Prototypes WW2 Australian Prototypes

Cossor Land Cruiser

Australia Australia (1943)
None Built

Australia is most famous for a wide range of deadly native creatures, but within the tank community, it is well known for its Cruiser tanks (AC I, II, III and IV Sentinel Cruiser Tanks). Whilst those Cruiser tanks were good designs in their own right, another vehicle, purporting to be a ‘Land Cruiser’, was not. Neither famous nor a sound design, the suggestion by Mr. S. Cossor of Albury, New South Wales, in March 1943 was very poorly considered.
Just like so many other wheeled tank designs, Cossor went for the tricycle setup, with two large front wheels on a roughly triangular body and a third small trailing wheel at the back.
Cossor sent in his idea in March 1943 for consideration and received a particularly quick and blunt appraisal rejecting the idea completely. A review of the specifications makes it very clear why.

The Idea

Cossor’s idea from January 1943 was essentially simple in desire and complex in delivery: “To provide a land offensive unit with more striking power than the largest tanks so far constructed, that could not be destroyed by ordinary mobile artillery, tanks, or landmines”.
Further, perhaps understanding that the design was utterly unsuitable for use on roads, he envisioned that it would roll around without even needing roads, smashing through enemy fortifications and in doing so, roll flat a path for tanks and troops to follow. This is actually a common line of thought for these type of giant wheeled suggestions. In terms of bridges, Cossor, just like other similar inventors, assumed that the vehicle would simply be able, by virtue of its size, to cross even deep rivers.
This outline sketched out in January was sent to the Army in March for consideration, although they were busy enough with conventional tank designs at the time.

The design

The Cossor Land Cruiser was huge, based around wheels about 16 1/2’ feet (5 meters) in diameter. The wheels, when viewed in cross-section, form a ‘C’ shape as they overlap the rolling pin shaped the main body with the axis of the pin forming the axles of the wheels. Although this was a rather neat method to increase the footprint of each wheel, it also served to raise the overall vehicle height to 20’ (6.1 meters). The overall length of the vehicle was at least 50’ (15.24 meters) ensuring that it was completely impractical to move around. The width of the vehicle was not much better, 40’ (12.2 meters) wide from wheel edge to wheel edge. A vehicle of such dimensions was near impossible to move by ship or road, as it was bigger than any bridges could accommodate and wider than a road. When the driving cabin ‘turret’ dome was added to the front, this projected past the front of the wheels and increased the length still further, and as if to make the impractical impossible, Cossor also added detachable sponsons to the wheels.
These sponsons were large domes fitted to extensions of the axle pin for the wheels, so would simply hang and not rotate with the wheel. No easy access seems to have been provided from these sponsons to the main body, although the axle is supposed to be ‘hollow’. Likewise, no consideration seems to have been made of just how these huge and likely very heavy sponsons and driver’s stations were supposed to be fitted.
On top of the ‘pin’ part of the body were two large turrets, and between them, a firing position for anti-aircraft guns. Down the trailing arm part of the body were meant to be ‘living quarters’, giving perhaps an indication of just how big this machine was and how many crew it would have to have. Right at the back was the wheel which controlled the steering that was directed by the driver located right at the front. An access corridor ran the full length of the design from the cabin to the compartment above the rear wheel. The entire body was to be clad in ‘heavy armor plate’ and the trailing arm was to be curved across the top, but other than that there is no indication as to exactly how much armor constitutes ‘heavy armor’, and an accurate weight for the vehicle cannot easily be estimated, although, from the size of it, the machine was to easily exceed 100 tons, if not more.
Some of the design is hard to understand, as only 1 of at least 3 drawings provided by Cossor has survived to this day. The surviving image does, however, give an idea of the size and armament of the vehicle and why it was so quickly rejected.

Original rough drawing of the Cossor Land Cruiser. Photo: Author’s Collection


Cossor did not spare the selection of firepower for his Land Cruiser making it look more like a Land Battleship than anything else. In the front driver’s compartment, ‘control cabin’ were 2 machine-guns positioned to fire at an angle across the front of the machine. Two further machine-guns were located in each of the large domed sponsons angled forwards and back, and three more machine-guns were located in the tail section covering the rear. To this total of 7 machine-guns was added an anti-aircraft position on top. No weapon is specified for this position, but it is flanked by the two large circular turrets, each of which is supposed to be mounting a 6” (152.4mm) gun, presumably of naval origin.

The Assessment

This enormous and adventurous design from Cossor received just a single page assessment. The weight, although not specified, “would be enormous and with only two main points of support the pressure per sq. in. would be very high, causing the wheels to sink into any ground at all soft – a common failing with these types of designs. This huge tank would also have required huge engines to power it, which were neither cheap nor readily available in wartime Australia, and the rest of the vehicle would also have been very expensive to produce. Too expensive to make it worthwhile.
The design was also faulted for not being watertight as well as for being extremely vulnerable to enemy fire. It might have had thick armor after-all, but it was such a huge target that it would not have been able to hide and would easily have been targeted by enemy fire. The idea was duly rejected in total on 2nd April 1943 although perhaps the day before might have been more resonant.

known Specifications

Dimensions (L-W-H) 50’ x 40’ x 20’ (15.24m x 12.19m x 6.10m)
Armament 2 6” main guns, 7 machine-guns, anti-aircraft gun
Armor ‘heavy armour plate’


Australian Army Inventions Directorate File 7934, 1943

A left side profile and head on view on the Cossor land Cruiser with an average size man (1.7 meters/5 feet 9 inches) for scale. Both illustrations were modelled by Mr. C. Ryan, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Cold War Soviet Prototypes Prototypes

IS-7 (Object 260)

Soviet Union (1946-48)
Heavy Tank – 7 prototypes

The IS-7 (ИC-7), starting life under the project title of Object 260 (объект 260), followed on from the ill-fated IS-5 (Object 730) and IS-6 (Object 252/253). With these failures, the request was still standing for the USSR’s next heavy tank.
The IS-7 was the brain-child of the Soviet tank designer Nikolai Fedorovich Shashmurin. As well as having a hand in the design of the rather successful IS-2 which would serve well in the later years of World War II, Shashmurin also drew up plans for the ill-fated KV-4 (Object 906) project, which never came to fruition.
The IS-7 would be Shashmurin’s crowning glory and could be considered the zenith of the Iosif Stalin heavy tanks. At the time of its conception, it was one of the most technologically advanced heavy tanks in the world, and one of the most heavily armored.


The seeds of the IS-7 were first sown in December 1945 in Factory No. 100 in Leningrad, with a full-scale wooden mock-up produced soon after. Running prototypes were ready for testing in 1946. These tests ran through 1947, ending in 1948 when the designers believed they had reached a finalized design. It was then given the title of IS-7. This final design was armed with a stabilized 130 mm (5.12 in) cannon fed by an autoloader, a total of 8 machine guns, infrared scopes, and armor up to 300 mm (11.8 in) thick. It was the largest tank that the USSR had or would ever produce.
The wooden mockup of the IS-7, at this point known as the Object 260
The wooden mockup of the IS-7, at this point known as the Object 260


The tank was designed to withstand the impact of a shell fired by the 12.8 cm Pak 44 Gun found on the German Jagdtiger. The armor on the IS-7 was up to 300 mm (11.8 in) thick, some of the thickest being found on the specific pike nose, formed from homogenous steel. The upper plates were 150 mm (5.9 in) thick angled at 60 degrees. The lower glacis 100-120 mm (3.94-4.72 in) with a slight angle.
Rear cutaway view of the IS-7. Note the thicknesses of the armor on the turret and hull sides.
Rear cutaway view of the IS-7. Note the thicknesses of the armor on the turret and hull sides.
The side armor was also not to be underestimated. The upper hull was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick, while the lower sides measured 100 mm (3.94 in) and was curved outwards, meeting the upper hull seamlessly. The bending of the lower hull was done in a large press, which literally forced the metal into shape.
The mantlet was 350 mm (13.8 in) thick. The turret itself was cast, with the cheeks being the thickest part at 240-250 mm (9.45-9.84 in). They were angled, or curved, at about 50-60 degrees. The shape of the turret was extremely rounded and smooth all the way around, with no obvious shot traps or prominent cupola. There were slightly raised portions of the turret roof where crew positions were found. The commander’s station on the right was slightly higher than the gunner’s one found on the left. The top of these raised portions had direct vision blocks.
In a hull-down position, the turret would have been almost impenetrable. The armor proved not only immune to the intended 12.8 cm, but also the tank’s own 130 mm cannon.


The IS-7’s main armament consisted of the 130mm (5.11 in) S-70, although it was originally intended to carry the S-26. The S-70 was derived from a naval gun. It had a barrel length of 54 calibers. The gun could fire a 33.4 kg shell at 900 m/s and was able to penetrate up to 163 mm (6.4 in) of armor, sloped at 30 degrees, at ranges up to 2000 meters.
The 130 mm S-70 gun with the coaxial KVPT on top.
The 130 mm S-70 gun with the coaxial KVPT on top.
As mentioned above, the IS-7 was equipped with an autoloader. It is not an autoloader in the current sense of the word, however. A more accurate description would be an Automatic Loading Assistance Device, that would be operated by the tank’s two loaders. This piece of equipment was located in the turret bustle. The ammunition of the IS-7 was composed of two parts, separately loaded. As such, the charge was at the bottom of the device, while the projectile sat above. It was operated by a crank handle. The first turn would drop a projectile onto the conveyor belt located in the center of the system, a few more turns would drop the propellant behind. The conveyor would then carry the ammunition to the mouth of the breach, where it would be rammed in. The conveyor would then lift clear of the gun. The gun then fired and the process began again.
The IS-7s loading system
The IS-7s loading system.
This theoretically gave the tank a 6 to 8 rounds per minute rate of fire. Whether actual operation matched this time is unknown, as it doesn’t take into account the reloading of the device. However, it could technically be resupplied as it worked from the various ammunition racks inside the vehicle. The tank carried 25-30 rounds. The downside of this system was that the gun had to return to a neutral position for the loading device to work, meaning the gunner would have to re-lay the gun onto to a target after each shot. Should the mechanism go down, the gun could be manually loaded of course.
To say that the IS-7 was lacking in secondary armament would be an understatement of the highest order. The IS-7 was equipped with no less than 8 machineguns. Four of these were 7.62 mm (0.3 in) SGS-43s and they were mounted in a unique way. Two were placed on both flanks of the hull, towards the rear, fixed in place and fired by the driver. The machine guns were housed in a simple armored box. There were separate shoots for the spent casings and belt links. The ammunition was stored underneath.
There were two more of the machine guns fixed on the rear of the turret, facing backward. These two were staggered to accommodate the large ammunition shoots on the turret roof. Sheet metal boxes were attached to the outside of these to collect the belt links, but casings were left to fall away. It is believed these guns were operated by the gunner or loader who would take aiming orders from the commander to turn the turret left or right. The practical use of these weapons is highly questionable. Whether they would have stayed on a production model is unknown, but some of the prototypes were not equipped with the ones on the turret.
The roof was home to a 14.5 mm (0.57 in) KPVT heavy machine gun on an AA mounting that could pivot down to the left when not in use. The only way to operate this gun was by standing on the engine deck. There were tests to see if it could be remotely controlled by the commander, but these were unsuccessful.
The IS-7 had no less than 3 coaxial machine guns. As well as the KPVT mounted on top of the main armament, 2 SGS-43s were mounted either side of it.


The IS-7 was powered by the M-50T 12 cylinder diesel engine, rated at 1050 hp, and was derived from a naval marine engine. It would run through an 8-speed planetary gearbox. This would propel the vehicle to 60 km/h (33 mph) on roads, a respectable speed for a tank weighing 68 tons fully loaded. Spare diesel fuel could be stored in canvas pouches in compartments towards the rear of the vehicle on each flank.
The weight of the IS-7 was supported on 7 roadwheels on each side. These wheels also supported the return of the track, as there were no return rollers. Each wheel was attached to a road wheel arm, in turn, attached to the torsion bar suspension. The wheels had internal rubber bushings to give the all-metal wheels an extended service life.
The tracks of the IS-7 were some of the first in Soviet use to have a retaining clip in the track link pins, instead of having to rely on a wedge of metal welded to the lower hull to whack the pins back in.

Photo: – Alexey Khlopotov


After the initial factory tests, the prototype tanks were handed over to the State Commission. The test drivers were famously fond of how the IS-7 handled. Reporting that it would respond to the smallest adjustment with ease. The tests were not without incident, though.
During one of the trials, an IS-7 caught fire, despite both sets of internal extinguishers firing, the fire continued to burn resulting in the abandonment of the vehicle and its complete destruction. The cause of the fire was thought to have originated with the weight-saving plastic lined canvas fuel tanks. Quite understandably, these were deleted in later versions.
Though it was liked and generally thought to be a good vehicle, the governing bodies refused to accept it into mass production. The official reasons are not known as to it was rejected. As such, the IS-7 would never enter service, with its successor, the IS-8, later known as T-10, proving to be a more flexible vehicle and able to better meet the needs found on the now fast moving battlefields. It served from 1953 to 1996.
Only one IS-7, built in 1948, survives today and is currently on display at the Kubinka Tank Museum.
The IS-7 as it stands today in the Kubinka Tank Museum
The IS-7 as it stands today in the Kubinka Tank Museum, alongside the IS-4.

Planned Variants

Object 261

While work was ongoing with the IS-7, plans were drawn up for a self-propelled gun variant based on the IS-7’s hull. There were 3 planned versions, the Object 261-1, -2 and -3. The 261-1 was a closed type with the fighting compartment on the bow end of the vehicle. It was armed with a 152 mm (6 in) M-31 gun. The configuration was similar to the ISU series.
The 261-2 had a rear mounted open fighting compartment. For this version and the following, the chassis was reversed, meaning the drive wheels were now at the front of the vehicle. What was the IS-7’s front was the 261-2’s rear. It was armed with a long-barreled M-48 152 mm (6 in) gun. The Object 261-2 was later redesignated Object 262.
The 261-3 had the same configuration as the 261-2/262, but was up-gunned with the naval derived 180 mm (7.09 in) MU-1 gun, also known as the B-1-P. Despite them being Self Propelled Guns, designed to be behind the lines giving fire support, these vehicles were intended to be well armored, with armor 150 to 215 mm (5.91-8.46 in) thick. The vehicles didn’t go further than the scale model phase.
The small-scale mock-up of the Object 261-2/261-3
The small-scale mock-up of the Object 261-2/261-3. A Recoil-spade was also added to the rear.

Object 263

This was a tank destroyer variant, built on the same configuration to the 261. It had a rear mounted, semi-open fighting compartment. The main armament was the 130 mm (5.12 in) S-70A, with separately loading ammunition. This was a slightly modified version of the IS-7’s gun. The armor was up to 250 mm (9.84 in) thick, with a large, flat slab on the front of the vehicle, and two plates either side of the gun mantlet. The side armor was up to 70 mm (2.76 in).
As with the 261-2 and -3, the IS-7 chassis was reversed, a configuration similar to the British Archer. The driver was moved to the left of the gun. Whether the 263 would have had the same issue of the Archer’s engine heating the middle of the barrel and throwing off accuracy is unknown. Like the 261, the vehicle never went further than small scale models.
The small-scale mock-up of the Object 263
The small-scale mock-up of the Object 263. The 263 also saw the addition of a recoil-spade on the rear.

An article by Mark Nash

IS-7 (Object 260) specifications

Dimensions (L-W-H) 7.3 m x 3.3 m x 2.4 m (24ft 2in x 11ft 1in x 8ft 1in)
weight 68 tonnes
Crew 5 (driver, gunner, 2x loaders, commander)
Propulsion 1050 hp 12 cylinder M-50T diesel engine
Suspension Independant torsion bar
Speed (road) 60 km/h (33 mph)
Armament 130 mm (5.11 in) S-70
2x KPVT 14.5 (0.57) MGs
6x SGS 7.62 (0.3 in) MGs
Armor Hull: 150 mm (5.9 in, upper glacis, angled at 60 degrees) – 100-120mm (3.94-4.72 in, lower glacis). Side armor is 150 mm (5.9 in) – 100 mm (3.94 in).
Turret: 240-250 mm (9.45-9.84 in)
Total production 7 prototypes

Links & Resources

An article on the IS-7 on FTR
An article featuring the IS-7
The above link uses the following literature as the primary source: Heavy Soviet Post-War Tanks. Written by M. Baryatinsky, M. Kolomiets and A. Koschavtsev. “Armour Collection #3, 1996”
The IS-7 on (Czech)
The IS-7 on (Russian)
English translation of the article

Illustration of the IS-7 by Jarosław Janas
Illustration of the IS-7 by Jarosław Janas.

Illustration of the IS-7 by Tanks Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.

Cold War British Prototypes Prototypes

Chieftain Casement Test Rig (CTR) SPG

United Kingdom (1972)
Self-propelled Gun – 1 Prototype built

The Chieftain CTR ‘Jagdchieftain’

This prototype British Cold War self-propelled gun has received the popular nickname of the ‘Jagdchieftain’ because of its similarity to the WW2 German Jagdpanther anti-tank self-propelled gun (SPG). Its correct designation is the Chieftain Casement Test Rig (CTR). This is the name given to the vehicle by William Suttie in his book ‘Tank Factory.’ The Tank Museum, Bovington call it the ‘Concept Test Rig.’
It was a 1972 joint project between UK and the Bundeswehr (West German Army). In Germany, tank designers had been experimenting with the Panzer VT1-1 and VT1-2 Leopard 2 chassis SPG armed with twin 120 mm cannons. The Casement Test Rig (CTR) had a semi-fixed single gun. The gun was set in a casement hull superstructure on a Chieftain tank chassis. A lot of aluminum was used in an effort to reduce weight.
Jagdchieftain Concept Test Rig SPG prototype
This prototype test vehicle is often called the Jagdchieftain but its correct name is the Concept Test Rig (CTR) – Photo: Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011
In the early 1970s, NATO believed that to deal with an overwhelming force of Soviet armor the Allies would fall back while inflicting as many casualties as possible until more troops and tanks could be shipped into Europe from America and Britain. The designers wanted to create an anti-tank SPG that had a low profile, a powerful gun and that could travel just as easily in reverse as forward. It was to be the ideal ambush weapon that could wait for the enemy to appear in a concealed location then open fire inflicting as much damage as it could before quickly reversing out of danger to its next preplanned ambush location. For survival, the front armor would be thick and sloped.
This was not the first time a British casemated self-propelled gun had been proposed. There were the class 40, 50, 60 tanks as well as rival Vickers A,B,C,D designs and the Alvis external concept. None progressed further than wooden mockups.

The Engine

Underneath the superstructure is basically a conventional Chieftain chassis, In order to conform with British and German requirements it could be fitted with the British Leyland L60 engine or the Leopard tank ten cylinder MTU multi-fuel power pack preferred by the Federal German Army of that time. The chassis was slightly widened to accommodate the MTU power pack.
The exhaust system was slightly different to that on the operational Chieftain tank in that it had a raised box on top of the chassis
The exhaust system was slightly different to that on the operational Chieftain tank in that it had a raised box on top of the chassis. The rear stowage boxes are missing – Photo: Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011

The Armor

The front sloped glacis plate was to be heavily armored against all current and future anti-tank (AT) weapons in the 1980-90s. Had the ‘Jagdchieftain SPG’ entered production, it seems probable that the new Chobham armor would have been applied. This was not fitted to the prototype but was simulated by the addition of 5 tons of lead plate covered in sheet metal.
The prototype’s superstructure was fabricated from aluminum in order to try and keep the weight down but even so, the Mechanised Vehicle Experimental Establishment (MVEE) estimated the final weight would be 55 tons. The term ‘Chobham armor’ has become the common generic term for composite armor developed in the 1960’s at the British tank research center on Chobham Common, Surrey, England.
Front view of the Chieftain Casement Test Rig (CTR) SPG
Front view of the Chieftain Casement Test Rig (CTR) SPG’s sloped front armour plate prior to the gun being fitted
The Casement Test Rig SPG was based on the Chieftain tank FV4211 nicknamed the “Aluminium Chieftain”. After the project was canceled, the CTR was kept in storage to monitor the hull welds to gain information on deterioration of the aluminum armor.

The Gun and Crew

The main armament was intended to be the British 120 mm L11 rifled gun, although for trial purposes only a dummy tube was installed. Unlike the Swedish S-Tank, which had a fixed gun, the British CRT self-propelled gun concept allowed the gun to elevate from −10 to +20° and traverse +/− 2°, allowing fine tracking without moving the hull.
The crew of three comprised a commander and two driver/gunners. One of the drivers and the commander were able to drive the vehicle forward from their positions, while the second driver/gunner had a rear vision block to allow him to drive it backwards, so they could reverse away from the enemy after ambush without showing their rear. This enabled the vehicle to use the ‘Shoot and Scoot’ tactic.
Development of the Casement Test Rig SPG was inspired by Swedish S-tank that had the same driving configuration. Two of these Swedish vehicles had been tested at Bovington in 1968. During the development of the CRT a further ten S-Tanks were borrowed for a more intense assessment during a military Exercise called ‘Dawdle’ in Germany.


The Concept Test Rig was assembled by the Fighting Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (FVRDE) at Chertsey but trials at Woolwich confirmed what had been seen in Germany on Exercise Dawdle: accurate gun laying was inferior to a turret in terms of speed of engaging targets and that it could not fire accurately on the move. The project was dropped and the vehicle was eventually sent to the Tank Museum at Bovington in 1990.
Jagdchieftain Concept Test Rig SPG prototype
Chobham armor was not fitted to the prototype, but it was simulated by the addition of 5 tons of lead plate covered in sheet aluminium alloy – Photo – Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011

FV217 Conqueror self-propelled gun proposal

This design did not get past the wooden model stage. A prototype was not built mainly for the same reasons the Chieftain Casement Test Rig (CTR) SPG project was dropped. Some call it the JagdConqueror because of its resemblance to the German WW2 Jagdpanther but that was never its official name. It was called the Conqueror Casement Test Rig (CTR) Self-propelled gun (SPG). It was to be fitted with a 120 mm gun.
It seems a strange thing to do as the Conqueror tank was already armed with a 120 mm gun but this vehicle would have been simpler and cheaper to build (a factor that would appeal to politicians). It would also have had a lower profile and thus have been harder to target. It would have been an ambush weapon that would sit in wait for advancing Soviet tanks and fire at them from cover, when they came within range of its gun. It would not have been as adaptable as the tank version.
FV217 Conqueror self-propelled gun

CTR Specifications

Dimensions (L-W-H) 24’6″ (without gun) x 11’5″ x 9’5″
7.51 (without gun) x 3.5 x 2.89 m
Total weight, battle ready 55 tons (11000 Ibs)
Crew Commander and two drivers who also serviced the gun.
Propulsion British Leyland diesel L60, 695 bhp or
Leopard tank ten cylinder MTU multi-fuel power pack
Speed 48/30 km/h road/cross-country (29.82 mph/18.64 mph)
Range/consumption 500 km (310.68 miles)
Proposed Production Armament British 120 mm L11 rifled gun
Proposed Production Armor Chobham Armor
Total production 1 prototype


Ed Francis – The FV3805 Restoration Project
Chieftain by Rob Griffin
Colin Rosenwould
Tank Museum, Bovington, Dorset, England
Steve Osfield
Tank Factory, William Suttie, 2015


Illustration of the Chieftain test rig by David Bocquelet
Jagdchieftain Concept Test Rig SPG prototype
Side skirts were used to protect the side of the vehicle. If it had entered production, Chobham Armour panels would have been attached on top of the skirt panels – Photo: Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011
Jagdchieftain Concept Test Rig SPG prototype
The gun and gun mantlet on the Concept Test Rig SPG were not real units – Photo: Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011
Jagdchieftain Concept Test Rig SPG prototype
The front stowage unit behind the head light on top of the track guard is missing on the CTR prototype – Photo: Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011
Jagdchieftain Concept Test Rig SPG prototype
The top mesh exhaust box was not used on the production models of the Chieftain tank – Photo: Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011
Jagdchieftain Concept Test Rig SPG prototype
The downward pointing exhaust pipe and rear stowage box are missing – Photo: Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011
Jagdchieftain Concept Test Rig SPG prototype
The rear skirt panel has been removed. You can see the support bracket – Photo: Colin Rosenwould Tankfest 2011
Handlebar steering system
The handlebar steering concept was used on the CTR. It was also tested on the FV432 Armoured Personnel Carrier (FV432 APC) – Photo: Ed Francis
Chieftain Casement Test Rig prototype without the gun fitted
Chieftain Casement Test Rig prototype without the gun fitted
Top view of the crew hatches and engine covers on the Chieftain CTR
Top view of the crew hatches and engine covers on the Chieftain CTR self-propelled gun