The War in the Ukraine

There aren't really major tank-on-tank battles due to recon + long range artillery deleting tanks on sight. So most tanks roles have been relegated to razing buildings into the ground. We've seen countless videos of entire towns razed to the ground, with tanks shooting into buildings/apartments to remove hide-outs or sniper nests. T-55 is more than sufficient for this type of role, as the priority is now firepower or firepower support.

I think this discussion regarding older Russian tanks is rather silly.

No, Russia probably didn't run out of tanks. I also think we shouldn't rush into thinking that these moved tanks are necessarily going to be used in Ukraine. For all we know, they might be used for training or simply being moved to free up space for something else.

Even if they are being going to be upgraded and used, the T-54/55 is from the same era as the T-62 tank and will likely provide similar combat value. In fact, it might've made more sense to use these old T-54s instead of the newer T-62s. From the footage that I've seen, Russia's older tanks don't see a ton of front-line combat anyway. Which leads me to believe that they are employed as fire support vehicles almost exclusively, and maybe even relegated only to lower-priority parts of the battle line.

Phead128 said:

There aren't really major tank-on-tank battles due to recon + long range artillery deleting tanks on sight. So most tanks roles have been relegated to razing buildings into the ground. We've seen countless videos of entire towns razed to the ground, with tanks shooting into buildings/apartments to remove hide-outs or sniper nests. T-55 is more than sufficient for this type of role, as the priority is now firepower or firepower support.

Click to expand...

You’re not wrong about the lack of tank on tank combat but I think your take on the T-55 isn’t right. The armor is severely outdated, the FCS is bad, the ergonomics are bad, etc. Even with upgrades there’s only so much they can do.

Attacking structures and supporting infantry has always been the primary duty of the tank. T-55 armor is really weak against the widespread use of ATGM/artillery in Ukraine. Modern tanks have better armor to operate directly with infantry. T-55’s weak protection will force the crews to sit back at a distance, but the tank’s accuracy probably isn’t very good at those ranges. Also, you make the point that long range artillery can destroy tanks easily, but even at a further distance the T-55 would still be threatened by artillery and it doesn’t have the ATGM capability of the later tanks.

If the Russians are genuinely sending these antiques to the front, I guess they have no serviceable T-72/80s in storage and their losses significantly exceed anything we expected. It’s concerning that the Russians are going to progressively older models when the Ukrainians are getting Leopard 2… also Yugoslav M-55 is the exception for them, not the rule.

I’m skeptical that they will be sending it to the front as a tank though. They could be modified into engineering vehicles like ARV BTS-4 (Russians don’t seem to have enough of these) or into heavy APC like BTR-T. The ones shown on the train were T-54 though, not the T-55 which BTR-T is based on.

Ukraine is not just getting old M-55 tanks, they are also getting Leopard 1s, which aren't any better. In fact they should have even less armor protection since they have no ERA and next to no armor. The armor in the Leopard 1 is so thin it can be penetrated with an autocannon in some places. Leopard 1 has 70mm RHA at its thickest, the much older T-54 has 205mm RHA at its thickest.

gelgoog said:

Ukraine is not just getting old M-55 tanks, they are also getting Leopard 1s, which aren't any better. In fact they should have even less armor protection since they have no ERA and next to no armor. The armor in the Leopard 1 is so thin it can be penetrated with an autocannon in some places. Leopard 1 has 70mm RHA at its thickest, the much older T-54 has 205mm RHA at its thickest.

Click to expand...

Yeah but you can't compare Ukraine with Russia. Ukraine doesn't manufacture any tanks all they are capable of doing is upgrading their existing soviet era tank fleet. Ukraine is pretty much a donation military while Russia is a supposedly land army super power that actually manufactures MBTs. It would like the US having to dust off M48 Patton's to send to some conflict they are not doing well in.

Except these are not Ukrainian tanks, these are precious NATO "quality" tanks being provided to Ukraine.

And you are mistaken, since Ukraine had retained the whole paraphernalia needed to produce the T-64 and T-80UD. Just because they could not afford to build new tanks, and spent most time upgrading older tanks in their park, does not mean they did not have the capability. Germany and the US have not produced new tanks for several years already as well. Ukraine basically sold most of their T-80UDs to countries like Pakistan. And so they were stuck with T-64 tank upgrades. The Ukrainians were doing tank upgrades at two factories over the past decade. At the factory at Kharkiv, you know the tank factory which invented the T-34 and T-64, and at another one at Lviv. They upgraded hundreds of tanks. Ukraine had the largest tank park in Europe after Russia before the war started. In NATO, only the US and Turkey had more active tanks than them.

The Lima tank plant has been continually working and producing vehicles for its entire existence.

US manufacturing base is precisely what makes the Abrams the best tank for Ukraine, even though its super heavy, eats a ton of fuel, and uses an entirely different logistics system than the T-72.

U.S. still produces a ton of them, and there are endless supplies for it. Other NATO tanks like Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, are abysmal in that regard.

gelgoog said:

Except these are not Ukrainian tanks, these are precious NATO "quality" tanks being provided to Ukraine.

Click to expand...

NATO is donating tanks they don't use and the Leo2's aren't even in Ukraine yet.

gelgoog said:

And you are mistaken, since Ukraine had retained the whole paraphernalia needed to produce the T-64 and T-80UD. Just because they could not afford to build new tanks, and spent most time upgrading older tanks in their park, does not mean they did not have the capability. Germany and the US have not produced new tanks for several years already as well. Ukraine basically sold most of their T-80UDs to countries like Pakistan. And so they were stuck with T-64 tank upgrades. The Ukrainians were doing tank upgrades at two factories over the past decade. At the factory at Kharkiv, you know the tank factory which invented the T-34 and T-64, and at another one at Lviv. They upgraded hundreds of tanks. Ukraine had the largest tank park in Europe after Russia before the war started. In NATO, only the US and Turkey had more active tanks than them.

Click to expand...

Comparing Ukraine with Russia is like comparing apples to oranges. Russia is a superpower that can manufacture NEW tanks all Ukraine can do is upgraded the tanks it inherit during the fall of the Soviet Union and the upgrades are awful just ask Thailand and their Oplot tanks. Russia has lost so many variants of its T-72's in this war that whatever is left in their inventory likely can't be sent to Ukraine and therefor t-55's is likely why they have been taken out of storage. Btw Ukraine has not "produced" new T-64's or T-80's every T-64 and T-80 they use are upgraded ones that were inherited.

LazerPig just uploaded a new video hours ago about the Armata and watching it really explains why the Russian army is a mess when it comes to its tank fleet.

Even OSINT is not sure that these tanks seen in Russia are destined for Ukraine.

SolarWarden said:

NATO is donating tanks they don't use and the Leo2's aren't even in Ukraine yet.

Click to expand...

So they do not use the Leopard 2s they are going to give away? Hah. As for the Leopard 1s, some countries like Greece still use them and they are in NATO.

SolarWarden said:

Comparing Ukraine with Russia is like comparing apples to oranges. Russia is a superpower that can manufacture NEW tanks all Ukraine can do is upgraded the tanks it inherit during the fall of the Soviet Union and the upgrades are awful just ask Thailand and their Oplot tanks. Russia has lost so many variants of its T-72's in this war that whatever is left in their inventory likely can't be sent to Ukraine and therefor t-55's is likely why they have been taken out of storage. Btw Ukraine has not "produced" new T-64's or T-80's every T-64 and T-80 they use are upgraded ones that were inherited.

Click to expand...

So what? The US also only upgrades M1 tanks, they do not make any new ones. Ukraine had thousands of T-64s in storage. The T-64 was not supposed to be any worse than the T-72 which is the main tanks the Russians use. The T-72 was supposed to be the cheap mobilization model of the tank. The US has the Lima Tank "Factory". And Ukraine had two factories upgrading tanks, one in Kharkiv, and another in Lviv. The one in Kharkiv is about as large as the largest one the Russians have.

SolarWarden said:

LazerPig just uploaded a new video hours ago about the Armata and watching it really explains why the Russian army is a mess when it comes to its tank fleet.

Click to expand...

He is an idiot.

He seems to think all Russian armored vehicle engines are derivatives of the V-2 in the T-34. For example he claims the engine in the BMP-3 is the same engine, when it is nothing alike, just look at photos of the UTD-29 and V-2 then compare them which other. One is V-12, the other is V-10, and they have different cylinder stroke length dimensions.

He claims the T-95 and Black Eagle prototypes used the same tank chassis with V-12 engine. When the T-95 came with an X-12 engine, and the Black Eagle had a turbine engine. They were also made by different plants, one at Nizhni Tagil, and the other at Omsk.

He also propagates the propaganda that the T-14 broke down in the parade, when there are videos of it rolling out on its own after they disengaged the parking brake in it.

It is pretty well known that the T-14 had issues with the engine and with the control systems design and that is one of the reasons it did not enter service or mass production yet. Heck, I said it here myself. Niznhi Tagil wanted to replace the X-12 engine with a more modern engine they were designing (Chaika) which was supposed to be more efficient and reliable, but when it failed to meet performance characteristics, they had to put the X-12 engine back in.

As for his claim that heavy infantry vehicles make no sense, tell that to the Israelis, who made the Namer and other similar vehicles. As for his claim that it makes no sense to use a heavy tank chassis for an artillery piece, tell that to the Germans, who made the Pzh 2000 based on the Leopard 2 chassis. Or to the Soviets which used the T-80 chassis on the 2S19 Msta artillery. The fact is the heavier chassis provides a more stable firing platform. And using the same chassis simplifies logistics quite a lot. The heavier chassis can also carry more ammo. The 2S19 Msta has 42t weight, the K9 Thunder has 47t weight, the Pzh 2000 has 56t weight. The T-14 Armata is 55t and that is with a tank turret on top. As for engineering vehicles, all engineering vehicles are typically based on an heavy tank chassis. The Germans also have one based on the Leopard 2. Just because the US cannot do it, because they have a fuel guzzling gas turbine on their tank, does not mean the concept does not make sense.

He takes a couple of half truths and spins a narrative.