No need. The T55 was not existed yet, and probably never would have appeared, if Brits has not made their improved Centurion. The arms-race is a bitch, you know;)
Why? the American already was doing the tank that should finish the Japane - Fat Man and Little Boy:) seems yankees again leave brits behind:)
It wouldn’t have to.Aside from Britain, and America being allies, the U.S. had introduced the M-26 before the Cent came along.
I wouldn’t say it was a bad tank, it had a good mix of the main elements a tank needs, but it lacked some things that are important. It had no turret floor, the loader had to walk around with it as it traversed, ammo storage was not located to facilitate quick loading of the main gun. It had no fire control to speak of, no range finder, or ballistic computer which were present in U.S. tanks begining with the M-47. It had instead, a choke sight coaxial to the gun. This is okay if you are going into a massed assault at closer ranges, but not much help against a defender who has a range finder, and can engage from a distance well beyond the choke sight’s capability.
For close engagements the U.S. (I can’t speak for all of NATO) idea was called “Battle Sight” A heat round was loaded,and indexed, the range set to 1,100 m this would provide the correct solution most of the time from 900m to 1,400m. But I would not have wanted my little 3 tank battle group to run across a company of 55’s at a mile range.
You can’t expect allies to just accept everything, especially the Brits in that time.
Even the US used the Centurion, not directly on its own, but to spice up the armored forces of Allies.
it is a fact
Not producing the centurion wouldn’t change a bit
I don’t know what you’re getting at there, the British were part of the Allies, and at what time? you need to clarify your statement.
That it is perfectly normal for the British to have developped their own tanks and that it was a succes where even the US took advantage of.
The time the stop - gap Firefly arrived, the war had ended almost as much as when the centurion arrived.
The centurion in fact was the first and last export/servicelength/distributed design succes of its kind and a true post-war icon.
The Firefly was in use in 1943, long before the European War’s end. It proved very useful in the D-Day operations against German armor. Translation errors aside, your statements are a bit muddy, and difficult to understand.
Maybe. But the U.S. Army was repositioning numbers of M-26 Pershings to the Far East in anticipation of Operation Downfall–the main reason being that its armor was almost impenetrable to most Japanese anti-tank weapons such as the 47mm gun. The 47mm was used successfully in ambush positions to fire into the rear and sides of Sherman tanks on Pacific islands during that campaign, usually as a suicide mission for the Japanese gun crews who would wait concealed waiting for armor to pass them by, then fire before being slaughtered by follow on infantry…
there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss the Centurion as redundant, if one looks at its history. The firefly would’ve been outstanding for decades … if no one else was designing next generation tanks.
Translation errors aside, your statements are a bit muddy, and difficult to understand.
be gentle now :lol:
I have no idea what you mean by this statement, define “you cant expect allies to just accept everything” What exactly are they supposed to have accepted, and why?
When did the U.S. actually use Centurion tanks? and just how would the U.S, have the ability to “spice up” the others of the Allied armor forces?
[QUOTE=steben;180155]there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss the Centurion as redundant, if one looks at its history. The firefly would’ve been outstanding for decades … if no one else was designing next generation tanks.
We were speaking about the British modified Sherman called the Firefly. How could its existence Make the later Centurion redundant? My statement was a responce to your stating that the firefly came along at the end of the European war, when it clearly had been in the field for some time prior to the German surrender.
There was an earlier statement about the British, that should have fully mass produced the firefly (“accepting foreign designl”) instead of putting resources in own development. I state that this would’ve been a bad idea.
When did the U.S. actually use Centurion tanks? and just how would the U.S, have the ability to “spice up” the others of the Allied armor forces?
The nucleus of re-armament of Western Europe was financed by the US, and they used the Centurion for the minor countries and supplied their own tanks for major ones. The US never used it themselves. The centurion proved more useful once further round of gun and armour race was needed.
We were speaking about the British modified Sherman called the Firefly. How could its existence Make the later Centurion redundant?
was exactly my point, my friend :lol:
My statement was a responce to your stating that the firefly came along at the end of the European war, when it clearly had been in the field for some time prior to the German surrender.
true
There weren’t enough 17-Pdr. guns to go around as they also armed Achilles tank destroyers and were used as field guns and this-that-or-the-other thing, IIRC. The British did make a concerted effort to convince the Americans to use their industrial capacity to make the 17-Pdr. in order to arm more-and-more vehicles with the guns. But between the Tank Destroyer Doctrine and the U.S.A.'s Ordnance Dept. working on adapting the 90mm M3 to anti-tank use, it was rejected–but not totally–as after the losses in Normandy, the Army desperately ordered a few hundred Sherman Firefly’s for service in American arms. However, 90mm Jackson M36’s were coming online as was the Pershing tank, which finally received the support it needed for fielding over the objections of the seemingly deluded Army Ground Forces Command. The few dozen American Fireflys earmarked to go to the continent were then given to the British IIRC…
The nucleus of re-armament of Western Europe was financed by the US, and they used the Centurion for the minor countries and supplied their own tanks for major ones. The US never used it themselves. The centurion proved more useful once further round of gun and armour race was needed.
was exactly my point, my friend :lol:
The British did finance a significant amount of their own defense and also contributed to exporting the Centurion to defense partners in the Commonwealth. The closest use “by American proxies” was in the Middle East by Israel where they significantly contributed to the Israeli defense and also by Aussie forces in Vietnam…
To point things directly into noses …
Belgium got M47’s, Netherlands got Centurions…
Centurions were longer in service …
That was the countrys choices as they had to pay for them. The US provided M47 and M48 at subsidised prices to those countrys that could not afford to buy or develop their own MBT’s. It was similar to the F5 and F16 programs.
Some took a mix of equipment while others went for all from one supplier for all their needs. Doctrine also played a part with the eternal Gun/Armour/Speed debate.
The M-47 Patton might not have lasted as long as the Centurion. But it had been designed as a “stop-gap” tank before the far more refined, diesel powered M-48 series came out–whereas the Centurion has some versatility built into a thickly armored hull making it a tank easily improved as evidenced by the adaption of the L7 105mm gun.
making it exactly for such reasons perhaps a more succesful / efficient design? 50 cents
As compared to what?