Jump to content


Centurion v T-54 (Historical Discussion)


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

Metalrodent #21 Posted 19 January 2016 - 06:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,433
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

I would say the Centurion was the more important tank technological wise, it influenced tank design more and introduced many new features (and that L7 gun) .

 

The T-54 was by no means a bad tank and possibly the more important tank when it comes to actual wars (given how many it fought in compared to the Centurion), it was successful and was easy to build and maintain - as shown by the number still in use today.

 

As for which was a better tank at the time - can it easily be said? The original 1944 variants of both tanks never actually saw combat, let alone met each other.


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Matthew J35U5 #22 Posted 19 January 2016 - 06:36 PM

    Major

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

View PostAlmighty Tubsta, on 19 January 2016 - 01:14 PM, said:

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.

Tell me how the Centurion influenced the T-90, and why it had more influence than the T-54, T-62, T-64, T-72, and T-80. 


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


Almighty Tubsta #23 Posted 19 January 2016 - 06:55 PM

    Captain

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 19 January 2016 - 06:36 PM, said:

Tell me how the Centurion influenced the T-90, and why it had more influence than the T-54, T-62, T-64, T-72, and T-80. 

 

Not necessarily the mechanics of the MBT, more the ethos of the one tank fits all side of things. The Centurion was arguably the first MBT. While disputable, design features from the Centurion influenced western MBT's and by proxy the Soviet MBT's were designed to combat these designs.

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.


Matthew J35U5 #24 Posted 19 January 2016 - 07:03 PM

    Major

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

View PostAlmighty Tubsta, on 19 January 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

 

Not necessarily the mechanics of the MBT, more the ethos of the one tank fits all side of things. The Centurion was arguably the first MBT. While disputable, design features from the Centurion influenced western MBT's and by proxy the Soviet MBT's were designed to combat these designs.

 

Explain in what way the Centurion demonstrated the "one tank fits all" design philosophy, when the British continued building heavy tanks, and only replaced both with the Chieftain, arguably the first British MBT. 

 

Further, how is this different from the T-54? The Soviets also built the T-10, but the British also built the Conqueror, and the Americans built the M103. 

(Similar to the above, I would argue that the T-64 was the first Soviet MBT because it replaced both the T-10 and the T-62/T-55).


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


Almighty Tubsta #25 Posted 19 January 2016 - 07:40 PM

    Captain

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

My mistake, I was getting parts of tanks mixed up (it's been a long day). The Chieftain was the first MBT I was thinking of, which did incorporate design elements of the Centurion, where I was getting hazy.

 

You are correct about the T-64 being the first Soviet MBT, albeit almost a decade after the Chieftain.

 

The main influence on western armour I was actually thinking of was the Chobham armour which didn't come about until the Challenger.

 

I hold my hands up, I was talking out of my 'harris'. As I said, it's been a long day, and we're not discussing MBT's right here.

 

Back to the medium tanks, in a straight up 1v1 I guess there are lots of variables to consider, the biggest being the crew training and year of the engagement. The two tanks would probably leapfrog ahead of each other with each technological advancement and model upgrade.


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.


Almighty Tubsta #26 Posted 19 January 2016 - 07:48 PM

    Captain

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

A note of interest is that the L7 was designed to combat the T-54, so by 1946 standards the T-54 wins by a long way on armour, firepower, mobility and reliability.

 

As another note of discussion, which of the two would win, with today's current in-service modifications?


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.


Matthew J35U5 #27 Posted 19 January 2016 - 07:51 PM

    Major

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

View PostAlmighty Tubsta, on 19 January 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

My mistake, I was getting parts of tanks mixed up (it's been a long day). The Chieftain was the first MBT I was thinking of, which did incorporate design elements of the Centurion, where I was getting hazy.

 

You are correct about the T-64 being the first Soviet MBT, albeit almost a decade after the Chieftain.

 

The main influence on western armour I was actually thinking of was the Chobham armour which didn't come about until the Challenger.

 

I hold my hands up, I was talking out of my 'harris'. As I said, it's been a long day, and we're not discussing MBT's right here.

 

Back to the medium tanks, in a straight up 1v1 I guess there are lots of variables to consider, the biggest being the crew training and year of the engagement. The two tanks would probably leapfrog ahead of each other with each technological advancement and model upgrade.

I am very accepting of people making mistakes because of life. We are not doing this for our day job afterall. :P

 

Though I'm not sure how the T-64 (entered service in 1964) came a decade after the Chieftain (entered service in 1966). Maybe you were thinking of the T-80?


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


Matthew J35U5 #28 Posted 19 January 2016 - 08:01 PM

    Major

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

View PostAlmighty Tubsta, on 19 January 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

A note of interest is that the L7 was designed to combat the T-54, so by 1946 standards the T-54 wins by a long way on armour, firepower, mobility and reliability.

 

As another note of discussion, which of the two would win, with today's current in-service modifications?

I think the British did more upgrading of the Centurion. Outside of electronics, the only real upgrades for a T-54 is ammunition, ATGM's, and ERA.


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


Almighty Tubsta #29 Posted 19 January 2016 - 09:36 PM

    Captain

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 19 January 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

I am very accepting of people making mistakes because of life. We are not doing this for our day job afterall. :P

 

Though I'm not sure how the T-64 (entered service in 1964) came a decade after the Chieftain (entered service in 1966). Maybe you were thinking of the T-80?

 

I didn't check online, I got it from my reference book.  It said the Chieftain entered service in 63 and the T-64 entered service in 72. It could be wrong.

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.


Turboclicker #30 Posted 19 January 2016 - 09:37 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,740
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostAlmighty Tubsta, on 19 January 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

 

I didn't check online, I got it from my reference book.  It said the Chieftain entered service in 63 and the T-64 entered service in 72. It could be wrong.

 

It definitely didn't enter service in 72.

 

Wikipedia says 1964, as the name sake says, T-64.



Almighty Tubsta #31 Posted 19 January 2016 - 09:57 PM

    Captain

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

View PostTurboclicker, on 19 January 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

 

It definitely didn't enter service in 72.

 

Wikipedia says 1964, as the name sake says, T-64.

Makes perfect sense.


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.


Almighty Tubsta #32 Posted 19 January 2016 - 10:06 PM

    Captain

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

I see why the book gets it wrong. Delivered in 63, officially adopted in 67 and publicly revealed in 70, according to this,

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64.htm

which I would consider to be more reliable than Wikipedia.

 

Don't know why the book states 72 though.

 


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.


Turboclicker #33 Posted 19 January 2016 - 10:10 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,740
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostAlmighty Tubsta, on 19 January 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

I see why the book gets it wrong. Delivered in 63, officially adopted in 67 and publicly revealed in 70, according to this,

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64.htm

which I would consider to be more reliable than Wikipedia.

 

Don't know why the book states 72 though.

 

 

It's called the T-64 for a reason.



Call_Me_Goku1 #34 Posted 19 January 2016 - 10:16 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 163 battles
  • 597
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015
Very interesting discussion going on here.



Not that proud #35 Posted 19 January 2016 - 10:32 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17494 battles
  • 5,566
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 19 January 2016 - 02:03 PM, said:

 

Explain in what way the Centurion demonstrated the "one tank fits all" design philosophy, when the British continued building heavy tanks, and only replaced both with the Chieftain, arguably the first British MBT. 

 

Further, how is this different from the T-54? The Soviets also built the T-10, but the British also built the Conqueror, and the Americans built the M103. 

(Similar to the above, I would argue that the T-64 was the first Soviet MBT because it replaced both the T-10 and the T-62/T-55).

 

I wouldn't get that excited about the Conqueror and M103. There were only 185 Conquerors built and only 300 M103s. In the US, the Army took ~50 of the M103s while the Marines took the rest. The Marines kept using them long after the Army abandoned them. It's the same story with the Conqueror.  They built them in the 1950s, but they stayed operational until the mid 1960s. It's not like they were in production the entire time with a doctrine built around heavy tanks.  



Pontiac Pat #36 Posted 19 January 2016 - 10:33 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Tournaments Contributor
  • 26515 battles
  • 7,435
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    08-11-2014
IMO, each tank has some nice features, but based on combat reports from Indo-Pakistani wars, Arab-Israeli wars (including Jordanian Centurions), Korea and Vietnam I'd choose the Centurion overall.

If you want to be one of the 47 Ronin check out our recruitment post and then send a message to Prof935 (xbox) or dimka935 (ps4).

Estimated Marks of Excellence thresholds - https://wotclans.com.br/tanks/moe


Metalrodent #37 Posted 19 January 2016 - 10:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,433
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostNot that proud, on 19 January 2016 - 10:32 PM, said:

 

It's the same story with the Conqueror.  They built them in the 1950s, but they stayed operational until the mid 1960s. It's not like they were in production the entire time with a doctrine built around heavy tanks.  

The Conqueror was sadly obsolete almost as soon as it arrived, it was too heavy to be practically transported and it's entire purpose, to provide long range fire support for advancing infantry and armour, was eliminated when the Centurion mk V/2 was introduced with it's L7 105mm.


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Not that proud #38 Posted 19 January 2016 - 11:48 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17494 battles
  • 5,566
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

View PostMetalrodent, on 19 January 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

The Conqueror was sadly obsolete almost as soon as it arrived, it was too heavy to be practically transported and it's entire purpose, to provide long range fire support for advancing infantry and armour, was eliminated when the Centurion mk V/2 was introduced with it's L7 105mm.

 

That's precisely my point. If the argument is that the British kept producing heavy tanks when the Russians had already adopted an mbt framework in the T-54/55, the existence of the conqueror doesn't support that hypothesis. The conqueror was essentially obsolete even as the final units were rolling Off the line in 1959 due to the development of the L7 armed centurion. The continued existence of the conqueror doesn't disprove the fact that the centurion was an MBT. 



Matthew J35U5 #39 Posted 20 January 2016 - 12:00 AM

    Major

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

 

View PostTurboclicker, on 19 January 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

 

It's called the T-64 for a reason.

Why was the T-80 called "T-80", the T-54 "T-54", and the T-34 "T-34"?

(The T-72 does seem to have started production in 1972 though)

View PostNot that proud, on 19 January 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

 

I wouldn't get that excited about the Conqueror and M103. There were only 185 Conquerors built and only 300 M103s. In the US, the Army took ~50 of the M103s while the Marines took the rest. The Marines kept using them long after the Army abandoned them. It's the same story with the Conqueror.  They built them in the 1950s, but they stayed operational until the mid 1960s. It's not like they were in production the entire time with a doctrine built around heavy tanks.  

Yeah, same with the T-10. 

View PostNot that proud, on 19 January 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

 

That's precisely my point. If the argument is that the British kept producing heavy tanks when the Russians had already adopted an mbt framework in the T-54/55, the existence of the conqueror doesn't support that hypothesis. The conqueror was essentially obsolete even as the final units were rolling Off the line in 1959 due to the development of the L7 armed centurion. The continued existence of the conqueror doesn't disprove the fact that the centurion was an MBT. 

I wasn't saying that the Soviets had adopted an Mbt framework in the T-54/55. I was actually arguing that the T-54/55 also wasn't a mbt because the Soviets also kept T-10's operational. I would say that both the T-64 and the Chieftain were the first main-battle-tanks for their respective countries. 

 

(Though I'm sure the British and the Soviets kept their old heavies in a warehouse somewhere, "just-in-case&quot;)


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


Almighty Tubsta #40 Posted 20 January 2016 - 12:19 AM

    Captain

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

View PostNot that proud, on 19 January 2016 - 11:48 PM, said:

 

That's precisely my point. If the argument is that the British kept producing heavy tanks when the Russians had already adopted an mbt framework in the T-54/55, the existence of the conqueror doesn't support that hypothesis. The conqueror was essentially obsolete even as the final units were rolling Off the line in 1959 due to the development of the L7 armed centurion. The continued existence of the conqueror doesn't disprove the fact that the centurion was an MBT. 

 

I was wrong though, the Centurion was classified as a "medium gun tank" even though after upgrades it kind of fulfilled the MBT role. The Chieftain was the first British MBT.

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