Military Review

The ballad about the T-55. Birth…

111

Penza T-55 among the pine trees near the church-chapel of the Archangel Michael


What modern tank can you put together a real ballad, moreover, impressive without any epic exaggeration? There can be only one answer: by the totality of all its characteristics, such a machine should be the Soviet T-55 tank!

Low-chested, flat-bottomed,
Weighed down by itself
With a gun aimed at the soul
Scary tank going into battle.
("Vasily Turkin". A.T. Tvardovsky)

Monument tanks. We have two places in Penza where a fairly large number of military equipment has gathered, exhibited for public viewing. One is behind the mayor's office near the square with the monument to soldiers-internationalists ("Afghan Gates"), the other is next to the monument to the military and labor valor of Penza residents during the Great Patriotic War, among the pine trees of the church-chapel of the Archangel Michael. Among the various guns of the post-war years and self-propelled guns, the T-55 tank involuntarily attracts the eye (at the "Afghan Gate" there is a T-54). Than? Yes, that's just its appearance. He really is exactly like in Tvardovsky's poem - and low-chested, and flat-bottomed, and his cannon, although it looks into the sky, is impressive with the thickness of the barrel. In short, it really is a tank! Tank with a capital letter! However, the fact that this is not just the impression of an accidentally thrown glance at him, but that this is exactly the way it really is, allows us to make sure his truly unique история... And here we will tell you today. Well, maybe not all at once ...

So, it was in the USSR that an amazing tank was created during the Second World War, the name of which everyone knows - this is the T-34! And this is not just a tank - it is a tank paradox. The gun on it was worse than that of the German "Panther", the speed was lower than that of the British "Cromwell", it did not shine with its armor thickness either, it had an outdated suspension and, moreover, did not have the maintainability of the Sherman. But ... in terms of the totality of its combat properties and manufacturability, it surpassed all these tanks put together. Moreover, it turned out, although the military did not immediately realize it, that this is a tank of a completely new era - the era of total wars! No wonder he fought wherever he was, although he was already inferior to more modern machines. But not by much! Even better, although not so fundamentally, was its successor, the T-44, which nevertheless laid the foundation for the post-war Soviet school of tank design. Although, it would seem, what was it about him? A turret in the middle of the hull, massive wheels on torsion bars, a driver's hatch on the roof of the hull and an engine not along, but across it. All this also migrated to the next tank, the T-54, but its turret became different - like a cap from a boletus, and a 100-caliber cannon that surpassed all tank guns of our potential opponents in its power.

And then the Soviet Union had only two of them: the United States and Great Britain. Germany was just rebuilding its economy, while France was building only experimental tanks based on the German Panther. And then the Korean War began, where, again, our T-34s were operating, and it showed that the tanks of the Americans and the British were "not very good", that they would not go far in vehicles of the Second World War under the new conditions! The M47 "Patton II" (1951) and M48 "Patton III" (1953) tanks are urgently being put into service, and in the United Kingdom, several modifications of the "Centurion" tank are being introduced. However, they did not surpass the T-54 either in terms of their firepower, or in terms of armor protection, or in terms of maneuverability. Their 90-mm and 83,8-mm rifled guns, if they had to shoot at a distance of more than 1000 m, the frontal armor of our tank was not pierced. In addition, gasoline engines were still installed on them, the main drawback of which had been known for a long time and very well - high fire hazard.

Therefore, it is not even surprising that soon (namely in 1953) a tank with an air-cooled diesel engine appeared in the United States - the M60 main battle tank. It already had a 105 mm M68 cannon (licensed version of the British L7A1), and the designers managed to bring the thickness of the frontal armor on it to 200 mm. Accordingly, another "Centurion" Mk.10 appeared in England with an L7A1 cannon with thickened armor, but the British had not yet managed to create a replacement for the gasoline engine at that time.

The ballad about the T-55. Birth…
T-55A Polish Troops

Our answer should have been the same. And ... he did! Under the leadership of Leonid Kartsev, to improve the characteristics of the T-54, which has been serially produced here since 1945, the T-55 tank was developed at the Uralvagonzavod design bureau in Nizhny Tagil, which was put into service in 1958. At the same armament (rifled gun 100 mm) and armor, the effectiveness of the gun was significantly increased due to the fact that it was stabilized, moreover, in two planes at once. That is, the T-55 received an almost XNUMX-fold advantage over its opponents in firepower, since it could now conduct effective fire on the move. The vehicle's mobility was also traditionally high.

However, perhaps the most important thing in which this machine surpassed all its Western opponents was its high operational characteristics, that is, indicators of reliability and maintainability.

In particular, the T-55 had a diesel engine with a liquid cooling system, which made it possible to operate this machine in various regions of the planet. And finally, let's look at the most important indicator of its high performance. So, according to the JANE'S Defense Equipment yearbook for June 1999, various modifications of the T-55 were in service in the armies of more than 60 countries of the world, and the total number of vehicles produced (including tanks released under license and the Chinese modification - the T-59 tank ) was a record - about 100 thousand cars! This is indeed a record figure, because throughout the entire history of world tank building, there are simply no other examples when a tank of the same type was produced in such quantities!


Egyptian T-55 tanks (1985)

Interestingly, our new tank was very similar in appearance to the T-54, which is why they were often confused in the West, but at the same time it was much more dangerous!

The diesel engine has become more powerful - not 520, but 580 hp. with., which is not superfluous for any tank. The stock of transported fuel began to be transported in storage tanks. At first glance, such a placement of fuel does not increase the survivability of the vehicle, rather the opposite. But tests at the proving ground have shown that diesel fuel tanks located on the fenders not only do not increase its fire hazard, but also serve as additional protection in the event of a cumulative projectile hit. In this case, the fuel simply flows out of the punctured tanks, but they themselves do not burn. If they were, of course, filled with gasoline, then the shaped-charge projectile would have set them on fire, but only heavy diesel fuel does not possess such flammability. The total capacity of the reserved fuel tanks, thanks to the dense layout, also increased to 680 liters, which now accounted for 50% of the total stock of transported fuel.

The T-55 did not seem to differ much from the T-54B (on which the gun was also stabilized in two planes) in armament, only the anti-aircraft machine gun was removed from it. First it was removed, but then in 1970 it was installed again. The number of shells in ammunition for the 100-mm rifled D-10T2S tank gun was increased from 34 to 43 shots. The shells for the gun had good armor penetration characteristics. So, a cumulative projectile pierced an armor plate with a thickness of 390 mm (installed vertically), and a sub-caliber feathered at a distance of 1000 m - a sheet with a thickness of 275 mm, that is, they hit all main NATO tanks.


T-55 28th Armored Brigade (Bosnia-Herzegovina)

Installation of an air compressor, with the help of which it became possible to start the engine with compressed air, made it possible to save battery power and even start the engine in their absence. The crew also received collective protection from nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons: a filtering unit that purified the air supplied to the tank by its crew. The automatic fire extinguishing system also increased its survivability in the event of a hit. Well, the thermal smoke equipment installed on the tank, operating by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust manifold, made it possible to repeatedly install a smoke screen, which could not have been achieved with disposable smoke bombs, which also ran out quickly.

The next response of our tank designers to the further improvement of the tanks of our potential adversaries was the T-55A model, which appeared already in 1961. This tank improved its security, and armor-piercing shells were created for the 100-mm tank gun, which have significantly higher armor penetration.

To be continued ...
Author:
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. apro
    apro 20 December 2020 04: 52
    +2
    Not bad. Write about the technique. You are doing great gShpakovsky.
    Still, in reality, the first modern main tank is the T44. All the rest went from it.
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 20 December 2020 05: 39
      +12
      Quote: apro
      Still, in reality, the first modern main tank is the T-44. All the rest went from it.

      Yes, the best tank of any war is a tank created from combat experience gained in this war. And so it turns out that the best tanks of World War II are the T-44 and IS-3, developed at the end of the war and did not participate in the battles of this war.
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 20 December 2020 06: 18
      +10
      Quote: apro
      Not bad. Write about the technique. You are doing great gShpakovsky.
      Still, in reality, the first modern main tank is the T44. All the rest went from it.

      The first modern main tank (MBT) is considered to be the T-64. It was he who reset the gradation of the division of tanks into light, medium and heavy.
      The T-44 is a deep modernization of the famous T-34.
      Development of the line: A-32, T-34, T-43, T-44, T-54, T-55. The last was the T-62 with a 115mm smoothbore gun. Although in Omsk, the T-55AM was produced until the mid-80s. That is, longer than "62" at UVZ in Nizhny Tagil.
      1. Kuroneko
        Kuroneko 20 December 2020 08: 33
        +6
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Development of the line: A-32, T-34, T-43, T-44, T-54, T-55. The last was the T-62 with a 115mm smoothbore gun.

        You forgot the BT-20.

        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 20 December 2020 08: 40
          +11
          BT-20 (A-20) light tank. T-34 - medium. On the other hand, the A-20 is the point in the development of the BT, from which the development of the T-34 began. In a broad sense, one can agree.
          1. Kuroneko
            Kuroneko 20 December 2020 08: 44
            +3
            Well, Pz. IV was originally light, became medium (remaining essentially the same tank). In the same way, an average A-20 grew out of the light A-32 and wrap everything up ...
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 20 December 2020 13: 56
              +4
              Quote: Kuroneko
              Well, Pz. IV was originally light

              Seriously?
              1. Kuroneko
                Kuroneko 20 December 2020 14: 05
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Seriously?

                In fact, yes. The early versions weighed 17-18 tons, the later ones - 25 (and by the way, the early versions were also typical light tanks in terms of armor). I don't take into account the Omsk classification of the Germans by class depending on the caliber of the artillery system, according to it, the heavy Panther is average tank.
                Or do you like national classifications and, say, Pershing, too, think for a CIGO tank? So the Americans themselves then returned him back to the middle.
                The Pershing was originally designed as a medium tank, but at the end of 1944 it was reclassified as a heavy tank to boost crew confidence. In May 1946, due to the changed American concept of tank forces, the Pershing was again reclassified as a medium tank.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 20 December 2020 14: 58
                  +4
                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  early versions and armor were typical light tanks

                  We open the census of "typical light tanks for armor".

                  Greetings from hard tanks on booking

                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  Early versions weighed 17-18 tons, later 25

                  You'd better tell me how it turned out that the M2 medium tank in 39 weighs 18,7 tons, and the "light tank" four in the 37th weighs 18,4.
                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  Germans by class, depending on the caliber of the artillery system, I do not take into account, according to it, the heavy Panther is a medium tank.

                  Medium cannon. I'll tell you more, and Cent is a middle gun all his life.
                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  and, say, Pershing is also considered a heavy tank? So the Americans themselves then returned it back to the middle.

                  That's okay, tell me how it happened that Pershing and Panther are of the same weight, but the American is average, and the German is heavy.
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 20 December 2020 17: 33
                    +7
                    Spears about classifications can be broken endlessly)
                    1. Jager
                      Jager 25 December 2020 18: 43
                      0
                      "Spears" have all been in Kubinka and Patriot Park for a long time)
                  2. Jager
                    Jager 25 December 2020 18: 41
                    0
                    Opppachki, and then by weight and IS-2 "average", the difference with the "Panther" + - a ton.
                    When they say that the Pz. V medium tank - look at it live. And questions about his "middle" will disappear by themselves. This "medium-low-heavy" panzer is a typical example, when the Germans were unable to repeat the success of the Pz. IV. failed.
                    1. kytx
                      kytx 2 January 2021 03: 27
                      0
                      a tank has three characteristics: mobility. security and firepower
                      all
                      pz5 medium tank
                      just bloated to the size of an elephant
                  3. Jager
                    Jager 25 December 2020 19: 00
                    0
                    A sketch in the form of a photo of a heavy T-35 was not valid. Who had 30 mm thick armor, carried two 45 mm, one 76 mm guns and 7 (!!!) machine guns in the mid 30s? German panzers then existed only in Guderian's wet pink dreams.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 25 December 2020 20: 01
                      +1
                      Quote: Jager
                      Who had 30mm thick armor

                      So the colleague is looking for tanks "light-armored". Why are you here at all?
                      Quote: Jager
                      Guderian's wet pink dreams.

                      About Guderian's wet pink dreams would be most convenient to grind around October 41.
                      Quote: Jager
                      then by weight and IS-2 "average", the difference with the "Panther" + - a ton.

                      If the USSR had the opportunity to make the IS-2 second divisional hull tank, and OGvTTP to form from the IS-4 - then yes, the IS-2 would be average. But the USSR did not have the opportunity for this.
                      Quote: Jager
                      when the Germans were unable to replicate the success of the Pz. IV. failed.

                      The Germans tried to strangle the fourth groove from the moment of birth, it was, so to speak, a mistake of youth. But along the way, it turned out that the beloved son, the three, did not live up to expectations, and with the four, everything turned out much better.
                      1. Jager
                        Jager 5 January 2021 11: 16
                        0
                        In October 41, the "high-speed Heinz" was already screaming in his diary "about the superiority of the T-34 near Tula," but the blitzkrieg somehow did not work out.
                        Expand the opus about the IS-4 in more detail, I have not smoked such fencing grass yet.
                        Pz. IV youth mistake? Stop reading Yandex. Zen and articles by schoolchildren.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 5 January 2021 12: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: Jager
                        already yelling with might and main in his diary "about the superiority of the T-34 near Tula"

                        I mean, he noticed them in the fall. Less than six months, so to speak.
                        Quote: Jager
                        Expand opus about IS-4 in more detail

                        What do you not understand? The late Germans in the division had a tank weighing 40+ tons, in terms of reinforcement - a tank weighing 70+ tons. If the Red Army could afford the IS-2 or 50/50 IS-2 / T-34-85, and the OGvTTP formed from the IS-4, then it would be possible to talk about the IS-2 average. But no, not destiny.
                        Quote: Jager
                        articles by schoolchildren.

                        Is this a schoolboy in Zen no longer allowed to read?
                        https://zen.yandex.ru/media/yuripasholok/vynujdennaia-para-nemeckih-srednih-tankov-5fd89d88b4e7717869a31086
    3. svp67
      svp67 20 December 2020 08: 57
      +3
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Although in Omsk, the T-55AM was produced until the mid-80s.

      Yes, rather, they modernized the old T-55 ...
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 21 December 2020 14: 17
        0
        You can also remember the T-55AD. Upgrade, yes.
    4. apro
      apro 20 December 2020 09: 19
      +8
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      The T-44 is a deep modernization of the famous T-34.

      I disagree. The armored hull is completely different. The suspension and the engine with the gearbox. If you look at the cut along. Then it is
      identical to all modern tanks, the tower was left with 34.
      1. mark1
        mark1 20 December 2020 12: 36
        +1
        Quote: apro
        yes they left the tower with 34.

        No, no - a tower with a T-43, it went to both the T-34-85 and the T-44, but from the general, if only the final drives (I don't remember changing the gear ratios or not)
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 20 December 2020 12: 41
        0
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The T-44 is a deep modernization of the famous T-34.

        Quote: apro
        I do not agree.

        I support this opinion. In one row, I would put:
        T-44, T-54, T-55, T-62. And the next line went T-64, T-72-90, T-80.
      3. svp67
        svp67 21 December 2020 14: 19
        0
        Quote: apro
        I disagree. The armored hull is completely different. The suspension and the engine with the gearbox. If you look at the cut along. Then it is

        Well, if we start comparing with the T-34M, and the T-44's gearbox is structurally the same as the final drives, not to mention the caterpillar ...
    5. 113262a
      113262a 20 December 2020 09: 44
      +4
      Certainly not 44 -deep modernization of the thirty-four! Maybe skating rinks! And so, no nadusenny niches, not even the location of the armor plates, no MTO, and even the tower only vaguely resembled. Then take it for the progenitor of BT-7
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 20 December 2020 13: 58
        0
        Quote: 113262
        Then take it for the progenitor of BT-7

        What have Christie's tanks got to do with it? It was on the T-44 that they finally got rid of this suitcase without a handle.
  2. Alf
    Alf 20 December 2020 14: 54
    +2
    Quote: apro
    Still, the real first modern main tank is the T44.

    You are not right. The term main tank refers to the armament and protection of the heavy with the mass and mobility of the medium. The first main tank was only the T-64 exactly according to the indicators I gave.
    1. English tarantas
      English tarantas 20 December 2020 21: 54
      0
      MBT also has a number of features, according to which the first MBT is still the Centurion. The T-64 is already the second generation MBT.
      1. Alf
        Alf 20 December 2020 21: 59
        +2
        Quote: English tarantass
        MBT also has a number of features, according to which the first MBT is still Centurion.

        Which ones?
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 21 December 2020 10: 12
          0
          For example, the MBT is designed to replace all existing tanks, and not to occupy the middle niche.
          1. Alf
            Alf 21 December 2020 18: 49
            +1
            Quote: English Tarantas
            For example, the MBT is designed to replace all existing tanks, and not to occupy the middle niche.

            Floating too, like Scorpio?
            Do you even know by what parameters a tank is classified as an MBT? And what, the British Centurion replaced all types of tanks in England?
          2. Jager
            Jager 5 January 2021 11: 35
            0
            And "Conkerror" was not in the know!
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 20 December 2020 05: 49
    +18
    The author took something, perhaps, to increase the degree of patriotism?
    So, it was in the USSR that an amazing tank was created during the Second World War, the name of which everyone knows - this is the T-34!

    And what's this for? What relation did the T-34 have to the T-55?
    But ... in terms of the totality of its combat properties and technological effectiveness, it surpassed all these tanks combined.

    Who are these statements for?
    The Korean War, where, again, our T-34s operated, and it showed that the tanks of the Americans and the British were "not very good" ... Several modifications of the "Centurion" tank are urgently entering service ...

    Cent 45th year so that.
    Their 90-mm and 83,8-mm rifled guns, if they had to shoot at a distance of more than 1000 m, the frontal armor of our tank was not penetrated

    It means that the main projectile was already then the subcaliber, and the subcaliber had problems with sloped armor.
    In addition, gasoline engines were still installed on them, the main drawback of which was known for a long time and very well - high fire hazard.

    There is no such disadvantage. Who, and not the Kharkovites with their tanks in the fighting compartment, should be presented for fire hazard.
    Therefore, there is nothing even surprising that soon (namely in 1953) a tank with an air-cooled diesel engine appeared in the USA - the M60 main battle tank
    ,
    The author does not remember his own previous paragraph, or does he not distinguish M48 from M60?
    to improve the characteristics of the T-54, which has been serially produced here since 1945.

    If you don't lie - from the 50th, if you lie - from the 47th, but the author has his own vision.
    With the same armament (100 mm rifled gun) and armor, the effectiveness of the gun was significantly increased due to the fact that it was stabilized, moreover, in two planes at once.

    Lies. The D10T2S cannon and the Cyclone stabilizer appeared on the T-54B two years earlier.
    That is, the T-55 received an almost XNUMX-fold advantage over its opponents in firepower.

    A two-plane stabilizer appeared on the Center Mk2 immediately in the 45th year.
    This is indeed a record figure, because throughout the entire history of world tank building, there are simply no other examples when a tank of the same type was produced in such quantities!

    This, of course, is an indicator of the tank's superiority. A billion blacks can't be wrong. No, this has nothing to do with the fact that the Soviet government, kind to the Negroes, shipped these tanks to them without counting for free, not at all.
    and the total number of vehicles produced (including tanks produced under license and a Chinese modification - the T-59 tank) was a record - about 100 thousand vehicles!

    Where did the author get this figure - the devil only knows. 20 thousand T-54, 30 thousand T-55 together with the Chinese. Even with the T-62 does not come out 100 thousand.
    In this case, the fuel simply flows out of the punctured tanks, but they themselves do not burn.

    Yeah, fairy tales about non-combustible fuel have been in circulation since 39. It just flows into the fighting compartment, nothing to worry about.
    The people who came up with these tales would very much like to wish to be in their tank in battle. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.
    So, a cumulative projectile pierced an armor plate with a thickness of 390 mm (installed vertically), and a sub-caliber feathered at a distance of 1000 m - a sheet with a thickness of 275 mm

    These are shells 3BK5M and 3BM8, 63rd and 64th year. They had nothing to do specifically with the T-55, they were used on any guns of this family.
    The crew also received collective protection against nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons.

    In general, it was for this that they bother.
    The next response of our tank designers to further improve the tanks of our potential opponents was the model

    T-62
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 20 December 2020 06: 30
      +8
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      The author took something, perhaps, to increase the degree of patriotism?
      Health to the author! Ahaha! Yes, I haven't visited the site for half a year, but such changes.
      1. kalibr
        20 December 2020 12: 30
        +4
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Health to the author!

        Thank you, Vladimir! After the "crown" this is a very urgent wish!
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 20 December 2020 06: 43
      +1
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      And what's this for? What relation did the T-34 have to the T-55?

      What does the BT-2 have to do with the BT-7?
      "55" continuation of the development of the design idea of ​​the middle "34"!
      T-34-72, T-34-85, T-44, T-54, T-62.

      About T-34.
      But ... in terms of the totality of its combat properties and technological effectiveness, it surpassed all these tanks combined.

      Who are these statements for?
      What confuses you? This point is adhered to by most historians of armored vehicles, both domestic and abroad.

      The Korean War, where, again, our T-34s operated, and it showed that the tanks of the Americans and the British were "not very good" ... Several modifications of the "Centurion" tank are urgently entering service ...

      "Cent 45th year so that."
      The author writes about the "modification" model!

      In addition, gasoline engines were still installed on them, the main drawback of which was known for a long time and very well - high fire hazard.

      “There is no such disadvantage. Who, and not the Kharkovites with their tanks in the fighting compartment, should be presented for fire hazard. "
      And why did the crews of tanks with gasoline engines call them "spirit lamps for heating food." And what relation do the Kharkovites have to the Nizhniy Tagil T-55?

      Therefore, there is nothing even surprising that soon (namely in 1953) a tank with an air-cooled diesel engine appeared in the USA - the M60 main battle tank
      ,
      "The author does not remember his own previous paragraph, or does he not distinguish M48 from M60?"
      This is in order to blur something out of the word.
      However, like everything else. Truth is mixed with fiction.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 20 December 2020 14: 37
        +3
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        T-34-72, T-34-85, T-44, T-54, T-62.

        Hello, 72mm guns have arrived.
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        "55" continuation of the development of the design idea of ​​the middle "34"!

        There was nothing from the T-34 to the T-54/55 in general... And this is a huge plus. Well, except for the tanks in the fighting compartment, there is no way without it.
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        What confuses you? This point is adhered to by most historians of armored vehicles, both domestic and abroad.

        "Historians of armored vehicles" usually do not engage in nonsense. The 183rd plant had no question in life, what should they produce: the T-34? Or a three? Or maybe we’ll start talking to Panther?

        About "the best" mostly srachi. T-34 in the best is always displayed in the same way:
        1. For the T-34 is taken strictly T-34-85, preferably post-war.
        2. Panther kicks from medium tanks to ISs for weight.
        3. The British kick out of medium tanks for small-scale production.
        4. Sherman is charged with a "high center of mass" and "fire hazard" (I have never seen that he was presented with a case, for example, a 76mm gun, a turning mechanism, a torque graph).

        Profit.
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The author writes about the "modification" model!

        The author can at least write. The Centre's modifications were made every couple of years, according to the accumulation of upgrades.
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        "The author does not remember his own previous paragraph, or does he not distinguish M48 from M60?"
        This is in order to blur something out of the word.

        If you had mastered at least Wikipedia, you would have been aware that both the M60 and a cent from the L7 are tanks of the 59th year. The T-55 has nothing to do with them.
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        What relation do Kharkiv residents have to the Nizhniy Tagil T-55?

        Such that this is the creative legacy of Comrade Morozov Alexander Alexandrovich. The man hated the Soviet regime as Kniepkamp of the fascists. But the Soviet government loved him.
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        And why did the crews of tanks with gasoline engines call them "spirit lamps for heating food"

        Because they were probably asked about it. Nobody was interested in Soviet tankers on the topic "How is it to fight in a mechanized corps with 4 types of fuel on standard equipment".
        And as for these very tankers
        A seasoned young veteran, 23-year-old Sergeant James Bowser (from Jasper, Alabama) spoke to me on behalf of the crew.

        “General,” he said, “this is my third tank, although the crew is the same. We barely managed to jump out of the two previous cars. If the tanks had diesel engines, this would not have happened. Gasoline engines flare up like a torch on the first or second hit. Then we can only jump out of the burning car, leaving it to burn out.

        Hmm. I lost 2 vehicles in the fire, but not a single tanker. This should be of interest to Soviet colleagues. By the way, what kind of diesel tanks is he talking about in order to compare? Matilda? Navy Stewart? Where could he see them? Knows from rumors?
        So they changed the diesel Matilda to the gasoline Churchill. There were complaints about Churchill's flammability, no?

        Well, about the complainants themselves.
        They admitted that the enemy was a clever and clever adversary, but they attributed most of their defeats to a lack of combat experience. If the Americans often rushed headlong into the attack, the Germans, on the contrary, carefully reconnoitered the approach routes, skillfully used the beds of dried up rivers and hollows to cover the troops and provided a camouflage for the offensive. At first, our tankers rushed into the attack like cavalrymen, recklessly relying on the speed of the vehicles and the thickness of the armor. Unfortunately, this did not help them as soon as they found themselves in the reach of the German anti-tank artillery.

        Exhaustively.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 21 December 2020 12: 24
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Nobody was interested in Soviet tankers on the topic "How it is to fight in a mechanized corps with 4 types of fuel on standard equipment".

          According to Melia, there were five types of fuel:
          KB-70,
          diesel fuel,
          gasoline,
          naphtha,
          kerosene for tractor.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 21 December 2020 12: 28
            +1
            Kind of like the tractors required naphtha or kerosene, no?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 21 December 2020 12: 32
              +2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Kind of like the tractors required naphtha or kerosene, no?

              Judging by the tables "Calculation of the need for fuel and lubricants for the ground forces of the spacecraft" from Appendix No. 4 to Chapter VI:
              - naphtha went to ChTZ-60 and Kommunar;
              - tractor kerosene - at STZ-3-5.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 21 December 2020 12: 44
                +1
                STZ-5 naphtha fit. I forgot about STZ-3, you are right.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 21 December 2020 12: 20
        +2
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        "55" continuation of the development of the design idea of ​​the middle "34"!

        The problem is that Morozov himself did not think so, calling the T-44 a fundamentally new tank.
        According to the datasheet, the T-44 - thick-armored high-speed maneuverable tank of a fundamentally new type with powerful artillery weapons.
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        What confuses you? This point is adhered to by most historians of armored vehicles, both domestic and abroad.

        But Marshal of the BTV Fedorenko (the head of the ABTU of the Red Army and the commander of the BMV of the Ground Forces) had a different opinion ...
        Of the currently available armaments of the Red Army, tank equipment should be the American medium tank Sherman M4A2 with artillery. armament in the form of a 76,2 mm cannon of high power and the Canadian light tank "Valentine" MK-9 with a 57-mm tank gun limited rollback ...
        The indicated tank models compare favorably with the domestic ones in terms of ease of operation, significantly increased overhaul life, ease of maintenance and current repair, and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole range of tasks put forward by armored forces ...
        According to numerous reviews from tank units, these types of tanks can be considered the best for serving in peacetime, mastering military equipment ...
        I ask you to consider a set of measures for the speedy improvement of the design of domestic tanks, so that they can be compared with the best foreign models in terms of guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance ...
        1. Alf
          Alf 21 December 2020 18: 51
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          According to numerous reviews from tank units, these types of tanks can be considered the best for serving in peacetime, mastering military equipment ...

          This paragraph is simply gorgeous. And what to fight on?
    3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 20 December 2020 11: 53
      +7
      ... And what's this for? What relation did the T-34 have to the T-55?

      An ordinary mantra. Well, how can one not burn T-34 incense in the article 'about tanks', even if it is out of place?
    4. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 21 December 2020 14: 19
      +1
      Excellent preparation, respect!
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 20 December 2020 06: 13
    +16
    Good morning, Vyacheslav Olegovich.
    Today I cannot step over myself and write that you have made a good article. If I had not read the signature, I would have thought that someone from the authors - newbies decided to quickly concoct on the materials of "Wikipedia" ...
    You know, today's article strongly reminded me of the magazine "technology of youth" for 1985.
    It seems that they told the young people something, they showed the picture, but they didn't reveal a lot, and they embellished something.
    I will not repeat myself in the list of inaccuracies. I see readers have already started doing this.
    Sincerely. Reserve tanker.
    1. kalibr
      20 December 2020 07: 46
      -3
      Nazarius! I understand that from the heights of your experience, a lot is wrong ... But you and everyone else at the same time. The material was written on the basis of other materials by very decent specialists. There are many of them, and among them there are people in uniform and technically competent up to a Ph.D. My here - ha - word order to ensure the novelty of the text at the level of 90% and higher in the Advego system. That is, this is a classic rewrite. As well as the article about Annie Oakley. Which also came out today. And not everything is written there either. And there is also a rewrite and some other. But it is imperceptible there, right? Because there are no experts. But what is needed from the material? Figures, facts ... all from "noteworthy sources". Therefore, "mark1" is just "I don't see that".
    2. kalibr
      20 December 2020 12: 28
      +1
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Reserve tanker.

      I just don’t understand why you were instructed so many disadvantages!
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 20 December 2020 13: 51
        +9
        The casket just opens. I have a sufficient number of "personal" minusers who put a "minus" on any of my comments without looking or reading)))
        Wish you many years of life and fruitful activity for the good of the Great Patriotic War, or I will express the words of mourning for the fallen soldiers in the Second World War, they are right there! Moreover, I notice that they have exacerbations in the middle of the week (more often on Wednesday) and on weekends!
        laughing
        Well, apparently there is nothing to do, so they are raging)))
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 20 December 2020 22: 11
          +2
          exacerbations in them in the middle of the week (more often on Wednesday) and on weekends

          The schedule, however
  • mark1
    mark1 20 December 2020 06: 18
    +13
    I am an artist, as I see it ... Very loose presentation
  • andrewkor
    andrewkor 20 December 2020 07: 37
    +4
    "Fighting vehicles of the Urals T54 \ T55"! I recommend! The whole history of creation and design to the screw! Without literature!
  • svp67
    svp67 20 December 2020 07: 55
    +9
    Alas, but I will write off the SPORTS author, in the photo "Penza T-55 among the pines near the church-chapel of the Archangel Michael" is quite a T-54, as evidenced by the "fungus" of ventilation in front of the loader's hatch, this was just abandoned on the T-55 , in connection with the installation of the PAZ system (anti-nuclear protection)
    And of course the T-55 is a real "tank soldier" which, in terms of its main characteristics and not only combat and operational, but also, if possible, mass production, was unsurpassed for a long time
    1. kalibr
      20 December 2020 08: 17
      +5
      Sergei! This is exactly the case when there is an inscription under the cell. The photo shows a piece of information board on the right and it says: T-55. The installation of weapons in the squares was in charge of our Penza artillery school, and it also supplied equipment from its reserves. And who, if not his specialists, should I trust?
      1. svp67
        svp67 20 December 2020 08: 44
        +9
        Quote: kalibr
        And who, if not his specialists, should I trust?

        Yes, I have no special complaints. In the center of Moscow, on Poklonnaya Street, there are similar bloopers with plates on armored vehicles ... otherwise the Capital ... But now you have the opportunity to some of the "experts" of the art school "wipe their nose" hi
      2. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 20 December 2020 10: 20
        +5
        This is exactly the case when there is an inscription under the cell. The photo shows a piece of information board on the right and it says: T-55

        Holy faith in the printed word. It doesn't matter what the girls-designers hired by the school wrote.
        1. kalibr
          20 December 2020 11: 12
          +1
          Quote: Aviator_
          Holy faith in the printed word. It doesn't matter what the girls-designers hired by the school wrote.

          Exactly, Sergei! And there is nothing wrong with that. It's not enough life to check everything, and why? And besides, they did not write from their heads. There are below and the performance characteristics ...
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 20 December 2020 13: 59
            +5
            And besides, they did not write from their heads.

            It's right. They (girls-designers) do not have it at all. It's not about checking everything, but about real knowledge of technology. One thing is technical documentation, and another thing is what they write on fences and posters.
          2. Alf
            Alf 20 December 2020 15: 04
            +4
            Quote: kalibr
            There are below and performance characteristics ...

            Are they at least faithful?
            1. kalibr
              20 December 2020 15: 25
              0
              Quote: Alf
              Are they at least faithful?

              I haven't looked yet, this is the first part. I'll go for another walk - then ...
          3. Alf
            Alf 20 December 2020 20: 11
            +6
            Quote: kalibr
            And there is nothing wrong with that. It's not enough life to check everything, and why?

            To prevent such "masterpieces" from appearing ..

            You, when you write articles, look at what you write and what photos you insert.
  • prior
    prior 20 December 2020 08: 59
    +1
    "among the pine trees of the church-chapel of the Archangel Michael

    Well, where is the mention of the Archangel Michael ?!
    Was he involved in design or production?
    1. kalibr
      20 December 2020 11: 12
      +3
      Clarify the location for those who are not local. Explained easily?
  • 113262a
    113262a 20 December 2020 10: 03
    +8
    Fully, right off the bat, we learned to shoot ONLY with the T-64, with the introduction of sights with stabilization of the field of view. Until this telescopic up to 62 inclusive, even from the TRACK, they were crookedly stabilized! All the same, one and a half tons of swinging and more than 10 rotating parts was not mastered by the hydraulics with the required accuracy. Therefore, we worked with the SHORT. By the way, the exercise WITH A ROCKER is an atavism from that time! For 64-72-80, this is only shooting in emergency mode, although the MSA 72 is still disgusting!
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 20 December 2020 12: 56
      +5
      Quote: 113262
      Therefore, we worked with the SHORT.

      We were taught on the T-62 both with a short and on the move: the driver-mechanic, on the command "lane", had to maintain a constant speed and, if possible, not pull the levers. We got there without any problems.
      1. 113262a
        113262a 20 December 2020 19: 20
        +2
        I worked with 62 and 72 and 80. More densely than I would like. The first two-stone age! That which was called in 62 from the GO - this is exactly the PATH. - AFTER THIS COMMAND, the MECHVOD VROUBAETS 1 gear. From the gunner after target designation - 4-5 seconds to find the target and aim. after the shot the mechanic drive immediately cuts in the gear selected before .. and so on! 80 - shoots really SHODU. AT AT LEAST - UP TO 30-40 KILOMETERS PER HOUR. This is the difference!
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 20 December 2020 21: 59
          +2
          Quote: 113262
          Something that 62 was called WITH GO - this is exactly the ROAD. - AFTER THIS COMMAND, the MECHVOD VROUBAETS 1 gear. From the gunner after target designation - 4-5 seconds to find the target and aim. after the shot the mechanic drive immediately cuts in the gear selected before .. and so on!

          You see, we were taught in different countries. Firstly: the first speed on the T-62 (as well as on the T-55) is without synchronizers and you cannot turn it on without stopping the tank, just as without stopping it is impossible to turn on the second after the first. For two years of driving around the range during the shooting, I never included first gear.
          During firing from a standstill, you turn on the second gear, the levers are on yourself, then both levers are in an intermediate position and the tank starts to accelerate, then the levers are forward. The speed when firing on the move is 20-30 km / h (remember, the second gear). And the goals are looked for even before the command "track". Fixed and movable targets are raised in a certain order. Now I don’t remember in detail what was what.
          1. The leader of the Redskins
            The leader of the Redskins 20 December 2020 23: 17
            +2
            And what would the third "cut" - insert into the groove and press the lever with your foot!))) So the ensigns explained to us! When I did it for the first time, I thought that I had broken something - such a rattle was heard!)))
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 20 December 2020 23: 28
              +1
              Quote: Leader of the Redskins
              And what would the third "cut in" - insert it into the groove and press the lever with your foot!)))
              The third turns on quite easily. I dispersed the tank (the engine did not reach maximum rpm), threw off the gas, the gear lever forward (without squeezing the main clutch) and the gear was engaged almost immediately, without the synchronizers shifting. The fourth, yes, sometimes it's difficult to include, the fifth is comparable to it. For reduced ones - with obligatory re-gasification. With enough practice, gear shifting is not a problem and you can switch without even squeezing the main clutch (clutch). The first and the back only from stops.
              They say that it was difficult on the T-34
              1. tank-master
                tank-master 21 December 2020 19: 31
                0
                It's nice to see the photo that I took 20 years ago, this is really a T-55A tank, it was standing on the UPI KMDB, there was water in it in the spring before the polic. In 2007, it was converted into a T-55A tank with the installation of an MZ in the turret zaman and installed a 125mm cannon, reinforced the chassis and welded on a new MTO with 5TDF.
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 21 December 2020 20: 47
                  0
                  Quote: tank-master
                  this is really a T-55A tank

                  In the T-62, the driver's seat is no different. But these tanks are different on the move.
              2. Mikhail Zakharov
                Mikhail Zakharov 25 January 2021 15: 35
                0
                you can get used to everything. At the age of 18 I worked on a broken-down dump truck on which seasoned drivers could not get to the gate, they threw it and left
          2. 113262a
            113262a 21 December 2020 00: 03
            0
            So you understood, fought on the training grounds? The headmistress is smooth! Yes, and tactical fields, without bumps and craters. But when you fight in the pits and in the quarries, then the first one is like a native.!) This is for example. In fact, it was not ardent and not a career!
  • Keyser soze
    Keyser soze 20 December 2020 11: 54
    +8
    It was an excellent tank ... there were a lot of them in Bulgaria. Some were sold, 120 were presented to the Macedonians, and some are still in excellent condition and in storage:
    1. Pavlos Melas
      Pavlos Melas 23 December 2020 22: 58
      +1
      Good evening Eugene! That's right and the tank is good, the current is not Macedonians, they are not Macedonians tongue
      1. Keyser soze
        Keyser soze 24 December 2020 00: 41
        +1
        current are not Macedonians they are not


        Mea culpa Pavlos - fooled Bulgarians .. :)
  • Mikhail S.
    Mikhail S. 20 December 2020 12: 30
    +2
    Written with heart, and if there are any inaccuracies, then the article is called
    "Ballad" that is a bit of a legend.
  • martin-159
    martin-159 20 December 2020 14: 07
    +6
    The tank is wonderful, but the ballad came out somehow miserable.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 20 December 2020 15: 38
      +3
      Who bothers to write your own!
      1. martin-159
        martin-159 20 December 2020 16: 35
        +4
        Alas, I am not a writer but a reader, and I evaluate articles from this point of view.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 20 December 2020 16: 39
          +4
          Then I propose to look for books published by order of UVZ. You will not regret.
  • BAI
    BAI 20 December 2020 14: 39
    +5
    The stock of transported fuel began to be transported in storage tanks. At first glance, such a placement of fuel does not increase the survivability of the vehicle, rather the opposite.

    That's exactly what it reduces and how. The detonation coefficient of the T-55 is higher than that of the T-34. It is not known what the tests showed, but it was the type of exploding T-55s and the explosives of General Israel Tal to develop the Merkava. It is not the fuel that explodes. Fuel vapors explode. And if the tank is half empty, it's a detonator lined with shells.
    1. kalibr
      20 December 2020 15: 26
      -2
      Quote: BAI
      It is not the fuel that explodes. Fuel vapors explode. And if the tank is half empty, it's a detonator lined with shells.

      Why didn't our guys in uniform know that? And the constructors ... Nobody knew anything!
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 20 December 2020 18: 12
        +4
        Different purposes of creating machines. As a result of the tank battles of 1973, when the Israelis, after the defeat of their Centurions and M-48s, created new crews from survivors, which were transferred to repaired, reactivated or supplied by the States tanks. The Merkava was developed for the best crew survivability, the T-55 - for massive use in the Third World War (a war in the European theater of operations with the use of weapons of mass destruction with a short time to reach the English Channel). Out of tens of thousands of tanks, 1-2000 would have reached.
        1. BAI
          BAI 20 December 2020 19: 45
          +7
          Absolutely right. At the forefront of our work was the fulfillment of the task at any cost. In Israel - to save the life of the crew.
          1. Krasnodar
            Krasnodar 20 December 2020 20: 13
            +3
            So the difference in population was colossal - 2,5 million Israeli Jews in 1973 and almost 249 million people in the USSR
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. BAI
        BAI 20 December 2020 19: 51
        +5
        Why didn't our guys in uniform know that? AND

        The main sign that the decision is unsuccessful is that no one has repeated it anywhere else. Neither here nor abroad.
      4. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 20 December 2020 23: 19
        -1
        Now in the Donbass, both sides are practicing muffling the fuel tanks on the fenders and filling them with sand.
      5. LastPS
        LastPS 21 December 2020 00: 08
        +1
        They should have known, at least, the Vietnamese experience of use showed that the detonation of the front tank was not a rare event, even taking into account the fact that tanks were rarely used by the Vietnamese. In theory, in general, the front tank should be used only as an NZ in such a situation, or it should be spent on the march to dryness and the tank should be purged, but there is no purge system and never was, judging by the T-55 operation book.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 21 December 2020 10: 00
          +2
          Quote: LastPS
          In theory, in general, the front tank should be used only as an NZ in such a situation, or it should be spent on the march dry

          It is not the fuel itself that explodes, but the vapor. Therefore, a full tank is safer than an empty one filled with vapors. In tanks, as a rule, fuel is consumed first from external tanks, internal ones last.
          By the way, in Abrams, the driver sits between two tanks of kerosene:
          left 403,3 liters, right 569,9 liters.
          1. LastPS
            LastPS 24 December 2020 09: 27
            +1
            That's why I wrote that you need to purge the tank after it is used up, or use it full after the battle.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 20 December 2020 16: 11
    +12
    To be honest, the original of the article, although it seems to be written by a professional, does not cause delight. Rewrite, excuse me generously, even more so. Especially the "unparalleled" style rewriting. Especially against the backdrop of some completely unfounded claims like
    T-55, put into service in 1958. With the same armament (100 mm rifled gun) and armor, the effectiveness of the gun was significantly increased due to the fact that it was stabilized, and in two planes at once. That is, the T-55 received an almost XNUMX-fold advantage over its opponents in firepower, since it could now conduct effective fire on the move.
    How and over which tanks did the T-55 have one and a half times superiority, if the 105 mm gun was installed on the Centurion cited here since 1956, and the stabilization system in two planes from 1948?
    And in addition to this, mossy legends about the high fire hazard of gasoline tanks compared to diesel ones.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 20 December 2020 16: 26
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      here as an example "Centurion" 105 mm cannon was installed since 1956

      In 56, there was a technical assignment for the gun. They were issued for shooting in 59th, then they began to modernize Cent.
      Quote: Undecim
      stabilization system in two planes since 1948?

      This 20lb cannon appeared in the 48th. There was also stabilization on the 17lb gun.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 20 December 2020 16: 36
        +5
        Yes, you are absolutely right, a typo.
      2. Andrey VOV
        Andrey VOV 20 December 2020 18: 37
        0
        Are you a tanker in the past? Or in the present?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 20 December 2020 20: 28
          0
          No and no. Including I do not consume Belarusian products. I'm just a little interested in that period. From a rather specific angle.
          1. Andrey VOV
            Andrey VOV 20 December 2020 21: 19
            +2
            And what is the connection between tanks and various Belarusian products?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 20 December 2020 21: 23
              +2
              Belarusian tankers mean World of Tanks.
              1. Thomas N.
                Thomas N. 21 December 2020 06: 51
                +1
                No longer Belarusian, moved to Cyprus smile
  • Khibiny Plastun
    Khibiny Plastun 20 December 2020 18: 15
    +2
    Good evening.
    T 55 tank is outstanding - in weight 34-36t. They managed to squeeze in 100mm cannon and armor, board-85, hull forehead-100mm, turret forehead-200mm. For comparison, the "Tiger" pz 120 with comparable armor thickness weighed 100 tons. The 6t difference is no joke. Although the design was brought to mind for a long time.
    And the article is still weak, neither your booking schemes in comparison with opponents, nor a comparison of the dimensions of the T-55, Centurion, M46-47-48-60. All the same, this is Wo, not Zen.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 20 December 2020 19: 04
    +4
    The tank is good, the article is so-so.
  • doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 20 December 2020 19: 07
    +5
    Of course, I'm wildly sorry, but this passage hooked me:
    > T-55 tank, put into service in 1958. With the same armament (100 mm rifled gun) and armor, the effectiveness of the gun was significantly increased due to the fact that it was stabilized, and in two planes at once. That is, the T-55 received an almost XNUMX-fold advantage over its opponents in firepower, since it could now conduct effective fire on the move.

    The T-54 B tank with the Cyclone two-plane stabilizer has been in serial production since 1957.

    The main feature of the T-55, in contrast to the T-54, EMNIP, is that it is a tank originally designed for operations in conditions of the use of nuclear weapons, for which the tank was equipped with an automated anti-nuclear protection system with X-ray sensors.
    1. Eroma
      Eroma 20 December 2020 23: 19
      +3
      I also wanted to write that the T55 was created as a tank for a nuclear war, only this made sense to create an almost identical T54 tank bully

      And I'll add a little:
      Against the overseas L7, the T55 was weak, no shells could compensate for the superiority of the British guns, the NATO M48 and Centurions with L7 had a significant superiority over the T55 in the range of destruction! Therefore, the T62 appeared, and on an urgent basis, which equalized the chances at long distance.
  • English tarantas
    English tarantas 20 December 2020 21: 47
    +6
    What kind of modern tank can you put together a real ballad, moreover, impressive without any epic exaggeration?

    T-72.
    And according to the article - as if the TV channel Zvezda turned on. At first, the T-34's armor is not very large, then Patton's 90mm cumulative does not penetrate it, compared with a panther. Then it is surprising that the T-55 is very similar to the T-54, an amazing observation.
  • Potter
    Potter 20 December 2020 21: 57
    +1
    Quote: Kuroneko
    Well, Pz. IV was initially light, became medium.

    According to the German classification, the Pz. IV was originally a heavy tank. And then he became average.
    1. Alf
      Alf 21 December 2020 18: 56
      +1
      Quote: Potter
      Quote: Kuroneko
      Well, Pz. IV was initially light, became medium.

      According to the German classification, the Pz. IV was originally a heavy tank. And then he became average.

      And let’s all equalize on one comb? If the T-4 is heavy, then the T-34-76 is also heavy. And if according to the Soviet system, then the Four is average.
  • ecolog
    ecolog 21 December 2020 00: 52
    +4
    The T-54 (55) is excellent, but the passages about the higher fire hazard of gasoline internal combustion engines compared to diesel ones are doubtful.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 21 December 2020 12: 19
    +1
    Vyacheslav was pleasantly surprised on a topic not peculiar to him! good
  • Valdaev
    Valdaev 24 December 2020 00: 43
    0
    The tank is beautiful. But in the text - a flood of exclamation marks. Was the author encouraging himself? And then ... Cases ... oh, cases ... And so on .... And they pay money for that ??
  • SID
    SID 25 December 2020 15: 11
    +2
    Thank you good satya. Please continue :) good
  • Alien From
    Alien From 28 December 2020 23: 41
    0
    Thanks to the author, it's interesting as always, but littleoooooooo)))
  • Tanker
    Tanker 19 January 2021 10: 35
    0
    "Installation of an air compressor, with which it became possible to start the engine with compressed air ..."
    Starting the engine with air was also possible on the T-34. There, 2 cylinders with compressed air were placed in the control compartment on the lower frontal sheet. The installation of a compressor on the T-55 made it possible to replenish the air supply in the cylinders when the engine was running.