The T-54 was WAY ahead anything even conceived by Western designers; it´s sound evidence of how advanced Soviet/Russian tanks have always been since ww2. The accurate comparison of the T-54 with U.S. tanks is with contemporary toys: the M26 and M46...and none stood any chance against the more advanced and more powerful T-54. This documentaries, as many guys point out correctly, are rubbish.
T54\55 was very good tank of that period when he came. "In tank vs tank combat soviet work horse was crush by western counterpart in Israel and Gulf war.."-As always discovery channel documentary full bullshit. In Israel: All knows how Arabs can "fight".. and about Gulf war-how long Americans will be proud about that they modern tanks and jets won against old type59(Chinese copy of t55) uh?
@XXAndriuchaXX In the Indo Pakistani conflict, Indian T-54 T55 tanks crushed the tanks Paton Pakistani army. India has lost about a hundred Т54, Pakistan has lost all his first army of about a thousand tanks Paton.
when russians have new tanks or fighters and have weapons to counter it, they sell it to other countries but as a down graded version. US under same condition, sells even upgraded one once in a while but in an outrageously high price. it's is hard to tell the actual russian weapons. South Korea got a hand on a russian version of t-80 in a exchange of a debt. t-80 surprised everyone because it was better than what US faced before
T-55 is successful by its appearance around the world, and some of them still exists now! Its existence can be compared with AK-47. Somehow, Russians are very efficient, it can seen from their products.
The first T54's were delivered to the Red army in March 1945, so years before the M60 arrived in 1960. It's more accurate to compare the M60 to a T64 as both are from the same era. The T64 had composite armor, was 12 tons lighter than the M60, over 1 meter lower, better power to weight, had a 125mm gun versus the M60's 105, and could fire guided anti-tank rounds & only needed 3 crew versus the M60's 4, and could pierce 500mm armor at 2km.
Put an M1 against a T90 for an accurate comparison.
Stupid part, What Western Union have in 50th? An M4 Sherman? Or M26 Pershing? Or maybe M48 Patton? Even M60 Patton is 60th age period tank and its opponent is alredy T-62/64. Is it needed to explain what T-55 could do with Shermans or Pershings?
T-34 was always my favourite tank, got the chance to sit in one once and it made me realise who tough russian tank crews had it in WW2, must've been a nightmare for those guys fighting at Kursk.
@MrSpy3000 this tank is from cold war era, it was made for destroying centurions and pattons in middle europe. No wonder that poorly equiped unmodernised export version were beaten in deser warfare...
fear factor lower than half ... I don't know, if I would lived in the 50's and the russians would attack wesern Europe with these, what would NATO bring in? Some upgraded shermans? Heh ... I think I'm lucky, cuz my country was in the Warsaw Pact
M1 vs T-55 is the same as a T-55 vs MK 1 tadpol from WW1. Im sure if it came up against its western counterpart in 1950 the story would be a little different
of course it was beaten in the gulf war this tank was devoloped a year after ww2 while it was going up against the m1 abrams, if the iraqis had t 90s im sure they could have whooped the m1 abrams ass
BTW mentioning them in the 1991 fight, was kinda BS, since it was built during 1948. It was top of the line back then, and would have been a tough opponent against a Pershing.
Really, this is show lost credibility when it started ranking the tank. Referencing its performance in Iraq when it was so outclassed. A tank designed in the late 40s being compared with an Abrams. Its one thing to make light and entertaining documentaries but to be misleading is inexcusable.
@Hammer757 I know what you mean, when he said it was destroyed in the Gulf war I just thought "...What? its a tank from the early 50s going up against a M1 Abrahms with a poorly trained Iraqi crew is obviously going to be beaten very quickly" Its like putting a german V1 Rocket next to a Tomahawk cruise missile or a fish bowl next to a Nuclear Submarine.
Also, when the commentator says "Soviets seemed to think so" , those arent T-54s or 55s, they look to be T-64s, 72s, or 80s, they all had a different turret and a different chasis
In the Warsay pack the term tank is used for a spesific AFV that has a aray of defensive ofensive and mobility and can tacticaly break quickly the enemy defences. The soviet idea of tank usage to beak the enemy font and cause havoc on their comunication and logistics in the rear not tank on tank combat or using tank as stationary AT nests . And THEY DO HAVE more range and are expecteted to oparate for a longer time thats why the soviets botter to equipe their tanks whit NBC, ex.f. tanks ....
Things like Leopard 2, Challenger II and Abrams' modern Eastern counterparts today are the T-90A, T-84 Oplot, and maybe the T-80U, But the latter is stretching it, as it's from the 80s.
MsAchmedtheterrorist - indeed the T-54/T-55 had the dreaded 100mm D10T gun which was potent against many AFV's in WWII. It was innovative indeed on protection, speed and armament but likewise today it is a humble little tank :( But what about the IS-3 tank? Regardless the T-54/T-55 still has some advantages over NATO tanks - it is small, cheap, easy to operate and does not require extreme maintenance :)
COUNTER PARTS? of the abrams and challenger? wtf? maybe almost half a decade later yes, but on its time it pretty much has all the advantage against the M60 and almost all western tanks in the early years of the cold war
it was a bad tank in tank on tank battles? gulf war?
the gulf war was 50 years after this tank was made.and the abrams was much,MUCH more modern. stupid documantary. this was one of the best tanks at its time. and im not a russian or communist,im just telling the truth
Exactly, I was like "WHAT" when they said that. They are honestly comparing a 1954 tank to tanks developed in the 1980's and modernized every year after that.
May as well say "The T34 is the worst tank ever because the Abrams can kill it so easily" the T54 was shocking for NATO when it came out because it was such a groundbreaking new tank design.
@kurdishgeneral I think you have to consider that this tank was first produced in 1948 and Stalin died 5 years later. Stalin did a lot of bad things, but he was extremely competent. He had the T-34 made, basically the first modern looking tank, and got the atomic bomb by 1949 or so, AND the AK-47. Stalin would be shocked to see that this tank was used for THIRTY YEARS. I think Stalin was sort of a conservative tyrant like a Tsar; the people after him were Commies and built crappy weapons
@kurdishgeneral What about the Six-Day War? They were around when it happend,Egypt, Syria and Iraq used them. They didnt do well then too. It wasnt one of the best, if was at best mediocre. Like the video says, they were produced in quantity, hoping that the pure mass will be enough.
My Dad's friend is from Afghanistan, when he thought against these, he went mental, climbed onto the top of it, and killed everyone inside and Hijacked it! My dad always said he was mad, but damn!
Whatever happened to the Tank, the crew had to wait for the commander to escape the tank first, and then leave it. A great disadvantage. One of my Iranian friends described how easily they knocked out these toys in the Iraq-Iran war, the only advantage was the round turret, which was reflecting Russian made RPG7s..
"This tank has been crushed in Israel and in Gulf War by their Western counterparts."
This documentary is obviously stupid. Syrian tank crews' training could not match the training given to Israeli tank crews. Nothing to do with the tank's quality. Also, in the Gulf War, younger generation tanks like the M1A1 Abrams destroyed the T59, Chinese T54/55 sold to the Iraqis, that is all true but really? Advanced tank vs obsolete tank does NOT prove T54/55 is a bad tank. Stupid American documentaries.
I think id trade a lil' bit of discomfort for the protection this thing offers, also im not sure how making the tank have excellent protection, but bad crew comfort means that their "life expectancy is lower" who knows, their ass might go to sleep and they might die because they dont know they need to shit! And then they blow up! cause theirs so much shiiiiiit!!!!! -.-
lmao of course they performed horribly in the gulf war against tanks over 30 years ahead of its time. Also the crews were poorly trained because they did not have the supplies to do so.
Light tanks are the future. Heavy tanks and MBT should just be scrapped. We have weapons today that are capable to kill tanks no mather how much armor they throw in those metal boxes. Only tanks I know that would withstand todays anti tank guns are the German Maus VIIII which had the armor of a Battleship.
Well gulf war was on 1991 and this tank model was from 1950 so not a big surprise it lost. It was so old! But it was a VERY good tank when soviets started building it!
so T-54/55 are bad because they are no match for M1 Abrams in desert fight? while they were made 50 years ago and for european medium/short distance maneuver fight. by this logic Tiger tank is a crap because it is no match for T-54/55
since 1956 T-54B and all tanks onward received full stabilisation, M60a3 was the first fully stabilised US tank in 1977.
T-64 in 1963 was the first tank to use composite armor, remote controlled roof .50cal (found on M1A2 in 2003). It was equiped with a ballistic computer (again, first found on M60a3 in 1977)--- no comparrison between armor, firepower or mobility.
In 1955 the soviet army develops, and in 1976 makes the first tank with a gas-turbine engine, the T-80.
@Eiscakeman Tigers are way outdated. The T-54 will annihilate it.
And whoever said that an RPG Round can pierce through an abrams armor is completely misinformed. Just about the only hanheld AT launcher that can pierce an abrams is the Javelin.
First of all the doctrine of soviet tank use is to avoid tank on tank combat - tanks are to be used to fastly break the enemy lines after heavy air, artilery and even tactical nuke fire (thats why unlike the western tanks it had a good NBC protection) it was lighter and faster whit good mobility and a big fuel capacity. The tank role was to crash enemy comunications and reck havoc in enemy read.The arabs just didnt use its advantages (like night vision) and tried to use it as a tank killer.
Gulf war? look on year when it was been first time build - 1948! ITS OLD LIKE AK47, In Korea war USA have problems with T34/85 drived by some koreans, them what about T54?, T54=M48 not some M1 Abrams, its not that years and Abrams is heavy tank, M1A1 Abrams=T80U, M1A2 Abrams=T90
@XerxesPL It still had trouble facing up against it Western counter-parts. The Israeli use Centurion and preform well against massive amount of T-55 and T-62. The Israeli even manage to destroyed T-54/55 with M50/51 Sherman. Problem in Korea? Crap, I could be in a Panzer 2 and cause chaos on the American in the early years of the Korean war. As soon as American start to bring their M4A3E8, M26 Pershing, and M47 Patton into the fight. The North Korean, Soviet built, tanks were beaten back easily.
@TocTep Bad comparison and stop hating? It is call fact. Both tank were built within months of each other. Even when facing a Allied medium tank (M50/51), the T-54 performs was poor. You need to look at the comment I replied too. Seriously, there seem to be dumb ass everywhere this days.
@Normacly Yeah -Got to agree with you - dumb ass in your mirror looking at ya everyday.
Do you know that Heavy> medium. Dont you know?. It's an axiom. Now about aliied mediums facing soviet tanks made for soviet army manned by soviets - tell me when did it happen ? Oh wait... it didnt ?
Russian armour of the cold war period was simply designed to overwhelm western armour by speed & sheer numbers plus give protection from Nuclear Blast & Radiation. Their claim was a seat for every man in an armoured vehicle.
They weren't too concerned wtih the the amount left alive as long as the principle last man standing is the winner applied
So, if you are a Hungarian or Czech civilian with only rocks to throw, the T55 causes fear,I see.. Well guess what,no Israeli M47,Sherman,or Centurian crew feared it.And no it did not overwhelm M47's with ease. After the Israelis captured these tanks and adapted them for use every tank crew hated being assigned to a T55.
Ridiculous americans, saying today that the T55 causes no fear. I wish the teller was in Hungary of Czech Republic when they came in. This was fearful. Very idiotic to compare it agains tanks that the world has seen only 50n years later.
Not even trying to coment about why the T-55 did so poor against the hi tech abrams and Challengers in the gulf, I will try to say something about its performance in the Araba-israeli wars. In the israeli's hand almost every weapon is a good weapon.
T-55 and T-62 were superior to the Shemans and Centurions of the israeli's, it is just that the arabs cannot fight.
@MsAchmedtheterrorist Agreed. T 54 was well protected against any type of amo of that era and it was the only tank which could continue fight even after a nuclear blast and/or in radioactive erea.
Why is this piece of shit on this list? Yes it was the most highly produced tank,so what? Its end of WWII contemporaries Centurion,Sherman firefly,and Pershing all defeated it,even when outnumbered. It could only lower its gun 5 degrees coming up a hill so it had to make itself totally exposed.I bet the current Russian tanks also have this problem as they are still so obsessed with low profiles.
@SovetskyySoyuzah .Name the tank the T55 Pwned butt pirate. Every tank made the T55 it's bitch. My favorite was when the Egyptians crossed the Suez and the Israelis tanks were coming.SovetskyySoyuzah and his T55 crew buddys said ""No No!! we are scared bitches to go fight them!! Lets just hide behind these sand dunes and shoot anti tank missiles instead!!
@martinishot I don't plan on feeding Lowlife Troller Fags such as yourself, i actually have a Life. But since you mentioned it. Firstly if there had been a Division of Trained Soviet Tankers rather than Syrian manning those T-55's, the outcome would of been Far much worse for the Israelis, however the Syrians also were also using Equipment far older than Israel and were mostly Raw Recruits and Poorly trained levies.
If you ask me, it was a waste of Soviet Tanks. Russians know their stuff better.
@SovetskyySoyuzah My orig comment was simply my opinion and for you to call it trolling and me a fag really set me off. I fail to see how the T55's are far older than Centurians, a tank that missed fighting in WWII by just months..An a very large percentage of IDF tanks were upgunned Shermans.
@SovetskyySoyuzah As this program pointed out,the T55 does not have a successful campaign and if you want to remind us of one go right ahead.Wait I have an example.In the late 70's Soviet T55's together with other models,on the far Eastern Soviet/China border beat a bunch of Chinese T55's in a big border conflict.Now everyone can be happy.
@martinishot Say, Martinishot, who was driving the Centurions and Pattons against the T-55s and who had air-superiority at the time? Oh, wow, this tank was defeated when driven by poorly-trained conscripts with no air support, it must be a piece of shit.
Soviet Army victorious at Kalkhyn Gol with BT-7, but destroyed by Wehrmacht in 1941 with BT-7, so is BT-7 good or bad? Or is there more to the story?
@Prod1Kh Who was outnumbered 10 to 1 without night vision on the Golan Heights in the early days of that war? Who could not use their air force in any meaningful way until the final days of the conflict because of the SAMs deployed? And who won the second biggest tank battle of the 20th century without the air support they enjoyed six years earlier?
@Prod1Kh BT-7 good bad is all relative.There was no Japanese tank of real significance so of course BT-7 helped Russia win that important battle in the east.Even puny Shermans beat Japanese tanks easily.Fighting GermanTigers is a whole different game. Yes there is more to the story in 1941,Stalin and the military bureaucracy are to blame for not understanding that a man like Hitler would not honor the non aggression pact and not preparing for attack.
@martinishot Wow, the Germans had Tigers to take on the BT-7 in 1942?
Try Panzer 3 and 4.
Here's a question (or three): At what battle did Tiger first appear, what was its main opponent and which tank won the battle due to mechanical reliability?
Q4: What year was that battle in?
When you get those dates and model numbers correct I might look at your point about military staff bureaucracy, which has nothing to do with tank design quality.
@Prod1Kh First Tigers assigned to Leningrad front late August 1942 so it is not such a big Wow.Same place Jan12th,1943.1st opponents were anti tank guns.You had pointed out that earlier in the German invasion that the Wehrmacht was winning and penetrating deep into the heart of Russia,defeating the BT-7 among others and you asked ""Or is there more to the story?"" I simply said that the nation had not been prepared for attack. I never related that to tank design. Kursk earned T34 #1, calm down.
@EsuDalyvis Plus, T-54 has almost no ventilation, which means it's crew would be combat ineffective after several shots or a half-n-our march throught hot desert.
L7 gun appeared in the early 60s, about time when soviets put on the 115mm smoothbore gun on the T-62, firing no longer armor piercing, but hyper velocity sabot rounds, very flat trajectory- point and shoot. T-54 had a ventilator on it's turret roof.
ht tp://w w w.flickr . com/photos/16498755@N07/5496721324/
frankly, nobody cared about ventilation in world war two, even on german tanks, nobody fainted.
I'm not speaking of total abscence, I said almost and that goes for it's guality
"nobody cared about ventilation in world war two"
So what? In middle ages nobody cared of human rights, so we don't need tham? Crew will be much more effective with no smoke inside the tank. Hell, try doing something with a guy smoking at your face and than without em and you'll see the difference.
What? Fear factor should be higher. This thing, be it poorly armored, was feared as all hell. during the cold war, the western nightmare was "The wall will fall down, and countless thousands of tanks will roll out." It should score higher.
@djjosh34445 T-90 is the most advance(this decade) tank of Russian Federation so it is impossible that it haven't reached the top 10, but both Leopard 2 and T-90 still have no combat experience so why the heck they put the Leopard 2 there.
The T55 has a poor combat record because of its design flaws. For one the ammo is poorly protected so any solid hit on the tank is liable to detonate the shells.
The T-54 was WAY ahead anything even conceived by Western designers; it´s sound evidence of how advanced Soviet/Russian tanks have always been since ww2. The accurate comparison of the T-54 with U.S. tanks is with contemporary toys: the M26 and M46...and none stood any chance against the more advanced and more powerful T-54. This documentaries, as many guys point out correctly, are rubbish.
vonkaunaz 22 hours ago
T54\55 was very good tank of that period when he came. "In tank vs tank combat soviet work horse was crush by western counterpart in Israel and Gulf war.."-As always discovery channel documentary full bullshit. In Israel: All knows how Arabs can "fight".. and about Gulf war-how long Americans will be proud about that they modern tanks and jets won against old type59(Chinese copy of t55) uh?
XXAndriuchaXX 1 day ago
@XXAndriuchaXX In the Indo Pakistani conflict, Indian T-54 T55 tanks crushed the tanks Paton Pakistani army. India has lost about a hundred Т54, Pakistan has lost all his first army of about a thousand tanks Paton.
redneck10ivan 1 day ago
@redneck10ivan Don't worry I know that. Also Iraq T62 (a further development of the T-55) won against Chieftain tanks in Iraq - Iran war.
XXAndriuchaXX 1 day ago
the reason these tanks failed in most wars is bad tactics bad crews and bad ammo !
azotjakter09 3 days ago
"Much like Lenin said, quantity has a quality all of its own......"
Ahh, I think it is widely accepted that is was Stalin that made that remark...
And rating its performance against generation 3 tanks is simply stupid.
Sorry, but U.S. documentaries are by and large full of rubbish..
peyo001 3 days ago
@peyo001 Nope, Lenin sayd that.
Schulzffw 3 days ago
when russians have new tanks or fighters and have weapons to counter it, they sell it to other countries but as a down graded version. US under same condition, sells even upgraded one once in a while but in an outrageously high price. it's is hard to tell the actual russian weapons. South Korea got a hand on a russian version of t-80 in a exchange of a debt. t-80 surprised everyone because it was better than what US faced before
zard1214 6 days ago
the patton can beat this shit
Rimmon1000 6 days ago
T-55 is successful by its appearance around the world, and some of them still exists now! Its existence can be compared with AK-47. Somehow, Russians are very efficient, it can seen from their products.
feizai911 1 week ago
There was the Centurion at its times, it had a great enemy
TheDeamon89 2 weeks ago
the soviet talk the 50 techlogy like the i r it was design to see in dark
tigertank900 2 weeks ago
the china have copy type 59
tigertank900 2 weeks ago
Fucking commercials.
KoSoVaAnGeL 1 month ago 4
Fucking commercials.
KoSoVaAnGeL 1 month ago
The first T54's were delivered to the Red army in March 1945, so years before the M60 arrived in 1960. It's more accurate to compare the M60 to a T64 as both are from the same era. The T64 had composite armor, was 12 tons lighter than the M60, over 1 meter lower, better power to weight, had a 125mm gun versus the M60's 105, and could fire guided anti-tank rounds & only needed 3 crew versus the M60's 4, and could pierce 500mm armor at 2km.
Put an M1 against a T90 for an accurate comparison.
MrDunkol 1 month ago 18
love that idiot gun
Divinelighte 1 month ago
Stupid part, What Western Union have in 50th? An M4 Sherman? Or M26 Pershing? Or maybe M48 Patton? Even M60 Patton is 60th age period tank and its opponent is alredy T-62/64. Is it needed to explain what T-55 could do with Shermans or Pershings?
Horn120285 1 month ago 4
Russian tank makers never really cared about the crew just putting that out there
BlackieChan57 1 month ago
@BlackieChan57 Sould we? i think its much more important to think about keeping them safe rather than confortable....
slayer2961 1 month ago
0:13 the King Tiger
DarkBlitzkrieg46 2 months ago
The T-55 was truly superior to the M-48, and even the M-60. Yes I am Russian, yes I'm
communist, but still the T-55 was by far the best tank of the cold war, except the M1A1 Abrams.
13376698 2 months ago
T-34 was always my favourite tank, got the chance to sit in one once and it made me realise who tough russian tank crews had it in WW2, must've been a nightmare for those guys fighting at Kursk.
benjesolems 2 months ago
@benjesolems
They had to. It was better to die in battle defending the motherland than dying a slave under the nazis.
When it came to mobility and ruggedness the T34 had no peer throughout the war.
WASPTexas 2 months ago
the only tank one of these could destroy in the gulf war was a m3a3 bradley,
i dont think this trank could destoy any modern mbt's, only apc's and light tanks.
MrSpy3000 3 months ago
@MrSpy3000 this tank is from cold war era, it was made for destroying centurions and pattons in middle europe. No wonder that poorly equiped unmodernised export version were beaten in deser warfare...
VictorIndiaDeltaAlfa 2 months ago
@VictorIndiaDeltaAlfa iknow, so why the hell did they use it in the gulf?
MrSpy3000 2 months ago
@MrSpy3000 because they simply didnt have anything else to fight with...
VictorIndiaDeltaAlfa 2 months ago
@MrSpy3000 The M3A3 is not a tank. It is a IFV (Infantry Fightining Vechicle). M3A3 destroyed more T55
NatedogJr 2 months ago
fear factor lower than half ... I don't know, if I would lived in the 50's and the russians would attack wesern Europe with these, what would NATO bring in? Some upgraded shermans? Heh ... I think I'm lucky, cuz my country was in the Warsaw Pact
VaDLaMa 3 months ago
@VaDLaMa Haha yeah but I think the fear factor is coming from a modern perspective.
KingWildCAN 3 months ago
You all forgot. the largest tank battle of the Indo-Pakistani war.1965
India Panzer Army Soviet tanks T54-T55.
Pakistan Panzer Army, U.S. tanks, M47-M48
Pakistan Panzer Army was defeated. destroyed about a thousand Pakistani tanks. India losing tanks were about a hundred.
redneck10ivan 3 months ago 2
M1 vs T-55 is the same as a T-55 vs MK 1 tadpol from WW1. Im sure if it came up against its western counterpart in 1950 the story would be a little different
itlivesin 3 months ago 3
of course it was beaten in the gulf war this tank was devoloped a year after ww2 while it was going up against the m1 abrams, if the iraqis had t 90s im sure they could have whooped the m1 abrams ass
meee2014 3 months ago
BTW mentioning them in the 1991 fight, was kinda BS, since it was built during 1948. It was top of the line back then, and would have been a tough opponent against a Pershing.
liberalinthedesertaz 3 months ago
In "Tank on tank combat" man thouse boys at "History" Chanel dont know shut about soviet tank doctrine do they ?!
BGSlopy 3 months ago
@HellsingFan1000
pivot1nerf2starwars3 4 months ago
Really, this is show lost credibility when it started ranking the tank. Referencing its performance in Iraq when it was so outclassed. A tank designed in the late 40s being compared with an Abrams. Its one thing to make light and entertaining documentaries but to be misleading is inexcusable.
Hammer757 4 months ago
@Hammer757 I know what you mean, when he said it was destroyed in the Gulf war I just thought "...What? its a tank from the early 50s going up against a M1 Abrahms with a poorly trained Iraqi crew is obviously going to be beaten very quickly" Its like putting a german V1 Rocket next to a Tomahawk cruise missile or a fish bowl next to a Nuclear Submarine.
Smellychimp91 3 months ago
@Smellychimp91 I culnd't agree more!
AirborneSargent 3 months ago
@Smellychimp91 The firs prototype came out in 1945 and it was mass prodused in 1948 so how can you even put it in the same sentance as the M1A1/2
BGSlopy 3 months ago
@BGSlopy because it has been used for what 60 years now?
liberalinthedesertaz 3 months ago
Also, when the commentator says "Soviets seemed to think so" , those arent T-54s or 55s, they look to be T-64s, 72s, or 80s, they all had a different turret and a different chasis
Kastrenzo74 4 months ago
@Kastrenzo74 Mhm, there is even BMP's and mobile rocket launchers! If you call those tanks, then you probably need to study some more!
AirborneSargent 3 months ago
In the Warsay pack the term tank is used for a spesific AFV that has a aray of defensive ofensive and mobility and can tacticaly break quickly the enemy defences. The soviet idea of tank usage to beak the enemy font and cause havoc on their comunication and logistics in the rear not tank on tank combat or using tank as stationary AT nests . And THEY DO HAVE more range and are expecteted to oparate for a longer time thats why the soviets botter to equipe their tanks whit NBC, ex.f. tanks ....
BGSlopy 3 months ago
@Kastrenzo74 when giving the stats for the tank those are T-54s. T-55s DID not have the anti-air guns on them, like most of the tanks in WWII.
LAter the didnt put them on because you were defenseless against say a warthog..
liberalinthedesertaz 3 months ago
Quit your squabbling,
T-55 Was a 50s era tank, same era as the M60.
Things like Leopard 2, Challenger II and Abrams' modern Eastern counterparts today are the T-90A, T-84 Oplot, and maybe the T-80U, But the latter is stretching it, as it's from the 80s.
Kastrenzo74 4 months ago
MsAchmedtheterrorist - indeed the T-54/T-55 had the dreaded 100mm D10T gun which was potent against many AFV's in WWII. It was innovative indeed on protection, speed and armament but likewise today it is a humble little tank :( But what about the IS-3 tank? Regardless the T-54/T-55 still has some advantages over NATO tanks - it is small, cheap, easy to operate and does not require extreme maintenance :)
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
Comment removed
oxxExtinctionXXO 4 months ago
COUNTER PARTS? of the abrams and challenger? wtf? maybe almost half a decade later yes, but on its time it pretty much has all the advantage against the M60 and almost all western tanks in the early years of the cold war
UseUrHead503 4 months ago
@UseUrHead503 not half a decade, its closer to quarter century...
vukashin88 4 months ago
They look a bit wierd without a JDAM sitting in the hull...
MisterLEM0NS 4 months ago
@TheZortaw
No fucking shit sherlock.
A modern era tank (Leo 2) rips apart 1950s era tanks.
I bet you, if pops got shoved in a 1950s era NATO tank, he would be 6 feet under if he fought T54s.
Its like comparing a bolt action rifle to an M16.
kop4321 4 months ago
it was a bad tank in tank on tank battles? gulf war?
the gulf war was 50 years after this tank was made.and the abrams was much,MUCH more modern. stupid documantary. this was one of the best tanks at its time. and im not a russian or communist,im just telling the truth
kurdishgeneral 4 months ago 71
@kurdishgeneral
Exactly, I was like "WHAT" when they said that. They are honestly comparing a 1954 tank to tanks developed in the 1980's and modernized every year after that.
May as well say "The T34 is the worst tank ever because the Abrams can kill it so easily" the T54 was shocking for NATO when it came out because it was such a groundbreaking new tank design.
0hypnotoad0 3 months ago 3
@0hypnotoad0
yes,i agree 100% with u,bro.
kurdishgeneral 3 months ago
@0hypnotoad0 Seconded
slayer2961 1 month ago
@kurdishgeneral Do not forget Jugoslavija and Kosovo. Mainly, Battle of Kosare, in my homeland.
ViktorPoslabov1900 1 month ago
@kurdishgeneral true but what they didnt tell you was this, these tanks also took on the American's M60 tank
when both went face to face (M60 vs T-54/55), the M60 won hands down, just ask the gulf war vets
jesse17ful 1 month ago
@kurdishgeneral I think you have to consider that this tank was first produced in 1948 and Stalin died 5 years later. Stalin did a lot of bad things, but he was extremely competent. He had the T-34 made, basically the first modern looking tank, and got the atomic bomb by 1949 or so, AND the AK-47. Stalin would be shocked to see that this tank was used for THIRTY YEARS. I think Stalin was sort of a conservative tyrant like a Tsar; the people after him were Commies and built crappy weapons
Mastermind19871987 1 month ago
@kurdishgeneral What about the Six-Day War? They were around when it happend,Egypt, Syria and Iraq used them. They didnt do well then too. It wasnt one of the best, if was at best mediocre. Like the video says, they were produced in quantity, hoping that the pure mass will be enough.
filozovs 1 month ago
@kurdishgeneral Yea that was kind of bullshit, but it did get absolutely hammered when it went up against the Centurions.
AHighPwner 5 days ago
BTW, i'm American
Dagreatdudeman 5 months ago
Correction1: The licensed built T54/55 sucked, the RUSSIAN built tanks would have been invisible to the NATO tanks.
Correction2: its was cramped for TALL tankers, there was a height limit to become a Soviet tanker
Dagreatdudeman 5 months ago
My Dad's friend is from Afghanistan, when he thought against these, he went mental, climbed onto the top of it, and killed everyone inside and Hijacked it! My dad always said he was mad, but damn!
TheCGIMaster 5 months ago
Whatever happened to the Tank, the crew had to wait for the commander to escape the tank first, and then leave it. A great disadvantage. One of my Iranian friends described how easily they knocked out these toys in the Iraq-Iran war, the only advantage was the round turret, which was reflecting Russian made RPG7s..
SeanFalcke 5 months ago
@SeanFalcke one of the hazards of desertstorm was falling t55 turrets to outmoded for combat.even the crews knew they were death traps
cartmanrlsusall 4 months ago
"This tank has been crushed in Israel and in Gulf War by their Western counterparts."
This documentary is obviously stupid. Syrian tank crews' training could not match the training given to Israeli tank crews. Nothing to do with the tank's quality. Also, in the Gulf War, younger generation tanks like the M1A1 Abrams destroyed the T59, Chinese T54/55 sold to the Iraqis, that is all true but really? Advanced tank vs obsolete tank does NOT prove T54/55 is a bad tank. Stupid American documentaries.
Ravensteinzh 5 months ago
I think id trade a lil' bit of discomfort for the protection this thing offers, also im not sure how making the tank have excellent protection, but bad crew comfort means that their "life expectancy is lower" who knows, their ass might go to sleep and they might die because they dont know they need to shit! And then they blow up! cause theirs so much shiiiiiit!!!!! -.-
CrushedByATank 5 months ago
/watch?v=7KG0uyt2uYA
"Soviet tank myth's debunked" It's a good video, It's not all pro west or east as this shit is.
SkullKing11841 5 months ago
How much for a Tank? I need one so I can blow the fuck out of certain people's houses.
TheWarknight123 5 months ago
@TheWarknight123 Hello I am new to youtube. Tell me how not to be a faggot like you?
RascalovTheSoviet 5 months ago
@RascalovTheSoviet Well first of all, I'm heterosexual, so you need to look elsewhere. Also don't be a troll. Trolling is bad m'kay?
TheWarknight123 5 months ago
@TheWarknight123 You replied fast,
RascalovTheSoviet 5 months ago
@RascalovTheSoviet Of course I did, I'm bored right now. And you created your account today? Did somebody send you to troll me or am I wrong?
TheWarknight123 5 months ago
@TheWarknight123 Oh shit, you discovered me! I love you!
RascalovTheSoviet 5 months ago
@RascalovTheSoviet I have no idea who the hell you are or who sent you. But I'll just ignore you and pretend this "Conversation" has never happened.
TheWarknight123 5 months ago
yea israel and gulf war was like so many years after it was made!
another505 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Russian tanks are good only for target practice.
ViciousCritique 6 months ago
@ViciousCritique No. The M1 A2 has one advantage: Software. But else the Armour was good in the 90s but not now.
MsAchmedtheterrorist 5 months ago
@MsAchmedtheterrorist actually the abrams armor is constantly upgraded and improved upon
TheTeddyIsALiar 4 months ago
T90!!!!
MrBaron2007 6 months ago
lmao of course they performed horribly in the gulf war against tanks over 30 years ahead of its time. Also the crews were poorly trained because they did not have the supplies to do so.
dragonsfire2289 6 months ago 19
@dragonsfire2289 It's like an US Sherman been asked to pit it against a T-80 lol
Kommunist93 2 weeks ago
@Kommunist93
its more like a sherman vs a panther
SaintsSpecOps 1 week ago
next on military channel: the M60 vs german A7V
Gjldo 6 months ago
We can see that in World of Tanks :)
ShermanFireflyAce 6 months ago
Look at 0:18!!! When the tank fires a lighting appears further back in the terrain very close to the ground!
stimpen12 6 months ago 31
@stimpen12 i don't get it?
pogpog28 5 months ago
@pogpog28 if you look when the tank fires at 0:18 then a lightning appears maybe 30m away from the tank further back in the image.
stimpen12 5 months ago
this is a good tank
Dinox242 6 months ago
haha the 1d10T gun
Divinelighte 6 months ago
Also, no shit it was crushed in the gulf war. It was 30 years older than the tanks it fought.
Bombizzen 6 months ago
Stalin said that you bald bastard. >:C
Bombizzen 6 months ago
Light tanks are the future. Heavy tanks and MBT should just be scrapped. We have weapons today that are capable to kill tanks no mather how much armor they throw in those metal boxes. Only tanks I know that would withstand todays anti tank guns are the German Maus VIIII which had the armor of a Battleship.
SMGJohn 6 months ago
Shorter range ?! This baby got 600 km whit external tanks . Name one western tank of that generation whit such range .
BGSlopy 6 months ago
Not idea why this junk tank is in the Top 10.
ViciousCritique 6 months ago
@ViciousCritique It;s a perfect mix of all tanks, fast, powerful, thick armored. Would destroy everything west had in its time
MultiAREE 6 months ago
@MultiAREE Nice bullshit story...where did u get that ??? u need to stop sucking russian cock so much.
ViciousCritique 6 months ago
Comment removed
MultiAREE 6 months ago
@ViciousCritique So how is your day sir?
I must say you have a very valid point there sir, well played.
MultiAREE 6 months ago
Gay muslims will domination the world.
IslamicFaggot 7 months ago
Wow,comparing soviet era tanks to modern tanks in the Gulf war is just weak.
Dimdim316 7 months ago
да
MrTechnotrans 7 months ago
it was persian gulf war nor gulf war
MrKaman99 7 months ago
Well gulf war was on 1991 and this tank model was from 1950 so not a big surprise it lost. It was so old! But it was a VERY good tank when soviets started building it!
MrSuurijohtaja 7 months ago
joy......the page is overrun by russiofags....
trivipesnipe 7 months ago
so T-54/55 are bad because they are no match for M1 Abrams in desert fight? while they were made 50 years ago and for european medium/short distance maneuver fight. by this logic Tiger tank is a crap because it is no match for T-54/55
ww2footage 7 months ago
The T-54\55Was biult in the 1950is he was not made to fight a M1A2 but he can kick the M46 Pattons but!
SerialKiller755 7 months ago
since 1956 T-54B and all tanks onward received full stabilisation, M60a3 was the first fully stabilised US tank in 1977.
T-64 in 1963 was the first tank to use composite armor, remote controlled roof .50cal (found on M1A2 in 2003). It was equiped with a ballistic computer (again, first found on M60a3 in 1977)--- no comparrison between armor, firepower or mobility.
In 1955 the soviet army develops, and in 1976 makes the first tank with a gas-turbine engine, the T-80.
NATO= high-tech?
patrikasLTL 7 months ago
sovjet t-54-55 hasnt any chance against german tiger or king tiger .
GERMAN TANKS FOREVER ! :D
Eiscakeman 7 months ago
@Eiscakeman Tigers are way outdated. The T-54 will annihilate it.
And whoever said that an RPG Round can pierce through an abrams armor is completely misinformed. Just about the only hanheld AT launcher that can pierce an abrams is the Javelin.
xXP51MustangXx 7 months ago
mua nhiều máy bay nhiều sân bay quân sự chiến đấu trên không cho dễ! cho Trung Quốc biết Việt Nam không sợ
HaiDucThong 7 months ago
Range 250 miles my ass even whit out externel tanks fulled it has operational range of 311 mi and whit them full 373 miles.
BGSlopy 8 months ago
First of all the doctrine of soviet tank use is to avoid tank on tank combat - tanks are to be used to fastly break the enemy lines after heavy air, artilery and even tactical nuke fire (thats why unlike the western tanks it had a good NBC protection) it was lighter and faster whit good mobility and a big fuel capacity. The tank role was to crash enemy comunications and reck havoc in enemy read.The arabs just didnt use its advantages (like night vision) and tried to use it as a tank killer.
BGSlopy 8 months ago
Gulf war? look on year when it was been first time build - 1948! ITS OLD LIKE AK47, In Korea war USA have problems with T34/85 drived by some koreans, them what about T54?, T54=M48 not some M1 Abrams, its not that years and Abrams is heavy tank, M1A1 Abrams=T80U, M1A2 Abrams=T90
XerxesPL 8 months ago
@XerxesPL It still had trouble facing up against it Western counter-parts. The Israeli use Centurion and preform well against massive amount of T-55 and T-62. The Israeli even manage to destroyed T-54/55 with M50/51 Sherman. Problem in Korea? Crap, I could be in a Panzer 2 and cause chaos on the American in the early years of the Korean war. As soon as American start to bring their M4A3E8, M26 Pershing, and M47 Patton into the fight. The North Korean, Soviet built, tanks were beaten back easily.
Normacly 8 months ago
@Normacly Problem is too with crew, when western have good trainings them what can say about korean and libians
XerxesPL 8 months ago
@Normacly Centurion - heavy tank , T54 - not. Bad comparision
T54 in korea? check your facts and stop hatin' mister "Poland rules, Russia sucks".
TocTep 7 months ago
@TocTep Bad comparison and stop hating? It is call fact. Both tank were built within months of each other. Even when facing a Allied medium tank (M50/51), the T-54 performs was poor. You need to look at the comment I replied too. Seriously, there seem to be dumb ass everywhere this days.
Normacly 7 months ago
@Normacly Yeah -Got to agree with you - dumb ass in your mirror looking at ya everyday.
Do you know that Heavy> medium. Dont you know?. It's an axiom. Now about aliied mediums facing soviet tanks made for soviet army manned by soviets - tell me when did it happen ? Oh wait... it didnt ?
TocTep 7 months ago
@TocTep T-54 is an MBT, and is claimed to have protection of a heavy tank and mobility of a medium.
ORKSIZDABEST 6 months ago
0:11 - grandpa in tank turret?
XerxesPL 8 months ago
Ну да. В заливе не прокатил. Ещеб лет через 100 попробовали сравнить. А в в 59х как то сравнивать никто не спешил. Писались в штанишки...
Strumec 8 months ago
lol markava owned alot of this tanks
McCoolVIDIO 8 months ago
Russian armour of the cold war period was simply designed to overwhelm western armour by speed & sheer numbers plus give protection from Nuclear Blast & Radiation. Their claim was a seat for every man in an armoured vehicle.
They weren't too concerned wtih the the amount left alive as long as the principle last man standing is the winner applied
TheTabellarius 8 months ago
Where was this thing successful?
thehistorywatcher 8 months ago
@thehistorywatcher Didn't you read TheAndresMendez comment? In Hungary and Czech Republic it was very successful against people throwing stones.LOL
martinishot 8 months ago
So, if you are a Hungarian or Czech civilian with only rocks to throw, the T55 causes fear,I see.. Well guess what,no Israeli M47,Sherman,or Centurian crew feared it.And no it did not overwhelm M47's with ease. After the Israelis captured these tanks and adapted them for use every tank crew hated being assigned to a T55.
martinishot 8 months ago
Ridiculous americans, saying today that the T55 causes no fear. I wish the teller was in Hungary of Czech Republic when they came in. This was fearful. Very idiotic to compare it agains tanks that the world has seen only 50n years later.
TheAndresMendez 8 months ago
Not even trying to coment about why the T-55 did so poor against the hi tech abrams and Challengers in the gulf, I will try to say something about its performance in the Araba-israeli wars. In the israeli's hand almost every weapon is a good weapon.
T-55 and T-62 were superior to the Shemans and Centurions of the israeli's, it is just that the arabs cannot fight.
LokiG36 8 months ago
the firepower at that was very impressive
another505 8 months ago
In its time, the T-54/55 would be more accurate compared to the Patton series of tank, which they would of overwhelmed with ease.
Instead, they are comparing it against Abrams and Merkavas.
Now remember T-54/55 were built at the outcome of WWII as the first generation of MBT.
Abrams and Merkavas are both third generation MBT.
alphamax03 8 months ago
The Tank was feared by the NATO it was more than a thread to the LEO 1 or M48.
History Chanels made the most stupid documentations
MsAchmedtheterrorist 8 months ago 58
@MsAchmedtheterrorist its the military channel but i still agree
JESSIEEDSELL21 7 months ago
@MsAchmedtheterrorist Agreed. T 54 was well protected against any type of amo of that era and it was the only tank which could continue fight even after a nuclear blast and/or in radioactive erea.
zhenyakon 7 months ago
@MsAchmedtheterrorist totally agree ... in vietnam war ... it was too many M48 had been shooted down by t-54/55 of north vietnamese :) !
damminhquan 6 months ago
@MsAchmedtheterrorist i'm going to take their word over yours seeing how you can't spell and i'm sure they actually did some research unlike you
parko456 6 months ago
@MsAchmedtheterrorist Sure thing , russian gayboy.
ViciousCritique 6 months ago
Why is this piece of shit on this list? Yes it was the most highly produced tank,so what? Its end of WWII contemporaries Centurion,Sherman firefly,and Pershing all defeated it,even when outnumbered. It could only lower its gun 5 degrees coming up a hill so it had to make itself totally exposed.I bet the current Russian tanks also have this problem as they are still so obsessed with low profiles.
martinishot 9 months ago
@martinishot The T-55 Pwns. Troll harder Fag!
SovetskyySoyuzah 9 months ago
@SovetskyySoyuzah .Name the tank the T55 Pwned butt pirate. Every tank made the T55 it's bitch. My favorite was when the Egyptians crossed the Suez and the Israelis tanks were coming.SovetskyySoyuzah and his T55 crew buddys said ""No No!! we are scared bitches to go fight them!! Lets just hide behind these sand dunes and shoot anti tank missiles instead!!
martinishot 9 months ago
@martinishot I don't plan on feeding Lowlife Troller Fags such as yourself, i actually have a Life. But since you mentioned it. Firstly if there had been a Division of Trained Soviet Tankers rather than Syrian manning those T-55's, the outcome would of been Far much worse for the Israelis, however the Syrians also were also using Equipment far older than Israel and were mostly Raw Recruits and Poorly trained levies.
If you ask me, it was a waste of Soviet Tanks. Russians know their stuff better.
SovetskyySoyuzah 9 months ago
@SovetskyySoyuzah My orig comment was simply my opinion and for you to call it trolling and me a fag really set me off. I fail to see how the T55's are far older than Centurians, a tank that missed fighting in WWII by just months..An a very large percentage of IDF tanks were upgunned Shermans.
martinishot 9 months ago
@SovetskyySoyuzah As this program pointed out,the T55 does not have a successful campaign and if you want to remind us of one go right ahead.Wait I have an example.In the late 70's Soviet T55's together with other models,on the far Eastern Soviet/China border beat a bunch of Chinese T55's in a big border conflict.Now everyone can be happy.
martinishot 9 months ago
@martinishot Say, Martinishot, who was driving the Centurions and Pattons against the T-55s and who had air-superiority at the time? Oh, wow, this tank was defeated when driven by poorly-trained conscripts with no air support, it must be a piece of shit.
Soviet Army victorious at Kalkhyn Gol with BT-7, but destroyed by Wehrmacht in 1941 with BT-7, so is BT-7 good or bad? Or is there more to the story?
Prod1Kh 9 months ago
@Prod1Kh Who was outnumbered 10 to 1 without night vision on the Golan Heights in the early days of that war? Who could not use their air force in any meaningful way until the final days of the conflict because of the SAMs deployed? And who won the second biggest tank battle of the 20th century without the air support they enjoyed six years earlier?
martinishot 9 months ago
@Prod1Kh BT-7 good bad is all relative.There was no Japanese tank of real significance so of course BT-7 helped Russia win that important battle in the east.Even puny Shermans beat Japanese tanks easily.Fighting GermanTigers is a whole different game. Yes there is more to the story in 1941,Stalin and the military bureaucracy are to blame for not understanding that a man like Hitler would not honor the non aggression pact and not preparing for attack.
martinishot 9 months ago
@martinishot Wow, the Germans had Tigers to take on the BT-7 in 1942?
Try Panzer 3 and 4.
Here's a question (or three): At what battle did Tiger first appear, what was its main opponent and which tank won the battle due to mechanical reliability?
Q4: What year was that battle in?
When you get those dates and model numbers correct I might look at your point about military staff bureaucracy, which has nothing to do with tank design quality.
Prod1Kh 9 months ago
@Prod1Kh First Tigers assigned to Leningrad front late August 1942 so it is not such a big Wow.Same place Jan12th,1943.1st opponents were anti tank guns.You had pointed out that earlier in the German invasion that the Wehrmacht was winning and penetrating deep into the heart of Russia,defeating the BT-7 among others and you asked ""Or is there more to the story?"" I simply said that the nation had not been prepared for attack. I never related that to tank design. Kursk earned T34 #1, calm down.
martinishot 9 months ago
Mkaes me wonder were did they get the fuel and metal to make them :D
bacon2boy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Child vs Tank
watch?v=cj3xGkNTgQg
real badass
OldDreamFading 9 months ago
bias
SparkMan527 9 months ago
no it's a scary tank. If you see one of them, that means that there's probably a thousand of them right behind the first one.
Lukash9494 9 months ago
LETS LOOK AGAIN
T-54B (1955)
100mm gun, 203mm armor, fully stabilised gun, active infra-red night vision, 38 tons, 600 kilometer range on a full tank of fuel, 55 km/h speed.
What NATO tank had anything in comparrison to this?
Not to mention the numbers...
35.000 soviet tanks + 20.000 warsaw pact tanks vs 9000 NATO tanks
EsuDalyvis 9 months ago
@EsuDalyvis Longer gun range, besides british L-7 could put a sabot right through it.
ORKSIZDABEST 9 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST
youtube places a tag, re-type that last sequence of numbers in the link to avoid that bug.
EsuDalyvis 9 months ago
@EsuDalyvis Plus, T-54 has almost no ventilation, which means it's crew would be combat ineffective after several shots or a half-n-our march throught hot desert.
ORKSIZDABEST 9 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST
L7 gun appeared in the early 60s, about time when soviets put on the 115mm smoothbore gun on the T-62, firing no longer armor piercing, but hyper velocity sabot rounds, very flat trajectory- point and shoot. T-54 had a ventilator on it's turret roof.
ht tp://w w w.flickr . com/photos/16498755@N07/5496721324/
frankly, nobody cared about ventilation in world war two, even on german tanks, nobody fainted.
EsuDalyvis 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not speaking of total abscence, I said almost and that goes for it's guality
"nobody cared about ventilation in world war two"
So what? In middle ages nobody cared of human rights, so we don't need tham? Crew will be much more effective with no smoke inside the tank. Hell, try doing something with a guy smoking at your face and than without em and you'll see the difference.
ORKSIZDABEST 9 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST
This tank was made in 1946....what do u expect it was supposed to go up against Shermans and Pershings.
Kallosar 9 months ago
Don't mess with the Russians.
The Russians HAVE MORE TANKS THAN GOD!!
v10moped 10 months ago
the m51 sherman kicked its ass. Why is it at #8? The T72 should be here
djjosh34445 10 months ago
The perfect tank would have an unlimited machine gun distance, 9999 inches of armor, and could launch nukes. Also known as... Russia :)
<3 Russia
thedeadmunch700 10 months ago
@thedeadmunch700 lmfao
gtsgtsgt 10 months ago
they should put T-72 that tank piss the jewish off, and it's way better than this T-54/55
hayder464 10 months ago
What? Fear factor should be higher. This thing, be it poorly armored, was feared as all hell. during the cold war, the western nightmare was "The wall will fall down, and countless thousands of tanks will roll out." It should score higher.
ArtypNk 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
visit my site all about Russia russiaversususa com
xachublog 10 months ago
1) M1 Abrams - United States
2) Challenger - United Kingdom
3) Tiger - Nazi Germany
4) T-34 - Soviet Union
5) T - 54 - Soviet Union
6) Leopard - Germany
reganiscool123 10 months ago
@reganiscool123 lo no t-90?
8900609 10 months ago
@8900609 T-90 is good but nothing compared to the other modern tanks except leclerc and M-95
djjosh34445 10 months ago
@djjosh34445 T-90 is the most advance(this decade) tank of Russian Federation so it is impossible that it haven't reached the top 10, but both Leopard 2 and T-90 still have no combat experience so why the heck they put the Leopard 2 there.
8900609 10 months ago
95 thousand but only a handful of people in afghanistan with RPG destroy some of those tank
AdeptusAntares 10 months ago
firepower average? the tank has a 100mm cannon, bigger than most tanks
gequitz 10 months ago
The T55 has a poor combat record because of its design flaws. For one the ammo is poorly protected so any solid hit on the tank is liable to detonate the shells.
chicanagirl951 10 months ago
All tanks of that generation and before had poor ammo storage.
thatkidinthegreenhat 10 months ago