Jump to content


How Widespread was "Gold Ammo"


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

blurr91 #81 Posted Feb 13 2015 - 19:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 14626 battles
  • 2,549
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostDominatus, on Feb 12 2015 - 18:44, said:

So would the roundup of the Cold War tanks be:

AMX-30: Unreliable transmission, absurdly straining gear shift.

Chieftain: Big gun, but lol.

Leopard: Unarmoured but surprisingly reliable.

M60: Fancy electronics but otherwise unspectacular.

T-64: Stronk Tank of Capitalist's Doom (when the engine was working)

?

 

What about the Centurion and the T-62?

 

T-62 was the more conservative design and probably the best overall tank in the 1960s.



Daigensui #82 Posted Feb 13 2015 - 19:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 32016 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postblurr91, on Feb 13 2015 - 10:26, said:

T-62 was the more conservative design and probably the best overall tank in the 1960s.

 

Worse than T-55.



Walter_Sobchak #83 Posted Feb 13 2015 - 22:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
In terms of actual battlefield success, I would say the Centurion was the most successful tank of the 1960's and early 70's.  It's hard to argue against what the Israeli Defense Forces were able to achieve with the Centurion and their Sho't Cal derivative.  That said, AMX-30, Leo 1 and T-64 have seen very limited combat over the years, so it's hard to draw a conclusion on those.  M48/M60 has been a reasonably successful platform as well.  M60 is a bit of a "jack of all trades, master of none" type tank.  The Soviet stuff (T54/55/62) is hard to figure, great on paper stats but a poor record on the battlefield.  How much of this has to do with being operated by poorly trained third world armies is hard to say, but I suspect its a very important factor.  Everyone gets so wrapped up in arguing about which post war tank was better and so on and so forth.  The truth of the matter is that there is just not a lot of data to go on in terms of actual tank on tank battlefield combat for a lot of these vehicles. 

Dominatus #84 Posted Feb 13 2015 - 22:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,790
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View Postblurr91, on Feb 13 2015 - 13:26, said:

What about the Centurion and the T-62?

T-62 was the more conservative design and probably the best overall tank in the 1960s.

As Dai said, the T-62 was arguably worse than the T-55. Both T-55 and Centurion were largely inferior to the M60.



Daigensui #85 Posted Feb 13 2015 - 22:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 32016 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Feb 13 2015 - 13:02, said:

Everyone gets so wrapped up in arguing about which post war tank was better and so on and so forth.  The truth of the matter is that there is just not a lot of data to go on in terms of actual tank on tank battlefield combat for a lot of these vehicles. 

 

Reminds me of the battleship debates.

 

 

View PostDominatus, on Feb 13 2015 - 13:36, said:

As Dai said, the T-62 was arguably worse than the T-55. 

 

To explain why, T-62 gave up a lot for that 115 mm smoothbore, which later APDS for T-55's D-10T managed to catch up to. In other words, the only supposed advantage that T-62 had over T-55 was the gun, and when that advantage became useless.....

 



collimatrix #86 Posted Feb 13 2015 - 23:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

Soviet tanks have a better record with the Indian Army vs. Pakistan.

 

The T-55 family held up quite well when one considers that it was as old as the centurion by the time it saw most of its combat, but was far less extensively upgraded.  Centurion was upgunned twice, uparmored, had a new engine and sometimes a completely new transmission compared to the centurion that rolled off the lines in the 1940s.  T-55 had a new turret and NBC gear.

 

T-55 had the misfortune of being driven mainly by idiots, which resulted in it getting taken out in all sorts of undignified ways.  In Angola, a T-55 even got killed by a Ratel's 20mm cannon after a string of lucky hits on the commander's cupola.

 

The flaw with the cannon self-indexing and the sights being attached to it in the T-62 sounds very annoying, but I am not sure how telling it was in combat.  Other than that, T-62 seems like a T-55 with a bigger gun.  A gun, mind, that would happily slice and dice anything NATO had at the time, and that was typically much better supplied with tank-killing ammo than the D-10.



LordBenjamin #87 Posted Feb 13 2015 - 23:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17961 battles
  • 817
  • Member since:
    09-11-2012
The thought that someone out there has a job to A) work for a video game company and B) discuss tank warfare on C) an internet forum makes me regret certain choices in my life... 

The_Chieftain #88 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 02:15

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14382 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostLordBenjamin, on Feb 13 2015 - 22:19, said:

The thought that someone out there has a job to A) work for a video game company and B) discuss tank warfare on C) an internet forum makes me regret certain choices in my life... 

 

On the plus side, you might be in a position to buy a house, car etc... :P  Labor of love, as it were :)

xTheButcherPete #89 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 04:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 15324 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    08-23-2012

Why do I have a feeling that ammo designers were just looking to see how long they could make the acronym?

 

THIS IS MY BEST SHELL! IT'S NAMED:

 

ADPFSSDFQ!



LeuCeaMia #90 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 08:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11553 battles
  • 624
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Feb 14 2015 - 05:49, said:

To explain why, T-62 gave up a lot for that 115 mm smoothbore, which later APDS for T-55's D-10T managed to catch up to. In other words, the only supposed advantage that T-62 had over T-55 was the gun, and when that advantage became useless.....

 

The Soviets were incredibly stingy and protective at actually selling/licensing 100 mm APDS/APFSDS for some reason though. I wouldn't be surprised if APBC was still the main AP round for its third world users. Did they purposely do this to make the T-62 more attractive for export?

The_Chieftain #91 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 09:26

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14382 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
The 115mm never was brought to its full potential. The Soviets pretty quickly moved to the 125mm and didn't bother spending much effort on a gun mounted on only one vehicle which attained only limited export success,

VIA_ #92 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 10:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 20438 battles
  • 4,992
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012

View PostxTheButcherPete, on Feb 13 2015 - 19:37, said:

Why do I have a feeling that ammo designers were just looking to see how long they could make the acronym?

 

THIS IS MY BEST SHELL! IT'S NAMED:

 

ADPFSSDFQ!

 

You know military organizations and their acronyms...

 

+1 for funny :)



GeisterKatze #93 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 16:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 24543 battles
  • 3,406
  • [7CR] 7CR
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011
With the proliferation of 'online' sources over the past 5 years, the question of verifiability is rampant.  It's so easy to 'edit' any online source that it's very difficult to know if the source is reliable.  In terms of academic research, even the venerable "wikipedia" is considered UNRELIABLE.  You college students and academics out there know this.  If you're looking for a reliable source to answer that question, I'd suggest you visit your local library and look for books written by actual participants.  

US_3rd_Army #94 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 17:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 38559 battles
  • 2,262
  • [GLAD-] GLAD-
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 14 2015 - 03:26, said:

The 115mm never was brought to its full potential. The Soviets pretty quickly moved to the 125mm and didn't bother spending much effort on a gun mounted on only one vehicle which attained only limited export success,

 

On a side note, on your new post, " The Chieftain's Hatch: Centurion III Pt 1." i clicked on the button to send me to the forums and i kept getting this:

Spoiler

Bob has misled me.....



The_Chieftain #95 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 19:39

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14382 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Should be fixed now

M103_Longstreet #96 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 21:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 13586 battles
  • 6,833
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

View PostDaigensui, on Feb 10 2015 - 09:32, said:

 

Because the Soviets were unable to get more power out of their diesels without going absurdly large. It was technological limitation that forced the Soviets to keep things as compact as possible, along with low profile and whatnot.

 

Which is why the M-50T is just a V-2 with a larger diameter piston and longer stroke.


Edited by T___A, Feb 14 2015 - 21:48.


Walter_Sobchak #97 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 22:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostT___A, on Feb 14 2015 - 15:41, said:

 

Which is why the M-50T is just a V-2 with a larger diameter piston and longer stroke.

 

It was?  From what I can tell, it had a displacement of 3808 cubic inches.  In tank engine terms, that's freaking enormous.  

M103_Longstreet #98 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 22:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 13586 battles
  • 6,833
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Feb 14 2015 - 14:05, said:

 

It was?  From what I can tell, it had a displacement of 3808 cubic inches.  In tank engine terms, that's freaking enormous.  

 

The M-50T itself is just the thing in the middle


Edited by T___A, Feb 14 2015 - 22:09.


Daigensui #99 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 22:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 32016 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostT___A, on Feb 14 2015 - 13:09, said:

The M-50T itself is just the thing in the middle

 

And the accompanying support requirements (liquid cooling) that only show why the Soviets went small.

M103_Longstreet #100 Posted Feb 14 2015 - 22:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 13586 battles
  • 6,833
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

View PostDaigensui, on Feb 14 2015 - 14:21, said:

 

And the accompanying support requirements (liquid cooling) that only show why the Soviets went small.

 

Except the "smaller" engines also use liquid cooling so...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users