In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Chronosheep
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon 8 Jul 2013 19:30
Contact:

In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby Chronosheep » Sat 31 Aug 2013 00:33

Something that has been bothering me a bit for a while is how the soviet SU-122-54 is represented in this game.

It's based on the T-54/55 chassis, and from the little info I've been able to find, it has the more or less same armor thickness as a T-54/55. The two vehicles also weigh roughly the same.
In this game, however, the basic T-55 has 7/3/2/1 armor, while the SU-122-54 only has 4/2/2/1, and has also been given size big, while the T-55 is medium (while built on the same chassis).

From what I could find, the SU-122-54 was intended as a long-range tank destroyer, and given a more powerful 122mm gun and fitted with a stereoscopic rangefinder. In ALB, however, its gun has the same range and pitiful accuracy as the basic T-55, and even has 2 LESS AP than the T-55... and this is even despite the fact that the SU-122-54 is represented as a decade newer than the T-55 (and should thus fire newer ammo).

Balance wise, the SU-122-54 might be fine as it is, but in terms of authenticity, it seems far from resembling the real world vehicle.

User avatar
Numbers
Warrant Officer
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed 10 Jul 2013 18:33
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby Numbers » Sat 31 Aug 2013 00:36

Chronosheep wrote:and even has 2 LESS AP than the T-55... and this is even despite the fact that the SU-122-54 is represented as a decade newer than the T-55 (and should thus fire newer ammo).


However, the SU-122-54 uses HEAT ingame, meaning it does at least 1 damage regardless of the enemy's AV. The lower AP doesn't actually result in less killing power.
Image

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby Mitchverr » Sat 31 Aug 2013 00:41

It also derps enemy infantry that come near it too.
Image

Chronosheep
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon 8 Jul 2013 19:30
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby Chronosheep » Sat 31 Aug 2013 00:43

Chronosheep wrote:However, the SU-122-54 uses HEAT ingame, meaning it does at least 1 damage regardless of the enemy's AV. The lower AP doesn't actually result in less killing power.

True. But AP 7 is low even for a HEAT round.

Mitchverr wrote:It also derps enemy infantry that come near it too.

Well, as I said, I'm not complaining about balance, I'm complaining that it's far from representing the real world vehicle.

User avatar
F-22
Lieutenant
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 03:13
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby F-22 » Sat 31 Aug 2013 01:31

It may be that the T-55 has a sloped and fairly thick turret, it's about 2X the thickness of the hull.

I don't know if they take that into account, but it could be the reason for it.

Chronosheep
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon 8 Jul 2013 19:30
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby Chronosheep » Sat 31 Aug 2013 02:06

F-22 wrote:It may be that the T-55 has a sloped and fairly thick turret, it's about 2X the thickness of the hull.

I don't know if they take that into account, but it could be the reason for it.

Hm.. that's a fair point, and I agree that it might be reasonable not to give it as high armor as the T-55.
On the other hand, it had thicker armor than the french AMX-30, so I don't think it should have less than 5-6 frontal armor. I'd say 6 to compensate for the size penalty.

I think more realistic stats might be
6/3/2/1 Armor
Weapon:
2100m range
4 acc
9 AP

It would of course need a corresponding price increase. 25p, perhaps?

TankHunter
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue 31 Jul 2012 06:00
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby TankHunter » Sat 31 Aug 2013 02:19

Chronosheep wrote:
F-22 wrote:It may be that the T-55 has a sloped and fairly thick turret, it's about 2X the thickness of the hull.

I don't know if they take that into account, but it could be the reason for it.

Hm.. that's a fair point, and I agree that it might be reasonable not to give it as high armor as the T-55.
On the other hand, it had thicker armor than the french AMX-30, so I don't think it should have less than 5-6 frontal armor. I'd say 6 to compensate for the size penalty.

I think more realistic stats might be
6/3/2/1 Armor
Weapon:
2100m range
4 acc
9 AP

It would of course need a corresponding price increase. 25p, perhaps?


It doesnt need more AP, its an old tank destroyer, later used for infantry support, like an assault gun. It already has 5HE(unless they changed it from W:EE).
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them [. . .] They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."

User avatar
OneOhOne
Master Sergeant
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 17:45
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby OneOhOne » Sat 31 Aug 2013 02:23

Numbers wrote:
Chronosheep wrote:However, the SU-122-54 uses HEAT ingame, meaning it does at least 1 damage regardless of the enemy's AV. The lower AP doesn't actually result in less killing power.

At long range, yes, at short range, no. HEAT guns are terrible by comparison at short range due to the complete lack of damage scaling.
Image
Bender wrote:But why would God think in binary? Unless ... you're not God, but the remains of a computerized space probe that collided with God.

Chronosheep
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon 8 Jul 2013 19:30
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby Chronosheep » Sat 31 Aug 2013 02:37

TankHunter wrote:
Chronosheep wrote:
F-22 wrote:It may be that the T-55 has a sloped and fairly thick turret, it's about 2X the thickness of the hull.

I don't know if they take that into account, but it could be the reason for it.

Hm.. that's a fair point, and I agree that it might be reasonable not to give it as high armor as the T-55.
On the other hand, it had thicker armor than the french AMX-30, so I don't think it should have less than 5-6 frontal armor. I'd say 6 to compensate for the size penalty.

I think more realistic stats might be
6/3/2/1 Armor
Weapon:
2100m range
4 acc
9 AP

It would of course need a corresponding price increase. 25p, perhaps?


It doesnt need more AP, its an old tank destroyer, later used for infantry support, like an assault gun. It already has 5HE(unless they changed it from W:EE).


It might not be needed, but I think it should have 8-9 AP for its weapon to be consistent with AP values of contemporary units.
It was, after all, intended as a tank destroyer.

Pappystein
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat 31 Aug 2013 02:19
Contact:

Re: In-game representation of the SU-122-54

Postby Pappystein » Sat 31 Aug 2013 02:40

The 122mm Cannon on the Su-122-54 is the same basic cannon as the T-10M Heavy tank. You know that most important unit of Soviet Armored Divisions pre 1980 (and Guard's Armored Divisions pre 1967?)

Anyway, the Su-122-54 was an attempt to create a tank destroyer/Field artillery unit as powerful as the T-10M without costing as much. It was NOT successful (only 77 were built.) It had the same M-62-T Cannon as the T-10M, with 33 rounds (Some sources say 32 and given all sources say production batches varied....)

Conversely the T-10M itself had the two 14.5mm KVP machine guns (Coax and Anti Air) but carried more Ammunition (38-45 rounds my sources vary greatly.) not only could it fire HE, HEAT and AP rounds it could fire APDS rounds post 1965 updates.

While it's fire control was pretty crude it did have a two dimension stabilizer as well (Something the SU-122-54 was lacking.)


Sorry I am still scratching my head and wondering why the T-10M isn't in the game.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests