Do keep in mind that TH-cam has been aggressively taking away cash from military related channels. I don't know if it's affected the Tank Museum, but a whole bunch of others I watch. Shameful, really. Then of course it tries to follow up by asking for a paid subscription. Why? So you can fund content for cretins while bullying informative creators?
What a legend, literally losing his voice by the end of it trying to teach us just a little of his knowledge. You can really tell he was trying to get out as much as he could about a subject he's clearly so passionate about. Thanks David, it's always a pleasure to listen to your expertise!
I wish he would, can't stand when he takes in air through his nose, you can hear it a mile away. One day hes going to do that and the whole tank museum is going to disappear up his nostrils!
The coolest version is still the one with two mounted MiG 21 engines used for blowing out oil well fires. The original was mounted on a T34 chassis and used in the Gulf war very effectively. Now we have one on a T54/55 chassis, still one of a kind called Big Wind. Made in Hungary.
OEFBugout the jet engines are mounted on the turret backwards. Using the engines' exhaust power to extinguish flames that are otherwise too hard to contain with conventional options
I absolutely adore tanks upgraded well beyond any reasonable service life. T-55AM and later especially. Big chunks of applique and ERA armor, missiles from the gun, big sideskirts, it hardly looks like the same platform but might've come off the line in 1950. Fun fact: T-55s in service with Soviet Marines had the world's first active protection system!
I absolutely love old tanks with a whole bunch of new gear mounted on them like the T-55AM you mentioned. New guns, ERA, ATGM launchers, sandbags, metal sheets, concrete armor used on Sherman's in WW2, etc. It just looks really cool
Stellar Gryphon Yeah me too, idk if it’s a unpopular opinion or not but I love tanks with the extra add-on bits. Whether it’s the T-55am,T-72 with ERA, challenger 2 with extra dorchester or an Abrams with TUSK.
@@spacemarinechaplain9367 Challenger was always earmarked for extra Dorchester. It just took longer to get it than planned due toi some penny pinching muppet in Whitehall. The DWP wastes more money in tribunals every year than the entire military budget.
Because people can't be trusted.Their nature is cruel than animals.Thats why digital or paper currency can be always manipulated what ever the technology is you may say block chain tech is even made by humans and can be manipulated when needed.
I had to serve on a T 55 and what he says fully agrees with what I know: the Soviet tanks were meant to be used in WWIII, not in the way they were used in the Israely-Arab conflicts. I remember how we, the tankmen, used to wonder what the point of a tank was given how many anti-tank weapons were out there, how vulnerable a tank was at the time. This, however, is the situation in a conventional war. In a nuclear one things are radically different: all those NATO soldiers with anti-tank granade launchers are easily killed by blast waves and radiation while a tank, even an old one, all of a sudden makes sense with its thick, heavy steal armour. It may not save you from a shape-charge, but it provides a reasonably good protection against gamma rays, heat, and blasts. Even the crude, outdated Soviet electronics becomes an advantage as it is not so easily fried by the electromagnetic impulse. The better your electronics is, the worse it performs in a nuclear war.
If NATO soldiers could be easily killed by the blast waves and radiation of Nuclear weapons.....then there would have been a full nuclear exchange and NATO tanks had full NBC capability - you didn't....neutron radiation alone would have cooked you.
I talked to a guy who drowned one during warsaw pact military drill. He said the engine must be running under water all the time, but their engine stalled, 5m underwater, had to slowly fill the tank with water and then swim up, in a middle of a night. The guy was known as "the guy that sank the tank" :-)
Because people can't be trusted.Their nature is cruel than animals.Thats why digital or paper currency can be always manipulated what ever the technology is you may say block chain tech is even made by humans and can be manipulated when needed.
I always enjoy Mr. Willey’s Tank Chats, not only do we get a talk of the tank itself; but the very important historical and doctrinal aspects of the tanks development & history that affected how the tank was conceived, and how it affected its use for both the creator & its subsequent users! It’s so nice to have the series back, looking forward for more chats!
I feel like he gets the Pz 4 chat and itll be a bit longer than his usual given the opportunity. They also said that was coming soon..... 2 weeks ago.... lol 😅👍
The T54/55 series tank is basically the Kalashnikov of tanks. Simple but effective and most importantly, able to be mass produced. Not the most technically sophisticated tank in the world but in the numbers it was produced, it didn’t need to be.
At the time it was introduced, it was one of the most sophisticated tanks. It just kept on serving way past its golden years. That's more of a merit than a demerit, from a certain point of view.
I like to think its because it was one of the last to be produced when technology was rather simple and primarily mechanical, afterwards the focus goes to the electrical systems and putting more and more tech into it which is difficult to maintain or upgrade.
It's the same argument as happened in WW2, imo. Sure the "best tank" of WW2 given ideal conditions, on an open field, in good visibility with well trained crews etc etc is going to be a King Tiger, or Panther, or maybe a Super Pershing if you're cheeky. But in reality, there was ONE Super Pershing, a few thousand Big Cat tanks, and the real heroes of the war were the quadrillion T-34s and Shermans. Was the T-34 a better tank than Panther? No. Are ten T-34s a more useful unit than one Panther? Absolutely! In my opinion the best tank of WW2 was the late 76mm armed M4 Shermans. Cheap, good ergonomics, acceptable mobility, armament and firepower, and great AVALIABILITY (if you have 100 tanks, and order an attack tomorrow, how many tanks will cross the starting line? That's availability).
@@polygondwanaland8390 arguably, you don't really need the 76mm. when all is said and done, the 75mm Sherman was plenty good enough to deal with most enemy tanks it was likely to go up against. Tigers were rare and Panther's were not much better. Anything weaker than that the 75mm gun on the Sherman could take on no problem. Another thing to consider was that the majority opposition were infantry, anti-tank guns, emplacements and fortifications. Enemies that don't require a high velocity AP round, but a nice big HE round.
@@MatoVuc By the end of WW2 the 75mm was getting a little long in the tooth, and would have struggled against T-34s in a "Red Gambit 1945" or "Operation Unthinkable" scenario. The 76mm gun OTOH proved adequate in the Korean War against said enemy. Also, I often hear the 75mm being touted as having superior HE capabilities, but I've also read that the 76mm was preferred against concrete fortifications. Wouldn't you prefer the better gun against bunkers? If infantry are in the open, they're vulnerable to MG fire, small HE rounds, artillery, whatever. Having the best HE round against infantry in the open seems less important than having the best APHE round against fortifications. But that's just my $0.02
The coolest addition made to the T-55 for me was Drozd active protection system. Where if it detected an incoming anti tank missiles, it would fire a fragmentation projectile that would burst around 7m from the tank destroying the incoming anti tank round.
@@chefchaudard3580 if you are walking next to tank that is being fired at, you will have a very bad day no matter of there are active protection or not
It's pointless. Drozd is not produced anymore, but a modern APS installment would cost more than the tank itself, so it defeats it's original purpose of being cheap. Modern APS may cost up to $1 mil and definitely not less than $200k , which is the exact price to buy a working T55 , oiled and ready to go tank nowadays. Better to buy 5 T55 tanks than 1 T55 with APS.
The tank behind that T-54 is the T-55 Enigma, It was an Iraqi upgrade to the T-55. With a crude form of composite armor blocks fitted to the turret which is very interesting - Its a shame it has now been put at the back and the public is not allowed down there which is a shame because you used to be able to see it and many other tanks of historical significance before they put them into the storage hangar :(
Good eyes, I immediately went to check if anyone else noticed the tank in the background 👍 To me the Enigma scream out some kind of "hero vehicle" vibe you may see in fiction. As in: upgraded rustbucket to fight above it's weight class. I love the looks of it, sure would be nice to see it irl but as it has gone to storage I believe those chances are low now 😥
There is a bit of what I would call "High budget arrogance" going on when we in the West look down on countries that still operate the old soviet equipment: If I am a warlord in the Congo and my opposition only has AKs, a T-54 is a perfectly fine weaponsystem and just as effective in its role as a modern western vehicle. If I am the Iraq in 1990s my fleet of T-72s and Type-69s will wipe the floor with any other army in the region... We call those tanks obsolete, but in some regions of the world they simply aren't. They are perfectly effective against every neighboring country Another aspect is that most armed conflicts are lower intensity fighting and an easily maintained, cheap and reliable old warhorse probably is the best solution for some of the parties involved: It does the job and can be operated by my forces over an extended period of time. We have often seen more refined equipment being exported to less developed or poorer Allies, just to see the stuff breaking and rotting. Sticking with the T-55 or T-72 makes sense for a lot of armies even if they can technically afford something more refined and modern (Used Leopards or something): After all a working, obsolete tank is better than a modern one that is broken.
@@bobmartin9918 : You didn't find it interesting, or you didn't agree with his point about local conditions and local opposition affecting the viability of the older tanks?
@@bobmartin9918 : It seemed clear enough to me in the video. There is a long history of arms producing countries selling older equipment to other countries. It is one way of recouping the development and production costs that can be ploughed back into more modern equipment. It is usually in tandem with other deals, oil, minerals or whatever. The country has a market for further supplies of spares and ammo. It often creates an ally in the region and they are usually far enough away that they will not be a problem for the seller. Britain sold lots of military goods to South Africa and Rhodesia which were fine for their purposes. Britain also sold the former Royal Navy ship to Argentina, they renamed it General Belgrano. It was fine for their purposes but wasn't a match for British submarine. The Harrier proved its worth in the Falklands war against faster jets but they were later sold to the US Marines, who found a purpose for them. Problems arise when one buyer tries to set up competition between sellers. Nasser for example or Erdogon in Turkey buying Russian missiles which has led to the US changing its mind about selling him the latest fighter jets. Older tanks are used in Syria to effect. It is a hugely profitable business and there are always willing buyers to be found around the world somewhere.
The T-54/55 tanks (and their variants) are my favourite in all history. They behold such an extremely rich history as explained in this video, they fought in tonnes of conflicts across the globe. A beauty to look at.
Thank you Sir for keeping us hooked with your amazing Tank Chat Q&A series during the pandemic safety restrictions time This means a lot for many of us.
Refreshing .... having such a balanced view on "the others' " Equipment's & taking in mind the doctrinal approach. better than what any high budget, graphics intensive doc.. T-54/55 The AK of tanks : Plan for failure ;rather than a failure in planning . .
The photo at 21:40, illustrating rear fuel drums on the tank, actually shows the tank without the drums and with dispensable naval smoke generators (basically a metal can with some flammable smoke producing material).
I recall seeing two T-54/55's at School of Armour in Bloemfontein in 1989, that had been knocked out by the South African variant of the great Centurion, the Olifant tank. The battle took place in a heavily forested area of Angola during the rainy season, so the vegetation was plentiful and very green, hiding tanks quite well. Not ideal tank country at all! The encounters between the opposing forces took place at close quarters due to necessity. The two Soviet tanks were recovered to examine the damage caused by our 105mm L7 gun. Both were hit with APFSDS rounds to the turrets. The tungsten darts entries were quite clear, leaving a coke can size hole. Alondside the penetrating hole were two divots in the cast armour from the discarded sabot that held the dart. That is how close the combat was! These divots, or gauges in the armour, if I recall correctly over 30 years later, were about 2cm to 5cm deep. Major Rudman was involved in the encounter, and he told me it came down to who fired first, and the training our boys went through gave them the edge over the FAPLA tank forces training. The SA armour painted white victory rings on their gun barrels which had to be removed before returning to South Africa, which angered the troops involved. I wonder if those tanks are still there, or if the SANDF got rid of of them?
This channel is incredible. I feel like you guys should have a show on the BBC or even the American public broadcast channel (PBS). You guys are just so brilliant and knowledgeable.
I was lucky enough to visit the Tank Museum recently. You will need to book, and use the usual covid precautions. It's actually a great time to go, as it's less crowded. It is amazing, and so much more to see than my last visit many years before. The old infantry tank with the holes in it is still there out in the rain, lol.
Because people can't be trusted.Their nature is cruel than animals.Thats why digital or paper currency can be always manipulated what ever the technology is you may say block chain tech is even made by humans and can be manipulated when needed.
Thank you so much for taking the time to make quality content for fellow Tank heads. I had made arrangements to hop the pond and visit Bovington (and Glasgow) this summer (unfortunately Covid hit).
Typhoon 2a tank: Based off the T-55AGM and includes: -125mm gun -ERA reactive armor -Capable of firing missiles -75kph fowards and 35kph backwards -Automatic Gear -Advanced Rangefinder -Crew of 3
Twenty thousand of those things pouring through the Folda gap would be a significant emotional event for the 'speed bump' NATO forces on the front line.
nato's plan for germany was only ever to hold up the russians for 48 hrs to broker a meeting with them & table weather nukes were going to get used or not... effectively a stale mate in europe. hence war in asia in the 60s and then war in africa in the 70s.
@bob bobo You're right on that. After WWII, the Soviets were fearing a new Barabarossa Operation against them. They resolved that if it had to be fought, the essence of the war would be done on foreign territory. That's why they imposed stalinist puppet governments in Eastern Europe: to have allies serving as a cushion to absorb any attack. But the Soviet doctrine was all about preempting an ennemy attack by invaded them before they did again to not be the target of a devastating surprise attack like 1941. This made them quite on edge, but this still part of a very defensive mentality. That's something people don't understand about russian culture. They think that because they were officially maxists back then, they wanted to launch a worldwide invasion or whatever. Stalinism was much more nationalistic than it ever was marxist. Russia is a country that suffered many devastating invasions: the Mongols, Napoleon and Hitler. The Soviet leadership was haunted by the fear of an invasion like the one they suffered in 1941 and which killed between 22 and 27 millions of citizen, 14 to 17 being civilians. After suffering such horrible losses, you don't want that to happen again, win or lose. And it still shapes their views and foreign policy today.
You hit the nail on the head. When comparing weapons on an individual basis we must consider doctrines. As you said...western tanks or equipment often outclassed Soviet designs....but....the Soviets would have 3-4 for every 1 western tank. The Quantity over quality term is often used. The Soviets learned harsh lessons during WW2. Those lessons drove thier post war doctrines. The most important being mass production and producability. The Soviets learned that once modern mechanized warfare starts, especially in landlocked USSR, that factories and cities could be over run or bombed immediately,Therefore pre mass productions was a priority. We in the west often laugh or criticise Soviet design simplicity but thier strategy was mass production before hand. In order to achieve those goals, Soviet designs often had to be simple and cheap to make. Enter the nuclear factor into the equation and pre mass production becomes even more important. Entire cities and populations would be destroyed in minutes...having a vast amount of your equipment already produced, stockpiled and disperersed to warehouses and depots assured that some of the equipment would survive to be used another day. Its not a stupid strategy but rather proper considering the USSR was attached to Europe and China. The USSR didn't have 2 oceans that could take weeks or months for an invader to gather and cross over running a gauntlet of shipping resistance. Simple, reliable, mass producable, easy to maintain with minimal education. Soviets preferred medium tanks as well as a balance of mobility, armour and armemant. Long range was important because long thrusts into western Europe would be stretched out for miles and supplies potentially disrupted. Simply overwhelming defenses with speedy,medium large numbers of tanks would give any western commander a bad day. Some making it through was almost 100% assured.
great to see tank chats back, this vid is very much improved by the inclusion of all those historic photos, maybe you can upgrade the past tank chat videos as well.
That is what the movie was called. I saw years ago when I was younger but missed what the name of the movie was. That was a movie I thought I would not see again since at the time I had no knowledge of the tank either
Fantastic insight at 28:40: They weren't used in the way they were designed to; instead of that 20:1 ratio others are hyping, these were used in 1:0 applications, which I imagine amplified their weaknesses. However, their dirt cheap price will keep them around, like Hi-Points
Trains carrying T-55s through Muscovy brought me back here. I look forward to a follow up video down the road where we look at the effectiveness of the tank in the modern era, crewed by conscripts with 2 weeks of training.
I agree, but when the two went head to head (or at least their variants) it was more than a little one sided. Keep calm and drive a Centurion. As you were.
I enjoy tank chats, I been watching videos from your crew, for years. Keep it up. This is much better than TV or Radio. It's a learning experience, about facts and history, and it's completely worth my time. Watching World of Tanks videos used to feel the same way to me, but with them changing tanks to suit the game, kind of steered me away from them as a Good source of information, but instead turned into a very confusing, plethora of a FANTASY World of tanks.
21:42 When he talking about extra fuel drums outside the tank, they showing picture with smoke charges on the back of the tank, not fuel drums. This two drums are tank smoke charges BDSh (БДШ - translates "big smoke charge"). You can see this smoke charges on different soviet armored vehicles.
@@ElloEllo12314 you right, look like even from T-54. And the mount for smoke charges on T-54 was used for fuel drums. But there is huge stock of this charges, you can even buy those for ... stuff
Brilliant as always, Sir. And all technical things aside, I think the T-54/T-55 is still one of the best looking tanks on the planet, second only to the T-64. For some weird reason, I also like the look of an M-51 Super Sherman.
@@nemisous83 Nobody serious says the T44 is an MBT, for a few reasons. It lacks a stabiliser(as does a T54). Also the T44 has a rather weak main armement.
Again great topic very well presented overall great professional production. Thankyou. Can confirm the original strategy was certainly strenght in numbers these tanks in the hands of good crews were very capable.
Nope, more like the Toyota Corolla of tanks. It just keeps on going for 100000's of miles if you maintain it well. The parts don't wear out fast and the design is solid without the plastic parts and hoses of newer cars. My wife has Ford Transit Connect (1st year of production) and it runs, but the non-drive train parts wear out constantly. I'd take a T-55 over it any day. :-)
Thank you for being political neutral, its hard to find any TH-cam channel these days that rave on about like its the cold war again and the Soviets are still here out to get us all by the leg. I suspect the T-55 series will probably still be on the battlefield somewhere even in 2045 as a 100 year old tank design, which truly is a testimony to ingenuity of Soviet engineers.
@Garrison Nichols What a jackass, the Soviet collapsed without fighting a war. They don't want to fight us, but when they do, is the end of humanity. This is why they choose not to, even though the warhawks in the Pentagon is hungry to pick a fight.
Personal takeaways: This was a tank made in the wake of WWII and was designed to swarm the enemies, hence the lack of engineering dedicated towards shell storage or crew ergonomics, but ironcially due to the sheer numbers manufactured and their low price, they have been shippped abroad as the most made tank in human history, and in places where there are no other tanks at all, this tank is still the king of the battlefield. In addition, due to its sheer numbers, its likely we'll still be seeing it in many conflicts in the decades to come.
When you think tank you always think about the T-54 I always think pan turret low profile, sloped front and big gun it's just the first kinda disign you think of when you think tank it's such a beautiful sexy disign probably my favorite tank along side with the IS-3 both the most attractive tanks out there, I love this vehicle
Well USA had ocean sized moats on both sides of it. So only forces to use tanks would be by definition expeditionary. Mainline of domestic defense was navy and nukes. You try conventional landing.... USA Navy will sink you in the ocean. You try air landing.... it won't be enough and well US airforce will shoot the transports out of the sky. Thus correctly USA and Soviets calculated: if Soviets want to directly attack USA, it will be nukes. It is the only way USSR can touch mainland USA in any significant way. The counter to this was "You nuke us, we nuke you". Where as USSR had "hostile" land borders. Thus meaning conventional attack on them was more likely and thus strong large tank fleet made sense. There might be a minor border conflict needing conventional forces. tragicomically given later archive documents.... Neither planned attacking each other directly really. Of course contingency plans very drawn up on both sides, but almost always with "if the other side, .... ... ...". Both were deathly afraid of each other and paranoid. "We need tens of thousands of tanks if those evil capitalists try surprise land attack on us to." "we need lots of nukes in case those evil communists try to do a first strike on us." "Soviets have lots of tanks, they must be planning invasion of western Europe." "Capitalists are talking about us being evil and aggressive, they must be planting it as excuse to attack us. We need lot of tanks." Most of the time both sides assessments off the others intentions wildly of the mark and mostly based on ideological doctrine and paranoia.
@@aritakalo8011 Of course, tho I was mostly joking on how the US got damn near cartoonish with things like the Davey Crocket and proposals to nuke the moon just to see what would happen. If were gonna be burning the majority of our resources on wildly unhinged military research and production the least we can do is laugh at it
"Any tank is better than no tank" Somebody needs to tell that to the Commandant of the Marine Corps who's eager to get rid of all of the Marine Corps' tank battalions.
@Jimmy De'Souza Of course you are right.But even even a forced landing might have a use for tanks. I heard some Marines being worried about the loss of skill sets required to operate and maintain tanks, which would be bad if ever that decision is reversed. And the fact that it could all be just a media buzz for funding to me is highly likely (or a variation of that).
Does the airforce need tanks? Does the navy need tanks? No. The the discontinuation of tanks in USMC service has an underpinning in the greater reorganisation of the USMC for their new role in modern warfare and the new doctrine being developed has no place for tanks, you don't want to be carting around supplying maintaining and paying for equipment you have no use for, it would be moronic to keep the USMCs tanks when the new requirements of their mission has no use for them.
The first article i saw about this.....i assumed it was a duffel blog article. I was shocked to find out it was legit. Im hoping theyll put an emphasis on amphibious or perhaps some other armor assets to assist with landings. Either way i suspect ill still be around when the new doctrine gets put to the test. Hopefully it goes well.
@Jimmy De'Souza you cant always rely on a wayward tomohawk strike in the middle of firefight when every second counts , naval support is also limited in builtup areas and densly forested areas
@@markfryer9880 even with the strictest gun laws in the world, there are civilians here in the UK that own tanks. Yes, at least one of em owns a T54/55
T-54 is seriously underrated today. I would say this was the best medium tank from late 1940s to 1960. If we compare this to a Centurion for example that tank was less armored and could be penetrated by the 100mm gun while the 20 Pounder would struggle against the T-54’s turret armor. The T-54 had a reliable diesel engine with great range while the Centurion had a gasoline engine with very poor range. This made deep penetration operations difficult and taking that off the table greatly simplifies the enemy’s defensive preparations.
The problem with what you are saying is the Centurion was easily and immediately upgradable from the 84mm 20 pdr to the L7 105mm the moment the new gun was developed. The T54 did not have this development. One only has to look at the 6:1 kill:loss ratio the Israeli Centurions racked up against the Arab T-54/55 in 1967 and 1973 to realize the lethality of the Centurion. I would agree the operational range of the Centurion was significantly lower. But listen to what Mr. Willey says at the start of this video again. Tanks don't fight on their own, but as part of an organizational doctrine. NATO doctrine focussing on logistics and supply were specifically developed to make this a minor issue. .
@nikola spasojevic That's laughable, considering how the Israelis were caught with their pants down in 73. I'll agree the T-55 was exported at a loss by the Soviets to develop client relations. But the rest of your point is nonsense. The answer is always painfully simple...count the wrecks. Everything else is nonsense.
Sometimes I forget that TH-cam is a free platform when I watch content like this of such high quality.
1080p is a high quality to you?.... well, you need to see some high quality then.... plenty of this qout there...
@@Decybello Are you impaired? I was referring to the level of research and quality of information.
@@Decybello dumb af
Do keep in mind that TH-cam has been aggressively taking away cash from military related channels. I don't know if it's affected the Tank Museum, but a whole bunch of others I watch. Shameful, really. Then of course it tries to follow up by asking for a paid subscription. Why? So you can fund content for cretins while bullying informative creators?
I just wish I had more cash to donate a bit more to them. Best I can do for now is buy the odd item from their shop. Keep up the great work !
What a legend, literally losing his voice by the end of it trying to teach us just a little of his knowledge. You can really tell he was trying to get out as much as he could about a subject he's clearly so passionate about. Thanks David, it's always a pleasure to listen to your expertise!
Tank professor is the best.
I wish he would, can't stand when he takes in air through his nose, you can hear it a mile away. One day hes going to do that and the whole tank museum is going to disappear up his nostrils!
As a teacher myself, losing one's voice is a sacrifice we all have to endure.
_Tanks_ David! 😀
I could listen to this for hours. Better than literally anything on TV
Yas
Only so many times that you can watch some tramps trying to fix a car
@John Milton yeah😀
Oh boy, so true. Vikings is good though. Not totally accurate of course, but at least they use shields and spears .
That is the great thing about youtube, every hobby or interest is covered by many channels, TV is good for falling to sleep to.
The coolest version is still the one with two mounted MiG 21 engines used for blowing out oil well fires. The original was mounted on a T34 chassis and used in the Gulf war very effectively. Now we have one on a T54/55 chassis, still one of a kind called Big Wind. Made in Hungary.
That's an awesome 'boys will be boys' piece of kit :D
Awesome.
What did I just read?
OEFBugout the jet engines are mounted on the turret backwards. Using the engines' exhaust power to extinguish flames that are otherwise too hard to contain with conventional options
I looked it up and its even crazier looking than I expected.
So happy that these Tank Chats are back, and what a pair of tanks to kick it off with :D
I absolutely adore tanks upgraded well beyond any reasonable service life. T-55AM and later especially. Big chunks of applique and ERA armor, missiles from the gun, big sideskirts, it hardly looks like the same platform but might've come off the line in 1950. Fun fact: T-55s in service with Soviet Marines had the world's first active protection system!
Ever heard of the South African Oilfant tank? Now that is a prime example of a really old tank brought up to modern-ish spec.
I absolutely love old tanks with a whole bunch of new gear mounted on them like the T-55AM you mentioned. New guns, ERA, ATGM launchers, sandbags, metal sheets, concrete armor used on Sherman's in WW2, etc. It just looks really cool
Stellar Gryphon Yeah me too, idk if it’s a unpopular opinion or not but I love tanks with the extra add-on bits. Whether it’s the T-55am,T-72 with ERA, challenger 2 with extra dorchester or an Abrams with TUSK.
@@spacemarinechaplain9367 Challenger was always earmarked for extra Dorchester. It just took longer to get it than planned due toi some penny pinching muppet in Whitehall. The DWP wastes more money in tribunals every year than the entire military budget.
Because people can't be trusted.Their nature is cruel than animals.Thats why digital or paper currency can be always manipulated what ever the technology is you may say block chain tech is even made by humans and can be manipulated when needed.
I had to serve on a T 55 and what he says fully agrees with what I know: the Soviet tanks were meant to be used in WWIII, not in the way they were used in the Israely-Arab conflicts. I remember how we, the tankmen, used to wonder what the point of a tank was given how many anti-tank weapons were out there, how vulnerable a tank was at the time. This, however, is the situation in a conventional war. In a nuclear one things are radically different: all those NATO soldiers with anti-tank granade launchers are easily killed by blast waves and radiation while a tank, even an old one, all of a sudden makes sense with its thick, heavy steal armour. It may not save you from a shape-charge, but it provides a reasonably good protection against gamma rays, heat, and blasts. Even the crude, outdated Soviet electronics becomes an advantage as it is not so easily fried by the electromagnetic impulse. The better your electronics is, the worse it performs in a nuclear war.
Hmm...I never served on a T55, but almost bought a scrap one. Looked like a pretty sound vehicle to me.
Makes sense to me🤔
That's scary when you put it into that perspective.
Yep, true. Pretty much the tactic...
If NATO soldiers could be easily killed by the blast waves and radiation of Nuclear weapons.....then there would have been a full nuclear exchange and NATO tanks had full NBC capability - you didn't....neutron radiation alone would have cooked you.
This is excellent. It's not just tanks, it's history, politics, engineering and economics.
And tanks.
One of the best Tank Chats to date. So much to take in but the most important statistic is the sheer number of them.
The sheer size of some of those "Snorkels" for deep wading.....Driver says "NO, NO, NO." Brave men that used that item and lived.
Yeah definitely a day to wear your brown pants
The ones designed for the Maus look absolutely Massive compared to *the* Maus,an already absolutely massive Vehicle
I talked to a guy who drowned one during warsaw pact military drill. He said the engine must be running under water all the time, but their engine stalled, 5m underwater, had to slowly fill the tank with water and then swim up, in a middle of a night. The guy was known as "the guy that sank the tank" :-)
Because people can't be trusted.Their nature is cruel than animals.Thats why digital or paper currency can be always manipulated what ever the technology is you may say block chain tech is even made by humans and can be manipulated when needed.
I always enjoy Mr. Willey’s Tank Chats, not only do we get a talk of the tank itself; but the very important historical and doctrinal aspects of the tanks development & history that affected how the tank was conceived, and how it affected its use for both the creator & its subsequent users! It’s so nice to have the series back, looking forward for more chats!
Oh how I’ve missed these. Just need the great David Fletcher back too and all will be right with the world.
Mr Fletcher has been vacuum sealed and stored in Captain Sir Tom Moore's attic until COVID is over.
I feel like he gets the Pz 4 chat and itll be a bit longer than his usual given the opportunity. They also said that was coming soon..... 2 weeks ago.... lol 😅👍
David Willey's presentation is excellent; lucid, focussed and very well explained. His tank chats just keep getting better and better.
Bravo!
I really enjoy how well-spoken and professional this man is. He explains every subject very well.
Mr. Willey is the best. I love hearing his tank chats. Just pure education, feels like he’s teaching me on a personal level!
The T54/55 series tank is basically the Kalashnikov of tanks. Simple but effective and most importantly, able to be mass produced. Not the most technically sophisticated tank in the world but in the numbers it was produced, it didn’t need to be.
At the time it was introduced, it was one of the most sophisticated tanks. It just kept on serving way past its golden years. That's more of a merit than a demerit, from a certain point of view.
I like to think its because it was one of the last to be produced when technology was rather simple and primarily mechanical, afterwards the focus goes to the electrical systems and putting more and more tech into it which is difficult to maintain or upgrade.
It's the same argument as happened in WW2, imo. Sure the "best tank" of WW2 given ideal conditions, on an open field, in good visibility with well trained crews etc etc is going to be a King Tiger, or Panther, or maybe a Super Pershing if you're cheeky. But in reality, there was ONE Super Pershing, a few thousand Big Cat tanks, and the real heroes of the war were the quadrillion T-34s and Shermans. Was the T-34 a better tank than Panther? No. Are ten T-34s a more useful unit than one Panther? Absolutely! In my opinion the best tank of WW2 was the late 76mm armed M4 Shermans. Cheap, good ergonomics, acceptable mobility, armament and firepower, and great AVALIABILITY (if you have 100 tanks, and order an attack tomorrow, how many tanks will cross the starting line? That's availability).
@@polygondwanaland8390 arguably, you don't really need the 76mm. when all is said and done, the 75mm Sherman was plenty good enough to deal with most enemy tanks it was likely to go up against.
Tigers were rare and Panther's were not much better. Anything weaker than that the 75mm gun on the Sherman could take on no problem.
Another thing to consider was that the majority opposition were infantry, anti-tank guns, emplacements and fortifications.
Enemies that don't require a high velocity AP round, but a nice big HE round.
@@MatoVuc By the end of WW2 the 75mm was getting a little long in the tooth, and would have struggled against T-34s in a "Red Gambit 1945" or "Operation Unthinkable" scenario. The 76mm gun OTOH proved adequate in the Korean War against said enemy. Also, I often hear the 75mm being touted as having superior HE capabilities, but I've also read that the 76mm was preferred against concrete fortifications. Wouldn't you prefer the better gun against bunkers? If infantry are in the open, they're vulnerable to MG fire, small HE rounds, artillery, whatever. Having the best HE round against infantry in the open seems less important than having the best APHE round against fortifications. But that's just my $0.02
so lucky to have people this passionate about a subject i love
Thanks!
The coolest addition made to the T-55 for me was Drozd active protection system. Where if it detected an incoming anti tank missiles, it would fire a fragmentation projectile that would burst around 7m from the tank destroying the incoming anti tank round.
I would not like to walk close to such a tank...
@@chefchaudard3580 yeah prefer to be inside it
@@chefchaudard3580 if you are walking next to tank that is being fired at, you will have a very bad day no matter of there are active protection or not
@@Tsorevitch a lot of frag potential
It's pointless. Drozd is not produced anymore, but a modern APS installment would cost more than the tank itself, so it defeats it's original purpose of being cheap. Modern APS may cost up to $1 mil and definitely not less than $200k , which is the exact price to buy a working T55 , oiled and ready to go tank nowadays. Better to buy 5 T55 tanks than 1 T55 with APS.
The tank behind that T-54 is the T-55 Enigma, It was an Iraqi upgrade to the T-55. With a crude form of composite armor blocks fitted to the turret which is very interesting - Its a shame it has now been put at the back and the public is not allowed down there which is a shame because you used to be able to see it and many other tanks of historical significance before they put them into the storage hangar :(
Good eyes, I immediately went to check if anyone else noticed the tank in the background 👍
To me the Enigma scream out some kind of "hero vehicle" vibe you may see in fiction. As in: upgraded rustbucket to fight above it's weight class.
I love the looks of it, sure would be nice to see it irl but as it has gone to storage I believe those chances are low now 😥
The last time I was this early, the Cold War was still on.
Ayy, look who it is. Big fan of your work mate! Respect from small Aussie ytber
The Cold War is over?
So... yesterday?
Love ya bruh, good to see you here :)
Good one mate! 🤣😂...though to be fair I remember the Cold War and the posters round every miltary establishment with identification for Soviet weapons
There is a bit of what I would call "High budget arrogance" going on when we in the West look down on countries that still operate the old soviet equipment:
If I am a warlord in the Congo and my opposition only has AKs, a T-54 is a perfectly fine weaponsystem and just as effective in its role as a modern western vehicle. If I am the Iraq in 1990s my fleet of T-72s and Type-69s will wipe the floor with any other army in the region...
We call those tanks obsolete, but in some regions of the world they simply aren't. They are perfectly effective against every neighboring country
Another aspect is that most armed conflicts are lower intensity fighting and an easily maintained, cheap and reliable old warhorse probably is the best solution for some of the parties involved: It does the job and can be operated by my forces over an extended period of time.
We have often seen more refined equipment being exported to less developed or poorer Allies, just to see the stuff breaking and rotting.
Sticking with the T-55 or T-72 makes sense for a lot of armies even if they can technically afford something more refined and modern (Used Leopards or something): After all a working, obsolete tank is better than a modern one that is broken.
Kraut : I think he made that point perfectly clear in the video.
@@StevenKeery not all of it
@@bobmartin9918 : You didn't find it interesting, or you didn't agree with his point about local conditions and local opposition affecting the viability of the older tanks?
@@StevenKeery No, I mean that Kraut said more than what was said in the video.
@@bobmartin9918 : It seemed clear enough to me in the video. There is a long history of arms producing countries selling older equipment to other countries.
It is one way of recouping the development and production costs that can be ploughed back into more modern equipment.
It is usually in tandem with other deals, oil, minerals or whatever. The country has a market for further supplies of spares and ammo.
It often creates an ally in the region and they are usually far enough away that they will not be a problem for the seller.
Britain sold lots of military goods to South Africa and Rhodesia which were fine for their purposes. Britain also sold the former Royal Navy ship to Argentina, they renamed it General Belgrano.
It was fine for their purposes but wasn't a match for British submarine. The Harrier proved its worth in the Falklands war against faster jets but they were later sold to the US Marines, who found a purpose for them.
Problems arise when one buyer tries to set up competition between sellers. Nasser for example or Erdogon in Turkey buying Russian missiles which has led to the US changing its mind about selling him the latest fighter jets.
Older tanks are used in Syria to effect. It is a hugely profitable business and there are always willing buyers to be found around the world somewhere.
David Wiley is such an excellent presenter, I always look forward to his videos.
The T-54/55 tanks (and their variants) are my favourite in all history. They behold such an extremely rich history as explained in this video, they fought in tonnes of conflicts across the globe. A beauty to look at.
Thank you Sir for keeping us hooked with your amazing Tank Chat Q&A series during the pandemic safety restrictions time This means a lot for many of us.
Refreshing .... having such a balanced view on "the others' " Equipment's & taking in mind the doctrinal approach. better than what any high budget, graphics intensive doc..
T-54/55 The AK of tanks : Plan for failure ;rather than a failure in planning .
.
The photo at 21:40, illustrating rear fuel drums on the tank, actually shows the tank without the drums and with dispensable naval smoke generators (basically a metal can with some flammable smoke producing material).
I recall seeing two T-54/55's at School of Armour in Bloemfontein in 1989, that had been knocked out by the South African variant of the great Centurion, the Olifant tank.
The battle took place in a heavily forested area of Angola during the rainy season, so the vegetation was plentiful and very green, hiding tanks quite well.
Not ideal tank country at all!
The encounters between the opposing forces took place at close quarters due to necessity.
The two Soviet tanks were recovered to examine the damage caused by our 105mm L7 gun.
Both were hit with APFSDS rounds to the turrets.
The tungsten darts entries were quite clear, leaving a coke can size hole.
Alondside the penetrating hole were two divots in the cast armour from the discarded sabot that held the dart.
That is how close the combat was!
These divots, or gauges in the armour, if I recall correctly over 30 years later, were about 2cm to 5cm deep.
Major Rudman was involved in the encounter, and he told me it came down to who fired first, and the training our boys went through gave them the edge over the FAPLA tank forces training.
The SA armour painted white victory rings on their gun barrels which had to be removed before returning to South Africa, which angered the troops involved.
I wonder if those tanks are still there, or if the SANDF got rid of of them?
This channel is incredible. I feel like you guys should have a show on the BBC or even the American public broadcast channel (PBS). You guys are just so brilliant and knowledgeable.
No gods, no masters.
It might be nice for the museum to have the income from a distribution deal with PBS or the History Channel.
Time stamp 22:32 "CAUTION NO BRAKES" - seeing while overtaking on public roads make you think twice about your decision!
I was lucky enough to visit the Tank Museum recently. You will need to book, and use the usual covid precautions. It's actually a great time to go, as it's less crowded. It is amazing, and so much more to see than my last visit many years before. The old infantry tank with the holes in it is still there out in the rain, lol.
Oh yes 30 minutes! Please more Soviet tank chats: IS-2, BT-5/7, ISU-122/152
they dont own these tanks
David Willey panic attack... all these, by myself? They'll want a PT-76 chat next, and I'm not sure we even have one.
@@baapple9703 yet
Because people can't be trusted.Their nature is cruel than animals.Thats why digital or paper currency can be always manipulated what ever the technology is you may say block chain tech is even made by humans and can be manipulated when needed.
Thank you so much for taking the time to make quality content for fellow Tank heads. I had made arrangements to hop the pond and visit Bovington (and Glasgow) this summer (unfortunately Covid hit).
Typhoon 2a tank: Based off the T-55AGM and includes:
-125mm gun
-ERA reactive armor
-Capable of firing missiles
-75kph fowards and 35kph backwards
-Automatic Gear
-Advanced Rangefinder
-Crew of 3
There is a Fantastic description of a Cold War Soviet attack in the novel Team Yankee.
And a great minature game based on it. Team Yankee by Battlefront miniatures
Just simply what an AMAZING presentation. Thank you Tank Museum but, especially thank you David for sharing your passion with us.
Absolutely SUPERB.
Twenty thousand of those things pouring through the Folda gap would be a significant emotional event for the 'speed bump' NATO forces on the front line.
nato's plan for germany was only ever to hold up the russians for 48 hrs to broker a meeting with them & table weather nukes were going to get used or not... effectively a stale mate in europe. hence war in asia in the 60s and then war in africa in the 70s.
@bob bobo the Marxist wanted world domination.
@bob bobo uhh huh.
Obviously you need to study up a bit more on the history of Marxist dogs.
@bob bobo "Not entirely clear "
Yep,,, that is an understatement.
@bob bobo You're right on that. After WWII, the Soviets were fearing a new Barabarossa Operation against them. They resolved that if it had to be fought, the essence of the war would be done on foreign territory. That's why they imposed stalinist puppet governments in Eastern Europe: to have allies serving as a cushion to absorb any attack. But the Soviet doctrine was all about preempting an ennemy attack by invaded them before they did again to not be the target of a devastating surprise attack like 1941. This made them quite on edge, but this still part of a very defensive mentality.
That's something people don't understand about russian culture. They think that because they were officially maxists back then, they wanted to launch a worldwide invasion or whatever. Stalinism was much more nationalistic than it ever was marxist. Russia is a country that suffered many devastating invasions: the Mongols, Napoleon and Hitler. The Soviet leadership was haunted by the fear of an invasion like the one they suffered in 1941 and which killed between 22 and 27 millions of citizen, 14 to 17 being civilians. After suffering such horrible losses, you don't want that to happen again, win or lose. And it still shapes their views and foreign policy today.
Impressive description of the T-54/55 series. Thank you for share
I really enjoy the in detail videos like this. We need more of them.
I had learned more about this tank by listening to this than when I was getting training to drive it. BTW they are really fun to drive.
When I think of a tank, its this one! Best looking tank IMO
You don't get better stuff on TH-cam than from the Tank Museum.
You hit the nail on the head. When comparing weapons on an individual basis we must consider doctrines. As you said...western tanks or equipment often outclassed Soviet designs....but....the Soviets would have 3-4 for every 1 western tank. The Quantity over quality term is often used. The Soviets learned harsh lessons during WW2. Those lessons drove thier post war doctrines. The most important being mass production and producability. The Soviets learned that once modern mechanized warfare starts, especially in landlocked USSR, that factories and cities could be over run or bombed immediately,Therefore pre mass productions was a priority. We in the west often laugh or criticise Soviet design simplicity but thier strategy was mass production before hand. In order to achieve those goals, Soviet designs often had to be simple and cheap to make. Enter the nuclear factor into the equation and pre mass production becomes even more important. Entire cities and populations would be destroyed in minutes...having a vast amount of your equipment already produced, stockpiled and disperersed to warehouses and depots assured that some of the equipment would survive to be used another day. Its not a stupid strategy but rather proper considering the USSR was attached to Europe and China. The USSR didn't have 2 oceans that could take weeks or months for an invader to gather and cross over running a gauntlet of shipping resistance. Simple, reliable, mass producable, easy to maintain with minimal education. Soviets preferred medium tanks as well as a balance of mobility, armour and armemant. Long range was important because long thrusts into western Europe would be stretched out for miles and supplies potentially disrupted. Simply overwhelming defenses with speedy,medium large numbers of tanks would give any western commander a bad day. Some making it through was almost 100% assured.
What a brilliant Tank Chat - historical context, technology, everything in one, you guys should use these as teaching material at universities!
great to see tank chats back, this vid is very much improved by the inclusion of all those historic photos, maybe you can upgrade the past tank chat videos as well.
It took me a while to realise that this is actually a tank chat! So glad they're back!
Excellent unbiased and informative review!
Really enjoyed that interesting and informative session on one of the lower profile but most influential soviet tanks. The Tank Museum is awesome
Watch "The beast of war" film. It features a lone Soviet T-55 lost in Afghanistan.
That is what the movie was called. I saw years ago when I was younger but missed what the name of the movie was. That was a movie I thought I would not see again since at the time I had no knowledge of the tank either
love that movie
"RPG Kaboom tank"
The tank used in that is one of the ones captured by the Israelis and re gunned with the L7 105mm gun.
It was a captured T-55 with Israeli adaptations - one of the most unique variant that features components of the east and west.
Fantastic insight at 28:40: They weren't used in the way they were designed to; instead of that 20:1 ratio others are hyping, these were used in 1:0 applications, which I imagine amplified their weaknesses. However, their dirt cheap price will keep them around, like Hi-Points
Trains carrying T-55s through Muscovy brought me back here. I look forward to a follow up video down the road where we look at the effectiveness of the tank in the modern era, crewed by conscripts with 2 weeks of training.
Love your content guys. I have been watching all week
Woohoo! Glad you're enjoying! Have a wonderful weekend!
Were looking at the T54/T55 in a museum, as if its a relic. Yet its still the most popular tank in service today.
This is an excellent video fully encompassing the core of the issue on what a good tank really is. Thanks!
Thanks David, been a fan of the T54/55 for years, great to have the tank chats back, just worried about Finn, when will we see him, cheers
Excellent, very interesting chat, thank you!
Interesting how both the T54/55 and Centurion look right and preformed right and both had long service lives. 🤔
Centurion = Western T54/55 change my mind
Both are absolute beasts, effective and beautiful in it's distinct designs and doctrinal ideas.
2 legendary armored machines in my book right there.
@@bobmartin9918 T54/55 cannot make a decent cup of tea. Enough evidence for me :)
@@rorschach6172 Who needs tea when you can drink the anti freeze? Erm sorry wodka, I mean wodka.
I'll show myself out.
I agree, but when the two went head to head (or at least their variants) it was more than a little one sided. Keep calm and drive a Centurion. As you were.
I enjoy tank chats, I been watching videos from your crew, for years. Keep it up. This is much better than TV or Radio. It's a learning experience, about facts and history, and it's completely worth my time. Watching World of Tanks videos used to feel the same way to me, but with them changing tanks to suit the game, kind of steered me away from them as a Good source of information, but instead turned into a very confusing, plethora of a FANTASY World of tanks.
21:42 When he talking about extra fuel drums outside the tank, they showing picture with smoke charges on the back of the tank, not fuel drums. This two drums are tank smoke charges BDSh (БДШ - translates "big smoke charge"). You can see this smoke charges on different soviet armored vehicles.
6 exterior fuel tanks are on top of the fenders. Mastermilo showed that in his werkplaatsvlog picture of the workshop manuel in #95
Not nowadays!
They just inject diesel in the exhaust to produce a smoke screen.
From late model T-55 to T-90.
@@ElloEllo12314 you right, look like even from T-54. And the mount for smoke charges on T-54 was used for fuel drums. But there is huge stock of this charges, you can even buy those for ... stuff
Brilliant as always, Sir. And all technical things aside, I think the T-54/T-55 is still one of the best looking tanks on the planet, second only to the T-64. For some weird reason, I also like the look of an M-51 Super Sherman.
Most beautiful tank line EVER!
I do very much like these Tank chats
T44, Centurion, and Pershing; the shape of things to come.
i think t-44 was more forward thinking in the long run. the idea of optimizing armor,space, size, weight was a huge leap forward.
@@nemisous83 the T-54 mod.1 was actually pretty similar to the T-44 in the looks aspect
@@nemisous83 Cent is considered first MBT
@@pringle239 T-44 predates Cent by almost 2 years and if you want to be technical Panther was the first true MBT as we know it.
@@nemisous83 Nobody serious says the T44 is an MBT, for a few reasons.
It lacks a stabiliser(as does a T54).
Also the T44 has a rather weak main armement.
Again great topic very well presented overall great professional production. Thankyou. Can confirm the original strategy was certainly strenght in numbers these tanks in the hands of good crews were very capable.
T-54 & T-55 is like the Ford Transit of tanks
Nope, more like the Toyota Corolla of tanks. It just keeps on going for 100000's of miles if you maintain it well. The parts don't wear out fast and the design is solid without the plastic parts and hoses of newer cars. My wife has Ford Transit Connect (1st year of production) and it runs, but the non-drive train parts wear out constantly. I'd take a T-55 over it any day. :-)
It's like a AK
Excellent, Many thanks. This is the way documentaries should be!
NATO: "Our tanks are superior to yours one-on-one."
Soviets: "Da, but we will not be fighting you one-on-one."
@Cody Sonnet Found the Nazi! ^^^^
Goebbels would be proud of your propaganda skills.
@@kevindavis5966 unfortunately these types are all to common, especially those with silly names like cody.
Cody Sonnet I never knew France invaded in 1938 :0
@Cody Sonnet WHOOSOOOOOOOSH
@@kevindavis5966 check out his channel, full of antisemitic holocaust denial and neo-nazi garbage.
27:00min., Thx for the fine NVA footage.
I really like the discussion about Russian tactics and mindset, great work!
Thank you for being political neutral, its hard to find any TH-cam channel these days that rave on about like its the cold war again and the Soviets are still here out to get us all by the leg.
I suspect the T-55 series will probably still be on the battlefield somewhere even in 2045 as a 100 year old tank design, which truly is a testimony to ingenuity of Soviet engineers.
I think Ka-50 is real demonstration of Soviet ingenuity and thinking outside the box. T-54/55 is example of Soviet pragmatism and very boxy thinking.
@Garrison Nichols
Oh I guess all the medical inventions under USSR are irrelevant then, okay kid.
@Garrison Nichols I did not know space station is a WMD. It might work as one by deorbiting.
More like a testament of how many of these was made
Just like kalashnikov or the soviet gear
@Garrison Nichols What a jackass, the Soviet collapsed without fighting a war. They don't want to fight us, but when they do, is the end of humanity. This is why they choose not to, even though the warhawks in the Pentagon is hungry to pick a fight.
brilliant class about the overall history of this vehicle.... please keep up this series.
Personal takeaways: This was a tank made in the wake of WWII and was designed to swarm the enemies, hence the lack of engineering dedicated towards shell storage or crew ergonomics, but ironcially due to the sheer numbers manufactured and their low price, they have been shippped abroad as the most made tank in human history, and in places where there are no other tanks at all, this tank is still the king of the battlefield. In addition, due to its sheer numbers, its likely we'll still be seeing it in many conflicts in the decades to come.
Great to see tank chats back.
Fantastic. A brilliant overview delivered without notes, without pause.
Thank you for another thorough and educational Tank Chat! Been looking forward to covering the T-54/55!
T-55, one of my favorite tanks ever made.
I would like to TANK you! , the Tank Museum, for returning tank chats..
Boooooooooooooo =]
When you think tank you always think about the T-54 I always think pan turret low profile, sloped front and big gun it's just the first kinda disign you think of when you think tank it's such a beautiful sexy disign probably my favorite tank along side with the IS-3 both the most attractive tanks out there, I love this vehicle
Great explanation, really love these tanks !!
Such a legendary tank.
The Centurion and T 55 are my favorite post ww2 tanks.
@varun koganti no it doesn't.
Thanks for this really interesting Tank Chat. What a great tank for it's time.
The AK of tanks, thanks for the upload!
So easy a child can use it 😃
@@918Mitchell Sad thing is, they probably do.
WOW an absolutely amazing post. TYVM
Soviet doctrine the early 50s: TANKS, TANKS, TANKS!
US doctrine the early 50s: NUKES, NUKES, NUKES!
Well USA had ocean sized moats on both sides of it. So only forces to use tanks would be by definition expeditionary. Mainline of domestic defense was navy and nukes. You try conventional landing.... USA Navy will sink you in the ocean. You try air landing.... it won't be enough and well US airforce will shoot the transports out of the sky.
Thus correctly USA and Soviets calculated: if Soviets want to directly attack USA, it will be nukes. It is the only way USSR can touch mainland USA in any significant way. The counter to this was "You nuke us, we nuke you".
Where as USSR had "hostile" land borders. Thus meaning conventional attack on them was more likely and thus strong large tank fleet made sense. There might be a minor border conflict needing conventional forces.
tragicomically given later archive documents.... Neither planned attacking each other directly really. Of course contingency plans very drawn up on both sides, but almost always with "if the other side, .... ... ...". Both were deathly afraid of each other and paranoid. "We need tens of thousands of tanks if those evil capitalists try surprise land attack on us to." "we need lots of nukes in case those evil communists try to do a first strike on us." "Soviets have lots of tanks, they must be planning invasion of western Europe." "Capitalists are talking about us being evil and aggressive, they must be planting it as excuse to attack us. We need lot of tanks." Most of the time both sides assessments off the others intentions wildly of the mark and mostly based on ideological doctrine and paranoia.
@@aritakalo8011 Of course, tho I was mostly joking on how the US got damn near cartoonish with things like the Davey Crocket and proposals to nuke the moon just to see what would happen. If were gonna be burning the majority of our resources on wildly unhinged military research and production the least we can do is laugh at it
You cant compete with building tanks Russia went bankrup
Love this program better than TV
"Any tank is better than no tank" Somebody needs to tell that to the Commandant of the Marine Corps who's eager to get rid of all of the Marine Corps' tank battalions.
Yes, even though I am English, I thought that was a mad decision!
@Jimmy De'Souza Of course you are right.But even even a forced landing might have a use for tanks. I heard some Marines being worried about the loss of skill sets required to operate and maintain tanks, which would be bad if ever that decision is reversed. And the fact that it could all be just a media buzz for funding to me is highly likely (or a variation of that).
Does the airforce need tanks? Does the navy need tanks? No. The the discontinuation of tanks in USMC service has an underpinning in the greater reorganisation of the USMC for their new role in modern warfare and the new doctrine being developed has no place for tanks, you don't want to be carting around supplying maintaining and paying for equipment you have no use for, it would be moronic to keep the USMCs tanks when the new requirements of their mission has no use for them.
The first article i saw about this.....i assumed it was a duffel blog article. I was shocked to find out it was legit. Im hoping theyll put an emphasis on amphibious or perhaps some other armor assets to assist with landings. Either way i suspect ill still be around when the new doctrine gets put to the test. Hopefully it goes well.
@Jimmy De'Souza you cant always rely on a wayward tomohawk strike in the middle of firefight when every second counts , naval support is also limited in builtup areas and densly forested areas
Great work Sir thank you
I am the very proud owner of a T-54 and a T-55A
In world of tanks blitz
@@taran7728 very true. Sadly, my pc is pants so cant run it
@@EconomicsMate1 I was wondering how you were going to get around the Australian gun control laws with two Soviet Bloc tanks?
@@markfryer9880 even with the strictest gun laws in the world, there are civilians here in the UK that own tanks. Yes, at least one of em owns a T54/55
Im a proud owner of a t54 1947 in war thunder
A very interesting topic, excellent presentation.
T-54 is seriously underrated today. I would say this was the best medium tank from late 1940s to 1960. If we compare this to a Centurion for example that tank was less armored and could be penetrated by the 100mm gun while the 20 Pounder would struggle against the T-54’s turret armor. The T-54 had a reliable diesel engine with great range while the Centurion had a gasoline engine with very poor range. This made deep penetration operations difficult and taking that off the table greatly simplifies the enemy’s defensive preparations.
The problem with what you are saying is the Centurion was easily and immediately upgradable from the 84mm 20 pdr to the L7 105mm the moment the new gun was developed. The T54 did not have this development. One only has to look at the 6:1 kill:loss ratio the Israeli Centurions racked up against the Arab T-54/55 in 1967 and 1973 to realize the lethality of the Centurion. I would agree the operational range of the Centurion was significantly lower. But listen to what Mr. Willey says at the start of this video again. Tanks don't fight on their own, but as part of an organizational doctrine. NATO doctrine focussing on logistics and supply were specifically developed to make this a minor issue. .
@nikola spasojevic That's laughable, considering how the Israelis were caught with their pants down in 73. I'll agree the T-55 was exported at a loss by the Soviets to develop client relations. But the rest of your point is nonsense. The answer is always painfully simple...count the wrecks. Everything else is nonsense.
It was a real pleasure to watch this video. Just small question 21:49 I taught that this is a smoke generator( chemical).
Brilliant episode. One forgets how small ( relatively ) the T-55 is.
Smaller tanks are harder to hit. That was another reason why they made the T54 like they did.
Great job David so much interesting information thank you
I've missed these
Actually love this guy.
Exactly, it’s always better to have T-55 , than to have no tank :)
Chad: We have a Toyota
What an interesting lecture. Many thanks.
latest upgrade : a GPS targeting system... a chinese android phone always on, with geolocalisation enabled...
Really interesting, more specially the doctrines, thank you so much !
I learn more history here then i do in my history class
BlazeTehGamer Maybe, but with a very narrow focus.
The problem is that our history class mostly about the Greeks, Romans, Europeans and US. Nothing is mentioned elsewhere.
@@ihatecabbage7270 wait... your getting lessons about greeks and romans?