So How Many Ancient T-54s Does Russia Still Have?

[@CovertCabal]

Grab the NordVPN deal ➼ nordvpn.com/covert. 4 Bonus Months on 2 year plan Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee!

[@arturoBbrito]

Is their technology that can remotely control the old tanks, so it can be used as distraction from a main attack?

[@ingamgoduka57]

As much everyone doesn't want to admit or spread fear Russia is winning this as they take Bakhmut Ukraine has to prepare for defense of Kiev again lets hope the ghost of Kiev will defend again cause the Luck of logistics is not going to be same. Or Russia will Target Odessa will if they take it Ukraine will land locked that will spell bad news for Moldova which masses already pro Russian.

[@darrena2625]

Even the Russian state-sponsored TV are kinda taking the mick out of them. Speaks volumes.

[@rexanguis214]

I bet they have a few thousand laying around…..even adjusted for inflation they can sell well under 100,000$……javelin missiles cost more……really good idea really…..hope they swing down and pay the pope a visit

[@matrixfull]

is it possible they are gonna use those tanks to do first part of training for new crew so that they can use their training tanks for less time for final stages of training? also is it possible that they are just tranporting those tanks to scrap for metal and use raw metal for new modern tanks?

[@randomuser5443]

There goes my dreams of buying a cheap tank

[@trollmastermike52845]

Might as well fork over the cash for an export abrams

[@saledin-wd2gj]

Are you sure? More like your dreams come true, if you look at another perspective

[@Snp2024]

Now how will I defend my house against burglary 😢

[@syjiang]

Um. Given how corrupt their army is. Your chances of buying a tank on blackmarket is much higher. Really hope Western intelligence are actively buying stuff from Russian black market to corrode their army and supply the Ukrainians.

[@alf3071]

just go ask an ukrainian farmer for one

[@loupgarou-dj3tm]

My bet, based on nothing, is that they'll send the T55's in without upgrading them and use them as artillery until they've used up their stock of rusty old ammo for the main guns. Just a temporary stopgap while they throw more money at trying to produce more modern ammo.

[@hyhhy]

That would be a perfectly sensible use of these old tanks, which have been kept in storage in the first place for such a purpose.

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

If these end up in Ukraine, my thinking is that these will be set up for defense in depth in preparation for upcoming Ukrainian offensives. You can pre-sight them to approaches around strategic positions. They'd be near useless against hard armor, but even HE rounds will give an IFV a pause, and they're more than sufficient to take out soft skin vehicles and approaching infantry. They're also less of a big deal to lose, thus making more sense why you might want to cluster them around areas you expect you might lose. In that capacity, you can also still use them as indirect fire support, which you can also pre-sight on pre-set paths of travel that you can encourage with use of minefields. This is what makes the most intelligent use of these, and if that is correct, then these indicate that Russia is preparing to try to mitigate losing ground.

[@halilkunge9295]

@@FoxtrotYouniform they are not a big deal to lose but the crew is...

[@MrWolfstar8]

The tank’s role is mostly artillery in Ukraine. T55 just as useful as the next tank in that role. What’s really needed is lightweight truck artillery. Setup, fire a few drone guided rounds and move. The cheaper the better.

[@jameswysocki6806]

I saw somewhere that Iran has literal tons of 100mm HE shells that they are "donating" to Russia, which I think would support the indirect fire theory. I also saw a video on the current condition of the "modern" Russian artillery being in dire need of rebarreling, so the T55/54 for indirect the fire could take the load off while the existing artillery is serviced.

[@mixererunio1757]

That 4th-crew-member issue and the fact that they are just absurdly old tasks make me agree with Ryan McBeth that they'll probably just use them as SPGs

[@culterwaleddy]

That was the intention for the T62s, that were sent to Ukraine, but they've since been used as front line tanks.

[@freemanreed5228]

Ruskies not that smart! Maybe they will de mine an area for the main assault by the Russians. That's more likely. You don't have to train anybody that way.

[@recoil53]

The 1st Guards Tank Army has been spotted with T-62s. That is supposed to be their premiere, elite, front line unit.

[@quinnjackson9252]

I honestly don't know about that. Is it logical? in the event of a Ukrainian breakthrough, they would be sitting ducks. They have bad optics, modern tanks would see them well in advance. They have terrible gun stability, making it hard to actually hit their target. And, they have weak and outdated cannons, which should be made irrelevant by half decent composite armor and ERA. Not to mention the T-54's abysmal reverse speed, making it next to impossible to retreat, especially when faced with a nimble enemy. More of an embarrassment than anything.

[@freemanreed5228]

@@quinnjackson9252 What about the artillery dispersed anti-tank mines? Did a lot of damage at Vuledar. I hope the Ukrainians have a stock pile of those.

[@fanta4897]

A tiny correction: apparently the T-34s that Russia has are mostly post-war ones made in Czechoslovakia. When they wanted them for parades, they found out that they don't have enough and bought a bunch of them from Vietnam which got them from Czechoslovakia. Other than that, wouldn't Russia still have some IS tanks before they'd need to go for T-34?

[@tatem2733]

Probably T-10's instead of IS's

[@emperorfancypants2512]

Those old heavy tanks could barely go 300km without a serious breakdown when they were brand new.. they will barely make it off the train

[@fanta4897]

@@emperorfancypants2512 Considering current pace of russian advances are something like 100 meters a day, then 300 km is more than enough.

[@emperorfancypants2512]

@@fanta4897 you really think you can start the engine every day and it just working? When you need it most it wont work, believe me

[@fanta4897]

@@emperorfancypants2512 Yeah I know. I'm not stupid. And neither are Russians (at least not that stupid). I'm pretty sure that if they do pull them out of the scrapyard, or wherever they store them, they will at least get it up to working order.

[@Crodmog83]

Mad respect for all the work you put into this video.

[@berardoferrari]

shill for ukraine and US and NATO ! LOL!!! notice how he never shows ukraine casualties, ukraine has lost 6000 tanks to the russians.

[@bodstrup]

They may be less that optimal for use against modern tanks - but could still be highly useful as fire support for trenches, especially if protected by earth berms and facing the flanks of an attack. A 100mm HE round - while old, can still cause considerable pain if you are hit.

[@captnmaico6776]

As always a tank is better than no tank.

[@GerManBearPig]

95% of all vehicles in ukraine arent tanks and can easily be disabled with much smaller guns So I find the discussion about tank calibers klinda pointless because most tank kills are done by drones, artillery, RPGs or ATGM or even IFVs with autocannons that disable those tanks

[@realnapster1522]

More Russian tanks means bad news for Ukraine. Ukraine doesn’t really have modern tanks in huge numbers. So even older tanks are a big threat to their infantry.

[@jordanazevedo5688]

@@realnapster1522 this was the comment I was looking for. As this war has always been a numbers game. If Ukraine has one MBT against 20 T-54/55 it doesn’t matter what the MM is. A stationary tank is a dead tank.

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@jordanazevedo5688 Actually, one modern Abrams, Leopard II, or Challenger II could probably take out most of those 20 T-55s all by itself if it is well-handled. The modern MBT could start taking them out over a mile away, and they couldn’t return the favor until they were literally right next to it, unless they managed a rear shot or a close-range shot to the side (both of which are unlikely). And then there’s the fact that Ukrainian infantry could and would be taking out those T-55s with just an original-flavor RPG. Even some WWII HEAT rounds could take those things out.

[@1977Yakko]

You mentioned their use as artillery which might be possible as reportedly (as if anything can be believed on the internet) the barrels on their normal artillery is wearing out and they're using these T-54/55 tanks as a stopgap as the barrels get replaced on their primary artillery. I find it shocking that Russia doesn't have some sort of rotation going to keep some artillery in the field and some being maintained/refurbished but given the problem Russia has been having with logistics, maybe it shouldn't be too surprising at this point.

[@Argophobiac]

Russia has thousands of artillery pieces in storage according to the Military Balance 2022, the very fact that barrels are wearing out on the frontline speaks to the horrendous state of Russian logistics. They literally just need to send replacement guns to the front and send the worn-out ones back, and yet this has not been happening on the scale required to sustain this volume of artillery fire.

[@1977Yakko]

@@Argophobiac I guess it depends on the caliber and range of the artillery pieces in storage. If they're older types with shorter range than what is being used now, then it might not be practical to take the old artillery out of storage if it'll get destroyed by longer range counter battery fire from Ukraine. That's just speculation on my part as I don't know the types and numbers the Russians have in storage. Given Russia is the epitome of using the "King of Battle" (artillery), the idea of them running low on artillery is even more amazing than their apparent shortage of functioning tanks on the front line. It wasn't long ago there was a report of them getting millions of artillery rounds from N. Korea. The U.S. has been emptying its artillery stockpiles as well to aid Ukraine but the arsenals that make the shells are running overtime to restock. Not sure if Russia has the capability to restock quickly enough to meet their battlefield needs. Be it corruption, incompetence or some combination of both, Russias logistics is losing them this conflict... or even if they "win", it'll cost way more than it should've. This will go down as a pyrrhic victory.

[@simokoistinen276]

It is also a way to conserve 122mm and 152 mm artillery rounds and build up some stocks since these don't use those shells.

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

Both sides use tanks as artillery. It is even said that tanks have better accuracy in this role.

[@harmless6813]

Remember, this war was supposed to last a few weeks at most. So of course they didn't make any long term plans ...

[@crazywarriorscatfan9061]

At the beginning of the war this situation would've been unimaginable

[@nicknick9081]

Yeah, if you weren’t paying attention. The rest of us saw this happening during the Maidan coup.

[@gingerlicious3500]

​@@nicknick9081 Cry about it.

[@stardestroyer5161]

@@nicknick9081 don’t be stupid

[@512TheWolf512]

@@nicknick9081 "coup" ruzzian fascist detected

[@adamhall5298]

@@nicknick9081 revolution* Go outside, touch some grass, and talk to Ukrainians.

[@gansior4744]

didnt you hear Tankies? They sent oldest tanks cuz now 1500 T-14's await for a real invasion. Or as I like to call it- "Cope harder"

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

👍😅😆

[@Meoldson]

That gives me a cope-hard-on.

[@Flamechr]

"they" haven't sent their best yet 😂

[@SCH292]

These T54 and T55 tank fan boys are coping so hard they are starting to sound like Hitler in the movie DOWNFALL. Remember in DOWNFALL when Hitler said something about Steiner? Once Steiner attack everything will be okay. Yep. Steiner is going to smash the Soviet in the east and turn around to smash the allies at the west. These Russian Tank fan boys believe that once Russia mobilize, line up, organize these tanks and attack in massive wave these T54 and T55 will break through turning this war around. 🤣

[@1977Yakko]

They might be wishing they had 1500 T-14's at this point... or maybe not. YT channel called Lazerpig did an interesting video on the T-14 Armata and the problems it has. Whether or not a eccentric drunken pig is your go-to source for info is up to you but the actual guy apparently has/had a job in British Intelligence so maybe he's good at analysis. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6DThJ95fLF6h5Y

[@Chopstorm.]

If I remember correctly, not all T-54s had the evacuators.

[@MaxCroat]

I believe the bore evacuator was added later on as a modification. In fact, even in this video you can see in some of the pictures the tanks that don't have it.

[@biro9328]

@@MaxCroat the only reliable way to differentiate between T55 and T54 is the ventilation mushrum on the turret (T55 is CBRN rated and they removed that vent to make it sealable )

[@MaxCroat]

@@biro9328 i never said that the bore evacuator is a way to distinguish them, but yes as was said in the video that is the only difference between them, all the other modifications were put om both tanks

[@GlenCychosz]

M55S tank has a 105mm L7 gun.

[@florianN132]

Yep, and that makes a HUGE difference compared to the russian ones with their original latest spec guns.

[@denismilic1878]

And modern electronics, optics, a new motor, and upgraded armor. Slovenians kept theirs in perfect condition.

[@CrocodileCe]

slovenia transferred all its shells for the m55, but it did not have modern shells for it, there is simply no other equipment using the L7 in ukraine to use them for these m55, although it is possible that they were given modern L7 shells additionally, although this was not announced

[@kuunoooo7293]

​@@denismilic1878 nah, it isnt much better than a regular t55, it has no thermals, an old gun wich cant fire a he round and it doesnt have any composite armour. But still those would be better than plain t55's

[@EngelDerVerdammnis]

@@CrocodileCe Leopard 1 which is said to be delivered to Ukraine soon has a L7 too. Also the gun been widely used across Nato and some other countries before Rheinmetalls 120mm replaced it. There should be some ammunition leftovers and production capabilities for fairly modern shells. Also Leo1 and M55S are likely only used as borderguard near Belarus and Belgorod region not needing shells as much as frontline used tanks.

[@jannegrey593]

Not rusted? Probably enough for indirect fire. EDIT: I should qualify that they would be used only to patch some parts of the front, while they re-barrel their actual artillery) Also Russia theoretically have some T-10's (so IS-10). I wonder if it is true. EDIT: And 100 mm projectiles are in bigger stocks than "odd" 115 mm. Whether they are of good enough quality is a different matter, but Iran still produces them. And many other countries that more or less silently support Russia.

[@ryanlabarbera2510]

I doubt Russia would find anything more than 20 tanks from all IS variants that would still technically work

[@dogsnads5634]

"EDIT: And 100 mm projectiles are in bigger stocks than "odd" 115 mm." How do you know? They haven't manufactured them for 40 years...and they've been selling them off in the 90's and 2000's to anyone who would take them. Huge amounts have gone to Syria since 2012 as well.... The T-54/55's gun is also not the same as the T-12/MT-12 Anti tank guns...thats a smoothbore, the T54/55's is rifled. Totally different ammo. Plus MT-12 has remained in service...unlike the tank.

[@Alemikkola]

Using tanks ripped from museum for "indirect fire" tells nicely how the "special" military operation is going for the ruskies.

[@jannegrey593]

@@Alemikkola Yup

[@jannegrey593]

@@ryanlabarbera2510 I also doubt they would work. I only remember that they were mentioned pre-2022 as being in deep reserve - up to 100 of them. More of a joke really.

[@Bendejo301]

Another identification characteristic between the T-54/55 is on top of the turret. If it has that "mushroom cap" (ventilation port cover) just forward of the TC hatch, it's a 54. The 55 deleted it in order to make it more "survivable" for the crew in an NBC environment. I've heard rumors passed about that it could be popped off to allow a snorkel for fording shallow bodies of water but I've never seen any evidence to substantiate it

[@utube321piotr]

Polish army tankers share that the 100mm gun in those tanks is rifled and precise when stationary and those tanks will be used at defense fortifications.

[@scifidino5022]

Russia: *sends hundreds of tanks straight into minefields Also Russia after it has no tanks left: *surprised pikachu face

[@PD-we8vf]

You sound so ignorant.

[@user-yj8vj3sq6j]

where did you et the idea that Russia has no tanks left?

[@gingerlicious3500]

​@@user-yj8vj3sq6j If Russia is pulling T-55s out of storage for frontline service they are seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel. Russia might not be out of tanks, but this is a sign they are running seriously low on anything that even resembles a modern MBT. Imagine if the US had to pull old Patton tanks out of storage when it invaded Iraq.

[@Jehty_]

@@gingerlicious3500 how do you know that the T55 are for frontline service? Right know we don't know that. So you shouldn't spread that misinformation.

[@gingerlicious3500]

@@Jehty_ That's why I said "if". And hell, even if they aren't pressing them into frontline service it is a bad sign for Russia.

[@JingleJangle256]

My first assumption would be that they’re just using these T-54s for training new tank crews. But then I remember we also said that about the T-62s, so I wonder if this is the same thing. Maybe these older tanks really are being sent to the front line. Maybe tank casualties are worse then we believed (either due to age or Russian corruption) and now the Kremlin is having to dig even deeper into storage to replenish their losses.

[@robertmaybeth3434]

For training? Maybe, but it would be kind of like teaching somebody how to drive using a tractor instead of a car.

[@TheNotoriousT]

@@robertmaybeth3434 No it wouldn’t. The basic mechanics are the same for all Russian tanks, they use sticks instead of wheel and have manual gearbox. However from the footage that’s posted I believe that they need to supply older tanks to the frontline

[@ferrelladkison6538]

I'm sorry but when it's 2 or 3 generations out of date it's not storage it's hoarding. I mean Jesus who is in charge of supply. I wouldn't be surprised if every tank comes with a bowl of stuck together ribbon candy.

[@nemisous83]

Counter point these tanks are destined for the LPR and DPR to replenish their losses. Or they are being moved out of storage to be converted into other vehicles like bridge layers, combat engineer vehicles, armored recovery vehicles. etc

[@hphp31416]

LPR and DPR were integrated into russian army

[@nemisous83]

@@hphp31416 they work in conjunction and in support of the Russian Army but they aren't apart of the Russian Army similar to Wagner group.

[@hyhhy]

Ukraine quite recently received M-55 tanks, which are upgraded T-55s, from Slovenia (I think). Reportedly the tanks are also going to use. Many other countries still use some T-55s. The main job of a tank is to be impervious to small arms and machine guns while providing a powerful mobile gun platform on the battlefield. The T-55 can do that. However, it should probably be used in defensive and fire support roles, not in assaults.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

They said that about the T-62. Then used them in assaults.

[@oam6626]

Just when I think you guys reach maximum cope you somehow still manage to surprise me lmao

[@carso1500]

Ukraine is also recieving Abrams, Bradleys and leopards

[@hyhhy]

@@oam6626 Yeah bro, facts are totally "maximum cope".

[@hyhhy]

@@carso1500 T-55 is a quite relevant threat to Bradleys and other IFVs. As for modern heavy MBTs, T-55 of course shouldn't face them head-on.

[@YouTube_is_full_of_trolls]

Ways to spot bots - First, they often use "individual" names as screen names (not all the time, but I was stupid and made this account without thinking I'd be commenting under this often)... most normal people don't want their names on the internet. It's also intended to make you think an actual person is behind this opinion... ask yourself, would you use your name on KZbin? Second, they often have screen names like "reason" or "patriot", something like this... the intent is to make you assume they're just a normal thinking person, often "middle of the spectrum" Third, they have subscribers but no content. Or the content is all random reposting... often video game related Fourth, but not as obvious or common... they joined in years of Russian turmoil. So 2014, 2008, 2022 Keep your eyes out folks, the majority of comments are paid troll farms or straight bot postings. This isn't just my rambling on this, independent groups have identified these traits

[@tetispinkman9135]

Also they enjoy using lots of emojis

[@YouTube_is_full_of_trolls]

@TetisPinkman 91 I'll have to start looking at that... I started digging on "buying" followers and comments etc... the bot industry is gigantic Plus there's a reason Russia doesn't block KZbin

[@shaddaboop7998]

I think the most likely explanation is that they're going to be used as range targets, or possibly to train tank crews in the basics (serviceable T-72s are in very short supply in Russia right now as they started doing a mass upgrade program a few weeks ago). IF they are indeed going to Ukraine I wonder if they'd be given to the separatist cannon fodder. The T-62s initially sent to Ukraine were given to the separatists, and then apparently when the tank losses started to get really bad towards the end of last year the Russian army requisitioned a bunch, so the T-54/55s are possibly a (very insubstantial) backfill.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Training crews on the wrong tank type is actually worse than just sending the T-55.

[@shaddaboop7998]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD "In the basics". Firing the gun, loading it, and most importantly of all driving the tank and working together as a team inside a tank. Basic maintenance tasks could also be trained. A mechanic doesn't need to be retrained for every car they repair, but they will do a better and faster job on ones they're specifically familiar with. While those T-72s are away in workshops you might as well use that time to train up the enormous amount of tank crews needed for them. Assuming Russia's new 2,000-a-year tank production figure is true (probably not) that means they'll need to train 6,000 crew for them all, and that would be without any reserves. They would need additional training on a T-72 or T-90 before going into combat but look at Ukraine, they're using tank crews that did six months training on Soviet tanks to use Leopard 2s and Challenger 2s in six weeks, because they have all the basics down.

[@2ftg]

@@shaddaboop7998 But the new russian tanks have an autoloader. There is no loader in the crew. Only T-54/55 and older will require loaders.

[@panderson9561]

@@2ftg So you use them to train on everything but loading.

[@shaddaboop7998]

@@2ftg T-62 is currently widespread in Russian service and requires a manual loader. Russian crews train manual loading for T-72 and T-90 anyway in case of a mid-battle autoloader malfunction (this happens more than you might think).

[@IowanLawman]

As the Chieftain said, an old tank is better than no tank. Chances are you won't meet another tank in most scenarios. And an old tank like a T-55 would be adequate to provide good fire support and good anti vehicle fire. If crew safety or mortality rates aren't a factor, this will do perfectly fine for the job. There are many upgrades of the T-55, like the AM-1/AM-2/AMV that have laser rangefinders and night vision. So they aren't that ancient to be honest.

[@_________________404]

Not really. BMPs and other lighter vehicles would be better in providing fire support, if they ever use these T-55s then they're gonna be used as a field fortification. This way they won't have to worry about them being fully functional, only the gun working would be good enough.

[@red_orange2971]

If they are pulling T55s out, that means that they are about to run out of stored T72s and T80s that are in working condition and don't require a lot of maintenance. So they are filling a gap until they repair more T72s and T80s. Not a good sign.

[@mastermariner490]

If they are able to repair anything or take them out of storage because they lack parts and electronics from the west

[@user-yj8vj3sq6j]

Russsia: moves T-55 from the hellhole on the eastern fringe somewhere to the west. Experts in youtube comments: frothing

[@95TurboSol]

And they were discussing possible ceasefire resolutions with China recently, maybe they are losing resources

[@viceralman8450]

Russia has lost to date 1.888 MBTs if they are pulling the museum pieces that means they are running out of modern armor.

[@Bluehairedgirl89]

I know a lot of people are saying this but from what I understand they plan on using these things are artillery for as long as they have ammo for them. Also they are possibly going to use them to fill in for the BMP going back to the old tank rider concept again softer positions. Which is going to suck for the crews and infantry involved, but I guess it’s better than charging over open ground against machine guns.

[@celebrim1]

It's also important to note that of that 86k-100k T-54/55s, only about half were manufactured in Russia. It's not like Russia ever had a fleet that big. I think they topped out at like 35k in storage, but that was like 50 years ago. I've been seeing a lot of people going around saying Russia has 85k of these in storage and that Russia will reactivate them and NATO won't have enough tanks to stop Russia from getting to Paris. Which is not to put too fine a point on it, more delusional than you average flat earther. What I've heard is that Russia is running out of ammo and they have tons and tons of old 100m HE ammo that they would like to use as artillery rounds. So these are intended to as SPGs.

[@yuzhonglu]

If the Russian military is in this shape after 1 year of war, imagine what it would look like after another year.

[@finsfan90]

They'll be in a better position by then. They started this war off poorly unprepared. They've been making moves since to play catch up. The longer this drags on, the more it'll benefit them.

[@dgart7434]

@@finsfan90 that might be true when it comes to ammo. Not tanks (which is the topic of this video). They are burning through their reserves of tanks that can be quickly sent to the front far faster than they can make and refurbish. Even if they have several thousand left in storage it does not mean much if at max capacity they can only restore a few hundred a year.

[@Messerschmitt_BF_109G_10]

@@finsfan90 In the state that they are in now, attrition will be MUCH harder for them, just by the sanctions alone.

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

NATO is running out of ammo and weapons...and not even fighting.

[@realnapster1522]

Well Ukraine is in no better position either. Most of their tanks are destroyed. That’s why they are begging every nato nation.

[@wardaddyindustries4348]

Your last tank counting video got referenced by other good quality channels. I can't imagine the time put into this.

[@glhx2112]

Until recently Wiki stated that there were no more T-55's left after Russia had scrapped all of them by 1994 or 1995. Somebody has some explaining to do.

[@johnmarten4184]

It takes about 2 hours to train a loader. I was an armored battalion HHC company clerk and got detailed to be the gunner in the battalion XOs M-60 for it's annual qualification. The crew comprised of a mechanic, a recruiter, and 2 clerks. Loading was very simple, and being gunner mustn't have been rocket science because after 2 weeks we could hit a moving bulls eye at night while maneuvering. Except for the mechanic driver we didn't know jack about maintaining or fixing the thing, and we didn't get into tactics and camouflage, but we could drive and shoot.

[@mattg2383]

this is honestly just sad at this point

[@stianberg5645]

I lean towards the artillery role. The russian artillery used now is getting worn out and will need maintenance. The tanks will probably fill gaps while this maintenance is performed.

[@wozja]

T55’s/62’s wouldn’t be used to engage other tanks … they would be used for soft skin armour … APC’s … shoot into buildings. This would just be infantry support

[@abhilashyadav2274]

Now the A 10 can use only its cannon to destroy a tank . Lets just hope there aren't any British troops on the ground this time.

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

I think it indicates one of two things: 1. Russia has already burned deep into its reserves and has now arrived at tanks that are difficult to restore. 2. Or Russia suffers from spare part shortages or other bottlenecks that increasingly complicate the restauration of more modern types. In the first case, they might choose those T-55 that are still in decent condition beccause they're faster to restore than anything else they have. In the second case, they really don't have a choice. It's either T-55 or their production lines halt completely.

[@nich7622]

When did you get your PhD in predictions? Yesterday! So lovely to read those experts. Laughter elongates our life (old russian proverb)

[@tomk3732]

Most likely is 3rd, Russia is recycling some old tanks and giving them to territorial defense / Donbass guard forces. Very good use. Russia has plenty of T-72s and T-90s for offensive operations. But there is never enough tanks for everyone.

[@stefanobonaiuti8243]

​@@tomk3732 if it's using t-62/t-55, it doesn't have many tanks left. easy as that.

[@tomk3732]

@@stefanobonaiuti8243 Why? Ukraine has been using some WWII tanks - does it mean they have none left?

[@CzechMirco]

@@nich7622 Well, well, so you have stolen even proverbs from us Central Europeans, and call it "old russian"? Lets try to find at least a single person who is surprised.

[@kleinweichkleinweich]

if I remeber the tankist commander from the movie the beast correctly "if it can't move any more it's a bunker" quote from the Panzerlied "our iron coffin"

[@wolfyys]

"Using tanks designed nearly 70 years ago" - 75 Years to be exact. T-54 entered service in 1948 - Put simply it's only 8 years younger than the T-34

[@nunya3163]

I think that one of the lessons of this war, is that even the largest militaries on the planet will struggle to replace losses with modern equipment on a modern battle field. For all the smart weapons out there, the field may ultimately belong to the side with the best of the simple to build hardware.

[@jamesgrimm9121]

I would agree. A modern weapons system without ammo isn't really worth that much. I wonder if the usage patterns have all militaries rethinking their stores and what would be needed to battle modern militaries.

[@nunya3163]

@@jamesgrimm9121 One of the challenges with the "smart" munitions, is that they have very limited shelf lifes, especially for the batteries, and are constantly being obsoleted with new tech. I think they are going to have to re-think when/where they use the smart weapons, and start adopting some lower tech weapons, such as the Carl Gustof recoiless rifle, as the US army recently did. They finally realized that sending Javelins into caves, and apartment building was expensive, and made no sense.

[@hellrider6609]

It's not hard to train someone to be a loader. You just take the shell and put it in the gun.

[@matthewgibbs6886]

dont get behind it and dont lose your hand and its all good

[@kieranh2005]

It's a little more involved than that, and takes time and repetition. Doing it in a moving vehicle, in near dark, in a rotating turret basket in that moving vehicle, memorizing where the ammunition racks are and exactly what is in which rack etc. It's I bit more difficult than eating junk food as you drive your car along.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Loaders do more than just load.

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@kieranh2005 T-55s don't even have a turret basket floor. An untrained loader is a hazard not only to himself, but the whole tank.

[@arturobianco848]

@@kieranh2005 Well its not the best vehicle anymore to use it that way. It will probable used dug in at a defensive position. And even a half trained loader could be pretty effective then. Besides Russia has more man to spare then equipment and they aren't as squimish about losses then the west.

[@johnathanstephenson8107]

I think that they are mostly going to be used as Missile bate. A good anti tank missile cost more then 4 of those old tanks. And you can "upgrade" them with cheap RC drone control. Also they can be issued to the prisoner troops that are already being used as little more than targets to show the "good" troops where landmines MG nest and snipers are.

[@fensoxx]

I have no experience in any of this other than an armchair student of history my whole life but that sounds like a fantastic idea. Facing a virgin field that hasn’t been crossed? Send a few RC 54s across first. Anyone hiding in the bushes with anti tank weapons may take the bait.

[@mossfloss]

Armored cannon fodder manned by soft cannon fodder.

[@Inspectorzinn2]

Your cost analysis is off, one source puts the NLAW at $30,000 USD. The fuel and maintenance alone to get 4 of these tanks to the front costs more than $30,000

[@lucydopson4202]

@@Inspectorzinn2 For something as thinly armored as a T-55, there's even cheaper options. A good old fashioned RPG-7 will do the trick and there's approximately infinity of those in Ukraine right now. ATGMs are cheaper the tanks, even old tanks. As you said, fuel and maintenance costs to get a 50 ton vehicle to the front rival the cost of even advanced modern ATGMs designed to take out much better armored vehicles.

[@recoil53]

@@Inspectorzinn2 I think for one of the German anti-tank weapons, munitions are like $7K/round.

[@1KosovoJeSrbija1]

amazing how footage of 5 T55s on a train registers as top priority in information over dozens of videos of T90Ms in actual combat ._.

[@thegreatid3595]

Propaganda that's why.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

Because most videos with T-90s usually have them burning or throwing their turrets into the air 😂

[@kukulroukul4698]

because we are at 1YEAR of war mark ...maybe thats why ! If you would ''DESELECT'' your SELECTIVE memory 1second...you would remember that last year around this time we were talking A LOT about T90's and their FANTASTICALLY well trained and FAMOUS brigades Chasing the wind .... just to find out that those elite brigades were speciffically targeted by the ukrainians till their extinction

[@MrWolfstar8]

Having this video pop up a year later in my feed is hilarious.

[@mikedrop4421]

"it's crazy to think Russia is using tanks designed 70 years ago" Incoming "whaddabout the B-52!?" comments from the tankies. Like a constantly upgraded, packed to the eyeballs in cutting edge tech and meticulously maintained and never taken out of service airplanes are analogous to Korean War tanks left to sit in a field.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

And B-52s started getting retired in the 60s and 70s. In the 90s the B-52Gs were destroyed to comply with START. Only B-52Hs remain.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

That and the B-52 isn’t being used in its original role any more. It’s basically now just used as a test bed and cruise missile truck.

[@Anthony-jo7up]

Non-stealth strategic bombers haven't changed that much over the decades. It's like comparing the rifles used in the 70s versus today. Sure, there are some improvements, but it doesn't really change much. The tank comparison is more like comparing a WW2 propeller plane with a modern-day jet. There is just no comparison.

[@portaltwo]

At this point they're basically just mobile artillery. Not that bad of an idea I suppose, when your regular artillery is being either destroyed or worn out.

[@jrd33]

Problem is, they make very bad artillery. All the resources invested in these could otherwise be spent on more up-to-date and suitable equipment.

[@tiagomonteiro130]

​​@@jrd33 Last time Turkey tryed to use their Leopards as artillery they got destroyed also tank shells don't produce as much shrapnel as artillery shells

[@spark5558]

They are basically Assault guns

[@OBCBTTB]

Read that there are millions of rounds of 100mm ammunition in storage. So, as field artillery, it is better than nothing. Giving the other artillery pieces a break and manufacturing a chance to catch up with ammunition supplies for artillery in service on the front lines. A bridging exercise and secondary defensive line, perhaps.

[@portaltwo]

@@jrd33 That assumes they can get such things. Beggars can't be choosers, as my Dad used to say.

[@LibertyFirst1789]

further question: how much ammo do they have for a T54, spare parts? How old are the optics? Are they useless in the dark?

[@disbeafakename167]

I wouldn't imagine the purpose is to fight other tanks. A big armored box with a large gun could find other uses on the battlefield I'm sure.

[@TrangleC]

If Ukraine has a use for Leopard 1 tanks, I guess the fact that T-55s have no armor protection against modern weapons and a relatively small gun doesn't automatically disqualify them. Both (T-55 and Leopard 1) are still pretty capable of killing anything that is softer than a modern MBT.

[@malokegames]

They probably would never meet. These are not meant to be used in the frontline as main battle tanks.

[@mastermariner490]

T54/55 unless upgraded,have optic sights and rangefinder,no ballistic computer,weak armour,no thermals,have to stop to fire,cant fire on the move,and a weak gun in comparison to a leopard1a5 that have laser rangefinder,ballistic computer,thermals and a more powerful gun and can shoot on the move.

[@piotrd.4850]

And fulfill original purpose of tank: supporting infantry while being resilient to MG fire.

[@mastermariner490]

@@piotrd.4850 Original purpose of tanks is to destroy other tanks,IFVs carry infantry

[@viceralman8450]

Leo 1 can use M900 APFSDS which is enough to take out most of Russian armor.

[@thomasprochaska5083]

Very good report (as usual)!!!! I just want to add one important item: Independent how much Ammunition for T54/55 Russia might or might not still have available. Many other countries of them have plenty available, like: Syria, Iran, Egypt, North Korea, China, Pakistan and most likely India just to name a view. With most of them Russia still has very good connections and some of them wouldn`t hesitate a second to sell them to Russia against hard cash!!!!!

[@gareththompson2708]

The way I conceptualize the relative value of 1st and 2nd gen MBTs on the modern battlefield (which should really only have 3rd gen MBTs on it) is that they are, for all intents and purposes, useless in the anti-tank role (yes, a lucky hit from a 1st or 2nd gen MBT can kill a modern tank, but such a hit is unlikely), but still capable of performing all other roles demanded of a tank, albeit at reduced efficiency (no protection against any anti-armor weapon, no thermals, no computerized fire-control). It can destroy infantry, fortifications, and lightly armored vehicles. So a T-55 is never going to threaten an Abrams, or even a T-72, but it can still kill BMPs more effectively than just another BMP could. So the best way to use such old tanks is probably to make them organic fire support assets to infantry units. Use them as assault guns (basically the role that the MPF was developed for). And they should do perfectly fine in the makeshift artillery role as well.

[@starwarscentral]

We can joke all we want about the age of these tanks, but I think what has become increasingly clear with regards to old soviet vehicles, or any old vehicle for that matter is that in an extended conflict if it still works, it's still valuable. In this case the tanks can be used to cover infantry, for indirect fire, in reserve and non frontline units, for defence in depth operations, pre-sighted on expected routes of enemy advances etc. You need only look to countries like Israel who are prolific in finding uses for older equipment that other countries had long written off/scrapped as a good example as to why equipment, presuming it can be operated in relatively decent condition, can always have a use. It's also worth noting that these tanks use a completely different shell type than Russia's more modern reserve units, introducing a new subclass of vehicles which draw from a more or less entirely untouched arsenal, albeit an old one, is preferable when ammunition is going to become a serious constraint (I might add for both parties in this war) over the next 6 months. Simply put if you've got a few hundred thousand shells of 100mm HE lying around, you may as well start using it, even if it's simply as infantry fire support and to relieve more capable units from rear guard duties. Again, I think it's also worth noting that what we're seeing coming out of Russia's reserve and refurbishment stockpiles isn't necessarily a first in/last out scenario. This doesn't mean that their reserves are depleted or that soon they'll be bringing the ceremonial T-34's onto the battlefield. What's far more likely is that these bases are prioritizing vehicles that were already in the process of maintenance/refurbishment and shipping out vehicles which simply required less effort and crucially less **time** to bring back to operation. The T-72 fleet has a massive amount of reserve hulls, but they're already earmarked for future upgrade models and have also likely been stripped for parts in the short term as these upgrades and this conflict has marched on, taking stock of this inventory and refurbishing these hulls would likely take longer, so it makes more sense to drag out the T-62/55/54 fleet where possible, these vehicles can be quickly upgraded (no expensive or time sensitive upgrades are expected on these hulls, nor have we seen anything "fancy" in that regard). These vehicles are also nearing the edge of their usable service life, getting some utility out of them is preferable instead of simply scrapping them in the future. Also how long do we think our own "arsenals" of heavy vehicles would last in a conflict such as this? This conflict has seen massive equipment losses on both sides, presuming we were embroiled in the same pace of warfare then our own reserve fleets of tanks would have come out within the first month and that's presuming the reserve fleets were in any relatively decent shape to begin with, considering tank refurbishment for Ukraine is taking longer than expected and some Leopard 1 holders (Spain) are now having to admit that they might be in worse condition than they first thought it's very easy to see that we shouldn't necessarily be throwing stones at the use of reserve vehicles from inside our very fragile glass houses. And I say that as a Brit who is utterly appalled at the serious lack of reserve forces we maintain. We're completely unprepared for an extended conflict, having largely scrapped our chieftain fleets, reserve aircraft, armoured vehicles etc. We're resorted to sending Challengers to Ukraine rather than opening up what should have been an untapped reserve of perfectly adequate Chieftain tanks. We spend practically none of the defense budget on preserving equipment and quite frequently the incoming replacements are ordered in diminished numbers.

[@TerryTurner]

Russia has a lot of tanks but how many are operational?

[@Digmen1]

Russia had a lot of tanks, how many are operational?

[@SCH292]

The answer could be this? Maybe Russia never had OVER 10,000 TANKS in the first place? They just inflate the numbers to make themselves LOOK BIGGER.

[@omarrobertosantillanmenese5736]

Before the war Active:2,300-2,700 Able to reactivate:4,000 Beyond repair or not feasible: 5000-6000

[@TerryTurner]

@@omarrobertosantillanmenese5736 thanks! 👍

[@1977Yakko]

If this war has proven anything, it's that logistics wins wars and Russians logistics are terrible.

[@olafsigursons]

Some say they want to use it as SP artillery but I am not sure it could that useful. Might be not really precise and the angle of the gun can move can also be very limited. Maybe as cheap support assault gun? Between Russia using 70yo tanks and them loosing access to the Baykunur spaceport, it seem like Russia is in trouble.

[@skipperg4436]

They said exactly the same thing about T-62 tanks. Duh, UAF just really kicked some Russian ar$e and Putler's fanboys just don't want to admit it

[@-oysterthief4444]

They’ll say it about the 34’s when they ship those in!!! Hahaha! Tragic…

[@josephcernansky1794]

and how many 100mm rounds do they have sitting around that are any good? As for trajectory......ramped upward provides a "howitzer" trajectory instead of line of site...although it would only be useful in an anti-personnel round. The distance to target is another thing to consider....would end up being more of a "mobile armored mortar carrier". BUT...as soon as the Ukrainians spotted it, the next RPG is going to barbeque that crew.

[@hyhhy]

@@josephcernansky1794 I'm sure Ukrainians could zerg-rush these tanks with RPG-equipped infantry and destroy many of them, as they have done many times against Russian tanks with all kinds of anti-tank weapons. But the thing is, they suffer many times more casualties than the Russians while doing that, which is kind of the point of heavy equipment: a force multiplier, not some indestructible superweapon.

[@danm6499]

Reactivating them will accomplish two things. 1: Bullet Sponge. 2: Free up maintenance money and personel after they get lit up.

[@richardautry8269]

The issue with using them for artillery is that if they are off by a mere 3 degrees of gun elevation the round could land almost 1km away from a target at 7000 meter range. So just hang out firing round after round. I am sure nothing bad will happen. Just ignore that spotter drone comrade.

[@chuapg1518]

Need to be careful with Russia. If one artillery doesn't hit the target, use ten. If ten artilleries still miss, flatten the whole area that the target might be in.

[@smtx2117]

They can be useful in the indirect fire/mechanized artillery/ infantry fighting vehicles roles

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

@militarypower4093 Seriously think finding a loader is such a big problem?

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@victorzvyagintsev1325 Yes, it is. There’s a lot more to being a loader than just putting a round in the breech. That’s the easy part. Now try doing it in a dark, moving, bouncing tank, without taking forever and giving the enemy time to fire 5 rounds to your 1. Oh, and you have to do it without getting your hand taken off in the process. And to top it all off, the only people who still know how to load tank rounds in T-54s/55s are in their 70s and 80s and probably don’t remember.

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

@@bluemarlin8138 Can pull loaders from Rapira 100mm AT gun crews. Although not compatible, the rounds are similar and the loaders will require less time to get used to the new position. In any case, my bet is that these tanks will be converted to something else. There were plans to a poor-mans BMPT on a T-55 chassis for example.

[@kkrolik2106]

Even lightest RPGs like single uise RPG-76 Komar 2.1KG can penetrate front turret armour, of this tank and Ukraine received 20K last year.

[@mastermariner490]

And Carl gustav,M72 LAW

[@malokegames]

That"s why these are not meant to be used in the frontline.

[@gastonlinares5593]

​@@malokegames They said they weren't sending t62s to the front, they did. RuZZia (and his orcs) always lie.

[@akumaking1]

Perun covered this a week ago. Most likely the T55 will be used as an assault gun/artillery since it’s still an engine with a gun

[@DrzBa]

@3:27 The gap *is* between the first and second rollers, the turrets are facing backwards as they are transported on rail cars...

[@Canada-_]

from what I gathered from people fighting for Ukraine tanks are mostly (not always) used in an indirect fire role, which Russian tanks are designed for and western tank are not (there are exceptions) and a 100mm and a 125mm tank round is still a threat to infantry on the ground. and since the Russian army is still taking delivery's of t-72b3m orb. 2022, T-80BVM orb. 2022, and T-90M's although in low numbers. they're probably just filling gaps in they're artry because of barrel ware and attrition.

[@ReDFootY]

I also watched "kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6jQcnSJqdenoq8" by military history not visualized.

[@andersbjrnsen7203]

But how well can a MBT really do at playing SPA? I presume they lack some elevation specific fire control gear and such to fully function as artillery?

[@colinhobbs7265]

​@@andersbjrnsen7203 dig a ramp like you saw towards the end of the video and pre-sight on important targets like crossroads

[@andersbjrnsen7203]

@@colinhobbs7265 yeah, I saw it later in the vid and had an "of course" moment😀

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

@@andersbjrnsen7203 No one is asking to replace long range artillery here. A tank can work in an artillery role 5 km from the target.

[@piotrd.4850]

3:06 tank with 417 number has polish marking on it.

[@Jehty_]

And the one just before a Syrian flag. Those pics are just to show the difference between the tanks. They aren't meant to show Russian tanks.

[@artiomvv569]

Idk what they plan to do with them. The most they could do is use them as self propelled guns, use them against light vehicles or infantry support. That's the most such an old tank can do. Although an upgraded T55 with some era panels, 2nd gen thermals and rangefinders and atgm capabilities can be relatively effective against more modern threats the 9m117 or 3ubk10-1 can penetrate 550mm rha, so If it hits the front hull or turret of a t-64,72,80 in an area non protected from era, then it can destroy it. The sides are obviously more vulnerable.

[@mohamedridabourhila9531]

It makes no since to use them as Tanks, they will probably turn them to engineering vehicules or Heavy IFVs like BTR-T.

[@GerManBearPig]

You should mention that like 90% of all (armored) vehicles in ukraine arent MBTs and can easily be disabled with much smaller guns (well the total number is just a guess but you get the point) So I find the discussion about tank calibers klinda pointless because most tank kills are done by mines, drones, artillery, RPGs or ATGM or even IFVs with autocannons that disable those tanks

[@jonathanwetters3425]

Most underrated mil blogger out there. Covert Cobal is a giant up there with task and purpose, binkov, and history legends.

[@lordisback1947]

What Russia is doing is sensible as everyone is saying that these are old tanks so what is best time to use them is now or never. You don't want these systems after 10 years in the field. So, why you waste money and space on keeping this for longer rather restoring t72 and t80 is more expensive than these atleast t80 with it's gas turbine engine is expensive to restore so keeping 7000 t72 and 3000 t80 in storages till older tanks finish is better.

[@flammamancer]

Its probably going to be used as indirect fire support but I would pity the fool in a T-55 who gets told something like "A Western Main Battle Tank was spotted, go get em"

[@n00b247]

3 months later: So How Many Ancient T-34s Does Russia Still Have?

[@gastonlinares5593]

4 months later: Does Russia Still Have T26s In Storage?

[@brulsmurf]

The turret turns so slow, you could eat a sandwich before they have it pointed at your general direction.

[@kukulroukul4698]

yes but buildings doesnt move fast

[@kukulroukul4698]

if they can beat the geological movement of the earth they will produce 1meter by 1 meter whole in that building. But the time runs fast and the ''working day'' will pass too...the crew will ask their rubles at the end of the month for their 3buildings destroyed I guess... THIS IS THE MAXIMUM

[@flailingelbows7073]

I could see these mostly being used as either indirect fire and or static defense; Similar to how the Germans and Allies in WW2 used tankette turrets as hardened pill boxes. Sink one of these into the ground, surround it with sand bags and earth- and it could make a formidable (Albeit easily targetable) observation post / machine gun position even if they don’t use the main gun.

[@avi1enkin]

As an officer in the military if I was given a bunch of these I would use them for indirect fire. The Russians do it already with tanks on a regular basis or so I've heard. Get them behind a train feature use for indirect fire move to alternate location fire repeat.... They would have much shorter range than artillery but also be more robust to incoming fire. This isn't the kind of vehicle you would drive straight into a town held by the enemy. In addition it could be used as an anti-infantry vehicle in a mobile reserve. And should fare fairly well against apc's as long as they don't have aunty armor missiles.

[@Alpostpone]

I'm still kind of wondering if they have more modern tanks waiting for _some_ possible future use because it seems just too surreal to believe that _Russia_ would be running out of _tanks._

[@dogsnads5634]

See his previous video's...they don't have as many as Think Tanks thought...

[@user-gc1hg9sp9k]

They probably still have thousands of reserve of T-72 and T-80

[@diagatjl6096]

Considering that even in the said satellite images there's a LOT more T-62's in storage than 55's, likely there's a shit ton of tanks, it's just they want to use cheapest and most useless as fodder now so others would get at least some half-assed upgrades in the future; mind that even highest estimates of Russian tank losses barely scratch the surface of all the storage machines available

[@EaglePicking]

@@user-gc1hg9sp9k There's a huge difference though between: 1- A reserve tank in storage that has been rusting for decades. 2- A reserve tank in storage that is in perfect condition and has been upgraded with newer tech. So Russia may have thousands of tanks in storage, but how many of them can actually fight?

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

For one thing, Russia won't be sending its remaining best units to Ukraine as they are stuck doing guard duty in Moscow and Saint Petersburg...

[@erloriel]

I just want to thank the various VPN sponsors for single-handedly funding the entire KZbin OSINT effort.

[@ashleighelizabeth5916]

Hell of a lot of assumptions in this video. It's always possible that all tank storage in Russia is not out in the open where you can count them all at your leisure from satellite photos. In fact for a country that is almost legendary for it's paranoia and secrecy I'd say it's highly unlikely that they are all stored out in the open.

[@dejanpesovic5717]

that tank can be used against infantry in our army, it was more popular than the t72. and from an ambush it can tear up a trail of a modern tank. once he becomes an immobile target, he becomes easy prey.

[@drgat6953]

We know from Russian announcements that they are planning on upgrading a lot of T-62s. I am wondering if these T-55s are less for combat and more for spare parts for the T-62s.

[@grahamkeithtodd]

well even at their best, the russians can only "up grade 10 tanks a month if they are lucky, and their idea of up grading is a laugh at best... on the russian tank crews

[@Chirality452]

What about the more likely idea that they will use them for training in order to free up more modern tanks for front line units?

[@GerManBearPig]

All available tanks that work are in Ukraine

[@Chirality452]

@@GerManBearPig So how do they train the new recruits?

[@mlc4495]

Probably used as artillery well behind the lines or as fixed gun emplacements.

[@BaktasMIntrasWala]

KJU:"Stalin gave this to my grandfather." Skylark:"In my country it's pronounced Stalone." *plays fireworks on the intercom.*

[@Digmen1]

A better question is how many T72, and T80s and T90s' they have left

[@dogsnads5634]

See his previous videos...but here's some rough maths with a pinch of salt added in... Pre-war they had 3,000 in their regular Army core fleet, all T-72, T-80 and T-90, with c6000 in storage (but as c800-1,000 of those are T-54/55/62, that leaves 5,000 of later T-seres variants, exc T-64 which appear to have all gone now). So of those 8,000 (3,000+5,000) they've lost at least 2,000 (Oryx has c1800 at present, but thats only the ones that have been video'd/photographed). That leaves 6,000....but previously CC has estimated that only half of the ones in storage are recoverable at all/in a reasonable timeframe. That removes 2,500....which leaves them with 3,500 left of the T-72/80/90 variants. But also thats not the whole story....at least 800 of their losses are their best tanks (T-80BVM, T-72B3's etc, T-90 and T-90M). The quality of their tank fleet is dropping faster than the quantity... And most of their pre-war main tank fleet has been running on its tracks for close to 15 months now in war time conditions (the war and the previous large exercises). Thats absolutely ruinous for maintenance and force generation. A big chunk of their fleet must be either utterly worn out, cannibalised for parts or just plain knackered. And there isn't the tank repair capacity or spare part production to put it right.... Remember they will still need some post war...they can't run their numbers down to zero, otherwise Russia is undefended...previously they had 3,000 in their core fleet, evidently thats what they think they need to defend Russia at a minimum... Ultimately no-one knows exactly, but....from the fact that they're digging out T-62 and T-55 we know they're in trouble, we know that Russian industry cannot keep up with spares, repairs or new production as well. The Russian's might be reaching the point where they are cutting into their 'core' fleet of 3,000 available tanks that they need for territorial defence, hence the desperation to get anything else out on the battlefield...when they get to that 'core' number left they're going to have to make some serious decisions about whether they can continue the war...

[@namelastname9578]

@@dogsnads5634 Excellent response.

[@Zigmens]

@@dogsnads5634 Yep armchair general with internet PhD in warfare analysis, keep spreading shit information

[@frenchhonhon]

My working theory is that these older tanks could be used as decoys and for attrition. Remember that "Panther" the Ukrainians used a few months ago? A tank is a tank, no matter the age. You can't afford to let it go. They can be disguised too and draw fire from Javelins and other high end weaponry until the stocks run lower. They can just be using one or two men per tank just as cannonfodder like that

[@RaptorJesus]

I can't think of *anyone,* even Russians, who would agree to do that. How do you convince someone to *literally* be a sacrifice? Because there's a word for what sending a tank with just a driver is. It's "suicide".

[@bustabusts]

most older Russian tanks have indirect fire modes for their vehicles. most probably used as artillery pieces or indirect fire for bunkers. crazy small amounts of armored combat going on.

[@gingerlicious3500]

This level of cope is just sad

[@hibco3000]

Good point

[@RaptorJesus]

@@hibco3000 It's literally the opposite of a good point. A tank with just a driver can't do *anything.* It likely can't even drive properly, because the driver's vision is so awful, particularly in the T-54/55, and they often rely on the gunner & commander telling them what else they can see.

[@rossdavies8250]

Most likely everything in these tanks can be made to work, without the need for scarce semiconductors...

[@azxsys]

If you have a tank and the other side does not have one, it’s irrelevant how old it is. Frontline is not the only use-case for a tank ….

[@baneofbanes]

Last I checked Ukraine has tanks, as well as ATGMs and other launchers.

[@OtherWorldExplorers]

I have commented on other channels about this. My thoughts are they're using them to free up tanks in the rear. These can be used for rear security road guards and that sort of thing.

[@marcmichaud1643]

One of the reasons why they could be sending them is because they've worn out there Artillery Barrels. The tanks could be used as a replacement until the Artillery pieces return after getting rebarreled/maintainence. Iran still makes rounds for these tanks. So Iran can and likely will be a source of ammunition for these tanks.

[@tonysu8860]

I wonder what the odds would be firing 60 year old ammunition that's been poorly stored.

[@forgingapath8809]

I remember hearing on another channel that they might be sent to Kherson to be used as Artillary, since its pretty low intensity right now, or sent to other low intensity areas to be used as emplaced guns.

[@Rehunauris]

People also claimed that about T-62. Ended up being used by VDV and other Russian regular soldiers on frontlines.

[@Alex-lm1cj]

T62, T54...T34...what next T14? 😆 🤣

[@Alpostpone]

Would be about time if you ask me!

[@StretchMedia]

Coincidentally, Iran makes a modern 100mm shell that is compatible with T55s. Most likely they will be used as artillery with airburst artillery rounds against oncoming IFVs and personnel

[@danscott8899]

They could use them as static defense on the Crimean coastline in hull down positions. Or for a static defense behind more mobile newer tanks. Just a thought. One comment mentioned low angle artillery. That could work to use up old stockpiles of ammo.

[@toma9976]

The T55 main gun has a maximum of 2,000 meters. Most everything in Ukraine can take them out at 4500 meters plus. They’re coffins.

[@corneliusmcmuffin3256]

The primary role that a T-54/55 would serve in Ukraine is not that of a main battle tank, but as a 100mm self-propelled gun, shelling Ukrainian positions with high explosive ammunition from well behind the front lines. The MT-12 100mm anti-tank gun has already been used extensively in this role in Ukraine, and both Russia and Iran have large stockpiles of these 100mm artillery shells. In a support role, these tanks would be much better protected against enemy artillery than field guns, and since the T-55 in particular was designed with NBC protection in mind, it’s likely a direct hit would be needed to disable it, as apposed to a field gun which could easily be knocked out by a near miss. On the contrary, tanks require more fuel and logistics to move around the battlefield, and are much easier to detect and harder to camouflage. Alternatively, the older tanks could be deployed alongside more modern armor in order to draw fire away from the more valuable targets, similar to how old movie prop tanks disguised as German panthers and tigers were seen deployed by the Russians, for the purpose of drawing fire from drones, artillery, and ATGMs, so as to force Ukraine to waste ammunition destroying strategically worthless vehicles which would otherwise be rotting away in some storage facility. These fake tanks were often built on the chassis of cheap artillery tractors and non-combat vehicles, and lacked any armor, since they were only meant to look somewhat like the tanks they represented. This created false rumors that German ww2 tanks were being pulled from museums and forced into combat, when in actuality they were simply movie props repurposed into dummy tanks.

[@Alpostpone]

Likely. Though they are still inferior to real artillery, and it seems like they're just throwing everything they can.

[@corneliusmcmuffin3256]

@@Alpostpone I updated my comment to expand upon what I said, mainly that they have pros and cons over actual artillery. The flatter trajectory is a downside, since the anti-tank armament wasn’t designed with indirect fire in mind, which is why American tank crews in ww2 often preferred the M3 75mm gun over the M1 76mm gun, which had superior anti-armor ability but was less effective at indirect fire support due to its higher velocity.

[@mightza3781]

The MT-12 100mm is 100x910mmR, the T55 fires a 100x695mmR. They aren't interchangeable just like how the NATO 105x617mmR tank round is different from NATO 105x395mmR artillery round.

[@JohnVance]

Great video and fantastic analysis. I'd also be interested in your take on the cost/benefit analysis of the cheap-ass Iranian drones that have to be taken down by expensive S-300. Caspian Report recently did a vid on it, but I always like to get your take as well.

[@caracallaavg]

S-300 is an overkill. They are mostly tackled by Toyota technicals with machine guns

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

They're not even that cheap. The component analysis from wreckages shows they do use high quality aircraft grade components.

[@Gen.Tomsky]

The primary weapon of the Ukrainians against the low-and-slow Iranian Shahed "moped drones" are usually Soviet-type .50 cal (12.7x101) DShK "Dushka" heavy machine guns and not the heavy hitters like the S-300. The Dushkas are usually installed in manually operated twin-mounts on light trucks aka civilian heavy duty pickups and come with analog computing gunsights like the ones on late WW II USAF fighters plus night vision. Especially at night further assistance in targeting and ranging is provided by detached support units equipped with night-vision rangefinders and laser designators to aid the gunner in target acquisition. The Ukrainians have formed a large number of these light, mobile anti-drone units around their large cities and key infrastructure. They comprise mostly of elderly territorial soldiers or volunteers with some kind of gun experience and can be alerted on short notice once incoming Shaheds are reported by the Ukrainian air defence. The territorials and volunteers usually live close to the areas they have been designated to defend and both the Dushka and its ammunition are cheap and plentiful and a used civilian HD pickup also doesn't cost an arm and a leg. These Shahed-hunter-units have proven extremely effective against this new kind of low-tech threat - cheap being beaten by even cheaper and some ingenuity.

[@rstous7691]

One of the saving graces of those drones it they're also slow and loud. Ukraine tries to take them out with guns first. If there is an aa gun around, for sure it will take it down. A guy with a machine gun, less effective.

[@NorwegianNationalist1]

@@Gen.Tomsky Lol Ukraine even sends fighter jets to interecept and take down those drones with missiles, one drone even managed to down a fighter jet.

[@LuckyRubb3rDucky]

You go above and beyond researching for your videos. Thank you for great content

[@sixgunsymphony7408]

Older tank designs are simpler and much faster to refurbish than more advanced tank designs. So theyre a stop gap until new tanks can be brought on line. Older tanks are still useful for breaching defenses and supporting infantry.

[@stoyanbalev184]

Tank to tank battles are very rare. They will be good enough against personnel carriers.

[@kukulroukul4698]

IF they actually hit Thats another RARE '' thing... an APC not seeing a camouflaged sitting tank FIRST ?

[@kukulroukul4698]

Amoving T 55 would struggle a great deal hitting a moving target even with highly trained crew

[@stoyanbalev184]

@@kukulroukul4698 yes, I think they are just another number on the battlefield to spread the reducing Ukrainian army on. I wouldn't want it be in one of those easy targets.

[@Britlurker]

Not just rare in this war - non-existent it seems. Tanks seem to be back where they were in WW1 - mobile artillery.

[@realnapster1522]

The last big battle between tanks was battle of Kursk. And after that 1965 Indo Pak war. After that Gulf war. But gulf war was between two unequal powers. Ukraine seems to be evenly matched against Russi.

[@MattNeufy]

3:40 you’ve got to be a REAL jaded individual to not crack a smile at that, whatever orc was driving that was having the time of his life, and you know what? Good for him :)

[@user-yj8vj3sq6j]

Lol. You do know that many European countries employ soviet tanks, do you?

[@dougerrohmer]

@@user-yj8vj3sq6j Yup, sending them to Ukraine to get rid of them and ordering American, German and South Korean tanks.

[@daveharper5655]

How many usable tanks do you think they might have left? I’m hoping they are out.

[@menacetohighsociety]

No one assumed they would be fitted for remote control operation, packed with tonnes of high explosive and driven toward enemy trenches.

[@faizalbarkah2617]

Probably they will use it for mini altilery or howitzer to help bringing down resistance in a city

[@jonny-b4954]

Or just fixed defensive points. Entrench them with earthworks and control a crossroad or line. Well, until the drones come. But you'd presumably have an AA defense nearby.

[@malokegames]

Probably to cover artillery fire during reloads, so to maintain constant shelling.

[@kameronjones7139]

​@Jonny- B you would hope for the AA

[@kameronjones7139]

I would like to remind everyone that people said the same thing about the t62

[@jackkruese4258]

Russia spent 70 years playing the tuff guy simply because everyone believed they were and it’s going to be a hell of a come down for them knowing that the world knows they’re not.

[@vivxmenx]

After another year we will see chariot bows and swords moving to border.

[@alvinhang8721]

if there is a spring counter offensive, Russia needs all the tanks. They are deadly in defensive positions.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Defensive positions will be scouted prior to attack, the tanks will be juicy targets. I'd rather be on the ATGM team and even then I'd think I'd have low chance of survival.