Is the t-55 the greatest tank in history? It's certainly up there
>>64288588i prefer the t-54
>>64288588>It's certainly up thereAnd why would that be?
It was decent, better than anything the west had at the time, except maybe the M60. No, the Sheridan sucked dick. The arrival of MBTs, not specifically the abrams, just any western MBT rendered the T55 and all subsequent soviet tanks irrelevant.
>>64288588dumb monkeys dug up many tons of rocks and coals to make thoseLOLshould have made more T-34s instead, cheaper, simpler. better. war winning.
https://gofile.io/d/a8gX28Here's my stash.
The T-55 is one of the tanks of all time
https://gofile.io/d/mI5jjy
https://gofile.io/d/0Zdh4j
>>64288608they were losing to israeli centurions, though
https://gofile.io/d/zAsqtE
https://gofile.io/d/Q1mpNK
>>64288607Reliable, lightweight, easy to maintain. Able to be kept relevant via upgrades. Perfectly serviceable vs infantry and artillery. Exported everywhere.
>>64288636driver issue
>>64288680it was basically identical to the centurion in every way that mattered except firepower, the T-55 didnt get a sub-caliber round until it was obsolete while the centurion had tungsten rounds on every version so the cent is better
>>64288607Turrets reliably get into low earth orbit when hit.
>>64288588>struck lightning twiceFor what it was in the numbers produced, they had the right tool for attempting the big one.
>>64288588Seems to have some legs still getting upgrades.
>>64288588It wasn't even the greatest tank of it's prime, but it is the most standard tank in existence. And after the better half of a century being used as a foddermobile, I admire that it finally got a chance to show it's mettle in Somaliland.>>64288608I love the T-55, but the Centurion squarely mogged it, and the Chieftan only widened the gap.
>>64288741Chieftain only widened the gap>underpowered>heavy>breaks down
for me, its the T-55AM2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKND-98-8n4&list=PLwfMTD1HX_QK-y_aGeCU48qk2qMCopSNv&index=32
Did it actually do anything besides being a parade queen and rolling over civilians during protests
>>64288895was very efffective in iran iraq war,both sides used them and kept buying hundreds during the war
>>64288895ukraine got donated ~30 czech upgraded t-55s and the russians are using them too, pretty effective against infantry and improvised artillery
>>64288608its the final evolutionary stage of the ww2 era tank tech tree, before the advent of modern concept of MBTs. if germans built something like this during the war it would have been something to dethrone tiger I as a pinnacle tank (tiger II never made it past the semi prototype stage)
Best at killing her crews lmao
How do I aim this?
>>64288588it was ok, besides being super mass produced it was one thing that soviets reached technological parity with the west in, the big gun compensates for the lack of high performance ammo, the small silhouette and low weight are a compromise for the small ammo load, bad gun depression and cramped internal layout and poor ergonomics. the stabilizer is ww2-tier but still an ok aid for the crew.better than old tanks, comparable to the contemporary tanks, nothing to write home about except that you could buy one for a modest shipment of bananas or peanut oil without a markup due to soviet slave labor wages at their tank plants and general deficit of most consumer goods and foodstuffs.
>>64289056>the small silhouettearguably the least impactful thing about the design, since combat in europe would have taken place at less than 2km
>>64288588nah, it's the sherman.
>>64288588M60 absolutely obliterates it's pathetic Sovussy hull
>>64289058it's not important for protection since even if your tank is 90% as big it's still jolly big and is still a tank but making it smaller means you need less armor to protect it which means less weight or more armor and therefore lower cost and easier transportation. i don't think that designing tanks to fit <50% of your conscripted personnel would positively impact the already poor crew quality but this was a sacrifice soviets were more than ready to make
>>64288588it's being used in battle as we speak (atleast the APC version) pic related
>>64289073>i don't think that designing tanks to fit <50% of your conscripted personneldon compare the average size of well fed western crew to your typical vatnik. Malnourishment and poor diet are well known causes of dwarfism. best encased in the example of north vs south korea where southern men were, on average, 15cm higher then their northern counterparts
>>64289113that's the worst part anon, this is already considering the average soviet height. most tanker roles for the soviet tanks had a hard height limit of 170cm.
>>64288835For me, it's the T-62M-1 instead. All the addons just look better on the -62 than on the -55.
>>64288895They got used by Somaliland to push out the occupying Somalian government.
>>64288608Bro... the centurion?
>>64289017The Russians are using them because all of their T-72s got sent into orbit
>>64289260Basically all western tanks are spawned from Cent.
>>64289282british tanks come from the centUS tanks come from the T20 experimental tankgerman tanks are indirectly descended from the T20, since the leopard 1 was built from lessons learned from operating the M48 and correcting its flaws
>>64289028Very carefully
They're pretty annoying in WARNO due to half of them being equipped with ATGMs that outrange every NATO tank.Your average pact division can deploy 2 or 3 ATGM t-55s for every Abrams or Leo 2 NATO can spawn, but it's kinda balanced because they suck at literally everything else
>>64289292I never said developed from.Put a couple of Centurions on a ferry and the German Painter shoots himself.
>>64289320Gun launched atgms are a total meme except in video games
>>64289457they were a good upgrade for the t-55 though as its gun had a max range of like 1600 meters or something originally, while chieftains could hit out to 4000m
>>64288607Turret tossed all the way to the top of the list.
>>64288835Is that somekind of a BMP variant on the right?
Sorry liberals, but the milita-err I mean the American Heroes Channel solved this two decades ago
The T-55 and Tiger 1 are what pops into my mind when I hear the word “tank”
>>64288588Is there any record of T-55 / T-60 killing anything with their barrel-launched missiles or was that always a meme like Soviet Active Defense Systems?
>OPNothis is
>>64289292>T20 experimental tankseems like an attempt to integrate some pz3 features
Soviet tanks, which have overwhelming specifications, were not very effective in the Middle East wars. Could it be that their small size, poor ventilation and air conditioning made them heatstroke-inducing machines?I cannot accept that the difference is simply the quality of the soldier and the rangefinder.
>>64288644>DunstanStatus?
>>64292125I don't know, all things considered the T-55 did as well as could be asked in Afghanistan, even if it couldn't actually win the war.
>>64291830Yeah, I also heard the T20 and Pershing was a fusion of German and US design elements, which has held over for both militaries ever since.
>>64290191Panzer IV being in there discredits them
>>64288588It's kinda crazy to think that T-55 chassis is a little modified T-54 chassis which is a modified T-44 chassis from 1944. It's like if the West had a tank with a modified Pershing or Panther chassis.Soviets could also have modified a T-44 chassis with the turret and the turret ring from an IS-3, to make a T-55 look alike back in 1945.
>>64292443>It's like if the West had a tank with a modified Pershing or Panther chassis.they did until the M47, which was an M46 with an improved turret, which was an M26 with an improved enginethe M48 was the first non-pershing derived tank , and even then it still shared about 40% components with the M47, so it still had a bit of pershing DNA in itthe M60 was their first break from the pershing line, but even then it looked so much like a patton that people still call it a patton to this day
>>64292443I mean, Pattons are still far-flung Sherman derivatives
>>64288601what are the differences between the t-54 and t-55?
>>64292516not really, the M4 line ended with the M4the pattons are descended from the T20, which was a parallel project to the M4, which was a crash course modification of the M3
>>64288634>https://gofile.io/d/zAsqtE>>64288627kek that file name
>>64288636It literally is a skill issue. The Israelis were and still are far better trained compared to the Arab armies and skill honestly matters more in the end. If you look at the Iraq/Iran war, you see Iraqi T-62s knocking out Iranian Chieftains even though on paper the Chieftain is better in every way.
>>64292532Actually, it persisted longer in the form of the X1 series, which came off the linage of the Stuart which shares a common ancestor with the M4 in the M2 light tank.
>>64292125>I cannot accept that the difference is simply the quality of the soldier and the rangefinder.Also maintenance.The "rugged soviet kit" meme is a meme- yeah they can take a little more abuse, but they still need maintenance, and while an AKM can keep kicking even if not cleaned regularly, a fucking tank, even one like the T-55, is a bit more complicated than a gun.Arab incompetence rolls into maintenance too, with mechanics regularly taking forever, withholding info and generally "making sure they're appreciated," more than actually keeping shit running well. They also are usually the ones that actually know how to run the complicated shit, and don't tell anyone else. if something breaks in field or goes out of calibration, instead of the tankers rebooting and resetting it, that's a vehicle depot thing and they tankers just have to work around it.
>>642925181
>>64292518NBC protection. That's literally it. They had air filters, positive pressure system and radiation shielding coating. Meanwhile export variants typically lacked those yet were still sold as T-55s.There's no difference, the only differences are between specific variants of the tank which would have or lack a turret basket, stabilizer, night vision, etc.
>>64292687>The "rugged soviet kit" meme is a meme- yeah they can take a little more abuse, but they still need maintenanceThe thing with this "rugged" soviet kit is it's designed for very basic field maintenance but beyond that it's pretty much always intended to be sent to depot or discarded outright so you have a crude engine and transmission that you can hammer in place but as it in short order shits the bed it all you can do is get out and move into another tank because replacing transmission/engine requires a full rebuild by skilled workers in a tank plant. Soviet vehicle engines, much like the ones in their aircraft ones, don't last a long time and although they can take more abuse and jerry rigging than planes owing to their crude and basic construction this still remains true for most soviet vehicles.The only soviet tank that is an exception to this is the T-64, which was designed with a swappable power pack.
>>64293172Only As have podboy+nadboy shielding.
>>64293190In comparison NATO vehicles are designed to last much longer, often several times as much and made to be repaired and maintained in the field to a much greater extent.
>>64290191ITS JUST A >GOOD>SOLID>TANK
Tanks were always obsolete and people just didn't wanna admit it to themselves
>>64293344so obsolete that every army had several thousand of them in active service at any given moment
>>64293352>people just didn't wanna admit it to themselves
>>64293353even if they didnt want to admit it, they would still choose to draw down production slowly and come up with a bullshit excuse as to why they suddenly stopped making it, but that didnt happen either
>>64289028>use charted rangefinder in bottom right>get approx range, eg. 16 (1600m)>adjust range by moving line to match number with loaded ammunition type (from left to right: OF/HE, BP/AP, BK/HEAT)>shoot
>>64289207Aren’t the addons for the T-62M-1 and the T-55AM almost identical?
>>64294667yes, he's saying they look better on the T-62 because the tank itself looks different
>>64289207>>64294667>>64295612T-62 is objectively a better tank and eventually (in a century or so) will in theory replace the T-55 as your bargain basement basic tank although by that point whatever the T-62 becomes will be unrecognizable from it's original form.
destroy china's enemies
>>64288680easy to kill too
>>64288588No, when it comes to cold war Soviet MBTs the T-72 is.
>>64296998*Laughs in T-62 variants*Please inform me, which Cold War Soviet tank is still in production and which one does Russia plan to be the core of it's post war armored force?
>>64289071M60s are Xbox hueg.
>>64289071They really are, not to mention i really like the idea of giving the Commander his own turret so he can go nuts while the rest of the crew gets on with the job.
>>64289320now if PACT didnt also have better air (only very recently did NATO get some buffs to air), AA, and IFVs (on average) compared to nato...
>>64295744>T-62 is objectively a better tanktwice as expensive for the sake of a useless gun obsoleted by new ammo(which soviets chose not to use) with an abysmally slow reload and an opportunity for the gunner to stare at the blue sky in the process>objectively better
