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.

Chieftain did not come on line until the mid 1960s. Centurions pounded hell out of T55s in the ME through to the seventies.

T55 is a great tank. It just wasn't years ahead of the competition.

Edit: how did we get to comparing USSR and US tanks again?

 Frazzled wrote:
Chieftain did not come on line until the mid 1960s. Centurions pounded hell out of T55s in the ME through to the seventies.

Centurions so heavily modified that to even compare them to the original model produced in 1947 is fallacious, sure.

The Centurion was being phased out well before the Chieftain hit the production line, both for lack of need and because it was already entering the realm of the obsolete when it went on the line itself. The British developed and used a design called the Conquer from 55 to 66. It was originally meant as a heavier partner to the Centurion, but the British ended up not having a huge need for tanks throughout the later half of the fifties and the sixties, and that good decade and a half saw a lot of hardware getting sold off without being replaced while the Empire was winding down.

T55 is a great tank. It just wasn't years ahead of the competition.

The course of events in the post years wars demonstrate otherwise. The Soviets spent most of the twenty years that followed WII with solid tank designs that matched or outclassed their rivals, while the NATO nations spent much of that time stumbling about with failed designs, obsolete concepts, or just plain bad ideas.

Edit: how did we get to comparing USSR and US tanks again?

*shrug* idk XD

Argh... Can't keep up with LOH's typing while on phone...we're being overwhelmed by sheer numbers!...

Most MBT are "heavy". But we don't have medium tanks and usually we don't have light tanks too. Se, it's just one "main".

 Frazzled wrote:
Miles ahead?
British had the Centurion in 1946.
M46 started replacing M26 in 1949.M47 in 1952.


US and British tanks were extremely effective in Korea and the Middle East. Centurion was particularly good against T55s for decades. Just ask the Israelis...

And a good portion of that can be put down to crew skill and training. The Israelis are great at communication, junior officer / NCO initiative, and excellent long range gunnery. The Arab nations they fought only excelled at incompetence. It's harder to stage a coup when all your officers are both incompetent and political appointments.

 Ratbarf wrote:
It's harder to stage a coup when all your officers are both incompetent and political appointments.

It's not even just that - when you're the great boss you're obliged to give every last one of your cousins and inlaws a nice job if you can. It's pretty much expected that everyone in a desired job is there only because he knew someone. You CANT put competent people in charge because that would be insulting your family and clan! What do you mean, why wouldn't the wife's uneducated cousin be a perfect Minister of Trade?

Which ofc is also why a junior officer without the right family ties can't question the General who sends his unit into hell for no good reson. He'd show disrespect to someone somehow related to the Great Boss, and that's always a solid 100% reason to fire you (often with a 9mm to the head).