Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
I think this is about two things:
1) Having something that reservists can play around with than isn't ancient metal box
2) Having stock of reasonably up-to-date gear to deliver to proxy forces should need arise
+36
jhelb
RTN
Sujoy
TMA1
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
The-thing-next-door
Robert.V
Scorpius
limb
MMBR
Krepost
lyle6
ALAMO
lancelot
franco
Backman
walle83
George1
flamming_python
Rodion_Romanovic
PapaDragon
0nillie0
Hole
Isos
Walther von Oldenburg
miketheterrible
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
a89
Cyberspec
Pugnax
TR1
Zivo
GarryB
runaway
KomissarBojanchev
40 posters
T-62s in Russian Army
PapaDragon- Posts : 13290
Points : 13332
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
I think this is about two things:
1) Having something that reservists can play around with than isn't ancient metal box
2) Having stock of reasonably up-to-date gear to deliver to proxy forces should need arise
runaway- Posts : 417
Points : 430
Join date : 2010-11-12
Location : Sweden
I very much doubt this, some years ago it was reported the T62 was withdrawn from inventory and would not be used any more.
Its an ancient vehicle with bad combat record from real wars, -67 and -73.
They should have thousands T-72 which would be a much better choise for reservunites. Not only ammo wise and upgrading potential, but also for spare parts and crews mostly already trained on T-72.
For a reservtank vs guerilla and border patrols the T55 would be a much better choise, this tank is a succes story and was manufactored many years after T62 production ceased.
Its an ancient vehicle with bad combat record from real wars, -67 and -73.
They should have thousands T-72 which would be a much better choise for reservunites. Not only ammo wise and upgrading potential, but also for spare parts and crews mostly already trained on T-72.
For a reservtank vs guerilla and border patrols the T55 would be a much better choise, this tank is a succes story and was manufactored many years after T62 production ceased.
d_taddei2 likes this post
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2429
Points : 2596
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
Three years ago Russia offered to foreign customers upgrade and modernisation packages for both the T-55 and the T-62.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russia_offers_upgrade_of_ageing_t-55_and_t-62_tanks_to_foreign_customers_tass_52704163.html
Maybe they want to piggyback on it for the creation of cheap reserve tanks with export potential to third world countries.
Afterall disposing of a tank is not cheap either.
And they can have something ready to supply countries that they need to replace war losses (e.g. Syria, Donbass, Venezuela).
The T-72 in reserve have instead a much hiigher potential, as most of them can be upgraded to be a modern T-72B3M Main Battle Tank or BMPT "Terminator" (Tank Support Fighting Vehicle).
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russia_offers_upgrade_of_ageing_t-55_and_t-62_tanks_to_foreign_customers_tass_52704163.html
Maybe they want to piggyback on it for the creation of cheap reserve tanks with export potential to third world countries.
Afterall disposing of a tank is not cheap either.
And they can have something ready to supply countries that they need to replace war losses (e.g. Syria, Donbass, Venezuela).
The T-72 in reserve have instead a much hiigher potential, as most of them can be upgraded to be a modern T-72B3M Main Battle Tank or BMPT "Terminator" (Tank Support Fighting Vehicle).
GarryB- Posts : 39090
Points : 39586
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The fact that they are developing new ammo for the vehicles suggests to me that perhaps they have plans to export them to countries that don't need much more expensive vehicles... they made enormous numbers of T-54/55 vehicles but not so many T-62s and they weren't so widely sold, but their armour was no worse and their gun was actually rather better than the older tank... their biggest problem really was that they were not an enormous leap ahead of the T-55 like the T-64 and T-72 were with much better armour and much better equipment and much better guns...
With new reactive armour and a new APS system to stop RPGs a T-62 would be fine even today on a battlefield like Libya or Syria in the sense that nothing on those battlefields are invincible anyway and this would probably be about as expensive as the thermal sights you want to fit it with.
It uses one piece ammo... it would be interesting to adapt the autoloader of the T-72 to load 115mm smoothbore rounds and fit it to a T-62 tank so it could have a three man crew and automated ammo handling systems...
Would also be interesting to fully automate the systems in a T-62 to allow it to be used on a battlefield as a robot tank with a remote weapon station 12.7mm HMG, and of course an auto loading 115mm gun... if you completely remove the crew you could go with some sort of dual feed system loading HE Frag rounds and HEAT rounds into the main gun and of course the coaxial MG for other targets... An internal fire suppression system could be very effective... you could fill the internal space with nitrogen so nothing would catch fire if penetrated because of a lack of oxygen... to destroy the vehicle you would need to penetrate the armour and hit main calibre ammo because nothing else inside the tank should burn in a nitrogen environment... even the fuel shouldn't burn...
With new reactive armour and a new APS system to stop RPGs a T-62 would be fine even today on a battlefield like Libya or Syria in the sense that nothing on those battlefields are invincible anyway and this would probably be about as expensive as the thermal sights you want to fit it with.
It uses one piece ammo... it would be interesting to adapt the autoloader of the T-72 to load 115mm smoothbore rounds and fit it to a T-62 tank so it could have a three man crew and automated ammo handling systems...
Would also be interesting to fully automate the systems in a T-62 to allow it to be used on a battlefield as a robot tank with a remote weapon station 12.7mm HMG, and of course an auto loading 115mm gun... if you completely remove the crew you could go with some sort of dual feed system loading HE Frag rounds and HEAT rounds into the main gun and of course the coaxial MG for other targets... An internal fire suppression system could be very effective... you could fill the internal space with nitrogen so nothing would catch fire if penetrated because of a lack of oxygen... to destroy the vehicle you would need to penetrate the armour and hit main calibre ammo because nothing else inside the tank should burn in a nitrogen environment... even the fuel shouldn't burn...
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Want to know how to kill '2' birds with '1' stone? Question 1: What to do with all the T-62's in storage (1800+)? Question 2: How to compensate for Uran-9's limited range?
Solution: Fit the Uran-9's turret on the T-62's chassis. Replace the crew space with a new more modern (fuel efficient perhaps diesel/electric hybrid) engine, auto-loader ammo storage, and a large internal fuel cell (the old T-62 was capable of 650 km range with two additional 200 liter fuel tanks). Add modern Applique armor (ERA, NERA), APS & PPS defense suite.
Solution: Fit the Uran-9's turret on the T-62's chassis. Replace the crew space with a new more modern (fuel efficient perhaps diesel/electric hybrid) engine, auto-loader ammo storage, and a large internal fuel cell (the old T-62 was capable of 650 km range with two additional 200 liter fuel tanks). Add modern Applique armor (ERA, NERA), APS & PPS defense suite.
GarryB and d_taddei2 like this post
GarryB- Posts : 39090
Points : 39586
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Not a bad idea...
Of course the capacity of the T-62 could allow an extra heavy weapon... something like an 82mm automatic mortar like the Vasilek... change the 4 round clip feed to a belt feed... you could probably fit 1,000 rounds of 30mm cannon shells and perhaps 2-300 82mm mortar bombs in the turret and below the turret ring...
The high velocity 30mm rounds would be good against a range of targets, while the low velocity 82mm rounds are a widely used standard round that is relatively cheap and can be lobbed over front cover or small hills in hilly terrain to hit targets the 30mm weapon could not reach.
In fact perhaps replace the 82mm auto mortar with an extended barrel with the new 57mm grenade launcher for commonality with new units, and long barrel 82mm auto mortar for older units...
Its own UAV to spot targets and it would be awesome... in fact a tethered UAV that can climb up and spot targets while being powered by the vehicle... it could provide a data link back to the controllers to deal with the datalink range issue in built up areas. A radar and thermal sight would allow targets to be detected at extended ranges and the right armament to engage a range of targets... perhaps those new small ATGMs shown in retractable mounts on IFVs might have the EO/IIR seekers of those new big 25+km range missiles the Mi-28NM carry... the IIR signature of the target from the UAV would be all it needed for engaging targets out of line of sight of the vehicle carrying the missiles...
Of course the capacity of the T-62 could allow an extra heavy weapon... something like an 82mm automatic mortar like the Vasilek... change the 4 round clip feed to a belt feed... you could probably fit 1,000 rounds of 30mm cannon shells and perhaps 2-300 82mm mortar bombs in the turret and below the turret ring...
The high velocity 30mm rounds would be good against a range of targets, while the low velocity 82mm rounds are a widely used standard round that is relatively cheap and can be lobbed over front cover or small hills in hilly terrain to hit targets the 30mm weapon could not reach.
In fact perhaps replace the 82mm auto mortar with an extended barrel with the new 57mm grenade launcher for commonality with new units, and long barrel 82mm auto mortar for older units...
Its own UAV to spot targets and it would be awesome... in fact a tethered UAV that can climb up and spot targets while being powered by the vehicle... it could provide a data link back to the controllers to deal with the datalink range issue in built up areas. A radar and thermal sight would allow targets to be detected at extended ranges and the right armament to engage a range of targets... perhaps those new small ATGMs shown in retractable mounts on IFVs might have the EO/IIR seekers of those new big 25+km range missiles the Mi-28NM carry... the IIR signature of the target from the UAV would be all it needed for engaging targets out of line of sight of the vehicle carrying the missiles...
flamming_python- Posts : 9048
Points : 9110
Join date : 2012-01-30
Why would you want to spend money making the T-62 into a unmanned vehicle or creating some new automated systems for it?
Russia has thousands of T-72As and T-72Bs in storage. In the early 2000s it already created a prototype remote-controlled T-72 robot tank. It's a considerably more suitable vehicle for that kind of thing.
You could promote the idea of replacing the T-62's turret with something else, sure. Or converting it into an engineering, firefighting vehicle or whatever. But the news is not about that.
As for where to put T-62s - well they can be given a cheap upgrade and then handed over to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Afghanistan and Tajikistan as neccessary. AFAIK all other Russian allies and friendly bordering countries are T-64 or T-72 based.
Using them for the military doesn't make sense - they have enough tanks as it is and more modern ones. The FSB border guards are too much of a mobile, light force - they have their Mi-35s for when they need extra firepower. This leaves the Rosgvardia, which I presume is what's being refered to with the nomer 'territorial defence units'. The T-62 could be useful as firesupport. But again same problem, why not just use T-72s instead?
Russia has thousands of T-72As and T-72Bs in storage. In the early 2000s it already created a prototype remote-controlled T-72 robot tank. It's a considerably more suitable vehicle for that kind of thing.
You could promote the idea of replacing the T-62's turret with something else, sure. Or converting it into an engineering, firefighting vehicle or whatever. But the news is not about that.
As for where to put T-62s - well they can be given a cheap upgrade and then handed over to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Afghanistan and Tajikistan as neccessary. AFAIK all other Russian allies and friendly bordering countries are T-64 or T-72 based.
Using them for the military doesn't make sense - they have enough tanks as it is and more modern ones. The FSB border guards are too much of a mobile, light force - they have their Mi-35s for when they need extra firepower. This leaves the Rosgvardia, which I presume is what's being refered to with the nomer 'territorial defence units'. The T-62 could be useful as firesupport. But again same problem, why not just use T-72s instead?
GarryB- Posts : 39090
Points : 39586
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
T-62s are cheaper and more expendable?
Lighter and easier to maintain.
One piece ammo could be adapted to an autoloader like the one fitted to the BMP-3 or something similar perhaps to eliminate the need for the extra crewman and free up some space in the turret?
Could replace the main gun for a smoothbore 100mm gun from the MT-12 towed gun with an autoloader perhaps?
Of course I agree that removing it from the inventory removes the 115mm smoothbore gun which makes logistics simpler and cheaper because you can convert production facilities and development facilities from 115mm to all working on 125mm for which all tanks in service will benefit.
Also it means stores of 115mm rounds can be used up or sold off.
It all depends on what they want these vehicles for... if it is because they are there then there are T-72s there too...
In a few years time there will be all sorts of different tank sizes from light wheeled, medium wheeled, medium tracked, and heavy tracked, as well as Sprut variants too.
Sometimes think a BMP-3 with new ERA and rail armour could do the same job as a tank in some areas while being amphibious and potentially having troops or extra ammo in the back.
Lighter and easier to maintain.
One piece ammo could be adapted to an autoloader like the one fitted to the BMP-3 or something similar perhaps to eliminate the need for the extra crewman and free up some space in the turret?
Could replace the main gun for a smoothbore 100mm gun from the MT-12 towed gun with an autoloader perhaps?
Of course I agree that removing it from the inventory removes the 115mm smoothbore gun which makes logistics simpler and cheaper because you can convert production facilities and development facilities from 115mm to all working on 125mm for which all tanks in service will benefit.
Also it means stores of 115mm rounds can be used up or sold off.
It all depends on what they want these vehicles for... if it is because they are there then there are T-72s there too...
In a few years time there will be all sorts of different tank sizes from light wheeled, medium wheeled, medium tracked, and heavy tracked, as well as Sprut variants too.
Sometimes think a BMP-3 with new ERA and rail armour could do the same job as a tank in some areas while being amphibious and potentially having troops or extra ammo in the back.
Isos- Posts : 11311
Points : 11281
Join date : 2015-11-06
Of course I agree that removing it from the inventory removes the 115mm smoothbore gun which makes logistics simpler and cheaper because you can convert production facilities and development facilities from 115mm to all working on 125mm for which all tanks in service will benefit.
Modern machinery can make 115 and 125 mm ammo on a same production line. Not really an issue.
Logistic is also not an issue. T-62 are planed to be used inside russia against enemy invader. Army logistic can be used for t-72/90... while civilian patriots can be used for logistic of t-62 and with civilian trucks. Again not an issue.
GarryB- Posts : 39090
Points : 39586
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The 125mm round is a two piece round that results in a small metal stub after firing, which is rather different from the one piece 115mm brass case round... at the very least they will be using totally different propellant types because the 125mm propellent in a combustible cardboard case needs to be solid and with an ability to take some handling abuse... the 115mm propellent is completely encased in its shell and does not even need to be solid.
During WWII there were often problems with war time... people get called up who are not military minded at all but need to know that 7.62x38R ammunition and 7.62x25mm ammunition and 7.62x54mmR ammo are each different and different units need different ammo.
Send a couple of thousand rounds of 7.62x38R ammo to a force and they will think this will last for ever in their officers revolvers because they only take 7 rounds at a time.
Send a couple of thousand rounds of 7.62x54mmR ammo to the same unit and their machine guns can use those up in a couple of minutes... and send a couple of thousand rounds of 7.62x25mm ammo to a unit and it might be the same as above... the pistol armed officers might think it is good, but the Mosin rifle armed majority might think it is a problem.... of course any soldiers with PPSh SMGs will think it is good... but they need more.
Different units will have a different ratio of weapons and therefore require different quantities of different ammo types.
It is the same with artillery... imagine a load of 122mm artillery shells arriving at a Grad unit, or Grad rockets arriving at a D-30 122mm gun regiment...
And war time is the time most likely for it to happen and the last place you need it to happen.
During WWII there were often problems with war time... people get called up who are not military minded at all but need to know that 7.62x38R ammunition and 7.62x25mm ammunition and 7.62x54mmR ammo are each different and different units need different ammo.
Send a couple of thousand rounds of 7.62x38R ammo to a force and they will think this will last for ever in their officers revolvers because they only take 7 rounds at a time.
Send a couple of thousand rounds of 7.62x54mmR ammo to the same unit and their machine guns can use those up in a couple of minutes... and send a couple of thousand rounds of 7.62x25mm ammo to a unit and it might be the same as above... the pistol armed officers might think it is good, but the Mosin rifle armed majority might think it is a problem.... of course any soldiers with PPSh SMGs will think it is good... but they need more.
Different units will have a different ratio of weapons and therefore require different quantities of different ammo types.
It is the same with artillery... imagine a load of 122mm artillery shells arriving at a Grad unit, or Grad rockets arriving at a D-30 122mm gun regiment...
And war time is the time most likely for it to happen and the last place you need it to happen.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
flamming_python wrote:Why would you want to spend money making the T-62 into a unmanned vehicle or creating some new automated systems for it?
Russia has thousands of T-72As and T-72Bs in storage. In the early 2000s it already created a prototype remote-controlled T-72 robot tank. It's a considerably more suitable vehicle for that kind of thing.
You could promote the idea of replacing the T-62's turret with something else, sure. Or converting it into an engineering, firefighting vehicle or whatever. But the news is not about that.
As for where to put T-62s - well they can be given a cheap upgrade and then handed over to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Afghanistan and Tajikistan as neccessary. AFAIK all other Russian allies and friendly bordering countries are T-64 or T-72 based.
Using them for the military doesn't make sense - they have enough tanks as it is and more modern ones. The FSB border guards are too much of a mobile, light force - they have their Mi-35s for when they need extra firepower. This leaves the Rosgvardia, which I presume is what's being refered to with the nomer 'territorial defence units'. The T-62 could be useful as firesupport. But again same problem, why not just use T-72s instead?
I'm not opposed to T-72s robotization (Shoigu just visited a plant where they're being developed), I actually appreciate them. But my suggestion was a quick fix, to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Uran-9's already developed turret placed on the T-62s that are already plentiful (+1,600 in storage). The large count of vehicles lends to experimental creativity. Drop the turret on a base vehicle with good range (a modern engine with large fuel cells could get it 1000km range), a quick fix for Uran-9's limited range, which could be developed in under 2 years. Besides there's huge export potential for developing nations.
I also feel like the modernization potential is far higher for the remaining T-72s, so I think they should keep the remaining ones manned until they know for certain that they are at their very end. The new modernization make it seem like they can perform near T-90MS level, especially with it's new net-centricity. The US Army is planning on modernizing Abrams MBTs in to the 2050s. Hell slapping T-14's developments on (the T-72s) would make them better than any Western MBT for years to come.
GarryB- Posts : 39090
Points : 39586
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The fact that they said they are developing updated 115mm ammo is interesting... perhaps they have plans for a tank that can be exported to countries on a serious budget that don't need a T-72 level tank or a 125mm main gun level of gun power.
With improved ammo the 115mm gun does have potential to become a rather potent smaller round and its one piece construction would make an autoloader interesting as well... especially if they were open to a turret bustle autoloader for high velocity rounds and underfloor for HE and HEAT.
I suspect they are talking about T-62s with the addon armour and not basic T-62s, that will have further armour like ERA or NERA, plus rails, and of course an APS system, which is going to make them rather better than a vanilla T-62 right off the bat without making them super expensive... the more APS systems they deploy the cheaper they will become and with experience they will become much more mature experienced and therefore effective systems...
With ceramic armour upgrades and NERA they might be able to reduce the weight to something close to a WWII T-34... the standard T-62 was only about 36 tons... the T-34 was 26 tons or thereabouts...
With improved ammo the 115mm gun does have potential to become a rather potent smaller round and its one piece construction would make an autoloader interesting as well... especially if they were open to a turret bustle autoloader for high velocity rounds and underfloor for HE and HEAT.
I suspect they are talking about T-62s with the addon armour and not basic T-62s, that will have further armour like ERA or NERA, plus rails, and of course an APS system, which is going to make them rather better than a vanilla T-62 right off the bat without making them super expensive... the more APS systems they deploy the cheaper they will become and with experience they will become much more mature experienced and therefore effective systems...
With ceramic armour upgrades and NERA they might be able to reduce the weight to something close to a WWII T-34... the standard T-62 was only about 36 tons... the T-34 was 26 tons or thereabouts...
George1- Posts : 18332
Points : 18829
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Maintenance work in T-62s in accordance with the rules for the operation of stored military equipment, for which control runs are provided according to the technical inspection schedule.
GarryB, d_taddei2, Hole and Arkanghelsk like this post
walle83- Posts : 968
Points : 976
Join date : 2016-11-13
Location : Sweden
Russia seems to give the old fighter one last war in Ukraine. What use can it be? Well I supose against modern anti-tank missiles it doesnt matter if you are in a T-62 or a T-90 by the looks of it. So why not use up the older tanks first.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-deploys-50-year-old-t-62-tanks-to-ukraine-front
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-deploys-50-year-old-t-62-tanks-to-ukraine-front
George1 likes this post
Backman- Posts : 2605
Points : 2617
Join date : 2020-11-11
Why the F is this being made such a big deal of ? Its a functional engine and chassis. 22,700 were built. They probably have brand new units in storage that were paid for long ago. So now they are basically free to use. They could be 50 years old and brand new.
Brand new Terminators and T-90's are being used too.
Brand new Terminators and T-90's are being used too.
franco- Posts : 6715
Points : 6741
Join date : 2010-08-18
Don't see them being used by the Russian army. Expect for use by the militias or volunteer forces which are used to hold the lines in semi-active areas.
GarryB and Backman like this post
walle83- Posts : 968
Points : 976
Join date : 2016-11-13
Location : Sweden
Backman wrote:Why the F is this being made such a big deal of ? Its a functional engine and chassis. 22,700 were built. They probably have brand new units in storage that were paid for long ago. So now they are basically free to use. They could be 50 years old and brand new.
Brand new Terminators and T-90's are being used too.
Even brand new they cant keep up on the modern battefield. To slow to keep up with ifv, to slow firerate, to weak armor, basicly no night fighting capabilities.
I gess they can be used behind the front as guard units or like fixed guns.
Backman dislikes this post
Backman- Posts : 2605
Points : 2617
Join date : 2020-11-11
walle83 wrote:Backman wrote:Why the F is this being made such a big deal of ? Its a functional engine and chassis. 22,700 were built. They probably have brand new units in storage that were paid for long ago. So now they are basically free to use. They could be 50 years old and brand new.
Brand new Terminators and T-90's are being used too.
Even brand new they cant keep up on the modern battefield. To slow to keep up with ifv, to slow firerate, to weak armor, basicly no night fighting capabilities.
I gess they can be used behind the front as guard units or like fixed guns.
Bullshit. "they can't keep up on a modern battlefield" is just some techno autist bullshit.
It's just insane what ppl think they know. You are just imagining this theoretical conventional battlefield and assuming everything from there. This is unconventional encirclement warfare.
They are encircling huge amounts of real estate. Hundreds and hundreds of miles of war front and movement. They probably have these as a third line of defense along these fronts or something like that.
flamming_python, Hole and Arkanghelsk like this post
Backman- Posts : 2605
Points : 2617
Join date : 2020-11-11
franco wrote:Don't see them being used by the Russian army. Expect for use by the militias or volunteer forces which are used to hold the lines in semi-active areas.
Of course. Ukraine is a massive country. And they are making these huge coldrons that have to be defended from penetration. A thinly defended front is better off having some of these scattered around then nothing at all. But nope. It's gotta be Armatas or T-90's. Gotta be the big bucks because anything else has no place in a modern battlefield bruh.
Anyone who's had to manage resources or had a real job should be able to imagine how some free tanks in a war could be put to good use.
But let's not try and talk sense into techno autists.
Last edited by Backman on Sat May 28, 2022 3:01 am; edited 1 time in total
walle83- Posts : 968
Points : 976
Join date : 2016-11-13
Location : Sweden
Backman wrote:walle83 wrote:Backman wrote:Why the F is this being made such a big deal of ? Its a functional engine and chassis. 22,700 were built. They probably have brand new units in storage that were paid for long ago. So now they are basically free to use. They could be 50 years old and brand new.
Brand new Terminators and T-90's are being used too.
Even brand new they cant keep up on the modern battefield. To slow to keep up with ifv, to slow firerate, to weak armor, basicly no night fighting capabilities.
I gess they can be used behind the front as guard units or like fixed guns.
Bullshit. "they can't keep up on a modern battlefield" is just some techno autist bullshit.
It's just insane what ppl think they know. You are just imagining this theoretical conventional battlefield and assuming everything from there. This is unconventional encirclement warfare.
They are encircling huge amounts of real estate. Hundreds and hundreds of miles of war front and movement. They probably have these as a third line of defense along these fronts or something like that.
If you really think a 60 year old tank can bring much on a 2022 battlefield, well good luck.
Backman- Posts : 2605
Points : 2617
Join date : 2020-11-11
walle83 wrote:Backman wrote:walle83 wrote:Backman wrote:Why the F is this being made such a big deal of ? Its a functional engine and chassis. 22,700 were built. They probably have brand new units in storage that were paid for long ago. So now they are basically free to use. They could be 50 years old and brand new.
Brand new Terminators and T-90's are being used too.
Even brand new they cant keep up on the modern battefield. To slow to keep up with ifv, to slow firerate, to weak armor, basicly no night fighting capabilities.
I gess they can be used behind the front as guard units or like fixed guns.
Bullshit. "they can't keep up on a modern battlefield" is just some techno autist bullshit.
It's just insane what ppl think they know. You are just imagining this theoretical conventional battlefield and assuming everything from there. This is unconventional encirclement warfare.
They are encircling huge amounts of real estate. Hundreds and hundreds of miles of war front and movement. They probably have these as a third line of defense along these fronts or something like that.
If you really think a 60 year old tank can bring much on a 2022 battlefield, well good luck.
If you look at a map of Ukraine right now and can't find a use for free tanks , even as a 3rd or 4th line of defense then good luck.
You'd make a good purchaser at the Pentagon.
flamming_python, Broski and Arkanghelsk like this post
lancelot- Posts : 2714
Points : 2712
Join date : 2020-10-18
T-62 is still better than most of the tanks Romania has.
Hole and Arkanghelsk like this post
Backman- Posts : 2605
Points : 2617
Join date : 2020-11-11
If the US did the same thing and threw some old equipment into a war because it was basically free, the logic of it would be dead obvious to everyone. And it wouldn't even be a story. The US probably has done it and it was not a story. Or there would be positive stories in the defense media about how good these 'ol workhorses are. And how they work fine for this or that application.
But when Russia does it, its perfect gist for the mill of propaganda pyramid bullshit. Russia is doing it because its so poor ! And sanctions are biting so hard that they don't have chips for new tanks ! So they have to use old ones !
Washing machines anyone ?
But when Russia does it, its perfect gist for the mill of propaganda pyramid bullshit. Russia is doing it because its so poor ! And sanctions are biting so hard that they don't have chips for new tanks ! So they have to use old ones !
Washing machines anyone ?
GarryB- Posts : 39090
Points : 39586
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
With Russian air power and artillery wiping out any Ukrainian armoured vehicles it seems any old tank is better than what the Orcs will have, so a T-62 tank can dominate a large area of ground during the day as easily as a T-72 could.
The difference in performance of the guns is not enormous... troops in the open under fire from machine guns and tank calibre weapons rarely tell the difference between getting hit by 115mm smoothbore HE ammo and 125mm smoothbore ammo.
No point in equipping new pro Russian militia forces with anything better as they likely wont be all young men... a few of the older soldiers are probably familiar with the T-62 tank... more so than with more modern types.
The idea that they need T-14s is ridiculous... half of these guys would probably struggle to use a modern computer...
In a conflict where the enemy armour is destroyed as soon at it exposes itself on the battlefield then the sort of armour you provide the locals is not critical.
Think of it in terms of the US providing the Afghan government forces with T-54s and T-55s because they are cheap and still effective and can get the job done.
The difference in performance of the guns is not enormous... troops in the open under fire from machine guns and tank calibre weapons rarely tell the difference between getting hit by 115mm smoothbore HE ammo and 125mm smoothbore ammo.
No point in equipping new pro Russian militia forces with anything better as they likely wont be all young men... a few of the older soldiers are probably familiar with the T-62 tank... more so than with more modern types.
The idea that they need T-14s is ridiculous... half of these guys would probably struggle to use a modern computer...
In a conflict where the enemy armour is destroyed as soon at it exposes itself on the battlefield then the sort of armour you provide the locals is not critical.
Think of it in terms of the US providing the Afghan government forces with T-54s and T-55s because they are cheap and still effective and can get the job done.
flamming_python, Hole, Broski and Arkanghelsk like this post
flamming_python- Posts : 9048
Points : 9110
Join date : 2012-01-30
walle83 wrote:Russia seems to give the old fighter one last war in Ukraine. What use can it be? Well I supose against modern anti-tank missiles it doesnt matter if you are in a T-62 or a T-90 by the looks of it. So why not use up the older tanks first.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-deploys-50-year-old-t-62-tanks-to-ukraine-front
Against modern anti-tank missiles even T-72B3s do fine by the looks of it. Plenty of reports of them taking even multiple Javelin and NLAW hits
As for the T-62, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe giving them to Rosgvardia after all. The LDNR are T-64 and T-72 users.
GarryB, Hole and Arkanghelsk like this post
|
|
|