Best Cold War Tank

[davebender]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Anybody else want some?

 

[buffnut453]

Here's Matt now:

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

Time to play mo' nicerer methinks!

 

[Juha]

...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