Best Cold War Tank

[tomo pauk]

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]

Post removed.

 

[tomo pauk]

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]

post removed.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo pauk,

The thought at the time was that Russia would invade through what was then West Germany. For the Allies it would be a defensive battle of little relative movement (they thought they could stop them at the time from the Forward Defence Positions, which were static) hence no great need for long legs, but it certainly would have been a rather big battle regardless. Sheer weight of numbers on the Soviet side meant that some could very well have got through.

Static/defensive battle probably looked like a great idea in the heads of Western politicians, neglecting numerical deficit being at the order of magnitude vs. the adversary.

One was asked for an opinion on one MBT to cover the whole period (1950 to 1980-ish) I see no reason to change anything, even if the Cent was getting superseded by better AFV's towards the latter half. It's still the best all round MBT for the whole period.

Sorry if it seems like hair splitting, the Cold war ended in 1991.

That the 105 is still in service shows it could have well have been further developed at the time, but no doubt eyes were on the 120mm guns that were coming into NATO service use from the 70's.

The 105mm L7 (and compatibles) are in service in countries that don't have money for something better, and/or platforms that are not capable to carry 120mm.

T-72 was rather late in the period and would have been countered by Leopard II and Chieftain main armament.

It was around during the final 1/3rd of the cold war. I agree that 120mm should have no problems with it.

p.s. re. data for no radios etc; ....have you ever looked inside a Russian service tank for the 60's period, i.e. T55/62?

No, I admit. I'd still appreciate the good data about no radios during the cold war, flag signaling, poor quality etc.

 

[Glider]

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.

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.

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]

post removed.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, Sid447,

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]

post removed.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

How about leaving the moderating to the moderators...

 

[tomo pauk]

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]

post removed.

 

[Matt308]

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]

post removed.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

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]

post removed.

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

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

Not what you say.
Up-rated buffer system cannot do anything for the breech muzzle strength, required to fire the rounds generating increased pressures, that were/are needed if one wants to increase muzzle energy.

In post #88, You claimed:

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

You are changing the goalposts, you now want proof that these rounds actually work as advertised! Are you suggesting we now take you as the authority, or the people providing the info in the source provided.

Rounds should actually work as advertised, as it was/is the case with any piece of military kit. Since the web site you've provided the link does not say anything more specific (other than what manufacturer says?), nor it does quote any source, that does make it the secondary source at best, tertiary source at worst. Ie. far less sourced than most of the Wikipedia articles.

Either way it really negates this two-way discussion as it's way off the OP's topic; which was simply asking for peoples' opinion on the best tank during a certain period

You were the one throwing mud at other people's equipment, and, once challenged, provided zero data for your claims. If you think your comments are beyond doubt and beyond questioning, than why post at world-wide forum?

.....and here you are fixated on minor trivia and trying to trash what has been recognised (and voted) as the best tank main armament during that whole of that period (other countries even retro-fitted the L7 into Russian MBT's).

I certainly don't try to trash the L7. When introduced, it was probably the best tank gun one might have. Once the East introduced 115 and 125mm, and UK,and later, Germany, introduced 120mm, it was NOT among the 3 best tank guns anymore.

You come across as showing an unhealthy bias to what you firmly believe in, good for you.
I don't really care what you think. I try to maintain an objective view on anything. I like Russia (I'm married to a Russian national). I'm not patriotic. I believe I can see what is good and what isn't, regardless of national boundaries, pride or ego. I don't question peoples' opinion in such a confrontational manner that you seem to prefer. If I make a mistake, I'll stick my hand up and say I f*^&ed up (which I now believe you seem to have a problem with).

Good to know that I'm the one who's biased and have perception problems. So I'd take a pause from the PC now and go out to wave with flags from my T-55, hopefully the radios will arrive soon.

I also didn't come floating down some river, coincidental with my joining date on this forum.

Cool.

 

[Sid327]

.