Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
T___A

Ukrainian Civil War Thread: All Quiet on the Sturgeon Front

Recommended Posts

Teid you're giving the T-62 way too much credit. The T-62 was a Russian M47, just bad and only medciore after the 72 revision.

 

The tactics my friend, would make the difference  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tactics my friend, would make the difference  :lol:

 

You might as well speak of separatists armed with T-34/85s, at least those don't try to suffocate the crew. If given a company of T-62s, by the end of 30 days I'd have 14 115mm SPGs and 14 APCs. Yes, I have a raging hateboner for such awful garbage, why do you ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might as well speak of separatists armed with T-34/85s, at least those don't try to suffocate the crew. If given a company of T-62s, by the end of 30 days I'd have 14 115mm SPGs and 14 APCs. Yes, I have a raging hateboner for such awful garbage, why do you ask?

 

A fleet of 115mm guns on pickup trucks could probably handle most of Ukraine's tank fleet  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you having trouble with parsing?

 

What you said is basically complete nonsense to me. The T-62 is not particularly comparable to the M47, the M47 has vastly different (less powerful) armament, the M47 was a very good tank (not jiving with your premise that the T-62 is ass), etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a T-62 modification for UAF, but they are not used. T-64BVs and T-72A/Bs are simply much better. Older tanks could have been used as firesupport vehicles for units that have old BMPs for this role. T-55/62 are better than BMP-1/2 IFV in fire support role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you said is basically complete nonsense to me. The T-62 is not particularly comparable to the M47, the M47 has vastly different (less powerful) armament, the M47 was a very good tank (not jiving with your premise that the T-62 is ass), etc.

 

The M47 was supposed to have an increase in firepower, that ended up being rather disappointing - same as T-62. Both tanks were imagined as something else but ended up growing fat and nothing like original specifications. M47 is barely an upgrade over the M46, the T-62 is barely an uograde over the T-55. Neither were well used and both had short production runs for thier perspective nations. Both quickly became obsolete within 4 years of introduction.

 

I guess the difference is the M47 got exported and people were able to turn it into a good tank (that no one bought).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M47 was supposed to have an increase in firepower, that ended up being rather disappointing - same as T-62. Both tanks were imagined as something else but ended up growing fat and nothing like original specifications. M47 is barely an upgrade over the M46, the T-62 is barely an uograde over the T-55. Neither were well used and both had short production runs for thier perspective nations. Both quickly became obsolete within 4 years of introduction.

I guess the difference is the M47 got exported and people were able to turn it into a good tank (that no one bought).

I think you're creating parallels that don't really exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone except the Soviet Union, Bulgaria and North Korea   

 

but ya i dont hate it, probably because its so damn sexy i cant stay mad at it

 

I do see his point but i dont know much about American tanks considering how amazingly fucking confusing their tank development is to follow 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't see the comparison.  T-62 and M60 make a much better comparison in my mind.  In both cases, the USA and the USSR took their first generation medium tank (t-55 and M48) and upgraded it with a new turret, hull improvements and a new gun to create a second generation post war tank.  Certainly, neither tank was perfect although I would argue that the M60 has had a more impressive service record.  The Soviet Union was able to replace the T-62 as their front line vehicle much more quickly than the US since their generation 2.5 tank, the T-64, went into production while the US generation 2.5 tank did not (MBT-70). M47 is more comparable to the T-44, a stop gag until the much better T-54/55 came into service, same as how M48 replaced M47.  Anyhow, the M60 was a better tank than the M48 in just about every way.  I am not sure the same can be said for the T-62 versus the T-55.  T-55 certainly provided more bang for the buck, as evidenced by it's vastly superior export success.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the huge issue's with the T-62 was its low rate of fire to me, which if anything spurred the adoption of autoloaders more than anything else

Its not like we were going to stop up-gunning MBTs, or start making them huge, so an autoloader was a pretty pheasbile solution 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in Ukrainian armor thread, but this is also belongs to this topic as well -

That is very very interesting combat footage. It shows advancing LPR rebels taking fire in the middle of field, and later - a UAF tank 500 meters away, driving right into the middle of advancing forces. As i understand this was recorded in 2014.

 

You must watch it, i am serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      BM "Oplot"
       

       

      Ukrainian designers managed to make biggest panoramic sight i ever saw - overall weight of it is reaching 500 kg.
       
       
             Oplot-M, or BM "Oplot" after addoption to service in Ukrainian army, is Ukrainian MBT based on another Ukrainian MBT - T-84 "Oplot", which is Soviet-designed T-80UD with some modifications. BM Oplot was designed by Morozov Kharkiv Machine Building Design Bureau and produced by Malyshev factory. Chief designer of BM Oplot - Mikhail Dem'yanovich Borisuk (he was born in 1934, BTW).
       
       
             It have several features, separating it from T-80UD, T-90A and T-84. Engine is new 6 cylinder 6TD-2E 1200 HP diesel with lowered smokiness and exhaust toxicity (wich is a problem for Kharkov engines) in new engine-transmission compartment (which is 2 part - lower is for engine itself and upper part is for big airfilters, which are needed because of how much air 6TD "eats"), new sort-of automatical transmission. Tank is equipped with new navigation systems, FCS, panoramic sight for commander with day and night (thermal imager) capabilities, new remotely controlled KT-12.7 12.7 mm HMG for commander, new gunner sights, which bring it to modern level of how tank should be equipped. A lot of that equipment is made not in Ukraine.
       
       
      From the side BM Oplot looks different from Soviet T-64-like MBTs.
       
            Main gun is not really different from 2A46 125 mm guns of T-72/ T-80/T-90 series of tanks, 125 mm KBA-3 L48 gun with autoloader for 28 shots (46 in total is carried). Main gun can fire HE, HEAT, APFSDS, GL-ATGMs (Ukrainian "Kombat" missiles). AFAIK part of ammunition is carried outside of the tank, in turret "basket", mounted to the rear part of it. Nothing really fancy here, 5 km range with ATGMs, up to 2.5-2.8 km effective range with APFSDS, which is standart for late Soviet and current Russian MBTs like T-72B3, T-80UE and different models of the T-90. 
       
           Vehicle is also equipped with Ukrainian version/local variant of Shtora system - "Varta", with additional laser-warning sensors on the turret sides. 

       
       
           BM-Oplot use somewhat unusual type of ERA (which is most interesting feature of that tank) - ~layered ERA named "Duplet". It is rumored that it can defeat tandem HEAT warheads like PG-7VR and PG-29V. Vehicle sides are also covered by Duplet ERA. 
       


            Note that the hull UFP is covered by differently shaped blocks of ERA (long and narrow). How much it is effective is unknown, but designers claim that it can defeat tandem HEAT warheads, EFP and APFSDS projectiles.  
       
      Upper frontal hull armor layout:
       
      Side ERA modules:
       
            Overall, BM Oplot is tank with better perfomance than T-80UD thanks to improvements in electronics and FCS, engine, transmission, driver controls, new ERA and better side armor, and in some areas this vehicle can be superioir to T-72B3 (latest Russian serial produced modification of the T-72 MBT, although it wasn't best proposed modification for it).
            But..., there is always "but" -  it is vehicle that Ukraine can not produce in any serious numbers, as their one and only contract with Thai army showed - out of 95 BM Oplot ordered in 2011 only 5-6 were delivered to this day. During trials in Thailand Kombat GL-ATGMs also showed not very good results - AFAIK out of 5 test firings, 2 missiles exploded before reaching targets. Another interesting fact about that tank is that no BM Oplot MBTs are presented on battlefields of Eastern Ukraine - T-64 and T-72s are primary tanks of the VSU. Seems to me Ukraine is either can't service them, or simply can't produce them in a first place.
       
      Oplot-BM on trials in Pakistan. No accurate information on results, rumors say that Chinese VT-4 won that competition.
       
      Oplot-BMs for Thai army on prooving ground.
       

    • By LoooSeR
      From BMPD blog:
       
         Croatian media continue to "untwist" scandal with the repair and purchase of Ukrainian MiG-21bis fighters.
       
         In particular, the newspaper "Jutarnji list" notes that one plane had one wing of Ukrainian origin, another belonged to the MiG-21 from Algeria. Internal fuel tanks were used were made in the USSR, although practically unused, but in the contract they were supposed to be new. Fuselages of five "Ukrainian" MiG-21 actually had Bulgarian origin, despite the fact that they have been written off in Bulgaria itself. On airplanes, there are two fixed plates with serial number - on plane that was transmitted to Croatia had one plate painted over, and the second is attached later.
       

       
         There were also a technical problems. So, on the repaired aircraft "friend or foe" system didn't work well enough, five "Ukrainian" MiG-21 had leaking fuel tanks, navigation system made by CLS production (the Czech company) was not installed in time and worked poorly, radars on all aircraft have technical breakdowns.
         Also, all planes had unsatisfactory condition of hydraulic system, there have been cases when the landing gear could not get out of their niches. Two planes had engine failers in flight, which means that the quality of repair is unsatisfactory or it was not performed at all.
       
       
    • By Collimatrix
      I confess; when EE or Looser or whoever characterized the Ukrainian government's muscle as fascists, I thought this was Russian hyperbole.  I was aware of the presence of far-right elements during the protest period, and had no doubt that there were some neo-nazis in the ranks currently, the characterization seemed exaggerated.  After all, the Soviets had accused NATO of similar things, and surely the Ukrainians wouldn't be so dumb as to openly play into the role of villains in the Russian cultural monomyth of the Great Patriotic War?
       
      I am reconsidering this view.
×