Tanks/Vehicles T54E1

[ValkyrieLitewing 1,659]

Hello again, forum Thunderers and tank players. I would like to make a suggestion for a possible premium tank, or new tank in the tech tree. 

My proposal, is a tier V regular tank, called the T54E1. Now this tank had three prototypes. Each prototype had a different turret. This T54E1 was a prototype based on the M48 chassis, with an autoloading, oscillating turret. All variants were armed with a 105mm T140E2 cannon. The T54 was dropped out of development in 1957 in favor of the T95, seen in the spoiler. [spoiler][/spoiler]

PRIMARY SOURCE

Combat Weight: 54 t

Crew: 4

Dimensions(mm?): Length-6967, Length with gun-11209, Width-3632, Height-3081, Clearance-419

Armor: Upper Glacis-110, Lower Glacis-127, Sides-76, Tower Board (whatever that is)-64

Armament: 105mm T140E2, one 7.62mm M1919A4E1, one 12.7mm M2HB Anti-aircraft machine gun

Ammunition: 36 rounds (105), 3000 (7.62), 900 (12.7)

Engine: Carburetor, Continental AV-1790-5B, capacity of 810 liters.

Speed(on road): 43.2 km/h 

http://www.tankinfo.ru/Country/USA/2/medium/T54E1.php

 

 

 

SECONDARY SOURCE

Standard Info: 4 man crew

13.6 psi Ground Pressure
12.5 hp/ton Gross Power Weight Ratio
10.7 hp/ton Net Power Weight Ratio
Turret Ring: 85"
Combat Weight: 120,000 lbs

Armor: Upper Front: 110mm @ 60

Lower Front: 102-61mm @ 53
Front Sides: 76mm @ 0
Rear Sides: 51mm @ 0
Upper Rear: 35mm @ 30
Lower Rear: 25mm @ 60
Top: 57mm @ 90
Front Floor: 38mm
Rear Floor: 25mm

Turret Armor: Front: 127mm @ 60

Sides: 64mm @ 30
Rear: 51mm @ 30
Top: 25mm @ 90

 

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11339

 

More Pictures:

[spoiler][/spoiler]

 

 

Edit: I added more info, pictures, and corrected some spelling errors, also removed the Tier V premium suggestion learning there won't be tier V premiums.

Edit #2: Added a poll, as there were different views of this tank.

Edited December 24, 2014 by HipTurtle

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

Open for discussion  :salute:​ 

 

However if this tank was to be added, it would not be premium. Tier V will never get any premiums as it is top tier. 

[KorEEnium 2,533]

No.

[swedeonthemoose 12,809]

no more t54's until germany have a damn fighting chance in t5 =_=

 

 

 

lol my derp for not looking into things, damn americans for confusing me and stealing russian tank names xD

Edited December 17, 2014 by swedeonthemoose

[Tchar 952]

Hello again, forum Thunderers and tank players. I would like to make a suggestion for a possible premium tank, or new tank in the tech tree. But first, if I misspell or something, please forgive me as I am on my phone.

My proposal, is a tier V premium medium team, or a tier V regular tank, called the T54E1. Now this tank had four prototypes, which is viable for premium, but the T32 also only had four. This T54E1 was a prototype based on the M48 chassis, with an autoloading oscillating turret. All variants were armed with a 105mm T140E2 cannon. That's the basic stuff I know, but because I'm on my phone, unfortunately that's really all I can find. I will be sure to add to this when I find more about it, and/or when people find content about it. But for now, it's proposal.

Can you please support this with some vehicle data with the suggestion as soon as you can. This will help explain your proposal better.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

 

Uses the Chassis of the M48 Patton, so can be assumed to have had the same Hull armor, suspension and engine.

Edited December 18, 2014 by PikachuTrainer

[swedeonthemoose 12,809]

 

Uses the Chassis of the M48 Patton, so can be assumed to have had the same Hull armor, suspension and engine.

kinda looks like amx turret O_o

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

kinda looks like amx turret O_o

You'd be closer if you said the AMX-50.

[elma_leivonen 26]

NO, world of tanks has the t54e1, we dont need it so stop suggesting crap

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

NO, world of tanks has the t54e1, we dont need it so stop suggesting crap

That's a pretty dull argument, as a lot of the Tanks in WT is also in WoT

Edited December 18, 2014 by PikachuTrainer

[Tchar 952]

 

Uses the Chassis of the M48 Patton, so can be assumed to have had the same Hull armor, suspension and engine.

I know that, but all suggestions do require data to support the suggestion.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

I know that, but all suggestions do require data to support the suggestion.

I know, thought I'd at least add to the topic, would like to see the tank as well just to see how Gaijin works the Autoloader mechanic.

[Tchar 952]

I know, thought I'd at least add to the topic, would like to see the tank as well just to see how Gaijin works the Autoloader mechanic.

Agreed, I would have went with the first to have the autoloader.  :Ds  :salute:

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

I would also like to see it's Heavier cousin, T58 :D

[Galen503 547]

Why are people so bound and determined to recreate WoT. I don't support the E-Series tanks or the Maus but I can at least understand why people want them but the T54e1? Really? Why?

 

Yes the tank had prototypes and it probably could be considered. But sometimes you need to stop and ask yourself. "Do I really want to play a fantasy tank game or a tank game with some semblance of reality?" Isn't it more fun to play a battle that feels like it may have happened? Autoloaders being incorporated would completely ruin that. This is a game where one shot kills are common. Is it really going to make for a better game to create tanks that can go out and destroy half of the enemy team in seconds. Once again these sorts of fantasy tanks already exist why do you need for there to be two. 

[Retry 7,363]

Autoloader year?

 

Rate of fire achieveable compared to handloading?

 

Any other nation have comparable autoloading technology around the time frame?

[darklegacy245 525]

I thought the American auto loader attempts weren't very successful? While the French were much more successful with making a functioning auto loader. I would much rather see the T34 as it stays true to the current US heavy/assault gun line with strong turret armor, an average hull, and a great gun; it has the best penetration out of the T29, T30, and T34 with roughly 198mm of Penetration at 1000m.

Edited December 18, 2014 by darklegacy245

[elma_leivonen 26]

That's a pretty dull argument, as a lot of the Tanks in WT is also in WoT

still NO T54E1 all these world oftanks fags can go back to that crappy game and play their stupid tank

[Tchar 952]

still NO T54E1 all these world oftanks fags can go back to that crappy game and play their stupid tank

I guess you are homophobic, leave those words out of these forums thank-you!

[KorEEnium 2,533]

I guess you are homophobic, leave those words out of these forums thank-you!

And you are a sensitive fgt...

Edited December 18, 2014 by Fmanfsbr

[Ampen 575]

People seem to forget that there's usually a very good reason why some prototypes never go beyond prototypes, so as stated earlier in this case, data would be needed. We have no clue really as how this performed, neither do we know what adjustments was done to the M48 hull to actually fit this turret.

My main oppositon against prototypes that never made it past that is that from what I've seen they've been considered to have and been modelled with their expected performance, wich in most of the cases seem to be optimum performance. This makes them appear better than models that was actually put into production. For me at least, it's a very dumb move for any weapons branch to put sub-performing units into production ahead of units that perform better, and that's really the main argument for that it was probably something crucial that didn't work on the prototype in question.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

People seem to forget that there's usually a very good reason why some prototypes never go beyond prototypes, so as stated earlier in this case, data would be needed. We have no clue really as how this performed, neither do we know what adjustments was done to the M48 hull to actually fit this turret.

My main oppositon against prototypes that never made it past that is that from what I've seen they've been considered to have and been modelled with their expected performance, wich in most of the cases seem to be optimum performance. This makes them appear better than models that was actually put into production. For me at least, it's a very dumb move for any weapons branch to put sub-performing units into production ahead of units that perform better, and that's really the main argument for that it was probably something crucial that didn't work on the prototype in question.

Not always though, some prototypes like let's say the IS-100 and IS-2, the IS-100 performed better, but the IS-2 was more well rounded and was the one produced, so it's not always the case.

Edited December 18, 2014 by PikachuTrainer

[Thorthemigthy 347]

T54E1 is kinda hard to find data on it was dropped in favor of the T95 Medium Tank.

[Ampen 575]

Not always though, some prototypes like let's say the IS-100 and IS-2, the IS-100 performed better, but the IS-2 was more well rounded and was the one produced, so it's not always the case.

 

The fat blue text would be the very good reason then the IS-100 didn't make it out of prototype. So that means that "more well rounded" meant the IS-2 performed better in the areas where they wanted the performance.

But in this case, there's very little data, so it could be anything, or alot of anythings, that really didn't work. We don't know.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

The fat blue text would be the very good reason then the IS-100 didn't make it out of prototype. So that means that "more well rounded" meant the IS-2 performed better in the areas where they wanted the performance.

But in this case, there's very little data, so it could be anything, or alot of anythings, that really didn't work. We don't know.

The D-25T is a tank equipped A-19, which is a Soviet Field howitzer, the reason the IS-2 was picked, was because of it's effectiveness against Bunkers and other fortified positions, the 100mm D-10T however was better in the Anti-Tank role.

Edited December 18, 2014 by PikachuTrainer