Correze, France
Joined: June 10, 2004
KitMaker: 5,329 posts
Armorama: 5,204 posts
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012 - 07:19 PM UTC
Hello Mauro,
it looks like those links are no longer valid. They all lead you to Russian text pages with information on various AFV.
Visit my site Click the banner
"La reine des batailles, j'ai nommé l'infanterie"
Napoléon
Milano, Italy
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012 - 07:28 PM UTC
Yes, it's true Karl
But the idea of sloped armour was already known at the beginning of the war. Actually it's an idea which came from the design of ancient fortifications and city walls after the introduction of fire weapons.
The main difference is that a flatter tank, has armours with more acute angles, then the relative thickness of them is higher
According to this theory, it's more convenient using the torsion bar suspensions rather than the Christie ones. Christie suspensions need room for the springs, this space avoids obtainig a flatter hull.
This is another reason why, in my humble opinion, T54 can be considered as the first tank of modern era
cheers
...well in my opinion T-55 isn' t just a tank. Actually it is THE TANK...
Removed by original poster on 05/14/19 - 04:17:56 (GMT).
Milano, Italy
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 11:56 AM UTC
That's absolutely true I agree with you, but we have to consider that torsion bars (with any guide rollers and big wheels) requires a stronger hull structure, so the advantage of a simplier suspension is partally counter balanced.
Compare the small limit of the t-34 suspemsion arm...
...to the "huge" one of the T-54/55 suspension
In my opinion the possibility to "flatten" the tank was the factor that made the difference
Quoted Text
In effect exactly the same as the T-34/76, a good simple design that could be produced in high numbers.
Yes, that's it. It was their philosophy. They started to have some problems when they needed to produce large series of tanks which had to be more sophisticated. All in all T-62 T-64, T-72 and T-80 haven't been so successful.
Here a great site with the evolution of T-54...lots of drawings there
http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut10/SuT5455/SuT5455105.htm...well in my opinion T-55 isn' t just a tank. Actually it is THE TANK...
Removed by original poster on 05/14/19 - 04:18:42 (GMT).
Milano, Italy
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 12:56 PM UTC
I agree
Better tanks....have improved the helicopters
But The T-54 was conceived when a "Toatal" air war was a concept which wasn't applied (it didn't even have any Mg-s on the turret). The first Gulf war was probably the first example of it
...well in my opinion T-55 isn' t just a tank. Actually it is THE TANK...
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 02:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Help to produce a proper T-54. This is distinct from the T-55 just to make sure information is not confusing, as it sometimes can be. Anyone can add information. I will try to post updated information at the top of this thread to make a quick, one stop information source, but it will be kept intentionally focused as quick help. Detailed discussion will still remain in the thread itself. All contributions welcome.
why dont you just build trupeter's t-54?
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 02:15 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Look how the hull shape of the T-34/76 is almost identical to the T-55 hull shape in side profile.
Torsion bar suspension I tend to view as simply a low maintenace solution to a problem, a solution that also lends itself very well to mass production on a very large scale.
The Torsion bar system has fewer moving parts, its much simpler is design, and is perfect for mass production.
The Russians were in effect with the T-55 preparing for another conflict, I dont think they viewed the end of WW2 as the 'End', they were simply preparing for yet another conflict, and this time they planned to be ready.
The T-54/55 was designed from the outset to be produced on a very large scale, hit your enemy with high numbers, shock tactics,
In effect exactly the same as the T-34/76, a good simple design that could be produced in high numbers.
there there was another tank you forgot about that was put in to use in the closing months of ww2 it was the t-44
Milano, Italy
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 07:03 PM UTC
[/quote]
there there was another tank you forgot about that was put in to use in the closing months of ww2 it was the t-44[/quote]
In my first comment I said..."T-44 the Grandfather"
You're right Nick, it was little diffuse, but it represents an important evolution step.
As you can see in this drawing, it was quite close to a T-34/85...but it was lower!
Here the armour schemes from the T-34/76 to T-55. As you can notice T-44 was the Link which connected the T-34/85 from the T-54
T34/76-85
T-44
T-54 1947
T-54-1949
T-54 A
T-55
...well in my opinion T-55 isn' t just a tank. Actually it is THE TANK...
Milano, Italy
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 07:14 PM UTC
Quoted Text
why dont you just build trupeter's t-54?
I have the Trumpeter T-54 B and I'd say that it's quite uncorrect in shape and it has rough details.
To have a good replica is better modifying the Tamiya T-55
...well in my opinion T-55 isn' t just a tank. Actually it is THE TANK...
Milano, Italy
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 07:17 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hello Mauro,
it looks like those links are no longer valid. They all lead you to Russian text pages with information on various AFV.
I know Olivier...
Unfortunately Tankmaster site has changed. Now all that interesting walkarounds are no more available
...well in my opinion T-55 isn' t just a tank. Actually it is THE TANK...
Canada
Joined: June 16, 2010
KitMaker: 48 posts
Armorama: 46 posts
Posted: Monday, May 06, 2013 - 03:27 AM UTC
Has anyone verified the accuracy of the Legend T-54 update kit to the Tamiya kit?
What version of the T-54 does it claim to depict? And is the engine deck of the Tamiya still incorrect for this setup?
Thanks.
United States
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 400 posts
Armorama: 151 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 04:29 AM UTC
Kharkov you said "In my opinion the majority of Russian Armor that has been engaged in conflict in the modern era has been destroyed from the air, and not the ground.
In other words it has been taken out by air superiority and not by ground superiority."
I have to disagree with you on that. An Iraq Armored Brigade Commander stated after Desert Storm that he started with 54 Tanks after the air attacks he still had 49 after his brigade was engaged by the M1A1's of the US led attack he said he lost them all. So History does not agree with your assessment which is not historically accurate. Tanks Still Kill Tanks!
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: July 21, 2007
KitMaker: 521 posts
Armorama: 514 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 - 04:36 PM UTC
Since not all the pics are available anymore here's a shot of a T-44 currently standing in the WWII museum in Moscow. It is the T34/85 turret on a new hull. Rumor has it that bigger guns weren't possible with that construction.
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: July 21, 2007
KitMaker: 521 posts
Armorama: 514 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 - 04:37 PM UTC
And yes I admit: we're sliding very much off-topic here, so how about news on modelling the T-54?
Texas, United States
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 977 posts
Armorama: 976 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 - 06:05 PM UTC
It's similar to a T-34-85 turret, but not the same. Take a close look at that photo and compare it to a T-34-85.
Gregovich "I paint all my Models in 4BO Green" Beckman
Holder of the Knight's Cross, Hero of the Soviet Union, Dragon Slayer and Slinger of Massive BS.
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: July 21, 2007
KitMaker: 521 posts
Armorama: 514 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 - 06:44 PM UTC
Well, almost... Anyway, main gun seems to be the same... And so to get a bigger gun into working the whole turret layout needed to be newly tooled as far as I get it... not a tank construction engineer myself
And what we see as a result might be the topic of this very blog: the T-54. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 02, 2015 - 09:25 AM UTC
T-44 was a new project to replace the T-34/85. Never really got much traction, limited production, because the T-34/85 was good enough at the time, and the Soviets did not want to interrupt the production lines. By the time they got around to looking at replacing their medium tanks, they had better designs, based somewhat on the T-44 hull, that lead to the T-54.
Ex-34th ID MNANG - 13F and 63D
"Fire For Effect."
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 - 05:49 PM UTC
With the new Takom kits coming out, is one of them appropriate for a North Vietnamese T-54 from the '72 battles?
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 - 06:37 PM UTC
Quoted Text
With the new Takom kits coming out, is one of them appropriate for a North Vietnamese T-54 from the '72 battles?
Weren't the NVA "T54s" actually Chinese T-59s..?
Illinois, United States
Joined: September 01, 2014
KitMaker: 332 posts
Armorama: 328 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 - 08:26 PM UTC
From my readings, I believe they had both the Russian T-54 and Chinese Type59s. Wayne
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 - 11:05 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
With the new Takom kits coming out, is one of them appropriate for a North Vietnamese T-54 from the '72 battles?
Weren't the NVA "T54s" actually Chinese T-59s..?
I've seen references both ways and freely admit I don't know enough to know one way or the other!
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - 04:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
With the new Takom kits coming out, is one of them appropriate for a North Vietnamese T-54 from the '72 battles?
Weren't the NVA "T54s" actually Chinese T-59s..?
I've seen references both ways and freely admit I don't know enough to know one way or the other!
Or Chinese T-61s..?
Whichever tanks they actually were, I read somewhere on this site that they were smaller than T-54s or T-55s. Can anyone help?
Illinois, United States
Joined: September 01, 2014
KitMaker: 332 posts
Armorama: 328 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - 04:40 AM UTC
Supposedly they had some Type 67 light tanks, but only after they invaded Cambodia. They had the Type 63's that were similar to the PT-76. The Type 67 was a smaller version of the Type 59.
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - 04:52 AM UTC
The Type-62 was the smaller version of the Type-59. I am in process of doing a review of the Trumpeter kit.
For the NVA question, as of right now, there is no consensus on if there were only Type-59, only T-54, or a mix. Since there is no OOB ready Type-59, take a leap and build a T-54 as one.
Ex-34th ID MNANG - 13F and 63D
"Fire For Effect."
