1960s tanks vs 1945 heavy tanks and Technical gaps

[starfury]

I was thinking of both of old 1945 USSR vs 1965 China and the Third Reich 1945 vs Iraq 1991 threads, and how much the technological advantage can only carry a military so far, as China didn't have enough of technical advantage in 1965 over the USSR of 1945 to be able to achieve more then a stalemate at best, but the gap between Even a german Army of 1941-1942 Size equipped entirely with 1945 equivalents of their eariler equipment, like Panthers replacing all MK IVs and MK III, would still have a diffucult time facing T-72s, as the gap between the 1991 Iraqi army and even a more wanked up german army of 1945 was still far more substantial.

For the Tanks I was thinking mainly how a Leopard 1/AMX-30/T-54/T-72 tank would fare in 1945. They were better then the even best 1945 tanks like the Panther, IS-2, Tiger I heavies, but the these tanks, especially the heavy tanks mentioned would still be major threat to the 1960s tanks.

[Iosef Cross]

Well, I would say that even thought the Iraqis have much better tanks, their training, morale and doctrine were probably terrible. But, of course, their tanks had much better armour and guns compared to WW2 tanks.

Compare a Panther with a T-72:

Panther Ausf. G.

Weight: 44.8 tons
Engine: 700 hp
KmK 42 75 mm gun
front armour: 120 mm
speed: 46 km/h

T-72A

Weight: 41.5 tons
Engine: 780 hp
125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun
front armour: 200 mm
speed: 60 km/h

For less weight, it packs more armor, speed and firepower.

[Sea Skimmer]

1960s tanks with competent crews would go through 1945 tanks let warm butter. But as 1967 showed, WW2 tanks could quite well take on 1960s tanks crewed by Arabs... but then infantry might well defeat Arab tank crews even in the open.

By the 1960s all tanks had effective HEAT shells, rangefinders (machine gun or optical based) and many had effective sabot too as well as ballistic computers. They also generally had much better designs and armoring made possible by greatly improved engines and designers simply applying all the WW2 data to detail design. The max armor on a M60 tank for example is the same as that on a King Tiger, about 200mm, but the M60 was 20 tons lighter with a much bigger main gun at the same time and better ballistic shaping.

[Marcus Aurelius]

1960s tanks with competent crews would go through 1945 tanks let warm butter. But as 1967 showed, WW2 tanks could quite well take on 1960s tanks crewed by Arabs... but then infantry might well defeat Arab tank crews even in the open.

To be fair, most of the Israeli WW2 tanks in 1967 were modernized somehow. The M51 had a modern 105 mm medium velocity gun firing modern HEAT ammunition, which went a long way for equalizing things. It also had a an upgraded engine and wider tracks than the original Shermans, which improved cross-country mobility significantly. The M50 had slightly a less impressive modernization in firepower, but accordingly it never received a reputation as a reliable T-55 killer, even though certainly could kill a T-55 with side hits. The M1 Super Sherman (the M50 and even the M51 are sometimes called Super Sherman in English sources, but that is incorrect) was also still in service in 1967, but as far as I know it did not see combat against modern tanks.

On the other hand especially the Syrians still had many T-34-85s in service during the Six-Day War, so the Israeli Shermans did not fight exclusively modern opponents. The Egyptians also had IS-3M heavy tanks, which for practical purposes were WW2 tanks even if they didn't see any combat in that war. They proved to be tough nuts to crack frontally, but in the end the Israelis usually managed to outflank them, because their mobility was very bad by 1960s standards.

Even more impressive than the M50 and M51 exploits I have always found what the Israelis did with the AMX-13 light tank, which was not a WW2 design, but hugely outmatched on paper by the T-54/55.

[AATC-86]

The Egyptians also had IS-3M heavy tanks, which for practical purposes were WW2 tanks even if they didn't see any combat in that war.

Minor nitpick: According to S. Zaloga, the IS-3 did see combat during the Manchurian invasion -45 against the Japanese, IIRC.

[Sea Skimmer]

To be fair, most of the Israeli WW2 tanks in 1967 were modernized somehow. The M51 had a modern 105 mm medium velocity gun firing modern HEAT ammunition, which went a long way for equalizing things. It also had a an upgraded engine and wider tracks than the original Shermans, which improved cross-country mobility significantly. The M50 had slightly a less impressive modernization in firepower, but accordingly it never received a reputation as a reliable T-55 killer, even though certainly could kill a T-55 with side hits. The M1 Super Sherman (the M50 and even the M51 are sometimes called Super Sherman in English sources, but that is incorrect) was also still in service in 1967, but as far as I know it did not see combat against modern tanks.

Israel never had enough M51s for more then one armored brigade, the considerable majority were M50s which basically had the WW2 Panther gun. The M1 did see action against Jordan, which had Centurions and M48 but mainly within the confines of Jerusalem. The Egyptian Stalin tanks and SU-100s almost never maneuvered, so of course they got outflanked, that'd go back to them being Arab crewed and Arab led.

Minor nitpick: According to S. Zaloga, the IS-3 did see combat during the Manchurian invasion -45 against the Japanese, IIRC.

That has been claimed by him, but proof is lacking. At most a handful saw action, and by action that means they drove into Manchuria. The IS-3 was a very flawed tank and never saw much Soviet service. Modernization programs failed to solve flaws with the armor welds so the Russians quickly evolved the design into the IS-10, which became the T-10 after Stalin died. This was a far better tank and lasted in front line service into the 1960s, with a secondary role until the end of the USSR.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Israel never had enough M51s for more then one armored brigade, the considerable majority were M50s which basically had the WW2 Panther gun. The M1 did see action against Jordan, which had Centurions and M48 but mainly within the confines of Jerusalem. The Egyptian Stalin tanks and SU-100s almost never maneuvered, so of course they got outflanked, that'd go back to them being Arab crewed and Arab led.

Most sources I have seen say that Israel had 180 M51 Shermans in 1967, which was more than 1/3 of their whole Sherman inventory (about 520). I have no reliable type specific numbers for the M1 or M50 (although 300 is sometimes quoted for the latter), but since the M1 numbers were not totally insignificant in any case, I'd say that it's debatable if the M50s were a considerable majority among the modernized Shermans.

Modernization programs failed to solve flaws with the armor welds so the Russians quickly evolved the design into the IS-10, which became the T-10 after Stalin died. This was a far better tank and lasted in front line service into the 1960s, with a secondary role until the end of the USSR.

In addition, the further modernized T-10M was introduced in the late 1950s (1957, but production in series started later) with a much improved 122 mm gun and optics. In fact the T-10M was the first Soviet production tank to mount a stereoscopic rangefinder, although apparently the same unit was installed earlier in the SU-122/54 (a.k.a. IT-122) tank destroyer, which incidentally was long thought to be just a myth...

[Sea Skimmer]

In addition, the further modernized T-10M was introduced in the late 1950s (1957, but production in series started later) with a much improved 122 mm gun and optics. In fact the T-10M was the first Soviet production tank to mount a stereoscopic rangefinder, although apparently the same unit was installed earlier in the SU-122/54 (a.k.a. IT-122) tank destroyer, which incidentally was long thought to be just a myth...

Yeah a whole bunch of Su and JSU assault guns have turned up, some of which the west never even guessed existed. The Russians really loved the concept, and it made a fair bit of sense for them to keep them around even after they could produce all the turreted tanks they needed. I really love the semi assault gun T-10 with the turreted 152mm though. Object 268 I think.

[SilverHawk]

The issue always comes down to crew, leadership, experience and ammuntion. An ace Panther tank crew with an ace Commander with the Iron Cross (Mentioned more for the experience that comes with it) loaded for bear with Pzgr.40s could stand toe to toe with any tank that rumbled in the 1960's if Arabs were the crew. But going up against a M60A1 crewed by 2nd Armored veterans of Vietnam is a whole other story.