Why Is Russia Using This Cold War Tank In Ukraine?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- Why Is Russia Using The Unstoppable T55 Tank: Inside Russia's Military Strategy in Ukraine
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been ongoing since 2014, and has resulted in a number of devastating military battles. One of the most prominent weapons being used by Russia in this conflict is the T55 tank, a Soviet-era tank that has been in use for over six decades. These tanks have proven to be incredibly effective in battle, and have played a key role in Russia's military strategy in Ukraine.
The T55 tank was first introduced in the late 1940s, and was designed as a replacement for the T34 tank that had been in use during World War II. The T55 quickly became a staple of the Soviet Union's military arsenal, and was exported to numerous other countries in the decades that followed. Today, many of these tanks are still in use, including by the Russian military in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
One of the key reasons why the T55 has been so effective in this conflict is its armour. The tank is heavily armoured, making it difficult to destroy with conventional weapons. This has allowed the Russian military to use the T55 to spearhead its offensives in Ukraine, as the tank can withstand a significant amount of damage before being taken out of action.
Another key advantage of the T55 is its firepower. The tank is armed with a 100mm gun, which is capable of firing a range of different ammunition types. This includes high-explosive rounds, which are effective against infantry and other soft targets, as well as armour-piercing rounds, which are designed to take out other tanks and armoured vehicles. The T55 is also equipped with a machine gun, which can be used to take out enemy personnel and light vehicles.
The T55 has also proven to be effective in urban combat situations. The tank is relatively compact and manoeuvrable, making it well-suited to fighting in built-up areas. Its heavy armour and firepower also make it an ideal vehicle for clearing out buildings and other fortified positions.
Despite the many advantages of the T55, the tank is not invincible. It can be taken out by more advanced weaponry, such as anti-tank missiles and other guided munitions. However, the T55 remains an important part of Russia's military arsenal, and has played a key role in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
The conflict in Ukraine is a complex and multi-faceted one, with many different factors at play. However, the use of T55 tanks by the Russian military is one of the key elements of Russia's military strategy in the region. These tanks have proven to be incredibly effective in battle, and have helped the Russian military to gain the upper hand in many engagements.
The use of T55 tanks in Ukraine also highlights the ongoing importance of Soviet-era military technology in modern warfare. Despite being more than six decades old, the T55 remains a potent weapon, and is still in use by militaries around the world. As such, it is likely that we will continue to see this tank and other Soviet-era weaponry being used in conflicts in the years to come.
SUBSCRIBE to Armourgeddon RUclips channel: ► / @armourgeddontanks
Visit Armourgeddon for Tank Driving Experiences: ►www.armourgeddon.co.uk
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Armourgeddon videos.
Follow Armourgeddon on FACEBOOK: ► / armourgeddontankpaintb...
Instagram: ► / armourgeddon
#armourgeddon #tantmuseum #tanks #m3a1 
Развлечения
the answer is simple: its not being used as a tank: its being used as fire support essentaly a mobile gun, like a lot of the older equipment. A 100mm gun is still an 100mm gun.
Also the low maintenance requirements make it perfect for second line units without the same training and technical expertise as the professional contract soldiers.
I saw a video of a T-72B# being used in much the same way moving from postions to postions upon receiving an order to sortie and then returning to its foxhole afterwards.
T-55 can do that job just as well and at significantly less overhead.
That’s exactly what they said when they brought in the T 62 however because their number of tanks are being rapidly diminished over 100 now have been destroyed on the front lines
Absolutely. Ukrainian propaganda is crazy.
@@johnwebster5005 you obviously know nothing about tanks .
An Artillery piece , even like the old ones that the Russians are now bringing into service , can fire something like 2000 shells before the barrel needs replacing .
A tank barrel needs to be replaced after no more than about 300 .
@@steveosborne2297 The Russians have said that they are deploying the tank as a fixed gun in order to face the Ukrainian offensive.
@@johnwebster5005 yes they said exactly the same about the T 62s but it never worked out like that .
I still don't understand why I have to keep explaining to people that just because something is old, doesn't mean its not deadly and effective ! the f15 is from1972, the AK47 is from 1945 !! and still very deadly
A cannon is a cannon
If it killed 500 years ago it will still kill you now. Would you let someone with a musket load it and fire it at ya thinking, "Ha old tech! What is that going to do against my modern soft body armor!"
Personally I'd be worried if a Mk1 British tank from WWI started creeping up on my position. What is my rifle going to do?
The issue though is logistics. If they have the fuel and ammunition then it is all good! Tons of different ways to use them. Could use them as basically defensive bunkers that can move positions daily. Can have them sit back well hidden somewhere to counter attack when the Ukraine does decide to push their offensive. They can be used as traps to draw out all sorts of weapons like Ukraine AF or artillery. Of course they can be used as arty themselves and fire support with the other more capable tanks.
Or if you're cynical they can be used as cannon fodder. Soak up Ukraine ATGMs, unveil positions, go through mine fields, and use up some of the more expensive ordnance.
Now if they are supplying them at the cost of more capable vehicles not receiving their parts, ammunition, and fuel? Then that is a huge issue.
Personally I'd stick them in a place where they can be called upon in bulk when required but aren't guzzling my precious fuel on standby guarding some random tree line 24/7.
Unlike other experts here I admit I don't know shit outside of what I just said. I am 100% certain these are in fact very dangerous war machines.
I don't nearly have enough hours in War Thunder to even be listened too!
Because a javelin can destroy any tank that Russia has
@@TKUA11 A Javalin can destroy ANY Tank most probably, even NATO's and btw the Russians have siezed many Javalins in Ukraine 😉
Exactly I have a cannon from 1887 still works fine
Bow and arrow is also deadly. 🤣😂🤣
Basically every tank in common use today is by definition a “Cold War tank”, why? Because remarkably few tank designs that have come about after 1991 are in service today, the m1a1 was put into service in 1980, the leopard 2 was put into service in 1979.
When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union fell, new tanks weren't as attractive compared to MRAPS.
K2, Leclerc, ZTZ-99, Type 10, Arjun, Altay, C1 Ariete, Type 90, VT-4...
Some are more 'Cold War' than others.
@@xAlexTobiasxBnone of these are in as “common use” as the tanks I mentioned, not by a very long shot, typically because many of the vehicles you mentioned are either too expensive, or too difficult to maintain and or source parts for.
By it's nature, a tank is shielded from EMP blast as is most military equipment.
Very true
It’s not that simple. A lot of the equipment literally cannot be shielded and still work. All communications for example.
Digital thinking. At some point a tank that does not depend on software will work while those that do won't.
Distance, cover, payload are all variables.
No mention that the more powerful gun, which has an indirect range up to 10 miles, gives it a useful 'fire support' (artillery) role. This would boost Russia's artillery capability, whilst keeping the T55s out of range and avoiding battlefield duels with more modern tanks or anti-tank weapons.
Russia has major struggles with their logistics. Why would they want to supply T-55s in a subpar artillery role, instead of you know, actual artillery pieces.
@@Carbidestruck How much ammunition do you think they still have stockpiled for these tanks from the Cold War? Last summer they only had 12m rounds left for the howitzers! Why do you think Russia has logistics problems?
@@graemepeters5717 Just because you have oil in the ground and ammo in a warehouse, that doesn’t mean they get to the frontline in an organized or speedy manner.
Also, if Russia has millions of shells, tf do they need to haul t-55s to act as artillery, why not just send howitzers?
Also, no pallets.
@@Carbidestruck Have you seen all the train-loads of military equipment Russia has been moving to Ukraine in the last few months? Or the equipment assembled in Luhansk and NW Crimea? Russia has it organised!
Wouldn't you use additional mobile, armoured artillery rather than keeping it in storage? And have your ground units following behind a 'rain' of artillery barrage?
@@graemepeters5717 Well, I would rather have actual SPGs, mortars or howitzers providing more effective firesupport. I wouldn’t blame the Ukrainians for doing this as they are fighting a war of survival against an unprovoked invasion, but the ”second army of the world” resorting to obsolete equipment is hilarious.
Thanks for nice and non biased video of T55. Also im excited that you mentioned Serbian upgrade. Im Serbian so im proud.
Also, please take a look at battle of Kosare in 1999. and how two T55 managed to do incredible work. They managed to climb 1800 meters mounting to support infantry evading NATO airplanes above. OLD BUT NOT OBSOLETE.
It is obsolete. It is totally obsolete when faced with modern western tanks as it will be in UKraine.
you are proud of wrong things, in a fact you should be ashamed of your serbian history
@@richlopez5896 Ukraine conflict shows that even old weapon systems can be still efective and nasty. Sure there is no comparation in direct tank to tank battle with Leopards and Challengers. But is still capable and dangerous to lighter vehicles such is Humwee, MaxxPro and so on.
@@richlopez5896 😂😂😂😂😂 Ok. Go back to "Tank commander" and just play the Game.
@@richlopez5896 How many older tanks does it take to defeat a modern tank? How many tanks does, or will Ukraine have compared to Russia. Ukraine has already lost they just don't want to admit it yet.
Ehh it never got a 105mm in Russian service
Yeha he's talking about some single prototype examples that didn't even enter service. This dude has no clue what he's even talking about, showing pictures of T14 Armata and even Challenger and Abrams while talking about the T55 lol
1. There is a lot of ammunition in storage for this tank. They are running out of shelf life.
2. The 100mm rifled gun of this tank has higher accuracy.
3. In Ukraine, tanks are often used for mounted shooting from closed positions with UAV adjustments. T-55 will handle it well
Why waste the resource of modern tanks when there are many old tanks in storage with good and accurate guns and which can be used as well-armored self-propelled guns?
2) That's a myth.
@@viceralman8450 That a rifled gun is more accurate than a smooth-bore - myth?
@@olegpomoshnikov8151 Yes a myth.
@@viceralman8450 Feathered shells of smoothbore guns are more sensitive to side wind. Flutter effect.
@@olegpomoshnikov8151 They aren't. As the fins stabilize them and the usually are faster, as their design is more aerodynamic.
A tank is a tank, if youre at war and you see a tank coming at you, thats pretty terrifying.
I really wasn't expecting the hypothesis you posed at the end of the video regarding the t55 and it's resilience to EMP and its ability to keep working through it. What an interesting point you make. Even though I'm sure this went clear over the heads of pretty much everybody with the exception of a few experts like yourself, I have no doubt that this point landed with people in the Pentagon. 100%....
Really really great video 👌
More likely that it is a far simplier tank design so was easy for the Russians to restore and then maintain with the more modern designs.
If Russia uses nukes, I can see Ukraine retaliating with a strike against Russian Nuclear power plant in retaliation.
@@wmd1520 Ukraine couldn't ever hit a Russian power plant. Plus if they plant to use tactical nuclear weapons they would just remove all uranium fuel rods from the two power plants within 800 miles of Ukraine, so even if they did hit, they would achieve nothing except for breaking a power plant. And that's assuming they got through Russia's formidable and vicious integrated air defense system, which they certainly wouldn't because Russia would be expecting a strike on their nuclear power plants and would layer defenses around the power plants extremely heavily before a tactical strike on Ukraine.
@@wmd1520 gosh dang, you really haven't given this much thought have you?
@@stanley1554 We talking about the same Russia here that is continued to be plagued with corruption, theft and incompetence ?
Kurks nuclear power plant is located right across the border with Ukraine would be a prime target for retaliation
Nuclear power plants are generally robost, they arent designed or hardened to withstand a modest attack
This is only a hypothetical senario, and only one possible means of Ukraine retaliation.
@@stanley1554 Your thoughts have been overwritten with Russian propaganda. Ukraine already has munitions that are capable of hitting targets inside Russian territory, they just are not allowed to use them in that manner as agreed upon in the arrangements made by their supplier.
One Javelin Cost 175k and it takes an average of 5 Javelin to an experienced Soldier to destroy a tank , T55 were Scrap metal and only cost is the fuel cost to take it to the Batlefield , it protects the crew from sniper fire and can be used as Artillery , when destroyed they just leave it where it is, after they advance they tow the left overs and use it as cover , it is a mobile trench which doesn't need soldiers excavating it ,and doesn't get damp like a hole in the Dirt , 95% of the time tank is destroyed the Crew just walk away unharm into another Scrap T55 which will cost to the USA another 1000000$ to destroy it . Puty has brains and surround himself with likewise people , our liders are Clowns and performers and surround themselves with Clowns and conartist . GOD HELP US
_"It takes 5 javelins to destroy a tank"_ Dude what? It takes only 1 javelin to destroy most tanks.
People forget that the purpose of a tank is to kill people, especially infantry using HE. All tanks are just mobile platforms to get a big gun in range of its target. If that’s you, with no AT missile, you’re toast. In Ukraine the front is 1000km long, a few leopards, or challengers can’t be everywhere at once. Quantity has a quality all of its own. I’ve seen footage on Telegram of T62s being upgraded as well. They are using any stock they have.
Very true! It partially comes down to a numbers game
I mean if you got them lying around why not use them for something right?
Exactly! Tanks with HE rounds are an effective fighting tool against armored vehicles and advancing/trench troops! Glad there are sane people here who understand battlefield benefits of a tank, old and new.
You forget that artillery out-ranges tanks. Tanks would be destroyed by artillery before they even got within range of an enemy position. For the last three months, Russia has been destroying the UA artillery and air defence capabilities. This is why there is now an increased use of aircraft and soon an increased use of tanks.
There's two types of HE rounds the Russians use for their tanks. HE-AT and HE-FRAG. They use the latter on infantry...They figured out its more cost-effective to use a T-55/T-62 with HE-FRAG round for infantry support and use their upgraded T-72/T-80/T-90 series for anti-tank roles and punching holes into strong points...And the Russians are fighting a War of Attrition. They are determined to grind down their opponent...A clear indication of that is Ukraine's constant need to beg for more weapons and ammo from the West. (I don't think the West can keep up this tempo without compromising their own militaries).
There are some light and medium tanks with 105mm cannon such as the Kaplan medium tank and VT-5 light tank that are built for reconnaissance and fire support for infantrymen like the IFV. It is obsolete against a modern MBTs but against lightly armored vehicle and soft target, it does its job well
This doesn’t have the 105mm.
Only the Israeli captured ones and the Slovenian M-55’s are re-gunned to 105’s
These still have the old 100mm rifled gun.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 Yes but it will still do its job as a reconnaissance, fire support tank and destroy lightly armored vehicle and soft target. IFV, APC, jeep, support vehicles can all be destroyed by 100mm cannon
@@PeterMuskrat6968 green apples vs red apples. 105mm or 100mm same thing.
Actually, the answer is very simple. This tank are not being used as tank, but as howitzer.
Are you sure about the base T-54/55 having laminate/composite armour? I thought this development came later, with the T-64 (spaced plates, glass sand filler etc etc). Everything I've read seems to indicate the T-54/55 was protected by thick solid steel plate.
He is wrong. Laminated armor is first intrudoced in t64 and mainly t72. T55 is a death trap pice of shit that killed thousends of its own crews thru the years. No "upgrade" ever can make this turd ok.
t-55amd-1 have composite armour 30mm rolled homogeneous armour metal polymer block 120mm and then again a 100mm plate of rolled homogeneous armour
@@carlgustafemilmannerheim9360 u playin WT to much. Its a modernization of the garbege t55.
@@punicwars2 i know
The have rolled homogeneous armor, AKA plain steel.
Thanks for the insights!
Thank you for watching!
I think soviet tanks were always designed to be able to be used for indirect fire. So now, it's basically a self propelled gun shooting from a distance.
Lol, those upgrades don’t pretend to the tanks that Russians are using. They need mobile guns, that's it.
let's note that the French television has made hot throats of the use by Russia of this T55 on the Ukrainian theater, on the other hand when the Ukraine received T55 for its armored equipment, no comments, just pointed out the fact
Tanks main role is infantry support, and tank is tank in that role
Sure, if you keep ignoring thousands of dead crew members losses dying in this piece of metal coffin, wasted for nothing.
the tank upgrade engine has 690hp and t55 even in upgrades not really use 105mm gun just modernization such as slovenian t55 with L7 105mm gun or chinese Type with 105mm gun but deepest modernization was the T-55M6. This is a comprehensive upgrade that features a longer chassis, a new 690 horsepower engine, an autoloader, a new fire control system, a 125 millimetre gun as used in the T-72 and increased protection. It’s basically a budget T-72. also similar was T55 typhone ukranian version basily 5tdf engine with neutraltraverse streering and around 8OO to 1000 hp same 125mm gun with autoloader and some other stuff as ukraine demoestic ERA apply on it. There is a Bangladeshi upgrade called the Type 59 Durjoy that has a 730 horsepower engine, modular appliqué armour as well as ERA and a 125 millimetre gun. The Czechs and Slovak have an upgrade called the T-55AM2 featuring BDD appliqué armour, a 620hp-690hp horsepower engine and improved fire control and sensors. There was an Iraqi modification called the T-55 Enigma fitted with appliqué armour with NERA elements The Type 72Z is an Iranian upgrade with an 105 millimetre gun, a 780 horsepower engine and new ERA. The Romanian Army uses a modification of a modification of the T-55, the TR-85M1. It has composite armour, a Romanian-made 100 millimetre gun, improved sensors and an 860 horsepower engine. So yeah ther is shit ton of versions.
you are very wrong, TR95 and the modernized version TR85M1 have nothing in common with T55 except the caliber of the gun, the starting point for TR85 was TR77 which was mostly a T64 Romania did not have T62/64, but received information from friends Chinese TR85M1 is another generation 2+ tank perfectly adapted to terrain conditions and operational according to Romanian military doctrine, together with t 55/t55AM, they are perfectly competent for Romania only because idiots slaves to power destroyed the vertical industry in favor of American scrap metal
ruclips.net/video/Do2GSn6bsmk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/wR4XyHZGgB8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/B28RGyrQqaQ/видео.html
@@leomarin2205 The only great thing on the TR-85M1 is the Fire Control System and 3rd generation thermals, while weighing 50tones its armor is similar to a T-55AM2 that weighs 42tones, that extra weight is from the its lengthened hull to fit a drivetrain similar to a Leopard1 that didn't improve its power to weight ratio it was just possible to be produced domestically and while the gun being Romanian produced it was basically the same thing with it's ammunition being interchangeable with a T-55
Very slick presentation! Could you share which software you used for your editing? loved it!
Thanks for a very cool and unbiased video, just found this channel and subscribed. Keep up the great work Alex! 👍
Awesome, thank you!
I had a ride for one and it also rode over me. You had to be aware not to be on exhaust side because it spat quite a lot oil with that typical black smoke
Russia has lost so many T-64, T72, and T80S they had to open their old war chest and dust off the moth balls of these old tanks and use them now
Россия не использовала Т-64 вообще. Было какое-то количество трофейных украинских Т-64 у корпусов ЛНР и ДНР.
As a siege gun. As mobile artillery. Behind
a burm.
T55 tank likely Toyota Hilux or Volkswagen Beetle , it's classic and practical!
If you say "Cold War tanks", then the M1A2 is one of them. No one criticizes the M60 as outdated, when it has been upgraded and modernized.
Теперь про сами танки. Т-62М используется как танк. Сейчас сделали его апгрейд : поставили дополнительные блоки динамической защиты, решетки. Поставили новую систему управления огнем, тепловизор. По своему уровню он соответствует своему американскому ровеснику - М60 , модернизация "Сабра". А танки Т-55(54) скорее всего будут использоваться как самоходные артиллерийские установки и работать с закрытых позиций. К ним тоже осталось много снарядов. Учитывая что НАТО поставляет на Украину букируемые 105 мм пушки то это брлее чем актуально.
105 mm gun is not more modern or better than 100 mm D-10, the latter has even higher kinetic energy of projectiles. There was a period when Soviets moved to 125 mm while the West was still developing ammunition for 105mm, so replacing the cannon might have been considered attractive. Especially when the original cannon had reached its barrel life limit anyway.
In general, the T-55 is absolutely better armored and has greater firepower than any infantry fighting vehicle, there is plenty of room for it on the battlefield (after upgrading with optics and FCS).
It has minimum 8 cm of armor, co is very safe from artillery fire, 30 mm guns. With a modern ERA armor, he can withstand most RPG shots.
The main reason for the removal of these tanks from the service in the army was disarmament, not uselessness.
The L7 and its variants ar much better than DT-10 as they can use more modern ammunition and sport better accuracy by default.
The T-55 armor is irrelevant nowadays as anything can pierce it, 30mm will shred its sides, artillery will easyly immobilize them, tandem HEAT will negate ERA.
@@viceralman8450 Not the commonly used Russian 30mm ammo. Every Russian tank has the same 80 mm RHA armor, no difference here. T-55 also can have skirts with ERA.
You apparently don't get it, that there are IFVs fighting on the front, that are more vulnerable and have less firepower than T-55.
These T-55 are not instead of better tanks, they are instead of having nothing.
Better ammunition for D-10 can be produced.
@@peceed The ERA present of light vehicules offers no protection against kinetic proyectiles.
IFVs go alongside tank, tanks that will eliminate T-55 easily, plus most IFV sport ATGMs on the arsenal.
Produce more 100mm ammo would take years as the production lines don't exist anymore.
Ukraine don't use soviet 30mm but western or improved APFSDS 30mm which can go through the side unopposed.
@@viceralman8450 Ukraine doesn't have weapon that uses 30x173 ammo that would be not sufficient anyway because of distance and angling.
Kinetic projectiles from tanks make less than 10% of all tank losses.
The current tactics is to use tanks from distance around 3000 meters - above Javelin range. Ukraine has shortages of long range AT missiles.
@@peceed There's no shortage of AT weapons in Ukraine as more than 30.000 of such weapons were delivered.
30mm APSDS can penetrate over 100mm of steel more than enough to do through the side of any MBT.
The answer to the question in the title took a minute to express. That's how long this video should have been!
The tank is used because it still kills your ass.
It's like Soviets had a trillion 100mm shells and about half a trillion of 105mm shells, and about a trillion of 120+ shells. Its just rational to make use of those 100mm shells somehow. Otherwise the will run out of their main shells. 50/50 spending fire support will make their stockpiles last longer. I really like Slovenian T55... like really. You can tell it's a mid tank.
technically both Leopard and Abrams are also cold war tanks.
Very true!
"Whatever amount of shells the enemy has, we have one more tank of!" -Soviet Tankers
In WW 2 broken tanks where buried just leaving the turret that could still fire. Great for defence or just as an artillery piece.
Like those tanks in the Iraq war of 2003? I wonder what happened to those static targets with poor optics.
It's cramped inside. Too small for most Russians. They use Mongolians mostly nowadays.
Yes. Exactly. Russian (and Soviet) doctrine has been to use older tanks as stationary positions in line of defense + artillery.
Serbian version is for export only and it was sold to Pakistan.
If you fight an enemy that is armed with assault rifles and light anti-tank weapons only, then T-55 is good enough. Besides, even today tanks are mostly used to support infantry, rarely to fight other tanks.
Saying that software will be effected by EMP but not on T-55 cos it doesn't have it doesn't make any sense. Modernized versions, with all those modifications you mentioned do have electronics and software. Even T-72 is not that full of electronics. The main reason is - availability and price. Keep in mind that they will be used to support infantry and they can do it still. And very often, the price of a missile to take it down may easily be higher than the tank itself.
Т-55 скорее будет играть роль мобильной артиллерийской установки, нежели танка, - он может стрелять дальше и точнее танка благодаря нарезной пушке, а управлять им гораздо проще, чем современным танком. Таким образом, мы получаем большое количество хорошо защищенной мобильной артиллерии, которая не требует длительной специальной подготовки экипажей.
The Russian tactic has always been to have the enemy expend its resources in whatever way. They have no problem sending people to soak up bullets and artillery.
T55 does not have composite armor
Hi! The original didn’t but a upgraded version did
because it is an inexpensive armored self-propelled artillery mount
Old, but still deadly and can be sent in numbers to the front. How many tanks Ukraine have received lately? 50ish? And what have happened with all it had prior the war and had received after that? Oh wait, we do not talk about this - my bad...
It's got a gun, it can still kill, the problem is keeping the gun from going airborne
Russia didn't run out of tanks. They producing new all the time and upgrade older. But! These tanks are too sophisticated for task tanks used today. It is just a mobile artillery! Have you seen what is left from towns in Ukraine where fights were going on? Clean field, houses leveled to the ground! Why use modern equipment, when you have plenty of old?
They are not producing more tanks man they don't have to industrial capacity they produced almost all of their soviet tanks in the Kharkov region of ukraine Russia isn't the ussr they can't produce anything anymore
@@archieherrington9955 , it is your fantasies? Russia is capable to produce everything! Of course, not modern microchips, but everything else can! BTW modern microchips are produced in small number of countries, but top grade is all produced in Taiwan!
Try Uralvagonzavod! This is industrial corporation! Not one but
Nice vid!
Thanks!
The Egyptian upgrade is the Rameses II. There's also a Romanian upgrade.
If I had to guess. The Russians are likely using the T54/T55 for infantry support. The most modern tank guns tend to emphasize anti-tank performance. This tends to come at the expense of HE shell performance. Canada had a similar issue with the Leopard 2's in Afghanistan. The older 120mm/L44 was better suited for killing infantry than the newer L55. The newest Russian variant of the 125 mm is also highly optimized for Anti-tank performance so the 100mm might be better at delivering HE shells. Also the older 125mm 2A6. Fired a heavier shell. This tends to lead to better HE performance. Sending T55M6 to Ukraine would be a simple way to get these older 2A6's into action.
Russia has them, so it can use them - and loosing some won't be a problem.
It's not losing them that's the problem it's using them and having no affect that's the problem dude a rpg 7 will decimate a t55 its a old useless tank on a modern battlefield
My favourite tank 👍👍😎😎 Have seen you're three times 👍👍🎩🎩
It’s a very cool tank!
@@ArmourgeddonTanksare you subscribed to Australian PowerPoint Enthusiast Perun?
Секрет их использования прост: это конфликт высокой интенсивности, такого не было со времен WW2. И в день используюься каждой стороной лесятки тон боеприпасов. США завозили боеприпасы со всех стран НАТО и даже из Тайваня и южной Кореи. В России на складах хранения осталось много снарядов для этих пушек.
The Abrams is indeed a Cold War Tank. However - it was designed with a tremendous amount of growth potential - and has continued to improve.
Wait, T 55 had composite? Im pretty sure up to T 64 all tanks had conventional armor
Hi! It was the T55A that had composite armour
@@ArmourgeddonTanks oh yes, those ad-ons
I get what you mean now
Maybe there saving the better Hardware for the open flats of Poland and the northern plains of Germany?? who knows??
Nah, they're just being used as self-propelled howitzers alongside with t-62s. Azerbaijan did the same with their t-55s in the second Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020.
Interesting take
I saw a comparison of the T-64 vs T-72. The compared to T-72, T-64 had a narrower narrower track Wheels, the tended to "cut' through mud, and T-64 had track pads with cutouts. Those 2 features made the T-64 a better "mudder" than the T-72. I wonder how the T-55 stands on those features? Could it be they want T-55s because they are also good mudder's?
Reconsidering the past doesn't change current
Good job , thank's from France
Thanks for watching!
The stock footage used seems kind of all over the place talking about Serbian T-55 upgrades with Ukrainian upgrade footage or T-90 footage
Hi! As you can imagine it’s extremely hard to get footage of certain vehicles especially footage that is copy right free. I do try to get the right stuff but sometimes close has to be good enough
Perfectly good mobile support gun that is impervious to small arms and light artillery shrapnel.
Плюс в том, что от осколков тяжёлой артиллерии тоже защищён. Т-55 - это самая тяжелобронированная САУ в мире ;)
A tank is a tank at the end of the day. Lol
They have 100mm cannons and are simple to use and upkeep.
Ukraine has taught us that the idea of old weapons being obsolete is ridiculous
Any port in the storm when scraping the bottom of the barrel (help yourself to appropriate clichés).
Hm, By their nature, all tanks have the propensity of acting as a Faraday-Cage for electromagnetic energy. You can try that out by trying to operate a cell-phone inside one. No Go!. I mean even the old Centurion was nuclear hardened and was tested as such by the Australians when they exposed it to the blast of a nuclear explosion, after which it merrily continued service. Not that the Centurion had any significant computer equipment, but you get the drift. It is unlikely to the point of absurdity to assume that current NATO equipment would have dispensed with this form of protection, since it would be prohibitively expensive to remove it from weapon system that are by their nature, already physically bestowed with it.
Explosive reactive Armour only works if the blocks are filled with explosives rather than Newspapers or rubber blocks.
Haha yes 😂
How dare you. Russia are using authentic used toilet paper.
Are we really using this old myth. At least do some research into it before making a claim.
@@voidtempering8700 It was widely broadcast by Ukrainian and Russian journalists. I'm less inclinde to believe the Ukrainians.
good old myth , keep believing it , this has been debunked soo many times, the tank lights were also missing it the ones where era was missing who could have thought they recovered those for a different tank. ik its harder than rocket science
GREAT SHOW!!
The tank on the start screen is a Polish modification of the T 55. Its name is Merida.
Secret wapon…😂
Haha secret doesn’t always mean good
Jaguar is a Chinese Type-59, Still one of the early variants of the T-55.
.....T55 is simply an excellent tank, which gives also a few extra things:
--high chance of surviving in case of nuclear weapons are used
--safety for the crew
--last but not least: very very reliable.
It is simply an excellent design, and there are 100.000 made.....
With thge right ammo, it can take out Abram, Challenger, Leopard.
(leopard you can take out with a sling shot.....)
This video was quite the ordinary history documentary until it took a really sudden and dark turn very quickly.
That’s what I was thinking too…
ah the T-54 went into low rate production back in 1946, T-54 Model 1946
❤ thank you for giving such an unbiased information
Thank you!
I mean, most tanks used in general are from the Cold War
Yes very true haha!
tactics will change in any case tanks are always vulnerable to ATGMS in any class of system.
Brilliant (EMP)
Same for aircraft ?
The majority of military equipment os protected against EMP including tanks. The reason theyre pulling T55's out of storage is the lack of computers, but because pf sanctions they are unable to get hold of many computer chips and other advanced electronics which are meeded for the more modern tanks.
Do you breath? Your delivery gives me a m. I. G. R. A. I. N
❤❤❤❤❤ very nice thank you
T-55 located in Zaporizhzhia oblast has neither the gun or ERA upgrade discussed in this video. Most T-80s found don't have 2nd generation thermal sights (which NATO tanks made in the 1990s are all equipped with) so it's extremely unlikely those T-55s have 2nd generation thermal sights.
The only NATO tan ks with third gen thermal are the Leopard 2A7V and Last Leclerc variant. The rest still use second gen thermals. Just as the T-80BVM that has a second gen thermal for the gunner Sosna-U and nothing for the commander the difference with NATO been that NATO tanks has independent thermals for the guner and commander.
@@viceralman8450 You're right, I was off by a whole generation.
@@simon-pierrelussier2775 That will change soon as Abrams and Chally 3 will recibe third gen thermals as well.
The title should read, why is Ukraine and Russia using the cold war tank.
Likely it doesn't have the autoloader which has turned out to be an Ammo rack turret blaster. Its pretty obvious Russia has been posturing much since the downfall of the USRR. Its not hust been the T72 as from Missile cruisers to all aspects the maintence, quality and expertease of users is at a level producing the results they are getting.
T55 likely in a support role and very much in the current state of Russia price and expendabillity are the prime factors.
The are backed into a corner with reputation in tatters so the EMF resilient T55 is extremely worrying, when it comes to the often mentioned tactical nukes.
Pretty much any tank will throw its turret if it experiences ammo detonation besides the M1 Abrams Leclerc and Leopard 2. And even in the case of the Leclerc and leopard 2 there is unprotected hull ammunition that could potentially throw a turret with a good hit. It has nothing to do with having an autoloader.
@@doobs5342 On the T72 it does as there is a clear detonation chain and its happening regular. Its nothing to do with throwing the turret after it experiences ammo det, its that it is experiencing ammo det extremely regular and many analyts point to the flaw where the auto loader has a near unprotected path, is whay its happening and from evidence looks a huge flaw.
So much so MSN is even posting details ruclips.net/video/x78oE2yxNpI/видео.html
Against anything other than Leo2 and M1 it is a fierce vehicle. Even to Leo's and M1's it can absolutely still disable/destroy them as long as you aim anywhere other than the frontal armor
It could probably do well vs Leo 2A4's from Poland too (those have like 400mm of armor before ERA), but otherwise ... yeah.
I suspect it's the gun, 115mm smoothbore ammo (for t-62a) is rare, but 100mm rifled gun ammo is not.
@@Milo-id9qd That's a great point about the ammo and likely one of the reasons the T62's are not being rolled out.
@@3dprintmiami Russia announced a program to refit 800 T-62 over three years... They are in use in Ukraine already.
@@hyhhy Yeah and already 100 have been destroyed or captured
@@steveosborne2297 So 700 remaining ...
Dug in siege guns. Each will have three or four firing positions. Top will be caged with ERA to mitigate drone strikes. Far more survivability than towed artillery. These aren’t for tank on tank engagements, that’s the T90M’s job.
So when we would see t-55 vs m-48 clashes huh?
Can't wait to see these on Oryx...
Tank is still tank, even if it's 70 years old tank. It's not gonna be used as a tank but as armored vehicle with 100mm gun . Ukrainians will need to waste their antitank rockets.... Though in general for russian side those old tanks will significantly reduce moral of the soldiers and very likely will have numerous logistic issues.. So we gonna see a lot of scrap left on battle field.
T55A doesn’t have composite (laminate) armor, nor does it have a 105 mm gun (At least current Russian T55’s). The only T55’s that have composite armor is the T55 AM-1 which they are using in Ukraine, but the “stock” T55A does not. Also only westernized T55’s like the M55S that Slovenia sent to Ukraine and the Chinese T55’s have 105 mm guns, definitely not the ones used on the Russian side.
Good for urban combat.
As artillery they are easily out ranged by actual artillery making then an easy target for it and drones.
Perun talked about this a few weeks ago.
if youve got em and they work why not use them?
Very true
Russia is using the older technology but upgrading it for modern situations which is an intelligent decision!!..Why waste what has already been manufactured. It can still be used and saves using newer technology until really needed maybe in a prolonged engagement
Russia only uses T-55 for spare parts to T-62 in special operations in Ukraine! In Serbia not exist M-82 tank, only M-84. The best modification and production of the Russian T-72 in that era.
thanks for da vid and the idea of using nuclear weapons by Russia . . makes sense
They will aim at Germany, France , and USA bomb shelters that China mapped with last five spy balloons and tens of thousands of 'student' that were ignored. Satellite can't get cell phone communications like the balloons did.
Probably has no computer so no Emp would stop it ?
its the gun that matters to the Russians, here; not the platform its mounted on.
The question is so boring. Actually most of the existing millitary equipment was developed during the cold war including US Army's.
Ya tenemos un gran tanque de 2linea upgraded al estilo serbio.
People laugh about the T-55 possibly going into combat, but forget that other than other MBT's, it will still have better armour than every other vehicle on the battlefield! For example, if it goes toe to toe with say, a Bradley, the Bradley is toast!
There is a slight problem with your assumption . Bradley could target a T55 at four times the range of that which are T55 could target a Bradley
... tow to toe ...? tow missile has standard range of 3000m / 3500m max
@@steveosborne2297 missed your reply - didn't update an old session --- thanks
The TOW missile on Bradley says hi!
T-55 has 100mm armor from the front. RPG-7 can defeat 500mm of armor. Use the math. Anything available will be able to defeat a T-55, sans small arms.