Want to see more museum trips & interviews? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, for more information check here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
It's worth pointing out here that NATO has experimented with Gun launched ATGM's outside of the MBT-70 project. The Israeli's developed the LAHAT ATGM that was designed to be capable of being fired out of the standard NATO 120mm gun tubes. The Bundeswehr tested this ATGM on the Leopard 2a4 but it was decided to not adopt it as the standard gun rounds were deemed more than sufficient at the time. As a result Israel remains the only western country (that I'm aware of) that actually uses gun launched ATGMs on their MBT's. In this case, the Merkava Mark 4. The Missile has seen other uses as well like being Helicopter capable.
Look up the U.S. M551 Sheridan. Almost like clothes style, What is old, Becomes new..... The U.S.ARMY is trying to push the 6.8spc caliber round again. When they should be trying the 7.62×39 ....... The P.O.G.S. never learn from history !
@@knutdergroe9757 Why would the US want a low velocity round that loses accuracy and stopping power at distance AND is much harder to control in semi OR automatic fire than the 5.56 or 6.8?
Problem with atgms if you Can shoot it with a rocket ，you Can shoot it with apfds much faster。Apfds is safer(non explosive) ,lighter,faster, and easier to load, and it does not require guidance and cannot be jammed and also better against modern armour arrays.
@@knutdergroe9757 My comment has nothing to do with the M551 sheridan. Jens already mentioned it but failed to mention the LAHAT missile. Also, wtf do small arms have to do with ATGMs? The simple fact of the matter is that developmental projects like this happen all the time and never go anywhere. I will be VERY surprised if the US dumps 5.56 for a subcaliber munition. There is also no way the US would even consider adopting a SOVIET cartridge that's EVEN OLDER than 5.56, has greater taper on the cartridge (making it more difficult to work with), and would require a massive redesign of every 5.56 weapon in the US inventory simply makes NO sense. the only practical benefit to such a switch would be marginally better barrier penetration. You also get more recoil and carry even less ammo in addition to the massive logistical issues such a thing would cause. This is a terrible idea.
So the Afghan tribes used T55's like collectable cards and utilized them mainly as support artillery. Good choice, I'd be careful as well not to damage my Red Eyes Blue Dragon.
Is the current title which reads as 't-55 - the kalashnikov of tanks' not the original? Did the title not include 't-55' 7 months ago when your comment was made?
12:51 - And that is why the T55 remains useful and effective. It isn't up to fighting other tanks, but it works for support, infiltration, routes, reconaissance, and deterrence.
Just gonna point out, the difference wasn't NBC protection, but the engine, and eventually the production facility: T-54 was the original tank produced in Kharkov, with many subvariants. T-55 is a later re-design by UVZ (Uralvagonzavod), featuring new V-55 engine instead of V-54, while all the other features were taken over from T-54B (including two-plane stabilizer). The one with NBC protection was T-55A, and subsequently retro-fitted T-54's. Also, the armour plate on the T-55AM2 is not a solid, spaced block of steel. The block is filled with polyuretane
that'd be the 55A, the by far most common variant anyway i believe it's sort of a simplification on his end the differences show up if you actually go through the respective manuals
McToaster no matter how obsolete a weapon sistem is if the crew are properly trained and skilled to use it it can still be a dangerous weapon if not well just see the graveyards of t55 t54s etc etc on modern battlefields... such a waste of lives and historical material is...
@@robertkalinic335 Even though the tank is 60 years old, the tank is still bigger and meaner than you and your rifle. People had to be reminded of simple things like that because we're a stupid and forgetful species.
@@readhistory2023 Uhm ...so what? That tank is still obsolete, i can make up imaginary scenarios where you are unarmed and somebody chases you with a musket and then declare that musket is not obsolete, it makes word obsolete a meaningless one.
I have to disagree with the comparison.For the T-55 to be like a Bethesda game it would have to spontaneusly leap 30 meters into the air, clipp into the ground or get stuck on a 5cm tall ledge....
There is an old movie called, The Beast of War. It featured a lone Soviet T55 in Afghanistan that was cut off and finding its way home, all while fending off persistent attacks from a tribe of Mujahedeen. It was beaten in the end, in part because of the temporary defection of one of its crewmen, but it illustrates the point made here that a tank makes a huge impact against even the most determined infantry.
I find Herr Wehner presentation very compelling. He seems very knowledgeable and has an excellent voice. I sometimes struggle with English if spoken too fast or enunciated poorly. I enjoyed this very much.
Interesting talk and was really interested about the psychology of the tank in general.T55 (to me)is classic Cold War iconography.I’m from Australia and to be quite frank the Euro Cold War “thing” was never a big deal in the Australian public’s psyche.Hungarian revolt and Vietnam were more the influence.East and West Germany were really Olympic or FIFA foes.Recently ,I have had the opportunity to “overhear” some former East German immigrants talking at my fathers elderly immigrants focused home about their service in the East German armed forces.Basically the consensus was “We would have smashed our way all the way to the Rhine in our tanks”. Basically after that everything else didn’t matter,France didn’t matter,US was just “there” and the UK were not where they should be.Essentially they were thinking of a United Germany .The point is the psychology of having T55 tanks was one of a justifiable and motivational factors for an attack ,not for euro domination but unification.This might not read as earth shattering to the North Americans and Europeans reading this but it was a bit of a reality check for myself about justifiable motivations at the soldier level for East German let alone Warsaw Pact soldiers.Nice to hear both talking about a lot of other stuff that you wouldn’t necessarily think about a Soviet tank.Just adding my ignorance to educating others about how others perceive(d) the world then and now from a geographical psychological point of view.
They used the T-34 in Angola for that kind of stuff you descibe as nowadays being the job for T-55. I quess the T-55 has become today what the T-34 was in cold war era. And T-62..... Well, let's just say that at least North Koreans are still getting plenty of use from them.
But the T62 is neither here nor there. It's not as cheap as the T55 and it's not as well armed and built as the T72. Both the T72 and T55 had larger production numbers
@@MrGreghome Several Middle eastern and African countries still have them, among their T-55 and T-72 fleets. But it's not nearly as common, and is not really that much of a upgrade from T-55 (unlike the T-72), so, they kind of just are there. Except in North Korea where it served as a basis for domestic tank production. Which was what I was referring to in the comment.
Just to be a bit pedantic, I believe the "brows" on the modernized T-55 are actually Reactive Armor! Except it's NERA (non-explosive reactive armor), a type of composite armor that relies on materials that expand a lot (like rubber) in order to essentially cause a very similar type of stress to incoming projectiles as regular ERA does. The main advantage over regular ERA being that it is much less vulnerable to being "stripped off" and that it doesn't pose a threat to nearby friendlies when triggered.
@@joshuamartinez6683 Yes, that is its construction. That is why it can function as NERA. The Polyurethane is thermoplastic and has relatively low density, the steel plates laterally break up incoming projectiles.
@@19Koty96 Thank you for mentioning the construction, but why exactly do you think it isn't NERA? It's *because* of that filling and the thin plates that it can act as NERA.
the PU is too rigid for the plates to really work as NERA, conventional NERA at least also, i was under the impression you were talking strictly of the brews, so i wanted to clarify )
I like the fact of combined warfare is very important to have a variety of weapons to fight conflicts. The tank is used for portable artillery, tank to tank fighting, support for ground troops and other support depending type of enemy your are fighting. The soldier is the basis for any military but, need a lot of support and this is evident when looking at history and logistics is a key factor for supporting any military. My ancestors fought in many wars over the centuries and for every man on the battlefield there were many people needed for support.
In the yom kippur war ....The Syrians charged the golan heights after a huge artillery bombardment and about 1000 t54 and t55 tanks faced 160 centurion tanks ......these tanks eventually stopped the Syrian attack .....dead .....
This tank could be the next thing to survive the battelfield of the saturday family grocery shopping trip at your local supermarket. Just keep your tracks corectly tentioned otherwise the chieftain will get you 😉
@@obelic71 Nah, don't worry, for US, we have enough t-80's to man almost a country wide available adult man, and not that i'm bragging, you know? I meant, that that all war sucks.
@@060POTEHb In Russia you need tracked vehicles to survive outside cities in the countryside. They even use old surplus tanks on farms to plow their fields. Never underestimate Russian ingenuity, they even got a tank flying in WW2 ! Solong there is Vodka en ingenuity Russia will survive.
@@FeedMeMister I mean, it's a wonderfully simple sentiment and fits the man's tone perfectly. If he didn't speak it. I'm pretty sure he did, so it would make sense you read it in his voice.
It comes from naval warfare where if you have a ship and the enemy does not you win, even if your ship is not great. This was a policy the Royal navy followed in later years ie building smaller cruisers with long range to patrol the world
@@danielclark6638 I have to argue. It depends on the period of the RN and not only that, it was a deliberate choice for the RN to act on that strategic level. It didn't matter if you were on the other side of the world, the RN would be there fast. I can't remember specifically if it was only a day, or two days. Either way, the point stands it was a strategic decision to have a rapid response capability. It wasn't that they expected to be the only party to have ships there, it's that they would be the first to have ships there. Quite a different assumption and attitude.
Yeah, look how well that went for the French and the US in Vietnam. Simple stupid quotes are simple stupid quotes. The problem is that we are bringing million dollar tanks that can be taken out with a thousand dollar infantry weapon. Remember, the US spends almost as much on their military than the rest of the world, combined. The military is a religion, or maybe a sexual fetish, that goes WAY beyond rationality.
"Bastion" is indeed a French word and it's the same in English as well! It's funny, of all things, _French_ is the living language with the most influence on Russian. "Magazine" means the same thing in Russian, and most of the same in English, except in Russian it doesn't mean a periodical, only a shop (as in French) or a place to store ammunition.
The tank is not obsolete because the role of the tank, which is the same as the role of horse cavalry before it, is not obsolete. The role for which they are made is still there. Just because you can destroy a tank with a weapon that an infantryman can carry does not make the tank obsolete. Were horse-borne cavalry obsolete, even though an arrow could kill a horse? Of course not.
@@Shenaldrac The arrow did not make the horse obsolete, however the rifle did, because the improvement in mobility was not a significant advantage compared to the ease of being shot whilst on horseback. Likewise the T55 is obsolete against any opponent that possesses ATGM because the occupants are very vulnerable to such an attack, when the entire purpose of the tank is to protect the occupants during a rapid advance.
If the role of horse cavalry isn't obsolete, why aren't armies fielding horse cavalry? It's because they're obsolete. Tanks aren't obsolete because they fulfil a role (one far more versatile and suited to protracted engagements than horse cavalry) that isn't outperformed or overtaken by another weapon system. Air support has only ever come close, but still cannot occupy ground to assist infantry in a direct fire role, and doesn't have the versatility and sheer amount of ordnance a tank does.
@@michaelhenman4887 But rifles didn't make the cavalryman obsolete. Horseback cavalry were used for centuries after the first arquebuses. Likewise, I'm not saying that the T55 isn't obsolete, I'm saying tanks as a whole are not obsolete, which is what the guys in the video mentioned that some people claim. The role of the tank is not to protect the crewmen inside, it's to fill the same roll as horseback cavalry which is to be more mobile than a person on foot, capable thus of raids, flanking attacks and scouting. And while scouting is typically not something you would delegate to an expensive main battle tank in the age of the armored car and beyond, the other two are still very much relevant. You say that tanks are obsolete against any opponent with an ATGM because the men inside are very vulnerable. To which I ask, would you say infantry are obsolete against anyone with an assault rifle or machine gun because human flesh and bone is not able to protect a person from bullets? Of course not. The role of cavalry persists, which is why cavalry still exists. It is just accomplished via AFVs rather than men on horses these days.
NATO countries in Afghanistan noted that having tanks had a big impact, despite the terrain being far from ideal. Infantry felt a lot safer knowing there were tanks on overwatch. The extra armor meant that they could take bigger risks and go where lighter vehicles wouldn't. But the key element is that when they would show up with their tanks the enemy would simply not show up, so they didn't have to fight. This is from the Tank's Museum Tank Chat on the Leopard 2, starting around 17m14 here th-cam.com/video/B4cl45gLB2U/w-d-xo.html
Yet if you examine the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, they lost plenty of tanks and armored vehicles fighting the essentially the same people, so eventually they will go after the tanks.
a tank is an armored mobile weapons platform used for direct fighting and is unshackled from infantry. as long as armor provides protection from at least some weapons on the battlefield, a variant of tank will exist (as not having transport capability reduces the volume to armor reducing costs and what not, and being independent from infantry provides better battlefield efficiency).
You forgot to cover one aspect: T55 is still capable aganist modern APCs and IFVs, which you can see a lot on the battlefield, and which are a serious threat for your infantry. P.S. i know thay this comment is 1,5 years late but maybe someone will read it
it's viable just like a bmp 1 is viable. bmp1 has 15mm of armor and a 73mm gun and is still very dangerous and reliable. t55 can be used in that role and still be dangerous
It is obsolete yes... But as long as your enemy doesn't have an RPG or remotely any resistance, even a T-34 is probably enough Watch out for spicy cocktails though
Find a corrupt government at the right time and you can get one around it's worth as scrap metal. Getting the paperwork done to actually own it is a whole different story.
You always said it man in tank ramming vodeo ... even in ww2 ppl when they saw tanks they werent really payin attention to how unreliable they are and how easy to disable and sabature em . And as famous qute from german anti tank group manual used to say theres no tank that cannot be destroyed with persistant enough of will to put into those ATs or something like that
Problem with atgms if you Can shoot it with a rocket ，you Can shoot it with apfds much faster。Apfds is safer(non explosive) ,lighter,faster, and easier to load, and it does not require guidance and cannot be jammed and also better against modern armour arrays.
@@obelic71 this tank was not produced in Skoda, but in "Turcianske strojarne n.p., Martin", in modern Slovakia. There was produced several other types os soviet tanks as T-54, T-72. Heavy weapons industry was located mostly in Slovakian part of the Czechoslovakia.
The usual misconceptions about how tanks are bad in cities or obsolete. Using tanks is not just a morale boost. Reports from US army tell otherwise where in combined arms warfare in urban combat tank support is of extremely high value. Sure driving armor on its own anywhere is always stupid but thats true even outside of urban environments so its really a moot statement. As MHV is always about sources www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Primer-on-Urban-Operation/Documents/Breaking-the-Mold.pdf but there are many more like on the key part of Abrams performance in success at the second battle of Fallujah and its sth that comes up continuosly on r/warcollege for examples. Still upvote thanks for an otherwise great video.
In my opinion, there is simply too little useful information given in this conversation. It was disappointingly sparse in technical and historical details.
Want to see more museum trips & interviews?
Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, for more information check here:
» patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
Military History not Visualized nice
*Modern conflicts exist*
T-55 and AKM: “I am inevitable.”
T-55, AKM, and RPG-7; the holy trinity of modern armed conflict.
PKM - foursome :P
You'll need to carry all that stuff too, gotta have them Toyota trucks. :P
@Phi6er SVD Dragunov?
T54 - AK47
T55 - AKM
T-72 - AK-74?
@Tomáš Laštovička T 90 - AK74M
@Tomáš Laštovička T14 - AK12
T-80..........AN 94?
@@arandomt-9056Yeap, both too good and too expensive
BTW, this spaced armor on turret is also known as 'Brezhnev's Brows'. Or at least similar modification of T-62 tanks is.
This is not spaced armour. It is relatively advanced composite armour.
@@tankolad theire eyebrows dipshit
@@tankolad
Brezhnev's Brows > Dorchester composite armour
It's worth pointing out here that NATO has experimented with Gun launched ATGM's outside of the MBT-70 project. The Israeli's developed the LAHAT ATGM that was designed to be capable of being fired out of the standard NATO 120mm gun tubes. The Bundeswehr tested this ATGM on the Leopard 2a4 but it was decided to not adopt it as the standard gun rounds were deemed more than sufficient at the time.
As a result Israel remains the only western country (that I'm aware of) that actually uses gun launched ATGMs on their MBT's. In this case, the Merkava Mark 4.
The Missile has seen other uses as well like being Helicopter capable.
Look up the U.S. M551 Sheridan.
Almost like clothes style,
What is old,
Becomes new.....
The U.S.ARMY is trying to push the 6.8spc caliber round again. When they should be trying the 7.62×39 .......
The P.O.G.S. never learn from history !
@@knutdergroe9757 Why would the US want a low velocity round that loses accuracy and stopping power at distance AND is much harder to control in semi OR automatic fire than the 5.56 or 6.8?
Problem with atgms if you Can shoot it with a rocket ，you Can shoot it with apfds much faster。Apfds is safer(non explosive) ,lighter,faster, and easier to load, and it does not require guidance and cannot be jammed and also better against modern armour arrays.
@@dukenukem8381 Totally agree. Was just pointing out this little tidbit that Jens Wehner seemed to have missed.
@@knutdergroe9757 My comment has nothing to do with the M551 sheridan. Jens already mentioned it but failed to mention the LAHAT missile.
Also, wtf do small arms have to do with ATGMs? The simple fact of the matter is that developmental projects like this happen all the time and never go anywhere. I will be VERY surprised if the US dumps 5.56 for a subcaliber munition.
There is also no way the US would even consider adopting a SOVIET cartridge that's EVEN OLDER than 5.56, has greater taper on the cartridge (making it more difficult to work with), and would require a massive redesign of every 5.56 weapon in the US inventory simply makes NO sense. the only practical benefit to such a switch would be marginally better barrier penetration. You also get more recoil and carry even less ammo in addition to the massive logistical issues such a thing would cause. This is a terrible idea.
So the Afghan tribes used T55's like collectable cards and utilized them mainly as support artillery. Good choice, I'd be careful as well not to damage my Red Eyes Blue Dragon.
WindHaze10 oof, bitch lasagne!
"T-55 I choose you!"
As soon as I read the title I immediately knew he was going to cover the T-55. Love this tank!
Rogue Undead i thought t72
Is the current title which reads as 't-55 - the kalashnikov of tanks' not the original? Did the title not include 't-55' 7 months ago when your comment was made?
12:51 - And that is why the T55 remains useful and effective. It isn't up to fighting other tanks, but it works for support, infiltration, routes, reconaissance, and deterrence.
we can also use them against paIestinian kids! syrians need to learn from israeI. syrians cant use t55s effectively.
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 most of the groups do stupid stuff with them and get killed...
Ah yes, the ninja infiltrator T-55.
Just gonna point out, the difference wasn't NBC protection, but the engine, and eventually the production facility:
T-54 was the original tank produced in Kharkov, with many subvariants.
T-55 is a later re-design by UVZ (Uralvagonzavod), featuring new V-55 engine instead of V-54, while all the other features were taken over from T-54B (including two-plane stabilizer).
The one with NBC protection was T-55A, and subsequently retro-fitted T-54's.
Also, the armour plate on the T-55AM2 is not a solid, spaced block of steel. The block is filled with polyuretane
Duke it out with the Chieftain. According to him NBC is 55, non-NBC is 54. The turret top ventilator on the 54 was not compatible with NBC.
that'd be the 55A, the by far most common variant anyway
i believe it's sort of a simplification on his end
the differences show up if you actually go through the respective manuals
What about turret basket?
The BDD armor also isn’t just polyurethane. It’s I believe 5mm hhs plates spaced between 15mm of polyurethane
@@finnwade372 yes thanks, there was stuff in the hull polyurethane and also similar composition blocks between the brows and the turret
Jepp, we are aware of the split of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But thanks for noticing. :)
Hey it’s Warhorse!
Or well a year ago
Tank is a obsolete weapon system until you encounter one on the battlefield.
McToaster no matter how obsolete a weapon sistem is if the crew are properly trained and skilled to use it it can still be a dangerous weapon if not well just see the graveyards of t55 t54s etc etc on modern battlefields... such a waste of lives and historical material is...
Statement so vague that it basically has no informational value.
@@robertkalinic335 Yes.
@@robertkalinic335 Even though the tank is 60 years old, the tank is still bigger and meaner than you and your rifle. People had to be reminded of simple things like that because we're a stupid and forgetful species.
@@readhistory2023 Uhm ...so what? That tank is still obsolete, i can make up imaginary scenarios where you are unarmed and somebody chases you with a musket and then declare that musket is not obsolete, it makes word obsolete a meaningless one.
"A bit like a Bethesda game" 😂😂
I have to disagree with the comparison.For the T-55 to be like a Bethesda game it would have to spontaneusly leap 30 meters into the air, clipp into the ground or get stuck on a 5cm tall ledge....
was looking for this comment
Time stamp?
@BaronVon Grjffenbourg
Never let details get in the way of a joke ;)
There is an old movie called, The Beast of War. It featured a lone Soviet T55 in Afghanistan that was cut off and finding its way home, all while fending off persistent attacks from a tribe of Mujahedeen. It was beaten in the end, in part because of the temporary defection of one of its crewmen, but it illustrates the point made here that a tank makes a huge impact against even the most determined infantry.
It's an entertaining US pro-Mujihadeen propaganda film, the ending is very Kipling.
I find Herr Wehner presentation very compelling. He seems very knowledgeable and has an excellent voice. I sometimes struggle with English if spoken too fast or enunciated poorly. I enjoyed this very much.
Slovenis has T-55 in reserve - they are of modernized T-55 to M-55S standard with ERA armour ( among many other modernizations)
@Jure Herman Flexing of our Industrial muscles on something so outdated, or mothballing something we just spent millions on? Or both?
Interesting talk and was really interested about the psychology of the tank in general.T55 (to me)is classic Cold War iconography.I’m from Australia and to be quite frank the Euro Cold War “thing” was never a big deal in the Australian public’s psyche.Hungarian revolt and Vietnam were more the influence.East and West Germany were really Olympic or FIFA foes.Recently ,I have had the opportunity to “overhear” some former East German immigrants talking at my fathers elderly immigrants focused home about their service in the East German armed forces.Basically the consensus was “We would have smashed our way all the way to the Rhine in our tanks”. Basically after that everything else didn’t matter,France didn’t matter,US was just “there” and the UK were not where they should be.Essentially they were thinking of a United Germany .The point is the psychology of having T55 tanks was one of a justifiable and motivational factors for an attack ,not for euro domination but unification.This might not read as earth shattering to the North Americans and Europeans reading this but it was a bit of a reality check for myself about justifiable motivations at the soldier level for East German let alone Warsaw Pact soldiers.Nice to hear both talking about a lot of other stuff that you wouldn’t necessarily think about a Soviet tank.Just adding my ignorance to educating others about how others perceive(d) the world then and now from a geographical psychological point of view.
Nice addition with the abbreviations in subtitles. ^^
Surely useful for those not as familiar with the terms. :)
It might not be the most advanced tank but it’s the reason you’d need one
Oh my this is a brilliant statement, definatly the armour version of the AK
They used the T-34 in Angola for that kind of stuff you descibe as nowadays being the job for T-55. I quess the T-55 has become today what the T-34 was in cold war era. And T-62..... Well, let's just say that at least North Koreans are still getting plenty of use from them.
But the T62 is neither here nor there.
It's not as cheap as the T55 and it's not as well armed and built as the T72.
Both the T72 and T55 had larger production numbers
@@MrGreghome However it's used by the syrian arab army, so it's definitely there (The T-62 that is.).
@@MrGreghome Several Middle eastern and African countries still have them, among their T-55 and T-72 fleets. But it's not nearly as common, and is not really that much of a upgrade from T-55 (unlike the T-72), so, they kind of just are there. Except in North Korea where it served as a basis for domestic tank production. Which was what I was referring to in the comment.
I saw a T-62 in Kiev in 2018 that was captured from rebel forces in the Donbass. The T-62 is still fighting even in Europe.
The first time I hear a tank so described. The T55 is a legend to be sure
There were two of these (wrecked) at my first site in AFG and dozens at KAF.
Just to be a bit pedantic, I believe the "brows" on the modernized T-55 are actually Reactive Armor! Except it's NERA (non-explosive reactive armor), a type of composite armor that relies on materials that expand a lot (like rubber) in order to essentially cause a very similar type of stress to incoming projectiles as regular ERA does. The main advantage over regular ERA being that it is much less vulnerable to being "stripped off" and that it doesn't pose a threat to nearby friendlies when triggered.
It's a steel encasemate that has many sloped steel plates of around 5mm inside that is filled with polyurethane.
Same goes for the BDD on the hull.
It's not. It's filled with polyurethane, and that is it. The hull has added metal sheets in the polyurethane
@@joshuamartinez6683 Yes, that is its construction. That is why it can function as NERA. The Polyurethane is thermoplastic and has relatively low density, the steel plates laterally break up incoming projectiles.
@@19Koty96 Thank you for mentioning the construction, but why exactly do you think it isn't NERA? It's *because* of that filling and the thin plates that it can act as NERA.
the PU is too rigid for the plates to really work as NERA, conventional NERA at least
also, i was under the impression you were talking strictly of the brews, so i wanted to clarify )
Awesome, thanks for the information.👍
I like the fact of combined warfare is very important to have a variety of weapons to fight conflicts. The tank is used for portable artillery, tank to tank fighting, support for ground troops and other support depending type of enemy your are fighting. The soldier is the basis for any military but, need a lot of support and this is evident when looking at history and logistics is a key factor for supporting any military. My ancestors fought in many wars over the centuries and for every man on the battlefield there were many people needed for support.
I knew which tank this was from the title - thanks for the information about it.
I love your "new" definition of combined arms warfare.
In the land of the blind,
The one eyed man is king.
Desiderius Erasmus
Theres some awesome upgrade packages for the T-55.
In the yom kippur war ....The Syrians charged the golan heights after a huge artillery bombardment and about 1000 t54 and t55 tanks faced 160 centurion tanks ......these tanks eventually stopped the Syrian attack .....dead .....
If you can't take the HEAT you got to get out of the kitchen!
RUSSIA: no.
If you can't take the HEAT, send in the second wave.
@@Alpostpone or retreat to Siberia where HEAT freezes.
Another interesting collaboration.
Jens Wehner is no David Fletcher (but then who is) But I'm really liking him more and more.
I love listening to Germans discuss things, they’re so scientific and precise about speaking 😀
Supes Me ... although he is an Austrian. ;-)
@@monkeydank7842 even our little brothers are capable of precise talking. At least in some form.
Monkeydank Oops my bad
Knalltüte 😂
5:46 - your face, when you have to go to modern war on half century old tank.
This tank could be the next thing to survive the battelfield of the saturday family grocery shopping trip at your local supermarket.
Just keep your tracks corectly tentioned otherwise the chieftain will get you 😉
@@obelic71 Nah, don't worry, for US, we have enough t-80's to man almost a country wide available adult man, and not that i'm bragging, you know? I meant, that that all war sucks.
@@060POTEHb In Russia you need tracked vehicles to survive outside cities in the countryside.
They even use old surplus tanks on farms to plow their fields.
Never underestimate Russian ingenuity, they even got a tank flying in WW2 !
Solong there is Vodka en ingenuity Russia will survive.
@@obelic71 Bully, is always a bully
yep
T-55 was a beauty !
The Battlemaster Tank, basic Tank used by China in the game Command and Conquer: Generals is based on the T-55 model yet modernised.
Epic video
In terms of say, Afghanistan and the like I am reminded of a comment, most likely from The Chieftain.
If you're the only person who brings a tank.....
Definitely Chieftain, I can hear his voice when I read that. Weird.
@@FeedMeMister I mean, it's a wonderfully simple sentiment and fits the man's tone perfectly. If he didn't speak it.
I'm pretty sure he did, so it would make sense you read it in his voice.
It comes from naval warfare where if you have a ship and the enemy does not you win, even if your ship is not great. This was a policy the Royal navy followed in later years ie building smaller cruisers with long range to patrol the world
@@danielclark6638 I have to argue. It depends on the period of the RN and not only that, it was a deliberate choice for the RN to act on that strategic level. It didn't matter if you were on the other side of the world, the RN would be there fast. I can't remember specifically if it was only a day, or two days. Either way, the point stands it was a strategic decision to have a rapid response capability.
It wasn't that they expected to be the only party to have ships there, it's that they would be the first to have ships there.
Quite a different assumption and attitude.
Yeah, look how well that went for the French and the US in Vietnam. Simple stupid quotes are simple stupid quotes. The problem is that we are bringing million dollar tanks that can be taken out with a thousand dollar infantry weapon. Remember, the US spends almost as much on their military than the rest of the world, combined. The military is a religion, or maybe a sexual fetish, that goes WAY beyond rationality.
"Bastion" is indeed a French word and it's the same in English as well! It's funny, of all things, _French_ is the living language with the most influence on Russian. "Magazine" means the same thing in Russian, and most of the same in English, except in Russian it doesn't mean a periodical, only a shop (as in French) or a place to store ammunition.
Most Russian military terms are foreign. Naval terms for example are overwhelmingly derived from Dutch.
Vietnamese modifications are so extensive that their T55's almost look like T90's
The tank is not obsolete because the role of the tank, which is the same as the role of horse cavalry before it, is not obsolete. The role for which they are made is still there. Just because you can destroy a tank with a weapon that an infantryman can carry does not make the tank obsolete. Were horse-borne cavalry obsolete, even though an arrow could kill a horse? Of course not.
I don't think you understand the concept of obsolete.
@@finnanutyo1153 If I don't, perhaps you could explain it instead of merely making a moderately condescending and dismissive post?
@@Shenaldrac The arrow did not make the horse obsolete, however the rifle did, because the improvement in mobility was not a significant advantage compared to the ease of being shot whilst on horseback. Likewise the T55 is obsolete against any opponent that possesses ATGM because the occupants are very vulnerable to such an attack, when the entire purpose of the tank is to protect the occupants during a rapid advance.
If the role of horse cavalry isn't obsolete, why aren't armies fielding horse cavalry?
It's because they're obsolete.
Tanks aren't obsolete because they fulfil a role (one far more versatile and suited to protracted engagements than horse cavalry) that isn't outperformed or overtaken by another weapon system. Air support has only ever come close, but still cannot occupy ground to assist infantry in a direct fire role, and doesn't have the versatility and sheer amount of ordnance a tank does.
@@michaelhenman4887 But rifles didn't make the cavalryman obsolete. Horseback cavalry were used for centuries after the first arquebuses. Likewise, I'm not saying that the T55 isn't obsolete, I'm saying tanks as a whole are not obsolete, which is what the guys in the video mentioned that some people claim.
The role of the tank is not to protect the crewmen inside, it's to fill the same roll as horseback cavalry which is to be more mobile than a person on foot, capable thus of raids, flanking attacks and scouting. And while scouting is typically not something you would delegate to an expensive main battle tank in the age of the armored car and beyond, the other two are still very much relevant.
You say that tanks are obsolete against any opponent with an ATGM because the men inside are very vulnerable. To which I ask, would you say infantry are obsolete against anyone with an assault rifle or machine gun because human flesh and bone is not able to protect a person from bullets? Of course not.
The role of cavalry persists, which is why cavalry still exists. It is just accomplished via AFVs rather than men on horses these days.
NATO countries in Afghanistan noted that having tanks had a big impact, despite the terrain being far from ideal. Infantry felt a lot safer knowing there were tanks on overwatch. The extra armor meant that they could take bigger risks and go where lighter vehicles wouldn't. But the key element is that when they would show up with their tanks the enemy would simply not show up, so they didn't have to fight.
This is from the Tank's Museum Tank Chat on the Leopard 2, starting around 17m14 here th-cam.com/video/B4cl45gLB2U/w-d-xo.html
Yet if you examine the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, they lost plenty of tanks and armored vehicles fighting the essentially the same people, so eventually they will go after the tanks.
The Kalashnikov was suppose to be a cheap and easy to produce rifle, discarded when it was broken and to be thrown away.
Nice One! Cheers
Oooh this one is in Dresden? I really want to see some NVA steel one day!
"The like with Bethesda Games, but it really works" XD
the gun looks like its pointing back at you like a daffy duck situation
a tank is an armored mobile weapons platform used for direct fighting and is unshackled from infantry. as long as armor provides protection from at least some weapons on the battlefield, a variant of tank will exist (as not having transport capability reduces the volume to armor reducing costs and what not, and being independent from infantry provides better battlefield efficiency).
It just works
My friend who was in the first gulf war said the Iraqi's had many. He shot several with wire guided TOW missles.
What is the Kalashnikov of planes?
MiG-21.
I'd love to see a video about the tsar tank.
During 1971 Indo-Pak war, Indians used these to great success over the Pakistani M48 Pattons and T59s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basantar
can you make a series on Soviet cold war tanks?
You forgot to cover one aspect: T55 is still capable aganist modern APCs and IFVs, which you can see a lot on the battlefield, and which are a serious threat for your infantry. P.S. i know thay this comment is 1,5 years late but maybe someone will read it
Thx
it's viable just like a bmp 1 is viable. bmp1 has 15mm of armor and a 73mm gun and is still very dangerous and reliable. t55 can be used in that role and still be dangerous
How producable would a T-55 have been in say 1940-1945 if they had the blueprints? For example the USA or Sweden.
T-54 is derived from T-44 which is 1944 tank
It is obsolete yes... But as long as your enemy doesn't have an RPG or remotely any resistance, even a T-34 is probably enough
Watch out for spicy cocktails though
@Andrew Barnett assuming ISIS was using ragtag abomination of a mad max tractor creation.. Yeah i guess
*wasn't in play... They'd be charred hunk of steel otherwise
T 55 in space!!! Better crew ergonomics than the T 72 you have to be at MINIMAL 4 FEET TO DRIVE!!!
Just to nitpick, those tanks don't shoot rockets through their guns, they are missiles. Rockets are unguided weapons, while missiles are guided.
Yeah, I know. I think I talked with Jens about that later, in German I don't think we make that this distinction. It is just "Rakete".
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Of course, yes, it might be different in German. Anyway, as I said, I was just nitpicking.
Interesting video, but I am curious how much does a T54 cost today?
Depends on how 'used' you want it. 😉
About $12,000.
+ $1,500,000 shipping and handling.
@@robotbjorn4952 but wait, there's more! Lol
Robot Bjorn A T-55 MBT cost less than many used sedans, that’s hilarious.
Not including the shipping of it of course haha
Find a corrupt government at the right time and you can get one around it's worth as scrap metal. Getting the paperwork done to actually own it is a whole different story.
Id like to claim The the T34-85 is the ak of the tank world, the t54/55 is the ak74/akm of the world.
I was thinking T-34/85. Close.
You always said it man in tank ramming vodeo ... even in ww2 ppl when they saw tanks they werent really payin attention to how unreliable they are and how easy to disable and sabature em . And as famous qute from german anti tank group manual used to say theres no tank that cannot be destroyed with persistant enough of will to put into those ATs or something like that
I'm not getting out of my fox hole unless I can hide behind a T55 ;-)
Some would argue that advancing behind a tank is not as safe as one would hope it to be as a tank draws enemy fire and that fire has to go somewhere.
Problem with atgms if you Can shoot it with a rocket ，you Can shoot it with apfds much faster。Apfds is safer(non explosive) ,lighter,faster, and easier to load, and it does not require guidance and cannot be jammed and also better against modern armour arrays.
But you can’t put the launcher on your shoulder.
I thought Czechoslovak tanks were built in Slovakia
"Skoda" had several plants over the country to produce war material.
So any capacity in a plant that was available built wat was needed.
@@obelic71 this tank was not produced in Skoda, but in "Turcianske strojarne n.p., Martin", in modern Slovakia. There was produced several other types os soviet tanks as T-54, T-72. Heavy weapons industry was located mostly in Slovakian part of the Czechoslovakia.
The T-72 is the AK-74 of tanks if you ask me.
Kalashnikov is a machine gun I think, much used by revolutionaries I think. What the fuck does it imply ?
Toyota Hiluxes: the Kalashnikovs of pickup trucks.
"Toyota is good for Jihad!"
I play east Germans in Team Yankee ..... Fear my T 55am2 spam
don't go outside if you can't stand the heat.
They're used like war elephants in 3rd world countries. Obsolete in the field but great deterrence because they're such status symbols.
The usual misconceptions about how tanks are bad in cities or obsolete. Using tanks is not just a morale boost.
Reports from US army tell otherwise where in combined arms warfare in urban combat tank support is of extremely high value. Sure driving armor on its own anywhere is always stupid but thats true even outside of urban environments so its really a moot statement.
As MHV is always about sources www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Primer-on-Urban-Operation/Documents/Breaking-the-Mold.pdf
but there are many more like on the key part of Abrams performance in success at the second battle of Fallujah and its sth that comes up continuosly on r/warcollege for examples. Still upvote thanks for an otherwise great video.
alter xD a bit like a bethesda game soooo geil :D:D
Can you change the man who is "playing" tank crew. I think he is dead.
Oh him, he's just a local dummy that likes to hang around.
Panzer 3L > t54/55, lol
In my opinion, there is simply too little useful information given in this conversation. It was disappointingly sparse in technical and historical details.
It's two guys rambling about an interesting thought/metaphor, it clearly wasn't meant to be yet another technical overview of the T-55.
Can we whisper next time with more throat clearing! Would be great thanks!
?
So the tank is overrated and subpar compared to other tanks
Please do not climb on the tanks as you may damage them.
AK-55
Kalashnikov is a machine gun I think, much used by revolutionaries I think. What the fuck does it imply ?