Similar reasons to the 2S19M1/2 not having the armor of a T-72 if I had to guess. It isn’t meant to be on the frontlines, so why waste the materials on giving it tank level protection when it shouldn’t need it.
19 Likes
As Hurlalala describes above.
Look at the Gepard. Based on the Leo 1 chassis. Has lower armor requirements.
I thought the chasis were reused from tanks, so it should have same armour values as the tank (except the turret ofc)
Seems i was wrong
4 Likes
Soviet Union was not that broken, the amount of road wheels and driver’s entrace may be a good hint that it’s not the exact same chassis, same applies to the Chinese PLZ05 with a larger chassis.
1 Like
It is based only on the chassis of the T-54, running gear engine and transmission. The Hull is where the armor layout is which is why you see a difference from the T-54.
Delete more armor = more space for ammo and other machinery, and the less weight you have the less maintenance you have to do, less fuel to consume, and more places you can access (esp in places like Vietnam).
It’s designed for rear units protecting tanks and other assets. It’s not meant for direct combat, and it’s armor is just enough to resist shaprnel from artillery and small arms fire.
Also, the ZSU-57-2 isn’t exactly too light. It’s 28 tons, just 7.5 less than the T-54. If you force bolt on the armor (more surface area to cover due to the giant machinery) and have it as effective as T-54 it’s gonna be very heavy.
Chassis and armor are 2 different things tho