"M48A5s Against T-55, T-62 " Topic

I'm working on a simple fast set of rules for tank combat using 3mm Pico models, the Iran-Iraq war to be specific. One thing I'm not finding even with a google search is a comparative range between the 105s of the M-48A5s and T-55/T-62s.
I'm thinking they might well be a bit outranged but not sure it would be decisive.
And yes, I know crew quality would be vital too.
Any tank fans out there care to help a guy out? Thanks!

I'm not a tank spec geek but I know the L7 105mm gun used in the M48A5 is the same British-designed gun used in the M-60 and the later Centurions, I'm not at all sure it would be outranged by the guns on the Russian-built tanks. IN any case the optics on the American tank would be substantially better.

From what I understand, and from well researched rules on the subject (Combat Commander), the fire control optics on the Russian tanks were rather poor, so their range was limited.

I seem to recall 1,500 – 2,000m being about the extent of their effective range to hit a tank-sized target.

I suspect the M-48 should be able to hit targets fairly accurately, at 50% more, to double that range.

Of course, the Russian tanks have a lower profile than the American ones, so that is an issue too.

In FFT3 the max range for the M48A5 is 2400m, T-55 is 1500m (upgraded T-55M is 1800m), T-62 is 2100m.

OK, thanks for some of the info. What do people think about the T-72 (an export version) that the Iraqis got as compared to the above tanks.
I was reading an account online of an interview with an Iranian who served in Chieftain tanks during that war and he said the Iranians particularly feared the T-72s.

I remember reading in the Osprey on the Merkava that the Israeli tankers really feared the T72s 125mm. Especially if their previous tank had been hit by one!

When the T-72 first appeared in the Middle East it was an effective tank. In its debut in the Lebanon fighting in '82 it fought OK against the Israelis, although the terrain very much favored the defender. The problem is that that was basically the model the Syrian and Iraqi armies had from then on. No reactive armor upgrades, no passive infrared, no optics upgrades. Usually poor crew training, and usually fighting in very open terrain with no air cover. By the time of the first Gulf War they were obsolete when compared to modern western or Israeli tanks.

The models you see in current Syria on Youtube have reactive armor added. They still have the standard soviet tank problem: any shaped charge penetration, particularly in the turret, ignites the ammo poorly stored in the bottom of the turret tray. It's the reason American troops nick-named them "an explosion waiting to happen."

It is almost certain that Israeli Merkavas never fought T-72s. Whether the crews feared them or not, I couldn't say, but they'd have no practical basis for that fear.

The T-72s the Israelis encountered in Lebanon were dispatched with jeep carried TOWs at considerable range as they advanced across a valley floor initially unaware they were entering an AT ambush. The pictures are on the net.

The M48A5 had a leg up over the T55 at range due to better fire control and optics. At closer ranges (under 1200m) it really came down to crew training and quality.

The M48 was also quite simply easier on the crews…

The M48 vs the T62 was another matter. The T62s primitive fire control and slow rate of fire was offset by its 115m smoothbore gun. At under 1500m the muzzle velocity and hitting power was very impressive. Hits from a 100mm gun at range could bounce. The 115mm went right through. The flat trajectory from the high muzzle velocity made hitting easier at closer ranges.

So, once again the M48 has an advantage at over 1500m. Closer than that it comes down to crew quality.

Jake is correct about the Merkava and T72s never fighting. Some evidence suggests that there may have been some long range pot shots at one another on the last day of fighting… but no definitive engagements are recorded.

Even the early fighting in the south… if it did happen… would have featured a T72 engagement vs only M60s and Centurions… and it is highly unlikely that the fight happened. It is attested by a Soviet adviser. The Syrians however don't back him up.

Joe Collins

One more thing… I can't speak enough to crew quality. The Iran- Iraq war is case in point. M60s vs T72s… None could hit the other at over 500 meters due to poor training and horrible maintenance. The good optics and rock steady firing platform of the M60 proved worthless. Of course the simple optics but vastly superior gun and armor of the T72 was also nullified by idiocy.

Go figure…

Joe Collins

@Collins355. I don't believe you are correct. Read up on the fighting in the hills above above the Bekaa around Ain Zhalta while the Israelis were trying to close the Damascus-Beirut Highway. The Syrians gave them a tough time for a couple days.

The domestically produced iraqi T-72 variants (saddams and asad bibils) lacked hardened armour plate,yep its civilian grade construction steel.

M-48A5 and the T-55/T-62 were broadly equivalent. All could kill each other , none had a significant advantage in all circumstances.

T-72 is superior to the M-48A5, but not so superior as to be overwhelming. They can fight each other, and the 48 is still dangerous, especially on defense.
-Kle.

In the end, gun range and armor thickness are nowhere near as important as crew effectiveness. Look at Israeli Shermans knocking out Egyptian T-54s and Jordanian Pattons.

Strange, I definitely remember seeing an account of T-72's hit by 105mm APFSDS, the grouping of hits some few cm's apart, due to the short range (300m less).

As for the T-62, the Israelis thought highly of it, especially the main gun, but as has been said before, less of its Arab crews.

The U5TS gun of the T-62 was nothing to be joked about,even with stadia sights it was lethal to any of the then current MBTs out to 1500m,2000 m was its operational limit though.The updated T-62M complete with sideskirts @horse shoe turret armour is a favourite modelling subject for me

It is almost certain that Israeli Merkavas never fought T-72s. Whether the crews feared them or not, I couldn't say, but they'd have no practical basis for that fear.

They could if the crews had been in other tanks.

Guys, truth is always the first casualty of war, but it is hard to think of a recent conflict in which more disinformation and misinformation has spread than Lebanon '82.

The facts regarding Syrian T-72s are that they were only committed on the last days of the war (the encounter with Peled's AT force took place within hours of the ceasefire) with the reinforcing 3rd Armoured Division. Prior to that the Syrians only had T55s and T62s in action.

The action referred to around Zhalta of course did occur, but had nothing to do with T-72s. Photos, such as those at
link
show T-62s.

Thanks for all the great feedback, this is interesting.

And I definitely will factor in bad marksmanship in my rules testing, good point, JoeCollins.

Jake:

My take is that the Syrian Commando units were the real tough nut to crack at Ain Zhalta. When the action got too hot… they simply retreated and dug in again 5 Kms to the north. The Israelis had to move in an infantry battalion to dig them out. This is rough terrain for tanks.

There may also have been a T72 engagement several days after the cease fire. General shooting erupted several times along the front… but it was always arty and long range pot shots…

Joe Collins

Agreed Joe.

Zhalta and Sultan Yakoub illustrated the perils of boldly stiking ahead with tanks in mountainous, wooded terrain along a few roads and with limited intel.

Getting back to Iran-Iraq, I wonder if either or both sides used the "battlesights" methods. That negated the theoretical range advantage of sophisticated optics in favour of ability to fire quickly (first shot, first kill) at average combat ranges with moderately trained crews.

Has anyone ever come across any evidence for this?