T-54/T-55 Vs M47/M48/M60 Vs Centurion Vs... - Forums

Trang chủ » T 54/55 Vs M60 » T-54/T-55 Vs M47/M48/M60 Vs Centurion Vs... - Forums

Có thể bạn quan tâm

Jump to content
  • Browse
    • Forums
    • Online Users
    • Leaderboard
    • More
  • Activity
    • All Activity
    • Search
    • More
  • Leaderboard
  • More
    • More
  • Everywhere
  • This Forum
  • This Topic
  • Status Updates
  • Topics
  • Members
  • AFV Forum
  • All Activity
  • Home
  • Discussion Forums
  • AFV Forum
  • T-54/T-55 vs M47/M48/M60 vs Centurion vs...
T-54/T-55 vs M47/M48/M60 vs Centurion vs... Przezdzieblo

By Przezdzieblo July 31, 2008 in AFV Forum

Share https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/25743-t-54t-55-vs-m47m48m60-vs-centurion-vs/ More sharing options... Followers 0
  • Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • Next
  • Page 1 of 2

Recommended Posts

Przezdzieblo Crew

Przezdzieblo

Posted July 31, 2008

Przezdzieblo

  • Przezdzieblo Crew
  • Members
    • 1.7k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw
Posted July 31, 2008

I am sure that there were similar discussions in TN history - but could not find anything. Guess really old threads were pruned :(

 

One could see how the most "popular" Cold War tanks were different. Most advantages and feautures come to my head: Soviet tanks got low silhouette, were small and reliable, got decent 100 mm gun with with advanced APCBC and HEAT ammo, and stabilization (1- and 2-planes); US tanks got advanced fire control system, with ballistic computers and optical rangefinder, so probability of first round hit was higher than in case of Soviet`s T-XXs; Centurion was said to have good protection, also stabilization and APDS ammo. This is simplified, of course.

 

I read TRADOC document - M60A1 was compared to T-62 and said to be about equal rival to that. How about older Pattons and T-XXs? How would look here various mks of Centurion? There were firefights between some of those tanks; slaughter of "Patton Nagar", next wars between Israel and Arab countries. What are experiences of those conflicts and fights - which tanks proved somehow better, what were straight advantages and disadvantages of specific designs?

m4a1 Crew

m4a1

Posted July 31, 2008

m4a1

  • m4a1 Crew
  • Members
    • 700
Posted July 31, 2008 (edited)

I think you know this pdf, about clashes on Golani heights in 1973 between T-55/62s and Centurions and M48 Pattons refitted with 105 mm guns :)

Its conclusion is: these tanks [except for T-62] are fairly equal, have some pros and cons, the tanker is much more important :)

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.e...lename=1803.pdf

If I had to choose, I'd go for T-55, thanks to simplicity, and very efficient [meaning may take out what they desire, at any range they can hit] and quite accurate HEAT rounds (know that only 6 for a tank, but still :) ) but I am NOT knowledgeable on those :)

Comparing Centurion and M48 to T-55 you have to remember that older versions of those tanks used 90 mm guns, and that may be not enough for T-55 at longer ranges.

The tank protection levels site http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm says that T-55 has a little advantage over both M48 and the older Centurions.

T-55 has got clear advantage in firepower, but I would still go for the tank manned by skilled crew

As far as I remember, there were some clashes between Centurions and T-55s in Angola, they lead to the construction of Olifant tank.

Edited July 31, 2008 by m4a1 Tomas Hoting Crew

Tomas Hoting

Posted July 31, 2008

Tomas Hoting

  • Tomas Hoting Crew
  • Members
    • 1.4k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military History Politics
Posted July 31, 2008
As far as I remember, there were some clashes between Centurions and T-55s in Angola, they lead to the construction of Olifant tank.

 

The Olifant is a modernized Centurion. ;)

Assessor Crew

Assessor

Posted July 31, 2008

Assessor

  • Assessor Crew
  • Members
    • 495
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Tanks, flyfishing, wargaming, mending things...
Posted July 31, 2008
I think you know this pdf, about clashes on Golani heights in 1973 between T-55/62s and Centurions and M48 Pattons refitted with 105 mm guns :)

Its conclusion is: these tanks [except for T-62] are fairly equal, have some pros and cons, the tanker is much more important :)

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.e...lename=1803.pdf

If I had to choose, I'd go for T-55, thanks to simplicity, and very efficient [meaning may take out what they desire, at any range they can hit] and quite accurate HEAT rounds (know that only 6 for a tank, but still :) ) but I am NOT knowledgeable on those :)

Comparing Centurion and M48 to T-55 you have to remember that older versions of those tanks used 90 mm guns, and that may be not enough for T-55 at longer ranges.

The tank protection levels site http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm says that T-55 has a little advantage over both M48 and the older Centurions.

T-55 has got clear advantage in firepower, but I would still go for the tank manned by skilled crew

As far as I remember, there were some clashes between Centurions and T-55s in Angola, they lead to the construction of Olifant tank.

No 90mm on a Centurion. 17 or 20lb'er on early ones, L7 later. The early Centurions were hampered by derisory ranges - my old man reckoned that getting them out of a laager would drain the things!

Vasiliy Fofanov Crew

Vasiliy Fofanov

Posted July 31, 2008

Vasiliy Fofanov

  • Vasiliy Fofanov Crew
  • Members
    • 2.8k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor
Posted July 31, 2008

M48, nevermind M60, is a very difficult target for T-55, while at the same time the latter is vulnerable at fairly long range. I would say 105mm-rearmed M48 and above are pretty much out of T-55 league until it gets modernized in early 80s.

Old Tanker Crew

Old Tanker

Posted July 31, 2008

Old Tanker

  • Old Tanker Crew
  • Members
    • 2.4k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix Az. USA
Posted July 31, 2008

The general rule of thumb in that era was he who fires first wins about 70% of the tank duels. So advantage tends to go to tank on defensive.

 

At that the Brit tanks from about 1948 on had about the best gun and front armor. The M-48A2c from about 1957 until replaced by the M-60 starting about 1961 was extremely capable. In a run n' gun meeting engagement I'd pick an American tank.

 

The T-55 was surely a deadly opponent when within 1400M or so . The T-62 wasn't as good as it was thought .

 

Under 1000 M everybody dies and the 70% rule applies.

DemolitionMan Crew

DemolitionMan

Posted July 31, 2008

DemolitionMan

  • DemolitionMan Crew
  • Members
    • 391
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
Posted July 31, 2008

Another issue found by the Israelis in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War was hydraulic(M48, M60) versus electric(Centurion) turret drive. The former resulting in a higher rate of crew casualties when the tank was hit. Strange that the Leopard 2 kept that system until version A5.

 

And of course...the matter of gun depression of T-55 vs Centurion/M48/M60 which is said to have had a great influence on the tank battles during YKW.

Stephan Crew

Stephan

Posted July 31, 2008

Stephan

  • Stephan Crew
  • Members
    • 145
  • Location:Clausthal, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks, mountainbikes, tanks, computers and tanks of course
Posted July 31, 2008 (edited)
[...]Strange that the Leopard 2 kept that system until version A5.[...]

 

The short answer, so this does not go off topic to much:

At the time the Leopard 2 was designed, the hydraulic system had the better power density and efficiency (under load conditions, that is). It would have been difficult if not impossible to pack an electric system, especially the power electronics with sufficient cooling, into the turret - at least not a system with similar capabilities.

 

As has been said on this topic, shooting and hitting first greatly improves your chances to win and survive. On that basis, the more capable hydraulic system was choosen and retained until the A5.

 

For the A5, an uprated WNA was necessary in preparation for the L55 gun, with the advances in power electronics, the choice of the E-WNA was rather logical.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Stephan Old Tanker Crew

Old Tanker

Posted July 31, 2008

Old Tanker

  • Old Tanker Crew
  • Members
    • 2.4k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix Az. USA
Posted July 31, 2008

The M-48 range was listed at 70 miles on a tank of gas(with tail wind) on the M-48A1 version.It increased to 150 miles on the A2 version(1956).

The USSR also put fuel tanks or barrels on the back deck.

 

The cupola was a joke as it was primary for AA purposes but still was a joke.

 

The problem with the T-62 that I heard stated was uneven and undercooked armor and motor reliability.

I never heard that about the T-55.

 

The 90mm gets over criticized as it was in service and superior to the last German 88. The ammo of the late '50s and '60s was improved over the 1940s. It basically was competitive with the 100MM which was also a WWII caliber.

The 90mm was knocking out NVA T-54/55 at 3000 m in 1972 in VN.

Tomas Hoting Crew

Tomas Hoting

Posted July 31, 2008

Tomas Hoting

  • Tomas Hoting Crew
  • Members
    • 1.4k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military History Politics
Posted July 31, 2008

The late 1960s would also be the time when the more agile Leopard 1 and AMX-30 fully came into service, as the discussion in this thread has already progressed to the Six-Day War. ;)

EvanDP Crew

EvanDP

Posted July 31, 2008

EvanDP

  • EvanDP Crew
  • Members
    • 831
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Interests:SciFi, firearms, Military history, computers, redheads
Posted July 31, 2008
I think M48, in all its incarnations, was basically a very good tank. It was a shame it wasnt fitted with a 105mm gun earlier, but full credit where it was due in fitting a Diesel relatively early in the tanks life. The only design element I would question was the frankly bizarre commanders cupola.

 

Wasn't the cupola a response to the idea of the nuclear/chemical battlefield, you were expected to be buttoned-up most of the time?

shep854 Hierophant Lord

shep854

Posted July 31, 2008

shep854

  • shep854 Hierophant Lord
  • Members
    • 16.4k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation
Posted July 31, 2008

By contrast, weren't Pakistani M48s rather roughly handled by Indian armor from USSR & UK?

Old Tanker Crew

Old Tanker

Posted July 31, 2008

Old Tanker

  • Old Tanker Crew
  • Members
    • 2.4k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix Az. USA
Posted July 31, 2008
By contrast, weren't Pakistani M48s rather roughly handled by Indian armor from USSR & UK?

 

Absolutely , untrained green crews were clobbered. It doesn't seem like they even knew BOT let alone the RF.

 

Just like what would happen to me if a SPAD attacked me in an F-15 sitting on the runway at Luke AFB . :(

DKTanker Crew

DKTanker

Posted August 1, 2008

DKTanker

  • DKTanker Crew
  • Members
    • 14.3k
  • Gender:Not Telling
Posted August 1, 2008
Absolutely , untrained green crews were clobbered. It doesn't seem like they even knew BOT let alone the RF.

They didn't know BOT nor what the RF was let alone know how to work it. A couple of years ago in a similar thread (odd how new is old) somebody linked to an article regarding Pakistani gunnery during the early 60s. Seems that initially the Paks were quite gunnery savy alas, can't have overly intelligent peons running around besides, who needs a RF when there's Allah. To make a sad story short, those that knew gunnery were ushered out and true believers replaced them.

Doug Kibbey Crew

Doug Kibbey

Posted August 1, 2008

Doug Kibbey

  • Doug Kibbey Crew
  • Members
    • 4.8k
  • Gender:Male
Posted August 1, 2008
Absolutely , untrained green crews were clobbered. It doesn't seem like they even knew BOT let alone the RF.

 

Just like what would happen to me if a SPAD attacked me in an F-15 sitting on the runway at Luke AFB . :(

 

Analogy Of The Day award. :lol:

alejandro_ Crew

alejandro_

Posted August 1, 2008

alejandro_

  • alejandro_ Crew
  • Members
    • 5.1k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.
Posted August 1, 2008 (edited)
Seems that initially the Paks were quite gunnery savy alas, can't have overly intelligent peons running around besides, who needs a RF when there's Allah.
I heard this story about Kuwait M-84 crews. In any case it seems that Pakistanis put too much faith in their M-47/48, attacked in difficult terrain and fell back after losing 97 tanks.

 

The problem with the T-62 that I heard stated was uneven and undercooked armor and motor reliability.

 

T-62 engine was the same than in T-55, and armour was comparable. When Yugoslavia tested a T-62 they concluded that it was similar to T-55 except gun, and this could be compensated by using advanced HEAT ammo.

Edited August 1, 2008 by alejandro_ Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo Crew

Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo

Posted August 1, 2008

Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo

  • Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo Crew
  • Members
    • 900
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaga, Spain
  • Interests:military history
Posted August 1, 2008

T-54 had a very good frontal protection when it appeared and gave quite a shock to NATO as mentioned earlier in one of these threads :lol:

 

The US 90mm with 1950s era ammo would have had a rather bad time against T-55. In fact, I`m surprised by how little 90mm tank ammo evolved, I guess improved HEAT was felt as the only thing needed for AT work..... The M48 had a complete FCS to allow for longer range engagements while the Soviet tank used a simple stadimetric rangefinder and common sense. Maybe this wasn`t a handicap in Europe, but I guess in open desert the M48 could probably have been able to open fire first.

 

The Soviet 100mm gun used also rather old fashioned ammo, although looks like both HEAT and AP was enough to engage M47/48 (and I guess Centurion) during the height of its service life. By the 70s both were quite outdated until a modern APFSDS was fielded. In any case, the old BR-412 was still being used in the 1990s by the Iraquis.

 

As mentioned, looks like most Israel Pattons were armed with the 90mm gun at the time of the Six Day war, while Centurios were mostly armed with the 20pdr. Both seems to have performed well, although at that time both the Syrians and the Egyptians also had older tanks around. I remember having read the Pattons had a bad time trying to knock out JS-3s in the Gaza strip.

 

By the 1973 war both were rearmed with the 105mm gun which performed well against both the T-54/55 and 62.

exT70 Crew

exT70

Posted August 1, 2008

exT70

  • exT70 Crew
  • Members
    • 190
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South, south, south
Posted August 1, 2008
I think you know this pdf, about clashes on Golani heights in 1973 between T-55/62s and Centurions and M48 Pattons refitted with 105 mm guns :)

Its conclusion is: these tanks [except for T-62] are fairly equal, have some pros and cons, the tanker is much more important :)

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.e...lename=1803.pdf

If I had to choose, I'd go for T-55, thanks to simplicity, and very efficient [meaning may take out what they desire, at any range they can hit] and quite accurate HEAT rounds (know that only 6 for a tank, but still :) ) but I am NOT knowledgeable on those :)

Comparing Centurion and M48 to T-55 you have to remember that older versions of those tanks used 90 mm guns, and that may be not enough for T-55 at longer ranges.

The tank protection levels site http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm says that T-55 has a little advantage over both M48 and the older Centurions.

T-55 has got clear advantage in firepower, but I would still go for the tank manned by skilled crew

As far as I remember, there were some clashes between Centurions and T-55s in Angola, they lead to the construction of Olifant tank.

The Angolan scenario was not indicative of anything. In the middle to late 80's T34, 54 and 55's faced upgraded Cents/Olifant in the bush at ranges of as low as 30-50m. Other than the fiasco in the minefield, it was not a fair fight. Most of the T bush kills were however made by the lowly low pressure 90mm on the Ratel 90 and Eland 90. Crews once again make the difference.

Tony Williams Crew

Tony Williams

Posted August 1, 2008

Tony Williams

  • Tony Williams Crew
  • Members
    • 3.8k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Military guns and ammunition (all calibres)
Posted August 1, 2008
The late 1960s would also be the time when the more agile Leopard 1 and AMX-30 fully came into service, as the discussion in this thread has already progressed to the Six-Day War. ;)

Also the rather less agile but considerably better armed and armoured Chieftain...

Guest bojan

Guest bojan

Posted August 1, 2008

Guest bojan

  • Guest bojan
  • Guests
Posted August 1, 2008 (edited)
...The Soviet 100mm gun used also rather old fashioned ammo, although looks like both HEAT and AP was enough to engage M47/48...

 

HEAT was, but AP was definetly not good for anything then short range - BR-412B only penetrated M-47 glacis (102mm@60deg, 210 BHN) @ 750m and front turret @ 950m. Vs M-48 glacis (IIRC 120mm @ 60deg) it would probably fail to penetrate. HEAT availability is somewhat a mistery to me - local T-55 manual states that tank vs tank combat orientated loadout is 16 HE, 12 AP and 15 HEAT, but it was from late '60s and done with experience of 1961-62 tastings.

 

(and I guess Centurion)

Early Cent should be much easier target - 152mm mantle and 76mm@50deg glacis will be penetrated at ~1000+m with AP.

 

the old BR-412 was still being used in the 1990s by the Iraquis.

BR-412B was in use until last year by Serbia. I would dare to guess that most T-55 users still have some of those.

 

I remember having read the Pattons had a bad time trying to knock out JS-3s in the Gaza strip.

It appears that all HEAT they have fired (which was relatively few IIRC) failed vs frontal aspect (probably failed to fuse) so they had to get realy close to the flanks and use AP.

 

By the 1973 war both were rearmed with the 105mm gun which performed well against both the T-54/55 and 62.

 

Once 105mm got introduced there should not be no problem with T-54/55/62.

 

Edit - here is some local testing that involved T-54 and M-47:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...=18562&st=0

Edited August 1, 2008 by bojan Ken Estes Crew

Ken Estes

Posted August 1, 2008

Ken Estes

  • Ken Estes Crew
  • No FFZ access
    • 9.7k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian
Posted August 1, 2008

Don't forget that the M48 RF in the Indo-Pak war was the stereoscopic one, not the much more user-friendly coincidence one of M48A3/A2C. That made a nice tank into a training burden. The US Army was totally given over to HEAT in the 1950s, so no upgrades to APC ever came into consideration AFAIK. HEAT was also the panacea vs. the IS-3/T-10, hence no interest in heavy tanks until M-1 series.

 

By the time one has arrived at M48A3/A5 and M60A1, the roominess, ammo stowage and excellent controls must have made it the preferred tank for fighting outnumbered, IOW lots of multiple target engagements.

 

I have some IntDefRev and other reports on file showing that Israeli investigation of the T-62 performance found incidence of spinal damage to T-62 crews. I have always thought the loader was especially screwed in that design. I think the IDF used only captured/refurbished T-55s and no T-62s for their reserve tank equipment, would that be correct?

tankerwanabe Crew

tankerwanabe

Posted August 1, 2008

tankerwanabe

  • tankerwanabe Crew
  • Members
    • 1.2k
Posted August 1, 2008

I was under the impression that the T-55 series had fire control issues. And the t-62s had issues with slow reloading since the gun had to realign to be loaded. Then when you toss in poorly trained crew, the issues magnify.

Vasiliy Fofanov Crew

Vasiliy Fofanov

Posted August 1, 2008

Vasiliy Fofanov

  • Vasiliy Fofanov Crew
  • Members
    • 2.8k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor
Posted August 1, 2008
I was under the impression that the T-55 series had fire control issues.

 

No issues, on account of there being no fire control :)

Guest bojan

Guest bojan

Posted August 1, 2008

Guest bojan

  • Guest bojan
  • Guests
Posted August 1, 2008
I was under the impression that the T-55 series had fire control issues.

What kind of issues with what fire controll?

 

Firing in T-54/55/62 goes something like this:

Gunner estimates range using stadiometric reticle or alternatively TC gives a range (IIRC TC also has stadiometric scale on his sight).

Loader loads round.

Gunner uses appropriate range scale for ammo loaded and fires a gun.

 

Only other type of fire control is TC's "monkey button" that enabled TC to search independently for a targets and with a press of button turn entire turret to the target. Gunner then just had to adjust elevation.

swerve Crew

swerve

Posted August 1, 2008

swerve

  • swerve Crew
  • Members
    • 6.6k
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire
  • Interests:Too many to list all, but include military, economic &technological history. And cycling.
Posted August 1, 2008
I think the IDF used only captured/refurbished T-55s and no T-62s for their reserve tank equipment, would that be correct?

The IISS lists some T-62s in the IDF inventory, but I think Marsh is probably the man to ask, or one of the Israelis - DADI?

  • Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • Next
  • Page 1 of 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now Share https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/25743-t-54t-55-vs-m47m48m60-vs-centurion-vs/ More sharing options... Followers 0 Go to topic listing
  • All Activity
  • Home
  • Discussion Forums
  • AFV Forum
  • T-54/T-55 vs M47/M48/M60 vs Centurion vs...
×
  • Existing user? Sign In
  • Sign Up

  • Browse

    • Back
    • Browse
    • Forums
    • Online Users
    • Leaderboard

  • Activity

    • Back
    • All Activity
    • Search
  • Leaderboard
×
  • Create New...

Từ khóa » T 54/55 Vs M60