CVR(T) Sabre "unsuccessful" Vs. Scimitar?

While doing some reading it seems there are those who don't feel the Fox turret on a Scorpion chassis worked well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_%28tank%29

"In particular, the vehicle lacked defensive capabilities. "

and that

"The marriage of the Fox turret and Scorpion chassis was not successful and Sabre was withdrawn from British Army service in 2004."

Where elsewhere: http://www.livesteammodels.co.uk/dhmg/scorpion.html

>2. Occupational Health and Safety. The toxicity issues were

>significant. That is also why Britain withdrew the Scorpion.

I would have thought that venting and LMG mounting would have been about the same so why would the Sabre be inferior to the Scimitar?

Has anybody got information about how the crews felt about the Sabre Vs. Scimitar or combat effectiveness?

Thanks,

P_

There are lots of errors on Wikipedia, one of the cvrt pages says they had Bedford engines!

Speculation and confusion abound!

To be fair I dont think the article is intending to draw a comparison to the Scimitar as such. It is hard to see how a conclusion can be drawn that Sabre was unsuccessful given its very short service life, and the fact that they only served in the Balkans. I suspect (more speculation again) that the decision to withdraw Sabre was more to do with the problems of the small size of the fleet, especially as they remained petrol rather than diesel, unlike the majority of CVRT. So a decision had to be made to dieselise or withdraw perhaps?

Experience in Iraq and Afghan has led to many, many detail changes to the CVRT over the last 10 years, so I don't think the inherent problems of the Sabre were any worse than those of Scimitar etc...

Sabre was not withdrawn due to toxicity issues as far as Im aware, that comment relates to Scorpion and the 76mm gun. Army vets tend to blame the RAF for this (not sure if that is fair or not!). The other reason given for Scorpions withdrawal is that Scorpion had the smallest calibre gun that could be classed as a 'tank' for arms limitation purposes. It was therefore a way to meet arms reduction targets without reducing the number of MBT's (which the current govt is busy cutting up anyway but thats another story!).

I hasten to add that all, some or none of the above may be true!

Tim

Sabre lacked NBC protection, I assume as the Fox turret wasn't designed with that in mind.

The 76mm Gun was used for years before the Health and Safety caught up with it. Quite if they could have fitted additional fans to alleviate the problem is questionable, but they must have missed having a gun in Afganistan that could knock down a building rather than knocking holes in it.

Sabre lacked NBC protection, I assume as the Fox turret wasn't designed with that in mind.

The Sabre does have the standard NBC pack fitted ?

Paul

All the kit is there, and I presume the original intention was that the hybrid vehicle would be NBC, but I don't think they were ever able to get the fox turret to seal successfully, although somebody may correct me on this. I guess it was just easier to leave the kit in it than to remove....

Tim

Just a suggestion, but would it not be better to contact Bovington Museum. & ask the question?

Just my thoughts on this one! :-)

Just a suggestion, but would it not be better to contact Bovington Museum. & ask the question?

 

Just my thoughts on this one! :-)

Yes, but so much less fun!

Trevor

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?37852-Tank-of-the-week-Sabre

Hmmm, they seem to think the armour is top secret and that it served in Afghanistan so I'm not sure we'd get a definitive answer!

Sabre was not withdrawn due to toxicity issues as far as Im aware, that comment relates to Scorpion and the 76mm gun. Army vets tend to blame the RAF for this (not sure if that is fair or not!). The other reason given for Scorpions withdrawal is that Scorpion had the smallest calibre gun that could be classed as a 'tank' for arms limitation purposes. It was therefore a way to meet arms reduction targets without reducing the number of MBT's (which the current govt is busy cutting up anyway but thats another story!).

 

I hasten to add that all, some or none of the above may be true!

 

Tim

I think you've got it pretty much right.

It not be right to blame the RAF Regiment (who am I to say) but it's absolutely fair, because, well, they were RAF Regiment and an easy target.

Story goes that at the CFE reduction talks, the soviets worked out a class of tanks (iirc, it was a long time ago, tanks with gun calibre 75-105mm) that would allow them to sling obsolete T62s while NATO would be obliged to lose front line 105mm gun tanks. By the simple expedient of suddenly declaring Scorpion to be a tank and not a recce vehicle, it could be withdrawn, the same hulls fitted with 30mm cannon (outside the scope of CFE), functionally identical to Scimitars and reusing a redundant set of hulls and another redundant set of turrets.

Hello Alien old chap not seen you around for a while - good to see you back.

I was talking to a couple of jock armourers at the weekend who also had nothing but contempt for the chain gun, which was by all accounts hideously unreliable, in large part they felt due to the fact that it was designed to be fed from above (as it is in Warrior and Challenger?), but in Sabre was fed from below so the gun had to pull the rounds up, leading to regular stoppages.

Tim