Talk:Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger

Use by Czechoslovakia

I'm sorry I haven't submitted a source originally, it will perhaps take some time, but I'm certainly going to. Perhaps it will somewhat complicated, I'm afraid - AFAIK the Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade operated some Sherman Fireflies (mix of IC/IC Hybrid) during the war (although its tank battalions were equipped with Cromwells, and at some time in April or May 1945 - either in the last weeks before the end of war or immediately after the war, these were exchanged for about 20 Challengers. These were paid for by the Czechoslovak government (as well the other weapons and equipment of the brigade) and returned with the brigade to Czechoslovakia - where they were finally scrapped only in 1959 (although soon after the 1948 they were retired to the storage, for the use by units raised in event of war). This still makes Czechoslovakia perhaps the only foreign user of Challenger (and while some 20 tanks is not much impressive number, it means ca. 10% of the Challenger production). --87.249.145.69 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is in Fletcher's book for during the war use, so I added the reference. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to look for the suitable reference for the post-war Czechoslovak use.-87.249.145.69 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a reliable source giving info on the Czechoslovak use of Challenger - meanwhile I've checked the source given for Czechoslovak Brigade use in the wartime ("Cromwell" by David Fletcher) and on top of the page 42 there's table "Cromwell Family: Overseas Deliveries & Sales, 1943-1972" and line #5 gives for Czechoslovakia "168 Cromwells; 22 Challengers", with a note "Ex-1st (Czechoslovakian) Armd Bde" - i.e. I am inclined to understand the data refers to the postwar sale of the brigade materiel, not to the previous war use. (War use on the Western Front, (including the Polish 10th Mounted Rifles Regiment), is covered in the page 24 table). Shouldn't this be a sufficient source (and perhaps also easier to check for the users of English Wikipedia)? --87.249.145.69 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I understand lack of any answer that there're none objections against my proposal above?---87.249.145.69 (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

An alternative source is book "Tanky: Československá samostatná obrněná brigáda 1943-1945/Tanks: Czechoslovak Independent Armoured Brigade 1943-194" which is a bilingual publication (Czech-English), with stress on photo content. It does not give info when Czechoslovaks Challengers were phased out, just simply states "[the brigade] received a total of 22 [Challenger] tanks in May 1945 as an exchange for Fireflies which were needed at other battlefields, and arrived with these vehicles into Czechoslovakia. These tanks however have not seen any combat operations." (p.53). I'd personally prefer the reference to the above mentioned table on page 42 in Cromwell by David Fletcher, for the sake of simplicity.--87.249.145.69 (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Another possible is quite recent book (in Czech only) "Československé tankové síly 1945-1992" by Vladimír Francev which also gives number of 22 vehicles and states (p.186) that: "soon after 1951 they were relocated into mobilisation reserve, before being finally scrapped in 1959." It can be also used for a (very) brief summary of the Czechoslovak formations with which the Czechoslovak Challengers served.-Hon-3s-T (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I see it has been re-added - can we please qualify that with a date. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I added some details on the service in Czechoslovakia to the article text - am not sure if the dates should be also in the infobox?--87.249.145.69 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Coaxial 0.30 Browning

It would be useful to the article to know why a Browning was fitted. One of the advantages of Challenger rather than Firefly accompanying Cromwell units was commonality of supply and maintenance but Cromwells had the 7.92 Besa machine gun. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Browning was already common in British service. They also had significantly different mounts. As the Browning mount was considerably more compact, it also fitted a mantlet with limited space rather better. This isn't strong evidence as to why they were fitted, but it does indicate that its fitment isn't surprising. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the Besa used special 7.92 ammunition where (I think) the browning used the same .30-06 ammunition that other US weapons fired, so from a supply chain point of view may have been easier to keep supplied. Lkchild (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Besa ammunition was hardly "special". It had been the standard British tank MG ammunition since the start of the war. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

agreed, but it was the only gun on the (allied side of the) battlefield to use it. Boxes were labelled up as "for AFV use only". Commonality makes a lot if sense for military supply chains. Just a ponderance - don't take it to heart. Lkchild (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's still hardly "special". BESA ammo is exactly the same as German 7.92 because it *is* German 7.92 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.115.148 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Avenger - it was not artillery

Why is the entry on the Avenger talking about it being artillery, implying it was no more than a mobile field gun? It was designed for use by the Royal Artillery *anti-tank* regiments. According to Ellis & Chamberlin it was issued to 2 RA AT regiments post-war and used until 1949-1950, so that means at least 72 vehicles off the production line.

172.221.244.146 (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-tank guns, mobile or otherwise, are artillery in British contemporary thinking. That's why they were operated by Royal Artillery regiments. It continues with later FV102 Striker anti-tank guided missile vehicles also being operated by RA units . GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As a rough guide, if the official designation includes the words 'Gun' and 'Self-propelled' then it isn't a tank but is instead a 'gun', and will therefore be issued to RA units - who traditionally operate 'guns' (artillery) only.

Or in other words, the vehicle is important only as a means to move the gun, and the vehicle itself is thus of somewhat secondary in importance as a fighting vehicle. A result of this is that the vehicle will usually lack a co-axial or bow machine gun.

That is also why the vehicles aren't 'Tank Destroyer's, although the A30 Challenger was an exception, it being classed officially as a 'Tank Killer' intended to be used in support of the Cromwell and later Comet, rather than as merely a more mobile AT gun. That's why it received a 'Cruiser' designation while the Avenger was designated as a self propelled 17 pdr gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)