M48A5 vs T-55A

[Rice]

It will be interesting to see the M48A5 trying to keep up with the other armored vehicles of the era. It's just barely at the end of its service life but I'm very glad they stuffed it in. I wonder if it can go toe to toe with a T-55A.

[Amedeo]

I'd say yes, considering that the M48 was always considered as the "equivalent" of the T-55 and that the A5 version is armed with the 105mm gun.

The T-55A should also be a worthy opponent, especially if equipped with the 3BM20 or 3BM25 APFSDS.

[The_MonkeyKing]

What sort of ammo M48A5 had available?

[Thewood1]

I think because most of the M48A5 conversions were NG units, they were still using the M728 stocks.  But as the conversions were completed, there was enough M735 to restock all of those units.

[Amedeo]

2 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

What sort of ammo M48A5 had available?

According to a post in this informative thread on TankNet forums: Timeline for APDS Replacement in NATO? - AFV Forum - tanknet.org

I think we can safely assume that, in the 1979-1982 timeframe, all USAREUR M48A5 tanks were equipped with M728 APDS rounds.

[Rice]

What kind of penetration does M728 offer compared to M735?

[Thewood1]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data

105mm L7: M728 APDS-T	2500	300	1426	1974	This is the U.S. designation for the UK 105mm L52 round.
105mm L7: M735 APFSDS-T	3000	410	1501	1978
105mm L7: M774 APFSDS-T	3000	440	1509	1980
105mm L7: M833 APFSDS-T	3000	490	1494	1983

 

The bolds are penetration of RHAe (mm).  The fourth is intro year.

[Rice]

Wow, huge jump here.

[Amedeo]

17 minutes ago, Rice said:

Wow, huge jump here.

And consider that the difference is even larger than what can be inferred from the table, since APDS rounds are more prone to ricochet and suffer from greater speed loss compared to APFSDS rounds .

[Rice]

3 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

And consider that the difference is even larger than what can be inferred from the table, since APDS rounds are more prone to ricochet and suffer from greater speed loss compared to APFSDS rounds .

Poor poor M48A5, haha. I will be interested in testing it once it's out. With 300mm of pen on RHA it will still be a good way to crush anything lighter than the more (relative to 1979) modern Soviet Tanks.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Rice
Add "reletive to 1979"

[Amedeo]

1 minute ago, Rice said:

Poor poor M48A5, haha. I will be interested in testing it once it's out. With 300mm of pen on RHA it will still be a good way to crush anything lighter than the more modern Soviet Tanks.

Notice that 300mm is the point blank penetration value. Anyway it shouldn't be a big problem against T-55s even at 2000m or more, save for the occasional ricochet when striking the curved turret armour or the sloped glacis at very unfavourable angles.

 

[Rice]

1 minute ago, Amedeo said:

Notice that 300mm is the point blank penetration value. Anyway it shouldn't be a big problem against T-55s even at 2000m or more, save for the occasional ricochet when striking the curved turret armour or the sloped glacis at very unfavourable angles.

 

Yes I immediately thought about the curve of the T-55 and the other very similarly shaped tanks bouncing a lot of shells haha. It seems like the M48A5 is going to want to stay hidden most of the time. Even though it's absolutely massive.

[MikeyD]

T55 isn't fielding APFSDS in the game (it does in CMSF2). It fields APDS, I assume the UBM6 round BM8 HVAPDS projectile. The MT-12 towed anti-tank gun fires APFSDS, I assume the 3UBM10 round. According to my one brief test its relatively ineffective against M60 frontally at ranges over 1000m

[Rice]

11 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

T55 isn't fielding APFSDS in the game (it does in CMSF2). It fields APDS, I assume the UBM6 round BM8 HVAPDS projectile. The MT-12 towed anti-tank gun fires APFSDS, I assume the 3UBM10 round. According to my one brief test its relatively ineffective against M60 frontally at ranges over 1000m

The MT-12 will be very very interesting to use. I really enjoyed a video of the East Germans using them that was in the recommended videos thread. As long as the M60A1 keeps it's distance, 225mm of pen at 1000m won't get through it's upper glacis (258mm effectively) or the front of the turret at 250mm (Just as you said). The 3UBK8 (HEAT) offer 400mm of pen but has a max effective range of 1000m (according to wikipedia). I don't know what it is point blank pen is though.

The M48A5 has only 220mm of armor on the upper glacis (110 mm (4.3 in) at 60°), and 178mm on the turret front. The MT-12 won't have any problems sub 1000m. Do you have any data on the UBM6 and BM8 HVAPDS? I can't find any.

[Armorgunner]

Anyone who knows the LoS difference in Armour, between different NATO Centurion tanks, at the time. And the M48a5? Just for mod purposes, and scenarios?  

[Thewood1]

1 hour ago, Amedeo said:

Notice that 300mm is the point blank penetration value. Anyway it shouldn't be a big problem against T-55s even at 2000m or more, save for the occasional ricochet when striking the curved turret armour or the sloped glacis at very unfavourable angles.

 

I'm not sure that's the case.  I think those numbers are at 1000m.  I'll see if I can track that down.  I just ran a bunch of tests in Steel Beasts at 2000m with no hull down or maneuvering, The T-55A 1970 and M60AA3 with no TI are somewhat evenly matched.  Both got hull penetrations frequently, but both had fewer turret penetrations.  The turret penetrations on both were around weak spots like coaxs, sights, turret rings, etc.  The M60 hit more often, but any hit on it knocked out stabilization for a short time.  Not scientific, but directional.

[Amedeo]

18 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

I'm not sure that's the case.  I think those numbers are at 1000m.  I'll see if I can track that down.

From the ammunition page ot the SB Wiki (Ammunition Data - SBWiki (steelbeasts.com) - first line:

"the penetration values below ("RHAe" in milimeters) are line of sight (LOS) estimations measured at the muzzle against a semi-infinite target" (emphasis mine)

At the muzzle, thus point blank.

[Thewood1]

Missed that.  I could have sworn somewhere else they it was stated at 1000m.  Thanks.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Looking forward to the M48 more than anything else in CW.

 

[Rice]

28 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Looking forward to the M48 more than anything else in CW.

 

Same, very interesting to see a CM game include it imo

[Amedeo]

The first tactical wargame I ever played was the good ol' Panzerblitz by Avalon Hill. (Disclaimer: I'm not that old, I got the game more than ten year after its first release )

I remember that, in the scenario booklet, there was an appendix detailing technical data about the various German and Soviet tanks depicted in the game. There were also the specs of the US M48A5, next to a Panther, with a note saying that this was the proof that tank design practically stagnated for twenty years.

Since then, I always dreamed about a Panther G vs M48A5 match!  It's a pity we cannot mix and match hardware from the various CM games!

P.S. No, I do not think that the PzKpfw V was on par with the M48, especially if one considers the 105mm armed variant.

[Thewood1]

I owned both Panzerblitz and Arab-Israeli Wars.  I used have those kinds of battles all the time.  It was tough to compare the various individual units because of platoon sizes.  But it was fun.

 

btw, the M48A5 had an attack value of 25 and defense of 15.  The Panther had 20 and 12.  The M48 came out OK.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Thewood1

[Ultradave]

I AM that old that I got Panzerblitz when it first came out. At the time it was absolutely amazing. Such a change in wargaming. And then Panzer Leader. 

My real reason for answering is to add that in addition to which tank is better in the lab, I will say that using tanks of any kind in this game requires a change in thinking. It's not modern warfare like SF2 or BS. M48A5s are good tanks for their time, but ALL the older tanks are brittle, on both sides, even against each other. I found in my play testing I almost always had to play like I knew I was facing tanks of much better quality, playing either side. It was either that or leave a lot of smoke plumes decorating the battlefield. I've played as US with M48s and had them exploding all around me, thinking "Damn, these things are useless", and then played the Soviets thinking I'll set up a nice overwatch and plink away at the M60s in the valley and had my T62s and T64s shot off the hill like so many bottles on a fence. Hull down, keyhole firing positions, "Hunt/pause/reverse" fire and move plots, using the ends of treelines to snipe from behind, are real keys. You just can't stay exposed. This may all seem obvious, or maybe not. Makes for a lot of fun.

Having been an Army officer at this time and after, what they used to drill into us was "If you can be seen you can be hit. If you are hit, you are dead." This is SO true in this game. (note that I haven't used any M1s yet, but they are early M1s so not the land battleships of SF2).

It's gonna' be fun.

Dave

 

[E5K]

3 hours ago, Amedeo said:

The first tactical wargame I ever played was the good ol' Panzerblitz by Avalon Hill. (Disclaimer: I'm not that old, I got the game more than ten year after its first release )

I remember that, in the scenario booklet, there was an appendix detailing technical data about the various German and Soviet tanks depicted in the game. There were also the specs of the US M48A5, next to a Panther, with a note saying that this was the proof that tank design practically stagnated for twenty years.

Since then, I always dreamed about a Panther G vs M48A5 match!  It's a pity we cannot mix and match hardware from the various CM games!

P.S. No, I do not think that the PzKpfw V was on par with the M48, especially if one considers the 105mm armed variant.

The problem is the Panther would be firing SHOT ammo. The M48 would be firing HEAT ammo. Not good for the Panther.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, E5K said:

The first tactical wargame I ever played was the good ol' Panzerblitz by Avalon Hill.

Ditto...  good memories.