NATO return to Cold War force structure

[bojan]

4 hours ago, Martineleca said:

The "crisis" that the US armored corps experienced having to face up to thousands more Tiger/Panther...

In which alternate reality?

Quote

...Centurions and all other follow on models had always been on the heavier side regarding the balance between armour and mobility...

What armor? Neither Centurion nor Chieftain nor Challenger 1 had any kind of exceptionally good armor. Centurion had less armor than M48 and T-54/55/62, Chieftain had marginally more than M60 (not enough to really matter), less than T-64/72. Challenger 1 had ~same armor as earky Leo 2 and M1 and less than T-72B.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

In which alternate reality?

What armor? Neither Centurion nor Chieftain nor Challenger 1 had any kind of exceptionally good armor. Centurion had less armor than M48 and T-54/55/62, Chieftain had marginally more than M60 (not enough to really matter), less than T-64/72. Challenger 1 had ~same armor as earky Leo 2 and M1 and less than T-72B.

 

Challenger 1 had the best armour of its era, with greater protection than Leopard 1 or Abrams when it fielded, at least  in the turret. If you were going to sit behind a ridge throwing HESH rounds at the enemy all day, it was the one to be in. Yes, it was somewhat deficient in the hull front because they put all the armour in the turret front, which is why they put a lot of money into an uparmour pack. It was outclassed undoubtedly by the M1A1HA, but that was at the other end of the 1980's from when Challenger deployed, October 1983 IIRC. So yes, that one at least was exceptionally good in its time.

Centurion had some of the best armour of a late war medium tank. There is no doubt it was somewhat outpaced by the M48, but thats because its its not the contemporary of the M48. Its actually the contemporary of the T26, with which it compares well. It has something like 50mm more armour on the turret than the T26 IIRC. Hence the reason why the Americans jury rigged the super Pershing.

Moreover, you are once again reading this is a static event. Centurion eventually evolved into  12 different marks, each with more armour than the last. The Leeds build ones with the metalastic mantlet had something like 200mm, about 25mm more than the M48. Doesnt mean it was a better tank than than the M48, but as seen in Pakistan, it was certainly competitive with it.

 

[Ssnake]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Challenger 1 had the best armour of its era, with greater protection than Leopard 1 or Abrams when it fielded, at least  in the turret.

Leo 1 is a low bar. I guess you meant to write Leo 2, and that's not refuting what Bojan wrote - that it was marginally better than the two.

[seahawk]

And against Russian 125mm the difference would not matter. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

The Themal installation in Challenger 1 did not intefere in the armour pattern frontally. Ive personally looked over a Challenger 1 with the Chobham boxes off and I know this to be true. From the right side, possibly, but not the front, because its bolted on to the side of the turret. There was a big bracket for it welded to the side of the armoured shell.

Thats contrasted by the apparent problem in Leopard 2A1/4 which has the TIS apperture cover nearly half the right turret face. And this presumably was acknowleged that this could be a problem, or they wouldnt have put quite so much effort deleting it in the Leopard 2A5. 

 

Ive been struggling to find the protection levels of the originally delivered M1 which I seem to remember Retac found in a report from the very early 80's in an offer to the Egyptians and posted up. But If I recall correctly, the conclusion at the time was that even Challenger 1  exceeded it by some margin. It wasnt monkey models either, because there was no other armour schemes for them at the time, it was the baseline M1

As for 'exceptionally' we could go down the usual pointless tanknet rabbit hole of arguing what that means. In a cold war where everyone was trying to match everyone, I think it pretty meaningless because no advance lasted very long, nor was anyone substantially superior to the other (with the exception of TIS and electronic fire control). In armour, nobody was exceptionally better than anyone else from 1945 till 1989, so its particularly meaningless.

 

 

 

[Ssnake]

It's not quite as bad as it might look as the space between sight and commander is filled with an armor element of equal depth than what is missing in the front. Still, it was identified as a weakness and eventually addressed.

[Martineleca]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

It's not quite as bad as it might look as the space between sight and commander is filled with an armor element of equal depth than what is missing in the front. Still, it was identified as a weakness and eventually addressed.

It does present a fairly obvious target for any enemy tank if it can get a clear shot, the Chrysler XM1 also had a similar thermal sight bulge on its turret that was then deleted on the M1 by placing it on the roof, was such a redesign considered feasible prior to Leopard 2 entering full production or was there concern it would just cause more delays?

[Ssnake]

That might have played a role though I really don't know what exactly was considered and what the alternatives were at the time.

[bojan]

On 12/7/2025 at 9:28 PM, Martineleca said:

It does present a fairly obvious target for any enemy tank if it can get a clear shot...

Unlike in games tank crews do not shoot at "weak spots" in real life. You either aim center mass or center of whatever is visible.  

On 12/7/2025 at 9:02 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Challenger 1 had the best armour of its era...

430mm RHAe vs KE turret front vs ~350 for Leo 2A0 and ~380 for M1. While it was more than those two it was not enough to make significant difference.

Vs ~500 for T-72B or ~450 for T-72M1/T-64B/T-80B and ~380 for base T-72.

Hull armor was however worse than either M1 or Leo 2 in pure numbers (IIRC) and also had larger weakened zones due the driver's "dekoltee" and lower front hull which were only proof vs 23mm (IIRC there is only 51mm of vertical armor behind it) and 30mm (lower front hull).

Turret side armor was worse than M1, having composite armor only up the half of the turret but comparable to Leo 2.

Base hull side armor was 38mm... worse than M1 (42-51mm) but better than early Leo 2 (30mm), but we are splitting hairs in "how much wet cardboard equivalent is that" here.

Turret tops on all those were ~25-30mm.

It did get (through in very late '80s, IIRC 1989?) add-on armor that significantly increased protection of side hull and lower front hull, but by that time Leo 2A4 and M1A1(HA) were there with better armor than C1.

[seahawk]

19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

It's not quite as bad as it might look as the space between sight and commander is filled with an armor element of equal depth than what is missing in the front. Still, it was identified as a weakness and eventually addressed.

But mostly because you had to move it to add the wedge style add on armour. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, Martineleca said:

It does present a fairly obvious target for any enemy tank if it can get a clear shot, the Chrysler XM1 also had a similar thermal sight bulge on its turret that was then deleted on the M1 by placing it on the roof, was such a redesign considered feasible prior to Leopard 2 entering full production or was there concern it would just cause more delays?

Im less concerned with anyone using it as a target, than if you fire enough rounds at the turret front, sooner or later someone is going to sink the black in the rear pocket. 

Im similarly incredulous of claims in WW2 that Canadian tankers aimed to bound a round off the Panthers mantlet. OTOH, fire enough rounds, its going to happen to somebody.

7 hours ago, bojan said:

Unlike in games tanks do not shoot at "weak spots" in real life. You either aim center mass or center of whatever is visible.  

430mm RHAe vs KE turret front vs ~350 for Leo 2A0 and ~380 for M1. While it was more than those two it was not enough to make significant difference.

Vs ~500 for T-72B or ~450 for T-72M1/T-64B/T-80B and ~380 for base T-72.

Hull armor was however worse than either M1 or Leo 2 in pure numbers (IIRC) and also had larger weakened zones due the driver's "dekoltee" and lower front hull which were only proof vs 23mm (IIRC there is only 51mm of vertical armor behind it) and 30mm (lower front hull).

Turret side armor was worse than M1, having composite armor only up the half of the turret but comparable to Leo 2.

Base hull side armor was 38mm... worse than M1 (42-51mm) but better than early Leo 2 (30mm), but we are splitting hairs in "how much wet cardboard equivalent is that" here.

Turret tops on all those were ~25-30mm.

It did get (through in very late '80s, IIRC 1989?) add-on armor that significantly increased protection of side hull and lower front hull, but by that time Leo 2A4 and M1A1(HA) were there with better armor than C1.

Thank you, and thats precisely the point im making.  And you havent even touched on its performance v HEAT yet.

Since nobody in NATO was using the T72  and it didnt have TIS, and It shouldnt couldnt reverse worth a damn, im generally untroubled by it scoring a little better in some areas, particularly after the introduction of L23 and latterly XL26.

As for uparmour, from my understanding the uparmour was already designed for it some time before 1990. That it was not fielded is probably more to do with it never deploying to Berlin, which was presumably the intent for it (including seemingly Warrior) It is Urban uparmour, which is why it was procured with some alacrity when it was expected the tank was going to go into Kuwait in 1991 alongside the US Marines. 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[bojan]

HEAT wise M1/Leo2/C1 were are all more-less same, about 700-750mm protection for turret and 550-600 for hull. Challenger 1 and 2 are unfortunately what Bismarck was to contemporary battleships - heavier than contemporaries but not really better, just less efficient design.

T-xx armor was given as an illustration because there are some people still believing myths about "superior armor of NATO tanks". Thermals could be installed in T-xx also, and reverse speed could be improved while keeping it's armor, which post CW upgrades proved.

PS. Cent's 200mm mantlet was equivalent to 1947. T-54. Also, M48 mantle was sloped, unlike practically vertical one on Centurion, so in practice they had ~same performances. M48 mantle was also smaller and way less prone to jamming in case of hits that did not penetrate.

M48/M60 were in general heavily underrated tanks. Even stopgap M47 was pretty much OK when compared to 20pdr armed Cents.

Centurion was a decent tank for a same reason T-55 was, it was relatively simple (no attempt on mechanical FC as in M48s), easy to repair and cheap, generally 25%-30% cheaper than M48, because UK was hard pressed for cash and was willing to give discount price to get a contract. But it had own serious disadvantages (horrible range primary), through that one was shared with gasoline powered US tanks.

 

[mkenny]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Im similarly incredulous of claims in WW2 that Canadian tankers aimed to bound a round off the Panthers mantlet.

Nothing to do with 'Canadians'. It is raised as a theoretical possibility in the May 1944  UK study of the Panther (from Kursk) that was released shortly before the landings. Once ashore everyone and his dog claimed it was done by 'someone they knew'.   Mentioned  by Andrew  Wilson in his 1980s  'Flamethrower' book.

[Sinistar]

after the breakup of the ussr / warsaw pact documents coming out of some of these states like poland seemed to corroborate the theory that the soviets were planning to operate on a nuclear battlefield

you can see which states on the bloc side were presumed to be expendable and destroyed such as the aforementioned poland and czechoslovakia which is probably the motivation to show the world how this was going to work

 

in that case the performance of individual vehicles firing on one another may not figure much into it assuming the effects of EMP bursts knocking out sensitive electronics and troops operating in MOPP gear diminishing performance and the general chaos of everything

[seahawk]

4 hours ago, bojan said:

T-xx armor was given as an illustration because there are some people still believing myths about "superior armor of NATO tanks". Thermals could be installed in T-xx also, and reverse speed could be improved while keeping it's armor, which post CW upgrades proved.

 

To be honest by the 80's Russia lacked the ability in electronics to make thermals in such large numbers and imho they had not yet understood the importance of them. 

[urbanoid]

I can understand how the first thing (inability) was the case, but not understanding their importance? Unlikely.

[seahawk]

I think today we are missing the huge steps forward that were taken at the time. 

https://instrumentation.com/PDFS/EvolutionThermalImagingCameras.pdf

A second or third gen Thermal is something very hard to explain to someone not using it and never having used one before. 

How explain someone that this actually makes a huge difference, when he never used it or even saw it.  

Edited December 8, 2025 by seahawk

[Sinistar]

starlight amplifiers were known to be used in the iran iraq war on about the same quality you see the west using

because active IR illuminators are already intrinsic to vehicle design on the bloc side i do not think they are entirely unknown or dismissed by ussr / warsaw pact

though they may have regarded passive thermals as similar in capability or not as much a leap ahead to matter which would be obviously wrong

[bojan]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

To be honest by the 80's Russia lacked the ability in electronics to make thermals in such large numbers and imho they had not yet understood the importance of them. 

They estimated they could produce ~100-150 per year. They could not produce 1000+ per year they perceived to be needed in order to gain advantage, so decided to bin it until second generation appeared and they improved industrial basis to be able to produce at least ~500 per year (about level of what UK and France produced together). Then USSR fell apart.

They actually had vehicle with thermals in service since 1988 - PRP-4M artillery recce vehicle which had 1PN71 thermal sight, because semi-workshop method of production could fulfil order for those vehicles, but not of ~2000 tanks per year production.

[urbanoid]

36 minutes ago, bojan said:

They estimated they could produce ~100-150 per year. They could not produce 1000+ per year they perceived to be needed in order to gain advantage, so decided to bin it until second generation appeared and they improved industrial basis to be able to produce at least ~500 per year (about level of what UK and France produced together). Then USSR fell apart.

They actually had vehicle with thermals in service since 1988 - PRP-4M artillery recce vehicle which had 1PN71 thermal sight, because semi-workshop method of production could fulfil order for those vehicles, but not of ~2000 tanks per year production.

Was producing this stuff that hard/complicated/expensive that quite a gigantic country struggled to produce 150 pieces per year and that tripling that figure was a major industrial undertaking?

How many could the US produce?

[Sinistar]

at the very least there is the basic problem that individual members are either buying this equipment within their own budgets or producing domestically under license to varying degrees and quality rather than operating as if it is all the same

it would not work the same way per se as the united states which does not operate under this same kind arrangement

except with regards to inter-service procurement channels- active duty vs. guard or reserve or USMC which are behind the curve or are fielding older equipment

Edited December 8, 2025 by Sinistar

[urbanoid]

What are you even talking about?

My question was about prices/levels of complication of a technological process to produce those back in the 1980s. After all it wasn't a country known for its high standards of living, but it was definitely known for prioritizing its military and the ridiculously high military spending. 

E.g. according to Bojan they were able to produce ~150 pieces a year and were attempting to ~triple that, which would only make for ~the combined production by France and the UK at the time. If you can produce ~2000 tanks a year and only ~150 of relatively small technological appliances... 

I'm also curious about how many was the US producing at the time, to have some comparison. What about ze Germans?

[Sinistar]

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

What are you even talking about?

 

what does it look like

 

you are talking about different states within the ussr / warsaw pact each with different capabilities, budgets and so on rather than it behaving the same across the board

 

east germany for example is the economic powerhouse of the bloc outside of russia and has different capabilities than say hungary

 

hence you also see the difference in procurements across members states rather than it all being uniform

russian manufactured equipment having different quality or different capabilities than licensed and locally manufactured vehicles 

 

it does not behave all the same like it is often conceived in idealistic terms

 

someone might have exact figures for budgets or allocation priorities but i am saying that would mean it is not as if all warsaw pact members received standard units across the board and some as you know are operating equipment not per se up the same standard of others

 

 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

They estimated they could produce ~100-150 per year. They could not produce 1000+ per year they perceived to be needed in order to gain advantage, so decided to bin it until second generation appeared and they improved industrial basis to be able to produce at least ~500 per year (about level of what UK and France produced together). Then USSR fell apart.

They actually had vehicle with thermals in service since 1988 - PRP-4M artillery recce vehicle which had 1PN71 thermal sight, because semi-workshop method of production could fulfil order for those vehicles, but not of ~2000 tanks per year production.

Yes, but the whole combination of Thermals, laser range finder and ballistic computer was a game changer. Which imho they only reached in the 90's.   

But the main problem was cost. The electronics industry took of the in the 80's and processing power and chips got cheaper and cheaper. The Soviet Union sorely lacked in this regard. 

[urbanoid]

11 minutes ago, Sinistar said:

 

what does it look like

 

you are talking about different states within the ussr / warsaw pact each with different capabilities, budgets and so on rather than it behaving the same across the board

 

east germany for example is the economic powerhouse of the bloc outside of russia and has different capabilities than say hungary

 

hence you also see the difference in procurements across members states rather than it all being uniform

russian manufactured equipment having different quality or different capabilities than licensed and locally manufactured vehicles 

 

it does not behave all the same like it is often conceived in idealistic terms

 

someone might have exact figures for budgets or allocation priorities but i am saying that would mean it is not as if all warsaw pact members received standard units across the board and some as you know are operating equipment not per se up the same standard of others

 

 

>implying USSR republics had the autonomy when it comes to military equipment, as if all this wasn't totally centralized

WARPAC states had some, sometimes not much at all, depending on the period, but I was asking about strictly Soviet stuff.