What does /k/ think of the T-54/55 series of tanks?

File: t-55_Enigma_10.jpg (120KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x768px

>>29752698
I love them

File: T-55M6.jpg (116KB, 1459x960px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1459x960px

Modernized ones makes my pee-pee all hard.

File: T-55.jpg (291KB, 1920x836px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1920x836px

I thought that was a T-72-120 when i saw that pic for the first time, but you can't miss the roadwheels.

>>29752820
Looks like that tank is owned by someone named Jeanne Chris

>>29752820
a-are their guns touching?

File: theak47oftanks.png (985KB, 1378x812px) Image search: [Google]

985KB, 1378x812px

Its a masterpiece

>>29752698

Pretty average. Like, the standard of what a tank should be.

File: 03_otvaga2004_b15.jpg (173KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1280x960px

>>29752698
Meh, it's alright I guess.

>>29752698
bretty fucking gud. Just outfit them with APS, and modern electronics and they re still good for themost part.

>>29753510
T-55 turret T-64 chassis?

but why

>>29753362
The chinese describe these as "Scary from afar, five roadwheels when near"

>>29753653
T64 tossed her turret so she asked T55 if she could barrow one of hers.

File: Al-Zarrar Pakistani Main Battle Tank.jpg (49KB, 639x425px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 639x425px

>>29753362

Al Zarrar

>>29754379
Zozzled me

>>29752698
Excellent armor for it's time. Glacis proved to be unpenetrable for KE penetrators for good 10 years. If faced in significant numbers would force NATO tankers to use HEAT and pray fuses won't fail due to angle. While turret could be penetrated, its egg-like shape would cause any non-optimal hit angle to fail to penetrate.
Also had great operational range, about 5 times longer than Centurion or Pattons, such advantage in operational mobility could be fatal for NATO forces, which were almost guaranteed to be outnumbered.

2 major shortcomings were firepower and visibility.
While D-10 was certainly a powerful gun, only new round introduced after WW2 was updated WW2 APCR, which was barely enough to pierce casted steel of M47, making T-55 unable to utilize range advantage given by unpenetrable glacis, when short range worked in advantage of NATO, allowing them reliably hit with HEAT. It wasn't untill late 60's when it recieved HEAT and APDS, and by that time Cents and Pattons already had KE rounds perfectly cappable of penetrating T-55. Also cramped interiors, and general lack of proper ergonomics (result of compact size) resulted in poor fire rate, 5 - 8 shots per minute, when NATO counterparts could fire 10 - 12 shots, due to crew beign able to move more freely inside of tank.
While visibility wasn't great in Soviet tanks overall, T-55 was especially bad, due to massive blast of 100mm gun, proximity of gun to ground, and lack of muzzle device showing blast to sides of tank, which resulted in kicking alot of dust partially or completely obstructing target, making if hard for crew to confirm hit.

Very surprisingly long-lived tank that continues to be used in most combat zones. Workhorse for its time, got readily more obsolete as the cold war went on but when you're in a bind the T-55 is still an old steady option for armor.

>>29755036
Why did the Soviets make the BS-3 and the D-10 at the same time? Also, what do you know about the M62? Google only turns up WOT shit

>>29752698
Fantastic tank. Really, not enough good things can be said about them. They had their issues, of course (who's brilliant idea was it to give it a commanders MG, then take it away for the next 3-4 upgrades? Thankfully they put it back) and notably upgrades tended to be half-assed because of bureaucratic nonsense between design bureaus.

>>29755036
>Glacis proved to be unpenetrable for KE penetrators for good 10 years.

Untrue, the glacis was quite capable of being penetrated by AP and APDS rounds of the era both by the 90mm that the Pattons used for a good while and the 20pounder was capable of doing the same. The turret was another matter and required HEAT of the era to reliably go through.

>>29752698
It's pretty much the Kalashnikov of tanks. Simple to operate, rough around the edges, certainly not perfect, but a weapon to be respected, even decades later.

>>29755090
BS-3 was the field gun, D-10 was the tank gun.

>>29755103
>who's brilliant idea was it to give it a commanders MG, then take it away for the next 3-4 upgrades?

This was done due to the increasing use of jet fighters and jet attack aircraft, which were reaching Mach 1+ performance. The AA machine gun had little chance of hitting such a small, fast aircraft that it was considered obsolete and thus removed.

It was only after soviet designers realized that helicopters were rapidly replacing jets as the primary airborne tank killers that the AA machine guns were refitted.

Don't even mention using the commanders MG to engage ground targets, somehow this contravened doctrine and engaging ground targets was seen to be the main gunners job alone.

>>29752698

Man the paint and weathering on that Tamiya 1:35 model is stunning.

File: T-62_04.jpg (192KB, 1600x973px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1600x973px

T-62

>>29755207
Yeah I just don't understand how someone came up with the notion that a heavy MG should ONLY be used for AA duties when it was shown to have such great utility in WWII.

File: _ugh5v_wKkw.jpg (251KB, 1280x878px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1280x878px

T-62M

>>29755425

Slav tanks were quite superior to the West well into the mid-80s.

>>29755473

Damn, more images like this?

T-55 is the tank that everyone drew as a kid

>>29755454
Not entirely. the M60 series was more than an equal to the T-62 for example which was largely a byproduct of having a better FCS and the Chieftain was clearly superior to the superb T-64.

But T-54/55s were shot to shit by Centurions in the Six-Day-War.

>>29755501
Every kid I knew drew the M60.

File: 20281_600.jpg (107KB, 514x600px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 514x600px

>>29755090
>what do you know about the M62?
Like what? It was built to fire D-25T shells at much higher velocities, also came with fume extractor. 'Supposely' it had higher practical rate of fire, but that may be as well better ergonomics of T-10 over previous IS tanks. In late 60's it got APDS and HEAT, but by then heavy tank program was already killed by Khrushchev. M62 could fire any shell intended for D-25T, but D-25T could not fire new shells for M62.

>Untrue, the glacis was quite capable of being penetrated by AP and APDS rounds of the era both by the 90mm that the Pattons used for a good while and the 20pounder
British tests of 20pdr and L7 showed that while M3 APDS can penetrate 287mm of vertical steel at 1km (impact velocity 1308 m/s), if armor was angled at 60 degree it could penetrate only 92mm (184mm LOS) at same distance.
To campare, for 105mm L28 round is was 250mm at 0 degree and 117mm at 60 degree (234mm LOS).

As for 90mm Yugo tests showed that both M82 APCBC and M304 APCR fail aganist T-54 glacis even at 100m. Only M431 HEAT penetrated.
Results aganist turret were better, though. M3 gun managed to penetrate turret at 600m with M304 while M36 penetrated turret with both M82 (350m) and M304 (750m).
Before you ask, difference comes not only from impact angle, but also hardness of steel. Glacis was RHA, while turret was casted.
If you have any reliable info on 90mm APDS please share. It's hard to find anything, due to their very limited use.

>>29755631
was also meant for >>29755103

>>29755501
i drew the m4 sherman when i was a kid,and i called it the sherbert during that time
>>29755619
more due to poor training by arab crews than anything else

>>29755454
hardly.
M60 had advantage of accuracy and fire rate. T-62 had more powerful gun which was meanless, because both tanks were unlikely to survive hit anyway.

>>29752698
fucking good looking and cute. Arguably the first MBT. Just like all slavshit its a overrated piece of lovable shit This one got btfo by shermans

>>29755619
Back in 60's L7 would spoil anyone's day. Ironically its power was what made Israel bet on tanks in Yom Kippur. In result Cents and Pattons were shot to hell by new Soviet tank ammunition and ATGMs.
>"More tanks was lost in 2 weeks than we had in Europe"
every new tanker is fed this info, to never underestimate power of anti-tank weapons and ammunition

>>29755698
stupid arabs threw it all away with their poor coordination and narrow minded strategy and operations

>>29754572
APDSFS?
seen like late 80 DU rod, not Soviet early APDSFS with Tungsten pellet

File: wrecks_at_Suez_Canal.jpg (169KB, 583x348px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 583x348px

>>29755801
Thing is, Israelis did same retarded mistakes. Both sides lost over 2/3rd of their tanks and aircrafts, because they underestimated enemy's firepower.
This war is very reason why combined arms way we know them now became a thing. It made armies realise, no matter how good shit they have, if they come out to open fight, they'll get shred to pieces.

>>29752698
Toyota hilux of tanks

File: 2581048787_d6119177d6.jpg (146KB, 500x273px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 500x273px

>>29752698
GOAT

File: 0_2a5cac_8cf6cc6f_orig.jpg (919KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 1600x900px

>>29752698
a good tank all around
a good example of Russian tank fetish
>powerful gun
>cramped interior
>enough armor

>>29755948
>Oh boy, here I go killing again

File: 0_2a5c65_83085955_orig.jpg (1MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x900px

>>29755981

>>29755454
There's more than a few wars that would disagree with that assessment.

Slav tanks have some massive weaknesses that they're only now trying to fix.

>>29755698
And yet, in that same war 16 tanks took out 96 in one engagement. Their tanks weren't scary, only the missiles.

File: Ce-BRQRWIAEi97A.jpg (34KB, 470x246px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 470x246px

>>29752698
They're OP.

>>29755454
I'd say the advantage dried up once the Leopard 2 showed up and the soviets failed to produce an answer to it.
Did Any soviet tanks even have dynamic lead calculated by the FCS before the mid 80's?

Man, T-55s, GAZ, MI-8 and SU-25s easily give me boners.

American technology is so shallow to me, I think it's mainly because I like workhorses over fancy prancy shit. I will say having to crank turrets is pretty fucking embarassing though.

File: T-62 information.png (386KB, 2656x1188px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 2656x1188px

>inb4 sauce
Check up TRADOC T-62

File: U1EOo8fAxCQ.jpg (287KB, 787x800px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 787x800px

>>29755454
Well they were on pretty much the same level untill the introduction of the t72 and t64. It took about 10 years for the west to catch up to those tanks, but after that id say western tanks had a slight edge

>>29756474
Thanks!

File: Burmese Type 59D.jpg (172KB, 960x638px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 960x638px

Type 59D in Burmese service.

Note the extra-long 105mm gun.