Soviet tanks called the most adapted to modernization


One of the most important characteristics of armored vehicles is its adaptability to modernization. As it turned out, this figure is the highest among Soviet and Russian military vehicles.


Such conclusions can be drawn by studying the world ranking compiled by the American publication National Interest.

Its authors believe that some models of armored vehicles have remained popular for decades not because of thick armor, powerful guns, excellent driving performance or other technical characteristics. Only the ability to modernize allows for a long time to adapt military equipment to changing realities.

The ability to efficiently deploy new guns, armor, turrets and sensors can keep the tank on the front line for decades, saving the costs of the military and industry.


Having studied many military vehicles manufactured by different countries at different times, American researchers came to unexpected conclusions. They put in first and second place among the most adaptable tanks world T-55 and T-72, created in the USSR. Another five of the best included the English Centurion, as well as the American M4 Sherman and M60.

Since the T-55 was constantly improved, it continued to be used in different countries of the world for several decades. In particular, it was on this tank that the system of active protection was installed for the first time in the world. T-72 is also well suited for modernization. He did not come to first place only because he began to be produced later than the T-55.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. knn54 April 6 2020 09: 32 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Not only tanks. Although praise from the National Interest of the Yankees is doubly pleasant
    1. Insurgent April 6 2020 09: 40 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Quote: knn54
      praise from the National Interest of the Yankees is doubly pleasant

      Soviet tanks called the most adapted to modernization

      And not only for modernization, but also for a radical alteration, as was the case with the “Ahzarit” (Hebrew אכזרית - “cruel”) - an Israeli heavy tracked armored personnel carrier based on captured T-54 and T-55 tanks captured during several Arab-Israeli conflicts.

      1. Thunderbolt April 6 2020 19: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: knn54
        praise from the National Interest of the Yankees is doubly pleasant

        Каких таких ещё янкесов..?Издателем и гендиром "«The National Interest» является звезда российских полит-шоу Дмитрий Константинович Симис/Саймс/.
        Чего только не взбрехнут наймиты,лишь бы оправдать отсутствие запланированных платформ "Арматата" в боксах наших батальонов!Н а каждую единицу бронетехники модернизаций море,но автор выбрал Т-72,по совокупности модернизаций,ну так и выпускали-эксплуатировали большое число стран эту машину.В чём рекорд? Дмитрий Саймс хочет уверить читателя,что последняя модернизация под МО РФ это круто,а сирийский опыт доказывает,что такие средства усиления базового Т-72 недостаточны.Если они недостаточны при боевых контактах с партизанами на тойотах и Т-54,но с крепкой стрелковкой и ПТУР,то что выиграет отечественный танк,с улучшенной системой бронирования,но без систем активного уничтожения ПТУР.А ведь Сирия уже показала,что следующая большая война не будет скупится на применение ракет по танкам.
        1. poquello April 6 2020 22: 06 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          Syrian experience proves that such means of strengthening the base T-72 are insufficient.

          failure please open
          1. Thunderbolt April 6 2020 22: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            недостаточность может внезапно раскрыться при бое с бригадами НАТО.Они со времён СССР затачивались в противотанковый уклон.Эти способности они не растеряли,а наоборот усиливают,принимая на вооружение перспективные средства для борьбы с танками. А наши всё переживают Ах, у него лобовая броня слабо прикрыта ДЗ ! А ведь год назад азербайджанцы показали как будет действовать НАТО.Спайком сожгли армянский танк .
            So, the article is very mediocre, without examples and analytics --- this should never be expected from NI, because. purely propaganda resource.
            1. poquello April 6 2020 22: 36 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Thunderbolt
              a year ago, Azerbaijanis showed how NATO would operate. Spike burned an Armenian tank.

              Duc if some showed, others didn’t show, it’s not a reason, as it was with the curtain)
  2. Doccor18 April 6 2020 09: 39 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    This is confirmed by the glorious service of the T-72 for over 40 years.
  3. Paul Siebert April 6 2020 09: 45 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    The ability to modernize is in the blood of our tank builders since World War II.
    She helped us defeat the Wehrmacht - the most powerful army in Europe.
    Russian ingenuity and folk wisdom always came to our aid.
    But, in addition to modernization, one should not forget about breakthrough technologies in the construction of tanks.
    1. Insurgent April 6 2020 09: 48 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      The ability to modernize is in the blood of our tank builders since World War II.

    2. Lipchanin April 6 2020 10: 49 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      But, in addition to modernization, one should not forget about breakthrough technologies in the construction of tanks.

      If I’m not mistaken, the automatic loader is only on our tanks
      1. Paul Siebert April 6 2020 10: 51 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: Lipchanin
        Quote: Paul Siebert
        But, in addition to modernization, one should not forget about breakthrough technologies in the construction of tanks.

        If I’m not mistaken, there is an automatic loader only on our tanks

        On the French “Leclerc” is still. And the Chinese comrades ... lol
        1. Lipchanin April 6 2020 10: 54 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Paul Siebert
          And the Chinese comrades ..

          Well, about China everything is clear laughing
          Just yesterday, the “Star” almost all day there was a program about tanks in the USSR and Russia. So I heard from the corner of my ear that in the west there is still no automatic loader. Probably this refers to tanks from the last century
          1. Paul Siebert April 6 2020 11: 00 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Lipchanin
            Just yesterday, the “Star” almost all day there was a program about tanks in the USSR and Russia.

            Yeah, I looked too.
            Very nice series. "History of the Russian tank" is called ...
            1. Lipchanin April 6 2020 11: 03 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: Paul Siebert
              "History of the Russian tank" is called ...

              Well yes. I learned a lot of interesting and new things.
              For example, about floating tanks. Particularly struck as 300 tanks on the bottom, it seems the Dnieper crossed.
              Imagine how NATO put on their pants laughing
              1. orionvitt April 6 2020 13: 58 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Lipchanin
                the Dnieper seems to have crossed the bottom

                В Днепре глубины больше пяти метров. Если по дну форсировать, то только в верховьях, где нибудь под Смоленском.
                1. MA3UTA April 7 2020 02: 37 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  YPRES
                  Чтоб выбрать место с допустимыми для подводного вождения глубинами - на вооружении стояло это чудо.


                  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ИПР
              2. Grits April 6 2020 15: 04 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Lipchanin
                Particularly struck as 300 tanks on the bottom, it seems the Dnieper crossed.
                Imagine how the NATO put on his pants

                Plus, it was not a secret that it was an imitation of crossing the Rhine.
          2. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 11: 32 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            Quote: Lipchanin
            So I heard from the corner of my ear that in the west there is still no automatic loader

            there, and very good. It’s just that some countries (and leading tank powers such as Germany or the USA) do not knowingly put AZs, believing that the presence of a loader is more justified
            1. Lipchanin April 6 2020 11: 36 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              It’s just that some countries (and leading tank powers such as Germany or the USA) do not knowingly put AZs, believing that the presence of a loader is more justified

              Clear.
              Thank you hi
            2. venik April 6 2020 14: 17 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Gregory_45
              It’s just that some countries (and leading tank powers such as Germany or the USA) do not knowingly put AZs, believing that the presence of a loader is more justified

              ========
              There is one more nuance: Combining an automatic loader with a "crazy" placement of ammunition is extremely difficult from an engineering point of view. By the way, the French succeeded, but the design turned out to be very complicated, expensive and cumbersome!
              1. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 16: 05 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                The funny thing is that the conveyor belt in the likeness of the French Leclerc and Japanese Type 90 was on the US-German MBT-70. However, when the paths parted, both Abrams and Leopard refused AZ
            3. Grits April 6 2020 15: 06 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Gregory_45
              AZ is not set deliberately, considering that the presence of a loader is more justified

              Performance pitching - Negro is still highly regarded.
              1. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 16: 13 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Gritsa
                Performance pitching - Negro is still highly valued

                An experienced loader can fire a projectile into a cannon every 3-4 seconds when firing from the spot, thereby providing a pace greater than the best AZ allows. At least the first shots
                Plus - an additional crew member involved in the maintenance of the tank.
                Apparently, this is the logic
                1. Doliva63 April 6 2020 19: 02 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Quote: Gritsa
                  Performance pitching - Negro is still highly valued

                  An experienced loader can fire a projectile into a cannon every 3-4 seconds when firing from the spot, thereby providing a pace greater than the best AZ allows. At least the first shots
                  Plus - an additional crew member involved in the maintenance of the tank.
                  Apparently, this is the logic

                  Here is one of the "tricks" of the assault rifle - the loading rate of the zakidny falls with each shot, but the assault rifle does not.
                  And where did you get 3-4 seconds? Do you imagine the process? Zakidny is sitting on the seat to the right or just standing there, holding on to the handle. Shot. Without releasing the handle, you need to reach the lock button, press it, rush to the styling, open it, get the shell, take 2 steps back with it, stick it in, push it by hand, turn to the lock button, press, rush into place, report. And it's all on the go, when time is running out and to maintain balance. The first such shot takes about 6 seconds, but the next (if in a row) will take a little more than 7 seconds, and the third - far in 8 seconds. Let me remind you that OF18 weighs a little over 30 kg. - 3 sec. You only have to open the stack, get the shell and unbend laughing I don’t remember the standard, but at school we did everything a lot faster - everything is not 6 months of training, but 4 years drinks
                  1. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 19: 32 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I didn’t think that the comment-argument "on the topic" would have to be clarified.

                    Quote: Doliva63
                    Here is one of the "tricks" of the assault rifle - the loading rate of the zakidny falls with each shot, but the assault rifle does not.

                    I know this very well. For meticulous readers, he even indicated the conditions under which the indicated values ​​would be valid.
                    The pros and cons of AZ are also known to me.

                    Quote: Doliva63
                    And where did you get 3-4 seconds?

                    from open sources, in relation to the Abrams tank. Neither you nor I sat in it, nor did you operate on the site of the loader. Therefore, you have to build on known numbers. The fact that they are more or less objective is also indicated by indirect factors. In particular, the French made their own AZ for Leclerc, including with the expectation of catching up with the “living AZ” by the cycle time. The French got a cycle of 4 seconds.
                    1. Doliva63 April 6 2020 20: 02 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      I didn’t think that the comment-argument "on the topic" would have to be clarified.

                      Quote: Doliva63
                      Here is one of the "tricks" of the assault rifle - the loading rate of the zakidny falls with each shot, but the assault rifle does not.

                      I know this very well. For meticulous readers, he even indicated the conditions under which the indicated values ​​would be valid.
                      The pros and cons of AZ are also known to me.

                      Quote: Doliva63
                      And where did you get 3-4 seconds?

                      from open sources, in relation to the Abrams tank. Neither you nor I sat in it, nor did you operate on the site of the loader. Therefore, you have to build on known numbers. The fact that they are more or less objective is also indicated by indirect factors. In particular, the French made their own AZ for Leclerc, including with the expectation of catching up with the “living AZ” by the cycle time. The French got a cycle of 4 seconds.

                      Open Sources - US Army Standards? I would agree with them, and so on - OBS.
                      Практический темп стрельбы у Абрамса 4 выстрела в минуту(о каких 3х секундах можно говорить?), у Леклерка - 10, у Т-72 - 8. Вы только скажите, что никогда не исполняли обязанности заряжающего/наводчика/командира танка,и я сразу отстану от вас hi
                      1. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 20: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Doliva63
                        Practical rate of fire

                        Have you noticed that this is a technical rate of fire? Which is always above practical (Leclerc is technically capable of firing 15 shells per minute)
          3. venik April 6 2020 14: 28 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Lipchanin
            Probably this refers to tanks from the last century

            ========
            Как раз "с точностью, да наоборот"! Как раз первые АЗ в серийных танках впервые был применен во французском AMX-13, производившемся в 1950-е годы, а затем в австрийском Steyr SK 105, выпускавшемся с 1971 года. Правда они были весьма примитивны и имели крайне ограниченный боезапас.
            And here are the first full танковые автоматы заряжания впервые были внедрены на Т-64в 1972 году!
      2. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 11: 30 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Lipchanin
        If I’m not mistaken, the automatic loader is only on our tanks

        no, not only. In French Leclerc, in Chinese tanks (which is understandable - they are Soviet, or even direct copies), in Japanese Type 10 and Type 90, on the South Korean Black Panther K2

        Кстати, первый опытный прототип полностью автоматического танкового автомата заряжания был разработан Рок-Айлендским арсеналом и изготовлен корпорацией AAI Corp. в 1969 году. Он обеспечивал до 8 выстрелов в минуту и позволял производить заряжание одновременно с наводкой пушки в обеих плоскостях и был сопряжён с системой стабилизации пушки
        1. Lipchanin April 6 2020 11: 34 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Thank you hi
          I will find time and try to find something on this topic.
          Interested
        2. Free wind April 6 2020 12: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Frenchman AMX-13, in '52 he was already with an automatic loader.
          1. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 13: 09 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Free Wind
            Frenchman AMX-13, in 52 was already with automatic loader

            you can recall the Austrian Cuirassier. Nevertheless, this is not MBT, and it’s more correct to call the AZ on them a store
            1. venik April 6 2020 17: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              you can recall the Austrian Cuirassier. Nevertheless, this is not MBT, and it’s more correct to call the AZ on them a store

              ========
              Yes, probably - it would be more correct to say “drum” (there, like there were 2, there were 6 shots in each, as in Smith-Wesson) ..... Not enough !!!
        3. Vladimir_2U April 6 2020 14: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Gregory_45
          The first prototype of a fully automatic tank-mounted autoloader was developed by the Rock Island Arsenal and manufactured by AAI Corp. in 1969
          What a great job, though the T-64 with the MH went into production no later than 68, but oh well.
  4. newcomer April 6 2020 09: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Interestingly, what did “Interst” not like about the modernization potential of 80ki? Although, a kind of analytics in the publication.
    1. svp67 April 6 2020 09: 53 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: newbie
      Interestingly, what did “Interst” not like about the modernization potential of 80ki? Although, a kind of analytics in the publication.

      It is later released than the same T-72 and the number of upgrades is not yet large ... Although I agree, its potential is still very large
    2. Horst78 April 6 2020 10: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: newbie
      Interestingly, what did “Interst” not like about the modernization potential of 80ki? Although, a kind of analytics in the publication.
      80tons are being upgraded only by Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in some way. 72yka was produced in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia. Therefore, they can fully modernize it (by attracting outsiders, in particular Israel). Without a fully-fledged production and repair base, substantial modernization is not possible (all kinds of thermal imagers, walkie-talkies and SLAs do not count.).
      1. newcomer April 6 2020 10: 45 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Clearly understood. But from the article I realized that we are talking about the fact of modern potential, and not about a fait accompli.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  5. Strashila April 6 2020 10: 11 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    “Since the T-55 was constantly improved, it continued to be used in different countries of the world for several decades.”, The T-55 tank can be released in a new version and using the latest technological advances.
    1. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 11: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Strashila
      can release the T-55 tank in a new version and using the latest technology

      and such a nedotank will cost as much as Armata, and in terms of combat capabilities it will not come close to the seventy two.
      The carrying capacity of the chassis and volumes is not enough for adequate armor and weapons.
      Old tanks can make quite good armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, which do not need powerful armor against BOPs, relatively relatively light in weight composite and DZ against anti-tank systems and grenade launchers
      1. Strashila April 6 2020 11: 51 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        "such a nedotank will cost as Armata," the fact of the matter is that it will not cost as Armata, mass use reduces production costs and cost.
        1. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 12: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Strashila
          the fact of the matter is that it will not cost as Armata

          sure? Nothing remains of the T-55. Neither the hull (which needs to be thoroughly modified), nor the tower (which needs a new one if you change the gun), nor the motor (which is for replacement), nor equipment (completely for replacement). Despite the fact that you can’t put much on the 55th chassis. It is at the limit of barely 45 tons. Meaning?
          Modernization of the 55th is carried out only by poor countries that cannot afford to buy something more worthy, such as Leopard, Abrams or T-72

          By the way, there are a great many variants of T-55 alterations (but the lion’s part remained experienced), everyone chooses according to their capabilities.
  6. igor67 April 6 2020 10: 18 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    from 30 seconds, Centurion is clearly visible
  7. rotmistr60 April 6 2020 10: 22 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Soviet designers worked hard for many years to come, always leaving the opportunity for the modernization of technology. Thank you very much for that. The current generation also takes this into account in their work.
    1. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 13: 12 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Soviet designers worked hard for many years to come, always leaving the opportunity for modernization of technology

      that’s how any professional designer, even German, even American
    2. Doliva63 April 6 2020 20: 14 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Soviet designers worked hard for many years to come, always leaving the opportunity for the modernization of technology. Thank you very much for that. The current generation also takes this into account in their work.

      "Нынешнее поколение" пока ещё ничего своего не создало, и только вовсю использует советские наработки: Т-90 - это Т-72, АК12 - это АК, Ту-160М - это Ту-160, Су-35 - это Су-27 и т.д. drinks
      1. poquello April 6 2020 22: 17 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Doliva63
        T-90 is T-72, AK12 is AK, Tu-160M ​​is Tu-160, Su-35 is Su-27, etc.

        ) so all AK after is AK, stagnation along the way for decades is costructural))))))))))))))))))))
  8. Atlant-1164 April 6 2020 10: 32 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    в СССР делалось всё всерьёз и надолго. прошло 30 лет как нет Союза.. а его наследие в Армии до сих пор составляет львиную долю образцов вооружения нашей армии.
  9. maxlog15 April 6 2020 10: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Как ни жаль, но в этом году Танкового биатлона не будет. В прошлом с большим интересом посмотрел все гонки.
    1. Grits April 6 2020 15: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: maxlog15
      Sorry, but this year there will be no Tank Biathlon

      Where does infa come from and why?
  10. Maks1995 April 6 2020 10: 44 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Russian National Interest Pushkova will certainly praise Russian technology.

    And with the tanks, too, everything is clear. They were created under the body kit from the very beginning. Light, low, cramped, inexpensive.
    The most for the country and for export. No wonder the T90 over the hill is much larger than ours.

    Без обвеса, есть кадры - здесь же выкладывали, где башню пробивает толи 30, то ли 56 мм снаряды, сейчас уже не помню точно.
    1. poquello April 6 2020 22: 25 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Max1995
      Light, low, cramped, inexpensive.

      )))))))))))
      everyone dreams of light, low, inexpensive - then quality characteristics
  11. sanik2020 April 6 2020 11: 10 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Soviet designers worked hard for many years to come, always leaving the opportunity for the modernization of technology. Thank you very much for that. The current generation also takes this into account in their work.

    Soviet tanks scolded all and sundry for not comfort, only these tanks were created for a single purpose, FIGHT. But in a battle with them, whoever can save themselves, because they can be improved for decades and in the battle they are still the best.
    1. Grits April 6 2020 15: 11 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: sanik2020
      Soviet tanks scolded all and sundry for not comfort, only these tanks were created for a single purpose, FIGHT.

      As they say: it’s better to serve on Abrams, and it’s better to fight on T-72
  12. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 11: 23 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Soviet tanks called the most adapted to modernization
    I would not agree with the authors from NI. They confuse the modernization potential and the number of modernizations carried out (alterations, versions)
    The modernization potential is just higher for Western tanks, for several reasons:
    1. Larger reserved volume, less dense layout. It allows you to put guns of greater power without a significant alteration of the tower structure, allows you to use shots of greater power (more dimensional, which AZs of domestic tanks do not allow), makes it relatively easy to install more powerful engines, etc. The less dense the machine’s layout, the more you can squeeze into it.
    2. Larger carrying capacity of the chassis. Allows relatively easy to increase armor protection, install more powerful guns.

    So, Abrams gained over 10 tons over the years of his service (from 54 to 63-odd), and the T-72 - only 5 tons (from 41 to 46). The chassis does not allow more.
    1. Moon April 6 2020 14: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Gregory_45
      They confuse the modernization potential and the number of modernizations carried out (alterations, versions)

      as usual, quality is confused with quantity.
      It is simply a matter of mass character and the number of possible options and the possibility to radically increase the quality of a unit.
      T 55 is a very massive tank (Top 10 of the best tanks 5th place - mass / quantity of industrial production)
      and of course there are many different options in the world.
      Rich countries cannot afford endless upgrades. It is more expensive than creating a new machine or methods of warfare.
      1. alexmach April 6 2020 15: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Rich countries cannot afford endless upgrades. It is more expensive than creating a new machine or methods of warfare.

        Well yes, nuda .. Just look at Abrams or Leopard ...
      2. Grigory_45 April 6 2020 16: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Σελήνη
        T 55 very massive tank

        however, this is a medium tank
        Quote: Σελήνη
        Rich countries cannot afford endless upgrades

        let me disagree. Abrams, Leopard 2 are examples of this. Tanks have dozens of options and have gone through several major upgrades, for decades remaining the main battle tank of the United States and Germany. And, apparently, they will not be replaced soon either
  13. Mebius April 6 2020 13: 00 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    У Русского оружия всегда главная фишка была в производстве вооружения ..Простота ,ремотно пригодность ,быстрая модернизация и главное надежность ! Удобств конечно маловато для экипажей ,как у западных аналогов ,но когда кругом гремят взрывы ,там уже не удобств ,а главное чтобы движек,ходовая ,пушка ,пулемет и броня не подвели ..А там уж как повезет ! hi
  14. Free wind April 6 2020 13: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well then, the M-60, Sherman of 1942, here, from which side, then why there is no t-34 in the review.
    1. Mebius April 6 2020 13: 26 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Quote: Free Wind
      then why is there no t-34 in the review.

      Well, with the legendary T-34 it all started ..
      1. Doliva63 April 6 2020 20: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Mobius
        Quote: Free Wind
        then why is there no t-34 in the review.

        Well, with the legendary T-34 it all started ..

        Well yes. T-55 is a direct descendant of T-34.
        1. poquello April 6 2020 22: 31 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Doliva63
          Quote: Mobius
          Quote: Free Wind
          then why is there no t-34 in the review.

          Well, with the legendary T-34 it all started ..

          Well yes. T-55 is a direct descendant of T-34.

          not really, t34 set the development canvas, t43 was significantly different but precisely in comparison with the landmark
  15. Nikolay2 April 6 2020 18: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    But Volga and Loaf have infinite potential for modernization.