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."
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.