Jump to content


T-54/55 analysis.


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

okjoek #1 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 22103 battles
  • 3,203
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
 
 
I wanted to learn some more about the most widely produced tank in history so I looked in all the typical easy access places like Wikipedia and Youtube.
I for one don't think of the tank as "trash" because it's Russian. The Russians have a lot of problems, but being able to make things simple and reliable is not one of them. That said though the tank does have some major flaws.
 
It didn't have a turret basket (making the turret floor turn with the turret) as far as I know,
The gun didn't depress far enough,
nor was it stabilized
it was a bit too small which hampered crew tasks
and the Ammo wasn't stored very safely which could lead to catastrophe far more easily.
 
These are my basic understandings of the tank's flaws. Other than these things it was perfect for when it was introduced having a lot of useful features learned about during the second world war.
 
A lot of advantages it has are...
Sloping frontal armor
Low profile
Diesel engine
Torsion bar suspension
Simplicity (as mentioned)
It can make smokescreens
It can have mine rollers attached to the front
The T55 had countermeasures for radiation from nuclear weapons
and the fact is was easy to produce and maintain. I mean nearly 100,000 were built!
 
It's still used by a lot of countries today, but it's a far cry from the main battle tanks of the 21st century. Things that would make it more useful upon being modernized I think would be to actually reduce the armor thickness a bit since steel plate is only useful against small arms fire, and 100+mm I think is overkill for that. This would also help towards making the tank more roomy and light. It needs a better gun too such as the L7 105mm gun. It would have to be given more high tech stabilization and targeting systems also. I would also add a seperate ammo stowage compartment extending out of the rear of the turret or something because I would not want to be trapped in one of these things after being hit.
 
 

 

What do you guys think of this tank and what can you tell me about it that I may have missed?


Edited by okjoek, Apr 24 2014 - 19:02.


Tpaktop2_1 #2 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 45244 battles
  • 3,062
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

This tank is the bases for the Chinese Type 59.

 

 

Update: Back in 2012 I wrote an article based on a Strategy and Tactics magazine article talking about the T-54/T-55 tank. However, it appears it has been purged from the forums. :sad: Shame, it was a good post too.

 

BTW, the difference between the T-54 and T-55, for weapons nothing, however the T-55 has NBC capability to survive in those conditions.


Edited by Tpaktop2_1, Apr 24 2014 - 16:41.


IcedBroom #3 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 35047 battles
  • 5,541
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostTpaktop2_1, on Apr 24 2014 - 10:15, said:

This tank is the bases for the Chinese Type 59.

Ummmm no it's the other way around. The type 59 is based on the t-54 chassis.



okjoek #4 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 22103 battles
  • 3,203
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostIcedbroom, on Apr 24 2014 - 11:17, said:

Ummmm no it's the other way around. The type 59 is based on the t-54 chassis.

No, I get what he's saying. He's not saying that it came first. I'm not sure however what the Type 59 improved on in the design. I thought it was mostly just a copy.


Edited by okjoek, Apr 24 2014 - 16:21.


lexica #5 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24502 battles
  • 517
  • Member since:
    02-28-2012

View PostIcedbroom, on Apr 24 2014 - 16:17, said:

Ummmm no it's the other way around. The type 59 is based on the t-54 chassis.

I think you two meant the same thing...



Tpaktop2_1 #6 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 45244 battles
  • 3,062
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View PostIcedbroom, on Apr 24 2014 - 11:17, said:

Ummmm no it's the other way around. The type 59 is based on the t-54 chassis.

 

 

That's what I said.

 

Block Quote

  It was produced by the Soviet Union, some of their client states, and China. About 95,000 of all models were made. It is by far the most widely produced tank in history. The Israelis use a version called the Ti-67 which is a captured T-55 with new electronics and a 105mm main gun. The T-55 is no longer produced but some nations do offer upgrade packages and it is still widely used throughout the world. A Chinese variant the type 59 and 69 is still manufactured, but most production of the standard T-55 ended in 1979. It is still the most widely utilized tank in the world.

 

 



Yoott #7 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:25

    Commissioner of the WGLNA

  • Administrator
  • 24487 battles
  • 7,359
  • Member since:
    09-21-2011

This was one we saw in Warsaw for the Grand Finals a few weeks back it tagged as a 54/55.

 

Spoiler

 

 

This was T54 I saw yesterday at a museum

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Yoott, Apr 24 2014 - 16:28.


mc4nb_2016 #8 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5371 battles
  • 408
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostYoott, on Apr 24 2014 - 11:25, said:

This was one we saw in Warsaw for the Grand Finals a few weeks back it tagged as a 54/55.

And a random Yoott pops in, :blinky:



IcedBroom #9 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 16:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 35047 battles
  • 5,541
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostYoott, on Apr 24 2014 - 10:25, said:

This was one we saw in Warsaw for the Grand Finals a few weeks back it tagged as a 54/55.

 

Spoiler

 

 

This was T54 I saw yesterday at a museum

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey yoott why cant we have the t-55 i think it is in the 1st picture? Also I DEMAND U GET RID OF THAT DUMB FLAT SPOT ON MY T-54! You can clearly see the t-54 don't have one in the pictures you showed!



okjoek #10 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 19:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 22103 battles
  • 3,203
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostIcedbroom, on Apr 24 2014 - 11:38, said:

Hey yoott why cant we have the t-55 i think it is in the 1st picture? Also I DEMAND U GET RID OF THAT DUMB FLAT SPOT ON MY T-54! You can clearly see the t-54 don't have one in the pictures you showed!

Which picture are you talking about and which flat spot?



BlackForestPike #11 Posted Apr 24 2014 - 22:18

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9701 battles
  • 964
  • [UFP] UFP
  • Member since:
    09-01-2011

Block Quote

 It didn't have a turret basket (making the turret floor turn with the turret) as far as I know,

The gun didn't depress far enough,
nor was it stabilized
it was a bit too small which hampered crew tasks
and the Ammo wasn't stored very safely which could lead to catastrophe far more easily.

 

The T-54 didn't have the turret basket, the T-55 did.

True.

Actually the T-54 had a stabilization system similar to the ones used on US Lend-Lease tanks.

True, but you have to remember that Soviet Tank Crews were chosen on the basis of many things, one of them being their height. Small space? No problem, get some small guys.

And true.

 

More cons-

 

To unload the main gun, the gun had to be fully elevated so the case could be pulled out. This meant that second shots were much slower than western counterparts, plus the gunner needed to fine tune the aim again.

The engine was made out of magnesium. If hit, magnesium tends to burn.

The tank uses a simple stadiametric rangefinder, though this means it can engage targets much faster at short ranges.

The "dead" tracks were simpler, but were much more prone to jumping out of place during sharp turns.

The driver either had to have some muscles to steer the tank, or would leave the tank with some. The clutch and brake steering system was not equipped with a hydraulic or pneumatic assist. Some newer Czech or Polish models have this though.

 

Pros

Block Quote

Sloping frontal armor

Low profile
Diesel engine
Torsion bar suspension
Simplicity (as mentioned)
It can make smokescreens
It can have mine rollers attached to the front
The T55 had countermeasures for radiation from nuclear weapons
and the fact is was easy to produce and maintain. I mean nearly 100,000 were built!

 

Ah, the iconic upside down frying pan look screams SOVIET.

Also, it's small. At just eight feet, it's only a little taller than a man, though Soviet tankers were much, much shorter than the average.

Yep, there's a reason almost all tanks today are diesel.

Not sure if the torsion bar suspension is an advantage, more of a choice than an actual improvement. Still, most tanks today are torsion bar, though it's been done much earlier than the 50s.

Soviet simplicity.

The T-54 used smoke canisters, but as Soviet engineering realized, they could just spray diesel fuel onto the hot exhaust manifold. This system was used on the T-62.

So can a lot of tanks, but the ability to do so is good.

Yep.

Yep, it was also helped that many other Eastern Bloc countries were manufacturing it also.

 

More pros-

 

With a snorkeling system and plenty of sealant on the hatches, the T-54/55 could cross rivers.

It was equipped with an Infrared night vision system, though it was an active system, meaning that an infrared headlight illuminated whatever it was pointed at, and an infrared periscope could see in total darkness. A passive infrared scope could detect the tank if the headlight was on. But it was there.

 

Other stuff-

Some T-54/55s were upgraded with the L7, one example being the Israeli Tiran-4Sh, in which captured T-54/55s were upgunned and modernized, and then put into service, though most were exported shortly after to many countries, including the US for use in OPFOR training.

A T-54 was driven onto the British Embassy during the Hungarian Revolution, and the examination of the D10T gun led to the development of the 105mm L7.

The T-54 had a hull machine gun.

 

All in all, the T-54 and the T-55 are tank that work. They may not be as a higher quality as Western tanks, but they work. That's it. They work.

 

Source - Steven Zaloga Modern Soviet Armor, and a few others I don't remember but probably should. This would never be accepted in a professional paper, but this is not a professional place. So ha.



okjoek #12 Posted Apr 27 2014 - 02:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 22103 battles
  • 3,203
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostStrilight, on Apr 24 2014 - 17:18, said:

 

The T-54 didn't have the turret basket, the T-55 did.

True.

Actually the T-54 had a stabilization system similar to the ones used on US Lend-Lease tanks.

True, but you have to remember that Soviet Tank Crews were chosen on the basis of many things, one of them being their height. Small space? No problem, get some small guys.

And true.

 

More cons-

 

To unload the main gun, the gun had to be fully elevated so the case could be pulled out. This meant that second shots were much slower than western counterparts, plus the gunner needed to fine tune the aim again.

The engine was made out of magnesium. If hit, magnesium tends to burn.

The tank uses a simple stadiametric rangefinder, though this means it can engage targets much faster at short ranges.

The "dead" tracks were simpler, but were much more prone to jumping out of place during sharp turns.

The driver either had to have some muscles to steer the tank, or would leave the tank with some. The clutch and brake steering system was not equipped with a hydraulic or pneumatic assist. Some newer Czech or Polish models have this though.

 

Pros

 

Ah, the iconic upside down frying pan look screams SOVIET.

Also, it's small. At just eight feet, it's only a little taller than a man, though Soviet tankers were much, much shorter than the average.

Yep, there's a reason almost all tanks today are diesel.

Not sure if the torsion bar suspension is an advantage, more of a choice than an actual improvement. Still, most tanks today are torsion bar, though it's been done much earlier than the 50s.

Soviet simplicity.

The T-54 used smoke canisters, but as Soviet engineering realized, they could just spray diesel fuel onto the hot exhaust manifold. This system was used on the T-62.

So can a lot of tanks, but the ability to do so is good.

Yep.

Yep, it was also helped that many other Eastern Bloc countries were manufacturing it also.

 

More pros-

 

With a snorkeling system and plenty of sealant on the hatches, the T-54/55 could cross rivers.

It was equipped with an Infrared night vision system, though it was an active system, meaning that an infrared headlight illuminated whatever it was pointed at, and an infrared periscope could see in total darkness. A passive infrared scope could detect the tank if the headlight was on. But it was there.

 

Other stuff-

Some T-54/55s were upgraded with the L7, one example being the Israeli Tiran-4Sh, in which captured T-54/55s were upgunned and modernized, and then put into service, though most were exported shortly after to many countries, including the US for use in OPFOR training.

A T-54 was driven onto the British Embassy during the Hungarian Revolution, and the examination of the D10T gun led to the development of the 105mm L7.

The T-54 had a hull machine gun.

 

All in all, the T-54 and the T-55 are tank that work. They may not be as a higher quality as Western tanks, but they work. That's it. They work.

 

Source - Steven Zaloga Modern Soviet Armor, and a few others I don't remember but probably should. This would never be accepted in a professional paper, but this is not a professional place. So ha.

Thanks for sharing!



BeingBadNotBeingGood #13 Posted Apr 27 2014 - 02:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9808 battles
  • 5,662
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010

View PostStrilight, on Apr 24 2014 - 16:18, said:

 

The T-54 didn't have the turret basket, the T-55 did.

True.

Actually the T-54 had a stabilization system similar to the ones used on US Lend-Lease tanks.

True, but you have to remember that Soviet Tank Crews were chosen on the basis of many things, one of them being their height. Small space? No problem, get some small guys.

And true.

 

More cons-

 

To unload the main gun, the gun had to be fully elevated so the case could be pulled out. This meant that second shots were much slower than western counterparts, plus the gunner needed to fine tune the aim again.

The engine was made out of magnesium. If hit, magnesium tends to burn.

The tank uses a simple stadiametric rangefinder, though this means it can engage targets much faster at short ranges.

The "dead" tracks were simpler, but were much more prone to jumping out of place during sharp turns.

The driver either had to have some muscles to steer the tank, or would leave the tank with some. The clutch and brake steering system was not equipped with a hydraulic or pneumatic assist. Some newer Czech or Polish models have this though.

 

Pros

 

Ah, the iconic upside down frying pan look screams SOVIET.

Also, it's small. At just eight feet, it's only a little taller than a man, though Soviet tankers were much, much shorter than the average.

Yep, there's a reason almost all tanks today are diesel.

Not sure if the torsion bar suspension is an advantage, more of a choice than an actual improvement. Still, most tanks today are torsion bar, though it's been done much earlier than the 50s.

Soviet simplicity.

The T-54 used smoke canisters, but as Soviet engineering realized, they could just spray diesel fuel onto the hot exhaust manifold. This system was used on the T-62.

So can a lot of tanks, but the ability to do so is good.

Yep.

Yep, it was also helped that many other Eastern Bloc countries were manufacturing it also.

 

More pros-

 

With a snorkeling system and plenty of sealant on the hatches, the T-54/55 could cross rivers.

It was equipped with an Infrared night vision system, though it was an active system, meaning that an infrared headlight illuminated whatever it was pointed at, and an infrared periscope could see in total darkness. A passive infrared scope could detect the tank if the headlight was on. But it was there.

 

Other stuff-

Some T-54/55s were upgraded with the L7, one example being the Israeli Tiran-4Sh, in which captured T-54/55s were upgunned and modernized, and then put into service, though most were exported shortly after to many countries, including the US for use in OPFOR training.

A T-54 was driven onto the British Embassy during the Hungarian Revolution, and the examination of the D10T gun led to the development of the 105mm L7.

The T-54 had a hull machine gun.

 

All in all, the T-54 and the T-55 are tank that work. They may not be as a higher quality as Western tanks, but they work. That's it. They work.

 

Source - Steven Zaloga Modern Soviet Armor, and a few others I don't remember but probably should. This would never be accepted in a professional paper, but this is not a professional place. So ha.

The Centurion never had a turret basket either. The Soviets at the time saw turret basket having more disadvantages than advantages, being extra weight, height and additional maintenance issues. They simply added seats that are fixed with the turret.

 

The gun didn't have to change elevation during the loading phase. The D-10 had a semi-automatic breech, meaning the case gets ejected with recoil. Screw breeches were done away with since the D-25 in the IS series.

They often changed the elevation during the loading phase because it was easier to load, but it wasn't technically required. It's the T-62 that required changing the elevation as part of the shell ejection system.

 

 

Speaking of modernization, T-54/55 had some of the biggest modernization programs, some including a 125mm main gun and a lot of ERA. Although they won't be as good as a modern MBT, they are still extremely powerful vehicles.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users