= new reply since forum marked as read
Thus the IDF has kept many captured T-54/55s back for later use (And gave many of them to its allies in Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s, it is an easy tank to operate).
As to the Centurion vs T-54/55 that the Centurion is the better tank, most of the contests between the two tanks have been won by Centurions do to better training of the Centurion tank crews then it being a better tank. Furthermore the T-54 was designed for the flat Russian Steppes, the Centurion for the more hilly terrain of Western Europe, and in most combat fights, like in Israel, the fighting between the two has been in areas more like Western Europe then the Steppes (The big exception would be the Sinai Campaign of 1967, where the Israeli army moved so fast that Egyptian forces ended up abandoning their T-54s in the retreat as they ran out of fuel, again an example of bad training and supply not a bad tank).
The T-54 has a lower overall height then the Centurion (but the greater height permits the Centurion to lower its main gun lower so the Centurion can hide more of the tank behind terrain then can the T-54 series of tanks). The Centurion had a better ability to climb hills (In Korea, Centurions were preferred to American M26 and M46 Pershing tanks, through the M4 Sherman was preferred over all three. The M4 was preferred for the M4 had the highest horsepower to weight ratio of the three in Korea and thus was best at climbing hills. After 1951 they was no Tank to Tank Combat in Korea, so the M4 limitations of having a its 76mm Cannon was NOT a problems for it was just as good for what the tank was being used for, fire support, as the 90mm cannon of the Centurion and M26 and M46 tanks in Korea).
Another problem with the T-54 is that it was designed for small crewmen (no bigger then 5'8"
that was roughly the same regulations as WWII US Submarines (If you were six foot tall you could NOT enter the US Sub service in or before WWII). Given you had to be 5'4" tall to enlist or be drafted into the US Army, most US Soldiers are to tall for use inside a T-54. I bring this up for the T-54 is always called "Cramped" by Western Standards, but once you understand the height restrictions as to the tank crew, then the size makes sense.
This is weird when you consider that the old horse mounted cavalry units that the Tank Unis claim descent from, also tended to like short men. Short men weigh less and thus no not wear out horses as quickly as taller men. Six foot cavalrymen are common in the Movies, but not in real life (Patton was considered to tall for the cavalry, but he was permitted to be a cavalrymen for he was an officer).
Just a comment that many people consider the T-54 the best post WWII tank. Yes, western tanks were bigger and had more armor and bigger engines, but when operated by a well trained crew the T-54 could defeat post WWII era tanks. The T-54 series was so good that the Russians had to go a different route for its replacement. The T-62, an attempt to upgrade the T-54 was a failure, thus the T-64 and T-72 with their reduction to a three man crew and an automatic loader ended up replacing the T-54 (and they are people who think T-54s will be in use long after the 1960s and even the 1980s era tanks are long gone, mostly do to the T-54 ease of repair and effectiveness if you accept and understand its strengths and weaknesses).
I've been reading were published in the late 80s and early 90s during the Cold War hysteria. The books, (which I found doing a cleaning job and they just gave them to me), are peppered with a lot of pro-Western rhetoric in that regard. On occasion they will remark on a Russian system, "not as powerful as the UK model but extremely robust and with much rough field capability." That's about as far as they will go to flatter the Warsaw Pact.
I wouldn't fit into a tank or a small plane but I'm pretty good for stacking boxes up high and changing light bulbs. I'm sure that's why they gave me the job down the street. 
and will do so in the future. Well, it's been nice being here on DU! 
