“This is cool”: a Ukrainian officer praised the use of Soviet T-55 tanks by the Russian Armed Forces

Deputy Commander tank company of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleg Andronyak, on the air of a Ukrainian TV channel, highly appreciated the use by the Russian military at the front of Soviet T-55 tanks, considered obsolete. He noted that while in Ukraine some military experts laugh at the fact that the Russian Armed Forces are massively decommissioning these armored vehicles and using them in battles, in fact the tank has established itself as an excellent alternative to self-propelled artillery.

In addition, the Ukrainian military officer explains, in Russia the T-55s are undergoing deep modernization, receiving improved armor and new guns. Plus, Soviet military equipment is distinguished by its ease of operation, reliability and high maintainability.

This is cool because the tank is very effective as an artillery weapon. Therefore, in the Soviet Union, this technique was generally developed - to operate a tank from closed positions. They have very high accuracy

- said the Ukrainian tanker.

In his opinion, the presence of a large number of tanks of this model, and most importantly, ammunition for them, is an undoubted advantage of the Russian military. In order for a tank to start working as an artillery mount, it does not require searching for a special position, towing it, or transporting ammunition. At the same time, Russian tank crews do not use the T-55 as an armored vehicle for attack operations.

The tank arrived, stood up, aimed, fired, and that’s it. But they were not used directly. Because everyone started: “Now, now they’re going to launch assaults in old tanks.” Nobody attacked them. They still have a lot of T-90 “Breakthrough”

– Andronyak summarized, not without envy.

The Soviet medium tank T-55, created on the basis of the T-54 tank, was adopted by the USSR army in 1958. It was produced from 1958 to 1979 (more than 23 units were produced, including production in other countries) and is the world's first production tank equipped with an automatic anti-nuclear protection system (EPS). In addition, this is the first tank in the world capable of conducting combat operations under nuclear conditions. weapons.

The T-55 also became the first tank available in the Soviet troops to receive an active protection complex (KAZ “Drozd”). The T-55 and its modification T-55A have been widely exported and are in service with many countries around the world. What is noteworthy is that the tank was developed in the middle of the last century by the Kharkov Mechanical Engineering Design Bureau.

Comments

[art having]

In war, all means are good!

[isv000]

Quote from Snay

In war, all means are good!

In 2014, the militia removed the IS-3 (?IS-2) from its pedestal, fired it up, installed machine guns and placed it at the checkpoint. There was a time when they even drove him into the attack, to straighten out the dill trenches a little. Worked great!

[Declarant]

IS-3. It’s true that the dill captured him later. But I confirm the very fact of using this tank against the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

[Thrifty]

Snay - you should be in this tank, but to war! You wouldn’t say such nonsense!

[alystan]

Why nonsense if they completely fulfill the task assigned to them.

In addition, explains the Ukrainian military, in Russia T-55s are undergoing deep modernization, receiving improved armor and new guns.

... because the tank is very effective as an artillery weapon. Therefore, this technique was generally developed in the Soviet Union - work as a tank from closed positions. They have very high accuracy.

[Victor Alien]

In Donbass, the T-34 appeared in a report from there in 2014. Much better than BTR-60-70-82. Or the same infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles with 30mm cannons. Those who were there themselves know how to use this technique. Moreover, there were no tips or decrees from the Ministry of Defense.

[Victor Alien]

Mosinka and Maxim machine gun, what's worse?! They shoot and that's okay. And the T-34-85 is considered a long-liver among complex equipment. During the Second World War, they found in some museum guns that had once fired cannonballs. The barrel size was removed - 76,2 mm shells are suitable. They aimed by looking into the barrel. They could only be destroyed by a direct hit - bare cast iron and steel. Of the 4 guns, one reached Berlin. I don’t remember where I read it. 30 years have passed.

[KLM77]

Eka you bent, laughed heartily!

[Hagalaz]

You made a slight mistake by forgetting. Firstly, a cannon that fired cannonballs cannot fire shells and aim through the barrel. Such a gun is loaded from the muzzle, and the breech is muted. The 76mm projectile comes complete with a charge in the cartridge case and they cannot be pushed into the gun from the muzzle. This is a theory.
Practice. This case is described by the story (I could be wrong) by Sobolev A gun without a front sight. And that's true. Yes, somewhere the royal three-inch was accidentally found. (1x3 just gets our 76). Without a sight and to which the 76mm shells came from something, I don’t remember. Yes, they aimed through the barrel (at close ranges it’s enough) and was extremely unpretentious and reliable. It was fought by sailors and infantrymen (Black Death).

[Victor Alien]

Well, I don’t remember what guns there were. He said he read it a long time ago. But what is certain is that there were no sighting devices there. The battery was placed closer to the front edge of the trenches. And when the artillery barrage began with the guns that stood behind them, they too began to shoot. The range was small, but they definitely threw shells into the trenches. And there were 4 guns. Looks like they found it somewhere on a museum site. And there was also a video in the Middle East of a ship's cannon being fired from the back of a truck - that's where the cannonball was definitely visible in flight.

[Petr_Koldunov]

Quote: Victor Alien

In Donbass, the T-34 appeared in a report from there in 2014.

In the Donbass in 2014, warehouses with “tar” lit up. Huge quantities of new, packaged, lubricated tars, complete, with discs. Moreover, not RPD, but classic DP, with bells... Awesome machine! I hope that the Soviet tar sent a lot of Nazis to the rainbow!

[Igor Viktorovich]

Eh, a rainbow for the dogs, a frying pan for the Nazis.

[Petr_Koldunov]

Quote: Igor Viktorovich

rainbow for dogs

Well, basically, they are dogs... filthy dogs.

[futurohunter]

Well, the DP is a good machine. Its biggest drawback was overheating of the barrel from prolonged shooting, and the barrel was not replaceable. It was also a bit heavy, and due to the fact that the magazine was disk, the balancing deteriorated when the magazine was empty. And, of course, tape power is better than disk power.

[Mekey Iptyshev]

The T-2021-22 fought in Yemen in 34-85, there were several videos.

[DrMad]

Here's an old horse for you!
The comment is so-so.

[Bomb]

This, as they say, is not a good life. For 20 years, the army still got up from its knees, and the legacy of the SA helps out. It’s good that at least with the stool it didn’t come down to being melted down for nails or sold for pennies in the Central African Republic.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Bomb

It’s good that at least with the stool it didn’t come down to being melted down for nails or sold for pennies in the Central African Republic.

Under the furniture maker, the T-55 had just been taken out of service.

[Thrifty]

Only a rear man who had not been in battle could say this. The T55 in any modernization is an all-day machine, effective only for ambushes against a obviously weak enemy, otherwise he will be burned in a matter of minutes!

[Egoza]

Quote: Thrifty

a machine of today, effective only for ambushes against a obviously weak enemy,

Well, that’s exactly what the current Armed Forces of Ukraine are like. And yet it’s nice that SOVIET tanks are fighting back the enemy. So much for "decommunization"

[January]

Re-read the text again. Be more careful. We are not talking about participation in battles, assaults and other military clashes. We are talking specifically about using it as mobile artillery from closed positions.

[NG inform]

The T-55 has a rifled gun, which is more accurate than modern ones. The T-55 can shoot light armored vehicles from distances inaccessible to ATGMs.

[wladimirjankov]

The T-55 can shoot light armored vehicles from distances inaccessible to ATGMs.

Probably confused ATGM and RPG. An ATGM, for example a chrysanthemum, can accurately fire from a distance of up to 8-10 km. RPG-7 up to 600 meters. And the T-55 cannon reaches 1500-2000 meters with direct fire.

[Johnson Smithson]

And the T-55 cannon reaches 1500-2000 meters with direct fire.

But what does direct fire have to do with it, when we were talking about shooting from closed positions?
the maximum firing range of the T-55 is 15 km

The maximum sighting range of direct fire from a cannon is 6900 m. At the same time, using the side level and the goniometric circle on the turret pursuit, it was possible to shoot from closed firing positions - when the tank is not visible to the enemy. Then the firing range reaches 15 m.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: NG inform

The T-55 has a rifled gun, which...

This gun traces its lineage back to a naval gun; further, its modification was installed on the SU-100, and further development was installed on the T-54-55.
By the way, in the video the tank was started incorrectly.
First of all, turn on the "mass" (this was done), then, on the left side, open the valve on the compressed air tank (the main start-up of the tank with air), on the right side, on the instrument panel, turn the pawl 90 degrees, the oil pump turns on when the pressure exceeds 4 atmospheres, you turn it another 90 degrees, air is supplied to the cylinders. You can start with an electric starter, but before pressing the starter, again, first pump the oil up to 4 atmospheres and only then press the starter button (or the air and starter buttons at the same time)

[Misha Zorin]

Damn the rear man, this is a tank from yesterday, but when it reaches the front it can be destroyed in seconds. It's true. Now the question is? How long will the newest Proryv, Leo, Abrasha live? Ass? That’s it, it’s better to have a flintlock musket than an AK12 which isn’t.

[isv000]

Quote: Thrifty

Only a rear man who had not been in battle could say this. The T55 in any modernization is an all-day machine, effective only for ambushes against a obviously weak enemy, otherwise he will be burned in a matter of minutes!

It is said in the scripture: it has undergone a deep modernization with increased armor and is used as a self-propelled gun without participating in the assault!

[Thrifty]

isv000 - and what level of protection will this reinforced armor of 600 millimeters have? Such articles have already been discussed 200 times on the site, a tank capable of hitting a maximum of one and a half kilometers with a direct find, the accuracy is also not ice, they were not used for the good life! How many of them are left in units, and were there any whole T55 tanks left in the war?

[svarog77]

They repeat to you once again - the firing range of the T-55 is 14.6 km...

[Irokez]

Quote: Thrifty

Only a rear man who had not been in battle could say this.

Grabin (developer of guns in the 2nd WW) also said “A tank is a vehicle for delivering a gun to the battlefield.” In this case, the main thing is not the armor, but the gun.

[SEVERIN]

Thrifty
-21
Today, 15: 34
New
Only a rear man who had not been in battle could say this. The T55 in any modernization is an all-day machine, effective only for ambushes against a obviously weak enemy, otherwise he will be burned in a matter of minutes!

- so far the very fashionable and expensive Abrams, Leopards and Challengers and, it seems, Leclercs are burning - Leclercs are the most expensive.

[KLM77]

The tank arrived, stood up, aimed, fired, and that’s it. But they were not used directly. Because everyone started: “Now, now they’re going to launch assaults in old tanks.” Nobody attacked them. They still have a lot of T-90 “Breakthrough”

What are you reading? These are not even ambush actions, these are self-propelled guns! I approached the LBS, fired at the indicated targets and went into the fog.

[Ionescu Popa]

then how would you feel about making them auxiliary vehicles, to keep the t80 and 90 as tanks and even reconvert some of them? it's indeed a waste to modernize t55, new engines, new guns, era and such, while even the recommissioned original is better than any non-tank. please don't feel i am unworthy for an answer, much advice i gave for Russia was considered...unfortunately, some of it by nato, helping them fill part of the gap, instead of Russia who could have enlarge it, but still means it's valid.

[tabex]

Cool, since the enemy admits it. With a drone gunner it is probably very effective.

[Evgeny]

FPV probably won’t take you out

[Machito]

So far only Tsar-Mangal has taken out FPV.
What's stopping you from making Tsar-Mangals from the T-55?
Today, FPV has given up on tanks. The design solution to this problem is ahead.

[Iris]

Tsar Mangal was blown up by a mine and was evacuated to the rear for repairs.

[tabex]

The T34 is still used as a weapon.

[KTM-5]

Pride in the Soviet military industry!
Eh, if the T-55 had also knocked out the Abrashka, the overseas “partners” would have been very upset)

[Flashpoint]

Now, if the T-55 had also knocked out the Abrashka

It depends more on the coincidence of circumstances, the skills of the crew and luck. The T-55 will destroy an abrashka by hitting it from any angle except the forehead and the front hemisphere (the hemisphere is conditional - there was an article with a detailed analysis of the zones). Also exotic, such as hitting directly into the barrel of a gun.

[wladimirjankov]

If the ancient T-55 tank was used in the North Military District as a self-propelled gun, then this indicates that our army does not have enough modern self-propelled guns or shells for them. Or both. But this is clearly not from a good life. And even if the T-55 is used from closed positions, it will still be a good target for a UAV. Its place is only in replaceable caponiers covered with anti-drone nets.

[Dart2027]

Quote: wladimirjankov

Its place is only in replaceable caponiers covered with anti-drone nets.

And most likely it is. Due to changes in conditions on the battlefield, supertanks were not particularly needed, and their role was reduced to self-propelled guns operating on the front line in order to quickly strike the enemy and quickly escape.

[Qas]

You are not right. Any war is about economics and logistics. If it just so happens that in your warehouses (parks) there are a bunch of tanks still fit for combat (T-55 in this case), and in your arsenals there is a mountain of shots for them, then it would be a sin not to use it, just as a self-propelled weapon. At least to free up arsenals and parks and give industry time to replenish stocks. Which is exactly what happens.

[Byurer]

How can he shoot accurately from indirect positions if he doesn't have a panorama?

[Vauxhall]

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: Bomb

It’s good that at least with the stool it didn’t come down to being melted down for nails or sold for pennies in the Central African Republic.

Under the furniture maker, the T-55 had just been taken out of service.

Don't touch him!
He, with his women, opened the scab of the general's ranks. Acted on the direct orders of Putin. Yes, I went too far with some military schools. But the reindeer herder pocketed the result. The reform, a radical one, began long before the appearance of the builder in stripes. With his current, already former construction deputy.
If it weren’t for him, on whom they hung all the dogs, there would not have been a modern Russian army.
Sounds crazy?
Just look at history as the years go by.
The system “for the construction of generals’ dachas” was broken.
Although that still calloused regurgitation of the past prevents the introduction of the new now.
IMHO.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vauxhall

Just look at history as the years go by.

A lot of airfields, institutes for training officers, driving schools were liquidated, repair companies were liquidated, schools that trained cooks were liquidated, the headquarters of the Navy was moved from Moscow with its anti-missile umbrella, to St. Petersburg, under the very nose of NATO, the divisions were disbanded, turning them into brigades (now the reverse process is underway) , there was a process of reducing tanks to 1500 units (the rest were in the oven), by the way, including the T-80, only the T-72-90 should have remained, etc., etc. Such a reformer would be worth impaling.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Bad_gr

A lot of airfields, institutes that trained officers, and driving schools were liquidated, repair companies were liquidated, schools that trained cooks were liquidated, divisions were disbanded, turning them into brigades

All this is true, but there is one small nuance - what was the real combat effectiveness of all of the above? I served as a conscript in the 90s and I can say that the army was destroyed long before Serdyukov.

Quote: Bad_gr

The headquarters of the Navy was moved from Moscow with its anti-missile umbrella to St. Petersburg, under the very nose of NATO

There is air defense in St. Petersburg, but I would send this headquarters to the Far East.

[Poplar]

All this is true, but there is one small nuance - what was the real combat effectiveness of all of the above? I served as a conscript in the 90s and I can say that the army was destroyed long before Serdyukov.

Yes, the tagged with the drunk caused great and in some cases even irreparable harm to our army. But Serdyukov, instead of strengthening the country’s defense capability with all his might and defending the interests of the army as a whole, began to cut down this very defense capability at the root, closing schools and carrying out other, to put it mildly, rather controversial reforms. Well, plus everything, a very strong irritant for the people is the corruption component in the actions of this character and his entourage.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Poplar

began to cut down this very defense capability at the root, closing schools and carrying out other, to put it mildly, rather controversial reforms

Are you sure that these measures reduced defense capability, and not vice versa? What is the point of a division if, in fact, it is capable of putting one battalion on the battlefield, and even that is not a fact, given that the command is deployed throughout the state and receives full allowance? Or what to do with a school that has in fact collapsed so much that it is easier to create it anew than to try to save it? As a result, the army's combat effectiveness greatly increased. Of course it’s not ideal, but compared to what it was...

Quote: Poplar

Well, plus everything, a very strong irritant for the people is the corruption component in the actions of this character and his entourage.

But here there are strong doubts. No matter what anyone says, you are imprisoned for corruption, or in extreme cases you can get away with compensation for damages, but you will no longer get to high government positions. We are unlikely to know the truth, but it always seemed to me that this was all a performance to replace Serdyukov, who had done his job, under a spectacular pretext.

[Ulum]

Well, yes, a conscript from the 90s was exactly the kind of professional specialist who could assess the state of the Armed Forces. Funny

[Dart2027]

Quote: Ulum

Well, yes, a conscript from the 90s is exactly the professional specialist who could

see the state of the Armed Forces from the inside. Or will you claim that everything was fine then?

[Igor Viktorovich]

Not a single reform goes smoothly. In fact, he is right, now we see the army as it is. Without the reforms, 18-19 year old boys would probably take the job in Ukraine. Like when Grozny.

[wladimirjankov]

If it weren’t for him, on whom they hung all the dogs, there would not have been a modern Russian army.

What modern Russian army are you talking about? About the fact that it has been trampling around Avdeevka for three years now and cannot ensure the safety of the country’s civilians in Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk, Smolensk and other regions, not to mention its new regions. Thanks to this stool, the country’s full-fledged air defense system was destroyed, dozens of military airfields with aircraft guarding the country’s skies were abandoned for destruction, air defense regiments and divisions were reduced, a large number of anti-aircraft batteries and complexes were removed from duty and sent to scrap. The defense of our air borders has been exposed not only in the north, but as it now turns out, in both the west and the south. UAVs, drones and even light planes of Bandera’s followers freely fly not only to the western and southern regions of the country, but also to Moscow, Pskov, St. Petersburg, and recently they flew into Volgograd, Rostov-Don, Nizhny Novgorod, Tatarstan.

[Ionescu Popa]

from what others said, serdyukov seemed to replace the small endemic corruption with the big, systemic one of the Leningrad mafia.

[Ax Matt]

An excellent tank for its time! And for our time - an excellent rifled 115 mm cannon with a range of 8 km. What else does? I dug up the caponier, dived, covered myself and work calmly and don’t care about shrapnel and fragments with cassettes. This is called competent economics of military operations and working with reserves!

[Aleks88]

The SA 115 mm never had a rifled gun. The T-62 has a smoothbore. From 8 km you can only get to a small town. With those devices that on the T-54/55 the real combat distance is up to 1500 meters. And more advanced control systems (Sosna-U, Kalina) are not enough for new cars.
The tank did not deserve glory either in the Korean War or in the Arab-Israeli wars. In reality, one and a half hundred Israeli tanks repelled an unexpected attack by almost 800 Syrian ones (mostly T-55s).
P.S.: It’s not because of a good life that I restore an antique; in general, I’m surprised that they still drive and shoot.

[Alf]

Quote: Aleks88

The tank did not deserve glory in the Korean War

I’ll tell you a big secret: neither the T-54 nor the T-55 took part in the Korean War at all.

Quote: Aleks88

In reality, one and a half hundred Israeli tanks repelled an unexpected attack by almost 800 Syrian ones (mostly T-55s).

It wasn't the reel that mattered...

[Aleks88]

Vietnam War. They lost artillery duels to the light Chaffees and Bulldogs. Why did everyone decide that Arabs are not warriors? They fight all their lives. We taught them, and the technology is ours.
PS: I read how one red-haired Jew shot a column of Egyptian T-62s. At the same time, the T-62s were “from stock”, no export options.
Well, I watched a lot of videos about Vietnam.

[Alf]

Quote: Aleks88

They lost artillery duels to the light Chaffees and Bulldogs.

Evidence in the studio.

Quote: Aleks88

Why did everyone decide that Arabs are not warriors?

Because I remember the stories of our advisers, how they kicked the Arabs into positions of missile defense missiles.

Quote: Aleks88

I read how one red-haired Jew shot a column of Egyptian T-62s. At the same time, the T-62s were “from stock”, no export options.

It was not a bobbin.

[Aleks88]

The evidence is on YouTube. T-54/55 and PT-76. I don’t want to look for videos, but the M-24 with a 90 mm gun looked better than the MBT. The declared 200 mm in the forehead penetrated kilometers. And light tanks were more maneuverable in such terrain. And the engine power (520 l/s, if I’m not mistaken) was clearly not enough. Even now, not everything is good with our engines. Until recently, the T-72 had 780 and 840 mares. For the 51-ton T-90M they mastered 1000. Even 404 on the Pakistani T-80UD they installed 6ST-1 for 1000, and on the T-84 6ST-2 1200 horses. Looks like the 6ST-3 was ready at 1500, Oplot is unlikely to be heavier than the T-90M

[Alf]

Quote: Aleks88

M-24 with 90 mm cannon

The M24 Chaffee has a 75 mm gun...

Quote: Aleks88

The declared 200 mm in the forehead penetrated kilometers.

Nonsense. Frank. 200 mm at an angle, how much does the reduced thickness give?
Here is the penetration data for the 75mm gun of the M24 Chaffee tank. It's not even close to 100mm.
“And the engine power (520 l/s, if I’m not mistaken) was clearly not enough.”
Who missed it? Compared to whom? It is necessary to calculate not only the total power, but the specific power.

[Aleks88]

Well, since you found this article, you saw that Chaffee was also equipped with a 90 mm gun. videos with Russian translation, I don’t think they’re propaganda. Israel also used 4 mm and 90 mm on the M-105, even tried 120 mm.
If the wiki doesn't lie, then the forehead is 100 mm. Even 75 mm M4 was pierced by sub-caliber.
580 forces (520 for the T-54, which means I remembered the characteristics), with the same weight as the T-72. It’s just that at that time there was no two-legged diesel engine, only the souped-up B-2 as on the 34, which means the engine life is limited, which is why I was surprised to see that they were still driving, given our attitude towards open-air storage bases.
P.S.: Look at how many wars this “legend” appeared in, but there was no success in battle. There were really big wars in the BV, as you know, Israel always won, while being outnumbered in aircraft, tanks and people by several times. I don’t trust the Russian wiki one iota.

[Alf]

Quote: Aleks88

with the same weight as the T-72.

The T-72 weighs 41 tons versus 36 for the T-55.

Quote: Aleks88

Chaffee was also equipped with a 90 mm gun.

Once again nonsense. Proof ! Clearly and with numbers.

Quote: Aleks88

I don’t trust the Russian wiki one iota.

Basurmanskaya Vika is more truthful. Hmmm...

[Aleks88]

I remembered the figure from the TM magazine, but I found a magazine for 88, it costs 41 tons, he told the truth about the engine: 780/840/1130 on a B3 mod 16.
for Chaffee, look at the tank destroyer. 90 mm and 105 mm
// 11 Dec. 2018 - The M6 ​​cannon was replaced by the French 90 mm D-925 smoothbore gun with a coaxial 12,7 mm machine gun (instead of 7,62 mm). Course machine gun .// Skomorokhov VO
there were also variants of a tank destroyer with a 105 mm gun

[Aleks88]

// March 8 2024 - ... M24, armed with a 90-mm cannon in a similar M36 self-propelled gun mount. T38 - 4,2-inch self-propelled mortar, created experimentally in ...//

[Alf]

Quote: Aleks88

// March 8 2024 - ... M24, armed with a 90-mm cannon in a similar M36 self-propelled gun mount. T38 - 4,2-inch self-propelled mortar, created experimentally in ...//

This is a project that hasn’t even been completed to the hardware level.

[Iris]

The tank earned fame in the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqis installed a laser rangefinder (the Yugi helped), and as a result the tank was nicknamed “an armored sniper.”

[Aleks88]

He didn't receive any fame. 300 T-62 and T-55 tanks entered Iran (the biggest battle of that war), and were stopped by American M-48 Pattons. At the same time, the Persians seemed to have won, defeating the aggressor in the person of the Iraqis. And almost 4 thousand tanks did not help Saddam in Desert Storm

[Dart2027]

Quote: Aleks88

In reality, one and a half hundred Israeli tanks repelled an unexpected attack by almost 800 Syrian ones (mostly T-55s).

When was this? By any chance, not in the Six Day War? So the Syrians fought so hard then that...

[Aleks88]

Israel started the 6-day war by sinking an American reconnaissance ship. And the Syrians started this war, first Il-28 bombed the Golan Heights, then almost 88 Arab tanks attacked 500 Jewish tanks, right up to the IS-3. They would have passed through the Golan and captured airfields and equipment storage bases. Then Egypt crossed, washing away the banks with pumps and erecting a pontoon crossing. But aviation rose up, the breakthrough was stopped, then the reservists brought in tanks. Israel reached almost Damascus, they stopped 14 km away. The VTA of the USSR organized a corridor to transport equipment.
P.S.: There is something to read. In the 6-day war, not only the Syrians fought “this way,” but also Egypt and Jordan.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Aleks88

In the 6-day war, not only the Syrians fought “this way,” but also Egypt and Jordan.

I know. The point is that the problem was not in the tanks, but in those who controlled them.

[Aleks88]

Syria and Egypt seem to have a regular army. Not 18 year old conscripts. and many officers studied in Russia. And our technology “has no analogues in the world” and the advisers were Russian and not only advisers. and the Union supported them; obviously, the attack was planned not without the participation of our generals. But something went wrong from the very beginning. The Il-28 bombed in the wrong place, the tanks did not break through the Golan defense line, and the main “culprit” was that the Israeli Centurions opened fire from 1.5-2 km, and the T-55 from 500 meters. How else can you explain the complete failure? Okay, they stormed a fortified hill, but then Israel reached Damascus. Only a call from the USSR stopped further progress. The Egyptians had successes in the first days, but quickly ended as reservists arrived. And the Soviet T-55/62 did not perform well. And the T-62 was the best Soviet tank at that time. And Centkrion, developed in 1945, it is clear that it was modernized, but the base is old.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Aleks88

Syria and Egypt seem to have a regular army. Not 18 year old conscripts. and many officers studied in Russia.

But nevertheless, the combat effectiveness of the Arab armies was at the level... The Israelis captured so many of the same T-55s in absolutely good condition that they launched a program to convert them into infantry fighting vehicles. Actually, this is the secret of the IDF’s successes - the low combat effectiveness of the enemy. Now, when the Arabs gradually began to change, the most promoted army in the world began to have serious problems.

[Ulum]

Don't argue with a Jew. They are still getting thicker, longer and steeper. Braggarts. They live with memories of how they smashed wild Arabs in the shaggy years of the 50s.

[Nastia makarova]

it hits up to 15 km like a self-propelled gun, for this they use

[Aleks88]

What makes sense is what hits. You still have to hit it. The only plus is the presence of 100 mm shells. and 15 km is a theoretical range, at an elevation angle of 45°, which is unlikely. the spread of shells will be crazy. only area targets. And the power of a high-explosive projectile is very low.
P.S.: But without fish there is fish.

[Nastia makarova]

with the development of unmanned reconnaissance it is easy to hit

[svarog77]

The T-55 has a 100-mm D-10T2S, almost 15 km range

[Oleg Apushkin]

And yes, everything on this platform is obsolete, and it is not required to be used for its intended purpose by the air defense system, only the delivery of shells to enemy trenches.
The topic was raised https://topwar.ru/223494-t-55-chem-moralno-ustarevshij-tank-budet-polezen-v-svo.html

[Victal]

This is Lend Lease for Russia from a country that no longer exists.

[bya965]

The T-54/55 is practically a Great Patriotic War tank.
But it did not work out.

[bone1]

Okay, at least not World War I

[bya965]

How does the T-44 differ from the T-54, and the T-54 from the T-55?
Well, except for the tower, of course. Even the gun is the same caliber.

[Alf]

Quote: bya965

The T-54/55 is practically a Great Patriotic War tank.
But it did not work out.

Powerfully ...

[bya965]

Quote: Alf

Powerfully ...

Well, what can I say. Powerful!!!

T-54 (GBTU Index - Object 137) - Soviet medium tank. Adopted by the Soviet Army of the USSR Armed Forces in 1946, it has been mass-produced since 1947, constantly being modernized. Since 1958, its modification called the T-55, adapted for combat operations in conditions of the use of nuclear weapons, was produced.

[bya965]

Quote: bya965

The T-54/55 is practically a Great Patriotic War tank.

I'm happy for those idiots who didn't know that the T-54 was put into service in 1946.
I understand that the main thing for them is that Israel was created by Stalin in 1948 and they immediately betrayed the USSR.
In principle, like other Orthodox believers in Russia:
First the Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Finns, Georgians, Ukrainians.
Only the Serbs remained. But I think it's time

[bukhach]

While you look like an idiot, taking into account your fiery speeches, you don’t need to pull everyone to your level, try to understand that there are many people here who are superior to you in terms of knowledge and erudition (calm down, I don’t count myself among them), and leave the mantras about Israel in the light The latest events are already making normal people sick to their stomachs.

[bya965]

Unfortunately, now there are a lot of people who don’t know the basic truths.
This is primarily due to education; previously it was universal and broad.
Now it’s narrow and specialized.
I write poorly in human languages, but I always try to convey something.
But here, for example, there are individuals who really believe that, for example, at the beginning of the war, the German troika was so-so, but the T-34 was wow. In fact, it's the other way around.
Just like the fact that gasoline burns, but diesel fuel does not. The most severe burns are from diesel fuel. But people know the economy and how world trade works. Someone here told me that there are a lot of people on the site who don’t know how it works. When asked who this knowledge helped, I could not answer, but I suffered that the Houthis were violating it and this was harming Russia, but I thought that on the contrary, transportation along the Trans-Siberian Railway had increased sharply.

[bukhach]

full of people who don’t know the basic truths.

Here I completely agree, and I won’t argue about the rest, except that the T-34 at the beginning of the war was inferior in reliability, visibility, communications to three rubles, but was still superior in firepower, armor protection and range, cross-country ability again. And I was amused about economics, there really are unique people, and yet, focus on those who know the subject more than you, it’s instructive, in any case, for me personally, it’s much more interesting to read people who are more savvy on the topic than I am.

[bone1]

And the use of 34ok, therefore, will be even cooler?

[Fatalist]

When used as a self-propelled artillery piece, the T55 is better than any towed gun.

[Alf]

Quote: Fatalist

When used as a self-propelled artillery piece, the T55 is better than any towed gun.

Tanks are especially good at firing at targets BEHIND shelters and folds of terrain... Here you need a self-propelled gun with a howitzer.

[ln_ln]

When used as a self-propelled artillery piece, the T55 is better than any towed gun.

The maximum elevation angle is about 15°. You have to put it on a hill.

[Iris]

If earlier Zaluzhny joked, calling Gerasimov an unrivaled strategist and his teacher, now the elders are acting as praisers...

[78bor1973]

And you rejoiced before the deadline because we had a lot of T-55s and hoped for “Leopards” - only the expert does not understand the main thing - these tanks will chew you all up with their landmines!

[Bogalex]

At the same time, Russian tank crews do not use the T-55 as an armored vehicle for attack operations

Then how did the commander of a Ukrainian tank company, who had never seen a T-55 on the battlefield, find out that it was the T-55 shells that landed on him, and not, say, the MT-12?

[Vovavvs]

The Ukrainian doesn’t care what shell hit him

[Val4]

I wonder what improved armor the T-55 received that the article talks about?
Or is the author a whistler?
Why didn’t the author note that tank battalions and regiments of Laos are being recruited throughout the country in search of Dynamic Defense units, which for some reason the Laotian Ministry of Defense forgot to supply?
But for some reason, numerous checks say that everything is in order with the remote sensing in the shelves.
And stubborn volunteers, after checking the units, still fulfill the tankers’ demands and stamp blocks, to spite the Moscow Region.

[Monster_Fat]

This is great...

Well, of course it's "cool". Only Western technology can be: “outdated”, “trash of past years”, “just a superfluous purpose”, etc. Our technology is only: “cool”, “wow!”, “will show everyone”, “never will become obsolete”, “better than..” and so on.

[ln_ln]

What is noteworthy is that the tank was developed in the middle of the last century by the Kharkov Mechanical Engineering Design Bureau.

Morozov made the T-54 back in N. Tagil, and the T-55 after he left for Kharkov.

[iommy]

It would be good if she had a new spacious welded turret with a modern unified 125 mm gun, even without AZ/MZ, like the Turkish MZK turret for pattons

[Grossvater]

A good vehicle with a powerful gun and excellent armor protection. The only danger for him is a direct hit from either heavy or special anti-tank ammunition. Simple and reliable as a crowbar.
If you don’t go into the effective range of ATGMs and attach a visor on top, then it’s very, very difficult to knock out this tank, only with a direct hit from a heavy shell or bomb.

[Val4]

Is this a joke about good armor protection?
And it’s okay that any FPV Drone will burn this pyromangal together with the tankers, which is also supplied to the troops for the most part without remote sensing, which the Laotian Ministry of Defense simply did not produce, but why, it will do, which is a crime.
But at least piss in their eyes, it’s all God’s dew.

[bukhach]

Well, a drone won’t burn any other vehicle, an infantry fighting vehicle with troops, for example, or a self-propelled gun, or an armored personnel carrier, “Leopards” as an example, but it’s just not clear that they are so modern and burn from drones, of course! But according to you, only old ones should burn T-55 and others like them, so what?

[Vovavvs]

I remember there was a report from Syria, where the basis of the defense of a blocked town was the T-55... During the year, it was knocked out several times by ISIS fighters, but the crew restored it and continued to provide full fire support. PS Once upon a time, Vladimir Solovyov and I enjoyed learning on this machine. But for some reason, in his report on his trip to Donbass, he did not show the combat use of the T-55

[Andrey Andreev_2]

Quote: Bomb

This, as they say, is not a good life. For 20 years, the army still got up from its knees, and the legacy of the SA helps out. It’s good that at least with the stool it didn’t come down to being melted down for nails or sold for pennies in the Central African Republic.

... and who was Stoolkin with? If in our country we have “manual” control, then nothing was done without his instructions, especially in the army! We must speak frankly: drunkard Yeltsin and his follower destroyed the army, which they then had to build with incredible efforts. This construction is now in full swing, which is good news! And the collapse took place at the request of the Americans, with whom we tried very hard to make friends, but did not accept them as friends, did not let us near our feeding trough...

[Cartographer]

Very interesting. There was active protection back in the USSR. And then, apparently, they began to save left and right.
I’m also wondering what kind of new armor they put on the T-55?

[Vovavvs]

"Why do you need it? A spy or something?"

[416D]

T-55s were used by both sides in Karabakh in 2020. The Armenian side for its intended purpose, the Azerbaijani side as self-propelled guns. The old man will fight again.

[Shelest2000]

Ukrainian officer

Write correctly - a terrorist officer from the Ukrovermacht. They have no other name!

[Mister who]

Here. That’s right, remove the turret from old tanks for scrap, install automation for the proceeds, and save lives as expenses for the front line. And the pocket does not press. Crowbar in bulk.

[Grossvater]

Quote from Val4

Is this a joke about good armor protection?

And you, excuse me, are you only able to read one short phrase? Does the entire message overload the processor?
In addition to special anti-tank ammunition, there are many other threats. First of all, heavy fragments of large-caliber shells, ready-made submunitions and other iron flying in the front-line zone. The armor protection of the T-55 completely removes these threats. A mounted “visor” helps quite well against drones, and a tank used as a self-propelled gun should simply not get into the ATGM zone.
Or do you think that a towed gun or self-propelled gun with bulletproof armor is better protected?

[volgast1970]

It's not about the technology, it's about the people who use it. The T-55 is an excellent car, although it is old; with a large number of 100mm caliber shells we have, it would be a sin not to use this tank. Install anti-drone protection, modern sights, improve communications. And this tank will cause enough trouble for the enemy. It’s definitely not worth going on the attack with it, much less going into a duel with enemy tanks. Although, as far as direct attacks are concerned, with modern weapons, even modern tanks are not particularly suitable. But to support the infantry on the offensive, quickly drive up and “disassemble” the enemy’s stronghold, yes.

[Novonur]

All the same, it is wrong to use such a tank as a self-propelled howitzer; there is a specialized self-propelled gun for this; there is no point in taking bread from the designers. These tanks are designed for breaking through defenses and tactical maneuvers on the battlefield and not for positional battles. During the campaign in Ukraine, both sides forgot what a tank fist was, a breakthrough and encircling the enemy by flanking. During the Second World War we used 200% of the capabilities of our tanks