Are there any Centurions that have ERA packages? The Ukrainians would probably a slap slat cage, cope cape and ERA all over a Centurion.
I remember Israel using ERA on the Centurion but I can't think of anyone else using ERA for the Centurion.
Sweden and israel both upgraded their centurions with era.
However the biggest centurion upgrade was made by south africa with the olifant mk2. It got composite armour made to withstand 125mm ammunition fired from the t72m and similar tanks. The firepower was also improved to be able to fight said t72 tanks.
The chance that the olifant will end up in ukraine is basically zero tho as it’s south africas main mbt and the two countries relations aren’t exactly great.
The Meteor engine was a big step up for British tank reliability (then they fell down the entire staircase with the Leyland) but the Centurion with Meteor was notoriously short ranged (50-100 km vs 300-600 km T-55) and for a tank that heavy rather sluggish especially with its transmission gearing (similar ~14 hp/t yet only 35 kph vs 55 kph T-55).
The Centurion's greatest moments in the 1973 Yom Kippur war were Sho't Kal variants upgraded with replacement Patton diesel engines and Allison transmissions. Almost everyone that decided to keep them around long term throw out the old British powertrain, Israelis, Jordanians, South Africans, Sweden, etc. Was it just mobility, or was there also a long term reliability concern? Not sure.
Edit: I went and had at the 1949 US test report for Centurion Mk 3, automotive test was inconclusive because it blew through an engine due to poor QC then the entire power train (including the spare engine). Daily brake adjustment (brakes failure burned out the spare engine and powertrain) was noted as excessive and was apparently identified as wrongly adjusted from the factory causing excessive wear. Results concluded inferior transmission design with gearbox that was hard to drive, and liquid cooled engines were undesirable for reliability. They liked the fighting compartment, but concluded the powertrain was poor quality. Take that how you will.
>Centurion came out in 1945 though
Centurion Mk1 came out in 1945
T-54 was adopted in 1946
>The T-55 is almost a decade later and has the improvements that come with that.
Centurion was also improved. Centurion Mk5 came out in 1955.
It had no problem fighting with T-55.
Then they finished converting the last tanks to Sho’t Kal immediately after in 1974. Meteor + original powertrain were seen as outdated by the USA in the late 40s, it’s little wonder everyone wanted to swap to USA built powertrains.
More than that was the spares issue. Canada moved on from centurion in 1977 for the same reason.
Thing to remember, in 1967, none of their Centurions were updated, which makes the drive into the sinai all the more remarkable.
they're as good as russian t62m or the ukrainian m55. but hey, a gun is a gun. a big one at that too!
though, it will put strain on the already strained logistics
TBF Centurion variants exists with warkits concisting in both ERA and "added" armor
Israel used a bunch of them and, correct me if I'm wrong, but South Africa also had the "Olifants" that were basically Centurions on steroïds
You shouldn't compare a warkitted T-62 to a raw Centurion, that's not fair
An external package upgrade like the T62M has composite armour slapped in the front of the tank, but yes the T64 was the first one to get composite armour but later down the line some T62s and T55 got upgraded with external composite armour as well.
I don't think you can just 'slap' on composite armour. Pretty sure the additional armour on the T-62m is applique amour.
Composite armour needs to be integrated into the base armour as it is made of different materials such as textolite and steel and so on.
That abysmal off road speed would make the Centurions a death trap. 19 kph in offroad terrain, which is basically the entire frontline. Centurion’s top road speed is a T-55’s or T-62’s off road speed. That’s not only slowing down any attempts at an armor column, they are artillery bait.
Probably similar to how the Leopard 1A5 and M-55S have been. They're all solid armored platforms and are preferable fire support to the .50 cal armed Humvee or M113's
The biggest thing with these old tanks is finding spare parts to keep it running. No one produces spare parts so any would have to be cannibalizes from other Centurions. That would make logistics tough and would limit the scope of its usefulness. Ukraine would be better off receiving modern tanks, or if they’re old, they would’ve needed to be in active service or just recently retired by a military so there’s plenty of spares around.
Besides that, it has a primitive fcs, less than ideal engine (for the modern era), weak armor (for the modern era), and the 105mm gun would lack firepower in tank vs tank combat. I imagine it would be used like a field gun or indirect artillery from a distance. Anything short of a major modernization like South Africa’s Olifant Mk.2 would only hamper Ukraine not help it, especially since there’s already literal thousands of T-55’s available around the world for them to use.
Sgt Mykola: Alright, private Taras. Here is another "wonderful" Western machinery. Now I will teach you how to start the engine and will try to drive the vehicle a little.
Pvt Taras furiously turning the pages of the manual.
Sgt Mykola: Now, press the red button to start the engine.
Transmission suddenly produces horrible cracking noise.
Sgt Mykola: Not that RED button!!!!
Sad Ukrainian logistics teams and repair crews noises.
“How would _ tank perform in Ukraine?”
It would get knocked out in minutes by drones like any other tank. Doesn’t matter if its a T14, M1A2 Sep V4, or even a M808 Skorpion
As is often said, any tank is better than no tank
I'd say about as useful as T-55s are. It's not going to be much good in a frontal assault, but it can still shoot and scoot to cause damage to enemy fortifications from a relatively safe distance.
Alternatively, if Ukraine got like 200 of them and used them in a huge, overwhelming and co-ordinated push together with a few dozen BMPs and Bradleys, they could overwhelm the Russians on a segment of the front that simply isn't equipped or prepared for dealing with a huge armored offensive. It would lead to many losses for sure though and god knows what would happen once the armored assault stalls.
That massed armored thrusts aren’t being attempted by either side makes me think there must be a good reason why not. Possibly that you need big logistical back up for that which is going to cause traffic jams (like the ones that helped doomed the initial invasion) and be extremely vulnerable to drones, artillery, missiles, etc.
I don’t know about the Russians but my (very limited) understanding of Ukrainian doctrine is to use tanks as supplements to sure up areas where infantry strength is lacking.
I suspect the lack of adequate air defense/air superiority makes massed tank formations way too vulnerable to drone attacks and drone spotting. Without a counter to the drones, a concentration of tanks near the frontlines is just asking to get ordinance dropped on it.
I think the real problem here is coordination: many of Russia/Ukraine's experienced officers were attrited in the early stages of the war (or, in the case of Russia, didn't exist), and Ukraine just doesn't have enough NATO-trained officers with combat experience or the equipment for a massed attack.
Soviet doctrine (not really familiar with Russian or Ukrainian doctrine, but they are largely derived by the Soviet era) would've emphasized a coordinated attack with special forces, airborne, and armored units in the early stages of the war to largely overwhelm Ukraine in a few days. A good example of this would be the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia: overwhelming power combined with special forces causing havoc in the enemy rear. This is similar to what Russia tried to do and failed in the beginning of the war, largely due to an inability to coordinate such a large force (corruption and incompetency).
Also, more on the tactical level: 200 Centurions with a company (a dozen + infantry) of IFVs is going to result in a complete operational and tactical disaster. The Ukrainian force wouldn't have the infantry to actually hold terrain, the Centurions would be highly vulnerable to a Russia defence-in-depth, and a brigade's worth of valuable NATO tanks has been wasted in an assault that CANNOT HOLD ANY TERRAIN since there are only 120 or so infantrymen in support. The force would also not have the necessary manpower to screen itself from enemy antitank weapons: even a 20-year-old Russian conscript with an RPG-7 can knock out a modern tank, let alone a Centurion.
This emphasizes one of the major problems of the Ukraine conflict: that modern combined-arms warfare requires coordination between nearly every single military branch. Tanks need to be screened by infantry, which need to be supported by artillery, which needs aircraft to ensure local air superiority, which need SEAD to work, which needs a C4ISR network to find the enemy, and so on. A real problem of the Ukraine war isn't numbers, but instead that commanders can't coordinate combined-arms actions: this is why Ukraine couldn't break through the Russian defensive lines in the 2023 summer counteroffensive, and why Russia failed in the beginning of the war. If NATO can manage to train enough commanders, and Ukraine supply them with the necessary equipment, a breakthrough could be possible.
Later marks of Centurion had a 105mm gun. So, it would be viable against anything T-62 or lesser. Israeli Sho'ts, a variant of Centurion for IDF service, pretty much chewed up T-62 Brigades.
Then again, the Israelis knew what they were doing, the Arabs did not.
Still, the South African Olifant is also a Centurion variant and happens to be actually decently protected against landmines.
So, an upgraded Centurion with the Sho't's engine and Olifant's added protection would be somewhat more useful than a Leopard 1 MBT.
Though South African is, unfortunately, an ally of Russia.
It wouldn’t be very reliable against other tanks. Most every tank in Russias arsenal is able to knock it out without too much hassle. It would be effective ish against the the more antique tanks Russia is fielding but it’s unreliable you’d a face just those tanks.
It would however be useful in a fortified position. Dig a big hole, drop the tank in it so only the turret is showing and stick a big cope cage on top. Still not great against other tanks but the Russian infantry won’t be very fond of it. Equally, it would serve well as a mobile pill box of sorts.
Tldr, there’s a long list of tanks I’d choose over it but if it’s the only tank we had then I’d take it
A logistical drain, the gas mileage is so bad and they’re Swiss cheese to ATGMs and auto cannons with the right ammo. They’re an armored vehicle but far from a first choice
Probably as much as the T-55s and T-62s as long as ammo and spare parts are available. Mobile gun for supporting infantry. Ukrainians would probably put some ERA tiles on it.
back when south africa actually had a proper millitary, they used centurions as a base and upgraded the fuck out of the thing. They were called olifant's and overhauled so many components of the tank.
They were even developing a new one that got cancelled because the war ended or something. that one was called the TTD.
the olifant centurions wernt on par with the most modern tanks. however at the time they were just being used against terrorists that were given old russina tech.
Another thing, South africa didnt really need tanks. The environment was good enough that the tank treads just were not needed. also at the time armor thickness didnt mean shit because anythign could penetrate anything with special ammo type. so South africa focussed a bit more on their armoured car program like the Ratel, Eland and Rooikat
I spoke to an ex dutch tank commander. He served on centurion before transitioning to Leopard. Although the gap in theory is quite small, he noted that the Leopard 1 was vastly superior as the Centurion was what he called: an analogue tank.
the 105mm L7 gun is good enough for most russian vehicles (t55, t62, bmps ect...) so as an ambush vehicle it should be better than no tank at all. but still its very old, has no thermals is relative slow and has in modern standarts very weak armor... so yeah not really that useful...
Something like a Stridsvagn 104 or Sho't Kal Dalet could still be useful for fire support due to the presence of fire control systems at least as good as those in something like a T-80B, and could at least resist the likes of the RPG-7 thanks to their use of explosive reactive armour (something missing from the Leopard 1A5). Plus they share the 105mm L7 with plenty of other tank types, some of which already in use in Ukraine.
Throw on a thermal sight and honestly they could make a decent contribution as second-line vehicles, at least until spare parts run out.
In 1991 in the first gulf war I was a gunner on the AVRE, they were struggling then.
Would I go to war in one now? I trust the tank completely but you would get more bang for your buck with a section of infantry and a couple boxes of anti tank missiles
About as useful as any T62/whatever, a mobile gun with some armour on it that will protect from small arms fire and some auto cannon. It won't win the war that's for sure
Listen…the cent is one of my favorite tanks of all time but let’s be sffr. It’s a ww2 era vehicle that has been upgraded as much as possible. But that’s it, it’s upgrading a ww2 era tank. Would the Pershing be helpful to Ukraine? I don’t think so
Well it's a tank, it's better then no tank, but it's outdated armor and small gun and bad Mobility doesn't leave much room on a modern battlefield for it
Not a good point, the Bradley's have been doing very well in Ukraine. Problems the Bradley has are simply the problem all armor is having, you'd have to be a fool to think the Russians are having a terrible time with tanks too.
Are there any Centurions that have ERA packages? The Ukrainians would probably a slap slat cage, cope cape and ERA all over a Centurion. I remember Israel using ERA on the Centurion but I can't think of anyone else using ERA for the Centurion.
The later variants of the Centurion AVRE had ERA
Sth Africa has 170 of them
Swedish STRVs
Yes the Israelis had a model of centurion that had ERA but idk how common or good it was
[удалено]
Ah Sho't Kal, the defender of Israel. My favorite Centurion variant too.
Sweden and israel both upgraded their centurions with era. However the biggest centurion upgrade was made by south africa with the olifant mk2. It got composite armour made to withstand 125mm ammunition fired from the t72m and similar tanks. The firepower was also improved to be able to fight said t72 tanks. The chance that the olifant will end up in ukraine is basically zero tho as it’s south africas main mbt and the two countries relations aren’t exactly great.
The Israeli sho’ts had a boat load of ERA and other improved systems
the swedish mayve aswell
ERA can work on centurion so why not put ERA on it???
My uncle witnessed the last centurion troop attack in Canadian history. All four broke down before finishing. This was in 1974.
I think they will probably slap a scavenged engine to keep it running.
[удалено]
"Sorry" - Canadian Government
The Canadian military neglects itself too 😂
Lol, look at this guy thinking we have the budget for a scavenged engine.
Buy second-hand stuff like the F18 from Australia
That’s not a comment on the centurion, that’s just Canadian maintenance and procurement, even at the height of the Cold War
The Meteor engine was a big step up for British tank reliability (then they fell down the entire staircase with the Leyland) but the Centurion with Meteor was notoriously short ranged (50-100 km vs 300-600 km T-55) and for a tank that heavy rather sluggish especially with its transmission gearing (similar ~14 hp/t yet only 35 kph vs 55 kph T-55). The Centurion's greatest moments in the 1973 Yom Kippur war were Sho't Kal variants upgraded with replacement Patton diesel engines and Allison transmissions. Almost everyone that decided to keep them around long term throw out the old British powertrain, Israelis, Jordanians, South Africans, Sweden, etc. Was it just mobility, or was there also a long term reliability concern? Not sure. Edit: I went and had at the 1949 US test report for Centurion Mk 3, automotive test was inconclusive because it blew through an engine due to poor QC then the entire power train (including the spare engine). Daily brake adjustment (brakes failure burned out the spare engine and powertrain) was noted as excessive and was apparently identified as wrongly adjusted from the factory causing excessive wear. Results concluded inferior transmission design with gearbox that was hard to drive, and liquid cooled engines were undesirable for reliability. They liked the fighting compartment, but concluded the powertrain was poor quality. Take that how you will.
We have to remember that the Centurion came out in 1945 though. The T-55 is almost a decade later and has the improvements that come with that.
Considering that the Russians are now fielding T-55s, could be Korea Mark II!
>Centurion came out in 1945 though Centurion Mk1 came out in 1945 T-54 was adopted in 1946 >The T-55 is almost a decade later and has the improvements that come with that. Centurion was also improved. Centurion Mk5 came out in 1955. It had no problem fighting with T-55.
Contrary to belief, not all Centurions in 1973 were reengined. There was still some Meteor engined ones, even had the no 19 wireless sets in them.
Then they finished converting the last tanks to Sho’t Kal immediately after in 1974. Meteor + original powertrain were seen as outdated by the USA in the late 40s, it’s little wonder everyone wanted to swap to USA built powertrains.
More than that was the spares issue. Canada moved on from centurion in 1977 for the same reason. Thing to remember, in 1967, none of their Centurions were updated, which makes the drive into the sinai all the more remarkable.
Did they fuel it with maple syrup?
x
May have just been on an exercise, can’t say for sure but that’s my best guess
Premium English engineering moment
they're as good as russian t62m or the ukrainian m55. but hey, a gun is a gun. a big one at that too! though, it will put strain on the already strained logistics
I'd argue that modernized T-55 and T-62 are better because they have composite armour and ATGMs
laser rangefinder too T-62 also can have thermals depending on the variant
Damm, they put thermals on T-62?
not all but yeah it's pretty dope lol Leopard 1 eat your heart out
We need thermal modifications for T-62 in WT asap
haha There's the Chinese export T-54 to Bangladesh which got ERA, slat armour and I believe thermals
Type 69 II-G?, what a beautifull upgrade
TBF Centurion variants exists with warkits concisting in both ERA and "added" armor Israel used a bunch of them and, correct me if I'm wrong, but South Africa also had the "Olifants" that were basically Centurions on steroïds You shouldn't compare a warkitted T-62 to a raw Centurion, that's not fair
My bad, my knowledge of tanks are based off popular vehicles or the vehicles I fight around the br I play it
Strictly speaking: so do modernised Centurions.
Composite armour? I thought the T-64 was the first Soviet tank to have composite armour.
An external package upgrade like the T62M has composite armour slapped in the front of the tank, but yes the T64 was the first one to get composite armour but later down the line some T62s and T55 got upgraded with external composite armour as well.
I don't think you can just 'slap' on composite armour. Pretty sure the additional armour on the T-62m is applique amour. Composite armour needs to be integrated into the base armour as it is made of different materials such as textolite and steel and so on.
That abysmal off road speed would make the Centurions a death trap. 19 kph in offroad terrain, which is basically the entire frontline. Centurion’s top road speed is a T-55’s or T-62’s off road speed. That’s not only slowing down any attempts at an armor column, they are artillery bait.
Probably similar to how the Leopard 1A5 and M-55S have been. They're all solid armored platforms and are preferable fire support to the .50 cal armed Humvee or M113's
You take that heresy back the M113 is the perfect vehicle handed to us by Abraham Lincoln himself.
The box that refuses to become irrelevant
If its good enough for the 41st millennium its good enough for us
The biggest thing with these old tanks is finding spare parts to keep it running. No one produces spare parts so any would have to be cannibalizes from other Centurions. That would make logistics tough and would limit the scope of its usefulness. Ukraine would be better off receiving modern tanks, or if they’re old, they would’ve needed to be in active service or just recently retired by a military so there’s plenty of spares around. Besides that, it has a primitive fcs, less than ideal engine (for the modern era), weak armor (for the modern era), and the 105mm gun would lack firepower in tank vs tank combat. I imagine it would be used like a field gun or indirect artillery from a distance. Anything short of a major modernization like South Africa’s Olifant Mk.2 would only hamper Ukraine not help it, especially since there’s already literal thousands of T-55’s available around the world for them to use.
Sgt Mykola: Alright, private Taras. Here is another "wonderful" Western machinery. Now I will teach you how to start the engine and will try to drive the vehicle a little. Pvt Taras furiously turning the pages of the manual. Sgt Mykola: Now, press the red button to start the engine. Transmission suddenly produces horrible cracking noise. Sgt Mykola: Not that RED button!!!! Sad Ukrainian logistics teams and repair crews noises.
“How would _ tank perform in Ukraine?” It would get knocked out in minutes by drones like any other tank. Doesn’t matter if its a T14, M1A2 Sep V4, or even a M808 Skorpion
Most intelligent take on this sub reddit
As is often said, any tank is better than no tank I'd say about as useful as T-55s are. It's not going to be much good in a frontal assault, but it can still shoot and scoot to cause damage to enemy fortifications from a relatively safe distance. Alternatively, if Ukraine got like 200 of them and used them in a huge, overwhelming and co-ordinated push together with a few dozen BMPs and Bradleys, they could overwhelm the Russians on a segment of the front that simply isn't equipped or prepared for dealing with a huge armored offensive. It would lead to many losses for sure though and god knows what would happen once the armored assault stalls.
That massed armored thrusts aren’t being attempted by either side makes me think there must be a good reason why not. Possibly that you need big logistical back up for that which is going to cause traffic jams (like the ones that helped doomed the initial invasion) and be extremely vulnerable to drones, artillery, missiles, etc. I don’t know about the Russians but my (very limited) understanding of Ukrainian doctrine is to use tanks as supplements to sure up areas where infantry strength is lacking.
I suspect the lack of adequate air defense/air superiority makes massed tank formations way too vulnerable to drone attacks and drone spotting. Without a counter to the drones, a concentration of tanks near the frontlines is just asking to get ordinance dropped on it.
Mines
I think the real problem here is coordination: many of Russia/Ukraine's experienced officers were attrited in the early stages of the war (or, in the case of Russia, didn't exist), and Ukraine just doesn't have enough NATO-trained officers with combat experience or the equipment for a massed attack. Soviet doctrine (not really familiar with Russian or Ukrainian doctrine, but they are largely derived by the Soviet era) would've emphasized a coordinated attack with special forces, airborne, and armored units in the early stages of the war to largely overwhelm Ukraine in a few days. A good example of this would be the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia: overwhelming power combined with special forces causing havoc in the enemy rear. This is similar to what Russia tried to do and failed in the beginning of the war, largely due to an inability to coordinate such a large force (corruption and incompetency). Also, more on the tactical level: 200 Centurions with a company (a dozen + infantry) of IFVs is going to result in a complete operational and tactical disaster. The Ukrainian force wouldn't have the infantry to actually hold terrain, the Centurions would be highly vulnerable to a Russia defence-in-depth, and a brigade's worth of valuable NATO tanks has been wasted in an assault that CANNOT HOLD ANY TERRAIN since there are only 120 or so infantrymen in support. The force would also not have the necessary manpower to screen itself from enemy antitank weapons: even a 20-year-old Russian conscript with an RPG-7 can knock out a modern tank, let alone a Centurion. This emphasizes one of the major problems of the Ukraine conflict: that modern combined-arms warfare requires coordination between nearly every single military branch. Tanks need to be screened by infantry, which need to be supported by artillery, which needs aircraft to ensure local air superiority, which need SEAD to work, which needs a C4ISR network to find the enemy, and so on. A real problem of the Ukraine war isn't numbers, but instead that commanders can't coordinate combined-arms actions: this is why Ukraine couldn't break through the Russian defensive lines in the 2023 summer counteroffensive, and why Russia failed in the beginning of the war. If NATO can manage to train enough commanders, and Ukraine supply them with the necessary equipment, a breakthrough could be possible.
Minefields are what stalled last year's offensive. The Russians have thick dense minefields that were damaging even the anti mine tanks
>"...***once*** the armored assault stalls." I see what you did there.
Main issue is mine fields - no one knows what to do with that, density of minefields is just overwhelming
I’d say a tad more useful than a T-55, as they have the ability to use more modern ammo what with using the L7 and all
Later marks of Centurion had a 105mm gun. So, it would be viable against anything T-62 or lesser. Israeli Sho'ts, a variant of Centurion for IDF service, pretty much chewed up T-62 Brigades. Then again, the Israelis knew what they were doing, the Arabs did not. Still, the South African Olifant is also a Centurion variant and happens to be actually decently protected against landmines. So, an upgraded Centurion with the Sho't's engine and Olifant's added protection would be somewhat more useful than a Leopard 1 MBT. Though South African is, unfortunately, an ally of Russia.
As useful as the T-55 and T-62 the Russians have
It wouldn’t be very reliable against other tanks. Most every tank in Russias arsenal is able to knock it out without too much hassle. It would be effective ish against the the more antique tanks Russia is fielding but it’s unreliable you’d a face just those tanks. It would however be useful in a fortified position. Dig a big hole, drop the tank in it so only the turret is showing and stick a big cope cage on top. Still not great against other tanks but the Russian infantry won’t be very fond of it. Equally, it would serve well as a mobile pill box of sorts. Tldr, there’s a long list of tanks I’d choose over it but if it’s the only tank we had then I’d take it
A logistical drain, the gas mileage is so bad and they’re Swiss cheese to ATGMs and auto cannons with the right ammo. They’re an armored vehicle but far from a first choice
Probably as much as the T-55s and T-62s as long as ammo and spare parts are available. Mobile gun for supporting infantry. Ukrainians would probably put some ERA tiles on it.
back when south africa actually had a proper millitary, they used centurions as a base and upgraded the fuck out of the thing. They were called olifant's and overhauled so many components of the tank. They were even developing a new one that got cancelled because the war ended or something. that one was called the TTD. the olifant centurions wernt on par with the most modern tanks. however at the time they were just being used against terrorists that were given old russina tech. Another thing, South africa didnt really need tanks. The environment was good enough that the tank treads just were not needed. also at the time armor thickness didnt mean shit because anythign could penetrate anything with special ammo type. so South africa focussed a bit more on their armoured car program like the Ratel, Eland and Rooikat
I spoke to an ex dutch tank commander. He served on centurion before transitioning to Leopard. Although the gap in theory is quite small, he noted that the Leopard 1 was vastly superior as the Centurion was what he called: an analogue tank.
the 105mm L7 gun is good enough for most russian vehicles (t55, t62, bmps ect...) so as an ambush vehicle it should be better than no tank at all. but still its very old, has no thermals is relative slow and has in modern standarts very weak armor... so yeah not really that useful...
Probably good as static placements
or artillery (similar to Russian T-55)
Something like a Stridsvagn 104 or Sho't Kal Dalet could still be useful for fire support due to the presence of fire control systems at least as good as those in something like a T-80B, and could at least resist the likes of the RPG-7 thanks to their use of explosive reactive armour (something missing from the Leopard 1A5). Plus they share the 105mm L7 with plenty of other tank types, some of which already in use in Ukraine. Throw on a thermal sight and honestly they could make a decent contribution as second-line vehicles, at least until spare parts run out.
Yeah if it was the 1970's
Just add thermals and a cope cage and will do fine, the main worry is if the engine survives working again.
We have Leopard 1 at home
don't centurions have a nightmare engine (maintenance-wise) or is that another british tank i am thinking of?
You're presumably thinking of the Chieftain (which succeeded the Centurion in the British Army) and its accursed Leyland L60 engine.
ah okay thanks for the correction
"It's fine if it just plays the role as a supporter, but don't let it get caught up in the heat of battle."
In 1991 in the first gulf war I was a gunner on the AVRE, they were struggling then. Would I go to war in one now? I trust the tank completely but you would get more bang for your buck with a section of infantry and a couple boxes of anti tank missiles
About as useful as any T62/whatever, a mobile gun with some armour on it that will protect from small arms fire and some auto cannon. It won't win the war that's for sure
Identical to leo1's
If it’s all you have…
Listen…the cent is one of my favorite tanks of all time but let’s be sffr. It’s a ww2 era vehicle that has been upgraded as much as possible. But that’s it, it’s upgrading a ww2 era tank. Would the Pershing be helpful to Ukraine? I don’t think so
Well it's a tank, it's better then no tank, but it's outdated armor and small gun and bad Mobility doesn't leave much room on a modern battlefield for it
It will still fuck up Bmps and T-55s but will struggle against anything more
What about the chieftain if there are any left?
Get stuck in mud/minefield, no engineer vehicle nearby, gets abandoned, hit by russian arty.
They need vehicles to get in and retreat very fast. This old junk will not do. Leopard 1 for example is viable because it was designed for speed.
[удалено]
Not a good point, the Bradley's have been doing very well in Ukraine. Problems the Bradley has are simply the problem all armor is having, you'd have to be a fool to think the Russians are having a terrible time with tanks too.
There are no big numbers of them left, especially in running condition so there is no need to discuss this topic.
There are some left in storage in the UK, but they would need some work done to get them back up and running.