Russia is sending museum pieces into war, but experts say they may still be effective

[webfact]

 

By Vasco Cotovio, Clare Sebastian and Martin Bourke, CNN

CNN  — A cargo train loaded with tanks chugs along under the crisp, spring sun. “Wow,” a woman says, pointing her camera phone at the convoy. “This is the second train, there was one like it just before.”

 

The video, seemingly filmed in late March, shows old Soviet tanks being transported, somewhere in Russia. Moscow has been known to bring out older military equipment from storage to help it prosecute the war in Ukraine, but these are different.

 

The tanks are T-55s, a model first commissioned by the Soviet Union’s Red Army in 1948, shortly after the end of World War II.

 

They’re so old, you can find them in museums.

 

Full story: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/08/europe/russia-t-55-tanks-ukraine-intl-cmd/index.html

 

-- © Copyright CNN 2023-05-09

[Tug]

Guess they are running out of the new stuff to surrender to the Ukrainians or most likely they will be used as artillery behind the lines

[bamnutsak]

They're going analog.

 

 

[Kwasaki]

Unreported fact because it's not popular.

 

The Soviet T-55 main battle tank was one of the most successful tanks ever produced. The T-55 is one of the most iconic Soviet main battle tanks of the Cold War. It was an immensely successful tank that was affordable and capable in its time, unlike other more expensive tanks.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Unreported fact because it's not popular.

 

The Soviet T-55 main battle tank was one of the most successful tanks ever produced. The T-55 is one of the most iconic Soviet main battle tanks of the Cold War. It was an immensely successful tank that was affordable and capable in its time, unlike other more expensive tanks.

I’m sure it was reported on RT, or other Russian Propaganda channels.

 

But here’s two question:

 

1. I wonder how it’s armor will stand up to modern anti tank munitions.

 

2. How many luckless crew are in each of these soon to be pressure cookers?

 

 

[Kwasaki]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m sure it was reported on RT, or other Russian Propaganda channels.

 

But here’s two question:

 

1. I wonder how it’s armor will stand up to modern anti tank munitions.

 

2. How many luckless crew are in each of these soon to be pressure cookers?

 

It really doesn't matter how it stands up, it has a gun cannon and there are over a 1000 or more of them, not good. 

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

It really doesn't matter how it stands up, it has a gun cannon and there are over a 1000 or more of them, not good. 

Howitzer can fire twice as far as the T-55 tank can. No good using them as a cannon when they can't get near enough to the action. Then if they do get near the action their lack of armour protection makes them very vulnerable.

[jvs]

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Unreported fact because it's not popular.

 

The Soviet T-55 main battle tank was one of the most successful tanks ever produced. The T-55 is one of the most iconic Soviet main battle tanks of the Cold War. It was an immensely successful tank that was affordable and capable in its time, unlike other more expensive tanks.

Capable in its time,that says it all.

It is a desperate move on the part of Russia,drones will take them out in a hurry.

[Doctor Tom]

There is a very good reason why museum pieces are in a museum.  They are death traps against modern weapons, anyone who thinks otherwise is lying, deluded or more likely both. 

[Chomper Higgot]

I wonder which direction Russian troop moral goes when they see what they are being sent to war with?

[Kwasaki]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Howitzer can fire twice as far as the T-55 tank can. No good using them as a cannon when they can't get near enough to the action. Then if they do get near the action their lack of armour protection makes them very vulnerable.

Concur but it's not a good thing the still can increase artillery.

[Kwasaki]

3 minutes ago, jvs said:

Capable in its time,that says it all.

It is a desperate move on the part of Russia,drones will take them out in a hurry.

I hope so but they do have anti-aircraft guns. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Kwasaki said:

Concur but it's not a good thing the still can increase artillery.

But not very good artillery. A desperate measure in play.

[vandeventer]

This is bad, and when they run out of T-55 tanks? Will they throw kitchen sinks at the Ukraine soldiers?

[CMBob]

For the benefit of the crews crammed into those 75-year-old tanks, I hope they come with a very good reverse gear.

[pacovl46]

4 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Unreported fact because it's not popular.

 

The Soviet T-55 main battle tank was one of the most successful tanks ever produced. The T-55 is one of the most iconic Soviet main battle tanks of the Cold War. It was an immensely successful tank that was affordable and capable in its time, unlike other more expensive tanks.

Right! May that as it be, those tanks were built to withstand the weaponry common at the time and they won't stand a chance against modern tanks and weaponry. It's like putting up an almost 80 year old race car against a Formula 1 car. 

[Doctor Tom]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

But not very good artillery. A desperate measure in play.

Well let's hope this move by the Russians, a move of desperation,  just ends up being the reason that more of them are eliminated on the battlefield,  during the coming Ukrainian offensive.   Good move I'd say.  

[Jaxxper]

I hope they keep a few in museums, because I don’t think many will survive against modern warfare equipment. Would be a shame to loose part of history on a battlefield.  

[Hanaguma]

A standard Russian battle tactic from WW2 was to use obsolete equipment and poorly trained soldiers to soak up the ammo from their enemy. Then sweep in with the good stuff to overwhelm the position once the defenders ran out of ammo. Given the cost and relative scarcity of modern munitions this may also be the plan here.  A/T missiles are expensive and rare- ironically probably cost more than the tanks they are shooting at. 

[Kwasaki]

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

A standard Russian battle tactic from WW2 was to use obsolete equipment and poorly trained soldiers to soak up the ammo from their enemy. Then sweep in with the good stuff to overwhelm the position once the defenders ran out of ammo. Given the cost and relative scarcity of modern munitions this may also be the plan here.  A/T missiles are expensive and rare- ironically probably cost more than the tanks they are shooting at. 

A/T missiles are expensive so maybe the Russians sending 1000's of old tanks is a tactic. 

They don't care who's inside em. 

[Eric Loh]

Russia don’t even have tanks for their victory day parade. Military hardwares like tanks and planes were regular features of the parade. Times are really bad for Russia military. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/09/europe/russia-victory-day-parade-moscow-intl/index.html

[Chomper Higgot]

47 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

A/T missiles are expensive so maybe the Russians sending 1000's of old tanks is a tactic. 

They don't care who's inside em. 

Manufacturing these missiles creates profits, secures jobs, returns taxes and economic growth while propping up the West’s strategic defense industries.

 

[Kwasaki]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Manufacturing these missiles creates profits, secures jobs, returns taxes and economic growth while propping up the West’s strategic defense industries.

 

Are you allowed to post that. ????

Yeah I guess so Ukrainian and Russian cannon fodder who gives a monkey let's make some money. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

A standard Russian battle tactic from WW2 was to use obsolete equipment and poorly trained soldiers to soak up the ammo from their enemy. Then sweep in with the good stuff to overwhelm the position once the defenders ran out of ammo. Given the cost and relative scarcity of modern munitions this may also be the plan here.  A/T missiles are expensive and rare- ironically probably cost more than the tanks they are shooting at. 

It doesn’t have to be an anti tank missile.

 

The UK is supplying anti-tank shells and armor piercing rounds each very capable of unzipping the Russian vintage tanks.

 

Have a thought for the Russian crews, Putin won’t.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Are you allowed to post that. ????

Yeah I guess so Ukrainian and Russian cannon fodder who gives a monkey let's make some money. 

They were all safe from Ukrainian munitions when back in Russia, or wherever else Russia is bringing them from.

[Bkk Brian]

There's only about 250 of the T-55 heaps of junk that are intact and recoverable. A short-term solution to a worsening, long-term problem for the Russians.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/03/25/70-year-old-t-55-tanks-are-expendable-in-ukraine/?sh=625eac2f5609

[onthedarkside]

Off topic post about food banks in the UK removed

[Tug]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

A standard Russian battle tactic from WW2 was to use obsolete equipment and poorly trained soldiers to soak up the ammo from their enemy. Then sweep in with the good stuff to overwhelm the position once the defenders ran out of ammo. Given the cost and relative scarcity of modern munitions this may also be the plan here.  A/T missiles are expensive and rare- ironically probably cost more than the tanks they are shooting at. 

In the modern era with all the satellites and drones it would be extremely difficult to hide the (good stuff) not to mention the criminal wastage of the human beings expended persecuting Putin’s war of conquest it’s a recipe for defeat imo salva Ukraine ???????? 

[herfiehandbag]

7 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

It really doesn't matter how it stands up, it has a gun cannon and there are over a 1000 or more of them, not good. 

Tank guns ( like those of the T55) are direct fire weapons. That means that the aimer has to be able to see his target. That means that as soon as they fire they are vulnerable. They are tremendously outgunned (range and sighting systems) by more modern tanks, Leopard 1, Leopard 2, Challenger, Abrams. They have relatively short ranges. They are vulnerable to a variety of hand held Anti Tank Guided Weapon systems, so tank on tank they are buggered, if one follows a professional analysis.

 

They cannot be used for "indirect fire", in other words be used to engage targets at ranges of many kilometres from the firing position, hidden from view, sheltered by terrain, using firing data predicted from maps ( or these days GPS). They cannot switch targets in minutes, through 360 degrees. They cannot change the type of projectile depending on the target and what you are trying to do to it.

 

They lack the wide variety of shell types used by artillery: high explosive, point detonating, delay detonating ( penetrate the ground before exploding), airburst fuzes, smoke both instant (white phosphorus) and long lasting ( base ejection), illuminating and other "carrier shells. They cannot fire extremely accurate precision guided projectiles. There is a reason why artillery is the "Queen of the Battlefield", why it is the cause of the vast majority of battlefield casualties. It is not just because those who serve the guns are all deaf and slightly mad!

 

Deploying 70 year old panzers to use as artillery is an act of desperation. Each T55 has a crew of 3. "Dead men riding"!

[placeholder]

When I saw that headline about sending museum pieces into war, I thought that meant they were sending the General Staff to the front line.