USSR T-55AM for 9.0/3

[RefrigerRaider 563]

 

(Before you read) This suggestion is meant to complement my previous suggestions for the T-55AM

Soviet T-55AM mod. 1983 for BR 9.0/3

 

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction

II. Photos and Videos

III. Suggested Stats and Features

IV. Additional Information

V. References

 

I. Introduction

   The T-54/55 series has been for a period the backbone of the Soviet ground armada and the most produced tank in history with over 86,000 examples produced. The T-54/55 series proves to be a highly upgradable tank. Various upgrades had been implemented over the course of history and the tank saw service all the way to the end of the Cold War in the USSR. The T-54/55 series is indeed still in service in many countries, particularly the Third World. This tank has definitely earned its place as the "AK-47 of Tanks". One major modernization program occurred in the early 80s resulted in the T-55AM. Major Upgrades included the new Volna fire control system Ballistic Computer with a laser rangefinder mounted externally in an armored box above the tank’s 100mm main gun, and a new, stabilized primary sight for the tank gunner. The upgrade program also allowed the optional incorporation of the new 9K116 “Bastion” gun-launched anti-tank guided missile (which in NATO was known as the AT-10 Stabber). The T-55s that were equipped with this missile capability could be identified by the new and larger 1K13 turret roof-mounted gunner’s primary sight. Other modifications include the new V-55U diesel engine at 620 HP. The most significant and iconic part of the upgrade is the BDD applique armor package. This package consists of two horseshoe like plates that cover most of the frontal turret and one glacis plate that covers the entire upper glacis. 

 

II. Photos and Videos

 

T-55AM2B with BDD armor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 

BDD Turret armor Cut-away

9

10

11

12

13

14

 

BDD Glacis Armor Cutaway

15

16

 

 

III. Suggested Stats and Features

 

Performance is identical to a regular T-55 without the upgrade package that are listed below

 

Firepower:

-Stabilized 100mm D-10

-"Volna" Computerized Fire Control System (unlikely to be implemented)

-Gun Stabilization ( unlikely to be implemented but instead "simulated" with high vertical turret guidance)

-Laser guided 9K116 “Bastion" gun-launched ATGM 

    -400-500 m/s velocity

    -ignites 1.5s after firing missile with 6s burn time with 12s flight time at maximum distance of 4km

    -550mm RHA penetration

    -suggested munitions:

                 -9K116 “Bastion" gun-launched ATGM 

                 -BM-20 APFSDS

                 -BK-5M HEAT-FS

 

Protection:

 -BDD Applique Armor covering the Turret Front and Upper Glacis adding 120mm RHA protection against APDS, 200-250mm RHA against HEAT

 

Mobility:

-620 HP diesel engine

 

Weight:

38 metric tonnes

 

IV. Additional Information

Excerpts taken from ARMOR Magazine, the professional journal of the US Army Armor Branch, May-June Issue 2002, page 30-31

 

On the upper glacis, the BDD layer grows thinner and has no internal steel plates. see picture 16. If you also look on the right applique turret armor, there is a dent , this is to leave space for the drivers head. If you look at picture 8 and 5, The  ends of each turret applique armor has only cast still with no BDD layer behind it. So only about 70% of the turret bdd armor case has BDD behind it. A clear example is down below. The area that attaches the BDD applique on the turret  does not have BDD behind it, just cast steel.

 

What is BDD armor?

   The application of the BDD armor involved the addition of three external steel boxes; one large box on the glacis, and two smaller curved boxes on the turret (one on either side of the tank’s main gun). The glacis box was made of steel plates 30mm thick and covered most of the original glacis. The box was filled with solid polyurethane. Encased within the beer-colored polyurethane were six angled and evenly spaced 5mm thick steel plates. These internal steel plates were held in-place within the polyurethane by what appear to be structural brackets. When viewed in profile, the BDD armor provides an impressive multilayered array of alternating layers of steel and polyurethane. The BDD glacis box was a total of 150mm thick.

 

   The curved turret boxes, on the other hand, each had an outer layer of 60mm thick steel plates and include a larger number of the internal 5mm plates encased within the polyurethane. Additionally, these 5mm plates are apparently vertical (not angled like those used in the glacis box) and are configured in such a way to ensure an attacking projectile would be forced to penetrate several of the alternating layers before reaching the turret base armor. The complete application of BDD armor adds about 2 metric tons to the weight of the tank. BDD armor is classified as non-energetic reactive armor (NERA) since the reaction it produces (the defeat mechanism) is not caused by an explosive material, but by the impact of an attacking projectile on the polyurethane in each box. This reaction can have a huge impact on an attacking projectile or the molten “jet” from a shaped-charge warhead. When the projectile strikes and penetrates the outer layer of the BDD steel box, it sends an intense shock wave into the polyurethane, which compresses within the steel box. Since the compressed polyurethane (and the energy transferred to it from the projectile impact) has nowhere to go due to its confinement in the steel box, it is forced to move back into the path of the projectile. The effect is like compressing a powerful spring and suddenly releasing it towards the projectile.

 

    While the cause and effect of this reaction within the BDD box is well understood, the role played by the 5mm steel plates and the structural brackets holding them in place is not as clear-cut. While some sources report that the 5mm plates are in-fact “bulging plates” (designed to be set in motion by the reaction of the polyurethane to actually “attack” the projectile), a more likely explanation is that the 5mm plates and the structural brackets are intended to further confine the polyurethane in each BDD box. By increasing the surface area beyond that provided by the box itself, the additional confinement of the polyurethane (between and around the 5mm steel plates) equates to a larger reaction working against the attacking projectile.

 

   In recent years, NII Stali (Russia’s primary tank armor research and development organization), has become much more forthcoming with information regarding its armor developments. In a product pamphlet called “Suggestions on Modernization of MBTs and IFVs” distributed at a recent arms exhibition, NII Stali provided a few important details concerning BDD armor. In a section called Armor Protection Upgrading – Variant 1, BDD armor (described as “metal-polymer block”), is credited with adding 120mm of protection against APDS and 200-250mm of protection against HEAT or shapedcharge ammunition. In effect, the 60- degree frontal arc of a T-55 fitted with BDD armor was suddenly immune to tank-fired 105mm APDS and HEAT, as well as Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) ammunition.

 

 

V. References

 

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2002/MAY_JUN/ArmorMayJune2002web.pdf

“Ilich’s Eyebrows”: Soviet BDD Tank Armor and Its Impact on the Battlefield by James M. Warford page 30-31

Edited March 13, 2017 by RefrigerRaider
Removal of red text.

[blakeob 8,086]

Open for discussion. 

[Baconator100012@psn 929]

If i need to flank you in the M103 or m60a1 then no. Though i'll be nice and take up the challenge. I approve. 

[Josh_Yong 328]

Only if the Germans get it as well as the Russians 

 

1+

[Kocyra 5,742]

Since we're goin 80s and we're goin composite and everyone is talking about it, I say yes. this could be running around at top tier with T-64 Keiler and whatnot

[Mo_guy96 245]

So it has NERA applique armor, maybe the stock one would come without it, since the devs said they may work on new types of applique armor as modifications if they need to/decide to. 

Honestly I'm on the fence about this one because of the NERA applique armor.

[Retry 7,363]

*Me Entering this thread*

 

Okay, but I hope those applique plates aren't compo-

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

3 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Since we're goin 80s and we're goin composite and everyone is talking about it, I say yes. this could be running around at top tier with T-64 Keiler and whatnot

 

I agree, why NOT go composite? There's too many pros facing too few cons...

Besides, I really want my Keiler :3

 

+1

[dotEXCEL 5,968]

+1

1 minute ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

I agree, why NOT go composite? There's too many pros facing too few cons...

Besides, I really want my Keiler :3

 

+1

Me as well

[Kocyra 5,742]

Just now, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

I agree, why NOT go composite? There's too many pros facing too few cons...

Besides, I really want my Keiler :3

 

+1

Exactly. Gaijin also doesn't have to make extremely complex composite, It can just be "X Value vs KE, Y Value vs HEAT" sort of thing, which would be to all intensive purposes accurate. Besides, T-55AM would be a "Gentler" introduction to composite later cold war world.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

3 minutes ago, Retry said:

*Me Entering this thread*

 

Okay, but I hope those applique plates aren't compo-

Someone made a suggestion about the T-62M a little while ago and I had the exact same reaction when I saw its add-on armour.

[Kocyra 5,742]

Btw one thing you forgot to mention is upgrades add 2.2 tonnes of weight, so the 36 tons of the T-55 + 2.2 gives around 38.2~ tonnes of weight, with 620/38.2 = 16.2 hp/t

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 minute ago, F7UCutlass said:

Exactly. Gaijin also doesn't have to make extremely complex composite, It can just be "X Value vs KE, Y Value vs HEAT" sort of thing, which would be to all intensive purposes accurate. Besides, T-55AM would be a "Gentler" introduction to composite later cold war world.

 

We already have different armor qualities (RHA, Aluminum, structural stell, etc.). Composite is the same thing, you would have to add modifiers for every single different type of composition. Also slope coefficients work very much differently. Roughly explained, angling your armor is not as effective with composite armor.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

1 hour ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

I agree, why NOT go composite? There's too many pros facing too few cons...

Besides, I really want my Keiler :3

 

+1

Exactly, it will actually justify the *ahem* ATGMS with their ridiculous penetration values. Even against this tank, I see no problem with the missile tanks and their 431mm,500mm,600, or 800mm pen. which is overkill 

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, F7UCutlass said:

It can just be "X Value vs KE, Y Value vs HEAT" sort of thing, which would be to all intensive purposes accurate.

 

No it wouldn't. Different kinds of KE react differently to a very significant extent.

 

1 hour ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Roughly explained, angling your armor is not as effective with composite armor.

 

If you're talking about my statement, I never said that.

 

Anyway, why not just get the variant with ERA if resistance to ATGMs is so important?

[Kocyra 5,742]

16 minutes ago, Nope said:

No it wouldn't. Different kinds of KE react differently to a very significant extent.

We also have 3rd person view, capture points, and other such things. This is to make this a game with a flair of realism, not a 100% accurate sim or something. War Thunder uses a more generalized idea of systems/ammo/performance rather than an extremely intricate type.

[Nope 10,634]

1 minute ago, F7UCutlass said:

We also have 3rd person view, capture points, and other such things. This is to make this a game with a flair of realism, not a 100% accurate sim or something. War Thunder uses a more generalized idea of systems/ammo/performance rather than an extremely intricate type.

 

You seriously do not understand the degree of change here. L15 APDS would struggle with a T-64, but the far lower penetration M111 Hetz goes through a tank superior in armor protection compared to the T-64. That's what I mean by a "very significant extent".

[Kocyra 5,742]

44 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

You seriously do not understand the degree of change here. L15 APDS would struggle with a T-64, but the far lower penetration M111 Hetz goes through a tank superior in armor protection compared to the T-64. That's what I mean by a "very significant extent".

Again, I reiterate, the game doesn't have the complexities of different shells modeled, Last I checked, all APDS rounds actually follow a similar formula. And the M111/DM23 has more penetration than the L15, not less. 

[Z3r0_ 4,127]

Dammit, I should've foreseen the hordes of people immediately clammering for their composite-armored tanks in the event that my suggestion for the Type 87 was implemented...

 

As for the subject of this post, simple answer: No.  More complex answer: not this, but I'd be fine with a regular T-55 without advanced targeting systems or applique composite or reactive armor being added (probably up to and including the 1974 upgrade which featured a new rangefinder and a night sight).

Edited February 18, 2017 by Z3r0_

[Retry 7,363]

2 minutes ago, Z3r0_ said:

Dammit, I should've foreseen the hordes of people immediately clammering for their composite-armored tanks in the event that my suggestion for the Type 87 was approved...

I've probably never actually told you so, but I feel this still applies:

[Z3r0_ 4,127]

3 minutes ago, Retry said:

I've probably never actually told you so, but I feel this still applies:

 

You didn't (beyond expressing preference for the less-advanced prototype using the Type 61 hull), but point taken.  Do I regret it?  Not really, but it's still a bit annoying that I unintentionally set a precident for this sort of thing.  On the other hand, that's not a guarantee that any of this sort of stuff will actually see implementation either.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Z3r0_

[Thug Shaker Actual 225]

Very good looking tank and a very good looking post. +1

Although, the effectiveness of spaced boxes is very questionable. All is good on paper, but to my understanding this type of armor had very very limited effectivability for it's era, by 1983 the Abrams was already rolled out. It as well as its counterparts which had 105 mm cannons which fired Chemical/HESH and KE penetrator rounds with great power, and it wasn't necessarily always the cannon but the rounds themselves that were most effective. Yes these boxes could often times stop an ATGM or HEAT/HESH shell, but not so much for KE penetrators...

 

I don't believe the T55-AM was really used extensively, but the Iraqi T-55 Enigma is practically a copy. Even if it doesn't have the exact same composition (it was built later with more and heavier armor), it still would've combated the same or similar vehicles.

"The Enigma tank has improved protection comparing with the baseline T-55. It is likely that upgrades were influenced by the Soviet T-55AM, which had add-on armor blocks on the glacis and turret. However Iraqi engineers went an extra mile and added armor blocks on the hull and rear of the turret. The T-55 Enigma is fitted with add-on composite armor blocks. These blocks are made up of armor plates, welded into boxes, to create a sort of spaced armor. Add-on armor weights a total of 4.6 t, so the add-on armor plates at the turret rear are used as a counterweight."

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t55_enigma.htm

So it's also heavier being there's more armor on the Enigma

 

Now to get to my point:

 

".....The reasons as to why the Enigmas were created seems fairly obvious. As mentioned earlier, it can be generally assumed that the conversion was a means of stopping modern missiles, but with a very small budget...."

This Design is very similar to a certain Soviet Union that was on the brink of collapse during this era, by this time period they needed a cheap and semi-effective means to countering modern projectiles

"It is reported that during the battle, the Enigmas could survive hits from MILAN AT missiles, although this was probably not a consistent occurrence. ...."

Could, doesn't mean it always did, better on paper than IRL occurrences

"....Photographs of knocked out Enigmas show that armor blocks would be sent flying by missile impacts, and the reliability of the armor at blocking missile hits is questionable..."

Another huge thing, how were they even attached? If Its just nuts and bolts or crude welding than a standard HE shell could knock them off of their housings rendering them useless. Think of it like Riveted Armor v. Cast v. RHA

"Whilst it is generally accepted that Enigmas could survive some hits from ATGMs, they could, however, not survive hits from AMX 30s, or an AC-130 gunship strike: ...."

ATGM are HEAT or Chemical type projectiles, the AMX-30 had a 105 mm gun which seemingly had no trouble defeating this kind of armor

"Whilst, indeed, the crude composite armor was sometimes able to fulfill its role, it did not make the T-55 Enigma comparable to its coalition counterparts, such as the AMX 30. The Enigma upgrade was done in a very particular context – The Iraqis needed to defend against modern AT weapons...."

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iraq/t-55-enigma/

 

I just can't see an effective use for this tank, it's like a prem vehicle. Kinda odd, its too good but not nearly good enough for the main tree. I can't imagine 9.0 for this thing. I just don't see it having any rightful place in the game as it will be severely outclassed by tanks of a similar era but with much better ERA and better cannons boasting better projectiles and speed. It'd also be really odd to downgrade chronologically from the T-62 to a T-55 model, and that would happen because the base T-62 doesn't have ERA, even if this type of ERA has limited effectivability...

[Nope 10,634]

6 hours ago, F7UCutlass said:

Again, I reiterate, the game doesn't have the complexities of different shells modeled, Last I checked, all APDS rounds actually follow a similar formula. And the M111/DM23 has more penetration than the L15, not less. 

 

It's not even a case of just APDS slope coefficients, but entirely different types of ammunition altogether. Should one have APFSDS for instance, that is less affected by composite. Also, I don't know where you get your numbers from, but the Lanz-Odermatt equation gets me 310mm penetration at point-blank for 230 BHN steel, which is already very soft. This is lower than the penetration values of L28 APDS against harder steel and is thus certainly lower than those of L15 APDS. Different shells do act that differently against composite.

[_EQUAI_ 356]

7 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

Dammit, I should've foreseen the hordes of people immediately clammering for their composite-armored tanks in the event that my suggestion for the Type 87 was implemented...

Not going to lie the minute I saw the type 87 on the dev blog I had the sudden feeling of seeing a lot of composite amor related suggestions start piling up.

[TheHalfSlav 679]

37 minutes ago, BLUEBLACK_EQUAI said:

Not going to lie the minute I saw the type 87 on the dev blog I had the sudden feeling of seeing a lot of composite amor related suggestions start piling up.

Time to prepare the T-14 Armata suggestion