Jump to content


Centurion v T-54 (Historical Discussion)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
79 replies to this topic

Turboclicker #1 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:20 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

I asked C12AZY3Y3S (Your name is a [edited]to write) about something I find interesting.

 

The Centurion and T-54 historically popped up in roughly the same period of time (1944ish) and both went on to influence their respective lineages greatly. The Centurion went on to influence such tanks like the Chieftain and other western tanks. The T-54 was an obvious jump in evolution for the Soviets in design.

 

Which do you think was the better tank for the time and which do you think had more of an impact on tank design?



MrWuvems #2 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:25 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

We're talking variants of the Cent with the L7 right?

If so,it caused a minor panic in the Soviet army for wrecking their tanks in Israel.



Turboclicker #3 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:27 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostMrWuvems, on 19 January 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

We're talking variants of the Cent with the L7 right?

If so,it caused a minor panic in the Soviet army for wrecking their tanks in Israel.

 

I'm referring to the versions of the tanks in general from 1944~ to when they were phased out to the next generation. That would include the Centurion with the 20 Pounder early on and the L7 armed variants as well. 



MrWuvems #4 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:33 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostTurboclicker, on 19 January 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

 

I'm referring to the versions of the tanks in general from 1944~ to when they were phased out to the next generation. That would include the Centurion with the 20 Pounder early on and the L7 armed variants as well. 

 

Well considering the different design choices (size vs crew work-ability) then you have to measure export success (the T-54 was shipped freaking everywhere) to the combat record which, again, the 105 freaking wrecked soviet armor which including T-54 mod 1949s

Party Poison91 #5 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:34 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
Just gunna wait for Mathew to come in and say how [edited]the centurion was and how superior the T-54 was.
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

MrWuvems #6 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:35 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 19 January 2016 - 07:34 AM, said:

Just gunna wait for Mathew to come in and say how [edited]the centurion was and how superior the T-54 was.

 

Yes but we can all agree that the M-46 was pretty trash

Turboclicker #7 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:36 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostMrWuvems, on 19 January 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

 

Well considering the different design choices (size vs crew work-ability) then you have to measure export success (the T-54 was shipped freaking everywhere) to the combat record which, again, the 105 freaking wrecked soviet armor which including T-54 mod 1949s

 

I'd rather people not use Israel's exploits as evidence since that is not a completely valid way to say the Centurion was better since Israel was always better trained and using better tactics than their enemies of the day.



Party Poison91 #8 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostTurboclicker, on 19 January 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

 

I'd rather people not use Israel's exploits as evidence since that is not a completely valid way to say the Centurion was better since Israel was always better trained and using better tactics than their enemies of the day.

 

Could you not argue that they had better tactics AND better tanks?
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

MrWuvems #9 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:39 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostTurboclicker, on 19 January 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

 

I'd rather people not use Israel's exploits as evidence since that is not a completely valid way to say the Centurion was better since Israel was always better trained and using better tactics than their enemies of the day.

 

Yet we can't completely dismiss what happened since it impacted Soviet armor design with the mere presence of the L7

Turboclicker #10 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:40 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 19 January 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

 

Could you not argue that they had better tactics AND better tanks?

 

Not by using their kill counts or anything, no. This was the same country that were using up gunned Sherman's  and did work with them.



Party Poison91 #11 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:40 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostMrWuvems, on 19 January 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

 

Yes but we can all agree that the M-46 was pretty trash

 

As far as I know it wasn't a very popular tank.
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

Snorelacks #12 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:56 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 27648 battles
  • 6,374
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-24-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 19 January 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

 

Not by using their kill counts or anything, no. This was the same country that were using up gunned Sherman's  and did work with them.

 

I remember them still  flying Douglas A-4 Skyhawks and F-4 Phantoms as front line aircraft in the late 80s, early 90s when I was flying over there. If you train well enough, you can make almost anything work. 


 


El Chou 666 #13 Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:57 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12564 battles
  • 290
  • Member since:
    09-25-2014
Wasnt the L7 one of the reasons why the soviets gave composite armor a try? The Centurion has a good looking service record (not only with Israël)


Turboclicker #14 Posted 19 January 2016 - 03:30 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013
I think this deserves some attention. :(

cggunnersmate #15 Posted 19 January 2016 - 03:51 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13588 battles
  • 598
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
T-54 had the benefit of, as alot of Soviet equipment did, of being fairly simple and easy to produce with the USSR willing to sell to just about anyone to help boost its production numbers.

Pure functionality wise, the Centurions were likely better tanks overall.  Better technology/versatility, much better crew comfort (which can be damned important, especially the longer the time crews were living and fighting in them).


Sqn Ldr B #16 Posted 19 January 2016 - 04:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

The Centurion was probably, the more advanced design, going by the latest incarnation, which is still in service:

 


"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Matthew J35U5 #17 Posted 19 January 2016 - 05:05 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 19 January 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

Just gunna wait for Mathew to come in and say how [edited]the centurion was and how superior the T-54 was.

The original versions, until they designed the L7 was pretty bad. It weighed the same as Soviet Heavy tanks, and it was armed with only  an 84 mm gun. It was undergunned for its weight, simple as  that.  

View PostTurboclicker, on 19 January 2016 - 08:36 AM, said:

 

I'd rather people not use Israel's exploits as evidence since that is not a completely valid way to say the Centurion was better since Israel was always better trained and using better tactics than their enemies of the day.

Nah, Israel #rekt Pattons using Shermans, ergo the answer to "T-54 vs Centurion" is, "Sherman best post-WWII medium tank"

 

On the other hand, Iranian chieftains got destroyed by Iraqi T-62's, and since T-54>T-62 (the HEAT for the 100 mm more-or-less made the 115 mm pointless), and Chieftain>Centurion, I guess that means T-54>Centurion. 

View PostEl Chou 666, on 19 January 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

Wasnt the L7 one of the reasons why the soviets gave composite armor a try? The Centurion has a good looking service record (not only with Israël)

Doubt it, probably more to do with HEAT making solid-steel armour irrelevant, so composites were the only avenue to making well-protected vehicles. 

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 19 January 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

The Centurion was probably, the more advanced design, going by the latest incarnation, which is still in service:

 

2016 Centurions prove 1950's Centurion>1950's T-54, confirmed. 

 

Shermans were still in service in the 1960's, therefore Sherman>Tiger. 

 

Russia still uses T-72's as their primary tank, ergo T-72>Chieftain. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


HaloPro058 #18 Posted 19 January 2016 - 05:16 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 40065 battles
  • 6,737
  • [FEN1X]
  • Member since:
    02-03-2014
That turret has shot traps as big as a house! I would really hate to see what happens if a round hits the lower part of the turret. The driver would be ground meat...

Matthew J35U5 #19 Posted 19 January 2016 - 05:30 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostHaloPro058, on 19 January 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

That turret has shot traps as big as a house! I would really hate to see what happens if a round hits the lower part of the turret. The driver would be ground meat...

That isn't how APDS works. It is NOT going to ricochet into the hull roof. 

 

Though if someone pulled out vintage WWII era guns, MAYBE it would ricochet like that, but how are you hitting the turret of a tank like that with guns that have an effective range of only ~800 m?


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Almighty Tubsta #20 Posted 19 January 2016 - 06:14 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49091 battles
  • 1,423
  • [LIGHT]
  • Member since:
    02-16-2014

I would argue that the of the two, the Centurion had the most influence on tank design, essentially leading to the MBT's we know today.

 

For the time period, when clearly the industrialisation and mass production won WW2, the ease of production clearly put things in favour of the T-54. As time progressed, 1v1 I would say the Centurion clearly surpassed the T-54 as the better tank from a purely technological standpoint.

 

Also, let's not forget that the Centurion was the first tank to come equipped with a BV (Boiling Vessel), so that crews didn't have to leave the tank for a cup of tea or boiled rations, clearly a selling point in the Centurion's favour.

 

I'm on a mobile device ATM, can someone more knowledgeable compare the two from an NBC standpoint?


Light Tank Master Race

Light tank enthusiast and collector. I miss scout matchmaking.

"Salmon live in trees and eat pencils."

Mostly a lurker here these days because I disapprove of the "Stalin approach" to forum moderation.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users