Talk:T-54/T-55

Bias

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)

---

I've changed the description of the T-54/55 as a "medium tank" to a "main battle tank", as that fits the tank better. "Medium tank" is more of a historical term than something that is used for modern tanks, as the distinction between heavy and medium tanks has all but disappeared.

--Martin Wisse 22:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lateral stabilisation

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 In my (albeit somewhat outdated) experience, the greatest difference between T54 and T55 was that the gun in T54 had only vertical gyro stabilization while in T55 it was stabilized both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? File:Stabilser on t55.gif Wolfmankurd 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

T-80 is in service, not T-64

Someone wrongly said that the T-64 and T-72 were the main units, and the T-80 and T-90 in smaller numbers. Not true, Russia has about 4,000 T-80 tanks, and another 5,000+ T-72s, plus lots of T-62s which are mostly in reserve. Russia also has some 300 T-90s used in Siberia. 4,000 T-80s is hardly a small number, so I changed it. Plus, Russia doesn't even have T-64s. They were all given to fUSSR countries like Ukraine.

Is there a references with reasonably up-to-date figures? There are probably quite a few articles that could benefit from this info, e.g. Russian Army#Current Inventory. —Michael Z. 2006-07-27 19:43 Z

Type 69

The Type 69's service in Iraq could be mentioned here, but the detailed description really belongs in the article about the Type 69. —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 13:36 Z

Image:T-55 armyrecognition poland 004.jpg

The vehicle has that "dome" on the turret roof, so it must be T-54 ? Bukvoed 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

95,000

Does this figure include the Type 59 and 69, or the versions produced in Warsaw Pact countries? I had thought I had read elsewhere a much larger production number of "T-54/55 and variants," and was curious. I realize that production figures for the Type 69 should go in that article, but I thought it might be interesting to show these figures along with the T-55 to demonstrate just how unbelievably widespread this tank truly is.--Raulpascal 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be very interesting. From memory, I think the 95,000 figure includes actual tanks produced in the Warsaw Pact, not other vehicles based on the hull, and not Chinese tanks.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 16:54 Z

Zaloga (2004) estimates the W-P production at about 76,000; a 95,000 estimate would have to include Chinese production. Zaloga only mentions a 9000 number for the initial Type 59. --MWAK 16:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for improvising. —Michael Z. 2006-09-18 03:44 Z

The Military Channel and their show Top Ten Tanks and some other sources say that all together 95,000 T-54/55s were made. They are all Soviet made. And they showed a HUGE field with just 1000's of tanks lined up.(Wiki General 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Soviet production certainly wasn't 95,000 :o). Zaloga (2004) gives a maximum estimate of about 54,750 and even that is probably a few thousand too high. The best solution would be to combine the Zaloga (2004) T-54 estimate of 24,750 with the Zaloga (1999) T-55 estimate of 27,500 for a total of about 52,000. We can be pretty sure about this for the simple reason we could check the Soviet and other WP 1988 holdings under the CFE-treaty. Indeed we can only account for about 65,000 WP vehicles, including exports. Maybe the deficit is standing on that field ;o).--MWAK 08:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The CFE Treaty only covers Europe so you won't find the thousands of "Soviet" tanks that are located behind the Ural mountains in the annual data exchanges. dendirrek (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Usally programs like the History Channel and The Military Channel are right. Otherwise it would not make sense to show the programs. And I would not doubt the 95,000 number, because the T-55 was designed to combat the Americans and all other Soviet threats during the Cold War. If the Cold War had ever gone hot, the T-55 would have rolled out onto the battlefield all over Europe. Because Soviet doctrine calls for large numbers of manpower and equiment to overpower the enemy. Eventully they took the T-62 as their top tank. But they continued to create large numbers of T-55's for export and such. In either case...the T-55 is the worlds most-produced tank in history anyway u cut it. Next would come the T-34 with 58,000 produced and 40,000 or so M4 Shermans.(Wiki General 09:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

I would always prefer figures from an academic book, or cited references from a popular book to figures from a television show. TV documentaries are made on tight deadlines and assign more importance to visual impact, while book references are double-checked (but even good books publish mistakes, and it's always good to confirm with independent sources).

Actually, according to our articles 84,070 T-34 tanks were built, plus 13,170 T-34-based guns, and about 50,000 Shermans, plus derivatives. But if only 65,000 T-54/55 tanks were built, this doesn't jibe with the common story that there were more built than T-34s. —Michael Z. 2006-09-21 15:11 Z

Well, most T-34 estimates limit themselves to the Soviet production before 1947, after which year data become real murky. The 95,000 number is from estimates including speculation about Chinese production, usually put at about 20,000, the minimum needed to make all units attain their organic strength plus the 50% materiel reserve you need to compensate for the poor reliability. And when I was young, the common story was that the T-34 had been the most-produced tank :o).--MWAK 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Info the on T-34 is wrong. The T-55 whether the number of 95,000 is right or not is regardless the most-produced tank EVER! The T-55 is seen in far more countries and in larger numbers then any other tank. Offical production numbers for the T-34 is said to be 58,000 or so. And I would take what the Military Channel said as true. Cause the show was fairly indepth. And sources for shows like that are usally right, otherwise they would not be educational. They had real/offical military specialists and such on the show Top Ten Tanks. They took the best tanks and compared them. The scales were measured on firepower, armor, mobility, fear factor and production. I forget how the exact list went but I think it was: M4 Sherman - 10, Merkava - 9, T-54/55 - 8, Challenger 1 - 7, Panzer mk4 - 6, Centurion - 5, WW1 Tank - 4, Tiger 1 - 3, M1 Abrams - 2, & the T-34 -1. Now while I would not overall take the list itself entirly serious. They did collect some very good footage for every tank and they put some very good detail into each tank and why they thought it was good and so. I saw some other tank lists on the net, and most of them did not even have the Tiger Tank. No tank list is accurate without the Tiger.(Wiki General 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki General (talk • contribs) .

Production summary, from Zaloga (2004), T-54 and T-55 Main Battle Tanks 1944–2004

T-54 series (p 11)
 Soviet Union     24,750
 Warsaw Pact       5,465
 China (Type 59)   9,000+
 China (Type 69)       ?
 China (Type 79)     519 (originally called Type 69-III; p 38)
 China (Type 88)       ? (originally called Type 80 and Type 80-II)
 Total           ±40,000 (not counting associated specialized
                          armored vehicles on the T-54 chassis)

T-55 (p 14–15)
 Soviet Union    ±30,000
 Poland           ±7,000
 Czechoslovakia    8,477 (3,377 T-55, 3,820 T-55A, 1,280 T-55AK1)
 Romania            ±400 (TR-580/TR-77)
 Total           ±45,877

Both T-54 and T-55
 Grand total     ±85,877

 —Michael Z. 2006-10-04 03:53 Z

To further complete the figures above: the PLA's inventory of Type 69/79's according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies book series "The Military Balance", peaked at around 1,200 tanks in the year 2000. The January-May 2001 edition of Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment: China and Northeast Asia issue put this number much lower, at around 300. It is possible that IISS is counting both active and inactive vehicles, though this may not be the explanation as IISS does not sufficiently explain their figures. By 2002 that number had declined to around 150 Type 69s and 500 Type 79s. Further reductions by 2003 brought the number of Type 79s down to 300 tanks. Further you could count the Type 69-II's, the Thai Army's Type 69-II's, the twin 37-mm SPAAG, the twin 57-mm Type 80 SPAAG, the Type 84 Armored Vehicle Launch Bridge (AVLB) and the Type 653 Armored Recovery Vehicles that all are built on the chassis of the Type 69.

About 400-500 tanks of Type 88 and its variants (Type 80, Type 80-II, Type 88, Type 88B and Type 88A) were produced between 1981-1995. MoRsE 05:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Production summary, from Zaloga (2004), T-54 and T-55 Main Battle Tanks 1944–2004? - How can that list be from 1944 to 2004? The first T-54 did not appear untill 1949. Wiki General 01:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the title of the book. The table above summarizes the production figures which are spread out in several pages of its text. The book deals with the development of the T-54 starting with its precursor, the transitional T-44 tank, which entered service in 1944 (the first T-54 actually entered service in 1947). —Michael Z. 2006-10-06 03:25 Z

Errors

There are many errors in this Article,look at the german Wiki.The secondary weapon was NOT a SMGT,it was the heavy PKT-Machinegun and so it goes on... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.174.32.15 (talk • contribs) .

James Bond

• A Russian T-55 tank was also driven by James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) in the 1995 Bond movie GoldenEye.

I've tried hard to decide that this is notable, but I don't really see how it is. A T-55 was made up to look like a T-80BV, and used in a chase scene in the movie. Fun scene, but viewers didn't know or care that it was a T-55. It teaches nothing about the T-55 tank. I'll remove it, but feel free to put forward an argument for retaining it that I haven't thought of. —Michael Z. 2006-10-29 23:32 Z

I don't think it was a T-55. The Russians were using T-72's from teh 70's and by the 90's T-80's were in use. Tourskin.

Comparison of guns

I don't know why people keep insisting that the 100mm D-10T main gun of the T-55 is superior to the main guns of the T-55's Western counterparts like the M-46/48 Patton series and the British Centurion. If people would use the very link from the T-55 re: the D-10T gun, they would find that the Wikipedia article on that gun states that the D-10T is inferior to the Tiger II's main gun. If people would investigate further and consult the gun penetration tables from wwiivehicles.com and compare the penetration performance of the American 90mm, the British 20 pdr, the German 88mm L/70, and the Soviet 100 mm D-10T, they would find that the D-10T is inferior to all the others. In fact, the 90mm American gun in wwiivehicles.com is an earlier version. By the time of the T-55, the American 90mm have been lengthened and become much more powerful.

The fact is, the main gun of the T-54/55 series when it first arrived was an obsolete relic of WWII. Its penetration is much less than that of its Western counterparts. On the other hand, the T-55s extremely thick front turret armor may be able to shrug off even the superior firepower of Western guns.

I will monitor this and continue keeping the information on the T-55's main gun accurate.

67.99.248.194 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Victor67.99.248.194 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any performance figures which provide a better comparison? I notice that according to the tables at D-10 tank gun and KwK 43, the D-10 actually gets slightly better penetration with comparable ammunition, but the presumed angle of the target armour is different. The 20 pdr table values are for APDS, presumably much superior to the Soviet APHE shown. How do we know what the D-10's penetration is at 30° to compare to the M3's?—again, the two sets of figures are hard to compare, but with similar ammunition the Soviet gun's penetration shown is better.

Do you know anything about the the D-10TG and D-10T2S guns—their performance and when they entered service? —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 16:37 Z

Answered my own question after a bit of research: I'll add this info to the articles shortly. —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 21:07 Z

Unfortunately, direct comparison of armor penetration figures is often misleading. Different countries used different measurement methods; many figures were actually estimations based on other results; many of those estimates turned out to be unrealistic... etc. I'd suggest to avoid direct comparison of guns from different countries/periods if differences between their penetration figures with similar ammunition is not too big... say 10-15% or less. Bukvoed 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the comparison of the D-10 to any of the other guns suffers from similar, hard-to-quantify differences: 0° vs 30° angle, APHE vs APDS ammunition, etc. Of course there even more factors than the ones you cite, like ammunition quality and availability, rate of fire, actual field performance, technical improvements of guns and ammunition, etc. Also, should guns be compared "fairly", based on similar ammunition, or in absolute terms, based on the best ammunition available. It would be better to cite one or more experts who qualitatively compare the guns than to rely on any figures at all. Perhaps the significance of such comparisons with ordnance whose actual capabilities are subject to state secrets, propaganda and misinformation should be minimized, unless we can describe the circumstances of actual field tests (which can be done, in some cases). —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 20:35 Z

Perspective

Okay, I did a little research and added some information. I'll add some more about ammunition improvements to D-10 tank gun. Still no direct comparisons.

But it's not fair to make a straight comparison between the 36-tonne T-54's gun and that of the 70-tonne King Tiger, without mentioning that the 46-tonne, 122mm-armed IS-2 was in service since 1944. It should also be noted that the 52-tonne Centurion was heavier than any Soviet heavy tank. —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 21:42 Z

The fact is, the main gun of the King Tiger, which if you research it was first used in the 24 ton Nashorn tank destroyer first deployed successfully in the Battle of Kursk in 1943. One does not need a 70 ton tank to mount the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71. I will return the segment on the King Tiger's gun.

67.99.248.194 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Victor

This is ridiculous. Comparing apples to oranges. The Germans didn't manage to get this gun into a medium tank either, so what does this prove? We don't write that the Tiger II sucks because the ISU-152 had a better gun, or because the Soviets managed to build a 152-mm gun which could be pulled by a truck!. Please try to get some perspective. —Michael Z. 2006-12-16 08:47 Z

True. It seems rather pointless to compare the T-55 with the Nashorn. If you look up its characteristics , you'll find it was only a lightly armoured, open-topped gun platform, and had none of the capabilities of a tank. For a TD with equivalent performance, you should take the Jagdpanther that weighs 50 tonnes! Also, the T-55 and King Tiger are in a different class alltogether. The King tiger is a heavy tank and its Soviet equivalent would be the IS-2/IS-3/T-10M series not the T-55.Raoulduke47 13:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Even so, a straight comparison of the IS2 to the King Tiger would be inadequate if it didn't point out that the Soviet heavy tank was in the same weight class as the German medium Panther. The success of Soviet tank designs was partly due to the imposition of very strict weight limits. They wouldn't even have considered building a seventy-tonner like the King Tiger—the 45-tonne Soviet heavy tanks were constantly on the verge of cancellation, and super-heavy tanks were considered completely impractical. —Michael Z. 2006-12-17 16:29 Z

Citations needed

• 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)

I think Cuban T-54s faced South African Centurions (Olifants) in Angola. Does anyone know of a balanced account of their relative performance? —Michael Z. 2006-12-17 22:42 Z

I found some references to real-world capabilities. Zaloga (2004:40):

By the standards of the 1950s, the T-54 was an excellent tank, combining lethal firepower, excellent armor protection and good reliability in a tank that was lighter and smaller than comparable Western designs such as the British Centurion or the American M48 Patton. On the negative side, the T-54 was forced to rely on HEAT ammunition in tank engagements due to the lack of effective sub-caliber armor piercing ammunition until the 1960s, and this type of ammunition was not particularly accurate at long ranges when used with the T-54's simple fire control system.

In an older book, Cockburn (1983:127) writes:

Back in the 1960s, when the T-55 was the main Soviet battle tank, the U.S. Army insisted on the basis of engineering calculations derived from measuring covertly obtained sample tanks, that the T-55's 100-millimeter gun was quite powerful enough to knock holes in the U.S. M-48s; similarly, the Army claimed the American tanks could destroy the T-55 with the U.S. 90-millimeter weapon. When the two tanks finally confronted each other in the 1967 Middle East war, it transpired that neither of them had the wherewithal to punch holes in the other's frontal armor.

Back to Zaloga:

By the time of the 1973 October war, the T-54A and T-55 tanks ... already more than two decades old by this time, the T-55 was past its prime. The Israeli Centurions had been uparmed with the 105mm gun and the newer M60A1 offered better armor and firepower than the T-55. Yet the T-55 was far from obsolete, and with the newer sub-caliber ammunition, was capable of penetrating the thick turret armor of the Israeli tanks at two kilometers.

• Andrew Cockburn (1983). The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-394-52402-0.

Time to update the article. —Michael Z. 2006-12-18 04:12 Z

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)

Hear, hear. Given the disgraceful performance of the ARVN when it wasn't being given massive American air support (and its mediocre performance when it was), I doubt that this is anything more than propaganda. Even if it were true, it didn't seem to help them a whole lot. Kensai Max 16:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Advantages and Limitations

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)Victor

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok then you have to prove that. -YMB29 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you worry, I already contacted Egermino. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Turret machine gun

Hey, it say that the machine gun mounted on top of the turret is a DShK, but some pictures show a twin-barreled machine gun that doesn't look like a DShK. Can anyone identify what sort of machine gun that was? 24.250.1.196 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are the recoil springs on the dushka's mount on the loaders hatch. The mount is shown empty in most of the shots, but you can clearly see the gun barrel and the recoil in the last photo, of the Croatian tank firing on the range. There's also a good close-up photo in DShK. —Michael Z. 2007-06-05 17:23 Z

Fume extractor

Is a fume extractor the same thing as a bore evacuator? If so, the link needs to be fixed, or a redirect added.

I've redirect the link from fume extractor. —Michael Z. 2007-06-05 17:20 Z

T-54 with M-18 Hellcat turret

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)

There is an explanation of how to use footnotes here: Wikipedia:Footnotes. Bukvoed 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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).

Unclear operators

Because one user had an issue with the fact that I couldn't provide information about each user and whenever yes or not are they still operating those MBTs I created Unclear operators list.

It's not about what issue I had, it's about what the article looks like after you change it.

Don't add headings with nothing under them. This is not an unfinished draft, it's an article meant to be read right now.

Don't make up headings to make a point. Those operators are neither "clear" nor "unclear": they are merely operators, past and present. —Michael Z. 2007-08-18 00:26 Z

Edit to Service History

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)

Czechoslovak manufactuer

Does anyone know the name of Czechoslovak manufacturer of T-54/T-55? SuperTank17 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ZTS Martin dendirrek (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ZTS Martin also produced the crane tank JVBT-55A (jeřábovi-vyprošťovací-buldozerovi tank) which was NOT produced in the former Yugoslavia (where it was in service however and known as TZI-JVBT). Czechoslovakia produced several recovery and bridge-layer tanks for the CSLA and the other WarPac armies, inluding the Soviet army! From 1967, 680 JVBT's were produced, including 172 JVBT-55KS for export to non WarPac states like Iraq etc. East-Germany received 119 JVBT-55A between 1968 and 1979 and called them Kranpanzer T-55TK.

The MT-55 bridge-layer tank was also produced by the then "TS Martin" in Slovakia, and NOT in the Soviet Union. 1,762 vehicles were build, including 183 MT-55KS export versions and 301 hulls for the East-German BLG-60 project. dendirrek (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What are your sources? Can you give me the addresses of websites you're using? Can you give me the names of books/military magazines you're using as reference? - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tanks with -1 designation.

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)

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)

T-55 in Israel (Tiran-5)

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)

Question on Improvised SLA APC

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

Another version

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" (ISBN 952-5026-26-4). 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)

Splitting the T-54/T-55 article

The T-54/T-55 article has reached a size of 85,691 bytes and it will still increase in the future.

My proposal is to split this article into T-54 article and T-55 article. It has been done a long time ago on other Wikipedias (for example Polish Wikipedia) and I don't see the reason for not doing it here since even in the "Soviet and post-Soviet armoured fighting vehicles after World War II" template the T-54 and T-55 tanks are listed separately. - SuperTank17 11:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the split. Although the T-54/55 can bee seen as the same tank with an evolutionary change...well...that is the case with most tanks. I did the same with the different Patton models some time back. --MoRsE 11:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right SuperTank: the article is getting much too long. Go for it. dendirrek 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to come across as rude, but the article, split or not, is very hard to read as it is. It does seem much of the information is repeated in different places. For example, most Infoboxes for complex weapon systems don't include specs for every variant produced. They are usually specs of the most produced initial version. Don't get me wrong, it's a heck of a lot of work, but maybe we could arrange it better even while it's being split. Awotter (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox here includes specs for Soviet/Russian versions as this is Soviet/Russian tank and most them were base models for vehicles made by other countries mentioned in T-55#International derivatives. Therefore I don't think there's anything wrong with it. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that something is "right or wrong" it's is it as good as it can be and as accesible to a reader who isn't as into the "details" as some of us are. This page is the T-72 Infobox before you added all the information and after, [1], [2] , this was the most recent M4 article [3]. I think they show that you can organize complex technical articles and meet the needs of both groups.Awotter (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The data that I inputed into the Infoboxes was generilized to make it more understandable to people who aren't "as into the "details" as some of us are".

And while we're on the subject of readability I think that the removal of most of the images made it harder to read the article. For example before you deleted the pictures from the main article and through them into the gallery a person who is reading for example about Iraqi T-55 Enigma could read the info about it and a look at the picture and therefore better understand what the article is talking about. IMHO we should restore some of the images for the reader's sake. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, the gallery is a starting place and was only meant to address the fact that not all of the images placed in the article were absolutely necessary to illustrate a particular fact or section of the article. There are a number of different ways galleries can be used and they can even be in a section. The main problem with image use in Wikipedia is the fact that not everyone who reads an article is going to see what you see on a screen. Captions should not really be a place for information that can be included in the article, because there are users who can't or don't use images. Thanks. 21:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awotter (talk • contribs)

The fact that there are images on Wikipedia doesn't stop people who don't use pictures from reading the article. On the other hand the lack of images makes it harder for most people (let's face it, most of us use pictures if there are any when we're learning about something new) to understand the subject of the article. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to split it into a general article about the tank, with a separate article about the variants, similar to the Sherman articles. I think that makes a lot more sense than a T-54 article and a T-55 article. DMorpheus (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

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:

<gallery>
Image:test.jpg|Text
Image:test.jpg|Text 2
Image:test.jpg|Text 3
</gallery>

...and this will come out:

• 
  Text
• 
  Text 2
• 
  Text 3

--MoRsE (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. What won't fit in the text I will redirect there. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Removed unsourced information PRC/US prototype

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)

Image test page up

(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)

Areas of article that might need improving?

In my opinion, some of the sections have information that seems to read like original research. That may be because of the way a sentence is written, no inline citation, or repeated one source citations with no direct link to the information cited or a combination of those. I know English is not everyone's first language, nor is it easy to convey technical information sometimes (in any language), but we have to be careful to avoid making conclusions or statements (valid as they may be) without making sure they have a strong reference/secondary source or sources. Awotter (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give us some examples of this original research? - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already indicated my concerns, the two most important sections, design and service history have six or seven inline citations, three of which are from books by the same co-author and only one of those references a page number (Zaloga) The others are from a website that does not use citations, although it cites sources used and one that is in Polish. Also, the use of separate Notes and reference sections (as I have learned from recent experience) can be very hard to follow past a certain point In many larger articles they are combined and notes are used to expand point referenced in the main section.

Those aren't insurmountable problems, but they need to be seen in the light of guidelines governing statements and acceptable sources. For example, if on the English language version you cite a fact from a foreign language source it is suggested you post the relevant text as part of the reference so it can be checked. I have purposely not made any changes to the text other than what I first saw when I came here so I could start checking what is sourced and what is not. That's also why this discussion is here, so that other editors can also do the same and the article can be improved where needed. Awotter (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I presume that the Polish source that you metioned is this website: http://www.powstanie-warszawskie-1944.ac.pl/whatfora_sentymenty.htm

And the part that you're questioning is this one: "Polish tankers said that it [DShK 1938/46 12.7 mm heavy machine gun] was useless even for that since even from the range of 400 m the accuracy was fairly poor."

The person that made that website is a former Polish tanker and personally took part in Martial Law in Poland. He was part of a T-55A crew and had his experiences with that tank and he explains them there. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Supertank, before this goes farther, please do not misunderstand what I am getting at, these are not specific criticisms aimed at any one editor or (as of yet) specific disputed facts, What concerns me is the overall tone and quality of the article as it relates to what makes a good article. What makes an article good is a firm foundation of notability, verifiability and a neutral pov when it comes to statements that can appear to be a synthesis of primary sources, those need to be balanced with strong secondary references and parts of the article are lacking them or are using references that are less than strong. I just quoted the Polish information as an example that there are guidelines it helps to follow, that was all it was. Right now there's a lot to clean up, most of it's just technical but when I first made some changes it appeared you were concerned and I don't want you to be. This probably says all this much better than I can WP:MILMOS (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Panther

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)

M41 Bulldog

User going by the name of Kensai Max seems to have an issue with the part of the article that clearly states T-54/T-55 tanks as being outperformed by M41 Bulldog and M48 Patton. The said user has been removing the said parts of the article without showing any kind of sources whatsoever and calling it a "propaganda". That's not how we treat fellow editors on this site. If we want to correct something in the article we show sources that can back up our claims. This is NOT a place for Original Research. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really mean that any POPULAR book (as long as it's in english) serves as rock-solid SOURCE, even IF it disagrees with laws of physics and widely available numerical data (ie for penetration/armour)? (Btw M48A3 has very similar frontal armour, definitely NOT "superior"; now we can judge quality of such "sources"!) And worse, next questionable claim is based upon preceding questionable claims ("...As the T-54 was outperformed by the M48 and even M41 in Vietnam, and the Indian Army..."). Now don't tell me it's not a demagogy and propaganda. 80.82.36.55 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you can prove that the source is not right in some respects then please do so don't just write claims that it's a "propaganda", ok? Can you please do this instead of calling it all a propaganda and just deleting stuff? If you're right then I'm sure that you can rationally explain your point without all that propaganda bullshit and even find a source that can prove that you are right. This Wikipedia, we do NOT apply facts by shouting them to the bottom of our throats. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First, i am not Kensai Max, and i didn't (yet) delete anything (despite this part of the article being full of blatantly false and dubious claims). Second, i really have not much to prove here - because ONLY POSITIVE STATEMENTS DO NEED ANY PROOF! So how these "sources" prove THEIR point? Do they contain post-action investigation reports, with nice photos of 75mm holes in burned T-54s? Of course not, because NVA was left in control of battlefield after most (if not ALL) relevant battles. These claims are based on nothing better than memoirs of the BEATEN side.

Now let's dig into history books (for western sources, i mostly use Ph. Davidson's book "Vietnam At War. The History 1946-1975", so you can check me here). The 1st time NVA ever used T-54s (in SMALL numbers alongside usual PT-76s and T-34s) was as late as 1971 during that disastrous ARVN raid into Laos (Lam Son 719). Involved ARVN forces had M41s only at this time (M48s were issued as a result of this battle, which speaks volumes by itself; M41s were considered definitely inadequate against such threats as T-54). Even US sources (eg those used by Davidson) claim losses of confirmed 88 NVA tanks (ALL types; severity and exact composition of these losses unknown) to 54 ARVN tanks (permanent, must be M41s only) (app. 1.5:1 ratio), and even these mostly to infantry and US airpower (USAF alone lost 108 helicopters destroyed and 618 damaged supporting this operation). There are even more specific numbers, such as 59 NVA tanks lost to airstrikes (hence only 29 to other causes, and quite opposite 1:2 ratio in favor of NVA). Can you say, how many of these 29 were T-54s? And then, how many of that (even smaller) portion fell prey to these puny 75mm Bulldog guns? And i'd bet ARVN lost much more tanks to enemy tank guns than NVA (though still not as much as to RPGs and ordinary artillery).

Later on, overall picture remains the same: unlike Middle East and India, tanks rarely fought other tanks in open battle, sheer weight of tank losses to both sides was to mines, infantry AT weapons and (in case of NVA) enemy airpower. Only in very last stages of the war NVA used big numbers of tanks simultaneously, sometimes leading to tank-vs-tank shootouts, and by that time ARVN was already in very bad shape and lost badly. One curious pattern of events repeated again and again: after yet another reported "lopsided victory" ARVN armoured forces fled the area, completely disintegrating in the process. :)

So, we can conclude that reports about M48 vs T-54 performance are highly questionable (given the outcome of final large-scale campaigns of this war, where these two models had decent chance of engaging one another), and any mention of M41s "outperforming" T-54/55s is absolute, ridiculous, blatant BULLSHIT! 80.82.55.38 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, 80.82.55.38. By the way, there seems to be only one confirmed battle between NVA tanks and US (i mean - not ARVN) tanks: on 3rd march 1969 eight PT-76 led a night assault on US camp in Ben Het. Americans were warned and reinforced the garrison with M48 platoon. One PT-76 was lost on mines, and two more were shot by M48s (americans lost one M48). So vietnamese T-54 never fought american M48s at all, and any south vietnamese sources of the last stage of war are a joke. The entire "Other conflicts" fragment is indeed full of propaganda and ridiculous fantasies. As there are no objections still, i will edit it in a couple of days, if no one else does. 195.218.210.139 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A small correction: no M48A3 used during the battle of Ben Het was lost. Only one was lightly damaged which can be explained by the fact that the 76,2 mm tank gun used in PT-76 was considered light for a post WWII tank and it lacked the punch needed to pose a greater threat to M48A3. The same thing happened during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 when Indian PT-76 light tanks were effective against older designs such as M24 Chaffee but couldn't face M48 and Type 59 main battle tanks.

I agree that ~the entire conflicts section is rather small. When I'll have more I'll try to make it bigger. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The performance of the M41's main gun against a T-55 would have been very, very marginal. Figures are easily available online. Also, given the total collapse of the ARVN in the face of the VPA I wouldn't be making any big claims about their tank-fighting skills or taking claims made by them about successful encounters with the enemy seriously. They were few and far between. Kensai Max (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you HAVE sources that can prove your claims than please use them and don't just violently remove parts of the article without showing any kind of prove that you're right. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh Campaign

Claiming that ARVN tankers enjoyed any measure of success against the VPA is like claiming Saddam Hussein's army put up a good fight in 1991. The proof is in the pudding. Kensai Max (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox cleanup

Template:Infobox weapon "may be used to summarize information about a particular weapon or weapon system." It is not meant to replace the article. It is not meant to present information about multiple weapons. Individual fields are meant to contain simple data items, not the complete data from another infobox or two [secondary armament lists an AK-47's ammunition count!?]. Some fields contain data for two named models plus one unidentified one, others simply have data for one, falsely implying that it represents all.

This is unreadable, confusing, and misleading.

Let's pick a representative model, and clean up the infobox. If there isn't a better suggestion, I'll enter the specs for the T-55.

Significant differences between models can be shown in a table, à la T-34#Table of tank models. —Michael Z. 2008-04-28 15:05 Z

The ammunition count for AK-47 is about the number of rounds the tank carriers for this weapon.

About the idea of "cleaning up" the infobox: I would prefer to put one main variant in the infobox (T-55 or T-55A) and put the rest of the differences between variants in a table. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of rifle bullets that its crewmembers carry isn't a characteristic of this vehicle at all, and anyway that level of detail doesn't belong in an infobox summary. If it happens to always be equipped with so many magazine racks, that can be mentioned where it is relevant in the text.

The rest sounds good. I nominate T-55 for the infobox, which doesn't differ much in basic characteristics from the T-54, as representing the tank series as it was initially fielded and continues to be used in less industrialized countries. Subsequent versions were meant for a different battlefield, alongside the significantly improved T-62 and next-generation T-64. —Michael Z. 2008-04-28 18:51 Z

Dispute year of development and first production

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)

Resolved. Dhatfield (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Remove Pancerni.net cites

The Pancerni.net[4] source seems to get its basic facts wrong, i.e. places start of T-55 production 3 years too early (see my undo[5]), and it doesn't cite any other sources in turn. All of its citations in the article should be fact-checked, and it should be removed from the article. —Michael Z. 2008-05-24 15:30 z

Errors happen. If you would look at some American sources about Soviet/Chinese/North Korean AFVs you would see that this is nothing compared to what they state.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an error to change figures in Wikipedia articles based on crap sources. The "reference" in question has a dozen ads, but the author hasn't even bothered pasting his body text so that it's readable: "chroniony by³ od góry p³yt± o grubo¶ci 33 mm", so why on Earth would someone assume that his figures were more reliable than what was already here? Please avoid using unreferenced hobby and ad-bait web sites—see WP:SOURCES for some advice. —Michael Z. 2008-05-24 17:29 z

If you were to judge the cites by whether they have or don't have adds than you could classify almost every cite based source as unreliable. Also this cite has very few adds. Just one on the top and one on the right. There no pop up adds like the ones you get on many cites.

Also I don't understand your problem with the text you quoted. The author wrote in Polish language (I advise you to read about it) and used Polish letters (This could come in handy for you as well) which you can't see because you don't have the appropriate font. So don't go accusing the author for writing in his native language. It's like I would accuse you of speaking in English...

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly twelve ads in three blocks, including the Firefox banner. After looking at the page more closely, I see that the text is correct, but the page has 58 validation errors, so perhaps this is why my browser was unable to display it using the correct character set, displaying letters as "³", "±", "¿", and "¶". I see also that there are some sources mentioned on another page, but it is not footnoted and the author is anonymous.

There are still two serious problems.

1. This self-published site does not fit Wikipedia's description of a reliable source.
2. An incorrect fact taken from the site replaced a correct fact in our article.

Please be careful, and try to use better sources. I'll calm down now. —Michael Z. 2008-05-25 00:32 z

Edit-warring

Please use edit summaries according to the guideline at Help:Edit summary. The talk page is for discussion of disputes, or use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please find a consensus, then update the article. If it will help to protect the article, just let me know and I will gladly do so. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-06-11 19:30 z

"Such as.."

It appears that SuperTank17 insists on reverting my edits about the samples of tanks that the T-55 performance was raised into it's performance, when it was upgraded. i am trying to say that many of these upgrades are from western origins, and/or intended to match the performance of some western tanks, but he insists of mentioning the T-72, and T-80 only. i am not asking for mentioning all of them, but not mentioning any of them is better, since the term "modern tanks", or "newer tanks" would be much more generalized. Supertank17's comment was that he is not just reverting my edit, he is improving it, but i think that the one who adds a summery for his edit is the one who is really trying to improve the article, rather than....maybe having the last word ? if u wanna have the last word go ahead, supertank17, but do it right.

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For me the term is perfectly fine for that one bit of the article and if someone wants to read more about T-54/55 variants he/she can look it up in the variants article. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what i mean. the reader can read about the variants elsewhere, and there are links provided in the article for that. Adding suitable examples is a problem that we can avoid very easily by not mentioning any of them, and that wont damage the article, or decrease it's value. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly says "A wide array of upgrades in different price ranges are provided by many manufacturers in different countries, intended to bring the T-54/55 up to the capabilities of tanks such as T-72, T-80 and other newer MBTs, at a lower cost". It is a simplification of the most important T-54/55 modernizations. That sentence does not try to list all of the variants. It simply says what kind of modernizations were made (among others that aren't as important). Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now we have another discussion about which upgrades are more important. see what i mean?

It brings unnecessary discussion. generalizing the term as i did, and stating "better tanks", or "more advanced tanks" is better, and would make us avoid a discussion, since i already do not agree with u about that the upgrades intended to bring it to the level of these certain tanks are more important, i think that the one to bring it to the T-80 level is even less important than most of the upgrades, since it never entered actual service with any nation until now.

It would be nice if u can generalize it in a better way, but as for now, the specification of these 2 tanks must be removed. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

T-54/55 is a Soviet tank therefore Soviet/Russian modernization programs like T-55M5 and T-55M6 are more important when talking about it. The other modernizations are mentioned in the following words: "other newer MBTs".

Also I don't understand why you want to avoid discussion. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In a matter of fact, the 2 upgrades u mentioned are both not soviet!

I want to avoid unnecessary discussions that brings no thing but troubles, but ready for constructive discussions that fixes articles. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I said "Soviet/Russian".

This isn't an unnecessary discussion.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was, i explained to u what kinda discussions i try to avoid. give me an acceptable reason for refusing the generalization idea, please.

BTW, the "Soviet/Russian" explanation still does not fit correctly to the examples. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ten days, no word. I assume that there is no thing to be said then. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot to say but there's a lot of other things to do other than answering the same questions and arguments over and over again. Also tell me what T-55M5 and T-55M6 are if not Russian modernizations of T-55? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that...is what i call an unnecessary discussion. I never told u that they were not Russian modernizations, and u can make a search on the web to find out if u doubt that. If u are ready to return to the core of the discussion, i would be happy to go on with u in a constructive discussion that improves the article. U might try to answer one of my questions as a start which was about a reasonable reason for refusing the generalization. do that, and we might end up with a useful result.

Thanx in advance One last pharaoh (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"[...] I never told u that they were not Russian modernizations [...]" Excuse me? Let's recap this on bit of our discussion shall we? I said "T-54/55 is a Soviet tank therefore Soviet/Russian modernization programs like T-55M5 and T-55M6 are more important when talking about it." than you said "In a matter of fact, the 2 upgrades u mentioned are both not soviet!" than I said "I said "Soviet/Russian"." and than you said "the "Soviet/Russian" explanation still does not fit correctly to the examples". Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And the point here is..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that you say one thing and than you're saying that you didn't say it. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When u are ready to take this discussion seriously, and friendly, maybe we can come up with some thing useful. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to do here. And right now I'm waiting for you to answer what you meant in those sentences that I quoted because this issue is right now blocking our way to "coming up with something useful". Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute here ! Do u really do not get it?!

Ok, the description soviet/russian does not fit exactly to the modernizations since they are done after a way long time since the USSR collapsed - just in case, make sure of that u know that russia is not even a communist state - . i find it wrong to associate an upgrade to a country that did not make it, and specially, if that country does not exist any more !

Are u now happy with the discussion?

Why do not u answer my question about why would we refuse the generalization idea?

Thanx in advance, fellow editor. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So you were just nitpicking. Just as I expected. Well than to make sure that you won't have any issues anymore lets add T-55AMV to this disscusion as an example of Soviet T-55 modernization.

Moving on, generalization is good some times when it's unnecessary to go into too much detail but in this situation it's good to give the reader a few examples when T-55 tanks were modernized to the standards of newer tanks (such as T-72) and modern tanks (such as T-80). We're giving Soviet and/or Russian examples because they're more important for a Soviet tank than foreign modernizations. Oh and about USSR not existing anymore: USSR --> Russia. I hope it will give you some sort of perspective. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to differentiate ur last contribution into 3 parts

The first part does not deserve my time to respond to it, however it reminds my of my advices to u about the civil manner.

The second part is much more worthing the discussion than the first, however not being completely about the topic. Any way, i think that we have already reached that result where u say that those certain MBT's are more important, and i try to convince u that that's ur own opinion. we can include a link to the variants article in place of them in case the absolute generalization would bother u; doing so would fulfill both of our points of view, as it would not mention any certain tank "my point", and mention examples of modernization in a very brief way that the reader can reach it with a single click.

If u do not mind, check the Morozov Design Bureau "or, the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau, if u want". I do not want to disappoint u, but actually, the tank was originally designed in the former part of the soviet union which is now known as Ukraine, never the less the T-80 was designed in the same nation. Assuming that russian-soviet more modern tanks are better to describe a Ukrainian-Soviet tank is not very much right. Assuming that a Ukrainian-Soviet tank is an example of Russian-Soviet more modern tanks - or, "Soviet and/or Russian", if u want - is completely wrong.

About the third part;

Thanx for trying to give me some sort of perspective, as some thing i do in return, why do not u check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USSR&redirect=no , fellow editor.

Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to tell me that a foreign modernization can be more important for a SOVIET tank than a SOVIET OR RUSSIAN modernization? The fact that Ukraine broke out of USSR in 1991 doesn't make T-54 (because T-55 was designed by OKB-520 design bureau of Uralvagonzavod factory (UVZ) from Nizhny Tagil) an Ukrainian tank. Because if we were to apply that logic than we should call T-54 a Russian tank. Also if you have any uncertainties of who took USSR's legacy than check Russia article. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me how very unwilling to have a constructive discussion u are, after all of what have been said !

check ur resources again to find that the T-54 was designed by Ukraine under the soviet union, and since we do not have a separate article for the T-55, i used the term "the tank". That's as far as u should expect as a response from me for ur out of topic contributions from now on.

The article have about 2 days, if u or another editor -hopefully a constructive one- discussed the topic, and gave possible, and acceptable ideas, during that period the discussion shall be resumed, other wise, the article will be changed. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look if you were a more cooperative person than we may have something worked out by now but as you can see we don't have. Look all I'm saying is that a T-55AMV is more important for T-55 tank than foreign T-55 modernizations. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to be more official, and avoid the frequent usage of "look", and other stuff like that, please.

Please define collaboration, or how can i be more collaborative with u, becuase i believe that each single person who reads the discussion disagree with u about that, so maybe u want me to forget about the whole matter, or some thing?

The T-55AMV is an example, and that is the matter here. let me explain it again, as if i did not already explain it dozen times; we cannot include examples, because what one user see as a good example is seen by another as a bad one, instead we can avoid all that by simply either not mentioning any thing at all, or putting a link to the variants article. My personal opinion is that it does not matter where the upgrade come from, and i also do not agree with the definition "foreign", simply because the place of origin is a state that no longer exists. I hope that u got my point this time, because i believe that i have explained it more than enough so far.

So please let us keep discussing the main topic, and the discussion might end up with a nice result. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can be more cooperative if you would at least try to understand what other people want to do. See the situation from their view point. Also pretty much every time we talked it was always in a offensive manner. It was always because you opposed something that I supported. This and your so-so level of English don't make it easy for us to work together. I have nothing against you personally and I would be delighted if we could work together as team rather than fight each other like enemies. I'm not saying that I'm flawless. I do have my own weaknesses and my own limitations. And apparently I had enough fighting with you (seeing how it's impossible to convince you) and decided come up with a compromise. Here's the version that I propose: "A wide array of upgrades in different price ranges are provided by many manufacturers in different countries, intended to bring the T-54/55 up to the capabilities of newer and modern MBTs, at a lower cost (For details about T-54/55 modernizations and other T-54/55 variants see T-54/T-55 Operators and variants article)."

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Welling to end this discussion peacefully, and happy that u finally are using the civil manner when discussing with me, i would ignore the strange stuff u wrote about me up there.

I agree with the proposal, and happy that we finally are enjoying a civil discussion.

This Time, i am not saying "Thanx in advance", but Thanx. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not B-Class

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Split article

I suggest we split off the 'Variants' section and create a separate article for that content. There are a few very popular vehicles such as the T-55, Sherman and T-34 that have so many variants it makes sense to split it off. Both articles would then be more readable. Thoughts?

DMorpheus (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would consider this standard practice by now.

Perhaps the “models” table can be simplified to only include significant information, and the detailed breakdown moved to the variants article as well. I'd be glad to help with the table. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 21:51 z

My bad, a variants article already existed. I moved the variants table to that article and deleted the table and much of the listing from this one. Both articles still need a lot of work though. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Production history

The production history section is very hard to read and might better be presented as a table. Thoughts? DMorpheus (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Much of that could be rolled into the detailed “development history”, or added to the end of it. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 21:54 z

Self-published sources

The article relies on some self-published sources such as JED (unreliable) and gary's equipment guide. I suggest we eliminate those and add only cites from reliable sources. DMorpheus (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just holler when the ammo's getting low... —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 22:03 z

I am looking at buying a few written sources to get this article to FA (potentially). I have Osprey's book, and I have another book on Soviet Armor by Zaloga, and currently I am looking at buying the book published in the AFV Profile series. So, hopefully, this article will be cleaned up soon. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. It's been edited heavily in recent months but not necessarily productively. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

that is a pure fabrication

in February 1971. During that battle, 17 M41 light tanks of the ARVN 1st Armored Brigade destroyed 22 Communist tanks; 6 T-54 and 16 PT-76, at no loss to themselves.[17] On Easter Sunday, 2 April 1972, the newly-activated ARVN 20th Tank Regiment, consisting of approximately fifty-seven M48A3 Patton tanks (ARVN regiments were equivalent to US battalions, and ARVN squadrons were equivalent to US companies or troops)[18] received reports of a large NVA tank column moving towards Dong Ha (the largest South Vietnamese city near the DMZ at the 17th parallel). At about noon, the crewmen of the ARVN 1st Squadron observed enemy armour moving south along highway 1 towards Dong Ha, and concealed their tanks with a good vantage from the high ground. Waiting for the NVA column to close to between 2,500 and 3,000 meters, the 90-mm guns of the Pattons opened fire, quickly destroying nine PT-76 light tanks and two T-54 medium tanks.[19] The remaining NVA armour, unable to see their enemy, turned about and withdrew.

76mm Gun Tank, Walker Bulldog M41

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)

File:T-55 commander.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:T-55 commander.jpg, 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)

Online Zaloga book

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)

Classification

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)

Spent shells

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)

T-55s in Angola

Somebody keeps adding inaccurate information from either of these two sources - and - that 10 Olifant tanks were knocked out by T-55s during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. This is pure disinformation. It's a popular myth circulated by the Cuban/FAPLA propaganda machine to exaggerate the enemy's losses during a time when the ongoing peace talks with South Africa over Namibian independence and the SADF's withdrawal from Angola were gaining ground. Some Olifants were damaged in an airstrike by MiG-23s, three were left behind in a minefield, and at least one other was disabled when it actually struck a mine. No Olifants were lost to T-55 fire....it's simply preposterous to suggest that "10" were lost. If South Africa lost a single armoured car it was big news because they had such meagre resources and couldn't afford to take serious casualties like Cuba. "The Cubans destroyed 10 Olifants" is like saying a US armoured division was totally obliterated in one day - considering there were only 13 Olifants anywhere within 500 km of Cuito Cuanavale. This figure of 10 is only mentioned in antecedotes by Cuban veterans or in press releases by Cuba/Angola during the final days of the South African Border War, which ended in 1990 (the separate, though intertwined, Angolan Civil War went on until 2002).

Hoaxes like this one are recognisable by their vague language and total lack of any other battlefield specifics (time, place, specific callsigns/units involved, etc.) beyond the body count.

Source text - ...Это был кубинский подполковник Эктор. Он не погиб, а полу-чил два тяжёлых ранения, одно из которых – в область рта, так что, впоследствии, с трудом мог говорить. В кубинском фильме про Куито-Куанавале есть материал о нём, и он там сам выступает. В га-зете «Красная Звезда» за тот год была статья про него и про его атаку. Естественно, в той статье не было сказано, что кубинскую контратаку возглавил советский майор Вихров на своём БТРе. Через некоторое время в его БТР попал юаровский снаряд, советские советники чудом остались живы. После этого они выскочили из БТРа и вынуждены были уходить от юаровцев по минному полю. Как они его пробежали, одному Богу известно, поскольку очень много ангольцев, бежавших вместе с ними, подорвались на минах. В той контратаке было под- бито семь кубинских танков, остался один с подполковником Экто-ром, дважды раненым, но юаровцы потерпели жестокое поражение, потерь, по кубинским данным, 10 танков «Олифант». (Прим. Олега Грицука.) (Ветераны локальных войн и миротворческих операций ООН вспоминают, by Tokarev)

Source text - By this superiority of forces, they achieve to break the defense of the 59° Angolan Brigade. To cover this place were urgently thrown the unique 8 T-55 Cubans in movement in Cuito, by the command of the lieutenant colonel Héctor Aguilar. They stop the South African, destroying 10 Olifants and 4 armored cars, and losing 6 T-55 (3 by anti-tanks rockets RPG, and 3 by the Olifants). The remainder of the Olifants retires behind march. In this collision die 14 of the 39 Cubans perished in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, but this sacrifice went not in vain, therefore the attack of its T-55 saves the situation of the battle, that already was in crisis. This is the first collision in the war between Olifants and Cubans T-55, and is a victory for these, which would be the norm until the end of the war. March 23 the Olifants support the last attack to Cuito Cuanavale, that finishes with another disaster, when the SADF lost 3 Olifants in minefields and by artillery fire. (http://www.urrib2000.narod.ru/Tanques3-e.html)

I can provide a lengthy list of even more sources discrediting this ridiculous anecdote if any user has an issue with it. If it continued to be added to the article its removal will be justified under WP:DNCH.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The SA claims regarding the T-55 losses can also be considered propaganda...

The article has to reflect what reliable sources say, not what you think is right, see WP:TRUTH.

You complained that the previous source was not reliable, so I found a reliable one. -YMB29 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The old regime in SA is gone - replaced by the former liberation movement no less, so it's not around to keep feeding propaganda out there anymore or influence studies on the topic (and most Saffie sources have been published since 1994). Can't say the same for Cuba.

Regarding the claim itself, what we have here is a direct conflict of sources. You're using a Russian account claiming that 6-7 Cuban tanks were lost and 10 Olifants were destroyed in a single engagement. I'm using a British account - Bridgland - claiming that there was only one tank-on-tank skirmish at Cuito Cuanavale and secondly, a South African account - Heitman - which insists that only 2 Cuban tanks were lost and no Olifants destroyed during said confrontation. Obviously we're discussing the same engagement, while simultaneously citing different figures. Someone's not using a reliable source. How do we fix this?

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter if the old regime is gone. Many South Africans defend the actions of their troops and accept only their accounts of what took place on the battlefield. However, this is all off topic.

There is nothing in the sources about those T-55s in the engagement being Cuban.

Also, where does it say that there was only one tank battle?

When there is a conflict of sources, we have to present both views, not censor one in favor of the other. -YMB29 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that I find hard to believe considering that most South Africans I've met - especially those who regard "the Struggle" [against apartheid] most highly - completely fail to defend or excuse any actions of the old apartheid-era defence force. The SADF has lost nationwide credibility in the post-1994 popular opinion polls due to their atrocities in the black townships, something the ANC has been quick to capitalise on. There's a reason the vast majority of white SADF vets don't openly discuss their experiences. Nobody but hardcore right-wingers want to be seen as exonerating the apartheid military machine.

Anyway, instead of censoring anything I'll apply what worked the last time I had to reconcile two conflicting views of a popular event. Let's see who can come up with the most sources supporting their information. If this backs up the statement that 10 Olifants were lost, I'll be more than happy to go with it. Whatever version is the most widely circulated and accepted as the truth probably belongs in this article.

In The Last Hot Battle of the Cold War, by Peter Polack, only one tank-on-tank engagement is mentioned, that of November 9. He explicitly states that no Olifants were lost in the encounter, just a Ratel IFV. The only other time Olifants are mentioned in his detailed, battle-by-battle account of the campaign is when they were used to clear minefields during subsequent SADF assaults. By keeping careful track of what the tanks were doing and where they were during each separate phase, Polack debunks the notion that they could have faced other AFVs again. At the end of the book total South African tank losses at Cuito Cuanavale are placed at 4. Polack's source is significant in that he mentioned that the Olifants had only been added to the battle minutes earlier, and had not appeared in Angola beforehand. Therefore, there's no way another engagement with the T-55s could have occurred prior to November 9. And after November 9 the Olifants' actions are entirely accounted for.

In Days of Generals, by Hilton Hamann, only one tank encounter - November 9 - is referenced. In his words, within nine minutes of being cleared to engage, the Olifants had shot out two T-55s at no loss to their own number. His is the most conservative estimate I've seen so far concerning the number of T-55s lost. From the pictures I've actually seen of the battle site in Angola I can only confirm three surviving wrecks - two unidentified tanks and a BTR, so I'm sticking with his account until somebody shows me different (I can post my links to these photographs of the two confirmed Olifant kills at this site if you wish). Incidentally, there are no wrecked Olifants anywhere near there. In fact, none whatsoever until you get much further north of the Cuito river where the FAPLA minefields were. If 10 Olifants were really destroyed at this site, they sure aren't there any more.

Bridgland is absolutely adamant that this was the only encounter ever fought between Olifants and T-55s. He takes the time to include one section specifically detailing the deployment of Olifants, covering their use in the campaign, etc. No other engagements beyond that on the 9th are mentioned. According to the Bridgland, that skirmish was the first time Olifants made their appearance facing other tanks in Angola. He goes on to elaborate on the heavy exchange of fire between the tanks when they first met (at apparently close range) and cites at least one occasion when the T-55's 100mm shell failed to pierce an Olifant's frontal armour. The tank survived with just a damaged track. Aside from this one track, all the other Olifants survived intact.

That the tanks were Cuban I have no absolutely no doubt. Bridgland, Polack, Dunstan and Simon George's Cuban Intervention in Angola, 1965-1991: From Che Guevara to Cuito Cuanavale (which incidentally, cites the total loss of Olifants as three) all make passing reference to the fact that they were. "...Cubans mounted a counteroffensive..." "Cubans east of the river crossing were thereby ordered to save 16 Brigade..." "By the end of the 9th the Cuban commander's tank was the only one operational..." Polack in particular refers to a Cuban lieutenant named 'Hector' who led the tank company on November 9. The Angolan unit involved in this action (the 16th Brigade) did not have any permanent heavy armour; it was not a tank unit. Its inventory seemed to be mostly BTR-60s, BTR-152s, and a few BRDM-2s. Since the 16th had no trained personnel to man any T-55s attached to their squadron, Cuban crews were filling this role.

According to Heitman's source, the South Africans were running well behind schedule on the 9th. The plan was to have FAPLA completely in the back by the 11th, which was some Angolan holiday or another, to prevent the combined FAPLA-Cuban forces from scoring any more propaganda victories. He goes on to describe the battle in exquisitely vivid detail. I can tell you for a fact that I've had a copy of this book on my top shelf for about two years now, and it's beyond a doubt one of the best accounts anywhere you can find about the South African ops from 1987 to 1988. Heitman mentions that the tanks were a mix of T-54s and T-55s. He confirms one kill apiece for each. The T-55 was buried beyond an earthen rampart. An Olifant APSFDS round slammed through the fortification and killed this particular tank. The T-54 seems to have been the rearmost tank in the counterattacking Cuban formation, as it fell victim to a flanking maneuver. Heitman doesn't say whether it was shot out by an Olifant or a Ratel-90, but I would assume it's an Olifant. The type of shell used here seems to have been HEAT, rather than the more effective APSFDS darts generally used for anti-tank purposes. Ratels only fired HEAT, but many Olifants carried HEAT/HESH rounds to begin with (better for dealing with static positions, etc) and the crews generally fired this first to clear the gun before loading in APSFDS. Heitman maintains that by the end of Cuito Cuanavale up to four Olifants had been written off - all to landmines.

Oh, and one more thing to discuss - I suggest you don't remove any more of the information in that paragraph without thoroughly checking the source first. You must see things from my perspective here. Read that insignificant little caption on pg. 74 again. The whole paragraph, please? Don't just give it a cursory glance like you did earlier. It mentions that the T-55s facing Olifants in Angola were manned mainly by Cubans. And since there was only one engagement between the two tank types during the entire war it's more than clear what particular incident they're referring to.

Thanks! --Katangais (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to prove something you should provide quotes from sources, and not your own analysis and summaries of what different sources say.

You have not provided anything that backs up your statement that there was only one tank engagement in the war. Just because sources mention one, you can't assume that it was the only one.

If one source says that the T-55s were mainly manned by Cubans and other sources mention a tank engagement, which you believe to be the only one, you can't conclude that Cubans were in the tanks during that engagement. This is an example of synthesis. -YMB29 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sweet hell, doesn't your own source state that those were Cubans?

Look - I've been more than reasonable. I just spent four hours reviewing all of my reference material again, just for your benefit. And this is the response I get? No. I could manually type the over nine pages of text from Heitman's book and every other source I've already consulted today, all for the same kind of unappreciative nitpicky response I just received. You want the page numbers? Fine. But I draw the line at arguments that depart from the real world.

This is going nowhere. I'll be placing a formal request for a third opinion soon.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you throwing a fit over this?

I have spent hours reviewing the sources too.

You don't need to quote pages from books. Only the parts that prove your arguments.

Statements in the article must be directly backed up by what the sources say, not your own interpretations of sources.

The source that I added is not necessarily talking about the same engagement the other sources describe.

You requested dispute resolution instead of a third opinion. It is too early for a third opinion, not to speak of dispute resolution... -YMB29 (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you really spent hours reviewing my sources, you wouldn't keep disputing the casualty counts I cite. Or facts like Cubans crewed the tanks on the 9th. You're being intentionally coy with me.

Dispute resolution is the same thing as requesting a third opinion. Plus, it's likelier that somebody whose efforts you actually respect will get involved. That's my perspective on things. --Katangais (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same thing. You can't just jump to dispute resolution after less than two days of discussion.

Again, if something is a fact, you should not have trouble providing sources that state it. -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not willing to waste my time on a lost cause. I've already told you what it would take to convince me your information is accurate - see the fifth paragraph above. What will it take to convince you that mine is? --Katangais (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, you should not be deciding which information is accurate and which is not. WP:TRUTH states:

Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia.[6]

I also told you before that you have to quote the sources that say that there was only one tank engagement and that the Cubans manned the tanks during that engagement. You cannot conclude yourself that this was so based on what you have read. WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.[7]

-YMB29 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pray tell me why the information you added to the article claims that Cubans counterattacked with tanks. --Katangais (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Because that is what the source says. -YMB29 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability

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)

1945 Prototype

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)

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)

Feedback

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)

I have linked the term to the relevant section of the Continuous track article. (Hohum ^@) 10:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The hull width is questionable

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)

T-54/55 fire control system split

Was it really necessary to create a whole new article just for this relatively narrow topic? Schierbecker (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Russian Tanks when it comes to Ukraine war

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)

Minor flaw

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)

2023 Sudan clashes

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

Infobox image

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)