Talk:T-54/T-55

message: Removed extremely biased and poorly researched section which failed to take into account the age of the tank, and the fact of how successful it was when it was new.
A reasonable response to the removed section might be:
Q. How well would you expect an unmodified 1950s era tank to perform against the most recent American hardware? A. Not well at all, I imagine the result would be 'unimpressive'.
Are you even remotely aware of the primary reason for the original development of 105mm DU ammunition by the US?
T-54 and T-55 tanks engountered by Israeli M-48 and M-60 tanks were found to be unpenetrated in upwards of 40% of instances in which APFSDS was fired at them. 105mm DU for the M-60 tank was introduced in response to the fact that (contrary to what this section suggested) the T-54 and T-55 series tanks continued to perform well in combat long past what was expected to be their reasonable operating lifespan.
Also contrary to what was suggested in the removed section (which contained little to no unbiased, non-inflammatory, or even useful information), The Iraqi Brigade commander's tanks (Enigma), which were often T-55, Type-59 or Type-69-II (the latter two are Chinese copies) equipped with massive applique of concrete is recorded in one instance as having survived 3 hits from Milan missiles. Incongruous to the T-55's normal behaviour, but no less telling about the potential of upgrades to the platform.
:Hear, hear! The T-54 should be judged in its context: that of WW2. It's a design with armour and firepower superior to the King Tiger, but, with only half the weight of the German behemoth, still more mobile than the Panther. Quite impressive.
MWAK--217.122.44.226 06:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: From memory, T54 and T55 used to be very similar. In my (albeit somewhat outdated) experience, the greatest difference between T54 and T55 was that the gun in T54 had only vertical gyro stabilization while in T55 it was stabilized both vertically and laterally. One unintended consequence of the lateral stabilzation was that, if one forgot to switch it off when going back on the road, the turret (and the gun) could end up pointing sideways thus collecting telegraph poles or anything else in that direction.
Can someone find a picture or diagram of this?
This?
Wolfmankurd 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lateral stabilisation

message: The vehicle has that "dome" on the turret roof, so it must be T-54 ? Bukvoed 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:T-55 armyrecognition poland 004.jpg]]

message: * The post-WWII British Centurion Mk 3 carried a superior 20 pounder (84 mm) gun,...
* The D-10 also had slightly inferior armour penetration compared to the U.S. Pershing tank's 90mm M3 gun.
I'm still doubtful of these two statements.  The 105-mm Royal Ordnance L7  was specifically developed in response to the T-54 tank, and mounted on the UK Centurion and US Patton tanks around 1959.  Does anyone have sources comparing these other guns to the D-10?
: I bet its again D-10 APHE vs M3 APDS. Comparing APHE only, D-10 had considerably better penetration and effective range. 195.98.64.69 04:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, now this tank article cites real-world performance of tanks pitted against each other, rather than comparing disconnected laboratory statistics about their guns.  I think this is an improvement, by an order of magnitude. —Michael Z. 2006-12-18 06:24 Z
What a piece of coldwar BS propaganda: "South Vietnamese M48 Pattons (former worn-out US M48s) were able to destroy T-54s at 2,500 to 3,000 m, in many cases without losses to their own". I doubt that either tank can relaibly hit anything at such distances, much less penetrate (except for HEAT round maybe, but HEAT is even less accurate after 2km). Thats 60s, not 90s, and both tanks weren't latest models even at that time. Not to say that ARVN armored troops were annihilated very quickly when they lost US support. 195.98.64.69 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As an addition to my above comment, if ARVN tankers were blasting VPA tanks at 3000 meters without losses of their own, the Vietnamese communists used PT-76 amphibious light tanks as the mainstay of their armored forces for most of the Vietnam War.  Although the emphasis on Vietnamese tanks during the 1975 offensive tends to be on their T-54s, I doubt that their MBTs made up more than a fraction of their armor.  While a T-54 getting shot up at that distance by an M48 or M41 is ridiculous, tin-can PT-76s getting knocked out and subsequently claimed as T-54s is entirely plausible. Kensai Max 00:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: In this website, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-54.htm, are a great number of information re: the T-54/55 series. Of special interest are the sections on "capabilities" and "limitations". I will try to work on adding information to the Wiki article, however I may not be able to quickly complete this project. Perhaps other editors/researchers on Wiki would like to assist?
67.99.248.194 08:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use such unreferenced web sources with caution, as some of it is clearly dated or only valid in a narrow context in this case.  The M60 Patton tank which is compared was introduced 13 years later, a contemporary of the T-62 and later T-64.  I am suspicious of the statement that external diesel fuel cells make the tank vulnerable.  The statement that the T-55 is not airtight is obsolete, as of the adoption of the improved POV NBC-protection suite in 1963, I think. —Michael Z. 2006-12-17 21:36 Z
=== T-55s outclassed by their Western counterparts ===
even in the 50's and 60's the tanks were outclassed by their Western counterparts
Do you even care about this? Because I don't see you contacting the guy/gal I mentioned. Instead you're telling me to buy this when I pointed you towards someone who has it. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So let the person who put that in verify it. I don't know why you need to worry about this. -YMB29 (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because I care about the articles I edit? When a piece of information is deleted (especially when it's sourced) I try defend it when I don't see anything wrong with it. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned this in the edit summaries. First of all, it is not certain if the source at the end of the paragraph covers that statement. Second, the statement needs clarification (what tanks? why?). So let the person who wrote that take care of it. Or all you want to do is say that the T-55 was a bad tank? -YMB29 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I want here is the truth and if the truth is that the T-55 is a bad tank than so be it. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then you have to prove that. -YMB29 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you worry, I already contacted Egermino. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages and Limitations 

message: even in the 50's and 60's the tanks were outclassed by their Western counterparts
Do you even care about this? Because I don't see you contacting the guy/gal I mentioned. Instead you're telling me to buy this when I pointed you towards someone who has it. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So let the person who put that in verify it. I don't know why you need to worry about this. -YMB29 (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because I care about the articles I edit? When a piece of information is deleted (especially when it's sourced) I try defend it when I don't see anything wrong with it. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned this in the edit summaries. First of all, it is not certain if the source at the end of the paragraph covers that statement. Second, the statement needs clarification (what tanks? why?). So let the person who wrote that take care of it. Or all you want to do is say that the T-55 was a bad tank? -YMB29 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I want here is the truth and if the truth is that the T-55 is a bad tank than so be it. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then you have to prove that. -YMB29 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you worry, I already contacted Egermino. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-55s outclassed by their Western counterparts 

message: I put in the section in the foreign users, the reference is the Tankograd Gazette which has some excellent pictures and an article, however, I'm still not sure how to link the footnotes.  How do you get them to appear as different numbers for one?  Anyway, if anyone else can sort that I'd be grateful. Douglasnicol 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an explanation of how to use footnotes here: Wikipedia:Footnotes. Bukvoed 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the reference is now sorted, it's a rather intriguing conversion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Douglasnicol (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: T-54 with M-18 Hellcat turret

message: I removed the propaganda about North Vietnamese tanks being blasted apart by ARVN M-48s and M-41s (with a big 76mm gun).  It was facially ridiculous, I don't care if it was cited.  I've provided a cite for the new statement and can provide more if needed. Kensai Max 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Service History 

message: I have a problem with those tanks because it says that tanks with "-1" designation are tanks with V-46 engine from T-72. However in T-62 article it says that tanks with "-1" designation have 690 hp (515 kW) V-46-5M engine. While another site says that T-62s with "-1" designation have a "V-46 T-72-type" engine.
Can anyone clear this up? —SuperTank17 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The T-55 and -62 models with the -1 suffix are powered by the 690hp engine V-46-5M which was derived from the T-72's 780hp V-46-6. dendirrek (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanks with -1 designation. 

message: On Global Security it says that in 2006 Israel used 126 of both Tiran-5 (modified T-55) and Tiran-6 (modified T-62). However in the T-55#Israel section it clearly says that Tiran-5s are no longer in service with Israeli army.
Can somebody clear this up? - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-55 in Israel (Tiran-5) 

message: Does the T-54 chassis-based APC used by the SLA have a name on it? Ominae (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on Improvised SLA APC

message: There is one model missing - in the early 2000s, the Finnish company Patria developed a self-propelled artillery vehicle, by combining a T-55 with a domestically produced turret and a Tampella 155 mm gun. This was a prototype intended for the Egyptian market (the Egyptian Army was at the time purchasing towed 155 mm guns from Finland and were looking to upgrade its self-propelled artillery units as well). I have never seen any designation for this prototype, but I have seen pictures of it, e.g. in the book "From Tampella to Patria
70 years of Finnish heavy weapons production" (). I also remember seeing the picture in the "Soldier of Finland" magazine (Suomen Sotilas). I don't think that the prototype was that successful, perhaps the gun and turret was too heavy for the chassis. Anyhow, I haven't seen or heard of it in years, so it is probably filed and forgotten by now. --MoRsE 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another version 

message: I'm getting a little concerned that the massive use of images are starting to hamper the readability of the article. I would consider using the "gallery" function to display the alternative models. You just put in the code like this and add the images:

Image:test.jpg|Text
Image:test.jpg|Text 2
Image:test.jpg|Text 3
...and this will come out:
Image:test.jpg|Text 
Image:test.jpg|Text 2 
image:test.jpg|Text 3 
--MoRsE (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. What won't fit in the text I will redirect there. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and added a categorized gallery and moved a majority of the images there to help make the article what I hope is a bit more readable per some of the manual of style guidelines. It's just a starting point. Some maybe better back in the sections, if you do move one from the gallery, please consider replacing it or to make sure the rows continue to have four images until the last row. Thanks. Awotter (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The information in the article detailing a joint production prototype by the USA and PRC appears to be untrue, I could not find a single reference to such a vehicle. Germany produced a similar vehicle that was described in the article the Jaguar 1 & 2 and that's as near as I could find. The reference that was cited has no such vehicle or information that matched. If I'm wrong that's fine, but I'd like to see detailed, verifiable references on claims like that. I found a reference to retrofit and upgrade packages produced by US companies, so I rv my deletions, added info to the appropriate section with  a reference. I still left in a citation request for the development details because I still could not find the specifics. The JED website listed has different info and the single page linked to for many of the references is only for one page and that needs to be addressed throughout the article because there still appear to be errors. I did leave out the United States section, private companies producing prototype retrofit packages for other countries vehicles is not the same as a sanctioned US Armed Forces production program and isn't appropriate here. Sorry for the initial skepticism. Awotter (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced information PRC/US prototype 

message: (I recycle), you can see some image options. There is a multiple image frame with caption. And two collapsible image galleries  (second has They have image place holders for now. Took down test pageAwotter (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image test page up 

message: If editors want to add information and references to the article about the relative merits and demerits of the T-55 that's fine. The lead quote referring to the T-34 is referenced and is a generally accepted statement and goes toward explaining the notability of its successor. That sentence is not an appropriate place to debate another tank that has nothing to do with this article. The Panther may or may not have been qualitatively better than the T-34. but it is a stretch to even consider it as the best all around tank of the war because it came into the conflict relatively late, had numerous production problems in its initial production run and did not come close in numbers or variants to the T-34.Awotter (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panther 

message: The reference in front of me
  states that the T54 was developed in 1954 and was "Standard equipment of the medium-tank regiments and of the tank battalions in the mechanised infantry since 1955." That is not shortly after WWII, and is certainly not 1947. I am trying to ensure that Tank is accurate. Dhatfield (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved. Dhatfield (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute year of development and first production

message: This article is a mess, put simply. The grammar is terrible, and I see bits of POV everywhere, and plenty of claims without footnotes such as "When first produced, the Soviet T-34 medium tank of 1940 had the best balance of firepower, protection and mobility of any tank in the world." - Who says it was the best in the entire world? POV without citation. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently working on cleaning up this article. I've cleaned up the development history section and now I will take care of the infobox. Most importantly taking information about specific models to a table similar to the one BMP-1 article. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Development History is one of the worst sections. The infobox doesn't look too bad. The problem is that this article is filled with claims such as "best in the world", for example, and none of them have any footnotes. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable with reliable sources. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That particular statement you cite is actually easily sourced to Zaloga and other writers - see the T-34 article. That said, I agree completely with your assessment of this article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I improved the development history section by adding sourced information which makes for a solid basis. I also cleaned up the infobox and put information about basic T-54/55 models in a separate table. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It makes for a difficult-to-read mess, as noted above. Sorry but that is simply how it is. DMorpheus (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  I wll try to clean this up over the next few days. If anyone wants to help please join in ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not B-Class 

message: In January 1965, the M41A3 Walker Bulldog light tank began arriving in South Vietnam to replace their aged M24 Chaffee light tanks.(Ref: Mounted Combat in VN by General Starry; page 45).  The M41A3 light tank was armed with a M32 76mm high velocity gun, which fired the AP-T M339 (Armor Piercing with Tracer), HVAP-T M319 (Hypervelocity Armor Piercing with tracer), and HVAP-DS-T M331A2 (Hypervelocity Armor Piercing with tracer)(Ref: Hunnicutt/Sheridan Volume 2, page 25).  The two hypervelocity armor piercing warheads were capable of exceeding 3,220 feet per second and could penetrate 5 inches of homogeneous steel (one piece solid steel) placed at a 30 degree angle (sloped armor) at 1,000 yards.(Ref: Hunnicutt/Sheridan Volume 2, page 9).  The 76mm was effective against Russian T-34 tanks (up to 63mm of armor), but up against the North Vietnamese Army's T54s used during their 1972 Easter Offensive, the 76mm Gun Walker Bulldogs "could" be effective, especially if the M41A3 light tank crewmen struck the 99mm armored areas of the T54 medium tank.  As that armor protection easily falls within the "5 inch penetration" capability of the M41 light tank.
Bottom line: It is quite conceivable that ARVN M41 tank crewmen knocked out NVA T54's during the Vietnam War.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.32.52 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 76mm Gun Tank, Walker Bulldog M41

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 August 2011
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:T-55 commander.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Is http://www.scribd.com/doc/39181626/Armor-Osprey-New-Vanguard-N%C2%B0-37-Modern-soviet-combat-Tanks a proper source for this article? It is older than the 2004 Zaloga book, but it is online and thus more easily verifiable. TGCP (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Zaloga book 

message: Well, originally T-55 was designated as a medium tank, not a "main battle tank", and it was set to operate along with T-10 heavy tanks. The tank's operating manual ( http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T54/manual/ ) also describe it as being a medium tank, that's probably because the concept of main battle tank being implemented in the USSR only with T-64 tank --84.204.121.241 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: What happens to spent shell casings in the T 54/55's? Is there a hatch they're thrown out of, or are they put back in the magazine?
176.24.241.158 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spent shells

message: Mulitple parts of the article are flagged (July 2009) as doubious and lack reliable sources or citations. I have cleaned the disputed sections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.163.11 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: I saw the article mentions that the first prototypes were produced in 1945, and I've seen the same claim elsewhere on the internet, but I've been having trouble finding much information about them.  Does anyone know any more about these?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.77.210.237 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Russian Wikipedia article it says: Years of production 1945 to 1974. Here is another source: http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-295.html Voidray1337 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1945 Prototype 

message: What exactly is a dead track?
And what's a live?track?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.38.242 (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have linked the term to the relevant section of the Continuous track article. (Hohum @) 10:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: Battlefield Vegas have a T55 & a T62 and they say that the T62's hull is a foot wider, and it looks it.
Can somebody please double-check these measurements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrector2021 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hull width is questionable 

message: Was it really necessary to create a whole new article just for this relatively narrow topic? Schierbecker (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[T-54/55 fire control system]] split 

message: While the Tank has not arrived at Ukraine its impossible to verify if they are going to be used or not by the russians, while likely, since its what happened with the T-62s, theres the possibility its not, at least at this moment its better to be safe and not say they are going to be send there, but that they are going to be moved, until its verifiable (which can be showed by modernizations or modifications, or actually crossing the border), A Train moving tanks from a place A to a place B tells us nothing but them being moved, other information shows the context of why. Gerfand (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Tanks when it comes to Ukraine war 

message: The article currently says: "This eliminated the need for the tank to carry a tank filled with air."
This sounds almost like the T-55 drives around with another T-55 filled with air.
Maybe someone who is better at English can change the words. E.g. oone could write "...need for the tank to carry pressurized air" or something. Jaksel (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor flaw 

message: The army appears to be using them although still waiting for RS.©Geni (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[2023 Sudan clashes]]

message: I don't think the previous main image (the early T-54 at Kazan Victory Park) was adequately representative of this particular tank type, when we have so many other better source images available. The later T-54B and T-55 were both manufactured in massive, massive numbers compared to the example used for the article's main image, and they are the vast majority of this tank type in existence. I think an image of the later production models is more appropriate and have added one accordingly. Katangais (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image