Project Reality Forums

'[R-DEV wrote:Nosferatu;1129177']

Too bad, PoE had a nice model of it

Ukrainian surplus equipment always fit nicely within African armies ^^ Don't forget to add a East European-looking model for the pilot kit

I'm all for Putting a T-55 in Game,

I had actually made this proposal before, along with adding other vintage russian armour.

They are still in such broad use around the world that it really only makes sense to include them.

They would get brutalized by modern armour, but they could still prove as a useful resource if used carefully.

100mm rifled gun would still have its way with modern APC's and even the engine compartments of new MBT's.

ramp0 appr0wz

I would love to see the T-55 ingame-its nice to have some variety

A problem I see with adding this tank, is that against a Challenger 2 or an Abrams, a battle would go along the lines of this:

Abrams fires first, Shell hits T-55, T-55 goes boom. Game over.

T-55 fires first, shell hits Abrams/Challenger 2, shell does minimal damage, 20% maybe, Abrams fires back, T-55 dies. That's game over again.

Unless some dev decides to come up with a crazy idea like on fools road where the Russians for some god-forsaken reason deployed to fight militia's tanks without heavy armor, The t-55 can't be realistically fielded for more than hit and run tactics against humvees and infantry.

you know for $40,000 euros you can own one of them , well if you have the money that is

Hoboknighter wrote:A problem I see with adding this tank, is that against a Challenger 2 or an Abrams, a battle would go along the lines of this:

Abrams fires first, Shell hits T-55, T-55 goes boom. Game over.

T-55 fires first, shell hits Abrams/Challenger 2, shell does minimal damage, 20% maybe, Abrams fires back, T-55 dies. That's game over again.

Unless some dev decides to come up with a crazy idea like on fools road where the Russians for some god-forsaken reason deployed to fight militia's tanks without heavy armor, The t-55 can't be realistically fielded for more than hit and run tactics against humvees and infantry.

Because of it's age and obvious drawbacks it would proabably be used as some kind of IFV rather than a regular battle tank. It wouldn't stand a chance in a 1on1 battle against the modern MBTs that we have ingame.

STORM-Mama wrote:Because of it's age and obvious drawbacks it would proabably be used as some kind of IFV rather than a regular battle tank. It wouldn't stand a chance in a 1on1 battle against the modern MBTs that we have ingame.

Yeah, employed against modern armor (or even modern IFVs) it would be a deathtrap, but used against infantry or light vehicles it might be useful, though obviously vulnerable to BLUFOR AT kits. On infantry-focused maps it might work out as more of an "ace in the hole" than a game changer.

Or, one could attempt to balance it simply through greater numbers. Having 3-4 T-55 roll across the crest of a hill might be scary even for an Abrams.

[R-COM]162eRI wrote:The point is France doesn't use tanks in African peacekeeping operations but rather wheeled armoured vehicles. And not only France, but other peacekeepers as well. So, even with wheeled armoured vehicles or modern anti-tank weapons, those tanks have to be feared!!! They are used like IFV by the African faction...
Nonetheless, if a modern faction really want to get ride of all the ennemy tanks, it's quite easy for us...

If their is a large enemy tank treath then the french governement might decide to deploy LeClercs tho. or another way to dispose of these enemy tanks FAST. like eurocopter, high availablity of CAS, usage of Milans/Tows on the VAB's VBCI's. We can probebly dream up a tousend solutions to a t55 treath.

Hoboknighter wrote:A problem I see with adding this tank, is that against a Challenger 2 or an Abrams, a battle would go along the lines of this:

Abrams fires first, Shell hits T-55, T-55 goes boom. Game over.

T-55 fires first, shell hits Abrams/Challenger 2, shell does minimal damage, 20% maybe, Abrams fires back, T-55 dies. That's game over again.

or T-55 hits modern MBT to side or rear, game over also add higher deviation to T-55 to simulate lack of modern FCS and precise barrel control systems

BlackMagikz wrote:you know for $40,000 euros you can own one of them , well if you have the money that is

Where where?
So shall I buy a new BMW or a tank


Anyway: you could have a map assymetrically balanced where the africans have lots and lots of t-55 or similar and bluefor's got armoured cars and a jet. What you think?

I think if the T-55 is pretty slow and fragile in comparison to the other Tanks (M1A1, T80, etc....)
and they can be taken out by a LAT there aren't any problems with such a great number.

[R-COM]162eRI wrote: the English Centurion

Now that is an epic tank with one hell of an history.

"If life gives you lemons, make lemonade." "If Soviet Russia gives you T-55's, use them to crush your opponents." If the ARF have access to weapons, there would be no reason to think that they wouldn't use them for one purpose or another. There are between 86,000 to 100,000 T-55's in the world, so if there were to be a tank on tank battle between the ARF and France, have more T-55's than Leclercs.

I didn't know africa had tanks, I thought they fought with civlian trucks like the insurgetns do.

DankE_SPB wrote:or T-55 hits modern MBT to side or rear, game over also add higher deviation to T-55 to simulate lack of modern FCS and precise barrel control systems

Modern MBT's side and rear armor still would shrug off the small 100mm round fired from the tank, unless it gets lucky and hits the engine on the abrams. Unless you're talking about a basic tank with no armor upgrades since the 80's?
The upgraded Anti-tank missles that can be fired, however, can pose a bigger problem.


On another note, it would indeed be cool for this to be added, as the small T-55 could go against LAV-25's, Bradleys or their British and French equivalents to bring a tank like the Chechyans instead of the 25-30mm cannons.

One thing that had definitely be added is the ability to track or cripple the "tanks" with the American AT4 and like.
It should act more like the Stryker MGS than a tank.

Hoboknighter wrote:Modern MBT's side and rear armor still would shrug off the small 100mm round fired from the tank.

you call 100mm small??
side and rear armor even on modern MBTs is a joke comparing to their frontal armor, thats why forces field additional kits of slat and ERA armour, why would they do it if standard armour is enough?

unless it gets lucky and hits the engine on the abrams

you should not be very lucky when engine takes 1/3 of tanks length

Why not T55 vs Amx 10 RC ? Hum ?