Umm... You call that extreme offroad? Here in finland when people talks about offroad, we mean something like this vid (search using that name) ----> offroad laukaa osa 2/5
Watch video "atif i zabac" here on YT and you will be amazed at this footage. It is Bosnian Army 5 Corps, most powerful ex Yugoslav corps of all Balkans in attack on agressor position while beeing shelled by howitser. T 55 is amazing machine if tank comander and crew is capable to use it. Peace
@bernisweltredsun Actually not true, modernized models are as third generation as any other (Ukrainian and Pakistanis models.) In fact this is the most successful tank in history, after 70 years from its inception, still in use in tens of thousands is a testimony to its success. As far as ammo is concerned modern ammo are highly effective; ~500mm @ 2 km, that's more than enough to destroy comparable MBT. FCS can also be upgraded from off-the-shelf items to much advanced digital systems, etc.
How good a tank is can only be determined by how well it completes it's objectives. One of the things about T-55 which loe doesn't have is very low price. There were around 60,000 T-55 produced. And how much leos? About 3,500? Are you sure one leo can do what 17 T-55s can?
@Mocsk ONE (1) Leopard cost over milion pund! I have hear this by a person who working in army with tank school, Leopard shot longest and have best target. Lock in the rekord book. Sorry for my very bad english.
@Mocsk Ofc not lol 1 hit and leo dead try imagine 17 t 55 with full speed shot with stabilisation to 1 leo i think leo can be dead if he repond.Sorry for my english..
tanks don't fight with tanks. on the battlefield it's more of a hardware misuse and command's miscalculation. their main objectives is to breach holes in enemy defences and suprise butsechs them or roll over the rears destroying communications and supplies; supporting advancing infantry with heavy gun fire; overall fast operative maneuver. From this perspective one Leopard 2A6 clearly does not worth even three T-55s, not to mention seventeen.
In battle of Kursk most of the tanks were destroyed by artillery (including antitanks and self propelled AT's) and aviation. Tanks don't fight with tanks (as Guderian said, he might have known a thing or two about tanks), on the battlefield it's more of a hardware misuse and command's miscalculation.
@Mocsk Mate battle in kurs tanks fight aganst tanks less than 30 m lol u dont tallk peaple shit.Some russian tanks charge german tanks german to and Medina Ridge tanks charge and fight tank vs tank to .Mate go read some books:Dand dont talk peaple shit:D::D.
if you're drunk, go sober up. if not - well then learn english before trying to say something, because I hardly understood anything you said. and I suggest you better go read some history books. mate. or go into the army to serve within a tank unit (I understand there are tanks in Poland, right?), where you will learn the main objectives of a tank. there you will understand that tanks CAN fight with other tanks, but it's like hummering nails with a microscope.
@Mocsk Ok thei i try speak english but if i cant mayby u know my language cos i traing difrent language.Wiec smierdzielu slozylem w czolgach i czytam historie i ksiazki historyczne .Rozumiesz oczywiscie co pisze??przeciez jestes taki madry ze nie majac racji obrazasz ludzi........"tanks dont fight with tanks BIG FUCKING lie lol"
I think it would make more sense if you wrote in Polish on a Polish website. This website though is international and Polish is not an international language - clearly I don't know it. Anyhow, back to tanks. You are wrong, big time. Ask any military officer who is in a tank unit - he'll tell you.
@Mocsk I have respect to Russia its a military superpower i happy with that cos we are all slav.We dont have in poland so big army at u but remember that we capture yours capital Moscow only 1 nation do thaty in yours great history and win the war with u in 1920 .U take our captial to in 1944.So we deserve for all respect for slav brotherhood..Fuck politics...
Well in 1920 you were not really fighting Russia, just a part of it - there was a civil war in Russia if you remember. And the territories you captured then were retrieved in 1939 after Germany attacked your country and your government fled to Romania. So I wouldn't really call it a fair win, or even a win at all. Also Napoleon captured Moscow too. Didn't help him much though.
Anyhow I also stand for mutual respect and brotherhood with all slavic nations. Peace.
Я худею оказываетси не только т-55 принимал боевые действия, там были еще и т-34, т-34-85 и более менее Т-62)) хе хе. Most of the very old models, very((
Its not bad design - its just old design which originates in to 1947. Still it surbasses many modern tanks like M1 in mobility. Also in can go underwater and when upgraded - fire 9M117 missiles from its barrel.
@MarshallJukov wow I just watched videos of the Abrams,leopard2, and challenger 2 tanks off roading and they make this tank look like a grandma driving it's mobility does not surpass any of those especially an M1A1 0r M1A2
Mobility is not top speed. Its lots of important factors. Tell me does any of tanks you mentioned carries snorkel to drive underwater with it? None of them. And M1 Abrams can`t drive underwater at all.
If you really want to know what tank mobility means - watch all chapters of this:
T54/55 data also applies to T55AMB2-Road speed 31MPH(50km/h) road range with two additional 200L fuel tanks 340miles(545km) vertical obstacle- 2ft. 8in. (0.8m) Trench-8ft. 10in.(2.7m) gradient 60%
Abrams-Road speed 41MPH (67KM/h) range 300 miles (480km) vertical obstacle 3ft. 6in.(1.07m) trench 9ft. 0in (2.74m) gradient of 60%
the Abrams is faster and can go over more obstacles than the T55 and over more terrain (with exception of under water) but can go above water with no snorkl
Any can ford without snorkel. But what will you do with 63 tonne vehicle with river in front of you and no bridge which will sustain that weight? There is few rivers in middle east and THOUSANDS of them in, say, Europe. Thats not to mention that with additional equipment - T-55 could SWIM for 60 kilometers (and use its weapon while doing it)
@MarshallJukov I know what mobility is and the Abrams still beats the T54/55 in it. The Abrams cant go under water but can drive above water so I'm pretty sure that is the same thing they can both cross water just the T55 is slower and less effective at crossing water obstacles than the Abrams. I like the T55 as well it is a sick tank I was just replying to false information posted and I am not an Abrams fan boy neither am I from US using Abrams as example cus easier to than challenger2
@MarshallJukov The M829A2 APFSDS round was developed specifically to address the improved protection of a Russian T-72, T-80U or T-90 main battle tank equipped with Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armor. Later, the M829A3 APFSDS round was introduced to improve its effectiveness against next generation ERA equipped tanks. In simple terms the Abrams would wipe the T55 off the face of the earth if they were to engage and there are far more destroyed T55 tanks than Abrams by the way.
Yeah - if M1 will ever get into the battlefield not being stuck, broke down or ran out of fuel first.
Of cource there was more T-55 destroyed - because T-55 is most built and most used tank in post WW2 history. Most of the times it wasn`t even used properly, still proved itself good.
And sorry, M829A2 not A1 proven to be useless against T-72B+4S22 during tests in early 1990s. Thats why A3 was developed.
@MarshallJukov yea you are talking about fuel and breaking down the Abrams has a longer operation range than the T55 the T55 needs external fuel tanks to keep up why don't you read the actual statistics I have posted for your education
T-55 can have external fuel tanks in the first place - M1 can not. And it eats LOT more fuel - so you need massive line of fueltrucks to follow it. M1 also had 153 miles MMBF (break downs that much in average) and it needs 1 hour of maintenance per every 2 hours of operation. While T-55 just like, say M60 Patton needs just 20 minutes once in...24 hours.
Actual tactical MOBILITY or rather IMMOBILITY was demonstrated by M1 in Desert Storm - 2 miles per hour average speed!
@MarshallJukov I don't want to engage with and argument about it because you have your facts and I have mine cant we just agree both the tanks are good?
No i don`t agree that both tanks are good. Initial rant was is T-55 a bad design, it obviously not even by modern time surpassing tanks like M1 in many stuff. Its simple but extremely versatile tank. Even today i would take it instead M1, aspecialy for infantry support roles. Because M1 doesn`t even have a HE-FRAG
M1 Abrams however is total disaster. Just watch Blacktail`s series first.
T55/54-Armament-One 100mm gun one SGMT 7.62mm co axial machine gun, two SGMT 7.62mm anti aircraft machine guns. Armor- maximum 150mm of STEEL. Combat weight-91,410lb(41,500kg)
Abrams M1A1- One M256 Rheinmettall 120mm smoothbore gun;One M240 7.62mm co-axial; one M2 12.7mm and one M240 7.62mm anti aircraft machine gun. Armor chobham,kevlar,and composite steel. Combat weight 125,890lb(57,154kg) it doesnt way that much more than the T55
T-55 has better armor than, say AMX-30. And its combat weight is 36 tonnes not 41,5. You mix it with T-62 which still has 40t of cw not 41,5. And its MUCH less than M1A1 (which cw actualy over 59t) - its 23 tonne differense. And its AA gun is 12,7mm DShK not 7,62. And it can use AT-10 ATGM.
And again - M1 Abrams does not have a HE-FRAG, just as ATGM either. Its upper glacis is just 50mm of steel, sides are no so much better either - aspecialy at the turret and engine compartment.
@MarshallJukov um the AMX-30 is a shitty french tank not an Abrams you have lost this argument well you lost it after you said the T55 was a better tank lol you think what you want pal but the fact is there are thousands upon thousands of destroyed soviet and russian tanks and almost no Abrams
@ak907jk and all this information I have posted is from my collection of tank and weapons encyclopedias and reference books written by tank experts from around the world. Yours is probably from wikipedia or some false internet site.
You can throw away such encylopedia. Even stones know that combat weight of T-55 is 36400kg.
41500kg is weight of proposed Т-55AMV upgrade offered for export in 1985. And my info is from books i have at home. Russian books on Russian tanks FYI
@MarshallJukov did you not read my whole comment from around the world and FYI kremlin propaganda posters are not books either are anti-NATO hate speeches and terrorist brain washing and un education those all breed ignorance like the kind you have your information is not credible because you can neither except the flaws of the tank you are defending nor realize the advantages of the tank I am defending I have agreed that the T55 is a good tank just not compared to modern MBTs
P.S. And as you could notice if you would step down from your pedestal of ignorance and arrogance - Blacktaildefense is AMERICAN guy which made amazing videoseries debunking FRAUDS american MIC forced upon taxpayers.
I didn`t said T-55 is better - i said its better in MANY aspects. Some of them are so important that make it MUCH more usefull than M1 Abrams. And i already described those aspects.
AMX-30 isn`t top dog but its a good tank in mobility and gives significant firepower aspecialy in infantry support roles thanks to its HE-FRAG, which i remind you Abrams simply does not have.
AMX-30 also suffered LESS losses than M1 Abrams in Desert Storm FYI and it wasn`t even in tank battle.
@MarshallJukov um this whole conversation has been you ranting bullshit statistics about the T55 god tank and to you r newest comment I am only using Abrams because its easier to type than challenger two or leopard two I am on no pedastole of ignorance only true facts and statistic seriously listen to yourself you saying a 40s era tank is better than one of the worlds most advanced tanks in the world you are the only ignorant one here
@ak907jk and from your name I would guess you are from Russia this is also why I do not except you information as credible because you will say anything because it is from your country on the other hand I am not from the US I am just trying to tell you the true facts but you refuse to even listen or except any of them and you keep beating around the bush that the Abrams targeting system is way more advanced infact it is modern unlike the T55 and I think the one who gets first shot wins
FCS of T-55 as you may guess can be upgraded, the very name of T-55AMV should invite you to think about it.
And sorry - FCS reached treshold of gun capabilities in early 1970s already. For example M829A3 gets to 4000m you mentioned in 2,6 seconds. A tank moving at 36km/h makes 26 meters in that timeframe and can CHANGE its direction several times, add here gun dispersion and aiming errors and you got 30m+ CEP. Thats the reason why guilded munitions came into play in the first place.
@MarshallJukov yes your aiming caclulations are good and all but those are problems the Abrams would have hitting moving targets if it did not have 3rd generation thermal optics-t55 does not have-also a highly advanced targeting system the computer on the Abrams puts all those factors into play within seconds before firing the crew does very minimal calculations before firing just like Saddam Hussein you are under estimating the effectiveness of technology on the battlefield
Saddam underestimated stupidity of its own generals and cowardice of its troops, thats all. Tanks was dug into the sand like pillboxes - doubtfuly there can be any more idiotic tactical moves made.
No computer can predict the future, and no gun is 100% accurate - thats why at such ranges hit probability is non-existent on moving, manuverable.
TI system on M1 Abrams is inferior to that of M60A3TTS and not advanced even by 1970s standards. And usefull only in the night anyway.
Just as you don`t need all so advanced FCS to support infantry with fire or demolish fortifications/buldings. And you don`t need it at all to smash something with tracks. Needless to mention that M1 can`t carry dozer blade to clear the way for itself and other units.
@MarshallJukov yes we dont need them while you are cranking away to turn your gun sights and looking through a hole the Abrams is demolishing you from a mile away with its computer aiming assists and auto stabilized turret while on the move and you are doing all kinds of adjustments to your gun the Abrams are moving and hitting your tanks sytematically and penetrating that outdated armor you use yes electronics are not important at all and yes the Abrams has done that before to other tanks
You do know that T-54/55 was among the first tanks to have gun stabilization system?
Just as you completely failing to grasp a simple fact - tanks are NOT designed to fight other tanks in the first place. If you make a pure tank destroyed - YOU LOSE. If you make a huge heavy tank which stucks everywhere like shit - YOU LOSE. If you make your tank incredibly complex and unreliable - YOU LOSE BIG TIME BEFORE YOU EVEN MAKE IT AT THE BATTLEFIELD. This is what nazis learned a hard way.
@MarshallJukov yep the Germans! learned it the hard way the American has learned from history and the Abrams has been combat tested against T55,T64,T72 and has beat all of them if you are able to hit more targets faster, more accurately, on the move, and from greater distances I believe you win and the way I see it one on one or even 5 on one the Abrams brings all that to the table the T55 does not
Americans built exactly what Tiger tanks was - overcomplex, faulty, heavy expensive piece of shit which lost entire war for nazis.
T-64 never was exported outside USSR and there was no actual Soviet T-72s.
And once again you FAIL to grasp that tanks are NOT disigned to be tank killes in the first place. And should be USED PROPERLY, not dug in the sand and then abandoned by their crews.
Not to mention that Iraq is PERFECT tank land which hides M1`s NON-EXISTENT MOBILITY a bit.
@MarshallJukov and they were Germans not NAZIS not everyone in the German army was a nazi but nice way to be stereotypical and thank Russia and allies for freeing Germany from the nazis and seriously why cant we be allies we would accoplish so much more for the world instead of bickering who has the better tank? NATO could help Russia with the czechen terrorist and russia could help NATO with al queda
No they where NAZIS backthen. It was NAZI GERMANY.
And we COULD be allies - if Churchil would not drop down an iron curtain around us, if he didn`t started a cold war, if there was no operation unthinkable, dropshot, cyclone and thousands of other "if" which wasn`t in our power.
And NATO (USA) could help Russia fighting terrorists by not destroying USSR against will of its people in the first place, not by shooting parlament in 1993, NOT by creating and funding mujahadeen and Al-CIAeda itself in the first place. Don`t you really see who was and is actualy a real bad guy in town for all that time?
Still there was 5 (FIVE) M1 Abrams tank destroyed in Desert Storm by Iraqi tanks. And lets hope for dignity of M1 designers that it was 3BM17 steel rod APFSDS with watered down charges used in USSR only for TRAINING, and not some WW2 era BR-412 used in D-10T guns of T-55.
M1 Abrams is not "one of most advanced tanks" its one of greatest failures in history of weapon design.
And if you want to bring those other tanks into conversation - despite they much more usefull than M1 - they still lose to T-55 at some important points.
And its not my bullshit statictics - its yours. Even your book told you that 41,5t combat weight (which is still 20 tonnes less than modern western tanks) is weight of T-55AMV not T-55
@MarshallJukov OK well since the T55 seems to such a tank that GOD himself made it and then Soviet Union had so many of them why did they not kill all the Americans in the cold war and why after the Soviet Archives opened up the two things the Soviet Union had feared the most if they were to invade was the A-10 wart hog and the Abrams tank and if the T55 is so good why did they build T72,T64,T80, and T90 and varients of all those if the T55 was already better than all NATO tanks
You must be kidding me right? A-10 was feared in USSR? Did you ever heard of Tunguska for example? Buk-M1? S-125? Shilka? Strela and Igla MANPADS for example?
Never in Soviet archives was told that we "feared" those things. In fact for the whole time west was following in deceptional pattern WE created by monkey models on purpose.
And fact that T-55 is damn good - does not means there is no need to create something even more better.
And please do not watch Tom Clancy-style shit so much
@MarshallJukov No I am not kidding you and isnt Tom clancey some guy who makes stupid ass games which yep so much better than any tank the fact is that T series tanks come from a poor country and do not stack up to Modernized NATO tanks and yes that was in the Soviet archives if they were to invade look it up ass hole im done listening to your ignorance seriously is it so hard to accept that Russia doesnt build god tanks and no tank is perfect no country build god tank
USSR was a poor country? LOL)) Now thats a big news))) How about USSR having highest average standards of living on Earth by 1980? And how about fact that money don`t decide everything aspecialy in weapon designs?)) I really love how such guys as you fall to low lever platitudes, idiocies and insults when they being defeated by facts.
In fact it was WEST who was TERRIFIED by threat of Soviet tank waves supported by much superior artillery, precission weapons and mobile SAMs - and had no other doctrine than to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS to stop or at least slow it down a bit?
In fact if you pay attention a bit - ALL western tanks have emphasis to be used in DEFENSE rather than offense. Aspecialy with their pathetic mobility, aspecialy in environments like Russia - where impassable terrain is litteraly EVERYWHERE.
@MarshallJukov Yea and the last time I checked the WEST along with NATO disintegrated the Soviet Union and out spent them and that was like 20yrs ago buddy not modern day if you think NATO is even remotely scared of that poor country named Russia and its outdated tanks you are sadly mistaken lol
West and NATO didn`t disintegrated USSR, genius - USSR, its economy and political system was SABOTAGED by traitors within. That was don EXACTLY because there was no other way for WEST and NATO do deal with USSR at all.
In fact even that was to hard for them because cost to much - its catching up with them now and called BANKRUPCY. While NATO failing to defeat one tiny country which has no traitors inside for almost 4 months now.
And YES NATO scared shitless of Russia now - thats why they trying to expand and encircle us with more bases and radars, genius.
As for outdated tanks - call me when any of western tanks actualy gets 23kg smart HE-FRAG, 3th generation ERA, over 4 mass/volume index, underwater driving capability and portable snorkel for it, 4000 hours MMBF, ATGM, autoloader e t c - and all of it within a single vehicle lighter than 50 tonnes and 3 men crew.
@MarshallJukov Yep call me when a single T55 or any other russian tank has killed a dozen NATO tanks without suffering any damage because being as advanced as you say they are they lose every time against NATO tanks and US keep bases and radars all over the world because US can afford it they also have a aircraft carrier in every ocean at all times Russia does not, don't mistake power and control for fear my friend have a nice day.
Once again - TANKS ARE NOT DESIGN TO KILL TANKS. They designed for doing OTHER things 95% of their time. And T-55 is NOT need to kill 5 or more M1 Abrams - it will simply OUTMANUVER them, as it was in DS when M1 FAILED to keep up with retreating Iraqi army and that lead to DEFEAT of coalition in Desert Storm. Outmanuvering means they will STRIKE targets M1 supposed to protect and dictate strategic initiative.
And sorry - USA can`t afford a shit theese days. Want to talk about their DEBT?
As for carriers - sorry again - they will not last a single day in modern war. And since we never intended to invade defenseless 3rd world nations all over the world anyway - we don`t need it.
And its not a bad thing itself if something is designed in 40s. Some things like M2 Browning is nearly a CENTURY old but still work and kill people fine. So does T-55. Believe me - you don`t want to be a GI with T-55s gun staring at you.
I coulnt find you newest comment about five Abrams being lost in desert storm only one american died in that operation and that was when a BMB hit the turret of a bradley and killed the commander there were no Abrams lost in desert storm or disabled by the enemy I like your story but you should really study up on your history and the Tiger wasnt a piece of shit it was over ran by t34 tank
What does it change if just one died? 5 tanks where lost and could not continue their mission. having 19 more GIs instead is not an excuse aspecialy counting that they was wounded.
No M1 was lost to enemy fire? Wrong - A-22, C-66, B-23 and two unknown M1 was destroyed by Irai TANKS.
As for tiger - it was heavy, with huge ground pressure, overlapping rollers that stuck with mud and was a nightmare to replace, engine probe to fire, transmission prone to break, turret that didn`t rotated at tilt over 5 degrees and needed over a MINUTE to rotate 360 degrees, it had no HE-FRAGs either.
T-34-85 however had nearly same armor, nearly as powerfull gun which HAD HE-FRAG, and INCREDIBLY better mobilty, reliabilty and versatility, and was technologicaly simple to produce.
And there was even a case when just ONE T-34-85 tank commanded by lt Oskin defeated FIVE KING Tigers on 11 august 1944 near polish village Ogladowa. 1 was captured damaged, 2 destroyed and 2 others FLED.
The only advantage Tiger had over T-34 is better optics. And capitalised that advantage because MOST of the time it was used as IMMOBILE PILLBOX while T-34 spent most of its time attacking - which in era when no gun stabilisation existed gave MASSIVE disadvantage in accuracy.
Still most of Red Army tank losses attributed to FIELD ARTILLEY - not nazi tanks. And nazis infantry was scared shitless seeing all those T-34s IS-2s and ISU-152s firing MASSIVE HE-FRAGs at them. Thats the reason why we got to Berlin - we designed and used tanks as they SHOULD BE. Nazis did it as it SHOULD NOT be done.
If NATO are so scared of Russia as well why dont they just invade US already and rule the world why in afghanistan russian did RPG 7 wipe out every model of tank the Russians deployed and why now does the RPG glance off of Abrams armor only 29 Abrams have been disabled from more advacned anti tank weapons and high powered IEDs so far the Russian tanks have failed on armor,hitting targets effectively, but the important thing is they can drive in sand and under water lol
Because we don`t want to "rule the world", we always wanted others to just LEAVE US ALONE. Our doctrine is exclusively DEFENSIVE. But since you anglo-saxxon i doubt you can grasp such logic that somebody doesn`t want to invade all over the place for world domination.
No "modern tanks" was in Afganistan - only T-55 and T-62.
Just as RPG-7 ripped of M1 Abrams in Iraq hard - thats documented.
And i repeat - there was NO T-72 other than polish T-72M and IRAQ MADE "Assad Babil" tanks
@MarshallJukov as well the Abrams sports NCB protection and is ERA capable and with the Abrams main round the DU M829A1 APFSDS-T with an effective range of 4,000m would decimate the t55 the Abrams also has third generation thermal imagery and sporting an advanced rang finder system with a DFCC-digital fire control computer. plus the M830A1 is designed for killing light vehicles and infantry and is very effective at it as well the Abrams utilizes an electronically controlled turret
T--55 is first tank in history which had full NBC protection. M1 can`t carry more ERA than it is because its drivetrain is overloaded. While numerous upgrade variants with advanced ERA, composite armor and even 125mm gun is offered for T-55 for last 25 years.
Effective range of M829 or any other APFSDS does not exceed 2500m on MOVING tank sized targets. And that with hit probability of only 0,2. AT-10 has 0,8 hit prob at 4000m on moving targets.
@MarshallJukov um the Us was ordered to hold position because the government in Us suck balls when it come to warfare and they were also ordered to drive slow in the desert becuase sand is bad on any tank engine even you super Russian tanks have to drive a bit slower in the desert becuase the sand isnt good for the engine and the Abrams was designed to counter soviet tanks in europe not deserts
They was told to hold down because they FAILED to destroy Saddam`s army BEFORE they enter less favorable terrain which can`t hold M1`s, regroup and show heavy resistance. Coalition KNEW that will be uncapable to defeat them that way.
@MarshallJukov If russai doesn't want to rule world why make so many tanks and then give them to any country who hates the US doesnt sound like you want to be left alone infact it sound like russia is the biggest shit stirrer and proprganda producer of the world who for some reason hate the idea of a free world with no oppression but you still sell equipment to any enemy of NATO that is such bullshit we want to be left alone if you wanted to be left alone quit selling weapons to terrorists!
Because some people in the world want to rule Russia. Isn`t that simple to grasp? Study history of crusades and invasions into Russia for all those centuries till now - there was OVER 300. We just made ourself strong enough to prevent the very idea of invading Russia again even in heads of completely insane hawks.
And we gave weapons to the people fighting all those neo-colonial wars against NATO imperialism. Like we gave it to people of Vietnam for example.
As for sand - neither T-72 series or any other diesel tank in the world, neither even gas-turbine T-80 which has cyclone filters and automatic shock cleaners have such problems with dust as M1 which HAS to change its barrier filters every 15 minutes of driving in the desert.
M1`s in anywhere other than flat desert and Fulda Gap is a JOKE - they will stuck everywhere in Europe or Russia, break virtualy every bridge while incapable to cross rivers underwater, get over it already.
@MarshallJukov yea and you dont think the US is paying for it now they r hunting down the al queda and dont act like US is the only agresser and that NATO is only capable of having bad leaders and russia wanted a warm water port to luanch nuclear submarines out of to attack the free world so CIA had to train them and if we were allies NATO would surely give Russia large fundings for its military like they do for each other
Russia could live without warm water ports - our subs have no troubles even dive up through the ice of arctics.
You obviously don`t know a true story of Vietnam war.
watch?v=5LctoUV-tag
And no - NATO isn`t "paying" - it USING Al-Quaeda to gain more control, to take more freedoms and liberties and it DIRECTLY using them now to conquer Lybia - there is genuine Al-Quaeda members on the ground which western media calls "rebels"
@MarshallJukov Alquaeda were formed by the CIA back to the late 70s as an answer to the Soviet AID to Afghanistan peoples democracy who were in civil war.America call it invasion but the truth is that the Afghanistan government asked from Soviet union aid.Its not likly that Al-Quaeda is behind the Lybian rebels but it is truth that Al-Quaeda and Bin laden knew many things and thats why Americans murder Bin Laden just like that.With out even a body burial or trial from "Crime against humanity"
There wasn`t any civil war in U.N. recognised Democratic Republic of Afganistan prior to summer of 1979 and CIA agent Amin`s coup. Just as Soviet aid to Afganistan was present since times of Zahir Shah - we built 90% of infrastructure that exists there now. But we did not involved in any politics there priot to december 1979
@MarshallJukov Yes Yes i know that the Aid of the Soviet union came at 1979 as a result of the bad conditions of the civil war in Afganistan and the ask of help of the Afganistan goverment.Im just saying that CIA helped the Al-Quaeda by training them and by giving military material just for a way to put Soviet union in a long war and use it for propaganda purposes.What happened after the Soviet soldiers were removed were a cold massacre.
@MarshallJukov Well with the civil conflicts on the arabic world it is possible that they just get the oportunity to use them for their own benefit as allways but i cant get any fact that the CIA started such conflict by using the Al Quaeda.And if thats true what about the other contries of the Arabic world?I think that all thit conflicts are just premature "revolutions",if some one can use such term about them,as a result of many years of stungle.
Are you kidding??? My brother has pictures from Iraq.. He encountered over 30 of these monsters. There were (maybe still) a lot of T-55s and T-72s in the Middle-East.. Probably the second-most-popular things from Russia.
Ez egy VT-55, azaz a T-55 műszaki mentő változata, amire ráberheltek egy torony utánzatot egy elég béna lövegcső imitációt.
Onnét tudni, hogy VT-55. hogy látszik a bal oldalt a felnyitott kupola, ami a harckocsin nincs.
akibaszottanyadat 20 hours ago
...a toronyról megítélve, ez nem T55-ös. Ez valami öszvér.
sz05ry 1 week ago
говно музон
Theproverka 1 week ago
to už je ruský šrot-jezdil jsem v tom na vojně!!
dalimil1 3 weeks ago
Colin McRae DiRT4, by Codemasters... :P
xTornado78x 3 weeks ago
Abrams chew toy
kitbird87 1 month ago
@kitbird87 That's as maybe, but don't forget that this design is a lot older, and the T-55 was a good tank for it's day.
volvomantom 1 week ago
Kegyetlen gép :)
MrGergo91 1 month ago
Umm... You call that extreme offroad? Here in finland when people talks about offroad, we mean something like this vid (search using that name) ----> offroad laukaa osa 2/5
MrHavukka 2 months ago
why is always the left ear going to die-.-
oO0lol0Oo 4 months ago 12
RAMMSTEIN!!!
airplanefreakful 4 months ago 6
u can stop it from working with RPG haha, it's nothing man
tijileiden 4 months ago
@tijileiden
well DA its like 60 years old XD, it is one of the best tanks (at the time it was intruduced, not today) probably since it is still in service today
nejckorosec1 3 months ago
seems like a cool tank. but still the best tank is the m1a2 abrams. :)
ReivaxThe1st 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrSpiderRoos 4 months ago
@ReivaxThe1st You can't really compare then, the M1 is almost 50 years newer than this old beast :)
MrSpiderRoos 4 months ago 2
@ReivaxThe1st
no its the Leopard 2 ! :D
oO0lol0Oo 4 months ago
@oO0lol0Oo no lol nothing can match the power and the depleted uranium armor the m1a2 has :)
ReivaxThe1st 4 months ago
@ReivaxThe1st Yes. The leopard 2.
FantasyFinal4 4 months ago
@ReivaxThe1st Actually there is. Secret Russian armor used in T-90 can
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@ReivaxThe1st I dunno much but EOD, a multiple RPG-7 shot, Challenger, T90 and leopard 2. All can destroy it.
thonmantor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oO0lol0Oo no lol nothing can match the power and the depleted uranium armor the m1a2 has :)
ReivaxThe1st 4 months ago
Watch video "atif i zabac" here on YT and you will be amazed at this footage. It is Bosnian Army 5 Corps, most powerful ex Yugoslav corps of all Balkans in attack on agressor position while beeing shelled by howitser. T 55 is amazing machine if tank comander and crew is capable to use it. Peace
AdventureOfTomorow 4 months ago
damn, i'd like to drive one
subzero92MK 5 months ago
old tank.... not the best
lifeguard65000 5 months ago
@lifeguard65000 It pretty much was back in the 40-ies and 50-ies.
vukashin88 4 months ago
A whole barrel, wow :)
Destroy something good with it, like an old caravan, lorry, house, barn, whatever
ClownFlash 5 months ago
High turning capability? Are you kidding me? Which tank can't turn around it's own axis?
d34d10ck 5 months ago
weak armor,low velocity ammo and the worst targeting-system ever til to the T-62.
shit a usual from russia.
bernisweltredsun 5 months ago
@bernisweltredsun Actually not true, modernized models are as third generation as any other (Ukrainian and Pakistanis models.) In fact this is the most successful tank in history, after 70 years from its inception, still in use in tens of thousands is a testimony to its success. As far as ammo is concerned modern ammo are highly effective; ~500mm @ 2 km, that's more than enough to destroy comparable MBT. FCS can also be upgraded from off-the-shelf items to much advanced digital systems, etc.
Pissoffyowpunk 5 months ago
Extreme offroad? Thie is´nt offroad, its on-road...
Leopard 2a6 is mutch better.
97jocke 5 months ago
@97jocke agree but dont forget that the leo 2 a6 is nearly 30 years younger.
bernisweltredsun 5 months ago
@bernisweltredsun Yes
97jocke 5 months ago
@97jocke
How good a tank is can only be determined by how well it completes it's objectives. One of the things about T-55 which loe doesn't have is very low price. There were around 60,000 T-55 produced. And how much leos? About 3,500? Are you sure one leo can do what 17 T-55s can?
Mocsk 5 months ago
@Mocsk ONE (1) Leopard cost over milion pund! I have hear this by a person who working in army with tank school, Leopard shot longest and have best target. Lock in the rekord book. Sorry for my very bad english.
Have a good day! Regards, Jocke!
97jocke 5 months ago
@Mocsk Ofc not lol 1 hit and leo dead try imagine 17 t 55 with full speed shot with stabilisation to 1 leo i think leo can be dead if he repond.Sorry for my english..
katowittz 5 months ago
@katowittz
tanks don't fight with tanks. on the battlefield it's more of a hardware misuse and command's miscalculation. their main objectives is to breach holes in enemy defences and suprise butsechs them or roll over the rears destroying communications and supplies; supporting advancing infantry with heavy gun fire; overall fast operative maneuver. From this perspective one Leopard 2A6 clearly does not worth even three T-55s, not to mention seventeen.
Mocsk 5 months ago
@Mocsk tanks don't fight with tanks. on the battlefield ????Battle of Kursk?? Medina Ridge?? more?
katowittz 5 months ago
@katowittz
In battle of Kursk most of the tanks were destroyed by artillery (including antitanks and self propelled AT's) and aviation. Tanks don't fight with tanks (as Guderian said, he might have known a thing or two about tanks), on the battlefield it's more of a hardware misuse and command's miscalculation.
Mocsk 5 months ago
@Mocsk Mate battle in kurs tanks fight aganst tanks less than 30 m lol u dont tallk peaple shit.Some russian tanks charge german tanks german to and Medina Ridge tanks charge and fight tank vs tank to .Mate go read some books:Dand dont talk peaple shit:D::D.
katowittz 5 months ago
@katowittz
if you're drunk, go sober up. if not - well then learn english before trying to say something, because I hardly understood anything you said. and I suggest you better go read some history books. mate. or go into the army to serve within a tank unit (I understand there are tanks in Poland, right?), where you will learn the main objectives of a tank. there you will understand that tanks CAN fight with other tanks, but it's like hummering nails with a microscope.
Mocsk 5 months ago
@Mocsk Ok thei i try speak english but if i cant mayby u know my language cos i traing difrent language.Wiec smierdzielu slozylem w czolgach i czytam historie i ksiazki historyczne .Rozumiesz oczywiscie co pisze??przeciez jestes taki madry ze nie majac racji obrazasz ludzi........"tanks dont fight with tanks BIG FUCKING lie lol"
katowittz 5 months ago
@katowittz
I think it would make more sense if you wrote in Polish on a Polish website. This website though is international and Polish is not an international language - clearly I don't know it. Anyhow, back to tanks. You are wrong, big time. Ask any military officer who is in a tank unit - he'll tell you.
Mocsk 5 months ago
@Mocsk Yes yes i ask him muahahha lol .Pierdolony tepak znajacy 1 jezyk:D
katowittz 5 months ago
@katowittz
My native language is Russian, I also know English, Estonian, a bit of German, Spanish and French. So what was that you were saying?
Mocsk 5 months ago
@Mocsk I have respect to Russia its a military superpower i happy with that cos we are all slav.We dont have in poland so big army at u but remember that we capture yours capital Moscow only 1 nation do thaty in yours great history and win the war with u in 1920 .U take our captial to in 1944.So we deserve for all respect for slav brotherhood..Fuck politics...
katowittz 5 months ago
@katowittz
Well in 1920 you were not really fighting Russia, just a part of it - there was a civil war in Russia if you remember. And the territories you captured then were retrieved in 1939 after Germany attacked your country and your government fled to Romania. So I wouldn't really call it a fair win, or even a win at all. Also Napoleon captured Moscow too. Didn't help him much though.
Anyhow I also stand for mutual respect and brotherhood with all slavic nations. Peace.
Mocsk 5 months ago
extreme?? you must be kiding
warliusssssss 5 months ago 2
Я худею оказываетси не только т-55 принимал боевые действия, там были еще и т-34, т-34-85 и более менее Т-62)) хе хе. Most of the very old models, very((
ZahhaRaMahadev 6 months ago
you idiots comparing this to an abrams. This tank was made in the 40s. The abrams the late 60s. You can't compare these.
supramanz 6 months ago
am i the only person who lolled at the sight of the control box ? xD
phompiedom 6 months ago
if i could buy any tank i would get this or a t-62
bearsfan97 6 months ago
Hei Guys, wher a fuck are You??!!! Cool!!!
Izé, hol van a bázis?
Cirbonukleon 6 months ago
I love the song your used for this video !! MEIN TEIL FROM REISE REISE ALBUM RAMMSTEIN
badboys1689 6 months ago
never saw a leopard2a6?
fedeprhot 7 months ago
не знаю что это за кракодил и для кого он зделан.хотя сам служил на т 55ам в морской пехоте в 1989 году Горбачев сократил эти танки.
Vitaliy19691 7 months ago
Т-55 является плохой дизайн бака и продается в таких странах как Ирак и Афганистан
djkleivykleiv 7 months ago
@djkleivykleiv
Its not bad design - its just old design which originates in to 1947. Still it surbasses many modern tanks like M1 in mobility. Also in can go underwater and when upgraded - fire 9M117 missiles from its barrel.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov wow I just watched videos of the Abrams,leopard2, and challenger 2 tanks off roading and they make this tank look like a grandma driving it's mobility does not surpass any of those especially an M1A1 0r M1A2
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Mobility is not top speed. Its lots of important factors. Tell me does any of tanks you mentioned carries snorkel to drive underwater with it? None of them. And M1 Abrams can`t drive underwater at all.
If you really want to know what tank mobility means - watch all chapters of this:
watch?v=SWG6Tp04Nnk
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov
T54/55 data also applies to T55AMB2-Road speed 31MPH(50km/h) road range with two additional 200L fuel tanks 340miles(545km) vertical obstacle- 2ft. 8in. (0.8m) Trench-8ft. 10in.(2.7m) gradient 60%
Abrams-Road speed 41MPH (67KM/h) range 300 miles (480km) vertical obstacle 3ft. 6in.(1.07m) trench 9ft. 0in (2.74m) gradient of 60%
the Abrams is faster and can go over more obstacles than the T55 and over more terrain (with exception of under water) but can go above water with no snorkl
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Any can ford without snorkel. But what will you do with 63 tonne vehicle with river in front of you and no bridge which will sustain that weight? There is few rivers in middle east and THOUSANDS of them in, say, Europe. Thats not to mention that with additional equipment - T-55 could SWIM for 60 kilometers (and use its weapon while doing it)
watch?v=-xCULyCDFTY at 4:00 and on
As for your data - just watch video i gave.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov I know what mobility is and the Abrams still beats the T54/55 in it. The Abrams cant go under water but can drive above water so I'm pretty sure that is the same thing they can both cross water just the T55 is slower and less effective at crossing water obstacles than the Abrams. I like the T55 as well it is a sick tank I was just replying to false information posted and I am not an Abrams fan boy neither am I from US using Abrams as example cus easier to than challenger2
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
I repeat - watch Blacktaildefense`s series on Abrams that i gave first. Because T-55 beats M1 in Mobility hands down despite M1 is better on paper.
And driving 63 tonnes over silt is not good idea because M1 stucks even in any soil that isn`t so firm as dry clay, rocks or dry sand.
T-55 can not only ford rivers - it can go 5 meters UNDER water.
Heavier vehicles also not good for driving over loose slopes
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov The M829A2 APFSDS round was developed specifically to address the improved protection of a Russian T-72, T-80U or T-90 main battle tank equipped with Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armor. Later, the M829A3 APFSDS round was introduced to improve its effectiveness against next generation ERA equipped tanks. In simple terms the Abrams would wipe the T55 off the face of the earth if they were to engage and there are far more destroyed T55 tanks than Abrams by the way.
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Yeah - if M1 will ever get into the battlefield not being stuck, broke down or ran out of fuel first.
Of cource there was more T-55 destroyed - because T-55 is most built and most used tank in post WW2 history. Most of the times it wasn`t even used properly, still proved itself good.
And sorry, M829A2 not A1 proven to be useless against T-72B+4S22 during tests in early 1990s. Thats why A3 was developed.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov yea you are talking about fuel and breaking down the Abrams has a longer operation range than the T55 the T55 needs external fuel tanks to keep up why don't you read the actual statistics I have posted for your education
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
T-55 can have external fuel tanks in the first place - M1 can not. And it eats LOT more fuel - so you need massive line of fueltrucks to follow it. M1 also had 153 miles MMBF (break downs that much in average) and it needs 1 hour of maintenance per every 2 hours of operation. While T-55 just like, say M60 Patton needs just 20 minutes once in...24 hours.
Actual tactical MOBILITY or rather IMMOBILITY was demonstrated by M1 in Desert Storm - 2 miles per hour average speed!
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov I don't want to engage with and argument about it because you have your facts and I have mine cant we just agree both the tanks are good?
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
No i don`t agree that both tanks are good. Initial rant was is T-55 a bad design, it obviously not even by modern time surpassing tanks like M1 in many stuff. Its simple but extremely versatile tank. Even today i would take it instead M1, aspecialy for infantry support roles. Because M1 doesn`t even have a HE-FRAG
M1 Abrams however is total disaster. Just watch Blacktail`s series first.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov ok lol
T55/54-Armament-One 100mm gun one SGMT 7.62mm co axial machine gun, two SGMT 7.62mm anti aircraft machine guns. Armor- maximum 150mm of STEEL. Combat weight-91,410lb(41,500kg)
Abrams M1A1- One M256 Rheinmettall 120mm smoothbore gun;One M240 7.62mm co-axial; one M2 12.7mm and one M240 7.62mm anti aircraft machine gun. Armor chobham,kevlar,and composite steel. Combat weight 125,890lb(57,154kg) it doesnt way that much more than the T55
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
T-55 has better armor than, say AMX-30. And its combat weight is 36 tonnes not 41,5. You mix it with T-62 which still has 40t of cw not 41,5. And its MUCH less than M1A1 (which cw actualy over 59t) - its 23 tonne differense. And its AA gun is 12,7mm DShK not 7,62. And it can use AT-10 ATGM.
And again - M1 Abrams does not have a HE-FRAG, just as ATGM either. Its upper glacis is just 50mm of steel, sides are no so much better either - aspecialy at the turret and engine compartment.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov um the AMX-30 is a shitty french tank not an Abrams you have lost this argument well you lost it after you said the T55 was a better tank lol you think what you want pal but the fact is there are thousands upon thousands of destroyed soviet and russian tanks and almost no Abrams
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk and all this information I have posted is from my collection of tank and weapons encyclopedias and reference books written by tank experts from around the world. Yours is probably from wikipedia or some false internet site.
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
You can throw away such encylopedia. Even stones know that combat weight of T-55 is 36400kg.
41500kg is weight of proposed Т-55AMV upgrade offered for export in 1985. And my info is from books i have at home. Russian books on Russian tanks FYI
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov did you not read my whole comment from around the world and FYI kremlin propaganda posters are not books either are anti-NATO hate speeches and terrorist brain washing and un education those all breed ignorance like the kind you have your information is not credible because you can neither except the flaws of the tank you are defending nor realize the advantages of the tank I am defending I have agreed that the T55 is a good tank just not compared to modern MBTs
ak907jk 6 months ago
Do you call anything that does not fits your image of the world a "kremlin propaganda"?
I just provided you with raw technical facts and experience that warfare science got in past tank wars. Tanks are initialy built to provide:
a) Infantry support - 95% of targets tanks encounter are NOT other tanks
b) Engineering warfare - provide demolition works for advancing troops, breach fortifications
c) MOBILE warfare not streetracing
All those major points T-55 fits MUCH better than M1 Abrams
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
P.S. And as you could notice if you would step down from your pedestal of ignorance and arrogance - Blacktaildefense is AMERICAN guy which made amazing videoseries debunking FRAUDS american MIC forced upon taxpayers.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
I didn`t said T-55 is better - i said its better in MANY aspects. Some of them are so important that make it MUCH more usefull than M1 Abrams. And i already described those aspects.
AMX-30 isn`t top dog but its a good tank in mobility and gives significant firepower aspecialy in infantry support roles thanks to its HE-FRAG, which i remind you Abrams simply does not have.
AMX-30 also suffered LESS losses than M1 Abrams in Desert Storm FYI and it wasn`t even in tank battle.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov um this whole conversation has been you ranting bullshit statistics about the T55 god tank and to you r newest comment I am only using Abrams because its easier to type than challenger two or leopard two I am on no pedastole of ignorance only true facts and statistic seriously listen to yourself you saying a 40s era tank is better than one of the worlds most advanced tanks in the world you are the only ignorant one here
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk and from your name I would guess you are from Russia this is also why I do not except you information as credible because you will say anything because it is from your country on the other hand I am not from the US I am just trying to tell you the true facts but you refuse to even listen or except any of them and you keep beating around the bush that the Abrams targeting system is way more advanced infact it is modern unlike the T55 and I think the one who gets first shot wins
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
FCS of T-55 as you may guess can be upgraded, the very name of T-55AMV should invite you to think about it.
And sorry - FCS reached treshold of gun capabilities in early 1970s already. For example M829A3 gets to 4000m you mentioned in 2,6 seconds. A tank moving at 36km/h makes 26 meters in that timeframe and can CHANGE its direction several times, add here gun dispersion and aiming errors and you got 30m+ CEP. Thats the reason why guilded munitions came into play in the first place.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov yes your aiming caclulations are good and all but those are problems the Abrams would have hitting moving targets if it did not have 3rd generation thermal optics-t55 does not have-also a highly advanced targeting system the computer on the Abrams puts all those factors into play within seconds before firing the crew does very minimal calculations before firing just like Saddam Hussein you are under estimating the effectiveness of technology on the battlefield
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Saddam underestimated stupidity of its own generals and cowardice of its troops, thats all. Tanks was dug into the sand like pillboxes - doubtfuly there can be any more idiotic tactical moves made.
No computer can predict the future, and no gun is 100% accurate - thats why at such ranges hit probability is non-existent on moving, manuverable.
TI system on M1 Abrams is inferior to that of M60A3TTS and not advanced even by 1970s standards. And usefull only in the night anyway.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Just as you don`t need all so advanced FCS to support infantry with fire or demolish fortifications/buldings. And you don`t need it at all to smash something with tracks. Needless to mention that M1 can`t carry dozer blade to clear the way for itself and other units.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov yes we dont need them while you are cranking away to turn your gun sights and looking through a hole the Abrams is demolishing you from a mile away with its computer aiming assists and auto stabilized turret while on the move and you are doing all kinds of adjustments to your gun the Abrams are moving and hitting your tanks sytematically and penetrating that outdated armor you use yes electronics are not important at all and yes the Abrams has done that before to other tanks
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
You do know that T-54/55 was among the first tanks to have gun stabilization system?
Just as you completely failing to grasp a simple fact - tanks are NOT designed to fight other tanks in the first place. If you make a pure tank destroyed - YOU LOSE. If you make a huge heavy tank which stucks everywhere like shit - YOU LOSE. If you make your tank incredibly complex and unreliable - YOU LOSE BIG TIME BEFORE YOU EVEN MAKE IT AT THE BATTLEFIELD. This is what nazis learned a hard way.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov yep the Germans! learned it the hard way the American has learned from history and the Abrams has been combat tested against T55,T64,T72 and has beat all of them if you are able to hit more targets faster, more accurately, on the move, and from greater distances I believe you win and the way I see it one on one or even 5 on one the Abrams brings all that to the table the T55 does not
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Americans built exactly what Tiger tanks was - overcomplex, faulty, heavy expensive piece of shit which lost entire war for nazis.
T-64 never was exported outside USSR and there was no actual Soviet T-72s.
And once again you FAIL to grasp that tanks are NOT disigned to be tank killes in the first place. And should be USED PROPERLY, not dug in the sand and then abandoned by their crews.
Not to mention that Iraq is PERFECT tank land which hides M1`s NON-EXISTENT MOBILITY a bit.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov and they were Germans not NAZIS not everyone in the German army was a nazi but nice way to be stereotypical and thank Russia and allies for freeing Germany from the nazis and seriously why cant we be allies we would accoplish so much more for the world instead of bickering who has the better tank? NATO could help Russia with the czechen terrorist and russia could help NATO with al queda
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
No they where NAZIS backthen. It was NAZI GERMANY.
And we COULD be allies - if Churchil would not drop down an iron curtain around us, if he didn`t started a cold war, if there was no operation unthinkable, dropshot, cyclone and thousands of other "if" which wasn`t in our power.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
And NATO (USA) could help Russia fighting terrorists by not destroying USSR against will of its people in the first place, not by shooting parlament in 1993, NOT by creating and funding mujahadeen and Al-CIAeda itself in the first place. Don`t you really see who was and is actualy a real bad guy in town for all that time?
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Still there was 5 (FIVE) M1 Abrams tank destroyed in Desert Storm by Iraqi tanks. And lets hope for dignity of M1 designers that it was 3BM17 steel rod APFSDS with watered down charges used in USSR only for TRAINING, and not some WW2 era BR-412 used in D-10T guns of T-55.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
M1 Abrams is not "one of most advanced tanks" its one of greatest failures in history of weapon design.
And if you want to bring those other tanks into conversation - despite they much more usefull than M1 - they still lose to T-55 at some important points.
And its not my bullshit statictics - its yours. Even your book told you that 41,5t combat weight (which is still 20 tonnes less than modern western tanks) is weight of T-55AMV not T-55
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov OK well since the T55 seems to such a tank that GOD himself made it and then Soviet Union had so many of them why did they not kill all the Americans in the cold war and why after the Soviet Archives opened up the two things the Soviet Union had feared the most if they were to invade was the A-10 wart hog and the Abrams tank and if the T55 is so good why did they build T72,T64,T80, and T90 and varients of all those if the T55 was already better than all NATO tanks
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
You must be kidding me right? A-10 was feared in USSR? Did you ever heard of Tunguska for example? Buk-M1? S-125? Shilka? Strela and Igla MANPADS for example?
Never in Soviet archives was told that we "feared" those things. In fact for the whole time west was following in deceptional pattern WE created by monkey models on purpose.
And fact that T-55 is damn good - does not means there is no need to create something even more better.
And please do not watch Tom Clancy-style shit so much
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov No I am not kidding you and isnt Tom clancey some guy who makes stupid ass games which yep so much better than any tank the fact is that T series tanks come from a poor country and do not stack up to Modernized NATO tanks and yes that was in the Soviet archives if they were to invade look it up ass hole im done listening to your ignorance seriously is it so hard to accept that Russia doesnt build god tanks and no tank is perfect no country build god tank
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
USSR was a poor country? LOL)) Now thats a big news))) How about USSR having highest average standards of living on Earth by 1980? And how about fact that money don`t decide everything aspecialy in weapon designs?)) I really love how such guys as you fall to low lever platitudes, idiocies and insults when they being defeated by facts.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
In fact it was WEST who was TERRIFIED by threat of Soviet tank waves supported by much superior artillery, precission weapons and mobile SAMs - and had no other doctrine than to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS to stop or at least slow it down a bit?
In fact if you pay attention a bit - ALL western tanks have emphasis to be used in DEFENSE rather than offense. Aspecialy with their pathetic mobility, aspecialy in environments like Russia - where impassable terrain is litteraly EVERYWHERE.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov Yea and the last time I checked the WEST along with NATO disintegrated the Soviet Union and out spent them and that was like 20yrs ago buddy not modern day if you think NATO is even remotely scared of that poor country named Russia and its outdated tanks you are sadly mistaken lol
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
West and NATO didn`t disintegrated USSR, genius - USSR, its economy and political system was SABOTAGED by traitors within. That was don EXACTLY because there was no other way for WEST and NATO do deal with USSR at all.
In fact even that was to hard for them because cost to much - its catching up with them now and called BANKRUPCY. While NATO failing to defeat one tiny country which has no traitors inside for almost 4 months now.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
And YES NATO scared shitless of Russia now - thats why they trying to expand and encircle us with more bases and radars, genius.
As for outdated tanks - call me when any of western tanks actualy gets 23kg smart HE-FRAG, 3th generation ERA, over 4 mass/volume index, underwater driving capability and portable snorkel for it, 4000 hours MMBF, ATGM, autoloader e t c - and all of it within a single vehicle lighter than 50 tonnes and 3 men crew.
Our tanks is simply a generation ahead.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov Yep call me when a single T55 or any other russian tank has killed a dozen NATO tanks without suffering any damage because being as advanced as you say they are they lose every time against NATO tanks and US keep bases and radars all over the world because US can afford it they also have a aircraft carrier in every ocean at all times Russia does not, don't mistake power and control for fear my friend have a nice day.
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Once again - TANKS ARE NOT DESIGN TO KILL TANKS. They designed for doing OTHER things 95% of their time. And T-55 is NOT need to kill 5 or more M1 Abrams - it will simply OUTMANUVER them, as it was in DS when M1 FAILED to keep up with retreating Iraqi army and that lead to DEFEAT of coalition in Desert Storm. Outmanuvering means they will STRIKE targets M1 supposed to protect and dictate strategic initiative.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ak907jk
And sorry - USA can`t afford a shit theese days. Want to talk about their DEBT?
As for carriers - sorry again - they will not last a single day in modern war. And since we never intended to invade defenseless 3rd world nations all over the world anyway - we don`t need it.
tiny url com / carriersdie
tiny url com / carriersvulnerable
tiny url com / usankmycarrier
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
And its not a bad thing itself if something is designed in 40s. Some things like M2 Browning is nearly a CENTURY old but still work and kill people fine. So does T-55. Believe me - you don`t want to be a GI with T-55s gun staring at you.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk c
I coulnt find you newest comment about five Abrams being lost in desert storm only one american died in that operation and that was when a BMB hit the turret of a bradley and killed the commander there were no Abrams lost in desert storm or disabled by the enemy I like your story but you should really study up on your history and the Tiger wasnt a piece of shit it was over ran by t34 tank
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
What does it change if just one died? 5 tanks where lost and could not continue their mission. having 19 more GIs instead is not an excuse aspecialy counting that they was wounded.
No M1 was lost to enemy fire? Wrong - A-22, C-66, B-23 and two unknown M1 was destroyed by Irai TANKS.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
As for tiger - it was heavy, with huge ground pressure, overlapping rollers that stuck with mud and was a nightmare to replace, engine probe to fire, transmission prone to break, turret that didn`t rotated at tilt over 5 degrees and needed over a MINUTE to rotate 360 degrees, it had no HE-FRAGs either.
T-34-85 however had nearly same armor, nearly as powerfull gun which HAD HE-FRAG, and INCREDIBLY better mobilty, reliabilty and versatility, and was technologicaly simple to produce.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
And there was even a case when just ONE T-34-85 tank commanded by lt Oskin defeated FIVE KING Tigers on 11 august 1944 near polish village Ogladowa. 1 was captured damaged, 2 destroyed and 2 others FLED.
The only advantage Tiger had over T-34 is better optics. And capitalised that advantage because MOST of the time it was used as IMMOBILE PILLBOX while T-34 spent most of its time attacking - which in era when no gun stabilisation existed gave MASSIVE disadvantage in accuracy.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Still most of Red Army tank losses attributed to FIELD ARTILLEY - not nazi tanks. And nazis infantry was scared shitless seeing all those T-34s IS-2s and ISU-152s firing MASSIVE HE-FRAGs at them. Thats the reason why we got to Berlin - we designed and used tanks as they SHOULD BE. Nazis did it as it SHOULD NOT be done.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
If NATO are so scared of Russia as well why dont they just invade US already and rule the world why in afghanistan russian did RPG 7 wipe out every model of tank the Russians deployed and why now does the RPG glance off of Abrams armor only 29 Abrams have been disabled from more advacned anti tank weapons and high powered IEDs so far the Russian tanks have failed on armor,hitting targets effectively, but the important thing is they can drive in sand and under water lol
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Because we don`t want to "rule the world", we always wanted others to just LEAVE US ALONE. Our doctrine is exclusively DEFENSIVE. But since you anglo-saxxon i doubt you can grasp such logic that somebody doesn`t want to invade all over the place for world domination.
No "modern tanks" was in Afganistan - only T-55 and T-62.
Just as RPG-7 ripped of M1 Abrams in Iraq hard - thats documented.
And i repeat - there was NO T-72 other than polish T-72M and IRAQ MADE "Assad Babil" tanks
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov as well the Abrams sports NCB protection and is ERA capable and with the Abrams main round the DU M829A1 APFSDS-T with an effective range of 4,000m would decimate the t55 the Abrams also has third generation thermal imagery and sporting an advanced rang finder system with a DFCC-digital fire control computer. plus the M830A1 is designed for killing light vehicles and infantry and is very effective at it as well the Abrams utilizes an electronically controlled turret
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
T--55 is first tank in history which had full NBC protection. M1 can`t carry more ERA than it is because its drivetrain is overloaded. While numerous upgrade variants with advanced ERA, composite armor and even 125mm gun is offered for T-55 for last 25 years.
Effective range of M829 or any other APFSDS does not exceed 2500m on MOVING tank sized targets. And that with hit probability of only 0,2. AT-10 has 0,8 hit prob at 4000m on moving targets.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov um the Us was ordered to hold position because the government in Us suck balls when it come to warfare and they were also ordered to drive slow in the desert becuase sand is bad on any tank engine even you super Russian tanks have to drive a bit slower in the desert becuase the sand isnt good for the engine and the Abrams was designed to counter soviet tanks in europe not deserts
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
They was told to hold down because they FAILED to destroy Saddam`s army BEFORE they enter less favorable terrain which can`t hold M1`s, regroup and show heavy resistance. Coalition KNEW that will be uncapable to defeat them that way.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov If russai doesn't want to rule world why make so many tanks and then give them to any country who hates the US doesnt sound like you want to be left alone infact it sound like russia is the biggest shit stirrer and proprganda producer of the world who for some reason hate the idea of a free world with no oppression but you still sell equipment to any enemy of NATO that is such bullshit we want to be left alone if you wanted to be left alone quit selling weapons to terrorists!
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Because some people in the world want to rule Russia. Isn`t that simple to grasp? Study history of crusades and invasions into Russia for all those centuries till now - there was OVER 300. We just made ourself strong enough to prevent the very idea of invading Russia again even in heads of completely insane hawks.
And we gave weapons to the people fighting all those neo-colonial wars against NATO imperialism. Like we gave it to people of Vietnam for example.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@ak907jk
As for sand - neither T-72 series or any other diesel tank in the world, neither even gas-turbine T-80 which has cyclone filters and automatic shock cleaners have such problems with dust as M1 which HAS to change its barrier filters every 15 minutes of driving in the desert.
M1`s in anywhere other than flat desert and Fulda Gap is a JOKE - they will stuck everywhere in Europe or Russia, break virtualy every bridge while incapable to cross rivers underwater, get over it already.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov yea and you dont think the US is paying for it now they r hunting down the al queda and dont act like US is the only agresser and that NATO is only capable of having bad leaders and russia wanted a warm water port to luanch nuclear submarines out of to attack the free world so CIA had to train them and if we were allies NATO would surely give Russia large fundings for its military like they do for each other
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
Russia could live without warm water ports - our subs have no troubles even dive up through the ice of arctics.
You obviously don`t know a true story of Vietnam war.
watch?v=5LctoUV-tag
And no - NATO isn`t "paying" - it USING Al-Quaeda to gain more control, to take more freedoms and liberties and it DIRECTLY using them now to conquer Lybia - there is genuine Al-Quaeda members on the ground which western media calls "rebels"
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov Alquaeda were formed by the CIA back to the late 70s as an answer to the Soviet AID to Afghanistan peoples democracy who were in civil war.America call it invasion but the truth is that the Afghanistan government asked from Soviet union aid.Its not likly that Al-Quaeda is behind the Lybian rebels but it is truth that Al-Quaeda and Bin laden knew many things and thats why Americans murder Bin Laden just like that.With out even a body burial or trial from "Crime against humanity"
G4liats 6 months ago
@G4liats
There wasn`t any civil war in U.N. recognised Democratic Republic of Afganistan prior to summer of 1979 and CIA agent Amin`s coup. Just as Soviet aid to Afganistan was present since times of Zahir Shah - we built 90% of infrastructure that exists there now. But we did not involved in any politics there priot to december 1979
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov Yes Yes i know that the Aid of the Soviet union came at 1979 as a result of the bad conditions of the civil war in Afganistan and the ask of help of the Afganistan goverment.Im just saying that CIA helped the Al-Quaeda by training them and by giving military material just for a way to put Soviet union in a long war and use it for propaganda purposes.What happened after the Soviet soldiers were removed were a cold massacre.
G4liats 6 months ago
@G4liats
P.S. Al Quaeda and CIA is behind those "rebels" in Libya - thats fact
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov Well with the civil conflicts on the arabic world it is possible that they just get the oportunity to use them for their own benefit as allways but i cant get any fact that the CIA started such conflict by using the Al Quaeda.And if thats true what about the other contries of the Arabic world?I think that all thit conflicts are just premature "revolutions",if some one can use such term about them,as a result of many years of stungle.
G4liats 6 months ago
@G4liats
Afganis are not arabs. They are 1/3 uzbeks, 1/3 pushtus and 1/3 tadjicks. And google for operation "Cyclone" stared by Jimmy Carter.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
@MarshallJukov Im talking about Libya not Afganistan.On that comment,check the comment chain
G4liats 6 months ago
@G4liats
Then check out Libya related videos in my favorites
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
watch "anatomy of an abrams tank" just search on the youtube
ak907jk 6 months ago
@ak907jk
I know anatomy of abrams tank better than those "anatomists" i study tanks for 15 years.
There is raw technical and historical data no mockymentary in YT can deny.
MarshallJukov 6 months ago
wait barrel? i thought you ment look at its gun!
DragonsREpic 7 months ago
easy prey for an APACHE pilot,..cheers!
wilatemodel 7 months ago
where is the extreme offroad part?
declde 7 months ago
talk about gas guzzler
sauge1000 7 months ago
yea yea, i can also put tracks and a turret on my toyota corolla
autoromu 7 months ago
That could really mess up somebody's lawn.
getbiggergeeks 8 months ago
This fake turret is funny :P what was that ARV?
warewolfster 8 months ago
The Beast
TheMarabouStork 8 months ago
...ez nem T 55-ös, az biztos.
sz05ry 8 months ago
you insult russia by saying this is off road.
rexregum 8 months ago 2
кстати, да=) это нифига не оффроад, это типичные дорогши у нас в России:D ну, по-крайней мере в деревнях/сёлах точно))
djR3ACT 8 months ago
I know where you can buy T-55. It costs 55000 EUR. PM me if you are interested
BikesXtreme 9 months ago
@BikesXtreme rather go with a easy eight
DragonsREpic 7 months ago
or rather mein teil
thornbjorg 9 months ago
the name of the music is for ramstein-mein heil
gotider4 9 months ago
The Russians have 110.000 of these
parmalat1184 9 months ago
@parmalat1184 Not anymore. Russia has around 20,000 tanks from T-54 to T-90s, but most of them are not in condition to fight without maintenance.
SuperFinnish 9 months ago
@SuperFinnish I guess you're right, they probably had huge numbers at the peak of the Cold War
parmalat1184 9 months ago
@SuperFinnish lol ok
Karabas84 7 months ago
@parmalat1184 there aren't even that many in existence
ShaithMaster 8 months ago
the turret looks akward, it is not the orignal....
bogdan244018 10 months ago
I can do that with my lada niva.
hatenewbz 10 months ago
T 55 in a villa?
Falconfater 10 months ago
hahah you said watch the barrel, so i was looking at the tanks barrel thinking? what? Anyone else or just me?
Sniper373737 10 months ago
What a POS
bussellboy 10 months ago
There is no off-road for soviet (russian) tank!! :D
mulanfer 10 months ago
strange looking turret... definitely not original T-55. Is this some Hungarian modification?
Mandrak789 10 months ago
smoke panzer! what shit
papabaer8 10 months ago
echt beregoed die tank..
gammerlaan 11 months ago
in soviet russia offroad tanks you!
mageac 11 months ago
it's very old russian tank, they never use it now
RespectBarrel 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RespectBarrel
They used it in the Ossetian war a couple years ago, what do you mean "they never use it now"?
Sismiques 11 months ago
@RespectBarrel
Are you kidding??? My brother has pictures from Iraq.. He encountered over 30 of these monsters. There were (maybe still) a lot of T-55s and T-72s in the Middle-East.. Probably the second-most-popular things from Russia.
Sarcasticscum 10 months ago
@Sarcasticscum T55 is the most produced tank of all time. Over 90,000 were produced.
14th20thKRHkickass 10 months ago
I pwnd white devils with this in BC2 Vietnam.
ElPandaDeLaAccion 11 months ago
will i see offroad or not??!!
MATUXAZ 11 months ago
MEIN TEIL!!!!!!
System5198 11 months ago
Cubans use the T55 chasis to carry 3 SAMs. Looks cool as fuck!!
zerocker45 11 months ago
....I use to drive this tank in the army. Great machine.
bahtalorom 11 months ago
Homos, i know you don't like manly violent things, so please, don't click any buttons here, especialy Don't Like button...
Ralfiukas 11 months ago