Affordable armoured tanks

My thought was not to move a large "tank-army" equipped with T-55's around in a combat zone, the idea was merely to let the number of potential threathts that a future enemy would have to take out be so massive that it just wouldn't make any economic sense to invade the said country.

The T-55's would simply function as scarecrows, scarecrows who bites if you get to close.
 
I really don't understand why people are rating the T-55 as a tank to buy in this day and age, currently it appears that half of Europe is down sizing its military so there are a heap of Leopard 1 and 2s out there that would be sold for a song yet here we sit pushing the virtues of of the T-55?

Everywhere the T-55 has met a half way modern enemy force it has been slaughtered and I have no doubt that every anti-armour weapon that has been built for the last 40 years would open one up like a hot knife through butter.

Are we assuming this "small country" is going to be our enemy one day so we are recommending crap in which case I think the Bovington Tank Museum has a few Pz-II's that could be picked up cheap and if that is too expensive Buckingham Palace has a bunch of old plate suits doing nothing.
 
I really don't understand why people are rating the T-55 as a tank to buy in this day and age, currently it appears that half of Europe is down sizing its military so there are a heap of Leopard 1 and 2s out there that would be sold for a song yet here we sit pushing the virtues of of the T-55?

Everywhere the T-55 has met a half way modern enemy force it has been slaughtered and I have no doubt that every anti-armour weapon that has been built for the last 40 years would open one up like a hot knife through butter.

Are we assuming this "small country" is going to be our enemy one day so we are recommending crap in which case I think the Bovington Tank Museum has a few Pz-II's that could be picked up cheap and if that is too expensive Buckingham Palace has a bunch of old plate suits doing nothing.


Well, it's affordable (as in dirt cheap) and it's a tank, and in large numbers deployed in a defensive role it will be posing a threath to any potential invader.
On the same time it's totally useless as a weapon of aggression, and the surrounding countries wouldn't have to be worried , unless they figure that the people stupid enough to buy obsolete Soviet tanks could also be stupid enough to actually use them in an offensive role.
 
But my argument is that not only is the T-55 no good in an offensive role they are equally as bad in a defensive role, seriously what is the accurate range of a standard export model T-55 and what do you think its lethal range is against say the much maligned Leopard 1 (hardly a modern MBT but a good MBT none the less), what is the T-55's survivability rating against any MAPATS built in the last 40 years?

In my opinion the T-55 would be little more than an iron coffin against anyone but stone throwing protestors.

If you really must push Russian armour why not the T-64B1V series at least it was upgraded to survive into the 1980's the T-55 was obsolete by 1960, either way you are sending crews to their death but at least with T-64 you tried to buy an MBT and not an upgraded T-34.
 
Last edited:
But my argument is that not only is the T-55 no good in an offensive role they are equally as bad in a defensive role, seriously what is the accurate range of a standard export model T-55 and what do you think its lethal range is against say the much maligned Leopard 1 (hardly a modern MBT but a good MBT none the less), what is the T-55's survivability rating against any MAPATS built in the last 40 years?

In my opinion the T-55 would be little more than an iron coffin against anyone but stone throwing protestors.

If you really must push Russian armour why not the T-64B1V series at least it was upgraded to survive into the 1980's the T-55 was obsolete by 1960, either way you are sending crews to their death but at least with T-64 you tried to buy an MBT and not an upgraded T-34.

Well Monty.

First of all I must admit that I've never read the "tankers bible" (Achtung Panzer) and therefore my wievpoint is that of a more or less upgraded defensive guerilla warfare.
In such a scenario the T55 is comparable to an AK47, not an advansed threat, but a threat that has to be dealt with none the less.
And any helmet (or T55 turret) sticking up over a hill will pose a threat, meaning that an invading force will have to spend time and effort dealing with that potential threat before they can push on towards their objective.

If I have enough T55's to spend, you will bind up forces and resources on taking them out, quite simple.
Now say that you encounter a force consisting of 30 obsolete T55's deployed in prepared positions on a hilly terrain with scattered forest, they are all showing up with a heat signature indicating that they are ready for battle, and they're controlling you're main entrance to the objective you are supposed to secure.
What do you do?

And would your actions be reconsidered if you were aware of the fact that only 10 of those T55's was manned and actually ready for combat, while the other 20 T55's was merely preheated decoys?

You would have to deal with them anyway.

And if I was to upgrade with T64's, or even T72's, I would still get 5-6 of them for the price of a single Leopard-2...and in the heat of battle few would be able to spot the visual difference between the old soviet tanks.
They're none the less an obstacle you have to deal with.

So you call in an airstrike, fine, but what kind of AA capability is hidden in the hills and forests around the target?
And if you knew that the defending force oposing you have access to a shitload of tanks, wouldn't it be possible that elements of that force could be outflanking you, or even go for your supply lines, while you are dealing with that first obstacle?

It could be a trap, but for what, your main armoured column, or your aircover? ;-)
 
I am not going to get into deception arguments as we will be here all day given that you can bury a tin can with a broomstick poking out of it and someone is going to have to take the time to verify and neutralise it and I bet you would get more than 5-6 of those to a T-55.

I am still relatively certain that the kill rate of a modern tank against everything short of the T-80 is greater than 5-6 to 1 so given the choice 1 Leopard 2 is still a better deal.

So if we are going with bulk vehicles I think the upgraded T-64 is a better option than the T-55 and if we are going for quality 2nd hand Leopards (or in fact any Western MBT of the last 30 years) would be the winner there for me.
 
May be I missed some posts in this thread but... which is the theater of operations?
Mountains? Hills? Plains? Are there gorges? How many rivers do cross the plains? Are railway galleries single track or double track? Which percentage of the territory is covered with forests and how much with urban/industrial areas?
The discussion is pointless without knowing all this.
 
Exactly!
And we are talking about a country in Europe or Africa? There is a reason that Russian equipment is so prevalent in developing countries.
 
Back
Top