Hello.Commander on T-55 here. Everything is correct. Except one small correction. That Boron layer was added in transition from T-55 to T-55A variant. It also included reworked steering mechanics and PKt instead of SGMT gun 7.62mm. I also remember track repair was easier due to corrections on front small driving wheel release which was called "a lazy". That small wheel in front was not a driving wheel. It was used to guide the tracks and to tighten or release the tracks manually according to terrain the tank has to cross. It also had a significant impact on track repair. It took less time and and it was much easier to repair the tracks. The back wheel, close to engine, was a driving wheel, and between them 5 big supporting wheels each side. Also, I remember having a laser range finder on commander's place. It had pretty accurate gun but not so easy to drive. The driver had to have experience, much experience. The guys on T-72 we used to call "the spoiled ones". A lot of things has been much easier to do on that tank.
Привет! Отличный комментарий. Только не колеса,а опорные катки. Я же служил на Т-64А (1973 года выпуска) в Украине. 1975- 1977гг. Был командиром танка. Привет из Грузии ( Georgia)!
@@kallanr360 According to western media it is effective when Ukrainians are getting them and using them, but when Russians are using even t-72 they are called antic and crappy;)
@@hookfangtrew_yt2804 yeah I've seen videos of them effectively being used like SPGs, I just don't fancy the odds a drone won't spot you while doing it.
К стати, этот танк до сих пор воюет, русская армия использует их как подменные машины для экипажей Т-90М, танки которых находятся в ремонте.. Естественно, что т-54/55 не идут непосредственно в бой, а используются с закрытых огневых позиций, как артиллерия.
People don't understand the fact that "tank is a tank" it's meant to be a giant sniper that can take out or suppress the enemy. doesn't matter how old they are or how outdated their armor is. it's still a valuable weapon if it can point at distance target and fire a shot. and old tanks always can be upgraded with new thermals and other equipments
Until a modern tank rolls up or a atgm 💀. Good for poorer countries but honestly more nations are investing in atgm than tanks because of how easily you can take them out. The same way its easy to mass produce lol
Also depends on the nations military doctrine in themselves. Without combined armed forced or even air superiority for that matter. Yea no tank is better than a shitty tank.
@@thebuddyolboi9875 Bloviated expenditure. The technology exists to cover the battle field with tracked autonomous explosives and flying autonomous explosives. All of this tank nonsense is MIC and lobbyists making use of their old toys for killing sons, fathers, and husbands.
@@thebuddyolboi9875 Tank vs tank fights have been rare in Ukraine. The ATGM threat is greatly reduced by having infantry work with tanks rather than sending tanks out alone.
@@happydeathfish2166 as long as they aren’t being used against anything from the t62 generation or beyond, they’re good enough. Heavy gun support against fortifications, anti armour against light AFVs, destroyer of light vehicles and technicals etc
@@nothinghappenedatpearlharb7426 T-55 as well as the T-62 can use the 9M117 Bastion, a Soviet laser-beam anti-tank missile fired from the cannon. The missile is the same for both tanks and differs only in the guide rings. In terms of maximum armor penetration it levels these tanks, ensuring that any modern tank will be hit. The range of guided missiles can reach up to 5 km, which is twice the range of Abrams, Leopard-2 and Challenger-2 tanks and protects from return fire better than any armor.
In Sweden, we used the east German BLG-60M2 during 1997-2011 in Sweden as "Brobandvagn 971". It's a German-built bridge builder based on the T55 Chassie. So no T55s were used as tanks in Sweden.
T 55S is a name for slovenian upgraded version done during the war for independence 1991 when the west inposed sanction on Slovenia and Croatia, what a contrast to the Ukraine. It was done by Israel the only westrn country didnt care for sanciton it had some issue after modernisation, those tanks are now by the order of the EU boss in Ukraine which is kinda irronic because back in time Ukraine did not help Slovenian&Croatian fight for independece but Russia and Israel did
@@altergreenhorn At first they get 15 multipurpase trucks that cost 5 times more than their old garbage(but agains apc they perfect). Then Ukraine have in 1991 huge army, no cash, no name(noone will give anything to them), no huge resouses extraction(like Russia and Kazahstan for expamle) and more important thing their own currency until 1993 most of post soviet used its rubles and it fucking hav HUGE inflation and no control. And in 1991-93 noone get shit about former Yugoslavia and serbs desire to kill anyone to their way of *reunion* until of course siege of Sarajevo. But ukranians were ones of the first peacekeepers to arrive, they guard airport and rescueed about 10k refuges to ukraine.
To see the T-55, I traveled a lot in the former USSR, Mongolia and China. T-55 is one of my favorite Soviet/Russian tanks ever built, in the Australian museum I think that is a T-55A Mod.1965 upgraded into T-55AM standard, but without BDD armor.
@@striderhein7299 lol, sure, why did they stop the developmend after ussr colapsed ? ex soviet states, even baltic states, now are ahead of russia in technology, russia still is in 90s at best
@@ANIMshit please stop your war propaganda, you guys with your complex of inferiority just created giant slaughterhouse from ukraine. Do you really think nato would protect you from the consequences? Poland already faced one radioactive contamination cloud episode and few direct rocket hits because of such fools. Innocent civilians of nato countries became victims of collateral damage and more is coming
@@ANIMshit Innocent civilians of developed european countries became victims of collateral damage because west europe like baltics and poland have guys in charge with same psycological complexes. How can't you see what you have done?
I had a number of opportunities to inspect the inside of a T-55 when I was in the Army, including the outdoor armor museum at the Hohenfels training center in Germany. I was an Abrams tank crewmen, so I knew about cramped workspaces, but I just couldn't believe how little crew space there was inside the turret of the T-55. No space, no matter how small, has ever given me claustrophobia. But the T-55 turret came close.
@@hotlanta35 You need more space... for what!? It's like when fighter pilots complain about not having enough space! You don't need more than that, it's yours to sit and manipulate the devices that are around you at your fingertips... The amount of space is an important factor in tanks with a loader, in a tank with an autoloader the only thing that matters is how comfortable the seat is... and nothing more!
There was data that more than 90000 had been made in USSR and by licensees in China and Eastern Europe. D10 gun was outstanding for it's time. Overall, the best tank for it's time.
@@grudgebearer1404 - over 10k in cold storage, cost a lot less to activate couple thousands ( since they still have some millions shells for them ! ) and use them as armored mobile arty ( that gun has an amazing 15 km range ! ) - a lot cheaper than to build 2-3000 new arty...
One important aspect in context of modern use of this tanks is it's gun. It's last soviet tank with rifled barrel, and it is much more useful in firing with mounted trajectory from covered positions. It much more accurate than any smooth gun with no-guided munition. So, it became self-propiled heavy-armored artillery for infantry support which not need long training for crew.
@@heyhoe168 Well, then, such a rich NATO bloc and its allies have run out of all shells, except for cluster ones. The armor of the BMP is much worse. If a shell explodes next to the T-55, then nothing will happen to the crew. Nevertheless, the T-55 is not used in combat.
Any tank, even a Japanese Type 95 Ha Go (ridiculously light main gun, two machine guns, paper thin armor) can be effective. Depends on what the other side has. When you have a tank and the other guy doesn't, his entire focus becomes dealing with your tank.
You can make that argument with almost anything. If you have a sword and your opponent doesn't you have the advantage still to this day. Sending it against modern tanks tough.....
@@thundereagle4130 Well sure. I have a stick. You don't. Advantage me. My point is that a good commander does not dismiss a weapon system simply because it is old or less capable. He sends it where it can do the most good.
@@williambodin5359 No. Any commander will use older systems if newer systems aren't available. There is nothing ''good'' about that, it's last resort cuz they have nothing better.
@@thundereagle4130 I'm sorry pal, I have completely lost track of the point you're trying to make. Soooo commanders shouldn't try to make good use of whatever they have?
@@williambodin5359 The point is Russia is desperate. Commanders should use modern, high end stuff. If they don't have high-end stuff, they have no choice, but to use less modern stuff. If they don't have less modern stuff, they have no choice but to use stuff that is older than Putin himself. And that is called desperation for an army that claims is the ''second strongest in the world''. I don't think this is a really hard point to understand......
Another masterclass from someone who knows what they are talking about. I HAVE to get up to the museum one day for a good look around - a very long way to go from south NSW though.
У обоих сторон сейчас огромное количество противотанковых комплексов. Поэтому в 80-90% случаев танк стреляет не прямой наводкой. Обычная работа это стрельба как САУ ( self propelled artilery) : с закрытой позиции + корректировка с дрона. Но танк лучше бронирован чем САУ и он может выдвигаться гораздо ближе к линии соприкосновения. Когда работает артиллерия слышен выстрел ( выход) через 3-4 секунды взрыв ( прилет). При работе танка этого нет выстрел и тут же взрыв. Для такой работы Т-90 , а Т-55 вполне может справится. Тем более у него нарезная пушка, что дает большую кучность и самое главное : огромное количество боеприпасов на складах, оставшиеся от СССР.
выстрел - и тут же взрыв это как раз про стрельбу прямой наводкой, в противном случае звуковая волна значительней обгоняет летящий по баллистической траектории снаряд
т - 55 все сожгли давно, на Херсонском направлении. Их там было до 50 штук всего. Ничего примечательного - картон, который еще и не попадает ни прямой наводкой из закрытых вообщем олчу. Т - 90 такая же рухлядь, только может иногда постреливать из закрытых позиций. Все горит моментально, у всех средств поражения +/- 1000мм пробития. Да и начинка у танков РФ была вся санкционная, дальнейший выпуск уже не возможен. Вот такие вот пирожки.
@@tvcat5847 ага, учитывая что т-55 начали отправлять массово только после отступления из Херсона ) или вы про те, что были ВСУ из Европы поставлены? Им тоже т-55 подогнали сколько-то штук
Great presentation of a tank, I have my attention concentrated to Aussies TV news, documentary and so on, and I am never disappointed. Greetings from Bucharest, thank you.
There’s a huge HUGE number of modernization and upgrade packages for this tank. Russia is probably upgrading theirs to the actuallly pretty good T-55M5 standard. It’s a good second line unit or for armies on a budget or for Allies like Donetsk militia which is where Russia would be sending it. It’s also good if you have terrain that can’t handle heavier vehicles.
@jasperpercabeth9140 remove the turret and ammo and the crew needed for the tank role. Replace with something else basically. Israel and a bunch of other countries have various Heavy IFVs based on the T-54/55
@Jasper Percabeth It can be used to clear out infantry positions. The same way poor nations that have t55s use them in civil wars. Yes it cannot carry infantry into battle, but it can provide direct fire support.
@@gabrielneves6602 Actually, the 100mm was was very effective. In the gulf war the tanks didn’t stand a chance because Sadam Hussein only equipped the tanks with training ammunition, with angered the Soviets because they wanted to see an actual test of the tank
He is quite correct in them being easy to drive anyone who has driven a manual vehicle could drive one, I had a go driving one in NZ as a place here had both a T55 and Centurion that you could drive along with other Military vehicles, I checked out that exact tank as well when I visited the museum in March
The idea that the hatches on the turret of the T-55 open forward to provide cover for the TC when looking out of it seems unlikely. I've ridden in a T-55 and driven a BTR-60PB. The hatches on both were squarely in the way when opened, and to see over or around them required me to expose my entire torso to potential enemy fire from every angle except directly forward. To see forward, I had to sit on the vehicle roof or stand on the seat back to get my head above the hatch.
I know it was supposed to be T-62 but I loved that they used actually Russian tanks (with western guns) in the movie "The Beast" aka "The Beast of War". Using the water weight blank ammo for the guns so it recoiled when fired looked very awesome as well.
T-55, as well as T-62, can use 9M117 "Bastion," a Soviet anti-tank missile with a laser beam launched from the cannon. The missile is the same for both tanks and differs only in the guide rings. Therefore it equalizes both tanks in terms of maximum armor penetration. The range of guided missiles can reach up to 5 km, which is twice the fire range of Abrams, Leopard-2 and Challenger-2 tanks, and it protects from return fire better than any armor. It is too early to write this tank off.
@@airmanfpv964 But don't you take into account the difference between the sighting range and the maximum possible range, and the probability of hitting a protected point and, even more so, a moving target? So, the Abrams has a target range of about 2.6 km. The 9M117 missile hits the target at a range of up to 5.5 km with a first hit probability of 70 to 90% and penetrates about 900 mm of armor even behind an explosive overlay protection. This is many times better than the old RPG-7s used by insurgents in Iraq. In any case it is enough to pierce the Abrams in the side, stern or roof, and remember that the explosive overhead armor is not likely to protect against a second hit in the same place. Sub-caliber armor-piercing shells will also lose their penetration ability at this range and will not be able to harm the tank. Well, at the maximum distance of 14.6 km according to the coordinates on the map and the T-55 can shoot. But this is not considered an effective distance for using the tank, and in such cases, shells of 155 mm caliber and more are much more useful.
Effective range of the RH-120mm L44 is 4 kilometers, not twice by far. But they can stretch to 5 kilometers with less accuracy. Same with L11 of Chally 2. Plus, Bastion penetration is a joke for modern standards just 550mm of RHA. Cut the BS pal.
I've hit targets with my first shot from distances of 3 Km easily with a Leopard 2. Anything above that, makes your chance of even getting that shot highly dependend on the territory your on. I don't see too many situations where that 5 km shot is even tried.
@@towhee7472 Therefore, the projectile is inferior to the guided missile the farther you have to shoot. With good integration with a drone-corrector, even lack of line-of-sight will not prevent the missile from aiming. Guidance algorithms are also improving, and it is no longer a big problem to teach a missile to hit vulnerable places, such as the roof, as the Javelin does. But for some reason people still consider tank combat to be a knight's tournament under the old rules and based on such views draw conclusions about obsolescence of tanks, compare thickness and inclination of armor with capabilities of shells, while shells in an old tank are easier to replace with missiles and add a surveillance drone to help, than to make a new tank. However, the results of such a replacement can be judged soon by the destroyed Leopards in Ukraine.
its little wonder that the russians are refurbing them and sending them to positions on the front line in ukraine where they will be used to support infantry in the short range mobile artillery role, allowing them to pull back their more modern tanks as a strategic reserve against nato donated ukrainian tanks
I'd argue that the T55 would be used as bait to draw out the nato tanks...leopard2 fires at a t55 destroying it, vdv shoot back with kornet atgm, its the equivalent in chess of a bishop sacrifice to take out a queen
@@kwanchan6745lose the tank and 3 crew as bait?? moral standards aside thats a stupid tactic, you still need the training and massive logisitics train to keep these tanks running. Theyre using older and older tanks as its all they have left. If they had better stuff, they would be using it!
@@chamonix4658 morals ? its about winning you idiot... russian strategy involves low maintenance equipment in huge numbers...thats exactly what is happening, and why the T55 were kept in warehouses, to be reactivated when required...to be easily used by semi trained conscripts I notice you ooky cheerleaders don't say a peek when it comes to ukraine using vintage equipment like...T55...28 of them were warmly received in oct 2022...
It's a beautiful tank with many upgrade kits & infantry still needs to figure how to deal with it!Also has a snorkel & some filtration systems for chemical & NBC warfare with a low export price Beautiful!! I know it's outdated but without a Missle a real problem to deal with!
External diesel tanks were emptied during battle . Diesel smoke screens. Penetrating power is irrelevant since they're mostly engaging soft targets and entrenched troops
Its funny as an ex tank driver in sweden i never knew we operated these i thought we operated centurios then the s and now the leopard But since ur map lists us as previous user id like to know when we used them so i can look into it further
love this series of films describing all that needs to be known about each vehicle - of course i am always interested also the the particular tanks you have, its own history if known, where it came from, how you came by it and the state it was in having worked in military vehicle restoration i know pretty well what some of them are like and i am constantly glued to your workshop channel to see your boys tinkering and replicating parts
Yes i also believe that the T-55 battletank are still so very effective even in modern day war, its upon the operator themselves on how to use this beast in order to adapt in a quite different environment of actual military engagement.
Funny thing is the Abrams is almost as old. Designed in the late 60's put into production in the early 70's and didn't see action till the 80's. It's just been upgraded time and time again.
@@SilvaDreams t-55 was basically designed in late 40th, it is a modification of T-54 which got in mass-production phase in 1947 year. Some things cant be just upgraded, such as chassis geometry or capabilities to adapt composite armor. This is why T-64 is not a modification, but a full scale generational step. As well as T-72/80 over T-64.
Tanks vs tank fights have been rare in Ukraine. It is a moot point to bring up T-55 vs modern western tanks as tanks are mostly used for infantry support and for breaching defensive strongpoints.
According to western media it is effective when Ukrainians are getting them and using them, but when Russians are using even t-72 they are called antic and crappy;)
Well, not in service in Finland any more. In museum😊. Our MBT is Leopard II now. In early 1990's we had a modified version of this tank. At the time it was equipped with laser rangefinder, highly advanced firecontrol system and night vision sight and with many other systems.
As far as i know, Chile never used the T-54/55 tank. They used instead the M40/60 Sherman derivative and M24 to counter the Peruvian T55s during the 1970s.
Even a WW2 tank is still relevant if your enemy does not have a tank. Also a Lancet that can take out a T-55 can take out a Leo 2 many times the T-55s value with the same single hit. All you need to get an 80 year old tank relevant again is a little optics upgrade and it provides the same value on the field for a lot cheaper than the modern high tech tanks and with a lot less reliability issues and a much better supply of ammo and fuel.
The T-55 is also the jack of all trades when it comes to ammo. HE-FRAG? HEAT? APDS? Whatever job you need to throw it at, you can. Just gotta load it up with the right ammo and set it up for your configuration. Hell, the thing has settings for indirect fire. It truly is the ageless Soviet workhorse.
According to western media it is effective when Ukrainians are getting them and using them, but when Russians are using even t-72 they are called antic and crappy;)
Большая глупость думать что танки воюют с танками. Абсолютное большинство танков уничтожаются ПТРК. Это во первых, во вторых он используется как САУ., но он гораздо лучше бронирован чем САУ. Поверь, если ты стреляешь из пушки ( например F-109, которую НАТО поставило Украине) ты гораздо хуже защищён, чем экипаж Т-55. А насчёт авиации ( дронов) - то тут тогда бесполезны такие машины как : maxpro, Humvee, bredly, AMX, murder и многие другие. У них броня меньше чем у танка.
T-55 variant Type 59 is still in service in china, although most of them are the upgraded version with UK 105mm cannon and some ERA, but they are still some sort of T-55 family I believe
The T-55 is still *effective*, because, well it's a tank. Big gun, good mobility, resists small arms. It doesn't really matter what type of tank you are fighting against, it's a tank and if you don't kill it soon, it will kill you But it's not *efficient*, as it needs logistics that would be better spent on a more modern tank. You need spare parts, ammo, fuel, a trained crew inside the tank (a precious resource that is more likely to die than in a modern tank) as well as mechanics working on it. Just like a medieval sword, it's easy to kill someone with it, but its place should be in a museum like the one in the video ;)
Красивая машина и в хорошем состоянии. Молодцы!) Вот только типично громоздкий английский внешний бак с топливом в глаза бросается, по советской задумке там находятся две дымовые шашки.
Change out the main gun for an auto cannon and it seems like a perfect vehicle to be operated remotely. Imagine sending a couple “Drone” T55’s with 30mm chain guns ahead of an assault. The enemy would have to reveal its ATGM positions to fire at it, and without the crew and ammo the tank would be much more difficult to knock out. You don’t even need to put fancy optics, just a daylight camera system and follow the tank with a flying drone. Situational awareness for the operators and no need for IR/thermal sights.
I find it fascinating that the West calls the T-54 Main Battle Tank but at the same time recognizes that: ...A main battle tank (MBT)...is a tank that had the firepower of a super-heavy tank, the armor protection of a heavy tank... ...the first designated MBT was the British Chieftain tank (1960s) ...the first Soviet main battle tank was the T-64 (1960s) Which is obviously does not fit for the T-54, but it's still somehow MBT.
Chile has NEVER used T-55 as service tanks. We had 5 T-55 for training purposes since our main enemy during the 70 and 80 was Peru, who had (and still uses) T-55. Chile has had a western aproach to war material.
heard a story that many bridges that were built in Czechoslovakia after 1950 were designed based on the T-55 width - the point was to make two T-55` cross it side by side where the Abrams is slightly wider and only 1 would be able to cross it
at 0:17 that RED part have major errors . Here in Sweden we NEVER had a russian tank in service . i do belive you can found 1 2 at Arsenalen tank museum . Thats it .
According to western media it is effective when Ukrainians are getting them and using them, but when Russians are using even t-72 they are called antic and crappy;)
Something was ignored here by the author - something important - GUN RANGE, up to 15km ! - reason why in Ukr they are used as armored mobile artillery, and they are VERY effective in this role ! Sadly, like any aussie or brit, when the truth is inconvenient, they will tell a lie or omit the main facts - in this case, the hypocrite author omitted THE most important thing about this tank: at the time when enter in service, was THE BEST tank, years ahead of anything murica ( brits and aussies included) years ahead of any western counterpart. It was a revolutionary tank, cheap, great armor for its time, and it is no wonder some 115 000 units were made, the world most produced tank ever...
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello.Commander on T-55 here. Everything is correct. Except one small correction. That Boron layer was added in transition from T-55 to T-55A variant. It also included reworked steering mechanics and PKt instead of SGMT gun 7.62mm. I also remember track repair was easier due to corrections on front small driving wheel release which was called "a lazy". That small wheel in front was not a driving wheel. It was used to guide the tracks and to tighten or release the tracks manually according to terrain the tank has to cross. It also had a significant impact on track repair. It took less time and and it was much easier to repair the tracks. The back wheel, close to engine, was a driving wheel, and between them 5 big supporting wheels each side. Also, I remember having a laser range finder on commander's place. It had pretty accurate gun but not so easy to drive. The driver had to have experience, much experience. The guys on T-72 we used to call "the spoiled ones". A lot of things has been much easier to do on that tank.
Привет! Отличный комментарий. Только не колеса,а опорные катки. Я же служил на Т-64А (1973 года выпуска) в Украине. 1975- 1977гг. Был командиром танка. Привет из Грузии ( Georgia)!
Question is there more space in the T-55 compared to the T-72? Thanks
M1 DU round cores through that armor like cardboard.
T-55 looks so good. No matter what you think of the USSR or Russia, Soviet tanks looks so cool
I love the look of soviet tanks, I'd just never want to have to fight in one.
Would look nice in the garden.
@@kallanr360 They are using it as artillery/indirect fire
@@kallanr360 According to western media it is effective when Ukrainians are getting them and using them, but when Russians are using even t-72 they are called antic and crappy;)
@@hookfangtrew_yt2804 yeah I've seen videos of them effectively being used like SPGs, I just don't fancy the odds a drone won't spot you while doing it.
@@kallanr360 well, same goes for any Ukrainian tank
By far one of my all time favorite tanks. Love the good commentary and wonderful imagery
t-55am2 is my favourite t55 variant
@@kmriifpsmine is the T-55A
К стати, этот танк до сих пор воюет, русская армия использует их как подменные машины для экипажей Т-90М, танки которых находятся в ремонте..
Естественно, что т-54/55 не идут непосредственно в бой, а используются с закрытых огневых позиций, как артиллерия.
@@Max-oi4kj я знаю
@@powers179 в составе РФ, слава)
that drone with the grenade cracked me up nice touch Kurt
It made me chuckle when I saw it. I had to go back and rewatch that part.
@@steveschriefer2733 where in the vid was it i missed that
@@teru797 6:30
hahaha had to take a second look myself!
Every tank can be destroyed with grenade if hatch is open.
People don't understand the fact that "tank is a tank" it's meant to be a giant sniper that can take out or suppress the enemy. doesn't matter how old they are or how outdated their armor is. it's still a valuable weapon if it can point at distance target and fire a shot. and old tanks always can be upgraded with new thermals and other equipments
Until a modern tank rolls up or a atgm 💀. Good for poorer countries but honestly more nations are investing in atgm than tanks because of how easily you can take them out. The same way its easy to mass produce lol
Also depends on the nations military doctrine in themselves. Without combined armed forced or even air superiority for that matter. Yea no tank is better than a shitty tank.
@@thebuddyolboi9875 Bloviated expenditure. The technology exists to cover the battle field with tracked autonomous explosives and flying autonomous explosives. All of this tank nonsense is MIC and lobbyists making use of their old toys for killing sons, fathers, and husbands.
@@thebuddyolboi9875 Tank vs tank fights have been rare in Ukraine. The ATGM threat is greatly reduced by having infantry work with tanks rather than sending tanks out alone.
@@blackpowderriflehunter7573 yeah, the age of the tank is pretty much over. There won' be another kursk
T-55 is the most produced tank in the world, maybe it deserves its name to get to the calenders on the wall as well as having a birthday
Most produced tank not the most produced armored vehicle. That would be the universal carrier.
And well used againts the Ukrorats.
@@Big1_ It very outdated though...
@@happydeathfish2166 as long as they aren’t being used against anything from the t62 generation or beyond, they’re good enough. Heavy gun support against fortifications, anti armour against light AFVs, destroyer of light vehicles and technicals etc
@@nothinghappenedatpearlharb7426 T-55 as well as the T-62 can use the 9M117 Bastion, a Soviet laser-beam anti-tank missile fired from the cannon. The missile is the same for both tanks and differs only in the guide rings. In terms of maximum armor penetration it levels these tanks, ensuring that any modern tank will be hit. The range of guided missiles can reach up to 5 km, which is twice the range of Abrams, Leopard-2 and Challenger-2 tanks and protects from return fire better than any armor.
thank you for restoring and properly storing this piece of history
Thank you for posting this awesome tour of AK- 47 of the battle Tank !. 👍
Great video and a great laugh starting at 6:30
In Sweden, we used the east German BLG-60M2 during 1997-2011 in Sweden as "Brobandvagn 971".
It's a German-built bridge builder based on the T55 Chassie. So no T55s were used as tanks in Sweden.
T 55S is a name for slovenian upgraded version done during the war for independence 1991 when the west inposed sanction on Slovenia and Croatia, what a contrast to the Ukraine.
It was done by Israel the only westrn country didnt care for sanciton it had some issue after modernisation, those tanks are now by the order of the EU boss in Ukraine which is kinda irronic because back in time Ukraine did not help Slovenian&Croatian fight for independece but Russia and Israel did
@@altergreenhorn At first they get 15 multipurpase trucks that cost 5 times more than their old garbage(but agains apc they perfect). Then Ukraine have in 1991 huge army, no cash, no name(noone will give anything to them), no huge resouses extraction(like Russia and Kazahstan for expamle) and more important thing their own currency until 1993 most of post soviet used its rubles and it fucking hav HUGE inflation and no control. And in 1991-93 noone get shit about former Yugoslavia and serbs desire to kill anyone to their way of *reunion* until of course siege of Sarajevo. But ukranians were ones of the first peacekeepers to arrive, they guard airport and rescueed about 10k refuges to ukraine.
@@altergreenhorn It's M-55S and not 'T'
To see the T-55, I traveled a lot in the former USSR, Mongolia and China.
T-55 is one of my favorite Soviet/Russian tanks ever built, in the Australian museum I think that is a T-55A Mod.1965 upgraded into T-55AM standard, but without BDD armor.
soviet tank, not russian tank
@@ANIMshit Yeah well it was still developed by the Soviet Russians first before distribution to the rest of the USSR.
@@striderhein7299 lol, sure, why did they stop the developmend after ussr colapsed ?
ex soviet states, even baltic states, now are ahead of russia in technology, russia still is in 90s at best
@@ANIMshit please stop your war propaganda, you guys with your complex of inferiority just created giant slaughterhouse from ukraine. Do you really think nato would protect you from the consequences? Poland already faced one radioactive contamination cloud episode and few direct rocket hits because of such fools. Innocent civilians of nato countries became victims of collateral damage and more is coming
@@ANIMshit Innocent civilians of developed european countries became victims of collateral damage because west europe like baltics and poland have guys in charge with same psycological complexes. How can't you see what you have done?
I had a number of opportunities to inspect the inside of a T-55 when I was in the Army, including the outdoor armor museum at the Hohenfels training center in Germany. I was an Abrams tank crewmen, so I knew about cramped workspaces, but I just couldn't believe how little crew space there was inside the turret of the T-55. No space, no matter how small, has ever given me claustrophobia. But the T-55 turret came close.
Der Abrams ist ein schwerer Panzer, also groß. Der T55 ist ein mittlerer Panzer, also klein. Beides hat seine vor und Nachteile.
Probably has more room than a T72
@@hotlanta35 You need more space... for what!? It's like when fighter pilots complain about not having enough space! You don't need more than that, it's yours to sit and manipulate the devices that are around you at your fingertips...
The amount of space is an important factor in tanks with a loader, in a tank with an autoloader the only thing that matters is how comfortable the seat is... and nothing more!
All I said is that the T55 has more room than the T72 .😐
I was gunner,later commander of T 55.And I spend some nights in.
Always a pleasure to watch anything you guys put out, highly informative and interesting
Well when they actually know what they are talking about instead of making TikTok memes…
Thanks Jason, that was the best rundown on a T55 or any tank for that matter that I have every watched. Cheers
There was data that more than 90000 had been made in USSR and by licensees in China and Eastern Europe. D10 gun was outstanding for it's time. Overall, the best tank for it's time.
Was years ahead of anything the West had at that time, great machine....
155k units produced, most were blown up as training for more modern tanks the rest storages until Russia called them into action.
@@grudgebearer1404 - over 10k in cold storage, cost a lot less to activate couple thousands ( since they still have some millions shells for them ! ) and use them as armored mobile arty ( that gun has an amazing 15 km range ! ) - a lot cheaper than to build 2-3000 new arty...
Nah no way 900k. If they could produce this amount, they would have atleast 50k of their new style tanks in Ukraine lol
@@iLoveThoseVids 90k*
@6:34 You're gonna give that poor old tank nightmares.
One important aspect in context of modern use of this tanks is it's gun. It's last soviet tank with rifled barrel, and it is much more useful in firing with mounted trajectory from covered positions. It much more accurate than any smooth gun with no-guided munition. So, it became self-propiled heavy-armored artillery for infantry support which not need long training for crew.
Ano,t55 byl a je dosud výtečný stroj s dobrým kanonem a dalekým dostřelem
BMP-3 can serve the same very role with a similar rifled gun. So usage of t-55 is a desperate measure cased by poverty.
@@heyhoe168 Well, then, such a rich NATO bloc and its allies have run out of all shells, except for cluster ones.
The armor of the BMP is much worse. If a shell explodes next to the T-55, then nothing will happen to the crew.
Nevertheless, the T-55 is not used in combat.
Assault gun for the modern age
Yes accurate but smooth gun is better because of HEAT and FG and Cumulative not rotating she'll
Lot of damage made
Love the T-55, baby is a classic.
It took me back 38 years to the time when I was a soldier, a howitzer loader, and a shootter!😉
Any tank, even a Japanese Type 95 Ha Go (ridiculously light main gun, two machine guns, paper thin armor) can be effective. Depends on what the other side has. When you have a tank and the other guy doesn't, his entire focus becomes dealing with your tank.
You can make that argument with almost anything. If you have a sword and your opponent doesn't you have the advantage still to this day.
Sending it against modern tanks tough.....
@@thundereagle4130 Well sure. I have a stick. You don't. Advantage me. My point is that a good commander does not dismiss a weapon system simply because it is old or less capable. He sends it where it can do the most good.
@@williambodin5359 No.
Any commander will use older systems if newer systems aren't available.
There is nothing ''good'' about that, it's last resort cuz they have nothing better.
@@thundereagle4130 I'm sorry pal, I have completely lost track of the point you're trying to make. Soooo commanders shouldn't try to make good use of whatever they have?
@@williambodin5359 The point is Russia is desperate.
Commanders should use modern, high end stuff.
If they don't have high-end stuff, they have no choice, but to use less modern stuff.
If they don't have less modern stuff, they have no choice but to use stuff that is older than Putin himself.
And that is called desperation for an army that claims is the ''second strongest in the world''.
I don't think this is a really hard point to understand......
Love the little cameo from the VOG drone entering lower stage :)
i believe it was a nato 40mil
My dad was a commander of T-55 and finished army academy on it..and use it in defending in war
Another masterclass from someone who knows what they are talking about. I HAVE to get up to the museum one day for a good look around - a very long way to go from south NSW though.
A good tank for its time. Low profile, and the rounded turret provided a very small target. And very good firepower.
as usual, great information, great video ! Awesome
У обоих сторон сейчас огромное количество противотанковых комплексов. Поэтому в 80-90% случаев танк стреляет не прямой наводкой. Обычная работа это стрельба как САУ ( self propelled artilery) : с закрытой позиции + корректировка с дрона. Но танк лучше бронирован чем САУ и он может выдвигаться гораздо ближе к линии соприкосновения. Когда работает артиллерия слышен выстрел ( выход) через 3-4 секунды взрыв ( прилет). При работе танка этого нет выстрел и тут же взрыв. Для такой работы Т-90 , а Т-55 вполне может справится. Тем более у него нарезная пушка, что дает большую кучность и самое главное : огромное количество боеприпасов на складах, оставшиеся от СССР.
выстрел - и тут же взрыв это как раз про стрельбу прямой наводкой, в противном случае звуковая волна значительней обгоняет летящий по баллистической траектории снаряд
@@ivflash6363 в теории
One of the most accurate descriptions of current uses for the T-55 I have seen in a comment section. Bravo sir
т - 55 все сожгли давно, на Херсонском направлении. Их там было до 50 штук всего. Ничего примечательного - картон, который еще и не попадает ни прямой наводкой из закрытых вообщем олчу. Т - 90 такая же рухлядь, только может иногда постреливать из закрытых позиций. Все горит моментально, у всех средств поражения +/- 1000мм пробития.
Да и начинка у танков РФ была вся санкционная, дальнейший выпуск уже не возможен. Вот такие вот пирожки.
@@tvcat5847 ага, учитывая что т-55 начали отправлять массово только после отступления из Херсона ) или вы про те, что были ВСУ из Европы поставлены? Им тоже т-55 подогнали сколько-то штук
Great presentation of a tank, I have my attention concentrated to Aussies TV news, documentary and so on, and I am never disappointed. Greetings from Bucharest, thank you.
There’s a huge HUGE number of modernization and upgrade packages for this tank.
Russia is probably upgrading theirs to the actuallly pretty good T-55M5 standard. It’s a good second line unit or for armies on a budget or for Allies like Donetsk militia which is where Russia would be sending it. It’s also good if you have terrain that can’t handle heavier vehicles.
Usually russia uses it as a IFV or a mobile artillery platform
@jasperpercabeth9140 remove the turret and ammo and the crew needed for the tank role. Replace with something else basically. Israel and a bunch of other countries have various Heavy IFVs based on the T-54/55
@Jasper Percabeth It can be used to clear out infantry positions. The same way poor nations that have t55s use them in civil wars. Yes it cannot carry infantry into battle, but it can provide direct fire support.
@@pasindupereraSL and also indirect fire if you build a ramp like many many armys have done with their tanks when needed
@@pasindupereraSLthey made a prototype called the btr t sometime ago but it was never adopted I think
Still a tank with a big gun
And a bad round
@@gabrielneves6602still good enough to turn you into mince meat. So as lightly armored vehicles…
@@SOUNDWAVEPR Tru
@@gabrielneves6602 Actually, the 100mm was was very effective. In the gulf war the tanks didn’t stand a chance because Sadam Hussein only equipped the tanks with training ammunition, with angered the Soviets because they wanted to see an actual test of the tank
@@nataliemoss1314 interesting, i didn't knew that detail. Living and learning i guess
He is quite correct in them being easy to drive anyone who has driven a manual vehicle could drive one, I had a go driving one in NZ as a place here had both a T55 and Centurion that you could drive along with other Military vehicles, I checked out that exact tank as well when I visited the museum in March
я проехал на т-55, 15 км по кругу в 1984 г. я помню, как будто это было вчера...
Well almost anyone in the US for the past 30 years is fucked then. Most of them have never seen a fucking manual transmission car/truck.
Love how he just casually sounds like a car salesman but is actually speaking of a 40-ton killing machine.
6:33 cheeky cheeky! LOL
I don't know if it is effective (not) but sure is beautiful and thats literally the only thing we have here in Peru.
Спасибо за рассказ о нашем Т-55!
The drone with grenade be like
@@Boxwashere Every tank can be destroyed with grenade if hatch is open. Grown up, mate.
@@user-gf2fz5nu5h and Russia too smart to close the hatch 💀
@@Boxwashere Both sides don't close the hatches when they rest. Both sides use drones with grenades. Rest is story.🤓
@@Boxwashere how's the Leopards
Certainly an iconic tank.
As always Jason you're technical data is schmico and I always enjoy your enthusiasm and segments
The idea that the hatches on the turret of the T-55 open forward to provide cover for the TC when looking out of it seems unlikely. I've ridden in a T-55 and driven a BTR-60PB. The hatches on both were squarely in the way when opened, and to see over or around them required me to expose my entire torso to potential enemy fire from every angle except directly forward. To see forward, I had to sit on the vehicle roof or stand on the seat back to get my head above the hatch.
Man kann die Luke des Kommandanten beim T55 um 360 Grad drehen.
Love your work, AusArmour. 👍
I know it was supposed to be T-62 but I loved that they used actually Russian tanks (with western guns) in the movie "The Beast" aka "The Beast of War". Using the water weight blank ammo for the guns so it recoiled when fired looked very awesome as well.
T-55, as well as T-62, can use 9M117 "Bastion," a Soviet anti-tank missile with a laser beam launched from the cannon. The missile is the same for both tanks and differs only in the guide rings. Therefore it equalizes both tanks in terms of maximum armor penetration. The range of guided missiles can reach up to 5 km, which is twice the fire range of Abrams, Leopard-2 and Challenger-2 tanks, and it protects from return fire better than any armor. It is too early to write this tank off.
5km is not twice the abrams range, it can hit targets that far with a little luck and it can just send off the coordinates of enemies to artillery.
@@airmanfpv964 But don't you take into account the difference between the sighting range and the maximum possible range, and the probability of hitting a protected point and, even more so, a moving target? So, the Abrams has a target range of about 2.6 km. The 9M117 missile hits the target at a range of up to 5.5 km with a first hit probability of 70 to 90% and penetrates about 900 mm of armor even behind an explosive overlay protection. This is many times better than the old RPG-7s used by insurgents in Iraq. In any case it is enough to pierce the Abrams in the side, stern or roof, and remember that the explosive overhead armor is not likely to protect against a second hit in the same place. Sub-caliber armor-piercing shells will also lose their penetration ability at this range and will not be able to harm the tank.
Well, at the maximum distance of 14.6 km according to the coordinates on the map and the T-55 can shoot. But this is not considered an effective distance for using the tank, and in such cases, shells of 155 mm caliber and more are much more useful.
Effective range of the RH-120mm L44 is 4 kilometers, not twice by far. But they can stretch to 5 kilometers with less accuracy. Same with L11 of Chally 2. Plus, Bastion penetration is a joke for modern standards just 550mm of RHA. Cut the BS pal.
I've hit targets with my first shot from distances of 3 Km easily with a Leopard 2. Anything above that, makes your chance of even getting that shot highly dependend on the territory your on. I don't see too many situations where that 5 km shot is even tried.
@@towhee7472 Therefore, the projectile is inferior to the guided missile the farther you have to shoot. With good integration with a drone-corrector, even lack of line-of-sight will not prevent the missile from aiming. Guidance algorithms are also improving, and it is no longer a big problem to teach a missile to hit vulnerable places, such as the roof, as the Javelin does. But for some reason people still consider tank combat to be a knight's tournament under the old rules and based on such views draw conclusions about obsolescence of tanks, compare thickness and inclination of armor with capabilities of shells, while shells in an old tank are easier to replace with missiles and add a surveillance drone to help, than to make a new tank. However, the results of such a replacement can be judged soon by the destroyed Leopards in Ukraine.
I think its still effective as long as no shoulder fired missile weapons or other tanks with competent crews shows up on the side your shooting at.
I don't believe Mr. Belgrave is an overly hefty gentleman, yet you can see how cramped it is inside even for him.
That 100mm is still a beast of a killer. Same way you wouldnt want to get shot at by a 50 year old gun you wouldnt want to get shot at by this .
its little wonder that the russians are refurbing them and sending them to positions on the front line in ukraine where they will be used to support infantry in the short range mobile artillery role, allowing them to pull back their more modern tanks as a strategic reserve against nato donated ukrainian tanks
I'd argue that the T55 would be used as bait to draw out the nato tanks...leopard2 fires at a t55 destroying it, vdv shoot back with kornet atgm, its the equivalent in chess of a bishop sacrifice to take out a queen
@@kwanchan6745lose the tank and 3 crew as bait?? moral standards aside thats a stupid tactic, you still need the training and massive logisitics train to keep these tanks running. Theyre using older and older tanks as its all they have left. If they had better stuff, they would be using it!
@@chamonix4658 morals ? its about winning you idiot...
russian strategy involves low maintenance equipment in huge numbers...thats exactly what is happening, and why the T55 were kept in warehouses, to be reactivated when required...to be easily used by semi trained conscripts
I notice you ooky cheerleaders don't say a peek when it comes to ukraine using vintage equipment like...T55...28 of them were warmly received in oct 2022...
Anything more modern than WW2 can penetrate it.
best tank presenter on youtube I've seen so far. keep up the good work!
Okay, I haven't expected a 100 mm practice round with Hungarian markings at 4:16.
It's a beautiful tank with many upgrade kits & infantry still needs to figure how to deal with it!Also has a snorkel & some filtration systems for chemical & NBC warfare with a low export price Beautiful!! I know it's outdated but without a Missle a real problem to deal with!
2 roky v Československé armádě jako řidič.Výtečný a nadčasový stroj.Předváděný typ je t55a s protiatomovou ochranou.
External diesel tanks were emptied during battle . Diesel smoke screens. Penetrating power is irrelevant since they're mostly engaging soft targets and entrenched troops
In 1960 its best tank. Or u know other better tank in 1960?
@@ValentainSun personally I like the m60 starship . But t55 is really good too
Its funny as an ex tank driver in sweden i never knew we operated these i thought we operated centurios then the s and now the leopard
But since ur map lists us as previous user id like to know when we used them so i can look into it further
Look at the comment of @Lars Br.
Возможно и не использовали. Просто купили из запасов ГДР и держали на базах хранения.
@@user-hm8eh6be8c были мостоукладчики на базе 55
The map is from wikipedia, could be wrong.
It’s kinda nuts to me that we have working Soviet tanks here to see down in Aus, really cool
I was T-55 mechanic, we always said that "The life teaches, but T-55 humbles" :D
love this series of films describing all that needs to be known about each vehicle - of course i am always interested also the the particular tanks you have, its own history if known, where it came from, how you came by it and the state it was in
having worked in military vehicle restoration i know pretty well what some of them are like and i am constantly glued to your workshop channel to see your boys tinkering and replicating parts
Yes i also believe that the T-55 battletank are still so very effective even in modern day war, its upon the operator themselves on how to use this beast in order to adapt in a quite different environment of actual military engagement.
Funny thing is the Abrams is almost as old. Designed in the late 60's put into production in the early 70's and didn't see action till the 80's. It's just been upgraded time and time again.
@@SilvaDreams t-55 was basically designed in late 40th, it is a modification of T-54 which got in mass-production phase in 1947 year. Some things cant be just upgraded, such as chassis geometry or capabilities to adapt composite armor. This is why T-64 is not a modification, but a full scale generational step. As well as T-72/80 over T-64.
Great tank looks superb
Tanks vs tank fights have been rare in Ukraine. It is a moot point to bring up T-55 vs modern western tanks as tanks are mostly used for infantry support and for breaching defensive strongpoints.
Still effective? It's a tank.
A flintlock pistol is laughably outdated but I guarantee you don't want to be shot with one.
Nobody ever shot with a musket said "do it again"
@@johndowe7003 😂😂😂😂
According to western media it is effective when Ukrainians are getting them and using them, but when Russians are using even t-72 they are called antic and crappy;)
Still an awesome tank.
6:24 I like what you did there.
If anything were to happen and the amunition goes off, at least it's a quick and painless death.
I was a gunner in T-55AM tank best version of T55 :D . These tanks were scrapped , I got the T72
T-55's were great targets for the Olifant in Angola.
Well, not in service in Finland any more. In museum😊. Our MBT is Leopard II now. In early 1990's we had a modified version of this tank. At the time it was equipped with laser rangefinder, highly advanced firecontrol system and night vision sight and with many other systems.
In 1994, Sweden bought 34 used BLG-60M2 road pavers from Germany, originally inherited from the former East Germany. Not T55😇
T-55 BLG-60M2
@@preludeh22a57 sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brobandvagn_971
@@jadefeldt en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55_operators_and_variants
I used to serve on one of these back in Romania in the 80s. One time we had to push start it on the grass!!! Around 30 people.
As far as i know, Chile never used the T-54/55 tank. They used instead the M40/60 Sherman derivative and M24 to counter the Peruvian T55s during the 1970s.
T 55 is in our college, as display. 😁😁
Even a WW2 tank is still relevant if your enemy does not have a tank. Also a Lancet that can take out a T-55 can take out a Leo 2 many times the T-55s value with the same single hit. All you need to get an 80 year old tank relevant again is a little optics upgrade and it provides the same value on the field for a lot cheaper than the modern high tech tanks and with a lot less reliability issues and a much better supply of ammo and fuel.
The T-55 is also the jack of all trades when it comes to ammo. HE-FRAG? HEAT? APDS? Whatever job you need to throw it at, you can. Just gotta load it up with the right ammo and set it up for your configuration. Hell, the thing has settings for indirect fire. It truly is the ageless Soviet workhorse.
Just because it doesn't have cutting-edge technology doesn't mean its shell can't penetrate a modern tank
Assume it's still effective against troops with NO tanks. And when there's no air threat.
Indeed, it was used to good effect by the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. The news coverage had lots of good shots of T-55's firing.
Hell even something like a T34 would still be better than nothing
According to western media it is effective when Ukrainians are getting them and using them, but when Russians are using even t-72 they are called antic and crappy;)
Большая глупость думать что танки воюют с танками. Абсолютное большинство танков уничтожаются ПТРК. Это во первых, во вторых он используется как САУ., но он гораздо лучше бронирован чем САУ. Поверь, если ты стреляешь из пушки ( например F-109, которую НАТО поставило Украине) ты гораздо хуже защищён, чем экипаж Т-55. А насчёт авиации ( дронов) - то тут тогда бесполезны такие машины как : maxpro, Humvee, bredly, AMX, murder и многие другие. У них броня меньше чем у танка.
T-55 variant Type 59 is still in service in china, although most of them are the upgraded version with UK 105mm cannon and some ERA, but they are still some sort of T-55 family I believe
Saw Jason on the ABC News, he did a great interview and analysis of Russian Tanks
Great Presentation - Can't wait to see it and ride it in August
The T-55 is still *effective*, because, well it's a tank. Big gun, good mobility, resists small arms. It doesn't really matter what type of tank you are fighting against, it's a tank and if you don't kill it soon, it will kill you
But it's not *efficient*, as it needs logistics that would be better spent on a more modern tank. You need spare parts, ammo, fuel, a trained crew inside the tank (a precious resource that is more likely to die than in a modern tank) as well as mechanics working on it.
Just like a medieval sword, it's easy to kill someone with it, but its place should be in a museum like the one in the video ;)
Note, Sweden never ever used any Russian tanks! During the Cold War we used the British Centurion and our own S-tank
i didn't know sweden ordered 34 T-55 BLG-60M2 Bridge Layers from germany until now
I dont think ive ever laughed as hard at a documentary video as i just did at 6:30 XD
bravo, another great, objective video. Aussiz Armor Museum, you done it again.
The good thing about comfort and survivability is you can dispense with it
....... if you don't care about the crews comfort or survivability
t-55 is the first (soviet) main battle tank (MBT), not a medium tank. There is an error on the tank description board...
No,T-64B first main battle tank in soviet army
Awesome presentation as always Love this stuff Brilliant show Mate
Красивая машина и в хорошем состоянии. Молодцы!)
Вот только типично громоздкий английский внешний бак с топливом в глаза бросается, по советской задумке там находятся две дымовые шашки.
Really like this vid+super info and proff: Thnak you Very much, I have now sub&liked :) Best regards from Denmark
Change out the main gun for an auto cannon and it seems like a perfect vehicle to be operated remotely. Imagine sending a couple “Drone” T55’s with 30mm chain guns ahead of an assault. The enemy would have to reveal its ATGM positions to fire at it, and without the crew and ammo the tank would be much more difficult to knock out. You don’t even need to put fancy optics, just a daylight camera system and follow the tank with a flying drone. Situational awareness for the operators and no need for IR/thermal sights.
Easy to make, easy to use, and make a lot of them. Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Brilliant military strategy to convert a fully depreciated T55 into a drone
I find it fascinating that the West calls the T-54 Main Battle Tank but at the same time recognizes that:
...A main battle tank (MBT)...is a tank that had the firepower of a super-heavy tank, the armor protection of a heavy tank...
...the first designated MBT was the British Chieftain tank (1960s)
...the first Soviet main battle tank was the T-64 (1960s)
Which is obviously does not fit for the T-54, but it's still somehow MBT.
You guys are doing the lords work. Great video
So great to see you guys really developing the channel. ironside ftw
One of the coolest tanks in existence. Wouldn’t wanna fight in one, though….
Chile has NEVER used T-55 as service tanks. We had 5 T-55 for training purposes since our main enemy during the 70 and 80 was Peru, who had (and still uses) T-55.
Chile has had a western aproach to war material.
I think they would make excellent moving targets on a current battlefield.
The thumbnail is rad
THE THUMBNAIL IS LIT🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🥶🥶🥶
heard a story that many bridges that were built in Czechoslovakia after 1950 were designed based on the T-55 width - the point was to make two T-55` cross it side by side where the Abrams is slightly wider and only 1 would be able to cross it
Great video mate!
at 0:17 that RED part have major errors . Here in Sweden we NEVER had a russian tank in service . i do belive you can found 1 2 at Arsenalen tank museum . Thats it .
6:33 nice :D
Still useful for infantry support.
They are (again) still in use and in active service.
According to western media it is effective when Ukrainians are getting them and using them, but when Russians are using even t-72 they are called antic and crappy;)
Something was ignored here by the author - something important - GUN RANGE, up to 15km ! - reason why in Ukr they are used as armored mobile artillery, and they are VERY effective in this role !
Sadly, like any aussie or brit, when the truth is inconvenient, they will tell a lie or omit the main facts - in this case, the hypocrite author omitted THE most important thing about this tank: at the time when enter in service, was THE BEST tank, years ahead of anything murica ( brits and aussies included) years ahead of any western counterpart. It was a revolutionary tank, cheap, great armor for its time, and it is no wonder some 115 000 units were made, the world most produced tank ever...
Thank you for keep it in fine condition!