PDA

View Full Version : [Proposal] T-55


162eRI
2009-09-02, 11:10
Since the African armies are using mostly the T-55 tank and since BSS (USI) have one, why shouldn't we use it rather than the T-62? (just to change)

http://idf.blacksandstudio.com/images/media/render/1/61_64.jpg

The T-62 is already from USI right? So it shouldn't be a problem to get the T-55. It's also cool to have something different than the usual T-62 tank in PR.

References
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/T-55s_civil_war.JPG/764px-T-55s_civil_war.JPG
http://uppix.net/4/1/c/7e8d7e44efcd05b157619b9372021.jpg
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/africa/uganda/main_battle_tank/t-55/pictures/T-55_main_battle_tank_Uganda_Ugandan_army_001.jpg
http://foto.no/linkeddata/articles/images/25661_1024x768.jpg
http://www.voanews.com/english/images/afp_drc_unrest_175_27Oct08.jpg

HangMan_
2009-09-02, 11:19
They are very cool tanks. It would be nice to see this in PR. Bringing a new heavy vehicle to a new faction. Good proposal :)

arjan
2009-09-02, 12:21
i approve :razz:

Rudd
2009-09-02, 12:23
isn't teh T55 still in the PR files? wasn't it on Basrah .5?

Fluffywuffy
2009-09-02, 12:34
T-62 was.

Anhkhoa
2009-09-02, 19:13
T62s and T55s always mix me up.
Any major difference about them I should know to distinguish them?

HeliaXDemoN
2009-09-02, 19:25
T-55

http://vietnamresearch.com/armor/t55_1.jpg

T-62

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-62/T-62.gif

Sgt_Doctor
2009-09-02, 19:29
T 55 (1947) :

http://vietnamresearch.com/armor/t55_1.jpg

T 62 (1961) :

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-62/T-62.gif

It's really two differents tanks.

The T-62 is a Soviet main battle tank, a further development of the T-55. Its 115 mm gun was the first smoothbore tank gun in use.

The T-62 was produced between 1961 and 1975. It became a standard tank in the Soviet arsenal, partly replacing the T-55, although that tank continued to be manufactured in the Soviet Union and elsewhere after T-62 production was halted. The T-54/55 and T-62 were later replaced in front-line service by the T-64 and T-72.
(Wikipedia.)

Edit : OMFG ! Owned by HeliaXDemoN ! :D

DankE_SPB
2009-09-02, 19:31
main difference is the gun, T-55 has 100mm rifled gun, T-62 115mm smooth-bore which gives it ability to fire ATGMs
though there are tonns of their modifications so its very easy to mess everything
T54/T55 Main Battle Tank (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t54tank.htm)
T62 Main Battle Tank (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t62tank.htm)

lulz at the above :-D

162eRI
2009-09-02, 19:50
Fights of blueprints ^^ lol

Indeed, the main difference is the gun.
By looking at this page, T54/T55 Main Battle Tank (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t54tank.htm), many African countries are using the T-55!!!

ryan d ale
2009-09-03, 22:40
As long as there's soviet tanks I'm very happy.

T55 and T62 please :)

162eRI
2009-09-03, 22:52
?? Of course countries are still using them! And many African countries do!


T55 and T62 please
Well, I thought about that too, (and doing the same thing for other vehicles) but as you may have seen, there aren't that many vehicles per PR's maps... So if they are lucky to get 2 T-55 for a map, that already nice ;)

Dizakui
2009-09-03, 23:33
I think this'd be pretty cool for the faction. Like people have said, it's used in real life and on a personal note I quite like the look of it aswell. Plus it would give the faction something different, might be a slightly weaker tank than other factions tanks due to it's age, but it'd be unique.

Saobh
2009-09-03, 23:34
Thread cleaned. Back to the discussion at hand people. Thank you.

MMad
2009-09-04, 16:44
T-55s would be really cool IMO (who doesn't like new toys :D), but using the T-62 already in PR might make more sense as a faster/cheaper solution for now, just to get the ARF up and running and playable ingame.

Apart from a reskin, I guess it could be possible to tweak the armament or various gameplay values (movement speed, turning speed, reload speed, whatever else) to simulate somewhat poorer maintenance or less well-trained crews. Not that the T-62 is crazy powerful as it is. :)

Maxfragg
2009-09-04, 17:09
i just wanted to point out, that you would have to ask the devs of the unreleased IDF mod, and not USI, as the first picture of the threat tells you, if so, i suggest asking Vestalis, since there are not many of the IDF devs, that are still active, and he's one i know

Nosferatu
2009-09-04, 22:26
With any today's upgrade T-54/55 is not match for modern MBT, only hit&run tactics combined with excellent knowledge of local surroundings and using their advantages could give positive results. Also it shouldn't be goode ol' T-55, it should be at least updated T-55MV with ERA and 9K116 "Bastion" guided munitions.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35057&d=1192168632

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T55/T55_2.jpg

We could also look through foreign upgrades of T-55, like T-55E "Ramzes II" with 105mm M68 main gun, but I think it would be interesting to see recent upgrades for Type-59 & Type-62 MBTs. Chinese guys not only building new tanks and researching ways to upgrade it, but also trying to keep aged Type-59s/Type-62s in shape. And they fit to ARF conception as faction getting help from PRC.

I would like to hear your suggestions on these models.

Added: No Iraqi T-55 Enigmas

FastWinston
2009-09-05, 12:06
The above tank (first picture) is of a (Nigerian?) peace-keeping force in Somalia, and I think they only had like one or two... on display:)

Nosferatu
2009-09-05, 12:09
This is Ugandan and why do you think so?

FastWinston
2009-09-05, 12:11
I remember the picture and the caption which said something like what I've just said:)

Edit: I didn't find the caption, but you are right, Ugandan peace-keepers: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=121693

sheggalism
2009-09-05, 12:31
Nosferatu;1129177']
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35057&d=1192168632

Too bad, PoE had a nice model of it :sad:

Ukrainian surplus equipment always fit nicely within African armies ^^ Don't forget to add a East European-looking model for the pilot kit 8-)

162eRI
2009-09-05, 12:59
East European-looking model for the pilot kit
Indeed, we thought at first to give the OGG a mercenary pilot coming from Eastern Europe (for examples, the pilots who killed several French Soldiers in Ivory Coast where from Eastern Europe). But the African armies have also their own pilots and since the African faction is supposed to be a strong faction with some modern equipment, we feel that perhaps it was better to keep African pilots rather than mercenaries...

Back on the topic,
With any today's upgrade T-54/55 is not match for modern MBT, only hit&run tactics combined with excellent knowledge of local surroundings and using their advantages could give positive results. Also it shouldn't be goode ol' T-55, it should be at least updated T-55MV with ERA and 9K116 "Bastion" guided munitions.
We could also look through foreign upgrades of T-55, like T-55E "Ramzes II" with 105mm M68 main gun, but I think it would be interesting to see recent upgrades for Type-59 & Type-62 MBTs. Chinese guys not only building new tanks and researching ways to upgrade it, but also trying to keep aged Type-59s/Type-62s in shape. And they fit to ARF conception as faction getting help from PRC.
I would like to hear your suggestions on these models.

Yes, when I was looking through the pages of all the African armies threads and websites, I found several other tanks being used. Like the French AMX-13 and 30, the English Centurion and an other one and of course some upgrade Soviet tanks.
I think it would be great to give them more modern tanks, because first, the African faction is supposed to be a semi-conventional faction and like you said, it fits the conception of the African faction getting help from PRC or Eastern Europe. But also because the T-55 is outdated against modern MBT and because the African armies are actually upgrading their tanks and arsenal...

Thought, the Uganda is using about 20 T-55MV and about 150 T-54/55.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/africa/uganda/main_battle_tank/t-55/pictures/T-55_main_battle_tank_Uganda_Ugandan_army_001.jpg

These upgrade tanks are just a drop in the vast ocean of the old pool of African tanks. You can check pictures, wikipedia, militaryphotos, armyrecognition, they are using mostly T-54/55 tanks...
We should keep the T-55 as the main battle tank of the African faction. If a map for tanks combats is made, then we should use the T-55MV or some Chinese upgrade tanks + T-55 tanks.

We have to keep in mind it means a new model to make. I think we just have to add childobjects on the T-55 model... Still...

TristanYockell
2009-10-05, 19:22
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.

rampo
2009-10-05, 19:36
ramp0 appr0wz

driver-ch-driver
2009-10-05, 19:41
I would love to see the T-55 ingame-its nice to have some variety8-)

Hoboknighter
2009-10-20, 03:28
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.

BlackMagikz
2009-10-20, 06:25
you know for $40,000 euros you can own one of them , well if you have the money that is

STORM-Mama
2009-10-20, 06:51
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.

MMad
2009-10-20, 08:44
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.

162eRI
2009-10-20, 09:05
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...

KingLorre
2009-10-20, 10:54
162eRI;1163795']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.

DankE_SPB
2009-10-20, 11:02
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

MariusHealth
2009-10-20, 12:22
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?

N.Kuntze
2009-10-20, 13:29
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.

Hitman.2.5
2009-10-20, 14:37
162eRI;1129774'] the English Centurion

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

steve_06-07
2009-10-20, 16:04
"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.

boilerrat
2009-10-20, 20:03
I didn't know africa had tanks, I thought they fought with civlian trucks like the insurgetns do.

Hoboknighter
2009-10-20, 22:21
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.

DankE_SPB
2009-10-20, 22:43
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?
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5104/40731434.th.jpg (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/40731434.jpg/)http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6862/98831871.th.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/98831871.jpg/)http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7613/980715sep96sagwi10012.th.gif (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/980715sep96sagwi10012.gif/)http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7946/980715sep96sagwi10018.th.gif (http://img9.imageshack.us/i/980715sep96sagwi10018.gif/)
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
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/8596/image011.th.gif (http://img63.imageshack.us/i/image011.gif/)

Sgt_Doctor
2009-10-20, 22:58
Why not T55 vs Amx 10 RC ? Hum ?

Hoboknighter
2009-10-22, 02:21
@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.

ChiefRyza
2009-10-22, 03:43
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.

Hoboknighter
2009-10-23, 03:13
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?

BlackMagikz
2009-10-23, 05:34
wow what a nice reference , if only i could give you rep

DankE_SPB
2009-10-23, 10:57
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

Hoboknighter
2009-10-23, 22:12
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 (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm)
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.

DankE_SPB
2009-10-24, 00:04
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 (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm)
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
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6853/t72plates0jl.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/t72plates0jl.jpg/)
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 (http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm#2)
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

anglomanii
2009-11-10, 10:31
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.

162eRI
2009-11-10, 21:09
Indeed!
We are currently looking to reskin it. But first, I've to ask properly Afterdune for the model. This faction have to move up!!!

Bob_Marley
2009-11-11, 09:36
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).

Hoboknighter
2009-11-12, 03:42
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.

BloodBane611
2009-11-12, 06:40
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.

steve_06-07
2009-12-09, 05:23
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!

WilsonPL
2009-12-10, 15:39
Just lower sensivity of turret.

Bellator
2009-12-11, 05:53
I support the WASD control on the turret, that'd be an interesting change.

***LeGeNDK1LLER***
2009-12-11, 06:14
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.

Matheusferri
2009-12-29, 15:59
hey the sounds like good!!

rushn
2010-01-01, 03:31
will it have the same armor as T-62?

TristanYockell
2010-01-01, 04:36
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.

Blakeman
2010-01-25, 14:00
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.

Latvian_Rifleman
2010-02-21, 18:34
pretty nice but vs modern tech it should be pretty weak!

DevilDog812
2010-03-01, 23:39
this is one from the mod Who Dares Wins for Battlefield 1942:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2849/safiriz5.gif
Global Front made a neat bluish green reskin of it too

Infantry1242
2010-06-30, 15:33
Rudd;1126584']isn't teh T55 still in the PR files? wasn't it on Basrah .5?

Yea,its in the Militia files i think as i do believe there is 2 versions of it,the movable one,and the static version.They are as of v.917 i believe on Kozelsk with the Milita's main armor.

BroCop
2010-06-30, 15:58
and you are replying to something half a year old

Infantry1242
2010-07-02, 18:17
and you are replying to something half a year old

OMFG I IZ SO STUPID

Drunkenup
2010-07-04, 03:14
OMFG I IZ SO STUPID

You don't really get a positive response when you do dig up a dead thread on these forums, to be specific, you'll get a negative response, as common sense would dictate doing this is unnecessary, and simply annoying.