The Truth About the M-55S tank and The Ukrainian Deal

Slovenia recently sent 28 M-55S tanks to Ukraine, in exchange for 40 trucks from Germany.
And I couldn’t believe the heaps of misinformation that originated from this, both about the deal itself and the actual M-55S tanks, that is, their technical characteristics.
Patreon: / redeffect
Sources:
Slovenian Report: dk.mors.si/Dokument.php?id=777
Rheinmetall on the deal: www.rheinmetall.com/de/rheinm...
Price of trucks: www.eurotransport.de/artikel/...
Price of the tanks: www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/obram...

[@ramielthefifthangel]

Ukraine war 2028: Both sides are using T-34 covered with ERA. New modernisation will come in 2029 including thermal sight and reverse speed up to 60km/h.

[@rockfella1377]

That `old` L7 gun on a T-55 can easily punch through a T72 let alone a T-62. They use excellent British APFSDS ammunition.

[@aleksaradojicic8114]

@@rockfella1377 They are definitly not using british munition. They are using Israeli one.

[@alek9195]

@@rockfella1377 Some versions yes. But all versions of the T72 and T62 can beat the T55 anywhere. I'm curious if the T72 ammo would go all the way through the T55.

[@TheArklyte]

@@aleksaradojicic8114 gotta give them american M900 to insult 2A46M1, M2, M3 and M4:D

[@StoneCoolds]

@@alek9195 i think it would stop at the engine lol

[@AverageWarCrimeEnjoyer]

T-62 crew seeing M-55s crew "Finally, a worthy opponent! Our battle will be legendary!"

[@erickrasniewski567]

I'm sad this will never happen

[@gerfand]

@@erickrasniewski567 maybe it will tho

[@gerfand]

need to send M-60s to Ukraine then

[@uroskostic8570]

@@gerfand who's gonna drive them?

[@philippegauthier4525]

@@uroskostic8570 they nothing complicated to drive a old patton tank... its like driving a old becycle... a patton is basically a sherman frame with a younger tourret... anybody can drive one

[@petrkubena]

For me one thing that stood out was how Germany was flogged for not giving enough to Ukraine yet Germany paid for many of those transfers from other countries. This was not Slovenian donation to Ukraine, it was German donation that they arguably overpaid (well ... value of tank during the war is higher then during a peace) when purchasing from Slovenia.

[@scheisseaufpasswort]

what a waste . our goverment SUCKS.

[@Bitchslapper316]

Yeah this is true, Germany has been one of the highest donors. Maybe the issue is that Germany has the largest population and economy in Europe and is still doing less than small countries like Poland.

[@quantuman100]

@@Bitchslapper316 Germany doesn't have 200 old soviet tanks being used in their army tho, remember Poland mainly is giving things that were from old soviet stock, and that was good for Ukraine because they didn't need any extra/new logistics to use it

[@Bitchslapper316]

@@quantuman100 Yeah that's a fair point. I'm not just talking tanks though, I'm talking in terms of overall weapons.

[@kukulroukul4698]

Germany is ''flogged'' mainly because of its STUBBORNESS at the declarational level ! NOT offering FULL commitement and trying to persuade Ukraine to cede territories. I remember VIVIDLY the 1 of March this year when they said CLEARLY ''WE begg to differ '' But if you begg to differ....then PAY Excuse me Germany if you want to INFLUENCE an war you need to PAY something for that . Because...not only its not FREE but im not sure even now whether the Germany's attitude inflicted MORE losses to Ukraine than their entire ''HELP'' till now

[@mattfactor5278]

problem here in slovenia is that everything army do is taken negatively by the public because of corruption in the past. i work in the army and i know people that said oh we give them tanks and we got trucks. but you have people that said oh super deal, we give a way old rusty junk, and got new trucks that we can use in a lot of things, not just army base stuff.

[@gobot4455]

Up armored T55s for trucks? That's actually a great deal as it will probably help with your logistics. People who complain about deals like this don't understand how successful armies work.

[@duskocirovic5924]

It is a good deal, but i really do not get it why did Slovenija is helping Ukraine, can you help Serbia with sometging also? Lep pozdrav

[@christianpethukov]

They are very nice trucks!

[@cameronspence4977]

I would say it's still a pretty good deal any way you put it. To be perfectly realistic and honest, smaller European countries not on the edge of NATO dont even need tanks or any heavy military equipment. If a war with Russia actually happens in any way where Slovenia is involved, or any central or western european NATO member, then so will be the rest of NATO, there is no realistic scenario in which this isnt true and if Russia were to theoretically start today trying to land attack NATO and drive as far west as possible, they wouldn't get anywhere near slovenia.

[@strategicconsensus]

@@duskocirovic5924 How many T-55's do you need? :)

[@MatoVuc]

As someone who has driven MAN Kat1 military truck, i can say that it and its later derivatives are magnificent.

[@petter5721]

Sweden bought a lot of MAN military trucks and they have som problem with them. I hope they can be fixed.

[@Ass_of_Amalek]

that integrated loading crane looks awesome

[@cosmoray9750]

Look up " This CONFIRMS everything we thought " on yT. insightful and laughable......

[@King_Cola]

Do they work in the winter, and can you fix it in the field? If not then they are trash.

[@brysonkuervers2570]

@@King_ColaGermany suffers from winter like anyone else and they fixable. What point are you making?

[@deaks25]

I think you hit the nail on the head at the end; any tank is better than no tank, and in a reserve or defensive role that frees up Ukraine's more capable armoured units, then these tanks could be quite useful, especially with the recent rumours around Belarus' intentions. It's also a good deal for Slovenia because it gets rid of inventory and a good deal for German industry because it gets them a new contract source.

[@KINGGEORGE-nl5ye]

Russias already annihilating Ukraine west will be no match for Russia..theyre good on the ground than nato

[@nanoman8]

It did not help iraq so a tank that stand no chance agianst enemy tanks is worst

[@pyro1047]

Makes me think about some of the older tanks we've got lying around, like the M60s. There's numerous upgraded variants with modern fire controls, optics, 120mm guns, and improved protection. Probably not good enough for Frontline use, but could be used in defensive areas dug in and free up more T-64/72/80's.

[@susanoconnor4432]

@@nanoman8 but thats tank on tank combat, the war on ukraine, mainly puts tanks against infantry, and with the recon on this war, you can just evade some combats with these tanks, or attempt to disable them, ofc, that is, if they're better tanks.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Ammo might be the issue... Ukraine, as an ex-Soviet state is pretty guaranteed to have stockpiles of old ammo, including 100mm rounds for T-55. But this thing doesn't use that ammo. And no NATO country uses L7 for quite a while now, so it is a question how much and how fast of it they can offer... Almost as if T-55 would be more useful to Ukraine with original T-55 gun... Plus, almost everything it encounters will take it out...

[@kwlkid85]

L7 or derivatives were used by almost every tank design that wasn't soviet for decades and is still used for lighter vehicles today. There's almost certainly some high explosive fragmentation ammo lying around to give to Ukraine.

[@oldmandeath]

This is my thought about the complaints about what ammo they were given. The fact they are NATO guns is a good thing it means NATO countries can feed the guns with probably better ammunition's they have just chilling out.

[@4evaavfc]

Exactly.

[@boocomban]

@@oldmandeath problem is L7 is rifled barrel. And the ammunition for it is mainly US and UK have nowadays. The rest of Nato go with 120mm on Leopard2 long time ago. So no, not that many Nato countries have available 105mn L7 cannon lying arround to send it to Ukraine.

[@boogerhooks]

Guaranteed there's train loads of ammo headed to Ukraine from all over Europe and plane loads from USA. NATO ammo compatibility is the most important part of this deal. It's not like anyone really wants 75 year old Soviet tanks for anything but scrap metal.

[@Saberjet1950]

@@boocomban anyone who had a Leopard 1 likely has some ammo for the L7 lying around somewhere

[@RAF33Strike]

So essentially one could consider this vehicle more of an infantry support vehicle with better armor than most IFVs, but not to be used as an MBT. Another role, is as a defensive weapon. You can place these T-55s along defense lines, and move back/away if things start to get too spicy. I think most of us knew these were not intended for frontline pushes. Or at least I hope they won't try to use them in that role.

[@NaumRusomarov]

ukraine actively uses tanks for infantry fire support. if they don't put these tanks directly under enemy fire, they'll do fine. it's just another gun on the battlefield.

[@Bialy_1]

They gonna get newest american ammo with more penetration than the ammo used by Russia... and i can bet that accuracy of that ammo also will be higher than stuff used by Russia. Not to mention how Russian tanks are full of weak spots and even the newest T-90 tanks have serial numbers on chasis that sugest that they were made from old T-72 tanks...

[@ericquiabazza2608]

If you search videos you will find Ukrain reskrting to old Soviet tactic: Bombard position then send tank with 10 infantry on top. Ukrain has personal aplenty but not enough armor. Most likly may be use the same way, after all even if its any other type of light armor a good RPG, AT or just artillery will snuff it out. Most function is against infantry broken positions.

[@kalu19991]

Did you watch the video? There is no high fragmentation ammo for those tanks, so it will not be good against infantry

[@merocaine]

The Ukr are replacing there APCS with armoured cars, there IfVs with APCs, and now there tanks with, worse tanks. NATO are not replacing like with like.

[@Janus936]

Most likely that these tanks will be used defensively. With that being said, these tanks could replace the more modern tanks who are currently on a defensive role so that those tanks could be sent to the front line.

[@williamlavallee8916]

Exactly

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@williamlavallee8916 depends on what you call defensive. placed in units on the northern border? unlikely. anything that will come through there will have no problem dealing with those tanks.

[@joekent5675]

@zhufortheimpaler4041 on paper, you appear correct. But it comes down to who fires first AND makes a hit. That 105mm can destroy or at least disable (in one form or another) any russian tank being fielded in the war.

[@georgedang449]

@@joekent5675 you expect them to fire first without thermal or target tracking?

[@TringmotionCoUk]

Or replace the really old SU's

[@workrmtly5582]

As someone who has command a tank with the same night vision and same fire control, you seriously undervalue both. You are probably right regarding armour and shells, but fire control and night vision are stellar.

[@smoofles]

Eh, you don’t get many KZbin views by being balanced, you get them by shitting on everything.

[@Leo137156]

Well said. Not to mention that everyone talks about the weapons and the armor, when what really matters is the tank crew. A good tank crew with any tank is a hell of an asset. I like these videos because one can always learn some new data, but it is amazing how what's really important is usually barely mentioned and almost all the focus is on hardware. What matters is the soldier behind the machine and, increasingly, the software and computers/communications that can be cheaply added nowadays to almost any hardware.

[@paulcrisan4551]

That's the difference between amateurs and professionals. The first are counting mm of armor or guns, the second are checking fire control, ergonomics and maintenance needs.

[@ravenouself4181]

@@Leo137156 And reverse speed, don't forget reverse speed.

[@mecho68]

T 55 even upgraded might be a terrible tank by modern standards, but is better than nothing.

[@rockfella1377]

That `old` L7 gun can easily punch through a T72 let alone a T-62. They use excellent British APFSDS ammunition.

[@voidtempering8700]

@@rockfella1377 The L7 is incapable of punching through the front of a T-72 with K-5 ERA, which most T-72s have.

[@Mestari1Gaming]

Better than nothing ay. Ukraine needs everything they can get now.

[@bicopgameryttm7266]

@@rockfella1377 Tank engagements in Ukraine are rare and infantry is more dangerous

[@neilba1]

@@voidtempering8700 True but it will take out anything less well protected than than an MBT (and will still kill MBT's from the side and rear with a well aimed shot from a well trained crew). BMP's, Trucks, gun emplacements will all be 'fair game'. The Ukranian's are pretty savvy and will understand to best use this (and also how not to use it).

[@BHuang92]

You would think Russia would've sent T-55 tanks to Ukraine sooner then Slovenia....

[@erickrasniewski567]

T62ms are still in large enough numbers they sent them to Assad from what I remember though from what I've seen they've mainly been giving them to the rebels

[@freetime5803]

They gonna have to send Shermans soon at this point

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

@@freetime5803 sherman with thermals pog

[@alexandervandenberghe2550]

@@Just_A_Random_Desk T26 or vickers mk1 with thermals

[@freetime5803]

@@Just_A_Random_Desk cant wait for a WW1-era tank with thermals be sent to ukraine

[@wardasz]

About ammunition Slovenia had - is it matter? It's L7. Derivatives of it using the same amo (or maybe even L7 itself) is still used by many NATO armies, including US. I'm pretty sure they can throw some amo for this tanks into next aid package.

[@Bojan_Kavedzic]

Ofc it matters. FCS has only ballistic data for the ammunition Slovenia had, and changing ammo data is not simple, since manufacturer of FCS is no longer in business.

[@voidtempering8700]

Even the best ammo they have for the L7 would be inferior to the 120mm, which would struggle to pen the front of the T-72, let alone the 105mm.

[@vadimbobov4051]

@@voidtempering8700 end of the day it dosent really matter tank on tank engagements are incredibly rare. If it can shoot it can be useful

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

not all 105mm is interchangable. L7 Derivates like the M68A2 or IMI M68 are build for higher chamber pressures than the original L7. you can load every 105mm NATO standart ammunition in evers 105mm NATO gun, but you should not fire it with every gun.

[@voidtempering8700]

@@vadimbobov4051 There was a comment claiming that the L7 could pen any Russian tanks, it looks like it was deleted.

[@NaturalLanguageLearning]

Modernised T-55s and T-62s can still be very useful if used properly, in defensive positions or as a decoy while the best units prepare to attack somewhere else. If you've got tanks shooting at you from +1000 metres and/or hull down position, not easy to tell they're obsolete.

[@dwenchan831]

might as well put up fake plywood mock up tanks..cheaper

[@natty3320]

@@dwenchan831yeah, I was about to say why waste an actual tank for a decoy and not use an actual decoy Lmao

[@crunchy6556]

​​@@dwenchan831 plywood can't harrass attacking infantry, t55 can, ukraine actively use tanks as fire support, shooting from closed positions beyond visible range. they use "kropyva" software for calculation a lot. thing about tanks, contrary to mortars, you dont have time to take cover if it fires at you.

[@Pulsar18]

M55s overally an obsolete tank, but for this conflict it might actually work. They might not be a frontline attacker but rather a rear guard or a support vehicle to add some firepower during an ambush.

[@alek9195]

Infantry support.

[@SamuelBenedicic_of_NSK]

have them work with 4 infantry squads, 3 tank hunting vehicles and 2 scout teams in two's and these will prove more than useful I think.

[@militaristaustrian]

They have been seen in bakmut

[@niweshlekhak9646]

@@SamuelBenedicic_of_NSK no their turret will be replaced by a machine gun, howitzer or something like that.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

@@niweshlekhak9646 Why do you say that?

[@unknowncommenter6698]

I think I've found a possible reason on why T-62Ms were used on a frontline. Well, not exactly me but some anon on the internet. Russia had huge stockpiles of obsolete "Kastet" 115mm ATGMs that were used by T-62M. Considering that ATGMs are used both against tanks and fortifications, there would be no problem in using that ammunition for tank that is supposed to be in support role or a mobile artillery. If Russian army doesn't use those huge stockpiles now, they'll lose it due to how old that stuff is.

[@sqly3129]

We havent seen them be used like this, idoubt this is the idea behund them

[@zezenkop412]

@@sqly3129 how are they using them then ?

[@korana6308]

That makes perfect sense. There's no reason to be producing new ammunition for the T62, since all of the other Russian tanks use a different 125mm ammunition... It's not practical opening a new production line just for the T 62... So it makes sense to use up all of the Soviet ammo that it had stockpiled from the Soviet era before waving it a good bye. There will be no other conflicts to use it in.

[@matovicmmilan]

Well it's more because of the enormous amount of the standard 115mm shells being available. Also the T-62M tanks are used as assault guns rather than in the traditional tank role.

[@brianm1907]

Those who have been watching over the 115mm stockpiles must be happy to see them finally go and make space.

[@KaszanaKaszani]

The L7 105mm gun is actualy a bigger upgrade than one might think. Compared to the D-10T, it's dispersion is almost twice as tight. The high dispersion of the D-10T was actually a slight issue for the poles when they were modernizing their T-55's back in the 80s, as the FCS was bottlenecked in accuracy at longer ranges due to the high dispersion of the gun (the gun being literally 1944 tech). Source: "T-55AM tank and derivatives" by K.M. Gaj

[@LupusAries]

And the L7 is The NATO Gun, as NATO standardized on the L7 and it's derivatives like the M68 (US), 7A3 (german version), L74 (Sweden), KM68A1 (ROK), or type 79/81/83 (chinese copy). The indians also went for it in their T-55 upgrades. The NATO Standard 105mm cartridge is the 105x617mm which is derived from the L7's ammunition.

[@willberry6434]

The fact t-55’s are still used is wild to me

[@basharalassad1073]

its wild people dont know what sparked this 8 year old war and cry about russia . while these hollow heads could become cannon fodder for ukrain to use

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

T-34s is still in use too

[@zenon4383]

@@basharalassad1073 yea putin who got wild, cause his russian puppet didn´t get elected again, so he had to protect russian minorites again somewhere

[@Nomad-he1vm]

@@basharalassad1073 за батю получил выплаты или ещё живой?)

[@willberry6434]

@@basharalassad1073 Classic victim blaming. Fuckk off

[@JizzMasterTheZeroth]

Those are some nice trucks. Still don't think 40 of those is a better deal than 14 Leopard 2A4, especially considering how Slovenia's sudden need of tanks.

[@justjutroli2206]

Really depends on the exact kind of truck because if they are hx3 from reihnmetall slowenia could buy the 155mm artillery package for them and would have 40 state of the art weapons for just the gun system cost.

[@iMost067]

They could just sell them for a couple good tanks.

[@alek9195]

@@iMost067 Military formations must have a sufficient number of tanks, not a few.

[@andrasbeke3012]

Leo 2's are money pits if you don't intend to use them or don't have native support services. Poland passed on them because gwrmant refused to allow them to produce parts for it. Slovenia is probably content to lower its military budget and spend less on AT weapons instead of their own tanks. The only reason some poorer countries like Hungary buy the Leo's is because they have been allowed some native production of parts and ammo. Slovenia might not have the funds to run those shops, even if they were allowed to.

[@germen343]

@@alek9195 Trucks are more important than tanks.

[@Zulutime44]

Any tank with the right ammo can be of use in the infantry support role.

[@AdurianJ]

With the Stryker gun system leaving service the US has a ton of 105mm ammunition to give Ukraine

[@V-V1875-h]

also nato stock in europe in general

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

yes and no. Stryker MGS and M60 + M1 used M68A1/A2, a 105mm gun based on the RO L7, but in its later iterations designed for higher chamber pressures than the L7. Depending on the producer and production date of the 105mm guns, the ammunition might not be usable.

[@AdurianJ]

​@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The M68A1 is a 1980's design and with the upgrade being made by Israel i think they put an M68A1 gun on it. I don't think the T-55S has an L7 gun i think it's an M68 gun because there is no website that specifically list the gun version and L7 can mean both the M68 and L7 as the M68 is a licenced copy. Israel also used M68 guns in their own upgrades of Soviet tanks, and a similar upgrade offered to Vietnam mentions it having an M68 gun (M-55S1).

[@geopolitix7770]

I have no idea on gun compatibility but your point about ammo is on point. Just because Slovenia doesn't have the best rounds to give, doesn't mean someone else can't quietly donate some. Seemed like a kinda biased/not thought through review video TBH

[@Kabir911]

gaijin when m55s

[@Leo137156]

Almost everyone talks about the weapons and the armor, when what really matters is the tank crew. A good tank crew with any tank is a hell of an asset. I like these videos because one can always learn some new data, but it is amazing how what's really important is usually barely mentioned and almost all the focus is on hardware. What matters is the soldier behind the machine and, increasingly, the software and computers/communications that can be cheaply added nowadays to almost any hardware. Those of us who have worn the uniform, know that. For a historical reference, the German Army's tanks were not superior to the French Army's tanks, but they could communicate better thanks to radios and the training associated with that. Move, communicate and shoot continues to be the basic tenet of combat, regardless of the hardware, but it all requires well-trained crews/soldiers.

[@martingrzanna2005]

small correction: those are not MULTI trucks. They are the new UTF trucks which ware WAY more modern than the old MULTI trucks. They indeed cost half a million Euro each due to the modern electronics and the shown container handling system

[@luiszuniga2859]

No one says that the M-555 is the big help. It's just help.

[@markbryant4641]

Yeah. Just part of the attrition. If these tanks use up Russian time, personnel, equipment... we'll, that's all they're supposed to do. They're supposed to be destroyed. Their job is to be destroyed. They can only be destroyed by russian resources. We're trying to get Russia to run out of money and resources. So send these little guys into the mess. They will all die. That's their purpose.

[@allankvist6741]

That should be the only comment on this video

[@thatonedudenextdoor7840]

No, I've seen people say that those will be hugely useful. And they just won't be

[@smoofles]

@@thatonedudenextdoor7840 You’ll have that with everything, though, people going all the way to "It’s so bad it will hurt them" to "This is a game changer".

[@bernhardstil6128]

Slovenia got a good deal out of this - and if Ukraine uses them to free up more capable tanks in defensive positions then the delivery has a lot of worth.

[@Stenskold]

They can probably also use them for training, and to free up more modern tanks on maybe the Belarusian or northern russian border, just to act as a deterrent

[@bernhardstil6128]

@@Stenskold That's what I am thinking too - and is probably what the Ukrainians are doing. It would make no sense to train a crew on this tank and then throw them into combat against more modern tanks - just to let them die without them ever having a real chance to make an impact. But to use them as a ressource behind the front could give these old engines a real value in a modern conflict.

[@Potatoarmy12]

i agree

[@The123NISSAN]

I was genuinely confused why this deal ever went through the way it did…

[@user-od1yi5iq1k]

Because Ukropistan is running out of tanks.

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

@@user-od1yi5iq1k They're really not. It's like the US donating M113's. It's probably cheaper to get rid of them than to keep maintaining them.

[@MatejKebe]

At the same time Slovenia also placed an order for 45 Boxer AFVs, Rheinmetall probably gave a heavy discount on those 40 trucks based on future business with Slovenian goverment.

[@multipl3]

@@user-od1yi5iq1kin your wet dreams naZi

[@stc3145]

@@user-od1yi5iq1k Your username says it all

[@SuperIv7]

T-62M with it's 115mm smoothbore gun and next gen APFSDS rounds is absolutely superior to T-55 with some screens and basic RA. No match. L7 is a good gun but is still a generation behind. In any case one has to wonder what happened to vast quantities of T-64's that Ukraine used to have in storage. They had thousands and thousands of tanks, best equipped at the time of the Soviet Union breakup.

[@toetagjeee]

Probably not working or where not upgraded.

[@ShortHandedNow]

@@toetagjeee Pretty much. They sit in storage. No mystery to ponder here.

[@ptn-54pattontank89]

Either destroyed or too far gone to be brought back to combat.

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you. Better than a towed artillery piece or APC for defensive work and a good way of conserving superior tanks for offensive work, as mentioned in other comments.

[@norad_clips]

Informative as always!

[@NoSuffix]

That's a lot of efforts in gathering & presenting the data. Good job!

[@Brian-qj4kk]

can you tell us about what happen on puma ifv?

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

germany happened

[@mrmacias4217]

They can’t build them anymore 😂

[@ishitrealbad3039]

no spare parts + no maintenance + low budget + overly engineered weapon system = doomed to fail

[@HedgehogZone]

They tried a new upgrade on 19 pumas and they didnt worked while testing them on a training mission. Thats it. All of the other 300 pumas without of these "upgrades"are working fine!

[@emilsinclair4190]

Turned out that 80% of the mistakes discovered were either easily fixable or not even problems like someone forgot to turn on the heating and wondered why the heating system was not working.

[@Aspeer1971]

I think the L7 105MM ammunition is still made, including anti-personnel fragmentation. So having access to standard available Nato ammunition is a plus and by no means is it limited to existing Slovenian stocks. Clearly at best a rear echelon support tank, but it can still do quite a bit of damage in the right circumstances. Not a 1:1 rival for most Russian tanks besides T62, but again, I don't see that as its intended use.

[@rinaldoman3331]

T-62 has quite good HE shell 3OF27 which is only 10% less powerful than 3OF26. And even oldest apfsds like 3BM4 or 3BM3 can easily penetrate M-55S and just the opposite.

[@KuK137]

No, it's not a plus. It's shyte. Now the unit armed with these can't use abundant Ukr supply of old tank shells and you need to worry about whole different ammo branch being supplied, doubly so seeing this tank looks like T-55 so mistakes are easy. Ukr already has massive issues with sending 20 different caliber shells to artillery units, this will make them even worse...

[@Aspeer1971]

@@KuK137 If you ask the Ukrainians, they will likely say this is better than nothing at all. But yes, the mix of Warsaw Pact and Nato calibers, with a multitude of each is a logistical nightmare. Note Ukraine was asking for Leopard I tanks armed with this gun since before February. The effective use and maintenance of this hybrid Nato/WP tank may in fact be a way to prove Ukraine can handle the complex maintenance/supply logistics of operating that tank (since Leopard II and Abrams are routinely ruled out).

[@zamanthafensterscheibe3601]

The problem is, that the countries that do produce it, don‘t want to share. Namely Switzerland and Greece.

[@izidorsuc]

Tank vs. tank is not very common in Ukraine. Plus, Ukraine has better anti tank options. So, I don’t see them using these tanks on the forefront of any battle. It is possible that they might use it only for training,,or for circumstances where it’s use would make sense (making use of collapsed Russian front lines). Personally I think it’s a litmus test to see how the 105mm gun performs in battle. If M55S is evaluated as successful, then Germany might go ahead and at least provide Ukraine their 150 remaining Leo1’s.

[@fredrikhultman557]

I think it looks pretty rad, but I have soft spot for all weird variants of the T seriers of tanks. This sort of looks like a mix between a T-55, an M60 Blazer and an AMX-30.

[@TrsIT-jn7oh]

This channel did the best coverage about armored warfare in this tragic conflict. Keep up the good work!

[@anthonylewis679]

That shot at about the 6.48 mark looks just like an upgraded crusader tank.

[@tarektechmarine8209]

Speedy tank.

[@grimmerjxcts2206]

Can we know the background song you always use in your videos ???

[@tmoosy]

could they be used effectively as defense units while T-72s are freed up to go on the offensive?

[@lukakobal2103]

I am from Slovenija, yes the tank is quite bad compared to abrams, T90s,... But as much, as I know the deal about 30 M-84 tanks for the 15 leopard 2 is still going to happen. The problem is that our politicians want more stuff from Germany. Anyway, it has to be a decent tank if it is going to be used in the 47th Assault Brigade, which uses mainly nato equipment. Nice videos,...

[@csmitty2917]

The head of the ukrainian MoD has said he wants units equipped to NATO standards, and one blocker for better NATO equipment has been lack of training and familiarity with NATO equipment, so this could be viewed as a stepping stone to better NATO equipment being given.

[@JoeOvercoat]

Germany should cough it up because then you’ll be hooked on their gear anyhow. Like those trucks that can be a pain in the logistics ass but have great capability.

[@jaka5264]

pa ka ti pišeš kejk ti veš, vse to so laži nikol ni blo nebenega dogovora, to je bilo nemško poročanje brez kakršnega koli dogovora a ti najdem link

[@jaka5264]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2fLhXh7pJZ3acU

[@Nessa-uj7vx]

Germany is allready paying nearly 25 percent of EU-Budgets. People are starting to get more and more annoyed by such meassures and the big Problem is that it streghtens rightwing politicians here in germany. Corruption here is bad, but storys you hear from eastern european corruption are even worse... Do u understand german Perspective? Dealin an older version one of the best Tanks in the world against basicly just a little modernized t-72s was a bad deal in the first place. Even more because there would be no money for an slovenian military without taxmoney from EU or better mostly germany :) No offense but i hate greedy politicians here and there :D

[@avus-kw2f213]

I think the biggest problem is the lack of infantry killing shells

[@SgtBeltfed]

Should be an easy problem to solve, as it is a NATO 105. Countries that still have 105mm ammo laying around can donate it, now that Ukraine has a gun capable of firing it.

[@avus-kw2f213]

@@SgtBeltfed for Ukraine’s sake let’s hope so

[@boogerhooks]

🇺🇸 has joined the chat

[@boogerhooks]

🇺🇸 Hold my beer.

[@flabby2142]

@@boogerhooks AR15*

[@tasman006]

I think Ukraine could get better ammo for this tank. The USA is retiring its MGS its 105mm L7 ammo would be available. I did read in a article that thermal sights can be installed. Overall though I agree a tank is better than none.

[@terrynewsome6698]

Apparently they are using American 105 he shells from the striker mobile gun systems in these tanks. Also apparently they have survived a 152mm shell strike, some how.

[@hookfangtrew_yt2804]

thanks for clearing up everything, keep up the good content

[@AlreadyTakenTag]

I guess the M-55S is about the same in performance to the T-62s used by Russia in Ukraine. It would be interesting to see an in-depth comparison between the two.

[@rinaldoman3331]

T-62 has awesome HE shell and M-55S not. So M-55S against infantry will be much worse.

[@samsniper2000]

M-55S will possibly be used on the front lines where as T-62s have been kept in back line fire support roles and given to militias.

[@ahmedalsadik]

Romanian TR-85 warming up to get on the field.

[@alek9195]

Ahahahah I was just waiting for someone to mention them.

[@christianpethukov]

Oh nooooooo......😬

[@izidorsuc]

I ageee with the technical aspect of the video. However it is Ukraine who asked for this tank (but also the newer yugo M-84). Now these tanks are all in reserve so Slovenia can’t just donate them to a third country, just like Germany can’t donate Patriots and Leopard 2’s. These tanks needed to be replaced by something, and Germany initially offered old Marder armoured vehicles (for this deal and for the apc deal). Slovenia rejected those, asking for newer equipments such as Leopard 2 tanks, which was rejected by Germany (according to my info). So in the end the deal was for 40 8x8 multipurpose trucks, mostly owing to this year’s massive wildfires in the Slovenian Karst region. Now in Slovenia the deal was actually ridiculed because we gave up tanks for multipurpuse trucks... so that’s actually reducing our combat capacity. Now onto the tanks themselves. It is quite understood, that these tanks are testbeds to see how the L7 105mm gun will perform. Now perhaps you went too far with the munitions issue. I do remember briefly that Lithuania also donated a 105mm atrillery to Ukraine so they may have received some proper munitions. Now most importantly perhaps is the fact that German Leopard 1a5 tanks also utilize 105mm guns, and so I suppose, successful use of M55S will prompt Germany to send Ukraine some of their 150 remaining Leo 1’s to avoid criticism of not sending anything at all. That would be a huge thorn in the foot for Russians. Also M55S can fire on the move, something a T-55 cannot do.

[@MartinMcAvoy]

Good work Redeffect!

[@memelord6201]

i think the main use will to be to free up any t72s of t64s on a rear echelon role eg checkpoints and basic training

[@Wanys123]

well it was given to some unit called "47th separate assault brigade", which is said to be more western-stylized, including NATO-standard equipment.

[@k53847]

The US has a whole lot of 105mm tank rounds. So they don't have to live with what they will get in the bundle. But US tanks don't have effective HE rounds, just MPAT. But the Army did make beehive rounds for 105mm tank guns, so if those are still in stock that might be useful. They probably can't use the M900 APDS rounds unless the turrets and gun mounts are really sturdy, but maybe M833?

[@boogerhooks]

The whole purpose of providing NATO standard guns, from small arms to towed artillery. This guy missed the entire point.

[@bruney74]

Besides firepower technical capabilities could be helpful as well. Heat vision or night vision in a tank helps with soft targets tremenduously.

[@chuckcribbs3398]

It also depends on where the tank round hits. Taking out a tank’s tracks is just as effective as a hot to the turret.

[@TJ24050]

Not if you’re the crew inside. Yes, both hits may disable a tank, but I’d much rather be in a tank that has its tracks blow off, instead of the turret.

Great video! I think why everyone laughed about T-62 and not about M-55S is that Russia is suppose to be this badass epic tank empire, with endless horde of at least T-72s, while Ukraine is an underdog. Also, I think the main reason why everyone is highlighting 105 mm that much is that it means that such ammunition will start to circulate in Ukraine's logistics system. This means, that Leopard 1s, Italian Centauros and other 105 mm fielding armored fighting vehicles might be on the table. This war is turning into severe war of attrition. And there is a had cap at how much of Soviet style equipment NATO can provide for Ukraine. Thus, slowly turning to NATO standard equipment for Ukraine is a natural thing to do. And M-55S is one of those rare instances, when it's both Soviet-like and has some NATO features.

[@wingcommanderbob8268]

Or perhaps more importantly, whatever M1(IP) tanks are still kicking around at sierra army depot

[@georgedang449]

Ukraine was the one that ended up with most of the best Frontline stockpile from the USSR, being on the frontline with NATO, while Russia ended up with older 2nd line reserves. Unfortunately, much of it got sold off/lost while in the care of corrupt Ukrainian politicians over the years.

[@quantuman100]

leo1 are already confirmed as of last week

[@quantuman100]

@@georgedang449 when someone doesn't know transnistria exists, or how/where the main Russian forced/depos are/were

[@itzmanolo3438]

Ukraine had better equipment than russia but it was lost due to corruption, ukraine is not as unprepared as you think

[@yousrich46]

They could only use the M-55S in less active areas so better assets could be assigned elsewhere or as infantry support. Otherwise this tank is doomed against all tanks it could come across.

[@rolandet]

That's because it's not a tank. it's a self propelled howitzer

[@Andre-yy3en]

@@rolandet from when a t55 is a self propelled howitzer?

[@rolandet]

@@Andre-yy3en its not. This article is about the M55

[@nikola12nis]

@@Andre-yy3enFrom the early 1980ies, actually.

[@mechano6505]

Tank battles in reality have been pretty rare this war, T62 etc work fine as heavier armored vehicles with a gun on it and there's loads of ATGMs that can take out enemy armour easily enough, but tank > no tank.

[@Robbini0]

If nothing else, they can provide training units to train up new crews for more modern tanks, provided they're still a lot alike on the inside. Otherwise, decoys, reserve or garrison are most likely.

[@pasivaan9563]

Interesting and informative video. Thanks.

[@gelosobrepena4508]

Why does it feel like Germany gets shafted quite a lot in these deals?

[@rajaydon1893]

because they are

[@gobot4455]

Germany can send these to Ukraine instead of Leopards and still say they are supporting Ukraine and living up to their promises. That's a win for them. At least that's my opinion. Maybe you're right though.. ..

[@lutherburgsvik6849]

Sadly, it's what happens when you're an american colony.

[@freedomfighter22222]

Because you aren't taking into account which country is going to be selling maintenance for those trucks in the future ;) Germany is paying a bit now, but not much more than most other countries compared to gdp, it is however one of the few countries that will make money on maintenance packages 10 years from now. The trucks are sold for 400k, they do not cost 400k to make, it is an easy way for Germany to say they donated 400k for Ukraine while actually spending 200k and making sure Slovenia will be paying for it down the road anyway. Would Slovenia have bought that amount of high-quality trucks anyway and would they have bought them from Germany instead of France?

[@NikTw3ntyone]

Because the German govt will do any deal that can make them say "we did something" while avoiding the delivery of German tanks/ IFVs to Ukraine, and in the usual manner throw money at the problem in the most inefficient way possible. In the debate about Marder IFVs, they exchanged 40 newly refurbished Marder 1A3 IFVs 1:1 for 40 shitty old Greek BMP-1s that aren't even worth 1/10th of a Marder 1A3, which Ukraine has been asking to buy for months. Good Deal for Greece, bad Deal for Ukraine. Just so the German government can say "we did something" while blocking the sale of the Marder IFVs to Ukraine since March.

[@etk-et6pn]

I think while the point about the 105 anmo is true, the L7 is still the most important thing on the tank. Jusz because it intreduces the caliber and ammo into logistics and NATO can reliably give Ukrain Replacement Ammo

[@crwl8]

Thank you for info

[@peterbernheim3797]

HE ammo will not be an issue given that the US just retired the stryker MGS that used a L7 variant thus 105mm HE ammo is likely surplus in the inventory.

[@alextiga8166]

"BUT SLOVENIA DIDN'T HAVE ANY" haHA

[@blazz573]

What about 35 IFVs Slovenia sent in June - are they any good? Were they included in the deal too? Tank you!

[@RandomGuy9]

No they were not included. Or do you mean the BMPs sent by Slovakia? They're being replaced by Leopard 2s. They received the first Leopard this week.

[@jaka5264]

@@RandomGuy9 Slovenia has a policy of not braging they sent humvees, and bvp m80 amfibius troop transport

[@pojdiukurac7002]

Those were part of a seperate deal in exchange for US military credit. afaik they're decently armed with their 20mm auto-cannon and 2 Malyutka missiles. Overall better than the M-55 I'd say (1979 vs 1955 base). And Slovenia brags pretty heavily with the BMPs Jaka, although I haven't heard a whisper about the Humvees. Were those even ours? Saw them personally on a train transport, but those were in a desert camo, so I think they were just transported with our rail lines.

[@jaka5264]

@@pojdiukurac7002 ok if u say so anti-slovenian. The news article was like this. This amount of this and that was reported by so and so never a slovenian source, what are u on about, that u guys brag, u are probably just a former yugoslav, since they are the only people that diss their own country. Pssst yugobitch. Go check your top news website about the humvee's

[@jaka5264]

And yes it is a policy of yours goverment to not disclose info on donations to ukraine u never reported shit it is foreign media that does and the media writes like the german news agency reports this, we got no conformation from the ministy of defence. All the articles i read wore like that or similar

[@LepiSladja]

I remember reading about those M55s in special tank issue of hrvatski vojnik (croatian military publication) from early-mid 2000s even then as a 12/15 year old kid I couldnt grasp why tank wasnt praised, it looked so bad ass and had L7 upgrade.

[@filip-pi9hy]

M95 DOGMAN zašto to nisamo pravili

[@LepiSladja]

@@filip-pi9hy novac

[@halroth9222]

Sounds like a rear line unit. Maybe they will get se them to allow more potent units to head to the front lines?

[@humanbeast2255]

Can you please make a video about whether or not it wout help Ukraine to get leopard 1a5 or if the only leo1 that would help be the leo1a5 cockrill

[@TheKerberos84]

Wonderful, my Country (Germany) traded Gold for Scrap. I am not surprised at all.

[@bohnjordello6809]

Wundert dich hier noch irgendwas ?

[@gerfand]

wrong, Gold for Scrap, that you gave away.

[@jaka5264]

WOW u tottaly get army and value tanks>shit trucks with 0 combat value gg

[@gerfand]

@@jaka5264 Combat is not everything.

[@jaka5264]

@@gerfand and what are they going to supply with those trucks + i did some research it's 35 transport trucks and 5 water tankers

[@pavolp.6527]

Russia: gives old tanks to militias West: hahahahahahahahhaha Ukraine: gets old tanks for regular army West: omg yeeeeeeeees les goooooo

[@Bluelamb03]

Ruzzia, world superpower with enormous armed forces. Ukraine, second rate power with mostly legacy soviet equipment. See the difference?

[@pavolp.6527]

@@Bluelamb03 Collective west: enormous superpower, yet delivers crap slovenian tanks.

[@captaindak5119]

@@pavolp.6527 if you look at the Pentagon press releases, the stuff they send to Ukraine are decreasing in quantity and quality

[@plflaherty1]

Great info as usual TY

[@krisss937]

There were some articles about Marders also in the deal for the M-55S

[@Bojan_Kavedzic]

FCS on M-55S is much better - it is fully integrated, with fully independent gunsight stabilization, lead counter and meteorological sensor. In a sense that FCS is about equal to what T-80U has, and way better than "ballistic corrector" of the T-62M and T-72B/B1 with their semi-dependent stabilization. How much it actually matters in Ukraine is whole different can of worms.

[@rajaydon1893]

it still is outclassed by a vast majority of tanks currently on the battfield. what they should have done is get some t72s and use the use nato countries like the United states to help them get what they need to upgrade those t72s to t72 oplots which would put them on par or maybe better than the t72 b3, that would be much more helpful in the long term.

[@mr.meatsoup5639]

@@rajaydon1893 if the tanks are not used on the very front, but instead used for cover fire and suppression, accuracy is far more important than armor.

[@c4blew]

@@rajaydon1893 The chances that they will face another tank are no that high though. Apart from the fact that most tanks are taken out by artillery and tank to tank combat is quite rare actually, theses tanks are most likely used on rear echolon units to free up more potent tanks for frontline use.

[@Bitchslapper316]

I'm waiting for the Sherman delivery.

[@sedevri864]

Great video man

[@sulcata2007]

I don’t even know where to start, for one the L7 was not just made or used largely by the US and UK it was license built by Germany, China, Argentina, South Africa, and Sweden for vehicles that have only recently been retired or are even still in service. Or that the gun fires the standard NATO 105×617mmR round which have had guns and rounds designed by not only all the previous countries mentioned but also France, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Iran Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey and Australia. 6 of which made a HE round and that’s HE not HEAT. And all the countries they’ve licensed production to for their guns and rounds. The US variant of the L7 the M68A1E4 105 mm cannon is still used in active duty with the US military on the M1128 Mobile Gun System which is due to be retired at the end of this year, which means all those shells are free to be “disposed” of. And that same gun and other variants equipped and many cases continue to equip pretty much every single NATO tank and many other armored vehicles before the 120mm smoothbore became the new standard. Just in US service that included the later M48s, M60s and initial M1s and the current mgs and future GDLS light tank. Seriously man that was all just from one 5 minute google search of the L7 gun, what kind of research do you even do.

[@GRUMPY656799]

awesome as always..thank you Red

[@Xover112]

What a irony, Ukraine laught at Russia modernizing T-62, but Ukraine is now using old M-55S without any modernization, hahaha.

[@nic12344]

5:05 The M110 is a High Explosive Multi Purpose Tank (HE-MP-T) round. It's basically a shaped charge (like HEAT) with extra high explosive behind it. Therefore it can be used against personnel, fortifications and light vehicles. However, it is not a fragmentation round. The best round for that purpose would be the M117 Anti-Personnel / Anti-Materiel Multi Purpose Tank (APAM-MP-T) round, also known as XM329. It contains 6 high explosive fragmentation submunitions with an programmable ejection fuse. The fuse has 5 modes : ranged anti-personnel, ranged anti-helicopter, delayed impact, impact and ranged airburst. It's not clear if the M-55s is equipped with Ammunition Data Link to program this round, but since the default setting is impact, it would function as a regular HEF round anyway.

[@davidlloyd2583]

Seen one up to the Turret in mud, with the barrel blown off. I thought these were for reserve. Why would they be thrown in.

[@robertjustinoff845]

At your 5.50 minutes, the M-55 s can penetrate the armour of the T-72, 80 and 90 but it would have to be the rear or side armour. This would have to be possibly done from an ambush position. The M-55 s can still penetrate the frontal armour of the T-72 or T80 but this would have to be done from very, very close range, maybe 200 metres. The M-55 s can also hit the tracks of those tanks at either close or far ranges to disable them.

[@Cragified]

A tank is still a tank. If you have a tank and the enemy doesn't and doesn't have any means to stop your tank them well you have a major firepower advantage because you have a mobile protected field gun. The lack of a thermal imager does make the M-55S while massively upgraded for a T-55 still not all that wonderful on the modern battlefield. But it can still be useful if deployed properly.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

the enemy does have ALOT of stuff to stop your T-55. Every Squad has at least 1-2 RPG-26 and every platoon has an ATGM. If something looks armored they will use them and not their kalaschnikov. Thats the main problem with Leopard 1 too.

[@koskok2965]

Bruh, Russia just recently sent 200 T-90Ms by rail. Their enemy definitely has tanks and not a single one of them is as bad as the M-55S

[@Cragified]

@@koskok2965 If you think armored vehicles are available at every point in a war you are horribly mistaken. Armored vehicles rarely fight each other they fight mostly infantry and defensive positions or reactively respond to aid defenders. Most of the conflict going on in Ukraine is skirmishes between Ukraine technicals supporting scouting elements and Russian defenders or Russian APCs/IFVs trying to get infantry into position during ill fated stormings.

[@freedomfighter22222]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 So you are saying armored vehicles are useless because hand held anti-armor platforms exist? cool story bro, very intellectual.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@freedomfighter22222 nope, im just saying, that with that armor protection posing as an MBT in a combat zone saturated with high penetration anti tank weapons, designed to penetrate 4-5 times the armor you got, you are living a very risky life. i mean, look at the amount of RPG-26´s, RPG-28´s, Kornet etc that are used per day in the area. then look at Leopard 1 or T-55. Its like going into a snowstorm only weariing a sweatshirt.

[@rajatdani619]

Does this tank has Laser warning receivers?? For popping smokes in avent of Getting lased by Atgm's??

[@Ass_of_Amalek]

the thing I'd like to know is, this being a very old and up-armoured tank, just how slow it is.

[@catonpillow]

More target practice for Lancet.

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

I thought the best use of those tanks would be as training tanks, or to be set up against Russian truck lines and light infantry. They've been in use for a month now, let's see how long they last.

[@cobyagame2649]

Ya how curious. I wonder if there is more to that deal that wasn't made public.

[@aleskolma1952]

Not completely sure, but i read somewhere that their modernisation included thermal sights.

[@LoneWolf-je9vr]

"But it's NATO gun" lmao

[@marijanmisetic6367]

As you said. A tank is better than no tank. The M-55S still can be a good infantry support tank. For Slovenia it was definitely a good deal.

[@jtmcgee]

The first thing I thought about was the t55s not having thermal. If these tanks can fill some roles behind the front and free up "better" tanks for active combat then good.

[@logitsicsky]

I mean it could either be used in conjunction with captured t-62 due to similarities or used as a training tank, moving better vehicles to the frontline.

[@dwenchan831]

Germany got a bad deal and Slovenia got rid of its inferior unsellable crap.

[@gerfand]

The problem with the people that say "wow M55 is so good, T-62 is bad" is that they want it to be true thx to "our side must be strong and win", I saw this from both sides btw, from "m777 and Himars are so accurate it can (using ungided ammo btw) hit any target first time every time, while those WW2 Russian guns..." and "M777 and Himars are made to fighting insurgents and can't handle an battle for more than some salvos, unlike Stalinium made..." Either way, don't care if you want Ukraine or Russia to win, or even this war to stop this moment (which I wanted months ago, but I know won't happen), don't let your bias fool you. Wunderwaffens are a joke unless if you are talking about Nuclear weapons, and nobody wants that used.

[@alek9195]

So true lol. I remember the story that a few Himars will kick the Russians out of Ukraine. What a joke lol.

[@gerfand]

​@@alek9195 Himars are overrated, but not bad, that is the thing, they are good enough, its just that for Ukraine they have a "Numbers problems"... meanwhile if we were to believe NAFO propaganda "Russian artilhery is so bad it can't hit a thing" But they have so much that would go from "it doesn't matter" to "then you will fight in the shadow"

[@alek9195]

@@gerfand Of course it's propaganda. The US just wants to sell them.

[@gerfand]

@@alek9195 I mean after sending half its M777 to Ukraine, the Media said "After SUCESS, not lack of them in the army, we gonna start making new guns" Numbers really matter.

[@alek9195]

@@gerfand Numbers mean a lot.

[@mosesracal6758]

The tank would still be of some use with UA. It can be given to rear echelon divisions to shuffle the newer tanks to the frontline.

[@Battlenude]

Those trucks are really good, but also really expensive.. Norway just ordered and recieved several scores of them in different configurations. The whole contract was worth Billions of NOK. It would be prudent for Slovenia to also order heavy duty ramps for transportation of heavy MBT. Which i think is Slovenias future plans.. ordering new Leo 2's

[@Sveta7]

You should not focus on opinions of people who first heard about tanks in february 2022, especially if they have western bias, i lost all hope trying to put some sense in them.

[@Skay24]

Slovenia: We give 300 world war 2 to Ukraine , and we want from Germany 250 Leopard 2A7 or from US 250 Abrams m1a2 sepv3. The world war 2 tanks are modern, we just took them from museum...

[@V-V1875-h]

that's obviously an equal exchange )))))))))))

[@tomlaker1344]

The simulation from Dejmian at 8:40 is one of the best self explainingi saw so far. Good video with a well done summarizing. You should re-edit your video about the russian T62. ;-)

[@Native_love]

Red Effect, you have the best tank channel on KZbin! Thank you for making such excellent videos!

[@bradleyanderson4315]

These tanks can blow the heck out of anything but the newest Russian tanks. Plenty of IFVs, tracked howitzers etc. The US also has massive stocks of 105 mm ammo of all types available.

[@Niitroxyde]

"Hahaha look at Russia, they're giving LPR and DPR T-62s, those are so old and obsolete it's ridiculous!" "Oh my hecking God, Ukraine is receiving T-55s! Great news, thanks Slovenia!"

[@miloskaluznik48]

It's totally not like we are comparing the largest country in the world with fuckhuge population and massive army with an undergod that was going through civil war and dealt with rapid changes of government, making it accept anything that can shoot

[@Niitroxyde]

@@miloskaluznik48 That is irrelevant to the capabilities of the tank themselves. It's another topic. Point is : people make fun of Russia because Russia. And people glorify Ukraine because Ukraine. And then those same people will come crying about "Russian propaganda" when they're the biggest propagandists themselves.

[@b0brik976]

The difference is that although Ukraine is quite large, it is not the strongest army in the world, while Russia has always tried to prove that it is a superpower with a strong army, which is inferior to the United States, but not by much. As a result, the second army of the world crashed in Ukraine, losing so many tanks that it was forced to get T-62s. Ukraine as a whole has never really claimed to be a super cool army. Initially it has a relatively small number of tanks and loses them, unfortunately, but shows generally excellent results. And when you are in this position in defense it is absolutely no shame to use any weapon that can deal damage to the enemy, even if it is old and not the best

[@Niitroxyde]

@@b0brik976 You're missing the point. And T-62Ms aren't bad. Sure your odds against another more modern tank aren't high, but a tank does much more than hunt other tanks. People spend too much time in video games and tend to forget that. And besides it's not like Ukraine is using M1A2s or Leopard 2A7s, the T-62M is still capable against what Ukraine is using. But the point remains, people are incredibly biased while pretending to be the voice of reason in this conflict, doing way more "propaganda" than what they accuse the Russians of doing.

[@pieterandjuanchronicles9849]

@@Niitroxyde Its Sobering to see how people have been so easily swayed by the immense amount of Ukraine propaganda, look at r/combat footage where they all cheer for the deaths of Russians.

[@luxiet2518]

What i heard UA got Czech T72M4CZ modification tanks but i didnt read anything about it. Is that true?

[@fcmhockeyvideos]

This tank is better than no tank. And this tank can be useful because Russia does not only use modern tanks. The M-55S can also be used as an Armed Personnel Carrier... it can be used in defense lines, dug in, ambushed, etc. You will rarely see actual tank duels.in this war.

[@serhiizhuk7430]

By the Soviet doctrine - which is used by both sides in one way or another - tanks' primary task is to destroy strongholds and not other tanks. Destroying tanks is artillery's task. Therefore, the fact that T-55 can't take out T-72 doesn't really matter. I see its main mission on the battlefield as to engage enemy positions at early night to let friendly troops to approach and take over the Russian positions. As long as a tank fires at infantry, infantry doesn't care what model of a tank is firing at them. Also, T-55 are much lighter and will be perfectly suited for missions in the current weather conditions when other heavier vehicles get bugged down in mud. Plus, I am sure the West will source and provide decent ammo.

[@zenon4383]

ukraine doesn´t use soviet doctrine, but modernized to NATO doctrine

[@serhiizhuk7430]

@@zenon4383 Ukraine uses a mix of both