Continuation of the torment of the “old man”: what mines do to the T-54 tank

43
Continuation of the torment of the “old man”: what mines do to the T-54 tank

We have previously written about the consequences of firing at the T-54 with missiles from anti-tank missile systems and cumulative shells from various artillery systems. You can read about this here и here. Now it’s the turn of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, and, as always, the Hungarian report on testing this vehicle from 1989 will help us.

Of course, it presents only a small part of the currently available arsenal of weapons of this type: anti-personnel mines MON-200 and an improved analogue of PMN-1 in the form of GYATA-64, as well as anti-tank UKA-63 (with a shock core) and the high-explosive classic TM-62P3 . But even this modest list gives an understanding of the impact on the tank in any case.



By tradition, the conditions are still the same. From systems tank All flammable liquids were drained, the ammunition was replaced with inert rounds (training), and wooden mock-ups dressed in uniform were installed in the appropriate places as crew simulators.

Anti-personnel mine MON-200



First in line will be the MON-200 directional anti-personnel mine, which is also used against unarmored and lightly armored vehicles. Let us remind you that it contains 12 kilograms of explosives and 900 ready-made submunitions with a lethal flight range of up to 240 meters. During testing, the MON-200 was installed at a distance of 30 meters from the T-54 tank at a height of 150 centimeters from the ground.

Installation of a MON-200 mine thirty meters from a T-54 tank
Installation of a MON-200 mine thirty meters from a T-54 tank

The detonation of the MON-200 mine and the hail of its destructive elements shattered the tank's optics. External fuel tanks were turned into a sieve, equipment was demolished from the fender. The second road wheel was also severely damaged, which can be seen in the photo attached below. Of course, there was no penetration of the armor: the ready-made striking elements of the mine left dents up to 12-15 millimeters deep. The tank requires minor repairs after such an execution, but taking into account the damage to the optics, its operation in combat conditions would be difficult.

Damage to the T-54 road wheel after an MON-200 mine exploded
Damage to the T-54 road wheel after an MON-200 mine exploded

Damage to a tank after a MON-200 mine exploded. It can be seen that the caterpillar was slightly damaged
Damage to a tank after a MON-200 mine exploded. It can be seen that the caterpillar was slightly damaged

Anti-personnel mine GYATA-64 (Hungarian analogue of the Soviet PMN-1 with an increased explosive charge)



This experiment, of course, looks somewhat strange, since an anti-personnel mine is unlikely to cause any damage to the tank. Still, its destiny is infantry and light armored and unarmored vehicles on wheels. But, as the report says, the commission did not expect stunning results - they simply decided to see what would happen from the explosion of 300 grams of TNT under the T-54 tracks and the KMT-5 rutted mine trawl.

In principle, as was clear from the very beginning, the explosions of GYATA-64 did not bring any significant results. The detonation of a mine under the trawl roller did not cause anything other than a loud bang, as well as chipped and scorched paint on the surface of this KMT-5 element. About the same thing happened during the explosion under the knife section - the explosion simply lifted it slightly and knocked off the paint coating.

Consequences of detonation of a GYATA-64 mine at the knife section of the trawl. On the left is a photo before the explosion, on the right is after
Consequences of a GYATA-64 mine exploding the blade section of a trawl. On the left is a photo before the explosion, on the right is after

A mine detonation near the first road wheel (in the bow of the tank) damaged the track track, bending a pin and tearing the eyes for its fastening. The damage is not serious: the tank has not lost its mobility, and repairs can be carried out quickly enough by the crew. At the same time, the T-54 chassis received even less damage when a mine exploded in the area of ​​the fourth road wheel, except, perhaps, for its broken rubber.

Consequences of the explosion of a GYATA-64 mine under the fourth road wheel. On the left is a photo before the explosion, on the right is after
Consequences of the explosion of a GYATA-64 mine under the fourth road wheel. On the left is a photo before the explosion, on the right is after

Hungarian anti-tank mine UKA-63



This Hungarian mine is a very serious opponent of a tank and any other armored vehicles due to the large amount of explosive (6 kilograms) and its operation on the principle of an impact core. Therefore, they decided to test it on the T-54 tank even in the most atypical projection.

The detonation of a UKA-63 mine under the left rollers of the KMT-5 threw them up, partially tearing off the left part of the trawl. The force of the explosion damaged the tank's fender, throwing off some equipment. At the same time, the car remained safe and sound, but the trawl required serious repairs. At the same time, the second explosion under the blade section of the trawl completely deformed it, which can no longer be eliminated through repairs.

Placement of UKA-63 mine under the KMT-5 roller on the left and the consequences of the explosion on the right
Placement of UKA-63 mine under the KMT-5 roller on the left and the consequences of the explosion on the right

The third detonation of the UKA-63 mine was carried out under the bottom in the area where the driver was located, and, presumably, the consequences of this for the tank were catastrophic. The cumulative warhead of the mine pierced the bottom and literally turned the driver simulator into splinters. The torsion bars of the road wheels were severely damaged. The fragments pierced the tank rack with fuel and ammunition in it and damaged the batteries. In any case, all this would have ended either in a fire or in the complete destruction of the tank as a result of the detonation of the ammunition. So the T-54 could not be restored, and of the entire crew, with a very low probability, only the loader could survive, but with extremely serious injuries.

Placing a UKA-63 anti-tank mine under the bottom of a tank
Placing a UKA-63 anti-tank mine under the bottom of a tank

The explosion of a UKA-63 mine under the third road wheel did not cause such large-scale damage. However, the third and fourth skating rinks were so damaged that it was time to talk about their complete destruction. The track was also torn and the fuel tanks on the fender were torn out. However, the armor was never penetrated, but the crew would still have received minor injuries, and the bottom deformed by the detonation of the mine, coupled with the damaged chassis, gave the tank a ticket for factory repair.

Placement of the UKA-63 anti-tank mine under the track and road wheels in the left photo. The effects of the explosion are depicted on the right.
Placement of the UKA-63 anti-tank mine under the track and road wheels in the left photo. The effects of the explosion are depicted on the right.

The detonation of a UKA-63 mine under the bottom of the T-54 in the area of ​​the engine and transmission compartment left a hole approximately 6 by 8 centimeters. The impact core pierced the engine housing, passed through its shaft and stopped in the cylinder block. The crew might have received minor injuries, but the tank requires serious repairs both because of the damaged power plant and because of the deformation of the bottom, which bent 5 centimeters due to the force of the explosion.

Hole and bottom deformation left by a UKA-63 mine after detonation under the engine and transmission compartment
Hole and bottom deformation left by a UKA-63 mine after detonation under the engine and transmission compartment

The detonation of the UKA-63 under the right drive wheel led to its significant damage and rupture of the track. In this case, the crew would not have been injured, but the tank had lost its mobility. Serious repairs are not required, since these faults can be fixed by the tankers themselves.

UKA-63 detonation under the left drive wheel of a T-54 tank. On the left is a photo before the explosion, and on the right after it
UKA-63 detonation under the left drive wheel of a T-54 tank. On the left is a photo before the explosion, and on the right after it

They decided to carry out the last test with the UKA-63 mine in a non-standard way, installing it on the roof of the T-54 turret. It is doubtful that anyone would use this mine in this way, but the dire consequences are obvious. The mine pierced the armor of the roof and, penetrating into the fighting compartment, damaged the breech of the tank's gun. Of course, there would be no detonation of ammunition and no fire. However, all the tankers in the turret would have been seriously injured or killed, and restoring the tank’s combat capability is only possible in factory conditions.

Consequences of a UKA-63 mine exploding on the roof of a T-54 turret
Consequences of a UKA-63 mine exploding on the roof of a T-54 turret

Anti-tank/anti-track mine TM-62P3 (modification with a polyethylene casing)



The first detonation of the TM-62P3 mine was carried out on the knife section of a mine trawl, simulating its work of removing explosive devices from the ground and throwing them away from the track. As a result of the explosion, a piece approximately corresponding to the size of the mine was torn off. Neither the tank nor the crew can be harmed in this situation, but the trawl needs repairs.

Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine on the blade section of a trawl. Left – before, right – after
Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine on the blade section of a trawl. Left – before, right – after

The detonation of a TM-62P3 mine under the second road wheel of the T-54 led to the destruction of the chassis: the roller was torn out, the caterpillar was torn and damaged. The tank crew would have suffered serious, even fatal injuries. The tank is immobilized and requires serious repairs, up to the factory level, or may be completely impractical if the bottom is deformed.

Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine under the second road wheel of the T-54. Left – before, right – after
Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine under the second road wheel of the T-54. Left – before, right – after

The detonation of a TM-62P3 mine between the third and fourth road wheels of the T-54 tank led to their significant damage, and the caterpillar was torn in several places. The car is completely immobilized, and the crew would be seriously injured, perhaps even fatally. As in the previous case, the T-54 requires repairs, which are useless if the hull is severely deformed.

Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine between the third and fourth road wheels of the T-54. Left – before, right – after
Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine between the third and fourth road wheels of the T-54. Left – before, right – after

The detonation of a TM-62P3 mine under the drive wheel led to minor damage to it and rupture of the track. Neither the crew nor the tank were seriously damaged. The maximum that is required in this case is field repair.

Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine under the drive wheel of a T-54 tank. Left – before, right – after
Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine under the drive wheel of a T-54 tank. Left – before, right – after

The TM-62P3 mine was also tested under the bottom of the tank in the area where the driver was located. Its explosion led to the formation of a hole in the bottom. The torsion bars, tank rack with fuel and ammunition were damaged, and the condition of the driver simulator indicated that if there had been a person there, he would hardly have been able to survive. In this case, the tank itself would most likely be destroyed by fire and/or detonation of the ammunition rack. They also detonated a TM-62P3 mine under the bottom in the area of ​​the engine and transmission compartment. Result: a hole in the bottom and total damage to the power plant. And if the crew could have survived, then the tank would have been scrapped in both cases.

Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine under the bottom of a T-54. Left – before, right – consequences of an explosion inside the tank
Detonation of a TM-62P3 mine under the bottom of a T-54. Left – before, right – consequences of an explosion inside the tank

As a conclusion, it should be noted that, unlike previous publications that examined the capabilities of the T-54’s armor protection against powerful cumulative projectiles, in this part of the Hungarian report we are more likely talking about what anti-tank and anti-tank weapons can do to a tank without reference to its model. directed anti-personnel mines. Each vehicle's resistance to these munitions is different, but the detonation of several kilograms of explosives under the tracks, the arrival of a shock core at the bottom, or a hail of ready-made submunitions in any case will not do without damage, sometimes very significant.

The source of information:
Kísérleti lövészet T 54-es harckocsikra 1989-ben, a 0 ponti gyakorlótéren IV. rész
Hungarian magazine HADITECHNIKA 2018/6
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    16 October 2023 04: 40
    The most lethal places are the bottom and top of the tank...death and severe injuries to the crew are guaranteed.
    They decided to carry out the last test with the UKA-63 mine in a non-standard way, installing it on the roof of the T-54 turret. It is doubtful that anyone would use this mine in this way, but the dire consequences are obvious. The mine pierced the armor of the roof and, penetrating into the fighting compartment, damaged the breech of the tank's gun. Of course, there would be no detonation of ammunition and no fire. However, all the tankers in the turret would have been seriously injured or killed, and restoring the tank’s combat capability is only possible in factory conditions.

    You can throw it off the quad. smile Who the hell is kidding... it wouldn't be a bad idea to actually check it out.
    1. +3
      16 October 2023 05: 34
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      You can throw it off the quad.
      This is unlikely, not because of the weight, but because of problems with stabilization, or rather the correct position of the mine upon contact.
      installing it on the roof of the T-54 turret. It is doubtful that anyone would use this mine in this way, but the dire consequences are obvious.
      It probably meant something like:



      German educational film.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4D4Y9OpIU
      1. 0
        16 October 2023 06: 04
        This is unlikely, not because of the weight, but because of problems with stabilization, or rather the correct position of the mine upon contact

        Modern hexacopters can easily carry the weight of a person.
        If you attach an F-1 to the PM detonator with the pin removed in the glass and throw it down, I think it will work. smile
        Although these are all homemade... what
        1. 0
          16 October 2023 11: 44
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          This is unlikely, not because of the weight, but because of problems with stabilization, or rather the correct position of the mine upon contact

          Modern hexacopters can easily carry the weight of a person.
          If you attach an F-1 to the PM detonator with the pin removed in the glass and throw it down, I think it will work. smile
          Although these are all homemade... what

          The F-1 grenade itself is not needed, only the fuse is needed. A hole of the required diameter is drilled in the body of the mine and the fuse from the F-1 is screwed into it. The ring is accordingly tied with wire to the UAV body. All that remains is to reset the mine and the pin will fly out of the fuse.
          But the fuse from F1 is already a passed stage. Now they are installing an impact fuse with a fuse operating from the flow of incoming air.
          1. 0
            16 October 2023 22: 57
            In Afghanistan, dushmans melted explosives from our unexploded bombs, and then, on the road where our tanks are supposed to pass, they dig a hole into which they put a bag of explosives, on top of which an Italian mine is placed (except for a needle with a spring, everything is plastic). After an explosion on such a mine, the bottom was blown out, and the tower flew away 50-100 meters. In addition, the mine did not explode under the first tank, but, for example, under the 8th one. In its design, in the lid, there are two rubber bags, and when you press the top of the mine, air enters them. After several presses, the bags rest against the bars. There is nowhere to pump further, the fuse striker is triggered.

            The rope is a handle for carrying a mine. The white cap is a rubber bag, the green cap is a plastic grill. I indicated with an arrow where they are located.
            PS
            If my memory serves me correctly, the weight of the road wheel of the T-54-55-62 tank is 280 kg. It is not made of aluminum alloys like the T-72-90, but steel (+ rubber band)
      2. +2
        16 October 2023 10: 51
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        It probably meant something like:

        Rather, the classic option with throwing a teller mine (with a 10-second fuse) onto the MTO.
        The Hungarians remember their hands. wink
        1. 0
          16 October 2023 11: 35
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Rather, the classic option with throwing a teller mine (with a 10-second fuse) onto the MTO.

          I just couldn’t find the picture)))
          Quote: Alexey RA

          The Hungarians remember their hands.
          It was in vain that the Soviet troops liberated all the capitals and only took Berlin and Budapest!
          1. +3
            16 October 2023 18: 29
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            It was in vain that the Soviet troops liberated all the capitals and only took Berlin and Budapest!

            In addition to Berlin and Budapest, there was a third capital “for taking” - Vienna. But the Romanians and Finns jumped off on time, yes...
            By the way, taking into account the contribution of the same Czechoslovakia to the military power of the Reich, the medal “For the Liberation of Prague” could easily be rewritten from “liberation” to “capture”. smile
            1. 0
              17 October 2023 08: 23
              Quote: Alexey RA
              In addition to Berlin and Budapest, there was a third capital “for taking” - Vienna.

              Yes indeed. I thought that Vienna was being liberated, because there was something like an uprising there.

              Quote: Alexey RA
              But the Romanians and Finns jumped off on time, yes...
              Just like the brothers...

              Quote: Alexey RA
              By the way, taking into account the contribution of the same Czechoslovakia to the military power of the Reich, the medal “For the Liberation of Prague” could easily be rewritten from “liberation” to “capture”.
              An undisclosed theme in Soviet times, “for the sake of friendship of peoples.”
    2. 0
      16 October 2023 11: 38
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      The most lethal places are the bottom and top of the tank...death and severe injuries to the crew are guaranteed.
      They decided to carry out the last test with the UKA-63 mine in a non-standard way, installing it on the roof of the T-54 turret. It is doubtful that anyone would use this mine in this way, but the dire consequences are obvious. The mine pierced the armor of the roof and, penetrating into the fighting compartment, damaged the breech of the tank's gun. Of course, there would be no detonation of ammunition and no fire. However, all the tankers in the turret would have been seriously injured or killed, and restoring the tank’s combat capability is only possible in factory conditions.

      You can throw it off the quad. smile Who the hell is kidding... it wouldn't be a bad idea to actually check it out.

      I don’t want to disappoint you, but the enemy has been using similar developments for a long time. To be honest, I haven’t seen it against tanks, but it’s already a reality as a high-explosive bomb.
  2. +3
    16 October 2023 05: 05
    Interesting article, it was interesting to read and look at the photographs. The T-54 tank is good for its time, but now it is still outdated, this is solely my opinion, based on the article I read, I am honestly a layman when it comes to tanks.
    1. 0
      16 October 2023 05: 14
      Quote from turembo
      I'm honestly a layman in tanks.

      This is not shameful - you and I are not designers. It's a shame when those who are supposed to be creators in their official position turn out to be ignoramuses and cannot reinvent the wheels...
    2. +3
      16 October 2023 11: 01
      Good afternoon Colleague. hi
      You are right, the tank is long outdated. I served as a conscript (1966-69) just on the “Polstavtverka”, so the vehicle was already outdated at that time, with the advent of such tanks as the T-64 and Leopard1.
      1. -3
        16 October 2023 15: 18
        And how was Leopard 1 superior to the T-54?
        1. -1
          16 October 2023 16: 28
          Compare their performance characteristics and the question will disappear. All the data is available on the Internet.
          Yes, and you don’t need to look, in my opinion everything is obvious and so.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. -4
    16 October 2023 05: 06
    What interesting research is being carried out at the very time when the world is overthrowing the “exceptional” properties of the German “Leopards”, the British “Challengers”, the Israeli “Merkava” and the American “Abrams”.
    It is much more interesting to find out what happens when a PTM or PTM is detonated with:

    Probably, this feature is gradually taking root in the army - to use what is thrown away anyway... And it is also interesting to analyze the supposed vulnerabilities of scrap metal “perfection”...
    * * *
    I won’t ask the question of investigator Podberezovik: “Why did he steal your car?”, but it would be interesting to find out why current officials stopped driving GAZ-24... And also, why is the Aurus worse than the Chaika...
    1. +6
      16 October 2023 05: 46
      Quote: ROSS 42
      What interesting research is being carried out at the very time when the world is being overthrown

      At the beginning of the article it is written in Russian in white, a report from 1989.
      1. +1
        16 October 2023 11: 06
        Russians, whether in white or in black, can write anything they want. You know it yourself - “paper will endure anything.” hi
      2. -1
        17 October 2023 05: 24
        Quote: Mad Doc
        At the beginning of the article it is written in Russian in white, a report from 1989.

        If this anachronism is posted on the site, then it was done for some reason and it is considered that it is suitable for the situation of today.
        In my messages, I provide quotes from people who lived a hundred or more years ago, considering these statements to be still relevant today.
        Why were these experiments remembered?
        So I wanted to build an associative series and compare attempts to cross the “horse and the tremulous doe”...
        * * *
        I believe that any publication must focus on a specific problem, otherwise there is no point in writing...
  4. +1
    16 October 2023 05: 42
    it's more about what they can do with a tank without reference to its model directed anti-tank and anti-personnel mines.

    Keywords. AMX, Leopard and Challenger are direct confirmation of this.
  5. +1
    16 October 2023 06: 00
    and, as always, Hungarian will help us report according to tests of this machine from 1989 year.

    Continued torment "old man": what do mines do to the T-54 tank

    Note to the author: it is now 2023. Therefore, the report about the “torment” that began in 1989 is more likely associated with the word “beginning” rather than “continuation.”
    1. -5
      16 October 2023 06: 51
      In this sense, tanks with an engine and transmission in front of the tank's fighting compartment are preferable, since there is a greater chance for crew members to survive...
      1. +1
        16 October 2023 08: 17
        HZ. When hit from the front from the side, the mechanical drive ends up outside the area covered by the frontal part. In addition, along the front sides there are inlet grilles for the release of everything that comes in and out of the tank. So...
      2. +1
        16 October 2023 08: 27
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        In this sense, tanks with an engine and transmission in front of the tank's fighting compartment are preferable, since there is a greater chance for crew members to survive...

        That is, they fly directly over the mines. The main thing is to immobilize, and what about the crew, where will they go, at least a concussion. The horseless crew is hello infantry. And then there is certain death. They don't have replacements in such quantity.
      3. +5
        16 October 2023 11: 00
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        In this sense, tanks with an engine and transmission in front of the tank's fighting compartment are preferable, since there is a greater chance for crew members to survive...

        More precisely, this way the crew members have a better chance of surviving after the first explosion. The ambush is that after this, the immobilized tank becomes a target at which they will shoot until the target catches fire. Moreover, even those who would never hit a moving tank will shoot.
        And the second problem with the front MTO is access to the engine.

        You can immediately forget about the monolithic VLD. Only composite: the front quarter-third is folded back, the remaining plate up to the turret ring is removed by a crane (in the photo there are tank crews standing on it).
        That is, the front MTO is a weakening of the protection of the frontal projection of the tank.
        1. -5
          16 October 2023 11: 37
          That is, it’s better to have a mechanical drive in the meat and the crew is almost always there, but the main thing is that the engine is in order? Excellent conclusion, you can immediately see that you can’t fight with something like this
          1. +4
            16 October 2023 16: 22
            Quote: Vadim S
            That is, it’s better to have a mechanical drive in the meat and the crew is almost always there, but the main thing is that the engine is in order?

            In terms of crew survivability, the difference between the front-engine and rear-engine configurations will only be when fighting Zusuls, when the enemy has a limited number of anti-tank weapons, and “conditionally our” forces have an overwhelming advantage in everything. That is, when the enemy can fire just 1-2 shots at a tank and run away.
            In a normal combined arms battle, the crew of a front-engine tank will simply live a minute longer, after which they will either burn in the same way in a stationary tank, or be covered with shrapnel when trying to leave this tank. Because everyone, even the mortar men, will shoot at a stationary target.
        2. -1
          16 October 2023 12: 14
          Quote: Alexey RA
          That is, the front MTO is a weakening of the protection of the frontal projection of the tank.

          The statement is generally correct, but there is a special case - protection against cumulative ammunition. If we take the concept of the Merkava (it is shown in the photo), then the front MTO + 4 armor plates with a fairly large spacing + fuel tank creates very good protection against cumulative charges. Kinetically, of course, it works mediocre. But this is a conscious technical decision based on the realities of the local theater of operations.
          1. 0
            16 October 2023 18: 23
            Quote: BORMAN82
            But this is a conscious technical decision based on the realities of the local theater of operations.

            Well, yes, in those parts, the crowbar distributors will most likely be burned on the approach to the front line. So the main enemy will be infantry anti-tank weapons of various types, and he will have only cumulative warheads.
  6. 0
    16 October 2023 07: 52
    Such tests are carried out on all equipment, they are examined, evaluated, and then modified. Well, the mines themselves are tested in the same way, everything is correct.
  7. +3
    16 October 2023 08: 12
    Madhouse on the road. What do the same mines do to more or less modern Nata tanks? Is there something else there? Or were they ordered to throw it? What is the purpose of minefields? At a minimum, immobilize and incapacitate the crew. They would put you in a leopard and give you a ride on TM62 and higher. Yes, for the experience. And then you would tell us in a cheerful voice about your impressions, most likely unforgettable.)))
    1. +1
      16 October 2023 11: 08
      They would put you in a leopard and give you a ride on TM62

      You've said it all, there's nothing to add here. request
    2. +1
      16 October 2023 11: 51
      Quote from: lukash66
      Madhouse on the road. What do the same mines do to more or less modern Nata tanks? Is there something else there? Or were they ordered to throw it? What is the purpose of minefields? At a minimum, immobilize and incapacitate the crew. They would put you in a leopard and give you a ride on TM62 and higher. Yes, for the experience. And then you would tell us in a cheerful voice about your impressions, most likely unforgettable.)))

      These old TM62s can only immobilize a tank. Modern mines are more reminiscent of anti-tank systems at minimum wages. They shoot with a shaped charge, often roof-piercing.
      1. +2
        16 October 2023 12: 11
        Quote from Escariot
        Quote from: lukash66
        Madhouse on the road. What do the same mines do to more or less modern Nata tanks? Is there something else there? Or were they ordered to throw it? What is the purpose of minefields? At a minimum, immobilize and incapacitate the crew. They would put you in a leopard and give you a ride on TM62 and higher. Yes, for the experience. And then you would tell us in a cheerful voice about your impressions, most likely unforgettable.)))

        These old TM62s can only immobilize a tank. Modern mines are more reminiscent of anti-tank systems at minimum wages. They shoot with a shaped charge, often roof-piercing.

        So I wrote, the main thing is to immobilize. And there will be means to finish it off. Cheap, reliable and practical.
        1. 0
          16 October 2023 13: 01
          Quote from: lukash66
          Quote from Escariot
          Quote from: lukash66
          Madhouse on the road. What do the same mines do to more or less modern Nata tanks? Is there something else there? Or were they ordered to throw it? What is the purpose of minefields? At a minimum, immobilize and incapacitate the crew. They would put you in a leopard and give you a ride on TM62 and higher. Yes, for the experience. And then you would tell us in a cheerful voice about your impressions, most likely unforgettable.)))

          These old TM62s can only immobilize a tank. Modern mines are more reminiscent of anti-tank systems at minimum wages. They shoot with a shaped charge, often roof-piercing.

          So I wrote, the main thing is to immobilize. And there will be means to finish it off. Cheap, reliable and practical.

          Rather cheap and cheerful. In such minefields it is relatively easy to make passages literally a few meters wide - this will be enough. Modern mines can be tens of meters from the road and will still destroy a tank driving along that road. Plus the TM-62 pressure fuse with its high-explosive warhead and a contact fuse - this is completely sad. Roughly speaking, you need to run over it with a caterpillar, which this mine will damage. More modern mines (TM-72 or TM-89) have a cumulative warhead, as well as an anti-bottom fuse (contact or magnetic). Accordingly, it is enough to drive over it (without hitting the track) and it will most likely destroy the tank along with the crew, and not just tear off the roller and tear the track. So TM-62 is for poverty.
  8. +1
    16 October 2023 14: 29
    In other words, the T-54 is no worse than all modern tanks against mines.
    1. +1
      16 October 2023 16: 35
      The T-54 has been in mass production since 1947, it is the same age as me. As far as I can judge from myself, I would gladly return at least in 55. But if we are aging physically, then the “Half-Four” has become morally obsolete a long time ago, despite all the modernizations. The crowning glory of the model was the T-XNUMX, after which came the new generation of tanks.
      By the way, in my unit (54 OTP), stabilizers were installed only on the vehicles of battalion commanders and regiment commanders.
      1. -4
        17 October 2023 14: 40
        The T-55, even without modernization, is now fighting in the Northern Military District zone and is blown up by mines.
  9. BAI
    +1
    16 October 2023 20: 20
    A clear example of a waste of money. In the SVO zone, the T55 is used as a mobile armored gun. He does not need to break through defenses and overcome minefields
  10. 0
    17 October 2023 14: 40
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    German educational film.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4D4Y9OpIU


    The Nazis made good educational films.
    There's a DVD collection gathering dust somewhere.
    I really liked the sniper movie.
  11. 0
    22 October 2023 19: 30
    Why this verbal diarrhea?
    Who was not too lazy to bring all this to life?
  12. 0
    23 October 2023 10: 26
    I cannot understand such research by the author. Are these T-55s on the front line involved in attacks or are they working on the second line as a supplement to artillery and strengthening strongholds during defense?
    If the latter, then why not compare the firepower and armor with the same BMP-3, which is also not at the forefront, but follows, along with motorized rifles, behind the main T-90, T-72, T-80.
    And if the firepower of the T-55 is more than enough to destroy infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, and armored vehicles that are used by assault groups, then why are these incomprehensible attempts necessary to present as idiocy the use of the T-55 to saturate the second line with additional armored vehicles and artillery, albeit outdated, but quite successfully fulfilling the tasks assigned to it? I would think that the author is stubbornly working for the enemy, knowing full well how the outdated T-62 and T-55 are actually used.
  13. -1
    23 November 2023 19: 35
    There are ways to combat mines. In order not to spoil the tanks during the offensive, you need to attach something like this to each tank.

    Put on mine trawls and go on the offensive, the Ministry of Defense simply forgot about these.