Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,382
- Location
- ST4
The new CTAS40 autocannon that's going to be fitted to the AJAX AFVs will easily chew a T55 to pieces.
Last edited:
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,013
- Location
- Billericay, UK
I recall the Americans were knocking out T-55's for fun with their Bradley's IFV's during the Gulf war.
Tell the Iraqi's that were using these tanks in GW 1 and 2 that...
Tanks can only shoot back at what they can see/target. Equipment that Ukraine are being supplied with has vastly superior optics for both gunner and commander, they also have vastly superior Fire control systems, and the ability to lay on to and range the observed targets.
The 30mm on the Ukrainian BTR-4 (also used on a few Soviet/Russian IFVs) does quite well against any Soviet era spec tanks as long as you can engage them elsewhere than the frontal armour or upgraded armour - seen a few videos of them getting behind a column of T-72s and BMP-2s and disabling/destroying several vehicles before they've had to run.
Last edited:
More like a proposition for an asylum. The only thing he learnt behind bars.
The fact that Russia are now raiding the T-55 stock may be highly memeable, but it's important not to dismiss these tanks purely because of age. Lets not forget that Ukraine have been using them since last year and were pleased to get their hands on them at a time when tanks were running low.
It's important to remember that the reason that many of these tanks were put into storage (at a time when Russia had a plentiful stock of tanks) instead of being melted down to build newer tanks or simply sold to export customers (who were still buying them). Is because it was envisioned that if war ever broke out then it would be useful to have a stock of outdated yet easily repairable/maintainable tanks, because if **** hit the fact and production couldn't match losses then it would become highly importable to have anything to roll out, as the saying goes "the most important gun in the fight is the one you have in the fight".
Most posters here have probably seen the film Lock Stock and Two Smoking barrels, I don't recall anyone caught staring down the business end of those shotguns dismissing them because they were made in the 19th century.
Yes the T-55 have terrible armour by modern standards, hell they had terrible armour by the standards of the 1980s, but they are still self propelled guns capable of all terrain travel and practically immune to small arms/rifle fire. It's still not something you want coming towards you if you don't have an NLAW/etc to hand.
In closing, it's also worth remembering that the T-54/55 was the most successful/popular tank in the history of planet Earth, as a result they are still in widespread use with over 50 armies and there are dozens of upgrade programs still in operation. If Russia were having trouble getting parts to reactivate T-72/80 tanks or upgrade T-62M tanks then that will simply not be an issue with the T-55 as they have a number of friendly nations they can still buy parts/accessories from.
It's important to remember that the reason that many of these tanks were put into storage (at a time when Russia had a plentiful stock of tanks) instead of being melted down to build newer tanks or simply sold to export customers (who were still buying them). Is because it was envisioned that if war ever broke out then it would be useful to have a stock of outdated yet easily repairable/maintainable tanks, because if **** hit the fact and production couldn't match losses then it would become highly importable to have anything to roll out, as the saying goes "the most important gun in the fight is the one you have in the fight".
Most posters here have probably seen the film Lock Stock and Two Smoking barrels, I don't recall anyone caught staring down the business end of those shotguns dismissing them because they were made in the 19th century.
Yes the T-55 have terrible armour by modern standards, hell they had terrible armour by the standards of the 1980s, but they are still self propelled guns capable of all terrain travel and practically immune to small arms/rifle fire. It's still not something you want coming towards you if you don't have an NLAW/etc to hand.
In closing, it's also worth remembering that the T-54/55 was the most successful/popular tank in the history of planet Earth, as a result they are still in widespread use with over 50 armies and there are dozens of upgrade programs still in operation. If Russia were having trouble getting parts to reactivate T-72/80 tanks or upgrade T-62M tanks then that will simply not be an issue with the T-55 as they have a number of friendly nations they can still buy parts/accessories from.
And that was just their friendly fire incidents xD
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,988
- Location
- South Wirral
^^^ Good points from @ubersonic above. Maybe this is what the trollbots were referring to whenever the "we're keeping the best stuff in reserve" line came out 
Didn't realise the bmp's were that bad till I watched the lazerpig video. It's super insightful into how bad Russia is at designed weapons these days
It also explains why Russia struggles so much with logistics, especially fuel - all their vehicles are built on tank chassis' and use the same old extremely inefficient engine. They tried copying a german ww2 engine for their T14 and just like the Germans, found it's an unreliable pos. At least the old Russian engines they have now are reliable, even if they are less powerful and less fuel efficient than the engines in cars you can buy from your local dealership
It also explains why Russia struggles so much with logistics, especially fuel - all their vehicles are built on tank chassis' and use the same old extremely inefficient engine. They tried copying a german ww2 engine for their T14 and just like the Germans, found it's an unreliable pos. At least the old Russian engines they have now are reliable, even if they are less powerful and less fuel efficient than the engines in cars you can buy from your local dealership
Last edited:
The problem with Russian armour really is that it still leans heavily on 3 scenarios - mass armour movement into Europe - front to enemy and keep moving forward, stalling a Western advance across the USSR taking advantage of the smaller design, etc. to dig in and fight facing the enemy or for smaller scale counter-insurgency. Ukraine is a far more complex battlefield with a bit of everything where having an actual reverse speed is a huge benefit for armour.
Its worse than that - the entire doctrine hasnt changed , even in the face of the 1991 GW1. Mass supply bases (with calculated amounts of ammunition) along with centralised fuel depots, and thats pipelined as well. Great for safe areas, not so good when himars lands. I can understand why BMP3 being made and not the newer kit - the new stuff has a lot of imported optics and control systems, the basic version of the BMP 3 doesnt.
I’m not surprised. China aren’t the friends that Russia hope they would be. I’m sure China look upon Russia as desperate.
China must be loving this. Russia is crippled by sanctions, her forces are bogged down in an unwinnable war, and the West is helping to bleed her military dry.
This is an early Christmas for Xi. If he plays his cards right, China will be dictating terms to Russia within the decade.
This is an early Christmas for Xi. If he plays his cards right, China will be dictating terms to Russia within the decade.
- Status