Jump to content

Ukrainian Civil War Thread: All Quiet on the Sturgeon Front


T___A
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
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  

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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).

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.  

Link to comment
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 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...