Russian T-55 Tank demonstraton

[panzermarch1944]

The narrator is confusing the T-55 with the T-64. (T-64 being the first Russian tank with autoloaders)

[worldview2007]

@panzermarch1944

Nope, the narrator is a very experienced person who knows what they are talking about. The later models of the T-55 have an autoloader as well.

Let me stress this. The show is the War and Peace Show in the UK. It is the largest armor show IN THE WORLD. If the narrator had made a mistake it would have been corrected very very quickly.

[rocketshipstud2]

I honestly doubt there is a long list of names of t-55 gunners injured by the autoloader ever!/milwaukee(m-60a3tts)

[worldview2007]

Of course not. It's probably less than a dozen people who actually got their arms torn off. Maybe only 4-5 for the T55 and T72 combined. But for every man who is actually injured there's probably 2 dozen who got their shirt sleeves torn off or who had similarly close escapes.

It only takes a few incidents for a vehicle to become infamous for something.

[Type59]

When people talk about T 55 they talk about 4 man crew version. Every T 55 I read about has 4 men not 3. Maybe a version was made that had an autoloader but that did not see widespread service.

[worldview2007]

Yes, it's called the T-55AGM. You can buy it as a tank or as an upgraded turret system. It's post cold war so is not a standard Warsaw Pact vehicle.

[lastopher7]

at the end he he started to talk about reactive armour

[TheCrazyFinn]

T-55 had a crew of 4, including a loader.

T-72 has the autoloader that catches the gunners' arms =)

[strizhi]

Well the T-72 did have a habit of catching someone's arms but that was on rare occasion and that is if the person sitting next to it wasn't paying attentioning or had loose sleeves. Thats why Russian tankers were told to roll their sleeves up and there were hardly Russian casualties do to that. This story came about mainly because of what happened in Iraq and how the Iraqi's learned the hard way. They weren't properly trained and their tactics cost their T-72 tanks.

[Puzzoozoo]

The size of modern tanks will be a 21st century T 55.

[obione607]

i love t55s

[aqward1]

youd have to be a really sneaky basterd to take out a newer type of tank with that

[worldview2007]

Not any more than you would need to be in an Abrams. These days most tank battles are expected to take place at mid-long range. You sight the enemy at a distance before he sights you, and you blow him away.

Originally, the T-55 was deisgned to move fast, and en-mass, across the East German border and to overwhelm Western forces with sheer weight of numbers and sheer firepower.

[PimpDaddy000007]

And that's why Russia uses the T90 now?

[TheCrazyFinn]

Just an updated version of T-72 ;)

[PimpDaddy000007]

It was a rhetoric question to respond to aqward1's comment.

[TheCrazyFinn]

You would have to be just as much of a "sneaky bastard" to take out a newer type of tank with a T-90 as you'd need to be with a T-55.

[PimpDaddy000007]

The T90 isn't completely useless.

[patrikasLTL]

its the best tank in the world today.

[DarkAngel7567]

@patrikasLTL

There is not really "the best tank in the world". Every type of tank has it's own characteristics, positives and negatives, which made him usable for this, or for that,maybe for that too.

If you would say (equal, which tank you mean concretely): "that's the most complete and competitive tank" then i would say: "yes, you're right".

Firepower is nothing w/o mobility. Mobility is nothing w/o durability. Durability is nothing w/o effectiveness. And so on...

[uzickimajmunac]

@patrikasLTL who?

[patrikasLTL]

@uzickimajmunac

i don't know, this looks like my reply to some comment last year, when youtube wasn't puttin "@nametag" in the beggining of comments.

[coolpaul69]

Absolutely sure. if you look at both videos you will see the camo netting. You will also see me holding my camera out in my left hand.

[worldview2007]

I see a person sitting on top of a tank that looks like it has markedly less extras on it than the other video. Sorry, but I don't know you from the next person, all I know is that the comentator said that this is a T55, and that's what I went with when I posted this video. You have the righr to disagree, but let's not turn this into a slanging match.

Besides, there's so little difference between a T54 and a T55 that it doens't matter for a grainy you tube video.

[coolpaul69]

No slanging match intended. I just added a factual comment. I think your video is great and enjoyed watching it. Nick (the owner of the tank) hasn't seen it yet but when I told him I'd found this he said 'kin excellent!

[coolpaul69]

Come along and see us this year and have a look over it.

[coolpaul69]

Yes, we have the program for last year and that is Nick driving it.

[coolpaul69]

Sorry, but the tank in this video is a T54.It belongs to a friend of mine. That's me hanging out of the commmanders position filming one of my videos (they're on youtube). Watch for some special effects at this years show ;-)

It doesn't have an autoloader. That came on the T62 (I think) and there is a small hatch on the rear of the turret for the empty shell ejection on that one.

[Type59]

T 62 had a spent ammo ejecter not an autoloader like T 64

[coolpaul69]

Nice Video, but it's a T54 not a T55. The commentator kept refering to it as a T55. Close, but no cigar! '-)

[worldview2007]

So what you're actually saying is that somebody once said the same thing about a different tank? How does that impact on what is said about this tank?

[MdP2]

"How does that impact on what is said about this tank?"

Because the T55 variant in that video doesn't include an autoloader for its 100mm D10T. The arm-grabbing autoloader complains mentioned by the commentator are related to T64 (and some T72). And you know what? Even if the T55 in that video had an autoloader, the commentator couldn't possibly be mentioning complains regarding T55 autoloaders because, until now, there aren't apparently any complains regarding the newer T55AGM and T55M6.

[worldview2007]

Did you actually listen to the comentator?

The comentator said that the T55 has an autoloader "and" that autoloaders had a bad reputation.

Nowhere did he nor I say that people's arms have been ripped off by T55s.

[MdP2]

"Nowhere did he nor I say that people's arms have been ripped off by T55s"

You supported the idea that he was talking about T55 when he mentioned the carrousel autoloaders. After mentioning the autoloaders, the commentator said they had the "annoying habit of catching the gunner's arm and stuffing it into the breech".

[worldview2007]

There are two seperate issues here. 1) The comentator was talking about the T-55 having an autoloader, which new variants do. 2) That autoloaders have a bad rep. Which is true.

You're linking two different statements together and are comming out with "People have lost arms in T-55".

[MdP2]

"comentator said(...)T55 has an autoloader"

Then:

a) the commentator made a mistake.

or

b) when he said "these tanks", he wasn't referring to common T55 like the one seen in this video (which lacks the autoloader) but to some modern Russian tanks (T64, T72, T55AGM, T55M6) because he actually mentioned the T72.

I think that, when he mentioned the autoloaders, he was talking about common characteristics presented by modern Soviet/Russian tanks but not specifically presented by the shown T55.

[worldview2007]

"think that, when he mentioned the autoloaders"

Yes, now can we please move on. I am not arguing otherwise.

"common T55 like the one seen in this video"

This isn't a seamless video. This is 2 minutes 50 form about 30 minutes of footage. Some of the T55 comentary was spoken while a more equpped T55 was in the arean. But I edited it out.

[MdP2]

"64(...)uncanny ability of grabbing(...)feeding(...)autol­oader"

See? I'm not the only one to point that out and you don't have to be an expert to know that the 55 from that vid doesn't seem to have an autoloader... Plus, I already knew more about OPFOR armor id than most western tankers even when I had no direct relation to Defence matters.

"autoloader(...)bad reputation(...)grabbing the uniforms(...)stuffing them into the breech".

- Stephen "Cookie" Sewell on T64, Fort Knox Armor magazine.

[worldview2007]

It's common knowledge. Unless specifically modified they have an 18 round carousell on either a 120mm KBM2 or a 125mm KBM1. They're also not curiosities, they're standard equippment. They are produced by Kharkiv Morozov, one of Ukrane's leading heavy arms manufacturers.

[worldview2007]

There are a couple of T-55 models that have autoloaders, mostly the T-55AGM and T-55M6. They have an 18 round carosell loading system.

[MdP2]

The newer T-55AGM and T-55M6 have autoloaders for their 125mm guns but most of the manufactured T-55 tanks were armed with 100mm guns and didn't feature autoloaders. The autoloaders were introduced after the T-62 and adopted by T-64 and T-72, two different tanks with two different autoloaders.

[MdP2]

The autoloader's "arm-feeding habit" is related to some complains by early T-64 crews, not T-55 (which had no autoloaders for their 100mm guns).

[worldview2007]

That's not what the comentator at the biggest gathering of civilian owned military vehicles in the world says.

[MdP2]

Are you the commentator? Do you know him? Some T55 have autoloaders but the displayed T55 does not. The commentator can be wrong once in a while because we know he doesn't intentionally misinform people who watch vehicle gatherings. As for the arm-grabbing autoloader...

(Regarding T64) "autoloader gaining a bad reputation for grabbing the uniforms of the hapless gunner and commander and stuffing them into the breech".

-- Stephen "Cookie" Sewell, Fort Knox Armor issue on T64/72/80.

Take care

[worldview2007]

I'm not disputing that several tanks have bad reputations for autoloader injuries. What I'm trying to get across is that this guy is a professional. He's been hired for one of the premier events in the world and he will have liaised with the tank owners and a variety of experts before hand. If he'd been wrong it would have been pointed out to him before the tank had even finished its lap. That's what has happened before when there was a slip of the tongue or when the wrong que card was read out

[MdP2]

Yes, but this kind of mistake also happens in respected places like that vehicle gathering. There are many other entities like me who also studied armor-related subjects (former East Block tankers, OPFOR, Intel, etc.) and, if asked, they'll tell you that the T-55 featured in that video doesn't include an autoloader for its D-10 100mm gun. If you don't know any, just run a search on the net and you'll find for yourself.

Take care

[worldview2007]

Is that a trick question? It's the 120mm KBM2 and the 125mm KBM1 guns, not the 100MM gun that has the autoloader. If you google based on it being 100mm of course yuor not going to get so far.

[MdP2]

"120mm KBM2 (...) 125mm KBM1 guns, not the 100MM (...) autoloader (...) If you google (...) being 100mm"

DID YOU READ WHAT I WROTE!? I never said the 100mm had an autoloader, did I? I told you to search about the 100mm because the T-55 in that vid seems to have a D-10(T)! Thus, anyone researching on it would quickly find out that the mass produced variants of T-55 that are armed with 100mm D-10 guns have no autoloaders. Therefore, you'd realise the commentator could've been wrongly informed.

[worldview2007]

So, why didn't anybody correct him? If he'd read off of the wrong queue card (there were 2 T-55's on the field) somebody would have corrected him.

I don't know you and I don't know how much of an authority you have on the subject. For all I know you might just be some guy read something about T-55 on Wikipedia one day.

[MdP2]

"some guy (...) on Wikipedia"

I wouldn't call myself an authority, but I...

-at 15 identified Russian Ts just by getting a glimpse of their silhouettes.

-saw Soviet systems and weaponry upclose.

-met Soviet/Russian crewmen.

-was a major contributor of Soviet armor models in a military modelling expo.

-helped an atelier designing modified in scale miniatures of Soviet Ts.

-had at least three people in the family who were at some point of their lives related to armor (Not including me).

[worldview2007]

Could just be spinning me a tall tale. Sorry, but I don't know you from the next guy. You might be an ex-soviet tanker, or a 15 year old kid for all I know.

[MdP2]

"Sorry, but I don't know you from the next guy. You might be an ex-soviet tanker, or a 15 year old kid for all I know."

For all I know, I'll still be who I am so that's not a problem to me. I hope it's not a problem to you.

Take care

[worldview2007]

It's still a consideration.

[MdP2]

"why didn't anybody correct him?"

Ask them. I don't know why they didn't correct him, but in my humble opinion, the T55 in that vid doesn't seem to have an autoloader for its 100mm D-10.

Take care

[worldview2007]

I could counter with the opinion that the comentator was talking in general terms, not about this specific exmple of a T-55. I could also counter by telling you that there were a couple of T-55 on the field that day. I cut edited this footage together from a much larger reel. I spliced the footage to take them out view, that's why you never see it doing a complete lap. I was filming other vehicles in those gaps.

[MdP2]

"could counter with(...)comentator(...)not about this specific exmple of a T-55"

I think that, when the commentator mentioned the autoloaders, he was talking about common characteristics presented by modern Soviet/Russian tanks but not specifically or necessarily presented by the shown T55.

"a couple of T-55 on the field that day"

Maybe they wanted to mention that some soviet models (T64, T72, T55AGM, T55M6) had autoloaders, but the T55 caught on that video doesn't seem to have one.

[DarkAngel7567]

The T55 never had an autoloader.

The only thing which was given to the T55 as improving was a weapon control computer system with laser range finder and wind measurement, a missile launch system for anti tank missiles and some additional armor for the hull. In the German NVA he was named T55 AM2.

[worldview2007]

Check out the T-55M6.

[DarkAngel7567]

The T-55M6 don't have an autoloader. It is an improved version of the T-55M5 with a 125mm gun. But there isn't a autoloader. The T-55 hasn't any technically possibility to upgrade him with an autoloader. If you want that, you have to build totally new turret and body. Maybe there were some testings. But if could be possible, the russian constructors would offer it as an upgrade.

[worldview2007]

This leaves us with one all important question, if the T-55M6 doesn't have an autoloader then why does the manufacture's brochure say it does?

Surely they'd know best, wouldn't they. After all they make them. Sorry, but I'm taking the manufacturer's word over your's. Whatever book you're reading is probably out of date.

[EJECTyt]

this tank is such a classic

[worldview2007]

I trust the comentator at the world's largest military show more than I trust you. Check out the T-55M6.

[MdP2]

Yes, the newer T-55AGM and T-55M6 have autoloaders for their 125mm guns but the T-55 featured in this video is armed with a 100mm main gun and this variant DOES NOT include an autoloader. The commentator was probably (and wrongly) reading info related to the T-64 as there really are some complains by early T-64 (and, in some cases, T-72) crews regarding their autoloaders' accidents.

Goood video though. Best regards.

[zimchar]

AH!

[zimchar]

Well, I hear some variations do have the autoloader, but the T-72 is the one with an autoloader.

[worldview2007]

The T-55M6 certainly does.

[worldview2007]

Since they were chosen to be the anouncer at one of the biggest military fairs in the world, and you're "some guy off of the internet", I think that I'll take their word above yours for the time being.

[goldovt2007]

anyone know of an armor show tanking place annually in Great Britain?

[worldview2007]

You certainly hear about the T-72 most.

[zimchar]

What? I thought the Auto loading system introdiced I the T-72, I never heard of it in a t-55.