PDA

View Full Version : Israeli Super Sherman



32Bravo
03-01-2008, 05:42 PM
Was the Israeli Super-Sherman, as used in the Sixties and early Seventies, the same as the Sherman-Firefly?

http://www.answers.com/topic/m50-super-sherman

Nickdfresh
03-01-2008, 09:18 PM
Was the Israeli Super-Sherman, as used in the Sixties and early Seventies, the same as the Sherman-Firefly?

http://www.answers.com/topic/m50-super-sherman


Pretty interesting that it had a French 75mm derived from the same gun that killed so many Shermans in the Panther and Pz MKIVs...

I saw an episode of Tank Overhaul on the Military Channel, and they were bewildered how the Israeli engineers had to adapt a gun with metric threads to an American tank with standard (English measurement) threads...

32Bravo
03-02-2008, 03:04 AM
Pretty interesting that it had a French 75mm derived from the same gun that killed so many Shermans in the Panther and Pz MKIVs...

I saw an episode of Tank Overhaul on the Military Channel, and they were bewildered how the Israeli engineers had to adapt a gun with metric threads to an American tank with standard (English measurement) threads...

Israeli ingenuity - a case of mend and make do?
Or, as Clint would say 'Improvise, adapt, overcome!" :)

Nickdfresh
03-02-2008, 08:04 AM
I'm gonna' put this in the Cold War forum since that's where the historical Israeli vs. Arab stuff ends up...

But I do so love the Israeli Super Shermans...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Super_Sherman

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/M50-Supersherman-latrun-1.jpg

I believe the Israelis also put Cummins Diesels in their tanks to get rid of the gas engines...And made some other adaptive improvements...

gumalangi
03-02-2008, 08:30 AM
that looked one scary beast,. but i guess the color made it even scarier,.. as other Israeli AFVs

32Bravo
03-02-2008, 12:48 PM
Looking back over the yawning chasm of thirty five years, I seem to recall reading one report at the time, that both the Supersherman and the Centurion had an advantage over the Syrian T54/55's, in the Golan, on account of the greater angle of elevation and depression of their main armament. THe report stated that the Soviet built tanks, being designed to fight on the plains of Europe were out-matched because of this or, at least, it was one of the reasons.

Anyone know anything of this?

Nickdfresh
03-02-2008, 05:47 PM
Thinner armor, inadequate guns, and lessor optics on the T-54/55. You can add the Israeli M-48A5 and M-60 Pattons to that list as well, as anything with a L7 105mm was going to have an advantage...

George Eller
03-02-2008, 11:52 PM
-

I have more in my personal resources, but it will take time to dig it all up. Here is some quick information that I was able to gather (I've been busy this weekend). I will try to post more through the week.

I'm not sure that the quotes below are completely accurate, but hopefully it can be checked against other sources that I plan to post later.

Israeli Sherman - General Information
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/Sherman_.html


The first Sherman tanks were bought during the 1948 War of Independence, from an Italian junkyard where they were being sold as scrap metal. The IDF eventually bought 35 of these, but only 14 were operational by the end of the war. Since these tanks had sabotaged guns, some were re-gunned with the Krup 75mm field gun.

During the early 1950s, more M4s were purchased from various sources, and the Sherman became the standard tank in Israeli armored units. In collaboration with France, the tanks were re-gunned with the M50 75mm gun (M-50) and, later, with a 105mm gun (M-51). Some "Super Sherman" tanks, armed with a 76.2mm (M-1) gun were also purchased.

The Sherman saw action in the 1956 "Kadesh" operation in the Sinai Peninsula, against the Egyptian army (who employed its own version of the M-4, re-turreted with AMX-13 turret). In Six Day War (1967), Sherman brigades were still the mainstay of the Israeli armored forces, though more modern MBTs were in service at the time. In the Yom Kippur War (1973), Sherman tanks fought, as always, in the front lines. Fighting against Syrian and Egyptian T-55 and T-62 MBTs with a WW2 vintage weapon, the Sherman crewmen embodied the motto of the IDF's armor corps: "Man is the steel".

No other vehicle in IDF use was modified and had so many variants based upon as the Sherman. Besides its use as a tank, there were engineer variants, mine plows, rescue vehicles, live fire moving targets, self propelled guns, mortars and MLRs, ambulance and many more. The M-50/155 Howizter is another conversion of the M-4 Sherman. The M-50 155mm is an Israeli indigenous self propelled gun - a French 155mm howitzer was fitted on a Sherman chassis.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-1.html



In the 1950’s French policy towards Israel underwent a major change. France agreed in to provide Israel with around 250 Sherman Tanks (Super Sherman’s). These were mainly M4A1 tanks, with 76.2mm M1 guns, and HVSS. The tanks were transferred to Israel in a clandestine operation lasting for several weeks. These tanks arrived directly to beaches in Israel in 1953-1954. They arrived just in time to fight in the Sinai Campaign (1956). When the Sinai Campaign (1956) war broke out, Israel had 180 Sherman tanks ready for battle of total 205 Sherman tanks.

-

M-50 (Supersherman)
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-50.html
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-51.html


M-50
A: Old turret
B: With counterweight
C: 75mm CN 75-50 French gun
D: HVSS

-

M-51 (Isherman)
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-51.html


The M-50 was designed with the CN 75-50 gun to defeat T-34 and T-85 tanks, with appearance of T-54 and T-55 Israel needed a new gun and as on M-50 Israel used a French gun, the new 105mm CN 105 F1 gun. This gun was a 56 caliber and 6m long, firing a HEAT round with a 1000 m/sec velocity. However, this gun could not be installed in a Sherman turret, as this offered not enough recoil space. Israel then came up with a solution of their own: By shortening the gun to a 44 caliber gun (about 1.4 meters shorter) and accepting a lower muzzle velocity of around 800 m/sec. this modification, called the CN 105 D1 gun, could indeed be crammed into a T23 turret.

This gun was fitted in M4A1 tanks with HVSS, 180 M-51 tanks were ready in late 1960's.

The M-51 Sherman tank developed with French-Israeli collaboration of the basis of the US Sherman tank, mounted a long 105 mm gun. The tank also had installed a US diesel engine and wide track and suspension. The tank participated in combat during the Six Day War (1967). The M-51 was a key participant in the famous battle in the Dotan Valley, as well as in the Yom Kippur War (1973).

When the Six Day War (1967) war broke out, Israel had 515 Sherman tanks ready for battle out of a total of 520 Shermans, and when the Yom Kippur War (1973) war broke out, Israel had 340 Shermans.

In the mid to late 70s, Israel had supplied over 150 M-51 Sherman tanks to the Chilean army.

M-51
A: 105mm CN 105 D1 gun
B: T32 turret
C: With commander's cupola, counterweight
D: HVSS


-

From: Modern Armor: A Comprehensive Guide, Pierangelo Caiti,
Squadron/Signal Publications, 1978, p 126

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1584/israelisheman05ek0.jpg

-

From: Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars 1947-1974, Colonel Trevor N. Dupuy U.S. Army Ret.,
Harper & Row Publishers, 1978, pp 466-469

Iraqi armored column ambushed by Israeli Super-Shermans of the 19th Armored Brigade
on morning of 13 October 1973 near Tel Shaar on the Golan Heights.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/6856/israelisheman01ya0.jpg
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1364/israelisheman02ej6.jpg
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4952/israelisheman03yn2.jpg
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/8808/israelisheman04bf2.jpg

-

Chevan
03-03-2008, 12:31 AM
Looking back over the yawning chasm of thirty five years, I seem to recall reading one report at the time, that both the Supersherman and the Centurion had an advantage over the Syrian T54/55's, in the Golan, on account of the greater angle of elevation and depression of their main armament. THe report stated that the Soviet built tanks, being designed to fight on the plains of Europe were out-matched because of this or, at least, it was one of the reasons.

Anyone know anything of this?

And who has prepeared that report?
I bet the Israel intelligence. Coz this look like the pure propogandic/informational matter:)
Indeed neither Centurion ( depend of what modification) nor the ancient ww2 raritet Sherman ( super/mega and ets) HAD NO any advantage of the T-54/54 ( the next generation post-war tank).

Soviets tested twice the Centurion ( in the 1952) and more detailed in the 1971 ( when they've got finally the fully repaired and functional Centurion Mk10)
The both was the British modification.
http://sa100.ru/armor/GB/cent/centurion.php
During the all side tests with analogical soviet tanks T-62/64 ( basis soviet for that period) it was established.
- the tank had the worsen system stabilization then the T-62.
- the engine was weak for almost 50 tonn mashine.( all soviets tanks were limited by 40 tonns)
- the speed and maneuvereability of the Centurion could not be even comapred with T-54/62.
The more interesting was the Centurion Mk3, modernized in Israel. The soviet got it in the 1973.
The Israel tank had more powerfull engine of american M60A1, better optic and electronic.
But....it was established that the Israel shells for 105 mm gun have much less reliability and accuracy then Original British ones.

При огневых испытаниях из танковой пушки по целям, расположенным на дальностях 1400-2400 м для БПС и 1100-2200 м для бронебойно-фугасного снаряда, затраты времени до первого попадания в цель соответственно составили 112 и 123 с, что было значительно выше, чем у отечественных танков. При испытаниях выявлено, что боеприпасы израильского производства, которые находились в танках вместе с английскими, обладали низкой надежностью. Так, 28% из числа израсходованных подкалиберных снарядов израильского производства имели высокое отклонение от траектории полета и не долетали до цели. Аналогичные результаты были получены на отдельных выстрелах кумулятивными снарядами, также израильского производства. При стрельбе на дальности 2000 м у 7% израильских бронебойно-фугасных снарядов (типа L35A2) взрыватели не срабатывали при попадании в грунт. При стрельбе на дальность в 1000 м таких отказов было уже 54%. Как было выяснено, БПС L28A1 пробивал 80 мм монолитной брони средней твердости, установленной под углом 68 град. на дальности в 2000 м (у танка Т-54 бронирование лба корпуса составляло 100 мм при тех же углах и лба башни 200 мм). Бронебойно-фугасный снаряд L35A2 и его израильский аналог при попадании в монолитную броню толщиной 80 мм, установленной под углом 60 град., давал отколы на тыльной поверхности брони в форме диска диаметром до 200 мм и толщиной до 20 мм, которым наносились поражения внутри танка как вторичным снарядом. Разнесенные и комбинированные преграды танков Т-64 и Т-72 бронебойно-фугасным снарядом не поражались. Были отмечены низкие осколочные действия бронебойно-фугасных снарядов при попадании в грунт. .
The time of aiming of Centurion gun was twice higher than the soviet ones.The armor penetration ability of L28A1 was roughtely 80 mm on disctance 2000m . The front armor of the T-54 was 100/200 mm.
The armor-piercing shell L35A2 could not penetrate frontal armor of T-62/72 at all.
SO be carefull guys to take the Isreal propogandic posters as the "reports":)
I am sure that hte Arabs had the same propogand.



-

32Bravo
03-03-2008, 04:04 AM
And who has prepeared that report?

As I said, Chevan, the past theirty-five years are as a yawning chasm, into which many of my memories fall.

What was to me, the most impressive account of the war, at the time, was that published by the Sunday Times Insight Team. However, I might have readit in the newspapers, but I doubt they would have gone into that kind of detail. http://www.amazon.com/Kippur-Insight-London-Sunday-Times/dp/0743452577

I certainly didn't have access to any Iraeli reports.


The armor-piercing shell L35A2 could not penetrate frontal armor of T-62/72 at all

One of the characteristics of british Army training is that they have a policy of instilling as much knowledge as is available of the equipment and tactics of their potential enemies.

They were fighting against the T54/55's


SO be carefull guys to take the Isreal propogandic posters as the "reports"

Not all of us are stupid and of limited intelligence.

If you believe it to be propaganda, or perhaps a figment of my aging imagination, then show me, don't just accuse.

Do you not think that the Israeli sucesses have to speak for something, or are you saying that it was NATO forces that won the battles, and that the rest was just Israeli posters?

My original enquiry was regarding the, reported, tactical advantage of the Israeli tanks over those of the Syrians, in the Golan Heights, on account of the angle of elevation and depression of their main armament. Have you anything to say about this?

By the way - how's the election going in Moscow?

Chevan
03-03-2008, 06:43 AM
Not all of us are stupid and of limited intelligence.

If you believe it to be propaganda, or perhaps a figment of my aging imagination, then show me, don't just accuse.

Thats' certainly true, not all of posters are the propoganda.
However it was a war, and as in any war - thee was the battles not just in battlefilads, but in the informational/propogandic fields too.
Just simple informational war, the arabs made the same things.


Do you not think that the Israeli sucesses have to speak for something, or are you saying that it was NATO forces that won the battles, and that the rest was just Israeli posters?

The Israel succes has no any deal with the superior of wearpon or something else, but first of all the Jews had the superior intellect over arabs, righ:)


My original enquiry was regarding the, reported, tactical advantage of the Israeli tanks over those of the Syrians, in the Golan Heights, on account of the angle of elevation and depression of their main armament. Have you anything to say about this?

As i said , the tests of the captured Isreli tanks did not showed any adventage over soviets.
Besides as it was established the original British tank and ammunition was better then Israeli modernized.
They actually partly improved its Centurions, via the established the Americans engines from M60A1.
But in sense - it have not created the NEw Super Tanks.


By the way - how's the election going in Moscow?
All is going according plan:)
Putin's plan...
I do know nothing any more, coz i do not go to the election .
why i have to go there if nothing depend of my choice:)

32Bravo
03-03-2008, 07:11 AM
Thats' certainly true, not all of posters are the propoganda.
However it was a war, and as in any war - thee was the battles not just in battlefilads, but in the informational/propogandic fields too.
Just simple informational war, the arabs made the same things.

Yes, but neither side posted them on the walls of the Lower Falls.




The Israel succes has no any deal with the superior of wearpon or something else, but first of all the Jews had the superior intellect over arabs, righ:)


Nonesense! The Arabs caught the Israelis with their pants down, thus not only proving their ability to plan, but also their strategic awareness (I don't make assumptions on peoples' intelligence according to their race).

As an exampe of Arab ingenuity: the Israelis never considered the solution to breaking through the sand-berms which lined the Suez Canal, but a young Egyptian Lieutenant of engineers came up with it in no time at all.

If Sadat had not interfered and over-ruled his general staff regarding the strategy in the Sinai (he did this to help relieve the pressure on the Syrians) the Israelis might never have beaten the Egyptians in the way they did.



As i said , the tests of the captured Isreli tanks did not showed any adventage over soviets.

There were also captured T54/55's which were handed over to a British team that also inspected the battlefieds - I'm afraid I have to differ.

There are tests and there are tests. Were there tests carried out on the main armament to discover whether there was any tactical advantage in the way I described? Perhaps not...or perhaps better not to mention it?



Besides as it was established the original British tank and ammunition was better then Israeli modernized.
They actually partly improved its Centurions, via the established the Americans engines from M60A1.
But in sense - it have not created the NEw Super Tanks.

I asked one simple question and I do not have an answer, as yet.

If one wants to look at the situation scientifically - what was the attrition rate of Arab to Israeli tanks?

Is war a science or an art or a mixture of both?



All is going according plan:)
Putin's plan...


I rather thought so.



I do know nothing any more, coz i do not go to the election .
why i have to go there if nothing depend of my choice:)

I thought that you might not go as you are in the Ukraine and not in Russa?

George Eller
03-03-2008, 07:37 AM
And who has prepeared that report?
I bet the Israel intelligence. Coz this look like the pure propogandic/informational matter:)
Indeed neither Centurion ( depend of what modification) nor the ancient ww2 raritet Sherman ( super/mega and ets) HAD NO any advantage of the T-54/54 ( the next generation post-war tank).

Soviets tested twice the Centurion ( in the 1952) and more detailed in the 1971 ( when they've got finally the fully repaired and functional Centurion Mk10)
The both was the British modification.
http://sa100.ru/armor/GB/cent/centurion.php
During the all side tests with analogical soviet tanks T-62/64 ( basis soviet for that period) it was established.
- the tank had the worsen system stabilization then the T-62.
- the engine was weak for almost 50 tonn mashine.( all soviets tanks were limited by 40 tonns)
- the speed and maneuvereability of the Centurion could not be even comapred with T-54/62.
The more interesting was the Centurion Mk3, modernized in Israel. The soviet got it in the 1973.
The Israel tank had more powerfull engine of american M60A1, better optic and electronic.
But....it was established that the Israel shells for 105 mm gun have much less reliability and accuracy then Original British ones.

The time of aiming of Centurion gun was twice higher than the soviet ones.The armor penetration ability of L28A1 was roughtely 80 mm on disctance 2000m . The front armor of the T-54 was 100/200 mm.
The armor-piercing shell L35A2 could not penetrate frontal armor of T-62/72 at all.
SO be carefull guys to take the Isreal propogandic posters as the "reports":)
I am sure that hte Arabs had the same propogand.
-
-

Hi Chevan,

I have more on the Israeli Centurion as well, but I'm at work right now. I can post more later when I have access to my sources. But for now let me say that the Israelis modified the Centurion quite extensively including more reliable American diesel engines. As far as the 105mm L7 gun being able to penetrate the frontal armor of the T-62, let me say that I have been to the Golan Heights several times and have actually examined knocked out T-62 tanks up close. One had clearly been penetrated through the front glacis plate of the hull. I have photos as well.

-

Kato
03-03-2008, 07:38 AM
I thought that you might not go as you are in the Ukraine and not in Russa?


There is the Russian Embassy in Ukraine where voting took place among the RF's citizens so Ukraine is not the wrong place to hide from Russian elections and elections on the whole.

The only place without elections was Afganistan a few years ago but Americans spoilt everything. So there is no place to hide from democracy today.

32Bravo
03-03-2008, 07:55 AM
There is the Russian Embassy in Ukraine where voting took place among the RF's citizens so Ukraine is not the wrong place to hide from Russian elections and elections on the whole.

The only place without elections was Afganistan a few years ago but Americans spoilt everything. So there is no place to hide from democracy today.

Thank you for that.

I think that what I had meant to say was that I thought that Chevan had not taken part as the election was for a Russian president and prime minister, and not a Ukraine president and prime minister, believing Chevan to be a citizen of the Ukraine.

As for the rest of your post regarding democracy: I am pleasantly surprised to see that you have a sense of humour - there is hope for the world yet. :)

Nickdfresh
03-03-2008, 08:43 AM
Thats' certainly true, not all of posters are the propoganda.
However it was a war, and as in any war - thee was the battles not just in battlefilads, but in the informational/propogandic fields too.
Just simple informational war, the arabs made the same things.
...

I think we might be countering propaganda with propaganda then. Anything I've read gave the Israelis the clear edge in tanks. And while the Centurion had it weaknesses (maintenance was very difficult I understand), its armor was world renowned and the Aussies used it in Vietnam were its thick (up to 152mm's of) armor provided ample protection against RPGs...

The only statement by the text I take issues with is the disingenuous discussion as if the Israeli Sherman was the only tank they had against the mighty Soviet made T-54/55/62s. In fact, the Syrians still used Pkzw IVs, and most Arab nations had T-34s as well. The Israelis received front line M-60A1s and components to up-gun their M-48s in 1973 in response to their losses to Sagger missiles. Also, the Israelis also employed some T-54/55s of their own (I think). And the tank battles weren't even close...

George Eller
03-03-2008, 11:06 AM
I think we might be countering propaganda with propaganda then. Anything I've read gave the Israelis the clear edge in tanks. And while the Centurion had it weaknesses (maintenance was very difficult I understand), its armor was world renowned and the Aussies used it in Vietnam were its thick (up to 152mm's of) armor provided ample protection against RPGs...

The only statement by the text I take issues with is the disingenuous discussion as if the Israeli Sherman was the only tank they had against the mighty Soviet made T-54/55/62s. In fact, the Syrians still used Pkzw IVs, and most Arab nations had T-34s as well. The Israelis received front line M-60A1s and components to up-gun their M-48s in 1973 in response to their losses to Sagger missiles. Also, the Israelis also employed some T-54/55s of their own (I think). And the tank battles weren't even close...
-

The Israeli's had used the Centurion and M-48 Patton during the 1967 Six Day War - mostly in the Sinai against Egypt. French AMX-13 tanks were also used in the Sinai. The Super Shermans were used mostly against Jordan and Syria.

Israelis began upgrading the M-48 Patton tanks with the 105mm L7 guns after the 1967 Six Day War. The Centurion tank was also extensively upgraded including the installation of American Continental 750hp air-cooled diesel engines (as used on the M-48 and M-60). This made them more reliable. Also, all Israeli Centurions were armed with the 105mm L7 gun.

During the 1973 War, the Israelis used the upgraded M-48 and M-60 primarily in Sinai as their wider tracks and slightly faster speed gave them more mobilty in the desert terrain encountered there. The upgraded Centurion was used primarily in the Golan Heights against Syria. The Super Sherman was in the process of being phased out and the 19th armored brigade (reservist) was the only unit still equipped with it. Nevertheless, the Super Shermans of the 19th armored brigade inflicted heavy losses on the Iraqi 3rd armored division during an ambush near Tel Shaar on the morning of October 13, 1973, destroying 80 tanks within minutes with no losses of their own.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=119637&postcount=8

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=119669&postcount=13


-

32Bravo
03-03-2008, 12:42 PM
The Israelis captured over a thousand T-55s from the Syrians and Egyptians in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War and kept many of them in service. They were upgraded with a 105 mm/L68 NATO-standard main gun replacing the old Soviet 100 mm D10, and a General Motors diesel replacing the original Soviet diesel engine. The Israelis designated these Tiran-5 medium tanks, and were used by reserve units until the early 1990's. Most of them were then sold to assorted Third World countries, some of them in Latin America, and the rest were heavily modified, converted into heavy armoured personnel carriers designated the IDF Achzarit.



Yom Kippur war of 1973: M4A3E8 Shermans modified by the Israelis, major changes include a 105mm gun and large counterweight at the turret rear.

http://www.jodyharmon.com/militaryart/israeli%20sherman.jpg


Israeli Centurion tanks counterattacking against Syrian forces during the "October War" of 1973.
http://www.jodyharmon.com/militaryart/october%20war.jpg

Chevan
03-03-2008, 02:23 PM
Nonesense! The Arabs caught the Israelis with their pants down, thus not only proving their ability to plan, but also their strategic awareness (I don't make assumptions on peoples' intelligence according to their race).

As an exampe of Arab ingenuity: the Israelis never considered the solution to breaking through the sand-berms which lined the Suez Canal, but a young Egyptian Lieutenant of engineers came up with it in no time at all.

If Sadat had not interfered and over-ruled his general staff regarding the strategy in the Sinai (he did this to help relieve the pressure on the Syrians) the Israelis might never have beaten the Egyptians in the way they did.

Are you sure that that Eguptian sly plan and their "strategic awareness" was not resault of strong Soviet military assistance :)?
I/m not:)
Beside the fact that so tactically perfect operation was finally wrecked by those idiots....Does it not prove something:)


There were also captured T54/55's which were handed over to a British team that also inspected the battlefieds - I'm afraid I have to differ.

There are tests and there are tests. Were there tests carried out on the main armament to discover whether there was any tactical advantage in the way I described? Perhaps not...or perhaps better not to mention it?

Hmnn. Well i would like to learn something about British testings of the Soviets tank.
Would you so kind please to dig out something for me?
This would be very interesting.


I asked one simple question and I do not have an answer, as yet.

If one wants to look at the situation scientifically - what was the attrition rate of Arab to Israeli tanks?

Is war a science or an art or a mixture of both?

The scientifical method ,my friend , demands the exact instrument of statistic.
But what statistic do we have in the war?
The every side hide its own casualties and exaggerate the enemy ones. This is simpe politic/propogand.Nothing strange.
The Germans, Soviet and Allied did it a hell figure of cases during the WW2.
Do not believe- just read the GErmans point of view toward battle for Britain 1940-41 . In the Reich they were absolutly sure they won this battle:)
So thinking about attrition rate of Arab to Israeli tanks - you have to ask about the authenticity of statistic datas firstly.


I rather thought so.

I thought that you might not go as you are in the Ukraine and not in Russa?

I/m not in Ukraine my friend, and never was there for last 15 years:)

Chevan
03-03-2008, 03:06 PM
-

Hi Chevan,

I have more on the Israeli Centurion as well, but I'm at work right now. I can post more later when I have access to my sources. But for now let me say that the Israelis modified the Centurion quite extensively including more reliable American diesel engines. As far as the 105mm L7 gun being able to penetrate the frontal armor of the T-62, let me say that I have been to the Golan Heights several times and have actually examined knocked out T-62 tanks up close. One had clearly been penetrated through the front glacis plate of the hull. I have photos as well.

-
Hello George.
What were you doing in the Golan Heights ?
just do not tell me you defended the Israel:):D
Or did you?
About penetration of the T-62 armor- are you sure they use the Centurions for that?What was distance?
And whan it was?You might saw the Centurions in action:)
i doubt you was there in the 1970-73 right.
But in this way you could see jut the childish fighting agains not-moving obsolet T-62 that was hited by the relatively modern wearpon, am i right.
This situation is rather differ of real battlefield.

George Eller
03-03-2008, 03:20 PM
Hello George.
What were you doing in the Golan Heights ?
just do not tell me you defended the Israel:):D
Or did you?
About penetration of the T-62 armor- are you sure they use the Centurions for that?What was distance?
And whan it was?You might saw the Centurions in action:)
i doubt you was there in the 1970-73 right.
But in this way you could see jut the childish fighting agains not-moving obsolet T-62 that was hited by the relatively modern wearpon, am i right.
This situation is rather differ of real battlefield.
-

Hi Chevan,

I was a volunteer at an Israeli kibbutz in northern Israel for about six months 1979-80.

Visited the Golan Heights about four or five times, including some battlefields of 1973 war that occurred six years earlier. :)

Knocked out Syrian T-62 from 1973 war on the Golan Heights - photo taken by me in late summer or early fall 1979.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5207/t62golanheights1979da2.jpg

Israeli Centurion tanks in the background on the Golan Heights - photo taken by me in late summer or early fall 1979.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4153/centuriontanksgolanheigct2.jpg

-

32Bravo
03-03-2008, 04:45 PM
Are you sure that that Eguptian sly plan and their "strategic awareness" was not resault of strong Soviet military assistance :)?
I/m not:)
Beside the fact that so tactically perfect operation was finally wrecked by those idiots....Does it not prove something:)
Well, you can, and do, believe whatever you want to believe.



Hmnn. Well i would like to learn something about British testings of the Soviets tank.


So would I.



The scientifical method ,my friend , demands the exact instrument of statistic.
But what statistic do we have in the war?
The every side hide its own casualties and exaggerate the enemy ones. This is simpe politic/propogand.Nothing strange.
I think I agree with that? However, the Syrians, with overwhelming firepower, were defeated in the Golan. Now that's what I call a statistic.



I/m not in Ukraine my friend, and never was there for last 15 years:)

Well, I never! You certainly had me fooled. I'll never see you in the same light again!

So, having established that you are Russian, did you truly not cast your vote....no need to state for whom you voted if you did....

...or, did you vote and are simply afraid to let Kato see that you collaborated with a democratic process? ;)

Chevan
03-04-2008, 01:23 AM
Hi Chevan,

I was a volunteer at an Israeli kibbutz in northern Israel for about six months 1979-80.

Visited the Golan Heights about four or five times, including some battlefields of 1973 war that occurred six years earlier. :)

Knocked out Syrian T-62 from 1973 war on the Golan Heights - photo taken by me in late summer or early fall 1979.

Israeli Centurion tanks in the background on the Golan Heights - photo taken by me in late summer or early fall 1979.

-
Oh George , excellent photos.
Thank you.
You certainly right about T-62.
However i have a little doubt , do you know why?
You could see a lot of the WW2 era photos where the Germans Tigers and Panthers were showed with the holes in the frontal armor.
Officially the gun of the T-34-85 or Sherman did not penetrate it from a long distance , but we could see the photos:)
Becouse probably those tanks were tested after the battles - the Allies tankes simly shooted them from diffenrent sides and distance.
http://sa100.ru/armor/Ger/t6b/Greet/pic27.jpg
The Tiger2 after hiting of the different tank guns , the few holes in the frontal armor are visible.
But did those photo prove that the Soviet T-34 could penetrate the frontal armor of Tiger2 from any ditance?
We doubt it , right.
Coz there are exest the special ballistic/armor non-combat testings that proved other.

Chevan
03-04-2008, 01:54 AM
Well, you can, and do, believe whatever you want to believe.

That's true, we have a freedom of religion:)


So would I.

You would not, but i would very glad if you will post here some of resault of those British testings:)
I think this might be very interesting.


I think I agree with that? However, the Syrians, with overwhelming firepower, were defeated in the Golan. Now that's what I call a statistic.

This is still , not...
Soviets also won the Kursk battle finally.
Does it mean that they knocked out the Germans tanks by hundreds per minute:)
As it told the Soviet official propoganda?
Or does it mean that Germans have won this battle coz they hited 5 soviets tanks per ONE GErmans as it the Germans propogand told?


Well, I never! You certainly had me fooled. I'll never see you in the same light again!

So, having established that you are Russian, did you truly not cast your vote....no need to state for whom you voted if you did....

:)
No i did not vote at all.
Coz i do not like the Putin. He is not democrat (he too like the oligarhs) , so he certainly would like to Kato:)


...or, did you vote and are simply afraid to let Kato see that you collaborated with a democratic process? ;)
Certainly i afraid the Kato.
Coz the man who like the Taliban Afganistan as the ONLY one place in the globe where he could hide of Democracy:D ;)
He was obviously not joking:)
So i better will not go at the Democratic election at all, coz i fear for my life:)
Do not wish give the Kato the additional occasion to blame me in supporting of the democracy:)

Nickdfresh
03-04-2008, 04:45 AM
Are you sure that that Eguptian sly plan and their "strategic awareness" was not resault of strong Soviet military assistance :)?
I/m not:)
Beside the fact that so tactically perfect operation was finally wrecked by those idiots....Does it not prove something:)
....

The Egyptian surprise in 1973 was the result of good all around planning by Egypt's best commander who was wholly competent, and the use to Soviet missiles: both SAMs and Saggers, that created an impenetrable screen against Israeli tanks, men, and aircraft in what was to be a limited incursion and a battle to wear down the IDF. It was only when they surged forward to assist the Syrians that were being destroyed despite overwhelming advantages (as Sadat ordered while discarding his commander's plans) that the Israeli Air Force was able to commit to ground support and the IDF armor and infantry were able to launch a "Fall Gelb" type thrust to split the Egyptian defense and begin wiping out their SAM and AA batteries, of which the IDF had no countermeasure too then and had suffered egregious losses...

And the plan to reduce Israeli anti-tank sand barriers was the stroke of genius of an Egyptian combat engineer, not advice of Soviet military advisers. The Egyptians fought fairly well when not being carpet bombed by the IDF air force. And we can certainly credit some Soviet expertise, but we could also credit the British whose Army Egypt was patterned along and originally trained by if I'm not mistaken...

Israel of course did this after substantial reinforcements of equipment from the US...The fact is that, at least in Syrian hands, the Soviet made tanks were reduced to scrap in actual tank vs. tank engagements, and the T-54/55 series did not stand up well against Western optics, armor, and the 105mm gun. We can attempt to blame this all on the Syrian incompetence. But this ignores the fact that the IDF (itself far from the overwhelming juggernaut some love to think it is) was fighting a two front battle after incurring significant losses...

Chevan
03-04-2008, 05:36 AM
And the plan to reduce Israeli anti-tank sand barriers was the stroke of genius of an Egyptian combat engineer, not advice of Soviet military advisers. The Egyptians fought fairly well when not being carpet bombed by the IDF air force...

Oh those brilliant Egyptian command and soldiers.
I/m sure they should win the war if no the Soviet obsolet T-54/55:)


Israel of course did this after substantial reinforcements of equipment from the US...The fact is that, at least in Syrian hands, the Soviet made tanks were reduced to scrap in actual tank vs. tank engagements, and the T-54/55 series did not stand up well against Western optics, armor, and the 105mm gun. We can attempt to blame this all on the Syrian incompetence. But this ignores the fact that the IDF (itself far from the overwhelming juggernaut some love to think it is) was fighting a two front battle after incurring significant losses...Oh common Nick.
There is no "better optic and armor" inded in comparition with the contemporary ( at that time) soviet tanks.
And even the famouse 105 mm L701 in the mid-end of the 1960yy wasn't so great agains the newest Soviet
115 -mm smooth-bore gun 2A46 ( T-62) and the 125-mm (T-64).
The SOviet shell had equal ballisic and penetration ability with more the explosive effect.
The what the Isreali really had better - the Western mass media symphaty and finantial support ( traditionally:) We all know why))And the better intellect over arabs ( also it was very fairly proved via the history):)
Even the poorest Vietnamese and the Chinese were much better soldiers then the arabs with his Middle-East mentality :).

32Bravo
03-04-2008, 06:31 AM
That's true, we have a freedom of religion:)

You would not, but i would very glad if you will post here some of resault of those British testings:)
I think this might be very interesting.

This is still , not...
Soviets also won the Kursk battle finally.
Does it mean that they knocked out the Germans tanks by hundreds per minute:)
As it told the Soviet official propoganda?
Or does it mean that Germans have won this battle coz they hited 5 soviets tanks per ONE GErmans as it the Germans propogand told?

:)
No i did not vote at all.
Coz i do not like the Putin. He is not democrat (he too like the oligarhs) , so he certainly would like to Kato:)

Certainly i afraid the Kato.
Coz the man who like the Taliban Afganistan as the ONLY one place in the globe where he could hide of Democracy:D ;)
He was obviously not joking:)
So i better will not go at the Democratic election at all, coz i fear for my life:)
Do not wish give the Kato the additional occasion to blame me in supporting of the democracy:)

Chevan,


So, you’ve found religion?


As much as I would like to oblige, I no longer have access to M.O.D. documents that are not in the public domain.

The thirty year gap between Kursk and Yom Kippur witnessed remarkable advances in telecommunications and satellite technology. Couple that with the access afforded to the various press agencies by both sides, but by the IDF in particular, I doubt that there is any comparison between the reporting of Kursk and Yom Kippur.

Can you not make a protest vote or do you simply allow Putin to have it all his own way?

Now, as entertaining as you are, I am afraid that, with ‘end of financial year’ approaching like an express train, I will not be able to give you my full attention. However, feel free to remark as I will jump on here now and then to catch the action.

George Eller
03-04-2008, 07:31 AM
Oh George , excellent photos.
Thank you.
You certainly right about T-62.
However i have a little doubt , do you know why?
You could see a lot of the WW2 era photos where the Germans Tigers and Panthers were showed with the holes in the frontal armor.
Officially the gun of the T-34-85 or Sherman did not penetrate it from a long distance , but we could see the photos:)
Becouse probably those tanks were tested after the battles - the Allies tankes simly shooted them from diffenrent sides and distance.
http://sa100.ru/armor/Ger/t6b/Greet/pic27.jpg
The Tiger2 after hiting of the different tank guns , the few holes in the frontal armor are visible.
But did those photo prove that the Soviet T-34 could penetrate the frontal armor of Tiger2 from any ditance?
We doubt it , right.
Coz there are exest the special ballistic/armor non-combat testings that proved other.
-

You're welcome Chevan, thanks for the compliments.

Well, although it's been almost 30 years ago, I don't recall seeing any other entry holes in the T-62's armor other than the one indicated on the glacis plate. It should be no surprise as there was little difference in armor protection between the T-62 and the T-54/55.

The T-62 was just a further development of the T-54/55 series tanks. Hull front glacis plate thickness of T-54/55/62 was the same at 100mm. Compare that to the 110mm glacis plate thickness of the American M-48 and M-60 series tanks and 152mm glacis plate thickness of the British Centurion. The Russian tank designers also put some faith in the lower profile of the series to provide a smaller target. One difference between T-62 and earlier T-54/55 was in the armament. The T-62 with 115mm smoothbore gun versus the T54/55 with 100mm gun.

I have more material that I've gathered last night, but am not finished yet. I will be busy this evening, but plan to post more later this week.

Also, I will check for gun versus armor comparisons on these tanks.

Cheers :)

-

Chevan
03-04-2008, 07:44 AM
Chevan,


So, you’ve found religion?

Nope
i/m ateist.
The Egorka is believer, but he believe in other things.


As much as I would like to oblige, I no longer have access to M.O.D. documents that are not in the public domain.

So yo could present the rsaults of British tests of Soviets tanks?


The thirty year gap between Kursk and Yom Kippur witnessed remarkable advances in telecommunications and satellite technology. Couple that with the access afforded to the various press agencies by both sides, but by the IDF in particular, I doubt that there is any comparison between the reporting of Kursk and Yom Kippur.

Oh common my friend.
Has the telecommunications and satellite technology prevented the political falsification of CIA reports about " MDW of Saddam" in the 2004?
The Poliy and propoganda are almost the same thing when the states near in a war.


Can you not make a protest vote or do you simply allow Putin to have it all his own way?

Sure i would like to protest.
But there is a little problem/
I've read theat the US State Department has allocated about 400 000 $ for "development of Democraty in Russia".This is a monay for everybody who will public the anti-Putins materials:)
So im searching the way - how to snatch a part of those monay.
If somebody will pay for me - i will write critic agains Putin:)
This is the first principle of Democracy:no payment - no work ( we are not in Communist USSR to work free)
But , those american sponsors still did not wish to notice my honest democratic impulses.
They sponsor the all sort of (mostly non-russian) bs..rd , but not me:)
It so pityfull.
COz i/m really know how to beat the Putin's regime:D


Now, as entertaining as you are, I am afraid that, with ‘end of financial year’ approaching like an express train, I will not be able to give you my full attention. However, feel free to remark as I will jump on here now and then to catch the action.
OK i will carefully watch for you jumps.
Just do not jump too high, remember about ceiling:)

Nickdfresh
03-04-2008, 09:19 AM
Oh those brilliant Egyptian command and soldiers.
I/m sure they should win the war if no the Soviet obsolet T-54/55:)
Oh common Nick.

Actually it was the Israeli air force that really made the difference, not their tanks. But as for Soviet military advice:


Operation Stouthearted Men

By October 11, Bar-Lev and his division commanders (Generals Major Ariel Sharon and Avrahan "Bren" Adan, had constructed a plan to penetrate the Egyptian lines. Entitled "Operation Stouthearted Men" (Abiray-Lev in Hebrew), it took advantage of a key discovery Sharon's reconnaissance units had made: a major gap existed between the Egyptian defensive lines on the eastern bank of the canal, between 2nd and 3rd Army near Deversoir. In an apparent major planning error, the Egyptian unit which had defended that section of the line had been ordered north, with no unit ever being tasked to take its place. Standard Soviet war doctrine mandated unwavering obedience to the Central Operations Plan and provided commanders with as little intelligence as was necessary to complete their individual roles. This resulted in the commanders of neither 2nd nor 3rd Army ever bothering to verify the integrity of their flank, each assuming the gap had been filled by the other without bothering to inform them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_The_Chinese_Farm


There is no "better optic and armor" inded in comparition with the contemporary ( at that time) soviet tanks.
And even the famouse 105 mm L701 in the mid-end of the 1960yy wasn't so great agains the newest Soviet
115 -mm smooth-bore gun 2A46 ( T-62) and the 125-mm (T-64).
The SOviet shell had equal ballisic and penetration ability with more the explosive effect.
The what the Isreali really had better - the Western mass media symphaty and finantial support ( traditionally:) We all know why))And the better intellect over arabs ( also it was very fairly proved via the history):)
Even the poorest Vietnamese and the Chinese were much better soldiers then the arabs with his Middle-East mentality :).

Um, the 105mm did just fine against Soviet armor. And I recall hearing or reading upon the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1983 that the M-60A1's L7 gun could not defeat the newest T-72 operated by the Syrians, yet the Israelis had little trouble with them. Firstly, I'm not sure the armor penetration tables really say what you want them too as the Soviets tended to exaggerate the claims regarding weaponry. As for everything I've ever heard, the 100mm and 115mm Soviet guns were inadequate and to this day many nations have upgraded them by replacing the T-55s main armament with the L7 105mm gun. :)

In any case, the Israeli tanks, dug in, wiped out over 25% of the Egyptian Soviet made armor in a matter of hours. From the above Wiki Wiki Wiki link, a nice summation of what I stated before:


In the midst of this planning period, on October 14 the Egyptians launched a second coordinated offensive against the entire Israeli line from their strongpoints on the eastern bank of the Sinai. Personally ordered by President Anwar Sadat at the pleading of the thinly-stretched Syrians in the Golan Heights, and received with horror by his General Staff, the attack was a massive and near-suicidal frontal attack straight into the guns of the newly-buttressed Israeli defenses. Sadat made no pretense of attempting a breakthrough, but now sought merely to harass the Israelis and deny them any opportunity to reassign any of their (largely idle) Southern Front forces to the now-critical battles ongoing in the Golan Heights. In the largest tank battle since World War II[2], the Egyptian force of 1,000 tanks and 5,000 mechanized infantry faced 800 expertly dug-in and camouflaged Israeli tanks and their supporting infantry. By the end of the day, the Egyptians had lost 260 tanks and had suffered over 1,000 casualties. The Israeli losses were 8 tanks and 19 infantry. [3] This provided precisely the sort of disruption the Israelis needed. Operation Stouthearted Men was set to start at dawn, October 15.

I think the results speak for themselves, as the Egyptian forces, which had inflicted heavy casualties on the IDF in the days prior, now broke...

Chevan
03-05-2008, 01:46 AM
-

You're welcome Chevan, thanks for the compliments.

Oh George i, have alwayls a lot of it for you:)


Well, although it's been almost 30 years ago, I don't recall seeing any other entry holes in the T-62's armor other than the one indicated on the glacis plate. It should be no surprise as there was little difference in armor protection between the T-62 and the T-54/55.

The T-62 was just a further development of the T-54/55 series tanks. Hull front glacis plate thickness of T-54/55/62 was the same at 100mm. Compare that to the 110mm glacis plate thickness of the American M-48 and M-60 series tanks and 152mm glacis plate thickness of the British Centurion. The Russian tank designers also put some faith in the lower profile of the series to provide a smaller target. One difference between T-62 and earlier T-54/55 was in the armament. The T-62 with 115mm smoothbore gun versus the T54/55 with 100mm gun.

Yo absolutly right
The T-62 was last modification on T-54 chassis.
ABout the thickness of armor of T-62 was a bit less than the M-60 , but do not forget that the both Centurion and M-60 were the HEAVY tanks.All soviets were the MEDIUM.The 37 tonns T-62 was much more speedy and maneuvreable. Plus the smoothbore 115 mm ( the First in the world practice) gun D81 ( or 2A26) was very effective agains any heavy tanks also.Sure each tanks had its own strong and weak sides, but finally... we have the Medium tank equal the heavy one.


I have more material that I've gathered last night, but am not finished yet. I will be busy this evening, but plan to post more later this week.

Also, I will check for gun versus armor comparisons on these tanks.

This should be great , thank you for that in advance

Chevan
03-05-2008, 02:11 AM
Um, the 105mm did just fine against Soviet armor. And I recall hearing or reading upon the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1983 that the M-60A1's L7 gun could not defeat the newest T-72 operated by the Syrians, yet the Israelis had little trouble with them. Firstly, I'm not sure the armor penetration tables really say what you want them too as the Soviets tended to exaggerate the claims regarding weaponry. As for everything I've ever heard, the 100mm and 115mm Soviet guns were inadequate and to this day many nations have upgraded them by replacing the T-55s main armament with the L7 105mm gun. :)

Firstly since the 1967 into the service has been entered the newest T-64 with 125 mm shooth-bore 2A46 that AT shell could penetrate even the frontal armor of the M60.
Secondary you tangle the two thinng- actually some of obsolet ( 40-30 years) T-55 were re-armed with the L7 gun, but the reason was JUST becouse the Soviets disinged and developed new gun 125 mm that was almost twice effective agains old 100 mm.
Although soviet still had the limited number of old 100 guns on stores- the Soviet industry did not produse it .
It was merely not possiblly to place this gun in the tight T-55
So the 105 mm L7 was enough compromise desigion , especially if to keep in mind that there vere enough any sort of Shells avialable for that gun in world military market.


In any case, the Israeli tanks, dug in, wiped out over 25% of the Egyptian Soviet made armor in a matter of hours. From the above Wiki Wiki Wiki link, a nice summation of what I stated before:
.................................
In the largest tank battle since World War II[2], the Egyptian force of 1,000 tanks and 5,000 mechanized infantry faced 800 expertly dug-in and camouflaged Israeli tanks and their supporting infantry. By the end of the day, the Egyptians had lost 260 tanks and had suffered over 1,000 casualties. The Israeli losses were 8 tanks and 19 infantry

You are Nick an old chap , but still belive in childish fary tells:):D
Today even Isreal official datas of tank loses in October war of 1973 are over 800 , half of them were hited by the AT-rockets "Malutka"( although about 200-300 later had been restored).Beside about 2000 of tank were hited but were still in service.
After the war almost half of that tanks were written off service and replaced by the new tanks.


I think the results speak for themselves, as the Egyptian forces, which had inflicted heavy casualties on the IDF in the days prior, now broke...

The resaults speak for winners:)
Not for themself

Nickdfresh
03-05-2008, 02:25 AM
...
ABout the thickness of armor of T-62 was a bit less than the M-60 , but do not forget that the both Centurion and M-60 were the HEAVY tanks....

The M-60/A1/A2/A3 series was a medium tank. I think he confusion is that the tank evolved from the Pershing M-26 which originally was classified as a heavy tank, but reclassified medium after the War...

I think the Centurion was a medium as well; as both the British and Americans have similar heavy tanks to counter the IS3, with similar problems: the M-103 and the Conqueror tank...

Chevan
03-05-2008, 02:36 AM
The M-60/A1/A2/A3 series was a medium tank. I think he confusion is that the tank evolved from the Pershing M-26 which originally was classified as a heavy tank, but reclassified medium after the War...

I think the Centurion was a medium as well; as both the British and Americans have similar heavy tanks to counter the IS3, with similar problems: the M-103 and the Conqueror tank...
I dodn't know what you call as the Meduum tank, but even the heavest soviet Is-3 was just 46 tonns.
The Centurion - 50 tonns, M-60A1 46( 50 tonns of lateat modificatios) tonns as well.
Sure it was not 60 tonns Abrams, but though...

Nickdfresh
03-05-2008, 02:38 AM
Firstly since the 1967 into the service has been entered the newest T-64 with 125 mm shooth-bore 2A46 that AT shell could penetrate even the frontal armor of the M60.
Secondary you tangle the two thinng- actually some of obsolet ( 40-30 years) T-55 were re-armed with the L7 gun, but the reason was JUST becouse the Soviets disinged and developed new gun 125 mm that was almost twice effective agains old 100 mm.
Although soviet still had the limited number of old 100 guns on stores- the Soviet industry did not produse it .
It was merely not possiblly to place this gun in the tight T-55
So the 105 mm L7 was enough compromise desigion , especially if to keep in mind that there vere enough any sort of Shells avialable for that gun in world military market.

Firstly, we're talking about the Israeli Sherman, which then went to the subject of the Yom Kippur War, which has now gone to: my tank is better than your tank! The T-64 was never deployed in the numbers of other Soviet tanks, and I doubt the Egyptians had more than a few, if any at all --I'll check tomorrow. But the fact is that the British designed 105mm was an excellent gun. And on the defensive, the Israelis had few problems inflicting tank losses...


You are Nick an old chap , but still belive in childish fary tells:):D

You mean the disparity of numbers? Maybe, but we're also only talking about one particular battle here. The link also told that the Israelis suffered horrendous casualties in the early days of the conflict mainly due to Sagger missiles. And the Egyptian forces overran almost all of the Israeli defensive fortifications in the canal area. So the battle is shown as hardly one sided...


Today even Isreal official datas of tank loses in October war of 1973 are over 800 ,

Of course, if you read the link, the Egyptian Army led them into an ambush that savaged their armor! We're talking about one particular battle where the Israelis used their tanks and AT weapons in defensive positions to blunt an Egyptian attack...


half of them were hited by the AT-rockets "Malutka"( although about 200-300 later had been restored).Beside about 2000 of tank were hited but were still in service.
After the war almost half of that tanks were written off service and replaced by the new tanks.

The resaults speak for winners:)
Not for themself

No. The results are that you're failing to read into the whole battle, and are only focusing on one part of it where the IDF turned the tide...

Nickdfresh
03-05-2008, 02:43 AM
I dodn't know what you call as the Meduum tank, but even the heavest soviet Is-3 was just 46 tonns.
The Centurion - 50 tonns, M-60A1 46( 50 tonns of lateat modificatios) tonns as well.
Sure it was not 60 tonns Abrams, but though...

Yes well, those classifications are obsolete. The M-60 series came out in the late 50s to early 60s. The Abrams in the late 1970s. The IS-3 was designed in 1943(?)....

The Centurion was around at the end of the War, but was vastly upgraded...

Chevan
03-05-2008, 03:01 AM
Firstly, we're talking about the Israeli Sherman, which then went to the subject of the Yom Kippur War, which has now gone to: my tank is better than your tank! The T-64 was never deployed in the numbers of other Soviet tanks, and I doubt the Egyptians had more than a few, if any at all --I'll check tomorrow. But the fact is that the British designed 105mm was an excellent gun. And on the defensive, the Israelis had few problems inflicting tank losses...


They Syrians had a number of tanks in the 1973, Egypth as well.
True we told initially about Srerman, but you in last post mean T-54/55 that couldn be compared with Sherman equally.


You mean the disparity of numbers? Maybe, but we're also only talking about one particular battle here. The link also told that the Israelis suffered horrendous casualties in the early days of the conflict mainly due to Sagger missiles. And the Egyptian forces overran almost all of the Israeli defensive fortifications in the canal area. So the battle is shown as hardly one sided...

Yes i mean the foolish numbers of casualties.
I knew about most of Israeli tanks were lost in not Tank vs Tank battles. But do not forget that the ISreal aviation and artillery ( i do not tell about infantry armed with AT means) also hited the Arabs tanks.
BTW do you have any detailed statistic of loses ( reason of loses, figures and ets)?



Of course, if you read the link, the Egyptian Army led them into an ambush that savaged their armor! We're talking about one particular battle where the Israelis used their tanks and AT weapons in defensive positions to blunt an Egyptian attack...

I/ve read enough different articles about that war.
I just wish to point you that you could not make the conclusion of absolute superior Israel tank from this battle.We need the detailed report of it to make the certain conclusison.


No. The results are that you're failing to read into the whole battle, and are only focusing on one part of it where the IDF turned the tide...
Nick just do not tell me that i can't read:)
I have told you that the "resault" strongly depend on the side of conflict, coz any side has the tend to exaggerate its military activity.
This is my point.
And i do not see the reason to exclude the Isreal of this list.
This is true rule for all of sides of conflict, is it not?

Chevan
03-05-2008, 03:04 AM
Yes well, those classifications are obsolete. The M-60 series came out in the late 50s to early 60s. The Abrams in the late 1970s. The IS-3 was designed in 1943(?)....

The Centurion was around at the end of the War, but was vastly upgraded...

Really Soviet classification obsolete?
We still produse the 40 tonn T-80 and T-72:)
And they are MEDIUM tanks.
The limite 50-60 tonn is rather HEAVY.Sure the M-60 could be between the classification , but it still essentially higher that the Soviet 38 tonn T-64( That BTW had a equal armor:), is it not?

32Bravo
03-05-2008, 10:27 AM
Chevan

I could argue that there is a world of difference between searching for something that doesn’t exist (or, at best, no longer insitu) , and that which is strewn about the battlefield for even a blind man to trip over. However, I wont, if only because I know that you’re wind-up merchant.

I don’t believe there is any such being as an atheist. I’ve met people who claim to be atheists, but I have seen too many of them become believers when the time comes.

The last person I had a discussion about atheism, was with a friend of mine last Christmas. He said he was ninety-nine per cent certain that there is no God. I argued that that is illogical; he is ninety-nine per cent convinced, and his conviction would evaporate in an instant, given certain circumstances.

I could accept that you’re an agnostic. :)

Nickdfresh
03-10-2008, 08:45 AM
Really Soviet classification obsolete?
We still produse the 40 tonn T-80 and T-72:)
And they are MEDIUM tanks.
The limite 50-60 tonn is rather HEAVY.Sure the M-60 could be between the classification , but it still essentially higher that the Soviet 38 tonn T-64( That BTW had a equal armor:), is it not?

That's why the US simply calls its tanks Main Battle Tanks or MBTs. Because weight is essentially meaningless now. The US has also endeavoured to create light "Stryker" units with mixed success, after the Bosnian conflict showed that M-1s were often too heavy to move effectively...

Nickdfresh
03-10-2008, 08:50 AM
They Syrians had a number of tanks in the 1973, Egypth as well.
True we told initially about Srerman, but you in last post mean T-54/55 that couldn be compared with Sherman equally.

No. The T-54/55 was a generation ahead of the Sherman. But the Israeli Sherman could be used successfully in a limited, static defense role because its 75mm and 105mm guns were still able to defeat their armor...


Yes i mean the foolish numbers of casualties.
I knew about most of Israeli tanks were lost in not Tank vs Tank battles. But do not forget that the ISreal aviation and artillery ( i do not tell about infantry armed with AT means) also hited the Arabs tanks.
BTW do you have any detailed statistic of loses ( reason of loses, figures and ets)?
...

The initial Israeli tank losses in the Sinai were both large and worrisome to them. According to the Leavenworth Paper (pg's 39-40) by Dr. George Gawrych, by October 7th (the second day?) --the Israelis lost over 260 of 391 alloted tanks in desperate attempts to relieve the Sinai fortification garrisons. Many of them front line M-60s and M-48A4s (with 105mm guns). Most of the small Israeli garrisons were overrun and forced to surrender..

Chevan
03-11-2008, 01:52 AM
Chevan

I could argue that there is a world of difference between searching for something that doesn’t exist (or, at best, no longer insitu) , and that which is strewn about the battlefield for even a blind man to trip over. However, I wont, if only because I know that you’re wind-up merchant.

I don’t believe there is any such being as an atheist. I’ve met people who claim to be atheists, but I have seen too many of them become believers when the time comes.

The last person I had a discussion about atheism, was with a friend of mine last Christmas. He said he was ninety-nine per cent certain that there is no God. I argued that that is illogical; he is ninety-nine per cent convinced, and his conviction would evaporate in an instant, given certain circumstances.

I could accept that you’re an agnostic. :)

Well actually you right Bravo.
There are the situation in life when even the last convicted atheist would thansform into the hot believer.
I had few of such situatiojns in my previous life.
Besides i'm christened. Althoug both my perents were the members of Comparty, my gremma teched me the Christian prayer " Our Father".
Somethimes i read it befor the sleep.
I/m sure this would help.
I don't like the Church , but still hope for the god's existence.
I don't trust the Bible, coz it told the pure fary tells.
However i do believe in Karma, that say the everybody have to pay its sins in next life.
This is perfect religion IMO.
But this is whole other thread..

Chevan
03-11-2008, 01:58 AM
That's why the US simply calls its tanks Main Battle Tanks or MBTs. Because weight is essentially meaningless now. The US has also endeavoured to create light "Stryker" units with mixed success, after the Bosnian conflict showed that M-1s were often too heavy to move effectively...

I know about differences in US classification.
However i have to say that the Weight is alway very essential characteristic.
You could not move the 40 tons and 60 tons tanks with the equal motor with same velocity and maneuvreability.
Yo you right about M-1 that wasn't so effective in crossed rural land.Where even the obsolet soviet T-54 was not as bad.I,ve read ome of reports about it.

Chevan
03-11-2008, 02:05 AM
No. The T-54/55 was a generation ahead of the Sherman. But the Israeli Sherman could be used successfully in a limited, static defense role because its 75mm and 105mm guns were still able to defeat their armor...

Even obsolet German PzIV with 75 gun was still able to defeat the some parts of armor of T-54.( as even the rare armor of Abrams)
What out of it?
We could not actually compare the two different age tanks, right.


The initial Israeli tank losses in the Sinai were both large and worrisome to them. According to the Leavenworth Paper (pg's 39-40) by Dr. George Gawrych, by October 7th (the second day?) --the Israelis lost over 260 of 391 alloted tanks in desperate attempts to relieve the Sinai fortification garrisons. Many of them front line M-60s and M-48A4s (with 105mm guns). Most of the small Israeli garrisons were overrun and forced to surrender..
Very well. Thank yo for that datas.
So what was the main reason of Israely tanks loses?I've read at least half of them were hited by the AT Sagger missiles.

Nickdfresh
03-11-2008, 08:10 AM
I know about differences in US classification.
However i have to say that the Weight is alway very essential characteristic.
You could not move the 40 tons and 60 tons tanks with the equal motor with same velocity and maneuvreability.
Yo you right about M-1 that wasn't so effective in crossed rural land.Where even the obsolet soviet T-54 was not as bad.I,ve read ome of reports about it.
Perhaps...

Re: the M-1, it's VERY effective at crossing rural areas. It's not so effective at driving down narrow streets or across small bridges not rated for a 60-ton vehicle. And such an MBT was thought to be overkill in most situations --before Iraq that is..:)

Nickdfresh
03-11-2008, 08:23 AM
Even obsolet German PzIV with 75 gun was still able to defeat the some parts of armor of T-54.( as even the rare armor of Abrams)
What out of it?
We could not actually compare the two different age tanks, right.

Of course not. The T-55 was a post War tank that is still in service with many countries today, with upgrades being offered by both Western and Eastern European countries. But both tanks were similarly adaptable giving them a long service life...

For instance: many of Egypt's T-55s were upgraded in the UK, and yes, they mount an upgraded L-7 105mm gun along with Western optics and electronics...

I'm not sure what they do about the engines (which I imagine are pretty reliable to begin with)...


Very well. Thank yo for that datas.
So what was the main reason of Israely tanks loses?I've read at least half of them were hited by the AT Sagger missiles.

You are most welcome.

Keep in mind that the Egyptians (largely without Soviet help as they alienated the USSR by trying to improve relations and direct aid was cut off a couple of years previously, which the Egyptians actually used as part of their complex, clever ruse to fool the Israelis) had issued some sort of anti-tank weapon to one out of every three of their infantry and engineers (RPGs as well as Saggers). I'm not sure, but I suspect they used their tanks (dug in) as bait to lure the Israeli tanks into AT kill-zones, much as the German Afrika Korps had so often done to the British early on...

Chevan
03-11-2008, 08:56 AM
You are most welcome.

Keep in mind that the Egyptians (largely without Soviet help as they alienated the USSR by trying to improve relations and direct aid was cut off a couple of years previously, which the Egyptians actually used as part of their complex, clever ruse to fool the Israelis) had issued some sort of anti-tank weapon to one out of every three of their infantry and engineers (RPGs as well as Saggers). I'm not sure, but I suspect they used their tanks (dug in) as bait to lure the Israeli tanks into AT kill-zones, much as the German Afrika Korps had so often done to the British early on...
It was not just RPG-7.
Since the 1963 has been taken in sevice the new kind of wire controlled AT missles
http://www.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/malutka/9k14.jpghttp://handgun.kapyar.ru/ph/1206_01.jpg
The first wire-controlled missles had the lacks but nevertheless it was much more effective wearpon then the old RPG.
The initial success of that wearpon was demonstrated during October war of 1973.

Nickdfresh
03-11-2008, 09:04 AM
It was not just RPG-7.
Since the 1963 has been taken in sevice the new kind of wire controlled AT missles
http://www.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/malutka/9k14.jpghttp://handgun.kapyar.ru/ph/1206_01.jpg
The first wire-controlled missles had the lacks but nevertheless it was much more effective wearpon then the old RPG.
The initial success of that wearpon was demonstrated during October war of 1973.


I know. I think something's lost in the translation. I was indicating that the RPGs augmented the Saggers, but the Sags were the main weapons used essentially as anti-tank guns, employed in kill boxes, had been used in WWII...

totach7
11-18-2008, 12:05 AM
about the sherman tank history

used as artilary in the idf

more in

http://idf-armor.blogspot.com/

totach7
11-18-2008, 12:04 PM
LOOKING FOR PICTURES OF SHERMAN TANK ALL MODELS ANY YEAR ANY COUNTRY

FOR THOSE INTERESTED SOME INFO AND PIC IN MY BLOG

http://idf-armor.blogspot.com/

George Eller
11-18-2008, 01:02 PM
LOOKING FOR PICTURES OF SHERMAN TANK ALL MODELS ANY YEAR ANY COUNTRY

FOR THOSE INTERESTED SOME INFO AND PIC IN MY BLOG

http://idf-armor.blogspot.com/
-

Very cool. Welcome to the forum Uri :)

Merged thread.

-

totach7
11-19-2008, 12:31 AM
-

Very cool. Welcome to the forum Uri :)

Merged thread.



thanks...... glad to be here

George Eller
11-19-2008, 07:51 AM
thanks...... glad to be here
-

I forgot to mention - we do have a thread on the M4 Sherman tank (WWII era)

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1962

-

totach7
11-21-2008, 03:59 PM
-

i forgot to mention - we do have a thread on the m4 sherman tank (wwii era)

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1962

-
thanks again

George Eller
11-21-2008, 04:14 PM
thanks again

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3003&d=1227304857

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3004&d=1227304857

-

Nice pics Uri.

I am assuming the top pic to be in the Sinai 1967.

And the bottom pic possibly near Jerusalem or in the West Bank 1967.

Not sure if I am correct though.

-

totach7
11-22-2008, 01:47 AM
-

nice pics uri.

I am assuming the top pic to be in the sinai 1967.

And the bottom pic possibly near jerusalem or in the west bank 1967.

Not sure if i am correct though.

-
hi
the first pic is from sinai the second from latrun area june 67
some more pic where you can see jordenia jeep with a gun
taken during the fighting of the same day. The idf got those
jeeps only after kippur war 73

George Eller
11-22-2008, 10:45 AM
thanks again

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3003&d=1227304857

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3004&d=1227304857
-

Nice pics Uri.

I am assuming the top pic to be in the Sinai 1967.

And the bottom pic possibly near Jerusalem or in the West Bank 1967.

Not sure if I am correct though.

-
hi
the first pic is from sinai the second from latrun area june 67
some more pic where you can see jordenia jeep with a gun
taken during the fighting of the same day. The idf got those
jeeps only after kippur war 73

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3005&d=1227339871

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3006&d=1227339871

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3007&d=1227339871

-

Thanks Uri,

So the pic second from top was taken in the Latrun area. Would that be near the Latrun Police fort near Jerusalem? Also looks like possibly a monastery in the background.

Looks like a captured Jordanian jeep with 106mm recoilless rifle (still has Jordanian camouflage) in third pic from bottom. The Sherman tank is equipped with searchlight.

Second pic from bottom looks like the West Bank 1967.

Bottom pic looks like the Negev or Sinai. The Sherman tank has a searchlight fitted with canvas cover.

These are very high quality images. Thanks for sharing.

-

Uyraell
03-27-2009, 10:02 PM
about the sherman tank history

used as artilary in the idf

more in

http://idf-armor.blogspot.com/
Shalom, Uri,
Many Thanks for some very good images. They are greatly Appreciated. :)
I went to your site, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
May Many Blessings Be Yours and Your Family's.

Warm Regards, and Blessed Be Uri, Uyraell.

leccy
03-28-2009, 04:28 AM
The difference between so called Heavy and Medium tanks is more down to the countries design philosophy

France, Germany, Russia, America preferred lighter, faster thinner armoured tanks
so going for the
Gun, Manouverability, Armour triangle

Britain went for

Gun, Armour, Manouverability

Deciding that battlefield survivability/manouverability matter more than speed (tanks rarely fought while driving at max speed as although the gun may be fully stabilized the crew would not be)

Hence the more common term of Main Battle Tank in the West at least

On the Golan heights the ability of the Israeli tanks to depress their gun barrels further than the Syrians helped them 'nothing to do with velocity, penetration, etc as if your gun cant depress sufficiently to target the opposition when climbing or defending hills you are not going to hit'

The Israeli tanks could fire from hull down positions when they gained the heights while the majority of Syrian tanks had to expose more of themselves so negating the benifits of having a smaller profile (T54/55/62 designed to fight in open country/plains type areas)

The T-62 has all the limitations of the T-55: cramped crew compartment, thin armor, crude gun control equipment (on most models), limited depression of main gun, and vulnerable fuel and ammunition storage areas. The automatic spent-cartridge ejection system can cause dangerous accumulations of carbon monoxide and possibly actual physical injury to the crew from cartridge cases projected against the edge of a poorly aligned ejection port and rebounding into the crew compartment. Opening the ejection port under NBC conditions would also expose the crew to contamination.

Each time the gun is fired, the tube must go into detente for cartridge ejection, and the power traverse of the turret is inoperable during ejection and reloading operations. Since manual elevation and traverse are rather slow and not effective for tracking a moving target, rapid fire and second-hit capabilities are limited. The turret also cannot be traversed with the driver's hatch open. Although the tank commander may override the gunner and traverse the turret, he cannot fire the main gun from his position. He is unable to override the gunner in elevation of the main gun, causing target acquisition problems.

# The T-55 is most effective against light to medium armor vehicles. The basic ammunition load for the main gun is 43 rounds. External fuel cells make the tank very vulnerable, as does its thin armor protection. The T-55 has a limited ability to depress the main gun, hindering the tank's fires in defilade from high ground. In addition the gunner's primary sight is slaved to the main gun, which does not allow the gunner to acquire targets in a hull-down posture.
# Although the half-egg shaped turret of the T-55 has good ballistic qualities, it provides cramped working conditions for the crew, resulting in a slow rate of fire; and the protection afforded by its low silhouette (1 meter lower than the M60) is counterbalanced by its poor armor protection which is thin by western standards. By the same standards, its gun control equipment is also crude. It shares the disadvantage of most Soviet tanks in having limited ability to depress the main gun, thus not being capable of firing effectively from defilade and being forced to expose itself to engage targets. Ammunition and fuel are stored in vulnerable positions.

To my knowledge the T64 was never sold to any country and was only used by the Russians, the T72 was the export model for that era .

totach7
03-28-2009, 03:28 PM
Shalom, Uri,
Many Thanks for some very good images. They are greatly Appreciated. :)
I went to your site, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
May Many Blessings Be Yours and Your Family's.

Warm Regards, and Blessed Be Uri, Uyraell.


Thank you
I took some walk around of the super Sherman and rocket on Sherman chassis
I will post it soon



http://www.idf-armor.blogspot.com/

totach7
05-24-2009, 12:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G49jwgQJ1Zs




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftUydtjOwjM




some of my pictures


http://www.idf-armor.blogspot.com/

nkkie123
05-24-2009, 10:53 PM
Pretty interesting that it had a French 75mm derived from the same gun that killed so many Shermans in the Panther and Pz MKIVs...

I saw an episode of Tank Overhaul on the Military Channel, and they were bewildered how the Israeli engineers had to adapt a gun with metric threads to an American tank with standard (English measurement) threads...

i agree with this..http://storeyourpicture.com/images/signature_imageHost.jpg

Nickdfresh
05-25-2009, 05:52 AM
i agree with this..http://storeyourpicture.com/images/signature_imageHost.jpg

Agree with what? WTF? BTW, your IP traces to a spammer site...

Rising Sun*
05-25-2009, 06:15 AM
Agree with what?

The bit about being bewildered.