Jump to content


T54 Armour Effectiveness Test


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

Stirlitz #41 Posted 27 December 2010 - 07:13 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 10401 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    10-13-2010

View Postdanger1988, on 27 December 2010 - 05:20 PM, said:


_ah , if you said about quality of steel , than all german tank will have a lot better armor than their counter part. According to history information (again) , german steel is better than british steel at least 1.3 times except the composite steels that was planned to use on e-100 , it should be better than german normal steel at least 1.7 times.

Starting with the King Tiger, the german steel was inferior as there was a lack of alloying elements at the end of the war. The effective KT armor wasnt much better than the tigers in reality, even not penetrating rounds could do hell of damage and crack up the armor.

Hornet331 #42 Posted 27 December 2010 - 09:09 PM

    Colonel

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

View PostStirlitz, on 27 December 2010 - 07:13 PM, said:

Starting with the King Tiger, the german steel was inferior as there was a lack of alloying elements at the end of the war. The effective KT armor wasnt much better than the tigers in reality, even not penetrating rounds could do hell of damage and crack up the armor.

That has more something to do with the face hardening of the plates, the process was done slopy in the later years and the more common use of Tungsten penetrators which had so much energy that the energy was enough to shatter this plates.

bulldog1986 #43 Posted 28 December 2010 - 04:30 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010

View PostSykotic, on 27 December 2010 - 04:02 AM, said:

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.



To answer that specific question, your darn right I would and I would penetrate EVERY time, specially on the IS4, oh and not just from 100 meters or so, I am talking from over 300-600 meters still penetrating their frontal armor, and aiming for the tracks is a moronic idea in itself, half the time you hit the tracks, you track them with no damage to the health of the tank whatsoever, making them still a stationary threat with a very capable and still active gun, while you suck your thumb waiting to reload......

Journier #44 Posted 28 December 2010 - 09:21 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
hi guys, ive been reading about the t-54 etc.

And earlier today i faced down quite a few T-54's in my IS-4 with upgraded gun etc.

At range i found it impossible to penetrate their hull due to probably the s-70 gun on IS-4 being innacurate at range and forcing me to hit their stupid turret multiple times in a row.

IF you look at t-54 frontally, their hull is tiny, and their turret is about the same size, so you get a 50/50 chance with aiming reticle hit either or.

Well earlier today i apparently got very unlucky because I hit a t-54, 4 or 5 times in front armor with my s-70 gun and BOUNCED every time.

Well of course i raged for like an hour at how overpowered t-54 is.

Then i got someone to do a training battle with me, and i got to see what my gun could do closer up to t-54 armor.

The hull armor on t-54 isnt impenetrable, i hit the mid hull armor 3x in a row for a penetration each time.

However the turret armor, seems beastly unless you hit it right in a slightly flat spot on the front to either side of the barrel.

So, has my opinion changed on t-54?

At range? good luck killing it when its barrelling in on you, its too tiny to hit consistently on hull or tracks unless you have a accurate gun to track it with a nice shot. I reccomend HE and hope for some kind of disabling shot.

at close up? That thing can moveeeee and circle you until your dead unless you have friends. Once it gets in close you might as well exit battle and start playing another battle with another tank, because if your in a heavy that a t-54 keeps tracking, you aren't gonna shoot him again.

anyways thats my thoughts on it from an IS-4 driver.

SummerWars #45 Posted 28 December 2010 - 09:38 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 44
  • Member since:
    07-07-2010
that testing T54 was me. We also did a test with T32. Well the T32 bounced a lot, but somehow he could pen me on my turret :))

SkttLes #46 Posted 28 December 2010 - 09:51 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010

View PostJournier, on 28 December 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

anyways thats my thoughts on it from an IS-4 driver.
doing it wrong

SummerWars #47 Posted 28 December 2010 - 10:11 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 44
  • Member since:
    07-07-2010
On the contrary, I still manged to beat a T54 4-2 with my IS4. Well, it just happened in training battle. In real fighting, it would be different because of other factors (driver's skills, obstacles..etc)

Warbadger #48 Posted 28 December 2010 - 10:23 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 80
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View Postbulldog1986, on 28 December 2010 - 04:30 AM, said:

To answer that specific question, your darn right I would and I would penetrate EVERY time, specially on the IS4, oh and not just from 100 meters or so, I am talking from over 300-600 meters still penetrating their frontal armor, and aiming for the tracks is a moronic idea in itself, half the time you hit the tracks, you track them with no damage to the health of the tank whatsoever, making them still a stationary threat with a very capable and still active gun, while you suck your thumb waiting to reload......

They also have a very quick track repair time, so they'll be moving again in a matter of seconds anyways.

Journier #49 Posted 28 December 2010 - 10:28 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostSkttLes, on 28 December 2010 - 09:51 AM, said:

doing it wrong

thanks for the information. Very helpful.

Quote

that testing T54 was me. We also did a test with T32. Well the T32 bounced a lot, but somehow he could pen me on my turret :))

Those penetrations were also at like 100 meters? or so, and for some reason he kept bouncing off your hull armor lol, but kept penetrating the turret, it was very funny lol.

And we had limited time with you, but id like to test penetrating shots on the turret sides where i spoke of since i think thats how he kept penetrating your turret, on each side of the gun, theres a slightly more flat spot of turret armor that provides a good hit spot.

ElcomeSoft #50 Posted 28 December 2010 - 10:29 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 6455 battles
  • 115
  • [MOP] MOP
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010
I have fought against the T-54 a few times and here are my feelings re: penetration.

ISU-152 with BL-10: The T-54 is darned hard to hit but when you do, it's just like any other tank you hit with the BL-10. Most of the times, you're going to penetrate.
SU-152 with 152mm HE gun: No penetration but it takes around 25% per hit. Set a T-54 on fire by hitting the front of it's turret while it was at a 45 degree angle to me with my second shot.
T-43/T-44 with second 85mm or 100mm: Not many damaging shots. Did not bounce very much around any of the surfaces. Mainly aimed for the side of the hull or the tracks and scored a lot of critical hits for 0 HP damage. Not sure what to make of that.
KV with 107mm: T-54 was coming around a corner at a mild angle. Not aiming for me but trying to hit an M6 who was spamming his 'Help!' button like a madman. 4 shots, 4 hit, zero bounces/no penetration hits. Scored 2 damages and 2 criticals for 0%.

In my overall experience, the T-54's don't bounce a hell of a lot but they feel similar to the way I feel about T-44's. I score a lot of hits on them that deal zero HP damage but probably mess up their internals to some degree. Also to note they are difficult to hit due to their low profiles and speed/turning ability.

Make of the above what you will. Maybe I'm just lucky, I don't have more than a few samples and nothing scientific. All based on feeling through combat experience.

panzerd #51 Posted 28 December 2010 - 11:19 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010
I just got my t54, and whilst it is very impressive it still needs to be played as a medium when paired against similar tiered tanks.  If you are in a tier 8 heavy (even tier 9/10) and complaining about not being able to penetrate the t54's FRONTAL ARMOR then you need to go back to tanker school. It's tier 9.  Heavies now have to do more than just point-and-shoot, just like every other branch on the tech tree has to do already.  OK, that was an over-simplification, but you can figure out the context for yourselves.

I for one am satisfied that my tier 9 medium can take on tier 8 heavies and have a fair to good chance of winning...  tier 9 to 10 is when it starts to get tough, as it should.

Stirlitz #52 Posted 28 December 2010 - 11:35 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 10401 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    10-13-2010

View PostElcomeSoft, on 28 December 2010 - 10:29 AM, said:

I have fought against the T-54 a few times and here are my feelings re: penetration.

ISU-152 with BL-10: The T-54 is darned hard to hit but when you do, it's just like any other tank you hit with the BL-10. Most of the times, you're going to penetrate.
SU-152 with 152mm HE gun: No penetration but it takes around 25% per hit. Set a T-54 on fire by hitting the front of it's turret while it was at a 45 degree angle to me with my second shot.
T-43/T-44 with second 85mm or 100mm: Not many damaging shots. Did not bounce very much around any of the surfaces. Mainly aimed for the side of the hull or the tracks and scored a lot of critical hits for 0 HP damage. Not sure what to make of that.
KV with 107mm: T-54 was coming around a corner at a mild angle. Not aiming for me but trying to hit an M6 who was spamming his 'Help!' button like a madman. 4 shots, 4 hit, zero bounces/no penetration hits. Scored 2 damages and 2 criticals for 0%.

In my overall experience, the T-54's don't bounce a hell of a lot but they feel similar to the way I feel about T-44's. I score a lot of hits on them that deal zero HP damage but probably mess up their internals to some degree. Also to note they are difficult to hit due to their low profiles and speed/turning ability.

Make of the above what you will. Maybe I'm just lucky, I don't have more than a few samples and nothing scientific. All based on feeling through combat experience.


I have no problem circling an IS4 to death but when a KV starts shooting HE at me, I run like a little girl. The typical verdicts are always gunner/driver as well as the gun itself and the engine/fueltank. Basically everything gets through its side and while doing zero or low damage you always get some modules fried. I do not really like that as I find myself positioning my front to the enemy and remain stationary (and play like a dumbed down heavy). I would rather have my front armor to be weaker and sides a bit less vulnerable to internal damage. So nerfing its front down to 100mm wouldnt be such a bad idea.

TempSGK #53 Posted 28 December 2010 - 04:07 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9072 battles
  • 1,035
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
I don't know about you guys but the T44 90mm frontal armour plate can also bounce shots from  100mm 175 penetration guns and any gun 85mm and below can bounce or any gun 144 mm penetration below is always bounce.     High calibre guns bouncing  on front armour plate is just luck on T44 but it does happen.

SO I would say the 120mm frontal value of the T54 greatly increase the bounce spectrum.
In my T44 I always face enemy frontally if enemy wants to shoot me, because facing side my biggest worries is tracks being destroyed, now with my T54 I'm doing the same as what I did with my T44.        

(thinking about it, if you play Battlefield bad company 2, and you drive a tank like the M1a2 Abrams or T90 you will play like how the T54 is playing in WOT, facing enemy frontally, taking less damage)

Lord_Invader #54 Posted 28 December 2010 - 05:11 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    08-10-2010

View PostHornet331, on 27 December 2010 - 09:09 PM, said:

That has more something to do with the face hardening of the plates, the process was done slopy in the later years and the more common use of Tungsten penetrators which had so much energy that the energy was enough to shatter this plates.

Actually, the armor problem stemmed from the fact that as the war progressed, the manganese, nickel and vanadium mines that the Germans used for creating alloys were overrun and they simply didn't have the elements to make malleable alloys any longer, hence the plates were brittle and shattered easily componded by the problem that they were also more difficult to weld because of the inferior metallurgy. Face hardening went out of style in 1942 after capped projectiles became the norm, the face hardening of armor was an expense that added no further value at that point over simple cast or RH armor.

I have an article somewhere where armor from different countries was tested post war, and as much as it may pain many here, the Soviet steel was actually more resistant during the war than Krupp armor. When I find it I will post a link.

As for the T54, I don't think that I have killed one yet, but I got in a medium furball the other day that included one, and the 76mm on my easy8 didn't seem to have a problem going through the sides and rear. I think the T54 is fine as is, I certainly give it the respect it deserves but I do not think it is OP by any stretch of the imagination.

krowmagg #55 Posted 28 December 2010 - 06:13 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    10-09-2010
WOW!!! who knew there were so many tank experts in the gaming community. I have a T54 and by no means is it godlike. And it does not bounce all that many shots off it's hull by T9 and T10 tanks. Sorry guys not every shot is gonna be a "HEAD SHOT"

Hornet331 #56 Posted 28 December 2010 - 11:05 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 16285 battles
  • 3,922
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
The sides and the rear are no real problem for any gun to penetrate on the T54.

But its hard to get on the side or on the back of a t54 if your alone and your not tracking him. So maybe a mobility (travers speed) nerf would be a good thing to make him more vurnable.

TempSGK #57 Posted 28 December 2010 - 11:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9072 battles
  • 1,035
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
T54 is already more vulnerable, , no tank,  no tank meaning any medium, light, heavy, etc can get to the side in a 1 vs 1 battle with a T44 because of reverse speed and traverse speed so with the T54 its the same as T44.

FilipMinee #58 Posted 28 December 2010 - 11:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 17616 battles
  • 1,443
  • [BE_NL] BE_NL
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

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.

That is true but panther II has better gun and more hp.

Sempronius #59 Posted 29 December 2010 - 01:38 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 250
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010
I just had a look at different T54 drivers profile and noticed interesting thing: typical win ratio is far above 50%. As we know from Overlord and US tanks this is the most vital statistcs that devs are looking at. ;)

(sarcasm off)

Journier #60 Posted 29 December 2010 - 01:55 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostSempronius, on 29 December 2010 - 01:38 AM, said:

I just had a look at different T54 drivers profile and noticed interesting thing: typical win ratio is far above 50%. As we know from Overlord and US tanks this is the most vital statistcs that devs are looking at. ;)

(sarcasm off)

i also looked at the win ratio of some people defending the t-54 here and they have quite the amazing win rate with a t-54, obviously this will all just balance out after a few thousand games.... but a few of them have 200+ already with a t-54 <_< with like a 70% win rate ^ :lol:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users