T-55: The Insurgent's Friend

In Syria the FSA and some other rebel factions have acquired former Government tanks and according to Iran’s news channel Press TV (take this with a grain of salt) from Libyan arsenals supplied by the west. These mostly seem to be the venerable old T-55 which has been serving the needs of third world and smaller states for the better part of nearly 60 years. In Syria we’ve been seeing many videos of the rebels operating T-55s with varying degrees of effectiveness. Syria’s prewar armory was a mishmash of Soviet designs and anything else they could get their hands on, even ex-Wehrmacht Panzer IVs. Of course with Soviet support the T-55 and T-62 dominated the arsenal, with T-72 being delivered later on. This blog gives the figure for the T-55 as around 2250 with many in fixed static positions or, I assume, cannibalized for parts at some point. 

FAS Guide to the T-55

How the T-55 works

I’ve studied Soviet hardware since I was about five years old and the T-55 was always the hallmark of Soviet assistance. They had produced thousands upon thousands of them and throughout the 1960s the Soviet Army were more concerned with equipping themselves with the T-64 and later T-72 models. The T-55 was the bargain MBT handed out to client states. Even the Rhodesians acquired some though the South Africans intercepting a shipment meant for Uganda in the mid-1970s. The T-55 in its most effective form was after the IDF captured a whole bunch in the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars. The IDF, never known for being picky, upgraded their new tanks with American engines, electronics, guns and even an American style phone on the back so the infantry can talk to the tank commander. If you’ve seen The Beast, a movie set in Afghanistan early in the Soviet invasion, you have seen the IDF T-55. Dale Dye bought two of them for the production through contacts with the IDF. 

The IDF variant of the T-55 is the most interesting and, frankly, a good model for up and coming young insurgent tankers to look at. Soviet combat vehicles are not known for their reliability. The engine life on most the T-series MBTs are insanely short. The V-55 diesel only put out about 80 HP and was a direct descendent of a Soviet dirigible engine that, in 1928, was fairly powerful. By the mid-1950s it was distinctly underpowered and with poor quality control not even reliable.

Luckily for the modern owner of a T-55 there are upgrade packages available. Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building in the Ukraine, for example, offers an engine upgrade for the old T-55 with a multi-fuel power pack capable of something like 850hp. In addition other upgrades are available, including the main gun, electronics and co-axel machine guns. The company is specific that the upgrades can be completed in small workshops with basic lifting equipment, welding and metal cutting. If the specs listed are correct, the modified T-55 will have an across the board performance increase. You can buy T-55s for scrap prices, purchase an upgrade kit and hit up your dad’s garage for a week for a new tank. I wonder what the College Parking committee would say to that. 

 Upgrading your T-55

KMMB's Upgrade Ad

It goes to show that with upgrades the T-55 is still extremely useful for small wars. While it’s no match for Western MBTs it doesn’t really need to be. In a civil conflict, insurgent war or a conflict between two roughly matched opponents a couple of upgraded T-55s would be perfect. The continued use and upgrading of the T-55 also demonstrates how “westernized” our ideas of security are. Sane leaders and commanders realize that the M1A2 and Challenger 2 can annihilate any of their old Soviet tech without even turning off the air conditioner.  But they also know that the possibility of that occurring is remote for the most part unless they go Saddam Hussein or Serbia on somebody. 

For the missions those small states undertake regionally a reliable, upgraded T-55 is fine. In fact, I would argue that’s perfect.  In the west we tend to get caught up in technology and the continual sophistication of military equipment. None of this is needed in conflicts like what we are seeing in Syria and what we have seen in Libya and many other fights in and between small third world states. What IS needed is reliability, low-tech, and easy to maintain. That’s why I wrote this, I think the T-55 provides a good basis for such a beast and it provides a view outside of the western-centric ideal of a technology powered army in regions where high tech can be a hindrance.