"M47 & M48 vs. T-54 & T-55?" Topic
15 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Mako11 | 09 Jul 2016 11:00 p.m. PST |
Some info I've read seems to indicate that these couldn't take each other out, with frontal attacks, back in the day. Others seems to indicate they could, at close range, e.g. 1,000m or less, and in some cases, 750m – 500m, or less. So, given that, I'm not really sure what to believe. Perhaps both are correct. In reading the accounts, most matchups are M-47 vs. T-54 (though I'm not really sure the T-55 is all that different, and for others, it's the M48 (various models – talking the 90mm gun armed ones here) vs. the T-55. So, is it possible both are correct, and that initially all had difficulty taking the others out at anything other than point-blank to short range, due to older, less capable ammunition. From what I've read, it appears that once the later HEAT rounds became available, all were vulnerable to frontal attacks from their opponents. Thoughts? Good data on the subject? Much of what I've been able to gleen was off of one of the tank gaming sites – "War Thunder". Want to do some early Cold War gaming, and have the vehicles, but looking to make the games reasonably historically accurate. Any good accounts on battles between these in the Indo-Pakistani War(s), or those of the Middle East? Apparently, Jordan fielded M47s at one time. |
McWong73 | 10 Jul 2016 3:24 a.m. PST |
As did the Israelis, I'd be looking for studies of those match ups from the 6 Day war, putting aside the stories of Israeli prowess/Egyptian incompetence etc. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 10 Jul 2016 4:29 a.m. PST |
I think you also need to consider Centurions and Shermans. link on Chawinda shows that these were the tanks the Indians used, the Pakastanis using M48s. |
Weasel | 10 Jul 2016 11:46 a.m. PST |
HEAT will likely work fine but penetration results seem to fluctuate an awful lot more. Later, I can check Isby has to say on the T55, I know he includes some US army trial data but they may just focus on M60, I don't remember. For what its worth, the Steel Panthers MBT game (which is generally pretty well researched and uses real life data for its ratings) gives the the general impression that conventional rounds of M48 and T54/55 would have hard a hard time penetrating the front of each other, even at point blank but HEAT rounds should do so fine. |
Mako11 | 10 Jul 2016 12:43 p.m. PST |
That's the impression I'm left with also, for the M48 and T-55 matchup, with AP rounds not penetrating, or bouncing. HEAT gets through vs. both, assuming the critical armor slope doesn't preclude detonation of the rounds. Are there any good websites with info on the performance of Cold War tank rounds, and when they were introduced (year of availability)? |
Weasel | 10 Jul 2016 2:42 p.m. PST |
I'd be curious about any online resources as well. |
Mako11 | 10 Jul 2016 3:55 p.m. PST |
The WarThunder wiki gives shell data and penetration rates for various weapons at different ranges, to show how their on-line game is created. Even includes ricochet values. However, sadly, they don't include dates for the ammo, and in some cases, older vehicles have better ammo than that for newer ones, e.g. the M48 has an older AP variant, while the M47 has a newer one (supposedly to make the on-line game a bit more balanced). On the plus side, it's easier for us miniatures gamers to just pluck the newer shell off the M47's ammo list, and use it in the M48, but again, just wish I knew when that was introduced, in order to make scenarios a bit more historic. WarThunder is basically a website for WWII armor, but does have some early-mid Cold War selections available too, e.g. T-54/55, M46, M47, M48, JgPz Kanone, Centurion, Conqueror, M103, T-10M, JS-III, etc.. There are Tier 1 – Tier 5 tanks. I suspect there's a similar site for the Cold War armor, for an on-line game for it, but haven't run across it yet, just mention of it. I've seen up to Tier 9 I think, mentioned for that, but don't know what the game is called. Ah, found it. World of Tanks. Now, to see if they have data listings for the game. Anyone seen one, with armor penetrations, armor values for vehicles, etc., etc.? |
Mako11 | 10 Jul 2016 4:23 p.m. PST |
Found another one too, Armored Warfare Wiki, but HEAT values seem a bit low, and there's no range given for the armor penetration rates. Has simple armor values for the hull and turrets of vehicles, but they don't account for hull slope increasing the effective thicknesses of the armor, at least on the front hull of the T-54, which is rated at 120mms (only first T-54s were that thick – later changed to 100mms at 60 degrees for the majority of the vehicles). Effective armor on the glacis due to the sloping is 200mms, or so. link Here's the one for World of Tanks, but again, sadly, no info on the effective armor, due to sloping. Not sure if they take that into account in the game, or not, but since it's not listed in the armor values, I suspect not. link |
Weasel | 10 Jul 2016 7:04 p.m. PST |
The Steel Panthers ratings assume sloping in their figures (1 point in the game is 10mm effective armour, if i remember right) based on an "average shot" presumably from being on the same level. |
Chuckaroobob | 10 Jul 2016 8:02 p.m. PST |
While World of Tanks does list all the armor thicknesses, and has some kind of mechanic to account for the effects of slopes, I'm still not sure how accurate the game mechanics may be. If you go to youtube and search for World Of Tanks there are lots of videos showing different thicknesses at assorted locations, such as hatches, viewports, etc. |
Mako11 | 10 Jul 2016 9:02 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the info. Will have to check into SP. Using the WoT T-54 listing, the hull armor for it is way too low, but too high for the main production variants. Shouldn't be 120mm, but 100mm, then sloped at 60 degrees, which gives a line of sight thickness of 200mm, or so. |
Darkest Star Games | 11 Jul 2016 6:57 a.m. PST |
All I know for sure is that T-54As and M48s went at each other in Vietnam in '72 and '75, and took were able to take each other out. No idea what shells they were using, but US M48s didn't carry HEAT when in Vietnam until '69. |
Mako11 | 11 Jul 2016 7:41 a.m. PST |
Flanks shots are lethal, but it appears that without HEAT, the T-54s/55s and M48s would have difficulty taking each other out head on, at any range, unless with a lucky shot, e.g. knocking off a tread, etc.. |
Weasel | 11 Jul 2016 10:46 p.m. PST |
If they carried HEAT post 69 and fought T54 in 72, I imagine we have our answer right there ;-) |
Mako11 | 13 Jul 2016 5:39 p.m. PST |
Found some more info. Turns out US tanks had 90mm HEAT rounds at least back to 1950, or so (perhaps even WWII), with a penetration of 220mms (one reference mentions up to 250mms) – M348 round. This round was used by the M46, M47, and M48 tanks. Another person mentioned his unit received M431 rounds in 1956, after the Hungary invasion, and they had a penetration of 300mms – 320mms, if the online tank computer gaming stats are accurate. Appears that the West German Jagdpanzer Kanones also used this round, in addition to fielding them in their M47 and M48 tanks too. There might also be an upgrade from the late 1960s (1968 mentioned), and one person stated 380mms – 400mms of HEAT penetration, but I've found no posted stats anywhere to back that up. Could be the M431A1 round, or perhaps some other one for the 90mm gun (M36/M41 guns – not the vehicles). Soviet/WP 100mm D10 guns supposedly received HEAT in 1958, with a 380mm penetration capability. |
Mako11 | 20 Jul 2016 7:52 a.m. PST |
Saw a snippet photo of a magazine/book article, with a pic of the Jagdpanzer Kanone, and mention of 350mm, so could be between the two. No date, sadly, was provided. |
|