Where will the T-54s go?

So, a video with the line-up, on the platforms of which they are being taken somewhere Tanks T-54, probably already seen everything. Ukrainian bloggers purred with joy, as always, our patriotic z-grid simply kept silent as a masterpiece, and experts of all levels began a discussion on what it all means.

Opinions are divided

Unfortunately, Mr. Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev generously added fuel to the fire, where opinions were blazing, who said that this year the Russian industry would produce 1 tanks.




Here everyone howled with hungry chainsaws. Apparently, D.A. overslept in his own style and did not pay attention to the videos from the T-54. For an Internet user of this level, this is generally unforgivable. Especially for the deputy chairman of the Security Council.

Everyone has already briefly walked around Medvedev with a tank roller, it will be very interesting to read what will fly in from the other side of the ocean and who will peck at him from our good friends: Kyle, Thomas or Tyler? I bet on Tyler Rogoway, although Thomas Nedwick will be no worse, although not so poisonous.

But let's leave Medvedev's promises (in fact, it could have been worse, Armat could have promised), we should talk about them in a separate line.


What do we have with the T-54 (we will call them that, because the T-55 is a modernization that does not differ so much. Today, in fact, anti-nuclear protection is a relic of the past and does not affect the combat qualities of the machine in any way in in a positive way) Opinions to date have been largely divided as follows:

1. All T-72s and T-90s are lost, T-62s are on the way, extraction from bases of frank trash begins. Then the T-34 and IS-2 will go into action from the pedestals of the monuments. (70%)

2. Seventy-year-old tanks may well become strongholds on defensive lines or play the role of self-propelled infantry support guns. (25%)

3. Everything else. (5%)

Probably, many of our readers will be very surprised, but we will consider exactly item 3. That is, the third option, different from pessimistic and optimistic.

But we will also go through the first two options.

1. On the first point there is something to object

Of course, the capabilities of the Russian military-industrial complex are a cut lower than in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War, so that the destroyed tanks will be replaced with new ones, and the damaged ones will be repaired. But it will take an order of magnitude more time, if only because we have 52 types of armored vehicles produced at 7 factories divided into 3 corporations (Military Industrial Company, Rostec, High Precision Systems). About 20 more factories and enterprises are engaged in repairs, which is definitely not enough in the conditions of the North-East Military District.

Of course, the removal of the T-62 from storage with the subsequent “modernization” is definitely an act of desperation, since even working in three shifts it is impossible to compensate for the losses that the army suffered under the leadership of our most talented generals. Approximately the same as recruiting highly qualified workers for three shifts.

But there is nothing to be done about it, the T-62s turned into T-62Ms will try to portray something like that under the joyful cries in the press that the T-62M is even better than the Abrams.




However, writing such a thing is a matter of honor and conscience of the writer.

That's all for the first point.

2. Everything is much more complicated here, because this item is the fruit of the work of the brains of much smarter people than total defeatists or total victors

The T-54 with its 100-mm cannon is completely unsuitable as a means of combating heavy armored vehicles, this is understandable. But even according to all the Charters, a tank should not fight tanks; for this, mankind invented ATGMs.

T-54, turned into the basis of a defensive center of defense ... The idea is so-so, in my opinion. A tank dug into the ground up to the tower (namely, many wrote about this) is, of course, yes, but no. The reason is very simple: the tower is heavy. Ask, what about the tower? It's simple: during our work at the museum of military equipment in Padikovo, we were allowed to compare the T-34 and the Stuart in terms of crew working conditions. We also compared the ability to rotate the towers manually. At Stuart, it was much easier to do this, but there the turret was smaller and thinner.

Yes, the T-34's turret was rotated by an electric motor, but it was very weak and could not cope with its task. The maximum tilt angle of the tank, at which the motor still rotated the turret, was in the range of 17-22 °, and depended on the condition of the batteries and the air temperature. And here is a picture-scheme for you, which perfectly shows how and how you can replace a stunted motor.


It is clear that it will not work to rotate quickly, but what about the American, what about our tank, accurate aiming at the target was carried out precisely manually. So optional, with the engine turned off - easily. Bury / dig in and shoot.

The T-54 will no longer be able to do this. Without engine. The stabilizer will not work, night lights and so on - everything requires its own portion of volts and amperes. You won't get far on a battery. Starting the engine is a lot of work. An experiment before the first arrival of the Ukrainian copter (and it will happen sooner or later) and then something will fly along the thermal spot.

As for the use of the T-54 as a self-propelled infantry support weapon, there is much more reason in this.


This is what the infantry lacks today and lacks very much. The D-10 gun is insanely ancient (1944), but in its latest modifications it even has a two-plane stabilizer, which generally makes it relevant, but ...

We already wrote together with AlexTV about how suitable the tank is for firing from closed positions. And the fact that the D-10 is rifled does not improve the situation much. Tank - weapon direct fire, whether with a rifled gun, or with a smoothbore - this is a weapon of the battlefield and a direct shot. Yes, bunkers, bunkers, concrete fortifications and infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, the D-10 gun will be a nightmare pretty well. There would be shells.

By the way, about 100-mm shells, that is, about their presence, the question is open. We do not have data on their presence and quantity, therefore we will not say anything on this topic. But the "Rapiers" are shooting with something, which means that there are shells in the warehouses. A question of quantity and quality, 80 years, you know, a decent period.

So the role that can be assigned to the T-54 is the role of a kind of cannon BMPT, nothing more. Moreover, it is quite disposable, since the armor of the tank is still not at the level of the 20s of the 21st century. She's all from there, from the 40s of the past.

Well, a 100-mm gun is not for all purposes.

3. Everything else - what's here?

And here we have a lot. But first, as always, a little information for the buildup.

Where did the very T-54s that started it all come from?


And they were traveling from Arsenyev, in the Primorsky Territory, in the Far East of Russia. The 1295th Central Storage Base is located in Arseniev, where these tanks were stored.

Where did they go? Naturally, to the West. But not in the front line, but it is likely that in Atamanovka, Chita region, to the 103rd repair armored plant. The one that received an order to upgrade 800 T-62 tanks to the T-62M level.

According to those who study satellite images, almost 1295 T-200 tanks have already been removed from the territory of the 62th base. And they were taken away specifically for modernization with subsequent distribution in parts taking part in the NWO.

It is possible that the T-62 was also taken from other bases. The contract for 800 tanks, as it were, provides for this. But this figure implies that only the T-62 will be modernized for THREE years. If we use a calculator, then 800/3=266 tanks per year. That is, almost as much as was taken from the storage base.

The plant in Atamanovka will simply not be able to “digest” more. Not enough capacity and people. True, we also have other factories, but contracts for the modernization or simply the preparation of the T-54 were not reported.

There is no point in looking for something “hot” here, because the work on the T-62 became known instantly. And about the T-54, a complete zero. What's the point? Of course, one can assume that "shame on the jungle" and all that. They burned all modern tanks, lost all T-62s, now they brought T-54s for slaughter?

Very doubtful. I specifically leafed through the reports of the Ukrainian side, no, they didn’t chop so much even in the most optimistic scenarios. Yes, Russian tanks are being destroyed, but not in such numbers.

But after all, something like that happened, since the T-54 was taken somewhere?

Yes. T-62s began to fight and, accordingly, losses began. I doubt that there are warehouses with new spare parts in Atamanovka. I highly doubt it. T-62 - the tank is very old, the most recent were made in 1973. Are we drawing conclusions?

Plus the tanks went to war. That is, to take on the blows of guns, grenade launchers, ATGMs, copters capable of dumping all sorts of muck from a height.

The idea is this: given that the T-62 is a further development of the T-55 tank, it has the same layout, and it used the same components and assemblies as on the T-55 tank. Well, the T-55 is the T-54 with anti-nuclear protection and nothing more.

Here is the answer to the question why the T-54 was dragged from Arsenyev: they were taken to cannibalize. Yes, the tanks are very old, but the same age as the T-62 in production - until 1974. And there is something to take from them: engines, transmissions, rollers, caterpillars, and so on ad infinitum.

Of course, B-46s are still being produced in Chelyabinsk, but why put a new engine on an old tank if this tank is a priori not a tenant? The same applies to all other spare parts and assemblies. It is clear that during a war, and even one where mines are used by both sides and everywhere, rollers and tracks simply burn in the truest sense of the word.

Not the best solution? No, the best. Starting the production of spare parts for tanks discontinued half a century ago is more than heroic. But why, if there are enough cars in warehouses that can be disassembled and used as spare parts donors?

Of course, I admit that the best-preserved vehicles can be used as self-propelled guns for infantry support, but ... It's no secret that logistics is the scourge of the Russian army. Yes, somehow I paid attention to the fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine already have 6 calibers of shells. But we are experiencing problems with the supply of shells, although there are fewer calibers. What will happen when 152mm is added to the existing 125mm, 122mm, 115mm, 100mm?

However, what can I say, if such a decision is made, we will definitely find out about it. So far, the voiced one can be taken as a working version of transporting the T-54 in a westerly direction. She really has the right to life, as those who find themselves on the front lines of the T-62 have the right to repair.