Best Cold War Tank

[sgtleehead]

'But from your post you clearly claim that both Leopard 2 and Abrams are inferior, so provide sources or proves.'

Wrong - simple as that. You assumed. This is about evaluation and evaluation is about discussion and highlight. Weapons procurement, which I have been involved in, is about simple facts. Politics and patriotism should come later.

The challenger tank was one of the best tanks in the world. The British through poor planning, bad handling and politics have allowed the tank to fall behind. The combat tests that the Challenger was last involved in for evaluation saw the company send the wrong ammunition for the L30 gun. Utter stupidity as it had a detrimental effect. The electronics and targeting system in the Challenger have also slightly fallen behind through lack of development and orders. The gun is not common and the engine, though very reliable, is behind the MTU in a number of ways. At its peak the challenger was possibly one the best tanks in the world.

The Leopard 2 at this time is possibly one of the best tanks in the world though the Abrams is also excellent. I couldn't say either way. So - this doesn't mean that they don't have faults. The Abrams is a hot tank and, study the videos - I have. There is a question that hangs over the overall crew protection of all quarters vs certain weapons. The Glacis plate is not the only place to get hit, especially in urban areas. of course - that doesn't mean though its crap. The designers will have seen this and the next tank that comes around should take this combat experience into account - hopefully.

The fact that the Leopard 2 has been bought in great number is great and user opinion is very high. But it still remains to be seen - as I said - how would it fare in combat from all angles of attack. Nobody knows.

You access the UK government evaluation tests at any time for their opinions and evaluation. Combat has showed that the Challenger 2 is an absolute tough bastard of a tank. That cannot be said for the Leopard 2 - regardless of how good it is for the reasons I have already mentioned. Again this doesn't mean I am being negative about the tank - it simply means its untested in the most important area of evaluation you can have - actual combat.

 

[pbehn]

I worked in Greece where a German guy was welding up Leopard IIs chassis. I think European politics bear heavily on armament sales. What the Greeks would do with a dozen Leopards I have no idea

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

'But from your post you clearly claim that both Leopard 2 and Abrams are inferior, so provide sources or proves.'

Wrong - simple as that. You assumed. This is about evaluation and evaluation is about discussion and highlight. Weapons procurement, which I have been involved in, is about simple facts. Politics and patriotism should come later.

The challenger tank was one of the best tanks in the world. The British through poor planning, bad handling and politics have allowed the tank to fall behind. The combat tests that the Challenger was last involved in for evaluation saw the company send the wrong ammunition for the L30 gun. Utter stupidity as it had a detrimental effect. The electronics and targeting system in the Challenger have also slightly fallen behind through lack of development and orders. The gun is not common and the engine, though very reliable, is behind the MTU in a number of ways. At its peak the challenger was possibly one the best tanks in the world.

The Leopard 2 at this time is possibly one of the best tanks in the world though the Abrams is also excellent. I couldn't say either way. So - this doesn't mean that they don't have faults. The Abrams is a hot tank and, study the videos - I have. There is a question that hangs over the overall crew protection of all quarters vs certain weapons. The Glacis plate is not the only place to get hit, especially in urban areas. of course - that doesn't mean though its crap. The designers will have seen this and the next tank that comes around should take this combat experience into account - hopefully.

The fact that the Leopard 2 has been bought in great number is great and user opinion is very high. But it still remains to be seen - as I said - how would it fare in combat from all angles of attack. Nobody knows.

You access the UK government evaluation tests at any time for their opinions and evaluation. Combat has showed that the Challenger 2 is an absolute tough bastard of a tank. That cannot be said for the Leopard 2 - regardless of how good it is for the reasons I have already mentioned. Again this doesn't mean I am being negative about the tank - it simply means its untested in the most important area of evaluation you can have - actual combat.

In another post you stated poor armour and poor construction. Do you have sources for this? If so please post them. I ask because I would like to know, as I am not a tank expert. I do not know either way.

 

[DonL]

I worked in Greece where a German guy was welding up Leopard IIs chassis. I think European politics bear heavily on armament sales. What the Greeks would do with a dozen Leopards I have no idea

The joke is the greeks have ordered near 200 Leopard 2 A6 since 2006. But with the payment they are realy slow.

 

[pbehn]

The joke is the greeks have ordered near 200 Leopard 2 A6 since 2006. But with the payment they are realy slow.

Donl it was just a casual conversation. I dont speak Greek but I do speak German. We were just passing the time but the job he was on was for 12-20 obviously that was obviously a "material take off" not the whole order. As the Leopard is made of special materials it needs a specialist welder. As with many things in Greece they are happy to buy if you give them the money. What would 200 Leopards do in Greece?

 

[sgtleehead]

I worked in Greece where a German guy was welding up Leopard IIs chassis. I think European politics bear heavily on armament sales. What the Greeks would do with a dozen Leopards I have no idea

Very true. Just look at the Eurovision song contest. Joking aside - politics play a massive part between certain countries and their relationships. Especially when they are neighbours. Or not perhaps. Look at the UK buying the F35 from America - is it actually any good?. Look at the Internet bile against this plane. Should the UK have not bought the Suhkoi - should the UK not start buying Russian since their latest planes have been excellent and pretty cheap? Hmm - probably never happen of course.

 

[sgtleehead]

In another post you stated poor armour and poor construction. Do you have sources for this? If so please post them. I ask because I would like to know, as I am not a tank expert. I do not know either way.

'Rejected by the British as poorly armored and too light a construction in the chassis'

MOD competitive evaluation trials 1987 for Challenger 2. Test to find the most suitable tank (not necessarily the best) out of the contenders. Whoops bulb gone.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Any links to sources?

 

[fastmongrel]

I voted Centurion for the simple reason I did my training in a Cent and then did my winter training in a Cent in the depths of a Canadian winter at the Suffield training site. It might have been an obsolete (in the 1970s) cantankerous old bastard that needed a lot of TLC, with ergonomics that were suited to a 4 armed double jointed thick skulled dwarf but it was a tough go anywhere sort of beast that looked after its crew and we would happily have gone against any tank of the 50s or 60s in one.

 

[parsifal]

one wonders why , in the intersts of cost saving, someone didnt come up with further ways to keep the Centurions going. Australia retired their fleet in 1974, taking on the Leopard 1 as a replacement. The Leopard was a good tank, but I doubt it that much better than the Centurion as to justify it as a replacement. Centurions needed some money spent on it to upgrade things, but I think for our purposes it would have done fine as a training tank for many years

 

[Shortround6]

Good as the Centurion was it had a few "features" that might have counted against it. There were quite a number of engine swaps proposed to increase performance slightly, range a whole lot, and easy maintenance (instead of looking for 20-30 year old parts) and some used the original transmission and some didn't. Fire control and other electronics could be up graded.
How much an upgrade could cost vs the price of a new tank?
Up grading still left you with the old track system and suspension which may (or may not?) required more maintenance than a new track system/suspension. New tank may have been designed for faster engine swaps in the field and easier maintenance while, unless the conversion of the old tanks is very well done, things might be as bad or worse than working on the old engine set up.

They were doing an awful lot of talking and figuring about "life cycle costs" over 10-20 years of a number of weapons systems and unfortunately that kind of figuring can introduce so many unproven variables that a truly accurate number is impossible to come by. to many of the numbers are based on estimates, so the cost comparison can come out in favor of whoever passed the fattest envelope or dangled the best promotion (later job?).

 

[fastmongrel]

In the 1970s Krauss Maffei the Leopard 1 manufacturers were virtually giving tanks away, if you bought 10 gallons of fuel you probably got a choice between a set of wine glasses or a new tank. Modifiying a Cent to take a new powertrain and a new turret suite would have cost a considerable amount probably more than a shiny new Leopard.

Given the choice between crewing a tinplate Leopard 1 (armour 70mm thick max) and a Cent late model (165mm armour on turret face and 200mm on the Mantlet) I know which one I would have picked.

 

[Glider]

I suspect few tanks have been upgraded more than the Centurion, I don't know how many Gun, fire control, armour, engine, suspension changes took place let alone the special versions. In 1974 it was already 30 years old was still in front line service in a number of countries in the early 1980's. Its worth remembering that in the first Gulf War in 1991 the first armoured vehicle through the Iraqi defences wasn't a Challenger or a ABRAMS it was a Centurion AVRE, not a bad record
There comes a time to all things mechanical when it time to let the old boys bow out and let the news ones take over, no matter how much refurbishment takes place. At the end of the day the British tax payer had their monies worth out of the Centurion.

 

[Garyt]

I look at it as how good the tanks were for their time as opposed to "the best", as the best if strictly from a performance standpoint would severely limit them to all late model tanks.

I'd have to go with the IS-3 - Almost revolutionary sloping of armor for it's time, particularily the turret. It is a WW2 design that was still in use and effective use in 1973 by the Egyptians. And even at this time it's armor in both thickness and slope was competetive, being better armored than the later generation M60. With it's 122mm gun, it was more than a match for any tank of it's day. And while not fast, it still had reasonable mobility.

 

[Glider]

Its a good shout and with the following T10 started the development of tanks like the Conqueror to combat it. However once the 105mm was developed its advantage was over, but in its time it was the one to watch

 

[fastmongrel]

I believe the the IS3 was an ergonomics nightmare the 2 piece 122mm ammo and cramped turret meant it was lucky to fire 1 round a minute. Still a hard beast to kill and being hit by a 122mm round is going to hurt even if it doesn't penetrate.

 

[Juha]

As fastmongrel wrote, IS-3 had low rate of fire and it carried only 28 rounds and its APCBC didn't penetrate much more armour than 17pdr APCBC round and clearly less than 88mm/L71 APCBC round. The forte of the Soviet 122mm L43 was its very powerful HE round and its main purpose was to blast way open to the infantry.

 

[Vincenzo]

T-64

 

[parsifal]

T-64

From the available list, that would have to be the T-62. an interesting choice, not necessarily a wrong one either but it does have both capabilities and limitations that need to be considered.

Like the T-55, the T-62 has a 580 hp V-12 water-cooled diesel engine, which gives it a cruising range of 320 km cross-country or 450 km on paved roads with integral fuel cells and 450 km cross-country or 650 km on paved roads with two 200-liter auxiliary fuel tanks. It also shares the snorkeling and smokescreen generating capabilities of the T-54/55 series and has the same PAZ radiation detection system as the T-55. Some T-62s may have been retrofitted with full NBC collective protection systems (air filtration and overpressure). Most models have the same IR night sight and driving equipment and the same fire control equipment as the T-54/55, although some T-62s have been retrofitted with a passive night sight replacing the gunner's active IR sight, and a laser rangefinder is believed to have been developed to replace the stadiametric reticule rangefinder.

The most significant improvement over the T-54/55 tanks, however, is the 115-mm smoothbore main gun which fires a hypervelocity, armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot (HVAPFSDS) round with a muzzle velocity of 1,61 5 meters per second. The penetrator flies in a very flat trajectory and is therefore extremely accurate out to a maximum effective range of 1,600 meters. Although the specific number of each type of round varies with the anticipated tactical situation, the 40-round basic load typically includes 12 HVAPFSDS rounds, 6 HEAT rounds, and 22 HE rounds. The T-62 also has an automatic shell ejector system which is activated by the recoil of the main gun and ejects spent casings through a port in the rear of the turret.

Available improvements include a hull bottom reinforced against mines, rubber track pads, and a thermal sleeve for the gun. There are thermal sights available for installation which permit night launch of ATGMs. The 1K13 sight is both night sight and ATGM launcher sight; however, it cannot be used for both functions simultaneously. Optional sights and fire control systems include the Israeli El-Op Red Tiger and Matador FCS, Swedish NobelTech T-series sight, and German Atlas MOLF. The British Marconi Digital FCS, South African Tiger, and Belgian SABCA Titan offer upgraded function. One of the best is the Slovenian EFCS-3 integrated FCS. A variety of thermal sights is available. They include the Russian Agava, French SAGEM-produced ALIS and Namut sight from Peleng.

However the vehicle also has some rather severe limitations

The T-62 has all the limitations of the T-55: cramped crew compartment, thin armor, crude gun control equipment (on most models), limited depression of main gun, and vulnerable fuel and ammunition storage areas. The automatic spent-cartridge ejection system can cause dangerous accumulations of carbon monoxide and possibly actual physical injury to the crew from cartridge cases projected against the edge of a poorly aligned ejection port and rebounding into the crew compartment. Opening the ejection port under NBC conditions would also expose the crew to contamination.

Each time the gun is fired, the tube must go into detente for cartridge ejection, and the power traverse of the turret is inoperable during ejection and reloading operations. Since manual elevation and traverse are rather slow and not effective for tracking a moving target, rapid fire and second-hit capabilities are limited. The turret also cannot be traversed with the driver's hatch open. Although the tank commander may override the gunner and traverse the turret, he cannot fire the main gun from his position. He is unable to override the gunner in elevation of the main gun, causing target acquisition problems.

To fire the 12.7-mm antiaircraft machinegun, the loader must be partially exposed, making him vulnerable to suppressive fires, and he must also leave his main gun loading duties unattended.

 

[rochie]

dont know how true it is but was watching a documentary a while back on tanks and an old Russian Tank Commander was talking about the T-55 and was asked about how they were able to cope in the cramped conditions of the small sized T-55.
" we used smaller tank crew " he replied, made me chuckle