Where will the T-54s go?

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.
391 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    26 March 2023 23: 44
    Perhaps they are being taken to cannibalize.
    And perhaps to the front.

    The benefits of an armored cart with a rifled gun are a priori a carriage. Definitely much more than from its absence.
    In this sense, I am a supporter of the idea that it is better to send any armor capable of driving and shooting to war than to leave it to rot. Of course, if this can be done without distracting Omsk, UVZ and other key manufacturers from producing current cars.
  2. 0
    27 March 2023 01: 22
    Here's an interesting use case.
    With references to the so-called "world" experience smile
  3. 0
    27 March 2023 09: 36
    Yes, the question is how to use these T-54 (or 55,62). It’s one thing when they inflict fire damage from their positions, shelling fortified areas with direct fire, another thing in isolation, and this is of course a suicidal option for this outdated equipment. And apparently we can assume that the supply of shells for the gun of this tank is quite large. And let's not forget that this machine is relatively easy to use.
    There is another assumption related to the fact that the T-54, 55, 62 were designed for combat operations with the total use of nuclear weapons and may be better suited for this than modern tanks. And this leads to certain thoughts.
  4. 0
    27 March 2023 09: 39
    When the capabilities of our industry clearly lag behind the enemy’s capabilities to defeat our armored targets on the battlefield, the decision on the T 54\55 is quite obvious to me. If it is possible to make an inexpensive and quite high-quality “restyle” in terms of additional protection, surveillance and aiming devices, communications equipment... why is this not an option? What is better, a rifle company sitting on the defensive without any support at all, or with the support of two or three infantry fighting vehicles/BMD 3/4 or with the presence of two or three such tanks? Or a platoon going on the attack with a pair of infantry fighting vehicles, MTLBs, or supported by a pair of such old tanks? Is it better to have nothing at all, or to have at least something?
  5. -1
    27 March 2023 09: 45
    Azerbaijan used these tanks in the war with Armenia in Karabakh. If, after a counter-battery fight, we concentrate from 30 to 40 T-54s per kilometer of front, in a few hours they will clear the enemy’s front line to a depth of 15 km, from closed positions. Azerbaijan, during the hostilities, lost one tank, there are 100 of them. All crew members are alive, one was injured (got burns).
  6. +1
    27 March 2023 11: 07
    But according to all the Charters, a tank should not fight with tanks; for this, humanity came up with ATGMs.

    Seriously? And they apparently stuffed crowbars and godfathers into the tanks’ ammunition compartments because they had nothing better to do? Did you do tours because there was nowhere to put the money?

    Author, World War II is over a long time ago. And along with it the concept of “tanks only against infantry”, set out in our well-known Order No. 325. That's it, now the tank is one of the main anti-tank weapons, along with ground-based anti-tank systems and helicopters.
  7. 0
    27 March 2023 11: 41
    Call them self-propelled guns and end the fruitless conversations

    The more gun barrels per 1 km of front, the better

    The 100-mm MT-12 anti-tank gun and the T-55 gun have the same caliber, and the Rapier is a sniper rifle, which in capable hands is the main weapon of the Wagner PMC, whose shells fell into the Nazi trenches from closed positions, killing thousands of soldiers of the Ukrainian occupiers.

    Just don’t use them as tanks, no matter what:

    1. +1
      27 March 2023 13: 14
      Quote: Sergey Venediktov
      The 100-mm MT-12 anti-tank gun and the T-55 gun have the same caliber

      ... and a completely different design. The D-10T is a rifled gun, and the MT-12 is a smooth-bore gun.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. -1
    28 March 2023 14: 37
    When people living in reality tried to convey to the masses that the army is only on paper, and in the event of a conflict ordinary people would fight with Soviet equipment, they laughed at them, “we have a professional army and the best equipment,” they said in response.
    Now I would like to hear: “we were wrong, you were right, what do we need to do to prevent further failures?” But no. We hear again that the T-54/55/62 is a normal tank for a modern conflict, that a steel helmet is good, because... She covers her ears that a rusty machine gun is normal, we just need to clean it, we haven’t really started yet, etc. Yes, this is all normal for the African army, but not for the 2nd army of the world. Some people are simply incorrigible, at this rate in ten years we will hear: “a stone is quite a modern weapon and you can break your head with it! Or would you prefer to sit in a trench without a stone?!”
    PS Still, there were smart people in the USSR, and at one time they took into account all the possible scenarios and were concerned about the availability of weapons for decades to come.
    1. 0
      30 March 2023 00: 02
      Quote: Drozd
      When people living in reality tried to convey to the masses that the army is only on paper, and in the event of a conflict ordinary people would fight with Soviet equipment, they laughed at them, “we have a professional army and the best equipment,” they said in response.

      Your indignation is understandable and justified in a certain situation and conditions. Nevertheless: One and a half thousand modern T-90 and even T-14 tanks are one tank per kilometer of front in Ukraine. Removed from storage, tens of thousands of T-54 and T-62 tanks, not modern, but with serious armor, with modifications, are capable of providing tens, and if necessary hundreds, of dynamically maneuvering barrels per kilometer of front. At the same time, the firing range can reach 15 kilometers. Of course, we are talking about the use of the above-mentioned tanks exclusively from closed positions, as highly armored self-propelled guns, or artillery pieces. We must not forget about the advantages of any tank - serious armor, the presence of a radio station and the ability to dynamically maneuver. With a density of tens of guns per kilometer of front, any weakly armored armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles will be destroyed, and tanks, even the most modern ones, will either be destroyed or damaged (immobilized).
  10. +1
    28 March 2023 15: 27
    I wonder where the billions spent on the military-industrial complex went.... “Effective” managers were all talking about innovative developments, mass production of new military equipment...
  11. +1
    28 March 2023 15: 43
    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.
    Ostap got carried away again. Are there large-scale tank battles taking place in the Northern Military District? Are our tanks being crushed by aircraft? I no longer wanted to read the author’s latest fantasies.
  12. -1
    28 March 2023 17: 23
    If you replace the turret on the T-54 and add everything that the T-72 has, it will be a good tank
    If we remember the Great Patriotic War, then after changing the turret to the T-34, he already fought the tigers on an equal footing. The question is which barrel can be installed and the tower expanded.
    The T-54 seemed to be preparing for a nuclear war, and it could carry shells with the same uranium cores.
    Putin: Russia has hundreds of thousands of depleted uranium shells
  13. 0
    29 March 2023 10: 30
    Quote: Belisarius
    Yes, most likely the author is right. Most likely, this is for spare parts for the reactivated T-62.

    I have some idea that these tanks were parked at a storage base with zero service life... This is approximately the same as repairing your car with spare parts from a car scrapyard.
  14. 0
    29 March 2023 16: 25
    The T-55 is better than the BMP-1, BMP-2 and even the BMP-3. Install modern sights and dynamic protection and it may well drive strikers and Bradleys across the Ukrainian steppes
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. 0
    30 March 2023 11: 23
    How long have the T-62 and Leopard 1 waited to finally meet in battle...
  17. 0
    31 March 2023 17: 21
    Qualitative analytics. But who cares about the question in the title? If it’s even funny for the special officers. But they immediately clarify who is asking the questions here, despite the erudition of the author.
  18. 0
    April 3 2023 14: 59
    Quote: bayard
    then the T-55 may be interesting only as a base for BMPT, maybe as a base for engineering vehicles (clearance/clearance/evacuation), and as a donor for spare parts for T-62 tanks.

    Shhh..! Don’t tell anyone about the T-55M5 and especially about the T-55M6.
    And there’s something that no one here remembers at all - which comrades (in many delegations from different countries of the same continent) recently visited the Kremlin? But the T-55M will suit them just fine.
  19. 0
    April 3 2023 15: 47
    Quote: Corona without virus
    MT-LB with naval installations of twin guns - even my brain could not imagine such a “Frankenstein”!!! Yes, any hole on the way to the front line will capsize, of course, with its high center of gravity!!! It won’t even reach the front!!!

    laughing laughing laughing
    How long did Mr. Crowned Pensioner fly on his broom? Has he even seen metal up close?
    In our little caricature-montage, we installed pile drivers (6 pcs.) and crane installations (2 pcs.) on MTLB. Which is much heavier and higher than this turret (1,5 tons) from a kayak... For installation of power lines in the swamps of Yamal. And not a single broom was turned over.
  20. 0
    April 5 2023 13: 59
    Ways to prevent a Javelin missile from hitting a tank: https://dzen.ru/a/ZCq1qy2BIw3jycv9
  21. -1
    April 16 2023 21: 28
    The cost of the T54 tank is comparable to the cost of the Javelin anti-tank gun, and if any of the crew survives... there will be a bonus. Market... oh...
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. The comment was deleted.