Ukrainian Legion Soldier about T-55s
I asked a German combat engineer ( / buttjerfreimann ) fighting in Ukraine with the Legion what he thinks about the situation that Russia is getting T-55s out of storage. Of course, there were a lot of reactions on twitter and elsewhere. Yet, I wanted to know what an actual soldier fighting in Ukraine has to say about it, since he unlike most of us has actually skin in the game. I also asked him about various other assessments, e.g., if he would prefer fighting a T-72 without explosive reactive armor like a T-72M versus a T-55 with a lot of explosive reactive armor, like the T-55AMV.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
/ buttjerfreimann
Grau, Lester W.; Bartles, Charles K.: The Russian Way of War. Force Structure, Tactics, and Modernization of the Russian Ground Forces. Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO): Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, USA, 2017.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_M1910
Cover Photos:
Marcomogollon, CC BY-SA 4.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons
/ 1544975135618351105
Photos used:
T-72M, MHM, Dresden, 2012
photo by Billyhill, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
T-55AMV, Patriot Park, Moscow,
photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, vitalykuzmin.net
Maxim M1910 variant
Photo by Zorro2212, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
T-55AM, Patriot Park, Moscow
photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, vitalykuzmin.net
T-62M, Patriot Park, Kubinka, 2019,
photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, vitalykuzmin.net
00:00 Intro
00:44 Reaction about the T-55?
01:30 Disregarding the T-55 warranted?
04:30 T-55 Ammo Shortage?
05:37 T-72M vs T-55AVM
07:20 T-72M without thermal vs T-55 with thermal
08:12 Ineffective & Obsolete Weapon Systems?
09:19 Most threatening Weapon Systems?
11:42 Final Remarks
#ukrainewar #t55tank #tanks
Would you rather fight a duck the size of a T-55 or 100 duck-sized T-55s?
100 duck sized T-55s
What weapon(s) do I get?
T 55 sized duck as I would be shot multiple times before I could destroy all 100 T55s Now I’d like to ask you a question who would win one 100 year old or 100 1 year olds
@@cm275 barehand
Duck sized T55s will break your bones with the guns and kill you. I choose the big ducky.
As Chieftain said: "Any tank is better than no tank".
Id rather have 10 new Anti tank like Panzerfaust in my squad, than be in a tuna box as huge target. If Russia hits that thing with their 125mm tungsten round its gona go through 2 tanks.
The logistical burden might be heavy to keep an old tank in the field. Perhaps that money is better spend on infantry with toyota trucks and modern weapons. But perhaps will I be proven wrong when Russia mobilize their BT-7 tanks and slap some ERA blocks on its front and say its ready for frontline combat in 2023
Oh yeah. Those T54 and T55 will be able to smash through Ukraine's line. They gonna flank around every single Western tank they see and hit the Western tank from the side or rear. There's gonna be 2 or up to 10 of these T54 and T55 for every ONE WESTERN TANK out in the fields. Yep. Just like Steiner's attack in Downfall movie. Once Steiner attack everything will be alright and be under-control. These T54 and T55 will turn the war around. Ukraine will fall in 3 days. 🤣
@@nattygsbord Worst case scenario, you bring your tank to wherever and it becomes a static defence asset. Slightly better protection against airburst artillery rounds than a foxhole and some firepower too.
@@nemiw4429 This type of thinking is binary War Thunder/World of Tanks thinking. Your squad goes up against another infantry squad of the enemy. They are just infantry armed with small arms and grenades, limited AT weapons. What is more useful then? Panzerfaust? or having a tank? It isn't as simple as "Tank X has this many mm of armor, The enemy has in service tank which can penetrate X mm of armor, therefor Tank X is bad"
I want to nerd out and say that the US Air Force was using the Mk-19 for the indirect fire role as far back as the 1980s. At least, as a Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) squad leader, we used them that way in training.
I would rather have a T-55 instead of a BS-3 mounted on an MTLB.
@@rogerpennel1798 MTLB apparently is basically just used to attack low flying aircraft like drones, don't worry about getting into a frontline fight, now, get inside your Metal box on tracks with a oversized turret with a naval gun and enjoy the ride.
I'm with Frank. Grenades are, BY DEFINITION, strictly indirect fire weapons. Even with a hand-held grenade, it's thrown in an arc, not like a baseball pitch.
Were they using M36 Pershing as late as the 1980s? Cause thats what this looks like
@@donaldhysa4836 well you may need to take a closer look, T-55 is a much more advanced vehicle than Pershing and still fields a capable gun with a large supply of ammo for that gun and good protection for that role even if not acceptable levels for a tank role.
Very good info and I definitely agree "there are no obsolete weapons", I am reminded of a medieval quote " a body does not ask how it got so cold".
No obsolete weapons?
Jump in that thing and pick a fight with an Abrams.. then tell me how you feel.
@@rogerthat4545 Clearly you didnt even see the video: "A weapon isnt obsolete as long as you manage to integrate it tactically. A T55 cant crack a Leo2? So what? Use it where there are no Leo2s"
@@VelikanVLK 😂 **poof** just teleport, huh? As a former Bradley crew member and anti tank team leader, it's a wet dream to be on a battlefield with junk like the T55
I suspect that what was meant was more like "a lethal weapon is still a lethal weapon so long as its in good working condition". Case in point; bayonets and knives which have been in use since humanity first learnt metal-working. Heck, during WW2 there was a lone case of a German being killed with a bow and arrow. Whether or not someone weilding an antique weapon can survive on the battefield long enough to use it against a foe with more modern weaponary is quite another matter,, of course. But an arrow can ruin your day just as surely as a bullet can.
The claim that main threat is 1) artillery, 2) mines and 3) the rest is actually consistent with circulating casualties statistics.
And is hilarious considering how many "experts" in the last few decades have dismissed them as relevant major threats in modern wars in favor of cruise missiles and air strikes. Granted, those two are potentially more dangerous if air defence fails, but large scale use of artillery and mines isn't out of the picture yet.
Armor & IFVs are necessary for offensive operations, as mines & artillery cannot capture territory. Unless one side is willing to field disproportionate casualties in manpower. To downplay armor is to see no way to end the war in a Ukranian victory. Not that I'm accusing you of doomerism, but the implications of the incomplete assertion must be stated. That said, it *would be nice* if the Ukrainians were receiving more in the way of forward support vehicles, ie: the gepard & similar specialist armor. The Russians are getting adept at drone-based recon for their artillery, & theoretically the Gepard is all but a hard counter. Especially now that Patriot anti-missile missile systems are coming online, & there's a definite & growing gap in Russian anti-radiation weapons, it seems.
@Indigo Rodent"everything depends on dealing with Russian artillery and minefields" Actual NATO style battle would be using air forces and missiles to destroy Russians logistics thus starving front units from fuel and ammo. It's supposed to be something like initial HIMARS depo hunt, just at least one degree of magnitude bigger. "Russians are using scatterable mines" Well... on outskirts of Vuhledar Russians seem to be highly surprised by deployment of scatterable mines by Ukrainians.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Russians and Ukrainians are basically same people that hate each other, my point is, everything one side do, the other ones does too, it's two sides of the same coin and it would be nice if we stopped pretending we give a shit about Ukraine cause we don't, they are just mini-Russians and admit this is a preventive concern about what happens after. I'd be perfectly fine letting them box their eastern European drama between themselves as there won't be an invasion of Poland and similar shit like, Russia has no capability for that, it's only that we would lose a bit control by not controlling the Ukrainians but that's about it when it comes to the consequences for the rest of Europe, except that we put ourselves into poverty by investing into this war.
@@TrollOfReason Artillery can capture territory in conjunction with infantry. If you kill all the defenders with artillery the soldiers can walk in. Since the time of Napoleon artillery has accounted for 75%+ casualties on the battlefield and tanks, IFV haven't changed that. Gepard and Patriot systems are in no way a hard counter for drones. Especially not the Iranian ones that are dirt cheap. Oh and there is no way western Ukraine is winning, eastern Ukraine will certainly win the civil war, western Ukraine has failed to win over the last 9 years they have been clobbering the civilians in Donetsk. The last time Nazis won a war was the Spanish civil war in the 1930s, Azov, Kraken and Right Sector look unlikely to change that losing streak.
It's always good to hear these first hand accounts on the war, I just wish media would pay as much attention to them as they do on twitter and tiktok posts.
Media exists to sell ads.
they will when it reaches their backyard
Media exists to promote the chosen narrative.
@@zeitgeistx5239 propagandize*
@@GeneralJackRipper Media promotes the Story that sells best.
As has been stated numerous times online, the t-55, should it be deployed to Ukraine, would probably be used primarily as a self-propelled gun, providing indirect fire with its 100mm gun, using surplus and iranian-made high explosive ammunition.
What this tells me is that the large numbers of Leopard 1A5 still in storage would be highly useful given that they have thermals and that there is plenty of ammunition. The tank is also very fast, not excessively heavy and highly mobile and good fire control for its age.
@@williamzk9083 They are on there way to Ukraina from Belgien storage!
Sure just like how all the conscripts are only used to control occupied territory and totally not used on the front line as cannon fodder.
@@stevenrodriguez763 Sure just like how Ukraine is totally winning and not sending its best against Russia's worst and still losing.
@@cstgraphpads2091 their sending their best against Russias worst because all of Russias best have been killed already lmao their even scraping the barrel of equipment sending T-55/45. Ah but I guess you’ve got some sort of tin foil hat excuse for that too.
The main "threat" is actually "breakdown", from mechanics to mud. Since #1 will find you quickly, vehicles are abandoned.
That's why the most technical simple and easy to field maintain weapon systems last the longest in a combat enviroment.
@@obelic71 tell that to the t62
My dad served in the 66th Guards Training Motor Rifle Division (Chernivtsi) from 1984-1986. The had T-54/55's in storage with the unit until 1988 when they started replacing them with T-64's. When he was serving the newest ammunition they had was already 15 years old.
Iran is exporting to Russia brand new 100mm HE ammo
By Chernivtsi, do you mean Chernowitz in western Ukraine? Just so that we non-Ukrainians could get a grip what city you're talking about.
@@somerandomvertebrate9262the city has many different spellings from many different time periods. Use which ever one you like
@@KittyCatWoT OK, thanks. 👍
Die Nato verwendet Munition aus den 70er .... 2023
The T-55 is easy to maintain at least, both sides report that they don’t like doing maintenance in Ukraine as it’s dangerous for the few assets capable of doing it
Thats not about maintenance, thats about combat readiness. Of what use are their 20 PZH 2000 if they cant get more then 4 of them operate at the same time?
@@Pechenegus …and you get combat readiness by……..maintaining
@@looinrims Makes sense
@@looinrims If your SPG spends half of the time going to factory for maintenance(because it cant be done in the field) and half of time going back it is of no use.
Is it easy to maintain? I fell like this is such a handwave argument. We know there used to be lots of them and they are 50s tenchology. But how much of compatible parts are actually available?
One thing that people like to glance over is that a T-55 has similar logistical requirements compared to a T-62 or T-72 yet with less capabilities. Fielding a tank isn't free. No one should say a T-55/54 is useless but on the other hand, its use expends resources and crew in a less effective way than more modern tanks. The question we should ask isn't: "Is there a use for old tanks?" but rather "Why are the Russians choosing to use old tanks rather than new ones they should have in storage if you believe some of the numbers claimed?"
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here. What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc. And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
@@SoloRenegadeto be fair the russians likely have access to more t-55/54 vareints then there are top attack missile systems in ukraine at this point, if they utilize the material for overwhelming force/break through purposes and not attrition then they could be EXTREMELY effective. 1000T-55s are alot more effective than 100 t80-U or t80-bvm models if the ukrainians only have 100 nlaws/javelins at a certain point of contact. I dont say this as a sympathyzer of Russia, just that you MUST understand the total threat the Russians pose which is still an overwhelming advantage in raw mechanized vehicles and artillery
Because if it's effectiveness is similar for it's intended use, why not use something that would otherwise be sitting in a field rusting.
@@seancopley9678 wrong. RPG-7 are cheap and mass produced in the US. Mines are cheap. Artillery is accurate enough to hit T-55 in the top. Switchblade drones can kill a T-55. Ukraine hasn't run out of AT weapons yet, not even guided ones. And nearly all of these weapons outrange the T-55.
@@FM4AMGV So instead they choose to leave the T-72s sitting in a field rusting?
Biggest takeaway from Ukraine I've seen regarding tanks is: with a limited budget, the best upgrade you can give your older Cold War tanks is thermal optics. Can't shoot what you can't see, and getting the first shot off can make all the difference.
one area where the western philosophy seems unequivocally better is our focus on situational awareness. the ussr just believed that they'd have enough tanks in the field at once to identify targets and support each other, but once you're not doing that your soviet designed tanks have very poor situational awareness
@@AsbestosMuffins Western philosophy is to bomb from air by jets... Doesnt look like AFU can use it. Also I do not think that sitting in trenches corresponds to current Western philosophy. Though it definitely might help to obtain most precise situational awareness. Just for some reason NATO never has used this trick. Any idea why?
@@Mr_MikeB NATO never war against peer and one to one.
….not if you are in a T55 shooting at a leopard 2, Challenger or Abrahams. It’ll just bounce off…
@@kaka09876543210 there is no peer to NATO. We are 32 countries! As for your “one to one”. Go ahead. Take your country and fight against the US.
Regarding T55 ammo: Even the Nexter Arrowtech Ammunition Catalogue 2022/2023 lists a 100mm APFSDS-T round for T54/T55/Type 69. So, definitely still in production.
A browsher published by a company doesnt mean theyre actually producing the ammunition lmao
So many countries still use it that there are western companies that will fix them up and supply ammo
@@rohampasha9667 china and Pakistan , Vietnam still product 100mm round for the d10t gun , Israeli also offer apfsds and he / heat munition for the 100mm gun like Nexter.
I remember from decade ago how Polish military were trying to get rid of our Cold War era stocks of ammunition for T-55. About fifty thousand tons of ammunition. I wonder what happened to it.
@@randomnobodovsky3692 maybe African , Bangladesh , Cambodia , peru bought them or it can be too old and was sold as scrap.
I think theres a minor issue with the translation at 6:30 the term "off the charts" actually means "so high its no longer on the chart", not "nicht mehr so hoch" ( "not so high anymore" )
Never mentioned that the T-55 has maximum elevation of 16 degrees on the main gun. That will severely limit its ability to act as indirect fire. That will issues clearing elevated terrain. Its best chance would be on elevated terrain or reverse slopes of hills and that will still give a maximum range measured in the single digits of miles/low double digits of kilometers most likely. This will be very innacurate to boot especially on the reverse slopes of hills since it won't be a stable firing platform.
Drones make all the difference here. They make it feasible to correct fire for a system which has no means of assessing where the indirect fire ended up in relation to the intended target.
From past conflicts, the way around that is to make a ramp. The tank can go up and down it to adjust for elevation.
I wonder if the T-55 can fire rocket assisted artillery shells? With a ramp and drone spotter support, perhaps the T-55 could act as long range artillery?
@@ptonpc so they are going to be in a fixed position in line of sight still, or we'll within artillery range of the front. That is death. That won't work
@@mikedittsche you can't correct an innacurate platform that isn't stable.
With all due respect, T55 unless modernised at least to Slovenian M55 standards would not be a good indirect fire platform. The gun has terrible stabilization and ancient fire control system. That is making it pretty much a one shot suicide platform, because hitting something while firing on the move is next to impossible.
The problem I see with the T-54/55, is that it was even removed from the reserve-force, decades ago. That means the vehicles they do have have had even less maintenance than their regular gear. The additional gun-caliber the Russians have to support at the front will do their tattered logistics system no favours either. The Russians also haven't had tank-loaders for about 4 decades. The effectiveness of the tank is only as good as its' crew, and it the tank can't get more than 1 shot a minute off in combat, they're not very effective. And they're all going to die because of it. Or because their ancient tank has to STOP to shoot at anything, being stationary on a battlefield is a fantastic way to get yourself killed. As a Canadian infantryman, we used the C6 GMPG with the sights from an L16 mortar mounted on it to provide indirect fire. Really cool to watch the stream of tracer arc in the sky at night, and drop onto a target 4 or 5 kilometers away.
This is the reason why "The West" places great emphasis on accurate high lethality counter battery fire.
and that why there videos poping off with those western units being tageted by drones
Oh that’s why even with western guns and radars the artillery gap continues to widen in the Russian favor.
@@iMost067no, that’s mostly the old towed guns or those lightly armored Krabs. You won’t see Pz2000’s, HIMARS, m270s or paladins burning in those videos.
@@nobodyherepal3292I'd almost bet on every single pzh 2k to brake down due to lacking maintenance before being hit by a single piece of shrapnel. Not by Ukrainian negligence but due to them being in a disastrous condition before even being send there. At least the German ones.
@@PinHeadSupliciumwtf no, they usually just get sent back to Poland for repairs. They’ve been in constant use around Bakmut, and we’re critical for the Kharkiv and Kherson counter offensives.
Thanks Bernhard and Buttjer. Good to have a combat engineer perspective. First in, last out! Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
The Ukraine is using M-55S tanks which is a deeply modernized version of the T55 tank provided Slovenia. The update was performed by the Israelis. So far, I haven't seen any combat reports of these tanks.
Afaik they are used by border guards on the border to Belarus, not on active fronts right now.
They are badly outmatched and are currently regulated to rear echelon. The M-55S lot in particular has been for sale for the past decade and despite a very low price point they were no takers. If the US didn't buy them they would have been scrapped soon.
They are mostly used to guard the Belarussian border. That way, Ukrainians can free up better tanks to use in combat and have atleast some decent firepower to use in case of invasion by Belarussian forces (or Russians from the north again
Keywords are "deeply modernized" - already.
Probably been flogged and shipped to another country like half the stuff the regime has been supplied with.
The Maxim machine gun is used because it’s solidly built and the water cooled barrel lasts longer. It’s used for area denial so high accuracy and long range are not important.
A first world war heavy machine gun has proven effectiveness at defending trenches, after all.
@TheBespectacledN00b shocker, a gun used to defend trenches, is good at defending trenches
@@kameronjones7139 Yes, that was my point.
@@TheBespectacledN00b I know. I was just adding to it
@@kameronjones7139 In which case, my apologies for missing your point
Given all this information, it seems like it would be better to ship 350 M60 tanks in the next 2 months scoured from depots instead of 35 M1 Abrams sent 1+ year from now.
No, just ship 350 M1A1s
The US doesn’t have any M60’s in storage.
Just got my Stuka book. Absolutely fantastic thanks.
Glad you like it! Thanks for the support!
Imagine if the US needed to pull out M48 Pattons and M4 Shermans to fight in Iraq(modernized). No one would act the way all these people that are rushing to defend Russia needing T-62 and T-55s. I don't get it. Why are we giving Russia so much slack?
Because if the US ever had to fight a war against an actual threatening enemy rather than bulldozing weaker forces they would have to pull stuff out of storage. That’s why they keep it in storage. So they can use it when all the good stuff runs out.
US hasn't fought a near peer enemy since WW2
@@Alan.livingston care to name a country that is an actual peer? Because it sure isn't Russia, China is mostly clones of Russian equipment, but worse. Glad you consider Ukraine a peer to Russia though.
Exactly right, we should give them no slack and call them on their incompetence mercilessly. I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here. What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc. And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
@@Alan.livingston Funny. Before Dester Storm there was a lot of talk about how strong the Iraq army was. Third largest army of the world or whatever. And how US tanks would suffer and how big the casulties would be. And right when the Ukraine war started, everybody said it would be over in a few days. Everybody who said it would take weeks, maybe a few month was LAUGHED at. Then the US trounced Iraq. And Russia doesn't manage to beat Ukraine after more than 1 year. And all of a sudden the story changes. The Iraq army was no real enemy and Ukraine was of course the huuuge enemy, incredible powerful. Funny how fast things change and how the "we will beat them in 3 days) becomes the colossal struggle against the superpower Ukraine.
Very interesting and impartial, but there was one point omitted, which is why T-34 or T-55 or other hopelessly outdated equipement being removed from active service: Logistics. T-55, despite being incomparably weaker in all parameters, firepower, armor, mobility, than T-72B3 or T-90M, still requires the same or even greater logistics capacity to transport the same amount of ammunition, just worse, similar amount of oil and grease, even greater amount of spare parts as T-55 were considered notoriously unreliable during 1980s due to their age, outdated design and mechanical knowledge in 1950s and requires spares far more often, even bigger amount of crew to train, feed, transport, accomodate, as it was 4-man crew, without autoloader etc.
You are missing the point. The T90M'S would be used for offensive operations as spearheads. The T55's now up-armoured and with more modern equipment is going to be used as mobile artillery for advancing infantry. They would never be used in a now rare tank battle or to punch through defensive lines. Remember that NATO feeds live information to Ukraine so artillery has to be well hidden or mobile.
@@fryertuck6496 That's true - still, T-55, used as infantry support weapon, despite being as costly for logistic as T-90M, will be much worse in every regard, firing smaller filler HE shells, with worse accuracy and dispersion, constantly breaking down needing repairs, with poor mobility, without armor protection capable of stopping basically any AT weapon - thus firing from longer distance, more carefully knowing it woun't survive any hit. It is not like T-54, T-34 or even T-26 is completely useless, it can help in some way - it's just the fact it is way better to have only one modern unified type, like i.e. US having thousands of Abrams tanks only + 3700 Abrams tanks in depot reserves, insead of mixing many different types, some hopelessly outdated, some with completely different parts, ammunition etc.
@@bazejs8084 Do you just read what you write and not assimilate information? The tanks are being modernised, reactive armour, sights and electronics. If they break beyond a certain point they will be cannibalised and abandoned. It's a fast low cost way to put 1,600 additional artillery pieces on the battlefield.
@@bazejs8084 There is a difference between using something for defense vs offense. In theory the tank will consume the same amount of fuel, grease, spare parts even if it's older but in practice it's not true. Using them while being well aware of them being less mobile and harder to maintain means you're playing a balancing game, drive them around less. Put them in positions where they don't need to move as often. They'll be less effective in combat but will use way less resources. If they're used as fixed-position weapons and only moved around when needed and primarily used in defensive roles where just staying in one area for extended periods is more important than maneuvering they won't use much resources. Pulling out these old models just wouldn't happen at all if they didn't have a plan to use them like this, they wouldn't field a tank as expensive as some other tank but with no advantages no matter how desperate they were. Instead they intend to use them in a situation where these differences are minimized and there's lower wear and tear. Waiting in defense in some key area while not really moving around is going to consume almost no fuel, grease, or spare parts besides the initial cost of moving the tank there. While tanks are on the field for thousands of hours they're only moving for a fraction of this time, and to minimize cost you find the place and time when they'll need to move the least to make them viable.
Very good of the chap to give this interview,I wish him good health and luck and victory for his country
Guy he was talking too is German combat engineer as volunteer in Ukraine. His country is Germany - is Germany in war against Russia? 🤔
@@lahvancz He wouldn't even notice that, he will just follow the latest virtue signal, as soon as they tell him what it is.
Excellent video very enlightening on this subject.
There's technologically obsolete and functionally obsolete. A mechanical typewriter is technologically obsolete but functionally it isn't obsolete if you're trying to produce printed material. Can a mechanical typewriter send emails? No. But a laptop without a printer can't produce printed material or send emails without electricity either.
I searched comment section for quite some time for someone who uses correct terms. Cheers!
05:28 I am a bit surprised by the statement about the use of the T-62. I was under the impression that it was quite widely exportet and that Countries liek Syria and Afghanistand have been using them in Action quite recently. Maybe as a German he was reffering to the uropean Warsaw Pact Nations which indeed did not adopt the T-62 but went straight to the T-72 from the T-55. Nice Video :)
However that is still a significant ammount of countries that didnt use it that would make up the lions share of cold war soviet tank export sales. And I heavily doubt countries like Syria or Afghanistan have any significant ammount of these apart from remnants or spares the russians/soviets gave them for cheap when the tank was getting old anyway. For example until the 1990s not that many countries had Leopard 2s eather, but when Germany decided to demilitarize its huge cold war army the flood gates were opened and Leopard 2s were sold off like ina garage sale for comparably low prices to a lot of countries. Doenst mean there is still a huge production line though or a lot of ammo around, jsut means the existing stockpile of one country was spread out among many others. I assume a similar thing happened with the T62s, it definitly was not an export success like T55 or T72...not even close.
The T-62 was an export dud as the increased capability wasn’t worth the higher cost but the T-72 was a better deal. Russia dumped a bunch on them on Syria because they couldn’t really afford to be picky.
Iraq was the only other big user of the T-62. And, uh, those mostly got blown up in 1990.
Agree there seemed to be over 20K produced. To me that is a pretty high number.
Most countries preferred T55s over the T62 and production of T55 continued when production of T62 had stopped. Over 95,000 T55s produced.
Is it actually confirmed that they are being brought back out of storage? Just a video that shows some vehicles being transported from near the Korean border, doesn't say much.
Not enough people ask these sorts of questions.
I have to assume in the Mine section he refers to POM-3 Medallion seismic sensor fuzed bounding mines, as well as to PMN-3 mines with anti handling fuzes. The NVU-P/NVU-P2 seismic sensor based mine control systems are likely seeing some use too. Russian weapons forums remarked that these older battery powered systems are highly unpredictable and there are many duds, as the sensitive battery units were often stored in warehouses without heating.
Russia uses t-64 Reddit: haha cold war tech Ukraine uses t-55 Reddit: Stunning and brave
Росія використовує Катюші 1939 року випуску, дістає з консервації танки ІС-2 1945 року. На озброєнні України немає Т-55, їх знищили або передали росії у 1990 роках. Навіщо ж перевіряти інформацію, краще послухати російську пропаганду і писати тут коментарі для інших тупих хробаків, так? =)
@@Chornobay88 you're losing in bakhmut against Russian conscripts with WWII tech, daniylo
@@olex2999 коли ти клоун і в тебе немає аргументів відповісти:
@@olex2999 пане Хуялекс, чому росія не може окупувати Бахмут вже 14 місяць?)))))
Thank you for this insightful interview. There is no problem with the ammo for T 54/55. A Bulgarian manufacturer offers all varieties you can need.
Modernized T55s are still in service in Romania, even though it is a NATO country. The Russian T55s are not the same as they were 60 years ago, they have been modernized, different engines, different guns, different electronics, different sights... Of course they are still outdated, but they have been made compatible for launching, for example, laser-guided rocket-propelled projectiles, or other relativeli modern projectiles (HE, HEAT, AP, APFSDS-T, APFSDS-DU..).
@@vorosjanos77 From my understanding, the majority of Russia’s T-55s, particularly the more modern ones, were exported decades ago when the T-72 became their mainline tank. What we’re actually seeing Russia digging up from storage and sending to the front are the oldest possible T-55 variants, the T-54/55s that were built in the late 40s. It’s the equivalent of seeing Germany digging up Panthers and sending them to Ukraine instead of Leopards.
@@Winters004 Even the old T-54/55s are past WW2, so the comparison with the Panther doesn't really fit. A better comparison would be, if the British would digg up the early Centurions with the 17pdr or 20 pdr, instead of sending their Challenger 2's.
@@Mortrag it does. Just read on what their capabilities are.
@@Winters004oh yes, the 30-50 Leopards.
Great video TY. This along with Perun and the lindybeige series of interiews wth a Ukrainian volunteer are consistently 2-4 weeks ahead of the formal expert commentary of M. Kofman etc. and frequently more insightful.
The most interviews you will find of fighters is probably Willy OAM. Learned more from interviews with actual guys on the ground then anywhere else. Lindybeige for sure had that very funny guy on who was a great interviewee.
All we know for sure is T-55s were on a train. They could be getting exported, they could be getting upgraded. They could be getting moved to another tank park facility.
They would only be exported to africa, so they would be on a ship, not a train. Moving them to another storage is pointless. Taken for upgrade? Possible. Most likely they are just shipped to ukraine as is.
@@arikauraniemi9383 Unless they were railing them to a closer port of embarkation to Africa. There are also a small number still used by former Soviet states and after the Azerbaijan/Armenia war there might be some calls for cheap re-stocks of battle tanks.
A previous clip mentioned " thermobaric flamethrower grenade " this was very confusing so after a bit of search , found something called "the RPO-A Bumblebee" there is a good You Tube clip at "High Caliber Mayhem "
4:47 - "Additionally, the T-55 is the most produced tank in human history, maybe ever."
humans have only been around for about 300 000 years. Maybe dinosaurs had a tank model that was produced more often.
He's spot on and a direct hit from a 105mm Leopard 1 HESH or 120mm Challenger 2 HESH shells will instantly detonate the 100mm T-54/55 ammo rack via spalling effect first seen in 1967 Six Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War where the Israelis used HESH against Arab Armour
Your voice in the current maelstrom geopolitics is important to me please keep it up
Thank you very much!
Very good interview and very informative
One consideration with the T-62 and T-54/55 is that they both require a fourth crewmember to act as loader. Even in an indirect fire role when a T-54/55 is hit by a Stugna-P, Javelin, Excalibur, Switchblade 600 or even one of Ukraine's FPV drones there are potentially four killed or wounded crew. Relying on these older tanks will cause an increase in casualties for Russia.
Possibility of such hit is low, and this is anyway better, than hit such weapons to Rapier. This tanks can replace MT-12 in indirect fire, and this will be better option, than using this guns.
T55s are upgraded with reactive armors and nightvision and electronics. Javelins are useless anyway, and russians have produced more t55s than westerners switchblades. Numbers do the trick, just count
This means nothing. So far, we have seen no lost T-62 and T-55 as their all on the backlines doing security work for the DPR/LPR Militias. Most losses are still T-72B3s as that's what the mainline Russian army is using.
That's also my point: T55 same ressouces as T72 (human fuel and ammo), less protection, less efficiency
@@magratea123 lmao "javelin are useless " that statement alone shows you have no clue about this conversation
That was the first thing that popped in my head: On the sharp end 100mm HE-frag and 125mm HE-frag do the same job. Tank fire is generally more dangerous because less time to find cover as far as I know
There is zero time to find cover from any shell. If you hear an artillery shell it has missed you
In many documentaries of the Croatian war of independence, Croatian war veterans praise the t55 and often preferred it over the m84 (yugo t72 variant) especially in mountainous terrain. It is a great, reliable machine. There are very few videos in that a t55 had a catastrophic hit like we see with t72.
Yeah, when I heard the T55s might show up I first throught about how a lot of tank use in Ukraine lately had been for indirect artillery since they are more protected against counter battery. However, I then see the MASSIVE tank losses around Avdivka and Vulhedar and ponder if these will end up being used to "ferry" assaults at Ukrainian defenses. I'm going to guess we may see them deployed across defensive positions to act more like towed artillery to deter Ukrainian attacks as all these vehicles in operation would have big logistical demands for fuel and maintenance alone.
A bayonet can still kill you in the right tactical situation. A Maxim MG can still kill you just as effectively as an M240B MG, again, depending on the tactical situation. Sounds like your engineer friend knows exactly what he is talking about.
You shouldn't try to rely on a bayonet, though, since if your enemy has any bullets left, you are dead. Something has gone wrong if a modern infantryman has to rely on a bayonet. But then again, a war is a place where a whole lot of things go wrong all the time.
@@herrakaarme I think you missed the point of my comment. And you are probably not an infantryman if you discount the value of the bayonet in the right tactical situation. Again, the point is, everything in combat is situational.
@@cgross82 I'm not an infantryman, but like everyone with military training, I got the basic training, which is general infantry training. The instructors said pretty straightforwardly that nobody should get any bright ideas about using bayonets instead of shooting, if shooting is an option. But no, I didn't miss your point. I just wanted to note that in modern warfare it's highly preferable to not find yourself in a situation where you'd need to use a bayonet.
@@herrakaarme You are correct. But things happen, which is the reason Soldiers train in combatives and hand-to-hand combat. I was a Field Artillery officer myself, but as a Fire Support Officer I worked very closely with my infantry brothers. One can never be too prepared.
@@cgross82 Yeah. An assault rifle with a bayonet is basically a short spear, and spears were the main foot soldier weapon for thousands of years. What killed a human a thousand years ago will still do the same.
As always having any tank when the other guy can't deal with you tank means it is a problem Heck even pointy sticks are still dangerous when used correctly.
Interesting lecture... nice work.
It feels like a lot of tank kills have shifted over to mine+artillery nowadays, I think his statement that the tanks rarely get that close is corroborative of that.
It's not really a shift, though - tank on tank combat has ALWAYS been extremely rare and never a great contributor to the destruction of enemy tanks. The vast majority of tank-kills throughout history have been aircraft (fixed-wing and rotary), artillery and infantry-portable ATGMs/RPGs.
@@junibug6790 Not sure where you got tank vs tank from... I'm comparing early war where many/most armour disables/kills seemed to be ATGM hits vs now where it's more artillery based. I think it's a product of the more static lines pushing the engagement distances back beyond man portable line of sight systems such as ATGMs.
It's always been that way.
The guy clearly represents a view of infantry, imo the answers of experienced tanker on clearly very specific questions would be more relevant to this topic. But anyways its always interesting to know opinion of people from different part of military.
Old soviet tanks are not crew friendly and am wondering how many tank on tank engagements have taken place. Poorly trained, lead and equipped troops can be overwhelmed by an armor assault given good weather and traversable terrain. Russians are still into quantity over quality.
I heard that else where as well, that the old tanks are probably going to be used more as artillery. Though I do suspect that at some points when conditions are good for it, that Ukraine is going to do a massive offensive with all their new tanks and stuff. At that point any weaknesses in their tanks might really show up.
Ryan McBeth states that Russian artillery is nearing the end of their barrel life and need to be taken out of action to replace the barrels. Tanks like the T-55 are likely an interim substitute since they have them in significant numbers, use a different caliber of Ammo and can allow Russia to pull back for barrel replacement the Artillery units that need it without having to use the 152mm ammo.
They're not going to be used as arty, they're going to be sent to the Frontline with 0 infantry support, then hit a mine, just like T-62s
@@nick-mf7fe propaganda, Macbeth
With all respect to Ukrainian army, I doubt, that their barrels are in better shape😊
@@zlamas997 Sure, but the current Ukrainian tactics we are seeing do not depend as much on massed artillery as the Russian doctrine demands. Not to mention the Ukrainians are receiving artillery like the triple-seven from the West since the first months of the war, so it is more sustainable for them than to the Russians.
@@terminatoratrimoden1319 its true. And I have a hope that they more often use precise shells than Russian. But still, no modern army can keep thei artilery in good shape with such an amount of shot shells. Maybe Usa, but they are not artillery army like Russia.
Since both sides are fielding T-55 (Ukraine got a bunch from Slovenia), it would be cool/funny to see them pick a field of battle to fight it out. Doubt that happens, but again this is a war of attrition, if it fires something deadly and goes boom then its good. Dudes are driving around pickup trucks and vans, I'd take even a Sherman tank over a Fiat truck with a browning.
Slovenia only sent like 28, so not even a full battalion. I haven’t seen any footage of them in action so who knows what they’re up to.
Well the M55S has a 105mm gun, ballistic computer, new fire-control with laser range finder and extra armour. I would go with the M55S.
@@zedeyejoe It can carry fancier gun and optics than original T-54/55, but problem is survivability. 11cm of steel at front is quite thin against RPG-7s and other fancier AT-weapons.
@@vksasdgaming9472 ERA (explosive reactive armour) also added and unlike Russian tanks the explosives are probably in them.
I have feeling that number of tank-to-tank kills is relatively small compared to indirect fire artillery, mines and infantry AT weapons. What is your opinion? And I believe if heavy artillery shell hits top area without reactive armor, any tank is destroyed.
A 155mm shell hitting any tank from the top destroys it.
@@rikulappi9664We agree on that. Ditto for 152, and possibly even 120mm mortar. And even old T-55 or Patton have more steel on top then any self-propelled tracked howitzer, while wheeled one are completely unarmored..
Vast, vast majority of tanks lost is from indirect fire and mines. Javelin, NLAW, Tank-on-tank is way down the list.
@@uknwarrior7980 Javelin and NLAW are fairly short range. Sort of smart Bazooka on steroids. Longer range AT rockets go to 3-5km but you must have visual... So far. I expect soon to see systems with drone observation guidance..
@@mladenmatosevic4591 the newer Kornet systems are probably the most capable AT weapons on paper at least... if you have the terrain and visual in your favor, then you're looking at potential hits from 8-10km away on armored targets, my suspicion is that they aren't used as much because they are quite heavy to carry around and are mostly in use for defensive positions and the Russians have been on the offense for the majority of this war, would be interesting to see their mass use if Ukrainians decide to go follow through their big counter offensive claims
Excellent video, interesting insights
A lot of modern weapons are just newly made versions of old ones. It’s funny sometimes looking back at WW2 hearing reports from then about British and Soviet AT rifles being outdated, and then seeing the M82 Barrett.
Haven't seen the video yet, so I don't know, if this will be mentioned, but for several days now I've been wondering, if T-62 and T-55 are less prone to throw turrets due to the fact, that they use unitary ammo, not pretty open propellant containers like tanks with auto-loaders. I've already seen at least one video of burned out T-62, but it still had a turret on it.
Turret ejection is pretty irrelevant. Whether the turret flies off or not doesn’t matter in the slightest if the ammo cooks off in the hull. In the case of the ammunition however, 100mm and 115mm shells have a lot less propellant in general. They are also stored around the edges of the hull like a WWII tank not directly under the turret as with the cassette which probably plays a factor.
... wtf are you even on about? Throwing turrets happens when an ammo cook off is very energetic, it doesn't matter if the cookoff is propellant or HEAT/HE it'll still go up. Turkish Leopard 2s in Syria lost their heads and they have unitary ammo.
And i have seen both T-62 whitout turret after ammo rack and T-72 whit turret after ammo rack. It totaly depends if anmo explodes or simply burns.
@@76456 One correction here: Explosion is a burn but a very fast one. It depends how much of the ammo burns how quickly. This is why a Leopard 2 can pop its lid as readily as a T-72M if smacked in its hull ammo G-spot.
@@RomanianReaver That is what I'm talking about - unitary munitions will have less energetic blast, since case at least partly isolates them, thus they are less likely to cook off all at once like propellant in auto-loaders carousel.
You could use the T-55’s in the rear guarding supply routes etc and free up more modern tanks for frontline use
I think we have to question that bit : there is no evidence that they use tanks for rear guarding, they don't need them ( the population of the current territory they occupy seems largely in their favor btw, we just don't hear about it ). The rogue operations conducted by ukrainians behind the frontline, are commando type, small and fast, not typically countered by tanks. What we see though, is that they do move around tanks, on the frontline. Low priority, T-62s, high priority, modernized T-72s. So the logic applies, but not for the rear. There are parts of the fronts with skirmishes at best.
On the subject of countries that *do* have an Artillery Day: Brazil has an Artillery day, it's July 10th. Birthday of field marshal Mallet, Artillery commander in the War of the Triple Alliance. what a surname for someone known for demolishing fortresses
Before watching here is my take: A tank is a tank, and used correctly almost anything developed since the end of WWII would have some utility as fire support with varying degrees of protection. Anything that could roll up with some APCs, provide fire support and have some resistance to frag and bullets has a use on the battlefield. Obviously, results vary, but something is better than nothing. However, the wider perspective is this: Russia would not be deploying tanks designed in 1947 if it could adequately resupply it's forces with better equipment - the story this is telling about Russian reserves of armoured fighting vehicles is more important than the T55 itself.
It doesn't matter what weapons you got it matters how you will use it sometimes a knife can be a great tool to end someone life better than a gun
Technology makes a difference, how do you think the European powers acquired their colonies in Africa and Asia? 'whatever happens we have got, the maxim gun and they have not.'
@@nanban1896 Single Maxim wouldnt have helped. What helped was vast European knowledge how to fight - military tactics if you wish. Im pretty sure nowadays general would have figured out how to fight couple thousand guys with dozen Maxims even if he would have army armed just with bows and sticks but in 100k quantity.
@@Mr_MikeB A study of Omdurman or its many contemporary equivalents shows it to be the case, If you were correct we would all still be fighting with swords today. Being well trained, drilled and motivated is vital, but in the face of machine guns a charge with melee weapons is in practically every circumstance futile. Technology mitigates risks, reduces your casualties and increases those of your enemy. If two combatants are of equal skill, the tech is what makes the difference.
@@nanban1896 Thats the point - why to charge machine gun with melee weapons? Do ambushes, traps, use scorched earth method to destroy enemies logistics, rob their supplies, etc, etc. Learn! And one day you will destroy your enemy. Thats kind of what afghans are doing for centuries now...
So, just how antique of a design could have battlefield utility? if a very large supply of working M4A3E8 Shermans was found in Europe (along with a warehouse of 76mm ammo), could these tanks - with a thermal sight installed - have utility for the Ukrainians?
They could be used like BMPs. With infantry walking. But who would crew them?
They could be dug in as ready-made pillbox.
Absolutely. A big number of armored vehicles with caterpillars is what we really need now, whether it's a BMP or a tank. There are not really obvious things like a living environment (mostly towns and cities) after heavy artillery attacks can be efficiently traversed only with caterpillar vehicles (things like building armature on the ground, big chunks of rubble, holes in the ground with sharp borders and other stuff is not cool for tires), every activity in the environment by the open fields with trenches is at least as half more effective when there is semi-direct suppressive fire from a heavy gun on moving vehicle (trenches that are covered by the tank just cannot be attacked efficiently and conversely attacking a trench with heavy vehicles is like 20 times easier and effective than without).
I think you'd be better off with 75mm shermans, as those had better anti-infantry shells by far. You won't be using the 76 to kill tanks or armored cars. That being said if they're already working it's better than nothing, they can at least be used in reserve / defense and they'd be far more effective than some concrete pillbox. Even with the added cost of fuel or whatever move them to some defensive position, dig them in, and don't move them. Very little wear and tear and they're basically a fixed-position cannon that can be moved if absolutely necessary. I could see something like that being very useful for any area you'd need to defend. They can't compete with maneuver warfare from some modern tank? They don't need to if they're not used to maneuver.
@@RandomGuy9 Using them as some troop transport or mobile response or whatever would certainly have its own problems, as you'd be adding wear and tear and you'd be risking them getting stuck at any point. I wouldn't use them like a BMP, instead I'd just dig them in somewhere to aid in defense of some particular area. No extra gasoline consumption besides the initial use of getting them there, no extra maintenance, basically a fixed-position gun. You'll have soldiers sitting insides pillboxes anyway so why not park the bus and give them a tank with a cannon to sit in? Doesn't fit the modern use of a tank at all but it's better than just some guy with a rifle hiding in a muddy hole.
The T-55 can be very deadly. Especially if fitted with newer optics like thermal scopes. Also with drone observation, it can be very effective to engage about all opponents it faces. Explosive reactive armor should work. The T-55 does not have "chobham armor", the sandwich composite armor like the abrams and challenger 2 tanks have. So it is less likely to survive as well as the abrams tank. Tanks are no joke when employed correctly, a lot depends on the training of the crew. An "old" tank with the rightcrew is likely to be more effective/deadly then a new tank with a rookie crew. Thank you for sharing! Greetings, Jeff
The problem is all this junk still require crews and logistics.
I think that soldier's assessment sounded perfectly reasonable. We might call a tank outdated or obsolete because we like to play armchair games such as "which is the better platform?" ... In reality, a T-55 can move about and shoot 100mm shells. It's not so much out-of-date that anyone would ever like to get hit by that.
If that is true then why bother with Abrams lets roll out those M4 Shermans again! Will you stop coping for the russians? They will never pay you for it
@@donaldhysa4836 Because the West isn't nowhere near as undersupplied as to the point of pulling WW2 tanks out of museums. That being said, in the 80's Israel was still operating the old guy Sherman in a highly modernized form.
@@terminatoratrimoden1319 There you go.
@@terminatoratrimoden1319 The israel of the 80 is not the modern Israel.And if they used them in the 80 it was either in reserve or in second line units or for training not for frontline combat.
This is true only to a limited extent. If Russia is bringing T-54s to Ukraine for a conventional tank role (which I do not yet believe) because T-72s are becoming harder to return to service (for whatever reason - again, I do not yet believe this), then that's an indication that things are even worse for Russia than we thought. There is just no way to see that as a good thing (again, for emphasis, I do not yet believe it is true).
In the Finnish land doctrine mines and indirect fire are the two primary weapons used against the enemy - and by the enemy (Russia).
Is there any evidence these are actually being used and not just moved around for scrap or whatever
Was there any tank on tank engagement in Ukraine war? From what i see tanks are used primarily against infantry. In such use, it makes little to no difference if its a t55 or t90. Reactive or cage armor can be added even to t34 if there's any left.
Nice assessment...the T55 might be outdated compared to western armor but it's definitely not obsolete if you're on the receiving end of them firing HE at you
yes at the end of the day its a 100mm shells which isnt as baig as a 152 but it isnt small either , and the guy getting shot at probably wont be able to tell the difference anyway
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here. What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc. And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
@@SoloRenegade tell us something new next time you answer? i dont know who the dumb one is here but i doubt its the guy who posted the comment , you have ˝˝˝asnwered˝˝˝ a completely different question than what the original poster wrote lmao
@@mcsmash4905 nope, "the T55 might be outdated compared to western armor but it's definitely not obsolete if you're on the receiving end of them firing HE at you" It is absolutely obsolete. even cheap and basic RPG-7 can destroy a T-55. The T-55 is outranged by precision Ukrainian Artillery and drones like Switchblade. If the Myriad of better Russian tanks couldn't survive, these are only a matter of time before they run out.
@@mcsmash4905 He's also copy-pasting the exact same comment everywhere.
When he says RECCE equipment he can't talk about, He's talking about JUMP-20 VTOL UAS the US Army is looking to adopt as our main ISR drone, which we gave Ukraine a bunch to essentially "Field Test" for us... VERY EXCELLENT OPTICS/SENSORS ON AN UAS... LIKE, THE BEST...
We can only speculate on a video . T-55 share parts with newer T 64 so maybe the are being used as spare parts. Maybe they are being converted into some type of infantry vehicle as we saw russians doing that with anti drone vehicle . They can be upgraded to light tank sort of bmp.
Never understood the criticism. Why wouldn't the Rus. side use it to throw shells down range. Their shells still go boom and they have lots of them.
the range of the 100mm cannon is quite respectable on paper its 14km is nothing to laugh at either (indirect fire not direct ofc)
@@mcsmash4905 Yeah man. I mean if you got it, use it. Will do nice damage and even suppressive. People carping at this, dunno why.
Very good analysis! "Skin in the game" is worth a ton. I have a request: RPO-A Shmel "Bumblebee" Thermobaric RPG. Its popped up some information about it during the Ukraine war, but not much. Myself a former career army officer from sweden, have never heard about this weapon. Could this be a suggestion for a future video?
I know that Romanians handed some thermobaric rpg ammo to Ukraine, but I don’t know about Shmel…
@@leme5639 Donno where you heard Romania has themobarics in their arsenal of that type but the only ones insane enough to have them in RPG form are the Russians because they love their thermobarics. Romanian RPGs, such as they still are made, are usually in the RPG-7 variety and bog standard HE-Frag and HEAT.
@@RomanianReaver Thats bs, a lot of Warsaw pact members had their version of thermobaric rpg warheads.
@@robertkalinic335 ... man I don't know what universe you exist in but FAE man-portable solutions in the USSR came about in the mid to late 80s. And you want the USSR to share that technology with anyone else they didn't trust? This being the same entity that wouldn't export T-72 Urals to their allies even when they were dick deep into the T-72B? Jesus christ you need help.
Shmel is a Rocket Launcher cum flamethrower.
After a year of joking about T55's showing up, it turns out we were overestimating the Russians again.
Yup, I made the same jokes when they started using T62s saying I guess Russia will pull out old T55s and T34s next...and here we are a year later lol
Ukranians used t55 for quite a bit
@@iMost067 Ukraine did not had the reputation or prestige russia had.Or the money and rss.
Actually much more pathetic Ukraine is using the T55 given an alliance of 43 countries with 60% of world economic activity and 85% of military spending can’t spare a single modern tank in more than a year!
@@brianmead7556 It is the lack of political will,nothing else.And after the first western tanks reach Ukraine in spring and if Ukraine use them well,more will come.And most of the countries helping Ukraine did not dedicate to this even 0.5 of their GDP and still russia is stuck.
These old tanks will need a lot of extra maintenance if they can actually get them working, you also need people to know how to maintain them. Having machines laying around for many decades is very problematic, then once you are able to get them going, how long will it take for them to breakdown? Do they have enough parts? Are these old tanks assembled, meaning, were these tanks "broken down" when they were of no use while laying in a field in Siberia rusting? Any weapon can be dangerous, but how will they perform when they are out there, if they can get it out there?
Yes. Awhile back russia was seen cannabalizing old T55's to use as donor vehicles.
Thing is right... If you're an infantryman then a vehicle with a big fucking gun is still a vehicle with a big fucking gun, whether it's a big fucking gun from the 1950s or the 2000s. These tanks although largely redundant in grand scheme of things, could theoretically still be useful in isolated pockets of the conflict. That's why Ukraine needs overmatch. It's easy to laugh at Russia rolling out these antiques as it gives us a very good picture of how things are going overall, but make no mistake in the right place and at the right time, these things still have the potential to disrupt lines and do damage. They won't change anything in the wider scheme of the conflict but to your average guy in a trench they're still a threat.
Except of course an ancient T55 costs a hell of a lot more fuel logistically than a towed artillery piece, even compared to a modern Western SPG in fuel efficiency. The Tank itself drinks lakes, the logistic tail required to support a T55 drinks lakes and is now rather rare and vulnerable etc etc.. Did the Russians refurbish them with modern upgraded fuel efficient engines? Or rehouse the guns in a modern lighter chassis as an SPG? To me this appears as an act of desperation and I suspect to any one else too, any way you cut it.
they still use the old engines.
russia got enough fuel
Sure thing, they are EURO VII emission compliant 😂😂😂
I see few possible uses of T-55s 1- as mentioned indirect fire 2- anti IFV in urban combat since any BMP or BTR won't be able to do much to it's armor and 100mm is faster then ATGMs 3- ambush no matter what tank you have if you get shot from the side with 100mm it's gonna penetrate (even leopards and Abrams tanks)
Now the major flaws: -T-55 cannot stop even older RPG rounds making basically any infantry unit able to kill it (can be partially fixed with ERA) -No thermals and around 10+s reload of the main gun means that it will have very hard time fighting any enemy armor as if it's miss the first time chances are they will die before they will be able to reload -Max speed of 50kmh and -10kmh makes it unable to escape the enemy once it's spotted
@@okroon256 Yeah, I think its a desperate stop-gap for the Russians because their modern tank production and modernization is so slow even for T-62s that they just can't keep up with losses. Ukraine has barely kept up by being given practically every Warsaw tank left in NATO. I can't imagine the more poorly-kept Russian equipment is faring much better. Even worse for the Russians is their lack of advanced optics like thermal which has been plaguing them even before the war. I think one of the big advantages with the Western tanks going to Ukraine is the combination of tough armor, speed, firepower, and optics all in one package. With the support of potent IFVs and the litany of lighter vehicles in Ukraine, they should have quite the breakthrough force hopefully by Spring proper.
These old tanks will provide better quantities to drive into minefields. And eat up ATGMs.
@@jimmiller5600 You're acting like the other side doesn't have large quantities of mines, ATGMs or something.
@@tristantully1592They will get bogged down much more frequently in the mud though.
My guess would be they will use those tanks the same way they use mobilised troops -- to attract fire and thus to discover the AT positions.
"better have nothing than T55" 🤦♂️. I am 100 percent sure who ever is writing similar comments was never in combat situation.
When you are desperate you will resort to anything you have in storage that at least can help you. Have you seen the videos of the T34s using indirect fire in Yemen? They would rather have their WW2 T34s than to have no Artillery.
@@VelikanVLK T34's were used widely, in Croatia by all sides in 90's homeland war. I was fired upon by them in battle of Logoriste in winter of '91, and that was not fun at all.
Excellent video
Thank you very much!
All I got from this is that both sides are very lucky that neither has effective airborne ISR assets and air superiority. That artillery would be dead quit quickly and the mine deployment systems along with them. Tanks sitting out in the open acting as artillery would be incredibly vulnerable as they are not moving.
That is a pretty succinct analysis.
You seriously believe that?
@donflamingo795 yes. Small drones Drones are not GMTI, have high end battlefield wide SAR, SIGINT, or GEOINT capabilities. Small drones does not equal effective airborne ISR capabilities.
@@imjashingyou3461 Ukrainian casualties told different story though.
The funny thing about all of this is, it’s just one footage from Russian far east, there are no other evidence whatsoever that Russia would deploy it to Ukraine, it could’ve been just on the way to the scrapyard, Russia already decommisoned this tank since 2010, but there are two dozen countries in the world that still use it What is fact however is that Ukraine certainly use modified T-55 donated from Czech, that is fact, I remember watching a video of T-34/85s, Katyusha Trucks and ZiS-3 howitzers on a train, heading for a Victory Day parade somewhere in Russia back in 2019. Then some Ukrainian Telegram channel passed that same footage as proof that Russians have began using WW2 era weapons. This shit has to stop, it’s so dumb
Something a lot of lay persons underappreciate is the value of reconnaissance, especially with both sides utilizing a lot of artillery. Artillery is an indirect fire weapon and is useless unless you have someone telling you where are the targets. This is where the value of drones and thermo/IR sights comes into play. The difference between a tanker in T-55 with thermo sights and a forward artillery spotter is that the tanker stays dry in the rain. Also, I clearly remember images of Soviet-era tanks in Afghanistan driven up a steep dirt mound to indirectly shell a distant fort in the conflict between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.
Any tank is better than no tank, and you're just as dead if a 75mm WWII-era round hits your foxhole as if the latest and greatest AMP takes you out instead. I agree with expat that the optics are the biggest effect, outside of MBT on MBT. Nothing short of a post-WWII tank can eat a round any tank post-WWII can put out, and some WWII tanks could go against designs well into the Cold War, optics and range aside. Hell, fit a Sherman with thermals and ERA, and as long as it's being used as an assault gun, I'd take my chances crewing it over sitting in a trench.
@military history the reason why that t-55 is a bad option and likely a bad sign is that there is diminishing returns using resources to modernize a museum piece when you can put the resources on a more modern tank. sure you can use that t-55 for indirect fire but it has no gun stabilization and the ww2 optical range finder has a 1000 meter range to have any chance to hit with accuracy. also its a gas guzzler and the strain it puts on logistics to field that museum piece is probably not worth it. also the russian t-55 are not like the modernized slovak t-55. the russians dont have the capability that the israeli's have of modernizing the t-55. its actually a different tank with modern armor, optics, higher caliber gun and even a more modern powerful engine than the soviet t55. a russian modernization of their soviet t-55 will be a new paint job and maybe they throw on some reactive armor for show on a few of them, just like we saw with the t-62 where the first few had reactive armor and the rest that came after didnt.
Meh put a cope cage on top of a BT-7 and slap some ERA on it and paint a white Z on it, and then its ready for combat in 2023.
These are horrible old tanks, just because it can still kill you does not mean you are not more likely to kill it before it gets a chance than if you are up against a newer tank. Using them as either tanks or artillery, when other platforms are much better for those roles, does show extreme desperation.
Reminds me of the old song "Lawyers, guns and money" By Warren Zevon.
This was a very interesting video, and it is as it seems The T-55 is to Russia what any other weapon system is A useful tool to use to wear down the enemy they face Just like the western tanks landing in Ukraine now and in the coming weeks, they won’t win the war, nor lose the war, they will be systems utilized for as long as they are useful, and if they can be useful Like in any war, improvised weapons and old weapons will find themselves useful Though I have to admit, if this was a war against Poland, or Turkey, or Greece I feel that it would go very different, even if NATO stayed out, I believe western tactics would force the Russian military to re think how they should act and react Ukraine was basically a mini Russia, in that, they have the same Soviet mentality, similar military equipment and experience
Ukraine has been armed and trained by NATO for this war since the coup in 2014. It wasn't Soviet equipment that stopped the Russian tanks, it was thousands of Milan and NLAW systems supplied by NATO. US didn't all that time and money regime changing the democratically elected government of Ukraine to just let it get stomped on by the Russians
Western tanks and IFVs will be useful for their mobility and technology, but they are not super weapons. Drones and HIMARS are the only super weapons of this war so far, and neither of them is because they directly kill soldiers.
It's difficult for me to imagine a war progressing as it has in Ukraine with any kind of offensive air capability on either side. Maybe I don't give enough credit to the current state of surface to air defenses.
@@viclange3826 The Soviet air force wasn't built to attack into Soviet air defenses, but Soviet air defenses, built to hamper NATO air forces, is certainly capable of contesting Soviet air forces. So, both sides are dependant on artillery, cruise missiles (in the case of Russia) or precision long range rockets (Ukraine). Stuff that isn't as mobile, but much cheaper or harder to shoot down than close support aircraft.
@@viclange3826Turns out one of the few things the Soviets did get right was SAM systems. This isn’t really news, tbh. Soviet Missiles knocked out a lot of American fighters and strike aircraft in Vietnam. Both sides are well-equipped for air denial.
I was and am actually surprised how little thought and talk focuses on all the mines when discussing the upcoming UA counteroffensives. This will make maneuver warfare pretty hard.
Exactly. The Russian winter offensive mainly has been so slow due to those mines. Same thing will happen to Ukraine when it pulls off the counteroffensive
@@dragonstormdipro1013 Why do you think that Ukraine receive so many vehicles and tools design to fight mines?
@@georgecristiancripcia4819 What "so many?" They are not getting even 1/5th of the stuff they are demanding.
@@dragonstormdipro1013 For now.Remember,before they kicked russia out of herson,nobody think of sending western tanks.This things takes time.And if russia cannot defeat Ukraine right now,with the limited help Ukraine receive,what is this saying about russia?
@@georgecristiancripcia4819it has already defeated Ukraine. Depopulated, and ravaged economy, who is going to want to go back to such a ruin?
A tank that can fire shells can still cause destruction and damage. Never show your enemy disrespect. It will bite you in the butt later. The enemy is the enemy and they will still be dangerous.
Indirect fire...exactly! It's just another gun on the field delivering a shell. If you are underneath it it matters not how it was delivered. Of course, if they want to charge the lines with them they might not last very long.
Does this not basically confirmed that the MBT, as a MBT is pretty much a dead concept? Hardly any of the usage of MBT in Ukraine is as an actual MBT. They are mostly used as armored gun platforms. And the armor is not to stop RPG or 120mm main guns. But really only used to stop small arms fire and shrapnel. I have so far not seen a single video of a MBT used as a MBT in Ukraine. Does it really matter if your 120mm gun is on a Leopard 2A5 or on a CV90? If the gun is on a Leopard 2A5 if you shoot first the enemy dies, if they shoot first, you die. If its on a CV90, the same thing is true. And this is in a war with very little airforce. Russian airforce is totally disorganized and lack precision ammo, while Ukrainian airforce is decimated. If a Preditor drone (or equivalent from the enemy) is hovering at at 12 000 meter with thermal optics. I know for sure if i would want to sit in a Abrams, a Leopard or a CV90. Specially the ghost. I´,m not saying there is no use for a MBT, sure there still is. but it looks like the specific use for a MBT (compare to say a shrapnel protected gun platform) is so much of an edge case. Both from a logistics and economical.. and frankly tactical sense it makes more sens to just build more, cheaper and lighter gun platforms. You are simply not stooping a incoming Javelin, NLAW or 120 main-gun round with Armour. You might get lucky and get a bounce. But now you are not having a armored vehicle but you are rather playing the ods. Hard kill systems of cause help this alot, but they work on vehicle independent on armor level. I kind of see that Haglunds was waaaay ahead of the worlds armies with the "invisible troop carrier". Or really reduced visibility CV. While a lot of russian vehicles is still lacking thermal optics, the next war, there will be no lacking of that what so ever.
I've been trained as NCO for T-55 some 35 years ago. It is old but, it has stabilizer, it has active IR night vision. It can hit with sniper precision to 2km with cannon and machinegun to 800m. Indirect fire around 8km. Other than most modern tanks, it will obliterate anything. Yeah, it is thin armour for modern tank criteria but, beats carriers or guys in trenches. God forbid to be inside or outside of tank in a war. Spent almost two years in Bosnia was. That was beyond brutal but, just fireworks compared to this shit.
The Tiger I tank was also used in the wars in former Yugoslavia so they used all kinds of garbage they could lay their hands on. And the old rusty T-55 tanks russia sends to Ukraine does not have any upgraded sights so I will not be surprised if they miss their targets with 15 or 30 meters. A sane government would have given up this war and put those old tanks to rest in a museum or letting them become scrap metal. But Russia is not sane. Is this their respons to Europe giving Ukraine Leopard2 tanks? Pathethic.
@@nattygsbord You obviously have no clue what you are talking about other than this war being senseless. I assure you, I was hitting targets at 1km. It is pretty much sniper shooting when properly sighted. If you have first shot on target which is little work to get there, it is trivial to adjust scope to aim at point of impact. Far easier than sighting rifle scope.
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here. What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc. And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
@@SoloRenegade You seem to have extensive experience with tanks and wars.
@@oknevals that's what happens when you serve in the military for years, and fight in wars for years, and one of your specialties was knowing how to defeat armor, and study all things military (tactics, strategy logistics, equipment, weapons systems, history...) for multiple decades to get as good at it as possible. And then backing that up with engineering degrees, skills and experience. i don't know everything, but the applicable info one needs to understand here is stuff I could teach a to a child and they would understand it. The basics of warfare, fundamentals, first principles, are all one really needs to focus on right now. War is complex, until you understand it well enough, and then it suddenly becomes so stupidly simple.
The big question is - is the reactive armour real or not? There is evidence from earlier in the war that there were tanks equipped with rubber blocks. It was there for morale only.
The proof is a T-80UM, if I remember right, that had been captured about 4-5 months before it was filmed. And that tank was missing more than the explosive filler in its era blocks by then (the optics were stripped, bolts from the engine deck was gone, etc, Red Effect did a video of it around a year ago).
tank was striped of everything, probably intentionaly before leaving (or by Ukranians for parts before filming) If you fing this video again you can notice that tank by that point didnt had optics and even hatches
those T-55 on teh train have no reactive armor
@The Romanian Reaver wasn't it a bvm?
The tank you can reload. There was something about these using stockpiles of shells they can get from iran and north korea that cant be loaded into t72s. The most important thing is keep moving and keep firing, anything else is trifles
As a former infantryman, not surprised by his statements. Sure the T55 is not a good look, but as I grunt I just see a big metal thing with a big gun that i can't kill with my rifle. And its not going to be used as an MBT, but as a mobile gun system. Lobbing 100m he is from a platform that still needs an AT weapon or a good cannon with ap rounds (I remember the Bradley being to pen the turret ring from guys who fought in Iraq). And I'll keep pounding my drum that TTPs matter way more than technology.
T-54/55 uses uncommon ammunition, requires a human loader, is more likely to suffer a mechanical breakdown due to its age, and offers practically no protection against AT weapons. And as an improvised SPG, it provides no hit-and-run ability which is the most important part of modern SPGs. Let alone the fact that its likely to be sent into the front line anyway, as we have seen with the T-62.
Uncommon ammunition - incorrect, Russia still has 100 mm field guns. They might not have AP rounds for the 100 mm gun anymore though. Human loader - unknown here if they'll modernize the tank or not but the BMP3 and BMD-4 use autoloaders for their 100mm guns if I am not mistaken (donno if it'll fit mind you but it does exist). Breakdowns due to age - depends on storage conditions. the M113s NATO sent are around the same age and I don't see many of those broken down on the side of the road in Ukraine. No protection against modern AT system - that might actually be a good thing.. second best situation to be in is in a tank so lightly armored the big dick that's supposed to go through 800mm RHA equivalent shoots clean through the 200 RHA on the best sides of the T-55 with minimal spalling. Happened in the Israeli/Arab wars to M-50s with alarming regularity where the crew would be fine with 3-4 holes in the tank.
having a human loader instead of an auto loader isnt THAT much of an issue
@The Romanian Reaver those 100mm rounds your speaking of are not the same and not interchangeable. It is a unique ammo type on its own.
@@mcsmash4905 It isnt that much of an issue in an army that actually use human tank loaders, like most western countries. But it may be a serious issue for a country hyper-fixated on autoloaders since 1960s.
Ammo not that uncommon They started a museum tank that sat outside for years T55 is a simple tank
in response, the US is bringing P-47s out of storage for immediate shipment to the year 1952,
you mean the 2-3 flyable examples in existance? You do know there are tons of serviceable M4 Shermans around the world though. Even many M-51 Super Shermans exist.
Not funny
Great video! Goes to show that no weapon is really obsolete. Even a smooth bore musket rifle used right can still Kill.
The iron triangle is broken. It's a square with sensors in one corner. Or a pyramid with sensors at the top