where did they find a t-55 lol it must have been abandoned, when i was in afganistan the cool thing i found was an ak-47 with a star pressed into the side with a tiny hammer and sicle , must have been soviet
the iraqis shud get Leopard 2A4s... netherlands and Germany were selling them for dirt cheap...too bad the Americans made em get Super downgraded Abrams tank which probably are missing parts lol
They aren't giving em M1A2 Abrams. They are giving them downgraded M1 Abrams of Basic Verison with downgraded Rangefinders/thermal imaging etc so If they ever go to war again the american M1A2 will crush the old model. It's a safety protocol. The Leopard 2A4 is a much better option then downgraded Abrams. Plus they can also get the 2A6 which is twice as better then the Abrams.
The Soviet T-54/55 is so outdated that it is no threat to any modern Nato tank. Not even to the last generation of Nato Armor. The 54/55 has no rangefinder, nor ballistic computer, not even a turret floor. the loader has to walk around with it during traverse. Ammo stowage is awkward to load from. Bad for them, good for us.
@beardo52 They're still main battle tanks with good quality guns, and if they do score a hit they'd have a fair old chance of taking out any armour around today.
Given that Tank warfare is a game of stealth (fire from cover, move behind cover to secondary fire position, fire again, move again etc...) A good tank commander can make any tank a deadly weapon. Iraqi army had some guys that were trully great at this - getting a dozen or more shots off before they were seen
@neverfearchrisishere Having been one of those "good Tank Commanders" in the 70's my principle adversaries were the 54-55, 62, and 72. The 54-55 had no fire control beyond a choke sight. Neither did the 62. Getting even a dozen rounds out does not mean the fire will be effective. first, it must strike the target , which is pure chance beyond 1,200 mtr with the 55, and 62. Second the hit must be able to do some damage. This is extremely unlikely with the present day Nato MBT.
@neverfearchrisishere Further: The T-54-55 was marginal even when introduced. Both the Warsaw Pact, and Nato used Homogeneous armor, so that was equal, whoever got the first good hit would likely win. The difference lay mostly in the fire control. Nato armor had rangefinders, and ballistic computers, and excellent main guns. Not to mention communications superiority. Nato could effectively engage the 55,& 62 at ranges far exceeding their ability to respond.
@beardo52 LOL. It was more than just adequate at 1946 after it has just entered mass production. What ballistic computers NATO had back than?:) In mid-40s t-55s could screw Shermans at the same or better ratio than M1A1s did to t-55s itself some 50 years later.
@zipacna1980 The T-54 did not show up in numbers until 1948-49. (you are thinking of the year the first prototype was built.) The U.S. had the M-46 by that time, followed very shortly by the M-47. Both had 90 mm guns, sufficient armor, and the M-47 had a range finder. They also had turret floors, something the T-54 never had. This slows down engagement time significantly. The T-54 was a cheap, fast, and dirty design, good in some situations, but outside of that, was just a statistic .
@samuraispirit88 Considered who an ally? next this statement was in answer to another's claim that the T54/55 was a danger to modern Nato Main Battle Tanks. Go Troll someplace else..
They don't call the southern portions of Iraq as the probable location of the Biblical paradise for nothing. Hell, you can even hear the goddamn birds chirpin' and stuff even when tanks go out and deliver their payload downrange.
If terrorist have tanks, they'll probably bog 'em or accidentally blow themselves up before we get to them. Even if they don't, the out-dated shit they can get their hands on combined with their general combat skill equals target practice for friendly armor and air support.
''new armor'' ? I was there when we tried to replcae their AK's with M-16A2's . Every time you'd walk past a dumpster on base you'd find 2 or 3 rifle's in it . They would just go steal or buy another AK . SO . Why the fuck would we give them something that cost millions of dollars and takes month's to learn how to use ? Do you realy want to just give away a tank The M1 that cost's 4million a pop that they couldn't figure out in the first place .
give them new armor for crying out loud, they got the money and training to use them, they've proven themselves again and again, GIVE EM NEW ARMOR AND THEY"LL REALLY CLEAN UP HOUSE!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
mhm, people who killed 4000 american troops are being called children, if its true then your army has to really suck, but we all know that the US army is one of the best so i think iraqis have to be extremely not like children in order to inflict that much casualties
Personally I think the new iraqi soldiers/police have the biggest balls out of anyone in that shitty god aweful war - they are the biggest targets for these insurgent cunts.
Knowing that and still putting on that uniform for your country... = big wheelbarrow load of melon sized MAN BALLS - IMHO
@yatvoyvrag Incorrect. These puny assholes 'put on that uniform' for the US and its puppets, AGAINST their own country - that's why they are 'the biggest targets' for the Iraqi resistance, for all those who have MAN BALLS to resist the occupation.
@BabylonianSage how?? they swear an oath to PROTECT THE IRAQI PEOPLE, not the Americans, and against Baathi'st (i'm sure your one) and terrorists who come from all over the world to do suicide bombings against defenseless civi's. stop talking shit and accept the fact that your glorious leader "saddam" is a piece of shit who was hung and is now getting assraped in hell
@samuraispirit88 Of course, THE OATH!!! I'm sorry but your ignorance exceeds all reasonable limits. I can only shrug and advice you to read about collaborationism. Have a good read about the establishment of the Japan-backed “weixin zhengfu” (the collaborating government) in China, for example. I hope you'll understand how wars of aggression are justified by the idea of an external enemy and "freely elected" collaborating governments - a common thing in history.
американская жопы
UnbreakableKGB 2 weeks ago
Cool.
shatchett0 3 months ago
you only kill poor people you all go to hell
nnasser007 6 months ago
stupid video and stupider comments..
PanHustej 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck us soldiers
kamgjiku 1 year ago
where did they find a t-55 lol it must have been abandoned, when i was in afganistan the cool thing i found was an ak-47 with a star pressed into the side with a tiny hammer and sicle , must have been soviet
09GTAplayer 1 year ago
the iraqis shud get Leopard 2A4s... netherlands and Germany were selling them for dirt cheap...too bad the Americans made em get Super downgraded Abrams tank which probably are missing parts lol
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Kallosar Why would the american tanks be missing parts the M1a2 abrams is a much better tank than the Leopard 2a4.
ntell2 11 months ago
@ntell2
They aren't giving em M1A2 Abrams. They are giving them downgraded M1 Abrams of Basic Verison with downgraded Rangefinders/thermal imaging etc so If they ever go to war again the american M1A2 will crush the old model. It's a safety protocol. The Leopard 2A4 is a much better option then downgraded Abrams. Plus they can also get the 2A6 which is twice as better then the Abrams.
Kallosar 11 months ago
@ntell2 the m1a2 is a vary good tank. I must say, But the leopard 2 and the T-90 are the 2 best tank's in the world at this time.
slim77k 10 months ago
@slim77k You can't speak proper english, so how can you judge tanks?
There has been no proper battle proven tank (most thorough would be the American M1A1's and British Challengers against Iraqi RG T-72's)
So there is no best tank, as for specs wise - there pretty much the same.
Tehpolev 10 months ago
They see me rollin' , they hatin' XD
KukulcanZ 1 year ago
wow I didn't know Iraq still had functioning tanks laying around.
WunderDoob 1 year ago
He should add another verse to his tune, something along the lines of ridin' smokin'&busted.
beardo52 1 year ago
"The Americans see me rollin', They hatin' just because i'm ridin' rusty! *sniff* "
Yayo015 1 year ago
The Soviet T-54/55 is so outdated that it is no threat to any modern Nato tank. Not even to the last generation of Nato Armor. The 54/55 has no rangefinder, nor ballistic computer, not even a turret floor. the loader has to walk around with it during traverse. Ammo stowage is awkward to load from. Bad for them, good for us.
beardo52 1 year ago
@beardo52 They're still main battle tanks with good quality guns, and if they do score a hit they'd have a fair old chance of taking out any armour around today.
Given that Tank warfare is a game of stealth (fire from cover, move behind cover to secondary fire position, fire again, move again etc...) A good tank commander can make any tank a deadly weapon. Iraqi army had some guys that were trully great at this - getting a dozen or more shots off before they were seen
neverfearchrisishere 1 year ago
@neverfearchrisishere Having been one of those "good Tank Commanders" in the 70's my principle adversaries were the 54-55, 62, and 72. The 54-55 had no fire control beyond a choke sight. Neither did the 62. Getting even a dozen rounds out does not mean the fire will be effective. first, it must strike the target , which is pure chance beyond 1,200 mtr with the 55, and 62. Second the hit must be able to do some damage. This is extremely unlikely with the present day Nato MBT.
beardo52 1 year ago
@neverfearchrisishere Further: The T-54-55 was marginal even when introduced. Both the Warsaw Pact, and Nato used Homogeneous armor, so that was equal, whoever got the first good hit would likely win. The difference lay mostly in the fire control. Nato armor had rangefinders, and ballistic computers, and excellent main guns. Not to mention communications superiority. Nato could effectively engage the 55,& 62 at ranges far exceeding their ability to respond.
beardo52 1 year ago
@beardo52 LOL. It was more than just adequate at 1946 after it has just entered mass production. What ballistic computers NATO had back than?:) In mid-40s t-55s could screw Shermans at the same or better ratio than M1A1s did to t-55s itself some 50 years later.
zipacna1980 1 year ago
@zipacna1980 The T-54 did not show up in numbers until 1948-49. (you are thinking of the year the first prototype was built.) The U.S. had the M-46 by that time, followed very shortly by the M-47. Both had 90 mm guns, sufficient armor, and the M-47 had a range finder. They also had turret floors, something the T-54 never had. This slows down engagement time significantly. The T-54 was a cheap, fast, and dirty design, good in some situations, but outside of that, was just a statistic .
beardo52 1 year ago
@beardo52 "bad for them, good for us" I thought you considered them "Allies" jackass
samuraispirit88 1 year ago
@samuraispirit88 Considered who an ally? next this statement was in answer to another's claim that the T54/55 was a danger to modern Nato Main Battle Tanks. Go Troll someplace else..
beardo52 1 year ago
how did u guy find the t55 running that rare in iraq
cammander263 1 year ago
i wish there werent so much killing
bartlebybartleby 2 years ago
The Iraqi army is so ghetto. Its hilarious.
Snipe4261 2 years ago
i can say "oldies but goldies"?
TazzCM 2 years ago
Americans will do anything to get on TV aswel. LOL.
Like uuhhh: Hmmm, pretend to make their child get taken away by a ballon, so they can start a reality-TV show.
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago 4
They don't call the southern portions of Iraq as the probable location of the Biblical paradise for nothing. Hell, you can even hear the goddamn birds chirpin' and stuff even when tanks go out and deliver their payload downrange.
purpleravenstar 2 years ago
If the terrorists have tanks we are fucked
dardull 2 years ago
If terrorist have tanks, they'll probably bog 'em or accidentally blow themselves up before we get to them. Even if they don't, the out-dated shit they can get their hands on combined with their general combat skill equals target practice for friendly armor and air support.
KrajjanKxmar 2 years ago
Ha! How sweet,the same bird sounds I have around my peaceful house in the woods.Birds rock.
hognolia 2 years ago 17
BIRDS FTW!!!
TheUploader1 2 years ago 3
pardal tem em todo lugar mesmo!
moneylesswg 2 years ago
it looks like its depressed lol
poonjoo 2 years ago 3
HAHAHAHAHAHHA dude u just made my night,I was bored as f**k and then I saw ur comment and Loled my ass of!!
TheUploader1 2 years ago
Some of you want to give them
''new armor'' ? I was there when we tried to replcae their AK's with M-16A2's . Every time you'd walk past a dumpster on base you'd find 2 or 3 rifle's in it . They would just go steal or buy another AK . SO . Why the fuck would we give them something that cost millions of dollars and takes month's to learn how to use ? Do you realy want to just give away a tank The M1 that cost's 4million a pop that they couldn't figure out in the first place .
Herbymac0811 2 years ago
aww i wanted *boom*
JTelli786 2 years ago
Out of oil? :P
omgmahrox93 3 years ago 3
"Riding rusty" LOL!
MikeofWyoming 3 years ago 4
give them new armor for crying out loud, they got the money and training to use them, they've proven themselves again and again, GIVE EM NEW ARMOR AND THEY"LL REALLY CLEAN UP HOUSE!!!
youngsamurai88 3 years ago
Poor Iraqies ! They have to fight with T-55 against M1...
lepivert 3 years ago
It looks like the guy is learning to drive the tank, it's quite possible.
jerrymail 3 years ago 5
lol iraqis are so like children :)
Pockets215 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
mhm, people who killed 4000 american troops are being called children, if its true then your army has to really suck, but we all know that the US army is one of the best so i think iraqis have to be extremely not like children in order to inflict that much casualties
Dhaune 2 years ago
lol well its not just Iraq :P
illiniman06 2 years ago
classic :)
naser007 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you guys should have brought a m1 out there and showed those bitches up lol..
lXCrazyKidzX0l 3 years ago
Moron and kill New Iraqi Army soldiers? They're you're allies dick face!
WarlordZike 3 years ago 5
Personally I think the new iraqi soldiers/police have the biggest balls out of anyone in that shitty god aweful war - they are the biggest targets for these insurgent cunts.
Knowing that and still putting on that uniform for your country... = big wheelbarrow load of melon sized MAN BALLS - IMHO
yatvoyvrag 3 years ago 32
@yatvoyvrag Incorrect. These puny assholes 'put on that uniform' for the US and its puppets, AGAINST their own country - that's why they are 'the biggest targets' for the Iraqi resistance, for all those who have MAN BALLS to resist the occupation.
BabylonianSage 1 year ago
@BabylonianSage how?? they swear an oath to PROTECT THE IRAQI PEOPLE, not the Americans, and against Baathi'st (i'm sure your one) and terrorists who come from all over the world to do suicide bombings against defenseless civi's. stop talking shit and accept the fact that your glorious leader "saddam" is a piece of shit who was hung and is now getting assraped in hell
samuraispirit88 1 year ago
@samuraispirit88 Of course, THE OATH!!! I'm sorry but your ignorance exceeds all reasonable limits. I can only shrug and advice you to read about collaborationism. Have a good read about the establishment of the Japan-backed “weixin zhengfu” (the collaborating government) in China, for example. I hope you'll understand how wars of aggression are justified by the idea of an external enemy and "freely elected" collaborating governments - a common thing in history.
BabylonianSage 1 year ago
@yatvoyvrag no americans are. u shouldnt need big balls to fight for your own country
MrKyleSchick 1 year ago
@yatvoyvrag I seriously don't think they do it willingly. |:
SecuR0M 1 year ago
just wondering, is this T55 part of the iraqi national guard? are they training with their own armour and vehicles?
Aenima106 3 years ago 5