T-62s in Russian Army

I can't find it

No worries. If you come across it in the future or if someone else spots it, then it can be posted here for discussion.

The T-62 was less prone to break downs and logistically more suited.

Would want to talk to Jippo on MPnet to be sure (he has real experience in T-72s), but I don't think they had many problems with the domestic T-72... AFAIK it was reliable and cheap. By the time the war in Afghanistan started it had already been in service and production for almost ten years so I suspect any normal teething issues would already have been dealt with.

AFAIK the main reason they used the T-62s in Afghanistan was because it was cheap and they didn't need it for anything else. The added advantage was that Afghanistan already had T-55 and T-62 tanks so support and maintainence facilities and equipment was already in place.

Even though the early model T-72s were cheap and easy to mass produce I still think they felt that they were best designed for Europe and it would not make sense to have lots of different vehicle types in Afghanistan.

They didn't use T-64s or T-80s in Afghanistan either... there was simply no advantage to sending different types with capabilities that were not needed... the lighter ammo of the older vehicles was plenty powerful enough for what it was used for there... many of them were used as gate guards and were dug in as direct fire artillery support, so mobility was not a huge issue anyway. Their armoured forces tended to generally stick to the roads.

Yeah, there's a fair bit of that going on...

And I am happy to admit that I am only interested in Russian or Soviet vehicles and that despite being similar I am not really interested in Chinese or Ukrainian tanks... so I am probably one of the worst offenders in that regard.

I realise Wiki is not the most reliable source, but it says:

The T-72 was never used in the Afghanistan war. The 40th Soviet army, that was deployed there only had T-55 and T-62 tanks.

Which makes sense to me, there were no T-90s used in the first Chechen conflict or in Georgia for the same reason... the 40th Army is not a front line high priority force that gets the latest vehicles.

GarryB wrote:
there were no T-90s used in the first Chechen conflict or in Georgia for the same reason... the 40th Army is not a front line high priority force that gets the latest vehicles.

Not sure about that, i have read there were indeed some T-90 in Georgia and they did take part in combat. I will have to verifee that later.

No. None in Georgia for the Conflict.

They sent quite a few to Abkhazia after the conflict, but none there during.

There were some in the second Chechen conflict in Dagestan but with no loses.

In 2013 T-62 will be retired from the Army after being in service for more than 50 years. Age and ammunition are the main causes for the decision. There are 900 left, and there might be some countries interested in buying them. They should go quite cheap. T-62MV can be a competitive tank in many regions.

www.shturmnovosti.com/view.php?id=50080&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

About time, i guess they only take up storage space, and perhaps they can sell a few to Africa, but i doubt it.
Its the end of an era, but the tank was never a succes and with thousands of T-72, T-80 it can be hard to sell of.
Now when Armada comes, the stores must be empty to fill with T-72.

The final word of T-62, perhaps not a failure, but certainly a disapointment.

How so?

If anything, considering its stop-gap nature, I think the T-62 past all expectation over its service life.

TR1 wrote:How so?

If anything, considering its stop-gap nature, I think the T-62 past all expectation over its service life.

Hardly..
Despite its improvements and advancements, the T-62 eventually showcased several limitations to her design. The new advanced tank proved more expensive to produce in quantity, derailing foreign interest, they being content in keeping/producing/modernizing their T-54/55 series still. The lack of T-62 large-scale interest ultimately forced T-55-producing factories to continue serial while T-62 was ultimately discontinued. Furthermore, the original Russian engines proved unreliable and crew protection was lacking - as combat would soon show.

Only advantage the t-62 had over t-55 was better ap rounds with 115mm, but this was not lasting as new ap ammo to 100mm gun was just as effective.
And if one compare t-62 against same age British chieftain its badly outclassed. Also the ww2 Centurion with 105 gun was superior in every aspect.

Factories kept making T-55s even when the T-72 was made, so that logic doesn't really work.
Even with AP ammo, the 100mm was NOT on par with the 115, in terms of accuracy and flatness, not to mention new APFSDS ammo that got numbers better than any 100mm AP round + better HE rounds.
For the USSR, this was worth it over the T-55.
I would like to hear more about this supposed engine unreliability btw, apparently the Russian army which kept using the tanks up till 2008 reliably did not know about this.


"And if one compare t-62 against same age British chieftain its badly outclassed. Also the ww2 Centurion with 105 gun was superior in every aspect. "

Nonsense, and battle records prove this. Look up the T-62 use in Iraq-Iran.
Even the Israelis, who had no problem with the tank (due to tactics) respected the tanks capabilities, and said so.\

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=27641

The T-62 never enjoyed the anticipated success for numerous reasons. First, the T-62 was more than twice as expensive as the T-55, and many Warsaw Pact nations passed on the new tank because they did not feel that the improvements inherent in it warranted the cost.

Secondly, in 1968, a 100 mm HVAPDS tank shell capable of piercing Western armor was developed. Use of this ammo made the T-55 gun almost as effective as the T-62s, undercutting the T-62's original selling point: a bigger, more powerful gun.

Third, the T-62 was almost immediately rendered obsolete upon its introduction by new Western tanks like the Chieftain, Leopard 1 and M60, and it became depressingly clear to the Soviets that work had to begin on an even newer main battle tank to keep pace, even though the T-62 was brand new (this even newer Soviet tank would become the T-64). Finally, the T-62 was slow and could not keep up with the new Soviet BMP (Infantry Combat Vehicle) – the principal infantry fighting vehicle which the T-62 was supposed to accompany.

All of these factors combined to ensure that the T-62 enjoyed relatively low commercial success, and only briefly served in first line Soviet units before being relegated to training, to reserve status, or being exported to Third World clients. (Perrett 1987:41)

Each time the gun is fired, the tube must go into detente for cartridge ejection, and the power traverse of the turret is inoperable during ejection and reloading operations, which means it cannot aim while reloading, making fire rate slow. An unforgiving and crucial flaw.

While it had its flaws and shortcomings, it was as you said, a stop gap tank and was soon replaced with T-64 and T-72.
Still, with a decent crew and good tactics it could be a dangerous foe.
So i wouldnt call it a failure, but it was certainly no succes, i have to stick by my first analys, disapointing.

Look at the link I posted- it counters pretty much all of your concerns.
I could respond point by point, but suffice it to say the tank.net thread covers it all.

It has serious people, not Western "tank-expert" level of analysis.

There is a reason 22,000 T-62 were made, and no, not because the USSR industry and tank commanders were stupider than the T-62s critics .

T-62 twice as expensive as T-55...come on man....English language Wikipedia is not a source to hold seriously...and no offense it sounds like your analysys is based directly off it.

In 2013 T-62 will be retired from the Army after being in service for more than 50 years. Age and ammunition are the main causes for the decision. There are 900 left, and there might be some countries interested in buying them. They should go quite cheap. T-62MV can be a competitive tank in many regions.

It was a very potent tank for its time and was regularly under rated in the west.

It was the first tank to introduce a smoothbore main gun, which the British in particular criticised them fiercely for, but it seems the British were wrong and the standard main tank gun these days is a smoothbore for a variety of reasons.

(For those interested a HEAT anti armour round has its performance greatly reduced if it is spinning rapidly by rifling, while the other main round, the APFSDS round is too long and narrow to be able to be properly stabilised by spinning so it uses fin stabilisation anyway... which means it needs a sabot or shoe to ride down the barrel without engaging the rifling. A smoothbore needs the sabot too, but offers less resistence and therefore offers higher muzzle velocities per barrel length.

Smoothbores are cheaper and easier to make, easier to keep clean, and are lighter and shorter for a given muzzle velocity.

Accuracy generally has more to do with sabot separation than whether the barrel is rifled.

About time, i guess they only take up storage space, and perhaps they can sell a few to Africa, but i doubt it.

The best thing about its retirement is that it removes all 115mm smoothbore guns and ammo from the Army stores and stocks and production.

It was a relatively cheap and simple tank for recruits to play with without the risk of damaging a new expensive tank.

If these are the last tanks in Russian service I suspect it might include the production facilities for new barrels and also for ammo, which would be bargain basement price and well worth it for a country already using the T-62.

Its the end of an era, but the tank was never a succes and with thousands of T-72, T-80 it can be hard to sell of.
Now when Armada comes, the stores must be empty to fill with T-72.

I disagree, it was a small, light, mobile tank with a good gun that was as good as the British 105mm. Give it modern electronics and it would be a very useful tank in many regions.

The final word of T-62, perhaps not a failure, but certainly a disapointment.

Actually I would say it was more like the Hurricane or the I-16 fighter... very good for its time, but made obsolete by the more capable machines that replaced it.

All of these factors combined to ensure that the T-62 enjoyed relatively low commercial success, and only briefly served in first line Soviet units before being relegated to training, to reserve status, or being exported to Third World clients. (Perrett 1987:41)

The problem with the opinions of western experts... especially during the 1980s is that they are often wrong.

Even today most western experts rate the T-64 as a failure that eats loaders arms... which is made all the more amusing because there is no human loader in a T-64.

Until the split of the Soviet Union the T-64 and T-80 were not commercial successes either, but then that could not possibly be for any other reason like the fact that the Soviets were happy to export cheaper, simpler numbers tanks like T-55 and T-72 and keep the more capable more expensive tanks to themselves like the T-62, T-64, and T-80.

Each time the gun is fired, the tube must go into detente for cartridge ejection, and the power traverse of the turret is inoperable during ejection and reloading operations, which means it cannot aim while reloading, making fire rate slow. An unforgiving and crucial flaw.

Load of misdirection in my opinion... the T-62 had a gunner and a commander and a loader... in which case the commander will be looking for other targets and threats so the immobilisation of the turret is irrelevant to him. The gunner will be observing the fall of shot so he can quickly calculate a better aim point for a follow up shot... the barrel stabiliser will return the barrel to the previous point of aim once reloaded so the penalty is limited. The fixed gun makes it easier and safer for the loader to load ammo... so it is a very good thing for the loader... I don't understand the huge flaw in the design this supposedly represents.

Rate of fire is not a critical feature of modern tanks... with a modern ballistics computer and laser range finder a first round hit should make rate of fire irrelevant anyway.

One use for old MBTs in my opinion would be to equip them with the new main gun of the standard IFV, which should be designed to engage enemy IFVs, so in the 1980s the T-62s could be armed with the BMP-3 armament, while now they could be equipped with the new 45mm guns and used in the main theatre to engage enemy light vehicles.

TR1 wrote:Look at the link I posted- it counters pretty much all of your concerns.
I could respond point by point, but suffice it to say the tank.net thread covers it all.

T-62 twice as expensive as T-55...come on man....English language Wikipedia is not a source to hold seriously...and no offense it sounds like your analysys is based directly off it.

I have read your link and i pretty much agree. T-62 is a upgunned T-55 with 5-15% better armour, and not really a new design.
The poor performance of the tank in the hands of Arabs have given it a bad reputation, somewhat false. As i think whatever tank they use will show little succes, owing to crew training, tactical expertice and such.

I have studied tanks and their performance for long, and wiki sums up the T-62 satisfactory i think.
Most western experts call it a death trap, but i think its unfair and undeserved.

Now the Cubans used T-55 and T-62 in Angola with great succes against Southafrican Centurions, so ... it was a well balanced tank.
The biggest flaws was the relatively weak armor and slow rate of fire, which in a duel or large engagement would be severe.
Its advantages is low profile and superior gun, it could take out every enemy tank its the frontal arc.

However, it was replaced quickly in 1 line Div by T-64 and didnt enjoy any large export sales.
So one cant call it a succes.

T-64 had zero exports.
I guess it is a complete failure?

The T-62 was a stop gap that had some very influential characteristics, and turned out to be a very reliable machine in competent hands, both abroad and domestically.
That is what I would call a successful life!

T-62s life has been a LOT more successful than T-64s, while we are at it! And Leopard 1, and Chieftan, and a whole slew of other tanks, IMO.

TR1 wrote:T-64 had zero exports.
I guess it is a complete failure?

The T-62 was a stop gap that had some very influential characteristics, and turned out to be a very reliable machine in competent hands, both abroad and domestically.
That is what I would call a successful life!

T-62s life has been a LOT more successful than T-64s, while we are at it! And Leopard 1, and Chieftan, and a whole slew of other tanks, IMO.

Yes a complete failure of course. With your thinking it seems. For the rest of us know it was never exported, only intended for domesticly use, as i hope the Armada will be. Not a good thing to sell of secrets and prestanda.

?? How do you think? The T-64 remain in service and from the very beginning was a far more advanced design. When it came it took place as the main tank for Tank Divisions, while T-62 was moved to Motor Rifle Divisions. Though it seems T-64 was more prone to mechanical failures.

GarryB wrote:
For those interested a HEAT anti armour round has its performance greatly reduced if it is spinning rapidly by rifling, while the other main round, the APFSDS round is too long and narrow to be able to be properly stabilised by spinning so it uses fin stabilisation anyway... which means it needs a sabot or shoe to ride down the barrel without engaging the rifling. A smoothbore needs the sabot too, but offers less resistence and therefore offers higher muzzle velocities per barrel length.

Yes, and HEAT has slow speed and high trajectory, making hit probability lower at longer ranges.

Actually I would say it was more like the Hurricane or the I-16 fighter... very good for its time, but made obsolete by the more capable machines that replaced it.

Almost agree, not very good, but good.

Even today most western experts rate the T-64 as a failure that eats loaders arms... which is made all the more amusing because there is no human loader in a T-64.

Not loaders arms but gunners. Its cramped and with moving parts nearby you have to whatch it.

Each time the gun is fired, the tube must go into detente for cartridge ejection, and the power traverse of the turret is inoperable during ejection and reloading operations, which means it cannot aim while reloading, making fire rate slow. An unforgiving and crucial flawLoad of misdirection in my opinion... the T-62 had a gunner and a commander and a loader... in which case the commander will be looking for other targets and threats so the immobilisation of the turret is irrelevant to him. The gunner will be observing the fall of shot so he can quickly calculate a better aim point for a follow up shot... the barrel stabiliser will return the barrel to the previous point of aim once reloaded so the penalty is limited. The fixed gun makes it easier and safer for the loader to load ammo... so it is a very good thing for the loader... I don't understand the huge flaw in the design this supposedly represents.

Rate of fire is not a critical feature of modern tanks... with a modern ballistics computer and laser range finder a first round hit should make rate of fire irrelevant anyway.

Here we disagree. When you cannot follow a moving target with your aim, its a serious flaw. And rate of fire is always important. If both tanks miss their first rounds, the next who fires, and hits, survives. Although i agree that with modern tanks, first hit is more important.

At last, the T-62 was not a succes, the 115mm gun was.

That is like saying every British post ww2 tank was not a success, only the L7 was.
And the same for M60 and M48.

Not even going to talk about paper armored Leopard 1 and AMX.

Yes, and HEAT has slow speed and high trajectory, making hit probability lower at longer ranges.

Rubbish.

!20mm smoothbore ammo tends to have a lower muzzle velocity and therefore would have a higher trajectory than 125mm ammo... does that make 120mm ammo less accurate than 125mm?

The Soviets actually preferred HEAT ammo during the 1970s because of its much better accuracy. In comparison the APFSDS with much higher velocity was less accurate.

Almost agree, not very good, but good.

The best of its time, but it peaked at a time of a generational change in performance with a 125mm gun and new ceramic armours that increased penetration performance and protection levels dramatically increasing.

It is like Sukhoi working on the Su-35 and the PAK FA and you saying the Su-35 is rubbish because it is no where near as good as the PAK FA yet they are going to be produced within 5-10 years of each other... Su-35 is an incremental improvement of the Su-30MKI while the PAK FA is a generation ahead.

The first model T-64s had 115mm guns too.

Not loaders arms but gunners. Its cramped and with moving parts nearby you have to whatch it.

There is a metal shield between the gunner and the moving parts of the gun... you don't have to watch anything.

Shock horror... look at the roof of a T-64... the roof hatches for the gunner and commander are on each side of the gun... the automatic loader is behind the gun. The metal shield prevents accidental contact between the moving bits of the gun and the gunner. To manually load a round the gunner has to actually remove the shield and lean right back to load a round and then turn around to press fire. From their position beside the gun it is not easy to load, but it is also not easy to get in the way of the recoiling gun either.

I am still waiting for that parade of one armed men...

Here we disagree. When you cannot follow a moving target with your aim, its a serious flaw.

The level of recoil and smoke and dust and flame coming from a 115mm gun means no gun in the world can continue to follow a moving target while firing. Every gun would need to regather the target after each shot. The fact that the 115mm has to be reloaded before it can gather the target again is ridiculously unimportant... even more so with a modern version with a modern gun stabiliser and targeting system that will return to the point of aim after reloading anyway.

Keep in mind that unlike a rifle, the gunners sight in a tank is not directly connected to the gun... the gunner can maintain its tracking of the target continuously while the gun is reloading... when it is ready to fire it will return to the gunners point of aim and indicate to the gunner that it is ready to fire.

And rate of fire is always important. If both tanks miss their first rounds, the next who fires, and hits, survives. Although i agree that with modern tanks, first hit is more important.

You are assuming there are only two tanks on the battlefield and no tactics are being used at all. Tanks that miss with their first shot (when things are perfect and they are not being fired upon) wont last that long on the battlefield... the first shot is critical... and in the T-62 with a laser guided shot who is to say they will miss?

At last, the T-62 was not a succes, the 115mm gun was.

The T-62 was the evolutionary end of the most widely produced tank design in history... the T-54/55. The revolutionary replacements continues to this day T-64/80 and T-72/90 which are very much Mig-29/Su-27 equivalents though in this case the choice was made simpler by the T-64/80 being Ukrainian and also having a vulnerable autoloader.

GarryB wrote:

Yes, and HEAT has slow speed and high trajectory, making hit probability lower at longer ranges.

Rubbish.

The Soviets actually preferred HEAT ammo during the 1970s because of its much better accuracy. In comparison the APFSDS with much higher velocity was less accurate.

You sir, are so full of it. Clearly you have no military bakground at all. Otherwise you should have known these basics!

Soviet T-62 tank, firing from (smoothbore) cannon at a range of 1000 meters against a target moving 19 km/h, was rated to have a first-round hit probability of 70% when firing a kinetic (APFSDS) projectile. Under the same conditions, it could expect 25% when firing HEAT round.[7] This affects combat on open battlefield with long lines of sight; the same T-62 could expect a 70% first-round hit probability using HEAT rounds on target at 500 meters.

Real basics... What did you say, rubbish?

The level of recoil and smoke and dust and flame coming from a 115mm gun means no gun in the world can continue to follow a moving target while firing. Every gun would need to regather the target after each shot. The fact that the 115mm has to be reloaded before it can gather the target again is ridiculously unimportant... even more so with a modern version with a modern gun stabiliser and targeting system that will return to the point of aim after reloading anyway.

Keep in mind that unlike a rifle, the gunners sight in a tank is not directly connected to the gun... the gunner can maintain its tracking of the target continuously while the gun is reloading... when it is ready to fire it will return to the gunners point of aim and indicate to the gunner that it is ready to fire.

Well, if the turret points in the wrong way...its Not ready to fire! In modern tanks the turret follows aim and the gun moves in reload cycle. As soon as the gun is loaded its back on sight, and with the moving turret you can fire immediately.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

"It is not a common knowledge, and is somewhat unexpected for an APFSDS-centered anti-armor school of thought of today, but originally HEAT-FS rounds were the principal 125mm anti-armor ammunition. In fact, the original 125mm 2A26 (D-81) gun was accepted for T-64A MBT as a result of an emergency uparming procedure, exactly thanks to its greater HEAT potential. Indeed, original 125mm HEAT rounds outperformed their APFSDS counterparts by nearly 25%, penetrating over 400mm RHA and ensuring defeat of all contemporary MBTs at any point of impact. APFSDS rounds, on the contrary, were few in the Soviet tanks layout, and were only intended for short-range engagements. Even now HEAT rounds account for 45% of standard tank loadout.

HEAT-FS rounds were also substantially more accurate than APFSDS (which might also be surprising to a Western reader). This is reflected in the Soviet deviation criterion, which was more strict for HEAT rounds (0.21 mil) than for APFSDS rounds (0.25 mil). However, in practice HEAT-FS rounds were even more accurate. As control trials of a random mass-production T-64A held in the 70s (the details of which were made available to the author) indicated, while APFSDS rounds hugged the outer bounds of acceptance criterion, HEAT-FS rounds actually demonstrated the average deviation of well under 0.1 mil!

The advent of advanced armor arrays decreased the effectiveness of HEAT ammunition, and the advance of APFSDS technology and their flatter trajectory and shorter time to target have relegated HEAT ammunition to the secondary role in tanks loadout. However, in latest years, HEAT penetrating potential was boosted by ingenious tandem warhead designs, as well as introduction of unconventional metal liners (DU, tantalum, etc.), that, theoretically, substantially degrade the performance of advanced armor arrays, in addition to having improved behind-armor effects. "


Garry is right.

Sure, and the earth is flat.
You don't understand deviation criteria is dependent on the ammo type.
If heat has a natural deviation of 1m at 1000m, apfsds have a natural dev of 2 dm. When firing at moving targets in windy conditions, the heat is increasingly inferior to apfsds.
(Not exactly figures, but a way to make it easier to understand)

It seems clear that neither you have any personal experience in anti tank warfare. I do, I know what iam talking about. So don't try convincing the earth is flat.

TR1 wrote:http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
HEAT-FS rounds were also substantially more accurate than APFSDS (which might also be surprising to a Western reader). This is reflected in the Soviet deviation criterion, which was more strict for HEAT rounds (0.21 mil) than for APFSDS rounds (0.25 mil). However, in practice HEAT-FS rounds were even more accurate. As control trials of a random mass-production T-64A held in the 70s (the details of which were made available to the author) indicated, while APFSDS rounds hugged the outer bounds of acceptance criterion, HEAT-FS rounds actually demonstrated the average deviation of well under 0.1 mil!

Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the current APFSDS ammo then are not that accurate because of the way the sabot separates. Not only that, these sabot are either steel or lighter alloys that are still heavy enough to induce a few errors in the trajectory of the rod. If this is the case, then improved APFSDS rounds should look more and more like their nato counterparts by the design of the sabot and the composition of the sabot (albeit with minor adjustments due to different L/D)

collegeboy16 wrote:

TR1 wrote:http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
HEAT-FS rounds were also substantially more accurate than APFSDS (which might also be surprising to a Western reader). This is reflected in the Soviet deviation criterion, which was more strict for HEAT rounds (0.21 mil) than for APFSDS rounds (0.25 mil). However, in practice HEAT-FS rounds were even more accurate. As control trials of a random mass-production T-64A held in the 70s (the details of which were made available to the author) indicated, while APFSDS rounds hugged the outer bounds of acceptance criterion, HEAT-FS rounds actually demonstrated the average deviation of well under 0.1 mil!

Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the current APFSDS ammo then are not that accurate because of the way the sabot separates. Not only that, these sabot are either steel or lighter alloys that are still heavy enough to induce a few errors in the trajectory of the rod. If this is the case, then improved APFSDS rounds should look more and more like their nato counterparts by the design of the sabot and the composition of the sabot (albeit with minor adjustments due to different L/D)

Effective range direct fire vs. 2m high target HEAT 1010 m APFSDS 2120 m
You stand corrected

Otherwise you should have known these basics!

and the source of your numbers?

Soviet T-62 tank, firing from (smoothbore) cannon at a range of 1000 meters against a target moving 19 km/h, was rated to have a first-round hit probability of 70% when firing a kinetic (APFSDS) projectile.

Under what conditions? What specific ammo types? What size is the target? Is the target moving at a steady 19km/h or is it driving following a path?

Under the same conditions, it could expect 25% when firing HEAT round.[7] This affects combat on open battlefield with long lines of sight; the same T-62 could expect a 70% first-round hit probability using HEAT rounds on target at 500 meters.

The [7] suggests a note, how about letting us see that quote?

Well, if the turret points in the wrong way...its Not ready to fire!

Who cares whether it is pointing at the target or not when it is being loaded and therefore not ready to fire anyway. The point is that the gun moves off the target to make it quicker and easier to load. The stabilisation system returns the gun back to the point of aim as soon as it is loaded. For the gunner having the gun stay in place but have the loader have to ram a round at a strange angle that is difficult would actually be worse than having it move to an angle that is easier to load.

In modern tanks the turret follows aim and the gun moves in reload cycle. As soon as the gun is loaded its back on sight, and with the moving turret you can fire immediately.

The gunners sight is not wielded to the main gun... the gunner can continue to follow the target... the gunners sight is able to move independently from the gun barrel, and even the T-62 has two plane gun stabilisation and a stabilised gunners sight...

We are not talking about moving 60 degrees to reload and then having to move 60 degrees back to fire...

You don't understand deviation criteria is dependent on the ammo type.

As TR-1 posted the Soviet HEAT rounds performed better in terms of accuracy than their APFSDS rounds from that period did. The difference was not just in penetration performance but also accuracy.

Without a clean Sabot separation at the muzzle APFSDS rounds can actually be rather erratic and any error at "launch" is only magnified by distance.

If heat has a natural deviation of 1m at 1000m, apfsds have a natural dev of 2 dm. When firing at moving targets in windy conditions, the heat is increasingly inferior to apfsds.
(Not exactly figures, but a way to make it easier to understand)

Effects on projectiles are related to time, so for instance the longer a projectile hangs in the air the more it is effected by wind or gravity. Such things however are predictable and can be incorporated into aiming tables to allow for.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the current APFSDS ammo then are not that accurate because of the way the sabot separates.

Modern APFSDS rounds are very accurate. We are talking about Soviet ammo of the 1960s and 1970s.

Effective range direct fire vs. 2m high target HEAT 1010 m APFSDS 2120 m
You stand corrected

Would be interested to know where these figures are coming from and what ammo types and gun types they refer to.

Indeed, BM-15 was known for huge velocity loss at range.