Which was the "best" tank for NATO 1950s-1960s?

Was the Leopard? Chieftain? M60? or AMX-30?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on your intended use. Zipping around counter-attacking? Leo 1. Hull down trying to stop the horde? Chieftain. Trying to do a bit of everything? M-60

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Chieftain?
    Heavy armor, large gun. Prone to several engine issues, constant breakdowns which plagued them in combat service
    >Leopard
    Probably the most numerous in service within NATO, mobile, good gun lacking decent protection.
    >AMX-30
    Similar to the Leopard
    >M60
    Jack of all trades, tried to do everything, early variants weren't the best.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    was the Centurion already outdated in the 50s/60s? Always seemed like a pretty good early Cold War tank to me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Leopard 1 was likely the best option in general. Outside of armour protection, it basically had everything you could want.
      The M60 was very underwhelimg until the M60A2.
      Chieftain while very impressive in quite a few aspects, it's mechanical issues were genuinely appalling.
      The AMX-30 had some interesting features, but had a host of reliability problems and other issues until the B2.

      During the 50's it was perfectly adequate, quite a few other tanks from the 40's were still being used by that point. By the late 60's, it was starting to get a little long in the tooth, but could have it's lifespan extended with some upgrades.
      Until Leopard 1 debuted, it was likely the best option available for any NATO or adjacent nation to get their hands on an MBT.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >until the M60A2.
        you mean the dead-end gun launcher tank?
        the M60A1 as it came out in 1959 was pretty much equal to the centurion in firepower but with a better armor layout at the cost of more weight

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Leopard 1 was likely the best option in general. Outside of armour protection, it basically had everything you could want
        In the 80's you had the Leo 1A6 protype with 120mm and turret protection against 125mm APFSDS and HEAT. Looks fricking massive

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >protype
          shut the frick up ESL

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >screams into the ether over a typo
            Thats OK buddy, get it out of your system

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably the leopard. The chieftain was rife with problems and early m60s left a lot to be desired

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      problem with the leopard is it was far too lightly armoured, for all the engine issues the chieftan was extremely survivable for the period.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MBTs are overplayed, how about light tanks from the era?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The IDF made this little tincan shine much more than it was worth on paper

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Agreed. The IDF had an impressive habit of taking obsolete WW2 era equipment and retrofitting it to well beyond the limits of its original capabilities. They were still using surplus Shermans with French 75mm and 105mm cannons and improved engine/transmission until the 80s, and they routinely beat Soviet tanks produced decades later.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They were basically pulling Battletech before it even exist making very old stuff work thanks to upgrade packages and good training, I am not even a israelite yet I root for them due how IDF has always managed to stay on top despite how schizophrenic their international situation has been since their foundation.

          That, Harari's books and team Negev being unironically far better defacto cultural propaganda than their official government and elites could ever achieve.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What more do you need than pic related?

      Is welcome too as a little buddy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oscillating turretcels are seething again, I see.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shame that the M551 was a bit of a turd. It is a beautiful vehicle and I love the concept.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That era you're also gonna have M48's

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      M48s were outclassed by everything in the OP

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      M48s were definitely a second line tank after the M60s came out, there's a reason the Army kept all of the M60s in Europe while Vietnam was going on.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >AMX-30
    Someone tell me about this thing. I'm getting 'leopard but french' vibes, but I really don't know much about cold war tanks

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no stabilizer

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was a shittier Leopard for the most part. Everyone wanted to buy the Leopard and it failed in almost every competition against it. The only major nation to adopt it besides France was Spain and that was only because the Spanish couldn't get the Leopard they wanted due to sanctions.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Franco-German tank collab project comes to life, to build a singular tank design together
      >the only problem it faced was that France was part of it
      >France drops out of the project at one point
      >from there the design diverges to the AMX-30 and Leopard

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nah, two major problems were the Gun and the Engine/Transmission.
        French used their own gun (good for own industry), but it was incompatible with other NATO nations, while the Leopard 1 used the L7. Also the initial AMX-30s had shit engine/transmission, which was later fixed for the B2 version

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >franco-german project
        >collapses
        >france does its own thing
        is it just me or does this keep happening?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          France fricking off to do their own thing has been NATO tradition since 1963.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Am I wrong to think this looks like a nato t55?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You ain't wrong, the visual similitude between French and Soviet tanks of that era was an issue that worried NATO.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Huh, I didn’t realise that it was a thing with all joint projects involving the French, not just aerospace

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There was a version of the Chieftain proposed for Canada that had the AVDS V12 engine from the M60. This required raising the rear deck of the hull slightly and would have grafted on that cool cooling grill from the M60. Australia was also a target for it. Canada and Australia both went with the Leopard however as it was much cheaper than reengineering an already expensive tank. would have been cool to see. The British actually ended up taking the proposed hull mods and changing it a bit and putting in the Rolls Royce engine for export to sand people.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Canada and Australia both went with the Leopard however as it was much cheaper than reengineering an already expensive tank
      The fact rational decisions are often made rather than emotional and aesthetic ones is one of the great failures of democracy compared to other forms of government.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so true.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Canada and Australia both went with the Leopard however as it was much cheaper than reengineering an already expensive tank
      The fact rational decisions are often made rather than emotional and aesthetic ones is one of the great failures of democracy compared to other forms of government.

      A significant amount of British origin tanks were upgraded with the American Continental AVDS V12. Mostly Centurions. I think every Israeli Centurion ended up getting that upgrade.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Olifant still has my heart

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    chieftain is super neat but that engine is just something else
    hearing the engine howl when getting up to speed is amazing though

    skip to 2 mins in
    too bad the sound is probably the engine shitting itself to pieces though

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus frick it sounds like some beaner who piped his civic lmao

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    m60 has the best longevity it seems but that may just be down to quantity idrk

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Chieftain was completely dogshit when used outside of very specific role.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The one with the Rolls Royce engine was pretty fricking good. British service units were fricked due to the shitty L60 engine.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1950s
    Centurion
    >1960s
    T-64A
    >1970s
    T-64B
    >1980s
    Leopard 2
    >1990s
    M1A1 Abrams
    >2000s
    M1A2 SEPv1 Abrams
    >2010s
    M1A2 SEPv2
    >2020s
    M2 Bradley

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >T-64A

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you're busting my ball's over here. Chieftain was the Chief of the 60s then

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, there's a reason the T-72 rapidly went from a thought experiment on "how to make a cheap mobilization tank" to mass production and arming the entire Warsaw Pact.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The fact that only Ukrainians could produce the T-64 was also a factor. Funnily enough, the T-64 outnumbered the T-72 until the 1980s and was put in service sooner even after the delays related to fixing its reliability.

          The T-80 story is a whole another level of soviet frickery.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In hohols defense, they wre trying to adapt a WW2 engine stolen from a nazi bomber into a tank, which wasn't a bad idea at the time, considering the V2 engine was a german aircraft engine adapted to be used in tanks.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M60, because of the searchlight. I will not elaborate.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >illuminates everything with its FOV
      >refuses to elaborate
      >reverses

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Firing ma lazer…

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So when did NATO tanks overtake soviet tanks? Or was it Soviet tanks just became dogshit? Also AMX-30 is by far the most attractive

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's more accurate to ask when soviet tanks overtake NATO tanks, which really is all about the T-64. T-54 was a decent tank, especially once it received upgrades but it wasn't anything special. It was only the T-64 that stood out, particularly its armor, especially because NATO tank projects during that time didn't go through, facing the cut funding and competition from attack helicopters. When T-64's reliability issues got somewhat alleviated and it finally reached service in 1973 it was very capable, the cannon being unnecessary against steel armored tanks of NATO but the armor capable of resisting various anti-tank weapons reasonably well until the late 70s.T-64B's fire control was also fairly advanced at the time, possibly the only time it was on par with NATO in soviet tanks.

      Late 70s is when soviet tanks start to fall off against new ATGMs and ammunition and especially thermals along with advanced spaced arrays on the Leopard 2 and M1.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So when did NATO tanks overtake soviet tanks?
      When the Leopard 2 and the Abrams came out

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ignoring shit like ergonomics and whatnot, I think technology like LRFs and thermals made the biggest breakthrough
      >1950s:
      T-54 > M48/M47
      T-54 > Centurion (20pdr)
      >1960s:
      T-55/T-62 > M48A3
      T-55/T-62 = M60/M60A1
      T-55/T-62 = Centurion (L7)
      T-55/T-62 < Chieftain
      T-64 = Chieftain
      >1970s:
      T-72/T-64A/T-80 > M48A5 (This is just a nat guard tank)
      T-72/T-64A/T-80 > M60A1(AOS)/RISE
      T-72/T-64A/T-80 > Chieftain
      >Early 1980s:
      T-72A/T-64A/T-80B > M60A3
      T-72A/T-64A/T-80B = M60A3 (TTS)
      T-72A/T-64A/T-80B < M1/M1IP
      T-72A/T-64A/T-80B > Chieftain
      T-72A/T-64A/T-80B < Challenger
      T-72A/T-64A/T-80B < Leo 2

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >T-55/T-62 = M60/M60A1
        it would be M60A1 = T-62 > M60 > T-55

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The M60A1 is just an M60 with a better turret, they didnt get two plane stabs until 1972 ish

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            even without the 2-plane stabilizer, the improved turret helped a lot in resisting the T-62s 115mm gun
            and would have held the advantage at long range engagements where it would work well with the ballistic computer

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Thats fair

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >T-54 > M48/M47
        >T-54 > Centurion (20pdr)
        >T-55/T-62 > M48A3
        lol

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think he forgot you were talking about warthunder and not real life by "ignoring shit like ergonomics and whatnot"

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              if we're talking about real life surely we can just pull up the combat record of these tanks and see what really happened then right? surely the pattons dominated in their time, right?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >T-72A/T-64A/T-80B = M60A3 (TTS)
        I don't know about this one. Sure, the Soviet tanks have better armor and firepower in this case, but M60A3 thermals make a huge difference on a battlefield.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Depends on the ammo available too, M774 came out in 1980 iirc. Theres a good chance that a 60A3 crew might get issued M735 stocks from REFORGER storage sites

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            M735 was never fully phased out of service until after the cold war, and the marines still had it even in the first gulf war
            usually they would end up with both of them at the same time and the crew would decide when to use the good modern rounds or the obsolete rounds

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I always wondered; Did the ballistic computers account for different darts? Or were all of them designed to have the same ballistics

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the M60A1 needed an updated computer to properly account for the differences between the original APDS and the newer APFSDS, but no such mechanical difference was required for any of the upgraded darts
                so i assume that their velocity was close enough to not require too much modification

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.tankarchives.ca/2021/03/the-ussrs-hungriest-tank.html

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >M60A2 over the M60A3
          soviets really overvalued missiles

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Love the 60A2

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >T-62 (85mm gun)
          What did they mean by this?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese WZ-131 aka Type-62 with 85 mm gun

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Chieftain equivalent to a T-72
          Once again Britain proves itself superior.
          >AMX-30 is M47 tier
          Frog sisters not like this...

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          T-10M worth more than the T-62, T-64, and T-72... Well I guess the T-62 did use the T-10 gun stabilization system. And explains why the T-10 was used into the 90s

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >tankarchives
          more like tankie archives. My brain is starting to melt reading all this shit.

          >muh soviet guns more accurate than german ones
          >muh t34 optics at least as good as german ones
          >even more cope in the comments under every article

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not having the Leo 1 on the list that mogs all the other nato tanks.
        Its last upgrade package gave it the fire control system of the leo2 which makes it even relevant today

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russian tanks have always been shit.
      Stop reading wiki.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russian tanks have always been shi-AACK

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russian tanks have always been shit.
        Not really, they did a good job with their designs in the early to mid cold war that were somewhat comparable with western armor. However once the Leopard 2 and Abrams started to become the bulk of NATO armor they clearly outclassed the T-72 and T-80s.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So were American tanks until the Abrams came around. We don't know if the AMX-30 or Leopard 1 would've actually been any good because they never saw combat against their peers. The only country that made tanks that proved themselves superior against any competitor was the UK.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >AMX-30 or Leopard 1 would've actually been any good because they never saw combat against their peers
          amx30 faced the full array of soviet tanks in the gulf war, and leopard is facing it now in ukraine.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They really didn't. By the time any AMX-30 started rolling the entire area in front of them got cleared out of any Iraqi armor by Gazelles.
            >leopard is facing it now in ukraine
            It's sitting on the back lines in Kupyansk because the Ukes are still trying to figure out how to even use them on a modern battlefield. Which is not surprising given it's an outdated tank with no armor on a battlefield dominated by drones.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Qatari AMXs saw action in the gulf
              >t's sitting on the back lines
              Haven't there been confirmed losses?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The only country that made tanks that proved themselves superior against any competitor was the UK
          Deluded, the Centurion was a good tank was able to stay competitive in Israel, India and South Africa. The Chieftain performed poorly during the Iran-Iraq war against Iraqi T-62s and Polish supplied T72s. To say that only British equipment was "superior" to its peers is an complete exaggeration

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Iraqis needed the next gen Soviet MBT to even combat the worst British tank design since the Crusader
            I accept your concession.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Still a bulk of the Iraqi armor forces were T-55s and T-62s, where the T-62s were able to penetrate the Chieftains turret. Iranian crews favored the M60s

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Based. Even Iranian knew American is best. Too bad they fell for the G-3 meme and didn’t also buy M16s.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Chieftain obviously.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A challenger appears!

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Centurion. Any answer to the contrary is written by an illiterate on the subject. Wherever it took to the field, the Centurion prevailed against Soviet machinery. The fact it is still in service in many countries to this day tells you all you need you to know.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the Centurion prevailed against Soviet machinery
      Not only against Soviets but also against American tanks. People keep forgetting that Indian Centurions absolutely dunked on Paki M47 and M48 Pattons in 1965 and 1971 respectively. The Centurion is by far the most successful tank of the early Cold War.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably the Centurion.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone got a QRD on why the soviets got lead with spaced arrays/ceramic armor in the 60's?

    Its interesting that while they never really had a lead or even parity in Jets after the MIG-15/F-86 match-up they were able to develop and mass deploy a generation of tanks that had sizable edge in things like armor and firepower.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      soviets basically just was more willing to work with it than NATO was

      the US had several prototypes, some of which beat the T-64 to the punch, of tanks with composite armor
      such as fused silicon armor on the T-95 which they intended to use on the M60A1 but never got around to solving its brittleness
      as well as the steel-air-steel armor on the MBT-70 which also went nowhere
      so in the end, they didnt implement any of it until the 80s with NERA

      the soviets focused on just textolite armor, which is more of a fibreglass like structure rather than the hard ceramic youre thinking of, and rolled it out as soon as possible and then worked out the problems later
      so you have an inefficient textolite layout on the very first T-72s that was slowly refined over time
      while the M60s never got their promised composite at all but then the M1 suddenly shows up out of nowhere with good armor

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >after the MIG-15/F-86 match-up
      There was no parity, they dabbed on miggers 10:1

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The nearly 60 thousand T55 and T54 would have made mincemeat of any of these. They were just as good if not better tanks in many ways. And then another 20 thousand T62 which were clearly superior... In the 50s and 60s, the Red Army would have completedly stomped Europe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They were just as good if not better tanks in many ways
      centurion proved to be more than a match for the T-55 in israeli service

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In 1973 Israel lost 1000 tanks against arab monkeys wielding old T-55 against the latest centurion and m60 models. If anything it proves all I said was correct. We had T-72 by then, which would stomp on everything nato has until abrams, leopard 2 and such tanks arrive, which would be a while.
        Also in a hot, world war, those big heavy nato tanks would require far more logistical support than T-72, who lives almost on her own, so I would not discount T-72 to gain superiority in the long run against more and more sparsely fielded nato tanks.
        I also think leopard 2 is a flawed idea, she is a hunter-predator, but tank on tank battles almost do not exist until the event of a world war, where it will perform great until the logistic capability becomes precarious - which of course it will. Abrams is the best tank in nato and america have the best logistics in the world. We would struggle with our T-90. Maybe with T-14, a similar parity can be conducted if our army was not corrupt.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >In 1973
          >the time T-62s were getting destroyed by centurions and M60s
          >and T-55s by upgunned shermans

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In 1973 Israel lost 1000 tanks against arab monkeys wielding old T-55 against the latest centurion and m60 models.
            Most of those were lost to ATGMs meanwhile it were the Israeli tanks that shredded numerous tanks manned by arab monkeys(more competent than soviets, btw)
            >Also in a hot, world war, those big heavy nato tanks would require far more logistical support than T-72, who lives almost on her own
            delusional vatBlack person
            >she is a hunter-predator
            shut the frick up Black person

            Yet 1000 tanks including 600 of the latest Centurion were lost in tank battles.......I like Centurion but T-55 was a stronger tank
            leopard 2 is the design of "hunter-predator" according to the designers..for me this is a flawed idea

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Stop typing like an absolute homosexual, vatBlack person.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                how will I attract the handsome american then?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Yet 1000 tanks including 600 of the latest Centurion were lost in tank battles
              400 were destroyed, and 600 were captured or damaged
              against which more than 2000 enemy tanks were destroyed

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >In 1973 Israel lost 1000 tanks against arab monkeys wielding old T-55 against the latest centurion and m60 models.
          Most of those were lost to ATGMs meanwhile it were the Israeli tanks that shredded numerous tanks manned by arab monkeys(more competent than soviets, btw)
          >Also in a hot, world war, those big heavy nato tanks would require far more logistical support than T-72, who lives almost on her own
          delusional vatBlack person
          >she is a hunter-predator
          shut the frick up Black person

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In the 50s and 60s, the Red Army would have completedly stomped Europe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good thing NATO had weapons besides MBTs then

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So did the Soviets but at the same time I have to wonder if they actually had enough tanks & other stuff. They would be attacking and if we pretend nukes aren't getting used then they would have to fight their way through minefields, defensive positions while constantly getting harassed by aircraft and ATGM equipped helis popping up from behind every hill and treeline.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >So did the Soviets but at the same time I have to wonder if they actually had enough tanks & other stuff.
          They had too many, actually. They were in the exact same situation as russia was today in regards to equipment, that is excess of armor at the expense of logisitc tail and support personnel and equipment, leading to lots of firepower initially but then a collapse after the supplies dry up and/or they overextend themselves.

          I have to remind you that a good portion of those forces in that comparison are not soviets but Czechs, Poles and Germans who made up about 1 million troops stationed in Eastern Europe, more than half of total during the 70s. Once you discount those, there's actually hardly any advantage for sovetis in terms of manpower and the equipment wouldn't do them any good if they aren't able to properly use it, and not when the majority of that equipment is outdated decaying garbage.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The question was "which is better, not "who had more"

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        T-62 absolutely smokes anything in NATO at the time.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >T-62 absolutely smokes
          lol

          imagine being a T-62 gunner forced to watch the sky while the tank takes half an hour to poop the shell out. what a shitpile of a tank, even compared to other soviet garbage.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the main advantage the T-62 would have over the M60A1 is its stabilizer and its long-rod ammo
          but the M60A1 has a fire-control system that compensates for lead and drop as well as allowing to pre-aim the gun before going over a hill or cornering and a coincidence rangefinder for faster and more precise range estimation
          at least until the 70s when the M60A1 was equipped with its own stabilizer

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >T-62
          >smoking anything
          Lmao aside from Bulgaria all other Pact nations avoided that piece of shit so Soviets had to export it to Arabs instead.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it was mostly avoided because most countries didnt feel the need to pay extra for a whole new tank if the only improvement on paper was the gun
            the soviets made heavy use of it because if they went to war they would shoulder most of the fighting anyways, so even slight upgrades were worth it

            the arabs bought it because they were losing T-55s as fast as they could buy them, so they would purchase anything that was made available if it meant filling their ranks faster
            and after getting mulched by the israelis in every single fight, they welcomed any advantage they could get

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              T-62 didn't benefit arabs one bit over the T-55, as expected from that utter failure of a tank.

    • 3 weeks ago
      You

      >In the 50s and 60s, the Red Army would have completedly stomped Europe.

      So why didn't they do it, when it's their dream to this day?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US had an overwhelming advantage in nuclear weapons during that era.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Chieftain of course, the other two shitboxes did not even have stabilized guns ffs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What getting all your tank knowledge from war thunder does to a mf

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Actually in WT the Chieftain is near worthless

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is it? Ive been grinding my brits for so long and am about to unlock the chieftain, i was hoping they were finally going to get good again

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Brits have the most painful high tier grind.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anglo-Saxons live rent free in Russian minds.
              >Oh Brits had APHE rounds even for the 2pdr gun? we were only pretending to be moronic despite documented forum posts for years ( blyat, make sure they're underpowered and useless!)
              >yeah lets put this weakpoint in the churchill's glacis that never existed.
              >Cromwells can go 50 mph? cap them at 30 mph cross-country because uhhh....
              >AP shell spalling is too hard to program so just uhhh just keep killing crew 1 by 1.
              >make sure they have fricked B.R's so they're always uptiered heh heh heh heh..
              >Centurions still don't have stabilzers because they never had the-

              ?si=aPpCYrmoHtIKJSp9
              The grind is real.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Centurions do have stabs in the game though. The only one that doesn't is the 6.0 one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The funniest thing is how massively overpowered APHE is in WarThunder despite all ballistic tests indicating it really didn't provide much benefit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bongs do unironically get good, but at 10.3 with 2 (3 if you paypig) Challengers, Starstreaks, Lynx and Jaguar with laser bombs.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              South African tree is pretty good also

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >britain tech tree
            >finally going to get good again
            Lmao

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Leopard has a stabilizer. Only the very first batch of 100 vehicles didn't have it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Leopard 1A1 model was stablilised, and was introduced at about the same time as the Chieftan

      I like the the Chieftan going by paper stats and the general look of it, but it sounds like an absolute dog to run based on accounts of the users. In which case you might as well go with the Leo. Everyones guns could punch through any reasonable tank armour at that stage anyway, might as well be light weight and mobile.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Everyones guns could punch through any reasonable tank armour at that stage anyway, might as well be light weight and mobile
        I heard the Chieftain's armor did surprisingly well in Iran to the point that Iraqis preferred to engage them with T-72s rather than older T-55s & T-62s.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing to see here, just multiple penetrating hits from an Iraqi T-62 against the most protected part of a Chieftain.

          Iraqi's had APFSDS ammunition, the Iranians did not. A T-62 could knock out a Chieftain and at the exact same range, a Chieftain couldn't knock out a T-72.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lately I've heard plenty about Russians not really having much 30mm APFSDS or even APDS. Bit similarly many upgrade programs were half assed for many of the older tanks. How about their MBT rounds? They developed some good darts, but how long it took them to build up a proper stock of those?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Lately I've heard plenty about Russians not really having much 30mm APFSDS or even APDS.
      This has been the case even pre war. Most 30mm only use regular steel core bullets along with HE.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    technically not nato although from a nato aligned country.
    Lowest profile, best protection against HEAT (due to the slat armor "fence"), some of the best protection comparable to chieftain and m60, 2nd best firepower after chieftain due to autoloaded lengthened L7, low weight so good strategic mobility.

    Only thing that kinda sucks is the mediocre mobility since the A model (which is the only one that fits the timeframe) only has around 15 hp/t. The lack of stabilization (in this timeframe) isnt a big deal concidering only the chieftain has it before the 70's

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How come we didn't see long-rod APFSDS until the end of the cold war? M774 and 100mm BM-25 could've had more of a punch if they were lengthened it all the way to the primer. Was it just a cost/manufacturing issue?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      soviets had primitive long-rods in the 1960s with the T-62, and they slowly improved them over time
      the US had their own as well on some prototypes but they were never fielded, some early ones had terrible accuracy and they never fixed it
      the MBT-70 would have had APFSDS rounds at about the same time as the T-62, but constant delays and eventual cancellation of the vehicle meant that their M60s stuck with APDS for a while

      their first attempt at APFSDS, the M735, was descended from the MBT-70s round, one of the only things from the program to actually be used for something
      M774 came really quickly after M735 came out mind you, it was fielded just 2 years after M735
      while the israelis improved on the M735 in even less time with the monolithic M111 round that was released less than a year after M735

      so the soviets actually had them for a while and kept developing them until the end of the cold war war
      the US had the capability to make them for a while, they just didnt implement them until the late 70s because of some bad management, but were really quick to improve them once they were finally fielded
      the monolithic tungsten round on the M111 technically surpassed soviet technology who still used composite rounds at the time

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1. M60
    Simply the best. A good, solid tank that proved itself in multiple conflicts and is still widely used and upgraded to this day. Shown itself to be equivalent to a T-72 when manned by trained tankers.
    >2. Centurion
    Old but good and more than a match for any Soviet tank until the T-64 arrived. Given the majority of the commie horde would've been T-55s and T-62s it'd do great.
    >3. Chieftain
    Kinda meh and plagued by too many issues.
    >4. M48/47
    Really old and not very good. But there were a lot of them around and they can take on a T-55 if the crew is good. The German M48A2GA2 upgrades would've been really good though.
    >5. Leopard 1
    Germans haven't made a good tank since the Tiger 1. Just like with the Leopard 2 the only reason the Leopard 1 became so popular is because Germans were selling them really cheaply. The entire concept of speedy tank with no armor is moronic and thank God people realized it by the 70s.
    >6. AMX-30
    What is wrong with the French? How do you take a Leopard 1 and remove it's only redeeming qualities like the stabilizer?

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the m60
    >because it's the best tank?
    no because if you were fighting it then you're probably a couple minutes away from getting bombed back to the stone age

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The best non-composite MBT that came too late.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Finally
      >A twerking tank

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >JGSDF in the desert
      Do they go to the US for training? I thought they weren't allowed to leave japan?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSDF_Overseas_Dispatches

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *