tanks/vehicles Vickers Mk.7/2 (1985)

[pieve 3,578]

                              British

 

---

Vickers Mk.7/2

---

The latter was developed in the early 80's. Using this in combination with the MK.4 Valiant hull produced a vehicle called Vickers Mk.7.

The failure with the next model of the Valiant export tank did not discredit the idea itself in the eyes of the Vickers administration. After the fruitless tests of 1982-1983. immediately began working on another model, designed for export. The unsatisfactory quality of the Valiant tank gear set off radically unusually radically by installing the Valiant tank tower in the German tank Leopard 2. As a result of "crossing", a "Vickers" export tank Mk.7/1. The initial tests of its prototype occurred in England in the spring of 1985 and in the summer of the same year the car was sent to Egypt for a more complete study of its behavior in a hot climate and, of course, for advertising purposes. Although the tank has been tested and by the end of 1985, its possible series production has been prepared, customers have never been found.

The Vickers Mk.7/1 tank undercarriage is completely analogous to the operation of the Leopard-2 tank. The completion of the German hull consisted mainly of increasing the hole diameter for the tower epaulet from 1982mm to 2169mm. The engine's transmission system is similar to that used in "Leopard-2". The tower is almost identical to the "Valiant" tank tower. The tower is equipped with a cannon with pitches of 120mm L11A5; an ammunition of 40 shots.

 

 

But the Valiant hull was unsatisfactory and something else was needed, something with far better protection. In the end, Vickers decided to use a modified Leopard 2 hull fitted with Chobham armor. They fitted it with the Mk.7 Universal Turret armed with a British 120mm L11A5 rifled gun and called this hybrid Vickers Mk.7/2.

The Mk.7/2 was far more powerful than the older Mk.4. It was offered for export with different weaponry (120mm GIAT and Rheinmetall smoothbores – the 105mm option was formally dropped, although technically if a buyer wanted it they could still have it fitted ), but it wasn't an exactly cheap vehicle. The Marconi Centaur Fire Control System was state of the art, as were its sights and thermal imager.

 

 

The 54.6 ton tank was powered by a German 1500HP 47.6 liter MTU MB 873 Ka-501 engine from the Leopard 2A4, allowing it to go at a whopping 72 km/h. A single prototype was built in 1985 and the British had a look at it, but decided that they didn’t want that and no foreign customers were attracted to the pricey vehicle either. Vickers, however, used the lessons they learned from its development later with the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank, the last British MBT designed and built in the United Kingdom.

 

 

The British faced unforeseen difficulties. The fact is that the tank chassis was considered property of the German company Krauss-Maffei. While in the first half of 1987, Vickers Mk.7/2 rolled in England, no interstate problems arose, moreover, politicians underlined the growing Anglo-German cooperation in the development and production of military equipment. As soon as the tank was transported to Abu Dhabi and to continue testing, the German government immediately imposed a ban on the export of the German "Mk.7/2" "piece", and one can not conquer much with a tower. In addition, the Vickers company was attacked by the British native government, considering the diversion of people to the Mk.7/2 tests as an excessive luxury when forcing the development of the Challenger-2. In fact, both governments have solved a task - eliminating a competitor; and the Germans, in the end, acted like a "dog in the manger" - they refused to supply their tanks to the "hot region" for political reasons.

Compared to the previous model, in Mk.7/2, the tower and the gun control system were modernized. The tower was changed according to the diameter of the shoulder strap of the Leopard-2 tank. The main goal of SMS development was to increase the likelihood of achieving moving targets. In the Mk.7/1 tank, the gunner's view is rigidly connected to the gun barrel and, of course, does not have a stabilized line of sight. As a result, the gunner has very limited abilities to put the gun into motion. In the modified view of the gunner, a stabilized observation mark is introduced, while in its capabilities the vision is still inferior to devices with a stabilized line of sight, but still increases the likelihood of reaching moving targets, moreover, the cost of such a vision is significantly less than that of a stabilized vision. The image taken from the thermal image can be displayed in the field of view of the view, and the gunner therefore does not need to use the image of the television monitor when the targets are damaged in the dark. The Bovington shootout showed that the same team for target destruction in the Mk.7/2 tank takes half the time as the Challenger team. Another improvement was the installation of a new heat shield in the gun barrel.

 

---

Here you can see NATO's main battle tanks (from left to right):

  source:

Spoiler

http://tanknutdave.com/the-vickers-mk-7-mbt/

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vickers_mk7.htm

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by pieve

[leroyonly 4,310]

Open for Discussion 

[pieve 3,578]

Just now, leroyonly said:

Open for Discussion 

Thank you leroyonly 

[Cadianguardian 61]

1+

[Nicroon 139]

I support it as a M1A1/Leopard 2A4/Challenger Mk3/STC/T-80B(/V)/T-80U equivalent.

 

So +1 

[Capt_Palmtree 377]

Yes please.

+1.

[これを読んだ人はゲイです 31]

Up

[Jarms 1,558]

I don’t support this right now, but if the Leopard 2 (not the 2K) gets added then definitely. 

[Loongsheep 5,339]

I support this 100% after the proper Leopard 2 has been added.

It gives the British a fast tank on top tier, a choice missing since BR 5.3.

 

With British 120mm rifled gun, its firepower (rate of fire, L23A1 penetration) will be below that of Leopard 2, while it makes up by having better armor over the front.

[Ta_Kanata18 1,109]

I see 2 kind of difference turret in the Op?

[SANDOKAN_624 29]

A british tank that can actually move around and ocasionally take a hit in the hull? Sign me up boi

 

+1

[Hood18 9]

we have so little tanks in brits moderns +1

[LukavMineav 86]

I'm all for a Diet-Challenger 

[Fragal 181]

Gets my vote sadly this tank could be more competitive than the chally if done right stick it at 9.0 first then retier later = win

[UNIT_normal 804]

Making full Vickers MBT with Challenger 2(same Vickers) tree will interesting.

[Zander_Nobuyuki 63]

+1 GIB

[duckmartin 1,889]

+1 but hopefully if it ever comes into the game it won't have armour bugs like Challenger 1.

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

totally for this. the british government almost never diverted from the highly defensive tactics, Vickers was the odd man out, and the Leo 2 and its chassis is coming next patch anyways. may as well give the brits exactly the kind of tank that can actually work with the current meta.

[pieve 3,578]

On 30/04/2018 at 6:01 AM, Admiral_Aruon said:

totally for this. the british government almost never diverted from the highly defensive tactics, Vickers was the odd man out, and the Leo 2 and its chassis is coming next patch anyways. may as well give the brits exactly the kind of tank that can actually work with the current meta.

no doubt Vickers Mk.7 / 2 will be better than Challenger 1 Mk.3, until the arrival of the prototype of Challenger 2

[swpixy 1,220]

1 hour ago, pieve said:

no doubt Vickers Mk.7 / 2 will be better than Challenger 1 Mk.3, until the arrival of the prototype of Challenger 2

Honestly,i´d consider it far better than even a proper Challenger 2.Simply because it can actually move for once and doesnt have a paper LFP.Plus potentially a much better gun.

 

[pieve 3,578]

36 minutes ago, swpixy said:

Honestly,i´d consider it far better than even a proper Challenger 2.Simply because it can actually move for once and doesnt have a paper LFP.Plus potentially a much better gun.

 

Yes, this is because it is using a German chassis

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

9 hours ago, pieve said:

Yes, this is because it is using a German chassis

 

AKA a chassis & engine not designed by shortsighted morons...

 

 

...and also that moment when you gotta get from Hamburg to Frankfurt, and traffic on the autobahn is good, ...and dad left the keys to the tank. :P

[Querulous1 3,276]

Would complement chally very well +1

[TasteTheTea 3,203]

+1 from me, another interesting vehicle from Vickers with potential for a place in the tree.

 

On 04/05/2018 at 4:58 AM, Admiral_Aruon said:

 

AKA a chassis & engine not designed by shortsighted morons...

 

I assume you're referring to the Challenger 2? As 1200hp was fine for a 62 ton Challenger 1. In the Challenger 2's case the engine might be a bit under-powered. As for the chassis however, I'm not sure what the problem is, the only times it has been penetrated (as far as I know) is through the belly which was reinforced after the incident.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Time4Tea

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

17 hours ago, Time4Tea said:

+1 from me, another interesting vehicle from Vickers with potential for a place in the tree.

 

I assume you're referring to the Challenger 2? As 1200hp was fine for a 62 ton Challenger 1. In the Challenger 2's case the engine might be a bit under-powered. As for the chassis however, I'm not sure what the problem is, the only times it has been penetrated (as far as I know) is through the belly which was reinforced after the incident.

 

It's mostly just people trying to exaggerate the Challengers "issues" as usual. If anyone thinks the Challenger is "slow", then I advise them to go out and actually operate beside the things, or witness them moving from a ground level. Especially off-road, they are anything but "slow". Tanks with 1,500hp engines will out accelerate them, sure, but you have to remember that people online only ever play tank top trumps. Whatever isn't the literal highest number is automatically crap, apparently, despite them never having driven it or likely even been beside them while they're moving.

 

They can't grasp that "slower" doesn't mean "slow".