Someone argued on Reddit that modern IFVs (like Bradleys) could defeat the T55 because the Bradley could light it up looooong before the T55 even sees it.
A regular RPG could take out a T55 right?
From someone that knows more than I do....
RPG-2 had a pierce of 160-180 mm, M72 up to 355 mm. The newer RPG series disposable grenade launchers (RPG-16/18/22/26/27/29) have a penetration rate from 375 mm for RPG 16 to 750 mm for RPG 27/29.
Depending on the warhead, RPG-7 has a penetration rate from 330 mm to 750+ mm.
The RPG-2 would have problems penetrating the armor of tanks like the King Tiger or the early T-54 (turret only).
M72 / RPG-16 or RPG-7 with the oldest warheads would be deadly for vehicles like T55 / T62 or M60.
The RPG-7 with a newer warhead will break through the armor of the T-72A or T-72M / M1.
T-72B, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 etc. they can also become a victim with the right hit with RPG-27/29 or RPG-7 + newer warhead.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
They were first built in 1948. They are the most numerous tank ever built.
Normally when people picture "tank" in their mind, they see the T-55. Almost every military in the world except western Europe, Canada & the US operated them.
But yes, they are old AF and stand no chance on a modern battlefield. They can still cause damage to infrastructure and infantry (if they don't have anti-tank arms).
They must also be absolute gas guzzlers or probably diesel in this case
They were first built in 1948. They are the most numerous tank ever built.
Normally when people picture "tank" in their mind, they see the T-55. Almost every military in the world except western Europe, Canada & the US operated them.
But yes, they are old AF and stand no chance on a modern battlefield. They can still cause damage to infrastructure and infantry (if they don't have anti-tank arms).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
From someone that knows more than I do....
RPG-2 had a pierce of 160-180 mm, M72 up to 355 mm. The newer RPG series disposable grenade launchers (RPG-16/18/22/26/27/29) have a penetration rate from 375 mm for RPG 16 to 750 mm for RPG 27/29.
Depending on the warhead, RPG-7 has a penetration rate from 330 mm to 750+ mm.
The RPG-2 would have problems penetrating the armor of tanks like the King Tiger or the early T-54 (turret only).
M72 / RPG-16 or RPG-7 with the oldest warheads would be deadly for vehicles like T55 / T62 or M60.
The RPG-7 with a newer warhead will break through the armor of the T-72A or T-72M / M1.
T-72B, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 etc. they can also become a victim with the right hit with RPG-27/29 or RPG-7 + newer warhead.
I believe the Bradley's all have TOW on them.
That eviscerate the T-55s before they have any idea what is happening or know anyone is there.
My good friend Carl Gustaf will also kill T-55s with no concerns
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
If I may be allowed a short derail - my grandson has finished his basic training and will have the option of further training on LAVs or Bradley’s . What pros or cons do you see in either choice?
If I may be allowed a short derail - my grandson has finished his basic training and will have the option of further training on LAVs or Bradley’s . What pros or cons do you see in either choice?
Omar Bradley was one of only a handful of people to ever be promoted to General of the Army.
Someone argued on Reddit that modern IFVs (like Bradleys) could defeat the T55 because the Bradley could light it up looooong before the T55 even sees it.
A regular RPG could take out a T55 right?
Bradleys had a higher kill count than Abrams in Operation Desert Storm. The optics on those bad boys combined with the TOW-2 will light up these old tin cans.
If I may be allowed a short derail - my grandson has finished his basic training and will have the option of further training on LAVs or Bradley’s . What pros or cons do you see in either choice?
Bradley's work closely with the Abrams. Strykers operate separately in medium-weight brigade combat teams. Bradleys are definitely a more lethal platform, but a Stryker brigade is going to be first on the ground.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Steven Seagal is going to be training Russian troops in martial arts (Aikido) for military service. Hilarious since he's now so fat he doesn't even want to get out of his chair in his movies these days. This will surely improve Russia's conscript quality
The Russians are geniuses. Zerg rush Ukrainian positions with as many T-55s and conscripts as you can muster. They surely don’t have enough ammo to blow up all the tanks and infantry right? Right?
The Following User Says Thank You to TKB For This Useful Post:
The Russians are geniuses. Zerg rush Ukrainian positions with as many T-55s and conscripts as you can muster. They surely don’t have enough ammo to blow up all the tanks and infantry right? Right?
To be fair that's exactly what the T--54/55 was designed for. Although I still believe it would have worked out poorly against Centurion, especially once they were upgraded with the L7 gun. So against modern tanks? Yeah right, good luck Ivan
To be fair that's exactly what the T--54/55 was designed for. Although I still believe it would have worked out poorly against Centurion, especially once they were upgraded with the L7 gun. So against modern tanks? Yeah right, good luck Ivan
Look, the video provided earlier of the train transporting T54/55 has no context. It is not known when the person took the video or where they took the video. Furthermore, there isn't any information as to where the train was heading. So what? Well, they could be going to Ukraine, but more on that in a bit. Or they could be going to training grounds. Or they could be going to museums. Or they could be going to Syria. Who knows? Time will tell.
But let's assume they are heading to Ukraine because, once again, the Russkies are out of tanks, right?. So what? Well, it's highly unlikely the RuF will put them at the tip of the spear because the reality is they have no need to do so.
So what can they be used for? For one, RuF could use them with follow-on forces behind a main force to provide protection to infantry. Infantry could actually ride on them - using them as a battlefield taxi. They certainly provide more protection and firepower than MRAPs, M113s and various other dinky toys the AFU is using right now with nary a complaint from the armchair warlords.
Secondly, the RUF could use them as mobile assault guns to clobber bunkers and other fortifications. A big gun on tracks is still a big gun on tracks, no matter its age - and high velocity HE 100mm provides a significant wallop - more so than a lobbed 80mm or 120mm mortar bullet.
Finally, the RuF can use them in defensive positions - use them as bunkers/pill boxes.
Can a T-55 go up against a modern MBT? Not head on. But you can site them in enfilade to get a side shot. Shots on the lower hull can immobilize NATO MBTs. A rear shot can destroy them. But, let's be honest here. Tank vs tank is rare in this conflict, as I have pointed out before.
Well, you say, the Bradley will sort out a T55. Sure. But any modern Russian MBT has Refleks AT missile which is more advanced than TOW and with a 5000m range. What that means is RuF can take out Bradley before it can engage. The RuF "Terminator" is also lurking here and there with its Ataka ATGMs. The Atakas, by the way, have double he range of TOW.
Consider the Line of Contact is about 1000km. There is always room for more guns. If it fires, it fires.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
I'll toss in a few comments for discussions sake, but I think you replied to the wrong person, that seems like a long over the top response compared to what you replied too. I haven't been keeping up with this thread much
Yeah, obviously we know weaker tanks can kill more advanced tanks, we can go all the way back in tank history to know that. Shermans have killed plenty of Tigers and Panthers after all. But like you said, tank on tank combat is, and always has been, rare. You mention missiles but I don't really think that's much of a factor, as I know you know, and any armoured soldier will tell you, any decent tank will be able to detect missile launches and send a return round long before that slow moving TOW reaches it's target. It's one of the reasons I think the Bradley is massively overrated in anything other than an infantry support role (which tbf is what it's for, people just talk it up as much more)
Obviously the issue here is going to be doctrine, which, as always, is Russia's weak point. If they couldn't properly support their tanks before, what reason do we have to believe that that's going to change now, no matter how old the equipment they're fielding? Their gear has never been the issue with the Russians, it's how they use it
