T-55 best tank of the 20th century

>>33081864
FPBP
INB4 Frogs

>>33081864
>tfw my country uses Israeli t-55s
Guess

>>33081876
FIRST POST BEST POST

>>33081864
That is not a T-55.

>>33081876
FIRST POST BEST POST
>>33081898
THIRD POST BEST POST
FIFTH POST BEST POST

>>33081888
Former Yugoslavia Republic of what?

>>33081876
>>33081898
>>33082074


I'm getting really sick of you Hunter fags

File: centurion.jpg (47KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x332px

a challenger (not really a challenger but a centurion) appears

File: t55-enigma-05.jpg (73KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x681px

Definitely the most numerous, seen a lot of conflicts and still a pretty decent tank for something that was born in the 40's. I dunno about "best" though.

I'd love to have one though, I especially like the Iraqi Enigma.

File: centurion1.jpg (57KB, 736x479px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 736x479px

South Africans and Israelis would like to have a word with you.

File: Centurion Mk1.jpg (123KB, 944x666px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 944x666px

>>33081864

Centurion.

It's got it all. Great design, great service length, made in large numbers, exported to/used by a lot of countries, had loads of combat experience and did very well in combat even against tanks that were on paper better than it.

Plenty of people have posted the "normal" Centurion, so I'll throw down its original form instead for variety's sake.

Almost made it into WW2, fought through Korea, in Africa, Middle East and even in the Falklands as a BARV. Hell of a lifespan, and still going.

File: olifant.jpg (1MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1200px

>>33082625
and it is still used in south africa as the olifant mk2

>>33081864
Oh, look. Another thread where slavboos conflate "most produced" and "best design" in spite of terrible combat performance, just like all those T-34 threads.

Joy.

File: eland-90s-detail.jpg (161KB, 929x737px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 929x737px

This kils the T-55

File: t. alberto barbosu.jpg (109KB, 453x464px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 453x464px

>>33081864
>mfw i recognized the tank in the pic right away

>>33082057
Romanian TR-85 is heavily upgraded T-55

>>33081888
Uruguay?

File: t-55agm (1).jpg (231KB, 1554x998px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1554x998px

>>33082057
Yeah, sure, and neither is this.

>>33081864

>dies to the "lights up first time every time" M4 Sherman
>Best tank design

No.

No mention of the M4 Sherman, or PzKfwIV..

Come on kids.
You have forgotten the faces of your ancestors.

>>33084286

Stop huffing the bullshit and get in one, while you still can.

>>33082625
>made in large numbers

>>33084531
>Flawed wartime production
>Better than postwar models refined over decades
anon please

File: Abgasloeschfahrzeug_Hurricane_-_FW-Museum_Fulda_(1997).jpg (327KB, 818x462px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 818x462px

Fight fire with fire

or with T-55

>>33084286
Not an argument.

>>33081888
Rwanda

>>33082765
Noobs

>>33082625
>It's got it all.

Meh turret armor, but in return had good gun depression.

File: Tiran-5-latrun-1.jpg (132KB, 1094x767px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1094x767px

>>33085880
Those crafty jews...

File: b90c87ce1007d0204965c2813de52d07.jpg (116KB, 720x477px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 720x477px

>>33081888
Slovenia. M-55, with some jew ERA and a L7 clone, isn't it?

File: 735062_562312920589942_7694514542082182959_n.jpg (51KB, 850x465px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 850x465px

>>33082533
Well desu the Israelis operated a shit ton of T-55s and 62s (some modified, some not) and the units equipped with these had the same great results as units using Western designs.

>>33083803
As much as I like both the T-54/55 and modernisations of military hardware - T-55AM, MiG-21-93, M60 Sabra, you name it - what is the point of that? I mean, with the price of the new turret, ERA, and the whole refit and modernisation, I'm pretty sure you can get yourself a T-72M1 or some surplus Elbit-upgraded Patton or Centurion.

>>33084286
Come on, the ISherman with a French 105mm tube isn't really comparable to a WW2 vintage Sherman.
It's like saying that all NATO tanks designs involved in the Balkans in the 90s are shit because they followed special formation to avoid getting shot by Hellcats, FlaK 88s and T-34s.

>>33089716
what the fuck, I didn't type desu. I typed t b h, is there some kind of filter? desu DESU t b h m o d s a r e f a g s

>>33089726
Welcome to your first day on 4chan.

Now get the fuck out.

>>33081864
>venerable
misspelled vulnerable

File: T-55H_mbt_1.jpg (1MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2816x2112px

>>33089734
>first day
I'm pretty sure I've seen that expression several times before. Even on /k/.

Anyways, here's a modernised T-55. I don't think it can do shit on a modern battlefield, but it sure can club African militias or durkas.

>>33089778
well im sure you'd rather have one than not

>>33089716
T-55AM brings T-55's up to a level comperable to T-72's without the cost of having to buy whole new set of spare parts, gun and ammo which brings logistical problems and retraining the crew to operate a T-72.

And besides, some T-55AM are actually more combat effective then T-72M1's due to better systems. One that I can think of are the polish T-55AM which had new sights that are better compared to T-72M1's sights. Strange that there were no upgrades to the T-72M1 in the same style as the "AM" got to a level similar to late soviet tripple T-series (T-64BV, T-72B and T-80BV).

>>33089778
>Not the T-55M6
Not gona make it.

File: image.jpg (225KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1280x960px

>>33081864
>not cramped
>highest kinetic energy of any gun put in a tank

>inb4 muh profile

File: Type_59G_main_battle_tank_Tanzania_Tanzanian_army_defence_forces_640.jpg (52KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x428px

>>33089778

>>33090099
>inb4 muh profile
Actually it is "muh weight" and "muh ancient heavy tank design"

File: t-72m1m_1.jpg (185KB, 900x488px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 900x488px

>>33090052
You wot m8, There are plenty of "Upgraded" T-72M1s out there, pic related. T-72M1M

>>33090145
During the cold war. Not after it.

>>33090156
You never mention that, you said it in a way like you thought there were no T-72M1 upgrades out there period, there are tons, this one was in 2005.

I'm not entirely certain if there was a cold war era T-72M1 upgrade unless you accept the T-72M1V or license built T-72M1s like the M-84, but there are T-72M1 upgrades.

>>33090199
Well you mentioned the T-55AM and questioned the point for it and others and I answered it which may have been insufficent.

To go into detail. The T-55AM upgrades were aimed towards warsaw pact nations who had a shit ton of normal T-54/55's but did not want to ditch them and buy a whole new set of T-72M's. Also to soviet forces who wanted to upgrade their own massive amount of T-54/55's which were getting replaced at a not high enough rate to ignore.

Another thing to note, it may have passed 40 years already since the first T-55AM rolled out from the factory or maintance depot.

>>33090233
No I didn't, the first post I made was the T-72M1M, your post seemed relatively stand alone because you made your statement like it was all encompassing, that is your fault for not phrasing it correctly.

>>33090241
>No I didn't, the first post I made was the T-72M1M
Cant you follow the discussion? Did you not see the post I replied to?

>>33090284
I did, you never said anything about the cold war, in fact, nobody in this thread has limited this topic to the cold war, OP said the entirety of the 20th century, therefore when you said "Strange that there were no upgrades to the T-72M1 in the same style as the "AM" got to a level similar to late soviet tripple T-series (T-64BV, T-72B and T-80BV)." This does not say cold war only, this means that you thought there were not T-72M1 upgrades, period.

Now you're trying to act like you weren't wrong, and that I'm wrong here, when in fact you're the only who failed to google "T-72M1 upgrades" and read for five minutes.

>>33090298
When you specifically go into the T-55AM history and reason which is cold war related and then go on to speak about the T-72M1 that did not recive the same extensive upgrade in the same time period then it is quite obvious that it is cold war limited talk, you should not have to state the obvious should you now?

The one who is wrong here is you who failed to follow the discussion and now trying to blaim me. Sure I can google "T-72M1 upgrades" but that is completely unrelated to the discussion since those happened to late to note.

Learn to follow the replies and understand the discussion before you post and project anon.
>This does not say cold war only, this means that you thought there were not T-72M1 upgrades, period.
Projection indeed.

Dont worry anon, next time I post then I will be sure to point out the obvious so we dont have to repeat this.

So you can rest now instead of continuing this debate.

>>33090330
No you didn't, you never once made it clear you were limiting your discussion to the cold war, you never talked about "Upgraded in the same time frame" or "time period" you only talked about the T-55AM in general, this tank didn't cease to exist or to be use post cold war, neither did the T-72M1 or it's upgrades, not once did you even implied what you're now trying to do now.

You know, I use to be way more into tanks on /k/ but I realized that when you point out a minor mistake in someones post they go full autistic mode and try to justify their statements, you were wrong, the are T-72M1 upgrades, you never mentioned only cold war or implied it, just acknowledge your limitation on the T-72 and be done with it, there are tanks that I don't know much about either and I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, but you seem to be incapable of doing so.

Prove me me you only meant cold war era. Go on.

>He is still at it.

>>33090365
Alright anon, the T-55AM is a designation given to T-55A tanks that were upgraded in the midst of the cold war to the T-55AM standard which is comperable to T-72M1 tanks.

T-72M1 was the export version of the T-72A.

I mention that there were no upgrade program for T-72M1 or other export T-72's that the T-54/55 tanks got to a standard similar to T-64BV, T-72B and T-80BV tanks and wonder why it never happend.

Thus my talk was limited to cold war era since all programs to upgrade T-72M1 tanks to a higher standard and alike happend after the cold war.
>T-72M1M and other russian designs
>Polish PT series
>Former yugoland T-72's etc
>Ukraine T-72 upgrades etc.

And no, the yugo M-84 is not comperable to late soviet tripple T series tanks.

>>33089716

One of the big reasons that the USSR continued to upgrade it's tank arsenal even after they've introduced the replacement for it is the fear of nuclear attrition.
Having run out of materials like rifles, machine guns, trucks, ect. in both world wars on several occasions, due mostly to attrition and having huge armies, the USSR basically decided that would never happen again. The storehouses and stowage yards of Russian/Soviet military equipment are staggeringly large.

Makes sense to upgrade those if you've got the funds.

>>33090049
Of course, old tank is better than no tank.

>>33090052
>>33090066
>>33090520
I know the reason behind the T-55AM and comparable programs such as the T-62M or the Serbian T-55H are useful, you get something decent for a fraction of the price, and you even get sometimes awesome capacities such as the Bastion/Arkan series of missiles.

What I'm doubtful about is the usefulness of complete overhaul programs such as the Ukrainian T-55AGM and Russian T-55AM6. You have a whole new turret, new weaponry, the AM6 is lengthened, which requires a complete makeover of the hull... and the combined price of all of that may well end up more expensive than some newer, better designs. Plus, with the sheer age of the T-54/55 family, some of the vehicles may need to get brought back to a usable state, unlike more recent stuff, which simply didn't get as much time to gather dust, rust and to have the rubber parts dry out.

>implying the abrams wasn't the best of its class when it rolled out of the factory.

File: t-80b.jpg (2MB, 2250x1458px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1458px

>>33091298
>105mm rifled gun when every serious manufacturer knew that smoothbore 120/125mm was the future
>niggerloader
>heavy as fuck while providing equivalent protection as a T-64B that was 20 tons lighter
>not the first turbine tank, the T-80B had one while being better armored and more powerful
>fuel hog
>massive profile

Nah man. The later variants, with the 120mm tube, DU armor and ammo, can pretend to be very good tanks, but the baseline M1 Abrams was inferior to most of its concurrents, be it the Leopard 2, T-64B or the T-80B.

File: 11705408_904095252996618_8122905723047579751_o.jpg (130KB, 1601x768px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1601x768px

>>33081888

not a T-55 but this is my country Jew upgraded T-54

>>33090133
>Actually it is "muh weight"

>mfw weighs less than a tiger 1

>>33082947
Nope it's a heavily upgraded TR-77-580 which although very similar is not entirely a T-55

File: 1458249713658.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>33092794
What kind of american magic is this?

>>33093315
cherman enchineerink

File: 22d8d8c8647ceabd27e133750b402050.jpg (168KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 800x600px

>>33082085
>>33089680
Not the original guy, but I'm from Slovenia and let me tell you, that we hadn't used those M-55 S1s for a very long time, besides they are being sold this year together with the BOV M-80s, so I don't think he is Slovene.
We only use the M-84.

File: t-55m5.jpg (116KB, 1459x960px)

116KB, 1459x960px

>>33091272
Is an excessive modification like T-55AM6 even operational anywhere in the world? I know T-55AGM is not. I mean your whole question kinda makes no sense when no one actually buys these. They are offered, but it doesn't mean someone finds them useful.
t.anon who posted T-55AGM

>>33091396
>105mm rifled gun when every serious manufacturer knew that smoothbore 120/125mm was the future
>designed to accept the 120mm when its ammunition actually outpaced 105mm ammo

Good to see American superiority still triggers you.

File: E8.jpg (131KB, 1024x781px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1024x781px

>>33085640
>Meplat
>Anon

>>33084531
I would indeed love to have an M4A3E3.

>>33094971
>Meplat
>Meblyat