 Whirlwind  | 23 Feb 2014 1:04 a.m. PST |
I am planning on re-setting an Israeli Centurions vs Syrian T-62s encounter in WW2. What would you consider approximately equivalent match-ups using Allied tanks against Germans (sides can be either way around)? Regards |
| Martin Rapier | 23 Feb 2014 2:59 a.m. PST |
Panthers against T34/85s. If you set it during the summer 44 offensives in the western Ukraine you can even have the 'Israelis' on the 'Golan heights'. |
| Onomarchos | 23 Feb 2014 6:17 a.m. PST |
Martin's are a good choice; however, if you wanted to go a little earlier how about Pz IVs against Shermans in Tunisia. Take a look at the Battle of Sidi Bou Zid in Feb 1943. Mark |
| Whirlwind | 23 Feb 2014 6:46 a.m. PST |
Thanks both. I had got the impression that the Centurions were at a reasonable advantage over the T-62s (mirroring Panther against T-34) but I'd always thought that Shermans and PzIVs were about the same though? Regards |
| Cold Steel | 23 Feb 2014 9:04 a.m. PST |
The advantage of the Israeli Centurions over Syrian T-62s was the quality of the crews. The 2 tanks themselves were comparable in performance, although about half of the Centurions were the 1950s era Mk 5/2 that had not yet been upgraded to the Sho't and were inferior to the T-62 in maneuverability. The Israeli crews were very well trained and considered the elite of the IDF. As usual for most totalitarian regimes who fear their own troops as much as an external enemy, the Syrian Army conscript training was limited, especially with live ammo. Suggested reading:
link The same crew quality difference shows in Tunisia and Russia. Even with inferior equipment, crew quality and leadership can defeat a larger opponent. |
| Martin Rapier | 23 Feb 2014 11:31 a.m. PST |
"I'd always thought that Shermans and PzIVs were about the same though?" Umm, maybe. The 765L48 was a considerably more effective hole puncher than the Shermans 75L40. And again, you've got veteran German crews against green Allied ones. |
| taskforce58 | 23 Feb 2014 11:31 a.m. PST |
Shermans vs. PzIV in Tunisia, with the Shermans playing the part of T-62s. |
| Garand | 23 Feb 2014 3:19 p.m. PST |
Umm, maybe. The 765L48 was a considerably more effective hole puncher than the Shermans 75L40.
Unless some later model G's made it to Tunisia, earlier Gs and F2's had the 75mm L/43 cannon. Per Spielberger, the first G's with the L/48 began rolling of the lines in August 1942, but production notes for 1942 suggest no L/48 equipped tanks were actually produced(?) Damon. |
| Porkmann | 24 Feb 2014 6:49 a.m. PST |
how about 38t vs hotchkiss h35. or pz iii e/f vs t26 & bt5/7? |
| Bellbottom | 24 Feb 2014 7:00 a.m. PST |
I always understood that the relative main gun depression angles played a large part in Israeli supremacy. Their gun being able to depress further showed less of the vehicle in a hull down position, whereas the Soviet tanks had a lesser depression, making the vehicle stick out like a sore thumb |
 Dan Cyr | 24 Feb 2014 12:13 p.m. PST |
Agree, Jarrovian, plus the more the T62s tried to hull down, the slower their ROF would have been due to their turret ceiling. Dan |
| Tercha | 26 Feb 2014 11:23 p.m. PST |
The Centurion Rangefinder (3 rounds from a .50cal) was one of the biggest reasons for their success, the Syrian tank crews soon realised that after 3 .50cal hits the next was the "Big one" therefore bailed out as soon as they heard the 3 rangefinder rounds hitting.
Israelis subsequently armed as many infantry units as possible with .50 cal's firing 3 round bursts – like the cents rangefinder – and capturing the rapidly vacated Syrian tanks.
This is one of the main reasons Israel had so many captured tanks in their armoury – tank v tank or air v tank usually results in burnt out hulks |
