Jump to content


Centurion v T-54 (Historical Discussion)


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

VNinjaShmugV #61 Posted 22 January 2016 - 08:36 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14743 battles
  • 319
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 22 January 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

I fail to see a problem. If I build a vehicle that only a 5'6" tall man can fit in, so long as I have enough 5'6" tall men to crew all of my vehicles, how am I hurt?

 

Duh. Did anyone say it was a problem? Re-read the post maybe? Does "love" equate to dislike?  Logic fail on every count here.

Matthew J35U5 #62 Posted 22 January 2016 - 10:53 PM

    Major

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

View PostVNinjaShmugV, on 22 January 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

 

Duh. Did anyone say it was a problem? Re-read the post maybe? Does "love" equate to dislike?  Logic fail on every count here.

I love your posting style. 


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


Chieftain WGA #63 Posted 02 February 2016 - 06:32 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 4 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

Curiously, some fairly reputable persons do apparently consider Panther an MBT. 21:35 in.

 



Matthew J35U5 #64 Posted 02 February 2016 - 12:08 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
That doesn't seem very meaningful with no explanation given. The Panther didn't have comparable armament or armour protection to contemporary heavy tanks like the IS-2, Tiger II, or (the designed & prototyped but not produced) T29, and the German army built and operated heavy tanks while the Panther was in service. If we stretch the definition of "MBT" to such a point that it includes the Panther, I don't see how it manages to exclude the Pz. IV, T-34, and M4. 

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


JAG THE GEMINI #65 Posted 02 February 2016 - 12:16 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65282 battles
  • 2,428
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
Panther first MBT... Interesting. YOU HEARD IT HERE FOLKS! The Panthers main gun was much better than those of the M4, T34 or PZ.4. So it could get toe to toe with a heavy. So... yeah

Edited by JAG THE GEMINI, 02 February 2016 - 12:27 PM.

 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


Matthew J35U5 #66 Posted 02 February 2016 - 12:29 PM

    Major

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

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 02 February 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

Panther first MBT... Interesting. YOU HEARD IT HERE FOLKS! The Panthers main gun was much better than those of the M4, T34 or PZ.4. So it could get toe to toe with a heavy.

Yeah, I mean, compare it with the IS-2 and Tiger II, the IS-2 can penetrate the Panther's UFG from (according to Soviet tests) more than 2 km, while the Panther can't penetrate the IS-2 (1944's) UFP at all, and the Tiger II can penetrate the Panther's UFG from (based on Soviet tests of the similarly performing D-10T) approximately 1.5 km, while the Panther can't penetrate the Tiger II's UFG at all. 


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


Ralphs Dad #67 Posted 07 February 2016 - 09:54 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 25099 battles
  • 1,919
  • [CRPT]
  • Member since:
    08-24-2013

I believe one draw back of the T-54 was, that when the turret moved, not much, bar the gun obviously, was still in the same place. So one minute the loader would be taking shells from the six o' clock position to load the gun and the next maybe from the nine o' clock position.



Sqn Ldr B #68 Posted 07 February 2016 - 09:57 PM

    Major

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

View PostRalphs Dad, on 07 February 2016 - 09:54 PM, said:

I believe one draw back of the T-54 was, that when the turret moved, not much, bar the gun obviously, was still in the same place. So one minute the loader would be taking shells from the six o' clock position to load the gun and the next maybe from the nine o' clock position.

 

You mean it didn't have a turret basket?

"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


Ralphs Dad #69 Posted 07 February 2016 - 10:45 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 25099 battles
  • 1,919
  • [CRPT]
  • Member since:
    08-24-2013
That's the badger sir!

Matthew J35U5 #70 Posted 12 February 2016 - 08:14 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
The Centurion (at least in the beginning) also didn't have a turret basket. 

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


Warden0TheNorth #71 Posted 14 March 2016 - 04:57 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10169 battles
  • 857
  • [T-R-U]
  • Member since:
    02-18-2014

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

 

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

It's called T-54 for a different reason



Turboclicker #72 Posted 14 March 2016 - 05:26 PM

    Major

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

View PostWarden0TheNorth, on 14 March 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

It's called T-54 for a different reason

 

Don't quote month+ old posts.



Sqn Ldr B #73 Posted 14 March 2016 - 05:27 PM

    Major

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

View PostTurboclicker, on 14 March 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

 

Don't quote month+ old posts.

 

Why?

"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


Warden0TheNorth #74 Posted 14 March 2016 - 05:28 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10169 battles
  • 857
  • [T-R-U]
  • Member since:
    02-18-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 14 March 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

 

Don't quote month+ old posts.

why not? The age of the post does not diminish its meaning



Turboclicker #75 Posted 14 March 2016 - 05:31 PM

    Major

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

View PostWarden0TheNorth, on 14 March 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

why not? The age of the post does not diminish its meaning

 

Users can realize mistakes in such a span of time. Your comment was useless because I had already realized my mistake literally since a day after I made the old post.



Warden0TheNorth #76 Posted 14 March 2016 - 09:03 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10169 battles
  • 857
  • [T-R-U]
  • Member since:
    02-18-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 14 March 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

 

Users can realize mistakes in such a span of time. Your comment was useless because I had already realized my mistake literally since a day after I made the old post.

well then edit that post so that this situation isn't allowed to occur. 



Turboclicker #77 Posted 14 March 2016 - 11:40 PM

    Major

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

View PostWarden0TheNorth, on 14 March 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

well then edit that post so that this situation isn't allowed to occur. 

 

I'm not editing a post that's  a month old.



Matthew J35U5 #78 Posted 17 March 2016 - 06:51 PM

    Major

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

View PostTurboclicker, on 14 March 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

 

I'm not editing a post that's  a month old.

 

Don't blame him for you not editing your post a month ago. :trollface:

 

I don't even know why the T-34—T-90 are named like they are. Some of them just have kind of arbitrary numbers. 


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


SubtleToe401024 #79 Posted 18 March 2016 - 02:35 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 8654 battles
  • 21
  • [MARS]
  • Member since:
    03-23-2014

To settle this argument, the Centurion was the more successful of the two. It was superior in almost every way to its Soviet counterparts, except in the turret armour department. And if we want to be extremely accurate on this, then we should also factor in the exclusion of a gun mantlet on the T-54 and the inclusion of one on the Centurion models. Overall, a Centurion could beat any contemporary Russian vehicle. The chassis of the Centurion has also seen longstanding service not as a gun platform, but as the basis for several recovery vehicles and AVRE systems. The T-54 chassis is still in service today, but mostly in nations that will not have any reason to use them except as a show of force to their own people. Finally, removing any humanity from the vehicles, and looking at the weapons, the Royal Ordnance L7 105 mm rifled gun was miles ahead of the D-102S 100 mm gun. 105 mm DM63 APFSDS-T fired from the Centurion has a penetration value at 4000m of 530mm. In comparison, 100 mm BM-20 APFSDS-T fired from the T-54 had a pentration value at 2000m of 390mm. If we look at how penetration is reduced not by distance so much as by drop in shell velocity, it is clear to see that the Centurion is a much better vehicle.

 

It could effectively knock out enemy vehicles at longer range with more reliability than its Russian counterpart.



Matthew J35U5 #80 Posted 24 March 2016 - 04:02 PM

    Major

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

View PostSubtleToe401024, on 17 March 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

the Royal Ordnance L7 105 mm rifled gun was miles ahead of the D-102S 100 mm gun. 105 mm DM63 APFSDS-T fired from the Centurion has a penetration value at 4000m of 530mm. In comparison, 100 mm BM-20 APFSDS-T fired from the T-54 had a pentration value at 2000m of 390mm. If we look at how penetration is reduced not by distance so much as by drop in shell velocity, it is clear to see that the Centurion is a much better vehicle.

Did you actually just compare the 105 L7's APFSDS round from 2000 to the 100 mm's APFSDS round from 1968? If you compare two rounds that were actually built at the same time, the BM-25 (1978) has 430 mm of penetration @2500 m, while the M111(1978) has 390 penetration@3000 m, which are pretty comparable. I have no idea why you thought it would be relevant to compare a round from 2000 to one from 1968 when discussing vehicles that were effectively obsolete by the 1960's. 

 


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





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users