• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

M60 vs t62

#4
The 115mm smoothbore on T62 was a monster! T62 also had thicker armour than any other tank other than Chieftain. Shame about the ammo storage though. T62 was a better tank than many people realise.
 
#5
The 115mm smoothbore on T62 was a monster! T62 also had thicker armour than any other tank other than Chieftain. Shame about the ammo storage though. T62 was a better tank than many people realise.
Except when travelling at speed,on icy roads (no track pads).

Laugh a minute,believe me I've seen it a number of times!

115mm might be a big gun,but without an efficient stabiliser,that's all it is,a big gun!

Oh,and the engine burns nicely when hit,as the Egyptians found out in Sinai! ;-)
 
#6
T-62 was a bugger to drive though. Having said that, it was the only panzer I managed to bump start - off the back of a transporter with reverse selected.
 
#8
Except when travelling at speed,on icy roads (no track pads).

Laugh a minute,believe me I've seen it a number of times!

115mm might be a big gun,but without an efficient stabiliser,that's all it is,a big gun!

Oh,and the engine burns nicely when hit,as the Egyptians found out in Sinai! ;-)

At least it could travel at speed! when did Chieftain ever travel at speed?
efficient stabiliser? since when was firing on the move with Chieftain anything other than pot luck?
How many times did Chieftain's power pack burn without needing to be hit by the enemy?
 
#10
It's neither here or there, countries that had yank and british made tanks of the post war years tended to train crews better.

The Israelis scored more kills as they worked at it.
 
#11
At least it could travel at speed! when did Chieftain ever travel at speed?
efficient stabiliser? since when was firing on the move with Chieftain anything other than pot luck?
How many times did Chieftain's power pack burn without needing to be hit by the enemy?
Chieftain travelled at speed when on the back of an Antar or on railway flatbed :)

Firing on the move and hitting the target with Chieftain may have been pot luck, perhps it just required a bit less of that than with other tanks of the time.

L60 problem was more about not starting and/or keep going than anything else. It hardly had time to burn fuel let alone burn before it conked out :)
 
#12
Brainwashing in the gunnery class,Russian Tanks are crap,smoothbore crap blah blah,what´s the best gun now,Fin+Smoothbore !

I bet a 115mm fin would have gone through Chieftain armour like a hot knife,just glad we never got any tank on tank action to find out,lots of Chieftain hulks in Iraq and Iran though.You could store more beer on a Chieftain(?) but I think a T-62 might have very difficult to hit moving,whether with steam,laser or computerised gunnery.
 
#14
Brainwashing in the gunnery class,Russian Tanks are crap,smoothbore crap blah blah,what´s the best gun now,Fin+Smoothbore !

I bet a 115mm fin would have gone through Chieftain armour like a hot knife,just glad we never got any tank on tank action to find out,lots of Chieftain hulks in Iraq and Iran though.You could store more beer on a Chieftain(?) but I think a T-62 might have very difficult to hit moving,whether with steam,laser or computerised gunnery.
Ask the Israelis,they took shitloads of T-62 out with Cents,in the 6 day war.

My comment on a T-62 travelling at speed,might have been a bit overstated,20 KPH tops on roads,not much faster on tac routes,thats when they weren't stuck on the side,broken down,finding Sov kit on exercises,just follow the 'breakdowns',armour,and soft skinned,and to find a Sov Tank in winter,look for the smoke from the fires lit underneath them (yeah they still did that)!


I always thought the Sov kit looked nice,but maintainence was shite,crews not allowed to work outside the set parameters (no initiative allowed),so it came down to numbers,in the end.

East Germans,always used the stuff better.

But having seen them operate,I was never that impressed. ;-)
 
#16
A lot of those knocked out T62's are now back in service with the Israelis as either gun tanks or APCs
That should read 'T-62 Chassis',they threw everything above the turret ring away,re-gunned,and re-engined them.

You could set the alloy engine block alight with a plumbers blow torch,and the gearbox housing was very fragile,and vulnerable from an arse end shot.

It's a T-62,Jim...................but not as we know it! :boogie: (with apologies to Gene Rodenberry)
 
#17
IIRC the T-62 was ergonomically very badly designed. The driver frequently had to use a large hammer to assist with changing gear, and in desert of hot environments the drivers could pass out with the heat when driving closed down. The poor seat design and vibration also greatly increased the driver fatigue.

AFAIK a lot of the T-62s picked up by the IDF had actually been abandoned rather than knocked out.

T-62 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Limitations

The T-62 shares some of the T-55's limitations: a cramped crew compartment, crude gun control equipment (on most early models), limited depression of the main gun and vulnerable fuel and ammunition storage areas. The automatic spent-cartridge ejection system can cause dangerous accumulations of carbon monoxide and possibly actual physical injury to the crew from spent cartridge cases ricocheting against the edge of a poorly aligned ejection port and rebounding into the crew compartment[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. Crew members often suffer blunt force injuries and burns from ejected cases bouncing around the interior of the tank[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. Later designs fitted a deflector behind the commander to protect him from this, but other crew members remain vulnerable. (Perrett 1987:38) Opening the ejection port under NBC (nuclear, biological, or chemical) conditions would expose the crew to contamination.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Each time the gun is fired, the tube must go into détente for cartridge ejection; the power traverse of the turret is inoperable during ejection and reloading operations. Since manual elevation and traverse are rather slow and not effective for tracking a moving target, rapid fire and second-hit capabilities are limited. The turret cannot be traversed with the driver's hatch open. Although the tank commander may override the gunner and traverse the turret, he cannot fire the main gun from his position. He is unable to override the gunner in elevation of the main gun, causing target acquisition problems.[SUP][5][/SUP]
To fire the 12.7 mm antiaircraft heavy machine gun, the loader must be partially exposed, making him vulnerable to suppressive fire, and he must leave his main gun loading duties unattended.[SUP][5][/SUP]
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)


It also worth remembering that most arab tank crews were very poorly trained when compared to the IDF crews. Even re-engineered WW2 Sherman tanks (with a new gun) were knocking crap out of the arab armour. The Israeli crews were often getting off two or more rounds for each one fired by the syrians on the Golan in 1973.

It doesn't matter how good the kit is, if it is operated by a monkey it is worth jack shit, and the T-62 was not a great bit of kit to start with.

Rodney2q
 
#18
Hmmmmmnnnnnnn, Chieftain? Firing on the move - pot luck? Er............no way it was actually extremely good - apart from over the back decks which was tricky!!!
I remember motoring past a company of M60s in the dustbowl at a battlerun on Hohne - they were waiting for us to pull in before they left - some on the back of ARVs - engines that ran sounded quite good.....the only thing louder were all the back deck bolts rattling in the holes where the sceptics hadn't tightened them as the engines were in and out as frequently as a whores clunge opens!!! Total bag of crap the M60.
Fancy a Gepard? Military vehicles, militaria and military classifieds ..................would probably be quite a reliable buy for an enthusiast. or then again - in Greece some loon has an M48 for sale (I believe it was better than the M60) OR - for 59,000 euros you can have a T72 - Go on you know you want one- Military vehicles, militaria and military classifieds christmas list anyone???
 
#20
Hmmmmmnnnnnnn, Chieftain? Firing on the move - pot luck? Er............no way it was actually extremely good - apart from over the back decks which was tricky!!!
I remember motoring past a company of M60s in the dustbowl at a battlerun on Hohne - they were waiting for us to pull in before they left - some on the back of ARVs - engines that ran sounded quite good.....the only thing louder were all the back deck bolts rattling in the holes where the sceptics hadn't tightened them as the engines were in and out as frequently as a whores clunge opens!!! Total bag of crap the M60.
Odd as the IDF threw away Cent and Soviet tank engines to repack all IDF armor with the M60's Continental AVDS-1790-2C's
 

Latest Threads

New Posts