T-55 and BTR-T your views

Yep! That'll make them some money!!!

I should of said "poorer countries" or "countries in need of equipment" or something like that.

The problem is that upgraded T-55s and variants of vehicles based on the T-55 like heavy troop transports really only make sense for countries that already operate the T-55 as they have the experienced operators and support to continue to use such vehicles.

The t-55 was cheap and simple to operate and even today for everything except a modern enemy tank it is still a capable vehicle.

I do remember seeing one upgrade of a T-55 that included a T-72 turret and 125mm gun with new engine and they even replaced the wheels to make them lighter.

The thing is that at the end of the day most of the countries that still operate the T-55 don't want an expensive troop carrier based on a tank because they probably have plenty of soldiers anyway.

most of the upgrades you could apply to the T-55 are basically T-72 based so why go for the T-55 when you could base your new vehicles on a T-72 or even T-90 to get a better armour base.

Very soon they will start introducing new vehicles to replace most of the existing vehicle park so not just T-72s will be coming into a potential market, but also all the support vehicles like MTLB, ACRV command vehicles, Minelayer vehicles, etc etc etc.

The advantage of the T-72 over the T-55 is that 125mm rounds are still in production and are being upgraded and improved all the time as they will also likely be used in Armata MBTs as well as Kurganets MBTs and Boomerang MBTs. Typhoon might be too light for such a weapon however and its MBT might use a 57mm gun as used by IFV in the heavier vehicle classes.

The T-55 was widely produced, but there were large numbers of T-72s produced more recently.

- That is what makes them so attractive... A lot of countries with small budgets still operate T-55s. Russia could probably sell some to Syria after the conflict ends.

GarryB wrote:I do remember seeing one upgrade of a T-55 that included a T-72 turret and 125mm gun with new engine and they even replaced the wheels to make them lighter.

Probably the T-55M6 (aka Obyekt 155M6), it used the T-72's 125mm gun, 6x6 wheel chassis, and T-80U protection level. Ukrainian T-55AGM also used a 125mm gun and have protection level similar to the T-80.

In the 1950s the Soviet failed to incorporate the big gun into T-55 then that's why it created T-62... today there are people who can do it but I do not know whether the cost is high or not.

It was definitely a Russian upgrade and was shown with more modest upgrades of the vehicle.

the one with the T-72 engine and T-72 turret was the top standard upgrade they offered.

Actually this might sound a little out there... but if they are developing new more potent 57mm shells including an APFSDS round and a laser guided HE shell for air and ground targets then an option to "upgun" the T-55s could include the replacement of the old 100mm gun with a 57mm weapon with a longer barrel to maximise performance.

it would be a much smaller lighter round to handle in the confines of a turret but then it is autoloaded so the loader could be removed and an autoloader fitted... which to me suggests a change of turret to the two crew T-72 turret would make more sense.

the gun could be mounted high in the turret to allow a wider range of elevation angles including better main gun depression and elevation... probably a KPB 23mm coaxial weapon and a roof mounted PKT gun in a remote weapon station arrangement.

the 23mm gun has very compact ammo so you could carry rather more 23mm rounds than 57mm rounds and for most targets the 57mm will be overkill.

Russia could probably sell some to Syria after the conflict ends.

ISIS is showing its true colours... I doubt the west would care now if Russia starts supplying Assad with tanks.

Russia has been building systems and weapons for WWIII but weapons and systems for lower intensity conflicts are also important... and helping Assad against those nutters would just be an added bonus.

GarryB wrote:It was definitely a Russian upgrade and was shown with more modest upgrades of the vehicle.

the one with the T-72 engine and T-72 turret was the top standard upgrade they offered.

Actually this might sound a little out there... but if they are developing new more potent 57mm shells including an APFSDS round and a laser guided HE shell for air and ground targets then an option to "upgun" the T-55s could include the replacement of the old 100mm gun with a 57mm weapon with a longer barrel to maximise performance.

it would be a much smaller lighter round to handle in the confines of a turret but then it is autoloaded so the loader could be removed and an autoloader fitted... which to me suggests a change of turret to the two crew T-72 turret would make more sense.

the gun could be mounted high in the turret to allow a wider range of elevation angles including better main gun depression and elevation... probably a KPB 23mm coaxial weapon and a roof mounted PKT gun in a remote weapon station arrangement.

the 23mm gun has very compact ammo so you could carry rather more 23mm rounds than 57mm rounds and for most targets the 57mm will be overkill.

Russia could probably sell some to Syria after the conflict ends.

ISIS is showing its true colours... I doubt the west would care now if Russia starts supplying Assad with tanks.

Russia has been building systems and weapons for WWIII but weapons and systems for lower intensity conflicts are also important... and helping Assad against those nutters would just be an added bonus.

Even more incentive! That makes me wonder if Russia will re-rethink about the S-300 "problem". If Syria could rake up some money...

I was correcting Asf...

I meant, no BTR-T is in service currently, only BMO-Ts as a heavy transport.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up!

I meant, no BTR-T is in service currently, only BMO-Ts as a heavy transport.

Yes... that is what I understood your comment as meaning too.

I look at the greater internal volume of the BMO-T and wonder why they didn't use that hull as the base for the BMPT... a couple of low flat turrets on each side of the hull would offer far better arcs of fire for a grenade launcher and MG package offering better abilities to engage multiple targets at once.

GarryB wrote:
Actually this might sound a little out there... but if they are developing new more potent 57mm shells including an APFSDS round and a laser guided HE shell for air and ground targets then an option to "upgun" the T-55s could include the replacement of the old 100mm gun with a 57mm weapon with a longer barrel to maximise performance.

it would be a much smaller lighter round to handle in the confines of a turret but then it is autoloaded so the loader could be removed and an autoloader fitted... which to me suggests a change of turret to the two crew T-72 turret would make more sense.

the gun could be mounted high in the turret to allow a wider range of elevation angles including better main gun depression and elevation... probably a KPB 23mm coaxial weapon and a roof mounted PKT gun in a remote weapon station arrangement.

the 23mm gun has very compact ammo so you could carry rather more 23mm rounds than 57mm rounds and for most targets the 57mm will be overkill.

Quite similar to the upgrade kit of the amphibious PT-76. Which turn out many of the foreign clients' T-55s will service as some sort of BMPT or BMP, probably. Or may be it can be used in ambush, exploiting the mountainous terrain or dense jungle.

I am more concern about the capability of penetrating the armor of enemy's other MBT, for example the Chinese Type 96. That's why emotionally I prefer a bigger gun if possible. But considering the role of firepower support or ambusher, may be the 100mm or the Israeli 105mm one is enough.

That's why emotionally I prefer a bigger gun if possible. But considering the role of firepower support or ambusher, may be the 100mm or the Israeli 105mm one is enough.

I would normally agree but would say that a 57mm cannon able to penetrate the front of any APC or IFV and the sides of any MBT with APFSDS rounds and also a laser beam homing HE shell able to hit point targets out to 10km would be a useful level of firepower... even more so if coupled with the Kornet-EM able to hit tanks at 8km and sort targets including aircraft at 10km.

That's why they should try and sell them off, and scrap the ones that they can't sell.

True, but I'm sure that some poor countries in Africa would take an upgraded model or two.

George1 wrote:

Mike E wrote:That's why they should try and sell them off, and scrap the ones that they can't sell.

well if Russia want to sell old tanks they would sell T-72s and T-80s. I dont see any country interested in early cold war era tank like T-55

Developing countries whose terrain does not fit for massive tank deployment and have strong focus on naval force may choose to upgrade the old versions rather than buy the new one.

The heavily upgraded T-55 version are still very capable in the hand of someone who know to use them.

That's why I am very surprise to see some news who said that Vietnam is interesting in a T-90A contract with Russia.

That's why I am very surprise to see some news who said that Vietnam is interesting in a T-90A contract with Russia.

Vietnam keeps in mind the possibility of war with China. T-55 is just a crap for chinese AT weaponry.

That's why I am very surprise to see some news who said that Vietnam is interesting in a T-90A contract with Russia.

Not a huge surprise.

Vietnam has a border with China so it is looking at what China has when it decides on its armour choices.

For a country like Syria in a civil war a modified T-55 is perfectly adequate against rebel forces that don't have a supplier of MBTs.

A country like Syria that already has T-55s in service anyway could use upgraded models with decent night vision equipment and decent ballistics computers and communication gear to coordinate their forces better and more effectively use that cheap 100mm ammo.

They would also be interested in T-90s, but only later on when the internal problems have been dealt with and Turkey becomes the issue along with Iraqi Abrams etc etc.

For coin operations a modified T-55 is cheap and simple yet with a few relatively inexpensive modifications can be much more useful and even effective... you don't want a rolls royce to pull a plow.

The point is that for a country like Syria in addition to buying a few thousand old T-55s they could also buy up the old Soviet 100mm ammo stores and the production facilities for 100mm ammo so international embargoes wont have the same effect and they can partner with Russian tank gun makers to produce new ammo for their tanks.

Equally a few thousand old T-72s would be useful too offering a more capable vehicle for areas and situations where more is needed.

For a country like Syria in a civil war a modified T-55 is perfectly adequate against rebel forces that don't have a supplier of MBTs.

They got plenty of TOW-II and even Kornets (not to mention RPG-7VRs). T-55 with no composite armor will suffer greatly from AT fire even with ERA as most of those modern AT weapons utilise tandem warheads

True but the use of an infantry screen and perhaps even fitting them with an APS could reduce the threat... tactics can also be very important... every time you stop the tank setting up a chainlink fence around the vehicle 3-5 metres away from the tank would make it rather safer...

Mutual support operations where infantry keep a look out for threats and armour deals with other targets can also make a difference.

Even late model Abrams tanks will suffer from Kornet and TOW II and PG-7VR warheads... especially from the side and rear.

With the penetration power up to 750mm homogenous steel the PG-7VR is damn effective against nearly every kind of tanks... with this in mind an expensive Abrahams or a cheap modernized T-55 do not make very significant difference. The WWII showed that 4 Russian giants are much more effective than a German Knight.

Against rebels like the ISIF what they need is not the aces of tank force but someone who know to fluently cooperate different kinds of weapons to achieve the highest effeciency of what he/she has. However this is regrettably not something I can see in the Arabic armed forces.

Besides we do have something called "modular amour" and as far as I know the additional protection layer on T-55 modernized versions is quite capable.

- Don't take the "RHA equivalent" seriously, it is more of a guideline than anything else... (Tanks might have a special ceramic composite matrix that can defeat "all" shape charges, but it might not stop kinetic energy penetrators... - It would get a xxx or xxxx RHA equivalent that would be wrong for one or the other etc.)

Applique and modular armor is nice, but building a vehicle from the start with modern armor is much more effective.

Applique and modular armor is nice, but building a vehicle from the start with modern armor is much more effective.

And more expensive... and at the end of the day it doesn't matter what level of protection or APS or ERA or NERA or laser cannon... a 1,000kg HE bomb wired to go over the next vehicle that drives down the main street is a goner no matter what it is fitted with.

You have to look at your budget and your options and make the choice that suits best.

A few thousand cheap T-55s would be useful especially with a follow on request for upgraded T-72s and perhaps a few T-90s as well.

I wouldn't suggest Syria buy T-55s if it wasn't in there interests to get them... there are plenty of other countries that could use a few cheap T-55s to fight off the nutters.

I'm not going to disagree with you GarryB. - Just was replying to "additional protection layer on T-55 modernized versions is quite capable"... Any country that values protection on their tank isn't going to look at the T-55/4.