Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Tank(s) of the Cold War?

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

  • Originally posted by Acheron View Post

    How closely related were the M-47, M-48 and M-60, I am just confused since they share a nickname.
    Didn't know that the Challenger 2 came out so late, I had mentally lumped it together with the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams.
    the M46,47 & 48 were upgrades from the M26. the M60 was derived from the 48 but more than an up grade with new design & controls & V 12 deisel. also the M60 series was never desinated "Patton" I ran both 48 & 60 both great tracks but i preferred the 60a1

    Comment


    • P.S. we did not win in vietnam. just killed thousands of youg people then ran out.

      Comment


      • The M 47 was an M 46 with a new turret for all intents. The M 48 was an entirely new vehicle, more or less. New hull, new turret. The M60 started as a progressive development of the M 48 with a redesigned hull. The A1 version added a new turret.

        Comment


        • I wonder why the armor of British and American tanks was so thin. With their weight it could have been better.
          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

          Comment


          • Armor was affected by the height of the design. American and British Tank designs were tall compared to Soviet Tanks. Therefore they could not put more weight in armor as the areas were larger. The good thing about a taller design was it could be behind terrain and shoot down as the elevation was better. Israeli Shermans showed this in the Golan Heights in 1967.

            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


            • Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              Armor was affected by the height of the design. American and British Tank designs were tall compared to Soviet Tanks. Therefore they could not put more weight in armor as the areas were larger. The good thing about a taller design was it could be behind terrain and shoot down as the elevation was better. Israeli Shermans showed this in the Golan Heights in 1967.

              Pruitt
              Very true. Western tanks generally tended (and still do tend) to be taller and have a larger internal volume. That creates a larger external surface area. All of this means less armour thickness (generally, overall) for any given weight. Of course, if the Western designers and users are prepared to accept heavier weights (which they often are), then they can armour tanks accordingly. This is a key reason why tanks in many Western armies have often been, typically, 10 to 15 tons heavier than their Eastern Bloc counterparts. Essentially, it reflects not only differing design philosophies but usually different crew configurations, with the Russians and others typically going for an auto-loader and one less crew member (3 instead of 4).
              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                I wonder why the armor of British and American tanks was so thin. With their weight it could have been better.
                US and British tank armor was on par or thicker than that on Soviet tanks of the era. The big difference that accounts for weight is the overall size of the vehicles. Soviet tanks are smaller. The interior is more cramped, and they generally carry fewer rounds of ammunition.

                Much of this weight difference can be explained by the automotive choices these countries had. The US, in particular, could install higher horsepower engines in their vehicles and were willing to accept some mobility and speed penalties. The British had engines with less horsepower available domestically and preferred heavier armor and a bigger gun to better mobility so they too could accept a heavier tank design.
                The Soviets wanted mobility and firepower on a relatively inexpensive chassis. They were also limited to a degree by what engines they had available to use in their tanks.

                That, in a nutshell, was why US and British tanks end up heavier than Soviet ones.

                Comment


                • If we look at the armor of T-55/62 without speaking of T-64, it was thicher than on Western tanks.
                  There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                    If we look at the armor of T-55/62 without speaking of T-64, it was thicher than on Western tanks.
                    Given the degree of advancement in larger calibre guns and anti tank rounds, increasing armour thickness was becoming unpragmatic. Composite armour was then utilised, followed by other forms of protection.
                    "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                    Ernest Hemingway.
                    “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                      If we look at the armor of T-55/62 without speaking of T-64, it was thicher than on Western tanks.
                      Actually, it isn't. The T 55 has the same armor as the M48 or M 60. The T62 has almost the same armor as the T 55 (100 mm @ 60 degrees hull front, 250 or so on the turret face depending on shape and location and about 50 to 80 mm on the sides)

                      Comment


                      • T-55 originated from T-54 which was created during WW2. M48 and M60 are much later designs.
                        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                          T-55 originated from T-54 which was created during WW2. M48 and M60 are much later designs.
                          The M 26 originated in WW 2. It became the M 46 with a new drive train. The M47 is an M 46 with a new turret and gun (yes, it's still a 90mm but it's not the same gun). The M 48 was a new design. The M 60 is an improved M 48.

                          The T44 was the wartime design. The T 54 is postwar and a T 44 with a new turret and some other improvements. But, it's basically the same hull. The T 55 improves the turret design and adds a few other refinements. The T 62 is a new vehicle much like the M 48 was. The T64 and 72 are totally different vehicles like the M1 is for the US.

                          Comment


                          • Best individual tank of Cold War : Centurion.
                            Most numerous tank of Cold War : T-54/55.
                            Most important tank of Cold War : T-54/55
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              Best individual tank of Cold War : Centurion.
                              Most numerous tank of Cold War : T-54/55.
                              Most important tank of Cold War : T-54/55
                              Best individual tank of the Cold War M60A3.
                              I'd say it's a toss up between the T-54/55 and the Patton series (M 47, 48, 60). Those were the two big rival contenders in post WW 2 tank battles.

                              The Centurion started off under-gunned and armored at least through the Mk I to VI vehicles which had 76mm frontal armor thickness (not including slope) and either the 17 pdr or 20 pdr gun (83.4mm). The use of a ranging machinegun for fire control is also a relative weakness. It slows the engagement time, and it also can give the vehicle away. It also has a limit of about 1000 to 1500 meters as the maximum range (about half what the Patton series could accurately fire to). The Mk 7/2 is really the first Centurion to be up to snuff. This vehicle through the final Mk 13 represent about 2000 total production vehicles.

                              Comment


                              • The Chieftain would be my choice, alongside the S-tank.
                                "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                                Ernest Hemingway.
                                “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X