and only one two mention CENTURION tanks. Come now gentlemen, let us be realistic, not nationalistic! P.S. Yes, US tanks (sadly) were inferior for decades until we got the M1. P.P.S. It did not really matter since our area was southern Germany, and the Harz mountains where we practiced "channelization" of Soviet armor and did not expect to engage (or even see them) at extreme range, unlike the Brits up north on the plain.

"After all, the Brits designed the Centurion to do EXACTLY that - to sit overlooking a river on the north German Plain and destroy Soviet armor at extreme range, time after time after time." Given that some Centurians saw limited service against the Germans at the very end of WWII, and that its design heritage goes back to the Cromwell, Comet and Challenger - I think you are giving the designers a lot of credit in foresight to claim they designed it to fight the Russians!

Yimmy beat me to it. The amazing thing is that the Centurion on the Golan was not far removed from the same vehicle, minus the remarkable 105mm L7/M68 that was meant to defeat Panthers, and could fight effectively even today. IIRC, the Chieftain used a range finder coax machinegun and did not receive laser rangefinding before the M60A3. Speaking of platforms, Worcester, I personally think that the M60A3TTS in particular was more than capable and confirmed as much by Marine M60A1 performance in G.W.1. As a T.C. in the late seventies and early eighties, I'd have rather been in an M60A3 than a T-64/72 any day. I may still not like my chances, but it would not have a thing to do with my tank.

"minus the remarkable 105mm L7/M68 that was meant to defeat Panthers" Hmm, I don't know about that bit. The Centurian started life with the 18 pounder, an 84mm. I don't think it got the 105mm until the mid 50's, after Korea. So more designed to defeat T55's than Panthers. As for being a tank commander in the 70/80's, the Chieftan has to be the tank of choice. Even it mind, lost out to T55's and T62's when the Iranians used them in the attack without infantry support.

"minus the remarkable 105mm L7/M68 that was meant to defeat Panthers" Poorly written on my part. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Didn't the centurion actually carry the 17 pounder initially?

"So more designed to defeat T55's than Panthers." In 1943, the Department of Tank Design was asked to produce a new design for a heavy cruiser tank that was to have the designation A41. The original A41s that were produced were named the Centurion Mk. 1 and the uparmoured version (A41A) went into production as the Centurion Mk. 2 at the Leyland Motors plant (Leyland), Royal Ordnance Factory (at both Leeds and Woolwich) and Vickers Limited (Elswick). Rather perceptive of the MoD in 1943 to see the need to combat T-55s in post-war Europe. Thank God for the English.

The Centurion arose out of that failure to upgun the Cromwell cruiser tank to 17 pounder. Actually, the 'upgunned' Cromwell design was the Comet, which had a slightly less powerful version of the 17 pounder. The Comet was regarded as the best British tank to serve in significant numbers in WW2, almost on par in performace with the Panther, but it perpetuted a number of Cromwell faults, particularly the square cut frontal glasis and thin belly armour. The Centurion was a response to the flaws of the Comet, as well as to a design requirement to survive a 88mm hit! The first version had a turret with the same thickness of armour as the Churchill Infantry tank, but far better armed with a 17 pounder and a 20mm canon. Post war, Centurions were upgunned and uparmoured, progressing through 20 pounder guns, then the 105mm L7. The IDF has Israel Tai to thank or blame for purchasing Centurions. 'Blame' because most IDF armour officers at that time actually favoured the AMX-30, due to its speed and their preference for a swift maneuver war. Tai choose the Centurion, because he felt that 'speed was no substitute for armour', and had them standardised with 105mm guns and modified with new fuel tanks and diesel engines. In retrospect, using the AMX-30 would have been a disaster for the IDF. It was thin skinned, had engine problems and no main-gun stabilizer. The AMX-30 would have been chopped to pieces in the cauldron of battle in the Golan and Saini in 1973. So in essence, the Centurion was not designed to take on the T-55. It was designed to take on the Panther, Tiger & King Tiger. Of course, the T-44, the direct predecessor of the T-54/55, was also designed against German heavy AFVs, so in essence, both the Centurion and the T-54/55 were indirectly designed to fight each other!

Right, let me clarify myself. "Rather perceptive of the MoD in 1943 to see the need to combat T-55s in post-war Europe. Thank God for the English." You are missing the point, and talking about the tanks design rather than the L7's design in question. I corrected Worcester, in pointing out that the Centurian was designed to fight the Germans, and not the Soviets. The L7 105mm gun however, was designed to fight the Soviets, with their T55's (or perhaps their T10?). I previously stated that the Centurian started life with the 18 pounder, an 84mm weapon (here, obviously I meant 20 pounder, my mistake), I was not aware the Centurian was ever fielded with the 17 pounder. The 105mm L7 gun, was introduced to British Centurians post Korean war (I am sure they used the 20 pounder in Korea), and what with the Centurian with the 105mm, it was deemed the Conqourer (a troubled tank), with its 120mm to counter the IS2, could be rid of.

First off for who ever said the Centurion had a part in 67, it didnt really because the first shipment of centurions had just gotten off the boat when the war started and no one was yet trained in using it. So literally a handful of centurions were used in 67. If the centurion was orginially designed to resist 84mm shells that sheds doubt one what someone said earlier that shells were consntaly bouncing of the centurions from the T-62 115mm cannon (some had 105mm). I even being have never heard such thing at all ven when being educated in IDF tank corp in the ballation that had beared the brunt of the Syrian assult in 73'. On the side his name is Israel Tal, not Tai. and he is the father of the Merkava.

First off... The Centurion Mk1 was designed to resist German 88mm fire from a Tiger I with 152mm armour on the front turret. Late war German tank guns, in particular the 75mm/L70 of the Panther and the 88mm/L71 of the King Tiger, were extremely accurate and hard hitting. The allies were very lucky that Germany's limited supply of tungsten meant that they could not use this material for armour penetrating rounds late in the war. Recall that the French 75mm gun that was used quite sucessfully on the IDF's AMX-13 and M51 SuperSupershermans against T54/55s was derived from the Panther's. Secondly, Israel's Centurions are of MK3 and MK5 standards, with automatic gun stabalisation and fully cast turrets that had armour even thicker than the MK1. One of the great advantages that made the Centurion such a legendry tank was that it could be upgraded throughout its service life, with new engines, new guns and thicker armour. The Sh'ot Centurion, in IDF service at the time of the Yom Kippur War, was, with the exception of the British Chieftan, the best armoured and armed tank in the world, with a highly accurate long range gun and more importantly, was manned by the best tank crews in the world. According to Isreal-Weapons.com: "When the Six-day War (1967) broke out, the IDF had 293 Sho't tanks that were ready for combat of total 385 tanks. During the war Israel captured 30 Centurion tanks from Jordan, when Jordan had only 44 Centurion tanks."