T-62s in Russian Army

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.

Average speed on the battlefield is like 20 - 30km/h. 8 - 10km/h when infatry is on foot.
The T-62 has no autoloader so his firing rate is on par with western tanks.
Night fighting capability is with NVG´s and IR lights. Not great but better then nothing.
The armour of the T-62 is good enough to survive hits from TOW missiles, as proven in Syria.

This tanks will likely go to infantry units for direct fire support. Good in attacks on trenches and small villages.

Hole wrote:
The armour of the T-62 is good enough to survive hits from TOW missiles, as proven in Syria.

That part requires further explanation, as it is not what it seems at a first glance
The point is, that after a close examination made by the GAO a few years ago, it turned out that the real results of TOW missile systems were frauded for years. Most of the US Army stocked TOW systems penetration rates are well below 500 mm (420-450 range), while stated as 700+.
Keeping that in mind, it turned out that de facto any up-armored Soviet tank of the 70s would be immune on the high degree to the strikes of the most common and "potent" on paper ATGM in NATO arsenal. And that would link perfectly with several other claims and situations when European-made HOT was considered much more potent, only quietly to not embarrass the mighty Murica.
Modified T-62 with "Brezhnev Eyebrows" appliqued armor reached the 450+mm protection level against the cumulative charge, making it capable to withstand a direct hit from all the NATO ATGM systems of the era, other than HOT.
Funny, isn't it?

Unless you're one of those weirdos who quaff BrOSINT fiction like a man after 10k, it should be obvious that Russian regulars have no need for the T-62. They kept the vast majority of their forces in reserve, so if any replacements are to be made its going to be from those reserve formations sporting the same gear. These T-62M tanks are likely for the Donbass and Lugansk forces which mainly rely on captured Ukrainian gear - the Russians never gifting them overtly Russian stuff until now that is. Kind of weird not much people really noticed this actually.

Hole wrote:
Average speed on the battlefield is like 20 - 30km/h. 8 - 10km/h when infatry is on foot.
The T-62 has no autoloader so his firing rate is on par with western tanks.
Night fighting capability is with NVG´s and IR lights. Not great but better then nothing.
The armour of the T-62 is good enough to survive hits from TOW missiles, as proven in Syria.

This tanks will likely go to infantry units for direct fire support. Good in attacks on trenches and small villages.

The Syrians actually liked the T-62Ms because as the direct continuation of the T-55 it maintained that level of simplicity that its damn well just idiot-proof. Crews mostly consist of consolidated Syrian militiamen rather than trained soldiers so their Donbass counterparts should have no trouble taking them in. They also used them mostly to provide fire support against static positions so most of its disadvantages can be mitigated by technique.

ALAMO wrote:

That part requires further explanation, as it is not what it seems at a first glance
The point is, that after a close examination made by the GAO a few years ago, it turned out that the real results of TOW missile systems were frauded for years. Most of the US Army stocked TOW systems penetration rates are well below 500 mm (420-450 range), while stated as 700+.
Keeping that in mind, it turned out that de facto any up-armored Soviet tank of the 70s would be immune on the high degree to the strikes of the most common and "potent" on paper ATGM in NATO arsenal. And that would link perfectly with several other claims and situations when European-made HOT was considered much more potent, only quietly to not embarrass the mighty Murica.
Modified T-62 with "Brezhnev Eyebrows" appliqued armor reached the 450+mm protection level against the cumulative charge, making it capable to withstand a direct hit from all the NATO ATGM systems of the era, other than HOT.
Funny, isn't it?

TOW (and other NATO ATGMs of the same generation) has a very narrow wingspan and a short boost phase. At range speed drops, and so does lift, so to compensate the missile pitches up - see where this is going?

They are essentially going to be using them as mobile direct fire guns for use against buildings and fortified positions that are protected from small arms fire... which the T-62 is as good at as any other tank...

A good use of old vehicles that will be easier to maintain and operate for the users... newer tanks would not be much more effective in the role.

They would require more training and be more expensive...

Krepost wrote:These T-62 tanks are for the soon to be organized armed forces of the Republics of Kherson and Zaporozhie.

So territorial defense - manning checkpoints basically. Give something to the troops to stiffen the response against Ukrainian sabotage and stay behind teams.

A mobile bunker with a big gun and machine guns against an enemy dug in with no big guns but some rockets and missiles...

Approach carefully and you should be fine with proper infantry support... when you have troops moving with the tank and any enemy positions dealt with using the tank to let the troops get close and then inside it is just fine.

And by all means, it is the most probable way those will be used.
As mobile strongholds.
Put it at the crossroads, build a wall of sand around it, and what you get in 3h is not worse than a hardened bunker.
The first stage of operation proved that it is not so easy to control an area lacking serious manpower.
As they don't have the manpower till now, there will be some hardware to substitute it.
This is how the Israelis are using tanks in Gaza, too.
Russkies adopted, and are getting ready for operations in hostile territory that the remaining part of 404 will be.

One of the core reasons the T-54/55 and slightly upgraded T-62 tanks were so popular was because they were mechanically very simple and also very reliable... the T-62 can be considered a T-55 with upgrades including a new gun, but more of an upgrade than from T-54 to T-55.

The T-64 and T-72 were different vehicles that were a departure from the previous models.

When you have air superiority and artillery superiority and plenty of anti armour and anti aircraft weapons... many of which captured from your enemy, then your need for the latest state of the art tanks is not critical at all.

These tanks are not the same vehicles that rolled off the production line... they have increased add on armour and upgraded fire control systems including gun launched missiles.

This is an opportunity to use up old stocks in a conflict where they are good enough.

In WWII they could be used on secondary battlefields with the task of taking on support vehicles while your bigger standard tanks with 125mm guns take on the enemy tanks, the 115mm gun would kill any western IFV not based on an actual tank chassis and every other vehicle they could put on the battlefield... and those tank gun launched missiles could deal with helicopters and drones... to use up stored vehicle and ammo stocks and spare parts mountains.

Ideally using them up is the goal so using them in Ukraine and in Syria is their ideal use because as new vehicles enter the inventory like the T-14, then a lot of T-72 and T-90 and also T-80 based vehicles will be freed up for storage and in a third world war the make better sense because they all share the same 125mm gun.

Depends what enemy you are meeting doesnt it.

Neither the T-62 or the Patton would stand a chance again a modern MBT. It would be like the Iraq Type-59/69 tanks against Abrams all over again.

Now a T-62 against a Ukrainian T-64, maybe if the Russians get lucky...but I put my money on the T-64.

Actually if you manage to flank them you can destroy abrams with t-62s. Iraq is irrevelent because NATO has total superiority and they knew where all the iraq forces where. In a woody environment like Ukraine it's far harder to spot all the forces.

And in modern war you send atgm teams and aviation to destroy MBT so that your own tanks will face only light forces.

Tank vs tank isn't happening. Even less with suicide drones that target them easily and achieve at least mobility kills.

GarryB wrote:
In WWII they could be used on secondary battlefields with the task of taking on support vehicles while your bigger standard tanks with 125mm guns take on the enemy tanks, the 115mm gun would kill any western IFV not based on an actual tank chassis and every other vehicle they could put on the battlefield... and those tank gun launched missiles could deal with helicopters and drones... to use up stored vehicle and ammo stocks and spare parts mountains.

A 115 mm gun can still absolutely take on even the heaviest NATO armor. Just don't engage it at the front where the armor is strongest and it should still wreck stuff.

GarryB wrote:
Ideally using them up is the goal so using them in Ukraine and in Syria is their ideal use because as new vehicles enter the inventory like the T-14, then a lot of T-72 and T-90 and also T-80 based vehicles will be freed up for storage and in a third world war the make better sense because they all share the same 125mm gun.

These tanks are practically write-offs: the regular Russian Army armored troops would not take them since they have long since standardized around three men per tank, aside from technical obsolescense of course.

Isos wrote:

Tank vs tank isn't happening. Even less with suicide drones that target them easily and achieve at least mobility kills.

The most reliable way of stopping an armored thrust after they've broken through your defenses is to receive them with your own armored reserves. Anything else requires space and time that you might not have. Kamikazee drones are barely any threat at all, even to infantry.

walle83 wrote:

Backman wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Backman wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Backman wrote:Why
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.

Why does Nato's second biggest army Turkey; have 1532 M-60 Patton (1959 model year) tanks in service and deployed to Syria ?

Look. You fell for an easy western propaganda scam. Simple as that.

Depends what enemy you are meeting doesnt it.

Neither the T-62 or the Patton would stand a chance again a modern MBT. It would be like the Iraq Type-59/69 tanks against Abrams all over again.

Now a T-62 against a Ukrainian T-64, maybe if the Russians get lucky...but I put my money on the T-64.

I would put my money on the T-64 too, but in the 08/08 Georgian war Russian T-62s did get lucky and took out Georgian T-72s. I think these were more the result of side-shots.

If the Ukraine is out of T-64s, then the question really doesn't matter in the first place. Any tank will do for Russia, so long as precautions are taken.

The most reliable way of stopping an armored thrust after they've broken through your defenses is to receive them with your own armored reserves. Anything else requires space and time that you might not have. Kamikazee drones are barely any threat at all, even to infantry.

No. Best way is to hit them first with guided missiles, drones, artillery and aviation before they come to you to reduce their numbers and desorganize the remaining forces.

Suicide drones proved their effectivness. Your opinion doesn't matter here. Having at least 20 lancet hitting the engine of 20 abrams or leopard 2 is a huge advantage. With 100 even better. And that's the price of not even 1 t-72.

Isos wrote:

The most reliable way of stopping an armored thrust after they've broken through your defenses is to receive them with your own armored reserves. Anything else requires space and time that you might not have. Kamikazee drones are barely any threat at all, even to infantry.

No. Best way is to hit them first with guided missiles, drones, artillery and aviation before they come to you to reduce their numbers and desorganize the remaining forces.

Yes, but I'm talking about what happens after all of those failed and your opponent is on the verge of a breakthrough.

Isos wrote:
Suicide drones proved their effectivness. Your opinion doesn't matter here. Having at least 20 lancet hitting the engine of 20 abrams or leopard 2 is a huge advantage. With 100 even better. And that's the price of not even 1 t-72.

When? Where? Have they tried it under cover of EW?

Neither the T-62 or the Patton would stand a chance again a modern MBT. It would be like the Iraq Type-59/69 tanks against Abrams all over again.

Would have said the same about Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs with 50mm guns and short barrel 76mm guns respectively against T-34s and KV-1s but it was not as one sided as you might think it should be.

These T-62s have gun launched anti tank missiles with a range of 5km so a repeat of Desert Storm where Abrams tanks started to engage enemy tanks at 5km where the Abrams had a OK chance of a hit and the enemy tanks had a zero chance of a hit on the Abrams tanks would not happen... there would be no distance from which a western tank could engage T-62s where the T-62 could not hit back.

The number of enemy MBTs is minimised by Russian Artillery and control of the air.

It would be like the US invading Iraq with M60s only and no Abrams tanks... they still would have kicked the arses of the Iraqi forces because the 25mm cannon of the Bradleys and anti tank guided missiles and air power made a major contribution to the numbers of Iraqi vehicles destroyed... many were destroyed in their dug in positions by B-52 carpet bombing runs... which were used against the republican guard who had most of the T-72s.

Now a T-62 against a Ukrainian T-64, maybe if the Russians get lucky...but I put my money on the T-64.

That is the problem though... it isn't one on one... it will be a dozen T-62s and air power and artillery and plenty of ATGMs and RPGs against each T-64 that is still working that might have quarter filled fuelled tanks because that is all they have left and BTW some of the flash electronics aren't working because they were damaged and there is no where to fix them...

Actually if you manage to flank them you can destroy abrams with t-62s.

Even from the front you can destroy an Abrams by waiting for its turret to turn and hitting it in the rear turret area to set off its ammo.

A 115 mm gun can still absolutely take on even the heaviest NATO armor. Just don't engage it at the front where the armor is strongest and it should still wreck stuff.

The missiles are beam riders... how hard would it be to shift the sensor to the nose and fire them up into the air and as they approach the target mark the target so they dive down on the targets in a top attack mode... the upper hull armour on an Abrams is pathetically thin and relies on angling to stop heavier rounds... change the angle and eliminate the angling and seriously weaken the armour.

These tanks are practically write-offs: the regular Russian Army armored troops would not take them since they have long since standardized around three men per tank, aside from technical obsolescense of course.

In the past it made sense because when you called up your reserves... many of them served on these older tanks so they would be familiar with them despite a few upgrades to improve performance like missiles and laser range finders, but these days 50 year old potential soldiers called back to duty probably operated T-64s or T-72s when they served in the late 1980s...

It just makes sense as a first tank or a familiar tank for allies and neighbours... with cage armour and APS systems added they could actually be quite well protected against modern weapons.

Suicide drones proved their effectivness. Your opinion doesn't matter here. Having at least 20 lancet hitting the engine of 20 abrams or leopard 2 is a huge advantage. With 100 even better. And that's the price of not even 1 t-72.

Instead of guiding Lancet Suicide drones at enemy targets... it makes more sense to guide supersonic Kornet missiles which can penetrate any of those vehicles from the front out to 8.5km.

Instead of guiding Lancet Suicide drones at enemy targets... it makes more sense to guide supersonic Kornet missiles which can penetrate any of those vehicles from the front out to 8.5km.

Of course but the suicide drones hit 40km away over the horizon. Kornet hit 8km away in direct line of sight.

That's two different weapons for two different situations.

From the top where there is no armor you can hit the engine or the ammunition or even the crew. Doubtfull you can kill the tank but you can make him a hard day for him to keep attacking.

Then if they keep advancing you hit them with kornets.

And finally with your own tanks.

Anyway like this war and others have shown tank vs tank is unlikely to happen anymore. There is just too much anti tank weapons in the field compare to the numver of tanks. Most army can field less than 500 tanks while the total number of atgm, drones ane mibes is in the thousands.