Sign in to follow this  
RoflSeal

Pattons vs T-54

In light of the fact that the US Army will face the mighty T-54, let us compare what we expect that the top tanks of each nation have to offer.

So here, I will be doing best to compare the T-54-3 to the M47 and M48 Patton including things like armor, FCS, firepower etc.

 

So lets first start with the Yugoslav opinions on the M47 vs the T-54A posted on tank-net and discuss it.

 

M47:                                                            T-54A:
Ammo load                                                Armor
Rangefinder                                              Gun, especially when using HEAT
Rate of fire                                                 Mobility
Gun elevation/depression                      Range
Crew positions                                         Lower weight
                                                    Diesel engine

 

Firstly, the T-54 in this game will probably not have the HEAT round available to it, considering that came in 1958. However we can start by comparing the guns and their ammunition. The T-54-3 will probably have the full calibre, BR-412B and BR-412D available to it as anti-tank rounds. Both of these are superior to the T33 AP shell that the 90 mm gun fires in terms of penetration. Add on the fact that the 100 mm shells have explosive charges in them that set off after penetration, in the full-calibre department, the 100mm D-10T soundly beats the 90 mm M36.

 

However the 90 mm can fire more types of armor defeating rounds, predominantly the M304 HVAP and M348 HEAT rounds.

M304 HVAP performs extremely well against vertical plates however suffers massively against angled armor, hence it cannot penetrate the T-54s glacis at even 100m according to the Yugoslav tests. The M348 HEAT round can penetrate the T-54s frontal glacis at all ranges (110mm penetration/60 degrees from vertical) however has probabilities of not fusing at angles greater then 60 degrees. So for a guaranteed penetration of the T-54s glacis, you need to essentially be directly in front of him.

 

Turret of the T-54 can be penetrated frontally from 300m for AP, 750m for HVAP and theoretically all ranges by HEAT.

 

Ammo load is vastly in favour of the M47 and M48. 71 and 60 rounds respectively compared to the meager 34 of the T-54-3 and T-54A. This was actually one of the main reasons why the Yugoslavs decided to keep the M47s and sell off the T-54A to Egypt.

For all 3 tanks general ammo loads would be 50% HE and 50% Armour defeating. In usually equal amounts of armor defeating. So in the case of the M47 you would probably have 35 HE rounds, 12 AP, 12 HVAP and 12 HEAT rounds. I don't know how much we can alter the ammo load outs when tanks come.

 

Armor on the M47 Patton is not as good as the T-54. Even though theoretically they should offer the same effective protection as they are both 100mm thick plates sloped at 60 degrees, the Patton has its glacis made from cast armour at 210BHN compared to the T-54s Rolled Homogenous armour at 290BHN. Thus the T-54s front offers better protection especially against shells that do not overmatch but on the flipside does worsen spalling. The worse protection on the M47 Patton means that the T-54 can therefore penetrate the front glacis of the M47 at 750m and the turret at 950m if firing BR-412B ammunition according to the Yugoslavs. Considering BR-412D had better armor defeating performance, therefore we increase these penetration ranges by probably 100-200m.

The M48 Patton still had a cast hull however the front was thicker (110mm vs 100mm) and so was the turret (180mm and rounded vs 115mm). This should make the M48 Patton immune to the 100mm D-10 to probably above 250-500m as a pure guess.

 

Side and rear armour on all three tanks overall can be considered to be penetrated at all practical ranges

 

Gun depression is massively in the M47 and M48s favour with -10 and -9 degrees respectively compared to -5 degrees for the T-54. Any hilly terrain will give large advantages to the American tanks.

 

The T-54 has a rate of fire of about 5-7 rounds/min of the main gun. The Pattons with their lighter ammunition and larger turrets have nearly double that.

 

Fire control systems and rangefinding

A massive advantage of the Pattons is that they have stereoscopic rangefinders which gave much better range estimates then the Stadiametric rangefinder that was on the gunners sight on the T-54. Both Pattons had TC overide, allowing the commander, if he sees a threat, to quickly turn the turret to said threat and let the gunner deal with him. The M48 Patton had a ballistic computer. The Ballistic computer meant that automatic corrections to the gun's elevation would be made depending on the range and type of round plugged in to the settings. If used correctly, the Ballistic computer could give the HEAT round (which had a relatively slow velocity and high arc) an astonishing 50% hit rate at 1,500m.

 

The Pattons had a 6x gunners sight. The gunner in the M48 is aided by a commanders 10x optical rangefinder (In the M47 the gunner has to use the rangefinder ). The T-54 had a 3.5x and 7x variable gunners sight.

 

Mobility is an area where the T-54 has the advantage in respect to both Pattons. Even though the T-54 has a lower hp/ton to both Pattons ( 14.7 vs 15.1 (M48) and 17.8 (M47), it has a lower ground pressure (0.81kg/cm3 compared to 0.83 (M48) and 1.03 (M47)) and it has a diesel engine which gives the T-54 a higher torque/ton and so it can move itself through muddy or lose terrain better then the Pattons.

 

And pictures of the Competitors

 

T-54-3

[spoiler]

 

2013-06-24-01.jpg[/spoiler]

M47 Patton

[spoiler]

M47_Patton(_Jeff_Kubina).jpg[/spoiler]

 

M48 Patton

 

[spoiler]

m-48-TANK1.jpg[/spoiler]

 

                   

4elc5Vg.png

 

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sources say 1952, some sources say 1953. 

For example

 

$T2eC16R,!zQE9s3ssNr!BQBir0znug~~60_3.JP

 

Hunnicut states that by March 27th 1953, 893 M48s had been produced, a fairly substantial number if you ask me.

 

Seems to me that some have confused the start of production with start of service. Hunnicut states that the M48 was standardized in service on the 2nd of April 1953.

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M48 Patton had a ballistic potato. The Ballistic potato meant that automatic corrections to the gun's elevation would be made depending on the range and type of round plugged in to the settings. If used correctly, the Ballistic potato could give the HEAT round (which had a relatively slow velocity and high arc) an astonishing 50% hit rate at 1,500m.

 

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobility is an area where the T-54 has the advantage in respect to both Pattons. Even though the T-54 has a lower hp/ton to both Pattons ( 14.7 vs 15.1 (M48) and 17.8 (M47), it has a lower ground pressure (0.81kg/cm3 compared to 0.83 (M48) and 1.03 (M47)) and it has a diesel engine which gives the T-54 a higher torque/ton and so it can move itself through muddy or lose terrain better then the Pattons.


Very nice overview.^^
I want to add two points at the mobility section: Even while the T-54 has lower HP/ton, some of my sources say that the transmission of the american tanks delivered less power to the road, compared to the T-54 (I hope I expressed this the right way :D )
Furthermore the diesel engine looses less power if you go high up in the mountains. Edited by Wenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could you research the possible face off of the t43E1(1st version of the M103) V.S the IS-3 or the T-10 (AKA IS-10)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could you research the possible face off of the t43E1(1st version of the M103) V.S the IS-3 or the T-10 (AKA IS-10)

I don't know we might have to wait and see what is on the US army tree before comparing tanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few things..

 

 

First very good overall

 

Buut....Comparing the M-47 to the T-54A is woefully moot, it's a 1951-2 tank against a 1956 Tank, second....I'd like to see a non-Soviet read out (Soviet sources have and can be very misleadingly/wrong)

 

 

The M-48 is an entirely different tank than the M-47 (M-47 is a branch from the M46, and the M-48 was a new chasis), lumping the two together is generally a bit of a no no...Also, all the T54A stuff is moot (well past time cut off). 

 

That said Wenin what your looking for (it's a bit off cursed english!) Is that the US transmission put a higher % of power to the Ground compared to the Soviet transmissions (As you have the Power -at- the Engine, then you lose a % of it through the transmission and drive train normally in the 10%-20% margin of overall power lost, also known as Power-to-the-wheels), and hp/ton is a statement more on how it handles in mud/soft ground when it becomes important....

 

 

That said I can't say enough how important that better Fire Control system really is on the M-48 over the T-54...the T-54s total inability to fire on the move compared to Western MBTs got it slaughtered against the Israels and that is likely to occur here as well. But then again....the Sabre had a Radar gunsight that somehow 'isn't' in the game.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few things..

 

 

First very good overall

 

Buut....Comparing the M-47 to the T-54A is woefully moot, it's a 1951-2 tank against a 1956 Tank, second....I'd like to see a non-Soviet read out (Soviet sources have and can be very misleadingly/wrong)

 

 

The M-48 is an entirely different tank than the M-47 (M-47 is a branch from the M46, and the M-48 was a new chasis), lumping the two together is generally a bit of a no no...Also, all the T54A stuff is moot (well past time cut off). 

 

That said Wenin what your looking for (it's a bit off cursed english!) Is that the US transmission put a higher % of power to the Ground compared to the Soviet transmissions (As you have the Power -at- the Engine, then you lose a % of it through the transmission and drive train normally in the 10%-20% margin of overall power lost, also known as Power-to-the-wheels), and hp/ton is a statement more on how it handles in mud/soft ground when it becomes important....

 

 

That said I can't say enough how important that better Fire Control system really is on the M-48 over the T-54...the T-54s total inability to fire on the move compared to Western MBTs got it slaughtered against the Israels and that is likely to occur here as well. But then again....the Sabre had a Radar gunsight that somehow 'isn't' in the game.

I can use the T-54A considering it and the T-54-3 shared the same armor profile.

I could compare the guns, because the 100mm D-10T and 100mm D-10TG shared the same armor defeating performance if firing the same rounds.

And I didn't mention anything that the T-54A had past the cutoff. I didn't mention the stabilizer, extra fuel tanks, automatic fire extinguishers etc that the T-54A had over the T-54-3.

And it's not Soviet sources. The comparison was made by the Yugoslavs. And the Yugoslavs were so biased they decided to sell off the T-54As to Egypt and keep the M47s in service till the 80s

M48 might be a entirely different tank hull and turret wise (which I mentioned) but the engine was the same, the gun, ballistically, was the same (The M48 had a quick-change barrel for easier maintenance), the Fire Control System was the same (the only difference was that the rangefinder was controlled by the TC, not the gunner as in the M47). The big internal difference was the ballistic computer that the M48 had (again, which I mentioned)

And the M48 couldn't fire on the move. It had no stabilizer.

 

 

Does the US tank have a stabiliser?

No, the US dropped stabilizers after WW2 until the M60A1(RISE)

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said Wenin what your looking for (it's a bit off cursed english!) Is that the US transmission put a higher % of power to the Ground compared to the Soviet transmissions

Nope, the other way around.
 
 
 

"Ungünstigerweise ging beim amerikanischen M46 das gute Leistungs-Masse-Verhältnis durch den schlechteren Nutzungskoeffizienten der Kraftübertragung verloren."


 
"The good power-to-weight-ratio of the M46 was lost due to the worse coefficient of the transmission"
 

Both Pattons had TC overide, allowing the commander, if he sees a threat, to quickly turn the turret to said threat and let the gunner deal with him.

The T-54 had also an override, although i'm not sure in which version.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think T-54 or T-55 had TC override, probably later versions sure. I'm certain the T-62 was the first Soviet tank to introduce it.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think T-54 or T-55 had TC override, probably later versions sure. I'm certain the T-62 was the first Soviet tank to introduce it.


I have here Soviet Mediums:T44, T54, T55&T62, it says "Traverse and elevation of the turret is obtained by either manual or electrical control, with an overriding facility for the commander."
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh yes I see, the TPK-1 and later TPKU-2b commander sight had a button so that the turret would snap to where the commander's sight was looking.

Not a true TC override (I know on Chieftain that the commander had a joystick that could full control vertical and horizontal movement of the turret) but still, it does the job.

 

EDIT: added size comparisons to the OP. May not be 100% accurate, but they are to the best of my ability.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to thank the OP for this very thorough overview. I am very excited about these tanks in particular and learned a lot about them in this post. Can't wait to command the M48 in combat! 

Yeah same here but I'm gone to wait until the US tank tree comes out instead of guessing whats on it. We know the M48 Patton in here but what is Rank 20 heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You thought Stalin wood was tough... just wait until you get a load of Stalin Steel.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says there -is- a Rank 20 heavy?

 

This isn't WoT were all tiers go to the maximum tier.

 

/Side note, likely a M103 Production/prototype of the first version of the tank, the T43 or somesuch

 

Also a minor side note..on terms of ground pressure .83kg/m compared to .81kg/m isn't actually that big of a difference (Appox. King Tiger to TIger IE) in terms of what is clearable/not.

Edited by Sakuzhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Don't worry, America will get the M48A5.

 

No the M48A1 or M48A2, M48A3 with the 90mm gun we don't get the M48A5 with the 105 gun , The M48 did not get the 105 until mid-1970s the timeline for this game is 1953.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*rolls out T-64 and T-72* Shall they come with their puny imperialistic tanks.

All man if they go that high in the time line i would happy, I would see my M60A1,M60A2 and M60A3 also the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 and my favorite M1A1 Abrams but the M1A2 is much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gt6UW5X.png

Comparison of penetration for the guns of T-54, Centurion with 20pdr, and M47 and M48.

Data is not standardized to one criteria. Each nation has their own penetration criteria and it takes too much effort and adds too much uncertainty to convert them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.