100,000 Built For War - What Makes Russia’s T-54 And T-55 Tanks Dangerous

[@tomsmith2587]

If you're infantry and don't have anti-tank weapons, it doesn't matter how old the tank coming at you is. A tank is a tank.

[@Theaverageazn247]

honestly if you do have modern AT weapons, even western tanks like challengers and leopards get eaten up

[@flavius5722]

And what are the chances to run out of anti tank weapons,mines or artillery ? 😂😂

[@duanepigden1337]

@@flavius5722-- in individual areas or units it’s easy to run out.

[@wolfswinkel8906]

@@flavius5722 very high, especially if you've been selling them on the black market like Ukraine has been doing.

[@alexanderc.broche4017]

AND THE T-54’S AND T-55’S WERE MADE BY THE SOVIET’S FOR WAR WITH NATO SO IT IS A PRIME BATTLE TANK MADE FIOR ALL-OUT WAR AND EVEN WITHOUT THE UP GRADES CAN STILL BE JUST AS FORMIDABLE AS IT WAS IN THE FIFTIES AND EARLY SIXTIES,I HAVE TO HAND TO THE RUSSIANS THEY STOCKPILED ALL THESE SURPLUS TANKS AND SAVED THEM FOR A RAINY DAY TODAY THEY ARE JUST AS DEADLY AS WHEN THE SOVIET RED ARMY WAS FIGHTING AGAINST THE THE THIRD REICH

[@adamesd3699]

People talking about tank on tank warfare with T-54/55s are missing the point. The Russians will use these mainly as self-propelled artillery. They’re cheap to operate, come with decent armor, and there are millions of HE shells for them. With drones helping guide their fire, they could be pretty effective. I’m sure the Russians would prefer to use more 152 mm guns at the front. But if you have thousands of workable T-54/55s available, you use what you have.

[@sezwo5774]

Exactly, propaganda don't want to mention Russia use old tanks as mobile artillery pieces. No need for armor! Just arrive at frontline location, dig in tank at slight angle allowing long range targeting and fire like howitzer. After 600 or so shells fired they are either re-fitted with new barrels from storage or scraped. Amunition is plenty.

[@pyalot]

The maximum elevation of a t-55 is 16°, which limits its range as an arty to around 10km. Being 100mm, its shells also lack punching power in an arty role. It also does not come with artillery aiming systems, so putting rounds on target beyond line of sight repeatedly will be just about impossible. The t-55 lobs a contact fused 15kg/1.5kg explosive shell 10km to within about 1000m of target after a lengthy spotter corrected zero in. Modern arty lobs a air bursting 64kg/6kg explosive shell 20km to within 260m of target first and every subsequent shot without a spotter. One of these is effective, the other is not.

[@adamesd3699]

@@pyalot They build small ramps for them, to increase the elevation, thus increasing the range. I completely agree, a T-55 is not a match for modern heavy artillery. But put a bunch of them on ramps and they can do a decent job of saturating an enemy area, freeing up your real artillery to go after more high value targets.

[@pyalot]

@@adamesd3699I just dont think it is effective to do that. The tank has to stay in location a long time because it cant put rounds on target without zeroing. It cant shoot&scoot. It will be extremely vulnerable to counter battery fire by equipment that out-ranges it and has much better accuracy. The rounds it does „put on target“ are not anywhere near the target, because the tank cant point its barrel to within 0.25° repeatedly in the same direction after each shot. And by happenstance a round gets near a target, it slams into the ground throwing lots of dirt around, looks very dramatic, is very survivable for anyone/anything in the immediate vincinity because the dirt absorbs all the shrapnel and most of the blast. And if you plan to make up for deficits in accuracy with volume, well, that is what counter battery operators call a lovely day. Not sure how you convince a tank squad cosplaying as arty to go out on the field to line up to get exploded after the same thing happened to the 5 previous squads. It might involve some russian „persuasion“… Combining low survivability with low effectiveness to mainly produce low morale and loss of time logistics could do something better, seems like a waste of time and resources, even if the actual material used is functionally worthless. It still eats people, time and logistics.

[@adamesd3699]

@@pyalot That makes sense. We’ll see whether the Russians can make it a success, or if the negatives you mention ruin their plan.

[@igorsergeev6716]

Any tank is much better than no tank

[@peterstubbs5934]

Say that to the dead crew.

[@duanepigden1337]

@@peterstubbs5934-- better to be in a tank then the receiving end of their gun.

[@T_81535]

​​​​@@peterstubbs5934you'd rather be crouched down in some cold, damp, and muddy ditch with a dam drone over your head dropping grenades tryin to blow your ass off and you can't get up to run because you'll get machine gunned or picked off by a sniper? Gimme that tank. Button up, put the pedal to the metal, shoot all that moves, drive that bitch straight into hell, grab the devil by his nut sack and drag him off his throne by God. 😀

[@robvoncken2565]

The tank is there to keep the crew alive Having a lot of old tanks does not mean anything if you have noone to drive them. These are basicly made of paper for modern weapons

[@duanepigden1337]

@@robvoncken2565 -- still have better protection then an IFV or APC.

[@osefman2763]

People seems to forget that a tank, no matter how old it is, can still be impervious to small and medium weaponry while retaining good enough firepower to level building or destroy any small or medium armored vehicles at long range. Soviet tank of that era can also be used as mobile artillery pieces since they have the equipment for it. Yes a t55 is unlikely to win a duel against a leopard but it is still more than enough for infantry support.

[@Tomeixx]

If there is one Leopard and 20 T55, I think the Leo will struggle. And Leos have the same problem like the T55, drones, mines, modern AT wapeons have a big impact on modern Tank battles. Just the tank crew will better survive in modern Tank if its get hit.

[@osefman2763]

@@Tomeixxyeah exactly and let's not forget that having 20 time the amount of gun (if i take your exemple) is always going to be better in a large conflict than one good gun

[@Tomeixx]

@@osefman2763 Absolutely. Especially on this enormous wide front its an advantage to have many cheap tanks than less expensive tanks. An AT mine will disable both the same way. Therefore I don't understand why so many people make fun about it in the comments. It will definitely help Russia in this conflict, and I personally don't want to fight as infantry against this old steel monster.

[@davedevonlad7402]

No russian tank can be used as artillery they have a gun elevation of only 15° modern artillery is like 70°-80° max elevation to get over hills. You can't even aim high enough in a built up area that's why tanks need infantry support in built up areas and if in the open the trajectory would be so low it would be rendered useless.

[@osefman2763]

@@davedevonlad7402 there is no need to have such elevation for the sort of indirect fire and range the t55 can be use for. See it as a field gun. If the tank is in good position, it won't have any problem aming above the type of terrain in Ukraine, whitch is mostly flat.

[@lancecahill5486]

The Colt 1911 is still deadly today as the day it entered service. Same goes with these tanks.

[@glenmhouston5085]

a 9mm might have more rounds, but a 1911 puts someone on their ass.

[@SuperErikRoss]

Yup just like in Darfur when guys came out in beat up old toyota pick up trucks with a .50 cal M2 or a 105mm Recoiless rifle mounted on them.

[@lolilol299]

true, they're just as dangerous. But a problem with older tanks, and especially soviet tanks is that the survivability is much lower than modern western tanks. it easier to replace a chunk of metal than an entire tank crew. It does not matter how many tanks they send to the frontline if they run out of crew to actually use them.

[@georgesheffield1580]

Same for the Colt 1873 in 44 or 45 ,very good man stoppers and reliable

[@yannikoloff7659]

Colt 1861 is no match to Glock, but put them in Wild West standoff and Glock don't have a chance

[@AllanMogensen]

If their guns can shoot, they are dangerous

[@ervinxx2545]

Nope.. are just junk

[@letnt8890]

@@ervinxx2545 "junk" 👆🏻🤓

[@Jameslockheeart]

@@ervinxx2545 It might just be me, but I would prefer that shells shot from this tank to not hit me- junk or not. maybe YOU have a death wish though (and don't reply with some snarky commment about if the tanks fires the shell or not cuz if it does your sh*T out of luck.

[@ervinxx2545]

@@Jameslockheeart i m Albanian.. my country have a lot of those Junks

[@ervinxx2545]

@@Jameslockheeart don't worry it is hard to get target from those sh..t weaponry.. and if u are on a Hummvee nothing happened

[@Imprudentman]

The combat capabilities of the T-55 and T-54 are limited in modern warfare where tanks fight tanks, but as mobile artillery they can be very good due to their powerful armor. Modern self-propelled guns in most cases have bulletproof and anti-fragmentation armor and do not require an accurate hit to damage the self-propelled gun. But to damage the T-54 and T-55, a direct hit is required, since fragments of a high-explosive shell are unlikely to cause serious damage to these tanks.

[@flavius5722]

They will break out before get to the front

[@wolfswinkel8906]

@@flavius5722 spoken like a true amateur

[@flavius5722]

@@wolfswinkel8906 If americans has sent M46 Patton to Ukraine you wouldn't lose your time in childish arguments (copy paste from Redeffect) about mobile artillery and other bullshit If they want mobile artillery they would have brought SU 152 but they don't have ammunition for this

[@Jermo7899]

That’s what sabot rounds are for.

[@ДмитрийСвергин]

The fact is that tanks don't fight tanks. All attempts by the APU to fight on tanks led to piles of burnt equipment at a cost of millions of dollars. Without any progress. The APU is fighting with assault groups. The old tank is great for use as a firing point in the fortification line. Concrete solves all the shortcomings of the armor of the old tank. And, importantly, this tank can easily change its position. There is another use. When an old tank turns into a kamikaze drone, with a really big explosive charge. Suitable for storming especially fortified positions.

[@FicaGTI]

They will use them as mobile artilery as they have millions of HE shells in stock to fire

[@mrkeykush693]

that's what they did not so long ago and had good results

[@peterstubbs5934]

And at what range would that be?

[@duanepigden1337]

@@peterstubbs5934-- does it matter if your in the range?

[@mkyhou1160]

With drones and modern anti tank missiles, mobile artillery seems to be the only future for all tanks.

[@lelandgrubson2736]

​@@duanepigden1337The T54 and T55 has equipment that most western tanks don't have and it's indirect fire sights

[@michaelhearne3289]

Old, but a good basic tank. Heavy armor, fair mobility, good gun.

[@martinrivera4175]

Kamkazi.pur in Turbo engine 😎

[@benlotus2703]

LoL@@martinrivera4175

[@kevin-yv1ig]

almost useless against a modern Western tank.

[@Ilyas-ty6cy]

@@kevin-yv1ig In one on one? Yeah, but that not the point.

[@КириллОс-з7ц]

And no more ammo as well - 100mm shells are very old and mostly doesn't shoot. And no more produce last 70 years...

[@goshomaimunkov3896]

I think these will be used primarily as an assault artillery for infantry support. 100 mm HE shell is perfectly fine for firing at infantry positions from a distance of about 2 km. Even the outdated sights are more than enough for this during day-time. On the receiving end I'm pretty sure the infantry won't be thinking - "it is an outdated tank, so don't worry". It can also destroy anything other than a tank, and these are only protected from hits at the frontal armor.

[@realnapster1522]

They can also destroy other tanks or disable them. Make no mistake. A large gun is always dangerous.

[@dragantanackovic1360]

Sve si rekao tačno i istinito!👍

[@frankj.thomas9429]

Yeah they are 70yo monster tank, that can destroy whatever they want. Super duper rusky tank What a nonsense. Just another cold war technique, that will serve very short until will be hit by some UA RPG.

[@firebyte69]

@@frankj.thomas9429 last time i checked rpgs don't travel 2km. learn to read.

[@frankj.thomas9429]

@@firebyte69 Read with understandig then answer. The range of T54/55 is about 2km or 1.3 mile not any rpgs.

[@paulgrietens1114]

Quantity can be it's own quality. If they have enough of them and are used properly, it wouldn't matter how advanced their opponents tanks are. I've always liked the older designs, their rugged, reliable and easier to maintain than modern tank's with limited resources and battle field conditions.

[@peterblood50]

You might be forgetting that it can't be positioned back from the front far enough to stay out of drone and artillery range. Some people haven't realized we're seeing a different kind of war than what came before. It's been shown pretty conclusively that the Russian army, airforce, and navy are all less dangerous than originally thought. If not for Pootins nuclear capability (Which, like the other armed forces, may be degraded from corruption and lack of maintenance) the Ukrainans would be shooting into Russian territory with long-range artillery. Without Nuclear, Russia is a nuisance more than a threat. Fact over fiction.

[@StepDub]

Other tanks aren’t their main problem. Close combat with modern infantry equipped with light anti-tank weapons are fatal and long range artillery with guided munitions means their potential is limited. Good against poorly equipped insurgents, but not peer opponents.

[@spxram4793]

bla bla .... most of the 100.000 produced were scrapped after 1991. Recently there was a russian propaganda video about a tank unit getting equipped with "new" T-55 - the personnel looked quite sinister and introverted, I'd guess they were overthinking their testaments and the girls they missed to *beep*

[@spxram4793]

@@StepDub exactly. Any modern APV or other platform with 30mm guns can easily take out T-54/55/62 - they have all been designed so. Also a T-72 without enhancement will be lost after a few hits. In my opinion, the russians in general tend to produce military hardware designed for dictatorships to suppress their own population.

[@oldhag2881]

Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all it's own".

[@dragantanackovic1360]

The one who says that these T-55 tanks are useless knows nothing about tanks and strategies for using them.

[@mode4148]

It is not useless its just not that good . .

[@chriscarlino5561]

@@mode4148it will for sure make the Ukrainian side use Ammo on tanks that were written off many years ago.

[@donaldtrumplover2254]

T-55 tanks are mostly useless in modern war. They are too old and too unarmored. And seeing how they haven’t made any difference im pretty confident I’m right.

[@chriscarlino5561]

@@mode4148there a vid of course not on KZbin of some Ukrainians making fun of the old tank. They get a little to close and BOOM! 4 dead Ukrainians. They will use them for a wide variety of tasks.

[@MaximTarasov5525]

Этих старых списанных танков не мало в россии они все равно без толку десятки лет стоят а если их использовать пусть даже они принесу не такую большую пользу как современные но их очень много и они сделают очень значительный вклад против украины а выигранное время позволит произвести новые танки т90м прорыв

[@antonh1709]

They don't use these tanks for combat operations requiring tanks. There are by far more modern and mighty T72s, T80s, T90Ms for those. These old ones are used from mask positions as artillery firepower for a case of breakthrough if needed.

[@aimxdy8680]

They lost almost half of all their T90Ms, Their T72s and T80 are being used for frontlines and they have lost 2 thousand of them

[@antonh1709]

@@aimxdy8680 There are some losses, but a) not half of T-90Ms and b) Russia makes those new tanks at rate at least 1500 per year. More than enough to recoup current losses and arm all the newly formed divisions.

[@aimxdy8680]

@@antonh1709 Russia isn’t the ussr anymore so they don’t really make much tanks, Russia has only 100 T90Ms yet they lost 40 already. Russia can’t meet its production requirements lmao

[@mobilelegend1458]

​@@aimxdy8680yeah they are out of production due t...washing machine chip is destroying Ukrainian

[@letsgorandom1380]

A year ago the narrative was that the Russians were running out of tanks and had to use T-54 and T-62 because all the more modern tanks got destroyed or captured. Some people kept claiming this for months and months. Some still do. But when you ask them: If this is true, why don't we see Ukrainian videos with them attacking Russian T-54 or T-62? We keep getting videos of Russian T-72, T-80 and T90. Never got a reply to that question. Also the more recent NATO supplying of depleted uranium shells , would make no sense. Why would you need better munition, to destroy those old tanks? The fact that the US and UK claim they need to give better ammo, contradicts there earlier claims of most more modern Russian tanks already got destroyed.

[@lancecahill5486]

One of the advantages of these old tanks is the relatively light weigh which allows them to go over bridges and terrain while more modern tanks are too heavy to be deployed in certain environment.

[@davedevonlad7402]

These tanks were built for a different purpose and time. They were developed for lightning fast strikes through Europe over tight small roads with stone bridges that could not hold any significant weight in WW2 and the cold war. Also to get over the many rivers in western Europe with light bridging equipment. Every other nation who built tanks went for a heavier design to counter Russian light tanks. Look at the Israeli wars where centurion tanks destroyed 100s if not thousands of Egyptian and Syrian tanks that were russian made. I remember 6-7 Israeli tanks holding off and destroying 100s of russian supplied tanks that were lighter than the centurions. The same will happen in Ukraine if Russia uses the T54/55s they are not designed for this kind of modern battlefield. It's like bringing swords to a machine gun fight.

[@spectator3308]

​@@davedevonlad7402Certainly. However, I suspect that Russia is going to use them for massive saturation (counter-)attacks, simply overwhelming Ukraine's anti-tank capabilities, wasting lots of its own personnel and equipment, but still having enough to spare nevertheless. If, for instance, 1000 or even 5000 of these old tanks were to charge simultaneously at some sector of the front, supported by artillery, even the best of Ukraine's armor, artillery and AT infantry units would run out of ammo before they could destroy most of these tanks. Sometimes, Japanese death charges with swords against American MGs in WWII were too much, as not all of the charging men could be incapacitated before reaching US positions ... Though such tactics result in carnage, they have sadly been employed ...

[@fred6319]

@@davedevonlad7402 it has a gun that has a range of 15 km and can be used in an indirect fire mode = mobile artillery

[@fred6319]

@@spectator3308 you suspect Wrong

[@spectator3308]

@@fred6319 I hope so. But time will tell. The Russian bear is an unpredictable beast, though ...

[@lancecahill5486]

It depends what the Russians use these tanks for. They are easy targets in a tank battle against western tanks. But if the Russians use them as mobile artilleries against Ukrainian ground troops then they can be very effective.

[@couchwarrior2449]

They are easy targets for Everything. Tanks, drones, Javelin missiles, HIMARS, RPG's, you name it. They are steel coffins, nothing more.

[@Christoph-sd3zi]

Based on the fact that tens of thousands of these tanks have lacked even the most basic of maintenance for decades means their usefulness now is vastly overrated and then you throw in a lack of experienced crews due to high attrition rates in the Ukraine war

[@joelwillems4081]

@@Christoph-sd3zi Exactly. And the shells they fire are just as deficient. These don't have night vision, stabilizers, adequate radios or sufficient range. Cheap armor could be made swiss cheese by .50 rounds. The Israelis destroyed hundreds of these pieces of junk and that was decades ago.

[@Radbot776]

@@Christoph-sd3zithe difference between the Russian tanks and western tanks is the Russians have way more people in tanks and way more people especially in the ussr that trained with tanks You’ll find at least one guy in any Russian village that knows something and has experience with tanks Say in America, there’s a shyt ton of army and marine personnel but limited amount of trained tank individuals. I for example don’t know anyone that served in the tank units and have never met one person that served in a tank here in America. Tanks are a pretty quiet subject out here.

[@dimushka383]

@@Christoph-sd3zi Totally agree with you. But do you know which side of the conflict these tanks were supplied to? Yes, Ukraine, from Eastern Europe. In other respects, you are right.

[@falkschneider7953]

The cost of a single running T-55 is less than € 50000

[@manjushagongale]

Bro then for 1 leopard tank there are 100+ T-55 tanks.😮 To destroy 1 leopard tank 10-15 T-55s are enough.

[@falkschneider7953]

Ja, du hast Recht.

[@falkschneider7953]

​@@manjushagongaleThat's a problem. It is insufficient.

[@fianhazel2487]

Nah.. not at all , it's spam trash tank first to make war more longer. make you fucked up western allies suffer economyc and more. its about efficiency @@falkschneider7953

[@Jameslockheeart]

@@manjushagongale I agree even a modern tank cannot defend against 5-10 shells at the same time.

[@Gronk79]

This series of tanks is the "Kalashnikov" of tanks.

[@Joe3pops]

Trviva: 1988 Afghan war movie, The Beast, portraits the dramatic journey of T-55 Soviet tank crew, lost in the wilds of this mountainous nation. It's a pretty good war film. Starring Jason Patric, George Dzundza, Stephen Baldwin.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

The Soviets were not keen on using their best equipment in Afghanistan lest the Americans get their hands on their tech.

[@lancecahill5486]

It doesn't matter how old a tank is, it's deadly being at the receiving end of the 125mm cannon.

[@idkk1086]

100mm cannon*

[@ImR97-uj4yy]

​@@idkk1086115mm actually, but okay...

[@idkk1086]

which model? T55s and 54s use the 100mm rifled gun, I think you mean the t62, which is different.@@ImR97-uj4yy

[@cvr527]

@@ImR97-uj4yy T-62 had 115mm U5TS , the T-54/55 used 100 mm D-10T main gun.

[@ICCUWANSIUT]

​@@cvr527I think some T-55 tanks have used a 115mm but at that point it's a very different tank. Borderline TR-85 and such.

[@chocolatecosmos1424]

I'm reminded of an old adage of the German Panzer. I'm paraphrasing but the Germans said that the killed four Sherman's for every Panzer but they Americans had five.

[@cookml]

It’s a good joke. Strange it’s not about Russian tanks given that about 80% of German material was destroyed on the Eastern front.

[@phhdvm]

A Luftwaffe pilot said something similar. One on one our planes were as good as the Mustang. But there was never just one Mustang

[@wallace-bv4rl]

Was looking for a comment raising the Sherman in WW2. I read that whilst the Sherman was inferior to various German tanks they (Sherman’s) usually fought Germans with no tanks and this quantitative advantage was massive

[@MoseleyJon]

Exactly right. I never heard that, but that is a powerful bit of ironic wisdom.

[@tihomirrasperic]

the Americans had a tactic of 10x Shermans on 1x Tiger or Panther, 4x attack from the front, the other 6x from the flank and if possible, from the rear the result usually ended 4:1

[@SuperChodot]

A tank is a tank, especially in a trench warfare and this is what T-54/55 are made for, although it at least 50 years to late.

[@sonnyjim5268]

I agree. Sitting in a trench with a rifle, a T55 will look very scary and being 50-odd years old won't matter shit.

[@paytonestrada7746]

@@sonnyjim5268 Because nobody has a load of cheap RPGs, idiot.

[@brokeandtired]

@@sonnyjim5268 They still work if all you want is to use a T-54/55 as is a direct fire infantry support gun (like an early model Stug III)....think more direct artillery and not tank...Like the new US Booker role. The question is does Russia have the extra logistics left to keep them usable? Because if not then they will be fighting with the real tanks for precious supply cargo space on the trucks and using up truck tanker fuel. Apart from a few specialist models, Russia won't be fielding upgrades simply because its not worth it and Russia can't make the upgrades.

[@sonnyjim5268]

@@brokeandtired Fair point and very possible. On the other hand, after all the Leos and Abrams, et al, have been destroyed, the T55 will be the king of the battlefield. Especially if they show up in the thousands.

[@LepiSladja]

@@brokeandtired dont forget that most likely they will be operated by renegated republics, who already were using those tanks

[@akinduathauda2028]

Video :what makes T 54 and T 55 tanks dangerous Me: they're *FRIGGIN TANKS*

[@davidszigeti4952]

The comments about a tank not having a smoothbore cannon as being a negative is ridiculous. The "wonder weapon" Challenger 2 has a rifled barrel.

[@SRDPS2]

Funny is guy who say old tank still dangerous It's same guy who criticism B-52, M2 browning and Colt 1911

[@JakeJ.-yi1du]

By smoothbore they mean the 125mm smoothbore main gun that all the T-72's, T-80's, and T-90's have, so the negative is having the smaller less powerful gun not the fact it's smoothbored

[@zenko247]

SO DO ALL NATO TANKS

[@davidknichal6629]

My grandfather Antonin served in the Czechoslovakian People's Army between 1962-1964 as a member of T-55 crew. After the end of his military service in 1964 his beloved T-55 visited him at home 4 years later during the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. My grandmother used to say me his ironical words (btw I never met my grandfather. He tragically died in 1982) "I could have never imagined T-55 visiting me in front of my house under these crazy circumstances". I still have his photograph of a huge T-55 monstrum standing next to our tiny house from August, 21st. Crazy crazy times

[@Letyourcolorsblendwithmine]

First off, they already have them and they didn't cost millions of dollars each. Second they're easy to repair and they've got the parts, facilities and personnel to repair, upgrade and re-field whatever gets knocked out. Third and most important, Russia uses their tanks in an antipersonnel role. They have air superiority to take on enemy armor.

[@DODO-vy6sf]

I saw them in action when I was in the army 1987-89. The four crew had seconds to enter vehicle, load gun, and start engine. Then the shooting exercise begins. Ours were T-55-M. Simple, reliable beast if kept in good shape.

[@ВиталийФедоров-щ2г]

And what army were you in? Soviet or one from the eastern block?

[@konda7912]

Yugoslavia

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

Absolute lie. ALL Soviet tanks were equipped with autoloaders. It is why they were smaller than their Western counterparts.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

​ Yugoslavia did not have Soviet tanks. They had the export 'monkey models' that were NOT the same as the actual Soviet models created for the Soviet Army. The equipment used by the Soviet Army NEVER left the Soviet Union for obvious reasons.

[@konda7912]

@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 of course, soviet t55 have HEMI engines but YU t55 had 2.0 tdi biturbo engines.!?!wtf YU modernised all tenks until 80's and they used in war 91-95. Also , YU made M84 , much better version of T72 tenks. Not monkey models, like you thinks.

[@maxjohnson1758]

I like the idea. Repurpose them as light tanks to support infantry or something, not necessarily tanks to be used against other tanks, and you have a ready made Booker type system.

[@smartiscrib-cf5mx]

they wont be light tanks no matter what. they can inflict damage and whatnot but if this is the only thing russia is going to be having in like a year they will start to use it in offensives

[@idkk1086]

the booker is a light tank, designed to be a light tank. the t55 is a medium/breakthrough tank designed to attack other tanks. you are now suggesting that in 2023, ~60-70 years after the t55 was introduced, that it should act in a role which it was not designed for, and would be successful?

[@ErickMarcelloni]

t54 and t55 are very effective weapons systems. cheap, easy to build, easy maintenance, decent firepower and resistant to small caliber firearms. it perfectly fills the infantry support vehicle role.

[@antonh1709]

They don't use them for missions requiring them as vehicles. They are used from masked positions and backup artillery.

[@mickelodiansurname9578]

And where pray tell would Russia be able to 'easily build' new T55 tanks can you tell me..??. developing a time machine that goes back to the only factory in Russia that still made them in 1981 perhaps? and if they are so good well why did Russia expend thousands of brand new tanks when they had these great ones in reserve all the time? These things despite your fondness for them are just handy ovens for cooking off Russians!

[@fabioartoscassone9305]

then ur clock-alarm RINGS and ... 😂😂😂

[@lolilol299]

correct, cheap to make, easy to build and easy maintenance. Problem is, like many older tanks, survivability is awful. Tanks means nothing if you have no one left to use them.

[@blyat4998]

@@fabioartoscassone9305 im pretty sure he's sober and awake. maybe you should wake up too

[@Boswell341]

Even without any upgrade, these tanks would be effective as a self-propelled defensive anti-tank gun, suitably concealed. Any amount of scrap steel could be welded onto the front to improve its defensive capability. Just remember that if you have to retreat in a hurry, do so in reverse so as to keep facing the enemy.

[@groomschild1617]

scrap steel is worthless as armor in the case of tank armor. unless you mean spaced armor sheets (like with WW2 panzers) or 'cope cages' as those will make the HEAT warheads of ATGMS detonate early or deform

[@whiskey_tango_foxtrot__]

The American B-52 enters the chat...it's all about upgrades

[@LordEmperorHyperion]

S400 enters chat, turn back or get blown out of the air.

[@ImBigFloppa]

@@LordEmperorHyperion S-400s are pretty targets for Tomawhawks, LRASMs, JAASMs, and ALCMs. Hell, an AARGM-ER mounted to an F-35 will have a field day with them

[@John-hi9pw]

​@@ImBigFloppa...,and all the "wonder weapons" employed by the Ukrainians.

[@reload.8056]

​@@ImBigFloppaif so why hasn't the LGBTQ nato hasn't given the Ukrainian nazi Bandera boys those weapons yet? What are they scared of? Keep the military industrial complex going?

[@Robbiehans]

⁠@@LordEmperorHyperion since the beginning of the war in Ukraine Three S-400 systems have been destroyed two of them were hit by Himars

[@AaronRowland-y5w]

This reminds me of the AK-47 still being used in the year 2023 which is still the main battle infantry gun for most army's around the world

[@sunnyboner676]

Worked wonders in Afghanistan. America’s war took 20 years and $2.2 trillion dollars to successfully replace the Taliban with the Taliban 😅 Those pesky goat herders in sandals driving mopeds armed with an AK-47 were quite damaging to the American reputation. The US exit from Afghanistan was quite telling.

[@lancecahill5486]

The AK-47's 7.62x39 rounds are far more destructive than the modern 5.56 rounds currently being used by the US Army.

[@6.5x55]

​@@lancecahill5486and then the Russians adopted a weaker version of the 5.56 as its military standard😉

[@Perra1901]

@@6.5x55 Yet the 5,45x39 and it still more of a person stopper than the 556. Not as high velocity as 556 but it tumbles after hit so its stopping/shocking power are still there where as US veterans have said on so many occasions they hit the guy 4-5 times in the chest with 5.56 but he still runs towards them and they have to put another 5-10 round into the person because the bullets hits but they are soo fast that they dont have any real shocking power just that the the guy is dead but he just dont know it yet. Dont forget Nato calls the 5.45x39 for the poison Bullet due to its unstable and unpredictable nature after it hits. There is a Nato documentary called "Armadillo" where a Danish soldier in Afghanistan gets hit by a 5.45x39 in his leg/waist area front side but the bullet exits his body around the armpit area. Yes the guy survives but he is out of combat due the massive shock to his body from that hit and you really can see his trauma/shock hes hardly even bleeding until he starts to comeback from the shock. So are 2-3 other soldiers who needing to take care of the guy, thats 2-4 guns less firing back at contacts at squad level.. A5.56 hit he would prolly still stay in combat until he would have died from bleeding out instead of get shocked out of combat. Saw a cop shooting a gunman on the highway where the cops shot the gunman with a AR15 aka 5.56, he fell down but was up straight after 2 in the chest. Then it continued for another 4-5mins or so until he finally bleed out. Lotsa risk of him shooting back etc. Now had they used a 7.62x51 he would be down and shocked and it would be over right there, he would prolly not survived anyways but the last 5 minute risk to all would not be there. Now what did i mention this soldier and this highway gunman... What do they have in common? They both have alot of adrenalin running in their system and that also lowers that amount of shock you get from getting hit. Now yes the 5.56 does have a shock value as all hits do but when high on adrenalin you wont feel the shock from 5.56. But if you dont have any adrealin pumping in youre system then you get the shock when hit.. Just that in combat or very intense/stressfully situations youre body are just pumping that adrenalin kick soofast into youre body that you wont notice it. 5.45x39 is designed to take out soldier full of adrenalin. 5.56x45 was designed on a range for range use then converted to combat.. It is what it is.

[@Green0871]

@@6.5x55 5.45

[@taylor-t1y]

extra mobile artillery is how the older variants are being used

[@peterstubbs5934]

KNOB comment. Were you ever in the military? Using WHICH rounds, Armour Piercing...no use. Hesh, very limited splash effect. Go back to your computer games sonny.

[@jozseftakacs2649]

What makes the T54 and T 55 dangerous?? The sheer fact that they were designed and built for single porpoise. That is to KILL...

[@CarlosBenito28]

They are still very valuable , especially when they are used as infantry fighting vehicle as many of them have been fitted with upgraded armor protection.

[@sezwo5774]

Russia use old tanks as mobile artillery pieces. No need for armor! Just arrive at frontline location, dig in tank at slight angle allowing long range targeting and fire like howitzer. After 600 or so shells fired they are either re-fitted with new barrels from storage or scraped.

[@CarlosBenito28]

Yes, they're also being used as self-propelled artillery to provide fire support, in defence and offensives@@sezwo5774

[@clarkwilson6340]

Not what they were made for and no if you upgraded them then the cost is the same as making T 90s LOL They brew up quick when hit; wouldnt want to be the grunt near them when they blow;

[@MoseleyJon]

And one would assume that the people in charge would use their equipment in the most effective way, rather than the most idiotic possible way

[@LeroxYT]

I think what many people also not realise is that many modern Tanks from Ukraine do not have ap rounds in their ammo, because their mostly fighting infantry or armored cars, and ERA is still good enough to protect from a modern heat or he round

[@ds9902]

Russia has upgraded every one of the tanks prior to sending them to Ukraine they are even better than new.

[@depsydawn9206]

I highly doubt that. If they're struggling to upgrade their already existing T-72's fleet, I don't think they upgrade the T-55... Unless you're telling me that all of those supposed upgrades for the T-72 are going to the T-55's?

[@Cotac_Rastic]

​@@depsydawn9206What is the T72 struggling with in its modernization? Way too many of those programs in ex Soviet states to keep track tbh.

[@SRDPS2]

RedEffect breakdown Not even ERA, just stock tank

[@tonyennis1787]

Folks, he's clearly joking

[@patriotenfield3276]

The only thing they are missing is in terms of firepower. Since China has new upgrades for their Type 59 and Type 69 which include laser rangefinders , 125mm Smoothbore gun and a new suspension to support the weight of the gun. Examples are Type 59 BD durjoy , Type 59 G and Type 59b/ Al Zarrar .

[@frankking439]

Sounds good until they meet a Bradley or Himars.

[@MoseleyJon]

But again you are assuming that the purpose of a tank is to go toe-to-toe with another tank in a shining blaze of glory. The purpose of tanks and other military hardware is to win battles, not to indulge the egos of the tank crews.

[@MoseleyJon]

"The only thing they are missing is in terms of firepower. " Again, if your brain is stuck on assuming that one-on-one tank-on-tank battles is the only thing that tanks are used for. Remember that the USA destroyed far-superior Nazi Tiger tanks in WW2 with POS Sherman tanks. We out-numbered the Nazi tanks with inferior tanks, learned how to maneuver as a team, and ganged up on superior tanks and blew them to Valhalla.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

Chinese tanks are based from Soviet designs.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

​ How's that been working out so far?

[@Mr_Fu_Manchu]

Almost any tank can be used in Ukraine, even T 34, depend a lot where and how you would use it. T 55 can't be used to break the Russian lines, but can be used as a recon or support vehicle.

[@PeetHobby]

With just a small fraction of the NATO budget, the entire Soviet army stockpile and RF army is being dismantled before our eyes. That's the deal of the century!

[@ImBigFloppa]

These vatniks cry over the $40b we send to Ukraine acting like our military no longer exists because of it like it isn't 4% of our annual military budget

[@nztitirangi]

Imagine 100,000 T54/5 tanks driving to Transnistria. How could the allies stop this?

[@imrekalman9044]

The Soviets (excluding production elsewhere) built twice as many T-54/55 than NATO built tanks of all types combined to this day.

[@richardmongello579]

The T 54 and T 55 are two of the best medium tanks ever fielded.

[@carpenter3069]

I wonder how well they've been maintained? If they have been maintained well, then they could be a major factor.

[@geoffroberts1126]

I'm sorry, but you used 'maintained well' in the context of ancient Russian tanks, stored in the open for decades.

[@Cotac_Rastic]

​@@geoffroberts1126 Where do we get all these resident hermits living inside of Russian military installations.

[@geoffroberts1126]

@@Cotac_Rastic Put it this way, guards at these places go through a lot of vodka, tanks have things that can be ripped out and sold for scrap. No one looks at the old stuff to see if it's been bandicooted... One story I got from a former Sov SAM op, they went on exercise and it was noted the Travelling Wave Tube for one of the radars was 'missing' (stolen and sold for scrap most likely). A replacement was ordered and with considerable difficulty arrived just before they departed for the exercise. Next day when the exercise was read to go, the techs went to get it to install it and it was gone. Stolen and doubtless sold for scrap. Again. Multiply by any number of similar incidents. And this was operational equipment, imagine what stockpiled 1960s tanks have lifted out of them.

[@MoseleyJon]

@@geoffroberts1126 No Russian tanks were stored in the open. Photographs of tanks kept only for PARTS were out in the open. The 6,000 T-54s in mothballs were not in the open. The Soviet Union built 100,000 T-54s and sold most of them. Those capable of being sold were not kept in the open

[@zenko247]

The first 3 days of the Innovation showed that, AND those were the best ones and battle ready to start with😂

[@binks3371]

Bradley's armour thickness is 15-30mm. Turret armour thickness of a T55 in more than 200 mm, frontal Hull more than 100mm. This is before you put ERA, cope cages etc. It is no match for modern tanks but it has its uses if employed properly.

[@MrBejkovec]

You are talking about Russians. They can't employ properly even their most modern tanks. T-90M's are hunted like rabbits.

[@dr-weeb]

They aren't used in tank battles, you would rarely see them even in the frontline. All the videos Ukrainians provide are showing t72 mods, t80, t90 but no older variants

[@binks3371]

@@dr-weeb they wouldn't be the first choice for front line duty, but they can be useful in defensive positions

[@dr-weeb]

@@binks3371 They are used as mobile artilleries, not as MBTs. Soviet tanks have an equipment to do such thing and can reach up to 16km with their HE shells. Considering that russians have tens of millions of them, they can just shoot without holding back

[@tihomirrasperic]

@@MrBejkovec The Russians will use it the old way AND a) or they will send 100x T-55 to attack in a narrow sector of 1 km at full speed b) or will use them as mobile barrage artillery let's say they are about to charge your position, and when their infantry moves, 100x of their tanks start barrage fire on your position they won't be 100% accurate, but it's enough that they make you hide and you can't shoot at their infantry

[@lexwoodwright]

Abrams : for every 24 hours operation it requires 72 hours maintenance (pretty useless in war). Russian tanks simple and deadly!

[@AaronRowland-y5w]

The soviet union stock piled millions of ammunition ammo doesn't get old

[@jasonmusic9938]

lol

[@T_81535]

Dudes comparing the Abrams to Russian garbage🤣🤣

[@lok777]

@@AaronRowland-y5w I would not want to be the guy shooting 70 year old 120mm cannon rounds.

[@gameburn178]

Many of these relics have the same engines, electrical systems, fittings, rubber and synthetic components they had in them when manufactured -- many were left outside or in hangers with very little maintenance done on them. They will require much more maintenance than an Abrams or the typical Ukrainian tank now in use. Many will have to be pre-tested to see if they can even start and get up to anything close to their previous performance. At some point all old equipment/gear is more trouble to use than using nothing at all. Russia would be better off to get their hands on 10,000 anti-tank and anti-air manpads and go full defense. Especially now that Ukraine is figuring out the design and manufacture of a range of new drones, drones especially suitable for knocking out these metal coffins.

[@wouterkellerman4458]

What is not said is these tanks have thick armour, more than modern tanks.

[@heneraldodzz4978]

It's dangerous if you use it for fire support and artillery roles but not on head on confrontation/assault.

[@MoseleyJon]

"It's dangerous if you use it for fire support and artillery roles but not on head on confrontation/assault." "Doctor, it hurts when I hit my hand with this hammer." Doctor: "So stop hitting your hand with the hammer." Why would Russia engage in confrontation / assault? I will tell you why: Because over 1200 years Russia has learned that if you show off, you die. If you fight out of ego, you die. If you fight to create a news story, you die. Russia has been forced to fight wars to win wars. The U.S. fights wars to have a press conference about it and boast of their glory

[@deidresable]

It work in ukraine as static firesupport and infantry firesupport

[@pekkanumminen81]

You forget to mention a nice metal coffin for its crews.

[@peterstubbs5934]

But the Russians HAVENT GOT A CLUE AS TO HOW TO DO COMBINED ARMS WAREFARE. have you not been watching? Just how far can a T54/5 fire its rounds and with WHAT accuracy? In the mean time, Ukrainian drones/arty will decimate them.

[@deidresable]

Can you read and know what fire support meaning

[@edwardmurray2139]

@@peterstubbs5934 HOW ARE THE RUSSIANS STILL IN THE UKRAINE IF THEY DONT'S HAVE A CLUE?

[@lelandgrubson2736]

That's what the tank's indirect fire sights are for.

[@kskeel1124]

There has been very little tank on tank combat in Ukraine...

[@ВинниПух-у5п]

The T-55 has high-explosive fragmentation shells. But the 105mm L7 doesn’t have them at all. So the T-55 is worse for infantry.

[@lancecahill5486]

Russia has air superiority. It doesn't need to engage in tank battles.

[@lelandgrubson2736]

​@@ВинниПух-у5пyou do realise most of the T54s and T55s that Russia has are armed with 100mm guns right?

[@sezwo5774]

Propaganda don't mention Russia use old tanks as mobile artillery pieces. No need for armor! Just arrive at frontline location, dig in tank at slight angle allowing long range targeting and fire like howitzer. After 600 or so shells fired they are either re-fitted with new barrels from storage or scraped. Amunition is plenty.

[@MrJonasinfinity]

Borrell was laughing when RU sent this old tanks...now he is not laughing anymore.

[@sezwo5774]

Borrell is stupid. Propaganda don't mention Russia use old tanks as mobile artillery pieces. No need for armor! Just arrive at frontline location, dig in tank at slight angle allowing long range targeting and fire like howitzer. After 600 or so shells fired they are either re-fitted with new barrels from storage or scraped. Amunition is plenty.

[@zenko247]

YES THEY ARE

[@Scrat335]

The rifled barrel on these tanks means it can fire a 100mm high explosive round which can demolish structures of all kinds from as far away as 2000m. Tell me that won't come in handy in an infantry assault.

[@zenko247]

RIfled Barrels are unable to use a lot of modern ammunition ( that is the main reason the New British Challenger 3 tank has been given a Smooth bore ( FIRST British MBT ever to be fitted with one) and by the way a Challenger 1 tank can kill at 5000m to a T55

[@Scrat335]

@@zenko247 Both irrelevant in this battle space.

[@paty11648]

We have seen Leo and Challenger MBTs how they performed. Honestly these T-55 wont do any worst

[@zenko247]

ERR Challenger 1s killed 470 Russian tanks( mostly T72) in Iraq without loss, FOOL ( These are changer 2 Much improved and battle tested) Leos you have a point, they are new to REAL warfare

[@dritzzdarkwood4727]

If they're used as mobile mortar and defensively, they'll definitely be deadly enough. An old musket can still kill you, and these T-54s are by far still capable of bringing a threat to the theater of war.

[@tihomirrasperic]

The Croatian army regularly used the T-34 in the Homeland War a tank is a tank, and if you use it wisely, it's a big help even the Serbian T-80s were cautious when the T-34 was around because if a old tank shoots you tank from the side or behind, your tank wil be damaged enough that it is no longer combat operative

[@k2cenel637]

​@@tihomirrasperic😮

[@fryertuck6496]

They will never be near the front. There is a lot of HE ammunition sizes for this older gun that will expire soon. These guns will be used as mobile artillery behind the front to use up this older ammo if needed.

[@sezwo5774]

Exactly. Russia use old tanks as mobile artillery pieces. No need for armor! Just arrive at frontline location, dig in tank at slight angle allowing long range targeting and fire like howitzer. After 600 or so shells fired they are either re-fitted with new barrels from storage or scraped. Amunition is plenty.

[@rogerpratchet]

​@@sezwo5774don't forget the fact that even with its turret dismounted it'll make a good use as armoured hauler.

[@longduy5559]

100 triệu người Vietnam ủng hộ nước Nga xoá sổ chế độ thực dân và thế giới đơn cực.

[@kostjification]

Давно на вас Китай не нападал, очень зря.

[@lmeza1983]

Better than using a fence as cover and as long as they can shoot shells and avoid enemy artillery they are as deadly as 70 years ago.

[@alsenar2]

This is the same with the debate about how effective Tiger and Panther tanks were in world war 2. They were top tier tanks, but if one Tiger gets surrounded by 10 Shermans/T-34 it will probably lose the fight. And considering that a simple drone can nowadays already disable a tank...well then it does not matter if your tank is 10 years old or 50.

[@stevederp9801]

These tanks are honestly meant for a very basic concept. If they deploy 20,000 of these and flood them across a battlefield. Yes most of them will be destroyed. But the infantry that can flood in behind them until they are destroyed will allow them to take vast amounts of territory and then bring in artillery to hold that territory.

[@bluerisk]

Russia has maybe 2000 to 3000 tanks left which can actually brought back in service. The rest is rotten beyond repair after being neglected for decades. And so far even the more modern Russian versions did extremely poorly in this conflict. But also in the Iraq wars or the recent conflict with Armenia and Azerbaijan. This tanks are crap. As soon as drones or modern MANPADs come into play they are just sitting ducks. They have no place in a modern interconnected style of warfare. If NATO were directly involved in this conflict, Russia would been defeated within weeks.

[@kaasflip6941]

@bluerisk true and even if there where 20,000 of them good luck getting the required ammo and oil to the front.@@bluerisk

[@FBIOPENUP4251]

Blud had the balls to show a 76mm Sherman instead of the 75mm M4 Sherman 💀

[@heroldmutebi8200]

I think most of these are to be used for artillery...kind of like howitzers.

[@davedevonlad7402]

A lot of people on here are saying tanks can be used for artillery 🙄 THEY CAN'T!!! tanks are tanks NOT artillery they are completely different systems. A Russian tank has an elevation of only around 15° that is absolutely useless for lobbying a shell over a hill or to bring a shell vertically down on something. Modern artillery has a huge elevation range they can almost fire from - 3° to + 80° no tank can even come close to that. So please stop confusing an artillery piece to a tank. The tanks you are describing are more like a pillbox in a static position with a limited arc and elevation of fire. It's completely different.

[@erikscariot5937]

This prove the goodness of this war machine . Medium tank yet good gun, decent armour, simple to mantain an to operate, available in large quantities . Anything to counter pose for each points ?

[@ralphzechendorf1644]

If most of them are to be wasted by drones or precision artillery shells before reaching the combat line, they might as well send these old tanks. Losing 10 of these oldies is not as problematic as losing a Challenger II ...

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

Losing a Challenger 2 is especially problematic for PR reasons.

[@RideShootDrink]

@@BojanPeric-kq9et well...two of them already been lost

[@depsydawn9206]

You're also losing the crew. You now have to train more soldiers using these old tanks. Compared to the Leopard with good crew survival rate, the surviving crew can just simply hop into another Leopard. This is just another T-34 against Sherman arguments, and we all know the true best tank is the one who can save their crew the most.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

@@depsydawn9206Leopard 2 has good crew survival rate because it hasn't seen any serious action. Leclerc has even better.

[@phillipsmith3366]

A tank is a tank. T-55 or T-72 or Leopard or Abrams every tank has weaknesses and strengths. There’s probably parts for these tanks everywhere and readily available. But these tanks probably don’t offer much protection from anti tank weapons but if you’re driving a Abrams it you need a lot of training and it only takes specialized parts and you need a mechanize crew with you.

[@MoseleyJon]

And, sadly but undeniable, Russia doesn't really care much about protection for its crews. If Russia sent 6,000 old T-54s out of mothballs into Ukraine, and 1 came back intact, Russia wouldnt' care as long as the won the war. Not remotely admirable, but that's reality.

[@bradlookabaugh7184]

The T54/55 is iconic. The tanker standing on top of the turret with a canvas leather helmet resupplying ammo thtough the commanders hatch with a cigarette dangling from his mouth is iconic as well.

[@donkoiot]

Comments section is on another level. Ppl this ppl that. Tank is a tank bla bla. Now lets make a list of what a tank needs to operate- 1st you need a decent crew. 2nd you need logistics (fuel, ammo) and mechanics (parts, repair yards, towing vehicles) behind it. Now if you make some calculations, the resources you need to operate T-90 vs T-55 are kinda similar (same amount of ammo, same amount of fuel) T-55 needs one more crew member since if doesnt have autoloader and im pretty sure since its 70 years old tank it will break down much more often (more repairs). Thats why keyboard generals will stay behind the keyboard, you will have to invest in the same logistics and training for a 70 years old tank with 70 years old optics, gun, ammo, radio (unless you invest bunch of industrial power and try to modernize t-55 instead of producing new T--90) Other than that tank is a tank.

[@NoName-md5zb]

They can be used as a pressure cooker.

[@samempstreet379]

The turrets, they fly really high when the tanks explodes.

[@jordyvermeulen2121]

And ukraine has been using our dated t-64 tanks as MBT . T-55 is a perfect infantrie support vehicle ... Byw their also pretty usefull as cheap atelirry

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

T-64 is totally different league compared to T-55 or T-62.

[@ImranKhan-ph6tw]

T 54 penetrations vary from 200mm to 290mm depending upon round so yes it can kill modern tank also

[@stylishcheng5988]

"Purposely built for warfare"...WTF else would they be built for?

[@JakeJ.-yi1du]

Well there's the T-14 Armada purposely built for military parades

[@JonDoe-t4w]

I've seen those Russian tanks. They keep their tracks on the ground and their turrets reaching for the stars.

[@sezwo5774]

Russia use old tanks as mobile artillery pieces. No need for armor! Just arrive at frontline location, dig in tank at slight angle allowing long range targeting and fire like howitzer. After 600 or so shells fired they are either re-fitted with new barrels from storage or scraped.

[@AlexeyK-mm2zy]

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate.

[@sumerbc7409]

I've seen the huge storage yards of Russian vehicles, a bunch of rusted junk that needs extensive maintenance/mechanical overhauls to be battle ready. But on paper they look great. Many are just hulls with no turret rusting away uncovered outside for decades

[@oskarwall2611]

western economy does not have that opportunity to use old junk rusted ... because they already cutted down it and send to make razors for gillete products.... :-)

[@falkschneider7953]

Dude, that's only a target

[@attilamarics3374]

Even the US stores its tansk outside. These talking points are so uneducated.

[@falkschneider7953]

😂

[@paytonestrada7746]

@@attilamarics3374 Idiot ignoring all the other points.

[@knurft886]

155 t55 where in service of ukrainian army, plus a few t55 recovery vehicles

[@planetmikusha5898]

A $500 dollar FPV drone with a 30 mm grenade can take out T72s, T80s, and even T90s, the T54/T55 doesn't stand a chance.

[@EtokaRecords]

my Technics SL-1200 is around 35 years old, still the best turntable, unbeatable, immortal beast

[@YanniEhm]

Is it smooth bore, or rifled?

[@vortexgen1]

Most of those tanks are more dangerous to the tanks crews than the enemy, unless you have no tanks at all.

[@mirekslechta7161]

What is happening in Ukraine is on scope and scale which NAT0 was not even able to imagine and has no answer to it. NAT0 has almost no ammo left, no artillerry , no tanks, no missilles to stand up Russia. Imagine, U. K. , or some people in U.K. want to fight Russia directly while only having 40(!) Chalanger tanks in working order :) Ridicul*us NAT0 is a paper tiger. NAT0 spent 2O years learning how to fight Afghan wedding parties and Iraqi villagers, because that is pretty much what NAT0 was doing. NAT0 forgot how to do a large scale ground combat. NAT0 even has no means to do large scale combat. China is there for Russia, Russia is there for China.... Who is there for USA? United Kingdom with their 40(!) Chalenger tanks in working order ??? Or Germany? Germany is not only 100% out of ammo, but on the top of that Germany was even bombed by USA!!!!(Nord Stream) Ridicul*us NAT0, unfortunately still able to make mess around the globe !!! Nowadays we can see the "quality" of USA´s weapons in counterofensive in Ukraine. The only things which are remarkable about those guns are the PRICE and the SPEED in which these are being wiped out... USA only has the most expensive military in the world, while Russia has the strongest army in the world and the most experienced army in the world..

[@panzerpoodle]

Als mobile atelerie immer noch zu gebrauchen

[@BerlinCardYard]

Combined with a simple cheap camera drone they can accuratly hit a target more than 4000ms away...

[@LapkaKutiapka]

Max distance for indirect shoot is about 14 km.

[@gfgffdd]

That is impressive.

[@Tony-zg4yf]

Direct shoting 1200m. Yes 14 000m as an artillery piece. But it is not a howitzer. On the other side a leopard can take it off from 5 km.

[@LapkaKutiapka]

@@Tony-zg4yf but firstly Leopard should cross few minefields and trench lines. Which is seems to be too deadly for this expensive equipment. Plus don't forget about old T-54 shooting from 14km. Only 1 hit from 100mm HE round will damage all termal sights and external modules of this modern toy.

[@DaniloNarducci-kr2jf]

​@@LapkaKutiapkaLapka finally someone who understands something about how a t52 tank works with an addition of technology is the dangerous for western tanks . Plus the advantage is that it doesn't get stuck like we've seen with Western wagons!! From my personal experience for work or seen kilometers of new or overhauled armaments of all kinds! I have been going to Russia and Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Poland and Eastern Europe for twenty years.There are two Russias of weapons of all kinds!! We Westerners are told the opposite of everything!! Hunger in Russia does not exist and will never exist.. We are the ones who worry about ending up badly, we are not self-sufficient because we lack the main resources!!🌙

[@andrewyoonhobai8453]

if the anti tank missiles go away, or cannot be produced. Tanks suddenly become heavy hitters on a battlefield, they cannot advance when the missiles are extremely well designed to guide themselves up up and away!

[@andrewyoonhobai8453]

ww2, but tank combat fully makes a return as they only run on gasoline and metal shells

[@sirael1689]

It's pretty much dangerous, it doesn't matter how old it is, if you throw any cheap anti-drone defense on them and add reactive armor, it's a cheap solution to how Russia can advance on a battlefront where defenses are weak, that is 80% actual real battlefront.

[@7thsealord888]

Given trained crews, adequate maintenance, proper support and competent leadership, these old tanks could make a real difference .....

[@tihomirrasperic]

you saw how everyone laughed at the English "aluminum tanks" and then in Ukraine they made a real mess in the Russian background everything depends on the intelligence of the crew, how to make the best use of the equipment you have even the old T-34 is not to be written off, and it can change the outcome of the day

[@Aktoto1]

Dangerous yeah right, but only for their crews

[@falkschneider7953]

living beings does not matter to russians

[@falkschneider7953]

Think ahead of the money we give

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

Less video games.

[@glfan896]

The only T55 used by Russia in Ukrainian front I've heard was a moving bomb. On the other hand when they get modern fire control system will be as effective against infantry as Leo 2 or Abrams (RH 120 is not good field gun, D 10 T is excellent in that role), and in Ukraine infantry is the main target for tanks. Are reliable, long time can operate operated only by crew, are available in large quantities, they have to be scrapped eventually anyway, and Russia has a lot of 100 mm ammunition. Historically loses in T55 crews are not bigger than losses of Western tank crews (ask Jews). So why not?

[@evangiles4403]

You do realise to disable a tank you only need to damage the track don't you once you do that it is just a piece of artillery All the stuff I seeing coming from tankers that know better

[@glfan896]

@@evangiles4403 Of course. Leo, Challenger or Abrams too. In T 55 crew changes a track link in fifteen minutes. I don't think this could be achieved by crew in Western tanks.

[@adityapuar3848]

Everyone excited about Tanks Vs Tank battles, but most of the equipment knocked out in Ukraine was taken out by ATGMs and drones, plus artillery. So these tanks are as “Good” or “Bad” as Leopards, when it comes to the tasks tanks are being used for in Ukraine. The usefulness (or uselessness) of leopards, T90 and other high performance MBTs in this battlefield was available for all to see, over the past 22 months.

[@TheDude50447]

A good chunk of comments seem to think that those tanks will actually be used as tanks. While certainly possible its much more likely that they will serve as makeshift artillery. The very old models chosen by the russians likethe T54 hace one thing in common. They have a rifled gun that can fire standard and cheap ammunition and they all have from the factory integrated artillery sights. So its very likely that those things are purely intended as artillery with the added benefit of being a tank should they come under attack. Another indication is that russia hasnt (at least to my knowledge) pulled out the T64 which is a much more capable tank and still in storage. They also still have T72s and T80s that are being reactivated.

[@NaV3P]

Every Video's we've seen so far of the T-55's are old stocks, without any Upgrades. No armor, no digital sights or modern electronics. The T-55 was phased out from the Russian army long ago. Their mechanics, spareparts etc the whole logestic to maintain the tanks are gone. However any tank is better than no tank? Espescially if it actually gets upgraded. Truth is, Russias tank factories are working around the clock refurbishing their T-80 and T-72s that also has deteriorated in Storage. Thats why we dont see any upgraded T-55s from Russia.

[@brokeandtired]

They still work if all you want is to use a T-54/55 as is a direct fire infantry support gun (like an early model Stug III)....think more direct artillery and not tank...Like the new US Booker role. The question is does Russia have the extra logistics left to keep them usable? Because if not then they will be fighting with the real tanks for precious supply cargo space on the trucks and using up truck tanker fuel.

[@Orcawhale1]

Russia still operates a number of T-55 based platforms. So there's still a support infrastructure in place. What's more T-55 share parts with T-62 and T-72, so parts arn't a problem either. T-90 is also being produced, btw. You forget about them.

[@fred6319]

@@brokeandtired .think more INdirect artillery

[@ImBigFloppa]

@@Orcawhale1 Russia doesn't operate any T-54 platforms as far as I can tell. They also share absolutely nothing in common with the T-72 and share a good bit of stuff with the T-62, but like the T-54, it also shares nothing with other Russian vehicles. Russia is already struggling to maintain their T-80s, T-72s, T-72BMs (rebranded as the T-90) and T-64s that they use. Adding in 2 more fodder tanks with nothing in common will only further strain Russia's already bad logistics

[@Orcawhale1]

@@ImBigFloppa They operate a number of armored recovery vehicles, which are based on T-54/55 platform. And T-72 can use some T-54/55 parts, like the roadwheels. T-90 isn't a rebranded T-72BM, btw. T-72BM is a seperate upgrade program, which was also adopted before the Soviet collapse. As for T-72 they are upgraded into T-72B3 and T-80's into T-80BVM. T-64 are given to seperatist forces.

[@nobodyisbest]

They are most dangerous for their own crews. Modern infantry with javelins is a lot more effective at killing vintage tanks than the other way around.

[@kristijangrgic9841]

They are used as artillery not to pierce lines

[@STRYKER1467]

The Ukrainians use outdated T64s and Leopard1's and russia is using T-54,55,62 that seems to be fine, russia also got mothballed T-64s but they probably dont use them.

[@mrkeykush693]

the fact is, Ukraine also uses T-55's (in form of the M-55S), the only upgrade that it recieved was a better sight and an L7 105mm gun. And yeah, Russia sent a batch of T-55's to the front to be used as support rules, not in the front line as people believe

[@Argophobiac]

@@mrkeykush693The M55S doesn’t have just an upgraded sight and gun, the whole vehicle was overhauled. The engine was modernized, giving it more horsepower, while much of the tank was covered with Rafael ERA blocks as shown in the video. As for the sight, not only does the driver have a day/night sight with a laser rangefinder, the commander also has an independent stabilized sight for acquiring targets. In today’s battlefield, the tank that sees the enemy first is the one likely to be victorious, and the superior optics and FCS of the M-55S and even the Leopard 1A5 will give the Ukrainians an edge over most Russian T-55s, T-62s, and early model T-72s. With the tanks that Russia sends to Ukraine getting older and less capable over time, Ukraine is likely to be able to outmatch Russian armor the longer the conflict drags on.

[@YarisWRC2]

These tanks are a mobile death trap, it is like watching aliens fighting cave men, their value is equal to one Javelin

[@neilba1]

the fact that they aren't shell proof makes them pretty dangerous 🤣

[@ECECECECEC]

What makes them dangerous? Is it carbon monoxide?

[@bonausmil4837]

Your ignorance is noted

[@JakeJ.-yi1du]

Clearly the turret tosses make them dangerous, I mean one of those flying turrets is bound to land on some unfortunate Ukrainian troops...

[@MillennialGamerVault]

The recent iteration of T54/55 mentioned in the video at 3:27 called "Al Zarrar" is used by Pakistan Army which was upgraded to modern standards having a 125 mm smoothbore gun and ERA and composite armor protection. Its part of the armored corps as well as mechanized infantry warfare, in which its effective in provding firepower, mobility and protection to the infantry just like a modern APC or IFV could do. Ironically, Pakistan Army was able to upgrade its T54/T55 tanks with the assistance of the Ukraine.

[@konrad9240]

Doesn’t matter how old they are, the most important they do their job.

[@TheLifeOfKane]

The Auto-Loader makes it wildly dangerous for the crew when fighting against superior Western Arms 😂😂 🎉 Its like Orc Confetti 🎊

[@Skiskiski]

Lenin said that great quantities have quality of their own.

[@mardikermardiker8514]

I always ask a question to myself - what capitalistic Russia would do without Soviet legacy...?

[@matthewlewis-zw3tf]

Using these is a great idea against infantry and light to medium armored vehicles. ❤😊

[@Swagmaster07]

Small correction, but T-55s/54s do have High Explosive ammunition, bexauce they still use rifled barrels, smoothbore cannons need more complicated ammunition for infantry support.

[@rubyk334]

Correction: They donated T55 to DPR and LRPR to defend themselves, at the front are T90, theres no footage of T55 being destroyed, stop spreading lies

[@rhettbutler289]

Quantity has a quality all of its own

[@cedhome7945]

Who researched this ? Why would nato intervine in Hungary it was part of the Soviet block .if you cannot get simple history right what else did you get wrong ?