The T-54/T-55 Tank.

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,707
Reaction score
1,402
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
There is a thread going on FB about the T-54/T-55 Tank. Apparently although it's armour was quite thick it was structurally weak and guns of low caliber could penetrate it. As was seen in the Arab-Israel war. CH released counters for these AFV and gave them a squared 8 AF to reflect the structural weakness. I was thinking that was too low and perhaps a squared 11 AF would be more realistic.

The 100mm Gun was also apparently inferior to the 88LL of the King Tiger. It under performed in battle. So although these AFV were very common and quick and simple to make (and are still being used to this day) they had quite severe flaws.

Do you have any info or views on the matter?
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,710
Reaction score
1,142
Country
llLithuania
Moving this to the CH sub forum as it isn't really ASL, is it?
 

macrobo

King of Boxcars
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
439
Location
Geelong Melbourne
First name
Rob
Country
llAustralia
Hi Honza

I just did a small note in the CH sub forum about the CH Annual - when I have set games up solo with these they play as usually a TK number for Israeli of AP 24 (75LL AMX13), 21 AP -28 APDS (105L Centurion and M51) or 20 AP - 25 APDS (84LL Centurion) trying to penetrate 18 with a square (so a 26 if turret) so its not easy to kill them - Though the Arabs have Red THs (and in teh desert you do get a few shots as they come) - there are often lots and lots of them and they can be 115L TK Ap 21 and APDS 25 - so its not easy in any solo play I have had to penetrate them or defend against them - so maybe there is something in what you say when its played out in the current CH scenarios - they seem tough

Cheers

Rob :giggle:
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,707
Reaction score
1,402
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
I heard that CH have given these AFV various different factors throughout various releases. The ones I saw on FB had the squared 8 AF which is a lot less than a squared 18! I wonder what the armour experts would make of these values?
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,654
Reaction score
3,757
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The T-44 and Panther both have 18 AF hull. The Panther had 80mm, the T-44 had 90mm glacis armour. The T-54 upped that to 100mm, so should get 18 AF. To get a 8 AF at that kind of slope would require the T-54 to have only 40-50mm frontal hull armour. Hull sides at 80mm should get 8 AF. As for structural weakness, I've never heard complaints in that regard. Crews freezing in winter, tight as a virgins arse, rounds rolling about the floor, old fire control, yes, falling apart, no. The IS-3 had problems with front hull armour coming apart at the welds after cross country bouncing and firing shock. That was a complex shape made up from multiple slabs welded together in the IS-3. The T-54 glacis was a big flat ignorant lump of metal with welds only where it met the side and lower glacis plate.

There are 3 turret shapes.

The first was the m1946 (T-54-1) which was a continuation of the T-34/85 and T-44 outline. Indeed distinguishing a T-54 m1946 and a T-44 could be difficult. Only small number produced due to severe reliability issues. I would rate the turret at 18/11 which would give an overall 18/[8]. This version should have Red MP and Soviet MAVN M. The Egyptians have one on display.

The second is the m1949 (T-54-2) which had the familiar inverted frying pan shape but with a noticeable overhang at the rear. The third is what we most commonly associate with the T-54, m1951 (T-54-3), similar to the m1949 but without the overhang. Both I would class as 26/11 for an overall [18]/[8].

For all above I would treat as100L T, [0] RoF ("NO IF" not applicable), B(11) (a low ammo B11).

After the m1951 things get messy. The T-54 series went under many upgrades and rebuilding resulting in a early T-54 that might be as good as if not better than a new T-55. So over time the B(11) could become B12 (a few more rounds), allow G (gyro) or better (a WW2 G is a single axis stabilisation, the T-54/55 had 1 axis then 2 axis gyros). Exhaust injection smoke generation was another moderately early addition.

Of course once you get into the late '60s to 70s you have the problem with newer generations of anti-tank rounds. For both WP and NATO guns the advances were quite astounding. To replicate that in ASL you would need date/war/country dependant TK tables. Eg In the 2 US-Iraqi wars the Iraqi T-72 were not regarded as too much of a threat to the M1 as they were using old Soviet rounds from the late '60 and '70s and had been superseded by much more formidable rounds in WP service. In Soviet parlance the Iraqis had the export "monkey model" with rounds to match.

The T-54/55 is a very formidable tank up to the mid-late '60s. Have absolutely no doubt about that. To replicate the disastrous performance in the AIWs there are many ASL soft penalties that can be used as SSRs. Examples like:
6+1 Inexperienced Crews: 'nuff said.
NO IF:
Must be BU to fire: Usual doctrine/practice.
Must be BU to fire except if an AL in vehicle: Similar but allow for a few commanders who got their shit together.
I'm sure others can think of other handicaps. To my mind the correct approach is to use ASL's existing soft handicaps to reflect crew deficiencies without turning the T-54 into a fantasy Tonka Toy. Otherwise the player might get misleading lessons from history.

The MASL (Modern ASL) group proposed an intermediate AF step of 22 (between 18 and 26). While I consider that (18->22-26) to be a more rational stepping than the existing 18->26, it's far too late for that in ASL, unfortunately I fear.
 

Mr Incredible

Rod loves red undies
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
2,483
Reaction score
374
Location
Perth, Australia
Country
llAustralia
Would have thought that basic ASL physics doesn't change from module/publisher to module/publisher.

Were those kills frontal kills or maybe side kills?

Hard to imagine the construction techniques being worse in the 1950s compared to late WW2.
 

Mr Incredible

Rod loves red undies
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
2,483
Reaction score
374
Location
Perth, Australia
Country
llAustralia
When the 90L from ASL has a 27TK for the APCR, I'd imagine that the APDS ammo would be the go-to AP ammo on the M48.

Compare that with the 18 armour and it's a final 9TK.

That seems quite reasonable.

Just meant a lot of the Israelis were rolling low on the TH to retain APCR and then the TK, surely?
 
Last edited:

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,707
Reaction score
1,402
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
Thank you Paul and everyone else.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,654
Reaction score
3,757
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The current AF given by CH for the T-54 through T-62 is 18 it seems reasonable given the circumstances. What I find interesting is that the T-54/55 had been reported as excessively vulnerable to the 90mm Cannon on the M48.
The M48, M48A1 used a version of the WW2 90mm, the M3A1. The later M48A2 and M48A3 used the better M41 90mm gun. That's ignoring ammunition improvements since WW2.

Oh, I might have been overly harsh on the T-54-1 aka m1946 as by the time the few were exported, they would almost certainly have been rebuilt. So either Black MP or Red MP but no Soviet MVN M.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,707
Reaction score
1,402
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
Which is the best product to get my hands on some T-54/T-55 counters?
 

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
868
Reaction score
357
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
I ended up buying Genesis III, Magach "73, and Lebanon '82. The nice thing is that Gen III and CH Annual #5 still have vanguard pricing unfortunately, the others do not. Oh well, there is still the 30% weekend discount. I suspect I may need some of the boards from the other sets for some DYOs stuff but those maps can be bought separately for much less.
 

g_young

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
78
Reaction score
31
Location
Wellington New Zeala
The current AF given by CH for the T-54 through T-62 is 18 it seems reasonable given the circumstances. What I find interesting is that the T-54/55 had been reported as excessively vulnerable to the 90mm Cannon on the M48.
Hey Bob, where did you get the report mentioning the T-54/55 being excessively vulnerable to the 90mm cannon of the M48?

Cheers
Gary
 
Top