In the short lifespan of the armored fighting vehicle we have seen many "amazing" tank designs.
Here footage of the only NZ tanks ever produced in action, well the most action this beauty got. These bad boys where made to take on any Japanese invaders trying landing on our shores.
Armed to the teeth with 6 Bren Machine Guns, a mattress and corrugated iron armor these guys could pursue enemies at 24km/h with kiwi wrath.
This has to be my second favorite tank and although they never saw action (we can assume they would have done very well though) they thankfully got recycled back to their tractor form.
Have fun with these two posts. WWI stuff mostly, but there was a thread over on another forum a while back that dealt with mostly Cold War designs, and all their weirdery that I should look out.
It's a Nagmachon. Centurion tank body with an up-armored belly. Originally developed for Handasa Kravit (combat engineers), it's now standard issue for infantry units operating in urban environments under asymmetrical warfare conditions. The center "dog house" allows a number of soldiers to stand and fire out using the FN MAG machineguns, or their own personal weapons.
It's a Nagmachon. Centurion tank body with an up-armored belly. Originally developed for Handasa Kravit (combat engineers), it's now standard issue for infantry units operating in urban environments under asymmetrical warfare conditions. The center "dog house" allows a number of soldiers to stand and fire out using the FN MAG machineguns, or their own personal weapons.
Hah! I was going to make one of those in 28mm actually, but the structure looked like a real pain. The Namer however's a lot simpler, though unfortunately Centurions in 1/48th are a lot earier to find in plastic than T-55s. :(
We could have a thread just on weird looking Israeli vehicles along of course.
@ Ensis Ferrae
Aye probably, I wasn't really looking when I spammed a load of images.
It's a Nagmachon. Centurion tank body with an up-armored belly. Originally developed for Handasa Kravit (combat engineers), it's now standard issue for infantry units operating in urban environments under asymmetrical warfare conditions. The center "dog house" allows a number of soldiers to stand and fire out using the FN MAG machineguns, or their own personal weapons.
Centurion is the best tank ever built. It's a front line vehicle used around the world in many major conflicts since 1945. In that time it's been upgunned several times and turned into many specialised vehicles. We were using them in Gulf 1, the Israelis into the 2000s in Lebanon. South Africa currently uses specially adapted ones today, this year is its 70th birthday.
It's a Nagmachon. Centurion tank body with an up-armored belly. Originally developed for Handasa Kravit (combat engineers), it's now standard issue for infantry units operating in urban environments under asymmetrical warfare conditions. The center "dog house" allows a number of soldiers to stand and fire out using the FN MAG machineguns, or their own personal weapons.
Centurion is the best tank ever built. It's a front line vehicle used around the world in many major conflicts since 1945. In that time it's been upgunned several times and turned into many specialised vehicles. We were using them in Gulf 1, the Israelis into the 2000s in Lebanon. South Africa currently uses specially adapted ones today, this year is its 70th birthday.
Yeah, I do like using Israeli Centurions in FOW fate of a nation.
There's a similar one of a crusader (or one of the other cruisers) in the desert in WWII dressed up as a truck, with "Day Five, and the other trucks still haven't realised that I am different" or some such. Kills me every time
There's the tank itself, just imagine the funny bit underneath, since I can't find the one I like.
A Wermacht Panther G disguised quite well as an US army Wolverine.
Despite the Germans having a unit of Axis tanks painted in Allied colours (which were quickly found out to be fakes by the Allies IIRC), captured German tanks in Allied colours were also a thing. The issue was that they'd run out of parts eventually, that and, though the articles I read never gave any cases, that your own side's soldiers would fire on captured tanks due to their silhouettes. The British drove the one below all the way to Berlin, though the Americans and Canadian also had cases of using captured tanks obviously. I don't know about the Russians, certainly early on in the war, but later they were throwing out so many of their own tanks that command probably would've shot one of the tank crews if they took an enemy one (or their own side would have accidentally more likely).
Similarly the Germans fielded captured shermans, dubbed "Dragons" due to the placement of tracks on their hulls to up the tank's poor armour. Typically these were festooned with German symbols to prevent friendly fire.
Heh, and neither of the T-28s fielded in WWII ever saw combat. One couldn't make it up the hill, the other one was abandoned in a field after quickly running out of fuel. IIRC one was recovered and stuck outside of a US fort. I think there was plans to use them in the Korean War, but that fell through, though don't quote me on that. I doubt that would have been a good idea given their history and that there was already a load more better tanks out there. Guess they just wanted to use them to justify the expense, but had they we would never have that one outside of that fort as they'd be sunk in the mud somewhere in Korea instead.
That captured Sherman - it has four crosses marked on it from these two sides alone. Clearly the crew were a little worried about receiving friendly fire.
The T-28s never deployed. Two prototypes were built and never left the US. They were tested at APG and Knox. The one at Knox (in front of the Patton museum) is now at Benning (when the Armor School combined with the Benning School for Wayward Boys all that stuff moved.
I'm not sure if the Armor museum at Benning is open yet, but the T-28 is on display outside. The Infantry museum at Benning is SPECTACULAR and well worth a visit if you're anywhere near the area.
CptJake wrote: The T-28s never deployed. Two prototypes were built and never left the US. They were tested at APG and Knox. The one at Knox (in front of the Patton museum) is now at Benning (when the Armor School combined with the Benning School for Wayward Boys all that stuff moved.
I'm not sure if the Armor museum at Benning is open yet, but the T-28 is on display outside. The Infantry museum at Benning is SPECTACULAR and well worth a visit if you're anywhere near the area.
Is the Patton museum still open? I visited it once when I was in high school, and want to take The Boy there some day. Lots of cool stuff there IIRC.
The Patton museum is open, but is NOT what you saw back then. All the Armor/Cavalry branch stuff (including the tank/vehicle collection) was moved to Benning. Now it is the General Patton Leadership Museum or something.
The armor/cav museum is still trying to get funded and built. As mentioned though, the National Infantry Museum is great. The armor museum will be adjacent to it.
CptJake wrote: The Patton museum is open, but is NOT what you saw back then. All the Armor/Cavalry branch stuff (including the tank/vehicle collection) was moved to Benning. Now it is the General Patton Leadership Museum or something.
The armor/cav museum is still trying to get funded and built. As mentioned though, the National Infantry Museum is great. The armor museum will be adjacent to it.
Well that sucks. My folks are in Louisville, so a drive down to Fort Knox is an easy day trip when we are down there. Georgia is a bit far. Thanks for the head’s up.
Yep, four tracks and a ufo hull. Such a bizarre design people have been making up stuff for years to figure out why something that odd looking could exist.
Yep, four tracks and a ufo hull. Such a bizarre design people have been making up stuff for years to figure out why something that odd looking could exist.
It looks odder still because they never finished the thing. I'd assume that they intended to go back and rework the tracks a bit, for instance they spent a lot of time armouring up the turret and didn't add any there.
^^ More Photoshop? The scale's different between those two images... Seeing as youknow the Maus never was deployed in the field or even had its turret matched with its hull, or hell made it out of a factory at all. I guess Super Heavy frothers can dream (even if on the field the Maus would be useless given the American's love for calling down artillery and it being just one massive slow moving target).
I recently went to the NZ Army Museum in Waiouru, got to look, and crawl on, some tanks. The highlight was definitely the centurion, its very... large.
The museum does make mention of the Bob Semple tank, in a very small plaque practically hidden behind some cool ww2 weapons with one blurry picture. Its completely forgotten by the time you get to the sherman in the next room.
I think the Challenger has a bit longer operational range, but they are close and it can depend on where you get your numbers.
I DO know I never had to refuel every 5 minutes in any Abrams (I've crewed M1 slicks, M1A1 Heavy Commons and M1A2s).
As for the convoy question, yeah, dispersion is generally the way to go, but how much can often be situational dependent. In an urban area with tight roads/lots of turns if you allow civilian traffic to get in the convoy it can be a bad thing (think VBIEDs, folks purposely trying to separate out vehicles, dumb/ignorant civilians just getting in the way not fully understanding the danger they put themselves in). Additionally, it seems in many units not every driver/VC knows the damned route so they tend to bunch up on the lead vehicle so they don't get lost (frickin sad...).
You try to balance ability to mass firepower and mutual support with dispersion so one IED doesn't get more than one vehicle. For movies/TV you have a better dramatic effect showing the whole convoy in the frame, in real life, 100-500 meters (situational dependent) between vehicles is a good thing. There is also certain electronic devices on some of our vehicles that work best with some dispersion.
Fun fact (as I recall): A Challenger crew got credit for the longest range kill in Desert Storm (5100 meters I think). A trooper who would become one of my TCs (and was in the video) pulled a trigger on a 4000+ kill in an M1A1. Great guy. One of the best NCOs I have ever worked with.
I had a very long range hit from a moving M1A2 against a moving target at night during the test at Ft Hood. Range was over 5400 with a damned HEAT round (big arc, not a flat trajectory like a SABOT, but it was what we had loaded). It took so long for the round to hit I initially assumed we missed and was about to re-engage the target when the round came down like a lightning bolt from Zeus. Not a combat kill but it did demonstrate how good the three axis sights and ballistic computer allowed a good gunner to hit way farther than the book says we should have been able to.
Take the figures with a grain of salt because they came from wikipedia - But apparently the operational range of the M1 Abrams is 265 miles; whereas the Challenger 2 is 340 miles on road, 160 miles off road.
I'm very curious to hear how the Abrams would have performed in Southern Lebanon. The IDF talks up the Merkava, and it's a very versatile platform, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's all it's cracked up to be.
The main gun design is pretty cool though...10 round internal rotating semiautomatic magazine full of 120mm goodness. That said, a well trained crew could probably match the ROF pretty well.
On the protection front, reports indicated that the Trophy active protection system succeeded in bouncing a few RPGs and Kornets, so there's that...
Doesn't really go towards proving which tank is the best, but it is interesting. Crew quality/training is and always will be the deciding factor in my mind.
We had a few guys from the '87 winning team on the M1A2 test. Some damned fine tankers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I'm very curious to hear how the Abrams would have performed in Southern Lebanon. The IDF talks up the Merkava, and it's a very versatile platform, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's all it's cracked up to be.
The main gun design is pretty cool though...10 round internal rotating semiautomatic magazine full of 120mm goodness. That said, a well trained crew could probably match the ROF pretty well.
On the protection front, reports indicated that the Trophy active protection system succeeded in bouncing a few RPGs and Kornets, so there's that...
ROF is interesting. Personally I consider it a relatively worthless stat for a tank. Target acquisition times are what controls engagement times. Being able to fire 10 rounds a minute is worthless if you can only spot and ID 3 targets in that time period. Unless you have gakky crews that miss a lot and need to re-engage the same target multiple times...
On the defense/firing stationary the heated gas and dust kicked up by a main gun firing tends to blind even thermal sights for a few seconds. When moving you can 'push through' the cloud and acquire the next target quicker. Obviously in rainy weather the issue is not as big.
One thing the M1A2 allowed was the TC to cover a separate sector from the gunner, and if he acquired he could slew the tube to his target, and either pop it or give control to the gunner and let him pop it (best solution, because then the TC switches to the gunner's sector while the gunner engages). We found that between M1A1 and M1A2, the A2s could engage the first target a few seconds faster, the second almost 30 seconds faster, the third about a minute faster, and no A1s engaged the fourth (they went down for time).
So, ROF just seems a silly stat for tanks in my opinion. Unless it is REALLY slow and the gunner/TC are ready to engage before the loader (automated or crew) has the next round ready to go.
Doesn't really go towards proving which tank is the best, but it is interesting. Crew quality/training is and always will be the deciding factor in my mind.
We had a few guys from the '87 winning team on the M1A2 test. Some damned fine tankers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I'm very curious to hear how the Abrams would have performed in Southern Lebanon. The IDF talks up the Merkava, and it's a very versatile platform, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's all it's cracked up to be.
The main gun design is pretty cool though...10 round internal rotating semiautomatic magazine full of 120mm goodness. That said, a well trained crew could probably match the ROF pretty well.
On the protection front, reports indicated that the Trophy active protection system succeeded in bouncing a few RPGs and Kornets, so there's that...
ROF is interesting. Personally I consider it a relatively worthless stat for a tank. Target acquisition times are what controls engagement times. Being able to fire 10 rounds a minute is worthless if you can only spot and ID 3 targets in that time period. Unless you have gakky crews that miss a lot and need to re-engage the same target multiple times...
On the defense/firing stationary the heated gas and dust kicked up by a main gun firing tends to blind even thermal sights for a few seconds. When moving you can 'push through' the cloud and acquire the next target quicker. Obviously in rainy weather the issue is not as big.
One thing the M1A2 allowed was the TC to cover a separate sector from the gunner, and if he acquired he could slew the tube to his target, and either pop it or give control to the gunner and let him pop it (best solution, because then the TC switches to the gunner's sector while the gunner engages). We found that between M1A1 and M1A2, the A2s could engage the first target a few seconds faster, the second almost 30 seconds faster, the third about a minute faster, and no A1s engaged the fourth (they went down for time).
So, ROF just seems a silly stat for tanks in my opinion. Unless it is REALLY slow and the gunner/TC are ready to engage before the loader (automated or crew) has the next round ready to go.
I agree - ROF is not an important stat for a tank. The time it takes to acquire a target and manuver the gun is going be longer than load time in most cases I'm sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: All I remember about the m1 is that they have to stop for fuel every five minutes, is that still the case yanks?
We put a 500 + gallon fuel tank in it. at .6 MPG that gets us something like 280 miles per fill. Its also dang fast. So fast we have to govern it to 42 MPH (68 KPH). 1500 HP will do that.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I wouldn't trust the figures given out for various stats on modern tanks, who does it benefit to be honest and open about those things?
No point is keeping secrete - we hand em out like hotcakes to our allies.
that thing was a death trap, i believe it took what 22 men to crew it and it had a tendencie to catch fire and the hatches would end up blocked by the turrets lol
Doesn't really go towards proving which tank is the best, but it is interesting. Crew quality/training is and always will be the deciding factor in my mind.
We had a few guys from the '87 winning team on the M1A2 test. Some damned fine tankers.
So it isn't only in football that Germany wins everything then?
So, ROF just seems a silly stat for tanks in my opinion. Unless it is REALLY slow and the gunner/TC are ready to engage before the loader (automated or crew) has the next round ready to go.
Have the IDF released anything lately about the Merkava's planned upgrade? Supposedly they want to replace the main gun with a laser or sonic weapon, but that seems like its a going to be a pipe dream for years. They must have a stop gap for the mean time though. That and I don't see coil guns being practical enough to mount on tanks in the short term either, though how are those naval tests going?
Heh, you could mention laser, sonic and gauss weapons in this thread regarding crazy 60s science fiction, now countries are actually attempting to make those things (properly that is, there were tests as far back as the 40s).
Wyrmalla wrote: Have the IDF released anything lately about the Merkava's planned upgrade? Supposedly they want to replace the main gun with a laser or sonic weapon, but that seems like its a going to be a pipe dream for years. They must have a stop gap for the mean time though. That and I don't see coil guns being practical enough to mount on tanks in the short term either, though how are those naval tests going?
Heh, you could mention laser, sonic and gauss weapons in this thread regarding crazy 60s science fiction, now countries are actually attempting to make those things (properly that is, there were tests as far back as the 40s).
The next generation of tanks are going to have rail guns.
Wyrmalla wrote: Have the IDF released anything lately about the Merkava's planned upgrade? Supposedly they want to replace the main gun with a laser or sonic weapon, but that seems like its a going to be a pipe dream for years. They must have a stop gap for the mean time though. That and I don't see coil guns being practical enough to mount on tanks in the short term either, though how are those naval tests going?
Heh, you could mention laser, sonic and gauss weapons in this thread regarding crazy 60s science fiction, now countries are actually attempting to make those things (properly that is, there were tests as far back as the 40s).
The next generation of tanks are going to have rail guns.
That'll have to be a pretty powerful engine to generate that high charge... no?
Wyrmalla wrote: Have the IDF released anything lately about the Merkava's planned upgrade? Supposedly they want to replace the main gun with a laser or sonic weapon, but that seems like its a going to be a pipe dream for years. They must have a stop gap for the mean time though. That and I don't see coil guns being practical enough to mount on tanks in the short term either, though how are those naval tests going?
Heh, you could mention laser, sonic and gauss weapons in this thread regarding crazy 60s science fiction, now countries are actually attempting to make those things (properly that is, there were tests as far back as the 40s).
The next generation of tanks are going to have rail guns.
That'll have to be a pretty powerful engine to generate that high charge... no?
Or trickle charge several high capacity capacitors. Then feed the rail gun using those.
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):
That's pretty nifty. Just by looking at the picture I would have thought for sure it was either a tank destroyer or an assault gun, but you are indeed right. It's considered a main battle tank. Cool stuff!
that thing was a death trap, i believe it took what 22 men to crew it and it had a tendencie to catch fire and the hatches would end up blocked by the turrets lol
It's armour was also barely resistant to small arms fire and even heavy machine guns could have caused catastrophic kills. Though to be fair this was made in the 1930s when 37mm was considered a potent anti-tank weapon.
that thing was a death trap, i believe it took what 22 men to crew it and it had a tendencie to catch fire and the hatches would end up blocked by the turrets lol
The T-35 had a crew of 11
Crimson Heretic wrote: It's armour was also barely resistant to small arms fire and even heavy machine guns could have caused catastrophic kills. Though to be fair this was made in the 1930s when 37mm was considered a potent anti-tank weapon.
Its protection did not really matter, it might as well have been unarmoured, for 90% of them were lost due to mechanical failure.
But at least it did look intimidating.
Most amazing tank ever is probably the Centurion. Introduced into service in 1945 it was the first true modern format tank and all tanks of the present day follow the same design. It has fought in more wars than any other design and is still in service today.
Kilkrazy wrote: Most amazing tank ever is probably the Centurion. Introduced into service in 1945 it was the first true modern format tank and all tanks of the present day follow the same design. It has fought in more wars than any other design and is still in service today.
In true British style, it was invented too late for WW2
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.
Early models were armed with a 17pdr. So they'd both have trouble penetrating each other from the front. The Centurion is more mechanically reliable.
The later 20pdr version would be more effective as would the even later 105mm version.
This is the most amazing tank in the world. Used in combat from 1917 until the late 1980s. It laid the blueprint for almost every successful tank design.
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
marv335 wrote: British tanks include tea making facilities. This makes them automatically superior to all other nations armoured vehicles.
Stick the lid from a .50 ammo can in the back grill of your trusty M1 series heat making machine, set actual can (filled with water) on top of lid. Have driver crank it up. HOT water for shaving/tea/what ever pretty darned quickly. Alternatively, set one of these filled with water on the lid:
with a couple scoops of coffee grounds wrapped up in a bandana tossed into it.
Aye the "tea makers" in British tanks is just good PR. They're just regular boilers for your food that come as standard because of the Cold War and not wanting crews to have to leave their vehicles in the event of a nuclear attack. On that note you'd expect that other countries would have done the same, but evidently not given only the British have a reputation for these "tea makers".
But aye, realistically you just use the rear engines. =P
Looks French to me given the tracks. Interwar presumably, though IIRC most of the French tanks wound up being used as artillery tractors during WWII, so this could well be a later design than it looks.
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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote: Early models were armed with a 17pdr. So they'd both have trouble penetrating each other from the front. The Centurion is more mechanically reliable.
The later 20pdr version would be more effective as would the even later 105mm version.
This is the most amazing tank in the world. Used in combat from 1917 until the late 1980s. It laid the blueprint for almost every successful tank design.
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):
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):
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LordofHats wrote: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.
Shhh! Let the treadhead in me dream
Could somebody also explain the hype for the centurion? What it effectively is is a slow panther
Well, this 'hype' as you call it probably extends from it being the longest serving modern MBT in existence, the fact that it was the best tank in existence at its time (1945 to some time in the 1970's) and even today is still considered a fearsome opponent on the battlefield, was the first tank to mount a 105mm gun. Its armour was 'only' 152mm thick.... And sloped heavily.
Even today the Centurion is still considered a powerful MBT and capable of standing up to most modern tanks if used correctly.
Sweet mother of turnips! That was awesome! I was a bit surprised when that went off and actually shoved the vehicles suspension back a bit, good gravy that's a kick.
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.
I would disagree with that.
M4 was superior when first designed and thereafter kept pace with the STUGs and Mark IVs that were the real workhorse units of the German military. they had real problems with Tigers and Panthers but that was 1) later in the war; 2) partly balanced by the firefly/76mm concept; 3) more than balanced by fighter bombers and massive overabundance of US heavy artillery. We forget there were actually very few Tigers/jagdtigers/jagdpanthers and not near enough Panthers. Definitely should have had the 76mm earlier though-aka follow the British in continuing to upgrade their weaponry.
I'd proffer if the war had continued the numbers of Pershings (and likely superPershings) and Centurions would have been breathtaking.
My folks are in Louisville, so a drive down to Fort Knox is an easy day trip when we are down there. Georgia is a bit far. Thanks for the head’s up.
