Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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one MBT to cover the whole period (1950 to 1980-ish) I see no reason to change anything, even if the Cent was getting superseded by better AFV's towards the latter half.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.
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.
Hi tomo pauk,
This was military strategy; the politicians had little to do with "how" the NATO battle plan was decided upon drawn up.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Move on with constructive opinion, rather than degrade the thread by posting hair-splitting, negative comments that come across as a bit petty-minded.
Why should a crisis in and around Cuba spread to a full scale tank war in Europe. Who's theory is that?
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.
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.
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.
Cool.I also didn't come floating down some river, coincidental with my joining date on this forum.