I am looking for sources now, but my understanding was that the T-55 were all supposed to be in the line to be scrapped as of several years ago, which means there isnt much point in keeping the ammo around. If this is the case, any left over ammo was probably stored in poor conditions.
t.me
To make matters worse, the D-10 gun on the T-55 is rifled, which means the HE payload on the F-412 HE round will be relatively small. if I had to guess, the payload is probably around the size of a 82mm mortar round. Sadly, I would normally use ORDATA to prove this, but since I last looked they took ORDATA behind a wall for reasons I do not understand. Anyone have a fix for this ?
I would agree using a T-55 in this way makes no sense, however there are ways to explain its use if indeed it is shipped to the front. If T-55 or T-62 comes up against modern tanks results would be the same, in other words there would be no difference in performance between those two tanks when facing modern/semi-modern armor, but just the same if either of these tanks comes up against light vehicles and even APCs/IFVs that have used or aren't carrying their ATGMs the results would also be the same, as such there is not a big difference in performance between the two tanks, so if you are using one why not the other.
If you have an alternate explanation, please share. So far I've seen 3 btlns of T-62Ms shipped to the front. So "they're out of tanks" doesn't work as an argument. Where are the T-72As, T-72 Urals, and T-80A/Bs? Where are the rest of the T-62Ms?
I would think any T-72A/Urals and T-80A/B are in an upgrade path.
Heck if I know. Im baffled by half the events I have seen in this conflict. Our options seem to be:
A good gunner and spotter can achieve the desired effect quickly, as long as they are able to communicate. I have a relative who was a Battery Sergeant Major with the Royal NZ Artillery Regiment and he used the M119 105mm howitzer before fancy electronic devices entered the field gunnery domain. He was good and said that if the tank gunners and arty spotters are trained well then it shouldn't be a problem.
I think that this is a salient point, some may laugh at the Russians for recommissioning T55's, but if it gets them desired effects, even from a less than ideal platform, then its not necessarily a wasted effort.
Our problem is that we can't even figure out what the desired effects are. Hence the discussion around why Russia is reactivating them. Personally I don't see how they can be a good thing. Again loading up the Chita armored repair plant with T-62s, especially when upgraded with thermals and modern comms, and sent to secondary positions (like the defenses along the Dnepr) makes a certain amount of sense. Providing them to irregular volunteers and LDNR reservists who otherwise would have gotten no armor at all is also logical. But the T-62 stockpile isn't anywhere near exhausted. And to the best of my knowledge there isn't a repair plant currently active with a line for T-54/55 overhauls. Presumably some are in good enough shape that they can be put back into service with less effort, but it's still questionable at best. And what their intended battlefield role is remains unclear.
I think Ngati gives a plausible use for them, I don't think we need to overthink it.
Perhaps its just as simple as the Russians are having problems with supplying protected indirect fire support?
Feanor you mention reserves is there any information on the reserves of the T72 variants and T-80s? Where are the tanks being restored ,are they near the depots ? Are there any sources that provide a guideline on how this is planned with the new tanks like the T90 do different plants just work on restoration of individual models , I am trying to equate it like car manufacturing plants ,I'm sure whole process this has to be very manpower intensive
Tanks are stored as storage bases. Some maintenance can be done on those bases, but any major repairs or overhauls are done at Armored Vehicle Repair Plants. Typically each repair plant specializes in a few vehicle types and works on those. The 103rd BTRZ in Chita for example works on T-80BVs (one of the reason the Far East had so many T-80s), T-62s, and BRDM-2s. This is why it makes sense if you have say 4 plants that can do T-72/80/90 work and they're all fully busy, but you have another repair line that's set up for T-62s and is in good shape (recently used for Syria/Libya) you load it up too with T-62Ms. There's also the question of storage category. Cat 1 and 2 stored vehicles are typically in relatively good shape and a lot easier to bring online. Cat 1 in particular is sometimes used in training exercises with called up reservists. Cat 3 and 4 are much harder to bring online. So if you have Cat 2 T-62Ms available, you might be able to bring a btln online in a couple of months, on a secondary line at the 103rd BTRZ. Cat 3-4 T-72As might take longer, and might need to be done at a facility that's already busy resurrecting T-72Bs from Cat 1-2 storage. Again this is where it makes some sense to do that. But I don't believe there is a line for T-54/55 work anywhere, at least not in good shape or active recently. Tiny quantities of T-62Ms taken from storage, upgraded with thermals, and put on secondary positions makes sense. Mass-pulling of T-54/55s doesn't. It will be interesting to see where they take them and who ends up doing the work to bring them back online.
t.me
I would love to find some corroboration on this. Can FIRMS look at these RU AFV plants to get a rough idea of the activity over time ?
This article suggests that due to commonality on wheels, engines, and other components, they will be used as donors of spare parts for T-62s. Reportedly Russia has already pulled 200+ T-62s from storage. I'm not well familiar with the designs so I don't know if this is true, but for wheels at least the 62/64/72/80 can all be swapped around to some extent. It would make sense if the T-54/55s could as well. This does offer a logical explanation.
topwar.ru