Arras all over again!!!
Battle of Brody/Dubno. I understand that it is massive and would take time to cover, but I hope that like the coverage of the Battle of Cambrai and Battle of Arras and episode could be done. It hard to find good detailed coverage of the battle - and I would guess the Soviet records are scanty and fragmentary.
Also - Paul is an excellent presenter. Glad to see more of him.
My favourite video in weeks. Well done Paul!
I don't understand why you would report Iraqi losses as higher when it's been documented that Iran had much heavier losses. I found this channel to be biased and not accurate.
From an Iraqi veteran of this war
They HATE russian armour it has nothing to due with iraq if that make you happy (yall crushed iran in operation naser) they constanly bring on proven aint russian channels that have been proven to be wrong like lazerpig
@@parhamghm It is a British channel and tank museum. So get lost.
@@parhamghm Trolls don't need counter arguments.
These episodes are really brilliant! Keep 'em coming! 🙂
🙌
Always great to see Paul in front of the camera!
Many tanks for the new content
An excellent presentation thanks Paul!
Great job Paul! Glad to see some new blood in the team. Like someone already said, you're a natural. Great narration and interesting fresh format! 👍
It always boils down to one thing, and one thing only, which tank has the best crew.
lmao brain dead comment
Look at the battle of 73 easting. That statement is inaccurate. The American Abrams had thermal and infrared sights while the Iranian tanks had neither. And we all know how that went.
Yes. Difficult to do comparison because of the users in the Iran-Irak war.
@@afberglund2764 oh very, but I'm sure that whenwe (Im English) had withdrawn our instructors to the Iranian army in 1979 when the Shah was deposed had some affect, plus the numbnuts on both sides believed that crap that it didn't mind if you lose and die because you go to paradise and get 72 virgins. Be careful what you wish for, where I come from paradise is a a milk chocolate and coconut snack bar and mother Theresa was a virgin.
... Or air support ... Tanks in modern doctrine are not supposed to operate with air and infantry support (they haven't basically since WWII).
My father was a company commander during that specific battle and MIA
Iraq or Iran?
@@user-hl7nt1og7k Iranian chieftain, royal army. He was inside one of that 16 tanks with the crews
Thank you for sharing that. Always personalizes things.
Ouch! That is very personal. How old were you at the time of the battle, if you don't mind me asking?
Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺 Former Australian Army Reservist
'88 to mid '90s
Thank you for his service
A good presentation.
The crew makes the tank work, the leadership that picks the battlefield wins the fight.
Do Yom Kippur next. Centurions\Pattons V T-55\T-62.
Great production and integration of documentary images, world of tanks, and in person discussion, and museum footage. Great stuff!
Welcome Paul! Excellent presentation and.waitimg for more!
Verrry good narration by Paul. He's obviously had lots and lots of practice. Great series! Thanks.
Really liking Paul. Great that he's been in the Tank Museum family for a while and now graduated to be a star on UA-cam.
Thanks for the feedback! 🙌
Great as always gents ! Thanks for all the wonderful content.
2:43 230mm really isn't much thinner than the armor of most western MBTs of the same generation. Of the 2nd gen western MBTs, I'm pretty sure only the Chieftain had significantly thicker armor. The M60 had marginally thicker armor in some places (I think it got up to 250mm on the front of the turret). Both the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 had much thinner armor.
Mate they always had a western bais ALWAYS exspecisly if its used by the UK
This was a really interesting and well put together video!
Great stuff really enjoyed it 👍
Thanks Paul keep the videos coming
Maybe a video on the Falklands War and the Scorpions and Scimitars used there
T-62 was only slightly less armored than non-Stillbrew Chieftain but still better than M60. It achieved this not by just being tighter inside but also through having very compact engine and transmission layout that only took a quarter of the tank's length (this solution started with T-44, is still alive on T-90 and arguably the reason for X-engine on Armata). Stillbrew package would probably help with U-5TS but against 2A46 that have been around for more than a decade by then... lol, lmao even.
T-62 had *much* better APFSDS in soviet service (330mm @ 2000m), however having simple steel armor it was vulnerable to Chief's HESH.
Mobility-wise T-62 is okay but Chieftain is basically a WW2 heavy tank when it's powetrain doesn't crap out - think Tiger II.
At the end of the day the excuse of Chieftains "not being used properly" doesn't hold much water as back in europe GSFG would blot out the likely ambush spots with rocket-delivered AT mines to force western tanks into mobile warfare. And if the roles were reversed T-62s would be able to traverse the marshy ground or not even be on that road in the first place.
T62 had better turret front armor than standard m60 but is worse than that of m60a1 and onwards in both upper glacis and frontal turret armor.
The Tank Museum produces yet another great presenter. We are spoiled!
🙌
Good video and well presented, Paul.
The tank is only as good as its crew and doctrine. It would have been interesting to see how the battle would have unfolded with a soviet crew in the T64 and a British crew in the chieftain.
Speaking in terms of performance in daylight fighting it most likely would boil down on who sees who 1st...At night Chefu will make a cosmonaut out of the 64....
@@apyllyon agreed. The British doctrine would have had recce and infantry support. Soviet doctrine was different again, they would have had numbers. Glad it didn't happen however, I wouldn't like to test out those NBC units 😳
@@nigelharrison83 In terms of numbers the british vs soviet recce would have been 1st to clash, and at night during 1960´s and onwards the West would have had minor advantage at night in term of IR optic´s since the Chefu and M60 had Xenon-arc lights operated with IR-lenses while soviet tank´s operated L-2 Luna light´s with incandescent bulbs.The 1960´s would have been interesting also due to having centurion Mk10´s clashing with T-62´s since both were serving as mechanized infantry divisions tank support.
@@apyllyon during the day would have been a different story to. The Iraqis in this case had air reconnaissance. In short this video's comparison can't be used as an example of how a confrontation with the soviet union would have played out.
Fyi I appreciate your knowledge dude 😎 very impressed
I would not say that chieftains performed poorly. They were driven thru soft ground into ambush possition into close quaters fight. Thats death sentence for any tank
It said that when 'The enemy is in range' - So are *you*
The distance between the Iraqi & the Iranian Tanks was the same as thet between the Iranian Tanks & the Iraqi.
But the Iraqis trusted to tactical reasoning & the Iranians to God.
Had the two sides swapped tanks the overall effect would have been the same with a decisive Iraqi victory.
@@ianjardine7324 Worth remembering the Iraqis were also massively incompetent in this war. But we've seen from the invasion of Kuwait that the Chieftain, in the right hands, was very very good at blowing up T-72s and T-62s.
@@ianjardine7324 All false claims written up by British propaganda. Look up the Iranians losses from reliable sources, much heavier than ours. It was a huge defeat for them and the Chieftain proved to be a failure.
@@shaddaboop7998 Kuwaiti chieftains failed with most being destroyed and the rest were captured. There is no proof that they had any meaningful success against our forces. They lied and the British perpetuated their lies. Just like the babies thrown out of incubators and the stealing of them.
@@therealwildboar1007 The numbers presented in this clip are wrong. It's just basic British propaganda to write up their own tank, even though it was a failure. Iranian armor losses versus our T-62s and T-72s was horrible. Pierre Razoux and other notable authors on the topic have confirmed it through independent research.
A veteran T-72 tanker from the 8 year war.
Great Video, Fam!
Good host. 👍 Nice production.
Great new format and excellent presentation. T34 various versions against the German tanks they caused the Germans to create - T34 76 v PzKpfw III / IV up to T34/85 v Panther / Tiger
Excellent video!
Excellent video by an excellent host!
Paul also has a great voice - like to see him successful as a voice actor!
First class content, thank you!
1,370 m/s is relatively slow, the quite short L44 smoothbore gun of the early Leopard 2 reached 1,650 m/s. For AP-rounds the rifled gun is inferior, but for HESH superior.
Yeah... a next generation gun developed a lot later, you might as well compare the 17 Pounder to the L7 105mm
@@FieldMarshalFry So why stuck the british with an outdated gun in tanks that were developed later than the Leopard 2 ? Btw: The guns you mentioned were excellent in their time, but when Challenger was introduced the 120mm rifled was already a bit long in its teeth. Perhaps financial and logistic reasons.
The tanks could have been anything.
No recon, poorly trained crews and no experienced commanders.
Those chieftain TCs were on a sunday drive to the mosque ?
Excellent breakdown of both tanks. I have a model Chieftain and a T-72 but not the T-62. Thanks guys! I love World of Tanks by the way. I have 2 accounts active.
Well put together😊
New presenter did a great job!
Its Fam! the best presenter on Tank MU!
A personal favourite tank is the Conquerer, also the fv4005
the iraqi-commanders knew their job better and made proper use of the strenghts of the t62 (higher speed,lower silhouette) and they avoided long- range frontal engagements with the Chieftain.
they had satellite imagery and knew every movement of Iranian.
@@AmirDarkOne
that's a lie.
@@salamyaya162
dude, what are you smoking? CIA admitted to giving intelligence to iraq years ago.
Great Video. Please do more tank comparison videos like this.
Cool to see new presenters! And I'm already looking forward to more in this series!
Excellent, loved the World of Tanks animation. How about the Soviet T26 vs Panzer II during Barbarossa.
Awsome vid would love more tank vs tank vids like this please. Big thumbs up.
Dont care how the Chieftain performed or how reliable it was. It was/is a gorgeous tank, so it wins!
he wins to be a piece of crap.🤣
You have to wonder if some of the Tankers who fought in the Battle are still alive and could have told us how their part in the Battle played out.
I'm ashamed to admit as an Iranian I didn't even know we had chieftains at the time and this is quite news for me. But in my defense the coverage of the war in Iran is and was heavily politicized and almost impossible to discuss the parts were we screw up.
Thanks to tank museum for creating this learning opportunity.
🎖️🏆🤗💪🧡
Thank you for sharing this
I’d be interested to hear about less talked about tanks such as Japanese and Italian tanks of ww2 in battle
They’ve covered the tanks in their collection.
@@AndrewTBP In a tank on tank situation?
Great video 👍
Good episode. I like the animation!
Great video! Really interesting
Thanks!
😊good presentation thank you.
I'd like to see an analysis of Operation Bøllebank, when Bosnian Serb T55s ambushed NORDBAT's Leopard 1s and lost.
4:15 Every diesel engine works on aviation jet A-1 fuel withouth any problem. It also starts much easyer with aviation fuel in winter. Modern common rail diesels also work well on Jet A-1.
On longer periods of use there could be problems with lubrication of injection pump, but that can be solved by adding few percent of engine oil in aviation fuel.
Aviation fuel is cleaner kerosine with some aditives anway.
Great video. I always love the coldwar tanks.
Depends how many could you get to front line....? In a major Russian attack on the rear area workshops, Soviet forces would indeed come up against the bulk of Britsh Tank Strength......in various stages of engine repair.
Another great video which I really enjoyed. It showed how training certainly affects the outcome of a battle. I'd like to see a video about WW2 German Mk IVs against the IS series of heavy tanks. I've never found any good information about their fight on UA-cam. How did that 75mm gun on later versions handle the Soviet heavies?
It is not which tank is better but rather who is best at using them.
not if its not working
Many people don't take into account the logistical benefits that go with a lower vehicle weight. The lighter tank does not only have greater agility. It can also make do with less sturdy bridging equipment when it comes to crossing rivers and other obstacles. You need less powerful and heavy lorries to truck it around. These advantages can make it possible to get the lighter tank into places where the heavier one cannot be brought into action, or fewer of them. It can mean having tanks where the others don't.
Good information
awesome video!
Really interesting, thanks!
Awesome presentation!
Great video, thanks 👍
I like to see anything featuring the Centurion tank, please
I was a wee lad when I first saw the Centurion at Queen’s birthday parade in Berlin. Got to ride on one early/ mid 60’s at Bovington. Beautiful bit of gear
The partnership with WoT is really paying off with the cinematics, they look great! I hope there is more planned for the future.
Agreed, the in-game simulation was the perfect visual aid for this scenario!
Wargaming is a tool of putin's propaganda.
Thanks for the feedback! 🙌
Quick question regarding the armour penetration values mentioned at 5:55
Judging by the muzzle velocity mentioned in the video, I'd guess you are refering to either the 3BM-3 or 3BM-4 APFSDS rounds. How do you get to a penetration value of 228 mm? Is that at an angle or do you reference a different round I don't know? Or is this not aginast pure RHA? Because most sources I could find state between 270 to 300 mm at 1000 m an 0° on the 3BM-3 round thanks to it's tungsten tip and between 240 to 260 at 1000 m and 0° for 3BM-4 with the full steel dart.
The T-62 also had access to the BK4-M HEAT-FS round with 440 mm of penetration against RHA at 0° - I'd call that quite deadly.
Either way, great video and I love your work! :)
Depends largely on the era or ordinance supplier, also there are different opinions on what the actual penn power of those old guns is, the soviet field manuals that are largely selected as a primary source have been proven to include misleading and outright incorrect info on machine and ordinance performance. see the BMP 1 field manual for example
@@trisjack82 Thank you! 228 mm just seemed low to me, but since I am hardly an expert, I thought I'd ask :)
Outstanding presentation!
Fascinating.
This was good, be nice to see more like this please!!
The first German encounter with the Kv1 would be interesting or some of the battles in France where they came up against Matildas and Char B1’s
05:36 I am a bit confused by the statement about smoothbore and APFSDS. Smoothbore is better for firing fin stabilised rounds because fin rounds would "spin" out of control if they had to much of a "spin" imparted on them by the rifling. And the soviets went for the smoothbore because if you have a penetrator of a certain length to diamater ration you cant stabilise it in flight by spin stabilisation anymore. Because the spin would not stabilised but destabilise it.
I mean there are other reasons for smoothbore, but as far as I know that is the main one? Am I missing something here?
Really interesting chat, Thanks.
And yet another example of the truth that no matter how much you model or role play a piece of kits effectiveness, you only really find out how good it is when it is tested in battle.
An excellent and informative video about a little known tank battle (for me at any rate). This would be a good subject for the Osprey Duel series. However, I would suggest that the biggest post war tank battles were in the Sinai in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and not seven years later in the Iran- Iraq War. It terms of future vidéos I would like to see an analysis of the Battle of Lake Qaraoun in the Lebanon in 1982, where the Israeli Merkava made its combat debut against the Syrian T72s.
Excellent presentation! Thank you
The touch of using World of Tanks to represent the battles is awesome.
Great video! Hoping to see how T-72s fair against Merkavas next
Great video. Thinking what you have in the museum I'd love to see a KV1 vs Panzer 3 or Tiger vs Cromwell next
Remember the Challenger 1 was actually built for Iran before the revolution under the Shah but not delivered due to what happened hence the Chieftain had been realized as obsolete. Hence adopted by British army as paid for and later Britain ironing out the numerous faults before performing against Iraq in the desert that it was designed for.
I was thinking that the T62 has low depression would have made it bad at defense but the Iraqi crews were just better.
Great new host. Thank you for your work.
Interestingly, the introduction of the Chieftan was what spurred on the creation of the T-64.
Nope..The moment for that was when Soviet Technical Commission studied the Ex-Iranian M60 patton. Chieftain was introduced in 1966 while at that point M60 had been 7 years in service.
chieftain entered service in 1967 t64 entered service 1964 ffs stop spreading misinformation.
No lol
Thank you
Great to know about the presenters credentials. It is a shame that this same requirement is not applied to all the presenters.
Imagine calling a WW2 V8 a viable engine for the 1960's, in a tank 40% heavier than the original intended one
Otherwise all and all a great video
It's a derivative, that's like saying the V2 engine is obsolete.
We (Scots DG) were still using non-Stilbrew Chieftains in 1986/87
Excellent video :)
I dont know, but if you get ambushed due to bad recon and decisions and you still inflict a 1to1 casualty rate or 1 to 2 with captures, thats pretty good comparitively
Centurions were able to take out T-62s and T-55s in war previously, the Chieftain was a more sophisticated vehicle than the Centurion so I suspect soft factors were the main culprit. The Chieftain was a bit behind the curve and to see some of the presenters suggest that Chieftain was a match for the T-72 is baffling.
The farm I work on has a chieftain tank in one of the storage units, where we park the quads, tractors and other plant vehicles.
The owner is restoring it, slowly (very slowly) and although its engine runs, the electrics and hydraulics are a different matter altogether.
The most striking thing about the tank is it's sheer bulk.
They look quite reasonably size when they're next together in videos, but when it's stood still in a warehouse of tractors and excavators, it is absolutely huge.
I had a look inside a couple of days ago, and the sheer size of the tank isn't reflected in the cramped crew compartment, which is a bizarre shape with the gunner sitting almost directly underneath the commanders seat, and the loader sits facing almost backwards to the gunner.
All this is completely uneducated of course. I'm a simple farmer, but my son is a soldier which is where the interest comes from.
I jumped down from the top of the turret and I bet I fell 12 or 15 feet. I had to do it in two drops, first from the turret top to the deck, and then from the track guards to the floor.
The size of the thing is just mind blowing.
This is more a comparison of experience, training & tactics rather than the tanks themselves.
x3 piece ammo on the Chieftain? That must be a pretty slow load, I could load a M256 and hit the safety in about 4ish seconds and I was on the slow side. I don't envy those Chieftain loaders. This was a great video! Please peek them coming.
I'd LOVE to see one pitting the M48 against the T55/62 in say the 1973 War. There were also a number of M48 vs. T54 actions in Vietnam in 1975 too.
Love Paul loading the ammo in the video
3 Piece ammo would certainly be slow for an inexperienced crew, though it has to be remembered that one of the 'pieces' isn't actually manually loaded. The loader has to deal with two parts (The charge and the projectile) on these British guns. They are in some ways more wieldy than single piece 120mm ammunition and a trained loader can meet a 4~ second reload. Due to both HESH and APFSDS warheads being inert, the loader can also use lap loading for any follow up shot they can prepare for, making that rather rapid.
Certainly though, for an untrained loader, this two piece setup would be a nightmare.
To me Iran-Iraq war sort of looks like a winter war without the gigantic advantages of men and material. The military completely purged of it's senior officers and political interference at every level.
Good job lad! I just learned something new about the Chieftain and three-part ammo. Too many Battleship videos had me missing the Vent tube "bullet". Funny they didn't build in a firing cap to the bag charge?
Anyway, cheers. /Tank Museum fan from Canada
HAVE TO ADD - World of Tanks, please do MORE Historical animation re-enactments, you guys are PERFECT for that! Be the next "Greatest Tank Battles!" TV show!