Why are T-55s Still Being Sold?!?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- It might come as a surprise to many that T-55 tanks are still being sold around the world. Which is really strange since the tank is largely obsolete today. But, it is not really obsolete to everyone. So, who bought T-55 tanks, and why.
Patreon: / redeffect
As the Syrian civil war demonstrated: A tank is better than no tank. Even if its completely obsolete, you will always need something to fill the role. Whether its a brand new t-90, a rusty t-55, or a heavily modified trash compactor, something with armor and a gun will always be required.
Exactly. Leopard 2A4s and T-55s had the same exact fate when facing American, Russian, and Iranian ATGMs
Yeah for sure! An old tank is still better than no tank!
Drone swarms doubt your comment. Soon obsolete tank won’t be enough to play a tank, when swarmes of cheap-ass drones become widely available.
@@krzywygeneral you’d still rather be in a tank dude…
@@Jargenic nah, you would rather be in a control tower few hundred kilometers away.
I bought them
same
its decent at 8.0
Il buy one for 2.35€
I got one on my drive right now. Pain to wash tho
@Pabcu250 Save one for me!
@@polarbear5740 they selling out like hot cakes !! Be quick.
"Why are T-55s Still Being Sold?!?"
Like any weapon ever made, its better then a stick........
Exactly.
I dunno you could always jam a stick down the barrel of the tank
@@mdcclxxviepluribusunum1066 or bring a comically large cork to the battle
"It's better to have own a single tank than not having a tank at all"
- Sun Tzu
Not true for the Arjun
The T-55s most valuable feature is how robust the suspension is. The amount of extra weight I've seen slapped on these is incredible
And the balls of the crew...
It's also much less prone to explosion after it has been penetrated by a modern anti-tank missile, than for example T72 models (including the Yugoslavian M84 ).
It is heavily praised by all sides who were involved in the wars that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia for its reliability, simplicity and sheer toughness.
It's gun is powerful and accurate, and the whole tank is extremely easy to maintain.
With a few modern upgrades it is a very potent asset on the battlefield, especially against unconventional enemies like separatists and other terrorist groups.
_____
So in the end, would i like to sit in this tank if i had to fight modern MBT's on the field of battle?! HELL NO!
Would i prefer to sit in it when fighting ISIS vs driving in a modern MRAP/APC? Definitely.
So all in all, every piece of military hardware has it's use, even when it seems outdated and useless to your average layman.
@@izil1fe One word.
*flank* .
Was that when you got in? lol
@@phantomaviator1318 two words. Infantry support
I'd take the T55 over a Lambo as it is easier to park. You can even park when the space is already occupied by a car!
bruh ik right ? its so evective that my neighbors stop bieng noisey after i drove my t55 out
The Broke: Lamborghini
The Woke: T-55
If you can't find sopt you can always mad one on any nearby building.
Also when you honk the horn, an explosive shell comes out!
Stuck in traffic? Just run them over!
T-55 is literally the AK-47 of tanks. He and the Patton can serve for another 100 years probably. And remember one thing - there is no such thing as old weapon, if it can shoot and kill its dangerous enough
Then you must be doing your fighting with muskets and blunderbusses.
@@vig37 They are still weapons tho, you wouldn't want to be in front of a loaded musket so...
@@vig37 Not first time in history that it happens what he explained.. WW2, Afganistan or Vietnam what do you think they used at first, what ever they had.
@@daffyduck1283 i don't discuss military tactics, weaponry and warfare with silly ducks.
@@vig37 Ok man..relax I don't want to talk military tactics with silly cats either.. so no need to feel offended and act in offence, it was more simple just to keep silence.
Cheap tank > no tank.
@Moraceae Cost of purchase isn't the only cost involved. Running the damn things incurs many of its own expenses. Why would you buy a fleet of brand new ultra-modern tanks that cost 10x times more money and labour to run than an old model that gets the same job done?
As long as you're not the poor bastard that's gonna roast innit.
To paraphrase The Chieftain "The T-55 may not be the best tank, but if you're able to get one to the battlefield and all your enemy has is a Kalashnikov, it's gonna be good enough".
I believe he also said the oldest tank that can knock out a Abrams is a T-55 from the side
@@alexwest2573 as a war thunder player its accurate
@@alexwest2573 I'm pretty sure any tank could take out abrams from the rear
@@sidsucksatplaying Judging by War Thunder, even the CV9040 can knock out an Abrams from the side, with ease I might add^^
@@lavrentivs9891 judging by war thunder my tiger h1 can penetrate a m1a1 in the turrent ring
In theory, your tanks should be carrying mostly HE rounds and attacking where enemy tanks are not. A meeting engagement should be a rarity, with enemy armor struck down by other assets. Using a tracked vehicle as a stationary defense is a waste when other weapons could be used. T-55s work quite well for infantry support.
whats wrong with a tank in stationary defence. That upgraded t55 will have a 2km fire range and be bullet proof from the front from 35mm cannons at that same distance , no pickup truck or apc or IFV can beat it, its more of a stationary guard tower you can use. Some tanks like the Leopard 1 also had an arillery mode which they could fire to 8km with HE shells perfect for a tank as a bunker and as Infantry support
@@taiwanno1wan126 a dismounted ATGM, or mortar will be more stealthy than a tank and cost alot less. and can get into a wider range of positions. being stationary in 1 place for too long also wastes the vehicle's mobility.
tanks with modern/semi-modern fire controls should keep to mobile warfare (be it offensives or counteroffensives)
@@taiwanno1wan126 I'm not saying they can't be - but there might be better options. NATO tankers used to be quick to point out that the limited gun depression of Pact tanks meant they'd have problems firing hull down from hill tops. And no mistake - this was very important for the Israeli defense of the Golan heights. On the other hand, the Russians wanted to use their tanks more aggressively and in Iraq M1 Abrahms rarely used their ability to fight from hills - so in those cases it proved not to be an issue. Its more up to the tactics necessary at the time.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 yes atgms are lethal to tanks, I don’t think they have the same battlefield presence as a tank does, especially if your side doesn’t have any tanks or ways to counter them
You could argue that a tank gives a huge morale boost when leading the infantry.
there are many countries around the world without a single tank. Many 3rd world countries cant afford to even fund the development of their own tank let alone export new mbts. A 100mm is still a lot of fire power to bring on the battlefield even if its an outdated tank such as M60s, T-55s and early T-72S, sure it may not be able to engage other tanks effectively but it can be used an anti structure or infantry support role . Brasil a few years ago was still using M41 bulldogs
a 100mm even a 76mm is huge firepower when you consider even a latest gen main battle tank is covered in weak areas that have equal to 200mm of steel which even a 76mm sabot would beat. Every single IFV APC in the world cant take a 100mm hit from the front, i dont know why they phase out the 105mm its still very dangerous and is perfect for reserve tanks and even good for upgraded m60s.
@@taiwanno1wan126 Yep. People were laughing at those Rebels in the Yemen war for using T-34-85s. I much rather someone be shooting at me with regular firearms or portable rocket launchers than a 85mm which can possibly have HE or some sort of fragmentation round. No body armor or gear can save u from that
Man-portable ATGMs are far more likely to be the main threat to tanks today and no matter how heavily you modify an old tank, it's going to be helpless against them. Besides, the Israelis beat them with modified Shermans 65 years ago.
@@taiwanno1wan126 But the 105 is coming back into style though. With new lighter tank designs optimized for high mobility like the maneuver combat vehicle and Type 15 tank, countries are fielding the 105 mm gun on new designs again.
Did you talk about philipine? I dont remember they have tanks only m113 with turret Haha
bargain price 260,000 USD , australia paid about 800,000 for a new small infantry mobility vehicle around 6.5 tonnes similar to the humvee called the hawkie. When you consider a new korean or japanese tank costs about 8.8 million USD 2 of the most expensive tanks in the world right now you can buy 35 upgraded t-55 tanks for the cost of just 1 south korean K2 tank.
Serbia will sell 282 upgraded T55 tanks to Pakistan probably last will be exported till 2022 or 2023.
Tanks will be equiped with night vision, better armor, better aiming scope and maybe automatic charger for 260k euro per tank.
@@milans.637 Neko je uzeo proviziju
Wow. That's quite a bargain.🧐
@@TheSekula94 pa tp ti je vuciceva politika, proda staro oruzje kupi nesto novo a u maloj kolicini i sendvicari i titovi pioniri koji su jos zivi srecni i glasaju za svetlu buducnost nase dece sa sve odzvanjanem u glavi "Za nasu decu'.
@@hoss191 but this tanks are planed for Pakistan-Avganistan border they are not ment to invade India or China.
To be fair Pakistan’s T-55’s are wayyy better than the base version. Also some countries might buy the old Russian T-55MV’s in stock in the future because those are actually half decent in terms of protection
thats a israeli t55 modernised for vietnam
@@ghostlyinterceptor7756 My bad, I meant T-55MV
@@ravenmusic6392 yeah but tbh a better option would be the bmpt turret on the t55 hull cost effective to some extent it would be and i know there were some tests with that
@@ravenmusic6392 T-55MV is Ukrainian upgrade!
@@ghostlyinterceptor7756 It’s probably a better weapon system, but I think a lot of the countries buying T-55’s either have a limited budget and need to upgrade their existing fleets of T-54/55 Tanks (Vietnam) or just need tanks which can deal with unguided rockets on their border while the better tanks do the fighting with other Tanks (Pakistan) so I think they would probably just prefer to buy the complete systems at a discounted price and not bother upgrading them for a different role
Although this doesn't really apply to Pakistan's border guard, a lot of organisations see MBTs as not only a combat vehicle but a force stiffener. They may have troops who would be unwilling to assault unless they have armoured overwatch. A $260k fairly survivable 1st generation MBT with upgraded systems is a massive asset to them.
As others have said here it depends on who you're usually up against. It's the same as most people don't need an A-10 attack jet when a light trainer converted to a bomb truck works more effectively.
Something the MBT doom prophets seem to ignore. Your infantry can have all the advanced anti-tank anti-aircraft munitions in the world, but they're still just fragile meatbags - and they know it. Having an enormous steel beast taking all the attention allows them to get to work instead of laying prone with brown pants.
T-55 is technically a medium tank, not an MBT, since it would work in tandem with IS-3 / T-10 tanks.
The first truly USSR MBT was the T-64 that replaced the T-10 and then the T-72 that replaced T-54/55 as a cheaper and able to be mass produced MBT
There is a photo of a Pakistani Al zarar (Modified T59/T55) that had been attacked by multiple attacks from RPGs and suicide bombers. The tank was badly damaged But the crew survived. The tank I believe was recovered and is back in service. They are still of use. And have been upgraded with better sights/guns/armour. They might not survive as long as a modern MBT but they can still.do some damage and stiffen thr resolve of an infantry unit.
I mean, probably because the T-55 (when modernized) is almost top tier at any task as long as the target is not a more modern MBT.
So for nations seeking to use it for peace keeping, anti-insurgency operations, or just terrorizing citizen, it's perfect.
-It's still a tank that has a strong presence
-It has machineguns
-It has a big gun that will destroy entire houses and fortifications that insurgents might use
-the gun will wreck any pickup truck based assault of insurgents, especially with modernized toys like automatic lead
-it can still drive over stuff
-with ERA it's really hard to deal with, since it will last any explosive that the insurgents can throw at it
-It's not as bulky, easy to hit, or expensive to maintain and operate as a modern MBT
Basically I'd refer to the incident where Turkey sent Leo 2A4's into urban combat with no support or bolted on ERA kits. The ISIS members just shot them to shit with RPGs from the sides. A T-55 would have fared just as well for a fraction of the price, even though in 1v1 combat the Leo2 is clearly superior and the T-55 is obsolete. But a modernized T-55 with ERA would have done way better at surviving the insurgent attack.
It depends which model T-55 some of the more modern 100mm and 105mm ammunition is on par as far as penetration to late cold war ammo. So well positioned T-55 could kill a Leopard 2
of course you'd still lose a crew, but for the kinds of countries the T-55 is serving, meat is cheap. Metal is expensive.
There is also many, many different T-55 and T-54 variants that still hold up even today. The biggest example of which is the T-55M6, which the biggest change is the main gun. The M6 uses the 2A46M (same gun as the T-72), and can be fitted with fire controls systems which allow the firing if either the Svir or Refleks ATGMs. But a much more common variant is the M5, which keeps the same 100mm D-10 main cannon, while adding Kontakt-5 ERA, a stabilizer for the main gun, stabilized sights for gunner and commander, as well as a more modern fire control system. Also, the ATGMs the D-10 can fire natively are pretty potent for what their worth, and the 100mm 3BM25 APFSDS can hold its own against basically anything the tank would likely be going up against, such as BMPs from the 60s, up-armored Toyota Hilux's. Which could all be taken out by even the APHE can APCBC rounds the D-10 fired before the adoption of the 3BM25 in the 80s.
@@MrNPC Even though T-55 can still hold it's place in today's world, you all forget that the base is obsolete which is usually the case why countries move on instead of modernizing. Space inside is limited. Ergonomics are terrible etc. In general what my grandpa says, T-55 is not exactly very user friendly tank (not bashing on it, just stating negatives most people fail to realize). Also ERA doesn't stop everything. People seem to forget that some of the insurgents get their hands on things like TOW, Kornet, Metis... plenty of tanks with ERA have been knocked out, prime example being Syria.
well said, emphasis on cheap though
I wonder if we'll reach a point where AT missiles become more expensive than the tanks they are shot at.
Probably will
That's insane to think about lol
missiles get cheaper and cheaper the more are made
look at JDAM bombs, in around the time they where itroduced 1 bomb was about 30-50k USD
today 20 years later one JDAM is as cheap as 5-10k USD
I suspect a brand new Javelin missile will be more expensive than say, a used export model T-55 that hasn't received any upgrades.
Javelin missile costs about 200000-250000 dollars. Which is almost as expensive as T-55!
No jokes, my grand parents have a T-34 at their house in the country side, but its engine is completly rusted and unusable ofc
When I was small they used to tell me that it was destroyed in a fighting outside the house long ago. It's actually amazing, inside the tank, there is empty ammo places and the gun is still functional...
Where?
@@samray3644 that question is sus why?
@@deadbrothers5356 maybe asking to see if it was in battle for what war
Yugoslavia?
Because with a few upgrades, they are still very hard to kill. Most foot or motorized infantry will likely have a bad day against it without MBT or air support.
Take any ATGM from 70s and that tank is dead...
@@SoulArtSound The base version yes but not modernized version
@@arhumzia6360 bro doesn't matter how much you modernize it if the insurgents have ATGM TOW launchers (which BLA doesn't have but Taliban do, also ISIS has shown to have access to TOW weapons they captured from US backed FSA), then penetration is almost guaranteed especially if the operator of the TOW launcher is experienced and guides the missile to hit the roof of the tank, even if the ATGM does not impact the roof it still almost guarantees that the MBT is disabled as shown here with much more modern German leopard II tanks (czcams.com/video/YafzmkvVRiI/video.html&ab_channel=G%C3%BCntherSteinmeier) , half a dozen of which were destroyed in the Turkish offensive in Syria.
Do your research amigo and Hermes will deliver.
@@StratoIV We didn't buy this for Afghan Taliban Lmao we bought this For TTP and BLA also those leos were not equipped with ERA and that they were without any ground support in urban combat fortunately we are not as naïve. But who knows lets see how they perform I am sure we both agree its better than a type 59.
@@SoulArtSound ATGMs are not an "I Win" button. They need to be guided to the target and can be disrupted by any number of ways. Just popping smoke is a highly effective countermeasure.
I think the gun will still be fine for shooting at the sides of other tanks, most vehicles don't have the best side protection when compared to the front and a lot of people say that most tanks engage in combat when the enemy isn't looking at them.
Our tank veterans, here in Croatia, generally agree that the T-55 was everyone's favourite tank to scoot around in. It could go anywhere, easily, unlike the heavier T-72 (M-84). Lack of protection and advanced sighting was secondary to mobility in many situations.
T 55 is such a great tank, of course its very outdated but in Peru we cant change them or at least modernize them, but i really like them since they are very reliable and easy to mantain, im a driver mechanic on the peruvian army and i've been driving these beasts for 5 years so far. I would hate to change them but i hope we never go to war here otherwise we are screwed xd
you will probably get a t72 copy next as there will be thousands of them on the second hand market soon and be just as cheap as countries phase them out from front line service. Strange you did not buy the Leapard 1 tanks, Australia had them for sale at bargain prices and not a single country bought them even though about 10 countries still use them, they too can fire HE and had fantastic mobility and an artillery mode
i think T-55 is great for combined arms like when you use them to do infanty support i dont think it will do very well against tank to tank battles despite being fast and easy to use since the armor is weak (not compared to infanty tho) and the main gun wouldnt really do much damage to other tanks despite being reliable
if you wanna use soviet tanks for tank to tank battles then I'll recommand T-62 and T-72
What does Peru generally use them for? Don't know much, but it seems like Peru doesn't have many enemies. Are there local terrorist groups or something?
@@ether23-23 well we use them for exercises, LOTS OF THEM but beside that there is no other use for them, i remember a possible reasignment to the Vraem since we have probles with drugs there but the idea was abandoned because of logistics and terrain, i heard a proposal to turn them into self propelled guns with a 125 mm gun but once again the idea was abandoned, we might never do something with them besides turning them into emergency first response vehicles in case of an earthquake by removing the turret and everything related to it, you can search in youtube since it was showed on the news of our country
@@taiwanno1wan126 well theres a lot of corruption in our country and the money destinated for the army just dissapears, i remember we almost bought some leopards 2 from canada but the time it took us to think about was too much and the chileans bought them, then it was some chinese mbts but because of russian parts on the tank it was illegal for them to be exported to us, the it was the factory new t 90 but it was very expensive and also it didnt reached the requirements for the army, and finally and i hope we buy them, the south
Well, if your opponent is armed with rifles and maybe a few old RPGs, T-55 is good enough. I mean, why should you send a couple of million dollars worth modern MBT for that task when a good old T-55 with get the job done just as well?
cause modern MBT fare like 40% better than most older and obsolete first gen MBT and cause they win in mobility warfare unlike T-55 wich could win in a atrition warfare
Cause your opponent might be better armed, than what your led to believe.
It's like the old saying " better to have a gun and not need it, than needing a gun and not have it" .
@@Orcawhale1 Most nations don't have a bottomless pit of money to spend on their military. You want to equip them with the latest and greatest? Too bad, you don't have the resources to do that. You can equip 100% of your border forces with upgraded T-55s or you can equip 25% of them with the latest Uber tank. What do you think those 75% with no tanks are going to think about you?
Armatures talk talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
@@Crosshair84 Your whole comment hinges on strawman arguments, and is quite rude, tbh.
So i advise you to change your tone, if you actully want a proper disucssion.
@@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry Mobility warfare against... What, in this case?
We are talking here against anti-insurgency, not full armored tank on tank warfare. Plus, T-55 has decent cross-country mobility and good ability to cross all kinds of terrain. Compared to, say, Abrams that weighs 70+ tonnes... Even some bridges are a problem, soft ground, etc.
On top of it all, Abrams costs way more, so a loss of one is more hurtful. And these things are way cheaper and will blow some terrorists up just the same...
I think you missed the point here; for counter insurgency missions, this is good enough and costs you less, especially for countries that don't have huge military budgets.
Ohh you will need a million T55's to fight a single Arjun.
not really, honestly, less than a hundred would be enough, and if you have decent crews, maybe even less than twenty
@@arandomperson7713 it was a joke mate
A milion arjuns to fight one t55*
B-b-but muh india superpower 2020...
Its literary for Insurgency
I love T-55s - I wish I had an income to buy one
Bro t55s are fucking dirt cheap in some parts of the world, i bet you could buy one in albania with minimum wage (US)
@@peepeepoopooman1953 Buying it is one thing - 40K-70k depending on model - housing it and maintaining it is another issue to over come all together
@@TheNVSK rip
How would you even buy one? I mean, who would you have contact? And what about shipping?
Me too.
Yes, the T-55 is obsolete as an MBT, but it's perfect for support roles and for fighting IFV's.
Edit.1: And, Yes Tank V Lambo any day of the week. If I ever think otherwise, it would be a sign that my brain has stopped functioning.
That isn't a bad deal @ 260,000
I'll bet it beats a tesla in collision test and safety.
Might buy one for my driveway xD
Truelly the Kalashnikov of the Armored World :D
@Vladimir Putin t55 is like ak47 while t72 is ak74
@@Piggiesgomoomoo i still think there are more t72s than t55s sorta like more 47s than 74s
@@m1a1abrams3 the T55/T54s are litterally the most produced tanks in the world
@@motmot8879 we talking about t55s not 54s
@@m1a1abrams3 23000 T55s were made while 25000 T72s were made, so you're right
"A tank being old does not make it any less lethal than it did a long time ago"
I once read this somewhere.
My friend Croatian soldier who went thru 4 years of war, when I told him that t 55 is trash. He said. When u are pinned down from above by T55 tank for u it is the same as T72 or T84. My father also a war veteran told me that even 1 friendly T55 brings a huge morale boost for troops on the battlefield. To conclude T55 is still 50km per hour, ground shaking, grenade launching, armored beast.
That is true.
My father was a tank driver during the war in Croatia.
When you must quickly relocate you can literally pass thru houses and trees.
Then entrench it and voila its a bunker.
I once saw a T-55 recovery tank and the noise of the engine was enough to paralyze me of fear.
Its simple really, having a tank is still a force multiplier in the same way having several batteries of older artillery pieces is better than having none.
indeed that is why the US havent invaded north korea...
they got dozzen hundreds of old artillery pieces
weapon really effective despite being obsolete cant be hacked unlike many new artillery weapons
@@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry Well when you have China as your ally it's really hard to invade.
@@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry north Korea's old artillery would all be anihhilated by the air superiority the US would have
@@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry More to do with the fact that North Korea has jack crap for resources worth fighting over.
@@Crosshair84 also nukes
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there are armies still fielding the T-34, never mind the T-55. Just because better hardware exists doesn't mean everyone has access to it, especially considering that the producers of weapons have to consider the risks of accidentally indirectly supplying their enemies.
Wiki says that 9 countries still have T-34s but sounds like they are largely locked in warehouses.
Arent those upgraded T55's called "T-55H"?
Exactly, they were bought for the infantry support role, why waste valuable 3-4 million$ T80UD-s or VT-1(Al Khalid) against insurgents when a refurbished T-55 can do the same job
Also one thing you should've mentioned imo is that the T-55H comes also with a domestic APFSDS shell with ~350mm pen at 2km, so enough to take out any 1st or western 2nd gen mbt, which many asian countries still have in active service.
Its about longterm technolgoical investment. Upgraded t-55s are great agsint insurgents but once the threat is dealt with, you've now got a bunch of tanks that WERE once great againts insurgents but are outdated compared to newer tanks, so thats a waste of money right there.
A similar case happened in Sudan when the South Sudanese used their T-72s to obliterate the North Sudan's T-55s without any trouble. But they quickly acquired some ChineseType-96s(export version) that later oblierated thw T-72s in return. The South Sudanese army wasted all the money on t-72 so they can no longer purchase newer tanks.
On the other hand, the type-96s will remain effective for a longer duration of time and can be used to counter future threats such as t-80s or even some modern NATO tanks
The capital N in cyrillic (Н) looks just like the latin capital H. Im assuming thats why he’s calling it a T-55N
@@Passer__ nope, its T-55H, its called Т-55Х in cyrilic. I'm pretty sure Red is saying "T-55M" in the video.
@@mihailo674 Okay, thank you.
@@Jake-dh9qk It's not a waste of money if you repurpose those T55s for what they should have been used for in the first place, which is infantry support. That T55 isn't as mobile as an APC, but it will smoke any other tank in mobility and will go in places many APCS will probably fail to go in (Serbian Mountains with mud, or just Russian mud in general). The mobility is actually/probably T55s top reason why they were purchased, you can literally drive it to the top of a Pakistani mountain.
No matter what tank, good or bad you have. It will always be a good support to infantry at least as an armoured self-propelled gun.
They're cheap, relatively reliable, and have incredibly good upgrade potential. China's exported Type 59G is a prime example. The thing literally looks like mini Type 99A. That tank, if necessary, could deal with modern MBTs. The base platform may be obsolete, but its insane upgrade potential can keep it relevant.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it couldn't.
The only reason why they are still "relevant" is because the nations can't afford more modern stuff.
the golden age of tank is long gone.
@@Orcawhale1 why not, it has 500mm penetration
@@LSC69 you won't touch a newer battle tank unless you slam a round up it's ass at point blank.
@@LSC69 Most modern nations had twice that armor pen in the 80s and could withstand armor pens like that.
T-55 makes a great infantry support platform, like in a tank in an infantry battalion. Equip it with a modern gun, fire control, etc. and if possible, ATGMs. Otherwise load it with HE and canister.
It can't go toe-to-toe with any current MBTs, but if the doctrine has them as infantry support, it doesn't need to.
Wow, only $260K??? When the Hughes thermal sight on my Bradley M2A2 was knocked-out, the cost I was told to replace back in 1991 was over $200K... I think the production cost for the entire Bradley was around $2MM back then.
Thats because the US military industrial complex inflates prices.
The politicians have deals with Industrials.
And you are so inconsiderate.
How else will those poor people maintain their Yacht fleets! Cocaine! Mansions!
Truly you are without a heart!
Now that's fucked up. We getting a whole tank in same price
It is freaking crazy! Just looked at Wikipedia, and it said the M2A2 Bradley in the year 2000, cost $3,166,000 each... In today's cost, I could easily equip an entire platoon with T-55's, having 3 men each for the price of one Bradley.
@@ahmadsubhan9572 but not a very good one
Now you know why they were sending solders on patrol in canvas sided Humvees in Iraq/Afghanistan instead of M113A3s that at least offer some protection from IEDs and AKs. Instead of spending money on "Good" equipment that they could afford to equip everyone with, they spent the money on "Best" equipment that only a handful of units could get. Everyone else got to drive leftovers with as much armor as a Go-Kart.
Pakistan utilize T-55 as a light tank on the borders with Afghanistan. These are underdeveloped and very mountainous regions making use of heavier tanks very difficult. Pakistan even managed to put them on really high mountain tops to be used as fixed artillery which is testament to the tanks high mobility.
T-55 is cheaper to operate and easier to transport and Pakistan already has all the overhauling capacity. These tanks are not front line battle tanks, these are only used against lightly armed insurgents.
Thanks for mentioning this, in Serbia we did the same in '99 in Kosovo, got it up a couple hundred meters away from the top of 2-3 km mountains (where they were needed by border guards fighting a terrorist invasion). Did all that while NATO was providing air cover for the terrorists, Serbian forests are awesome.
@@JebacPresretac101 You mean "while NATO was providing air cover for the freedom fighters"
@@yorgenibnstrangle3072 no, terrorists providing cover for terrorists.
@@JebacPresretac101 Serbia tried to commit genocide. They got what they deserved. NATO should have leveled Belgrade. Serbia got off too easy.
@@yorgenibnstrangle3072 Yeah, terrorists acting like terrorists with regards to Belgrade, and making comments too. Makes sense. Just don't scream if Serbia goes back in to prevent an actual genocide.
The other less discussed benefit of the T55 is that it's a far lighter tank than most MBT's.
The base model weighs in at ~35 tonnes, let's assume these upgrades added 5 tonnes so a 40 tonne vehicle.
The newest M1 Abrams weighs 66 tonnes. The newest Leo 2 is closer to 70. The newest T90 variants hover around 50-60.
When you're expecting poor roads, antiquated infrastructure, and less than optimal terrain, a T55 can be more tactically versatile.
Everything from how old the railways are, how old the bridges are, the composition of road surface...
A medium tank that arrives is better than a heavy tank stuck in the depot.
I'm no expert, but this makes terrific sense. Easier to transport, easier to manoeuvre. From what I have read , the winner of most tank on tank combat is the one that spots the other first and can lay down the first accurate shot. This new scope must be the biggest leap forward for the platform
We are seeing something like this with the new generation of lighter tanks, for example the Type 15 which is 36 tons with the armor pack and designed to have very good mobility. Sure, the 105mm gun and light hull armor won't do well head-to-head with an MBT but a tank like that can get to a lot of places a full size MBT would really struggle while ATGMs can cover the gap if heavier armor is encountered.
Seems to be a very effective vehicle type, and while the major powers are building their own new design light/medium tanks the upgraded T-55 can fill a similar role at a much lower cost.
The T-55A is a reliable tank, it was the best thing money could buy in the Eastern Bloc when I was in service (1973), I drove it myself as a tank driver, it is still the most produced and sold tank in the world and it has some good reasons. Apart from the radio, it had no electronics that could be destroyed by EMP. With today's reactive armor and improved route guidance, it is well able to cope with the tasks that are placed on it. The rate of fire was then as now as 6 to 7 rounds per minute, but the most important thing is the level of training and the motivation of the crew, if the crew cannot get along with each other and not even with the simplest technology then the best tank is also, and that also applies to all current tanks and crews, worthless.
Der T-55A ist ein zuverlässiger Panzer er war zu meiner Dienstzeit (1973) das Beste was man für Geld im Ostblock kaufen konnte, ich habe ihn selbst als Panzerfahrer gesteuert, er ist immer noch der meistproduzierte und meist verkaufte Panzer der Welt und das hat einige gute Gründe. Er verfügte außer dem Funkgerät über keinerlei Elektronik die durch EMP zerstört werden könnte. Mit der heute aktuellen reaktiven Panzerung und verbesserter Zielführung ist er den Aufgaben die an ihn gestellt werden durchaus gewachsen. Die Feuergeschwindigkeit war damals wie heute 6 bis 7 Schuss pro Minute, das wichtigste ist aber der Ausbildungsstand und die Motivation der Besatzung, wenn die Besatzung nicht miteinander und nicht mal mit der einfachsten Technik zurechtkommt dann ist auch der beste Panzer, und das gilt auch für alle aktuellen Panzer und Besatzungen, wertlos.
Your username is hilarious. Anyway, how tall are you? Did you find T-55 uncomfortable to drive? I mean after all it is a weapon of war
@@tacomas9602 My name is a statement, my height is 1.75m, and no, driving a tank is not uncomfortable because it is a question of motivation and it is a thing for men only, you can feel the tremendous power of the mighty 12 cylinder engine it is really a feeling of power and power over technology, for me the tank was a weapon to defend my homeland.
Mein Name ist eine Aussage, meine Körperhöhe ist 1,75m, und nein das Panzer fahren ist nicht unangenehm denn es ist eine Frage der Motivation und es ist so eine Sache nur für Männer , Du kannst die ungeheure Kraft des gewaltigen 12 Zylindermotors spüren es ist wirklich ein Gefühl von Kraft und Macht über Technik, für mich war der Panzer eine Waffe zur Verteidigung meiner Heimat.
@@5anonymermicro-aggressor364 Bro how old are u?
@@sharequsman596 I am 68 years old, the last rank of sergeant major in MSR 17, Panzer Battalion, 10 Company in Halle Saale, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Ich bin 68 Jahre alt, letzter Dienstgrad Unterfeldwebel im MSR 17/ 10.Panzerkompanie in Halle Saale, Sachsen-Anhalt, Deutschland.
@@5anonymermicro-aggressor364 Sir is it weird if I think that's kind of cool?
Even WWI artillery would do some serious damage to an enemy if used right. As long as you are aware of the drawbacks and adjust your tactics accordingly.
Most Serbian T55 have all commander/gunner technology straight from old M84. Which means they are quite capable hitting stuff while driving on moving target. I think all of them are with remote control 12,8 machine gun(that thing cost like 50 000€ which is no brainer these days) And remember most of the time having old AP 150 mm penetration ammo is better than Sabot 500mm pen. It smashes on concrete with 10 times bigger caliber. Also if you have choice RPG 7+AK-47 VS tank... Like any tank? I'll take tank
12,8 mm machine gun? 150 mm armor penetration? These numbers seem sketchy.
@@REgamesplayer 12,8mm is .50 cal, so it sounds right
@@Pawu102 It is 12,7 mm.
@@REgamesplayer Well yes, I just assumed that he was meaning .50 cal or 12,7mm, and made that mistake, but you are correct.
I don't believe any weapon ever reaches a point where it becomes worthless. Sure, they can be outclassed by more modern platforms, but they still work today as well as they did when introduced. A lever action Winchester from the 1800s is outperformed by a modern combat rifle, but it'll still kill you and is far superior to having no weapon at all.
That is correct, even melee weapons like combat knives for close combat use are still useful in certain situations.
Try to fight a guy with an ak-47 with a musket
@@lebronyeimsv3974 It seems you missed the part about the older weapons being outclassed by modern weapons. I'm not saying a musket can beat an AK. I'm saying that the musket will still make you just as dead today as it would when it was top of the line.
@@5KAmenshawn there's always a point where any gun becomes useless... yeah u can tell me that a musket can be lethal; however, no matter how lethal could be, you wouldn't be able to kill me even though I have an 1911 (for example)
@@5KAmenshawn If you don't trust me, get a musket and I'll get an 1911 hahaha just kidding
Considering the price of modern tanks, the $260k price is a steal considering how well it seems like it'll do for it's intended purpose.
Good video and good take on how/when/why older generation tanks can still be valuable.
Most of the time tanks are not used against other tanks. As long as has at least 75mm, then it is as good a tank as you really need when not facing other tanks. And with reactive armor, the greatest threat against it is neutralized. Unlike a tank destroyer of the German/Soviet type, it is good for offensive also. Only disadvantage would be elevation and long gun which can limit usefulness in confined spaces like a city. Also, sometimes better to have a howitzer anyway, which can lob shells
Honestly any tank can work if you modernize it enough. It's just a matter of if it pays out to keep slapping more shit on it or just make an entirely new one. Just look at the Leopard 2 or the Abrams. Production of those started in the end of the last millennia, but their modernization are considered some of the best tanks in the world. Also, the T55 AMV variant is considered highly effective.
Another thing I wanted to note is that, equipment doesn't really matter if you can't use it properly. A highly trained and experienced crew in a T72 will probably have high chances against an undertrained and unexperienced crew in a Leopard 2.
You forgot one factor here: the T-55 is the sexiest tank ever built, and damn if I know why. But that profile... yeah, makes me hot and bothered and I would indeed love to have my own T-55.
So if they sell them, mybe time to start saving.
You mean the German Tiger tank is the sexiest tank ever built. 😁
@@blueduck9409 It's a box on top of another box.
Damn, why did I buy this house, I coulda got 3 T-55s instead.
One for the work commute, one for weekend joyrides, and one to strip out enough to curl up and sleep in.
Dare someone to say "you can't park those here"
*Thanks for informative video, liked & Shared!!*
A bad, cheap tank is still better than no tank. If nothing else you can use it as a heavily armored mobile artillery.
That those things are really simple and easy to repair and maintain is also a plus.
Cost is a factor frequently ignored by many keyboard warriors. In the real world, sometimes being able to buy every infantry support tank your country needs for the price of a handful of state of the art MBTs is a sound financial decision.
T55 anks are also used by cambodia actually performed well during the war cambodia-thai bordor conflict and now cambodia has around 500-635 of those t54 t55 & t59
Still can also be used as a dug in artillery piece as well this would be effective as a border weapon too especially by check points
I mean, for infantry fire support it'll still do the job
That's the idea.
Could you review the T55AGM from Ukraine or the Type 59G from China? Both are based on the T-54/55 design but modernised.
Type-59G isn't that the one that could lunch atgm?
@@williejohnson1732It's actually a modernisation of the Chinese type 59, based on the Soviet t54. It has new armor that makes it look kind of like a ztz96 visually. But I'm pretty sure it can launch ATGMs.
@@golucid745 I just looked on Wikipedia sorry I was confusioned i thought the type 59D was the G The G is a more upgraded and modernize version, mybad
This is very similar to the T55 upgrade with Israeli and Spanish technology that Vietnam is currently buying. They have lots of T55s available and in a war they can use them for infantry support. Infantry with their own tanks are more protected from enemy threats. Finally, if you have lots of tanks you may beat an enemy with more technology by using the numerical advantage and Good tactics (use of terrain for ambush, etc)
IIRC China still uses some Type 69 and Type 59 tanks too.
I wonder if those "obsolete" tanks like T-62, M-60 Patton, AMX-30, Leopard 1 and Type 74 can be converted into autonomous unmanned tank? I think if that is possible it would bring an additional deadly firepower punch in a relatively safe and reliable package.
Most of those tanks could just be used as training tanks to say the least if they don't want to deploy them in the battlefield
a reliable autoloader would be the main issue
@@Armored_Ariete autoloaders have been reliable for a while now
China has been doing that actually, working on drone tanks with the old Type 59 and 69
matsimus ( gamer guy ,comic and canadian armor guy) out up a video from raytheon about upgrades they did to some M60 patton tanks,modern optics crew protection,precision shoot while moving cannon,,lighter than the abrams by ten tonnes,
Chassis layout and mechanical engineering of the T-55 is based on T-44, a WWII Soviet tank. That's a definition of a time proven design.
Without even watching I’m gonna say this: It was an excellent design and about a jillion of them were made, so might as well get some of your deposit back (also they would be miles cheaper than the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, or T-90)
I didnt even know that serbia still had so many of them laying around. I know that there should be a ton of t34s "swimming" in greas somewhere in underground facilities, but the t55 thing is surprising.
Serbia has hundreds of them, if not a thousand.
When I was in the army in 2016, I remember seeing so many of them just rusting, parked in the open. Asked my NCO, why are they being wasted like this? It's a sad sight.
He said they're in great shape, all the inner parts are kept in grease.
but they're so outdated, there's zero use for them, even as some kind of stupid infantry support. That's why ex. president Tadić sold (or tried to) 500 of them for scrap metal.
I'm happy they actually found their purpose.
2:43 this photo is actually taken from my cite, glad to see it here
70 ton tanks have limited mobility and are too expensive for counterinsurgency conflicts.
Well, it appears that T-55s are now more important than ever.
Russia ,Germany and US should start selling upgraded copies of the T-34/85 , Panzer IV’s, Panther Tanks and M4 Sherman and M24 Chaffee’s. I’m sure some countries would buy them.
@jmantime Where's one of my favorite, Firearms YT channel 🙂, Hi Jmantime! Imagine what a fully digitally modernized T-34-84 could do to a Bradley (😆), like add a new Fire Control System, ERA, thermal sights, laser warning receivers, automatic smoke discharges, RCWS, AT missiles... Oh yeah, it could take a decent bite from the enemy forces. Kind regards and happy holidays! 😃👌
There are defense contractors, from around the world, that make modernization kits for the T55. Some of them are so extensive, that they don't even look like T55's anymore, they look like tanks that time traveled from the future. They look like a brand new tank. It's no good in it's original configuration, but still makes a good platform for upgrades.
If these things ever become cheap enough, I’m gonna buy one, take the turret off, and just use it as an off roader
I imagine that off road clubs have special events at which people compete with their vehicles. I can imagine event officials hearing a roaring sound approaching from the distance, getting ever louder until you come into view in your T-55!
THAT would be great fun, although I'd want to keep the turret! That would add to the effect.
I'm guessing though, that some off road vehicles would outperform T55 on steep terrain....
Maybe not in deep mud.
There are many different versions of this tank. Different additions were added in different countries. Its still good for mountain terrain. Its my fav. Cold War tank.
Nice video, thank you :D
Ideal for shopping in the city. You ALWAYS and easy find a space to park your vehicle. Even If that space is already occupied.
You can drive through traffic jams as if there were no other cars.
If you use your T55 wise, you will also get unbelievable discounts at the stores.
Hmm, tank or lambo?
On one hand the lambo won't ever really get to top speed because the motorways have limits. I also don't have a licence so it's illegal for me to drive it.
The tank meanwhile is a tank so it being illegal to drive is an issue that resolves itself as it's a tank.
I want one, I really really want one
3:50 military contracts usually include a plethora of spare parts included in that price, in this case it probably includes lots of extra ERA aswell.
Brilliant video...... I would pick a tank to. Just need to extend the garage a bit.
Problem with facing taliban has always been number nor quality.. controling a large area require a large asset. The more armored vehicle and infantry you had, the greater the chance of winning.. irregardless of quality.
If you have a T-55 and your enemy doesn't, then you win. A T-90 is going to cost substantially more and not give nearly as much an advantage that its cost would suggest if the enemt still doesn't have tanks.
Exactly. You can get 10 refurbished/modernized T-55s for the cost of a single T-90 and still have plenty of money left over for ammo, food, and fuel.
I think this is the same type of question as "Why are AK-47s still being sold?"
$260k for a modernized T-55...
So for the same money as SotA MBTs, you could get little 30 of these things. Obviously crewing, fueling, firing, training with, etc them won't be cheap, but still... 30 RPG-resistant AFVs with derpguns for the price of one MBT...
These will mostly be used as a stationary pillbox on the border with India.
I'd say because of the Charm
These are basically light tanks now compared to modern tanks still effective but outmatched unless you have a large number of them
Buen video!, te recomiendo investigar sobre el proyecto peruano T55 Tifon 2A - 2EP. Es el upgrade más completo que existe sobre el chasis de un T55.
Cool, ima buy one.
Soon, maybe.
If it moves and the gun goes bang, somebody will buy it.
It would also be easier to train the existing tankers, introducing the new features in a familiar platfrom.
Just because something is “Obsolete” doesn’t mean it’s no longer dangerous
When you are in a region like north western Pakistan, fighting extremists with AKs and RPGs. A cheap, reliable T-55 is ofc better than a modern MBT
If I'm forced into a battlefield, I'd rather be in a tank that's vulnerable only to anti tank weapons rather than be outside and be vulnerable to mosquitoes.
Tanks are targeted by everything the enemy has in range. Drones, artillery, ATGM’s. In a rustbucket like a T-55 that’s a bonafide death sentence.
@@FelixHaukeland better than nothing, but still not enough for modern warfare.
You should talk about the t-15 kinzhal, kurganets, t72-b4, mbt pt-16, Anders tank family, stanag levels in your vídeos, Bradley replacement, mpf program and so on.
A T-55 is great for troop support at the very least. Soldiers definitely feel better knowing a tank is fighting with them and it can provide excellent support in many ways
Hey, Red! Will you do an update on Armata that is going to russian army with it`s new upper frontal armor?
@Dmitriy Parfenov Oh yeah, I've seen that new screenshot of T-14 from UralVagonZavod, pretty good stuff.
I don't understand why everyone is comparing the base T-55 with that modernized T-55! Its obvious that the modernized version will be better than the base variant!
Tank presence in Battlefields say a lot to the adverseries.
Mere presence of a tank make chill run thru u if u are a infantry company without anti tank equipments.
A tank is better then no tank. Context and field of use is important in this regard
I mean its great for its intended purpose
It will definetly be more than enough to face terrorist in urban combat , destroy buildings and fortifications.
A brigade of T55s is still a formidable force. It all depends on what it's deployed against.
A handful of mercenaries with a pittance of Soviet equipment swung the direction of a couple civil wars in Africa (Executive Outcomes). They ended the Angolan Civil War and the Sierra Leon Civil War with a Hind, a couple of Mi-8s, and a single T72. When the "international community" forced those countries to fire EO and replace them with UN peacekeepers, the wars started right back up and showed that the UN is completely worthless and in fact worse than worthless.
A modestly equipped but determined force is 10 times more important on the battlefield than a bunch of no morale but well equipped trash from the UN.
I concur!
Tanks I think are in a strange era. It is rare for them to actually engage with one another on the battlefield, so in most cases it doesn't seem to really matter much how modern they are. It will be interesting to see what changes in the next large scale conflict. i have a feeling the battlefield will change drastically.
Countries without tanks would find them valuable as hell.
And since there were so many made they would be the easiest and cheapest to fix and maintain compared to whatever else is in the market.
Donkey bought them
I'll buy two and put an Arduino in both for an Awesome RC project.
eeeeeeeehhhhhhhhh not sure how you would control the gearbox and engine
Even WW II tanks like T-34 85 still active in some armies in the world, for example, Vietnam use T34 as "coastal gun"
You're very good you deserved 1million subscribers bro