Centurion vs IS-3 vs Pershing

What was the best heavy tank that the allies fielded in the WW2 period (1938-1946)?

Centurion

Pershing

IS-3

 

IS3s probably didn't serve in WWII. Neither did the Centurion. So, I guess Pershing out of those three?

I guess I would consider the IS2 as superior to the Pershing, though. It has a bit thicker armour and its gun has a bit better penetration (unless you consider some special ammo types that were in very limited use). It's also a bit faster.

 

Centurion,stayed very long in service good gun,good armor,good mobility.

 

The Russian 122mm may have had better penetration, but at 1 shot every 30 seconds and a max ammo load of 20ish rounds, I would go with the 90mm.

IS2 was shaped better in my opinion, and the IS3 even more so.

 

The Soviet IS series has some very significant limitations. A major one is that these vehicles carry very few rounds. They also have a serious deficency in vision devices onboard. Most crew members have just a single periscope or vision block to look through when buttoned up. The IS 2 is a bit better having a commander's cupola a feature deleted from later IS tanks.

The early model Centrurians and Pershing / Patton tanks suffered from very poor gas mileage. The Centruain also had severe mechanical problems initially. Most of those were sorted out in later models but, in the end most users replaced the British engine and transmission with US models due to these problems.

Of the three the Pershing / Patton has the fastest engagement rate. It has the fastest and smoothest turret rotation, has a gyrostabilizer (later deleted) and, like the Sherman before it can get on target very quickly. The IS and Centurian series have much slower turret rotation speeds and the engagement sequence is slower. The use of a .50 ranging machinegun on the Centurian also increases the engagement time as well as telegraphing its intent to the enemy.

The Pershing has what is likely the weakest armor of the three but this a matter of degree. All three are more than adequitely protected given the weapons deployed against them. Both the Pershing and Centrurian would also have the advantage of HVAP / APDS / APCR ammunition making them far more vicious antitank weapons.

I'd say of the three the Pershing has a very slight advantage over the Centurian, mostly in reliability, and both have significant advantages over the IS series due to their better engagement capabilities.

 

The IS-3 has a good design:



But its gun was rather bad, it had 122 mm but could not penetrate the Panther frontal armour:

"German Army data on the penetration ranges of the 122 mm A-19 gun against the Panther tank showed it to be much less effective than the Soviets thought: the A-19 gun was unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the bottom front plate of the hull at 100 m."

On paper the soviet tanks were the world's best. However, it appears that soviet technology was rather crude. The Panther, with its puny 75 mm gun was maybe better than the IS-2: "The Panther's 75 mm gun could penetrate the front of the IS-2s turret at 800 m and the hull nose at 1000 m."

source: wikipedia

So, in my opinion the best heavy tank of these 3 is the Centurion.

 

Pershing tank

...divisions should confine themselves to exploitation of infantry breakthroughs and did not, therefore, need powerfully armed tanks. Only toward the end of the war did the U.S. Army introduce a few M26 Pershing heavy tanks with a 90-millimetre gun comparable to that of the original German Tiger. Similarly, the British army introduced the prototypes of the Centurion tank with a 76-millimetre gun...

 

The comparson is made difficult by the fact that , while the weight class is similar, only the IS-3 was designed as a heavy tank while the other two were MBTs.
As a heavy breakthrough tank the IS-3 with it's better armour and gun, (AP performance depends on sources but I think nobody can deny a 122 will have a better HE performance than a 90 or 76 mm) is far superior. It's cramped fighting compartment and small ammo load (and slow ROF) detract from it's usefulness for prolonged operations.
Centurion and Persing were pretty similar in performance, I doubt either's gun would work well against the IS-3 frontal armour that was designed with the more powerful 88/L71 in mind. The WW2 models never went head to head but the Indo-Pakistani confrontation between updated Centurions and early Pattons (that were basically updated M-26s) gives the Centurion the edge. The Israelis, that used both, generally seemed to prefer the Centurion though they give the Patton credit for better mobility vs the original engine. The Egyptian IS-3s didn't make much of an impression, but crew training may have a lot more to do with that than tank design, if they truly weren't refitted with air conditioners the crew's ability to fight them in desert conditions would be marginal.

 

Wikipedia is way off on this one. A 122mm hit could rip the turret off a Panther by the brute force alone. I have seen photographic evidence of that one, as well as the glacis plate of a Panther cracked open like an egg shell.

I have a question for Terry, though: would you consider it a major advantage of the JS-II that its APBC round was sufficiently powerful to kill a Pershing or Centurion without resorting to the rare HVAP/APCR munitions?

 

If I'm swaggering down to a party or all-nighter it's the JSIII.
For more formal events (weddings, funerals, state openings etc.) the Centurion.
And the Pershing for everyday use and trips to the shops.


~A

 

I would have to go with the Centurion, just because of this story:

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, two damaged Israeli Centurion tanks were stationary on the Golan Heights when attacked by hundred of Syrian tanks. During the course of a six hour engagement, the Israelis destroyed over 60 Syrian tanks (a whole armored division) without losing either of the Centurions. The remaining Syrian tanks subsequently retreated.

I know its not WWII, but I just like the Centurion tank in general

 

I know the story, Zvika Greengold's the man's name. However, if 60 tanks make a Syrian Armored Division, then their ADs are diminutive.

 

I read an account once where a M12 155mm SP accidently came upon a Tiger II and shot at it , the 155 mm shell hit the Tiger II's turret completely ripping it off . It actually didn't penetrate the turret's armor but....
As per the subject at hand I'd say for longevity one has to go with the Centurion but for WW2 the Pershing since it was the only one of the three to see any service.