Jump to content


Is T-55 still in use?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

Thororin #21 Posted 08 April 2011 - 06:02 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 6736 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010
As someone mentioned before, T-54 and T-55 are no longer used in training in the FDF. However, they are in storage and I have seen one T-55M first hand.

T-55 hull is still in use, first example is the Marksman, and the other, the Czechoslovakian made Towing- and Crane-version.

Gimli #22 Posted 08 April 2011 - 06:34 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 44346 battles
  • 104
  • [WAF] WAF
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
Gaddafi has...oops had T54's :) .

Kvasnikov #23 Posted 08 April 2011 - 10:50 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 45777 battles
  • 127
  • [FTC] FTC
  • Member since:
    01-05-2011

View PostGehakteMolen, on 08 April 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

no, it cant take out an western MBT, an Abrahms has armor equivalent to 1000-2000mm of hardened steel (depending of used ammo)

I still believe that T-55 armed with 125 mm APFSDS's and ATGM can penetrate even Abrams' armour. The caliber is same as in T-80 and T-90.

APFSDS's have incredible ability to penetrate tank's armor(and practically anything) even in very low angles. It's like this famous butter and knife effect.

The thing what I want to say is that a modern T-55 with good ammunition and trained crew can be a real threat on a battlefield. I know that it's not perfect, but it's one of my favorite tanks and I want to defend it  :Smile_honoring:

theta0123 #24 Posted 08 April 2011 - 11:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8223 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostSchwarzie, on 08 April 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

By modern standards its rather slow. And the 10.5cm cannon has nowhere near enough Power to penetrate any modern western MBT frontally.
100mm  :Smile_honoring:

The reason also why it is still in use is because it is cheap to operate and fairly reliable. And it can serve along other more modern MBT's. The 100mm was very well known for example, for its HE firepower. 45% more effective then the 88mm round and the 88mm had a very effective HE round.

Most nations probaly keep them for the same reason why russia still keeps so much old tanks in storage=When war breaks out, you will be glad you will have them

And a T55 can indeed be modernized with modern guns, fire control systems and so on
A good example of this was the Isreali Super shermans M50 and 51. These tanks where 30 years old and fighting (and defeating) Modern T62's and 55's

And the Libya conflict is simply a new example. Gadaffi's numorous T55's where giving the rebels a very hard time
Untill the Fighter jets showed up  :Smile_honoring:

Zenith #25 Posted 08 April 2011 - 11:21 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 4457 battles
  • 3,237
  • Member since:
    07-05-2010
The T-54/55 was a good tank for its day, but against the numerous modern weapons systems in use now, it is decidedly lacking in both fire-power and protection. Even the T-72 is showing its age these days, especially the export models (inferior in almost every way to those in Russian service). Their service lives are being extended, but realistically there will come a point when they will no longer be able to keep up with the onward march of military progress.

Still, if you're a developing nation, one of these is better than no tanks at all, especially if your neighbours are fielding similar armour. But if they pick a fight with a Western country, then the end result is never good for the poor crews of these old Soviet designs.

theta0123 #26 Posted 08 April 2011 - 11:35 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8223 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
For comparision

T55=M46-8 patton
T-72=Leopard 1 chieftain, m60

The russians where also able to produce quality though. Take the T64 for example. For its days the T64 was extremly modern. Heavily armoured and a great with Excellent fire control systems

The west heavily underestimated the T-64. Saying it was a less-evolved T72. When it was infact the opposite(T-72 had 500mm RHA equivalent compositive armor. T-64 had 450mm Glass-reinforced plastic sandwiched between layers of steel, giving it much superior armor)

Tank wise the Soviets where always 2 steps ahead of the west. Thing is, every tank gets old. And if you dont properly update it, it becomes obsolete.

RHEINHART_RUS #27 Posted 09 April 2011 - 01:35 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
T-54 forever!!!!!!!11111 :Smile-izmena:

RHEINHART_RUS #28 Posted 09 April 2011 - 01:36 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
t-55 mit 125mm gun :Smile_great:

Schwarzie #29 Posted 09 April 2011 - 02:24 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 2644 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 08 April 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

For comparision
T55=M46-8 patton
T-72=Leopard 1 chieftain, m60
The russians where also able to produce quality though. Take the T64 for example. For its days the T64 was extremly modern. Heavily armoured and a great with Excellent fire control systems
The west heavily underestimated the T-64. Saying it was a less-evolved T72. When it was infact the opposite(T-72 had 500mm RHA equivalent compositive armor. T-64 had 450mm Glass-reinforced plastic sandwiched between layers of steel, giving it much superior armor)
The T72 was developed after the Leopard 1, M60 etc, around 10 years later IIRC. And yes, the T-64 was a beautiful tank and the first Tank with composite type armour.
But they never aimed to build a tank which was comparable in a 1 on 1 battle since their goal always was to field bigger numbers.

But with the introduction of the M1, Leopard2 and Challenger2 they may have even lost their edge even if you incorporate superior numbers. The Sowjetunion collapsed before they could develope an answer to the newest tanks. And the Chechnya conflict showed the design flaws in the T-80 and T-72 quite drastic. The storage of the ammunition and the ease to ignite the propellant of the 2 stage ammunition. This was only partially solved in the newest incarnation of the T-72, which was named T-90 just for marketing reasons. Russia lost its advantage in tank design, but due to the unwillingness of the western countries to develope a new tank (since there is currently no need for it) the russians might once again get the advantage if they continue to rebuild their military.

Even today i think that the T-64 would have a better potential for upgrades then the T-72, it was superior in basically every regard. And it not only had superior Firecontrol and armour compared to the T-72, it also had a superior autoloader.

But apart from that, every upgrade for a tank has limits in which you simply cant increase its effectiveness by much anymore. This is true for the T-72, and it is true for the western three. And the T-55 is obsolete, no matter what upgrades you install.

Tuccy #30 Posted 09 April 2011 - 07:57 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14486 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
Some countries in Africa still keep T-34/85 in stocks - in such areas T-55 is da beast even in basic configuration.
There are also many upgrade packages on the market, not only the Russian/Ukrainian ones, just look at Egyptian Ramses 2 or Israel selling parts of Tiran package (105mm M68/L7 gun in both cases).

avttrue #31 Posted 09 April 2011 - 09:02 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 4 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011
http://www.picrandom.../tumblrlj5m.png

Nandee #32 Posted 09 April 2011 - 09:17 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 36822 battles
  • 489
  • [KV2I] KV2I
  • Member since:
    11-04-2010

View Postavttrue, on 09 April 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

OMG that tank got knocked out badly :D

Drow #33 Posted 09 April 2011 - 09:38 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 22128 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    10-08-2010
http://en.wikipedia....rs_and_variants

76 countries still using them, some other being former operators.

Kreskent #34 Posted 09 April 2011 - 09:39 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9293 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    02-14-2011

View PostGehakteMolen, on 08 April 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

also T55 (and successor T72) got wiped horrible in iraq, 2e iraq war not 1 US/UK MBT was lost (and tons of T72 got crushed) also almost no T55 was used coz they were too bad even for iraq :X
The bulk of Saddam's tanks were the Chinese Type 59 and 69, while the T-72's were locally assembled "Lions Of Babylon". The biggest problem with them was that they did not have proper ammunition for them, and so used shells with only half of the needed propellant in them or in some cases even training rounds.

The poor combat performance of the T-55/54 is mainly due to the lack of skilled crew in the armies it has served in. The Indian army however made a good use of them against pakistani M-48's mainly because of better tactics. Off course it has been obsolete for decades now, but that's why the upgrades are for.

avttrue #35 Posted 09 April 2011 - 10:41 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 4 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011

View Postnandeee94, on 09 April 2011 - 09:17 AM, said:

OMG that tank got knocked out badly :D
When I served in the Army as a gunner of tank, the officers have taught us that the average lifetime of the tank crew in combat - about 10 minutes. In this sense, the game is very similar to reality - 15 minute battle, 15 shots, 2-5 hits on your tank - and the game over. :)
I hope the guys were able to jump out of this tank.

theta0123 #36 Posted 09 April 2011 - 11:41 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8223 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostSchwarzie, on 09 April 2011 - 02:24 AM, said:

The T72 was developed after the Leopard 1, M60 etc, around 10 years later IIRC. And yes, the T-64 was a beautiful tank and the first Tank with composite type armour.
But they never aimed to build a tank which was comparable in a 1 on 1 battle since their goal always was to field bigger numbers.
After yes. But it still fell in the same timeline. T72 was superior yes....but the crews had to be trained aswel in that way. This happend in the soviet union, but outside it..

Quote

But with the introduction of the M1, Leopard2 and Challenger2 they may have even lost their edge even if you incorporate superior numbers. The Sowjetunion collapsed before they could develope an answer to the newest tanks. And the Chechnya conflict showed the design flaws in the T-80 and T-72 quite drastic. The storage of the ammunition and the ease to ignite the propellant of the 2 stage ammunition. This was only partially solved in the newest incarnation of the T-72, which was named T-90 just for marketing reasons. Russia lost its advantage in tank design, but due to the unwillingness of the western countries to develope a new tank (since there is currently no need for it) the russians might once again get the advantage if they continue to rebuild their military.
While the T72 is still a good tank, it wont be able to match those latest tanks yes.

Quote

Even today i think that the T-64 would have a better potential for upgrades then the T-72, it was superior in basically every regard. And it not only had superior Firecontrol and armour compared to the T-72, it also had a superior autoloader.
Yep. The T64 was developed before the T72. And it had superior armor, superior Fire control sytems, nightvision, gun, Crew layout, autoloader.. And so on and so on.
Russia still holds 4000 T-64's in there arsenals and there are plannes for them.

Quote

But apart from that, every upgrade for a tank has limits in which you simply cant increase its effectiveness by much anymore. This is true for the T-72, and it is true for the western three. And the T-55 is obsolete, no matter what upgrades you install.
As long as you can keep the gun and firecontrols updated, a tank can still hold potential.
The T-55 is now at its limits. Some nations equipped them with 125mm guns and even 120mm guns. But its the limit. Tanks evolve all the time, and the next generation of tanks(well even the current ones) will be To much for the T-55.

Kreskent #37 Posted 09 April 2011 - 01:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9293 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    02-14-2011

View Posttheta0123, on 09 April 2011 - 11:41 AM, said:

The T-55 is now at its limits. Some nations equipped them with 125mm guns and even 120mm guns. But its the limit. Tanks evolve all the time, and the next generation of tanks(well even the current ones) will be To much for the T-55.
Then there's always other ways to make use of the exsisting hulls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-T

Drow #38 Posted 09 April 2011 - 01:30 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 22128 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    10-08-2010
There is no such thing as a "best tank" per se. It should be seen compared with the local conditions. I doubt a swedish tank will perform well in deserts.

Why not use a t-55 when other countries had poorer tanks or no tanks at all? Lol, there are 1000 T-34 still in use in Yemen after all.

Also, IMO you can't say "Chechenya showed the design flaws". Chechenya (or Afganistan) showed the stupidity of military comanders who sent tanks into unproper terrain without proper support. You can't put tanks into canyons and say - look - it's catching fire from a Molotov thrown from above.

Pr0_E #39 Posted 09 April 2011 - 01:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 21594 battles
  • 130
  • [POP] POP
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010
Even a 64 year tank is better in a battle than no tank at all. It doesn't matter that you're the #1 target on the battlefield, if the enemy has nothing to penetrate your shell. ;) If they do have modern forces against them, this happens.'

View PostDrow, on 09 April 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

There is no such thing as a "best tank" per se. It should be seen compared with the local conditions. I doubt a swedish tank will perform well in deserts.

That is also a good point, even though they use the Swedish CV90 IFV in Afghanistan. :)

Tuccy #40 Posted 09 April 2011 - 02:08 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14486 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
Afghanistan also proved that the rule "Tanks are useless in Afghanistan mountains and in low-intensity conflict" isn't that stone-set ;)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users