Best Cold War Tank

[parsifal]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Glider]

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

 

[parsifal]

now that i didnt know

 

[GrauGeist]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lucky13]

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

Could remember wrong though....

 

[fastmongrel]

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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]

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]

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!