>Is the T-54/55 still viable for modern warfare?
literally useless without modernizations
only somewhat useless with modernizations
>Just hope it has a LRF.
they didnt have a range finder at all until the modernized T-55M, which is not what OP was talking about
if we are talking about the original T-55 with no prefixes, then its literally as effective as bringing a pike and buckler into the war
Bradley might be able to blind it, disable it from a distance. Penetrating requires coming closer, hitting sides or rear. Whereas T-55 is lethally effective against Bradley from virtually any range or angle.
I think he's just legitimately unaware. We've known Bradley's were effective against MBTs since 1991. Them surviving 125mm fire was questionable during the Gulf War because they hadn't been upgraded with modem armor, and the Iraqis never scored a hit. But now with modern armor, APS systems, and the videos coming out of Ukraine, there is no denying that Russian armor can't compete.
A T-90 would frick up a Bradley, but those are all gone. T-72s and T-55s can't hold a candle.
>hits a non vital part
what's the point homosexual?
I genuinely hope you're trolling
how is he trolling homosexual?
I think he's just legitimately unaware. We've known Bradley's were effective against MBTs since 1991. Them surviving 125mm fire was questionable during the Gulf War because they hadn't been upgraded with modem armor, and the Iraqis never scored a hit. But now with modern armor, APS systems, and the videos coming out of Ukraine, there is no denying that Russian armor can't compete.
A T-90 would frick up a Bradley, but those are all gone. T-72s and T-55s can't hold a candle.
>T-72s and T-55s can't hold a candle.
how exactly?
With automatic weapons, and the 25mm bushmaster counts although
it has lousy cyclic (200 rpm or so), you don't *need* to always
shoot through the thick armor: you get multiple hits, if there
are weak spots that are easier to penetrate, you have an
increasing probability of having hit one with every additional
round fired into the target. A former employer went to visit
Kuwait in 93; he has photos of a T-62 with dimples all over
the front and turret front, right front drive wheel blown off,
two penetrations through the turret ring, burned out as a result.
This is known to be Bradley damage not 30mm GAU-8 damage.
A total of perhaps 15 rounds hit, or 5 seconds of firing.
5 secons is the cycle time for loading and firing a 120mm
cannon, more or less. If a Bradley can kill a T-62
with five seconds of front aspect fire within 2,000 meters,
which is roughly extreme range of T-62 guns, I would say it's
an effective way of killing T-62s.
>Whereas T-55 is lethally effective against Bradley from virtually any range or angle.
T-55 has an unstabilized gun, without a fire control system or range finder, and without any viewing devices other than the cupola and gunsight
bradley can easily destroy the T-55 by staying turret down and scanning with its commander thermals and then firing its TOW before the T-55 can even spot the bradley
We know TOWs can frick up T-55s. The discussion was about the 25mm. It absolutely can and has destroyed, but TOWs missiles killing T-55s is taken as read.
T-55 has a 2 plane stabilized gun, it has a fire control system albeit an outdated one, almost all T-55's in service past the 1960's had a laser rangefinder, has optics all around the vehicle. A Bradley will easily take out a T-55 manned by teenage Iraqi conscripts with its 25mm autocannon and TOW's. Taking out a T-55 manned by trained ideologically driven Nationale Volksarmee tankers is a different story. Main reason the Gulf war was such a curb stomp was because the poor tactics and training of the Iraqi army and the fact that not only was most of their equipment outdated but it was also poorly maintained. I'm not arguing that the T-55 is better than the Bradley assuming the crews have the same level of training but i'm just pointing out tactics and training have a far larger impact than the technology itself.
>T-55 has a 2 plane stabilized gun
youre talking about the T-55M
>almost all T-55's in service past the 1960's had a laser rangefinder, has optics all around the vehicle
same deal, thats the T-55M
>. Taking out a T-55 manned by trained ideologically driven Nationale Volksarmee tankers is a different story.
spotted with thermals and destroyed before they even take a shot
T-55s never got thermal sights in soviet service, much less east german
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's crazy that the argument used to be that Iraqis couldn't operate Russian equipment. Now that even Russians are getting smoked in their armor, they need the Krauts to do it.
Arab farmers inflate drastically those numbers though
>Muh monkey model cope
Disproven since Ukraine
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
most soviet tanks were monkey models to begin with
the iraqis used primarily the T-72M and T-72M-1
the latter was a sightly upgraded T-72 ural and the latter was a near-copy paste of the T-72A
soviets mostly used the T-72-1, a slightly upgraded ural, and the T-72A
the only T-72 that was categorically better than anything the iraqis had was the T-72B which entered service at the very end of the cold war and was a rarity in soviet service
In spite of the ass-pounding it's suffering in Europe, T-55s were actually pretty vital for Somaliland not getting rolled over by Somalia, so I'd say even the stock T-55 can be of strategic importance in the right niche.
Depends on what the other guy has. What do you mean by "modern war" do you mean contemporary war or a large scale conventional conflict between near-peer militaries.
If the first, absolutely. A mid tank is better than no tank. Even one capable of being defeated by shoulder launched AT weapons forces the enemy to take that into their calculus. No to mention that there are still basically impervious to small-arms fire and light-medium crew served weapons.
In a peer conflict, much much less so but not completely useless. The peer battlefield is so transparent that anything with that shit situational awareness (T-55 has a single radio set and only optical periscopes) is gonna get fricking wrekt before it significantly contributes to its mission. That being said, bad tank still better than no tank.
I really like the idea of putting a tank aside and cutting it up for like that. I mean, sure, it's an entire tank you lose, but the educational value of showing classes of crews-in-training the big picture has plenty more value than a single sacrificed vehicle. Even in a country with as limited an armoured force as Finland. Like, you've gotta put some aside for spares, too.
Also they make great museum pieces for the same reason.
It's no big deal when the vehicle is one of the most manufactured of all time.
Real issue is that some forces like the US get really touchy about showing the inner workings of their cutting-edge tech. What I'd give to see what half an M1A2 looks like.
anything works if used right
that item there has a limited term of use
It's less useful than a modern MBT, but it's still a 100mm gun on a chassis that's largely impervious to autocannon. Just hope it has a LRF.
>Is the T-54/55 still viable for modern warfare?
literally useless without modernizations
only somewhat useless with modernizations
>Just hope it has a LRF.
they didnt have a range finder at all until the modernized T-55M, which is not what OP was talking about
if we are talking about the original T-55 with no prefixes, then its literally as effective as bringing a pike and buckler into the war
>but it's still a 100mm gun on a chassis that's largely impervious to autocannon.
Lol. Bradley have been melting T-55s with 25mm APFSDS for like 50 years now.
Bradley might be able to blind it, disable it from a distance. Penetrating requires coming closer, hitting sides or rear. Whereas T-55 is lethally effective against Bradley from virtually any range or angle.
I genuinely hope you're trolling
I think he's just legitimately unaware. We've known Bradley's were effective against MBTs since 1991. Them surviving 125mm fire was questionable during the Gulf War because they hadn't been upgraded with modem armor, and the Iraqis never scored a hit. But now with modern armor, APS systems, and the videos coming out of Ukraine, there is no denying that Russian armor can't compete.
A T-90 would frick up a Bradley, but those are all gone. T-72s and T-55s can't hold a candle.
Kek a doodle doo
>hits a non vital part
what's the point homosexual?
how is he trolling homosexual?
>T-72s and T-55s can't hold a candle.
how exactly?
SIGNIFICANTLY more Bradley's have killed T-55s and T-72s than vice versa. Why is that anon?
You Russaboos can't even use the monkey model cope anymore because Russians are getting nuked in them by non-US crews now.
Arab farmers inflate drastically those numbers though
>non vital hit
Lets take a look at those BMPs that get hit in a similar spot
That was probably caused by a woman driver trying to park
With automatic weapons, and the 25mm bushmaster counts although
it has lousy cyclic (200 rpm or so), you don't *need* to always
shoot through the thick armor: you get multiple hits, if there
are weak spots that are easier to penetrate, you have an
increasing probability of having hit one with every additional
round fired into the target. A former employer went to visit
Kuwait in 93; he has photos of a T-62 with dimples all over
the front and turret front, right front drive wheel blown off,
two penetrations through the turret ring, burned out as a result.
This is known to be Bradley damage not 30mm GAU-8 damage.
A total of perhaps 15 rounds hit, or 5 seconds of firing.
5 secons is the cycle time for loading and firing a 120mm
cannon, more or less. If a Bradley can kill a T-62
with five seconds of front aspect fire within 2,000 meters,
which is roughly extreme range of T-62 guns, I would say it's
an effective way of killing T-62s.
-george william herbert
[13 April 1998]
>Whereas T-55 is lethally effective against Bradley from virtually any range or angle.
T-55 has an unstabilized gun, without a fire control system or range finder, and without any viewing devices other than the cupola and gunsight
bradley can easily destroy the T-55 by staying turret down and scanning with its commander thermals and then firing its TOW before the T-55 can even spot the bradley
We know TOWs can frick up T-55s. The discussion was about the 25mm. It absolutely can and has destroyed, but TOWs missiles killing T-55s is taken as read.
T-55 has a 2 plane stabilized gun, it has a fire control system albeit an outdated one, almost all T-55's in service past the 1960's had a laser rangefinder, has optics all around the vehicle. A Bradley will easily take out a T-55 manned by teenage Iraqi conscripts with its 25mm autocannon and TOW's. Taking out a T-55 manned by trained ideologically driven Nationale Volksarmee tankers is a different story. Main reason the Gulf war was such a curb stomp was because the poor tactics and training of the Iraqi army and the fact that not only was most of their equipment outdated but it was also poorly maintained. I'm not arguing that the T-55 is better than the Bradley assuming the crews have the same level of training but i'm just pointing out tactics and training have a far larger impact than the technology itself.
>T-55 has a 2 plane stabilized gun
youre talking about the T-55M
>almost all T-55's in service past the 1960's had a laser rangefinder, has optics all around the vehicle
same deal, thats the T-55M
>. Taking out a T-55 manned by trained ideologically driven Nationale Volksarmee tankers is a different story.
spotted with thermals and destroyed before they even take a shot
T-55s never got thermal sights in soviet service, much less east german
It's crazy that the argument used to be that Iraqis couldn't operate Russian equipment. Now that even Russians are getting smoked in their armor, they need the Krauts to do it.
>Muh monkey model cope
Disproven since Ukraine
most soviet tanks were monkey models to begin with
the iraqis used primarily the T-72M and T-72M-1
the latter was a sightly upgraded T-72 ural and the latter was a near-copy paste of the T-72A
soviets mostly used the T-72-1, a slightly upgraded ural, and the T-72A
the only T-72 that was categorically better than anything the iraqis had was the T-72B which entered service at the very end of the cold war and was a rarity in soviet service
no need for stabilizer when you have steady hand *~~)
Gadgets are just excuses for having poorly trained crews.
you of lying b***h of course t-55 has fire controll system. look at picture western pig but you wouldnt understand.
A TANK IS STILL A TANK!
Algeria's T-55AMV are Equipped with Stugna-P ATGMs bought from Ukraine, reactive armour mounted on the turret front, hull front and the hull sides
In spite of the ass-pounding it's suffering in Europe, T-55s were actually pretty vital for Somaliland not getting rolled over by Somalia, so I'd say even the stock T-55 can be of strategic importance in the right niche.
Depends on what the other guy has. What do you mean by "modern war" do you mean contemporary war or a large scale conventional conflict between near-peer militaries.
If the first, absolutely. A mid tank is better than no tank. Even one capable of being defeated by shoulder launched AT weapons forces the enemy to take that into their calculus. No to mention that there are still basically impervious to small-arms fire and light-medium crew served weapons.
In a peer conflict, much much less so but not completely useless. The peer battlefield is so transparent that anything with that shit situational awareness (T-55 has a single radio set and only optical periscopes) is gonna get fricking wrekt before it significantly contributes to its mission. That being said, bad tank still better than no tank.
a tank is a tank
anyway, why r u not in the Kamaz yet?
Parola Tank Museum has an outstanding cutaway of T-55 and many others.
This may help you judge.
They have one of these at the CFB Borden Museum too, if the volunteer at the front door is in the right mood they let you climb in it.
I really like the idea of putting a tank aside and cutting it up for like that. I mean, sure, it's an entire tank you lose, but the educational value of showing classes of crews-in-training the big picture has plenty more value than a single sacrificed vehicle. Even in a country with as limited an armoured force as Finland. Like, you've gotta put some aside for spares, too.
Also they make great museum pieces for the same reason.
It's no big deal when the vehicle is one of the most manufactured of all time.
Real issue is that some forces like the US get really touchy about showing the inner workings of their cutting-edge tech. What I'd give to see what half an M1A2 looks like.
since tanks are obsolete this isn't any worse than a T-90
The T-90 isn't even viable for modern warfare.
has anyone tried driving it into position and leaving it as drone cover? Maybe dig trenches between and hang nets over for quick cover on the assault.