land rovers that fire missiles

LAND ROVERS THAT FIRE MISSILES
Clive Elliott describes how the humble Land Rover can have the audacity to destroy tanks and even aircraft!
The Land Rover represents a very cost-effective military vehicle and its appeal lies in the ability to be
modified into a wide range of roles. This can be as a delivery vehicle for troops and equipment or as a
platform for installations such as radios and weapons. These installations range from the weaponry just being
bolted down to a more thoughtful design for a fighting machine. In the early stages of weapon development it
is more likely to take the form of an improvisation that can be used to demonstrate a weapons system. Many
of the missile systems fitted to Land Rovers were really adaptations of man-portable weapons, most of what
follows is about British weapons including some information that has not been published before. Although
this is meant to be about Land Rovers, it is as much about the story of British guided weapons.
HESH & HEAT Warheads
HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) warheads work by the warhead squashing into a “cow pat” and on
detonation the shock wave blows large scabs of metal from the tank itself to cause devastation within.
HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) warheads produce a jet of liquid copper, which burns a narrow hole
through the armour to cause a pressure wave inside the tank that can kill the crew and detonate explosives.
Alternative and more descriptive titles are “shaped” or “hollow charge” warheads, the hollow part refers to
the conically shaped copper lined cavity in the warhead that is surrounded by the explosive.
ORANGE WILLIAM & MALKARA
Orange William
Malkara
On the face of it Orange William and Malkara were very similar Anti-Tank Guided Weapons (ATGWs)
developed independently for deployment principally in the Middle East. This is why Orange William was
cancelled in 1958 as the proposed launcher was too heavy and the final straw was that there was no
alternative to the infra-red command link that was unworkable. In fact very little of that is true!
The development of these missiles was intertwined technically, politically, strategically and financially but
they were different in many ways. To understand how they were related will also give an insight into how
these misunderstandings occurred and how the Land Rover narrowly missed being perhaps the most lethal
tank destroyer of the time!
Although both missiles used a HESH warhead, a two-stage solid fuel rocket motor and were physically
similar, the most significant difference was the range. The original Malkara range was 2,000 yds and Orange
William was to be 6,000 yds. To achieve this great distance the controller for Orange William could be up to
4,000 yds away from the launcher i.e. much closer to the target than the launcher. With Malkara the
controller was with the launcher so the range was limited by his ability to see the target from the launch
vehicle and needless to say by the weight of the command wire that the missile could carry. These factors had
a bearing on where and how these missiles might be deployed, with Orange William being regarded as the
superior weapon. For either system it was assumed that the launch vehicle would be a tank of some form and
this at some stage might be constrained by a river. But the controller for Orange William, being independent
of the launcher, could cross the river and proceed to acquire a target. His guidance equipment weighing 100
lb or so might be simply carried or installed in something like a Ferret.
In 1951 the Australian Government established a project for the development of the Malkara ATGW. In
1952 the UK drew up the requirement Project J, a wire-guided ATGW with a HESH warhead. Within in a
year or so Project J and Malkara would become one of the same.
In 1953 the UK proposed a multi-purpose GW that was both anti-tank and anti-aircraft. It was to be under
visual control and commanded by a radio link. The impracticalities of this were separated out by the antiaircraft project being given to Shorts Bros & Harland to develop as Green Light, a test vehicle that became
Seacat. The anti-tank element being given to Fairey Aviation Co. to proceed as Project 6 with a team which
had largely worked on Blue Sky, an air to air missile that became Fireflash. In 1954 the specification for
Project 6 was drawn up under the code name of Orange William.
At this stage the command link for Orange William was not IR but by an X-band crystal video receiver. The
biggest headache for the designers was the requirement for a minimum launcher-controller separation of 900
yds. Having radioed the command to launch the missile, the operator was in the unenviable position of
guiding the missile towards himself by tracking it in a rear view mirror. Having passed, maybe as close as 25
ft to him, he then was required to change the course by guiding it onto the target by observing the flight
directly through binoculars. The physiological state of the operator and the effect on his skills was not
considered as it was felt the chance of him actually being hit by a rogue missile was “extremely remote”.
Fairey felt they could adequately cope with 1,000 yds launcher-controller separation but 900 yds would
require a very sharp turn that could not be achieved solely by aerodynamics and assistance was required from
rocket jets. Much research was expended in developing the arrangement and construction of jets to facilitate
this tight turn and the rocket motor to power it, mindful of the difficulties encountered in Malkara with the
stability of the blast pipes and venturii in what was a more straight forward system. The two-stage solid fuel
motor was code named Woodpecker and was based around the Stork motor used in Blue Sky. Two-stage
means one part of it provides the thrust to get it launched and the sustainer to keep it flying.
It was important that the motor was smokeless particularly now that an IR command link was to be used as
this was a quicker solution than developing a radio link immune to counter measures. Experience of smoke
problems with Malkara were taken into consideration.
It was intended that Malkara was to be launched from a modified Centurion FV4010 weighing up to some 50
tons. For development purposes two trailers were modified with mild steel cabs to accommodate the launch
and guidance facility.
These trailers were to be modified to also cater for Orange William although it was by no means certain how
missiles of either type might be accommodated on a tank, particularly obtaining sufficient launch depression
if the tank was parked up a slope. These launchers were to have two missiles on launching arms and carry six
spare Malkara missiles or four Orange William missiles. The Treasury was not prepared to fund development
of a launch vehicle until the missile for it had been developed. This is why many of the proposed launch
vehicles were to cater for both missile systems and the later progress meetings were jointly to consider the
progress of the two missile projects.
The War Office suggested six Comet tanks be modified to accept either missile system. Under half the
weight of the FV4010 Centurion, at about 18 tons it was considered air transportable for special operations.
Twenty rounds were to be carried with an extraordinary rate of fire of four rounds per minute. This was
clearly unrealistic as there was no way a controller could be guiding a missile every fifteen seconds.
Even by February 1957 the War Office still felt unable to raise a requirement for a launcher until some
experience had been gained with the Comets. Yet if all went to plan Orange William would be available in
1961 but with no launcher given that the time estimated to develop one was 5 to 7 years and Orange William
was due to go into service in 1962.
The main requirements of the missile and launcher were to destroy the heaviest AFV an enemy was likely to
produce and to do this across a major water obstacle. This is why the launcher to controller separation was so
great to allow the controller to get near to the target. Depending on the type of operation the controller’s
vehicle could be a light vehicle or a normal tank although it should still be able to engage its gun in battle but
if all else failed the launch vehicle itself should have the capability to fire and control a missile.
Unlike Malkara that relied principally on thermionic valves, Orange William was designed around
germanium transistors. However there were two types of silicon transistor were ideally suited to the project
but they were only being manufactured on a small scale in USA. No forecasts of the number required could
be given nor any clear idea of when they would be available in sufficient quantities.
Not least of the design worries was the concern that the missile warhead of 35 lb HE may not have sufficient
kinetic energy to kill a tank. The specification drawn up two years earlier was on the basis that 35 lb HE in a
183 mm shell was lethal wherever it hit a tank. These concerns were well founded as later on in 1957 test
rounds with HESH warheads were a “complete failure” when fired at a Centurion tank. Thoughts turned to
using a HEAT warhead instead but the reduction in weight from a 60 lb warhead (of which 35 lb HE) would
mean an increase in missile length of about a foot, something that was not acceptable for the FVRDE design
of any launcher.
Clearly influenced by the Suez Crisis the year before, the War Office requirements for a launch vehicle now
fell into two requirements. Firstly for a global war the launcher was to be an armoured tracked carrier based
on a FV420 carrying 6 missiles that was to be able to swim across rivers and form part of an armoured
regiment. It could be flown in a Beverley allowing a range of 750 miles, this was air portability Phase 2.
Secondly for a limited war a “Light Concept” launcher with two missiles based on a vehicle such as Ferret or
Land Rover to provide air portability Phase 1. The normal separation of controller from launcher was
intended but if circumstances required it could be guided from the launch vehicle. The problem with using a
Ferret was that there was such limited room to carry the additional radio equipment, guidance equipment and
their power supplies. Two missiles would have to be carried on the turret making them visible, vulnerable
and making the whole vehicle too high. If there was to be an advantage of the Ferret being used in an
armoured regiment it would be lost as the question of re-supply means most likely Land Rovers would be
used. These would provide no protection for the missiles and indeed none is afforded to the missiles on the
Ferret.
LAND ROVER ORANGE WILLIAM LAUNCHER
A Land Rover would only be able to carry two missiles and the launching equipment would need to be clear
of the side of the vehicle to avoid blast and noise from the boost motor. Unlike the Ferret there was enough
room for the additional radios and guidance equipment, but Land Rovers of the time only had a 12-volt
system run from a dynamo and this would be inadequate for the radio systems envisaged and indeed the
guidance system.
There were three arrangements under consideration:
1. The Land Rover could carry two missiles and then loaded onto fold-down launcher arms at the side of
the vehicle.
2. The Land Rover could carry two missiles to be loaded onto a demountable launcher placed at the side
of the vehicle.
3. The Land Rover could tow a trailer with three missiles. One missile carried in readiness on a launcher
and two further missiles stowed on board the trailer.
A railed launching arm was under development to minimise the recoil on launch, this was particularly
important with a Light Concept launcher. The Light Concept launcher would be likely to be deployed in an
infantry role unsupported by armour, protection would be achieved by concealment. The Land Rover concept
was considered the most likely way to proceed not only on engineering and tactical grounds but also cost.
The armoured regiment launcher for Orange William, designated FV426, was running into difficulties.
Ideally the FV426 was to be built from scratch then it was decided to convert the FV420 although the armour
protection would be inadequate. But by this stage there was doubt as to whether the FV420 series would
continue in service as it likely to be replaced by the FV430 series with a different suspension, transmission
and engine. In the meantime a mock-up of the launcher interior was to be built in a FV13000 Austin 3-Ton
truck for crew training.
Meanwhile the Light Concept was undergoing a rethink. At this stage (1958) the Humber Armoured Truck
FV1611 (“Pig”) was completing development. As it was Phase 1 airportable and not much bigger than a
Land Rover it was considered the ideal basis for a launcher. A modified Ferret was to be the controller’s
vehicle just as in an Armoured Regiment, although doubts persisted as to whether a Ferret would have
enough room for the extra radios and guidance equipment.
In 1958 150 Malkaras were ordered for trials, these were development trials not acceptance trials as more like
250 would be needed for that. It was not expected that Malkara would go into service. These trials were to
gain experience and test components such as the gyro (from Green Light) and fuze that would also be used in
Orange William.
In early 1959 the IR link was abandoned because of problems from the motor, sunlight, difficulties with the
monochromatic flare and even the possibility of obstruction from clouds at the highest trajectory. The
alternative link proposed was to adapt a commercially available Q band radar set.
By mid September 1959 the Light Concept Orange William launcher based on the FV1600 had progressed in
design to be designated as FV1620 (Hornet) this also had the capability to accommodate Malkara. Note that
in the Orange William configuration this was just the launcher vehicle, guidance was still to be from a Ferret.
A further study on the Land Rover launcher had been undertaken with a missile on a launcher arm that folded
down at the side of the vehicle with another missile stowed on board. The Land Rover would have a crew of
two and carry all their radio and guidance equipment.
However within a few weeks the General Staff took the decision to abandon the heavy armoured launcher
concept altogether and go exclusively for the Light Concept with the FV1620 launching not Orange William
but Malkara which required no external guidance vehicle. The Light Concept from a Land Rover was
terminated.
Two months later the cancellation of Orange William was announced in Parliament on the basis that an
airportable ATGW could now be put into service much sooner than expected. Although it was acknowledged
that the original system had advantages, the “expense and effort” could not be justified. Some four months
later the Secretary of State for War sited two reasons for the cancellation of Orange William. Firstly it would
have been too complex as a front-line weapon and secondly the new main battle tank and its gun would be
able to deal with any tank. He added that Malkara although a “much less sophisticated weapon” could be
delivered more quickly and would provide an airportable ATGW that could be flown to areas where tanks
might not reach quickly.
HEAT ATGWs
In the early 1950s when Britain was stimulating the development of Project J there was a smaller ATGW
envisaged with a 7kg HEAT warhead, this was Project E. When the potential of Project J was realised,
Britain changed the Project E specification from 7kg to 4kg HEAT but in 1954 Project E development
ceased.
It was the initiative of private companies that led to the development of the smaller weapons. These
companies exploited HEAT warheads; this allowed the whole missile to then become smaller as it had a
lighter warhead. In the late 1950s two British man-portable ATGWs emerged, Python and Vigilant.
PYTHON
Python was a private venture by Pye Ltd of Royston Cambridgeshire; the specification was drawn up in
1957. The missile was neatly designed around imperial measurements being 5 feet long, a wingspan of 2 feet,
and a body diameter 6 inches.
Note the pyrotechnic flares on the wings to assist the controller tracking the missile. (Photo Pye Ltd)
Although it was to be fired and controlled by a single man and claimed to be man-portable, it required two
men to lug it around with its ancillaries. It weighed 80 lb. and had to be carried around on a 12-lb metal
frame that also acted as the launch pad.
REME Staff Sergeant with a Python at the ready (Photo Pye Ltd).
The bulky control unit weighed 20 lb. and compared poorly with the neatness of the Vigilant system (Photo
Pye Ltd)
However Python had a range of 4,000 yds, which was more than double the range of Vigilant. Guidance
commands were sent via a two-core cable to electric motors controlling the direction of the exhaust jet, a
system that was later to be used on Swingfire with considerable success.
Never before had a Land Rover acquired such firepower! The protruding warheads could be detached to
allow lids to be placed over the launcher bins. (Photo Pye Ltd)
No orders were received for Python and the project dwindled away. Those countries that had an interest in
small ATGWs were busy developing their own local products: France (SS10, ENTAC), Sweden (Bantam),
Germany (Cobra), Switzerland (Mosquito) and Britain (Vigilant).
VIGILANT
In the early 1950s Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Ltd set up a Guided Weapons Dept to develop an air-toground missile called Blue Boar, but this was cancelled by the Government after three years work. Their
attention then turned to the development of a surface-to-air missile called Red Rapier but this project was
cancelled in favour of Red Dean, an air-to-air missile for the "thin wing” Javelin fighter. Then defence cuts
in 1956 led to this aircraft being cancelled along with its missile system. Seeing a gap in the market, the
missile design team set about designing a man-portable ATGW.
Under the code name Red Dean, this Vickers Type 888 air-to-air missile was the inspiration for the Vickers
anti-tank missile (Photo Vickers)
The potential of various anti-tank weapons as seen by Vickers
By January 1957 Vickers had drawn up the specifications for the “Vickers Infantry Anti-Tank Weapon” but it
was not yet called Vigilant. The control of missiles was usually achieved by varying the wing angle. On large
missiles this required significant force, but it did give an immediate change in direction. Smaller missiles
used variable spoilers on the wings. But to achieve control quickly the missile had to reach maximum speed
in as short a time as possible, this reduced the accuracy at short range. Vickers argued that their system of
guidance by control fins although slower was much more efficient than spoiler controls. Although the initial
missile speed was slower it allowed greater accuracy at short range.
Vickers Infantry Anti-Tank Weapon as it first appeared in its launcher box lined with rubberised hair. The
spike was to detonate the HEAT charge just prior to striking the tank. (Photo Vickers)
Initially the missile was 27.6 inches long but it grew to 42.2 inches and increased in weight from 25 lb to 31
lb. It was now known as Vigilant, an acronym for VIsually GuIded Light ANti-Tank. The hindrance for the
acceptance of Vigilant was its range of only 1,500 yds, but it was after all only a one man weapon. A point
that was laboured in the advertising material that this was now a new era in warfare.
The development of Vigilant was felt to be analogous to the defeat of armour by infantry equipped with the
long bow at the battles of Crecy and Agincourt.
A mock-up of the the control sight might be. (Photo Vickers)
An early version of Vigilant with its controller and seperation cable. Note that the launcher bin has not yet
acquired the square holes which were found necessary to displace exhaust gases on launch. (Photo Vickers)
The Army trialled a number of rival systems including SS10 and ENTAC. But eventually in 1961 an order
was placed for Vigilant, although at the time the Hornet/Malkara project was well under way. It seems to
indicate some uncertainty as to how well Malkara would perform, although hot weather trials in Libya a year
earlier between the two systems gave promising results for both. Despite the benefit of Vigilant as a manportable tank killer, its principle role in the British Army was to be stuck on the top of Ferret armoured cars.
To a lesser degree Vigilant got stuck in the backs of Land Rovers and in some cases tied in with rope!
VIGILANT Land Rovers
Land Rovers are of course much cheaper than Ferrets and it is surprising that more use was not made of this
economy vehicle that could be easily converted into a tank killer. The simplest use was for a Land Rover
equipped with twelve Vigilants and four crew members to form a basic anti-tank unit. The Land Rover was
simply a means delivering the crew and their Vigilants to the battlefield. They would then be deployed as
originally intended as a one-man weapon system.
An anti-tank unit with their Vigilants secured to the Land Rover with rope. (Photo RSA)
A soldier was not restricted to just one Vigilant, a control box allowed up to six missiles to be selected by one
man.
A battery of Vigilants under the control of one operator. (Photo Vickers)
To steady the Vigilant launch bin, it had to be secured to the ground by pegs and lanyards. If the tank attack
was not coming from the expected direction there may not be sufficient coverage of the Vigilants. For these
situations an electrically traversed tripod was available. Although the tripod supported only two missiles,
three such tripods could be used in conjunction with a special six way control box.
Tripod Missile Launcher. Two Vigilants in their bins are fitted over the clips at the top; pegs are placed
through the legs to stabilise the tripod. The motor unit houses the rechargeable battery, but can be seen here
on the ground with its carrying box.
Tripod Missile Launcher folded up for transportation.
Tripod Missile Launcher control box. The pointer knob at the top controls the traverse motor; the knob to the
left selects the tripod and the Vigilant to be used. The sockets for the control cables from the missiles and
tripods are to the right.
But with the addition of a sub-frame the tripod could be fitted into the back of a Land Rover, which meant
that the missiles could ready for action at any time. The controller could then move to a vantage point up to
70 yds away, to get a view of the target whilst the Land Rover remained hidden. Should the tanks be spotted
coming from an unexpected direction, the motor on the tripod could quickly traverse the missiles towards the
target.
There was no official kit for the frame; it had to be locally manufactured from aluminium alloy. It was
designed so that the legs of the tripod were clamped to an upper frame that could adjusted in height relative
to the lower frame fitted to the Land Rover. This was to compensate for the Land Rover being on uneven
ground and allow the missiles to be launched at the correct angle of 20 degrees to the horizontal. This was
confirmed by a circular spirit level fitted to the upper frame.
The middle section of the lower frame incorporated a plywood shelf for missile test equipment. Two tripods
were carried in their stowage bins, one bin was fitted in place of the front centre seat, and the other clamped
onto a base plate of the main frame. One tripod could be clamped in place on the frame ready to use; the
other was a spare. A total of six missiles were carried in their launcher bins. These were attached to the frame
by cleats engaging Load-Lok straps. The EMER that detailed this work was issued in 1972, and allowed only
7 man-hours for the fabrication, painting and installation of the frame.
The locally fabricated frame for supporting Tripod Missile Launcher
Not a very rugged arrangement, which is why most of the time, the Vigilants and the tripod had to be stowed
for transportation. Indeed there was no means of steadying the missile on it launch rail once the lid was left
opened. (Photo RSA)
A Land Rover with Vigilants on trial with the Support Weapons Wing, School of Infantry at Netheravon.
(Photo RSA)
A Land Rover disguised as a lawn and armed with two Vigilants. (Photo R.E.Smith)
The Tripod Missile Launcher was never intended to be moved with the two Vigilants clipped on, it was a
very flimsy arrangement. Used like this in a vehicle, the tripod and Vigilants had to set up on arrival at the
launch site. This would take up valuable time in a situation where a tank may only be visible and within
range for a few moments. What was needed was a more sturdy arrangement that would have the missiles at
the ready to engage a target as soon as the Land Rover was parked. A much more rigid launch frame was
developed, it was manually operated and double webbing straps secured the missile bins to the frame. The
launch frame was mounted on a palletised box that housed three more missiles.
This more useable arrangement allowed greater use of the twelve seconds needed to hit the target at its
maximum range. (Photo RSA)
This cautious driver is obviously aware that a sudden stop could cause missiles to slide out of their bins onto
the ground.(Photo FVRDE)
But the greatest use of Vigilant was being stuck on the turret of a Ferret. Initially struts were welded to the
turret to give the required 20 degrees of elevation, but a more sophisticated arrangement was to come in the
form of the Ferret Mk 2/6. The missiles were supported on splined axles, which could be elevated by a
gearbox from within the turret. To be ready for action the front of the Vigilant bin had to be left open. As the
missiles are suspended on a launcher rail from within the box, stopping the Ferret suddenly could cause the
missiles to plop out onto the ground. To avoid this, a hydraulically operated holdback arm would steady the
missile by pushing it tightly up against the launch rail. Releasing the holdback lever allowed the firing
circuits to be activated. Given the cost of the modification and the initial cost of a Ferret it was a big increase
in expenditure over a Vigilant equipped Land Rover.
This was where Shorts saw their opportunity; a Shorland fitted with Vigilants would surely find a ready
market in developing countries. Shorts had been manufacturing the Shorland Armoured Patrol Car since
1965, being based on a Land Rover it sold well to developing countries, who needed a low cost armoured
vehicle that was easy to drive and maintain. By fitting two Vigilants to the Shorland’s turret Shorts hoped to
gain sales in the low cost armoured tank destroyer market. The first appearance of the Vigilant Shorland was
at Farnborough in 1966; the most obvious feature was that the hexagonal turret was modified to have flat
sides so that the Vigilant bins did not project beyond the width of the vehicle.
A prototype with side shields for the missiles and has no special window in the turret for the missile
controller to peer through. (Photo FVRDE)
By 1968 the design had been refined and the Vigilant Shorland was ready to go into production. Refinements
included a two-section turret hatch that folded out to provide a Perspex window to protect the controller from
rocket motor blast. An extended and ventilated boot carried three spare missiles, which meant the spare tyre
now had to be carried externally. Cut down Ferret smoke dischargers were fitted to the wings and having
displayed a Vigilant Shorland I regret to have to say that the general public is far more fascinated by the
smoke dischargers than the missile system!
Note the extended boot to accommodate three spare missiles
A common misconception is that the Shorland turret was fitted with a Ferret turret. It is true that the design
was based on the Ferret turret, but Shorts manufactured their own turrets. A further misconception is that
Ferret Mk 2/6 turrets were fitted to Shorlands for the Vigilant conversion. This is not so, the Shorland turret
had similar functions to the Ferret Mk 2/6 turret but was constructed in an entirely different and more
economical fashion. This can be seen by considering the main functions of the Ferret Mk 2/6 turret.
Exploded view showing the missile carriers on either side view of the Ferret Mk 2/6 turret. (From ISPL)
The Vigilant launch bins were strapped into frames either side of the turret and were supported by splined
shafts that pass through bushes over the turret and through large hooped hinges of the roof hatch. The missile
supports were elevated manually by a gearbox on the right hand side. With the bins open, the missiles were
prevented from sliding on their launch rails by hydraulically operated restraints that were controlled by a
lever on the right hand side of the turret. Once the restraints were released it allowed the missile firing
circuits to become operative.
Ferrets that were later downgraded to a non-Vigilant role were designated Mk 2/7 and can be easily
recognised by their hooped turret hinges and blanked off holes for the missile control cables and hold-back
hydraulics.
The whole ethos of the Shorland armoured car was to provide an economy vehicle, the same thinking was
applied to the construction of the Vigilant variant. The missile cradles were fabricated out of hollow
rectangular steel connected by steel tube supported on mounting blocks fitted to the turret roof. Elevation of
the missiles was achieved by a short arm welded to the interconnecting tube that was pushed up by a coarse
threaded rod with a handle on the lower end. The coarseness of this mechanism was smoothed up by the
fitting of a vehicle shock absorber to the front of the left-hand side cradle.
Crude it may have been but it does give a very smooth and steady elevation. Another feature was the missile
hold back system, instead of an hydraulic system; each missile steady was controlled via linkages to a car
handbrake! The only items that Shorts used that were common to the Ferret turret were the Aerolux straps
that the held the missiles onto their cradles.
Note the shock absorber and the two handbrakes. The turret hatch is divided and as it opens the front part
keeps horizontal exposing a Perspex window for the controller. The flat-sided turret shows the semi-circular
protection for the turret roller mechanism. (From ISPL)
Vigilants Type 897 ready for launching.
The missile holdback mechanism linked to the arming switch.
A prototype not yet fitted with the extractor fan to ventilate the three spare missiles in the boot.
(Photo Shorts)
A successful launch of a Vigilant from a muddy field. (Photo Shorts)
Despite considerable ingenuity in producing this economy tank destroyer it is surprising that it did not sell.
The general belief is that this variant did not sell at all, however that cannot be the case if you study the
picture below. The image was sent to me some years ago, it is not known where the picture was taken nor to
whom the picture should be credited. But there are clear Vigilant features on the Shorland, narrowed turret
with cut-outs for the bar to support the missile cradles, spare wheel mounted off-set at the rear and the
modified Ferret smoke dischargers on the wings that were a feature of the final version.
The modified Smoke Grenade Discharger No.4 characteristic of the later Vigilant Shorland. (Photo Shorts)
Those countries that did buy Vigilant preferred to use it as originally intended as an infantry weapon or chose
it as a Ferret variant. Those countries that bought Shorlands tended to buy them for police and paramilitary
roles, and if they could afford guided weapons they would have been more likely to buy cheaper Soviet or
French systems that lacked some of the sophistication of Vigilant.
QUICKFIRE
In the late 1950s the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) were considering
two types of anti-tank weapon utilising large hollow charge warheads. Quickfire depended on high ballistic
accuracy and high acceleration and Swingfire had low initial acceleration but was guided immediately
following launch.
In 1957 the War Office drew up a requirement for a gun capable of firing a one kiloton nuclear shell to
15,000 yards and also required it to fire an 80 lb. HE shell to 25,000 yards to give an anti-tank capability. In
1959 the requirement was amended to include a counter-bombardment weapon with a range of 35,000 yards
and to be airportable. An important feature of the requirement was to utilise existing ammunition and
although some experiments were done it did not meet with a great success or enthusiasm from RARDE.
The project waned until 1962 when a third modification to the requirement extended the range of the nuclear
warhead to 25,000 metres. The considerable range required was to be from a rocket motor once the ballistic
launch had achieved high acceleration. The shell fillings that were considered included HE
blast/fragmentation designs, sub-projectiles/flechettes, shaped charges, smoke, warhead-sown mines and
non-lethal chemical weapons. Depending on the size of warhead a rate of fire of 4 to 7 rounds a minute was
expected when mounted on a Chieftain.
To increase rate of fire further a multi-barrel rocket was proposed for mounting on an Abbot chassis. Twelve
rockets would be fired from two multi-barrelled launchers mounted on either side of the vehicle. To give an
amphibious capability a Stalwart would carry a single launcher with 36 rockets. A Bedford RL would carry a
single barrel launcher with 24 rockets. A long wheel base Land Rover would carry a single barrel launcher
and carry 2 rockets, with a total weight of 5,000 lb. it would have an airportable role. Quickfire faded into
obscurity as the development of Swingfire progressed.
Long wheel base Land Rover with Quickfire in travelling position. (Based on RARDE sketch)
Quickfire ready for firing, elevation maximum 45 degrees to depression 5 degrees. A blast mat normally
carried in the Land Rover is placed beneath the missile. (Based on RARDE sketch)
SWINGFIRE
When in November 1959 the Secretary of State for War announced the cancellation of Orange William, he
added “…but a research programme continues based on the experience gained.” That programme was
continued by Fairey to become Swingfire. Not only did it draw on the Orange William experience but also
Malkara for particularly the wire dispensing development and it might also be claimed the concept of the
‘jetivator’ steering of Python.
Whatever success could be ascribed to Vigilant and Malkara they were in effect only interim systems
pending the introduction of Swingfire. The strength of Swingfire lay in the rather slow launch velocity which
enabled the operator to quickly ‘swing’ the missile onto heading by use a ‘jetivator’ to control the rocket
motor exhaust. The first test flight took place in late 1960, but it was some two years later before the system
was publicly acknowledged with the announcement of a contract to the newly formed British Aircraft
Corporation (Anti-Tank) Ltd.
[History bit: The new company was 50% owned by Fairey Co. Ltd. and 50% the British Aircraft Corporation Ltd. But
BAC Ltd was itself only formed in 1960 from English Electric (40%), Vickers (40%) and Bristol Aeroplane Co (20%).
English Electric was responsible for Thunderbird a ground-to-air missile derived from Red Shoes, whereas the Bristol
Aeroplane Co was responsible for Bloodhound a ground-to-air missile derived from Red Duster. Both companies were
in direct opposition developing their systems from an earlier concept called Red Heathen. The purpose of these missiles
was to allow the Army to provide the air defence of the UK, as it was not until 1955 that the RAF assumed this role. It
was understandable that tensions would exist in BAC formed from former rivals, but nothing compared to the tensions
that influenced the instability of the whole aircraft industry. These were not just the whims of domestic politics, but
world-wide events such as the Korean War in 1950 and Suez in 1956].
Swingfire proved very successful and was fitted to FV438 and its later replacement Striker. It was also fitted
to the Mk 5 Ferret, which displaced Hornet/Malkara in 1968. Perhaps less known is that from 1963 design
studies were undertaken for fitting Swingfire to Centurion, Chieftain, Saladin and Saracen but none of these
met with any success. But in 1969 20 Trials Unit evaluated a palletised version of Swingfire fitted to a Land
Rover. The system consisted of a frame to support four missile bins, which could be elevated to 35 degrees
for firing. The frame could also be removed and set up on the ground away from the vehicle, but this was not
easy, as it required six to eight 8 men. Mounted in the Land Rover the crew was limited to two men. There
was no room for a third crewman who would in any case exceed the payload for the ¾ Ton Land Rover.
Swingfire blasting off from a ¾ Ton Land Rover (Photo BAC).
Although consideration was given to using the set up in a ¾ Ton Trailer, it was not developed as the wheel
arches took up space and the lack of a tailgate made manhandling the system rather difficult. With some
modifications this palletised system formed the basis of Beeswing, a system that could to be fitted to suitable
‘B’ vehicles.
Beeswing now clearly too large to fit in a ¾ Ton Land Rover.(Photo BAC)
Beeswing mounted on a prototype 1 Tonne Land Rover (Photo BAC)
Beeswing was discontinued together with the helicopter version (Hawkswing) in about 1974. However BAC
still pursued the idea of a palletised Swingfire and by the late 1970s had produced a more rugged version for
fitting to vehicles such as the 1 Tonne Land Rover. Hydraulic rams elevated the pallet and allowed the
system to be lowered to the ground, enabling the 3-man crew to lug it to some vantage point. Initially this
was designated Beeswing Mk 2 but was promoted as Infantry Swingfire. This should not be confused with
Golfswing, a single missile that was dragged around by a soldier in what resembled a golfer’s trolley.
Infantry Swingfire fitted to a 1 Tonne Land Rover (Photo BAC)
Showing that Infantry Swingfire can indeed be operated in an infantry role. (Photo BAC)
BLUE WATER
Blue Water was a surface-to-surface tactical missile launched from a Bedford RL controlled by the
equipment contained in a LWB Land Rover. Like so many top-secret projects of the time Blue Water was
named after a colour of the spectrum. Work on Blue Water officially was started by English Electric in 1958,
but owed its origin to feasibility studies of Red Rose initiated in 1956. Blue Water was a 25-ft long missile
intended to carry a high explosive or nuclear warhead with a range of 30-70 miles. The two vehicles would
arrive on site, the missile having already been heated to operating temperature in transit. A bearing was taken
on the target area, the Bedford was jacked up and levelled, and data from the Land Rover’s computer was fed
to programme the missile, which was then fired whilst the two vehicles made their getaway. The total time
from arrival to launch was 12 minutes, a great saving in time and manpower on the earlier Corporal system it
was to have replaced.
Blue Water on the Bedford RL launcher, when ready to fire the missile is tipped backwards about 15 degrees
beyond vertical. (Photo Stevenson Pugh)
Although Blue Water was technically successful it was cancelled in 1962 after a cabinet shuffle. This was a
bitter blow for English Electric who had suffered the cancellation of their air defence missile PT248 a few
months earlier.
RAPIER
Like many British missile systems development was not so much dictated by technical requirements but
more by the prevailing politics and the restructuring of the British aircraft industry. Rapier is a good example
of this stop-start development, but unlike many other weapons of the time in the end it was very successful.
In 1960 the Ministry accepted a design for a low-level anti-aircraft missile system called PT248. Developed
by English Electric, PT248 would have direct fire and blind-fire facilities and showed every promise of
working well. But in 1962 the Government axed the project in favour of the American Mauler system, on the
basis that Mauler would be expected to be in service by 1965. But the Americans with all their resources
could not get Mauler to work in all weather conditions and embarrassingly the Mauler system was cancelled.
Conveniently it was then decided that there was no longer an official requirement for such a system anyway!
However the new company BAC convinced they had something useful to offer continued with a daylight
direct fire system called they called Sightline. It turned out that the Royal Radar Establishment (RRE) had
also been looking for a simple low-risk technology anti-aircraft system that could perhaps be later upgraded.
RRE and BAC worked well together in the knowledge that despite the Ministerial view, the Services did
actually want a system like this. So in 1962 BAC managed to secure a design contract for ET316, which was
a simpler version of PT248 with only a direct fire capability. In 1964 BAC secured the development contract
for the system, some two years later the Ministry accepted the system calling it Rapier. The manufacturer’s
preferred name was Mongoose, but this was rejected as difficulties might be encountered in deciding the
name for the plural of Mongoose! Long wheel based Land Rovers provided the means of transporting the
Rapier system. This included the launcher trailer, optical tracker unit, spare missiles, generator and test
equipment.
LWB Land Rover towing the Rapier trailer. The extended canvas protects two pairs of spare missiles carried
in the rear.(Photos BAC)
In the early days of Rapier, the Land Rover was used as the platform for the optical tracker unit. The operator
was seated in the back of the vehicle, hemmed in with a pair of spare missiles on each side. A severe
limitation of the system was the uncertainty of the direction from which the air attack might come. In practice
the optical tracker unit was deployed on the ground affording maximum visibility.
All rather cramped in the back of a Land Rover. Note the optical tracker unit with operator’s seat and struts
all around the chassis steady the vehicle. (Photo R.E.Smith)
In 1967 development started on DN181 which was a blind-fire radar system for Rapier, this reached formal
evaluation status in 1974, a system not entirely removed from PT248 started some fourteen years earlier.
Although in 1972 the 1 Tonne Forward Control Land Rover became available it was not immediately
adopted as the preferred Rapier tractor, when it did a special 1 Tonne missile re-supply trailer was
introduced. In more recent times the 127 Land Rover has performed the role of tractor.
127 Rapier Tractor in RAF service. (Photo Land Rover)
An alternative arrangement for a 127 Rapier tractor, not the usual canvas roofed type, but a special variant
with hard top a crew cab. (Photo Land Rover)
BLOWPIPE / JAVELIN
Blowpipe was a man-portable air defence missile developed by Shorts and introduced into the British Army
in 1966. Although principally for air defence it could be used against armoured vehicles and small naval
craft. It might seem hazardous for the operator but the rocket motor burns only for a split second to propel the
missile forwards, at a safe distant the second motor cut in to propel it at supersonic speeds. The missile had a
range of 3,000 metres and was radio controlled by the operator using a thumb joystick.
A Land Rover being used merely as a platform for this Blowpipe operator. (Photo Shorts)
As Shorts manufactured Blowpipe, it seemed entirely logical to consider its role on a Shorland Armoured
Patrol Car. In 1972 it was proposed to fit a pair of Blowpipes with a special ‘bubble’ turret on a Mark 3
Shorland. It seems that this project went no further than the drawing board, but the idea of air defence
Shorlands was to be realised some years later with Series 5 Shorlands.
An artist’s impression of Blowpipe on a Mk 3 Shorland. (Drawing W.Scott – Shorts)
Blowpipe evolved into Javelin, which had an improved range and a more sophisticated guidance system. A
more powerful motor extended the range to 4,000 metres. The aiming unit was improved so that the operator
just kept the target in his sight and the commands were automatically relayed to the missile. A further
development was the Shorts Lightweight Multiple Launcher (LML) which allowed several Blowpipes or
Javelins to be fired from a stand. Land Rovers provided a very suitable platform for LML installations, using
a special vehicle version known as LML(V).
Special Operations Vehicle (SOV) with LML(V) or VML –see later. (Photo Land Rover)
Shorts were not slow to wed their Series 5 Shorland with their LML(V) system to produce the Shorland S53
Mobile Air Defence Vehicle. The S53 accommodates six spare missiles carried in the rear compartment
together with storage for the aiming unit.
Shorland S53 Mobile Air Defence Vehicle. (Drawing Shorts)
S53 ready for action. (Photo Shorts)
A further development of the missile system was Starburst, which made its appearance in the Gulf War.
Starburst has a “more lethal” warhead and uses laser guidance making it immune to normal countermeasures.
Fitted to a vehicle the system was referred to as Vehicle Multiple Launcher (VML). The S53 Shorland was
upgraded by being fitted with VML.
VML ready for action from a Shorland S53. (Photo Shorts)
MILAN
MILAN is a Franco-German man-portable anti-tank missile marketed through Euromissile. Production began
in 1972 but it was not until the early 1980s that MILAN was gradually introduced into British Army service.
Part of the system and the missiles have been made in the UK under licence by British Aerospace Dynamics
Group at Stevenage. It was used, as intended, as an infantry weapon and mounted on a twin launcher turret
on Spartan. But it was not until 1984 that it was mounted on the ¾ Ton Land Rover, and there was another
kit for the 1 Tonne Land Rover. The cost of just the MILAN firing post in 1991 was £63,000.
MILAN firing post and racks for spare missiles.
In 1987 MILAN was fitted to 110 Land Rovers using the kit intended for the ¾ Ton Land Rover, but it
required locally manufactured metalwork to accommodate it. MILAN was expected to go out of service in
2000 (!)
MILAN being used to demonstrate one of twelve options available from Land Rover as a multi Role Combat
Vehicle. (Photo Land Rover)
And finally MIDGE
Although Midge was a guided missile it was not a guided weapon but a reconnaissance drone or remotely
piloted vehicle (RPV). Developed by Canadair as AN/USD-501, it was known as Midge in British Army
service. Midge was used by the Royal Artillery to photograph enemy positions, it was launched by a rocket
motor that fell away after two seconds and then was kept in flight by a small jet motor. Usually programmed
to follow an elliptical course, it would take photographs at predetermined intervals and return being guided
back by X band radio beacons. When the engine shut off it would descend on parachutes and be gathered up
in a specially adapted Land Rover to be taken off so that the images could be processed. Midge was intended
to be launched from a Bedford truck, but if the pictures of Royal Artillery displays are to be believed they
could also be launched from Land Rovers!
Midge on display at Stoneleigh in 1988, note the main booster motor is not fitted.
This strange Land Rover was used to recover Midge. Seen at a dealer’s yard in 1991 just before it was
broken up for spares.
Midge was in service into the late 1980s but suffered from the problem of not being able to immediately
yield up the results of its exploits. However modern RPVs such as Phoenix and Raven can relay their
information whilst still in flight. Phoenix has now replaced Midge with the British Army and again is
launched from a 4-Tonne truck with a Land Rover in support.
I have restricted coverage to British used Land Rovers and British missiles. I am aware that Land Rovers in
Sweden have been fitted with Bofors RBS 70 missile, TOW with the Dutch Army, in Australia ENTAC and
the Israelis fitted Nimrod missiles to 110 Defenders. Such combinations are almost endless with such a
versatile vehicle!
I acknowledge the help of Col Val Cockle (20 Trials Unit), Capt Peter Russell (RAC Guided Weapons
Wing, School of Tank Technology), John Teague (Vickers Vigilant sales team), the archives of Stevenson
Pugh, Bovington Tank Museum, the Royal School of Artillery and Chris Gibson’s PRO files. Uncredited
pictures are from the author’s collection.
COPYRIGHT CLIVE ELLIOTT 2002-2011