Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 1 Grp 3 - T-64 (Soviet Union/Russia) vs M48 (USA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rnd 1 Grp 3 - T-64 (Soviet Union/Russia) vs M48 (USA)

    Round 1, Group 3: T-64 (Soviet Union/Russia) vs M48 (USA)


    In his volume on the T-64 and T-80, Steven Zaloga describes the T-64 as, “… the most radical advance in world tank technology in the 1960’s …”
    Among the notable features, T-64 would be developed to incorporate non-metallic elements in its armour envelope; the first series-produced MBT to do so. It also would be fitted with an extremely potent 125mm smoothbore gun. However, it was not exported like the T-62 or T-72, being retained almost entirely for domestic use.

    The M48 on the other hand, was quite conventional for its time (although to be fair, its time was easily at least a decade before T-64) and represented a logical progressive step between M47 and M60. It was also quite widely exported and it has seen action in a lot of conflicts. I think it would be fair to describe the M48 Patton tank as a ‘true workhorse’; one that rendered excellent service.

    So, what will it be for this one? The T-64 or the M48?

    Only one of these two candidates will make it to the next round!

    Which of them is the most significant and/or influential?



    Candidate #41 - T-64 (Soviet Union/Russia)

    Service Entry – late 1960’s (limited production); early 1970’s (main series)
    Weight – 38-40 metric tons
    Top Speed – 60 km/h (37 mph)
    Main Armament – 125mm smoothbore (115mm in initial batch)
    No. Produced – 13,000 (approx.)

    For further info, check these:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64
    http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64.htm











    Candidate #47 - M48 (USA)

    Service Entry – 1953/54
    Weight – 45-52 tons*
    Top Speed – 48 km/h (30 mph)* (*differed according to variant)
    Main Armament – 90mm gun (earlier variants) 105mm (later variants)
    No. Produced – 12,000 (approx.)

    For further info, check these:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton
    http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product481.html













    Consider the criteria with care! You decide!

    88
    T-64 (Soviet Union/Russia)
    56.82%
    50
    M48 (USA)
    43.18%
    38

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by Skoblin; 27 Jun 14, 00:36.
    "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
    Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

  • #2
    The T-64 has a better main gun than even the 105 armed M-48. I would go with a M-48A5 over a T-54/55.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      The M-48. Its part of the evolutionary process that leads through the M-60 to the M-1, and its combat performance is superior to the T-64s.
      Last edited by Arnold J Rimmer; 29 Jun 14, 11:17.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes, but we are talking about the M-48 versus the T-64, not T-62.

        Pruitt
        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
          Yes, but we are talking about the M-48 versus the T-64, not T-62.

          Pruitt
          Typo corrected!
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            While I have a softspot for the M48. I think the T-64 was overall a more capable weapons system.
            BoRG
            "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

            Comment


            • #7
              This is another tough pairing, as both vehicles are pretty significant I think. M48 was America's first widely-used medium tank with a 4-man crew, a feat accomplished by eliminating the assistant driver. It was also the US's only medium tank used in Vietnam (while M60 remained in Germany to guard the Fulda Gap); and was used by the Israelis during a couple of their wars, and numerous other countries in numerous other conflicts. It served in large numbers with a wide variety of militaries, some of which still have the vehicle in front-line service. With the T95 tank project floundering in the mid-late 1950s, the Army essentially gave the M48A2 a 105 mm gun and a diesel engine and called it M60 to get around the Bureau of the Budget not wanting to pay for any more M48s. The M60 went on to endure two failed replacement programs and became the United States' de facto premier tank for twenty years at the height of the Cold War. Clearly, M48 has a lot of historical clout on its side.

              The T-64 does not have the extensive combat record of the M48, but it was certainly a significant and influential design. It was a leap for the Soviet Union from the conventional T-62 medium tank to a main battle tank fitted with compound armor, an automatic loader with ammunition stowed in a carousel between the tracks, and a three-man crew. This layout (but not necessarily the exact details of the autoloader) has remained a constant in Soviet/Russian tanks ever since. T-64 scared the bejeesus out of the West, and its influence can still be seen in the modern designs fielded by the US, Germany, Britain, and France, among others. T-64 was also developed into T-80, which I also consider an historically important tank.

              Very tough choice that could go either way, I think. In the end, I'm inclined to go with T-64 for the fear it instilled in NATO and the resulting reaction to its development. M60's 105 mm gun gave the USSR impetus to upgun the T-55, leading to T-62, but M48 itself didn't seem to cause an equal stir.

              Comment


              • #8
                Actually the US sent the M-41 tank to Vietnam as well. It was used in the Armored Cavalry Regiments until replaced by the M-48. A number of these M-41's were given to the ARVN's. The Army upgraded the M-48 with the British 105 main gun.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                  Actually the US sent the M-41 tank to Vietnam as well. It was used in the Armored Cavalry Regiments until replaced by the M-48. A number of these M-41's were given to the ARVN's. The Army upgraded the M-48 with the British 105 main gun.

                  Pruitt
                  Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                  It was also the US's only medium tank used in Vietnam
                  M-41s were not medium tanks, they were light tanks.
                  Кто там?
                  Это я - Почтальон Печкин!
                  Tunis is a Carthigenian city!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The M48 was a stepping stone that served far longer with many countries than its actual performance warranted,it was fairly potent when fitted with the L7 but apart from that was mediocre in most respects.
                    The T64 was new territory altogether and gave us quite a fright when unveiled,it became clear that bigger than 105 was better and led to the West developing M1s and Leopard2s.

                    T64.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      M-48. The Soviet auto-loaders slowed down the rate of fire, something not desirable in combat, and the Soviet propensity for cramped tanks meant having to select for small crewmen.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                        This is another tough pairing, as both vehicles are pretty significant I think. M48 was America's first widely-used medium tank with a 4-man crew, a feat accomplished by eliminating the assistant driver. It was also the US's only medium tank used in Vietnam (while M60 remained in Germany to guard the Fulda Gap); and was used by the Israelis during a couple of their wars, and numerous other countries in numerous other conflicts. It served in large numbers with a wide variety of militaries, some of which still have the vehicle in front-line service. With the T95 tank project floundering in the mid-late 1950s, the Army essentially gave the M48A2 a 105 mm gun and a diesel engine and called it M60 to get around the Bureau of the Budget not wanting to pay for any more M48s. The M60 went on to endure two failed replacement programs and became the United States' de facto premier tank for twenty years at the height of the Cold War. Clearly, M48 has a lot of historical clout on its side.

                        The T-64 does not have the extensive combat record of the M48, but it was certainly a significant and influential design. It was a leap for the Soviet Union from the conventional T-62 medium tank to a main battle tank fitted with compound armor, an automatic loader with ammunition stowed in a carousel between the tracks, and a three-man crew. This layout (but not necessarily the exact details of the autoloader) has remained a constant in Soviet/Russian tanks ever since. T-64 scared the bejeesus out of the West, and its influence can still be seen in the modern designs fielded by the US, Germany, Britain, and France, among others. T-64 was also developed into T-80, which I also consider an historically important tank.

                        Very tough choice that could go either way, I think. In the end, I'm inclined to go with T-64 for the fear it instilled in NATO and the resulting reaction to its development. M60's 105 mm gun gave the USSR impetus to upgun the T-55, leading to T-62, but M48 itself didn't seem to cause an equal stir.
                        Well argued, but you had me with "historical clout" - M48.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm inclined towards the T-64. I recognize the record of the M-48 and that does correspond with significance but it seems fairly normal compared to the T-64 which I would have to say is more influential.
                          "A foolish man thinks he knows everything if placed in unexpected difficulty; but he knows not what to answer, if to the test he is put."

                          --Hávamál

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            M48 for me, I should have voted for the T-64 but too late now...
                            "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                            Ernest Hemingway.

                            Sapere aude.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Struggled with this one a bit ...

                              M48 has rendered valuable service for a large number of nations over a long period of time ....

                              However, IMO the developmental impact of T-64 can't be overlooked for the purpose of this poll.

                              T-64 it is.
                              "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                              Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X