Shipwreck

Do they claim anything for themselves ?

As I read it, the Pilkington Optronics webpage simply says :

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)

Ray

I have seen their glossies in the AHQ.

I think I will leave it there since it is getting to be fruitless a discussion!

Nonetheless, I thank all for all the information given and it leaves me better informed!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Shipwreck

Barr & Stroud has a longtime presence in India.

IIRC, the Arjun Mk.1 was/is supposed to use a Barr & Stroud laser rangefinder.

zraver

Guess I should have added new build there.

The baseline is the research done here in this debate. Our little intrepid team has uncovered quite a bit of info that not exactly lost, was not grouped easily together. Like the fact that Indian Shermans were not only not out gunned by Pakistani Shermans, but that 2 regiments actually feilded the firepower of the famed Panther tank.

LRF-
1962 first prototype
1964 first feidl test
1965 Indo-Pakistani war
1971 first tank deployed with LRF
1972 First US tank deployed with LRF
1975 First deployment of M48A5 (only variant with LRF)
1978 First Centurion varoiant with a LRF
1978 First M60A3 Patton (one assumes refitting of M48A5 to M48A5E1 begins now as well, but no proof before 1983)
1987 First Leo 1 with a LRF (at least 14 years after Britannica said it happened)

http://216.176.86.154/afv/USA_AFVs.pdf list of every AFV relic in America

Shipwreck

Another minor correction if I may :

* The M60A2 was approved for production in October 1974 (in spite of CONARC assessment that the tank was "not battleworthy" and CDC position that the program should be terminated).

* Production deliveries of the M60A2 began in 1974, and the first 54 tanks were subjected to an operational test at Fort Hood, Texas.

* Despite numerous failures during the test, ASARC decided to permit fielding of the M60A2 and the unit at Fort Hood retained the test tanks to become the first unit equipped with the M60A2.

zraver

grrr 1974 then. At least I got the Cheiftan right as the first LRF equipped tank.

Officer of Engineers

Z,

Would you be so kind as to giving a rundown on the differences in expected usage of the stereoscopic range finder and the co-incidental range finder? Which one is faster to use and how complicated to use for ranges up to 1000 metres as described in this thread?

__________________
Chimo

dave lukins

Yes you did Zraver, It was fitted to the Chieftain in 1971

tankie

Didnt we finally get Chiefies in 1972 Dave in Osnabruck ,,? but i liked your earlier admission earlier ref experienced tank crews , and you are totally correct with your statement ,,,, active service makes ANY nationality crews better , they have to be , and the thread as it were about which tank was better , is mainly down to the crew , but the better designed tank the thread is about was in m/o the cent .

__________________
TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

zraver

I am the wrong person to ask, oldest beast I was on was the 60A3 TTS. Ask Dave or Tankie they seem to date me by a good bit and dave at least did NATO cross training.

zraver

On a side note Patton vs Centurion, it really shouldn't be a suprise that the British tank was superior when use don the defensive. British design requirements reflected a need for firepower and protection, requirements drawn up when the Tiger and Panther were the perceived threats. The 52 ton Centurion had a thicker hide than the Tiger I or Panther. Speed/mobility was decidely third on list or requirements.
The American Patton series, a direct evolution of the M26 Pershing was born in the same era but reflected the American ideal of the sweeping offensive. Speed was more important than protection, and the 90mm gun and Pattons armor levels were designed to match the Tiger I. The Patton also reflected the American's design tendancies towards tall tanks. It was not until engine technology advanced that America was finally able to create a tank that was all three, fast, well armed, and well armored and designed to meet a Soviet not a Nazi threat in the M60A1. Even then it used a British gun.

But anyway I digress, the British made the choice to trade speed for protection and so it should not be a suprise the Centurion dominated the Patton on the defensive.

glyn

[quote=zraver;403254]

But anyway I digress, the British made the choice to trade speed for protection and so it should not be a suprise the Centurion dominated the Patton on the defensive.

Good point. The Patton could travel about 50% faster than the Centurion on paved roads. Off-road performance levelled that playing field though, and under certain conditions the Cent with its manual gearbox was quicker across country than the M-48 with its automatic gearbox. Generally their cross-country capabilities were much of a muchness.

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

zraver

[quote=glyn;403266]
centurion ground clearance of .51m,Height 3.01m, leangth 7.6m ground pressure .9kg/cm^2 trench crossing 3.35m cross country speed 30km/h

M-47 ground clearence of .0478m, Hieght 3.35m, leangth .935kg/cm^2 leangth 8.51m trench crossing 2m off road speed 24km/h

M48 ground clearence .41m, Height 3.1m, Leangth 9.3m, ground pressure .88kg/cm^2 trench crossing 2.95m off road speed 35km/h

Looking up that bit of info suprised me. I figured for sure the American tanks would have an edge in mobility being lighter than the Centurion, I also figured the longer leangth, and higher profile would translate into higher ground clearence, lower ground pressure and superior trench crossing. Just goes to show how well designed the Centurion was for its time.

glyn

[quote=zraver;403273]

Looking up that bit of info suprised me. I figured for sure the American tanks would have an edge in mobility being lighter than the Centurion,

To be fair, a lot depended on the skill of the Cent driver. Some drivers made for a swift smooth ride and others patently didn't but subjected the crew to a jolting ordeal. The commander and radio op could cope better than the unfortunate gunner as he only had a narrow field of view through his sights. There were also casualties when poor drivers would misjudge overhanging branches and the turret crew would cop it. The moral of the story is - a good driver is worth his weight in gold, look after him!

Albany Rifles

I believe two additional reasons for the greater height of the US tanks are based purely on personnel observation.

A lot of this came from working with BAOR units in Germany in the early 1980s and discussions in the mess with them.

1. The Brits observed that US crews lived IN their tank while (or as they put it, whilst) British crews loived ON their tank. In other words, US tankers spent more time inside their vehicle rather than outside it. That was their observation. So it was a roominess issue.

2. Also, in line with the survivabaility issue. They believed the lower profile for the Centurions/Chiefteins/Cahllengers had to do with which part of Germany each was defending. Yes, it went back to the WW II German threat but as time wore on the Brits adapted to the low rollign terrain of North Germany while we Americans had the hillier south to defend so needed a taller vehicle to more effectively conduct reverse slope fires in taller terrain.

Just some discussions from a quarter century ago over a few liters of pils.

__________________
“When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.” — Oscar Wilde