Project Reality Forums

@Danke SPB (because I dont want to quote all those images)

When I said the modern tanks would shrug off the shell, I was assuming that since they're the modern tanks, they would have the additional armor bolted on (which would make penetration far more difficult).
And yes, a sabot would still pack plenty of energy against the tank; However, (I'm not sure if they use it) a HEAT round would do a good percentage less damage because the smaller size of the warhead would limit the amount of deformation it's primary explosion can cause.

And yes, it should be lucky, as typically the Abrams will be facing the enemy tanks with it's frontal or slightly angled side armor on the advance unless somehow a tank gets around behind the US Tank formations or there's somehow an undetectable tank in the city and an Abrams driver decideds to go on a joyride down a city street.

Actually, at close range (an urban environment) MBT armor would be negligible against a standard 120mm Armor Piercing round as far as I have heard.

Well, the T-55 itself uses a 100mm Gun, and what model was the USI one?

Edit:, Also, according to these sources, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/weg.pdf
The T-55's main armament (and this is from the newer models) armor penetration is typically about 350-400mm RHA at roughly 2000m, so it should be close to roughly 600mm within the typical PR engagement distances. This is almost half of what the modern Abram's Frontal armor is and maybe 3/4 of its side armor, which also begs a question; What Abrams is modeled in the USMC and US army?

wow what a nice reference , if only i could give you rep

Hoboknighter wrote:Well, the T-55 itself uses a 100mm Gun, and what model was the USI one?

Edit:, Also, according to these sources, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/weg.pdf
The T-55's main armament (and this is from the newer models) armor penetration is typically about 350-400mm RHA at roughly 2000m, so it should be close to roughly 600mm within the typical PR engagement distances. This is almost half of what the modern Abram's Frontal armor is and maybe 3/4 of its side armor, which also begs a question; What Abrams is modeled in the USMC and US army?

where i can read about 1200mm frontal armour(which is believable though) and especially about 800mm side/back armour? or i missed something and PG-7V/VL round can penetrate 800mm?(posted pic before)

And yes, it should be lucky, as typically the Abrams will be facing the enemy tanks with it's frontal or slightly angled side armor on the advance unless somehow a tank gets around behind the US Tank formations or there's somehow an undetectable tank in the city and an Abrams driver decideds to go on a joyride down a city street.

this depends on players and only on them and has nothing to do with armour capabilities

The armor capabilities do matter, as a typical tank fight will have them blasting into each other's frontal armor unless we're talking about urban warfare, where the tank might have a chance at getting around the other tank undetected and hitting it from the side or rear.

Main Battle Tank - M1, M1A1, and M1A2 Abrams
I'm not sure how reliable this site is, but estimates place the M1A2's frontal armor against KE rounds rounds at roughly ( I use the term roughly because there are no actual data on the subject thats not classified, besides qualified estimates) 550-900mm, and CE rounds resistance is at 800mm-1600mm.
M1A2 upgrades since the beginning of the decade have added on even more armor (of varying kinds, ERA, slat, possibly more DU mesh?) so these values could be even higher, but I do not know about those.
I'm assuming that an Abrams in PR, while not modeled so, is based on one of the newer models, or even one of the older ones in the mid 00's, which still pack a few extra tons of armor on the original.

Addressed to your RPG statement; Most of the upgrade armor chiefly is effective best against HEAT projectiles, so the 800mm claim (the guide says 600mm, but thats just a guide) should be reduced.

Edit: It'd be best just to get a person actually part of an Abrams crew or an Abrams repairman to comment on this armor issue.

Hoboknighter wrote:The armor capabilities do matter, as a typical tank fight will have them blasting into each other's frontal armor unless we're talking about urban warfare, where the tank might have a chance at getting around the other tank undetected and hitting it from the side or rear.

let the gamers play and see how it turns out, all this "it shouldn't", "typical" just a theory, so if somebody managed to flank enemy tank, the tank should be raped, because he was inferior in his tactics and has no where near same armour on its back

Main Battle Tank - M1, M1A1, and M1A2 Abrams
I'm not sure how reliable this site is, but estimates place the M1A2's frontal armor against KE rounds rounds at roughly ( I use the term roughly because there are no actual data on the subject thats not classified, besides qualified estimates) 550-900mm, and CE rounds resistance is at 800mm-1600mm.
M1A2 upgrades since the beginning of the decade have added on even more armor (of varying kinds, ERA, slat, possibly more DU mesh?) so these values could be even higher, but I do not know about those.
Addressed to your RPG statement; Most of the upgrade armor chiefly is effective best against HEAT projectiles, so the 800mm claim (the guide says 600mm, but thats just a guide) should be reduced.

see now? you take numbers for frontal armour and put it for side and back, which is not right
about RPG, standard PG-7V/VL rounds has penetration of 350 for V and ~500mm for VL(you can find it in WEG and lots of other sources), i shown this as an example that you overestimate side armor thickness, frontal armour is far thicker, contains special filler etc., while on side armour you just have no room for it

look in example at T-72 frontal package and think if its possible to put it all round

also look at destroyed tanks photos, or stripped out at factory, very good reference of armour thickness difference
btw, when you compare american and russian claims about armour resistance/penetration you should be aware that there are different approaches in estimating it, that one of reasons why numbers so vary from source to source
quickie i could find
Tank Protection Levels

Protection levels for US MBT's are larger than usually quoted because the US standard is for a 30 degrees oblique shot. To return to US Army style measurements divide all figures on chart by 1.15

after reading through the Design plan again i really think this would be a great addition to the faction especially if its possible to have a few unprotected infantry riding on top.

Sgt_Doctor wrote:Why not T55 vs Amx 10 RC ? Hum ?

No reason not to, the SADF used thier old Eland Mk.9s very effectivly against Cuban and Angolan tanks (T-34/85, T-55 & T62) during the Border War, so a cunningly crewed AMX 10 RC should be able to wipe the floor with them (equally, a baldy crewed one would get trounced).

Is it possible to force WASD turret control on the T-55 like in Combined Arms? I get using the mouse with the Abrams, Challengers and the upgraded T-72's for precise aiming, but the T-55 doesn't exactly have state of the art fire control systems that turn with pinpoint accuracy towards a target.

That's a good suggestion. Could be a bit confusing, but it would be a nice way to represent the technological differences between modern and older tanks.

So...this going to be the MBT? I really like the WASD control of the turrent idea, but can take it or leave it, so long as I can crush my opponents with old Soviet Hardware!

Just lower sensivity of turret.

I support the WASD control on the turret, that'd be an interesting change.

TristanYockell wrote: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.

dude even a 90 mm with a proper shell can be a serious problem for a modern tank, the problems for these old tanks begin when we start to talk about fcs,speed ecc.

hey the sounds like good!!

will it have the same armor as T-62?

rushn wrote:will it have the same armor as T-62?

T-55 had 203-206mm of steel armour for turret and 99-101mm of steel armour for hull.

T62- has roughly 245mm for frontal turret and 102mm for hull.

Slightly less. Not enough to make a difference against modern armour piercing rounds anyway.

Best to just not get shot at all and put the gun to good use while you can.

Bellator wrote:I support the WASD control on the turret, that'd be an interesting change.

The artillery pieces have this type of control on the Kozelsk and Fool's Road map, so I could see it on an older kit tank as well.

When the tanks were in Fool's Road for the Chechens (militia then) we would use them as a mobile artillery and stand-off fire support role to good effect, especially when the brits had the mansion and heliport flags. Not all maps have to have head to head armor battles and this tank could see use more as a type of up gunned scorpion IFV.