M48A2GA2 (And other early cold war tanks)

[Fat Otaku]

On 11/16/2024 at 9:03 AM, Iarmor said:

 

The optical range finder was not in use for close range targets. Battlesight gunnery was discussed on this forum before.

Fire corrections based on the aiming reticule is a standard procedure in all tanks. In the Israeli Centurion MBTs, the original sight was replaced with the M48's sight at the same time when the 20 pounder gun was replaced with the 105 mm L7. BTW, a sight based on the M48's sight was also installed in the Tiran 4/5 MBTs.

Centurion vs. M48 engagements also took place between the Israeli and Jordanian armies, both in the 1967 war and in the 1968 Karama operation. 

 

The War over Water was also discussed on this forum before. It was not an irrigation project by Syria, but a diversion project by the Arab League, solely meant to prevent water from flowing into the Sea of Galilee. The heavy machinery for the project was kindly donated by Muhammad Bin Laden, Osama's father. 

 

Although the 105 would indeed be easier to score a hit thanks to the increased muzzle velocity. While the 105 with M393 APDS against a M48/centurion size target (assuming target height from the floor to the top of the turret is 2.4 meters high) has a battlesight range of 1900 meters, the 90mm M318A1 against the 2.4meter target size is only 1200 meters.

 

So, depending on how close the engagements were, it might be indeed possible for the M48 to take about 5 seconds to range and fire when the 105-gun tank can still rely on the battlesight technique

 

Additionally, it is easier to hit a moving target with a faster round as well, which gives quite a bit of advantage to the centurion. 

Edited Sunday at 11:00 AM by Fat Otaku

[Maj.Hans]

Tangentially related but why did the west stick with APDS for so long when the USSR went to the T-62 with APFSDS?

[Iarmor]

On 11/17/2024 at 12:03 PM, Stuart666 said:

I inquired with a guy who posts on Tanknet (he is an authority on Israeli armour) and he asked someone else he trusts, and this is the answer I got.

 

Shot-Cal Alef had all the original Mk. 5 turret and fire control components. Nothing was then changed from the original British layout. The changes were conducted in 1976/7 starting with Shot-Cal Bet with new turret control components from the company of Cadilac Gauge. The Bet version was left behind while the Gimel was entering service, and the Bet later converted to Gimel

 

And there is some circumstantial evidence that supports this. If they were modifying Centurions to fit M48/60 style optics, then they assuredly would have to modify the sight arrangement in the turret. I cant say ive ever noticed anything obviously different about the Centurions in the 1973 that suggests they modified it to take them. It seems very unlikely to me it was just a plug and play fit.

 

There is also a legend that the US Army supplied spare M60 turrets, and the Israelis pulled the M68 guns out of them, along with the sights, and plugged them into 20pdr armed centurions. That is a story I heard in some apparently authentic source somewhere. But again, there is absolutely no evidence produced that it ever happened. Indeed, the only time it seems likely it COULD have happened was in 1973 when the US Army was dumping its war stocks on Israel. But by that time, all the 20pdr armed ones should have been retrofitted with 105mm guns.

 

What do I think? I think either Britain was supplying optics and guns direct, AFTER we pulled the plug on Chieftain in 1967, and kept it very quiet to not upset the Arabs. Or conceivably, they were being sourced through a third party like the Netherlands. There is a remarkable similarity between the Centurion rear hull mod on the IDF Centurions and the ones from the Netherlands, to the point where im going to suggest a netherlands skin for the Israeli centurion. They look that similar, there has to be ties somewhere along the line.

 

If you look at that photo you posted, thats a meteor engined one, because it had the 2 headlights in line on the front plate (Reengined ones have the M48 style arangement with IR lenses). If you look at the sight, its absolutely the same as the Mk5 (this is an Australian mk5)

 

And the one on the upgraded Centurion looks to my eye identical.

 

Basically, unless someone can drop some documents illustrating x y and z happened, there is no evidence on the actual tanks prior to 1976 they did anything to them other than convert them to 105mm, and i think even then the British must have supplied hundreds with them already so fitted.

 

 

First, I should clarify that I'm referring to the aiming reticule, rather than the whole periscope.

Apparently, your sources didn't serve as IDF Centurion crewmembers in that period of time. As mine did, they seem to be better informed.

AFAIK, official IDF guides for TCs from 1970-1981, for various tanks (Shot Meteor, Shot Cal, Magach 6/6A, Tiran Sharir, Sherman, Merkava Mk.1), are available in the National Library of Israel, declassified long ago. However, they are offline and getting them would require too much spare time.

 

Israel never got turrets alone. It did get guns, L7s from the UK and M68s from the US, and fitted them (and Israeli-made copies) onto Centurion, M48, T-54 and T-55 MBTs.

 

The book 'Esh Lefanav Telekh' (Hebrew for 'A Fire Goeth Before Him') by Amiad Brezner provides details about the Israeli Centurion acquisition prior to the Six Day War. Only the first 50 tanks, supplied between late 1959 and early 1961, were shipped to Israel in working condition (36 refurbished Mk 5s and 14 new Mk 8s). All the rest, supplied from late 1962 and on, were refurbished in Israel starting in early 1963. All Centurions were supplied with 20 pounders, with the exception of one 105 mm tank that served as a model for the Israeli army, who wished to carry out both the refurbishment and the gun retrofit by itself. In that time, the aiming reticule apparently was a British one.

British 105 mm HEAT rounds were supplied for the first time in early 1966. The aiming reticule replacement with the US one, of the M48/M60, that was named 'NATO cross' in the IDF, probably happened sometime between 1966 and 1967. It was applied to newly acquired Centurions during their refurbishment and gun retrofit, as well as to the previously refurbished, up-gunned Centurions. I suppose some of the Shot tanks still had the British sight during the 1967 war, but I doubt they could aim HEAT rounds prior to the aiming reticule modification.

 

Although the 'Valley of Tears' TV series is absolutely terrible, they made impressive efforts to be as accurate as possible when it comes to military equipment. You can see the M48/M60 aiming reticule in the attached video, at 1:40-1:45 and at 2:30:

 

 

 

BTW, a TV series describing the story of the Pier Stronghold in the Bar-Lev Line during the 1973 war was planned to go on air in October 2023, but it's delayed because of the current war. Two Magach 3s were brought to working condition for the filming. And the rumors are it will be far better than the awful 'Valley of Tears'.

Edited Tuesday at 06:55 PM by Iarmor

[Ssnake]

11 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Tangentially related but why did the west stick with APDS for so long when the USSR went to the T-62 with APFSDS?

The Soviets had to introduce a new tank gun to make the switch. You do that only if you must.

For the Soviets it was a strategic decision to switch to smoothbore guns, even if the 115mm caliber was quickly abandoned.

 

The 105mm L7/M68 gun remained competetive until about the late 70s. And then NATO, if grudgingly, followed the Bundeswehr lead decision to switch to the 120mm smoothbore gun. Note that the initial DM13 APFSDS offered no performance improvement over the then contemporary 105mm APDS. But the 120mm caliber simply offered growth potential while the 105mm gun had largely exhausted its potential.

 

The salient point is, I think, that the Politbureau could make decisions like going for smoothbore. There is no central authority in NATO that makes similar decisions. Instead, you always have competing designs (like, 120mm rifled), and one or two eventually emerge victorious. That takes more time. On the other hand, it's better at avoiding grave mistakes like Chrustshev's folly of the Missile Tank - because, we're in the missile age now, it's gotta be great!

[Maj.Hans]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The 105mm L7/M68 gun remained competetive until about the late 70s

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought the 105mm APFSDS rounds kept it competitive into the 80s?

 

I know a lot more performance was squeezed out of it over the years but it definitely was outdated by the 90s which is why I am disappointed when it keeps coming back on things like the Stryker MGs, the M8 AGS, M10 Booker, etc.  These days it seems like the bare minimum you need in order to claim your tank has a gun.

[Ssnake]

I guess they keep recycling the 105mm gun because they still have so many of them around in serviceable condition. Plus, cheap HE munitions.

[Stuart666]

19 hours ago, Iarmor said:

 

First, I should clarify that I'm referring to the aiming reticule, rather than the whole periscope.

Apparently, your sources didn't serve as IDF Centurion crewmembers in that period of time. As mine did, they seem to be better informed.

AFAIK, official IDF guides for TCs from 1970-1981, for various tank types (Shot Meteor, Shot Cal, Magach 6/6A, Tiran Sharir, Sherman, Merkava Mk.1), are available in the National Library of Israel, declassified long ago. However, they are offline and getting them would require too much spare time.

 

Israel never got turrets alone. It did get guns, L7s from the UK and M68s from the US, and fitted them (and Israeli-made copies) onto Centurion, M48, T-54 and T-55 MBTs.

 

The book 'Esh Lefanav Telech' (Hebrew for 'A Fire Goeth Before Him') provides details about the Israeli Centurion acquisition prior to the Six Day War. Only the first 50 tanks, supplied between late 1959 and late 1961, arrived to Israel in working condition (36 refurbished Mk 5s and 14 new Mk 8s). All the rest, supplied in 1962, were refurbished in Israel starting in 1963. All Centurions were supplied with 20 pounders, with the exception of one 105 mm tank that served as a model for the Israeli army, who wished to carry out the gun retrofit by itself. That also started in 1963, immediately after the refurbishment of 90 Mk 5s. In that time, the aiming reticule apparently was a British one.

IIRC, British 105 mm HEAT rounds were supplied for the first time in early 1965. The aiming reticule replacement with the US one, of the M48/M60, that was named 'NATO cross' in the IDF, probably happened sometimes between 1965 and 1967. It was applied to newly acquired Centurions during their refurbishment and gun retrofit, as well as to the previously refurbished, up-gunned Centurions. I doubt the Shot could aim HEAT rounds before that modification.

 

Although the 'Valley of Tears' TV series is absolutely terrible, they made impressive efforts to be as accurate as possible when it comes to military equipment. You can see the M48/M60 aiming reticule in the attached video, at 2:30:

 

 

 

BTW, a TV series describing the story of the Pier Stronghold in the Bar-Lev Line during the 1973 war was planned to go on air in October 2023, but it's delayed because of the current war. Two Magach 3s were brought to working condition for the filming. And the rumors are it will be far better than the awful 'Valley of Tears'.

 

As far as fitting an L7, its my undertanding that the Breech of the L7 is in fact the same as the 20pdr, and you can accomodate the change just by barrel swapping. During the Cuban missile crisis the Canadian brigade had swapped barrels, and then discovered they didnt have any 105mm rounds. So they swapped the barrels and the optics in the space of a weekend. For something like 56 tanks, thats pretty good going...

 

 

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I guess they keep recycling the 105mm gun because they still have so many of them around in serviceable condition. Plus, cheap HE munitions.

 

Plus its "good enough" for the envisioned role for the platform.

 

[Maj.Hans]

21 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Plus its "good enough" for the envisioned role for the platform.

 

Yhea.  That's faulty logic but so goes the military industrial complex.

 

If it had an RWS with a Javelin on it I could totally buy it as being acceptable but otherwise I'm just not so thrilled about a 105mm against todays tanks.

[TSe419E]

41 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

Yhea.  That's faulty logic but so goes the military industrial complex.

 

If it had an RWS with a Javelin on it I could totally buy it as being acceptable but otherwise I'm just not so thrilled about a 105mm against todays tanks.

The 105 in the Booker is meant to support infantry in the rear areas of an enemy not engage tanks on the front line.

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Yhea.  That's faulty logic but so goes the military industrial complex.

 

If it had an RWS with a Javelin on it I could totally buy it as being acceptable but otherwise I'm just not so thrilled about a 105mm against todays tanks.

 

I've wasted enough typing on this in the Sheridan replacement thread.

 

You are entitled to an opinion, as am I. Neither of which count.

 

The ones that count are the people who define the requirements and put it out to market. In all three cases they decided that to keep within weight, cost, logistic support and mission scope limitations, that the 105mm was the adequate choice.

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:34 PM by Gibsonm

[Maj.Hans]

3 hours ago, TSe419E said:

The 105 in the Booker is meant to support infantry in the rear areas of an enemy not engage tanks on the front line.

Sure, and in a world where vehicles never operate in roles for which they are not designed that's perfectly fine.

 

We do not live in that world.

[TSe419E]

13 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

Sure, and in a world where vehicles never operate in roles for which they are not designed that's perfectly fine.

 

We do not live in that world.

 

Duh.  If you designed a tank to cover every contingency this is what you will have:

[Maj.Hans]

1 hour ago, TSe419E said:

 

Duh.  If you designed a tank to cover every contingency this is what you will have:

Eh, there's a little difference between designing them for common events vs trying to do literally everything but okay.

[Iarmor]

On 11/18/2024 at 1:38 PM, Maj.Hans said:

Tangentially related but why did the west stick with APDS for so long when the USSR went to the T-62 with APFSDS?

 

In the '60s some in the west were planning on a 152 mm gun/missile launcher - M60A2, MBT-70.

 

On 11/19/2024 at 7:45 PM, Stuart666 said:

 

As far as fitting an L7, its my undertanding that the Breech of the L7 is in fact the same as the 20pdr, and you can accomodate the change just by barrel swapping. During the Cuban missile crisis the Canadian brigade had swapped barrels, and then discovered they didnt have any 105mm rounds. So they swapped the barrels and the optics in the space of a weekend. For something like 56 tanks, thats pretty good going...

 

 

 

Yes, swapping between 20 pounder and L7 was relatively quick and easy.

In the mid-'60s, the IDF had very little British 105 mm ammunition and its use for target practice was forbidden. Instead, Centurions that were used for training were fitted again with a 20 pounder gun. Since the range drum was calibrated for 105 mm fire, each crew was given a conversion table, in order to convert from the estimated range (for 20 pounder fire) to the equivalent 105 mm range drum setting.

The Centurions deployed for combat activity against the Syrians along the Jordan Valley were taken from reserve units storage, and thus retained the 105 mm gun. However, AFAIK, 20 pounder Centurions saw action in the 1966 Samu operation. 

During the weeks of high tensions with Egypt that preceded the Six Day War, while the Egyptian army was pouring armor into the Sinai, the IDF hurried to convert as many Centurions as possible back to L7. By June 5th, only 10 Centurions remained with the 20 pounder. They fought the war in Judaea, attached to the 4th infantry brigade. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Iarmor