Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
We need somebody in the know to do a head to head. T-55 Vs Centurion. Who wins? Assume that both crews have similar training/experience.
And similar versions.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
It never saw combat in WW2, Frazz, but it had a 100mm gun, which was a similar armament to an IS-2 or an IS-3, and those tanks had no problem taking out a King Tiger, if memory serves.
No allied gun used during the second world war was ever confirmed to penetrate the KT's upper glacis, 150mm sloped at 50 degrees, giving it an effective thickness of somewhere around 220mm depending on angles, the lower glacis was 100mm sloped at 50 degrees and the turret front was 185mm flat, with another 100mm around the manlet. Basically no WW2 gun is getting through the front, the brits claimed the 17 pdr firing APDS could do it but it was never confirmed in battle. The American claimed a King tiger knocked out by their super pershing but that's also unconfirmed and probably a case of "tigerphobia".
The Centurion didn't quite have the armor of the KT but it was pretty close, 152mm on the manlet, 118mm on the upper glacis, both sloped well. The 17 pdr was not quite equivalent of the KT's 88mm KwK43 and would have to rely on APDS rounds, early variants of which were notoriously inaccurate. Once the Centurion MkIII entered service with the 20pdr gun the playing field would have been much more even, the 20pdr was at least the equal to the KwK43 and probably better, and fired better sabot rounds
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Soviet SU-100 took out a King Tiger, in one engagement. Late Soviet tanks and tank destroyers were pretty mean.
The soviets did testing with their best guns against the KTigers armour, and found that it was impossible to penetrate the front armour with a single hit, but that repeated hits to the same place could cause a penetration.
Could somebody also explain the hype for the centurion? What it effectively is is a slow panther.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jorny wrote: As a swede I have to point out that Stridsvagn 103 is a very cool tank indeed (and, no it is not a tank destroyer, it is main battle tank):
Why are the related pages for that image all Russian articles about Ukraine? 0.o
"Related" lists tend to pull up results based on your browsing history, and the article looking for things on the site that you might be interested in.
In all seriousness - why was this tank never made?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Tog II* is the only tank that has enough space for a tea party. The Leichttraktor is one of my favourites, partly due to the fact that it is lost with no trace and is an interesting mystery.
Kote!
Kandosii sa ka'rte, vode an.
Coruscanta a'den mhi, vode an.
Bal kote,Darasuum kote,
Jorso'ran kando a tome.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad vode an.
Bal...
Motir ca'tra nau tracinya.
Gra'tua cuun hett su dralshy'a.
Aruetyc talyc runi'la trattok'a.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad, vode an!
As with most tank on tank battles between vehicles of about the same generation the winner is whoever spots and fires first,
the centurion guns can pop the T55, but the T55 gun can pop the centurion
if they spot one another at the same time my bet would be on a centurion win due to the more advanced sights,and all round better visibility
but even that is a 'rigged' test as the T-55 is lower and harder to spot when not moving
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like this prototype soviet tankette, who wouldn't want to fight lying down
Automatically Appended Next Post: also the Pannard AM40-P
a prototype armoured car (or tank.... The French classified vehicles based on their use not their use of wheels or tracks, so an identical vehicle used in 2 different branches of the Army could be both an armoured car and a tank)
post WWII this design was scaled up and modified a bit to give the ERB 75
You also have to factor in the T-55's cramped interior which reduces crew performance and the 'cheap and cheerful' construction methods which give rise too questionable reliability at best.
Hands down the Centurion wins 9 times out of 10.
Mind you, if you want an impressive tank then I have yet to find one that comes close to the Challenger II, with the sole exception of the Leopard II.
Which brings us too the next question of: When are you yanks upgrading your Abrahams? Its a little out of date now.
As to the sexy beast that is the Maus: There are unconfirmed reports that two of them where completed and that they saw action in the defence of the factory.Whilst these are unconfirmed they would explain the unusually high tank losses that the Soviets suffered in that area.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
master of ordinance wrote: You also have to factor in the T-55's cramped interior which reduces crew performance and the 'cheap and cheerful' construction methods which give rise too questionable reliability at best.
Hands down the Centurion wins 9 times out of 10.
Mind you, if you want an impressive tank then I have yet to find one that comes close to the Challenger II, with the sole exception of the Leopard II.
Which brings us too the next question of: When are you yanks upgrading your Abrahams? Its a little out of date now.
As to the sexy beast that is the Maus: There are unconfirmed reports that two of them where completed and that they saw action in the defence of the factory.Whilst these are unconfirmed they would explain the unusually high tank losses that the Soviets suffered in that area.
If the soviets defeated a giant tank like the Maus it would have been broadcast to the world. Soviets where very good at showcasing their achievements. It is likely the Maus never saw combat. It would have been shelled to oblivion and likely not achieved anything. It is huge, slow and an easy target.
For the Abrams, I think the issue has largely been a perception that we haven't needed a replacement, and that even if we did there is still room to upgrade and develop the Abrams as a platform. So no one has held much interest in redeveloping a new MBT, though we did just recently roll out the Stryker, and which that project concluded and Russia bragging about their fancy new design, maybe the ball will get rolling on a new design?
master of ordinance wrote: As to the sexy beast that is the Maus: There are unconfirmed reports that two of them where completed and that they saw action in the defence of the factory.
They're not so much unconfirmed as nonsense. Of the two Maus prototypes, one was not a combat model. It was just the tank body and used as a test bed (with a mock turret). While a functioning turret was produced, it was never put on the first prototype but rather the second. Though both were ordered deployed to defend OKH at Wunsdorf, the second prototype (the one with the functioning turret) became trapped in mud and was scuttled by blowing it up. The first prototype didn't have any weapons, and never left the factory anyway before the Soviets took it. The Soviets later salvaged the miraculously in tact turret from the second prototype and slapped it onto the first before shipping it back to Russia.
The story of the 'fighting Maus' originates in 2004 in an unsubstantiated claim by author Lester King and it's basically a bunch of horse gak.
Whilst these are unconfirmed they would explain the unusually high tank losses that the Soviets suffered in that area.
Or more simply, the Soviets were attacking Wunsdorf, home of the German High Command and pretty much the only place where any German Armor and Anti-Armor units were located at the time.
master of ordinance wrote:You also have to factor in the T-55's cramped interior which reduces crew performance and the 'cheap and cheerful' construction methods which give rise too questionable reliability at best.
Hands down the Centurion wins 9 times out of 10.
As a children of T-34, T-55 designed to be cheap in production. But it has very thick front armour, which 83mm Centurion gun can't penetrate. Israili says "tankist saved Israel". I think, 105mm guns saved Israel too.
master of ordinance wrote:
As to the sexy beast that is the Maus: There are unconfirmed reports that two of them where completed and that they saw action in the defence of the factory.Whilst these are unconfirmed they would explain the unusually high tank losses that the Soviets suffered in that area.
Two Mauses were built. And they failed to transport it into Berlin, because of it's heavy weight. And then command orderer them to defend their factory. But again failed. So, Germans blown up two Mauses. Soviets made one Maus from turret and body from different tanks. But unfortunately it's empty inside.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/13 01:18:23
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Sienisoturi wrote: The soviets did testing with their best guns against the KTigers armour, and found that it was impossible to penetrate the front armour with a single hit, but that repeated hits to the same place could cause a penetration.
I can link to the actual Soviet study of their 122mm gun against the King Tiger, but I don't know dakka's attitude on links to mediafire. The simple story is that the 122mm consistently achieved K-kills at ranges greater than 2,500m. Issues with German welding and the basic realities of huge shells would mean even when armour plates weren't directly penetrated whole sections of the Tiger II would peel away.
Even the 85mm gun, a mainstay in the latter period of the war, was effective against the Tiger II inside of 1,000m.
Could somebody also explain the hype for the centurion? What it effectively is is a slow panther.
The weight difference is what, 15 to 20%? That's an odd comparison.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/13 01:42:35
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Sienisoturi wrote: The soviets did testing with their best guns against the KTigers armour, and found that it was impossible to penetrate the front armour with a single hit, but that repeated hits to the same place could cause a penetration.
First up, anytime you read about 'front armour' being 'impossible' to penetrate then you're likely reading something closer to fan fiction. The front armour of a tank has significant variation - there's a vast difference between striking a welding joint and hitting centre of the upper glacis.
Second up, I can link to the actual Soviet study of their 122mm gun against the King Tiger, but I don't know dakka's attitude on links to mediafire. The simple story is that the 122mm consistently achieved K-kills at ranges greater than 2,500m. Issues with German welding and the basic realities of huge shells would mean even when armour plates weren't directly penetrated whole sections of the Tiger II would peel away.
Correct me if wrong but penetration isn't the only way to harm the tank. I imagine being hit by a tank round would shake the tank violently and produce a very loud bang. The possibility of instruments being damaged or rattled both in and out of the tank seem like real concerns as well.
Simply put, I feel the best tanks are not the ones that can take a hit but the ones that balance protection and prevention. Because it is always better to not be hit in the first place.
I assume not being hit involves detection of enemy tanks first, communication with other tanks, co ordination of tanks and infantry/aircraft and so on. While armor is a core part of a tank, I feel the armor is only there when prevention has failed. Because being hit by a shell, penetration or not, it's gonna hurt the tank in some way or another regardless. Being hit also means you have been spotted which means you are likely to be shot at again etc.
There seems to be a huge focus on penetration over everything else. While I am sure they are important, it feels like when people talk about humans being shot. Most people regard being wounded as a trivial thing (probably due to movies) and don't realize even a hit that does not kill/hit "important" areas still does damage that cannot be ignored. Same with tanks.
While not technically a tank itself, I just love the Namer APC/IFV configuration. It looks damn sexy and the idea of turning an MBT into an APC itself is incredibly amusing. Add AGTM and sponson mounted HMG's and you'd have a real life land raider.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
The ISU-152 (AkA Beast Killer) took out heavy tanks not by penning the armor, but by turning the crew into swiss cheese. The sheer force of a 152mm Howitzer shell slamming into the side of a Tiger or Panther (or Elefante) was strong enough to outright kill the crew of the vehicle without penning the armor. The force of the blast was even enough to blow the turret clean off the vehicle.
Likewise, during Barbarossa, the 7th Panzer Divison failed to neutralize a Russian KV heavy tank until they'd rattled the crew to death with explosives.
I could be wrong though...
No, you have an excellent point
The M4 Sherman and T34 can be argued as among the best tanks of WWII, not for the mere merits of their armor or guns, but the sheer fact you could make gak tons of them and keep them going in the field relatively easily. So what if in a 1v1 fight something might beat them? You never want to fight 1v1 anyway, and functionally what is more useful for the war effort as a whole? A Tiger tank, or ten Shermans?
LordofHats wrote: The ISU-152 (AkA Beast Killer) took out heavy tanks not by penning the armor, but by turning the crew into swiss cheese. The sheer force of a 152mm Howitzer shell slamming into the side of a Tiger or Panther (or Elefante) was strong enough to outright kill the crew of the vehicle without penning the armor. The force of the blast was even enough to blow the turret clean off the vehicle.
Likewise, during Barbarossa, the 7th Panzer Divison failed to neutralize a Russian KV heavy tank until they'd rattled the crew to death with explosives.
I could be wrong though...
No, you have an excellent point
The M4 Sherman and T34 can be argued as among the best tanks of WWII, not for the mere merits of their armor or guns, but the sheer fact you could make gak tons of them and keep them going in the field relatively easily. So what if in a 1v1 fight something might beat them? You never want to fight 1v1 anyway, and functionally what is more useful for the war effort as a whole? A Tiger tank, or ten Shermans?
Exactly yes.
"your guns cannot penetrate my tank hahaha"
"Oh well, the materials put into your one tank got put into 5 of mine, enjoy deaf tank crews etc"
And then the obvious factor of attrition is impossible to ignore as well.
I have heard it said from people who would know that the Strv 103 series tanks are/were far and away superior to any other tank out there... as long as thise other tanks were in Sweden as well. It was so perfectly designed to capitalize on the Swedish landscape and terrain, as well as their planned defensive tactics that no other armored vehicle would have ever had a hope against it. There was evidently a lot of interest from overseas customers at one time, until they realized that they wouldnt get the same success out of it in their own forces.
Its planned successor (cancelled), the Strv 2000, was said by some to be a "supertank", with some experts saying that had the Swedes gone ahead with the design, it would still be the best tank in the world today, 30 years later.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
chaos0xomega wrote: I have heard it said from people who would know that the Strv 103 series tanks are/were far and away superior to any other tank out there... as long as thise other tanks were in Sweden as well. It was so perfectly designed to capitalize on the Swedish landscape and terrain, as well as their planned defensive tactics that no other armored vehicle would have ever had a hope against it. There was evidently a lot of interest from overseas customers at one time, until they realized that they wouldnt get the same success out of it in their own forces.
Its planned successor (cancelled), the Strv 2000, was said by some to be a "supertank", with some experts saying that had the Swedes gone ahead with the design, it would still be the best tank in the world today, 30 years later.
Yea, designed with low silhouette to take advantage of rough terrain. Of course this is in a defensive role it would be a tough enemy. Of course this sort of design requires good communication and air protection to work. That way they can be waiting in the right spot when enemy armour comes.
However if this tank ever had to go on the offensive it would suffer terribly.
Tanks designed to fight in a particular place with a particular purpose will always be amazing when used for this purpose. I think leading nations have to design tanks that work in many areas so this sort of design is out of the question as its roles are limited to a mobile defense role.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/13 02:40:45
chaos0xomega wrote: I have heard it said from people who would know that the Strv 103 series tanks are/were far and away superior to any other tank out there... as long as thise other tanks were in Sweden as well.
With the Swedish Defense Force of those days it would have been a terrible opponent indeed. The Swedish Airforce was and is quite formidable for a small neutral country, so could have provided assistance. And ofc any hostiles would have first had to travel across Finland so they'd be a bit rugged around the edges to begin with. As Swedish politicians have said before, they're prepared to fight to the last Finn. ;-)
It wouldn't suffer terribly, but most certainly it would be incapable of performing an 'assault' role in the traditional sense of an MBT.
However, Sweden is no longer an aggressive power. Their war planning is so defensively focused we might as well call it Turtle Doctrine Within the context of their military planning, lacking a turret is not a significant disadvantage per se, especially not in the kind of terrain you see in Sweden, where a low profile highly mobile assault gun can perform marvelously well (In theory).
LordofHats wrote: It wouldn't suffer terribly, but most certainly it would be incapable of performing an 'assault' role in the traditional sense of an MBT.
However, Sweden is no longer an aggressive power. Their war planning is so defensively focused we might as well call it Turtle Doctrine Within the context of their military planning, lacking a turret is not a significant disadvantage per se, especially not in the kind of terrain you see in Sweden, where a low profile highly mobile assault gun can perform marvelously well (In theory).
Yes, that's what I meant. It is designed for a specific purpose and it does it well. But I am very sure the tank cannot fire and move, it must pause and fire. While with most tanks it makes sense to stop and fire at least these tanks can start the aiming process before halting to fire. This tank has to rotate the whole body before bringing its weapons to bear. Hence why when in a decent defense, it can simply be aiming where the enemy is likely to come, but attacking means it must present itself while it has the inability to react quickly to anything except what is ahead of it.
I have heard this tank is amazing when it doesn't have to "leave its comfort zone" but it isn't likely to be leaving it's comfort zone. I don't think it would fair well in an offensive role. Not as a main tank anyway.
Swastakowey wrote: Correct me if wrong but penetration isn't the only way to harm the tank. I imagine being hit by a tank round would shake the tank violently and produce a very loud bang. The possibility of instruments being damaged or rattled both in and out of the tank seem like real concerns as well.
Absolutely. And there's even more considerations. If I can link to the mediafire piece it gives a lot detail about the messy stuff those 122mm hits did even when there was little damage to the armour panels (the Tiger II had extremely hardened armour, but this made it brittle so significantly powerful hits might not penetrate but would cause large pieces to flake off inside the tank, bounce around and make everyone have a bad day. This was a problem in any tank, but a lot more so with the Tiger II).
And you're absolutely right about penetration not being the only issue. People, and especially wargamers, tend to compare tanks as if it were a showdown at high noon, with the first penetrating shot the winner. But plenty of tanks were lost because tracks were slipped or the turret knocked off its ring, or internal armour shaved off and killed the driver and everyone else just freaked out and got the hell out of the tank. And then there's the fact that a lot of those tanks had that done by AT weapons and artillery - so it really, really isn't just about tanks scoring penetrating hits on other tanks.
Simply put, I feel the best tanks are not the ones that can take a hit but the ones that balance protection and prevention. Because it is always better to not be hit in the first place.
Defintely. And the biggest factor is nothing in the technology of the tank, but the skill of the crew and its deployment by commanding forces. In the Fall of France and Barbarossa the Germans had inferior tanks to their opponents, but they were deployed more effectively, and with superior doctrine, and so were much more effective.
Having a lesser tank isn't good, but if you attack from unexpected directions with good numbers and aggression you're likely to be effective. At the same time if you can establish good ambush positions because you predict the enemy's approach, you can mess him up even though he's got technically better tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The M4 Sherman and T34 can be argued as among the best tanks of WWII, not for the mere merits of their armor or guns, but the sheer fact you could make gak tons of them and keep them going in the field relatively easily. So what if in a 1v1 fight something might beat them? You never want to fight 1v1 anyway, and functionally what is more useful for the war effort as a whole? A Tiger tank, or ten Shermans?
Sure. And it wasn't because you could make lots of them, but they were also reliable, had good range, and their gun was effective against enemy infantry. One of the things people miss is that the primary purpose of a tank wasn't to blow up other tanks, but to achieve and exploit breakthrough.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/13 03:22:06
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Sure. And it wasn't because you could make lots of them, but they were also reliable, had good range, and their gun was effective against enemy infantry. One of the things people miss is that the primary purpose of a tank wasn't to blow up other tanks, but to achieve and exploit breakthrough.
Well, if you look at the US's "tank doctrine", we didn't use tanks as primarily tank hunters. We used them as infantry support, hitting hardened buildings, mortar emplacements, MG emplacements, etc. Could we take on tanks? Sure. But I think by now we all realize that the Sherman wasn't the tank of choice to be taking on the various Panzers that were running around in WW2.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, if you look at the US's "tank doctrine", we didn't use tanks as primarily tank hunters. We used them as infantry support, hitting hardened buildings, mortar emplacements, MG emplacements, etc. Could we take on tanks? Sure. But I think by now we all realize that the Sherman wasn't the tank of choice to be taking on the various Panzers that were running around in WW2.
Yeah. I mean for what I said above about tanks being about a lot more than blowing up other tanks, when you take that too far and palm off tank killing to specialist units, then you've got the US tank doctrine and that was a pretty bad idea. I guess you could say that while the Germans went too far in focusing on AT capabilities, while the US went too far the other way.
Ultimately tanks should be able to do everything pretty well, but the one thing they must be able to do really well is breakthrough and exploitation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/13 05:30:57
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
