Mr Incredible
Rod loves red undies
So the 100L in this ASL version T54/55 would have the same performance as the T44, maybe with some extra APCR ammo?
Forgotten War first impressions, or Where is the searchlight scenario?
- Thread starter Juzek
- Start date
The overall stats for a T-54 m1949 would be similar to the T-44 except for the turret/armament.
As it is I strongly feel the T-44 should have a ROF of [1], there was a bit more space in the turret and the ammo was more accessible. In the T-34 much of the ammo was stored in boxes on the hull floor and covered by a rubber mat that acted as footing for the crew. So after exhausting the ready rounds the loader had to rip up the mat and fish for 2 round boxes! The T-44 had more conventional ammo racks, so should definitely not suffer in ROF compared to a T-34/85.
So take the T-44 as a basis, all T-54 mount the 100L (same performance as the one in the SU-100, 27 TK). Due to the round size and limited ammo (35) rounds, all T-54 would have NO ROF (or ROF [0]) and a B(11), limited ammo, like the SU-100. The T-44 armour is (18)/8, MP is red 16.
T-54 m1946, I would replace the 14/8 AF turret with an 18/8 AF turret to give overall armour of 18/8. MP is still red 16.
T-54 m1949, m1951, the turret becomes 26/11 to give overall armour of [18]/[8]. MP is now black 16. Add a 4 FP (DShK) AA MG for 1/4/4 MG.
Later versions add in Gyro stabilisation. The single axis gyro would be equivalent to ASL's existing Gyro rules. The later two axis Gyro would need some tweaks to the existing rules, though would be nowhere as good as current systems.
The initial T-55 would be like an upgraded T-54 m1949/51 but with no low ammo B(#) and no AAMG. Later the AAMG was reintroduced. Later still cheek armour, laser rangefinders, tube fired ATGM, reactive armour, etc, etc. An system for injecting diesel into the exhaust was also added, that produced a smokescreen trailing behind the tank.
I have some doubts about upgrading the T-54 m1949/m1951 and T-55 turret to the full 26 AF, but unless the MASL group's idea of an intermediate 22 AF step is taken up, 26 is a closer match than 18.
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
Scenario 213 has Rangers.
And then you have the IS-3 . . . what does a Patton tank do when it stumbles upon a pair of those things? I assume it retreats and calls in a nuclear strike. It's the only way to be sure.
A Russian squad is now at least partially armed with semi-automatic rifles, and conversion to AKs were in progress. If the US squad is still a 667 in 1950, the AK armed Russian squad must be a 747 at least, and the sks/LMG squad would be something like one of the semi-auto armed UN squads?
A Russian squad is now at least partially armed with semi-automatic rifles, and conversion to AKs were in progress. If the US squad is still a 667 in 1950, the AK armed Russian squad must be a 747 at least, and the sks/LMG squad would be something like one of the semi-auto armed UN squads?
If you look at what I estimated (aka guessed) for a T-54 m1949/51 you will see a better gun, the ability to IF, better mobility, cheaper but weaker hull armour than a IS-3. The IS-3 had problems with cracking armour and reliability until extensively rebuilt/modified, whilst many similar T-54 problems had been addressed as part of the T-44 program, many but not all. You also see why the IS series, which culminated in the T-10M, lost favour with the Soviets, the T-54/55 was better in nearly all respects except somewhat weaker armour all round.
From what I have read, the SKS, which used an intermediate 7.62x39mm round, had been issued to in tiny numbers and used by Soviet trial units in the final battles in Europe, though full production did commence until '49. Given that it used a different round from both the standard Mosin-Nagant and the previous Soviet semi-automatic rifle, the SVT-38/40 (both 7.62x54mmR), I suspect that the rifles were replaced entirely in a squad, leaving only the squad DP-28/DPM LMG using the old 76.2x54mmR. At least the DP/DPM ammo would supplied be in pans, so unique enough anyway. However the RPD LMG which used the 7.63x39mm round was also entering service and that would remove the need for any 7.62x54mmR rounds.
I would rate a SKS squad as 548 (E), 547 or 537 (1), 437 (2) and 426 (C). While range would be reduced a little, enough to avoid a 558 E squad, I'm inclined to use a 547 for 1 squads.
Unlike the SKS squad an AK squad's FP would depend upon the squad size, the loss of a few bolt or semi rifles will matter less than the loss of a few full auto weapons. So ...
10-13 man AK squad: 748 (E), 747 (1), 637 (2) and 526 (C).
6-9 man AK squad: 648 (E), 647 (1), 537 (2) and 426 (C).
The smaller squads were necessary for tighter vehicles like the BMP-1/2, BTR-70/80, while older APCs could carry more, like 12/14 (BTR-60), 20 (BTR-50) or 18 (BTR-152).
Last edited:
Ganjulama
Tuco B.P.J. Maria Ramirez
Doing the Coin Envelope storage has blinded me.
Justiciar
Elder Member
There shall be in time. I am certain there are a half-dozen or more at MMP already.
Evan said he has a KW pack slated for release in 2018 (will appear in daytime though,
).
Michael Dorosh
der Spieß des Forums
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 15,733
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- First name
- Michael
- Country
-
Except for payment options. No website, no Paypal, no credit cards - I think you have to go to Tampa and provide a certified check in the alley behind his house after dark.Evan said he has a KW pack slated for release in 2018 (will appear in daytime though,
Roy
Living in Brownbackistan
Noooooooooooooo!!!
That's not even possible is it? Paul, when you say something like that just put a 'JK' at the end, you kidder you....
NUTTERNAME
Member
I believe you would be correct for a T34/76, but the T34/85 actually had 14 rounds stored in the back/side of the turret, much like the T-44. Much more than many AFV's ready-rounds. Of course, this was a hazard, much like the King Tiger ammunition in its turret, but it was a design choice to get a bigger gun in the existing T34.
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
Hm, was this also due to a teething problem of the Weir M2018 version like with the basic T-44 (85L)?
von Marwitz
Yes, true, it was significantly better in that regard than the various 76mm models, but still a bit worse than a T-44. My point was not that the T-44 should be better than a T-34/85 with ASL's limited ROF granularity, which I don't think should be the case, but that it should not be worse and thus have a ROF of [1] like the T-34/85.
The T-34 used Christie suspension which meant springs sandwiched between hull side plates. That reduced the horizontal floor width available for ammo. The T-44 used torsion bars which crossed side to side and took up some vertical floor space. The lower hull height, torsion bars and no side Christie suspension elements meant that the T-34 trick of having 2 round boxes (standing on their narrow side) as a layer on the floor was impractical but left more side to side space for more conventional ammo racks. A T-44 loader, like most other nation's loaders, did not have to delve into having to uproot his floor mat for half his ammo supply, with all the fumbling and tripping possible in a moving lurching vehicle. Simply just one thing less to manhandle means one less thing to foul up.
Your comment about the Tiger II was spot on, but the Panther and Tiger I/II also had a less optimal ammo arrangement where they stowed rounds in the track overhang, just under the turret. With many competing designs there was some attempt to keep ammo below the top track run. US wet stowage was the best WW2 solution, as best I can figure.
Actually there are many T-54/55 upgrade packages being currently promoted. That's pretty impressive for a 70+ year old design! I used to be impressed by the lifespan of Sherman tank variants, especially with the IDF, but both the T-54/55 and Centurion have the Sherman beaten as regards to having moderately competitive survivors.Hm, was this also due to a teething problem of the Weir M2018 version like with the basic T-44 (85L)?
von Marwitz
Yuri0352
Elder Member
In 1980, I had the opportunity to explore the interior of a T-55 which had captured by the IDF from one of their Arab foes and was on display at Ft. Ord. I recall that there was no turret basket, and that the majority of the main gun ammunition was stored in shallow bins in the floor, beneath a series of ribbed, thick black rubber mats. I have a few photos of this vehicle packed away somewhere, but alas, no interior shots.
NUTTERNAME
Member
A better cut-away...seems there are two ready rounds directly below the loader.
Yes, the MBT concept is simply better than the Heavy/Medium/Light and the T-54 is a better tank all way around, but the IS-3 was in service before the T-54 so in a hypothetical it may be more common than the T-54. And that extra armor is significant when facing 90L MBTs.
I am very interested in 1946-55 hypothetical battles, and hope someone takes an interest, too.
A picture is worth a thousand of my words :nod:, thanks!
That's all fine if your IS-3 makes it to the battlefield! While I regard the IS-3's armour layout as quite spectacular, indeed the best protection per tonne for many a year afterwards, the more I read about it the more I regard it as a bit of a dog. While rebuilding to latest standards was fairly common after so many hours or kilometres, the IS-3 really needed it. The hull welds were prone to opening and for some reason they were mechanically unreliable. Why that was, I haven't figured out as mechanically they were little different from the IS-2 m1944 (ASL's IS-2m). Production was low, only 2311* made. It really only became a useful vehicle with the IS-3M rebuild. Indeed the IS-2 remained in service longer than the IS-3. Only Egypt got a decent number of IS-3 (100?), most other exports were IS-2, not only because they were not the "latest" and thus not a security issue, but I suspect mainly because they actually worked!
* http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_IS-III.php
What I would have loved to have seen was the IS-7. Better armour and armed with a 130mm gun derived from the Soviet destroyer gun, it would have been a real beast. Apparently easy to drive and hefting up to 300mm of armour it would have made a M103 or Conqueror jealous. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/is-7-object-260
NUTTERNAME
Member
Psych! Those aren't ready rounds. They would not move with the turret as there is no turret bustle. The 4 rounds that are on the the turret side, are the ready rounds, these would be replaced by the rear turret rounds. The hull floor rounds would then replace the rear turret rounds.
I am sure the multi-AFV platoon and company drill would dictate that if a T34 fires a few engagements, then the other platoon or company elements would take the front while that T34 replenishes.
Justiciar
Elder Member
Maybe take your T-xx live as its own ASL thread?
