Ground vehicles US T54E2

[arczer25 5,202]

 

T95E3 (T95 hull and T54E2 turret) picture to show turret frontal profile

 

US T54E2 (prepare for wall of text)

compared to T54 and T54E1 it didn't had auto-loader so it is available in game.

Hunnicut Firepower:

"In late 1952, Detroit Arsenal began a study of third type of 105mm gun turret similar to that on the T54, but eliminated the automatic loader to simplify the design and minimize weight and cost. On 18 May 1953, OTCM 34795 designed the new model as the 105mm gun tank T54E2 and authorized the manufacture of two pilot vehicles. This was later increased to three with the Cadillac Gage hydraulic turret control system installed and electric amplidyne system in third pilot. Like the other tanks in the series, the cast turret on the T54E2 had narrow front with small gun shield and a large bustle to balance the long 105mm gun. The armor range d from 4 inches at 60 degrees from the vertical in front to 2.5 inches at 0 degree in the rear. An aircraft armaments model 108 cupola was installed on right side of turret rood for the tank commander and small flat hatch was provided for the loader. The main weapon, now designed as the 105mm gun T140E3 was mounted upright with the breechblock moving down to open. The new T174 gun mount occupied less space and was lighter than previous mounts. It consisted of a concentric recoil mechanism with a separate counter recoil cylinder underneath the gun. The normal recoil distance was only 10 inches compared to 12 inches in the T54 and 14 inches for the 90mm gun in the M48 thus saving additional space in the turret. A .30 caliber coaxial machine gun was fitted in left side of the mount."

"A new  new feature of the T54E2 was the shock mount arrangement to isolate the primary fire control equipment from the turret armor. The shock mount was bolted to the race ring flange and did not contact any other part of the turret casting. The tank commander's T46E3 range finder, the mount for the gunner's M16E1 periscope sight, the ballistic computer T32, and the ballistic drive T37 were all installed ion the shock mount. This arrangement reduced the transmission of shock to the fire control instruments from any hit on the turret unless it was struck near the race ring. It also eliminated errors resulting from thermal expansion of the turret casting. In addition to the periscope sight, a T156E2 telescope was installed on the right side of the gun mount. It was protected when not in use by armored telescope door operated from inside of the turret.

(skipping on T54/M48 (m48 with T54E2 turret)

"Development of the T54 series was terminated by Ordnance Committee action in January 1957 and OTCM 36741, dated 12 February 1958 directed that both T54 and one T54E1 turret be scrapped. The hulls were turned in as serviceable items. The renaming T54E1 tank was shipped to the Ordinance Museum at Aberdeen. As stated previously, the T54E2 turret were assigned to T95 program. Their hulls also were turned in to supply."

 

in end T54E2 design turret was keep changing until it landed on M60A1.

 

Specifications:

 

Weight:

combat loaded:  49.44 Tons

empty:  46.26 Tons

 

Engine:

Continental AV-1970-5B

Net horsepower: 704HP at 2800RPM

Gross horsepower: 810HP at 2800RPM

Net Torque: 1440 ft-lb at 2000RPM

Gross Torque: 1610 ft-lb at 2200RPM

 

Transmission:

Cross-drive CD-850-4 2 ranges forward 1 reverse

Gear ratio 5.08:1

Overall usable ratios

reverse: 17.8:1

low: 13:1

high: 4.5:1

Pivot capable

 

Suspension:

Torsion bar

6 road wheels per side

5 return rollers per side

Shock absorbers fitted on 1 two road wheels and on last one on each side

 

Tracks:

Type 96 and 97

ground contact length 157.5 inches

 

Armor

both hull and turret cast.

Hull:

upper front plate 110mm 60 degree

lower front plate 102mm to 62mm 53 degree

Sides front 76mm

         rear 51mm

Rear upper 38mm 30 degree

        lower  25mm 60 degree

Top  front 57mm

        rear 25mm

Floor front 38mm

        rear 25mm

 

Turret:

Front and gun shield equivalent to 102mm 60 degree (possibly more due to ballistic shape of turret), different cast variations the lower is slope the higher is armor thickness like on M103

Sides 51-89mm 10 degree

Rear 64mm 0 degree

Top 25mm

 

Armament:

Primary:

105mm T140E3 in Mount T174

Traverse: hydraulic or amplidyne and manual 360 degree at rate 17s/360 degree

Elevation: hydraulic or amplidyne and manual + 20 to - 10 at rate 4 degrees / second

Fire rate: to 6 rounds per minute

No stabilizer.

Ammunition:

Sharp nosed AP-T (APBC-T) T182E1 weight 15.9kg velocity 1067m/s

HVAPDS-T (APDS-T) T279 weight 6.2kg velocity 1554m/s

HEAT-T (HEAT-FS-T) T298E1* weight 10.2kg velocity 1128m/s

Target Particle round with tracer (TP-T) T79E1 weight 15.9kg velocity 1067m/s

HE T246** weight 12.15kg velocity 731m/s

HVAP-T (APCR-T) T29 weight 11.8kg velocity *approx 1280m/s using T12 propellant, normally 1173m/s

HEP T297 unknown weight and velocity, round is based on T81 (M327) HEP

APC-T (APCBC-T)*** T13 weight 18.5kg velocity 900m/s

ammo count: 39

 

notes

*3.02 lb Comp-B charge

**Comb-B filling Fuse PD, T177E3, New thin wall design to increase the amount of lethal fragmentation

*** APCBC-HE-T approx 173g explosive D

 

Secondary:

.50 M2 MG in copula with ammo supply 1850 rounds

.30 M1919A4E1 MG coaxial with ammo supply 4750 rounds

provision for 1 .45 SMG M3A1

provision for 1 0.3 carbine M2

 

Fire control and equipment:

Primary weapon

direct                            indirect

Range finder T46E3    Azimuth indicator T28

Periscope M16E1        Elevation quadrant M13

Ballistic drive T37         (T21)

Ballistic computer T32  Gunner's quadrant

Telescope T156E2        M1 or M1A1

Vision Devices:

                     direct                indirect

driver            hatch                Periscope M7 (T36) x3 and Periscope T41 infrared

commander  vision block x5  Periscope T42 (0.5 M2 MG sight)

gunner          none                 Periscope M16E1

loader           hatch                 none

 

Mobility:

Gross HP/Ton: 13.8

Net HP/Ton: 11.8

Ground pressure: 12.4psi

Maximum sustained speed: 27miles/hour (43.45km/h)

Range ~70miles (112km)

 

Gun penetration characteristic:

Sharp nosed AP-T (APBC-T) T182E1 (shatter gap should be fixed)

approx*

US tests:

127mm at 55 degree 1000m complete penetration of 285BHN plate above 1100m partial penetration (approx 279mm 0 degree for complete penetration, WW2 ballistic forma give 275mm so very close)

my estimate

0 degree

point blank range penetration 317mm based on ballistic coefficient and 90mm M318 APBC+information that T182 is uncapped T32 APCBC

10m=316.5mm

100m=312mm

250m=306mm

500m=295mm

750m=285mm

1000m=275mm

1250m=265mm

1500m=256mm

1750m=247mm

2000m=238.5mm

2500m=222mm

3000m=207mm

4000m=179.5mm

60 degree

10m=116mm

500m=109mm

1000m=102.6mm

1500m=96.4mm

2000m=90mm

 

old outdated penetration

 

241mm of RHA at 0 deg at 1km
197mm of RHA at 0 deg at 2km
100mm of RHA at 60 deg at 1km
82mm of RHA at 60 deg at 2km

 

HVAPDS-T (APDS-T) T279

approx from 90mm T137 APDS (T279 use the same core as T137), but firing velocity for 90mm 137 APDS would be helpful to improve approx accuracy.

127mm 60 degree 200-800m (unknown range)

 

HEAT-T T298E1

0   deg = 381mm

30 deg = 330.2mm

55 deg = 218.44mm

60 deg = 190.5mm

 

Target Particle round with tracer (TP-T) T79E1

particle round possible that it have 50-75% power of T182E1, but unconfirmed.

 

HE T246

only PD fuse

 

HVAP-T (APCR-T) T29

 

performance with 26 lb round @ 1173 m/s
 

                        Range - Yards*
Angle    P.B.     500       1000       1500           2000

0       381        360.68    335.28    312.42       292.1

20     345.44   320.04    299.72    276.86       254

30     287.02   266.7      248.92    231.14       215.9

45     193.04   180.34    167.64    152.4         139.7

 

Estimated for 1280m/s T12 propellant used in T140

0 degree

PB        410mm

414m    388mm

928m    361mm

1856m  314mm

 

 

HEP T297

unknown

APC-T (APCBC-T) T13*

                        Range - Yards
Angle    P.B.     500       1000       1500           2000

0       215.9     208.28  195.58    185.42       180.34

20    198.12    190.5    182.88    172.72       165.1

30    182.88    172.72  165.1      157.48       149.86

45    132.08    127       119.38     111.76       132.08

 

*credits to Whelmy for T13 APCBC-T and T29 HVAP-T 1173m/s penetration.

 

my suggestion is to second line from upcoming m48.

 

here is my suggestion line for tier 5 with T series line.

Edited August 7, 2016 by arczer25

[CokeSpray 7,262]

Open for discussion. :salute:

[arczer25 5,202]

Open for discussion. :salute:

thx

[SMS_Elbing 7,052]

YES YES +1

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Sounds interesting, I'll take one.+1

[ItsCalledSoccer 96]

Por favor gaijin +1

[Apache_Warrior 607]

Oh, that looks very nice and sexy...

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

thx

 

Where would you propose to fit it in the US TT?

 

Somewhere after M103....?

 

my suggestion is to tab it with upcoming m48 versions as last one.

 

 

Just saw that...... :facepalm:

 

Uhh... alright then... But there's like... 5 different M48 variants... Not sure I would fancy researching 5 vehicles just to get this one (Presuming most/all of those will cost the same or more than M47 patton, which would be ~1,600,000 RP, plus the RP value of T54. Maybe tab the 90mm patton 48's and then tab it under the A5 before the M60?)

 

 

Just so you end up with M48 (early w/ M41 90mm, iirc), and then the M48A5 (late)... or somewhere in between?

Edited April 4, 2016 by BlitzkriegWulf

[arczer25 5,202]

Where would you propose to fit it in the US TT?

 

Somewhere after M103....?

 

 

 

Just saw that...... :facepalm:

 

Uhh... alright then... But there's like... 5 different M48 variants... Not sure I would fancy researching 5 vehicles just to get this one (Presuming most/all of those will cost the same or more than M47 patton, which would be ~1,600,000 RP, plus the RP value of T54. Maybe tab the 90mm patton 48's and then tab it under the A5 before the M60?)

 

 

Just so you end up with M48 (early w/ M41 90mm, iirc), and then the M48A5 (late)... or somewhere in between?

that's only my suggestion, T54 was developed after first T48 (M48) and later along with further m48 variants they even mixed them using M48 hull and T54E2 turret.

 

T54E2 is superior in term of frontal protection, ammunition (compared to M48 armed 90mm M41, 105mm M68 have similar performance) and gun elevation ranges (slightly + 20 - 10, compared to +19 - 9), at cost of mobility (1.5hp/t loss compared to 1 M48, but later M48 lose this advantage) and rate of fire (T-54 6RPM, M48 about 10-11RPM).

Edited April 4, 2016 by arczer25

[blockhaj 3,557]

Um auto loaders are not banned in war thunder. The early t54's shouldnt be a problem to add either.

[arczer25 5,202]

Um auto loaders are not banned in war thunder. The early t54's shouldnt be a problem to add either.

usually when someone start with auto-loader immediate arrive people that cry how auto-loader is imbalanced and game-breaking.

 

anyway auto-loader variants are heavier, have worse ballistic shape (protection) of turret, auto-loader takes time to reload (with decreased mobility it is even worse problem) and they look worse.

Edited April 4, 2016 by arczer25

[Panzerzwerg 2,678]

Yeah but where? Before or after the M48?

[arczer25 5,202]

Yeah but where? Before or after the M48?

more after, as it is stronker than normal M48 and on par with M48 armed with 105mm M68

 

moar pictures of that beast

 

 

 

War-gaming except for T54E1 added one of testing variants of T54E2 with used M48A2 hull and was armed with even bigger 120mm T123E6 (light weight 120mm M58 from M103)

original testing variant of M48A1/T54E2 (someone created strange rubber dust shield)

and with T123E6 (M48A1/T54E2/T123E6)

now WG creation

 

 

 

and armor.

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by arczer25

[Panzerzwerg 2,678]

It looks super awesome. Is it inferior to the M60 tho?

[arczer25 5,202]

It looks super awesome. Is it inferior to the M60 tho?

T54E2 have sightly lower HP/T frontal hull armor (110mm/60 vs 93mm/65 on upper front plate and 102-63mm/53 vs 143-85mm/55 on lower front plate) and lower RoF, but have better turret armor, slightly better gun elevation values (+20 -10 vs +19 -9).

guns are almost equal.

T54E2 better fits hull down combat, while M60 is better on level ground engagements due to much stronger hull armor.

overall M60 is somewhat better due to RoF advantage.

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

Nothing game breaking and would fit in relatively well. So I guess... Why not? 

[ItsCalledSoccer 96]

T54E2 have sightly lower HP/T frontal hull armor (110mm/60 vs 93mm/65 on upper front plate and 102-63mm/53 vs 143-85mm/55 on lower front plate) and lower RoF, but have better turret armor, slightly better gun elevation values (+20 -10 vs +19 -9).
guns are almost equal.
T54E2 better fits hull down combat, while M60 is better on level ground engagements due to much stronger hull armor.
overall M60 is somewhat better due to RoF advantage.

Do you mean it has better turret armor than the M60 as in the one in game, or the M60a1? If the former, how does it compare to the M60a1?

[arczer25 5,202]

Do you mean it has better turret armor than the M60 as in the one in game, or the M60a1? If the former, how does it compare to the M60a1?

to M60, M60A1 have similar turret protection (if not sightly better), but probably lose bit of mobility due to weight increase still it new turret allowed for elevation of +20 and -10.

T54E2 lose in all areas when against M60A1

Edited April 4, 2016 by arczer25

[ItsCalledSoccer 96]

to M60, M60A1 have similar turret protection (if not sightly better), but probably lose bit of mobility due to weight increase still it new turret allowed for elevation of +20 and -10.
T54E2 lose in all areas when against M60A1

Thanks for the info!

[Deathbringer007 118]

Sure why not +1

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

War-gaming except for T54E1 added one of testing variants of T54E2 with used M48A2 hull and was armed with even bigger 120mm T123E6 (light weight 120mm M58 from M103)

original testing variant of M48A2/T54E2/T123E6 (someone created strange rubber dust shield)

 

 

Hmm, suppose we could go like: 

 

M46

 

(folder) M47 -> M47E X (M47E1 or E2) -> M47M

 

(folder) M48 -> M48A1 -> M48A2

 

BREAK in the progression line (Arrows leading from one tank to another)

 

Have the T54E variants (Essentially negates the need to purchase these? Or, we could just leave the progression line in, and have a pretty long road to the M60...)

 

(Folder) M48A2C -> M48A3 -> M48A5

 

RESUME the progression line 

 

(Folder) M60, M60A1, other flavors of M60.

[Ava_Winters 179]

I really love the tank but I doubt it will be done seeing the U.S does have a few options that were produced. 

[arczer25 5,202]

Hmm, suppose we could go like: 

 

M46

 

(folder) M47 -> M47E X (M47E1 or E2) -> M47M

 

(folder) M48 -> M48A1 -> M48A2

 

BREAK in the progression line (Arrows leading from one tank to another)

 

Have the T54E variants (Essentially negates the need to purchase these? Or, we could just leave the progression line in, and have a pretty long road to the M60...)

 

(Folder) M48A2C -> M48A3 -> M48A5

 

RESUME the progression line 

 

(Folder) M60, M60A1, other flavors of M60.

like this?

[attachment=195354:late_tech_tree.png]

[Panzerzwerg 2,678]

like this?

late_tech_tree.png

 

A dream

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

like this?

late_tech_tree.png

 

Yeah. Only for the reason that, I don't want to grind 4-5 M48's before I can get one of these, and, I dont want these to hamper peoples progress to "end-game" tanks, if that is their desire. I think like this, it works out best for everyone, as, it's minimal research to get them, and minimal research to just ignore them and move on.

 

 

Although, maybe, we could have the M48A2C somewhere? It had an updated FCS, i think that Hunnicutt mentioned.

 

Other than that, perfect! :)