Did you think that you would read the words "T62 obr. 2022" when January of 2022 rolled around? Did you think that you would see photographic evidence of such an abomination?
Did you think that you would read the words "T62 obr. 2022" when January of 2022 rolled around?
only as a mocking name for some creation that some random somali militia might have come up, with ZSU-23-2 on top of it, or a go-pro and hind rocket pod.
>ZSU-23-2
you shut your whore mouth
she is a solid gun for the right air targets and for lighting up the trenches.
>gunner is completely exposed, 6ft off the ground
This motherfucker would be dead in 20 seconds if they actually tied to use this hunk of garbage in combat.
<yo dawg, we put a digital FCS and thermal imager on your 23mm gun system so you can fire at russian equipment from the 60s while you fire your russian equipment from the 60s
>t. finnish military
Face it, this is an excellent tank
>probably roomiest turret of soviet tanks
>manual loader is simple
>simple and reliable tank
If i had to pick a tank to be a crewmember of, it would be t-62. It will still wreck infantry just as any other tank, even if there were V marked T-26 (1939) it would still wreck shitty infantry.
the loading system on a T62 is not at all simple, its one of the reasons for its slow rate of fire. The loader has to load with his weak hand if he's right handed and he only has 4-5 rounds in the ready rack. Once that's gone he has to load ammo from the hull which sucks ass and is slow. Finally the gun has a casing ejection system that breaks if not maintained (which it has been shown to do already).
It also has atrocious armor protection even if you add BDD-style add on armor. Steel applique would only really help against LAW rockets, AT4 and PG7V would still penetrate.
Amazing how you can be so wrong.
>The loader has to load with his weak hand if he's right handed
The "weak hand" has worse motor control, not worse strength (unless something is really wrong with your musculoskeletal structure)
Loading with the "weak hand" isn't an issue made out that it is made out to be since, well we are talking about slamming a round into the breach, not playing the violin, fine motor control is not really relevant with artillery gun loading.
> he only has 4-5 rounds in the ready rack
T-62 follows the older design philosophy of ammo everywhere for the holder to grab onto, there isn't really a ready rack like in Abrams or Leopard 2.
>Once that's gone he has to load ammo from the hull which sucks ass and is slow.
The front hull ammunition is fastest to load in the T-55/T-62 design since the all he has to do is drag it back out of the rack and slide it into the breach. The other rounds the loader has to manipulate by rotating his body or the round.
>Finally the gun has a casing ejection system that breaks if not maintained
This is such a non-statement you shouldn't have bothered.
>X breaks if it isn't maintained
Well done.
You are right about armor at least.
>tank is fine comrade*~~
Goddamnit, it's a cold war shitbox old enough to be someone's grandad. The obr 2022 is if someone facelifted a derelict boomer with botox. The war shouldn't have even gotten to this point going by the propaganda and Rushit shills that trolled PrepHole from its inception.
At least read what I wrote you fucking gay.
He did read what you wrote, the issue is that what you wrote is russians digging trenches in chernobyl levels of retarded. Its so fucking dumb is radioactive.
>The "weak hand" has worse motor control, not worse strength
Anon no
Actually, yes. I can curl more with my left arm than my right arm. I'm right handed.
>Loading with the "weak hand" isn't an issue made out that it is made out to be since, well we are talking about slamming a round into the breach, not playing the violin, fine motor control is not really relevant with artillery gun loading.
...anon...
how do you think you play violin
The 62s have four rounds "ready" - attached with latched locks to the side of the turret. The loader has to turn away from the breach, unlock the round while supporting it in his left hand, then he has to switch to supporting it with his right hand, turn another 180 degrees to try and manuever the tip of the round around the breach guard and finally ram it in. Average rate of fire - 30 sec.
Oh and by the way - pulling round from the hull stowage requires the gunners' control be dissabled (and it wouldn't be a bad idea for the tank to be stationary), so good luck keeping the target in sight.
ouch the T-62 is a worse hack job than I though
Does this look like 30 seconds to you?
Moron
I suppose you also believe that the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams take 30s to load since the loader has to rotate the round and his body 180 degrees
>pristine tank with zero obstructions
>starts facing the ammo
>ammo latch unlocked
>zero rounds on the rack aside the one being loaded
>while tank completely still
lmao sure
>pristine tank with zero obstructions
non-statement
>starts facing the ammo
What else would the loader be doing if he knows he will have to service the gun
>ammo latch unlocked
takes 1 second at most to unlock the latch
>zero rounds on the rack aside the one being loaded
Why would that effect taking out the round in the latch.
>while tank completely still
Why would the T-62's loader be worse affected by this then any other tank
I bet you are also thinking about shitting on some Russian propoganda but this is from a US TARDEC video on the T-62
I don't know. I'm not as retarded as you to think that an American loading thr tank magically changes the absolutely garbage ergonomics of the tank.
>Showing a 9 second video of a load
>hurr durr it must 30s
kys
Haven't we been over this gorillion times? Pretty much any tank with one piece ammo can load the second round in just few seconds, if the tank isn't moving and the loader is already holding the shell. Fastest videos of Abrams were about 3 seconds.
More spacious turret with proper ergonomics and large fast to use ready rack simply make it possible to upkeep the firerate, even if conditions aren't ideal.
For T-62 the practical firerate is further reduced due to limited loading angles combined with primitive firecontrol.
now try that on the move you fucking retard, with the turret traversing and the gunner trying to keep target in sight and full ready rack.
You do realize the T-62 has a rotating turret floor?
L
M
A
O
It doesn't matter. r*ssians use tanks as a mobile artillery (indirect fire more), because of the shell shortage.
>r*ssians
you are a worthless retard
>Steel applique would only really help against LAW rockets, AT4 and PG7V would still penetrate.
Its not steel applique. Its composite armor using similar to NERA action (similar but not exactly like that)
>If i had to pick a tank to be a crewmember of, it would be t-62
Da, da. I am of having good news for you then, pidor. Soon your dreams will be reality!
T62 and T80 are better than the T72 and T90
They are not. Turbine drinks fuel way too greedily and they dont have reliable AZ autoloader of T-72 and T-90. Their autoloader is also more exposed as it is standing desing.
The T-80 can actually reverse though, so it's much less likely to actually get penned.
No retreat for conscriptovich, only death
it isn't really a tank is more of an assault gun at this point.
So you’re saying T-62 was the last decent Soviet tank design?
New pasta?
>probably roomiest turret of soviet tanks
Probably the T-55, the T-62 is the Frankenstein's Monster result of trying to stuff the 115mm (originally intended for the T-64) into a T-55.
moron you best be trollin'.
This ancient piece of shit doesn't even have composite armor.
It could easily be destroyed by pic related. Not even fucking joking.
Yeah, unlike most people I was completely aware of the logistical state of the Russian federations and their immense Corruption and yes man problems, Additionally to that, the fact they stored all there equipment outside and constantly ripped parts from mothballed vehicles.
I had no doubt in my mind when this war started we'd see every facet of the soviet arsenal.
A large portion for their arsenal has been sold off to the global market, either black or grey
>Additionally to that, the fact they stored all there equipment outside and constantly ripped parts from mothballed vehicles.
Exactly bunch of sitting shit rusted btr60s that have probably been sitting there since the early 70s probably 10% of those in storage are probably functional and won't require parts or immense repairs
That the rest of those it's either 50/50 for scrap or fodder
I would be willing to bet we'll see T-55's being used before the war is over.
I somehow doubt it. Russia got rid of their T-55s (but then again they also claim they got rid of their BTR-50s and T-62s..) and sold them to turd world dictatorships many moons ago. But it's entirely possible. The T-62 just never sold as well as the T55 did.
I'm sure they probably still have a few hundred left somewhere that they could part and hobble together and yield at least 100.
Inb4 Russia buys back captured T-62's and T-54/55's from Israel to upgrade
Some tankspotter will know from satellite pics.
Naval Infantry kept theirs into the 2000s, there should be some floating around.
they built like 100,000 of the things they probably has one or two left lying around somewhere. Less said about the condition the better.
>no lowballing. No road wheel kicking. I know what I got!
we are now at BTR-50 obr. 2022
and russia got a lot more rustbuckets waiting to be used
Storage lot so old the buildings are deteriorated to slabs.
implessive. Now let see them move
Is that a cooler on the back of the turret?
>American tanks come with cold beer storage
Does armor plate deteriorate when left outside in a miserable Siberian swamp for decades?
Depends on what it's made of, but usually at least a little.
don't worry, everything else will rot away faster
A little. Bearings and hinges and seals deteriorate much more.
The armour will still be there decades later, anything with a resale value will have evaporated.
Can someone explain to a retard how they’re losing so many tanks? What’s killing them all?
they stored a huge chunk of their tanks in the siberian wasteland. Outside. In the rain. And snow. For thirty years.
#JustRussianThings
>they stored a huge chunk of their tanks in the siberian wasteland. Outside. In the rain. And snow. For thirty years.
you go to jail for discrediting russian military
A lot of anti tank munitions from ukraine.
And running into minefields. And being caught in columns. And running out of gas. And being russian.
Incredibly poor tactics in a country awash with antitank munitions.
Because they can't perform combined arms warfare because key parts of it haven't been achieved (mainly complete air control). If you can't/don't control the air, you can't spot the artillery easily, if you can't do that, they can decimate your troops (and certain rounds can hit tanks). If you don't have infantry support, they can't deal with the guys with AT weapons in houses and bushes and shit. If you can't deal with those, the tanks can get popped.
The other issues are apparent shell shortage so Russian tanks are basically now artillery pieces. There are Ukrainians somewhere in that area? Fire a few shells into it, hope the debris kills them/injures them. Leave.
Plus a load got captured due to being abandoned.
Minefields, artillery, anti-tank missiles, etc
There's some truly ridiculous videos of tanks and BMPs driving straight into minefield, I saw one where the first vehicle hit a mine, the second one then went around it, back onto the road and immediately hit another mine
My favorite one when tank hits a mine, ifv goes around him hitting another one, then third one. Fourth one decides that it doesn't want to die in minefield so it backs away into another mine
Propaganda. When someone claims Ukraine killed 5000 Russian tanks, it's probably bullshit.
I thought Russia was much stronger than it was, but I am not surprised that T-62's are getting busted out. I just figured it would be two years down the road during an occupation that was rapidly becoming too expensive to maintain.
I'm genuinely curious to see how it would fare against a Leopard I
Who hits first wins. And as Leo 1A5 has same FCS as Leo 2A4, it would be it.
And to hit something, you need to spot something. And Leopards commanders observation devices are superior to those of T-62s TKN device.
we will find out soon
You Ukrainian fucking bandits!
These are good tanks! They are fully refitted! It's like in Star Trek movie, Enterprise got new warp engines and weapons and fully refit!
>vatniks are obsessed with Western pop culture
You now realize that the Z marked EV that we memed about at the start of the invasion was/is the most modern vehicle in the Russian forces inventory
I'll never fucking understand why the Russians chose to modernize the T-62 and not the T-55AM package with a new gun (like the Israeli's did with the L7). The T-62 was never meant for the kind of shit they are trying to use it for, it was a second line tank destroyer with a slow as balls fire rate, not a fucking front line vanguard.
Th T-62 has twice the rate fire as the T-55.