Would also beat every mech. Anyway, is this the first MBT or not? First Bolo or not? Can any tank challenge it within the 1945-1985 time frame?
>>64193346>Can any tank challenge it within the 1945-1985 time frame
>>64193346>first MBTno.but it is probably the oldest design that was still in service that you could cram into the MBT shaped hole when that category was created
>>64193346>Anyway, is this the first MBT or not?technically notdespite being designed as a universal tank, it was pushed out as a "heavy cruiser" and the churchill tank was still used in the infantry tank role until the 50s
>>64194887>>64194893what "technic-tuallllly" is then?
>>64194987probably T-64
>>64193346>Can any tank challenge it within the 1945-1985 time frame?Easy. The M48 and T-55 were a decent match at their inception. Later on, M48 received upgrades just as extensive as if not moreso than the Centurion through its lifetime which included fairly substantial ones like an equivalent gun/ammo, armor, and optics. Some would argue that the design philosophy of the Leopard 1/AMX 30/Vickers MBT was superior but I'm not convinced. By 1985, you're getting into the territory of the T-80, Leopard 2, and M1 Abrams which are obviously just categorically better tanks. The best Centurions could maybe keep up with the worst, least up to date slavshit tanks (most of them to be fair) and they were matched by M60s, which by 1985 had stabilization, FCS upgrades equivalent to the Centurion, and thermals on top of better base protection and mobility. I would say that the Chieftain was better on paper but it's controversial for some reason and I don't know why since I'm not familiar with the tank.
>>64195039The Chieftain was let down by the L60 engine, everything else about it was quite decent for the era and the armour was quite cutting edge
>>64195045Correct.
M60A1 AOS and later.T-64 T-72Leopard 1A1 and later Chieftain Merkava
>>64193346>Blocks your path
>>64197212Hell yeah
>>64194987first true british MBT would have been its successor, the chieftaineven after infantry tanks fell out of use, they started adopting heavy tanks for destroying soviet heavy tanks, so the centurion went from a cruiser to a mediumwhile the chieftain and the conqueror overlapped roles for a few years, the chieftain was intended to be a replacement for both the heavy and cruiser roles, with a conqueror sized gun, conquerer sized armor, but as fast as the centurion
>>64195039M48 got smoked by the Centurion irl, the armour and mobility was pretty similar but the gun handling and performance was simply better on the Centurion's part. If we are going down extreme service life upgrades then i'd still say that the Olifant mk.2 was much better than the M48 with the M60 turret, or even the German upgrade package which never came to pass.T55 could challenge it, but after the 105 upgrade the Centurion is just better, there was a reason everyone in NATO copied or bought the 105. >>64193346Depends if you're counting the SA upgrades, the 20pdr was decent and the invention of the 105 gun in the 50s means it is was competitive tank for almost the entire cold war, especially with the continued use of shitboxes by most nations, but then everyone else in NATO either acquired the 105 from GBR (USA, GER) or made their own fake version like the evil little cunts they are (FR) so it doesnt really maintain firepower supremacy into the mid-late 60s, especially when GBR implements the 120mm at the same time as everyone else is implementing the 105 in the 60s. The gun stabiliser is definitely good, but the US and others do finally implement their own in the late 70s, and then the US is the first to use tank thermals. I'd say its the best up until 1965, and at least a top 5 NATO tank in the 1970s. The olifant mk.2 is a bit of an abomination but its definitely a better modernised early war tank than equivalents like the T-54/55 or M48.
>>64198645>but the gun handling and performance was simply better on the Centurion's part.the centurion didnt get the 105mm gun until 1959, the M60A1 had the exact same gun and entered service less than 2 years laterthe M48s 90mm gun was about equal to the centurions 20lb gunisraeli M48s were upgunned with 105mm guns and proved equal or superior to the centurion
>>64198679In terms of firepower the Centurion is just better. The 20pdr AP was similar to 90mm, but the APDS outperformed the APCBC of the 90mm, giving the Centurion a greater effective range. The M48 did receive early HEAT-FS around 1958, but it had inferior ballistics+fusing issues. The Centurion also had the MV 2 plane stabiliser, so it was more likely to get the first shot off and had superior fire on the move capabilities. The M48 did implement a mechanical ballistic computer, which is a point in it's favour at range, however the Centurion's superior firepower weighs against that imo, and the Centurion's track record in all three conflicts where they faced one another was better. The 105 is so far superior to the 90mm that the argument revolves around the M48 eventually receiving it. The Centurion was upgraded with the L7 105 from 1958-1959, the US M48 receives the 105 from about 1975-1979, there were proposals and schemes to upgrade it in the 70s, but these didn't happen for various reasons, so for around 16-20 years the Centurion cant really be compared to the standard M48s in service. There was however the Israeli version in 1967 which was upgunned with the 105 as the Magach 3, but this still represents a 8-9 year gap/a small proportion of M48s.
>>64199093>but the APDS outperformed the APCBC of the 90mm90mm had APCR as their main anti-tank round with comparable armor penetrationwith greater armor penetration at close range and less at long range, but both were capable of defeating the T-55
>>64193346Would be a shame if your 20pdr were completely ineffective
>>64195039>The M48HahahahahaUS tanks really lagged until the M60
>>64193346>Can any tank challenge it within the 1945-1985 time frame?The Abrams was in service from 1980
It seems difficult to express the weaknesses of Soviet tanks and the strengths of the Centurion in a video game-like evaluation.Even the fresh water tank and water heater would likely contribute greatly to the crew's quality of life.
>>64199191simple, express it as morale or stamina
>>64199093>>64199121While comparing the centurion vs m48 is nice a bigger question is could they defeat their inteded opponent which are soviet medium and heavy tanks.How would 20pdr APDS and 90mm APCR fair against T-54's and IS-3's in a hypothetical frontal fight in a european battlefield?
>>64200275Obviously 20pdr and 90mm gun did defeat soviet tanks in combat but the question is at what range? What surface area? How far can the turret frontal armor be penetrated vs the upper hull? At what maximum angle can the t-54 80mm or is-3 90mm side armor be penetrated and how far and so on?
>>64200275both guns could penetrate the T-55 at typical combat ranges, though the turret remains a difficult target at longer ranges, the 20lb APDS retains velocity better compared to APCR and so could defeat a T-55 at ranges that APCR could notat even longer ranges, both of them lack velocity to defeat a T-55 on any part of the tank with shot, but the 90mm HEAT round was not reliant on velocity and was only limited by the accuracy of the shotthe IS-3 was essentially frontally immune to either with solid shotthe 90mm HEAT could theoretically defeat it frontallythe israelis met IS-3Ms on one occasion, where they were easily defeated by their M48sthe frontal plate was covered in deep scoops, so it was resisting 90mm gunfire, but they lacked the necessary vision to prevent the M48s from flanking themthere is no reason to believe centurions couldnt do that either
>>64194987People would say T-62, but I'd say the T-54/55
>>64202005this may be next level pedantry, but since the 54, 55, and 62 all predate the MBT concept (and are basically a series of improvements), id say the honor goes the T-64 as it was designed to be one, instead of happening to fit the description
>>64202077The only reason soviet didn't replace the T-10M with the T-62 was because they didn't want to design a new HE shell with similar HE effect than the 122, literally that was the only reason.
