Was the Centurion the best early Cold War tank?

What made it so good compared to the American M48, M60 and Soviet tanks

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aesthetic. That and well 2-plane stabilizers.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually competent crews serving it

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M60 was closer to the middle of the cold-war, as the main production model, the M60A1, was in service in the 60s
    and the M60A1 is a lot better than the centurion and only gets better with each upgrade thanks to how much later it came out

    the M48A3 compares favorably to the centurion mk5, however, that neither could really be said to be better

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pajeet centurions beat Paki M60s consistently

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        and M4 shermans beat centurions and T-55s, so by this logic the M4 sherman is the best cold war tank of all time

        but the very best centurion ever made, the Mk10 has only 76mm upper glacis at 55 degrees and a 152mm gun mantlet
        the M60A1 has a 100mm upper glacis at 60 degrees and a 300mm gun mantlet, and the increase in armor does not impact its mobility with a slightly greater HP/T than the centurion

        only thing the centurion has that can match the M60A1 is the identical main gun
        it does have a 2-plane stabilizer, the only thing it has that the M60 des not
        but in turn the M60A1 has an electro-mechanical ballistic computer

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the garden gnomes added ERA to both
          also the south africans put composite on them iirc

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >so by this logic the M4 sherman is the best cold war tank of all time
          Yes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's beautiful.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the increase in armor does not impact its mobility with a slightly greater HP/T than the centurion
          Suspension travel distance might affect its off road mobility. While pretty much every British has been bit slow compared contemporary competition on road, they tend to do pretty well in rough terrain. All of Patton series tanks weren't exactly fastest tanks off road. Guy who I know was M60A3 company commander in Germany in 80's, his unit switched Abrams later on. One of his remarks was that pretty much all NATO tanks drove circles around them when conditions were muddy enough when they had M60's. Including Centurions. After getting Abrams, not so much, at least Centurions.

          A funny thing is that in 70's for M60A3 they considered major rework of suspension that would have had negligible effect on cost of new built tanks, but pretty hefty price tag on ones rebuilt from earlier models. Apparently one of the main reasons they didn't upgrade suspension was that it was seen in 70's as threat to Abrams program, not necessarily for budgetary reasons, but due to mobility improvements for M60. Improving mobility of US mechanized units was a big part for rationale of both M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley programs.

          For 2nd hand life advice part of post. Boomer I mentioned earlier told me something. Never quit your job for a woman. It is not worth it. Dude retired in 1990's as lt col, after getting married. Woman didn't like his military career. Had he stayed in few years longer and fucked up everything so badly that he would have never been promoted again, his pension would be substantially better. Cunt divorced him faster than he would have reached point where he could have retired with full pension. Just having military command experience doesn't necessarily make you employable and open up contractor gravy train for you or path to corporate management. Contractor part requires getting contacts to relevant companies while in staff officer part of career.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        oi m8, you got a loicense for that racism?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          moron

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and M4 shermans beat centurions and T-55s, so by this logic the M4 sherman is the best cold war tank of all time

      but the very best centurion ever made, the Mk10 has only 76mm upper glacis at 55 degrees and a 152mm gun mantlet
      the M60A1 has a 100mm upper glacis at 60 degrees and a 300mm gun mantlet, and the increase in armor does not impact its mobility with a slightly greater HP/T than the centurion

      only thing the centurion has that can match the M60A1 is the identical main gun
      it does have a 2-plane stabilizer, the only thing it has that the M60 des not
      but in turn the M60A1 has an electro-mechanical ballistic computer

      They look fucking terrible the M series tanks up until the M1. The turrets are just awful.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        shit taste

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah they have big dumb oval turrets they just look stupid.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're just gay and stupid

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >holding objectively incorrect opinions

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was a good, solid tank.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Considering how many M60 variations Israel had compared to centurions that got replaced and phased out.
    I'd say that M60 was the best.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stabiliser, turret ring and turret size allowing it to be upgraded, good gun with the 17pdr, good gun with the 20pdr, Amazing trend-setting gun with the 105mm L7 which everyone else in NATO adopted, as well as the Chinese to upgrade their slavshit knock-offs.

      m60 is mid cold war, contemporary with the chieftain, which israel took heavy "inspiration" from to make the merkava after Britain decided to stop selling Israel stuff because the arabs were buying it.

      >the first British tank that wasn't bad
      Yeah I think after WW2 and enough exposure to a mix of German and American tanks they doctrine changes to having MBT's in their line up, doing away with all the fucking rubbish like cruiser tanks and infantry support shit

      American tank doctrine was even worse, it was the Americans who learned from the British in upgunning their tanks to face other tanks, although they were pretty slow in learning that as the american tanks had no APDS and were pretty undergunned until they adopt the L7 105mm.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >American tank doctrine was even worse
        american tank doctrine was pretty much the same as everyone elses, concentrating armor into divisions for use in maneuver
        but compared to the british, they were much more modern in training close cooperation

        >it was the Americans who learned from the British in upgunning their tanks to face other tanks
        americans were always planning to upgun their tanks, they did not learn this from the british
        the 75mm was chosen specifically for its AP round and they wanted the 76mm for having a better AP round as its replacement

        the difference between them and the british is that they considered a reduction in raw penetration a necessary sacrifice if it meant achieving a higher rate of fire and superior gun handling
        while the british were more willing to tilt a gun side-ways just for that extra inch of penetration even at the cost of ergonomics

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The extra inch of penetration let them ufp panthers and King Tiger IIs, which the American tanks could not. And American tank doctrine actively resisted the idea of using tanks to fight tanks, which was an entirely outdated mindset which everyone else had long since moved beyond.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The extra inch of penetration let them ufp panthers and King Tiger IIs
            which the americans considered an upside when reviewing the 17-pdr
            but came to the conclusion that penetrating the frontal plate of the panther was only possible with APDS which was only accurate to about 300m
            but it was not seen as worth the sacrifices in ergonomics or re-tooling factories to produce the 17-pdr especially when the 90mm outperformed the 17-pdr anyways and was going to be mounted on the T25

            >And American tank doctrine actively resisted the idea of using tanks to fight tanks, which was an entirely outdated mindset which everyone else had long since moved beyond.
            this is a common but entirely unfounded myth

            american tanks were expected to fight tanks and were one of their duties
            TDs were meant to be used as a mobile reserve to counter concentrated enemy armor units
            in practice, they were just used to replace towed AT guns where possible
            but tanks were meant to engage enemy tanks if they met them during the maneuver phase or for counter-attacking

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I say extra inch, its 7.6 inches compared to 5.3 inches for a plate at 30* at 1000 yards.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >leaves behind their 76 tanks in Normandy
          >Americans wanted the 76!

          Also let capital letters and full stops enter your life.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            let some books about us armor development in ww2 enter your life

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Which ones would you recommend? I'll see if they're on my shelf. I want to gauge how much of a moron you are.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Americans in Italy did because they were actually encountering the Tiger, Elephant/Ferdinand and heavier TDs on a more regular basis.

            Prior to Normandy the 76mm Sherman was only introduced 1-2 months (IIRC but it wasn't a very large amount of time) before the landings; commanders didn't want to retrain their gunners so they chose to stay with the 75.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Americans throw their lives away with their own short sightenedness

              Color me surprised.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shows how good the Centurion was when it is often compared to the M60 when its actual contemporaries are T-54/55, M46/47/48 Pattons

      and M4 shermans beat centurions and T-55s, so by this logic the M4 sherman is the best cold war tank of all time

      but the very best centurion ever made, the Mk10 has only 76mm upper glacis at 55 degrees and a 152mm gun mantlet
      the M60A1 has a 100mm upper glacis at 60 degrees and a 300mm gun mantlet, and the increase in armor does not impact its mobility with a slightly greater HP/T than the centurion

      only thing the centurion has that can match the M60A1 is the identical main gun
      it does have a 2-plane stabilizer, the only thing it has that the M60 des not
      but in turn the M60A1 has an electro-mechanical ballistic computer

      >very best centurion ever made, the Mk10
      Mk10 was not the very best Centurion by any margin (not even the last UK Centurion Mk) and every Mk 10 would have had 51mm plate welded on the glacis to bring the armour to 5" sloped at 57 degrees.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Mk. 11, 12, 13 making any real significatn changes

        Stop being pedantic.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was the ebst looking at any rate

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    South African Olifant which is a modernized centurion

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      my baby

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/aGZbQ7N.jpg

        South African Olifant which is a modernized centurion

        >African cosmetic mods to look like an Abrams
        I love the character and history of modernized antiques, but you must laugh.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's not cosmetic, it's legit spaced armor.

          throw in some ERA and modern APFSDS ammo and this thing will take on any T-72

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Retard

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's so great about it?

    I like that bongs have pride in their shitboxes but thr centurion was the first British tank that wasn't bad. The majority of British WW2 tanks were inferior to the Stuart.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the first British tank that wasn't bad
      Yeah I think after WW2 and enough exposure to a mix of German and American tanks they doctrine changes to having MBT's in their line up, doing away with all the fucking rubbish like cruiser tanks and infantry support shit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Comet was good.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >centurion was the first British tank that wasn't bad.
      When will this meme fuck off?

      Matilda was a rape machine in France and Africa. Cromwell was fine, not worse than the Sherman just built in fewer numbers and with fewer variants because American hand-me-downs made them unnecessary. Churchill was great and got even better.

      There was literally nothing wrong with British tanks in WW2. They're just not "memeable" and so therefore they're shit apparently.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Churchill was great and got even better.
        The Churchill Mk1 was literally the only tank the Germans did not bother capturing.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They didnt capture any mk1s to my knowledge, although they captured a number of mk3s and did use them, on account of an extremely risky commando operation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They didnt capture any mk1s to my knowledge
            They got a whole bunch of them on the beaches and thought they were junk, actually.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >although they captured a number of mk3s and did use them, on account of an extremely risky commando operation.

            I think you mean lend-lease and the eastern front.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Fighting vehicles are urgently required, and instructions have been received to proceed with the vehicle as it is rather than hold up production. All those things which we know are not as they should be will be put right.
          t. the user manual that came with the Mk 1 Churchill

          It's almost as if Britain was worried about being invaded.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There was literally nothing wrong with British tanks in WW2
        Except only they were shit m8

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Matilda and Crusader were good for their time and opponents. Valentine was adequate.
          The Archer was wacky, good gun, but a tank built backwards isnt ideal.
          Churchill mk1 was a bit wrong and was openly admitted to be a prototype, but the mk3 was good for its time in the war, and the mk7/8 was good, good armour, great cross-country mobility, bit slow though with the later models with more armour, and undergunned for facing 1944/45 tanks. The AVRE variants were used in the korean war.
          Cromwell was fine, but a bit undergunned for 1944 (6pdr about equivalent to the 76mm-American tanks were the worst armed in 1945). The Comet was very good, very fast, good gun and decent armour. Main problem was that there werent enough. The Comet is used into the 1970s in some countries.
          Sherman Firefly was adequate, significantly better armed than the American Shermans, and the bongs named the Sherman tanks. Achilles just an m-10 with a 17pdr.

          There was one retarded tank, the covenanter, which was never deployed and was taken out of production fairly quickly. Although production shouldnt have started at all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            crusader had horrible air filter designs, especially for dusty climates (e.g., the desert), and the water pump would never work. also, the driver didn't have a temperature gauge, so when the water pump inevitably broke, nobody would know until the engine seized from overheating

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Matilda

            Dude lets increase the complications of logistics by having TWO engines instead of one.

            >Crusader

            Dude lets put the air filters in the place that will have the most dust. Dude lets finally get a 3 turret crew but almost immediately get rid of the third man and put in a bigger gun.

            >Valentine

            Dude lets get a reliable tank that has off the shelf components that we know work. However we'll go from a 2 man turret to a 3 man turret back to a 2 man turret and we'll also remove the machine gun to fit in a bigger gun.

            >The Archer

            You don't understand the point of the archer and base your knowledge of it enitrely upon video games.

            >Churchilll

            Dude lets have an infantry tank without a HE round. Then lets get a gun with a poor HE round. Then we'll get a good HE round but on the eve of battle we'll convert 1/3rd of them back to the gun with the poor HE round. Mk. / Mk. VIII isn't even worth mentioning with 2 per Churchill Battalion.

            No AVRE in Korea it was Crocodiles. Git gud.

            >Cromwell

            Dude lets use fucking rivets on our tanks and have the worst crew hatches in the entire universe. Lets weld our tanks towards the end of the war lmao.

            >Comet

            Too late. Also dude lets use the same round as the 17pdr but we'll put it in the case for the 3.7inch AA gun and complicate logisitics further by having 2 rounds that are the same but can only be fired by the individual guns.

            >Sherman Firefly

            Not even going to start.

            >Covenanter

            1,771 vehicles built and Covenanter isn't as bad as you think however your knowledge of the subject is as shallow as capacity of its radiators.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Matilda
              Dude lets increase the complications of logistics by having TWO engines instead of one
              This is a weak one considering the Sherman would use 4 powerplants and 2 of those powerplants were 2 (M4A2) or 5 (M4A4) engines strapped together.
              Plus other American tanks/TDs that had multiple engines, such as the M5, M24 and M10 variants

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay i will rephrase.

                DUDE lets use two FUCKING BUS ENGINES to power our tank that have a grand horsepower of 87 each so that when one engine dies (which it will) we crawl at the slowest speed known to man. Also lets make it overly complicated and have it so that there is uneven wear on all the components which means you need to be jesus christ himself to actually do proper maintenance on it.

                Oh and the radio that we gave you? Its morse code only. Oh and its on the turret floor. We also gave you a gun without HE and you'll be dying to anti tank guns in the desert.

                No we won't be giving you more than 2 close support tanks per squadron. No we won't be giving them much HE. Yes we're sure that smoke will save you.

                Matilda's greatest achievement was being replaced the the Valentine - which despite having less armor and having its own stupid design decisions was at least reliable.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >unironic reddit space

                https://i.imgur.com/ki1FBHt.jpg

                M60 was closer to the middle of the cold-war, as the main production model, the M60A1, was in service in the 60s
                and the M60A1 is a lot better than the centurion and only gets better with each upgrade thanks to how much later it came out

                the M48A3 compares favorably to the centurion mk5, however, that neither could really be said to be better

                >M48A3 compares favorably to the centurion mk5
                lol. lmao even.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >When will this meme fuck off?
        Never because it's true.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At least for the ones in Australian service they were liked because they carried a lot of ammo which kept them going in a fight for a long time and they are pretty damn tough. I think in Vietnam we only had half a dozen damaged beyond worth salvaging and 2 crew deaths during that time they were deployed.
    But from memory they carried about 60 rounds for the main gun, about 8-9000 rounds of 30-06 and about 4000 of .50. So when a lot of people need killing, you're probably going to have enough to do it and I think both our Mk3 and Mk7's got up-armoured packages on the turret, cupola and glacis, long range fuel tanks and IR systems

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nah.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Post Golan Heights.

        Dunno, here in Finland we kept those around longer than T-72M1's from mid-80's. In late 80's and early 90's they upgraded T-55's with new night vision, digital fire control computers, new western armor piercing sabot round (I think it was same Belgian supplier as for BMP-2 armor piercing rounds), new smoke launchers, illumination mortar, side skirts, thermal sleeve for gun (it isn't there to hide tank from thermal sights, but to keep barrel heat uniform and improve gun accuracy) and some other stuff. Generally modernized T-55M was considered better tank than T-72M1. The fact that there were other T-55's around like bridge layers and shit probably helped. It also helped that mine rollers were sufficiently wide to work with Leopard 2's. It was also cheaper to operate as OPFOR tank in training than T-72. Last time I have seen new images popping up of those is from around 2015, 2016 or so.

        Bunch of 'em were sold to Vietnam or Laos or something like a decade ago, as those are or cannibalization for spares. It is cheaper to ship 'em 3rd world than scrap 'em in Finland due asbestos hazard. Dealing with asbestos from T-55 is more expensive than value of steel in 'em.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Surely if the T-72M1s were modernised with the same things the T-55s were such as thermals, new digital FCS, new APFSDS etc, it would have been better then the T-55M. T-72M1 has better mobility and protection vs T-55

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            T-55M modernization started to happen just before the cold war ended and T-72M1's were bargain bin cheap and by the time for major mid life refit for 'em was around 2nd hand Leopard 2A4's were cheaper than modernizing T-72M1's. Finland bought quite a lot of T-72M1's from ex-DDR stockpiles in early 90's and in early 2000's Leo2A4's from ex-west German stockpiles.

            Finland also had some of the last non-Chinese made T-55's. It was used as platform for British Marksman SPAAG. Turrets were transplanted to Leo2A4 chassis after Crimea happened, those those had been retired like couple years earlier. Bought as unused in late 80's. Probably manufactured in early 80's in Poland.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Surely if the T-72M1s were modernised with the same things the T-55s were such as thermals, new digital FCS, new APFSDS etc, it would have been better then the T-55M. T-72M1 has better mobility and protection vs T-55

            I seriously doubt that anon. First of all, the T-72M1s were the literal monkey models that gave the T-72 it's horrible reputation as they are based on the garbage T-72A export variant and suffer from the carousel of death that all T-72s suffer from. Secondly, the 125mm ammo the Russians sold the Fins actually had worse penetration than 100mm ammo the Fins had. Finally, the T-72 has worse reverse speeds compared to a T-55 and is under powered with it's 780 HP, supercharged T-34 based engine (lol).

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > the T-72M1s were the literal monkey models that gave the T-72 it's horrible reputation as they are based on the garbage T-72A export variant
              Much is talked about "monkey models" but the reality is the differences between a T-72M1 and T-72A aren't much except the NBC,radios and KMT mine roller mounts. The gun is the same, they used TPD-K1 laser sight and the same ammunition and the same armour protection. This is mute anyway, since in a deep modernisation focusing on firepower and fire control, like with T-55M, all the old stuff would be ripped out and a thermal sight + digital FCS would be stuck in.
              >and suffer from the carousel of death that all T-72s suffer from
              T-55 explodes just as easily.
              > Secondly, the 125mm ammo the Russians sold the Fins actually had worse penetration than 100mm ammo the Fins had.
              They could have sourced modern 125mm ammunition elsewhere, like they did with the 100mm, e.g. Israeli CL3254, Czech TAPNA
              >Finally, the T-72 has worse reverse speeds compared to a T-55
              True but both are bad
              >is under powered with it's 780 HP
              T-55A HP/t =16.1
              T-72M1 HP/t = 18.8. Even if the weight is increased to 43t PWR is 18.1 hp/t
              >supercharged T-34 based engine (lol).
              T-72 engine is a development of the T-55's engine which is a development of the T-34's engine yes, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >T-55 explodes just as easily.
                not exactly. while lots of cold war tanks store ammo evenly spread throughout the entire tank there is but one issue with T-64/72 that makes it worse - the ammo is stored in 2 pieces and the propellant case is extremely, incredibly flammable because it was designed as a 1st gen soviet combustible case, so they went all in just to get it to burn out properly. this means that a spark or a hot fragment sets it on fire right as it sits next to explosive shells.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Post Golan Heights.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sex

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most soviet tanks blew the equivalent tank out of the water. If you crewed them with whites (ie, not russians) they would decimate the US tank

    T-44 = M46
    T-54/55 >>>> early M48
    T-55 = M60
    T-62 = M60
    early T-64/T-72 >>> M60
    later T-64/T-72 >>>>>>>>> M60
    late T-64/T-72 >> early Abrams
    T-80 >>> early Abrams

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon I….

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Centurion mk3>T-44
      Centurion mk3=T-54 (1951 variant)
      Centurion mk5>T-54 (1949 variant)
      Centurion mk10>T-55
      T-62>Centurion mk10
      Chieftain mk3=T-62
      T-64A>Chieftain mk3/5
      Chieftain mk10>>>T-64A/T-72A
      Chieftain mk10=T-64B/T-72B

      The L7105mm APDS is significantly better than anything the soviets have until they introduce the 125mm guns with APDS and APFSDS. The 120mm is equivalent in performance but no other NATO tank adopts a 120mm until the 80s.
      The Russians get a power spike with the T-64s, the Chieftain's 120mm APDS is the only NATO gun that can penetrate the T-64 B's ufp at 2km (predicted fulda engagement range) until high performance APFSDS is developed in 1983. The T-72A is just a shitty T-64A. Early Chieftain's armour is inadequate vs APFSDS but the mk10's turret composite is completely immune from the front, from any range and angle, while the Chieftain can go through the centre of the 64's turret, and doesnt have to expose itself as much in order to fire due to its good gun depression, which the slavtanks dont have.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but no other NATO tank adopts a 120mm until the 80s.
        This is how I know that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Name all the NATO tanks that entered service and have 120mm guns in the 1970s.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      haha magazine go FFFWWWOOOOSSSHHHH

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      by early abrams do you mean the XM prototypes or do you mean the M1A1? Because the T-64B is definitely better than the XM prototypes but its about even with the M1A1, at least in so far as we know what its armour actually offers in rha equivalent and where its armour is lacking+what features make up for this.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Presumably "early Abrams" means 105mm armed Abrams, like M1IP.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah its definitely better than that

          People still upgrade the M60 (Taiwan has the brave tiger model with thermals)

          Nobody has bothered upgrading and still running centurions. That will answer your question bongoid

          Now go brush your teeth and pray to Allah gay

          South Africa has, and the Centurion is from 1945 with only 4,000 produced and none were given awar for near-free, while the M60 is from 1957, over 15,000 were produced, and was basically given away for free in the thousands. Also the M60 uses a licensed copy of the Centurion mk10's 105mm gun.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >none were given awar for near-free
            kek. guess who the second-largest purchaser of the centurion was and why they bought so many

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Israel, and in order to fight arabs, but they did pay for them

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nope, the tank scare coming out of the korean war saw "the US government becoming the largest buyer of British Centurion tanks behind Britain herself. The US distributed these tanks to its European allies under the Mutual Defense Assistance Program starting in the early 1950s." http://afvdatabase.com/history.html

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh yeah, tbqh i thought the US was the largest buyer, as they gave hundreds to Denmark and the Netherlands, like 800 or so. Then theres the British sales to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel and Switzerland. I cant remember if Sweden was included in the MDA programme, as i think they were neutral?

                But all of these countries switch to leopard 2s in the late 1970s, which is fair enough, except india/pakistan where they hoard everything, although some were sold to singapore which still has them, Israel which buys everyone else's and then converts most of them to APCs, and sells its remaining Centurions to South Africa which still has them. And Jordan uses them into the 1980s, idk what Kuwait did with theirs. These countries dont switch to M60s though, aside from Israel which has both and Egypt who didnt get along with Britain post-Suez, they switch to much later gen tanks. Although i think spare parts is also a factor, as those stopped being produced a long time ago and the tooling was all sold off.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >http://afvdatabase.com/history.html
                >A Brief History of American Armor
                Brief my ass I ain't reading all that bullshit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The only time Soviet-designed armor won against Western-designed was some battles in the Iraq-Iran war, with those engaments being Iraqi victories.
      Then when the Iraqis tried the same in 1991, the coalition defeated them handily.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most of the engagements were monkey models operated by literal monkey crews

        T-55/T-62 vs M60 could go either way, whereas T-72 vs M60 ended badly for the M60

        >north korean tanks in a shit army vs. modern army with night vision and reconnaissance

        by early abrams do you mean the XM prototypes or do you mean the M1A1? Because the T-64B is definitely better than the XM prototypes but its about even with the M1A1, at least in so far as we know what its armour actually offers in rha equivalent and where its armour is lacking+what features make up for this.

        I mean the M1 and M1IP and the ammo they were using in the early 80s. M1A1 was about equivalent to the T-64/72/80 models at the time, that's when the game changed dramatically. But by then the cold war was basically over.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Most of the engagements were monkey models operated by literal monkey crews
          Anon, I don't know if you've been in a coma for the last seven months, but at this point it's clear the 1st Guards Tank Army isn't actually better trained than Saddam's Republican Guard. Russian crews ARE monkey crews.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The ammo available for the L7 105mm from 1983 was about as good as the APDS for the British 120mm, but in the early 80s the 120mms also get APFSDS which is significantly better, penetration goes from some 380mm at 60* to some 475mm at 60*. M1A1 used a similar 120mm which is somewhat better for APFSDS, so its definitely better than the T-64A/T-72A, and about equivalent to the T-64B/T-72B, but we dont know how good its armour is, other than it uses the British Chobham and that a report suggested that the version adopted for the m1a1 was at least the same KE protection for weight as RHA, we also know that the (exposed) glacis roof was not covered by composite and was only 30mm thick, albeit at an extreme angle, a minor weakness but a weakness nonetheless in a world of high performance APFSDS.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Gunner Heat PC has told me that M60A3TTS > T-72A
      The T-72As fire control system is absolutely fucking garbage, it's night fighting capability is non-existent, and thermals are cheat vision in the day as well. 105mm M833 APFSDS slices through it as well. M60A1 RISE(Passive) has better night fighting capability since it's night vision doesn't need a fucking IR searchlight that tells everyone where you are to work

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People still upgrade the M60 (Taiwan has the brave tiger model with thermals)

    Nobody has bothered upgrading and still running centurions. That will answer your question bongoid

    Now go brush your teeth and pray to Allah gay

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Centurion is from 1945, M60 is 1957, its a later gen tank, mid cold-war, and many more were made, with many more spare parts, and most were just given away for free after being upgraded by the US. Israel bought, or had bought for it (by America), nearly all of the Centurions in existence, which it converted to APCs and ARV/CEVs, so thats why you dont see so many around. South Africa has an upgraded version called the Olifant, Singapore has some in reserve. The engine, firepower and armour upgrades arent cheap though and spare parts are rare as the tooling was all sold off. America throws around free M60s+spare parts to its "allies", and Leopard 2s are avaliable these days, so its also a matter of economy. Plus Jordan was given Challenger 1s, and Kuwait was given Chieftains, so they dont need to keep using a WW2 tank.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    as another anon repeats M60 came later, better comparison are the M46/47/48. Soviet Contemporary would be the T-44/54/55

    Basically, what I would say is that the brits went into Centurion with the mentality that it would be the "main battle tank," meaning the brits wanted to transition to 1 tank for all needs. M46 and T-44 and even T-54 were basically designed with either army still under the idea that they would one model out of a set of models, operating with light tanks and heavy tanks, and the developments of these models were very much stuck with this baseline design philosophy.

    Because of the brits having a forward thinking doctrine influencing the Centurion's original design the Centurion was more flexible in being upgraded over time. US would kinda get there with the M60 but you have to keep in mind they were fucking around with a bunch of conceptual designs behind the scenes that never got deployed due to never being good enough or technologically mature/feasible (M60 partly being the result of one of these) which all eventually culminated in the M1, which is why we were upgrading the Patton for so long, we took what bits from those concepts worked and applied them where we could in the mean time (though sometimes this still wasn't adequate or just didn't work). The Soviets Upgraded their tank designs with new technological features when they could be bothered to, but truthfully their doctrine never really went past making fucking medium tanks to spam just like in WWII (and also artificially prop up their fucking empty economy).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      centurion was going to be a heavy cruiser, not a universal tank. infantry tank design proceeded after centurion was begun. a true universal tank was tried twice after centurion was in service, and failed until chieftain was accepted. centurion served with conqueror.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good thread, the M48/M60 are peak kino tank design. Centurion is peak design too. Not a single modern soulless tank can compare.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oh, one thing where Centurion has been said to been better than M48 or M60 comes from Israel. Magach is local designation and name for their upgraded variants. While its supposedly stand for battering ram, it has also been told to stand for charred bodies carrier. garden gnomes being garden gnomes, they went with cheaper hydraulic fluid. Turret hits in Yom Kippur War caused a major issue with fires after hits, Centurions didn't have that issue even with penetrating hits. Americans and presumably most other users used more expensive and less flammable hydraulic fluid. I dunno how much where hydraulic lines run in Pattons or Centurion for turret and gun drives, but that too might be a factor in why less Centurion crews got incinerated than Patton crews back then. They probably used same cheaper and more flammable fluid in their Centurions as well. Apparently parents of Israeli tankers took a notice tried to get their kids assigned to units using Centurions.

    Gotta save few shekels and learn the hard way.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >M48
    Centurion had shorter modernization cycles. Otherwise it's hull armor is generally inferior and there's no real difference in performance between the 20pdr and 90mm, both vehicles only became decent when they got a 105mm, otherwise it's just because the centurion had more incremental improvements over time.

    >M60
    Inferior to the Patton
    >T-54/5
    Better than these vehicles in so many ways it's not worth writing out.
    >T-62
    Generally worse until it was upgunned with the L7
    >AMX/Leopard
    Less speed but better protection

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      About the cent hull armour, its kind of inconsistent. The mk 2's had a 120mm ufp, but the mk3s (upgrade of mk2, which all existing mk2s were upgraded to) have only 79mm in the documents for the exports to sweden and australia, which themselves are later upgraded to 120mm -127mm again. I dont know whats going on there, the 120-127mm ufp is better than the M48, the 79mm is worse. Not sure how it compares to the M60 ufp exactly, maybe about the same, depends on the angle really.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        All Centurions from Mk 2 onwards were built with 76mm front hull.
        Mk 5/1. 7/1 and 8/1 had added armour welded onto the front hull (and Mk 3s converted to Mk 5s)
        Tanks with the added armor + L7 gun were re-designated Mk 6, 9 and 10 respectively.
        The amount of armor welded on seems to vary. The documents suggest 44mm but some have been measured with 51mm.

        Okay i will rephrase.

        DUDE lets use two FUCKING BUS ENGINES to power our tank that have a grand horsepower of 87 each so that when one engine dies (which it will) we crawl at the slowest speed known to man. Also lets make it overly complicated and have it so that there is uneven wear on all the components which means you need to be jesus christ himself to actually do proper maintenance on it.

        Oh and the radio that we gave you? Its morse code only. Oh and its on the turret floor. We also gave you a gun without HE and you'll be dying to anti tank guns in the desert.

        No we won't be giving you more than 2 close support tanks per squadron. No we won't be giving them much HE. Yes we're sure that smoke will save you.

        Matilda's greatest achievement was being replaced the the Valentine - which despite having less armor and having its own stupid design decisions was at least reliable.

        You seem to have an irrational hate boner for the British. The M4A2 Sherman was powered by two bus engines (GM 6-71) strapped together. I bet you would call it an amazing example of American resourcefulness to use what it has available

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You seem to have an irrational hate boner for the British.

          I am British. I just know enough about my nations tanks to know their flaws and the stupidity in their design philosophy. There are praiseworthy aspects and there are places that should be rightfully damned.

          >M4A2
          >Used by the Soviets, British, French and USMC
          >an amazing example of American resourcefulness.

          The only excellent examples of the Sherman are M4, M4A3 and M4A4 because I am biased as hell and I like how the M4A4 looks.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the american tanks had no APDS and were pretty undergunned
      >there's no real difference in performance between the 20pdr and 90mm
      HEAT-FS shells, aka the primary anti tank armament for US, especially during the 50s. the kind of shells US were the first to develop.

      Centurion mk3>T-44
      Centurion mk3=T-54 (1951 variant)
      Centurion mk5>T-54 (1949 variant)
      Centurion mk10>T-55
      T-62>Centurion mk10
      Chieftain mk3=T-62
      T-64A>Chieftain mk3/5
      Chieftain mk10>>>T-64A/T-72A
      Chieftain mk10=T-64B/T-72B

      The L7105mm APDS is significantly better than anything the soviets have until they introduce the 125mm guns with APDS and APFSDS. The 120mm is equivalent in performance but no other NATO tank adopts a 120mm until the 80s.
      The Russians get a power spike with the T-64s, the Chieftain's 120mm APDS is the only NATO gun that can penetrate the T-64 B's ufp at 2km (predicted fulda engagement range) until high performance APFSDS is developed in 1983. The T-72A is just a shitty T-64A. Early Chieftain's armour is inadequate vs APFSDS but the mk10's turret composite is completely immune from the front, from any range and angle, while the Chieftain can go through the centre of the 64's turret, and doesnt have to expose itself as much in order to fire due to its good gun depression, which the slavtanks dont have.

      >the Chieftain's 120mm APDS is the only NATO gun that can penetrate the T-64 B's ufp at 2km (predicted fulda engagement range) until high performance APFSDS is developed in 1983
      there were 2 variants of T-64B, pre 1978 and post 1978, with the latter featuring a different UFP scheme. Even early 105mm apfsds could penetrate the former, while any APFSDS besides M735 could also penetrate the latter.
      >The T-72A is just a shitty T-64A
      T-72 Ural is the shitty T-64A. T-72A(1979) is a shitty T-64B(1976)

      Most soviet tanks blew the equivalent tank out of the water. If you crewed them with whites (ie, not russians) they would decimate the US tank

      T-44 = M46
      T-54/55 >>>> early M48
      T-55 = M60
      T-62 = M60
      early T-64/T-72 >>> M60
      later T-64/T-72 >>>>>>>>> M60
      late T-64/T-72 >> early Abrams
      T-80 >>> early Abrams

      absolutely delusional slavaboo shit-eater

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the Centurion the best early Cold War tank?
    No.
    It was the last of the WWII tanks and BTFO'd by every tank that came out in the cold war generation.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How?

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The M48 and M60 we're pretty lackluster.

    Unrelated, but does anyone have the link/pic of the Soviet comparison of Soviet and NATO tanks that had the M60A2 as a god machine?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can't find it at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I know which one you're referring to. I remember the same report saying that the T-64A was equivaent in effectiveness to the T-10M. I guess the Soviet heavy tank boner lingered around for a few years after Khrushchev was thrown out kek. The later M60 models were pretty capable though.

      https://i.imgur.com/67FVTIR.jpg

      What made it so good compared to the American M48, M60 and Soviet tanks

      >the increase in armor does not impact its mobility with a slightly greater HP/T than the centurion
      Suspension travel distance might affect its off road mobility. While pretty much every British has been bit slow compared contemporary competition on road, they tend to do pretty well in rough terrain. All of Patton series tanks weren't exactly fastest tanks off road. Guy who I know was M60A3 company commander in Germany in 80's, his unit switched Abrams later on. One of his remarks was that pretty much all NATO tanks drove circles around them when conditions were muddy enough when they had M60's. Including Centurions. After getting Abrams, not so much, at least Centurions.

      A funny thing is that in 70's for M60A3 they considered major rework of suspension that would have had negligible effect on cost of new built tanks, but pretty hefty price tag on ones rebuilt from earlier models. Apparently one of the main reasons they didn't upgrade suspension was that it was seen in 70's as threat to Abrams program, not necessarily for budgetary reasons, but due to mobility improvements for M60. Improving mobility of US mechanized units was a big part for rationale of both M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley programs.

      For 2nd hand life advice part of post. Boomer I mentioned earlier told me something. Never quit your job for a woman. It is not worth it. Dude retired in 1990's as lt col, after getting married. Woman didn't like his military career. Had he stayed in few years longer and fucked up everything so badly that he would have never been promoted again, his pension would be substantially better. Cunt divorced him faster than he would have reached point where he could have retired with full pension. Just having military command experience doesn't necessarily make you employable and open up contractor gravy train for you or path to corporate management. Contractor part requires getting contacts to relevant companies while in staff officer part of career.

      Centurion is from 1945, M60 is 1957, its a later gen tank, mid cold-war, and many more were made, with many more spare parts, and most were just given away for free after being upgraded by the US. Israel bought, or had bought for it (by America), nearly all of the Centurions in existence, which it converted to APCs and ARV/CEVs, so thats why you dont see so many around. South Africa has an upgraded version called the Olifant, Singapore has some in reserve. The engine, firepower and armour upgrades arent cheap though and spare parts are rare as the tooling was all sold off. America throws around free M60s+spare parts to its "allies", and Leopard 2s are avaliable these days, so its also a matter of economy. Plus Jordan was given Challenger 1s, and Kuwait was given Chieftains, so they dont need to keep using a WW2 tank.

      https://i.imgur.com/2AvARgu.png

      All Centurions from Mk 2 onwards were built with 76mm front hull.
      Mk 5/1. 7/1 and 8/1 had added armour welded onto the front hull (and Mk 3s converted to Mk 5s)
      Tanks with the added armor + L7 gun were re-designated Mk 6, 9 and 10 respectively.
      The amount of armor welded on seems to vary. The documents suggest 44mm but some have been measured with 51mm.
      [...]
      You seem to have an irrational hate boner for the British. The M4A2 Sherman was powered by two bus engines (GM 6-71) strapped together. I bet you would call it an amazing example of American resourcefulness to use what it has available

      Honest question: Why didn't the Brits bother with independently sprung roadwheels on the Centurion to improve ride quality at high speeds? I can understand the reason they used bogeys in the first place, but why not adopt something like the Pz.68 or independent coil springs like the Merkava?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        *like the pz.68's belville washers shit

Your email address will not be published.