Rebels from storage: how old T-54/55 tanks are used in the special operation zone

198
Rebels from storage: how old T-54/55 tanks are used in the special operation zone

It has been several weeks since Tanks T-54Bs were first seen on railway platforms somewhere in the vastness of our country. At that time, many assumptions were made about where this ancient equipment could be sent and for what purpose it was being done: from dismantling for spare parts to participating in hostilities in Ukraine - all options cannot be listed here. However, after a short period of time, photographs of the “fifty-four” in Zaporozhye made it clear that the cars were still driving to the NVO zone.

Confidence in this was added by pictures of a tank equipped with a visor "according to all the rules of a special operation", about not the highest effectiveness of which against missiles, but the benefits against drones and disguise, we recently wrote. So to think of a different purpose for the "oldies" has already become a meaningless exercise.



At the moment, we can state the following: there are already at least a few dozen tanks of this type, and, as you might guess, they are used not as monuments to the labor prowess of the Soviet people. They are used in battles, and there is nothing joyful about it, but there is one nuance that brightens up the situation a little with its other shortcomings.


junk at the front


First of all, a very important thing should be noted: the author will not somehow shield the use of such old military vehicles in the zone of a special military operation in Ukraine. Tanks without any conventions are obsolete in every way that can be. Even the T-62M, before modernization at the Ataman plant, looks like more or less modern equipment against their background. Well, what is there, in fact, to expect?

The T-54B was put into service in 1956, and its modified version in the face of the T-55 was almost two years later. In general, the situation with the age of technology, which, by human standards and the pension legislation applicable to them, should have been on a well-deserved rest for a long time, is not very cheerful. And this is not taking into account the fact that the "fifty-four" as a platform was created under Stalin.

You can, of course, ask a seemingly reasonable question that the Ukrainians also do not disdain the T-55, however, in the form of the Slovenian M-55S. In fact, the junk is still something, but their rifled 105-mm L7 guns, new ammunition, communications equipment, a fire control system and dynamic protection provide comprehensive answers.

Slovenian M-55S, which is a deep modernization of the T-55

Slovenian M-55S, which is a deep modernization of the T-55

And since we touched on the topic of dynamic protection. In our case, we are talking about bare steel armor, the thickness of which in the frontal part of the hull reaches 100 mm, and in the same projection - again, the frontal one - of the tower is at the level of two hundred millimeters. In fact, this is the thickest steel mass that is available in the tank, because when moving to the sides, the cherished millimeters begin to melt before our eyes, turning into much more modest figures: up to a maximum of 160 mm in the turret and up to 80 mm in the hull. And it’s not worth talking about the stern and roof, however, their durability has never been fundamental.

This was enough for anti-tank threats 60-70 years ago. But now it’s not enough even for the “Boot” (an SPG-9 anti-tank grenade launcher) and old RPG-7 rounds. What can we say about more "penetrating" means in the form of anti-tank missile systems of various sizes and cumulative, as well as sub-caliber shells of tank guns. Armor, of course, is armor, but all that the T-54/55 can give in the current conditions is confident protection against fragments, small arms weapons (excluding, again, RPGs) and small-caliber automatic guns.

Approximately the same circumstances with weapons and sighting system.

A rifled 100-mm cannon, even a stabilized one, was an excellent weapon for its time, in the ammunition load of which there was a whole range of different shells. These are feathered sub-caliber "crowbars" that pierce up to 150 mm of steel armor at a distance of two kilometers at an angle of 60 degrees. And "cumulatives", whose penetrating ability reached 3-4 of their own calibers in a steel array. And, of course, high-explosive fragmentation shells.

Tank T-54B

Tank T-54B

But this is just for those very “his years”. And for the times of the present, the T-54/55 sub-caliber and HEAT shells have lost their relevance very, very significantly - their power is not enough to reliably defeat both the old T-72M1, under various names transferred to Ukraine, and the more recent T-64BV - we will simply keep silent about Western-made equipment, since only its sides, or light armor of infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers and wheeled "tanks" will become a tasty morsel for the "fifty-four". However, everything said about the T-54/55 high-explosive fragmentation "blanks" does not apply - their usefulness in the special operation zone cannot be in any doubt.

As for the sighting system, here we immediately recall the situation associated with the installation of Sosny-U on our tanks. There were so many cries and angry comments about her, they say, it is uncomfortable, the magnification of optics is insufficient, and indeed, almost junk, in comparison with Western models. But now it was gone, or rather, they began to install far from all modernized tanks, replacing it with a cheaper and extremely limited in functionality “teplak” on an uncooled matrix. And all of a sudden they were indignant - return the "Pine"!

So, in the T-54/55 there is nothing at all from the sights that could somehow bring the car closer to its younger counterparts. Absolutely no automation: forget about automatic or even semi-automatic corrections, a ballistic computer, firing conditions sensors, an automatic target tracking machine and other “nishtyaks” that made life easier for tankers.

Just an optical articulated sight, even without a laser rangefinder for shooting during the day. He has the corresponding scale ranges, but to confidently hit the enemy beyond the range of a direct shot is a long and hard training, because it is impossible to do without skills, developed intuition and a good eye.

At night, shoot only through the sight on the electro-optical converter with active illumination from the infrared searchlight on the turret. And this, of course, is not a thermal imager that sees thermal spots of targets at great distances. Here it will be a great success if you can see a large target at a distance of 800 meters. Therefore, shooting at enemy infantry or equipment from a safe distance, when you can’t see a single thing, will not work.

One of the first two photos of the T-54B in the NVO zone

One of the first two photos of the T-54B in the NVO zone

In short, formally, and in all honesty, the “fifty-four” and “fifty-five” cannot be used precisely as a tank in the fullness of this term in modern combat. More precisely, it is possible, but with far from bright prospects, both for the combat group as a whole, and for the crew and the vehicle itself in particular.

But it is not all that bad


It was not in vain that the use of the T-54/55 for its intended purpose - as tanks - was said in vain, since the army's inflexible bureaucracy and, so to speak, the "woodenness" inherent in the armed forces of many countries treat the equipment given by the state in exactly the same way, as written in the relevant documents. Therefore, when suddenly, once again, thoughts surface that old tanks can be used (without remodeling, of course) as some kind of infantry fighting vehicles, one can only smile. But the gentlemen who talk about the T-54 or T-62 in the style of “infantry still rides on armor, and the tank is clearly cooler than the Bradley” do not get smaller over time.

The same applies to attempts to present these combat vehicles as an alternative to self-propelled artillery mounts. For example, at the suggestion of some experts, by the way, very few in number, the T-62M has completely turned into a self-propelled gun. True, only on the pages of the media and various other resources, but on the battlefields everything looked and looks a little different: there these tanks also participate in a direct clash with the enemy, and the crews shed blood.


Based on this, to be honest, there were great fears that the T-54/55 would be treated the same way: there is armor and a cannon - forward to the front line under enemy fire. But the information leaking from the fronts, although it does not reflect the position of all units, still allows us to draw some conclusions.

No one is in a hurry to drive the “old men” into the front lines, at least completely and everywhere, realizing all the risks of using outdated equipment against a well-equipped enemy. Therefore, as you might guess, they are used for firing at enemy positions from long distances and closed firing positions. At the same time, judging by some comments, the reduction of crews is practiced, when instead of the regular four people in the car there are only three, which makes it easier for tankers to equip the equipment for the conditions in which it is used.

The replacement for self-propelled guns is so-so, therefore, for the most part, it just exposes the problem of the need for them, but what is, is.

The procedure for "artillery" tanks, in principle, is simple and has been described more than once here and on other resources. Shooting from an open position with the visibility of the enemy and an acceptable range - through a regular sight. From a closed position or a long range - using the side level. Everything, of course, with shooting tables and adjustments from the UAV.

You can, of course, talk for a long time about the advantages and disadvantages of firing from tanks from closed positions. Some will claim that the vehicles are well protected from fragments when they “respond” from the enemy and more or less stable accuracy of shells fired from a rifled barrel. Others will talk about the frankly poor suitability of tanks for this type of combat due to the lack of the necessary sights, a small angle of vertical aiming of the gun and a narrow range of propellant charges, which the self-propelled gun ammunition will not replace in any case. And there is truth in all this.


But in fact, I want to say something else: the lives of the crews are more important.

T-54/55 is just not about the safety of lives in all understandings. Therefore, with all the minuses and pluses, firing from long distances, closed and protected (not always equivalent) positions is the very sober choice that you should be guided by, since these vehicles have gone to the front. But this is still a positional “butting”, but what will the situation be like in the event of active and extremely dynamic hostilities during the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? I don't want to guess ahead of time.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

198 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    20 May 2023
    One more canoe can be. Ukra is clearly aiming for a quick breakthrough somewhere to the rear on jeep strikers ... But for a striker with a machine gun, or even for Bradley with his 25 mm spittoon, but without ATGMs in the photo, any even old, but a tank is a paragraph break right away. That's so as not to put the T-72B3 in the rear, from where they will quickly be pulled to the front, in the rear they will be on paper, they drove these, for such a task, rudely - a checkpoint in the rear, with ears
    1. +30
      20 May 2023
      Quote from Bingo
      But for a striker with a machine gun, or even for Bradley with his 25 mm spittoon, but without ATGM

      namely, but with the TOW ATGM, the T-54 has no chance.
      1. +15
        20 May 2023
        Quote: Aerodrome
        ATGM TOW, the T-54 has no chance

        A month ago, up to a company of such vehicles (T-54B and T-55) was transferred to the howitzer division. They work with PDO, as part of crews of 3 people. The crews were recruited from a tank battalion and artillery, after which they were trained for a week. There is a firing table for 54/55 for gunners. The gun is rifled, provides good accuracy at a distance. There is also a side level and a protractor of the required accuracy. Moreover, the scale of the goniometer is applied to the inner surface of the shoulder strap of the tower.
        The 100-mm OFS has a dispersion of 4800 meters (no further data) - 1,2 meters vertically, 1,4 horizontally.

        In the photo below, a Soviet 57-mm anti-aircraft gun mounted on an armored tractor BTS-4, which was lit up in service with the Russian Armed Forces.

        1. +6
          20 May 2023
          Knowing how the equipment was serviced at the storage bases, I very, very doubt that rust did not destroy the inner surface of the gun barrels, most likely only hints remained from the rifling and what kind of accuracy and accuracy can be interpreted?
          1. +9
            20 May 2023
            Quote: nike
            I highly doubt that rust did not destroy the inner surface of the gun barrels, most likely only hints remained from the rifling, and what kind of accuracy and accuracy can be interpreted?

            The last "fifty-fifths" were removed from combat duty only in 2010. The ingenious tank, the ingenious designer Leonid Kartsev, was put into service on the eve of Victory Day - May 8, 1958. The last Russian T-55 tanks were removed in 2010 from the Kuril Islands to storage bases. There are good examples among them.




            1. +6
              20 May 2023
              The video shows how the T-62M tanks work at the front. T-54/55 will work similarly.


              On this video, watch the work of the T-62M and the interview of the crew 6 minutes of reporting

              1. +7
                20 May 2023
                T-62Ms arrived, fired back from the PDO and changed their position.
                1. +4
                  22 May 2023
                  At this rate, the T-34 will soon be put into service. And all because of the complete unsuitability of most of our Defense Ministry, including Shoigu and Gerasimov.
                  1. 0
                    24 May 2023
                    Quote: ramzay21
                    At this rate, the T-34 will soon be put into service. And all because of the complete unsuitability of most of our Defense Ministry, including Shoigu and Gerasimov.

                    If they start to disappear from the pedestals, we will soon see them at the front.
                    1. -1
                      25 May 2023
                      If they start to disappear from the pedestals, we will soon see them at the front.

                      Why from pedestals? Recently, a batch of T-34-85s from the DPRK was brought to participate in parades, they were recently removed from service in the DPRK army and they can not only drive, but also shoot.
                      1. 0
                        August 17 2023
                        Not from North Korea, but from Laos. For filmmakers intended.
                  2. 0
                    26 May 2023
                    Have you personally identified professional incompetence? Or did they tell you in the Banderlozhye camp?
                2. 0
                  28 May 2023
                  The T-62 is being returned because North Korea has a lot of shells for these tanks. Only for this reason, because there are no shells.
                  They put civilian ministers of defense, it's like putting a cleaner at the head of the state.
                  The preparation of the army and warehouses for war was not carried out, the border troops were disorganized, air defense was reduced, many airfields were closed for aviation. Yes, there was not even anyone to send to the beginning of the operation.
                  Shoigu and the Ministry of Emergency Situations were reduced to a minimum, as I remember, they worked in one company, the policemen complained that all the cars were broken.
                  Gerasimov is silent all the time in all the videos, so they took him, he is silent all the time.
            2. +7
              20 May 2023
              These tanks from the 18th Pulad squad are the division commander's reserve. Iturup Island. Replaced by T-80.
          2. +14
            20 May 2023
            And where does rust come from, and even on the inner surface? Which is all in grease? Everyone but you is gone, right?
          3. +10
            20 May 2023
            Quote: nike
            Knowing how the equipment was maintained at the storage bases, I very, very doubt that rust did not destroy the inner surface of the gun barrels,

            smeared with oil and that's all the servants .... it's not at all necessary to rust
        2. 0
          24 May 2023
          What a no, but a self-propelled gun turns out, it’s still better than carrying it on a trailer.
      2. -17
        20 May 2023
        And I am not at all surprised or outraged by the use of old tanks in this NWO. If it comes to a people's war with the West, then everything will be used, even iron cannons. We will beat everything that comes to hand, as in the Patriotic War with Napoleon. There, men and women armed themselves with stumps, bewildered, chehvosts and went with them against the enemy. I propose to give the popular name T-55 "Pyryalo", and the gun D-20 "Osharashnik". For the case, I ask you to give suggestions, maybe RPG-7? laughing
        1. +26
          20 May 2023
          I feel terrible sometimes from such statements, to be honest. World history knows hundreds of examples of the superiority of modern weapons over primitive ones, but we will decide to experiment again. And yes, at that time “pitchforks against the enemy” still worked, but after all, no one went to the Second World War with “shovels from shovels”.
          And it is strange that you are not outraged by this. E, because it turns out that: no one was preparing for the NWO; more modern T-72 tanks were in such disgusting storage that they take the T-54
          1. +3
            20 May 2023
            I wonder how much the T-55 is technically simpler, that its readiness under the same conditions is higher than the T-72?
          2. +5
            20 May 2023
            I feel terrible sometimes from such statements, to be honest. World history knows hundreds of examples of the superiority of modern weapons over primitive ones, but we will decide to experiment again. And yes, at that time “pitchforks against the enemy” still worked, but after all, no one went to the Second World War with “shovels from shovels”.
            And it is strange that you are not outraged by this. E, because it turns out that: no one was preparing for the NWO; more modern T-72 tanks were in such disgusting storage that they take the T-54

            Not in this case.
            Now ANY tank WILL DIE ON THE FRONT.
            JAVELINS from the UAV EQUALIZED EVERYONE.

            It's time to change the concept, ahead of any armor will no longer help.
            There was a main tank, now the MAIN VEHICLE (tank + infantry fighting vehicle) with anti-fragmentation armor, a powerful cannon and accommodating a full compartment.

            A good friend of mine, a tank colonel, once said: "I can't even imagine how a tank can survive in modern combat. Everything is against it."

            PS It was in 1989 when he left Afghanistan. hi
            1. +4
              20 May 2023
              You ask this question to those who are now performing combat missions in tanks on the front. They know the answer.
            2. +2
              20 May 2023
              Quote: Arzt
              A good friend of mine, a tank colonel, once said: "I can't even imagine how a tank can survive in modern combat. Everything is against it."
              A nuclear or rocket-artillery strike is inflicted, which destroys everything that is not protected by armor. Further, the tanks destroy everything that was protected by armor. Infantry is being transported behind the BMP tanks.
              1. +2
                20 May 2023
                A nuclear or rocket-artillery strike is inflicted, which destroys everything that is not protected by armor. Further, the tanks destroy everything that was protected by armor. Infantry is being transported behind the BMP tanks.

                Why did the current rocket and artillery strikes not destroy everything that is not protected by armor? Maybe because it is protected by the earth?

                As for the nuclear one, it will blow off the armor, and the return one too.

            3. +3
              20 May 2023
              "with anti-fragmentation armor, a powerful cannon and accommodating a full-fledged compartment."
              Well, yes, to dig a mass grave for a dozen soldiers at once, and not bother with trifles. Or do you think that where the MBT is burned down, Stryker will survive?
          3. -7
            20 May 2023
            Quote: Russian_Ninja
            History knows hundreds of examples of the superiority of modern weapons over primitive ones, but we will decide to experiment again. And yes, at that time “pitchforks against the enemy” still worked, but after all, no one went to the Second World War with “shovel handles”.
            And it is strange that you are not outraged by this. E, because it turns out that: no one was preparing for the NWO; more modern T-72 tanks were in such disgusting storage that they take the T-54



            Yeah...
            Thanks to the Trotskyists, accomplices of the Anglo-Saxons penetrated into power, who began to ruin the Soviet Union and its most powerful industry ...
            And for some reason, the authorities have not yet restored tens of thousands of current factories, and for some reason even the State Duma does not require the restoration of industry and the transfer of the country's economy to a military footing
            1. +11
              20 May 2023
              The Trotskyists dragged capitalism with its laws, even if the Anglo-Saxons did not exist, it would be the same .... And yet, how the rhetoric changed, all the 90s and until 2010 everything was spoiled by Jewish Masons, since 2010 (not without the help of N . Starikova), suddenly there were Anglo-Saxons everywhere ... in 10 years I don’t know who will be to blame, but there will definitely be a double phrase animal-lizards, marso-reptilians
              1. 0
                21 May 2023
                And in your opinion, it turns out that the Englishwoman did not crap Russia over the past at least three hundred years, but only pretended to crap. Funny judgment. It turns out that Starikov came in like a mimecrocodile and everyone suddenly realized that it was the Anglo-Saxons who were behind the death of Griboyedov in Persia. Before that, they didn't go to school.
                1. +3
                  21 May 2023
                  In my opinion, it turns out that everyone in the world is spoiling each other to the best of their ability and ability, trying to weaken the strong, subdue and rob the weak - competition between states! There is no such thing that we are white and fluffy, and there are only bastards around. White and fluffy do not become big and great states.
          4. +6
            20 May 2023
            but after all, no one went into the Second World War with "shovel cuttings".
            Russian_Ninja (Aleksey) And our classic writers of the Second World War talk about something else, what happened in the first year of the war, even the shovel cuttings were not enough for the militia and weapons had to be obtained in battle or taken from a dead comrade. smile
            But I am once again convinced that banter and sarcasm do not take root on this forum. belay
            I can’t speak for the tanks in storage, but I had experience of annually checking the condition of the R-406 Levkoy mobile RRL systems in the 90s and zero years with their deployment on the ground.
            Maybe for its time, in the 70-80s, this equipment was normal, but keeping it for an extra 20 years, especially ZIL-157 cars, was a clear anachronism. But a lot of money was spent on their storage and maintenance, and I could not imagine that they could be used during the war. And here comes the tanks...
            1. +2
              20 May 2023
              Classics is Nikita Mikhalkov and Solzhenitsyn? Could you clarify the names of the classics who talk about one rifle for three? As far as I know, these fairy tales were composed by white emigrants, taking the First World War as a basis, where the Russian soldiers just did not have enough weapons, in connection with which more than 7 million of them were mobilized, only 2.5 million were kept at the front, since there were not enough weapons
              1. 0
                21 May 2023
                Do not get excited colleagues, but rather re-read Simonov, Grossman or Nekrasov. I really appreciate and respect Simonov, but still I understand that he was afraid to write the whole truth about the war and our mistakes, as Grossman and Nekrasov did, who wrote “on the table” until the censorship lifted the ban. But this is a long time for you, and most importantly, it will still be the subjective view of a particular writer, like Astafiev, Solzhenitsyn or Mikhalkov, in your opinion ... Therefore, for example, this article:
                https://westfront.su/strelkovoe-oruzhie-zashhitnikov-stolitsyi-pri-formirovanii-diviziy-narodnogo-opolcheniya-moskvyi/
                Giving an idea of ​​​​the problems with the armament of the militia during the war years, check out ... winked feel
            2. -1
              20 May 2023
              "Our classic writers of the Second World War talk about something else, which happened in the first year of the war, even the shovel cuttings were not enough for the militia" And it’s weak to quote from the classic if you rush with such applications. Even Astafiev did not write such nonsense, even though he is the standard of front-line bullshit,
              1. +1
                21 May 2023
                Even Astafiev did not write such nonsense,
                I also crossed out Astafiev for myself, but not for critical statements about the first year of the Second World War, but for a treacherous blunder about the expediency of defending Leningrad. A man with this alone crossed out everything positive that he had before. Another question is, was he really allowed to justify his position? After all, in the same way, the surrender of Kyiv was unthinkable for the people and Stalin, and Zhukov insisted on surrender, in order to avoid huge losses. And now, for some reason, Zhukov's position is considered correct, since the losses in the encirclement near Kiev amounted to 600 thousand Red Army soldiers killed and captured. But Leningrad is not Kyiv, where one fleet was worth something. And the loss of Leningrad would inevitably be followed by the loss of Murmansk. But the evacuation of the excess civilian population should have been carried out before the complete blockade. It did not work out .... the front was crumbling so quickly that they did not have time to deal with the civilian population. At the same time, collective farm cattle were driven to the rear, and the population was left in occupation. The worst thing for me is not to let mistakes be blurred and only victories to be left in history.
          5. +3
            22 May 2023
            There is a suspicion that the matter is not in the poor storage of the T-72, but in the lack of shells, therefore they use the T-62/54, because there are a lot of shells left for them in the warehouses.
          6. +3
            22 May 2023
            Make a request to the General Staff - let them show the plan by which they started the NWO! I am sure that the lampers expected to hold a parade on May 2022 in Kyiv in 9! But as usual, something "went wrong"! Probably bulk, as always, was guilty!
          7. 0
            July 11 2023
            1) the thesis about the superiority of modern weapons over primitive ones is incorrect. For the old tanks go to the heap to the modern t-90m, and not instead of them.
            2) the Germans came to the Second World War with Hitler's newest saw (still in service) and we actively used maxims, which were already 50 years old from the invention (also still in service). A tank is not a shovel handle. As long as he can accurately spit with a land mine, he will have a place, as an ersatz-sau, an ersatz-bmp .... Carry a mine trawl ... With age, only the available scope decreases.
            3) taking early t-72s from storage is not the best solution. Without modernization, they also cannot withstand modern anti-tank systems. It takes longer to bring them to life, because they are more difficult.
            Plus, on the battlefield, they will begin to compete for ammo with more modern vehicles and, as a result, will remain empty.
            T-54/55 is simpler, faster re-opening, own BC, which is true, will add a headache to logisticians.
        2. +11
          20 May 2023
          Well, for you "people's war", but for someone "New opportunities for trading in resources"
          1. +1
            20 May 2023
            Quote: Mikhail Krivopalov
            for you "people's war", but for someone "New opportunities for trading resources


            Confirmation that there is a mass of ENEMIES of the PEOPLE above
            1. +11
              20 May 2023
              Enemies of whom? The state is the apparatus of violence of the ruling class! Since we have capitalism - the ruling class is the capitalists. Therefore, they are by no means enemies of THEIR capitalist state, they live very well under it, everything suits them. Yes, they have strife among themselves, one group from time to time pinches the other, one oligarch traps another, but whoever wins there, the state remains THEM. Their politicians rule the state, their parliamentarians adopt the necessary and beneficial laws FOR THEM. And this applies not only to Russia, but also to any other cap. states: Ukraine, France, USA, Germany... And if it is profitable for the capitalist, he will cooperate with the enemy. During World War I, both German and British ships were made from Krupp armor and the British paid for a patent to manufacture it. During World War II, American firms supplied resources (through laying countries) to Nazi Germany. The Russian Federation is now selling resources to countries supplying weapons to Ukraine. And if I’m not mistaken, it pays Ukraine for the transit of gas to the EU (not a single gas pipeline was damaged in Ukraine during the NWO), by the way, Ukraine recently raised transit prices ... So the proletarians of all countries unite, since the capitalists of all countries have long already united!
        3. 0
          21 May 2023
          Interesting idea. "Oslop", for what do you fix it?
      3. +4
        20 May 2023
        In the desert, where a flat table is for kilometers.
      4. +9
        20 May 2023
        But what, do the motorcycle leagues or the Urals have a chance with the TOW ATGM with the S-60 anti-aircraft gun installed? Or other similar improvisations, which, by the way, are praised for their effectiveness in NWO?
        The author made it very clear. Use the old 55-ku to attack the enemy, i.e. like MBT, you can't. Only, perhaps, from ambush.
        As a self-propelled gun, it is worse than the "real", but it is quite possible to hit the enemy. Especially on flat terrain, since the 55 has not a howitzer, but a tank gun, with all the consequences.
        It is only necessary to prepare the crew for firing from the PDO. To fall under fire from 100-mm OFS, the presence of a large number of which, apparently, served as the main argument for using the old tank as a self-propelled artillery. installations for dill are also not very useful, all the more so since modern self-propelled guns are not abundant, but it is necessary to hit the enemy from a distance of 10 -15 km.


        1. -1
          20 May 2023
          Like self-propelled guns and T-55 and T-62 are not entirely worse, and in some cases better. Thanks to the armor is better. The probability of surviving during enemy return fire is much higher than that of Gvozdika, Akatsiya and Msta.
          There is something to criticize "Acacia" for, her armor could be better, but we have what we have.
          1. +5
            20 May 2023
            "Like self-propelled guns and T-55 and T-62 are not entirely worse, and in some cases better." Well, yes, but what the hell can you do for a buried target and a firing range (in range conditions) of 5 km maximum.
            "Better thanks to the armor." I thought that the task of self-propelled artillery is the destruction of the enemy's defenses on the offensive and the barriers on the defensive. Both are performed by a powerful high-explosive projectile fired from TOP, flying along a howitzer trajectory. Both are executed from closed positions with their frequent change. The tank does not channel even with all its armor.
      5. 0
        29 September 2023
        T 54 supplies were still available even at the beginning of the Northern Military District. But due to the shortage of 100mm shells for them, they were placed in secondary areas. Today I heard about their use, but as a kamikaze. Tanks fill explosives and ram fortifications, tanks and other equipment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Management is carried out remotely. I think their purpose will not change.
    2. +3
      20 May 2023
      The fact of the matter is that on paper it will be "tanks" with all the consequences.
    3. +7
      20 May 2023
      I wonder if there are T44s in storage? Won't they be sent into battle too, at a time when Shoigu was shown many dozens of brand new T90s standing in an open field, almost back to back a tank in a tank! This war did not teach the generals anything, first of all it concerns camouflage and protection of military equipment in spare positions, and in places of its concentration.
      1. AUL
        +4
        20 May 2023
        What is the article all about? That 54/55 crews on their own are suicide bombers without any benefit to the cause? "To me, too, Newton's binomial!" (C) So what's new brought to us by the author? How much sawdust can be cut?
        1. -6
          20 May 2023
          What is the article all about? That 54/55 crews on their own are suicide bombers without any benefit to the cause? "To me, too, Newton's binomial!" (C) So what's new brought to us by the author? How much sawdust can be cut?

          In a big war, the crews of ANY tanks are suicide bombers.
          Half of the 90 T-34s produced were lost. Same song with "Tigers" and other prodigies.
          We just haven’t fought seriously for a long time, we’ve lost the habit of big losses.

      2. +1
        20 May 2023
        First you need to find the T-10! There is also a gun with a range like that of the d-30.
      3. -5
        20 May 2023
        Quote: Thrifty
        Interestingly, are there T44s in storage? Will they also be sent into battle, at the time when Shoigu was shown


        So, judging by the current ideas and realities of the staff generals, it is necessary to remember and "put into operation" the "super equipment" imposed "the greatest talent" - the stick-vodka Tukhach ...
      4. -6
        20 May 2023
        And for what purpose are you interested, do not know what to master? Learn right away on the T34 for at least to be found.
    4. +13
      20 May 2023
      I will upset you, but a 25mm "spittoon" with armor-piercing shells will break the T-55 even before it notices Bradley, because compared to the Bradley T-55, a "blind and deaf grandfather" without normal instruments, communications equipment and an FCS with a thick one, but old and useless armor. And your "even an old, but a tank is a paragraph of a breakthrough right away" - the Iraqis also thought so, with their main tanks T-62M and T-55, interspersed with T-72B.
      1. 0
        20 May 2023
        Not t72b but t 72m, but these tanks are very different
      2. 0
        July 11 2023
        Well, if we assume that aviation and ground-based anti-tank systems will work against the T-54, as in Iraq, then yes.
        And against purely cannon infantry fighting vehicles, mraps and pickups with dshk - he may well.
    5. -1
      20 May 2023
      The author still thinks in terms of tank battles. These boxes will be used as indirect artillery. On the tip of the craters. There are shells - they must be used. And then I would convert them into radio-controlled shaheeds
      1. +7
        20 May 2023
        That's how you come up with an automatic transmission and E-gas for them, then we'll talk about radio control.
    6. +5
      20 May 2023
      As a reinforcement of checkpoints in echeloned defense, dug in, and also reinforced with concrete, with a room for the crew under it, where ammunition can be stored, with an underground passage to a remote safe exit, this is quite a suitable solution.
      This was all tested in fortified areas in the Soviet Transbaikalia, where even older tanks, the IS-2 and IS-3, were used.
      Of course, when a tank army marches on them on a wide front, they will not hold it back. But a column of armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and other lightly armored vehicles can be held back. Of course, you can hit them if you wish, but you still need to get into the buried one to defeat them. By the way, the crew at this time can hide in a bunker under the tank.
      To use them as guns at the front, well, this is debatable, the resource of the barrel there is not very large, but it needs care. And to change, well, who knows how many of them are left for a shift.
      By the way, the cannon can be shot in advance on the ground, so that later it would be easier, since there are no advanced sights and computers. Shooting will be mainly direct fire.
      True, the ammunition is already sooo old for them, they were stored not for 10 years, for many half a century. They can spread.
      And so, the more of them at the checkpoints buried, disguised, the better. Especially if they are connected by secret passages. They destroyed one point, by the way it was called that, NTOT, a fixed tank firing point, the crew moved to another, and began to fire from it. Here even the crews can be less than the trunks.
      The main thing is to place them correctly on the ground. So that each point has its own small sector of fire, this will allow them to be better covered from defeat from the sides, not to mention the backside.
      1. -1
        20 May 2023
        We do not have partisans to set up at checkpoints. The Russian Guard with its equipment is enough
        1. +7
          20 May 2023
          They are checkpoints not only from hooligans, with whom the National Guard will cope. Checkpoints in the conditions of multi-layered defense are designed to avoid breakthroughs of enemy units in certain directions. Often these are roads, paved or unpaved.
          1. 0
            21 May 2023
            You are confusing the checkpoint and the rear lines of defense. The rear lines of the troops occupy when the main line is broken. Under normal circumstances, they are empty. As for roadblocks, they become useless in the absence of a solid line. Raisin showed it once again
        2. +2
          20 May 2023
          In modern conditions, in the absence of a continuous front line, without checkpoints and forcing the enemy with sabotage and reconnaissance groups, all the rears will be shredded and communications will be destroyed. Which happened regularly, at first, when the bridges in the rear were undermined one by one.
      2. +5
        20 May 2023
        And that the Ukrainians operate with tank armies .. The problem is that they tell us about the Ukrainian offensive, and then a platoon or company comes, as a result, our regiment can quickly advance in the opposite direction. They show the work of mortarmen, and there are three Ukrainians on the defensive.
      3. +3
        20 May 2023
        The first sensible comment on the topic ... I think one of the reasons is also the lack of shells. BC for 100 mm, probably done be healthy.
      4. +1
        20 May 2023
        I have never heard of NTOT, even Yandex does not find the abbreviation. No one will arrange at checkpoints, the task of which is to maintain the checkpoint regime of the Maginot line made of concrete. The limit of modern fantasies is reinforced concrete caps with a hole as a loophole. A checkpoint with one tank will stop those who have broken through or simply go around. They do not break through to storm every stump.
    7. +3
      20 May 2023
      To hit a fast-moving target from this ancient tank, forgive me what a sniper you have to be. And the striker on the move also waters you from a cannon at the same time
      1. -4
        20 May 2023
        Yes, no problem, if the gunner is the owner of sufficient intelligence for this. The drive at the tower and the sight are quite on the level. But only during the day, if the tank has not been upgraded with the installation of a thermal imager.
    8. 0
      21 May 2023
      By the way, this "spitting" will disassemble the T55 into the side and stern from medium distances. And if there is an M919 shell in the Bradley ammunition load, then it can also pierce the frontal part.
      In general, in vain you are so frivolous about the enemy. They have enough anti-tank weapons. A lone T55 will not become an obstacle even for light infantry.
      There were quite a few much more modern tanks in the Kharkov direction, and how did it all end?
      1. 0
        23 May 2023
        well, you got it. A 25 mm projectile, even an armor-piercing one, will never penetrate the 80 mm side armor of the T-54/55, and even more so the frontal one.
    9. 0
      21 May 2023
      they forgot that those "strikers in jeeps" with javelins / spikes, the one with "nettles" (on the tablets they see target designations from satellites and UAVs)
      those. with Bradley, the T-55 is confidently struck at 2.4 km out of line of sight, even trees / bushes behind the hills, and a confident response is possible from 800m

      Like no chance
      1. 0
        July 11 2023
        No no no. The duel scenario for the t-55 is superfluous.
        And as for the range of confident defeat - so the drones are adjusted for what?
    10. 0
      21 May 2023
      For fun, watch the video with the accuracy of this spittoon and the action on the target. This should have been done before writing.
    11. 0
      25 May 2023
      dudes in a jeep will cut circles around him and laugh ... and then they will burn him for fun. this is all museum exhibits, in fact, and not a weapon of the 21st century, because it is blind, crooked, tinny, clumsy and deaf for war in our time.
  2. +11
    20 May 2023
    But it is not all that bad

    Well, yes, everything is just fine if the T54/55 is already used as a combat unit in the conflict, and it would be okay if the 10th world is strange, but the second army of the world ....
    1. +11
      20 May 2023
      Well, everything is just wonderful

      Not great. It is remarkable that, since IT went to the front, it is not yet treated as a tank in all understandings. This is what is written.
      1. +12
        20 May 2023
        It is remarkable that, since IT went to the front, it is not yet treated like a tank in all understandings

        And who will treat him like a tank in all senses, the crew of the mobilized of which will be thrown into him? So excuse this unearthly couch cheers - "patriots" devoted to the guarantor. There are no idiots to go on a suicidal attack on a tank created in the first decade after the Second World War.
        So all such gifts will be treated in the troops not as a full-fledged technique. And put this in plus stupidity
        1. +11
          20 May 2023
          And put this in plus stupidity

          You are absolutely right. There are just two categories of people. Some begin to shout that "how did they allow such junk to be sent, who is to blame, to shoot everyone." This, of course, is insubstantial talk. Others are guided by what happened as it happened, and proceed from what already exists. It is from the latter that my statements and text are written. You can talk a lot about how it was allowed and who is to blame, but without result. More importantly, since these cars went to the front, they don’t throw them into the meat and save the lives of the crews. But there is no certainty that this will continue.
          1. +7
            20 May 2023
            And why are these conversations insubstantial? Why can't they turn into action? And the latter are guided by the slave psychology that the master gave, so we fight. The T-54 is attacking modern weapons, and this will inevitably happen when the nationalists trample on everything they were given, seriously and massively, it's like sheep for slaughter. Maybe this is the goal, to reduce the number of non-loyal people born in the Union? Like it or not, but Soviet education and upbringing, it has firmly grown among the hard worker. Whoever turned into hucksters, after well-known events, even then they were not Soviet.
          2. +4
            20 May 2023
            Quote: Eduard Perov
            Others are guided by what happened as it happened, and proceed from what already exists.

            Similarly, T-55 tanks were used by the Azerbaijani Armed Forces during the Second Karabakh War in the fall of 2020. Obsolete tanks were used not for their intended purpose, but as improvised self-propelled artillery pieces. The T-55s were installed behind bulky ramparts and fired at the enemy from closed firing positions, without being directly affected by anti-tank weapons.


            1. +5
              20 May 2023
              By the way, the Armenians also used it, but the Azeris had Spike's "roof-breakers" for this case.
          3. +8
            20 May 2023
            Eduard, at the beginning of this century there was a proposal to convert the T54, T55 and T62 tanks into heavy infantry fighting vehicles like Israeli infantry fighting vehicles. Leave only t72, t80 in storage with modernization and upgrade all t90. With the T90, they began to stir because of the war, the T72 actively destroys corrosion, and junk like T62 / 55/54 was thrown to the front line! But then there was a lot of money, and there were more factories, they could easily modernize the entire tank fleet in stock.
            1. +8
              20 May 2023
              But they held the Olympics and the World Cup
          4. +16
            20 May 2023
            "It happened, it means it happened" - Strong words! Did it happen on its own or as a result of someone's leadership? Who was responsible for this and should be held accountable? Or should these people continue their "productive activities"?... "Well, what can you do now, it happened." What happened? Let's imagine that you live in your apartment, regularly pay the rent, and the management company takes the money and lives well, scores on planned repairs, and does the most, paints the bench at the entrance in patriotic colors. And then your riser fell apart and everything ran into the rooms - it drowns! The manager arrives and begins to eliminate the breakthrough by replacing the pipe with a dead rusty one, wrapped with “unparalleled” tape for reliability .... You are shocked and ask a reasonable question: “Well, you didn’t repair the pipes on time, but now why are you rotten to me put the pipe, did you give the whole house money for repairs?" And you get an answer in your style: "Well, now what is it like to lament how it turned out, it happened, be glad that at least such a pipe was installed for you! Then we'll see later!".... Well, how do you swallow it and be satisfied? I'm sure not! But why, then, in this situation with old technology, do you act as a bayun-appeaser, declaring that "Well, what can you do, it happened!"?
            1. +5
              20 May 2023
              Yes, the housing and communal services system often works like that ... winked
          5. +2
            21 May 2023
            Given the level of our officers, anything is possible. Nothing surprises me anymore. Another concern. Despite all the failures, they remain in office.
        2. +3
          20 May 2023
          We will wait for fairy tales from the media's coming out about the T-54/55 with welded hatches
          1. +12
            20 May 2023
            Moreover, we have already been told this about ukrov
        3. -4
          20 May 2023
          The T-54 was generally developed during the war. And after 15 years brought to mind.
    2. -2
      20 May 2023
      in the conflict they use and it would be okay to be strange 10 of the world, but the second army of the world

      Well, sorry, after a year and a half a lot of armored vehicles were knocked out.
      1. +2
        20 May 2023
        Well, sorry, after a year and a half a lot of armored vehicles were knocked out.

        And it needs to be dragged out for another five years, to the cries of jingoistic garbage about our people in Kyiv and western Ukraine, and about the inadmissibility of nuclear weapons ..
        Then we’ll start shooting the T-34 from the monuments
    3. 0
      July 11 2023
      Tobish m113 Ukrainians do not bother you? Why not put up the same antiquity against them, for example?
  3. +26
    20 May 2023
    In general, when photographs of the echelon with the T-54 first appeared, I, I confess, nevertheless assumed that they would be used for spare parts for the T-62. It seemed savagery to assume that they would be used in their original form just like tanks.
    But no matter how badly I think about our capitalist authorities and about the state of the Russian army, the reality always turns out to be even worse. Those who wrote that the T-54 would be used as an ordinary tank were right. What is the use of such use and where have more and more new tanks gone from storage bases - this is a great secret.
    It is clear that ours will not undertake any more deep operations.
    The "super strategy" consists in squeezing the enemy out of the Donbass with defenses in the remaining sectors in the expectation that the enemy will get tired of it or he will run out of manpower.
    But for this it is necessary to somehow repel their offensive and somehow stand for a year or two. The use of the T-54 does not add optimism here ...
    1. +5
      20 May 2023
      Those who wrote that the T-54 would be used as an ordinary tank were right.

      And I wrote about this in the article "Older than sixty-two". And still not surethat these machines will never be used as full-fledged tanks. But so far it's not bad in the sense that they are not used in this way. What happens next is the big question. What he wrote about.
      1. +14
        20 May 2023
        You are just trying to justify the situation. The tank will fight like a tank, the tank will be used like a tank. No other is given. The fact that the T-54/55 is a museum exhibit does not transfer it to another class of weapons. T-54/55 - museum tanks in a war where they do not belong.
        1. -4
          20 May 2023
          What else is not given? What prevents the use of these tanks as "Art", otherwise it seems that in our law it is written that the tank should be used only as a tank, otherwise shoot it? Or what? Moreover, now there was information that these tanks are used as Artoo
      2. +1
        21 May 2023
        On them it is necessary to write in capital letters - I'm not a tank! Then the generals, I think, will understand
    2. -2
      20 May 2023
      You forgot that the release of new ones is increasing in parallel. By magic, this will not happen, it takes time. But a lot of new tanks are already being made.
      1. +7
        20 May 2023
        And with a wave of a magic wand, you don’t need much at once ... You need to systematically and strongly in advance. And if there really is a war with NATO, which has long-range missiles that have the ability to get tanks producing tanks to factories?
      2. +3
        20 May 2023
        And where are the thousands and thousands of produced tanks since the days of the USSR?))
    3. +11
      20 May 2023
      In reality, the situation is catastrophic. After a year of war, we will have no weapons left. Therefore, there is no attack. The warehouses of the Ramstein countries with their weapons are just opening up, before that weapons were supplied to the USSR. Ours is ending. They need to fight at the current pace with tactical offensives for a year and that's it, the RF Armed Forces will end.
      By the way, what I wrote.
      1. +5
        20 May 2023
        Quote from cold wind
        By the way, what I wrote.

        Yes I remember. You were right. I am constantly accused of pessimism and alarmism, but I was too optimistic, and you were right.
        Quote from cold wind
        In reality, the situation is catastrophic. After a year of war, we will have no weapons left.

        With such a political and military strategy of the authorities, the only hope is that the enemy will physically end first. , but somehow we will sit out on the defensive. And wait for the great deal. Apparently, this is what the authorities are hoping for. In an extreme case, even simply with the freezing of the conflict along the line of contact according to the Chinese formula of peace (that is, with the formal recognition of the territorial integrity of Ukraine by everyone except the Russian Federation).
        1. +3
          20 May 2023
          Unfortunately, everything you write is the height of optimism and is not feasible. Reality is worse. What will happen next is clear. The question is in the nuances.
      2. +1
        20 May 2023
        Quote from cold wind
        In reality, the situation is catastrophic. After a year of war, we will have no weapons left.

        Here you, let's say, exaggerate. Well, and weapons never end, in the same Africa ask around. Food sometimes runs out, but weapons don't.

        Another thing is that a year and a half ago, even people who were not enthusiastic about the second army of the world did not expect a discussion of the pluses of the T-55 and the minuses of the F-16. However, this is not the only thing we did not expect.
        1. -8
          20 May 2023
          Quote: Negro
          did not expect a discussion of the pros of the T-55 and the cons of the F-16

          If you look closely, then a very specific horse Tingent commenting is engaged in the discussion of the above. At the same time, the discussion proceeds according to the technology "they threw it in - they discussed it themselves."

          Upon closer examination, almost all the initiators of the "discussion" turn out to be full-time pro-Ukrainian trolls. Well, here's how you, for example. Ukrainian African American. Yes
    4. +2
      20 May 2023
      You need a lot of ammo. So many. And tanks are not really needed on the offensive. Therefore, tanks are now not tanks, but guns. Just guns
      1. +1
        22 May 2023
        There must always be a balance, the same cannons wear out and receive combat damage, you will not throw a projectile from a catapult.
  4. +16
    20 May 2023
    Here the analogy is no longer with a mosquito, but with a muzzle-loading fusee.
    Nevertheless, someone will definitely find arguments to justify the people who made such a decision - like the T-55 is better than nothing, or it has a gun like a sniper rifle, etc. But in fact, this is a crime or an attempt to cover up the criminal activities of the last XNUMX years.
    and what will be the situation in the event of active and extremely dynamic hostilities during the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? I don't want to guess ahead of time.

    I don’t want to, but it’s clear that on the maps of large headquarters a certain area will be listed as a covered tank unit, with all the ensuing tasks.
    Based on this, to be honest, there were big fears that the T-54/55 would be treated like that: there is armor and a gun - go ahead
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. -5
      20 May 2023
      excuses for those who made such a decision - like the T-55 is better than nothing

      You have an excuse saying that let the APU break through the front, but it is absolutely impossible to use the T55 so as not to break through.
      1. +6
        20 May 2023

        You have an excuse saying that let the APU break through the front, but it is absolutely impossible to use the T55 so as not to break through.

        Dear, there is no need to engage in sophistry and look in my comment for something that is not there. Here about your reaction there is, I do not argue.
    3. +1
      21 May 2023
      Quote: 1z1
      Here the analogy is no longer with a mosquito, but with a muzzle-loading fusee.

      Well, you have comparisons ... And this is definitely not about the T-54/55 ... I also understand with the "Berdan", but with the "FUZEA", and even the muzzle-loading one ... Well, this is definitely not about these tanks. They can also be used as a "base chassis", for creating tractors, heavy armored personnel carriers, tank support installations, like BPMT, self-propelled anti-aircraft installations, by the way, it would be better to place the 2M-3M ship's ZU 110M-25M with two M-automatic guns on them. XNUMX caliber XNUMX mm.
      1. 0
        21 May 2023
        They can also be used as a "base chassis"

        It is possible and necessary. It was .... And this possibility was discussed more than once or twice for many years. And as a result, the tanks went, so to speak, in the "original" with a makeshift barbecue above the tower
  5. +15
    20 May 2023
    Keeping the T-54 / T-55 further at storage bases, for some kind of "other war", is definitely pointless, this is the "same" war when they can still be used in secondary roles, because. after that, they are waiting for recycling. This tank still has some, but a certain utility in the 2-3 defense echelons, which means it must be used. For 100 mm guns, there is ammunition in warehouses, which means that it will not be necessary to spend 125 mm shells on them, which are actively consumed by tanks of the "first, assault echelon". A tank in its position is always "its own" artillery, which can be given a quick direct order to open fire and target designation without requesting artillery support, which you need to wait for and which may not be available at the right time. Moreover, when enemy armored vehicles roll out at you for a direct shot due to terrain folds, it is still better to have time to fire 2-3 volleys from the T-54 from a distance of 1,0 - 1,5 km than to let enemy armored vehicles into close combat at 200 meters for RPG firing. You can, of course, meet the enemy from ATGMs at 1,0 - 1,5 km, but his crew is not protected from being hit by fragments of return fire from tanks and small-caliber guns of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, just as the T-54 is much better protected from FPV drones and drops from quadrocopters . SPG-9 accurately fires at the same 1,0 - 1,5 km, but its shot flies slowly and it is difficult to hit moving armor with it, and the crew is also open to return fire.
    1. +4
      20 May 2023
      Such tanks are better than none. It is clearly better than infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles in terms of protection.
      1. +5
        20 May 2023
        Of course, a tank is better than BMD and BMP in terms of protection, because these are different equipment. We use BMs to deliver troops to the front line, and the maximum is fire support, but not an attack on the enemy in the forefront
      2. +3
        20 May 2023
        Quote: alekc73
        It is clearly better than the BMP and BMD in terms of protection.

        Only if it is converted into a T-BTR or BMPT.
    2. +10
      20 May 2023
      So it is. But the Abrams + Bradley combination with the Iraqi T-54 / T-55 / Shi-59 was easily dealt with back in 1991.
      1. +3
        20 May 2023
        There will be no tank battles. Forget.and
      2. -1
        20 May 2023
        Quote: Yaroslav Tekkel
        But the Abrams + Bradley combination with the Iraqi T-54 / T-55 / Shi-59 was easily dealt with back in 1991.

        There were T-72s mostly.
        1. +2
          20 May 2023
          Quote: Negro
          There were T-72s mostly.

          Only in alternative fiction and in the Western press. In reality, the basis of the Iraqi fleet in the Gulf War is the T-55 and its derivatives.
          1. 0
            20 May 2023
            Quote: Blackgrifon
            In reality, the basis of the Iraqi fleet in the Gulf War is the T-55 and its derivatives.

            Formally you are right. T-72 there was about a thousand, T-54/55/62/type59 about 4 thousand like.
        2. +2
          20 May 2023
          It was mainly t55 and t62 there, and only a small part was t72M atoms, to put it mildly, "wretched" and "stripped down" t72b or a
          1. 0
            1 2023 June
            Quote from Robin Robinson
            t72M ato, to put it mildly, "wretched" and "stripped down" t72b or a

            This is the case when the old T-62 is really better than the new T-72M (and before the appearance of the first T-72B) - the latter have neither DZ nor self-propelled guns, but they have specific ammunition ...
  6. -5
    20 May 2023
    After all, it is possible to equip it with anti-tank systems by welding several to the tower, as on the Bradley?
    A thermal imaging sight is very much needed - to see far.
    1. +9
      20 May 2023
      After all, you can equip it with anti-tank systems

      It is possible, but the question is: how much labor will be needed to install the ATGM control systems. In particular, will it be a laser system or a wired one, and how to implement it quickly and without problems.

      A thermal imaging sight is very much needed - to see far.

      Needed, but it needs to be mass-produced. At the same time, again, it is required to implement the ballistic component of the sight, adapting it in series to 100-mm projectiles, measuring the range and interacting with the drives (stabilizers) of the gun. What is currently being installed on the T-62M of the 2022 model and some other tanks, according to open data, is eating up the ballistic performance of the 125-mm gun, since they are most identical with the 115-mm caliber.

      All this is necessary, but the question is who will do it. And will it do it.
      1. -1
        21 May 2023
        The T54 and T55 are a cheap quick fix for the ammo shortage at the front. As long as there are shells, they must be shot. The shells will run out - they will be converted into different bridge layers, tractors, ARVs, shaheeds and so on.
    2. 0
      July 11 2023
      Oh, let's not talk about equipping old cars with heat packs.
      It’s better to really pour them into concrete as a stationary firing point
  7. +12
    20 May 2023
    The use of tanks (and tank destroyers) for firing from closed positions is an exclusive feature of the Americans. As in Italy, they got hooked on it, so they couldn’t get off to the Abrams before rearmament. Well, the truth is, if there are a bunch of tanks with guns from 75 mm, and tank battles happen once a month, why not use tanks as artillery the rest of the time. If the elevation angle of the guns is not enough, we drive the tanks onto the ramps.

    True, I never thought that we would pick up this banner.
    1. +9
      20 May 2023
      Quote: Yaroslav Tekkel
      The use of tanks (and tank destroyers) for firing from closed positions is an exclusive feature of the Americans. As in Italy, they got hooked on it, so they couldn’t get off to the Abrams before rearmament. Well, the truth is, if there are a bunch of tanks with guns from 75 mm, and tank battles happen once a month, why not use tanks as artillery the rest of the time. If the elevation angle of the guns is not enough, we drive the tanks onto the ramps.

      True, I never thought that we would pick up this banner.

      I wonder why argue about all this. Guys, what do you think is better "Rapier" firing a canopy or a 100mm rifled gun? In my opinion, the T-55 is definitely better as a self-propelled gun than a towed rapier. After all, the T-55 has protection, and the rapier has one shield. And compared to howitzers, the T-55 and the rapier have one HUGE advantage. They fire on a relatively flat trajectory, which makes them very difficult to detect by counter-battery radars. And in the presence of shell and powder hunger, it is a crime not to use stocks of 100mm shots. To be honest, I don’t understand why, if there is a shortage of shells, WHY to ... the devil’s grandmother can’t buy these same shells from the DPRK, as well as machine tools for their production? Moreover, most likely they can be exchanged for grain, which in the Russian Federation is still idle in warehouses? Moreover, the Russian Federation is actively trading with Iran, which is already in the sanctions for the most I can’t? Or is it all about the so-called. fifth column in power!!! She be bad. am
  8. -6
    20 May 2023
    let's agree, gentlemen, that the old horse does not spoil the furrow ....
    1. +2
      20 May 2023
      ... but it plows finely, or rather, it doesn’t plow. And so, on top.
  9. +15
    20 May 2023
    A well-thought-out, high-quality article on a complex topic. I thank the author.
  10. +2
    20 May 2023
    This is in exchange for "Armata", agreed with financiers - economists, representatives of the IMF, they are also NATO. No need to organize network-centric connections, no need to learn, of course, the TPN1-22/11 night sight can be replaced with something new. And so, "NATO kaput" do not say the same!
  11. -5
    20 May 2023
    It seems that the whole article is written around one photo.
    Compilation of old material and the author's fantasy around a photo of t 54 with a visor.
  12. +2
    20 May 2023
    And what's with the connection? How to correct, and who will do it? What coherence has been developed?
    1. +8
      20 May 2023
      Quote from Kuziming
      And what's with the connection? How to correct, and who will do it? What coherence has been developed?

      And what's the problem then? After all, as the author writes, the T-55 was transferred to the ART DIVISION. So this division has a CONTROL BAR. It has topographic maps, it has CONNECTION, it has calculators, and so on. This battery provides topographical positioning of the firing positions of EVERY tank, and it can also give out the coordinates of the targets of each vehicle, and data calculations for shooting can be done even on a smartphone. And the coordinates of the target can be issued on the most common BAOFENGA's. So NO problems. Correction of fire from the UAV also through the battery or even in some cases work directly with the UAV operator (or even not in some cases laughing if the UAV is enough). Moreover, since the T-55 was handed over to the gunners, all these problems with correction and coherence should have been resolved long ago.
  13. +15
    20 May 2023
    Putin at least once, thanks to the USSR said. All his government parasitizes on the USSR, but he never created anything of his own. So also the Mausoleum every May 9 closes with plywood. He is ashamed of the witnesses. And to use junk, it's not a shame!
  14. -5
    20 May 2023
    So, in the T-54/55 there is nothing at all from the sights that could somehow bring the car closer to its younger counterparts

    And this is one of the advantages of the T-54/55 over modern ones, with their very delicate optics, which.

    And this, of course, is not a thermal imager that sees thermal spots of targets at great distances. Here it will be a great success if you can see a large target at a distance of 800 meters. Therefore, shooting at enemy infantry or equipment from a safe distance, when you can’t see a single thing, will not work.

    And when you can't see Zgi on the sleigh? And what, the tank fights in such conditions?

    That's right, because of the miniature warheads of optical devices, the T-54/55 can get closer than 800 meters to the trenches, but the T-90 can’t, it’s just that at such distances it can go blind, as it can be left without optoelectronic devices from exposure to fire small arms, especially from snipers. It is possible to get into devices the size of a decent suitcase already at such a distance if the platoon concentrates all the fire on the tank, and on the T-90M they thought of combining the optical channel and the thermal imaging channel in one warhead, unlike the Ukrainian T-84, which has optics and a thermal imager separated and have smaller heads.

    And the old tank also has a shrapnel shell for infantry trenches and mortar crews in shelters, which the "modern" T-72/90 does not have. And for Javelin, that T-54, that T-90 is all the same. And a rifled gun has a greater aiming range, a greater range of a direct shot, better accuracy, only less armor penetration and the power of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile .. but what to choose, the aiming range per kilometer is greater or the armor penetration and power, it may still be better not even to hit earlier destroying the tank, but to demolish all the offal from the tower? This is where you think about where the desire to make an anti-tank led
    1. -1
      20 May 2023
      There may have been a shrapnel shell, but there is not a single case of their confirmed use. Therefore, we can assume that they do not exist.
  15. +2
    20 May 2023
    In short, the country that "rose from its knees" turned out to be completely unprepared for a modern war, neither in political, nor in managerial, nor in military-technical plans. It is upsetting that the Anglo-Saxons, who plan for centuries, have waited for theirs. 1916-1917, in Russia there is no political force like the Bolsheviks, who had their own development project, and, therefore, the Anglo-Saxons will do their job - they will dismember and plunder the country ...
    1. +12
      20 May 2023
      plunder the country...

      The country was plundered by "conditional own" new Russians, and then effective managers. And the Anglo-Saxons just had to take away the "accumulated by overwork" from the capsules into which they pumped 30 silver coins for the sale of the Great Country. And these egg-pods "new and more efficient" according to the "fashion" were hidden in Anglo-Saxon banks.
      1. +2
        20 May 2023
        Yes, no, just their unconditional. More precisely, yours are the changed shoes of the gebnya and the Komsomol members, who deftly made friends with the urla and amicably seized power in the country.
  16. +3
    20 May 2023
    Why don’t we use the T-55 like captured Ukrainians: they cut off the tower and use it as armored tractors and for transporting ammunition
  17. -3
    20 May 2023
    All power to the Soviets!

    A cannon on "wheels" is just as good.
    You won’t be able to stock up on new tanks for the entire thousand-kilometer front, but this one is good in defense too.
    1. +6
      20 May 2023
      "You can't stock up on new tanks, but this one is good in defense."
      That's right: "And in natural selection,
      Putin is better, anyway!
  18. -9
    20 May 2023
    Why this graphomania? What is the main message? The author of spm contradicts himself.

    About shooting at "long" distances is generally funny. As a result, we have a rather worthless armored "bomb launcher". Once discovered, he has no chance even with a double barbecue.
    1. +2
      20 May 2023
      He has a normal gun. 6 km zapulnet
  19. +6
    20 May 2023
    The Armed Forces of Ukraine have got to hell with AFVs, including Bradley, Marder, CV-90 .., and there are not enough tanks. So the T-55 still has a chance and benefit. By necessity, of course.
    1. +5
      20 May 2023
      For the front edge of the t-90 and t-72. These are in the artillery divisions
  20. -3
    20 May 2023
    These old tanks could be used to build new turrets. And do everything like on the T-90, even with the old tower if you need such a caliber. The T-34 changed the turret three times, our designers still cannot change the turrets and hang up protection as well as on the T-72 and it was possible to make a banshee like the T90, corrected the dimensions
    1. +10
      20 May 2023
      Quote from Alexwar
      These old tanks could be used to build new turrets.

      And install ion cannons on it. Do you even understand what it means to make a new turret for a tank?
      1. +3
        20 May 2023
        Yes, a modern tower may well turn out to be more expensive than a hull, by analogy with the Bakhcha-U.
  21. +4
    20 May 2023
    The need for T54 and 62 tanks is caused by two factors,
    1. The need for assault self-propelled guns, which were widely used in the Second World War.
    2.Possible shortage of 152 caliber ammunition.
    In this regard, I would like to remind you again that the need for an assault self-propelled gun with a 152-mm mortar - mortar, -PU UR was formed a long time ago, the question is why the leadership of the Armed Forces remained deaf to this.
    1. +1
      20 May 2023
      The vertical guidance angle of the T-90 is 20 degrees, which is more than that of previous vehicles. But still less than the T-34. And the barrel is smooth like a mortar. Your wishes are taken into account and implemented, you are practically breaking through an open door.
  22. +3
    20 May 2023
    Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
    The 100-mm OFS has a dispersion of 4800 meters (no further data) - 1,2 meters vertically, 1,4 horizontally.

    Dispersion in range at 5000m is 22m.
  23. 0
    20 May 2023
    The lack of artillery shells is the reason for the delivery of the T-55. There are thousands of T-72s in warehouses, but will they have enough shells? That is the question.
    Putin competently explained in the spring why he did not start the SVO in 2014, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine were weak. I would add to his 4 reasons also 5 reason. In 2014, we apparently did not even have the minimum reserves for such a war. In one article, where, on the basis of open sources, there was a calculation of how many shells over 100mm are actually being produced and restored now, which is why the "shell" hunger arose. I noticed that all shell programs, large orders began in 2014.
    Even the construction of hundreds of "Coalitions" will not change the situation if the production of shells of all nomenclatures is not increased. Thousands of tanks will not decide anything if they have nothing to shoot with.
    1. +10
      20 May 2023
      At the same time, he began the operation in distant Syria, regardless, as they say.
    2. The lack of artillery shells is the reason for the delivery of the T-55.

      The lack of qualified personnel, which led to hatred moods, which led to the loss of warehouses on the front line and the closure of enterprises in the rear.
  24. -8
    20 May 2023
    This is what caught my eye:
    "crew reduction is practiced when instead of regular four people are in the car only three, which facilitates the acquisition of equipment by tankers for the conditions in which it is used "
    The height of cynicism! And, quite likely, it is served as concern for the crew.
    - see? We don't send four people to certain death at once, do we? You can get by with three...

    The only thing that comes to mind as a use case is instead of army tractors, in the frontline rear ...
  25. +4
    20 May 2023
    Put the tank in the lowland, set sights for aiming along the crest of the hill ahead (surrogate replacement of the panorama), put a spotter in front. Equip firing heels with known coordinates relative to landmarks and a couple of tank trenches for cover. It can be covered too. Write a smartphone program to facilitate calculations when aiming. And this tank will provide you with artillery support without much risk to the crew.
    .
    Yes, a couple of surveyors should be included in the battery ...
    1. And a couple of programmers who ran away together last fall.
      1. +1
        20 May 2023
        Maybe it's for the best? I mean they ran away. Every time I go to an ATM, I see a brand new menu with new joints in addition to the old ones that have not been eliminated. I'm still waiting for these people to calm down and stop distorting the contents of the screen.
        ps
        I have serious doubts about the abilities of domestic programmers, everything and everywhere is overflowing with non-professionals. It is possible that this is the case everywhere, but in our country non-professionals also lead.
        1. +1
          21 May 2023
          So it is the rest who are strange. Damn short answer again
  26. +4
    20 May 2023
    Lots of text.)
    And in the rest we have a combat vehicle, very advanced in age, very outdated, but for which there are a huge number of shells in the warehouses, no one is going to drive this tank into frontal attacks, into tank oncoming cuts, and for example, dismantle oporniki or support infantry because of the Christmas trees from prepared positions (and by the way, what is important in this situation, the accuracy of a tank gun is much higher than the accuracy of a howitzer, thereby removing the factor of friendly fire, and, again, accuracy and timeliness), then it will probably be quite enough.
    Yes, of course, if this tank were equipped with dynamic protection, then it would be much better, after all, there should be protection from the simplest anti-tank weapons!



  27. +6
    20 May 2023
    For some reason, there are again comments in the style that the tank will be used as artillery in place or stand in the 2-3 defense line, but where was it written? Most likely it will be used according to circumstances, possibly during attacks.
  28. +4
    20 May 2023
    Do you seriously believe that it is possible to hit a moving target from this tank, for example, a striker ??? What kind of crew of mobilized snipers should be sitting there, where did they get such a skill, given that a buried, immobile tank in itself is an ideal target. For defense, there is zero benefit from him, only if they go to their full height in the forehead.
    1. +2
      20 May 2023
      In fact, this is a weapon in a closed position. Give him target designation and he will throw a projectile for 15 kilometers. That is all that is required of him. Drones will provide target designation, signalmen will transmit data, the projectile will fly away. All.
    2. -3
      20 May 2023
      You repeat yourself. It's a pity I can't actually offer such a duel. But in vain you hope to survive in such a duel against a tank gun with a very perfect drive and some kind of, but still tank optics.
      Are you going to substitute the side and drive at random from the T-55? This is not a computer shooter and there will be no second life.
      And with a manual drive, they fired at moving targets, and here in the hands of the gunner was a "Cheburashka", with a button.
  29. +9
    20 May 2023
    You can have different attitudes towards the use of T-54 and T-55 tanks in the combat zone. However, why it is illogical to use them from closed firing positions is not clear. Russia will never be able to provide saturation, battle formations, with modern tanks, for a thousand kilometers of front. While, a combined hodgepodge is capable of providing dozens of obsolete MBTs per kilometer of front. Naturally, the use of these tanks should be proportionate to their capabilities. Tanks such as the T-90 and T-14, like cigarettes, do not pop off the assembly line, they are not made with a wave of a hand by a magic wand. What is worse than the T-54 and D-20, or D-30? In any case, compared to open guns, the T-54 has serious armor protection and is able to change position on its own. Of course, the protection of the T-54 is far from ideal, but it is not inferior to self-propelled guns and surpasses any protection of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and this is the main advantage. The number of barrels per kilometer of the front gives a decisive advantage, and this is indisputable. If modern artillery engages in counter-battery combat, then 20-30 T-54, 55 tanks per kilometer of front will move the entire enemy defense line, with minimal risk to crews. What is actually required today at the front. Why are positions on the flanks of Artemovsk being lost today? Because there are not concentrated 20-30 T-54s, 55 per kilometer of the front. If they were there, rags would have remained from the advancing orders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, already 10 kilometers from the line of contact. Naturally, one would like to have all the best and most modern at the front, but one must face reality. This has never happened in history and never will.
  30. 0
    20 May 2023
    These tanks will certainly still fit. But not like tanks, but like combat vehicles.
    They would remove the turret with the gun and install a combat module a la "Berezhok" or "Cleaver" with a 30mm 2A72 gun and Kornet ATGMs. Or attach a 57mm S-60 cannon.
    The protection is better than that of the BMP and there is a sense of combat.
  31. +6
    20 May 2023
    Yes, there are no shells for artillery, so they are dragging these old men, the union has done a lot of shells on them, you can’t leave troops without artillery cover at all
  32. +6
    20 May 2023
    To avoid the temptation to use the T-54/55 not as self-propelled guns, but as tanks, they should be transferred to gunners.
  33. 0
    20 May 2023
    Well, yes, not from the good life of the old people T - 54, T -55 began to be used in the NWO. Ahead of us, perhaps, is a lifelong battle with NATO, where our Armats and Breakthroughs of the latest modifications will be needed. Now the old men are used precisely for defense against the Nazis in distant positions
  34. +4
    20 May 2023
    There are no objections to using these tanks as self-propelled guns. "A tank is a cart for a cannon."
    If only the bosses in caps did not send the attack. Mind is enough.
  35. +1
    20 May 2023
    Quote: Belisarius
    opponent to physically end first

    Not. Not a single war has yet ended because the enemy has run out of people.
  36. 0
    21 May 2023
    Maybe it's a matter of caliber. And the number of shells for guns. I can not say exactly. I know that there are still thousands of 34k in storage.
  37. 0
    21 May 2023
    And it’s a no brainer that no one is going to use the T-54,55 for tank duels with the T-64 or Leopards, or to break through the enemy’s defenses. However, in a system of long-term defense in depth, it is very good to use buried ones.
  38. +1
    21 May 2023
    Quote: Theseus
    And it’s a no brainer that no one is going to use the T-54,55 for tank duels with the T-64 or Leopards, or to break through the enemy’s defenses. However, in a system of long-term defense in depth, it is very good to use buried ones.

    During the Second World War, self-propelled guns were used more than once as tanks according to the principle: you have at least some armor, but the infantry does not have it, go ahead. And Su-76 and Su-85.
  39. The comment was deleted.
  40. +1
    21 May 2023
    Did I read something mournful, or was that the author's intention? In short, even old vehicles with armor increase the capabilities of a separate unit. On the defensive. Not tank to tank. And artillery support in the defense of the oporniks when lightly armored motorized detachments and groups of ukrov attack them.
  41. +2
    21 May 2023
    I think the "old men" are more like plugs in problem areas. They are better than inflatable tanks, and allow you to cover areas with a wide front from all sorts of pickup drgs, and armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles without the support of their tanks are unlikely to be trampled on them. For example, a checkpoint. Putting modern equipment there is too bold, and the T-55 in the mobile pillbox mode will do just fine. Again, less vulnerable to drones than transporters and self-propelled guns. Well, and most importantly, why they were dragged there - a lot of non-deficient 100 mm shells that urgently need to be put somewhere before they expired.
    1. 0
      21 May 2023
      Thank you, at least someone has a brain and common sense
  42. +1
    21 May 2023
    Actually, the very fact of storing these tanks implies the possibility of use. It would be impossible to use - they would have already been scrapped. And finally, as a mobile armored firing point, they will help in defense, and there they will be decommissioned with a clear conscience. And the storage bases will be freed...
  43. -1
    21 May 2023
    T-54 / T-55 is a good tank.
    He needs to weld a basket of armor plate 16 mm thick from the rear of the tower. Put a fighter with the Kornet ATGM on a retractable turret there. (If there are few "Cornets" - put "Metis"). When hit from a dive after a slide or from a height, turning into a gentle dive, and from the Metis, the Leopard will have to burn.
    Give the second fighter in the back basket an AGS, and everyone will be happy.
    To balance the tower and in front, you need to make a basket (the fighters do not need to be put there), it is necessary to install regular dynamic protection units on its front wall. So we get spaced armor with elements of dynamic armor.
    A thermal imager is desirable, but how will it work out.
    It’s still not clear to me why the visors on the turret are so small, why aren’t they developed for the entire hull of the tank? This is wrong, they should cover the entire hull of the tank.
  44. 0
    21 May 2023
    What's the article? Neither the topic was disclosed, nor did he normally sketch on the fan ....
    The feeling that the author of this opus was given the task of writing an article, he asked .... all the deadlines and at the last moment threw what he could. And specialists like Skomorokh - they missed her
  45. 0
    21 May 2023
    And why are self-propelled guns not removed from storage, but tanks?
    And so, Murz has already painted everything about the PDO.
  46. 0
    22 May 2023
    Low projectile trajectory, during these times it is best to guard the team. You all know the principle: any target found can be destroyed. So, the most important thing is to be unnoticed.
  47. 0
    22 May 2023
    Thanks to my grandfather not only for the Victory, but also for the tanks that he collected after the war!
    Tankers are not stupid people who also want to live. They will realize that it is not necessary to go to hell on the "grandfathers".
  48. 0
    22 May 2023
    count the dot against the armored car in the rear
  49. 0
    23 May 2023
    If these old USSR tanks save the lives of our guys, then they have already done their job! Life is much more precious than anything. And let them show themselves as self-propelled guns.
  50. 0
    23 May 2023
    More than thirty years ago, I talked with an artillery officer who participated in the war. So, near Leningrad, in the initial period of the war, he fought on a three-inch (76 mm) with semi-wooden wheels, produced back in tsarist times. Such is the prose of war. Only in the early 80s they didn’t write about such things, and the old front-line soldiers spoke, because there was nothing to be afraid of.
  51. 0
    24 May 2023
    Well, if you only use it as a self-propelled weapon, there are enough shells in warehouses, so you can fire bullets and at the same time dispose of old stocks. But what the effectiveness of such fire will be, everything will depend on the spotter and the crew.
  52. -1
    25 May 2023
    Quote: Russian_Ninja
    I feel terrible sometimes from such statements, to be honest. World history knows hundreds of examples of the superiority of modern weapons over primitive ones, but we will decide to experiment again. And yes, at that time “pitchforks against the enemy” still worked, but after all, no one went to the Second World War with “shovels from shovels”.
    And it is strange that you are not outraged by this. E, because it turns out that: no one was preparing for the NWO; more modern T-72 tanks were in such disgusting storage that they take the T-54

    We must fight with what we have, not with what is on the Internet. During the Second World War, they fought near Moscow with cannons of 1877, demolishing tank turrets from 152 m with 500-mm shells and overturning them with explosions. The Germans wrote complaints to the Völkischer Beobachter.
    We prepared for the SVO, but incorrectly. This is common. Who prepared correctly? Plans in war are never carried out. There are modern tanks in Russia, but they must be saved for a direct war with NATO. The wait isn't long now. While it is possible to fight with scrap, it must be done. Moreover, the tankers have no losses.
  53. 0
    26 May 2023
    Quote: Saburov_Alexander53
    Therefore, for example, here is an article:
    https://westfront.su/strelkovoe-oruzhie-zashhitnikov-stolitsyi-pri-formirovanii-diviziy-narodnogo-opolcheniya-moskvyi/
    To give an idea of ​​the problems with arming the militia during the war, check out..

    yes, I came across one three-ruler with an oval in the area of ​​the bolt group: “Remington Armory for the Russian Volunteer Army”
  54. 0
    27 May 2023
    Today I heard from one blogger that old tanks with 115 caliber guns are being returned for another reason; North Korea and other African countries have 115 caliber shells.
  55. 0
    28 May 2023
    But what about future radiation, where to hide the infantry, where are the shelters, and the tank will at least somehow help complete the combat mission.
  56. 0
    30 2023 June
    Quote: Mikhail Krivopalov
    And with a wave of a magic wand, you don’t need much at once ... You need to systematically and strongly in advance. And if there really is a war with NATO, which has long-range missiles that have the ability to get tanks producing tanks to factories?

    and that's all... we dance from what is and how it is..... what should have been done much in advance there is no point in remembering... because it is as it is and there will be no other
  57. 0
    July 25 2023
    Maybe the Su-100 still survived? They are definitely about self-propelled guns.
  58. The comment was deleted.
  59. 0
    August 31 2023
    You can make BMPT and ZRSU from them, hang them with dynamic armor, replace the gun with one 30 mm six-barreled machine gun, even one 2A42 will do, and a 40mm course AGS, on the turret there is one 12,7 mm machine gun, two NAR S-8 units and into battle, It’s still better than a 100 mm cannon to shoot into the void from closed positions.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"