Main page

I'll say this much. When the British saw first hand the tanks used in the battle of berlin they knew emediatley that their centurion was obsolete. And in all fairness I would not trust a moped to an Egyptian tank driver. And thats why a t-55 or whatever was used in that 6 day war sucked.

What? the Centurion was THE future tank, defining the universal or MBT tank concept . It was used for decades, until the 70s. They upgraded it repeatedly.

The during the 6-day way the Iraelies were using various tanks with upgraded guns and armor such as the "super shermans". On the other side were tanks including t-34-85s.

It was really quality vs quantity.. Even the obsoelete tanks used by the Iraelies were upgraded.

RuthlessBastard, on Apr 15 2012 - 01:59, said:

get your facts straight mate, this exert of the full show proves just how wrong you are.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3zGWMPhxS0&feature=fvst

razielkaine, on Apr 15 2012 - 08:28, said:

Wrong about what? in that video you posted the t55 charged over an empty field while the centurions camped on hill sniping at them with their long range guns. You have to be an idiot to charge someone who clearly has the advantage instead of trying to outmanuver them. case point made that t55 were in the hands of how should I say this... Dum dums.

it clearly lists the advantages and disadvantages of both tanks and its clear to me the centurion is better of the two.

The later model Centurions had about 150mm slopped armor in the front.

The centurion vs t-54/55 is Quality versus quantity.

but but it stop at the mk3 variant i want the mk 12 or 13  

Give me a 165mm AVRE fun to play in.

Doubt the russians will let the centurion be better then their precious T-54. Im guessing that the centurion will have great long rage accuracy but will fail in close quarter combat which is where the T-54 dominates in

razielkaine, on Apr 15 2012 - 08:28, said:

T-55 was superior to centurion, Isrealis had high ground....thats all.

builtfordtough2, on Apr 18 2012 - 20:54, said:

Hmmmm in the Sinai Desert as well, in three wars, how about when they crossed the Suez in 1973 (up against T62 as well in that one), you really think so. How about the South African ones facing the Angolan and Cuban tanks.

The Israelis were using Cents and Shermans on the Golan heights, the Syrians had massed artillery as well.

builtfordtough2, on Apr 18 2012 - 20:54, said:

from everything i read and seen the t-55 were indeed a match for the centurion but they didnt have the range and the crew ability to engage accurately at range like the centurions could. The centurion had the 105mm gun effective range 3.6km however Israeli tankers were trained to engage tanks as far out as 5km, the Syrians had the 100mm gun with effective range of 2.4km but were not able to engage over 2.2km.  From what i understand the best advantage they had was numbers of 7:1 and infra red sights which the Israeli tanks did not have.

For me this makes the Centurion the superior of the 2

RuthlessBastard, on Apr 15 2012 - 01:59, said:

My understanding is that Indian Cents did a bang up job on Pakistani M47 & M48s.

In the end, when looking at equivalent tanks, its crew skill and tactics that matter more then what tank is being used.

_Freddy_, on Apr 18 2012 - 21:50, said:

Don't forget, the Syrians had some PzIV as well!

So did the IDF have shermans (which they quickly upgrade to mount up to date guns that surprisingly proved lethal despite the age of sherman design), but they obviously would not position them in the primary line nor would Syrians put PzIV in such situation.

ode to the centurion
the centuion your badass centurion your not fast but you will always kickass
the end

Zepheris, on Apr 26 2012 - 10:01, said:

Nearly all Syrian Panzer IV were used in fixed defences (basically bunkers) and not as gun tanks, they were in the front line before the various wars and were frequently used to shell the Israeli settlers below the Golan heights areas.

The Israeli M50 and M51 Shermans (along with their various hodge podge modified M4's over the years) were always used on the primary battlefields. Israel never had any secondary lines.

They were not as well suited to to the Sinai Desert areas but were eminently suitable for the hilly areas along with the Cents.

FWIW it was also extremely effective in Korea, the Rolls Royce Meteor engine in it ( detuned Merlin for ground vehicles ) meant that it could climb up gradients that no other armoured vehicle could match, and was thus able to sit on top of very high hills ( semi-mountains even ) and take out enemies from long distance whilst remaining virtually untouchable. The fact that all British tanks had BVs ( Boiling Vessels, i.e. kettles for producing hot water ) was also a great bonus on cold nights up there.

This should be one of the better around tanks in the game, whether the devs will allow it to be, will been seen. Was one of the first tanks thought of as a Main battle tank and was used this way during the Korean War. We began using the M46 Patton as a sort of MBT during the Korean War, it replaced all other tanks there, except the Chaffee by 1953.
Edited by clay6392, May 13 2012 - 20:29.

Soldier360, on Jan 15 2012 - 14:24, said:

Old post to reply too, but well... this is completely wrong. The T-55 had the same 100mm front armor as the production T-54; the Russians didn't downgrade the armor of the export T-54/55, or even the T-62.
It wasn't until composite armor came about they started downgrading their export versions, like with the T-72 (although even the T-72 used by the Russians themselves didn't have composite armor at first).
Optics and stuff might have been downgraded though, and they probably wouldn't have had access to the best Soviet made AP shells.