Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Which was the better one? Just being curious here. 
Centurion V. T-62.....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
Centurion. This was the tank of choice before the next generation, Chieftain, T72 M1 ect.
Compared to the T62 it had a better fire control, armour, rate of fire and was very accurate when firing on the move. It was a bigger target than the T62 and if you get close then the T62 was dangerous and should not be underestimated. However overall the Centurion was the better bet.
I think I am right in saying that a couple of M1's were disabled by T62's during the Gulf war. Of course hundreds of Iraqi tanks were lost in return but the gun was pretty good for the time.
Compared to the T62 it had a better fire control, armour, rate of fire and was very accurate when firing on the move. It was a bigger target than the T62 and if you get close then the T62 was dangerous and should not be underestimated. However overall the Centurion was the better bet.
I think I am right in saying that a couple of M1's were disabled by T62's during the Gulf war. Of course hundreds of Iraqi tanks were lost in return but the gun was pretty good for the time.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #4
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Didn't even know that the T-62 had autoloader! 
Didn't even know that the T-62 had autoloader!
Might have it wrong, not a quoteable on that. Just seem to remember it.
Glider
Captain
It didn't, I believe the T72 was the one with the auto loader
T-64 was the 1st one with autoloader, plus a new kind of engine suspension. Didn't worked well for Russkies, and it was replaced with T-80 in production units. T-62 is relative with T-54/55 and T-72 (ie. mainstream line of Soviet tanks).
Back OT, it's all about what kind of fire control the tanks have installed. Guess Centurion would've win on greater distances, with it's edge reducing as distances shorten.
Back OT, it's all about what kind of fire control the tanks have installed. Guess Centurion would've win on greater distances, with it's edge reducing as distances shorten.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
As I recall from reading, the Centurion was outstanding in Korea and played a very effective role in the 'Hill War' in the later stages. They had an amazing ability to mount steep slopes and would position themselves on the top. With advanced fire control they could place rounds into Chinese firing slits across the valley. Centurions also served with great effectiveness (modified) in the IDF in the '67 war.
Great tank.
MM
Great tank.
MM
parsifal
Colonel
Centurions also did well in Vietnam, in the Jungle. T-62s were more of a "brekthrough" tank, in the typical Soviet style of blitzkrieg......they generally were handled roughly when in combat against western armies, though the Israelis used them (and the T-55) quite effectively6 when they captured them. So they were probably an okay tank....just badly used by the wallies driving them
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... ....just badly used by the wallies driving them" ... who were trained by the Soviets. But no amount of training would motivate them into "soviets". That said, the Republican Guard was certainly prepared to die for Saddam in GWI.
MM
... who were trained by the Soviets. But no amount of training would motivate them into "soviets". That said, the Republican Guard was certainly prepared to die for Saddam in GWI.MM
Would also go with the Centurian. On top of all the good reasons listed above, it was also a much better tank to be in, ergonomically. Though I've never been in either, I've heard plenty of horror stories about Soviet tanks and the lack of any kind of space or creature comforts.
Glider
Captain
The interesting thing about the rangefinders are that those on the early Centurions with the 105mm was how simple they were. Initially just a ranging machine gun with ammo that matched the ballistics of the main gun. The problems were two fold
a) They let the target know that they were about to be shot at
b) It took time to get the target
When Israel were first equipped with the 105mm they took a more pragmatic approach and ditched all (apart from the basic telescopic sight) the rangefinders. They trained their commanders on how to roughtly estimate the range. The gunners were trained to fire three rounds in quick succession at three different elevations which were always the same. The ballistics of the gun were such that one of the three rounds was almost certain to hit the enemy tank. So if the commander estimated the range as being quite long the gunner would start at the highest elevation and work down. That way the target stood an excellent chance of being hit with one of the first two rounds. If I remember correctly this worked well out to about 2,500 meters which was more than sufficient in the days before laser rangfinders and if you weren't shooting up or down hill.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
The Israelis also painted a white line down the centre of the gun tube, to assist in rapid target alignment, which was very effective apparently.
The tank-net.org is probably for tanks as this board is for (WW2) planes.
If someone could point to a book or two about Israel/Arab tank warfare, that would be cool too.
If someone could point to a book or two about Israel/Arab tank warfare, that would be cool too.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
There was a book published in the very late 1960s or early 70s, entitled 'The Tanks of Tamuz' dealing with all of the tank battles in the 1967 Arab / Israeli war, involving IDF Shermans and Centurions, against T54, T55, T62 and PzKfw IV (!). Sorry, can't remember the author or publisher, as I haven't seen my copy since around 1973 !
- Thread starter
- #17
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Would that be: Tanks of Tammuz by Shabtai Teveth? It's about 290 pages, can find it Amazon....
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
The Centurion had an stabilization system so i guess that aiming and firing was faster in the british tank, however I dont like the poor weight to power ratio, definately the Centurion needed more hps.
http://www.movietone.com/assets/BMN0600/wmv/BMN_57561_3.wmv
http://www.movietone.com/assets/BMN0600/wmv/BMN_57561_3.wmv
Shortround6
Major General
Before the two meet in combat the Centurion was usually considered to be the looser.
It was only after the battle that a number of factors not usually considered showed why superficial comparisons were in error.
The T-62 is about 15 years newer and is more properly a contemporary of the Chieftain.
With both tanks appearing in a wide variety of models and equipment fits over decades of time it is a little hard to make comparisons of a general nature.
THe Video shown (thank you Charles) dates to the late 40s or early 50s. The Centurion shown having a 20pdr gun (83.4mm) with an "A" barrel I believe.
T-54s,T-55s and T-62s all had stabilizers of some sort but as with the British system they depended on vacuum tubes (valves) and took a large amount of maintenance to keep working and didn't really work all that well on the move, although they helped enormously in shortening the time it took to fire accurately after bring the tank to a halt. Stabilizers have gone through a number of generations just like other electronic equipment.
The Centurion has got the edge in rate of fire, possibly double, has more stored main gun ammo, has greater depression of the main gun so hull down reverse slope positions work better and even it's greater height, while making it a bigger target in the open means that the gun is higher off the ground and kicks up less dirt and debris making for better/faster observation of rounds fired.
Cross country speed is more often limited by the suspension of the tank and the crews ability to not get motion sick or not be injured by banging around inside the tank than by power to weight ratios or proving ground speeds.
Yes the Centurion could have used more power but a fair number of the Israeli ones had been repowered with 750hp diesels by the time they meet the T-62s in 1973. This increase is a bit more than it appears because the diesel engines NET power output is a higher percentage of it's gross power than a gasoline engine.
It was only after the battle that a number of factors not usually considered showed why superficial comparisons were in error.
The T-62 is about 15 years newer and is more properly a contemporary of the Chieftain.
With both tanks appearing in a wide variety of models and equipment fits over decades of time it is a little hard to make comparisons of a general nature.
THe Video shown (thank you Charles) dates to the late 40s or early 50s. The Centurion shown having a 20pdr gun (83.4mm) with an "A" barrel I believe.
T-54s,T-55s and T-62s all had stabilizers of some sort but as with the British system they depended on vacuum tubes (valves) and took a large amount of maintenance to keep working and didn't really work all that well on the move, although they helped enormously in shortening the time it took to fire accurately after bring the tank to a halt. Stabilizers have gone through a number of generations just like other electronic equipment.
The Centurion has got the edge in rate of fire, possibly double, has more stored main gun ammo, has greater depression of the main gun so hull down reverse slope positions work better and even it's greater height, while making it a bigger target in the open means that the gun is higher off the ground and kicks up less dirt and debris making for better/faster observation of rounds fired.
Cross country speed is more often limited by the suspension of the tank and the crews ability to not get motion sick or not be injured by banging around inside the tank than by power to weight ratios or proving ground speeds.
Yes the Centurion could have used more power but a fair number of the Israeli ones had been repowered with 750hp diesels by the time they meet the T-62s in 1973. This increase is a bit more than it appears because the diesel engines NET power output is a higher percentage of it's gross power than a gasoline engine.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Great clip, CB. Thanks,
MM
MM
