Best Cold War 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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

tomo pauk said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Thanks for the info about Achzarit

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

Click to expand...

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?

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.

"... 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

davebender said:

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

Click to expand...

I agree

davebender said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Juha

Juha said:

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

Juha

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

LOL!

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 ...?

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

MM

Click to expand...

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

tomo pauk said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Shortround6 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.