# Best Cold War Tank



## futuredogfight (Mar 21, 2013)

What do you think was the best Cold War tank? Note* M1 Abrams, Leopard etc. will not be included.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 21, 2013)

Trick question? 

The AMX-40 is a 1980s tank but never mass produced. 

If you take that one out you have two contenders left. The Centurion Mk. 5-13 and the M-60.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 22, 2013)

What time frame should the poll be about?


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 22, 2013)

Its pretty obvious to me - T-54/55. It was head and shoulders above anything else when it was introduced.


----------



## futuredogfight (Mar 22, 2013)

M60 and Centurion were much better! I'd say from Korea to the early 80s. I apologize I had to get to bed. I didn't know the AMX-40 was not massed produced


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 22, 2013)

futuredogfight said:


> ... I'd say from Korea to the early 80s. ...



Chieftain for me then.


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 22, 2013)

Armor protection.

Chieftain (1956)







Centurion:







M-48 






T-54


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 22, 2013)

Cool stuff, Tante Ju.

Here is what one of the best 100mm AP ammo was capable for, a copy of (Israely?) M111 105mm AP. From the discussion at tank-net, by member bojan:



> Rick, 100mm Yugo M98 APFSDS (basicly M111 in a 100mm sabot) does [email protected]@2km. 80% success required.
> 
> (note, we measures armor from a horisontal, hence 30deg on the site).



The regular East Bloc ammo would be notably weaker.

The T-62 standing a good chance, on the other hand?


----------



## Juha (Mar 22, 2013)

Thanks a lot for the armour schemes, Tante Ju!
but Brits made very good anti-armour guns and penetrators, so the APDS ammo of 20pdr was still capable to penetrate T-54 from frontal arc beyond 1000m and Israelis who used both Centurions and T-54s/-55s were very fond of Centurion but had rather low oppinion on T-54/-55.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 22, 2013)

IS-3:






There is another good candidate, namely T-64. 
It was riddled with problems when introduced (mid 1960s) that were cured in after some years. It belongs into a 'second' branch of Soviet post war tanks, later evolving into T-80; those were never exported prior 1990, T-64 never at all? The 'mainstream' branch started with T-44, evolving into T-54/55. T-55 was 'father' of T-62, 'grandfather' of T-72 (regarded as not as good as T-64B!) and 'grand grandfather' of T-90.


----------



## futuredogfight (Mar 22, 2013)

How do I fix the poll?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2013)

There is a lot more to a good tank than just armor and gun power.

Chieftain scores points for the electric cooking pot inside the vehicle (tea or soup while closed up) 

Rate of fire, accuracy of fire control, ammo storage are important as well as mobility, not just speed but flotation and hill climbing ability (sometimes a low, walking pace gear is as important as high power to weight).

Chieftains did have a _lot_ of problems with the engine (in part copied from Junkers aircraft diesel of WW II)


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 22, 2013)

futuredogfight said:


> How do I fix the poll?



What do you want fixed? PM me.


----------



## davebender (Mar 22, 2013)

I agree. About 100,000 vehicles produced. Many were modernized during 1980s and still remain in service.

Not bad for an inexpensive 36 ton tank that originally entered production during 1954.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2013)

The T-54 entered production in late 40s and it shows what you get when you go cheap. A great tank for keeping the local civilians from getting uppity. A poor return on investment if you actually have to fight better tanks as, like the Sherman, you often need 2-4 T-54/55s to equal a Centurion or M-48/60, except it didn't have the mechanical reliability of the Sherman.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2013)

Not saying it is the best, but where is the Leopard 1 in the poll?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2013)

davebender said:


> I agree. About 100,000 vehicles produced. Many were modernized during 1980s and still remain in service.
> 
> Not bad for an inexpensive 36 ton tank that originally entered production during 1954.



Many (all?) countries that bought the T-54/55 were ill able to purchase even the T-72, let alone something western, in quantity. Even East Germany was fielding maybe 5 old tanks per each T-72, in late 1980s. It was not a bad tank, but from 1980s it was an example of 'we don't have money, so lets at least keep the number of tanks high - a tank is a tank'.



Shortround6 said:


> The T-54 entered production in late 40s and it shows what you get when you go cheap. A great tank for keeping the local civilians from getting uppity. A poor return on investment if you actually have to fight better tanks as, like the Sherman, you often need 2-4 T-54/55s to equal a Centurion or M-48/60, except it didn't have the mechanical reliability of the Sherman.



Not saying it was an exceptional tank, but why would we say it's mechanical reliability was not up to task?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Not saying it was an exceptional tank, but why would we say it's mechanical reliability was not up to task?



Perhaps some sources are wrong but most say it used clutch and brake steering, the same as a Bren carrier. It may work on light vehicles but by the time you get to 36 tons? The main clutch was also on the "simple" side. Some estimates were that 30-40% of the T-54/55s would be out of service with blown clutches by day 4 of an attempted Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Many tanks have have poor reliability but to loose that many from just 2 parts( main clutch or steering clutches)???

It's one reason they Soviets built so many, To make sure they had enough runners at the end of the week


----------



## Airframes (Mar 23, 2013)

As the 'Cold War' didn't 'officially' end until 1990, there are a number of tanks missing from the poll. My vote would go to the one generally regarded as 'the best', the Chieftain, introduced in the late 1960s - and the 'Chobham' armour is still 'Classified'.


----------



## futuredogfight (Mar 23, 2013)

I apologize, I left out some tanks because I knew everyone would choose those.


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 23, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The T-54 entered production in late 40s and it shows what you get when you go cheap. A great tank for keeping the local civilians from getting uppity. A poor return on investment if you actually have to fight better tanks as, like the Sherman, you often need 2-4 T-54/55s to equal a Centurion or M-48/60, except it didn't have the mechanical reliability of the Sherman.



The comparison is quite ridiculous sorry to say - first the T-54/55 was a better tank than the Centurion or the M-48. It had a better gun, better mobility and better armor. Quite simply it was a much better tank blanket statements about reliability non withstanding. Quite simply the Soviets, after 4 bloody years of the GPW and the most experienced in the world in how to conduct tank battles, exploit breakthroughs and bz that time they had a very good idea of how to design a good tank.

Secondly, there was not 2-4 T-54s but more like 20 produced to every NATO counterpart... 

IMHO Soviet tank designs could be considered superior to Western designs well until the advant of the M1/Leo2/Chally and composite armor - but even today Soviet reactive armor developments are quite potent and on par. Its only their engine technology that lags hopelessly behind.


----------



## dobbie (Mar 23, 2013)

When your engine dies, you no longer have a tank-its a pillbox. Losing your engine or any major part of a driveline in an armor battle is certain death.


----------



## Juha (Mar 23, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> The comparison is quite ridiculous sorry to say - first the T-54/55 was a better tank than the Centurion or the M-48. It had a better gun, better mobility and better armor. Quite simply it was a much better tank blanket statements about reliability non withstanding. Quite simply the Soviets, after 4 bloody years of the GPW and the most experienced in the world in how to conduct tank battles, exploit breakthroughs and bz that time they had a very good idea of how to design a good tank.
> 
> Secondly, there was not 2-4 T-54s but more like 20 produced to every NATO counterpart...
> 
> IMHO Soviet tank designs could be considered superior to Western designs well until the advant of the M1/Leo2/Chally and composite armor - but even today Soviet reactive armor developments are quite potent and on par. Its only their engine technology that lags hopelessly behind.



Better gun? Of course D-10 had better HE round than 20pdr but its armour piercing ability was clearly worse than that of 20pdr APDS shot before it got a proper APDS round, sometimes in mid 60s?.

T-54/-55 had much less internal space for the crew, poorer sight, much simple clutch, only some -3deg max depression for the gun, the last two meaning that it was much more difficult to utilise hull down positions. As I wrote, Israelis who used both clearly prefer Centurion over T-54/-55. I agree that T-54 had better mobility than Meteor engined Centurion.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Perhaps some sources are wrong but most say it used clutch and brake steering, the same as a Bren carrier. It may work on light vehicles but by the time you get to 36 tons? The main clutch was also on the "simple" side. Some estimates were that 30-40% of the T-54/55s would be out of service with blown clutches by day 4 of an attempted Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Many tanks have have poor reliability but to loose that many from just 2 parts( main clutch or steering clutches)???
> 
> It's one reason they Soviets built so many, To make sure they had enough runners at the end of the week



The Israeli Achzarit APC went to 44 tons, Morozov's upgraded version vent to 48 tons. Now I don't know whether the steering system was changed. If is not too much a problem for you, maybe the people at tank-net would know?
In the wars here, 1991-95, the T-55s were used in terrains much less favorable than German plains; many hills of southern part of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina saw their 1st vehicle to be the T-55. This pastoral video (
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sp2g-hqoLE_) shows the area where my battalion from tops of mountain Dinara into the border village of Uništa, moving further into Serb-held part of Dalmatia, in 1995. The trailblazing vehicles were the T-55s, followed by UAZ 4x4s (same type as seen at the video), we, infantry, marched after them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The Israeli Achzarit APC went to 44 tons, Morozov's upgraded version vent to 48 tons.



According to 1999-2000 edition of Jane's Armour and Artillery the Achzarit MK I used a Detroit Diesel 8V-71TTA engine coupled to an Allison XTG-411-4 hydrokenetic automatic transmission. The MK II used a Detroit Diesel 8V-92 TA engine Allison XTG-411-5 hydrokenetic automatic transmission. These transmission replace not only the original clutch and gear box but the complete steering gear and even incorporate the parking brake. 

_GOOD_ drivers can do fairly well with primitive drivelines and vehicles. Less than average drivers can still get a vehicle some distance. ( I have know a few people who could destroy the clutch in an ordinary car in 12,000 miles).

Clutch and brake steering has the weird characteristic of reverse steering when going down hill under trailing throttle ( and how many people accelerate going down hill?) If the driver de-clutches the left hand track going down hill and "coasting" the tank will swing to the right instead of the left as it would on level ground or going up hill or even if accelerating going down hill. It also wastes power, gives jerky turns, and with extra clutches and brake bands being used to manever they are just more things that need replacement on an ongoing basis. Granted they are cheaper to build in the first place compared to automatic transmissions and more complicated steering gear. 

While light tanks may get by with such a system (low powered engines and low weight) using 500hp engines and over 30tons of vehicle is putting a big strain on the clutches if not handled well. 

Many WW II tanks had a lot of mechanical problems and still did good work. Maltida IIs sometimes used up their steering clutches or steering brakes in 600 miles. But what was acceptable in 1940-42 should not have been acceptable in 1950 let alone in 1960. 

Road marches can be much easier on a tank than _some_ cross country work.


----------



## Glider (Mar 23, 2013)

I had a friend who in the early 1970's was in tanks. He always said that the early Chieftans with its thick armour, 120mm gun mated with for its time, a highly advanced fire control system was the perfect tank to go to war in. It would break down before you got there.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2013)

Thanks for the info about Achzarit 



> Road marches can be much easier on a tank than some cross country work.



Indeed, that's why I've posted the link on the video. The T-55s descended from a mountain side, that was partly rocky and partly with earth, grass on it, and continued to march and fight. The road was (or more likely the path) was being made by those very T-55s. 
We can also remember that it took the T-55s to climb 1st to the mountain ridges, too.

They say photos are worth thousands words, on the second photo one can see the outskirts of the village, along with the mountain the T-55s descended:

http://hercegbosna.org/forum/politika/unista-u-rh-ili-u-hb-i-t1158.html

added: there is no information about the different transmission instlled on Ukrainian T-55 upgrade?


----------



## davebender (Mar 23, 2013)

Tanks typically fire more rounds at infantry targets then at other tanks and 100mm is almost ideal for infantry support. T-55s will chew up enemy infantry and their APCs real quick. Think of it as Soviet equivalent to the inexpensive yet highly effective StuG III assault gun. 

Meanwhile more expensive Soviet tanks such as T-64 and T-72 will (attempt to) deal with NATO tanks.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 23, 2013)

"... We can also remember that it took the T-55s to climb 1st to the mountain ridges, too."

Curious, Tomo, would you say that this terrain you describe is more rugged than Korea ...?

We know the Brits drove Centurions up to the ridges in Korea from time to time.

MM


----------



## Juha (Mar 23, 2013)

davebender said:


> Tanks typically fire more rounds at infantry targets then at other tanks and 100mm is almost ideal for infantry support...



I agree



davebender said:


> Meanwhile more expensive Soviet tanks such as T-64 and T-72 will (attempt to) deal with NATO tanks.



T-64 and T-72 were later generation tanks, they appeared 20+ years after T-54.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2013)

Juha said:


> T-64 and T-72 were later generation tanks, they appeared 20+ years after T-54.
> 
> Juha



Correct and even the T-62 is about 13-14 years newer than the T-54. 

The cold war lasted for over 40 years, granted some parts of it were _colder_ than others 

It gets a little hard comparing some tanks because some of them, in the course of 30-50 years, were rebuilt at least once if not twice. They acquired new engines, transmission, guns (and/or new ammo types), fire control systems, supplemental armor and in some cases modified suspension systems. All that was left was the original armor box. But it was _still_ a Model XXXXX tank right? 

While the ability to be modified _can_ be seen as a sign of a great tank it can also be seen as desperation or lack of money. 

The T-54/55 series, upon it's introduction, was a world leader. It's position only lasted a few years and it a real world analysis it had a number of drawbacks that could not be over come as the opposition got better. By the late 50s/early 60s it was toast as a first line combat tank, but without any combat experience few people knew that. It looked impressive on paper, and was the source of much of Nato's "tank fear" but in actual combat, it's capability it would have been a different story. Still a serious concern but nowhere near the "boogieman" it was being portrayed as. 

Many times things look good on a specification sheet but don't perform all that well in the real world. a case in point being stabilization systems for tank guns. The Americans pretty much introduced them on service tanks, at least in the vertical plane, on thousands of M3/5 light tanks, and M3 and M4 Mediums. These proved so useful (sarcasm) that the US skipped fitting them on the M-26, M-46, M-47, M-48 and early M-60 mediums and the M-24 and M-41 light tanks. 

The early T-54s didn't even have power traverse or elevation. They had a very limited ammo capacity. The 100mm gun didn't get tungsten cored ammo for decades after it was introduced. The tank had a very simple fire control system which limited it's effective range. It had a very poor rate of fire. It had vision problems. It's limited depression, while contributing to it's small size/low silhouette, also limited it's ability to use hull down positions which, it some cases, made it a bigger target than it's larger competition. 

Later versions got some improvements, in some cases very quickly, like power traverse and elevation and stabilization systems. The T-55 got better (larger) ammo storage although still limited compared to western tanks. It got better vision systems. 

Of course the Western tanks weren't exactly standing still either. A Centurion MK 10 being a far cry from a MK III and the M-60 being a far cry from the M-26/M-46.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 24, 2013)

Glider said:


> I had a friend who in the early 1970's was in tanks. He always said that the early Chieftans with its thick armour, 120mm gun mated with for its time, a highly advanced fire control system was the perfect tank to go to war in. It would break down before you got there.



LOL!


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2013)

The IS series being the 'upper tier' of Soviet tanks, before T-64 was fielded? In the meantime, the T-55 evolved into T-62, the smooth bore 115mm gun being the main difference.



michaelmaltby said:


> "... We can also remember that it took the T-55s to climb 1st to the mountain ridges, too."
> 
> Curious, Tomo, would you say that this terrain you describe is more rugged than Korea ...?
> 
> ...



Never been to Korea 
On the paper, Centurion should climb anywhere T-55 was able to?


----------



## Juha (Mar 24, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The IS series being the 'upper tier' of Soviet tanks, before T-64 was fielded? ...



Yes, but against 2000+ IS-3s there were 500- US/UK heavy M103s/Conquerors. And while 125mm gun of T-64 was an excellent anti-armour weapon I'm not sure that the 122mm gun of IS-3 was, it was slow firing with very limited ammo supply and I doubt that its fire control was well suited to handle long-range MTB targets. IMHO it was better in bunker busting.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2013)

We need to count in also the IS-2, maybe 2000 leftover tanks from ww2. Granted that fire control system left much to be desired, but the Soviets could muster maybe 4000+ tanks with 122mm, versus 500 heavy tanks NATO had. A repeat of what Germans have to endure in 1944-45?
The ammo count was 28 for Soviet IS, the NATO heavies having 34-35 rounds. Even if we count in the greater rate of fire and better FCS, that's not too much a guarantee to negate easily the 8:1 numerical disadvantage.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2013)

Depends on the year. The IS-2 may have been a terror to the Germans (majority of AT guns being the 75mm L46/48 ). It may have been less of a terror to British or American troops/tanks with 20pdr and 90mm guns. IS-2 front plate is capable of being penetrated by the 20pdr at 1000yds _IF_ _everything_ is perfect (which it never is), but the 20pdr has a much higher rate of fire (about 4 times)and is easier to hit with. The JS III was the boogieman because it's much better shape gave enough better protection
to make the 20pdr and 90mm guns much less effective.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2013)

The tanks with 20 pdr and 90mm can be beaten by T-55, even if the Soviets accept loss ratio of 2:1 in the 'dash to Atlantic' scenario.

BTW, what type of transmission was employed in IS series? Unlike the KV series, they did not shared the transmission with T-34.


----------



## davebender (Mar 24, 2013)

> T-64 and T-72 were later generation tanks, they appeared 20+ years after T-54.


I was referring to mid 1960s and later. Prior to 1965 the T-55 can deal with almost any tank it's likely to encounter in addition to killing enemy infantry.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2013)

Granted it was 1967 but try telling that to the Egyptian tankers.

I doubt the Israeli Centurions were that much more advanced than the BAOR ones.


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 24, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The early T-54s didn't even have power traverse or elevation.



I am extremely doubtful of that, as even WW2 Soviet tanks had power traverse (usally electric). Why on Earth would the T-54 dispense with it? Now, there was some loading oddity about T-54 (lack of revolving floor perhaps) that prevented the turrets power traverse during loading, but that it. It even got two-axial stabilisation by the mid-50s (Gorizont/Tzyklon).



Shortround6 said:


> Granted it was 1967 but try telling that to the Egyptian tankers.



_Egyptian _being the keyword here... Arab militiaries simply did not took their job even half as serious as their industrial counterparts. Well not until 1973 that is. The Arabs got the best tanks in the World but were defeated by a foe of inferior equipment but superior training. Western tanks in _Jordanian _ hands didn't do particularly well against the Isrealies either.

A T-54 in a Soviet tank corps is quite a different matter, in the 1950s, you'd quite likely have people there actually knowning their stuff, Kursk veterans and the like.

re: 20 pdr and APDS, the early 17 pdr APDS of WW2 had serious issues with accuracy and dispersion, to the point that it was effectively useless beyond 500 yards - you simply did not have a reasonable chance to hit. I wonder how that looked with the 20 pdr post-war APDS rounds, or did they simply use APCBC as well...? The gun itself was excellent, quite a bit like a British version of the 8.8 cm KwK 43.

Equipping and supporting the a few of hundred tanks (ie. typical British army fashion) with tungsten cored ammunition is one thing, equipping and supplying ten thousend tanks with tungsten cored rounds is another. T-54s standard issue of rounds contained a mere 9 AP shells, which kinda tells you how worried they were about meeting enemy tanks. 

Not that the D10 needed much help anyway. The data I have shows the following for 1 km range, at 90 degrees impact.

BR–412 APBC: 135 mm I believe this is the WW2 round 
BR–412B : 150 mm
BR–412D : 185 mm, these latter two being the post-war APCB versions in the late 1940s.

So, not much of a need for a APDS round since the regular rounds do the job quite well, its not like any NATO tank could offer protection against the 100mm gun, but there was also the

BK5M HEAT round: 390 mm regardless of range..

Long story short, if you have a good gun to start with, you don't need any magic rounds.


----------



## davebender (Mar 24, 2013)

I agree. In fact Israel got good service from Sherman tanks as late as 1973.

Israel captured quite a few T-55s. I suspect they performed just fine with well trained crews.

BTW, I wouldn't bet on Soviet tank crews being well trained during Cold War. Better trained then Arab armies but that isn't saying much.


----------



## Juha (Mar 24, 2013)

20pdr M3 APDS penetrated 289mm 90deg 1000m
20pdr APCBC penetrated appr. 200mm 90deg 1000m

At least its development (L7) seems not to have big accuracy problems in 1967 with its APDS round in long-range engagements.

And again, Israelis didn't have high regard on their war booty T-54s/-55s as MBTs, and as I have wrote already twice, they had combat experience with those and with Centurion, M-48 and M-60 and had high regard on the "inferior" Centurion.

Juha

ADDITION: BTW, according to Finnish measurements, the glacis of T-54 wasn't 120mm but 100mm


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 24, 2013)

Instead of sharing your own opinion numerous times, perhaps you can share the details of this exact "israeli evulative" please?

Oddly enough, even the M 60, introduced 15 years after the T-54, was well inferior in armor protection.

M 60 armor scheme.


----------



## Juha (Mar 24, 2013)

On Israeli oppinion look e.g. the new Centurion vs T-55 Osprey Duel or the old, publ. shortly after the war, Sunday Times Yom Kippur War.

I'm not sure that 100mm at 30deg is better than 93mm at 25deg, in fact IMHO the latter offer better protection.
Around 1959 they began to uparmour Cents with 127mm glacis by adding 2" of armour on it.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2013)

I admit that I have tended to view the T54/5 a bit like the AK47. Simple, reliable, cheap and when it first came out, a serious risk to most if not all the other tanks then in service.

The main contenders were the M46/7, Centurion III and not a lot more. Most NATO armies were still using Shermans but a number of AMX13 light tanks were in use. You can argue that the Centurian was better than the T54/55 but it was a serious risk not to be treated lightly.


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 24, 2013)

Ah, I recognize now most of the nonsense from those useless duel series... IHMO its a very poor choice to rely on information on them.

Israeli 'pimped' Centurions are as relevant to the subject as Israeli Shermans would be. The Israelis were desperate for making usable equipment out of any junk and frequently did succeed in it, they also knew how to use it. 

But that does not make for a successful tank design. It was quite simply a dead end, a slow and under-armored (for its size) tank running on archaic tractor suspension from the 1920s which's only real saving grace was it's gun strangely resembling the good ole' buddy of the T-series, the KwK 43. Compared to the average 'quality' of British tanks, the Centurion was certainly a worthwhile try. Certainly it was the best thing anywhere between all those abominations that occurred between original 1916 Mark IVs and the Challenger. Stories of dug-in and superpimped isreali tanks do not change that.

Speaking of which, unfortunately as far things globally went, by 1973 the new Soviet tank was T-72. this is a problem with the poll, it lumps three decades of tanks and expects us to pick the best. My choice for the T-54 is simply because it was the best tank when it was introduced, and could still pose a major kick in the arse 20 years later.


----------



## davebender (Mar 24, 2013)

Perhaps not but T-54 is certainly better then a Sherman tank.


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2013)

I do admit that to make it interesting a selection of dates such as 1955, 1965, 1975 and 1985 would help. Clearly a 1975/85 tank of any army is going to be better than a 1955 tank.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2013)

For one thing, the Israelis both re-gunned and re-powered several hundred captured t-54/55s. 

A rather stupid thing to do if the T-55 gun and power pack were so good to begin with. 

Conversions stopped with the increased supply of M-60 tanks. Free tanks from US or the conversions ( considering the expense of the Merkava program) weren't what the Israelis really wanted? 

For another the armor diagram you posted earlier is for a 1947 prototype and it appears that few service tanks actually had 120mm glacis plates. The Prototype was over weight and nose heavy. The vast majority of production tanks had 98-102mm glacis plates (depending on source and individual tank?) One has to be a bit careful with production numbers as the Soviets sometimes built several hundred "trials" models before going into full production. 

BTW, 100mm sloped at 60 degrees equals 200mm. 93mm sloped at 65 degrees equals 220mm, glacis plate on the M-60 was also curved laterally which introduces compound angles depending on exact location hit. 

Some diragrams of soviet tanks;

T-44






T-54 1947






T-54-1949






T-54 A






T-55


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Israeli 'pimped' Centurions are as relevant to the subject as Israeli Shermans would be. The Israelis were desperate for making usable equipment out of any junk and frequently did succeed in it, they also knew how to use it.
> 
> But that does not make for a successful tank design. It was quite simply a dead end, a slow and under-armored (for its size) tank running on archaic tractor suspension from the 1920s which's only real saving grace was it's gun strangely resembling the good ole' buddy of the T-series, the KwK 43. Compared to the average 'quality' of British tanks, the Centurion was certainly a worthwhile try. Certainly it was the best thing anywhere between all those abominations that occurred between original 1916 Mark IVs and the Challenger. Stories of dug-in and superpimped isreali tanks do not change that..



And when did the _superpimped_ Centurions show up? 

Re-gunned with 105s were in the 1967 war, re-powered with diesels were 3 years later. Other improvements showed up when? 

I suppose the fact that the British were also "pimping" up the Centurion ( up armor, up gun, new fire control, more fuel, etc) has no bearing on this or that the Russians were "pimping" the T-54/55? 

It is called progress.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Instead of sharing your own opinion numerous times, perhaps you can share the details of this exact "israeli evulative" please?
> 
> 
> View attachment 228848



Easy mate. Let's keep this civil please.


----------



## Juha (Mar 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Ah, I recognize now most of the nonsense from those useless duel series... IHMO its a very poor choice to rely on information on them.
> 
> Israeli 'pimped' Centurions are as relevant to the subject as Israeli Shermans would be. The Israelis were desperate for making usable equipment out of any junk and frequently did succeed in it, they also knew how to use it.
> 
> ...



Lol, you seem to have difficulties to accept facts which run contrary to your presumptions. I took only Israeli oppinions from the Duel, and they were same as given on Sunday Times book and in some articles in Armor magazine, e.g. penetration info of 20pdr is from British sources, T-54 armour thickness is from a real T-54. And 20pdr wasn't a copy of KwK 43, if that was what you tried to hint, APDS ammo even less.

Juha


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 24, 2013)

Listen gents. You guys keep up the rhetoric and I'm gonna shut this thread down. How about some posts with over the top compliments about how nice ya'll are in our collective geekdome, shall we.

Keep pushing my buttons and folks are gonna take vacations so that I can collect my wits about me.

Capisci?


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 24, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> And when did the _superpimped_ Centurions show up?
> 
> Re-gunned with 105s were in the 1967 war, re-powered with diesels were 3 years later. Other improvements showed up when?
> 
> I suppose the fact that the British were also "pimping" up the Centurion ( up armor, up gun, new fire control, more fuel, etc) has no bearing on this or that the Russians were "pimping" the T-54/55?



Well Osprey's duel which Juha ''quotes'' makes it quite clear that the Isrealies essentially gutted the whole Centrurion - engine, transmission, gun etc. The original British tank was problematic, badly maintainable and was a bit long in the tooth.

I did not find what the Isrealies were supposed to say about T-54, but I did find what they did say about the Centurion. Juha probably missed that. 

Kinda reminds me of all the child diseases British tanks had in WW2... wait. IT IS A WW2 British tank after all! 

_"Even before the Six Day War, the IDF Ordnance Corps was addressing the deficiencies of the Centurion. In particular, its limited operational range and low speed were deemed to be the main disadvantages, although its firepower and armour protection were greatly admired and appreciated. Many parents of sons entering the IAC demanded that they be assigned to Centurion units, as it was believed that they would have a greater chance of survival in battle. The ageing Meteor engines had to be repeatedly rebuilt, while ease of maintenance and engine replacement times in the field were long and arduous in the Centurion and overburdened the repair facilities. The auxiliary assemblies, particularly the cooling system, posed frequent maintenance problems. In the desert, radiators became clogged with sand and oil while pulleys and drive belts failed with increasing regularity. The original air filters proved to be only partially effective in the Negev Desert unless they were flushed with fuel and filled with 20 fresh oil daily or in extreme conditions after every four hours of operation.

To overcome these problems, the Ordnance Corps devised an upgrading programme to improve its performance and reliability following its experience with the M-50 and M-51 Sherman conversions. In the words of the official publication by the Ordnance Corps on the project:

What prompted the IDF, after having used the British Centurion Mk 5 for a number of years to perform such an extensive operation and to completely reshape the old ‘battle horse’? The answer can be summed in one sentence: the necessity to bring the Centurion Mk 5 which was built in the early ’50s to the first line of the tanks of the ’70s in regard to performance, reliability, maintainability [sic] and ease of operation.

The primary requirement was to replace the gasoline-powered Meteor engine with a more fuel-efficient diesel power plant. The choice of engines suitable in terms of power, speed and operational range was limited to six, but none of these would fit in the existing engine compartment. During the course of development, three different engines were tested. Although all three alternatives were successfully installed and trialled, the Teledyne Continental AVDS-1790-2A air-cooled diesel was selected primarily due to standardization with the M48A2C Pattons that were being similarly modified in a separate upgrading programme. The adoption of this diesel engine had a number of further advantages including its ready availability on the international market, its lower fuel consumption by a factor of 1.7 and reduced fire risks in combat. At the same time, the Merritt-Brown Z51R gearbox was replaced by the Alison CD-850-6 automatic transmission that greatly eased the task of driving, particularly across country, and simplified driver training. As the selected power pack was too large for the existing engine compartment, the rear hull had to be enlarged. Even so the engine was installed at an inclination of 3.5 degrees, front side up, giving the characteristic hump shape of the back decks. Because of the increased fuel capacity requirements, intricately shaped fuel cells were developed to utilize all available space. Among the numerous other modifications were a more efficient oil-cooled braking system; fire extinguishers in the engine compartment of greater capacity, with a 10-second delay on actuation to allow the cooling fans to stop so that they did not disperse the extinguishing agent before it took effect; and increased ammunition stowage of 72 rounds, with more of them readily accessible to the loader. In all, it took three years to develop the upgraded Centurion at the former British Army barracks of Sarafand, later the IDF Ordnance Corps depot at Tel HaShomer, near Tel Aviv. The tank was given the name Shot Cal or ‘Whip’ in Hebrew and earlier versions were designated Shot Meteor until such time as they were upgraded as well. The first Shot Cal entered service with the IAC in May 1970 and it soon saw combat during border incidents with Lebanon and Syria and during the War of Attrition along the banks of the Suez Canal."_



> It is called progress.



Gutting out an old-fashioned and sub-optimal tank chassis and trying to fit it with the latest stuff is not progress, its a makeshift weapon. The Isrealis had to do with what had at hand, with what they could buy abroad. They did the same with Shermans with some rather desperate modifications etc.



Shortround6 said:


> For one thing, the Israelis both re-gunned and re-powered several hundred captured t-54/55s.
> 
> A rather stupid thing to do if the T-55 gun and power pack were so good to begin with.



But makes sense if you are on not-to-friendly terms with the USSR and can hardly except spares and ammunition. Not that Isreali Shot Cal had much common with their British Centurion brother... 

Conversions stopped with the increased supply of M-60 tanks. Free tanks from US or the conversions ( considering the expense of the Merkava program) weren't what the Israelis really wanted? [/QUOTE]



> For another the armor diagram you posted earlier is for a 1947 prototype and it appears that few service tanks actually had 120mm glacis plates. The Prototype was over weight and nose heavy. The vast majority of production tanks had 98-102mm glacis plates (depending on source and individual tank?) One has to be a bit careful with production numbers as the Soviets sometimes built several hundred "trials" models before going into full production.



Define 'vast majority of tanks' in a 100 000 tank production run. Anyway, 'tis what google gave for T-54 armor scheme. Still beat anyone in 1947 though.



> BTW, 100mm sloped at 60 degrees equals 200mm. 93mm sloped at 65 degrees equals 220mm, glacis plate on the M-60 was also curved laterally which introduces compound angles depending on exact location hit.



Matching the protection of 20 year old Soviet tank in your newest tank model, with doesn't sound very good to me.

Here's the thing in nutshell. After the Soviets had vast war experience, paid at a huge price of ca 80 000 tanks, and a good tank design to start with (T-34), they also had the intent to build the best tank force in the World. And they pretty much did that.

The British had some war experience (if you call constantly clobbered, that is), they had probably the worst tank designs of the war, save the Italians and the Japanese and they were broke, so they kept patching up the last thing they could come up with while Land Lease lasted.

The US had very little war experience, a fairly good ground tank design for WW2 (M 26) which wasn't improved much upon, and they had gone easy on tanks with the A-bomb at their hands. Essentially up to M1 they put up various turrets on the old Pershing chassis and did not bother optimizing the chassis (and reduce weight) as much the Soviets bothered, so their tanks tended to lag behind in gun and armor.

The quality of the resulting tank designs were a result of these factors.


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 24, 2013)

Juha said:


> Lol, you seem to have difficulties to accept facts which run contrary to your presumptions.



Yet I am not the one who LOLz and repeats himselfs two or three times to make a point.



> I took only Israeli oppinions from the Duel, and they were same as given on Sunday Times book and in some articles in Armor magazine, e.g. penetration info of 20pdr is from British sources, T-54 armour thickness is from a real T-54.



I still can't find "Israeli oppinions" in that book, I might have missed it. Can you help me out? Its pretty damning on the original Centurion though. It seems the Israelis though that after changing everything but the armor plates on, it become a pretty good tank, though perhaps a bit under-armored. 



> And 20pdr wasn't a copy of KwK 43, if that was what you tried to hint, APDS ammo even less.



I am pretty sure about the APDS wasn't a copy, since the Germans did not bother developing one _for AT works_ - not much need with all those long 7.5/8.8 guns around. The only different thing was the discarding sabot and that wasn't so new anyway, AFAIK they used it for arty shells.

In any case, as we have discussed, early APDS ammo had issues with accuracy, needed rare strategic resources and was less deadly than full caliber rounds. Given that the 100 mm gun could easily put very large rounds into any NATO tank in the 1950s, including the Centurion at ca 2 km and perhaps above, and they had a HEAT shell which was superior to any APDS round anyway as far as armor penetration goes, I am not sure why the Soviets would make any fuss about APDS rounds. Nobody had particularly good tank FC much above WW2 level until the 1970s I believe, yet you treat APDS rounds like a buzzword. 

Now, as for the 20pdr being a copy of KwK 43, Ogorkiewicz strongly hints at it, and its an odd coincidence that it appeared after it, that they are almost the same caliber, they have practically identical penetration characteristics and so on. It could well be coincidence though. In any case, the 20 pdr was an excellent piece and probably the only good thing about the Centurion.


----------



## Juha (Mar 24, 2013)

If you have the book, look p. 19 caption and p.41 on Israeli oppinion on T-54/55, on p.19 one can also read that Centaurion had _"thanks to its [of Meteor engine] high torque, commendable agility across country"_ and that "_The complete power plant was highly reliable, if used regularly, alhough it did suffer from high fuel consumption..._" And pp. 77-78 might well tell one important reason why many crews liked Cent but not T-54/-55.

Juha


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Yet I am not the one who LOLz and repeats himselfs two or three times to make a point.



You can't take a fricken hint can you. Please come back in 30 days after you finish Solitary Confinement. I will allow you 1 hour a day for the next 30 to brush up your social skills in the meantime.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 24, 2013)

Anybody else want some?


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 24, 2013)

Here's Matt now: 

Here's Matt if we keep up the petty squabbling and name-calling: 

Time to play mo' nicerer methinks!


----------



## Juha (Mar 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> ...In any case, as we have discussed, early APDS ammo had issues with accuracy, needed rare strategic resources and was less deadly than full caliber rounds. Given that the 100 mm gun could easily put very large rounds into any NATO tank in the 1950s, including the Centurion at ca 2 km and perhaps above, and they had a HEAT shell which was superior to any APDS round anyway as far as armor penetration goes, I am not sure why the Soviets would make any fuss about APDS rounds. Nobody had particularly good tank FC much above WW2 level until the 1970s I believe, yet you treat APDS rounds like a buzzword.
> 
> Now, as for the 20pdr being a copy of KwK 43, Ogorkiewicz strongly hints at it, and its an odd coincidence that it appeared after it, that they are almost the same caliber, they have practically identical penetration characteristics and so on. It could well be coincidence though. In any case, the 20 pdr was an excellent piece and probably the only good thing about the Centurion.


 
Early APDS had but not after the uneven separation was solved
I doubt that D-10 would EASILY to put a hole into frontal arc of Cent at ca 2km, even if it happened to hit it. And Soviets as well and British didn't like to use HEAT in long range engagements because of accuracy issue. Ans after all they late 60s issued APFSDS round for T-55.

British had fairly effective ranging gun system and better sights. 

British looked very carefully KwK 43 after the war and at one time thought to use same kind of breach in 20pdr but in the end used a different system. British WWI 18pdr field gun was 84mm for example, WWII 25pdr was 87,6mm and IMHO 20pdr looked more like beefed up 17pdr than KwK 43


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2013)

Oh boy....


Tante Ju said:


> IT IS A WW2 British tank after all!



And the 1947 T-54 differed how much from the T-44???

Yes the Israelis had identified a number of problems with the 20-24 year old Centurion design by 1967. That does not mean the the issues were resolved in time for the 1967 war. The contract for the new engines and transmissions was placed in April of 1967, however the first re-powered tanks were not completed until May 1970 which leaves ALL the Centurions used in the 67 war with the old engines, transmissions, etc. Hardly _superpimped_. and a total red herring as far as combat performance in the '67 war goes. 

It also means the Israeli tanks of 1967 were not that different than British or NATO tanks of the early 60s. 

The later re-powered and upgraded Centurions were intended both increase serviceability and to counter newer Arab tanks than the T-54/55 series. Egypt and Syria started getting T-62s in 1971. The T-62 was revealed to the public in 1965. It was only a matter of time before Soviet client states got better tanks than the T-54/55. 






Tante Ju said:


> Gutting out an old-fashioned and sub-optimal tank chassis and trying to fit it with the latest stuff is not progress, its a makeshift weapon. The Isrealis had to do with what had at hand, with what they could buy abroad. They did the same with Shermans with some rather desperate modifications etc.



The British retro fitted quite a number of their tanks over the years, in many cases several times. So did many other countries beside Israel. 

So did the Soviet Union and client states when it came to things like fire control (like laser range finders). 





Tante Ju said:


> But makes sense if you are on not-to-friendly terms with the USSR and can hardly except spares and ammunition. Not that Isreali Shot Cal had much common with their British Centurion brother...



Spare parts weren't that big a problem for the Israels. They captured about twice the number of tanks that they converted. Buying parts and ammo on the international market shouldn't have been that hard either. The T-54/55 having been used by over 30 nations besides Russia. Buy enough ammo and any one of a number of companies would have tooled up for it. After over 20 years the Russian 100mm ammo was hardly secret stuff. 






Tante Ju said:


> Define 'vast majority of tanks' in a 100 000 tank production run. Anyway, 'tis what google gave for T-54 armor scheme. Still beat anyone in 1947 though.



How about 99,000  It sure did beat any one in 1947, except the tank didn't work with that level of armor. Tank was overweight and nose heavy leading to breaking of the front suspension components and poorer than desired mobility (power to weight). 





Tante Ju said:


> Matching the protection of 20 year old Soviet tank in your newest tank model, with doesn't sound very good to me.



lets just check the math on this one. 1947 + 20 years is 1967. M-60 went into production in 1960 and the M60A1 went into production in Oct 1962, not quite 20 years. 

And to be fair can we paint the Soviets with the same brush? T-62 goes into Production in 1961 with the SAME 100mm front plate the vast majority of T-54/55 tanks had for the last 14 years.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Here's Matt now:
> 
> Here's Matt if we keep up the petty squabbling and name-calling:
> 
> Time to play mo' nicerer methinks!



That time was a long time ago.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 24, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Here's Matt now:
> 
> Here's Matt if we keep up the petty squabbling and name-calling:
> 
> Time to play mo' nicerer methinks!



No..............It should be:

"Here's the Mods if we keep up the petty squabbling and name-calling: "

Hmmm, so if you take a design and improve upon it, its not the same but something new...or is it? Well I guess Tante Ju would know about that since thats all the Germans did with their designs. I guess a PzKpfw. VI Tiger I is better than a PzKpfw. Tiger II.



> Gutting out an old-fashioned and sub-optimal tank chassis and trying to fit it with the latest stuff is not progress, its a makeshift weapon. . . .



I hope he comes back to explain to me what the 'ell a StuG III is and how lousy it is.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> I am pretty sure about the APDS wasn't a copy, since the Germans did not bother developing one _for AT works_ - not much need with all those long 7.5/8.8 guns around. The only different thing was the discarding sabot and that wasn't so new anyway, AFAIK they used it for arty shells.



Can we please stop re-writing history? Edgar Brandt was the first person to come up with the discarding sabot Idea but like may other things, it was thought of by several people at about the same time with out any real copying going on. Germans did help pioneer the use of cored AP shot even with all those long barrels. You only really need the really long barrels if you CANNOT use cored shot. The really long barrels suffer from barrel whip and short barrel life, you seldom get something for nothing. You can use discarding sabots for HE Artillery rounds (or AA) you get some really long range or short flight times. You also get a rather restricted payload as in a 105 gun firing an 88mm shell with a discarding sabot. I repeat, you seldom get something for nothing.



Tante Ju said:


> In any case, as we have discussed, early APDS ammo had issues with accuracy, needed rare strategic resources and was less deadly than full caliber rounds. Given that the 100 mm gun could easily put very large rounds into any NATO tank in the 1950s, including the Centurion at ca 2 km and perhaps above, and they had a HEAT shell which was superior to any APDS round anyway as far as armor penetration goes, I am not sure why the Soviets would make any fuss about APDS rounds. Nobody had particularly good tank FC much above WW2 level until the 1970s I believe, yet you treat APDS rounds like a buzzword.



Early APDS did have some problems, the worst of which was a batch of 17pdr ammo with faulty propellant, which was used for some of the field tests in Normandy. Widely quoted but hardly representative of most production batches. 

Please look at the publish penetration figures for the 100mm gun and ammo. depending on projectile (who's APC ammo) it is good for 150-185mm penetration at 1000meters at 0 degrees impact. In other words just about useless against the front hull plates of of either an up-armored Centurion (late 50s?) or M-48/60 at a little below 1000 meters let alone 2000 meters. Centurions 152mm front turret armor is going to need a pretty fair hit too. Anybody can get taken out from the side. 

Heat rounds need a fair amount of over penetration in order to actually kill the target. A round that offers 380mm of penetration is making a hole just a few mm across on the back the side of the armor and just a small jet going INTO the tank. Making holes in the armor does not kill a tank, killing the crew or wrecking what is behind the armor kills the tank. The British did not like HEAT rounds because of this and did not use them. I don't know how much over penetration you need. 

On the other hand successful penetration of _thick_ armor guarantees a fair amount of secondary projectile/s (material that used to occupy the space where the hole is) zipping about the interior at fairly high speed, even if the projectile is stuck in the armor 

I am not sure how well the British stabilization system worked but it was fitted from 1950 or so on. British fitted ranging machine guns to their Centurions from the late 50s? Americans fitted optical range finders from the M-47 on. Better than WW II even if not up to 70's (so did Leopard Is and AMX 30) standard? 

As a rough rule of thumb the _ practical_ range of an anti-tank gun is it's muzzle velocity + 10%. This is the range at which the projectile will never rise above or fall below a "tank sized" target if the gun is given the initial range setting. Size of the tank target can vary. blunt, stumpy shells that are light for their size fall a little short and things like APDS and APFSDS go a little long. 20pdr and 105 APDS are not going to go above or fall below the 'standard" tank target out to around 1400-1600 meters. Russian 100 mm gun is good for about 1000 meters.
If you are fighting at close range this doesn't matter. Speed of turret rotation may.
But at long range??


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 25, 2013)

Answer to the question about the turret armor of the T-64 (the 1st tank with composite armor), posted at tank-net:



> There are too many T-64's sub-variation so it is very hard to say.
> 
> As far as I know, the strongest T-64 turret in Soviet time is T-64BV, which is 580mm with K-1 (K-1 can give 30~50mm protection), the weakest one is T-64 which is no more than 400mm.



K-1 being the early type of ERA, so it should not be in our time frmae. Still, the kinetic energy penetrator must pierece the equivalent of 400mm RHA - not an easy (impossible?) task for the cannons of the era.From here, post #1036.

added: ammo capabilities of 115mm tank gun, with penetration data (scroll down fro table, can be translated):

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t62weapon.htm


----------



## davebender (Mar 25, 2013)

When did HESH ammunition become widely available?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 25, 2013)

About the Conqueror heavy tank (66 metric tons), in the 'Encyclopedia of tanks AFV', edited by Christopher F. Foss:

_...automatic device for ejecting spent cartridge cases through a hatch in the turret. [follows with description of the mechanism] A veteran Royal Tank Regiment officer remembered that 'All [ie. the ejection mechanism] broke down on every conceivable occasion' _

Same book, about the M-103 (56,7 metric tons):

_The M103 was a much-delayed failure._
_With too much weight for it's power train, the Army's M103A1 was very unreliable._

The other ground-breaking tanks of the era (T-64, Chieftain) were not reliable when introduced, the engines being the main headache. It's not widely known whether the auto loader in T-64 worked as advertised, especially under battlefield conditions.


----------



## davebender (Mar 25, 2013)

I read somewhere the T-64 autoloader sometimes snagged the gunners arm and loaded it ILO a shell. 

Probably no truth to the rumor but I'm not volunteering to serve as a T-64 gunner.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2013)

The T-62 had it's share of mechanical dangers to the turret crew. The gun automatically changes to an elevation of 3 degrees 30 minutes after firing for loading, it can only be loaded at this angle. The turret cannot be traversed if the gun is being loaded. I am not sure if the gun automatically returns to it's point of aim after being loaded (breechblock closes). The auto eject system at times became misaligned and the case bounced of the edge of the hatch and around the interior of the turret at a pretty good speed. 







Between the cases bouncing around the interior and the gun making some rather abrupt changes in elevation on it's own (seemingly) the loader seemed to have plenty of opportunity for injury.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 25, 2013)

davebender said:


> I read somewhere the T-64 autoloader sometimes snagged the gunners arm and loaded it ILO a shell.
> 
> Probably no truth to the rumor but I'm not volunteering to serve as a T-64 gunner.



Heard same. Look at video of most tank firings and gunners must grab dual safety levers to ensure their limbs are not in recoil danger areas, unlike this:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMTSaeo85TE_


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 26, 2013)

Yep, the automatic loading was a mixed blessing for the cold war Soviet tanks.

The armor layout of the T-64, 1st half of 1964:

http://s018.radikal.ru/i515/1206/b8/948ce4158703.jpg

added: manual for T-62, in English:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27319696/Russian-T-62-Medium-Tank-Operators-Manual

The loading operation, T-62:






The manual gives only 4 rounds per minute RoF.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 26, 2013)

CIA assessment of the T-64B:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foia.cia.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocument_conversions%2F89801%2FDOC_0000498140.pdf&ei=2gJSUdfhEsTaswbKxID4Dw&usg=AFQjCNFPmRevclOtnBdTGSc71_NzSv3vkw&sig2=X9xoI0VFgqDxAEyCMu9zdQ&bvm=bv.44342787,d.Yms


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 26, 2013)

Little old me - who isn't a big fan of the theoretical - would like to know: post Korea, what western forces have faced off in _tank-to-tank_ combat beside the Israelis against Soviet armor ...? Indo-Pak wars ...? S African forces ...? Surely - by DesertStorm it was a whole new ball game with the Abrams ... IMHO 

So - has Soviet cold war armor actually _ever_ been on the _winning_ side against western armor ...?

Not trying to be be smug here, but _field _results are all that matter in the end. 

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 26, 2013)

The Israelis have soundly beaten the Arab forces even in 1948, when the Israelis have had no tanks. That points us that equipment does come after many things that make the armed forces. In the Indo-Pakistani wars, at the time the Indians were using considerable amount of Soviet tanks, ie. war of 1971, Indians have beaten the Pakistanis. Again, that should not be attributed to the tanks forces only, but the whole set of other 'ingredients', like air forces, artillery, training, numbers etc.
The Soviets have made the greatest advances vs. Germans in the time when Germany was fielding, on the paper, better tanks. Germans wrecked havoc USSR in the time when Soviets were fielding formidable KV and T-34 tanks, vs. short-barreled Pz-III and IV.

From the days of ww2, it was the force with better air force, that is better used, that stood chances to win the war, not the force with better tanks.

added: We have managed to snatch independence with just a handful of tanks, vs. the army awash with those.

the web site about T-64, in German, can be translated:

http://t-64.de/frame-start.htm


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 26, 2013)

Thanks for the thorough response.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 26, 2013)

Igor?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 26, 2013)

Yes, Master?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 26, 2013)

Doh... 
MM just thanked the mysterious Igor for the explanation. Now who is Igor?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 26, 2013)

Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 26, 2013)

No problems


----------



## tomo pauk (May 7, 2013)

A rare AFV based upon the T-54 - the SU-122-54. Yep, the 122mm cannon is at the business end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Музей_военной_техники_Оружие_Победы,_Краснодар_(61).jpg


----------



## Sid327 (May 14, 2013)

Post removed.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 14, 2013)

I know it's an 'IMO', still some things are lacking 

The 105mm would be hard pressed to penetrate the T-64 and T-72 even with ammo from 1980s. Even in 1982 and on, Israelis were not able to show the T-72 that was destroyed by 105mm APDS-FS during Bekaa Valey fighting.
The low mileage puts the Meteor Cent into the similar position with Tiger I and II - ie. great for small battles, troublesome for major ones.

This could use some good data to prove (radios, poor quality and flag waving):



> The Russian AFV's were of the poor quality, mass produced kind that weren't even fitted with radios. They relied on flag signalling from the Squadron Commanders tank and could not fire with any accuracy when moving. Knock out the tank with the guy waving flags and everyone else would then be in dis-array.


----------



## Sid327 (May 14, 2013)

post removed.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 14, 2013)

> Sid447 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi tomo pauk,
> ...


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2013)

Sid447 said:


> IMO,
> M60 was in the top five, especially the later versions (again with the 105).
> 
> In the 80's, *nothing* was better than the Leopard II.
> ...



My top five would be

Cheiftain
Leopard 1
Centurion
T72 
Swedish S tank

The M60 was in its first versions basically an up gunned M48. It was large, vulnerable, not that fast X country and of the NATO tanks one of the last to have a laser rangefinder. The optical sight was slow to use and its advantages were more theoretical than practical.

The T62 and later tanks were in ths period better than most people accept. They did have radios and other mod cons and their reputation tarred by the performance of the tanks against the IDF. The IDF were the probably the best trained tank force in the world at that time, the ranges tended to be long which suited the equipment the IDF had and the Russian tanks had a lower spec than those issued to the Russian Army


----------



## Sid327 (May 15, 2013)

post removed.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2013)

Hi, Sid447,



Sid447 said:


> Hi tomo pauk,
> This was military strategy; the politicians had little to do with "how" the NATO battle plan was decided upon drawn up.



I'm not sure that was _the_ military strategy. Both Germans and French developed the tanks with very good power to weight ratio, but limited armor, while the 1st two decades of the Cold war saw wholesale mechanization and motorization of, not only Western, armed forces. 



> Yes! you are splitting hairs! .........It may have ended in theory on a piece of paper then.
> I was in service in Germany at the time and all planned operational deployment exercises and Inner German Border patrols were no longer being carried out by the end of the 80's.



You were still in service in Germany, as were many other NATO military personnel. Soviet soldiers were at the other side of border. So maybe it was not so turbulent as it was during the Cuba missile crisis, but it was not over until Gorbachev decided it's time to throw in the towel. 



> Maybe I worded it badly. With a muzzle velocity of 1475m/s for AP rounds there is nothing wrong with the ballistics of the gun even now. So if the ammunition rather, had been further developed it would still be a more than adequate tank killer now most likely.



I'd disagree that 105mm, using today's tech ammo, would be a threat to today's tanks. 



> This information came from military intelligence which I would imagine by now is freely available. The standard service tanks I saw had no fitment for radios (radio racks, antennas) I shall make some checks and reply about this soon.



Looking forward the data. We can take a look here, plenty of pictures of T-54/55 with antenna.


----------



## Sid327 (May 15, 2013)

post removed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2013)

How about leaving the moderating to the moderators...


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2013)

That Germans and French designed built tanks with better maneuverability (Leo 1, AMX-30), while introducing many, both tracked and wheeled AFVs, is not my opinion, but a fact. That NATO did not built the Maginot line equivalent form Elbe to Bavaria is not my opinion, but a fact.



> I thought this thread was about tanks during the Cold War period (1950 to end of 80's) where does Cuba come into the mix?



Not 'Cuba', but 'Cuba missile crisis'. Yes, the one when the relations between NATO and VP were at it's lowest. So it has everything to do with tanks, since those would've been slugging it out in Europe.



> Having spent ten years with an Armoured Corps, working with tank guns specifically and a further ten years with Anti-Tank helicopters, you are again entitled to your opinion!



It is cool that you've served in your country's armed forces. It still does not abolish you from posting credible sourced data here.



> Move on with constructive opinion, rather than degrade the thread by posting hair-splitting, negative comments that come across as a bit petty-minded.



I was not the one claiming that T-55/62s did not have radios, that their commanders were flag waiving to dispatch orders, nor that tanks built were of low quality. Those comments are the negative ones, and, patiently, were not backed up by any credible sourced data.


----------



## Sid327 (May 15, 2013)

post removed.


----------



## Matt308 (May 15, 2013)

Gentlemen you better keep this civil. All can make posts without the snarky comments. If you don't know what snarky means I highly suggest you look it up.


----------



## Sid327 (May 16, 2013)

post removed.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 16, 2013)

Sid447 said:


> Interesting link for you here,
> 
> M900 105mm APFSDS-T round
> 
> (please read third paragraph).



Several things with the stuff you posted the link:
-in the 1st paragraph says: "The M900 was designed to be used in the original M1 Abrams tank, as a replacement round for the M833. It was brought into service in 1989, and cannot be used in earlier M60 series tanks because of the force of the recoil" - ie. Centurion would need a whole new cannon to fire it
-3rd paragraph says: "It is claimed that the M900 is capable of penetrating the frontal armour of all current armour systems, as is the M829, the US' main 120 mm DU round. " - so: claimed, not proven (web site uses manufacturer's words?); 2nd - it should be a darned good round if it's able to pierce 60+ ton tanks, along with latest Russian stuff; since the West was experimenting with 140mm, and Germans introduced the 120mmL55, that can easily point us to the conclusion that 105mm, in any version, was not considered capable, and the 120mmL44 was considered only capable defeating current threats
-the web site does not cite any primary source (understandable, since penetration figures were/are secret); if it was Wikipedia article, it would at least received the unloved 'citation required' remark



> Why should a crisis in and around Cuba spread to a full scale tank war in Europe. Who's theory is that?



Because the main protagonists (USA USSR) have fielding big armies in Europe - once the shooting started around Cuba, it's a question of hours before someone came into conclusion that it's better to attack with conventional forces in Europe, rather to wait to be attacked there.



> I will get to my other "negative comment" re. lack of radios soon! Though I can't do anything about your belief that Russian tanks were quality products. I can only suggest you might want to compare a Leopard I with any Russian MBT of the same era, i.e. inspect them in person and see them working, or talk to people that have had experience with them.



I've seen T-55 in a war, they performed okay (despite cramped interior, and, for the 1990s, thin armor and low quality of the FCS), nobody was complaining about their reliability. Being built some 30-40 years before the war, my take is that was proof of their quality.
I do look forward for the data proving the claims from your 1st post in this thread.



Matt308 said:


> Gentlemen you better keep this civil. All can make posts without the snarky comments. If you don't know what snarky means I highly suggest you look it up.



No problems, Matt.


----------



## Sid327 (May 16, 2013)

post removed.


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2013)

The 105 was the most advanced gun of its day and is still in service in many forms today. I don't know the ins and outs and don't pretend to but am confident that had the 105 with the advanced ammo been sufficient to _It is claimed that the M900 is capable of penetrating the frontal armour of all current armour systems_ then they wouldn't have needed the 120mm. The UK recognised this some years before when the replaced the 105 with the Chieftain's 120mm.
The M1 with the 105 was probably capable of dealing with known threats when it was introduced but tanks have a service life of 20 + years and the 105 was not a good option for the future threats. All modern heavy tanks have at least 120mm guns. If the M1 of today still had the 105 each and every one of us would be saying, great tank but badly lacking in firepower.


----------



## Coyote (May 16, 2013)

I voted for the M-60, but the Centurion was a very close second. The Israelis used both to great effect in '67 and '73.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 17, 2013)

> Sid447 said:
> 
> 
> > Negative, all that's needed is an up-rated buffer system. It's quite clear you don't understand tanks and gunnery systems.
> ...


----------



## Sid327 (May 17, 2013)

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2013)

You guys were told to keep it civil by two moderators. You both ignored them!

Final warning. You are both receiving infractions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2013)

Wow so, now you will throw a tantrum and delete your posts. Very adult like.


----------



## Njaco (May 17, 2013)

...and throw the blame on tomo.


----------



## kettbo (May 20, 2013)

Instead of the Panther tank and all the complexity, IMHO, what the Germans really needed was the T-54. OK, not exactly, but something like it. Take ye something like the DB Panther prototype with a wider and lower hull with laid-back glacis. Then use a Panther-like but simplified turret, 88mm/L56 is fine and has a useful HE round compared to the 75mm gun of the Panther. Rear drive sprocket with Diesel power. Need good firepower, mobility, reliability, cruising range, and the ability to evolve.

The T34 evolved into the T34/85 then T-44, then T54. Would have been a rough road to hoe for the existing NATO armor in the early 1960. While a target at long range/desert environment, weather and terrain in NW Europe make engagement ranges in the 800-1000m band far more common than 2000-3000m bowling alley shots. Once through the Fulda, Meiningen Gaps, and others, a flood of T54s would be a challenge. RELIABILITY and MOBILITY are important for the defenders as much as the attackers. If cut off by a spearhead and your track or tank breaks down...you blow or fire the beast and shift to leather personnel carriers. If luckier, you get dragged to a collection point and the broken vehicle gets cannibalized to get other vehicles up and back into the fight. 

I'll post up some gunnery and tactics stuff from the late 80s during my tour on the IGB with the 11th Armored Cavalry. Black Horse!


----------



## altsym (May 21, 2013)

Personally I like the Leopard 2 tank, but voted for the M60. O/T a bit, didn't a some Bradley Fighting Vehicles destroy a bunch of Iraqi T-72's in the first gulf war?


----------



## tomo pauk (May 21, 2013)

The TOW missiles (Bradley have had those) should have had no problems destroying the T-72s.



kettbo said:


> Instead of the Panther tank and all the complexity, IMHO, what the Germans really needed was the T-54. OK, not exactly, but something like it. Take ye something like the DB Panther prototype with a wider and lower hull with laid-back glacis. Then use a Panther-like but simplified turret, 88mm/L56 is fine and has a useful HE round compared to the 75mm gun of the Panther. Rear drive sprocket with Diesel power. Need good firepower, mobility, reliability, cruising range, and the ability to evolve.



We arrive at 'KV-88' - ie. the good all-rounder, that would be both lighter and cheaper (= more examples produced) than Panther, let alone Tiger.



> The T34 evolved into the T34/85 then T-44, then T54. Would have been a rough road to hoe for the existing NATO armor in the early 1960. While a target at long range/desert environment, weather and terrain in NW Europe make engagement ranges in the 800-1000m band far more common than 2000-3000m bowling alley shots. Once through the Fulda, Meiningen Gaps, and others, a flood of T54s would be a challenge. RELIABILITY and MOBILITY are important for the defenders as much as the attackers. If cut off by a spearhead and your track or tank breaks down...you blow or fire the beast and shift to leather personnel carriers. If luckier, you get dragged to a collection point and the broken vehicle gets cannibalized to get other vehicles up and back into the fight.



Summed it up very nice there, George.



> I'll post up some gunnery and tactics stuff from the late 80s during my tour on the IGB with the 11th Armored Cavalry. Black Horse!



Looking forward to the contribution


----------



## kettbo (May 22, 2013)

I had a lengthy response working today until my grandaughter #2 touched a key on my laptop....disappeared not to be found!

CREW TRAINING has been mentioned....individual tasks, crew drills, platoon and company/troop must all be mastered. Some of the Army Officer Corps books describe the NCOs as the masters of destruction...Lieutenants come and go....I had 25+ Gunnery Densities under my belt working my way up the NCO ranks. Tanks shoot on their tables, myself and the other 19D Cavalrymen had the M-3 CFV/Bradley.

Day table, one firing task was with the gunner's controls inop, on the bound forward the commander must ID, engage, and kill a 'BMP' in the 800-1000 meter band. You are given 10x 25mm rounds for the autocannon, have a wide range to your front. Though you probably have a good idea where the primary target will present, you must look for alternate targets if the primary does not present. The gunner is up spotting....oh, forgot to mention, the gun and sights are stabilized, you are not! Commander's controls are one hand, off to the right, sight with reticle is to the left front of the hatch. Also critical, you have 10 seconds from target lock-up to fully exposed to 'kill the bastard' as your exposure time replicates people will be looking for you and intending to fire YOU up. The gunner must ensure the turret switchology is right, switches the sight from low to high power once the vehicle commander IDs the target. Driver must stay to the course road, keep a steady platform, help spot and sense round impact. 

After instructions from the Control Tower, gunners controls inop, you are told to bound forward to the next phase line. You are scanning right, gunner is up scanning left...'CONTACT LEFT, PC!' If you are very lucky you may see the target as it raises on the lifter, buys you a second or two extra. To satisify the Bradley Table scoring, the commander must give the following fire command while acquiring the target, GUNNER, BATTLESIGHT, PC, FROM MY POSITION....ON THE WAY (I'm shooting guys!!!!!) 

More tomorrow


----------



## Matt308 (May 22, 2013)

Looks like we have us a gent from JBLM. Welcome sir!


----------



## kettbo (May 22, 2013)

Matt,

Thanks, I've been floating around here a few years on this site. Was at Lewis early 90-fall 91 then was detailed to Recruiting up by SEATAC airport and SouthCenter Mall. When I had the chance to come back fall of 1999, I jumped on it! ROTC OPS NCO then toe 3rd Bde, 1/14 CAV for the Initial Stryker Deployment, OIF 1.5. Retired APR 2006.


continuing from above

Single target on the offence, 10 seconds before you start losing points. A 'kill' requires three 25mm hits. Exposure times, hits required for a kill are all figured out by threat analysts, men in black. Technique here on the commander's engagement is a must; head one way to reach the sight eyepiece, right arm back to reach the commander's hand station. Left arm and hand used to steady yourself as best able. With the reticle on the target, one must give lead or reverse lead if not moving straight onto the target. Finger control, one shot with a blip of the trigger, adjust reticle on the target based on sensing, either a second single round or a 3-round burst (ROF is 450 rpm, literally sounds like boom, boom, boom run together. Favorite Gunnery memory was when I got the kill,kill,kill from the tower, called Cease Fire to complete the engagement (kill stops time clock also but you must play by the rules here). During the review/critique/scoring/what can you do better brief, saw the vid...hit with the sensing round, 3 hits with the three round burst, kill time 5 seconds.

Probably the finest gunner in the Cav, IMHO was SGT Donald Flynn. One unit had M-113A3s in the Scout Platoon (and the two other Scout Platoons in the Bde) when I arrived. We turned these in, and were doing New Equipment Training on M-3 CFVs when we were alerted to DEPLOY to Saudi Arabia. Saddam acting up in Iraq after the first war in 1991. While the Line Companies packed and shipped out, we continued training...cut through the chase, a day in the big simulator compound there at Ft Benning then straight out to the gunnery tables the next day, 0500 formation. Early firing tables completed, day and night portions, time for Bradley Table VIII, crew qualification. Flynn was a natural shooter, great with the switches, adjusting aim point after a sensing shot. I did well on my engagements, switches, and firing commands. Any mess-up or going over cost points. Driver Jack Olson did his part driving; ensuring the vehicle was never lacking, helped PROPERLY loading the ammo for the runs at the ammo upload area, called targets out etc. In a few lines I cannot express the necessity of a good driver, teamwork, and crew coordination. Tables in the Offence, Defense, NBC , troop, pRPG team, truck, or PC targets, various ranges and presentation angles. More on this later. Pleased to say that all went well before we packed up to go to Suadi, 1000 points awarded with 1000 possible.

Upon return, TRADOC said "that does not count" so we went back and finished NET then shot another full USR Gunnery. Same firing crew for me, same result!
Even BETTER kill times.

In the post that vanished, I was writing about my time at the BlackHorse. After individual crews qualified, we would then do a platoon size run at the MPRC (multi-purpose range complex) at Grafenwohr. We would seldom fight as a straight Cav Platoon with 6x CFVs. Third Plt Scouts and 4th Plt Tankers would form two Hunter-Killer teams. The engagement scenario was called SEVEN UP. Scouts would be forward, call 'enemy' targets as they were presented at decreasing ranges. Indirect (inert) rounds would be fired to get all our in-house assets into the fray. Often the indirect fires were to mask retrograde movement of the Scouts from Observation Positions to prepared Battle Positions. The idea here is the enemy Recon Patrols are eliminated by the Scout-called indirect or Scouts firing from their BPs...heavy stuff, the tanks, kept back. As criteria were met, the Tank leader (either the LT or the PSG) would move their tanks into their BPs. The grand finale of this was the opposition lead company-sized unit gets hit by Bradley and Tank fire....Tanks taking on the Opposition Armor and far targets, Bradleys taking on the near to far RPG TEAMS, troops, PCs and trucks. Quite the spectacle! We expected to fight at 1:4 odds


----------



## kettbo (May 22, 2013)

After the SEVEN UP, some larger exercises were undertaken at Range 301....six lanes in North, 6 in the Center, 6 in the South
All usually went well, Scouts doing their stuff downrange, retrograde movement, target destroyed in the kill zone. One night, things did NOT go well.
A crew was changed (improper thing to change), the tank fired not down 301 Center where it was on, but into 301 SOUTH where M-3s were moving back towards them. The tank fired a HEAT training round at one and hit Bradley, reloaded, shot and hit a second Bradley, reloaded, re-engaged and hit the 1st Bradley.
Luckily, nobody was seriously hurt on CFV #1 but it caught fire, burned to the ground, ammo onboard exploded through the night. We were he next range over, saw the smoke from the fire, heard the ammo blow. The 2nd CFV lost its driver instantly, the other crewmen were more or less OK.

Months later, I had business at Grafenwohr Range Control. There was a picture there of the CFV that burned down, not much left. Down the street at Vilseck we swapped out our old M-3s for a later upgraded version. Noticed a CFV in a bay across the way getting the driver area and under hood pressure-washed. No biggie really until we noticed that on the user's cap was shiny metal....officer!....not blacked-out rank or sew-on like NCO/Enlisted. Hmmm, binoculars were present, observed the guy doing the washing was a Captain. When he and whoever else moved away/took a break, a few of us wandered over there for a look see. Wouldn't you know it, it was the other Bradley from that night, penetration still present just behind where the driver's head would be.

In Germany, 2-3 month-long Border tours, Grafenwohr Gunnery for a month twice a year, Hohenfels for a month of Maneuver combat, REFORGER for a few weeks. If not on gunnery you were always training for it. NCOs were tasked to EVALUATE other firing units after a special course; tankers on course, Scouts another. I was away from my bunk at Daley Barracks nearly 380 days my first year. At home station, seemed an alert per week. More on this another time too.


addl info

My first gunnery in Germany, I was CFV gunner for Lt Milner. I was the FNG, didn't have the job until the LT's gunner's wife had complications at the hospital....he stayed back, I was a last minute replacement, right there at the pre-deployment briefing. The Troop Cdr Dan Zajac asked me if I had gunner experience...Roger. Could I qualify? ...Sir, I'll shoot Distinguished! Did so just two weeks later. After the Scout tables were done, our Tankers in 2nd and 4th Plt were at the Tank Ranges. I was 'invited' by CPT Z to fill a vacant loader spot on Green 1, LT Elliot's tank. I can tell you that even the Early Abrams were Kick Ass. Loading on a moving tank is not too bad... not very loud when it shoot inside....big recoil is spectacular. Ready rounds for the Abrams are in the bustle behind the loader, projectile facing to the rear. Knee the switch and the blast door opens, round type is black markered on the base of the round. Detent pushed, round grabbed out and base downward, nose rotated over and the projectile rammed into the breach, arm/safety gate swung to ARM, Loader announces UP! With one in the tube, once the first one is gone, 2nd round can follow in roughly 8 seconds, then a third. Yes, the wind CAN whistle down your throat while doing this. This was the M-1 with the 105. We soon traded these in and got M1A1 with the 120mm

We were highly trained, highly motivated. Failure would mean death, capture, or being cut-off and fending for oneself until getting back to a friendly area. We knew which farms had Diesel Fuel and how much, just for that contingency. Our battle uniform was MOPP 2, NBC SUIT worn, mask and such carried. Trained lots of NBC situations.


----------



## kettbo (Jun 10, 2013)

back of a M-3 CFV circa 1989 via Craig Caldwell. 






Weighted missile sim rounds for loading drills
Lots and lots of stowage for ammo compared to the Infantry versions


----------



## vinnye (Jun 16, 2013)

Well I am voting for the Centurion, it was a very good tank right from the end of WWII until it was replaced many years and Mark numbers later.
It was a good compromise of firepower, maneuverability, protection, had a gun stabiliser fitted that allowed it to fire on the move, reliable engine and transmission, and proved itself in combat on several occasions in different theatres against whatever opposition was fielded against it. A real cold war warrior!


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 16, 2014)

Centurion - Greatest tank design ever bar none. First true MBT. More influential then any other tank in relation to the current tank designs and philosophy - from the outset it had most things right. Fought more successfully in more wars than any other tank design in history - 6 day war, Yom kippur war, Indian/Pakistan war, Vietnam war. In each war it emerged every time as the best tank on any side. It only started to be eclipsed in the 80's but in its upgraded form could still be useful to some nations even today due to its excellent dimensions and intrinsic basic design. It influenced the Israel's in their tank designs - even the Merkava in its initial form used some Centurion parts and owes some of its design and conception to the Centurion. It had virtually everything going for it.

With the exception of the Challenger family or Merkava family - no tank comes close. And even those two designs haven't been as successful - yet.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 16, 2014)

futuredogfight said:


> What do you think was the best Cold War tank? Note* M1 Abrams, Leopard etc. will not be included.



Why not? The M1, Leopard, and Leopard 2 all served during the Cold War. 

Overall, I'd say that it would be a toss-up between the M1 and the Leopard 2. If you want to leave out those two, that's fine, but it strikes me as a somewhat artificial exclusion, like asking what the best battleship of WW2 was, but exclude the Yamato, the Iowa, and the Tirpitz.

Leaving out all the light tanks and the M103 (which even the US Army didn't seem to like), I think one could make a case for the M60 (which was just an evolutionary development of the M47), the Centurion (the last variants of which probably had as much in common with the first as the M60 had with the M47), the Leopard, the Strv103, and the T-55. I'm USian, so I'll vote with my flag: M60.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 16, 2014)

This is a link to a site that i found relating to the Australian Army use of the centurion, and a project that restored one example at the tank training ground at Pucka Vic

"An ANZAC ARV" by Paul D. Handel

Intersting read and good pics of the centurion in the jungle.

Mobility wise, the Centurion was one of the best tanks around in the Australian Army's view


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 16, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> Why not? The M1, Leopard, and Leopard 2 all served during the Cold War.
> 
> Overall, I'd say that it would be a toss-up between the M1 and the Leopard 2. If you want to leave out those two, that's fine, but it strikes me as a somewhat artificial exclusion, like asking what the best battleship of WW2 was, but exclude the Yamato, the Iowa, and the Tirpitz.
> 
> Leaving out all the light tanks and the M103 (which even the US Army didn't seem to like), I think one could make a case for the M60 (which was just an evolutionary development of the M47), the Centurion (the last variants of which probably had as much in common with the first as the M60 had with the M47), the Leopard, the Strv103, and the T-55. I'm USian, so I'll vote with my flag: M60.



M60 - Israel Nickname - Ronson. Hydraulic fluid for turret traverse burned too easily. Too tall, Poor internal sub-division, Mediocre armour. Mediocre tank.

Leopard 1 - Virtually made of tissue paper. Armour protection only to lesser rounds. Easily destroyed by anything with a gun above 30mm so even a technical, a datsun! with a big enough gun could see one off. Some 23mm would penetrate the side armour.

Leopard 2 - sold fantastically - Never tested properly tested in war with the exception of limited conflicts!. Rejected by the British as poorly armored and too light a construction in the chassis.

Abrams - Oh dear. Can of worms this one. Great tank in a lot of respects. Really great. However - Pity about the amour. Bit of a Panther. Watch the (numerous) videos for the Gulf conflicts of burning Abrams taken out by handheld and just about anything else around the side and arse. Propensity to burn on the rear made worse by a turbine with a steamingly hot engine deck I wonder. Great up front but armour protection is much more than that. The Israels understood with the Merkava. Very poor loss level vs Challenger.


----------



## DonL (Feb 16, 2014)

That's why the next upgrad of the Challenger2 will get a MTU engine and from all I haver heard the Rheinmetall 120-mm-Glattrohrkanone.

Also how many countries are equiped with the challenger2 compare to the Leopard 2?

That's absolutely why the Leopard2 is this poorly armored and had no fighting power?!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 16, 2014)

> Leopard 1 - Virtually made of tissue paper. Armour protection only to lesser rounds. Easily destroyed by anything with a gun above 30mm so even a technical, a datsun! with a big enough gun could see one off. Some 23mm would penetrate the side armour.



That doesnt ring true for me. The RAAC had its issues with the Leopard, but the level of protection was not one of them. The Australian Army was not happy with the MG3 or the targetting system. Later 105mm was acknowledged as approaching obsolescence, but the decision to upgrade to the M1 Abrams delayed the gun upgrade. in the end the Australian Government took the very questionable decision for its new abrams to retain the 105, which i think was a mistake.

But as to the issue of protection, well, admittedly Leopard Is dont have chobham or any other armour protection systems, but that is still on apar with the Centurions and Chieftains. The tank is a first generation cold war tank, and in the context of that, its armouring scheme was adequate...not brilliant, but still quite good

Leopard AS1 Main Battle Tank Part One by Paul D. Handel

Leopard AS1 Main Battle Tank Part Two by Paul D. Handel

Leopard AS1 Part Three - Bridgelayer and Armoured Recovery Vehicle by Paul D. Handel

Leopard AS1 Part Four - Markings and Oddities by Paul D. Handel


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 17, 2014)

parsifal said:


> That doesnt ring true for me. The RAAC had its issues with the Leopard, but the level of protection was not one of them. The Australian Army was not happy with the MG3 or the targetting system. Later 105mm was acknowledged as approaching obsolescence, but the decision to upgrade to the M1 Abrams delayed the gun upgrade. in the end the Australian Government took the very questionable decision for its new abrams to retain the 105, which i think was a mistake.
> 
> But as to the issue of protection, well, admittedly Leopard Is dont have chobham or any other armour protection systems, but that is still on apar with the Centurions and Chieftains. The tank is a first generation cold war tank, and in the context of that, its armouring scheme was adequate...not brilliant, but still quite good



Leopard 1s, particularly the pre-add on spaced armour variants, were very thinly skinned. Mobility was seen as the key defensive asset, not armour. Their frontal armour was generally designed to defeat anything up to the Soviet 85 mm AT gun beyond about 1000 m and more mobile threats like the 

In no way should the armour of the early Leopards be considered equivalent to Chieftan. Even the period appropriate Centurion had a much thicker glacis and turret armour.

Leopard 1 to 1A5 had about 140 mm LoS armour thickness on the glacis, 105 mm LoS for the mantlet and 52 mm (without bolt on armour) for the front of the turret. 

In comparison, the Chieftain I had about 185 LoS thickness on the glacis, 240-280 LoS for the mantle and about 175 mm LoS for the front of the turret. Later Chieftains went heavier still. Challenger I heavier than that.


----------



## Glider (Feb 17, 2014)

I would certainly agree that the Leopard I was a cold war tank but don't understand the statement that the 105mm was approaching obsolescence. The Leopard 1 and first versions of the M1 and Merkava all had the 105mm. So I must be misreading something if the 105 on the Centurion was out of date but the 105 on the Leopard wasn't.

If we are talking about rangefinders then before the laser rangefinder there wasn't a perfect solution. The ranging MG was quick but obviously gave away your position. The system used on the M60 was slow and in a closer range combat situation or one in built up areas was of little use. The Israeli army trained their crews to ignore the rangefinder and would fire three shells in quick succession at three pre-set angles. The ballistics of the 105 were such that at (then) normal combat ranges a hit was almost guaranteed if on the flat. The tank commander would order which long, medium or short to fire first and there was a very good chance of a first round hit. Israeli Centurions with the 105mm didn't have the ranging mg fitted.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2014)

sgtleehead said:


> M60 - Israel Nickname - Ronson. Hydraulic fluid for turret traverse burned too easily. Too tall, Poor internal sub-division, Mediocre armour. Mediocre tank.


The M60 was also a medium battle tank.

Even the illustrious T-72 was known to burn like a candle on a birthday cake...


----------



## N4521U (Feb 17, 2014)

?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2014)

Well...that *certainly* qualifies as a "cold war" tank


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 17, 2014)

Stridsvagn S?


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 17, 2014)

davebender said:


> I read somewhere the T-64 autoloader sometimes snagged the gunners arm and loaded it ILO a shell.
> 
> Probably no truth to the rumor but I'm not volunteering to serve as a T-64 gunner.



I've read exactly the same thing. In general, Soviet tanks have been described as ergonomic disasters. Since bad ergonomics is going to reduce operational efficiency, Western tankers will probably be more functional after, oh, four or five hours in the vehicle. Even if the autoloader doesn't amputate the gunner's arm.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 17, 2014)

About the time the US was upgunning the M1 to 120 mm, NATO was doing some studies for the next generation of tank guns, concluding, iirc, that 140 mm would be the next step. 

I do think it's vaguely interesting that the US lagged both Germany and the UK in going to 120 mm. Even more interesting is that the main tank guns of the US Army for many years have been foreign designs.

Since I don't think it's worth a new thread, does anybody here think that the MBT-70 could actually have entered service with any kind of success?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2014)

Since the main armament _system_ was used in the M-555 Sheridan and the M60A-2 (MBT-70 used a longer barrel) and was found wanting the likelihood of the MBT-70 being a success is rather doubtful on that score alone. 

Throw in the driver being in the turret enclosed in his own counter rotating cupola so he was supposed to face forward regardless of what the tank turret did, the hydro-pneumatic suspension ( it is not good to be the first or 2nd even if later vehicles eventually use a system) and the engine that _supposed_ to be able to vary it's compression _while running_ and there was just too much that could go wrong with it at any given time.


----------



## Airframes (Feb 17, 2014)

Bit of a strange list, as the Chieftain isn't shown, but Scorpion is.
Chieftain, at the time, was considered the most advanced tank around, and Scorpion was a recce vehicle, not a battle tank, with the PT-76 being used in a similar role.


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 17, 2014)

DonL said:


> That's why the next upgrad of the Challenger2 will get a MTU engine and from all I haver heard the Rheinmetall 120-mm-Glattrohrkanone.
> 
> Also how many countries are equiped with the challenger2 compare to the Leopard 2?
> 
> That's absolutely why the Leopard2 is this poorly armored and had no fighting power?!



Without being rude and with respect - you've walked right into 'its our so its the best' argument. The British Government and defense industry have squandered the brilliance of the Challenger with very poor decisions which cannot be said for the makers of the Leopard 2. Brilliant seller. However. There is no better test than tested in combat - battle tested. The Leopard 2 in this instance falls right on its arse. It would be very interesting to see though how one fared in a combat zone being attacked from all angles. 

The replacement of the gun is a commonality and cost issue - its a great gun - so why not upgrade. The engine is also fantastic - so again why not upgrade. Those two components though do not make the tank. They are just a part of it. One of the reasons the the Leopard 2 was rejected was because of Armour protection, and not just protection but design construction as well - this is a fact.


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 17, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> About the time the US was upgunning the M1 to 120 mm, NATO was doing some studies for the next generation of tank guns, concluding, iirc, that 140 mm would be the next step.
> 
> I do think it's vaguely interesting that the US lagged both Germany and the UK in going to 120 mm. Even more interesting is that the main tank guns of the US Army for many years have been foreign designs.
> 
> Since I don't think it's worth a new thread, does anybody here think that the MBT-70 could actually have entered service with any kind of success?



Very interesting point. The Israels for some time were looking at 130mm or 140mm. They put a lot of thought and time into into it. There are very big' issues with caliber increase - other then the obvious ergonomics (IS2 crews loading the 122mm!). The big issue is the current performance of the 120mm against the expected reasonable thickness of armour or types of armour composition that can be fitted without making a 70 plus tonne tank - which you don't want - and whether somebody can stick enough Armour on a tank to ensure it defeats the current gen of gun. Which at the moment it cannot. Gun wins at the moment or tank simply becomes too heavy etc.

The future is modular and perhaps different concepts in lifting technology or perhaps even liquid metal electro magnetic track propulsion.


----------



## DonL (Feb 17, 2014)

sgtleehead said:


> Without being rude and with respect - you've walked right into 'its our so its the best' argument. The British Government and defense industry have squandered the brilliance of the Challenger with very poor decisions which cannot be said for the makers of the Leopard 2. Brilliant seller. However. There is no better test than tested in combat - battle tested. The Leopard 2 in this instance falls right on its arse. It would be very interesting to see though how one fared in a combat zone being attacked from all angles.
> 
> The replacement of the gun is a commonality and cost issue - its a great gun - so why not upgrade. The engine is also fantastic - so again why not upgrade. Those two components though do not make the tank. They are just a part of it. One of the reasons the the Leopard 2 was rejected was because of Armour protection, and not just protection but design construction as well - this is a fact.



I have heard these combat tested arguments the last 20 years near a thousand times. Perhaps you should talk with some Canadian soldiers, they have a fundamental different opinion then your claims.
Also all the countries which bought the Leopard 2, had all done tests, suspicious that the Leopard 2 won most of them against the M1 and Challenger 2.

Compare to you I don't claim that the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me Challenger 2, M1 and Leopard 2 are on the same level, but what I clearly deny is, that the Leopard 2 is poorly armoured or the Challenger 2 better armoured.
Perhaps you should bring some proves and not just claim something.

All the tests around the world speaks clearly for the Leopard 2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2014)

sgtleehead said:


> Without being rude and with respect - you've walked right into 'its our so its the best' argument. The British Government and defense industry have squandered the brilliance of the Challenger with very poor decisions which cannot be said for the makers of the Leopard 2. Brilliant seller. However. There is no better test than tested in combat - battle tested. The Leopard 2 in this instance falls right on its arse. It would be very interesting to see though how one fared in a combat zone being attacked from all angles.
> 
> The replacement of the gun is a commonality and cost issue - its a great gun - so why not upgrade. The engine is also fantastic - so again why not upgrade. Those two components though do not make the tank. They are just a part of it. One of the reasons the the Leopard 2 was rejected was because of Armour protection, and not just protection but design construction as well - this is a fact.



I am not a tank expert, and therefore do not know either way, but would you care to post some sources that prove that?

I only ask because I am interested.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2014)

DonL said:


> I have heard these combat tested arguments the last 20 years near a thousand times. Perhaps you should talk with some Canadian soldiers, they have a fundamental different opinion then your claims.
> Also all the countries which bought the Leopard 2, had all done tests, suspicious that the Leopard 2 won most of them against the M1 and Challenger 2.
> 
> Compare to you I don't claim that the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me Challenger 2, M1 and Leopard 2 are on the same level, but what I clearly deny is, that the Leopard 2 is poorly armoured or the Challenger 2 better armoured.
> ...



A good friend of mine who was in the Canadian Military (and then later the US military) had nothing but good things to say about he Leopard 2.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 17, 2014)

I think the leopard 2 is about as good as it gets when it comes to MBT. Just my opinion


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2014)

Like I said, I don't know either way, and am open minded on the subject. 

I however have not seen or read anything that states its armour, armament and powerplant are terrible. Same with the M-1...


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 18, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Like I said, I don't know either way, and am open minded on the subject.
> 
> I however have not seen or read anything that states its armour, armament and powerplant are terrible. Same with the M-1...



Prove what? What have you actually asked here?. At no stage have I said in any post what you have just said. At no point in any post have I said that the Challenger is a better tank. Please read my posts again and I'll reply.


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 18, 2014)

DonL said:


> I have heard these combat tested arguments the last 20 years near a thousand times. Perhaps you should talk with some Canadian soldiers, they have a fundamental different opinion then your claims.
> Also all the countries which bought the Leopard 2, had all done tests, suspicious that the Leopard 2 won most of them against the M1 and Challenger 2.
> 
> Compare to you I don't claim that the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me Challenger 2, M1 and Leopard 2 are on the same level, but what I clearly deny is, that the Leopard 2 is poorly armoured or the Challenger 2 better armoured.
> ...



Read my post again. You've just done the same thing again. 'Ours is better we made it'. This is a forum for discussion not patriotism. You have misread a post based on a defensive patriotic view and posture and polarized a topic and turned it into an argument. Not very positive. Also your language is accusatory and confrontational. You should try harder to encourage positive discussion were you might learn something constructive instead of being objectionable because you personally like something.


----------



## DonL (Feb 18, 2014)

sgtleehead said:


> M60 - Israel Nickname - Ronson. Hydraulic fluid for turret traverse burned too easily. Too tall, Poor internal sub-division, Mediocre armour. Mediocre tank.
> 
> Leopard 1 - Virtually made of tissue paper. Armour protection only to lesser rounds. Easily destroyed by anything with a gun above 30mm so even a technical, a datsun! with a big enough gun could see one off. Some 23mm would penetrate the side armour.
> 
> ...



Perhaps english is not my first language but I understand this post.

You are qualifying both the Leopard 2 and the Abrams as inferior compare to the Challenger and the Merkava.

This are claims, because till now you have not post a single prove or any argumentation based on documents or other sources, only claims.

Both the Leopard 2 and the Abrams won country tests all around the world, the Leopard 2 has won the most. I have asked you, why he could win all this tests, if he is this poor armoured?
Also I have mentioned the Canadion Army experience with the Leopard 2 at Afghanistan, you can add the Danish Army too. Perhaps their mentioned experiences are wrong?

I have mentioned two weak points of the Challenger2, the gun and the engine, because from your post above you are rating the Challenger 2 higher. It is planed to upgrade the challenger 2 with both named systems of the Leopard 2. Is this wrong or right?
Also I have heard the Challenger 2 has a clear weak point at the lower front plate, which is thin compare to the other tanks.

And again *I haven't claimed* the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me, Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2 with their newest upgrades are on the same level. Correction till the Challenger 2 didn't get the MTU engine and the 120mm smooth bore gun I would rate him inferior.

The Merkava is a defensive tank with the highest weight and the worst power to weight ratio and far away to have the mobility of the other three tanks, so it is a very good tank for the Israelis, but to my opinion not a good allround tank.

And that's for me the clear advantages of the Leopard 2 and Abrams, they offer the best mobility, good protection and the best firepower in a good mix. The challenger 2 is in need for the MTU engine and the 120mm gun to offer equal mobility and firepower.
The Abrams has the problem of the high fuel consumption of it's engine, where I rate the Leopard 2 a little higher (more cost effective and less signature) through the MTU engine.

Anyway all three are good tanks.

But from your post you clearly claim that both Leopard 2 and Abrams are inferior, so provide sources or proves.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2014)

sgtleehead said:


> Prove what? What have you actually asked here?. At no stage have I said in any post what you have just said. At no point in any post have I said that the Challenger is a better tank. Please read my posts again and I'll reply.



Chill out man, I did not say you said the Challenger was better. Go back and read my post.

You did say the Leopard 2 armour was poor, and that the quality of construction was poor though. Please post sources that prove this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2014)

sgtleehead said:


> Read my post again. You've just done the same thing again. 'Ours is better we made it'. This is a forum for discussion not patriotism. You have misread a post based on a defensive patriotic view and posture and polarized a topic and turned it into an argument. Not very positive. Also your language is accusatory and confrontational. You should try harder to encourage positive discussion were you might learn something constructive instead of being objectionable because you personally like something.



Both of you should chill out.

You seem to be the only one bringing up "patriotism" to the discussion.


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 18, 2014)

'But from your post you clearly claim that both Leopard 2 and Abrams are inferior, so provide sources or proves.'

Wrong - simple as that. You assumed. This is about evaluation and evaluation is about discussion and highlight. Weapons procurement, which I have been involved in, is about simple facts. Politics and patriotism should come later.

The challenger tank was one of the best tanks in the world. The British through poor planning, bad handling and politics have allowed the tank to fall behind. The combat tests that the Challenger was last involved in for evaluation saw the company send the wrong ammunition for the L30 gun. Utter stupidity as it had a detrimental effect. The electronics and targeting system in the Challenger have also slightly fallen behind through lack of development and orders. The gun is not common and the engine, though very reliable, is behind the MTU in a number of ways. At its peak the challenger was possibly one the best tanks in the world.

The Leopard 2 at this time is possibly one of the best tanks in the world though the Abrams is also excellent. I couldn't say either way. So - this doesn't mean that they don't have faults. The Abrams is a hot tank and, study the videos - I have. There is a question that hangs over the overall crew protection of all quarters vs certain weapons. The Glacis plate is not the only place to get hit, especially in urban areas. of course - that doesn't mean though its crap. The designers will have seen this and the next tank that comes around should take this combat experience into account - hopefully.

The fact that the Leopard 2 has been bought in great number is great and user opinion is very high. But it still remains to be seen - as I said - how would it fare in combat from all angles of attack. Nobody knows.

You access the UK government evaluation tests at any time for their opinions and evaluation. Combat has showed that the Challenger 2 is an absolute tough bastard of a tank. That cannot be said for the Leopard 2 - regardless of how good it is for the reasons I have already mentioned. Again this doesn't mean I am being negative about the tank - it simply means its untested in the most important area of evaluation you can have - actual combat.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2014)

I worked in Greece where a German guy was welding up Leopard IIs chassis. I think European politics bear heavily on armament sales. What the Greeks would do with a dozen Leopards I have no idea


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2014)

sgtleehead said:


> 'But from your post you clearly claim that both Leopard 2 and Abrams are inferior, so provide sources or proves.'
> 
> Wrong - simple as that. You assumed. This is about evaluation and evaluation is about discussion and highlight. Weapons procurement, which I have been involved in, is about simple facts. Politics and patriotism should come later.
> 
> ...



In another post you stated poor armour and poor construction. Do you have sources for this? If so please post them. I ask because I would like to know, as I am not a tank expert. I do not know either way.


----------



## DonL (Feb 18, 2014)

pbehn said:


> I worked in Greece where a German guy was welding up Leopard IIs chassis. I think European politics bear heavily on armament sales. What the Greeks would do with a dozen Leopards I have no idea



The joke is the greeks have ordered near 200 Leopard 2 A6 since 2006. But with the payment they are realy slow.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2014)

DonL said:


> The joke is the greeks have ordered near 200 Leopard 2 A6 since 2006. But with the payment they are realy slow.



Donl it was just a casual conversation. I dont speak Greek but I do speak German. We were just passing the time but the job he was on was for 12-20 obviously that was obviously a "material take off" not the whole order. As the Leopard is made of special materials it needs a specialist welder. As with many things in Greece they are happy to buy if you give them the money. What would 200 Leopards do in Greece?


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 18, 2014)

pbehn said:


> I worked in Greece where a German guy was welding up Leopard IIs chassis. I think European politics bear heavily on armament sales. What the Greeks would do with a dozen Leopards I have no idea



Very true. Just look at the Eurovision song contest. Joking aside - politics play a massive part between certain countries and their relationships. Especially when they are neighbours. Or not perhaps. Look at the UK buying the F35 from America - is it actually any good?. Look at the Internet bile against this plane. Should the UK have not bought the Suhkoi - should the UK not start buying Russian since their latest planes have been excellent and pretty cheap? Hmm - probably never happen of course.


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 18, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In another post you stated poor armour and poor construction. Do you have sources for this? If so please post them. I ask because I would like to know, as I am not a tank expert. I do not know either way.



'Rejected by the British as poorly armored and too light a construction in the chassis'

MOD competitive evaluation trials 1987 for Challenger 2. Test to find the most suitable tank (not necessarily the best) out of the contenders. Whoops bulb gone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2014)

Any links to sources?


----------



## fastmongrel (May 27, 2014)

I voted Centurion for the simple reason I did my training in a Cent and then did my winter training in a Cent in the depths of a Canadian winter at the Suffield training site. It might have been an obsolete (in the 1970s) cantankerous old bastard that needed a lot of TLC, with ergonomics that were suited to a 4 armed double jointed thick skulled dwarf but it was a tough go anywhere sort of beast that looked after its crew and we would happily have gone against any tank of the 50s or 60s in one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (May 28, 2014)

one wonders why , in the intersts of cost saving, someone didnt come up with further ways to keep the Centurions going. Australia retired their fleet in 1974, taking on the Leopard 1 as a replacement. The Leopard was a good tank, but I doubt it that much better than the Centurion as to justify it as a replacement. Centurions needed some money spent on it to upgrade things, but I think for our purposes it would have done fine as a training tank for many years


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2014)

Good as the Centurion was it had a few "features" that might have counted against it. There were quite a number of engine swaps proposed to increase performance slightly, range a whole lot, and easy maintenance (instead of looking for 20-30 year old parts) and some used the original transmission and some didn't. Fire control and other electronics could be up graded. 
How much an upgrade could cost vs the price of a new tank? 
Up grading still left you with the old track system and suspension which may (or may not?) required more maintenance than a new track system/suspension. New tank _ may_ have been designed for faster engine swaps in the field and easier maintenance while, unless the conversion of the old tanks is _very_ well done, things might be as bad or worse than working on the old engine set up. 

They were doing an awful lot of talking and figuring about "life cycle costs" over 10-20 years of a number of weapons systems and unfortunately that kind of figuring can introduce so many unproven variables that a truly accurate number is impossible to come by. to many of the numbers are based on _estimates_, so the cost comparison can come out in favor of whoever passed the fattest envelope or dangled the best promotion (later job?).


----------



## fastmongrel (May 28, 2014)

In the 1970s Krauss Maffei the Leopard 1 manufacturers were virtually giving tanks away, if you bought 10 gallons of fuel you probably got a choice between a set of wine glasses or a new tank. Modifiying a Cent to take a new powertrain and a new turret suite would have cost a considerable amount probably more than a shiny new Leopard.

Given the choice between crewing a tinplate Leopard 1 (armour 70mm thick max) and a Cent late model (165mm armour on turret face and 200mm on the Mantlet) I know which one I would have picked.


----------



## Glider (May 29, 2014)

I suspect few tanks have been upgraded more than the Centurion, I don't know how many Gun, fire control, armour, engine, suspension changes took place let alone the special versions. In 1974 it was already 30 years old was still in front line service in a number of countries in the early 1980's. Its worth remembering that in the first Gulf War in 1991 the first armoured vehicle through the Iraqi defences wasn't a Challenger or a ABRAMS it was a Centurion AVRE, not a bad record
There comes a time to all things mechanical when it time to let the old boys bow out and let the news ones take over, no matter how much refurbishment takes place. At the end of the day the British tax payer had their monies worth out of the Centurion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 29, 2014)

I look at it as how good the tanks were for their time as opposed to "the best", as the best if strictly from a performance standpoint would severely limit them to all late model tanks.

I'd have to go with the IS-3 - Almost revolutionary sloping of armor for it's time, particularily the turret. It is a WW2 design that was still in use and effective use in 1973 by the Egyptians. And even at this time it's armor in both thickness and slope was competetive, being better armored than the later generation M60. With it's 122mm gun, it was more than a match for any tank of it's day. And while not fast, it still had reasonable mobility.


----------



## Glider (May 30, 2014)

Its a good shout and with the following T10 started the development of tanks like the Conqueror to combat it. However once the 105mm was developed its advantage was over, but in its time it was the one to watch


----------



## fastmongrel (May 30, 2014)

I believe the the IS3 was an ergonomics nightmare the 2 piece 122mm ammo and cramped turret meant it was lucky to fire 1 round a minute. Still a hard beast to kill and being hit by a 122mm round is going to hurt even if it doesn't penetrate.


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2014)

As fastmongrel wrote, IS-3 had low rate of fire and it carried only 28 rounds and its APCBC didn't penetrate much more armour than 17pdr APCBC round and clearly less than 88mm/L71 APCBC round. The forte of the Soviet 122mm L43 was its very powerful HE round and its main purpose was to blast way open to the infantry.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 13, 2014)

T-64


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> T-64




From the available list, that would have to be the T-62. an interesting choice, not necessarily a wrong one either but it does have both capabilities and limitations that need to be considered. 

Like the T-55, the T-62 has a 580 hp V-12 water-cooled diesel engine, which gives it a cruising range of 320 km cross-country or 450 km on paved roads with integral fuel cells and 450 km cross-country or 650 km on paved roads with two 200-liter auxiliary fuel tanks. It also shares the snorkeling and smokescreen generating capabilities of the T-54/55 series and has the same PAZ radiation detection system as the T-55. Some T-62s may have been retrofitted with full NBC collective protection systems (air filtration and overpressure). Most models have the same IR night sight and driving equipment and the same fire control equipment as the T-54/55, although some T-62s have been retrofitted with a passive night sight replacing the gunner's active IR sight, and a laser rangefinder is believed to have been developed to replace the stadiametric reticule rangefinder.

The most significant improvement over the T-54/55 tanks, however, is the 115-mm smoothbore main gun which fires a hypervelocity, armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot (HVAPFSDS) round with a muzzle velocity of 1,61 5 meters per second. The penetrator flies in a very flat trajectory and is therefore extremely accurate out to a maximum effective range of 1,600 meters. Although the specific number of each type of round varies with the anticipated tactical situation, the 40-round basic load typically includes 12 HVAPFSDS rounds, 6 HEAT rounds, and 22 HE rounds. The T-62 also has an automatic shell ejector system which is activated by the recoil of the main gun and ejects spent casings through a port in the rear of the turret.

Available improvements include a hull bottom reinforced against mines, rubber track pads, and a thermal sleeve for the gun. There are thermal sights available for installation which permit night launch of ATGMs. The 1K13 sight is both night sight and ATGM launcher sight; however, it cannot be used for both functions simultaneously. Optional sights and fire control systems include the Israeli El-Op Red Tiger and Matador FCS, Swedish NobelTech T-series sight, and German Atlas MOLF. The British Marconi Digital FCS, South African Tiger, and Belgian SABCA Titan offer upgraded function. One of the best is the Slovenian EFCS-3 integrated FCS. A variety of thermal sights is available. They include the Russian Agava, French SAGEM-produced ALIS and Namut sight from Peleng.

However the vehicle also has some rather severe limitations 

The T-62 has all the limitations of the T-55: cramped crew compartment, thin armor, crude gun control equipment (on most models), limited depression of main gun, and vulnerable fuel and ammunition storage areas. The automatic spent-cartridge ejection system can cause dangerous accumulations of carbon monoxide and possibly actual physical injury to the crew from cartridge cases projected against the edge of a poorly aligned ejection port and rebounding into the crew compartment. Opening the ejection port under NBC conditions would also expose the crew to contamination.

Each time the gun is fired, the tube must go into detente for cartridge ejection, and the power traverse of the turret is inoperable during ejection and reloading operations. Since manual elevation and traverse are rather slow and not effective for tracking a moving target, rapid fire and second-hit capabilities are limited. The turret also cannot be traversed with the driver's hatch open. Although the tank commander may override the gunner and traverse the turret, he cannot fire the main gun from his position. He is unable to override the gunner in elevation of the main gun, causing target acquisition problems.

To fire the 12.7-mm antiaircraft machinegun, the loader must be partially exposed, making him vulnerable to suppressive fires, and he must also leave his main gun loading duties unattended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 14, 2014)

dont know how true it is but was watching a documentary a while back on tanks and an old Russian Tank Commander was talking about the T-55 and was asked about how they were able to cope in the cramped conditions of the small sized T-55.
" we used smaller tank crew " he replied, made me chuckle


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 14, 2014)

The problem with comparing Soviet tanks is most information comes from the Israelis who captured plenty of T54 to T72 tanks. These weren't the tanks the Soviets and the more advanced Warsaw pact forces used, they were known as Monkey models with lower grade cast steel rather than laminated steel armour, less powerful engines, older electronics and noticeably poorer ammunition. 

The T55 was the equal of M48 and early Centurion. The T62 probably the equal of the M60 and late Centurions. The T64 is the joker no one is entirely sure just how good the T64 was, certainly the Soviets rated it very highly and advanced versions of it are still in use.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 14, 2014)

i know that T-64 is not in the list but is surely a cold war tank with 1,000th built in 1969, it's near contemporary to european Leopard 1, AMX-30 and Chieftain (also this miss in the list)


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2014)

If anythink Chieftain was very impressive on the cover of Uriah Heep's Salisbury


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> The problem with comparing Soviet tanks is most information comes from the Israelis who captured plenty of T54 to T72 tanks. These weren't the tanks the Soviets *and the more advanced Warsaw pact forces used*, they were known as Monkey models with lower grade cast steel rather than laminated steel armour, less powerful engines, older electronics and noticeably poorer ammunition.


But with the breakup of the Soviet Union, those tanks of the Warsaw Pact nations were available to NATO for evaluation


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2014)

The reports being received in the western military following the various conflicts in the Middle east was that the tanks supplied to the Arabs were somewhat short of the refinements that could be expected in Soviet tanks. The old warsaw pact forces were in a similar situation. Things like night vision equipment, ranging gear, advanced communications equipment, were generally left out of the export models because there were bottlenecks in the Soviet production systems and this stuff was considered sensitive. 


However the Israelis were also not always provided with the most up to date gear either. So I have my doubt just how valid it is to make special allowances for the Arab equipment. Much of it was captured by the Israelis and re-used, showing the basic tanks were all quite workable.

The T-64 has greater mobility than the T-62. The 5-cyllinder, opposed-piston, diesel engine has an estimated output of 700 to 750 hp. Although the engine is smaller than that of the T-72, the lighter (38 mt) T-64 is believed to have approximately the same road speed and cruising range as the T-72. Two 200-liter auxiliary fuel drums can be fitted on the rear of the hull.

The T-64 possessed better armor protection than the T-62. The hull and turret are of cast and welded steel armor incorporating both conventional steel armor and ceramic inserts, called Combination K, which provide superior protection against HEAT attack. Besides having greatly increased frontal armor protection due to the use of improved layered armor, the T-64 was also able to attach track protection plates or full-length skirts. According to the reports received at the time, it possessed low- flash fuel storage which offered some protection against fuel ignition. The front-mounted hull shovel enables the tank to dig itself in within a few minutes and also increases the armor protection of the lower hull front when it is folded upwards.

As standard fit the AFV carried the PAZ radiation detection system and an antiradiation liner. The T-64 also has a collective NBC filtration and overpressure system.

The T-64 has the same integral smoke generating capability as earlier T-54/55/62 tanks, and variants have the same type of turret-mounted smoke grenade projectors as have been observed on the T-72 and T-80.

The main armament comprises a 125mm smooth bore gun which power-elevates from -6º to +14º in a powered turret capable of traversing throughout 360º. The 125-mm smoothbore main gun fires a hypervelocity, armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding-sabot (HVAPFSDS) round which is now known to have a muzzle velocity of over 1,750 meters per second and an effective range of at least 2,000 meters. Importantly it did not have this range at night, due to the limits of its night ranging equipment. During the 1st gulf War, Tp64s were both outranged and oputgunned by the much more capable Abrams fitted with advanced targetting and IR gear.

The 40-round basic load of the T-64 was the same as the T-62, and would typically include 12 HVAPFSDS rounds, 6 HEAT rounds, and 22 HE rounds. The cartridges were semi-combustible with stub-cases which may have been copied by the West. An automatic loader allows the crew to be reduced to three (commander, gunner, and driver), and an automatic spent-cartridge ejection system similar to that of the T-62 is employed.

The 125-mm gun also fires the AT-8 Songster ATGM, and normally carries six AT-8 Songsters plus 36 rounds (projectile and charge) of 125-mm ammunition.
It has an automatic loader, similar to that installed in the T-72, which delivers eight rounds a minute. The incorporation of this innovative automatic loader allowed for a three-man crew. Problems remained, however, and there are reports of the autoloader system still tryoing to load members of the crew at various times. 

The commander is capable of operating all weapons in the tank from his position, a great improvement over the T-62. . The T-64 has an improved, integrated fire control system compared to the T-62, but it still is far short of western elctronics. . It was fitted with an onboard computer, and some variants may have a laser rangefinder.

The use of an automatic loader retained many of the problems of the T-62, but it allowed the Soviets to reduce the number of crewmen. The soviets did not take the opportunity to rectify the space problem for their basic turret design with this design. In fact the turret size was reduce, so in the end the significant cramped nature Soviet tanks was retained. . The space available in the turret for each crewman was not significantly increased, and the ability to upgrade the tank severely curtailed. . The ability to depress the main gun (-5°) is still limited. When using the mast antenna, the command variant is immobile, since the mast must be anchored in the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 14, 2014)

no T-64 was never exported so can not be outranged or outgunned in the 1st gulf war (but is clearly you're talking of 2nd the american don't fight the first)
however your description is contradictory depression in first -6 after -5, ammo load is first 40 after 42 you did copy and paste from different sources?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> no T-64 was never exported


Yes, they were. Several nations have them, including the Ukraine.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2014)

> no T-64 was never exported so can not be outranged or outgunned in the 1st gulf war (but is clearly you're talking of 2nd the american don't fight the first)



T-64s were not exported, as such, but the similar T-72 was. T-72s did suffer several defeats to Western style armoured forces.

Since the break up of the Soviet Union, several ex=Soviet countries have acquired them, and some second hand surplus types have found their way into some foreign service. 



> however your description is contradictory depression in first -6 after -5, ammo load is first 40 after 42 you did copy and paste from different sources?



Its from one source, and i disagree that its contradictory. Different round types have different stowage requirements, more of one type may lead to a smaller loadf out overall. 

As far as depression is concerned, Not sure why two different values are given either, but two other books that I have, but did not refer to in that information say the max depression is -5 degrees. it may be explainable in the various sub- types produced


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 15, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes, they were. Several nations have them, including the Ukraine.


at cold war time thy were never exported
actually nowdays there is a order from DRC for 50 T-64 but the actual delivery is not confirmed (or i don't find any notice)
all other countries get T-64 is not for export but as successor state of SU so obviously after the cold war


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 15, 2014)

parsifal said:


> T-64s were not exported, as such, but the similar T-72 was. T-72s did suffer several defeats to Western style armoured forces.
> 
> Since the break up of the Soviet Union, several ex=Soviet countries have acquired them, and some second hand surplus types have found their way into some foreign service.
> 
> ...




T-72 is similar only superficially. T-72 get several defeats vs newer/modernized western tanks no that available in the 60s (implicit time limit for the list) 
however ammo load for T-64 was 36/38


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 15, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> But with the breakup of the Soviet Union, those tanks of the Warsaw Pact nations were available to NATO for evaluation



Not the T64 I dont know if any Western army has ever got its hands on a T64 or if it has it would only have been an early model from Ukraine.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2014)

The Ukraine modified theirs to what is called a T-64BM


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2014)

Which would imply that they had some concerns over the original version. I wonder what the changes were


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2014)

The "Bulat" is an up-armored version with modular and composite armor arrangements and more recent modifications include an auto-loader.
Several modifications have been made since the BM version was introduced in the 90's


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 16, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> T-72 is similar only superficially. T-72 get several defeats vs newer/modernized western tanks no that available in the 60s (implicit time limit for the list)
> however ammo load for T-64 was 36/38



Welcome back, Vincenzo 

The T-72 was 1st defeated by Western tanks in 1991, during the op. Desert Storm. There was no kills by Israeli tanks vs. T-72s in 1982 (Bekaa Walley), only TOW kills.
The T-64 and T-80 share the same lineage, the T-72 and T-90 are another branch (originating from the T-44 IIRC, via T-54/55 and T-62). Export models of the T-72 did not featured composite armor for turret, the T-64 did. 


A lengthy thread at the tank-net forum, that covers Soviet post war tanks, is well worth reading.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 16, 2014)

> The T-72 was 1st defeated by Western tanks in 1991, during the op. Desert Storm. There was no kills by Israeli tanks vs. T-72s in 1982 (Bekaa Walley), only TOW kills.




this is hotly disputed. the biggest problem is that the Israelis, for political reasons have never released the causes or results of the various battles that were fought in that war. Syrian sources are notoriously unreliable. All information relating to any losses, let alone the cause of those losses is from highly suspect and unverifianle seconadary and tertiary sources. Put simply, anybody who says they know the cause of a loss in that war is speculating, guessing or just makig it up, because the most important sources of information are not talking, and neverr have, or cannot be relied on as a reliable source.

Having said all that, Ive read that Syrian tank losses ran to the hundreds with nearly 400 T-72s committed. Not a single israeli tank has ever been admitted lost in those battles (thats not the same as saying they didnt lose a tank....they just arent saying) . If it isnt zero, it is at least known to be very low. This speaks volumes on the overall lack of capability of the Soviet tank. On their own, they outnumbered the entire tank committment made by the israelis. That is a very poor combat record, whatever way you want to cut it. T-72s were similalrly cut to pieces in 1991 and as far as Im aware, have never won any battles of any strategic significance in their entire career. 


The main AT weapon in that war was meant to be Israeli gunships, but the efforts of these weapons platforms was curtailed by the heavy presence of enemy SAM defences that severely curtailed Israeli air operations.

Id really like to know your sources for this claim, because Im not aware of any source that can be verified as to losses for either side.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 17, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Welcome back, Vincenzo
> 
> A lengthy thread at the tank-net forum, that covers Soviet post war tanks, is well worth reading.



Ty but i'm not sure that i'm back 

this http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200 ?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 18, 2014)

What ever it is, I highly value your input 



parsifal said:


> this is hotly disputed. the biggest problem is that the Israelis, for political reasons have never released the causes or results of the various battles that were fought in that war. Syrian sources are notoriously unreliable. All information relating to any losses, let alone the cause of those losses is from highly suspect and unverifianle seconadary and tertiary sources. Put simply, anybody who says they know the cause of a loss in that war is speculating, guessing or just makig it up, because the most important sources of information are not talking, and neverr have, or cannot be relied on as a reliable source.



Those 'disclaimers' should be applied on all sides taking part? Ie. many of us, either enthusiasts or pros, take at face value that Syrians lost 80 A/C in air battles above Lebanon, for zero Israely A/C losses. Worse, the capabilities of the MiG-23 were judged by the 80:0 victory count, even though most of the Syrian losses were MiG-21s, and maybe a handful of MiG-23s with BVR capability. Many people don't take into account the differences in radar coverage, availibility (or not) of secure communications and all-aspect missiles, pilot training, doctrine/strategy. etc. 
Guess we will never know.



> Having said all that, Ive read that Syrian tank losses ran to the hundreds with nearly 400 T-72s committed. Not a single israeli tank has ever been admitted lost in those battles (thats not the same as saying they didnt lose a tank....they just arent saying) . If it isnt zero, it is at least known to be very low. This speaks volumes on the overall lack of capability of the Soviet tank.



It does not speak of the capability of the Soviet tank. You know better than me that a tank, that is 'better' on paper, does not win the battles, let alone the wars. Panther, Tiger, Tiger II?



> On their own, they outnumbered the entire tank committment made by the israelis. That is a very poor combat record, whatever way you want to cut it. T-72s were similalrly cut to pieces in 1991 and as far as Im aware, have never won any battles of any strategic significance in their entire career.



Again, no tank ever won strategical battles. The tanks that cut T-72s in pieces were a full generation ahead.



> The main AT weapon in that war was meant to be Israeli gunships, but the efforts of these weapons platforms was curtailed by the heavy presence of enemy SAM defences that severely curtailed Israeli air operations.



The Syrian SAM systems were defeated in detail, whether by 'soft' or 'hard' means. MANPADS and Strela-1 were easily defeated by flares.



> Id really like to know your sources for this claim, because Im not aware of any source that can be verified as to losses for either side.



I'll look it up and post the link.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2014)

Of course the MBT is a part of system, but its meant to be the biting end of the overall army of which it is a part. T-34s were the spearhead of the Soviet Army that won at Kursk and other battles. Despite heavy losses, they still managed to pull off a strategic victory, ,and hence the reverence that this tank is held. 

Not so the T-72. your right, it is part of a much bigger war machine. But at no stage has it ever shown any sign of being able to pull the rabbit out of the hat so to speak. Its not a stand out piece of technology, where one can say....."this piece of hardware made a difference", in the same way as say a FW190 or an Abrams might be able to claim. Its a good tank, but its unremarkable, and i daresay, the T-64 and the T-80 are both in the same category.

All these tanks were developed with the basic philosophy of the Red Army in mind. The Soviets designed their army for a rapid thrust, in a war that might last 20 days or less, across the northern plains of Europe. they needed a tank with legs and firepower, cheaply made, easily maintained, high levels of mobility. The T-72 delivered all of that and more. The T-64 and the T-80 less so, but perhapos because the Soviets by the time of the T-80 at least were beginning to realize the shortcomings of their doctrine . Soviet technology since the war has always lagged behind that of the west, and any time they try to achieve a technologiucal advantage in sophisticated weaponry like tanks or aircraft, they always come up short. Anytime the T-72 came up against any decent defence in depth its weaknesses have been exposed. Claiming its an obsolete tank is no real defence. It was constantly upgraed and modernized in its career, to no avail, and even when confronted with lighter, older tanks of western design, just fell down with all its weaknesses exposed for the world to see, if they chose. I daresy the T-64, T-80 would have suffered the same had they been so exposed.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 18, 2014)

MBT available in the late 60s (only MBT the light tank had not chance v/s MBT, they are usufull only in niche operation)
(only newer for short the list)
M60A-1
Chieftain Mk 3
Leopard 1 (A1)
AMX-30
T-64A
not the newer but with capability similar a one or more MBTabove
Centurion Mk 10
T-62 
others countries MBT
Vijavanta
Pz 61

Strv 103 (turretless combat vehicle).

Within this T-64A is the best, it's not a perfect tank, it's not w/o weakness but is the best available at time


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2014)

Claiming it is the best does not make it so. it simply makes the claim. it has no runs on the board, no combat record on which to base the claim, and its near cousins are shown to fail badly. i think the claim is very dubious and highly debatable


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 18, 2014)

it's true there is not combat record for the T-64. So we can only compare tanks/fighters that had fight one against the other? I don't remember this policy in this forum. The T-72, that is a inferior tank in comparison of T-64, never get impassable trouble with the tanks in my list, they got good results v/s iranian tank (M60, Chieftain) in the gulf war. in the lebanon war as already writed from Tomo there were not T-72 surely loss to enemy tank, but the new israeli ammunition for the L7 was capable to penetrate the export T-72 available at time in the syrian army, however this ammunition was not available in the 60s. Also the inferior T-72 in the early 70s was not in bad situation v/s the available western tank (they are the same of my list for 1969 the alone add is the Pz 68, technically a neutral tank).


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2014)

This is an interesting clip on the performance of the centurion, t-55 and T-62. In the Golan Battle. Despite having complete surpise on their side and outnumbering the Israelis 7:1 , the Syrians still lost. their tanks were unable to secure a strategic advantage. the Centurions, despite their nearly 30 years of age, were strategically decisie in that battle, principally because of their good armour distribution and also because of the very long range of their guns. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHDH48U3Ik_


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2014)

again you compare not the tanks but the complete military capability of israelian and syrian, and i'm agree the israelian were and are more capable


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2014)

And it is impossible not to compare the performance of the tanks as part of an overall complete package.

if you look at that documentary, you will find that a key to the israeli success in that battle was the Centurion Tanks they were equipped with. the tanks were of strategic significance to the outcome of the battle. The Syrian tanks, despite outnumbering them 1200 to 200 could not make a strategic difference with their tanks. in fact despite the emphasis for the Syrian army being on their tanks, these components proved to be a liability for them, relative to the other elements of their army. the most successful parts of their army were their artillery, followed by their infantry. Their tank arm languished somewhere at the bottom, unlike the Israeli tanks, who shone for the entire battle.

You cannot apply a combat experience assessment to the T-64 equipped units because they were never exposed to actual combat. but saying they are the best tank of the era, and then hiding behind the fact they never were engaged in combat, is akin to saying Botswana was in with a chance at the World Cup because no-one ever beat their team. The tank is part of a package, sure the specifications point to something, but they dont actually prove anything. You have to rely on the combat performance to determine effectiveness, and that means the tank is part of a team. 


ill put it to you this way. if the israelis had been equipped with T-62s and the Syrians with Centurions, the syrians would have won that battle hands down. it was the qualities of the Centurion tanks that enabled the Israelis to shine and win

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2014)

No the israelian would have win also if they had the T-62. i hope that some israelian read your ridiculous statement.
In the initial attack syrian outnumbered israelian 800 to 180. 
On Botswana they get the chance to win world cup but it's not win the qualification so actually they were defeat.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Of course the MBT is a part of system, but its meant to be the biting end of the overall army of which it is a part. T-34s were the spearhead of the Soviet Army that won at Kursk and other battles. Despite heavy losses, they still managed to pull off a strategic victory, ,and hence the reverence that this tank is held.



The Soviets have had better tanks, on aggregate, from 1941-42, yet Germans pushed them thousands kilometers from Brest-Litovsk to the gates of Stalingrad. During the battle of Kursk, the T-34s were maybe 3rd or 4th best tanks around, giving them credit to the German defeat is way out of mark. Germans were (narrowly) defeated 1st by Lucy spy ring, then by Soviet mine fileds, artillery, 'pak front' and, indeed, tanks. 



> Not so the T-72. your right, it is part of a much bigger war machine. But at no stage has it ever shown any sign of being able to pull the rabbit out of the hat so to speak. Its not a stand out piece of technology, where one can say....."this piece of hardware made a difference", in the same way as say a FW190 or an Abrams might be able to claim. Its a good tank, but its unremarkable, and i daresay, the T-64 and the T-80 are both in the same category.



Since you've lumped the T-64 and T-80 together with T-72, I 'm not sure how much credit I can give to this quoted text. T-72 cannot win the battles on it's own. No tank can, especially if the enemy has total air supremacy. 
Applying offensively tanks on unsuitable and/or restricted terrain will just mean heaps of burned metal. As attested by Russians in Grozny, Serbs in Vukovar and Syrians in Golan heights. 



> All these tanks were developed with the basic philosophy of the Red Army in mind. The Soviets designed their army for a rapid thrust, in a war that might last 20 days or less, across the northern plains of Europe. they needed a tank with legs and firepower, cheaply made, easily maintained, high levels of mobility. The T-72 delivered all of that and more. The T-64 and the T-80 less so, but perhapos because the Soviets by the time of the T-80 at least were beginning to realize the shortcomings of their doctrine . Soviet technology since the war has always lagged behind that of the west, and any time they try to achieve a technologiucal advantage in sophisticated weaponry like tanks or aircraft, they always come up short. Anytime the T-72 came up against any decent defence in depth its weaknesses have been exposed. Claiming its an obsolete tank is no real defence. It was constantly upgraed and modernized in its career, to no avail, and even when confronted with lighter, older tanks of western design, just fell down with all its weaknesses exposed for the world to see, if they chose. I daresy the T-64, T-80 would have suffered the same had they been so exposed.



No tank, on it's own, can defeat defense in depth. Especially in unfavorable terrain. The mortar, artillery and MG fire will strip down any infantry trying to dismount and clear the AT missile posts. Tanks need artillery support of their own. And at least air parity.
Against M1s and Challengers, T-72 was obsolete. It was an I-16 in time of Spitfire and Bf-109. 
The 'lighter, older Western tanks' that defeated T-72 - that could use some backing up. Neither M-60, nor Centurion, let alone Chieftain were lighter. BTW, from Wikipedia entry about Chieftain tank:
_The tank was heavily used during the Iran–Iraq War of 1980-88 with mixed results, engine breakdowns being a common issue. Chieftains participated in the biggest tank battle of the war in early 1981. Iran lost 200 Chieftain and M60A1 tanks in battle. In return, Iraq lost 50 T-62 tanks._



> ill put it to you this way. if the israelis had been equipped with T-62s and the Syrians with Centurions, the syrians would have won that battle hands down. it was the qualities of the Centurion tanks that enabled the Israelis to shine and win



Nope. This is why Israelis won:



Vincenzo said:


> again you compare not the tanks but the complete military capability of israelian and syrian, and i'm agree the israelian were and are more capable



That is what it's all about. Israel is/was Wehrmacht of the Middle East; Syrians and Egyptians are comparable with French armed forces, or Soviet forces prior 1942.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2014)

hard to see that happening. The new 115 mm smoothbore gun of the T-62, allows higher velocity and greater armour penetration with kinetic rounds - based on an enlargement of the 100mm 2A19 anti-tank gun that had entered production in 1955. The weapon, designated as U-5T, could penetrate 300mm of vertical RHA at a 1000 metres and re-established a comfortable penetration capacity against Western armor. At 2000 m it could just still defeat the frontal armour of the Centurion. Beyond that it really cannot be considered effective

The T-62 has had variable success in the conflicts it was involved in and the U-5TS remains a formidable weapon that has proved capable of penetrating the armour of any comparable NATO tank at close ranges until the deployment of third generation MBTs in the late 1970s and early 80s. This was proven by examination of Iranian Chieftain and M60's knocked out by Iraqi T-62's during the Iran-Iraq War. These engagements were believed to have occurred at ranges of around 1000m due to the limitations on the fire control and optics of the tank. 

Due to the comparatively low height of the T-62 design - in line with Soviet tank design philosophies of the time- the U-5TS is limited to a rate-of-fire of 4-5 rounds per minute as the length of the gun forced the designers to fit an automatic ejection system for spent shell cases. Each time the gun is fired, the gun tube fully elevates for ejection and the power traverse of the turret is rendered inoperable during this process. This greatly affected the tank's tracking and rapid fire capabilities and markedly decreased its accuracy. Therein lies the reason why, if situations were reversed, it could not have achieved what the centurions did. 

As to what Israelis think of my "stupid" comments. They largely agree. My best friend is an israeli who was there (rather, he fought on the suez front, in the israeli 200 tank brigade), and he is helping me as we speak. he says "hi" and wants you to know that i am not making stupid comments, the only ones making stupid comments are those that are claiming that..... his commander, Colonel Ishaker shademi has stated in an interview given after the battle "when i ask myself how is it possible that against the might of the egyptian army which my armoured columns had to face whilst continuously on the move, I was able to destroy 157 T-55s and T-62s whilst not losing any Centurions and 3 other tanks, well how did it happen? First of all, I agree with what has been said by others [regarding superior training and tactical handling]. second, the effect of the air force. *third, and most importantly, it was the superiority of the Centurion Tanks over all those of our opponents*. In one aspect, this gave our boys an enormous confidence boost......the additional 20 tons (sic) of armour And the point which my opinion shows more than anything how we did it were the stories about our tanks that sometimes took 5, 6 or 7 hits ....one tank took no less than 12 direct hits and continued to function".... seems pretty clear to me that the guys that were there agree with me. The Centurions was only a part of a bigger machine, but it was an element that was critical to their victory, and its characteristcs made a huge difference to their performance. not me talking buddy. people who were there, and know are saying that


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2014)

I might note that it is also rate of engagement that counts and not just rate of fire. How fast can a tank/crew engage and hit (and re-hit if needed) a number of targets in a limited amount of time. 

This goes back a bit to not only Russian WW II tanks but the vast majority of the French tanks in 1940. Many of them had thicker armor than the German tanks and _if_ equipped with the longer 37mm or 47mm cannon had more than enough gun power to penetrate German tanks. "book" rate of fire could be 15 rpm. Trouble is if the tank commander is also the gunner he is NOT looking for targets 2-3 and 4 and he is unaware of the tactical situation. That "book" rate of fire also drops considerable after the first few rounds are fired unless the commander/gunner is _real_ good at finding the ammo and loading the gun by feel alone. Granted these are extreme cases and don't apply as much to the T-62.T-72 and T-64 but better vision and fire control can help speed up the rate of engagement to a higher difference than a plain comparison of rate of fire. Unkowns _may_ include actual accuracy of the weapons/ammo at the distances involved and what range finding equipment was used. I don't believe the Israelis used teh British ranging machinegun but could be wrong. Laser range finders may be too new for the 73 war. Training and _doctrine_ can affect rates of engagement. Did Israelis dispense with using range finding equipment and depend on the flat trajectory of the APDS ammo to either get a first round hit or a first round close miss that could be corrected onto the target? Having more AP ammo available makes this a little more practical than the Russian tanks who's limited ammo storage _may_ make more deliberate shooting more of a doctrine issue.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2014)

> I might note that it is also rate of engagement that counts and not just rate of fire. How fast can a tank/crew engage and hit (and re-hit if needed) a number of targets in a limited amount of time.



Absolutely, and in situations like golan the israelis were able to prerange their guns which made target acquisition that much easier for them. Crew traiing was very high and this meant they could achieve many 1st round kills , move to a new firing position and do it allover again. in the suez it was a bit harder, but the superior optics andranging systems meant the centurions had a considerable amount of time to shoot and scoot before the T-62s could effectively return fire.

At Golan there was another factor worth mentioning. the syrians did stuff their tactical plan. they neeed bridging equipment to get across several ditches, which meant the bridging tanks needed to be in the initial assault group of 400 tanks. instead they were at the very rear, days away from deployment. in desperation several brigades attempted to cross these ditches without bridges . inevitably they got stuck, and were shot to pieces by the israeli gunners. it was at this point the Syrian artillery and Infantry intervenned. skirting slightly to the south and north of the Golan position, the aretillery laid down a very effective suppressive fire whilst the Infantry bravely moved forward of the tank screen and filled the ditches in with shovels, allowing the tanks to them cross and finally get close enough to have some chance of success. by that stage however the Syrians were hurting pretty badly. 

The inability of the T-55s (no t-62s were in the initial waves) to cross those ditches raises another point. Whilst a lightweight design, the T-55 was quite limited as to cross country mobility. not so the centurion, as its experiences in vietnam show. The Israelis had upengined their Centurions, vastly improving the mobility of their versions of the centurion. I am of the opinion the israelis could have crossed the ditches with their equipment if forced to do so. 



> Granted these are extreme cases and don't apply as much to the T-62.T-72 and T-64 but better vision and fire control can help speed up the rate of engagement to a higher difference than a plain comparison of rate of fire


. 

most accounts talk about the poor level of accuracy of arab fire over ranges exceeding 1000m. they were terrible shots, and slow as well. the same observation was made in 1991 for the iraqis, and again in 2003, again against the iraqis. The extent this can be blamed on crew standards is debateable, but the comment still applies to well trained units of the iraqi army. that suggests to me some systemic problem in their equipment....they all have a common theme ...they were relying on soviet tanks. I think to an extent the problems of accuracy and effective rof (or, in your term "rate of engagement") has to do with the crap optics and fire control systems the Soviets were using. its worth noting that the even though. I think it significant that in the two wars that Israel fought in 67 and 73, they considered the single most effective units ranged against them was various stated as the 10th tank brigade, or the 29th "Hittin" Mechanized Inf brigade The 10th was a tank formation, the 29th an infantry unit, but both were equipped with Centurion tanks. 



> Unkowns _may_ include actual accuracy of the weapons/ammo at the distances involved and what range finding equipment was used. I don't believe the Israelis used teh British ranging machinegun but could be wrong.




none of the 106 Centurions deployed in the "valley of tears" battle used British ranging or stabilising systems. they had all been re-engined, upgunned, fitted with a new gun stabiliser and optics and fire control systems. similar story for the roughly 100 deployed in the suez. there were however about 150 other centurions not in the initial battles but eventually engaged that did use the British equipment, engines and guns. these were basically Mark Vs unmodernised




> Laser range finders may be too new for the 73 war


. 

None were deployed. not available, but israeli optics and fire controls and gun stabilization are claimed by them to be the best in the world at the time. i dont know the details of their systems , but they have the runs on the board. hard to argue with that. 




> Training and _doctrine_ can affect rates of engagement. Did Israelis dispense with using range finding equipment and depend on the flat trajectory of the APDS ammo to either get a first round hit or a first round close miss that could be corrected onto the target?


 a bit of both really. less so in the sinai, where the superior qualities of the centurion were relied upon to gain their victory there . Though somewhat of a siplification, they could effectively engage and destroy Arab armour fom ranges as great as 3600m, whilst effective return fire was somewhat less than 2000m. Therein lies the difference. 




> Having more AP ammo available makes this a little more practical than the Russian tanks who's limited ammo storage _may_ make more deliberate shooting more of a doctrine issue.




i cannot answer this...I just dont know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2014)

I found this on Wiki and its one seriously tough tank

An Australian Army Mk 3 Centurion Type K, Army Registration Number 169041, was involved in a small nuclear test at Emu Field in Australia in 1953 as part of Operation Totem 1. Built as number 39/190 at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Barnbow in 1951 it was assigned the British Army number 06 BA 16 and supplied to the Australian Commonwealth Government under Contract 2843 in 1952.[36]

It was placed less than 500 yards (460 m) from the 9.1kt blast with its turret facing the epicentre, left with the engine running and a full ammunition load.[37] Examination after detonation found it had been pushed away from the blast point by about 5 feet (1.5 m), pushed slightly left and that its engine had stopped working, only because it had run out of fuel. Antennae were missing, lights and periscopes were heavily sandblasted, the cloth mantlet cover was incinerated, and the armoured side plates had been blown off and carried up to 200 yards (180 m) from the tank.[36] Remarkably, though, the tank could still be driven from the site. Had it been manned, the crew would probably have been killed by the shock wave.

169041, subsequently nicknamed The Atomic Tank, was later used in the Vietnam War. In May 1969, during a firefight, 169041 (call sign 24C) was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). The turret crew were all wounded by shrapnel as the RPG entered the lower left side of the fighting compartment, travelled diagonally across the floor and lodged in the rear right corner. Trooper Carter was evacuated while the others remained on duty and the tank remained battleworthy.[37]

The Atomic Tank is now located at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston, Northern Territory. Although other tanks were subjected to nuclear tests, 169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2014)

now that i didnt know


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2014)

I had to laugh while reading about the "Atomic Tank", because the first thing that came to mind was "wouldn't it be easy to spot, because it glows in the dark?" 

I know, sad attempt at humor, there!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 22, 2014)

Weren't also the Syrian T's, equipped with infrared, seem to remember that from one of those Tank Battles thingmajigs on History Channel....


----------



## Glider (Jun 22, 2014)

IIRC The Syrian tanks had active IR equipment but the Israeli tanks had passive IR equipment a huge difference.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 22, 2014)

Aye, remember that the Israeli tanks honed in on the source for the infrared beam, or something like that...

Could remember wrong though....


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 22, 2014)

Using the active IR was known as turning on the bomb magnet. You might as well have fired flares to mark your position.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 22, 2014)

Glider said:


> IIRC The Syrian tanks had active IR equipment but the Israeli tanks had passive IR equipment a huge difference.


AFAIK not in the YKW

there was not a 200th brigade in YKW, there was in the 1967


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2014)

According to Bn commander Avi Kahalani of the 77th Armoured Bn of their 7th Aroured Brigade [He arrived as a called up reservist at the end of the 1st days fighting (I think)], a few of the Syrian T-62 Tanks were equipped with night vision equipment. The israelis had none fitted to any of their tanks, but their Infantry i think had some passive detection capability (the extent this might have assisted the Israeli tanks is not clear at this point, but there is no significant mention of it in any of the accounts ive read) . What destroyed any advantage this technology gave the Syrians was the confusion that dogged them after the firsts days fighting, whereas the israelis appear to know the ground much better. Both sides capabilities were extremely limited in terms of night vision capability, and one can probably assume that starshell was more important than hi-tech IR equipment. 

Nevertheless the main assault of the Syrian Army, which occurred during the night after the first days fighting, the Syrians had attempted to break through to Nafah, which was the location for Israeli divisional headquarters, spearheded by those T-62s with Night IR equipment. Nafah not only was the command hub of the israeli defences, as well it was the most important crossroads on the Golan Heights. The Syrian tanks outnumbered the Israeli tanks ten to one in that sector. Kahalani’s own tank had already been hit twice, but it was still operational according to his interview with the Jewish Post Newspaper. He went on with a claimed 22 tanks destroyed to his own tank alone.

I have to be fair in reporting that Kahalani is of the opinion the T-62 was potenitally a better tank than the Centurion, however he also time and again in his account lets slip how easily the centurion (and indeed the other L7 equipped units in the IDF) were able to rack up massive kill scores because of their far better ranged combat capabilities, gun stabilization, accuracy and effective rof capabilities. i dont think he is being genuine when he states this, just trying to ham up the IDF tank corps' prowess i think.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 22, 2014)

Cheers lads! Been having one of those Israeli Centurions and Super Shermans in the back of my head since that series.... 1/35 of course!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2014)

This was an article i found on the T-62 in the online Military Factory magazine dated January 2014.

T-62s are a a low-profile design with a center-fitted turret emplacement. The glacis plate was very shallow and well-sloped for excellent point ballistics protection. The sides were dominated by the track system encompassing five road wheels to a hull side. The drive sprocket was held at the front with the track idler at the rear. 

Like the T-54 and T-55 before it, the T-62 lacked any track return rollers along the upper track region. The single diesel engine was held in a rear-set compartment and could generate its own smoke screen as needed. The turret was well-curved and squat in its general appearance, housing the 115mm U-5TS main gun armament as well as three of the four crew. The crew consisted of the driver in the front-left hull and the tank commander, gunner and loader in the turret/middle hull region. The turret was protected by up to 242mm of armor thickness along the front facing. A pair of external fuel tanks could be fitted to the rear of the hull for improved ranges and jettisoned when empty, but whilst giving much needed range for deep penetration, also proved one of the tanks worst weaknesses, being its propensity to catch fire. 

The main gun was fitted with a fume extractor and featured two-axis stabilization for limited "firing-on-the-move" capability. The main gun was also given case ejector actuated by the recoil action to which spent shell casings were ejected automatically out of the turret rear via a spring-loaded door after firing. The main gun was supplemented by a coaxial 7.62mm PKT series machine gun in the turret for anti-infantry defense. A 12.7mm DShK anti-aircraft heavy machine gun on the turret roof was optional and not generally seen in early production units, and no presnt at Golan or in the Suez in 1973. Up to 40 x 115mm projectiles were carried aboard, stored within the turret itself and primarily along the hull sides. 2,500 x 7.62mm rounds of machine gun ammunition were also carried for the coaxial machine gun. Power was derived from a V-55 12-cylinder diesel engine outputting at 580 horsepower. This supplied the vehicle with a top speed of 31 miles per hour on ideal surfaces with an operational range of 280 miles not including environmental factors.

The main gun was cleared to fire the requisite High-Explosive (HE) and Armor-Piercing (AP) projectiles of 115mm caliber. The HE breed consisted of the HE-FRAG-FS. The ammunition load out also usually included HEAT-FS. The dedicated AP round was the APFSDS - Armor-Piercing, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding Sabot. This projectile could range out at targets up to 3,100 yards away and penetrate up to 330mm of armor plate - a major upgrade from the projectile types fired from the 100mm main guns of the T-54 and T-55 series. The main gun held an elevation limitation of -6 to +16 degrees. One of the key limitations of the T-54/55 models were their lack of true "hull down" firing due to the main gun's depression restriction. The T-62 improved upon this limitation to an extent.

The T-62 was delivered with several notable standardized features including NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) protection for the crew as well as an automated fire extinguishing system which could also be manually actuated. An integrated snorkel could be erected prior to entering bodies of water and provide the T-62 with limited amphibious capabilities. The commander, gunner and driver positions all included arrangements for infrared night vision devices. To keep the tank from becoming bogged over a trench or obstacle, a unique "unditching" beam was fitted under at the rear of the hull.

Despite its improvements and advancements, the T-62 eventually showcased several limitations to her design. The new advanced tank proved more expensive to produce in quantity, derailing foreign interest, they being content in keeping/producing/modernizing their T-54/55 series still. The lack of T-62 large-scale interest ultimately forced T-55-producing factories to continue serial while T-62 was ultimately discontinued. Furthermore, the original Russian engines proved unreliable and somewhat underpowered. Crew protection was lacking - as combat would soon show.

In the T-62's first combat actions during the Yom Kipper War of 1973, the tank shown a tendency to catch fire when hit, making the T-62 a threat to its own crews as much as any Israeli tank. As with the T-54 and T-55, hundreds of T-62 tanks were captured by the Israelis from the Syrians and Egyptians, modified and reconstituted to fight against their former owners. Israeli versions sported improved armor protection, American-based powerplants and technological additions such as laser rangefinders and thermal imaging. Such modified T-62 tanks were designated as "Tiran-6" in the Israeli inventory and proved greater in value and quality than the original design. Unmodified captured Israeli T-62s were known under the "Tiran-3" designation. The T-62 fared no better in the 1982 Libyan invasion of Chad, where large numbers were destroyed or rendered inoperable.

These early failures of the tank undoubtedly led to renewed need for improvement of the basic design. The tank was featured in the bloody Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 and in the Lebanese Civil War of 1982-1983. Iraqi T-62s were also thrown into the fray during the 1990-1991 Gulf War which saw Saddam Hussein's forces routed. Russian T-62 use extended to the 1st and 2nd Chechen Wars of the 1990s. Afghan T-62s were in action during the 2001 United States invasion and Iraqi T-62s were once again fodder in the 2003 American invasion. The 2008 War in South Ossetia brought the T-62 into the forefront once again and the type was utilized in combat as recently as the 2011 Libyan Civil War which saw an end to Muammar Gaddafi's tyrannical reign.

The T-62 family ultimately consisted of a myriad of production variants and upgraded types. The T-62A designation marked modified T-55 prototypes with their 100mm main guns. T-62 was used to designate proper initial production models and these fielded the 115mm smoothbore main guns. The T-62K was the command tank variant of the T-62 production model. The T-62KN was similar though with expanded equipment. The T-62K introduced the capability to fire the AT-3 "Sagger" anti-tank missile launcher.

In 1967, the T-62 was upgraded with a modified engine deck design. In 1972, the series brought about use of the 12.7mm DShK heavy machine gun at the loader's hatch to counter low-flying aircraft threats. A new drive sprocket design was also introduced. In 1975, the series was given the KTD laser rangefinder over the main gun.

The T-62D was delivered with the "Drozd" active vehicle protection system in 1983. This version also was given a new V-55U series diesel engine as well as applique armor protection. The T-62D-1 was similar though finished with the V-46-5M diesel engine.

A modernization program yielded the T-62M of 1983. The fire control system (FCS) was upgraded and applique armor was now standard. The suspension system was improved and tracks developed for the new T-72 series were instituted for the T-62 line. The hull floor was protected from land mines to an extent. Additional improvements netted new stabilizers, thermal sleeve on the gun barrel, sights, ballistic computer, external smoke grenade launchers and support for the AT-10 "Stabber" anti-tank guided missile. The T-62M appeared in the T-62M-1 form fitting the V-46-5M diesel engine as well as the T-62M1 with revised front facing armor and lack of anti-tank missile firing capability. The T-62M1-1 was finished with the V-46-5M diesel engine while the T-62M1-2 lost its anti-mine protection as well as applique armor. The T-62M1-2-1 was delivered with the V-46-5M diesel engine. The T-62MD utilized the Drozd active vehicle protection system as in earlier designs. The T-62MK was the command tank version. The T-62MK-1 was similar in function though delivered with the V-46-5M diesel engine. The T-62MK was another command tank version with additional equipment. The T-62MK-1 was similar though with the V-46-5M series diesel.

The T-62MV was given "Kontakt-1" series explosive reactive armor (ERA) blocks. The T-62MV-1 was similar though fitted with the V-46-5M diesel engine. The T-62M1V lacked its anti-tank guided missile capability. The T-62M1V-1 was given the V-46-5M diesel engine.

The T-62/122 was a combat engineering vehicle (CEV) variant fitting a 122mm howitzer gun system. The T-62/160 was a combat engineer vehicle fitted with a 160mm mortar for demolition work. The T-67 was a variant fitting the 125mm main gun of the T-72 MBT as well as its engine and transmission system. The TO-62 was a flame projecting tank version which still retained the 115mm main gun. Obyekt 167 was a prototype model fitting a V-26 series engine with a 700 horsepower output. Obyekt 167T fitted a GTD-3T series gasoline-fueled turbine engine.

The T-62 was later modified into a dedicated tank destroyer with an all-new turret design lacking its 115mm main gun. It its place was a 2K8 series anti-tank guided missile launcher. These eventually became armored recovery vehicles in the IT-1T after their useful battlefield lives were expended. This also included the similar BTS-4V/BTS-4U models as well as the BTS-4V1. Damaged T-62s that could be salvaged were also converted into ARVs under the BTS-4V2 designator. A lesser-known T-62 variant was the "Impuls-2M" firefighting vehicle.

The T-62 operated alongside the T-55 it was intended to replace. It was formally replaced itself by the newer T-72 series to which the T-55 soldiered on even after the T-62 was dropped from service in the Red Army.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 22, 2014)

Is there any good books on the Israeli Shermans and Centurions?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2014)

I assume lucky your looking for reference material with colour plates and the like, If so, im afraid i dont have a book like that . Ill have a think about it though and ask around to see what might be available


----------

