Jump to content


T54 Armour Effectiveness Test


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
103 replies to this topic

GinGinLime #1 Posted 25 December 2010 - 03:48 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 4147 battles
  • 148
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010
Okay so this was kinda of impulse test since I saw a T54 in the chat, but I tested the T54 armour against 100m D10T( T34/85-T44 gun, same pen as IS guns 175mm) and 105mm T5E1(T29 and T32 gun, 198mm pen), with the D10T I utterly failed to penetrate from 100m and 50m the front hull upper, middle and lower, couldn't get through the turret either, turret ring didn't seem to go through but I may need to retest that. The turret was also impenetrable. No video unfortunately you'll have to take my and Pahech's(T54 driver) word for it(soorrryy forgetful).

The weakness is the turret hatch which I could get through with D10T however it's not exactly an easy target. Also interesting to note, the little cover over the tracks lacks a hitbox the shot just ghosts through.

With the 105mm I got one shot out of 10 through at 100m range and 1 out of 10 got through at 50m aiming frontal hull, the turret can be penetrated at a similar rate and the turret ring is also vulnerable like the hatch.

I did try aiming at what looked like a drivers vision slit, but that didn't work either.

I don't have any higher pen guns to test with so I hope someone can test guns with aroung 220pen against one, we did try to minise any angling and face each other as directly as we could manage. But I will try later if I can with an observer to help make sure there is no angling.

Now I started with Soviet meds and only dropped progress there to get a US heavy, but restarted progress with the new patch, I've also been against the whole "anything soviet is OP" brigade before so it's not me being biased.

Great thanks to Pahech for lending his T54 for this impromptu test.

The T54 had the stock turret btw.

Will try and find a Panther 2 and Pershing to test against but as is, the T54 is frontally at least near invulnerable to T7 heavies(maybe the 88 L71 could get through but it's only 5mm more pen than 105mm T5E1) and T8 meds without precise aiming(easier said than done if not a static slugfest), before we all rush to calling it OP remember it is a T9 tank and the T9 heavies are also bitches to kill from the front, if other meds aren't then despite the T54's firepower disadvantage it could be best( near immune to T8s other than KT,IS3,Ferd,ISU and all below).

I'd reccomend anyone with the inclination to pursue this further, video their tests and fire off at points (hull/turret) till their out of ammo rather than 10 shots and do similar vs Pershing and Panther 2.

ArmorShark7 #2 Posted 25 December 2010 - 03:56 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2128 battles
  • 213
  • Member since:
    08-22-2010

View Postcastironhamster, on 25 December 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

Okay so this was kinda of impulse test since I saw a T54 in the chat, but I tested the T54 armour against 100m D10T( T34/85-T44 gun, same pen as IS guns 175mm) and 105mm T5E1(T29 and T32 gun, 198mm pen), with the D10T I utterly failed to penetrate from 100m and 50m the front hull upper, middle and lower, couldn't get through the turret either, turret ring didn't seem to go through but I may need to retest that. The turret was also impenetrable. No video unfortunately you'll have to take my and Pahech's(T54 driver) word for it(soorrryy forgetful).
Since I just managed to kill one in my T-43, with the help of a Panther and a heavy, I can confirm that the front of this tank is, in fact, very tough.

You MUST attack the sides.

I was even forced to ram it uphill to prevent it from running away.
:D

Can anybody with some technical data confirm/refute that the front hull armor is sloped at 60°, or something like that? At a 60° angle the armor is pretty much doubled.

ZiggyDeath #3 Posted 25 December 2010 - 04:34 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 97
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010

View PostArmorShark7, on 25 December 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

Can anybody with some technical data confirm/refute that the front hull armor is sloped at 60°, or something like that? At a 60° angle the armor is pretty much doubled.
Would like to point out that multiple tanks have 60degree sloped plates, none of them effectively correspond to a doubling (IS-4 with the old 120mm thick glacis being one example, was maybe around the 180ish marker). Although it wouldn't surprise me if it were true in the case of the T-54, after several friends (who all have better aim than me) repeatedly bounced 88mm L/71 in straight on fire.

I also get the sneaking suspicion that this may have changed in 6.2, since the last time I checked plate effectiveness was during the last patch.

Pahech #4 Posted 25 December 2010 - 05:19 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010
It surprised me how effective the armour is against even ~200 penetration guns.  I noticed how on the 2nd day T8 and T7 tanks are starting to throw HE at me instead of APing, which is a sure sign of players reacting to tough armour.  

After this little test, I started playing like a heavy against T7 heavies and T8 mediums for pretty impressive results, especially as many players are still not accustomed to the whole "mediums dinging heavies" schism.  The only weakness remains the gun department, but that isn't even that big of a problem once fully upgraded.

Although not tested, IS-3 and KT upper end guns are highly effective against me, so T-54 driver should still continue to operate medium tendencies against them.

Hornet331 #5 Posted 25 December 2010 - 06:08 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 16285 battles
  • 3,922
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
KT can penetrate the front of a T54 with 10.5 so can the is3 bl9, tohught sometimes there are crazy dings...

The long 88 also has very good chance to penetrate, but the dmgis very low...

Malexa #6 Posted 25 December 2010 - 07:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 28945 battles
  • 570
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010

View PostArmorShark7, on 25 December 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

Since I just managed to kill one in my T-43, with the help of a Panther and a heavy, I can confirm that the front of this tank is, in fact, very tough.

You MUST attack the sides.

I was even forced to ram it uphill to prevent it from running away.
:D

Can anybody with some technical data confirm/refute that the front hull armor is sloped at 60°, or something like that? At a 60° angle the armor is pretty much doubled.

T-54 wikipedia

The T-54s 99mm front armor equalled roughly 200mm effective armor so obviously 120mm results in atleast 240mm effective. The effective armor of the Pershing and Panther 2 is roughly 146mm. Only tier 8+ heavies have a chance of penetrating the front armor of T-54s, I don't have the best gun on the panther 2 yet myself so not sure if other t9 mediums have any chance of penetrating it. Pretty much anything that panthers 2s and pershing run into can easily penetrate their front armor.

SkttLes #7 Posted 25 December 2010 - 07:28 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010
It's really funny when it's turret bounces a 130mm shell  :Smile-izmena:

Sykotic #8 Posted 25 December 2010 - 09:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 571
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
This would tend to fit in with Wargaming.net's overall design philosophy. If we accept that the Panther (Tier 8 Heavy) is basically a Tiger (Tier 7 Heavy) with increased mobility and a T-44 is an IS with increased mobility then it would make sense for a T-54 to be an IS-3 with increased mobility and the Panther II to be a KT with increased mobility.

Also, the T-54 (and T-44 as well) front armor is a 30° slope from the horizontal. That would give the T-54 240mm relative thickness (180mm for the T-44).

Malexa #9 Posted 26 December 2010 - 01:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 28945 battles
  • 570
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010

View PostSykotic, on 25 December 2010 - 09:44 PM, said:

This would tend to fit in with Wargaming.net's overall design philosophy. If we accept that the Panther (Tier 8 Heavy) is basically a Tiger (Tier 7 Heavy) with increased mobility and a T-44 is an IS with increased mobility then it would make sense for a T-54 to be an IS-3 with increased mobility and the Panther II to be a KT with increased mobility.

Also, the T-54 (and T-44 as well) front armor is a 30° slope from the horizontal. That would give the T-54 240mm relative thickness (180mm for the T-44).

The Panther 2 isn't anything remotely close to a faster KT however, It's effective armor is aroudn 80mm less. While the T-54 has more effective armor than the IS-3 by quite a bit.

theta0123 #10 Posted 26 December 2010 - 01:39 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8222 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostMalexa, on 25 December 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

T-54 wikipedia

The T-54s 99mm front armor equalled roughly 200mm effective armor so obviously 120mm results in atleast 240mm effective. The effective armor of the Pershing and Panther 2 is roughly 146mm. Only tier 8+ heavies have a chance of penetrating the front armor of T-54s, I don't have the best gun on the panther 2 yet myself so not sure if other t9 mediums have any chance of penetrating it. Pretty much anything that panthers 2s and pershing run into can easily penetrate their front armor.
wowowow wait a minute. The T54 has 99mm of armor THICK? And ingame it is 120?

knuck58 #11 Posted 26 December 2010 - 02:02 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 24905 battles
  • 47
  • [TFHUK] TFHUK
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 26 December 2010 - 01:39 PM, said:

wowowow wait a minute. The T54 has 99mm of armor THICK? And ingame it is 120?

Surely not a 20% nerf on the way ala US Heavies  :lol:

Hornet331 #12 Posted 26 December 2010 - 02:29 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 16285 battles
  • 3,922
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 26 December 2010 - 01:39 PM, said:

wowowow wait a minute. The T54 has 99mm of armor THICK? And ingame it is 120?

The first models T54-1 had 120mm, they later switched to 100mm in 1951 with the T54-3.

But you know whats funny... the engien you get (V-55U) is form 1958... the 100mm D-54 is form 1954 (and that gun was also used in the T-62)

With all the upgrades its basically a T55 (which saw service in 1958)...  :Smile_harp:

Sykotic #13 Posted 26 December 2010 - 03:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 571
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View PostMalexa, on 26 December 2010 - 01:38 PM, said:

The Panther 2 isn't anything remotely close to a faster KT however, It's effective armor is aroudn 80mm less. While the T-54 has more effective armor than the IS-3 by quite a bit.
You are overstating the T-54 vs. IS-3 when it comes to armor effectiveness. Finding solid information about the front slope on the IS-3 has proved to be difficult but it looks to be around 45°. 110mm at 45° would put it at 155mm. However, there is ALSO a lateral slope as well on the front of the IS-3. Basically the IS-3 forces shells left/right and up. Assuming the lateral slope is around 30° it would make the relative combined angle 20.7° and give the front armor an effective rating of 311mm. Furthermore the IS-3 has more side armor as well.

After looking over both the IS-3 and T-54 this morning I would say that my previous statement is in fact correct. The T-54 is essentially a faster, more maneuverable IS-3 while a Panther II is a faster, more maneuverable King Tiger. Just looking at stats in the Tech Tree the T-54 does look like it will be superior to the Panther II. However, early reports from Panther II drivers say that the 10.5cm L/52 cannon is very impressive and maintains the firepower advantage of the Panthers over the T-44/T-54. The gap is less now than before with the Panther/T-44.

The Pershing maintains the American design philosophy of firepower. The 105mm T5E1M2 is the best DPS gun and don't let the accuracy number fool you. The Pershing has gyro stabilizers so it is much more accurate on the move than either the Panther II or T-54. Most people with the Pershing say that accuracy while moving is flat out amazing. It is also the only tank of the 3 that can mount it's best gun with upgrading the turret or tracks.

Overall, after looking at all 3 Tier 9 tanks, I have to say that they are fairly well balanced and all fall within the overall design philosophy of each tree. I am sure there will be a few tweaks here and there, but I doubt there will be any major changes. I would expect a 20mm reduction in the front glacis plate of the T-54 bringing it's effective front armor down to 200mm. That is just a guess on my part though. Other than that I doubt we will see any other visible changes.

Hornet331 #14 Posted 26 December 2010 - 04:21 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 16285 battles
  • 3,922
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
is3 armor is here:
http://es.wikipedia....indaje_IS-3.jpg
http://es.wikipedia....indaje_IS-3.jpg

Cygnus_A #15 Posted 26 December 2010 - 04:37 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 10097 battles
  • 45
  • Member since:
    10-23-2010
What I do find stupid is that stock Panther II starts out with a crap gun.

Sykotic #16 Posted 26 December 2010 - 06:33 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 571
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View PostHornet331, on 26 December 2010 - 04:21 PM, said:

I was fairly close then on my estimates. This is of course assuming that Wargaming.net took in to account the lateral slope. Given how much attention they have paid to all the other numbers in the game I doubt that they would just use the vertical slope in penetration calculations. The IS-3 should be much harder to penetrate from the front (directly in front that is) than the T-54.


View PostCygnus_A, on 26 December 2010 - 04:37 PM, said:

What I do find stupid is that stock Panther II starts out with a crap gun.
I have to agree here. I see no reason that they shouldn't have started with the 8.8cm L/71 cannon. Have the 7.5cm L/100 as an option (that thing is a sniper rifle) and the 10.5cm as the final gun. Or at the very least have the 8.8cm L/71 mountable without a turret or track upgrade like is possible on the Pershing.

Alteisen #17 Posted 26 December 2010 - 08:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16739 battles
  • 1,292
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010

Quote

I have to agree here. I see no reason that they shouldn't have started with the 8.8cm L/71 cannon. Have the 7.5cm L/100 as an option (that thing is a sniper rifle) and the 10.5cm as the final gun. Or at the very least have the 8.8cm L/71 mountable without a turret or track upgrade like is possible on the Pershing.

It uses the stock turret (+10mm frontal armour but otherwise the same) of the Panther which can only mount the peashooter cannon. If it could mount anything larger, there is no reason why the Panther can't either.

bulldog1986 #18 Posted 27 December 2010 - 03:23 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010
Here is how effective it is....I just had a match in my IS7, at 10...thats right 10!!! meters, I bounced 4 shots from a 130mm gun off a T54's frontal armor......now you tell me it isnt overpowered......and dont give me any of that its the next gen tank design its supposed to be like that.....ITS A 130MM GUN!!!!

Sykotic #19 Posted 27 December 2010 - 04:02 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 571
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View Postbulldog1986, on 27 December 2010 - 03:23 AM, said:

Here is how effective it is....I just had a match in my IS7, at 10...thats right 10!!! meters, I bounced 4 shots from a 130mm gun off a T54's frontal armor......now you tell me it isnt overpowered......and dont give me any of that its the next gen tank design its supposed to be like that.....ITS A 130MM GUN!!!!
That is well within the penetration value range of the T-54's armor. With 240mm of effective frontal armor it would have a chance (albeit diminishing with every shot) of bouncing 130mm shells. The penetration range is 195mm to 325mm for the 130mm with the average being 260mm. So, if each shot fell under -10% deviation then it would bounce the shot on frontal armor. It would be and even higher chance of bouncing if you shot the front turret armor.

So, in your Tier 10 Heavy Tank you are upset because you can't just roll over a Tier 9 Medium tank? Would you shoot 4 times at the front of an IS-4 or JagdTiger? Then why are you doing it with a T-54? Why not aim for the left or right tracks? Fail troll is fail. Just because you drive an IS-7 doesn't mean you no longer have to aim.

CrazyCrave #20 Posted 27 December 2010 - 04:41 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010
I agree with Bulldog as i tired the 122mm on the t54 .. but like any tank such as a is4 the lowest part of the front (belly) has a weak area the HE shells will penetrate and what i plan on useing on all t54's ..




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users