Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: T-55 vs King Tiger
Tanknet.org > Discussion Forums > AFV Forum
DesertFox
Assuming that the King Tiger got fire control upgrades to make it the equal of the early T-55, the T-55 and King Tiger duke it out (we can try out a variety of conditions), who usually wins?
T19
First shot on target biggrin.gif
AdmiralB
Didn't we do this already?

Seems like Bojan's data indicated that T-55 is mostly immune to 88L71 from the front, at any range.
Przezdzieblo
Still HERE.
DesertFox
Wow, I had forgotten I had started it......
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(DesertFox @ Wed 29 Oct 2008 0129) *
Assuming that the King Tiger got fire control upgrades to make it the equal of the early T-55


Fire control *down*grades you mean I suppose? Given that early T-55 sight is basically a development of the Pz-III sight, I doubt there is any edge over the King Tiger in that area... smile.gif
Rickard N
QUOTE(DesertFox @ Wed 29 Oct 2008 1027) *
Wow, I had forgotten I had started it......

You should stay of them conre durgs sport, your'e a good kid wink.gif tongue.gif

/R
L.V.
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Wed 29 Oct 2008 1227) *
Fire control *down*grades you mean I suppose? Given that early T-55 sight is basically a development of the Pz-III sight, I doubt there is any edge over the King Tiger in that area... smile.gif


I'm not sure but I think that the early T-55s had a single-plane (vertical) stabilizer.
bojan
QUOTE(L.V. @ Thu 30 Oct 2008 1004) *
I'm not sure but I think that the early T-55s had a single-plane (vertical) stabilizer.


T-54A got vertical only "Gorisont" stabilization.
T-54B and T-55/55A got 2-axis "Tsiklon" stabilization.
Still "FCS" (if you dare call it that way) was same on all T-54s/55/55A.
One advantage to T-54/55 would be "monkey button" that enabled TC to search for targets independently and then with a press of the button to bring a turret on a target (in a bearing only, gunner had to adjust elevation).
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(L.V. @ Thu 30 Oct 2008 1004) *
I'm not sure but I think that the early T-55s had a single-plane (vertical) stabilizer.


Let's disregard a stabilizer or night vision, both of these facilitate the post-war methods of tank fighting so not particularly relevant.
L.V.
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Thu 30 Oct 2008 1313) *
Let's disregard a stabilizer or night vision, both of these facilitate the post-war methods of tank fighting so not particularly relevant.


But doesn't a tank with a stabilizer have an edge over a tank that doesn't have one?
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(L.V. @ Thu 30 Oct 2008 1345) *
But doesn't a tank with a stabilizer have an edge over a tank that doesn't have one?


Of course, otherwise why would one put this device in a tank? wink.gif But only in very specific conditions, especially given the limited nature of early stabilizers.
L.V.
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Thu 30 Oct 2008 1539) *
Of course, otherwise why would one put this device in a tank? wink.gif But only in very specific conditions, especially given the limited nature of early stabilizers.


Yes. I guess in defensive operations the stabilizer is less useful than in offensive ones.
Exel
What were the early stabilizers capable of anyway?
CV9030FIN
QUOTE(bojan @ Thu 30 Oct 2008 1201) *
One advantage to T-54/55 would be "monkey button" that enabled TC to search for targets independently and then with a press of the button to bring a turret on a target (in a bearing only, gunner had to adjust elevation).


I have to disagree you a bit about the usefulness of TC's target designators advantage in T-55's. It is not very usable system as it doesn't have the counter reverse system (that for example T-72 and BMP-2 has in TKN-3). According to my own experience keeping the cross hairs of TKN-1 steadily on target while heavy turret is traversed at max speed towards target usually leads turret to traverse "over" and also gunner needs to adjust the height as you said. IMHO it is musch faster to command turet verbally to target than use TKN-1 - TKN-3 is a lot better and much more usable.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.